PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Global Warmers having a bit of a meltdown...


HonestChieffan
11-20-2009, 02:45 PM
This should be fun to watch...
Another source who will be all over this is: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/



Global Warming Fraud
Posted by Dan Karipides

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/11/20/global-warming-fraud.php

Published: November 20, 2009 - 9:45 AM The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has had its email system hacked and a large amount of data released to the internet. The director of the unit (Dr. Phil Jones) has confirmed the leaked emails are genuine. The real story is the suspicious content of the emails. For example:


Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 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 [sic] from1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
I've spent a majority of my life working in the sciences. Phrases like trick of adding in the real temps and hide the decline should never occur in relation to honest science. From another email:

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.
Note the bias in the view. With lack of evidence of increasing temperatures the conclusion is that the observation system must be wrong. It has to be warming, we just can't measure it. Hot Air has much much more.

I can promise you I will continue to follow this story. Details to be posted as they are uncovered.


Another source who will be all over this is: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

tiptap
11-20-2009, 02:51 PM
Be careful. How do you know that the released e-mails are truly intact and not added or tampered with in their release. An admission the their mail was compromised is not the same as saying every e-mail is correctly posted.

HonestChieffan
11-20-2009, 02:59 PM
All I said was it will be interesting to watch. I will be as big a skepic on the emails as I am on the phoney data that GW's always use.

However as you saw in the posted info "The director of the unit (Dr. Phil Jones) has confirmed the leaked emails are genuine. "


Damn it all.

tiptap
11-20-2009, 03:08 PM
The leaks yes but take your scary wording above. How do I know from so little in the Email that this isn't an attempt to match the equations to the actual data sets. So that the equations can be refined to match the data, just like someone in oil would use real measurements to get an emperical equation. Those are easier to store with less memory in programs on computers for in running initial points for Differential Equations. That is different, quite different than tweaking the data sets.

ClevelandBronco
11-20-2009, 03:20 PM
Good. tiptap's here.

What's the weather supposed to be like at Invesco this Sunday?

tiptap
11-20-2009, 03:23 PM
I don't do weather, though I have had two graduate classes in meteorology. I will predict that the Broncos will still be slipping in performance against the sunny Chargers.

ClevelandBronco
11-20-2009, 03:27 PM
I don't do weather, though I have had two graduate classes in meteorology. I will predict that the Broncos will still be slipping in performance against the sunny Chargers.

Dude, you only do weather.

tiptap
11-20-2009, 03:31 PM
Ok lets see Denver. Cold nights moderate day temperatures. And I hear great skiing conditions. Of that we are all happy.

tiptap
11-20-2009, 03:34 PM
As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here. We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.

Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.

Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.

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.

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.

There are of course lessons to be learned. Clearly no-one would have gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating habits of European butterflies. That community’s internal discussions are probably safe from the public eye. But it is important to remember that emails do seem to exist forever, and that there is always a chance that they will be inadvertently released. Most people do not act as if this is true, but they probably should.

It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not have been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really be happy to have all of their email made public?

Let he who is without PIN cast the the first stone.

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

HonestChieffan
11-20-2009, 03:43 PM
the search for plausable deniability

tiptap
11-20-2009, 03:46 PM
Well like teabaggers, some know nothing of discernment.

Bootlegged
11-21-2009, 06:13 AM
Sorry, tiptap......THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS

Stewie
11-21-2009, 07:31 AM
This is rather disturbing if true. Our R&D group fired two people about 10 years ago for manipulating/falsifying data. That's a serious, serious issue of integrity that has no place in science.

As for the non-warming of the climate over the last 10 years, I personally think no one has an understanding of something so complex. They try to make it out to be something as simple as levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and use their most authoritative voice. I don't buy it. It may sound feasible to the layman, but not this engineer.

For people with some scientific knowledge:

The "absolute" stance of CO2ers reminds me of when the R&D group I am a part of was doing research on a complex chemical reaction in a product we developed and now manufacture. We were perplexed by reactions not behaving the way we wanted. During most of the development we went crazy trying to solve the problem. Impurities? Surface area irregularities? Measurement problems? What was it? We were baffled.

