Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[CitizenKain]

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853

Commence backpedaling by people on this forum.

 

[alchemize]

There's no "first NASA," except in the minds of climate deniers. And I'm 100% certain that this latest story will turn out to be a giant nothing, too, except (again) in the feverish minds of climate deniers.

So much irony in this statement...

 

[shira]

You speak for yourself. I was an econometrics major a long time ago. At one point in my life, I breathed statistics. The issue that McKittrick and Steve McIntyre pointed out and continue to point out is that the 'proof' is poor modeling of data, presentational bias, and as some of the letters show, intentional manipulation of the data to fit a hypothesis.

And you miss a key point of science, one simple fact is all it takes to disprove a theory. AGW is entirely based on models, which is not even science. That is why the big stink over the last decade of non-warming as it diverges from the models. And then to really mess it up, 'they' are using current deviations from the model as adjustments to the initial models to get a better fit. That is a modeling non-starter.

Your broad brush assumes that anyone that disagrees with YOU is some vulgar non-scientific, religious nut. No open mind there. You would fail in the field. My heroes were Einstein, Mendel, Teller, and the Curies. My dad worked for Einstein at Princeton as a biochemist working on thermonuclear exposed subjects. And one of my friends was friends with Teller. Maybe you should read some of Roger Pielke Jr.'s blog posts. While we disagree, he has an open mind and tries to fairly cover both sides (and gets branded a traitor by those of your religion).

Your background and knowledge are irrelevant. You're not a climatologist. I have degrees in physics and engineering, and extensive knowledge of statistics and probability. Irrelevant. I'm not a climatologist.

I don't assume that people who disagree with me are nuts. The problem is, non-climatologists don't have the breadth or depth of knowledge required to evaluate the mountain of data.

You cite two voices that claim poor modeling. Ross McKitrick is an economist, not a climatologist. Stephen McIntyre isn't a climatologist; he's nothing at all. Why are you listening to people outside the field?

If you wanted opinions on, say, dark energy, would your read about what an economist had to say on the subject?

Frankly, it's clear to me that the bias lies in the minds of those who choose to disbelieve climate change. Wanna know how that works?

Well, search the internet really hard and use terms like "climate" and "cooling," and I'll bet that in no time you can find 10 articles that report serious problem with "global warming." Post them here on ATPN and watch the anti-climate-change crowd drool.

This is EXACTLY what PJABBER does. He NEVER posts papers that support ACC. Do you think that's because such pro-ACC reports don't exist in abundance? Or might it be that HE LOOKS ONLY FOR REPORTS THAT DISCREDIT ACC? That's blatant bias, and it looks like you think that kind of bias is fine, too.

 

[werepossum]

^^ I wouldn't think a lot of people search out and post articles making points with which they disagree, except to condemn them. Perhaps the schizophrenic . . .

 

[PJABBER]

This is EXACTLY what PJABBER does. He NEVER posts papers that support ACC. Do you think that's because such pro-ACC reports don't exist in abundance? Or might it be that HE LOOKS ONLY FOR REPORTS THAT DISCREDIT ACC? That's blatant bias, and it looks like you think that kind of bias is fine, too.

Quite the comment from a regular here who rejects "wall of text" posts that might offer sufficient detail and reference to adequately explain points of view that are more than mere partisan slogans.

While I am probably the likeliest person posting here to offer links to scientific research that intrigues me and I have done so often enough to make a point to some others that made the same asinine claim as you sputter, I generally don't see the utility of regularly posting or linking the most detailed and important papers because who here would take the time to read, much less understand them unless they were already in whatever specialty field applies.

My own preoccupation is the massive costs and the attendant global economic disruption resulting from political solutions based on faulty data, faulty models and a rush to judgment for the sake of political correctness, with decisions coming not from any consensus of reputable scientists but politically driven hacks.

I have posted plenty of references to sources and experts more knowledgeable than I in reference to the uncertainties of ACC and I have been enthusiastic in supporting alternative approaches to apply economics methodology to gain a rational cost-benefit result.

