Heliogenic Climate Change

“The data-manipulating emails of Climategate have made a splash, with damning implications for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But is this just the tip of the UN climate con iceberg?

Shepherding, rewarding and promoting global alarm about “climate change” is a whopping beneficiary of this movement (bigger even than Al Gore) — the United Nations global system. Failing to achieve forward motion for peace or nonproliferation, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has been grandstanding for more than two years about the UN’s war on the weather — and has made it his chief mission to persuade developed nations to “seal the deal” on a “climate” pact that would constrict production, transfer vast amounts to wealth to some of the worst governments on the planet, and put the unaccountable, opaque and too often self-serving bureaucracy of the UN at the switch. The UN’s IPCC collected the other half of the Al Gore Nobel Weather Prize, but do UN insiders really believe the IPCC is a bastion of untainted science? (If you want to check out who’s providing “guidance” for the IPCC, check out their web site – some of my favorites on the current roster are Iran, Cuba and Sudan).

Climate bureaucracy has become a major aspect of employment throughout the UN system, with almost every UN agency and program enlisting fresh bevies of staff to work the climate angles. On its climate “Gateway” web page, the UN lists more than three dozen UN-system “partners on climate change,” from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to the UN Development Program (star of the Cash-for-Kim scandal two years ago in North Korea) to the International Telecommunications Union. On the basis of calculations performed deep within the entrails of UN bureacracies that thrive these days by attributing the world’s troubles to climate and then allocating blame, penalties, bonanzas and UN commissions on the basis of the IPCC “scientific consensus,” this same UN climate Gateway web page informs us that “Seven of ten disasters are climate related.” To fix this, the UN tells us, we need only trust to the UN’s guidance. That would be the same UN that not so long ago dealt with its own propensity for corruption by disbanding its anti-corruption task force; the same UN that once claimed Oil-for-Food was the most heavily audited program it had ever run; the same UN that can’t tally its own global budget.

And of course, just ahead lies the Copenhagen climate summit, with Ban calling for a deal to be sealed which, with great pain for the world’s most productive societies, and great gain for the UN’s expanding empire of carbon-0-crats, “satisfies the demands of science.” That would be the UN version of science, which, if it bears any resemblance to the UN version of book-keeping, should give great pause. The UN has immense vested interests here, and is clearly prepared to roll right over the disclosures of climategate. These are decisions which within the UN go way beyond the IPCC, and involve UN officials — all the way up to Ban Ki-moon — ignoring any genuine scientific dissent that doesn’t fit their plans, or fill the UN coffers. What would we see were we able to peer into the “climate” emails exchanged throughout the UN system over the years? Just asking.” “When Do We Get to Read the Rest of the UN Emails on Climate Change?“

“This weekend I was startled and very pleased to see the financial shows on Fox Business discussing some of the issues about “ClimateGate”.

Sadly, their “panel” was up against a talking points troll and they let him run rampant unchallenged. Repeatedly he ranted about “it’s all Peer Reviewed PEER REVIEWED!!!”

As though that granted immunity from the issue.

And answer came there none.

Someone needs to let the news guys know that it was the apparent Suborning of Peer Review that makes this so horrid. That these were the peer reviewers and they were doing it fraudulently (IMHO) with attempts to blackball discenters [sic] and what looked like blackmail editors (with threats of boycotts).

Rather like attending a police brutality hearing and having the defence shout: These are policemen POLICEMEN!!! Someone ought to have said: Yes, and that is the whole point…” “Fox Business and Others Accept Peer Review Dodge — They Need Someone Who Understands This To ‘Splain it To Them“

“Liberal is an anagram of braille. Appropriate because they appear unable to see or read about the climate science scandals.—Tim Ball” “The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate“
-

“When did global warming turn into a forced religion?

My daughter came home from school recently with a spring in her step and a song on her lips. With no foreshadowing — or time to call an exorcist — out came this chilling refrain:

” . . . You can hear the warning — GLOBAL WARMING . . . ”

By the time her father and I removed our jaws from the floor, we had learned that:

A) All the kids had been coerced into singing this catchy ditty, which we called “The Warming Song,” at a concert for parents.