We ran thermal analysis, surface area analysis, and x-ray diffraction ad nauseum. We finally concluded that surface area irregularities increased or decreased activity during the reaction. It was a consensus and we could prove it, surface area was the problem. We wrote a paper for senior mgt. with solid data and a perfect explanation of the anomalies. The problem is we were COMPLETELY WRONG! Of course, senior mgt. didn't have the education or understanding to refute our findings.

Fast forward about six months. While doing more research with a couple of chemicals we used in the previous development the problem was solved. One component (barium peroxide) is used to maintain rheology in our reactions, BUT, as we found out, it is also slightly catalytic in our reactions. Bingo! Square peg meet square hole! It blew our entire previous theory out of the water even though we were convinced we were right at the time. We had to explain our embarrassment to senior mgt., but they didn't mind since it wasn't a big money mistake. It did increase our yields, which is the goal in any chemical manufacturing endeavor.

My point is that we were convinced we were right. Only by accident did we solve our problem. We were myopic in our approach to understand the cause, not stepping back and looking at other options. CO2 is the climate changers "surface area problem" that they can prove, but the "barium peroxide" answer is out there and is a much more elegant.

Saul Good
11-21-2009, 08:41 AM
The leaks yes but take your scary wording above. How do I know from so little in the Email that this isn't an attempt to match the equations to the actual data sets. So that the equations can be refined to match the data, just like someone in oil would use real measurements to get an emperical equation. Those are easier to store with less memory in programs on computers for in running initial points for Differential Equations. That is different, quite different than tweaking the data sets.

Sounds like you're twisting the evidence to make it match your previously held view instead of adjusting your view in accordance with the evidence. It's very similar to what these scientists did. What line of work are you in by the way?

Saul Good
11-21-2009, 09:09 AM
Here's some excerpts from the emails:

From Michael E. Mann:

Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.


From Nick McKay:

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?


From Tom Wigley:

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.


From Phil Jones:

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.


From Kevin Trenberth:

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.


From Michael Mann:

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.


From Phil Jones:

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !


From Michael E. Mann:

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.


From Phil Jones:

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

Stewie
11-21-2009, 09:26 AM
If this is how these people operate IT IS NOT science and they are NOT scientists.

tiptap
11-21-2009, 09:57 AM
Sorry, tiptap......THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS

Don't let my wife hear you say that.

tiptap
11-21-2009, 10:14 AM
This is rather disturbing if true. Our R&D group fired two people about 10 years ago for manipulating/falsifying data. That's a serious, serious issue of integrity that has no place in science.

As for the non-warming of the climate over the last 10 years, I personally think no one has an understanding of something so complex. They try to make it out to be something as simple as levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and use their most authoritative voice. I don't buy it. It may sound feasible to the layman, but not this engineer.

For people with some scientific knowledge:

The "absolute" stance of CO2ers reminds me of when the R&D group I am a part of was doing research on a complex chemical reaction in a product we developed and now manufacture. We were perplexed by reactions not behaving the way we wanted. During most of the development we went crazy trying to solve the problem. Impurities? Surface area irregularities? Measurement problems? What was it? We were baffled.

We ran thermal analysis, surface area analysis, and x-ray diffraction ad nauseum. We finally concluded that surface area irregularities increased or decreased activity during the reaction. It was a consensus and we could prove it, surface area was the problem. We wrote a paper for senior mgt. with solid data and a perfect explanation of the anomalies. The problem is we were COMPLETELY WRONG! Of course, senior mgt. didn't have the education or understanding to refute our findings.

Fast forward about six months. While doing more research with a couple of chemicals we used in the previous development the problem was solved. One component (barium peroxide) is used to maintain rheology in our reactions, BUT, as we found out, it is also slightly catalytic in our reactions. Bingo! Square peg meet square hole! It blew our entire previous theory out of the water even though we were convinced we were right at the time. We had to explain our embarrassment to senior mgt., but they didn't mind since it wasn't a big money mistake. It did increase our yields, which is the goal in any chemical manufacturing endeavor.

My point is that we were convinced we were right. Only by accident did we solve our problem. We were myopic in our approach to understand the cause, not stepping back and looking at other options. CO2 is the climate changers "surface area problem" that they can prove, but the "barium peroxide" answer is out there and is a much more elegant.

