Friday, 20 November 2009

An Inconvenient Truth….will always out!

It is claimed that the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has been hacked and there is a massive file of emails and code up on a server in Russia. If what has been posted is real then the weather balloon is about to go up.

Excerpts of the emails have been posted here. They include a CRU scientist welcoming the death of a prominent sceptic! Discussion of how to fiddle results and so on.

Amazing, if true?

As someone once said, if it looks to good to be true, it probably is. (Errrr… surely that’s “not.” Moderator)

The original download site seems to be down but I found a copy of the file here: MEGAUPLOAD

Quickly scanning through them they have a ring of truth, but has the original seam been salted with fool’s gold to catch out crowing sceptics?

~ I shall reserve judgment…….and follow events.

Sample files are:
0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal

1189722851.txt * Jones: "try and change the Received date!"

0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU

0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: "too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve"

0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground

1225026120.txt * CRU's truncated temperature curve

1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry

1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty

0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic

0938018124.txt * Mann: "something else" causing discrepancies

0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960

0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible

0998926751.txt * "Carefully constructed" model scenarios to get "distinguishable results"

0968705882.txt * CLA: "IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results"

1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death "cheering news"

1029966978.txt * Briffa - last decades exceptional, or not?

1092167224.txt * Mann: "not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference" (factor 1.29)

1188557698.txt * Wigley: "Keenan has a valid point"

1118949061.txt * we'd like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations

1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4

1059664704.txt reads:

From: "Michael E. Mann"

To: Tim Osborn

Subject: Re: reconstruction errors

Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400


Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to:

AD 1000

AD 1400

AD 1600

I can't find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you'll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig them up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600--its pretty clear that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably larger uncertainties farther back...

You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files.

I can't even remember what the other columns are!

Let me know if that helps. Thanks,


p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things...

And so on for another 63.5 MB.

Lucia, Watts up and Climate Audit have more

No comments:

Post a Comment