B) Further song lyrics scolded selfish adults (that would be us) for polluting our planet and causing a warming scourge that would, in no short order, kill all the polar bears and threaten the birds and bees.

C) There was no deprogramming session on the menu. And no arguing allowed. …

Our children are on the front lines of the warming hysteria, a place where “experts” from Al Gore to the president leave no room for dissent or even the slightest skepticism, despite claims that are no more provable than the Earth is flat.

Children were the targets of a book co-written by the producer of Al Gore’s star-making vehicle, “An Inconvenient Truth” — a fantastical view of global warming that should have been called a fiction, not a documentary.

Producer Laurie David told Publisher’s Weekly that she wrote the kids’ book, “Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming,” because “kids also are the Number 1 influence on their parents, so if you want to reach the parents, go to the kids.” She knows of which she speaks.” “Climate-cult con is hard to ‘bear’” h/t Tom Nelson
-

“As you read the programmer’s comments below, remember, this is only a fraction of what he says.

– “But what are all those monthly files? DON’T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that’s useless …” (Page 17)

– “It’s botch after botch after botch.” (18)

– “The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour’s edits to the program, when the network died … no explanation from anyone, I hope it’s not a return to last year’s troubles … This surely is the worst project I’ve ever attempted. Eeeek.” (31)

– “Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite.” (37)

– “… this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!” (45)

– “Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!” (47)

– “As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.” (57)

– “COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!” (71)

– “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah — there is no ‘supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )” (98)

– “You can’t imagine what this has cost me — to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance …” (98)

– “So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option — to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations … In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad …” (98-9)

– “OH F— THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases.” (241).

– “This whole project is SUCH A MESS …” (266)

And based on stuff like this, politicians are going to blow up our economy and lower our standard of living to “fix” the climate?

Are they insane?” “‘Botch after botch after botch’“

“In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu [subscription required]. It goes to the core of that process.

One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence. This is something that Henderson’s study raised, and it was also emphasised in the Wegman report on the Hockey Stick, and in other independent studies of the Hockey Stick controversy. Of course it is also an ongoing issue in Steve McIntyre’s campaign to get hold of data and methods. Nonetheless I had given it insufficient weight. Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.

I’m also surprised by the IPCC’s response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.) At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side “deniers”. …

Megan McArdle adopts a world-weary tone similar to The Economist’s: this is how science is done in the real world. If I were a scientist, I would resent that. She has criticised the emails and the IPCC response to them, then says she still believes the consensus view on climate change. Well, that was my position at the end of last week, and I suppose it still is. But how do I defend it? There is far more of a problem here for the consensus view than Megan and ordinarily reliable commentators like The Economist acknowledge. I am not a climate scientist. In the end I have to trust the experts. That is what we are asked to do. “Trust us, we’re scientists”.

Remember that this is not an academic exercise. We contemplate outlays of trillions of dollars to fix this supposed problem. Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot. These people are willing to subvert the very methods–notably, peer review–that underwrite the integrity of their discipline. Is this really business as usual in science these days? If it is, we should demand higher standards–at least whenever “the science” calls for a wholesale transformation of the world economy. And maybe some independent oversight to go along with the higher standards.

The IPCC process needs to be fixed, as a matter of the greatest urgency. Read David Henderson or the Wegman report to see how. And in the meantime, let’s have some independent inquiries into what has been going on.” “More on Climategate“
-
-

“Legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don’t like, hide data they don’t want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history of science, provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians, and tell outright lies about scientific data.” — Don Easterbrook h/t Marc Morano
-

“Occasionally scientific enquiry leads to an elegantly simplistic solution. However, most often, simple solutions are simply stupid. And such was the case of the Goreian Climate Model. Nothing is more simplistic than the superstition that a single, naturally occurring, mandatory for life, atmospheric molecule can control the Earth’s climate.