So you did have a problem, a surface area problem, as initially investigated (and it was found to be wrong). And as such we also have a problem. That is rising temperatures. That anomaly is what drives the investigation of what is causing this. And I would love to be wrong. I grew up thinking we were importing all this foreign oil and I was concerned until I looked at coal reserves and realized we could deplete oil and regain the advantage by selling coal down the line. I was so pleased with this that I opposed Nuclear Energy as an unneccesary option to our long term energy need for hundreds even thousands of years.

But it has been the case for over 100 years that the temperature on earth can only be accounted for if you include Greenhouse Gases in that determination. It isn't new. It is the 2nd biggest contributor after of course the sun itself. (it is bigger than earth core heat unexpectedly.) So the question has always been for me if temperatures are rising. And the overall evidence with instrumentation, Glacial Ice melt, volume of polar ice drop, movement of plants north and higher in elevation, longer growing seasons, Oxygen isotope differentials, and many other physical proxy systems, is that temperatures are rising. Given that an increase in Greenhouse Gases should be the 2nd thing to rule out. But we have very good evidence of the increase in CO 2 through the century and it is easily accounted for by the amount of fossil fuels we burned (not even counting concrete CO 2 production).

We can't afford to continue as usual because there is a lead time and CO 2 has centuries of circulation in the atmosphere. At least not so without something more than a wish and a dream that it is something else. Nothing else shows any correlation.

tiptap
11-21-2009, 10:20 AM
Sounds like you're twisting the evidence to make it match your previously held view instead of adjusting your view in accordance with the evidence. It's very similar to what these scientists did. What line of work are you in by the way?

It turns out this email was about adding the actual instrumental temperatures to the graph along with the proxy measurements. You know run another line on the same graph for comparisons. The data wasn't mingled in any mathematical operation. They were just placed on the same graph paper.

Saul Good
11-21-2009, 10:47 AM
It turns out this email was about adding the actual instrumental temperatures to the graph along with the proxy measurements. You know run another line on the same graph for comparisons. The data wasn't mingled in any mathematical operation. They were just placed on the same graph paper.

Interesting that they would do this "to hide the decline". How would placing another line on the same paper serve "to hide the decline"?

Saul Good
11-21-2009, 10:49 AM
And as such we also have a problem. That is rising temperatures.

Not according to these esteemed scientists. According to them, there is a "lack of warming".

KCWolfman
11-21-2009, 11:19 AM
Here's some excerpts from the emails:


As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !




Sad sad sad

Stewie
11-21-2009, 11:41 AM
So you did have a problem, a surface area problem, as initially investigated (and it was found to be wrong). And as such we also have a problem. That is rising temperatures. That anomaly is what drives the investigation of what is causing this. And I would love to be wrong. I grew up thinking we were importing all this foreign oil and I was concerned until I looked at coal reserves and realized we could deplete oil and regain the advantage by selling coal down the line. I was so pleased with this that I opposed Nuclear Energy as an unneccesary option to our long term energy need for hundreds even thousands of years.

But it has been the case for over 100 years that the temperature on earth can only be accounted for if you include Greenhouse Gases in that determination. It isn't new. It is the 2nd biggest contributor after of course the sun itself. (it is bigger than earth core heat unexpectedly.) So the question has always been for me if temperatures are rising. And the overall evidence with instrumentation, Glacial Ice melt, volume of polar ice drop, movement of plants north and higher in elevation, longer growing seasons, Oxygen isotope differentials, and many other physical proxy systems, is that temperatures are rising. Given that an increase in Greenhouse Gases should be the 2nd thing to rule out. But we have very good evidence of the increase in CO 2 through the century and it is easily accounted for by the amount of fossil fuels we burned (not even counting concrete CO 2 production).

We can't afford to continue as usual because there is a lead time and CO 2 has centuries of circulation in the atmosphere. At least not so without something more than a wish and a dream that it is something else. Nothing else shows any correlation.

No, we didn't have a surface area problem. We had confounding variables that weren't discernible. Surface area could explain the difference because it was the only answer we had, so it BECAME the problem. Only when we changed course did we realize our theory was wrong. We were so focused on that one thing we missed what was really going on.