The only thing I say consistently is that the scientific jury is out on ACC and nothing I have seen in rebuttal to that makes the case we have reached the level of confidence to commit trillions to doubtful effect, but certainly at an extraordinary opportunity cost.

On a concurrent thread,

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2025616

that I OP'd, I am absolutely clear when I state -

I do not believe the science is definitive on the issue of climate change, whether one subscribes to cooling, warming or stasis.

The real problem is that this early stage science is being used to justify the enactment of horrifically expensive governmental programs and direct/indirect taxing schemes like "cap-and-trade" that are guaranteed to

1) not effect the global climate one way or another, and

2) so politicize scientific research as to delay a true understanding of natural phenomenon, and

3) curtail much needed economic development, and

4) divert funding that might be needed for programs that will have a much higher likelihood of contributing to the greater good, and/or

5) significantly increase the crippling national debt we now face after just one year of the Democrats being in complete control of the government.

I very much advocate the approaches and solutions proposed by The Copenhagen Consensus Center's Climate Change Project, which I seriously invite you to review and consider before you spout off with further self-serving mischaracterizations.

http://fixtheclimate.com/

The academic markers you are so proud of fail to hide that you are really not very good at synthesis and as you continue spouting your bile you demonstrate a personal unpleasantness that lessens whatever it is you are trying to say. Try doing more research and indulge your ego a bit less and you might actually make a substantive contribution to the conversation.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853

Commence backpedaling by people on this forum.

You honestly support entering different data to make your proxy data plot match your desired result? Amazing. I can see why you would quote Realclimate, perfectly appropriate.

MOST people think that if one is showing data to take control of society, than those data better damn well be beyond reproach. Entering actual measured temperatures in place of proxy data where actual measured temperatures are available and don't agree is not a useful trick, it is a useful lie to cover up the fact that your proxy data are not valid; they do not say what you think they say. In most any other field that kind of behavior would get one shunned, defunded, and made a laughing stock, but for some reason in proving CAGW it seems such behavior is actually lauded.

 

[shira]

You honestly support entering different data to make your proxy data plot match your desired result? Amazing. I can see why you would quote Realclimate, perfectly appropriate.

MOST people think that if one is showing data to take control of society, than those data better damn well be beyond reproach. Entering actual measured temperatures in place of proxy data where actual measured temperatures are available and don't agree is not a useful trick, it is a useful lie to cover up the fact that your proxy data are not valid; they do not say what you think they say. In most any other field that kind of behavior would get one shunned, defunded, and made a laughing stock, but for some reason in proving CAGW it seems such behavior is actually lauded.

The bolded sentence is a perfect example of what happens when ignorant hacks try to pretend they know what they're talking about.

No one is "making proxy data match a desired result." What scientists are trying to do is to determine which proxy or proxies yield the most accurate temperature estimates. There is ACTUAL TEMPERATURE DATA for the post-1960 period, and when actual and tree-ring-based-proxy temperatures are compared, the tree-ring-based temperatures significantly underestimate the actual temperatures as compared with the temperatures derived from other proxies (such as coral growth and ice cores).

So what should a climatologist do when he needs the best possible estimate of post-1960 temperatures for a region, and no actual measurements are available? The answer: Use coral growth and ice cores in preference to tree rings. Duh!

Notice also how werepossum insists that scientists are doing their research for political purposes:

MOST people think that if one is showing data to take control of society, than those data better damn well be beyond reproach.

Well, guess what, climatologists aren't presenting data to "control society." They're presenting data to advance our understanding of climate.

 

[between]

...

 

[werepossum]

I may be an ignorant hack, but I know that if you have several sets of proxy data you can't mix and match parts of the sets to get the results you want. Using that technique you can get pretty much any result you want simply by selecting the parts of each set that fit your preconceived and desired result. In any given location and for any given proxy, local conditions play a strong part, often stronger than overall climate. Narrow tree rings and low carbon uptake may indicate cold weather, but it may also indicate a drought or other localized conditions (such as volcanic activity) that inhibit growth. Coral may grow more slowly when it's below its preferred zone, but it also grows more slowly when it's above its preferred zone, when water is stained, or when particular parasites or toxins are present. Ice cores are very poorly understood; the complicated and not necessarily linear cycle from snow to firn to ice is poorly understood, not to mention the effect of extreme pressure on trapped gas bubbles over time. Attempts to correlate ice cores to known historical conditions have been largely unsuccessful as well.