The Hadley Research Centre computer hacking is a watershed event in human history. It is during pivotal times of crisis, when there is moral clarity, which have always defined our civilized world. During these times, the prior moralities form a collage that will then focus humanity in a new direction.

There is an at present, a nebulas [sic] figure, who has directed the recently revealed Science Cardinals to issue Carbon Indulgences and this is stirring the mass demand for Reformation. There is a display of entitlement and arrogance which is increasing the mass desire for public demonstrations of the guillotine. There is the hijacking of our highest level of technological achievement and crashing them into our financial heart. But most of all there is the collective conscious raised by the demonic actions of totalitarian forces which are hell bent on global domination. It is the Fall of the Berlin Wall for these evil, would be masters. It is time for the New Magna Carta.

It is time for the purge and reboot. For the lead AGW climate scientists, this will be sudden and decisive, due to behavior so abhorrent that none can condone. There is a fairy tale cast of climate charlatans to be the lead lambs. There is Phil “Butcher” Jones who has slaughtered and packaged the data. There is James “Baker” Hansen, who willingly heated the climate information in his control.

Dr Michael “Hockey Stick Maker” Mann carved up a marvel of mathematics. The best quote on Dr. MM is from Dr Tim Ball who stated that….”Dr Mann is in transition from Penn State to State Pen”. We can only hope he does a better job with license plates than he did with hockey sticks. Hey Doc, give this story a happy ending, just ‘Mann up’ and tell us who the real puppet masters are. …

It is time for meaningful mea culpa from our “peer review panels” and from what MM affectionately refers to in his emails as the “prestige press”. One of the most visible proponents of this press is the self anointed scientist, Chris Mooney of Discover Magazine. Though unwilling to engage in public debate he does snipe at detractors from his position as leader of the lemming parade. His Ivy League pedigree and Disney funding over-ride his vacuous scientific underpinnings.

This under endowed genius wannabe has been most venomous and vocal in his attack on deniers. One need only read the titles of Mr. Mooney’s great coauthored works to understand his sophomoric perspective. His first great work was the sinistral screed, The Republican War On Science, which is testament to his orientation. One must wonder if Issac Newton dwelt on the Tory/Whig implications of gravity. …

There is little that humanity can do to overcome the hellish conditions of the natural world. Adding small amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide is too trivial a problem to deal with. What humanity can and MUST do is to control the hellish nature of man. With the Hadley hacking the Humpty-Dumpty is off the wall and it is time for all to get off the fence. Either you stand with humanity and freedom or you stand with the forces of the intentional evil and the insatiably greedy.

To those with childish dreams to rule as new world kings, let us inform you of a few new things. The tables have turned, your motives are laid bared. The henchmen defected, the rooks are not there. The pawns are marching and the moment is near. The nightmare unfolding is your greatest fear. In the battle of species let me explain, it is the mammals, who will wash, your reptilian brain. In epic times there are endless metaphors for refrain, but let us close with a quote for those We distain [sic]:

We shall fight on the beaches,
We Shall Fight On The Landing Grounds,
WE SHALL FIGHT IN THE FIELDS AND IN THE STREETS,
WE SHALL FIGHT IN THE HILLS,
WE SHALL NEVER SURRENDER ! ! !

(Did We make ourselves clear ?)” “Recusant Picadores Circle the IPCC“

“Dozens of epoch-changing moments are preserved in the library of Britain’s Royal Society, an academy of scientists founded in 1660 to gather, discuss and spread scientific knowledge — a role it still fills today.