I think this is the case with CO2. It's been the focus for so long and there's so much data it HAS to be the problem. It's an easy trap to fall into. Yet, somehow there's a sudden plateau in temperature rise over the last decade when it should still be rising. That's a red flag right there. People need to step back and rethink what's going on instead of, once again, analyze data to no end to come up with the conclusion they want. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

tiptap
11-21-2009, 12:24 PM
The plateau of the last decade isn't seen in world data. And the last decade "plateaued" with record average highs over that period. The 2009 drop is what fuels this notion and it occurs with the Solar Minimum and a ENSO La Nina effect in the Pacific. There has always been a cyclical nature following solar flux and a temperature effect in North America from the alternation of the El Nino and La Nina events. The debate is whether with the rise in solar activity there will be a resulting rise in temperatures from our present HIGH "plateau" or if the heat is being fed into the ocean systems and we will get a longer pause.

As far as step back and rethink this, I did just that back in the 1990's. Just like now there was a Solar Minimum and similar Nina event. The deniers back then said the temperatures wouldn't go up with the return of the Solar Activity and return of El Nino. But we saw temperature "plateau" at the highest decade average for the world AND for the US beating the Dust Bowl decade (choose any consecutive 10 year period you want and including 2008 and 2009 when its complete and that will still be the highest average temperatures for a 10 year period.)

Will you sing this same tap and dance when temperatures go up over the next 10 years?

Stewie
11-21-2009, 12:52 PM
The 2009 drop is what fuels this notion and it occurs with the Solar Minimum and a ENSO La Nina effect in the Pacific. There has always been a cyclical nature following solar flux and a temperature effect in North America from the alternation of the El Nino and La Nina events.

This is EXACTLY the type of confounding variables I'm talking about. When the data doesn't match up with the result we want it's disregarded as being erroneous... or caused by something else. It's no longer CO2 in the atmosphere, it's the Nina's, or the sun, or water vapor, or lack of water vapor, or... pick the variable that explains the anomaly. There are so many variables, one of them must explain why our data contradicts our beliefs.

My former boss had a PhD in physics and was a Navy man working on nuclear subs in the 80s. He always said, "Accurate temperature measurement costs alot of money and you must have an exact understanding of what you're measuring." That has always stuck with me while doing precise thermal analysis. The error in measurement alone can make or break warming or cooling.

Calcountry
11-21-2009, 01:20 PM
Were going down down down in a burnin ball of fire! Polar bears drown drown as the seas are getting HIGHER!

Fug them Polar bears if they can't take a joke.

tiptap
11-21-2009, 01:32 PM
Oh I see you never can resolve it. Because accurate temperature is based upon the physical object. After all it is entropy of the system and total energy involved in a closed system that determines temperature. Soon as the there is energy flow or matter movement in or out of the closed system then the entropy of that system changes. So yeah the physical system is important. And if solely instrumental temperatures were involved or an isolated system than I would be all about looking for additional evidence. But it is the submarine NAVY data that states that the volume, mass of polar ice has decreased significantly over the last half century. Here is independent corroborating physical evidence. How are you not inventing reasons to deny different physical systems that all indicate rising temperatures. After all you made some goddamn measurement that you were ultimately relying on in you production method. Otherwise it shouldn't matter what parameters went into your vat. So the studies keep coming up with different physical systems that show rising temperatures. Yet somehow they all got it wrong because they all have the same pet theory. If one physical system is indicating rise I am right with you. But the fact that we see a rise presentation showing through the rhythmic changes due to oscillating solar or ocean flows, means all the more that it is something other than an anomaly.

Stewie
11-21-2009, 01:57 PM
Oh I see you never can resolve it. Because accurate temperature is based upon the physical object. After all it is entropy of the system and total energy involved in a closed system that determines temperature. Soon as the there is energy flow or matter movement in or out of the closed system then the entropy of that system changes. So yeah the physical system is important. And if solely instrumental temperatures were involved or an isolated system than I would be all about looking for additional evidence. But it is the submarine NAVY data that states that the volume, mass of polar ice has decreased significantly over the last half century. Here is independent corroborating physical evidence. How are you not inventing reasons to deny different physical systems that all indicate rising temperatures. After all you made some goddamn measurement that you were ultimately relying on in you production method. Otherwise it shouldn't matter what parameters went into your vat. So the studies keep coming up with different physical systems that show rising temperatures. Yet somehow they all got it wrong because they all have the same pet theory. If one physical system is indicating rise I am right with you. But the fact that we see a rise presentation showing through the rhythmic changes due to oscillating solar or ocean flows, means all the more that it is something other than an anomaly.