So now you have three sets of proxy data, but none of these can be anything like continuous or complete enough to be representative. Instead we have limited numbers of samples from scattered locations. Many of these samples must be thrown out - tree rings get labeled as drought years, ice cores get labeled as "disturbed", coral growth gets labeled as atypical. With enough samples, one could begin to build climate histories from each set and correlate them against each other. But if allowed to select from among the sets and the samples, such a construct becomes literally meaningless because different selection sets and samples will yield wildly different climate histories. (Else there would be no need to switch from one set to another, as the proxies would match.)

As far as politics goes, when Hansen was screaming that he was being censured he was giving two and three interviews a day warning of dire catastrophe and telling us what we had to do to avoid catastrophe. He is still not only telling us what he thinks the climate is doing (and as we've seen, manipulating data to support his belief) but constantly telling us what we have to do to avoid catastrophe. You can argue that he is right and is only doing this for our best interests, because he's so smart and we're so dumb, but you can't argue that he's not trying to control society without looking like an idiot. The entire CAGW movement spends much more time telling us what we HAVE to do than it does correctly predicting anything. (Oddly enough, what we have to do to combat catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is exactly what we were told to do to combat catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling.) Having bought into a man-made ice age, I'm going to be a bit more discerning this time around.

So far climate prediction theory is a half-step above "Give me your daughter or I'll make the moon disappear next Thursday night." It's a great predictor of things that have already happened, not so great for predicting things yet to occur - although it's pretty good at claiming to have predicted them afterward.

 

[spidey07]

You bias is showing:

1) You're assuming that this story is legitimate.

2) You're assuming - assuming there IS cooked data - that it represents a major fraction of the total evidence in support of ACC.

Somehow, I'll put my faith on the climatology community and not on ideology-driven non-climatologists.

Bolded for clarity. I just want facts and any true believer in science is skeptical of conflicting data.

 

[novasatori]

Bolded for clarity. I just want facts and any true believer in science is skeptical of conflicting data.

Very nice catch spidey.

 

[StageLeft]

This is exactly the point. Virtually all of us here are ignorant on this subject, so we personally are not qualified to judge. But that doesn't mean the truth of the matter is a coin flip or that "all sides" are equal. Why? Because the overwhelming preponderance of objective evidence says that man-made climate change is true.

And the only argument the naysayers can present to counter that is to claim the data is cooked. That there's a vast conspiracy of scientists trying to fool all of us. They even try to pretend that there's no consensus, but every major climate body on the planet says otherwise.

So, why would you NOT believe, unless you're driven by some non-scientific motive.

This issue is not so black and white. Most people, dare I say anybody, acknowledges that human activity can impact the environment. This is glaringly obvious. The question is to what extent, whether the current impacts are actually negative, and how to deal with them.

 

[gsellis]

Your background and knowledge are irrelevant. You're not a climatologist. I have degrees in physics and engineering, and extensive knowledge of statistics and probability. Irrelevant. I'm not a climatologist.

This is where you are totally wrong. Bad statistics are bad statistics. The folks calling them out are calling them out for method and application errors. And worse still, are having to deconstuct the work because of the refusal to release the data and model of the proofs. You are saying that if P. Jones was to say that it is the "positive charge of the neutrons in oxygen that causes CO2 to be linear in causality to temperature"*, because he was arguing climate, you cannot refute that.

*- he NEVER said that, it is just for discussion.

 

[gsellis]

This issue is not so black and white. Most people, dare I say anybody, acknowledges that human activity can impact the environment. This is glaringly obvious. The question is to what extent, whether the current impacts are actually negative, and how to deal with them.

Agreeing with you.

