New Release of Climategate emails emails - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 11-22-2011, 01:40 PM

More of the dishonesty from the climate alarmist and their undermining of science for 'the cause (as per M Mann favorite phrase).

Breaking! Apparently, more emails released. Climategate II? « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

It will rake awhile for people to go through all the new emails here are a couple of the interesting ones.

Quote:

Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. [...]

Jones:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.

This refers to the missing heat in the troposphere.

Which I referenced before here is a link:

http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

I will put more of the emails from different sites here to comply with the 4 sentence limit.

Some on hiding data from FOIA request of publicly funded work that went into IPCC reports:

Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular! | Watts Up With That?

Quote:

<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process

<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.

Breaking news: FOIA 2011 has arrived ! « tallbloke's talkshop

[quote]<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...][quote]

,,,,,

On the Medieval Warming period:

Quote:

<5111> Pollack:

But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.

Quote:

<1682> Wils:

[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]
<2267> Wilson:

Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially
since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models,
surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the
models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from
the sun alone.

Quote:

<3373> Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.

<4758> Osborn:

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!

Climategate 2.0 « the Air Vent

[quote]<4241> Wilson:

I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

Quote:

<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

***DarrylS*** · 11-22-2011, 02:27 PM

Did you deliberately miss the skepticism, "Apparently, more emails released. Climategate II?"

But they are eagerly awaiting Jeff ID and Tallbloke to confirm whether or not they are real... but thanks to Ripper, hunter, RoryFOMR, Janet J.

In their mom's basement, the climategate warriors search emails for any sign of fraud..

If it sounds too good to be true it usually is..

Real World · 11-22-2011, 03:57 PM

Shocka! ...not.

***patsfan13*** · 11-22-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

Did you deliberately miss the skepticism, "Apparently, more emails released. Climategate II?"

But they are eagerly awaiting Jeff ID and Tallbloke to confirm whether or not they are real... but thanks to Ripper, hunter, RoryFOMR, Janet J.

In their mom's basement, the climategate warriors search emails for any sign of fraud..

If it sounds too good to be true it usually is..

Attack the messenger protect the crooks.

M Mann has acknowledged they sounded. This is the same mechanism that was used to release the original batch of emails.

Of course the first batch was released to coincide with the Copenhagen Climate conference. This one when the Durban Climate conference.

***DarrylS*** · 11-22-2011, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Attack the messenger protect the crooks.

M Mann has acknowledged they sounded. This is the same mechanism that was used to release the original batch of emails.

Of course the first batch was released to coincide with the Copenhagen Climate conference. This one when the Durban Climate conference.

What part of "apparent" do you not understand.. in my skeptical life have always lived by the adage, if it sounds too good to be true it usually is.

From this blog...

Quote:

Remember, they are unverified at this stage

We don’t know how they were obtained

Please keep personal details out of comments

***patsfan13*** · 11-25-2011, 09:54 AM

So Phil Jones is the head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia,
he is a lead IPCC author,
he was voted one of the top 100 scientist in Great Britian
he works with M Mann and J Hansen to keep papers disputing that human activity is driving climate from being published (thus excluding them from IPCC reports),
he is in charge of the data set used for most climate research,
he hid temperature data from other researchers,
he conspired to hide data from FOIA requests,

He attacked the credibility of Ross McKittrick and Steve MacIntyre whe they showed the math behind the "hockey stick' was wrong and would be generated by random datasets. So Phil must be a stat whiz......

wrong he doesn't know how to plot a time series in MS Excel (ie column a for the x axis and column b for the y axis as a graph...

Quote:

From: Phil Jones
Sent: 20 December 2007 13:58
To: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: More nonsense on climate change

Bob,
Quickly re-reading this it sounds as though I’m getting at you. I’m not – just at the idiots who continue to spout this nonsense. It isn’t an issue with climatologists. All understand. If I tried to publish this I would be told by my peers it was obvious and banal. I will try and hide it in a paper at some point. I could put it on the CRU web site. I’ll see how I feel after the Christmas Pud.

I would have thought that this writer would have know better! I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing. I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.

What you have to do is to take the numbers in column C (the years) and then those in D (the anomalies for each year), plot them and then work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. I had someone do this in early 2006, and the trend was upwards then. It will be now. Trend won’t be statistically significant, but the trend is up.

This is a linear trend – least squares. This is how statisticians work out trends. They don’t just look at the series. The simpler way is to just look at the data. The warmest year is 1998 with 0.526. All years since 2001 have been above 0.4. The only year before 2001 that was above this level was 1998. So 2cnd to 8th warmest years are 2001-2007

The reason 1998 was the warmest year was that it resulted from the largest El Nino event of the 20th century in 1997/8. We’ve not had anything resembling a major El Nino event since – they have all been minor.
Using regression, it is possible to take the El Nino event into account (with a regression based on the Southern Oscillation Index). This accounts for about 0.15 deg C of 1998′s warmth. Without that 1998 would have been at about 0.38.

There is a lot of variability from year-to-year in global temperatures – even more in ones like CET. No-one should expect each year to be warmer than the previous. The 2000s will be warmer than the 1990s though. This is another way of pointing out what’s wrong with their poor argument. The last comment about CET is wrong. 2007 will be among the top 10 warmest CET years – it will likely be 2cnd or 3rd.

Cheers

Phil

Apparently, none of the people can do this either, nor apparently use Mathematica or MathLab. This is funny if it weren't so sad. This is the sort of skill that should cause us to wrech out economy to stop 'climate change'.....

***Harry Boy*** · 11-25-2011, 10:18 AM

This is surely the work of Drudge, Haliburton, Bush and Fox News.

***Harry Boy*** · 11-25-2011, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Attack the messenger protect the crooks..

Without fail, they constantly do it, they still blame Drudge for the Billy Blue Dress "Cigar Party"

***DarrylS*** · 11-25-2011, 10:27 AM

When Julian Assange hacked emails weren't there calls for capitol punishment????..

Now that this "apparent", "unverified" information, comes from hacked emails the duplicitiy and situational ethics once again rear their ugly head.

***patsfan13*** · 11-25-2011, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

When Julian Assange hacked emails weren't there calls for capitol punishment????..

Now that this "apparent", "unverified" information, comes from hacked emails the duplicitiy and situational ethics once again rear their ugly head.

Not that I am aware of. BTW unlike wikileaks there was no question of national security in point of fact these emails have been hidden from legitimate FOIA request since they were paid for by taxpayers both in the US and UK.

Deflect away but they want energy taxes on the poor (in the form of higher energy prices) and are both dishonest and incompetent.