Heh! OK, you have it all figured out. Do you know how much accurate temperature measurement costs? And what methods are the best? I really want to know. You're apparently the Svengali of all science. Bring it on, this is what I've done for a living for 20+ years. I want your input. It might save my company million$!

Edit: Where is all this ice melt going? I have an Indian colleague that vacations in the Male' Atoll. He's seen no change in the beaches and he's been going there since he was a kid (he's 50). Male' is about 3' above sea level.

tiptap
11-21-2009, 02:10 PM
Fluid or solid material, conductive or insulating over the range in consideration. What volume or mass of material and are we dealing with a exo or endo thermic change.

I am not the thermo engineer but I am not afraid to be wrong in exploring the question and learning in the process.

Stewie
11-21-2009, 02:19 PM
Fluid or solid material, conductive or insulating over the range in consideration. What volume or mass of material and are we dealing with a exo or endo thermic change.

I am not the thermo engineer but I am not afraid to be wrong in exploring the question and learning in the process.

Fluid and conductive and in the world's ambient temperature range. This is neither exo or endo in the "reaction" sense of the words. It's a static measurement of temperature. That is, what's happening right here, right now, and how is it best measured in the range of -40 to 45 C?

Stewie
11-21-2009, 02:28 PM
Sorry tiptap. I have to go. I look forward to your insight. I know you're a smart guy. I'll be back tomorrow.

tiptap
11-22-2009, 09:59 AM
My wife got me to go play racketball and go out for the evening about this time too. So this is the first I have looked at the parameters. I am off line doing tasks in anticipation of Thanksgiving and Christmas soo I will reply as I fine time.

BucEyedPea
11-22-2009, 10:19 AM
Oh Boy! I just read a good article about the dishonesty and fraud that these scientists are getting caught in including trying to hide emails showing their fraud at a university. Lying scientists who want govt grants and money to live off of. Just another set of public trough feeders.

ClimateGate (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/)

Ayup! It really was a scam folks!! Bernie Madoffs in the world of science.

banyon
11-22-2009, 10:23 AM
Quote us some more materials from petroleum industry shills. Ayup!

HonestChieffan
11-22-2009, 03:04 PM
http://www.climatedepot.com/

Shame isn't it to find out the false science is just a scam.

Love the tombstone.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_V9Jagb528cY/Ssa0hGHvqzI/AAAAAAAAC9E/B_NgGqh5zag/s400/0000000000_tombstone.jpg

Iowanian
11-22-2009, 08:39 PM
tiptap is going to dig himself a hole capable of producing geothermal heat and possibly natural gas extrusion if he keeps spinning this fast.

tiptap
11-23-2009, 08:43 AM
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 !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

____________________________________________

Above are the damning quotes in Telegraphs article.

Manipulating data. The trick was to add the line graph of the real measurement of instrumental temperature to graph of the proxy temperature measurements so you can compare them. There was no blending of data to hide anything.

Private doubts has to do with the new instrumentation for gathering temperatures remotely and before final calibration.

Deletion claim has to do with removal of duplicate files

Fantasies of violence. uhhh yeah that never happens on this site . . . ever

Medieval Warming Period. this email if referring to going even farther back than JUST the medieval warming period to show that the longer term trend. Not removal adding of data trend. Not truncating adding.

Squeezing out of scientists. Yes this could be read this way. But the journals cost lots of money and the time of researchers is important so there is ALWAYS in all journals reviews of articles to get rid of the poor submitted articles. Peer Review does have standards of editing in SCIENCE. It isn't a free discussion where all ideas are accepted because there are advancements in understanding. To win acceptance the overall submissions have to move the line of scrimmage one direction or another. You have to start close to that point and both with ideas that are robust and data that supports that.

Iowanian
11-23-2009, 10:52 AM
Bruce Willis would have to control the RPM's of your spinning while drilling an Asteroid to save the earth.

Saul Good
11-23-2009, 06:48 PM
Keep tiptapping past the graveyard.

mikey23545
11-24-2009, 04:47 PM
Above are the damning quotes in Telegraphs article.

Manipulating data. The trick was to add the line graph of the real measurement of instrumental temperature to graph of the proxy temperature measurements so you can compare them. There was no blending of data to hide anything.

Private doubts has to do with the new instrumentation for gathering temperatures remotely and before final calibration.