That is why I like Roger Pielke Jr and am not so sure he is not right. It is obvious that CO2 could effect temp. But what component of warming are we seeing that is really AGW? But when you stick the pen in at the bottom of a curve and call that 0 and then intentionally desensitize the data before it to flatten the cycle, I suspect monkey business. If Mann and company and CRU were open kimono, this would not be the big deal it was. But you do not continue to be secretive about science unless you have an agenda. If you don't want everyone having thermonuclear weapons, it is understandable to be secretive about the science and details. But if you think CO2 is going to destroy the planet, you would be as open about it as possible to show why you are concerned and the scope of the problem.

An interest thing in the leak is that Phil Jones thinks he could reconstruct the dataset that was lost by CRU. I understand that the task could be expensive. But he never said that. He hide that information. Lazy, overworked, or an agenda? Past actions make the think the later is in play. Science is about honest evaluation and disclosure so others can reconstruct it, prove it and learn from it.

 

[Jaskalas]

No. But we need another term like "Truther" and "Birther" that applies to the anti-science crowd.

Don't think too hard on naming yourself.

 

[dmcowen674]

Bottom line is both sides LIE.

No surprise there.

The other bottom line is the fact that the planet has warmed and lost a lot of ice and the sea levels have risen.

Maybe those against science can hide because they don't live on the coast but if you live on the coast you know it is a fact.

 

[umbrella39]

You bias is showing:

1) You're assuming that this story is legitimate.

2) You're assuming - assuming there IS cooked data - that it represents a major fraction of the total evidence in support of ACC.

Somehow, I'll put my faith on the climatology community and not on ideology-driven non-climatologists.

This.

... and thanks for quoting Spidey so those ignoring him can see that yes, he is still an ill-informed, transparent hack.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Here are links to around 150 data sets. If one were so interested I imagine they could easily find hundreds, if not thousands, more data sets.

Feel free to conduct your own research and report back to ATP&N. We await with great anticipation the opportunity to conduct a peer review of your findings.

Thanks in advance for your hard work.

-
-
-

 

[spittledip]

Bottom line is both sides LIE.

No surprise there.

Hey, wow,I agree with Dave.

I disagree that it is a surprise though. Some people have some silly notion in their head that scientists don't lie or studies are never biased, and that scientific research is always honest. The people doing research out there are just like the people on this forum, no better, no different- they really want to be RIGHT! I suppose there might be some out there who have not "chosen a side" and are actually doing good research... it is hard to do good research if you are biased/already chosen a side.

 

[Cogman]

stuff like this happens all the time.

When a company has something they want to prove, they will ignore and manipulate data to no end until their point is made. Just like Anti-global warming data, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see that some pro-global warming data has been skewed.

However, just because some data is false, doesn't mean that all data is false. This goes for both sides of the topic. I tend to believe that the truth is probably somewhere in between.

Lets see how this plays out before we decry global warming.

 

[Jaskalas]

Lets see how this plays out before we decry global warming.

Or before we sign into law radical self defeating measures?

 

[IGBT]

Racism, Global Warming and Barack Obama’s intelligence are three topics with which no one can expect a civil discussion. If you want me to laugh in your face, bring up one of these topics and try to treat it seriously. Frauds, hoaxes, manufactured problems. You can bet the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby will circle the wagons. They have plenty of willing accomplices.

 

[PJABBER]

Racism, Global Warming and Barack Obama’s intelligence are three topics with which no one can expect a civil discussion. If you want me to laugh in your face, bring up one of these topics and try to treat it seriously. Frauds, hoaxes, manufactured problems. You can bet the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby will circle the wagons. They have plenty of willing accomplices.

So true!

 

[alchemize]

CRU director admits hacked files genuine

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

You bias is showing:

1) You're assuming that this story is legitimate.

2) You're assuming - assuming there IS cooked data - that it represents a major fraction of the total evidence in support of ACC.

Somehow, I'll put my faith on the climatology community and not on ideology-driven non-climatologists.

You mean that community that just got busted for hiding data contrary to their beliefs and manipulating other data to create a result that they know is false? That community?

I'll admit it's a bit of a stretch to indict every climate think-tank off of this one institution but these guys all talk to each other. My bet is climatologists all over the world are deleting emails by the thousands as we argue.