Its members, dedicated to discovery through observation and experiment, form a roll-call of scientific fame: Isaac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking. All contributed scientific papers that together recount what geneticist Alec Jeffreys –_ the father of DNA fingerprinting and a current member of the society — calls “this amazing journey over the past 350 years.” …

The society, which serves as Britain’s national science academy, lobbies the government _ climate change is a major current concern _ and promotes science education.” “Royal Society Celebrates 350 Years of Discovery“

How ironic that the Royal Society, once “dedicated to discovery through observation and experiment”, now is part of the AGW cabal, which is based only on a theory, not observation or experiment, which assumes a climate sensitivity an order of magnitude too large and a feedback of the wrong sign. This is from their official position on climate change:

“International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change.” “Climate change“

Once “dedicated to discovery through observation and experiment”, now dedicated to consensus. Newton would be appalled.
-

“In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. …

It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. …

The block (cluster) structure is very clear. Michael Mann is a co-author with every one of the other 42. The black squares on the diagonal indicate that the investigators work closely within their group, but not so extensively outside of their group. … However, it is immediately clear that the Mann, Rutherford, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes form a clique, each interacting with all of the others. A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the clique interacts with every one else in the clique. …

The cliques are very clear in this layout. In addition to the Mann-Rutherford-Jones-Osborn-Briffa-Bradley-Hughes clique there are several others that are readily apparent. They are Rind-Shindell-Schmidt-Miller, Cook-D’Arrigo-Jacoby-Wilson, Folland-Vellinga-Allan-Knight, Stahle-Shugart-Therrell-Druckenbrod-Cleveland, Sangoyomi-Moon-Lall-Abarbanel, and Clement-Zebiak-Cane. The last cluster is somewhat of the miscellaneous cluster of people who had published with Michael Mann, but not much if at all with each other. …

The social network analysis of authors’ relations suggests that the “independent reconstructions” are not as independent as one might guess. Indeed, the matrix outlined in Figure 5.8 illustrates the proxies that are used more than one time in twelve major temperature reconstruction papers. The black boxes indicate that the proxy was used in a given paper. It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications. …

As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used.” “AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION“  Alternate link here
-

“The CRU emails group operates within what amounts to a closed shop of like-minded individuals, which in turn operates within a larger but still small group of like-minded climate scientists. Such a self-affirming environment is great for maintaining consensus and rubber-stamp peer review but is not in the best interests of science, and especially so when the research underpins what amounts to a United Nations drive to restructure human civilization.” “Watch on the Left“
-

“The only thing that the Climategate emails tell us about the peer review process is that it was used as a gate-keeping exercise to keep sceptical papers out of the system. For those of us who served in the trenches in the climate battle, part of the much larger culture wars, this revelation is not news. In disparaging my papers, one of the first things that warmers would say was that they were not peer reviewed. They were, but that did not matter either, because like the warmer scientists, I got to choose my own reviewers. One of my papers passed a higher test than peer review. Real Climate devoted a post to attacking it, which was fabulous because it told me that I was having an effect, and gave me encouragement to keep going. …

I don’t believe that changing the peer review system will help, in fact any prescribed changes are likely to make it worse. As the Climategate emails show, the warmers captured the whole system – all the journals, all their editors and the journals’ boards. They successfully removed inconvenient editors. As a last line of defence, they were going to change the definition of what peer review meant. Making the system more prescriptive will simply entrench the corrupted establishment …

The way to improve the review of papers is to break the power of the corrupted establishment. Two of the most prestigious science journals have been Science and Nature, but both of these now publish a certain amount of twaddle. In fact Nature seems to have degenerated to occupy the niche formerly occupied by New Scientist, and New Scientist has degenerated into the publishing arm of Greenpeace.” “Peer review locks gate“

“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. …

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said. …

[CRU director Phil Jones] and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.” “Climate change data dumped” h/t CCNet. Patrick Michaels take.
-

“Ahead of the Copenhagen summit, leading scientist and IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri warns of radical charges and regulation if global disaster is to be avoided.

Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world’s leading climate scientist has told the Observer. …

Among the proposals highlighted by Pachauri were the suggestion that hotel guests should be made responsible for their energy use. “I don’t see why you couldn’t have a meter in the room to register your energy consumption from air-conditioning or heating and you should be charged for that,” he said. “By bringing about changes of this kind, you could really ensure that people start becoming accountable for their actions.”

Pachauri also proposed that governments use taxes on aviation to provide heavy subsidies for other forms of transport. “We should make sure there is a huge difference between the cost of flying and taking the train,” he said. Despite the fact that there is often little benefit in time and convenience in short-haul flights, he said people were still making the “irrational” choice to fly. Taxation should be used to discourage them. …

He said that he also believed car use would have to be “curbed”: “I think we can certainly use pricing to regulate the use of private vehicles.” … Pachauri also denounced the practice in some restaurants of providing iced water to customers who had not ordered it. “It is just an enormous amount of waste that we don’t even think about,” he said.

Ultimately, Pachauri said the value shift that was needed would take a generation to take hold. “I think the section of society that will make it happen is essentially young people. I think they will be far more sensitive than adults, who have been corrupted by the ways we have been following for years now.”" “Western lifestyle unsustainable, says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri” h/t Tom Nelson

“Professor Sir John Houghton, chair of the IPCC’s first science panel, said he would not support an inquiry [into the CRU scandal] as many of those demanding one were biased.” “Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails“
-

“Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.

The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, “stolen” by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.

In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

The publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. The full data, when disclosed, is certain to be scrutinised by both sides in the fierce debate. …

Professor Trevor Davies, the university’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement, said yesterday: “CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. …

Dr Michaels, tracked down by this newspaper to the Cato Institute in Washington DC where he is a senior fellow in environmental studies, said last night: “There were a lot of people who thought I was exaggerating when I kept insisting terrible things are going on here.

“This is business as usual for them. The world might be surprised but I am not. These guys have an attitude.”" “Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row” h/t Marc Morano

“The malice, mischief and Machiavellian manoeuvrings revealed in the illegally hacked megabytes of emails from the University of East Anglia’s prestigious Climate Research Unit, for example, offers a useful paradigm of contemporary scientific conflict. Science may be objective; scientists emphatically are not. This episode illustrates what too many universities, professional societies, and research funders have irresponsibly allowed their scientists to become. Shame on them all.

The source of that shame is a toxic mix of institutional laziness and complacency. Too many scientists in academia, industry and government are allowed to get away with concealing or withholding vital information about their data, research methodologies and results. That is unacceptable and must change. …

What is more, there are no denials around the researchers’ repeated efforts to avoid meaningful compliance with several requests under the UK Freedom of Information Act to gain access to their working methods. Indeed, researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails. Secrecy, not privacy, is at the rotten heart of this bad behavior by ostensibly good scientists.

Why should research funding institutions and taxpayers fund scientists who deliberately delay, obfuscate and deny open access to their research? Why should scientific journals publish peer-reviewed research where the submitting scientists have not made every reasonable effort to make their work – from raw data to sophisticated computer simulations – as transparent and accessible as possible? Why should responsible policymakers in America, Europe, Asia and Latin America make decisions affecting people’s health, wealth and future based on opaque and inaccessible science? …

Public interest suggests scientists and their sponsoring institutions be made as legally, financially, professionally and ethically as uncomfortable as possible about concealing and withholding relevant research information.

If the University of East Anglia had been sharing more of its data and the computer models and statistical simulations running that data, the email hack would have been much ado about nothing.

When doing important research about the potential future of the planet, scientists should have nothing to hide. Their obligation to the truth is an obligation to openness.” “Secrecy in science is a corrosive force“

“From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions.

;; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!;yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factorif n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’;yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1940s 1930s — see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.

All you apologists weakly protesting that this is research business as usual and there are plausible explanations for everything in the emails? Sackcloth and ashes time for you. This isn’t just a smoking gun, it’s a siege cannon with the barrel still hot.

UPDATE2: Now the data is 0.75 scaled. I think I interpreted the yrloc entry incorrectly last time, introducing an off-by-one. The 1400 point (same as the 1904) is omitted as it confuses gmuplot. These are details; the basic hockey-stick shape is unaltered.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 at 9:35 pm” “Hiding the Decline: Part 1 — the adventure begins” h/t papertiger. See also Marc Sheppard.
-

“Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ‘soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet. …

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. … The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas. …

[E]ditors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. …

I thank explicitely Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it destills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph. …

[S]some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. [T]hese mails … contain … a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.” h/t Marc Morano