Deletion claim has to do with removal of duplicate files

Fantasies of violence. uhhh yeah that never happens on this site . . . ever

Medieval Warming Period. this email if referring to going even farther back than JUST the medieval warming period to show that the longer term trend. Not removal adding of data trend. Not truncating adding.

Squeezing out of scientists. Yes this could be read this way. But the journals cost lots of money and the time of researchers is important so there is ALWAYS in all journals reviews of articles to get rid of the poor submitted articles. Peer Review does have standards of editing in SCIENCE. It isn't a free discussion where all ideas are accepted because there are advancements in understanding. To win acceptance the overall submissions have to move the line of scrimmage one direction or another. You have to start close to that point and both with ideas that are robust and data that supports that.


All I can say to this incredibly twisted chain of rationalization is this:

Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge

Chief Henry
11-24-2009, 05:01 PM
When scientist lie, are they still considered scientist ?


Hello AL Gore, this is CNN calling. We would like to speak to you about the new information recently released about the lying scientist and how they fabricated
this global warming stuff. Mr. Gore we want you to go on record with a statement.

(do you think that conversation will happen)

Saul Good
11-24-2009, 05:03 PM
I'm impressed that tiptap knows how to excuse everything that happened without knowing any more details than what are presented in these e-mails. It's almost as if he's interpreting the data in a way that forces it into his preconceived point of view.

KCTitus
11-24-2009, 05:50 PM
I think that some climate scientists state the lack of warming has to do with lack of sunspot activity...that or all those people now using CFL's and driving Prius'.

I just wanted to point out for Direckshun, that had I not read this story on Drudge, I wouldn't be aware of the exposure of the fraud that is man-made global warming 'science' because no other domestic news source is reporting it.

Thankfully, after the Pentagon Papers, and exposing the CIA efforts to shut down terrorism via tracking bank transactions, the NY Times finally gets a conscience and elects not to expose information that wasnt for 'public consumption'.

RedNeckRaider
11-24-2009, 07:09 PM
I think that some climate scientists state the lack of warming has to do with lack of sunspot activity...that or all those people now using CFL's and driving Prius'.

I just wanted to point out for Direckshun, that had I not read this story on Drudge, I wouldn't be aware of the exposure of the fraud that is man-made global warming 'science' because no other domestic news source is reporting it.

Thankfully, after the Pentagon Papers, and exposing the CIA efforts to shut down terrorism via tracking bank transactions, the NY Times finally gets a conscience and elects not to expose information that wasnt for 'public consumption'.

Him and the rest of the looney left will stick their fingers in their ears and yell LA LA LA just like they did over the jobs saved and created scam. A party full of lies and shitbags~

tiptap
11-25-2009, 06:46 AM
I'm impressed that tiptap knows how to excuse everything that happened without knowing any more details than what are presented in these e-mails. It's almost as if he's interpreting the data in a way that forces it into his preconceived point of view.

Actually two of the Emails come from scientist that run Real Climate web site and are prominent in the field. And their explanations for the emails related to their projects are justified by the actual graphs in the final article submitted for publication and in the fact that the data files are government owned and have not been erased except on remote servers.

They know some of the other situations like extending the data sets beyond the Medieval Warming period rather than stopping just at that point back in time. Again the published documents show precisely this that the data was extended back further in time. There was no truncating of data.

So I am relating more than just MY speculation.

HonestChieffan
11-25-2009, 06:51 AM
But the media continues to ignore the story as expected and in ABC's case they have the gall to promote the speculation that the Danger ahead is even more threatening.

Great link to a fun look at the way the scandal is evolving..

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/295105.php

tiptap
11-25-2009, 06:53 AM
And Mikey, I read my quote every time I sign in. I am glad you read it even if it was only quoted to apply to me in this instance.

tiptap
11-25-2009, 06:56 AM
But the media continues to ignore the story as expected and in ABC's case they have the gall to promote the speculation that the Danger ahead is even more threatening.

Great link to a fun look at the way the scandal is evolving..

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/295105.php


That is because the explanations for the emails jive with publications proving many were about additions not subtraction of information and the realities of file management. The physical evidence backs up the explanations as opposed to the spin of words alone.

Iowanian
11-25-2009, 08:27 AM
Global warming funding is probably the best place to start cutting the federal budget.

Garcia Bronco
11-25-2009, 09:17 AM
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing"