|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:35 am Post subject: Warming conspiracy exposed |
 |
|
Here's a story to be followed very closely
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html
The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.
In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."
"Have you alerted police"
"Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken."
Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.
"Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn't do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago."
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing "hiding the decline", and Jones explained what he was trying to say�.
Last edited by Axiom on Sun May 30, 2010 3:17 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Axiom. Change the thread title. This is huge. Global warming dies today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
| Quote: |
Manipulation of evidence:
I�ve just completed Mike�s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith�s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can�t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can�t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He�s not in at the moment � minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don�t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I�ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
��Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back�I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to �contain� the putative �MWP�, even if we don�t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back�.
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
�This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the �peer-reviewed literature�. Obviously, they found a solution to that�take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering �Climate Research� as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board�What do others think?�
�I will be emailing the journal to tell them I�m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.��It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I�ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !� |
Ohhhh. This is gonna hurt! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
file #1255553034:
| Quote: |
| The fact is that we can�t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can�t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.*** |
It is a travesty.
| Quote: |
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: LAND vs OCEAN
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming � and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important. |
| Quote: |
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I�m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean � but we�d still have to explain the land blip. I�ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips�higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with �why the blip�.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH�just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note � from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)�but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I�d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom. |
^ Change data to exaggerate a warming trend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
>From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxx]
>Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
>To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
>Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
>Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
>
>
> Tim, Chris,
> I hope you�re not right about the lack of warming lasting
> till about 2020. I�d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> press release with Doug�s paper that said something like -
> half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> record, 1998!
> Still a way to go before 2014. |
| Quote: |
From: Jonathan Overpeck <[email protected]>
To: Tim Osborn <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: MWP figure (Medieval Warm Period)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 14:57:36 -0600
Cc: Eystein Jansen <[email protected]>, Keith Briffa <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Hi Tim and Keith - Hope you�re not going to kill me, but I was talking with Susan Solomon today, and she impressed me with the need to make several points if we can.
One issue (other to come in a subsequent email)
is whether we can extend the MWP box figure to
include the 15th century. I don�t read the blogs that regularly, but I guess the skeptics are making hay of their being a global warm event around 1450AD. I agree w/ Susan that it is our obligation to weigh in on issues like this, so.... can we extend the fig to extend up to 1500AD?
Sorry about this, Tim. Of course we need it yesterday.
Thanks best, peck |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I found an interesting file (1107454306):
| Quote: |
From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: For your eyes only
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:46 2005
Mike,
It would be good to produce future series with and without the long
instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long
measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least
back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key
warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg
reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all
years are cold between 1500 and 1750.
Away Feb 6-10 and 12-20 and 22-25 (last in Chicago - on the panel to
consider the vertical temp work of CCSP).
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil,
Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory
so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going
to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights
issues, so it isn't clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.
I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor
comments). It looks very good at present--will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms--there will be many. I'm hoping they'll stand firm (I believe
they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)...
Will keep you updated on stuff...
talk to you later,
mike
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling
them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the
main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems
the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.
Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert
by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:41 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Phil--thought I should let you know that its official now that I'll be moving to Penn
State next Fall.
I'll be in the Meteorology Dept. & Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and plan
to head up a center for "Earth System History" within the institute. Will keep you
updated,
Mike
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [email protected]
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: [email protected] Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
1254832684.txt:
| Quote: |
Hi Phil,
is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I�m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK � looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases � I thought we�d moved the debate beyond this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).
Kind regards,
Andrew |
Ohhhhh! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
Mann responds�
| Quote: |
| �I�m simply not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I�m hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.� |
Awww, poor little hack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So, are we supposed to go back to worrying about exploited workers and the children? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| �I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn�t be deleting emails unless this was �normal� deleting to keep emails manageable!""Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the Hadley Centre did and why. It is even messier than you realize. I have forcing data sets (more than one!) from Jonathon Gregory that differ from the numbers yougave in your email!!""Ed to be really honest, I don�t see how this was ever accepted for publication in Nature.""Mike,I�d rather you didn�t. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie�semail that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR.Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.Cheers" |
\ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/
| Quote: |
Well, this should get interesting.
The Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain was hacked yesterday, apparently by Russian black hats, and thousands of sensitive documents, including emails from climate scientists dating back a decade, were posted online. More here.
Officials at Hadley, a leading global-warming research center, have apparently confirmed to an Australian publication that the documents are genuine.
The whole affair has much of the blogosphere alight. Blogs skeptical of man-made global warming see blood in the water.
Some of the old emails from scientists made public apparently make references to things like �hid[ing] the decline,� referring to global temperature series and different ways to slice and dice climate data.
In all, it seems there are more than 3,000 files in the hacked folders, which have been reposted in various places on the Internet.
The big Copenhagen summit had lost a lot of its appeal in recent days, as world leaders kept dialing down expectations for the climate talks. Maybe this will spice things up. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
