this is a work email sent between professional colleagues, not nonsense on a anonymous message board.
The key element that you miss is that they were making informal remarks personally via private email. It is not their professional conclusions which are on the record, withstood challenge, and have been openly available for 10 years.
exactly. what this shows is that these guys want one result over another. and that ruins everything. and as far as the informal remarks go, this is like if i joke to sabanfan that it is too bad obama is following certain bush policies because it diverts attention from how bad obama is when my opponents just claim that bush was the same. it reveals my motive, which is to be critical of obama. the difference here is that the scientists should have no motive other that to discover the truth. but these guys clearly want to show how warming hurts us. they have started with a belief and are looking for evidence to support it. and that is pretty damn easy.
And that's the truth. [Media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9knNVc_27c&feature=PlayList&p=00DD404452F625EE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=56[/media]
Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have for years been trying unsuccessfully to duplicate the published results coming from the UEA-Hadley and Mann. They are referred to as "the two MMs" and "M&M" in many of the hacked emails. They asked for help, because they could not reproduce the results and were stonewalled. They asked for input data and were told No! After filing FOI requests they were told the data had been accidently deleted. Then suddenly it was located, but they still couldn't have it, because it was too dangerous that the data would be used "incorrectly". Phil Jones said: This was all reported by BBC earlier this year. Jones refusal to disclose set off alarm bells in the scientific community. Perhaps that inspired the hacker? You are incorrect. They went so far as refusing to submit papers in journals that required submission of data... (For context: RMS=Royal Meterological Society) Why so scared? Additionally, there was a clear pattern of limiting data distribution to any unsympathetic researchers... including evading FOI requests... These guys were eager to publish their conclusions not their data, codes, or methodolgy.
Apparently they don't think much of peer review. “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.
This contracted paper ...PDF Link... used "modified" data... The Strata-Sphere Alarmists Hide Truth About (Lack Of) Global Warming If you need the context of the "40's Blip" Here is what Jones had to say about it... Looking at the raw data in ...this PDF file...... the "problem" with the data is that multiple SH (Southern Hemisphere) station temps were as warm or warmer than the present. That's pretty detremental to the claim "the last decade is the hottest on record", or even an upward trend over the last 50 years. And from browsing... in m ost cases the 40's Blip anomoly was as steep, and in many cases larger than the present 'anomoly'. Even better! The programming source code is coming out! CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story Watts Up With That? Complete with programmer comments... like this... Code: datathresh=datathresh ; ; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES ; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate ; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE ; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE ; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS. ; pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill ; ; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions ; of growing season temperatures. [B][COLOR="Red"]Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually[/COLOR][/B] ; [B][COLOR="red"]plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to[/COLOR][/B] ; [B][COLOR="red"]the real temperatures[/COLOR][/B]. And "Mike's Trick" appears to have been outted: Code: ; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series, ; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series. ; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N ; ; [B][COLOR="Red"]Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid[/COLOR][/B] ; [B][COLOR="red"]the decline[/COLOR][/B] ; I may have to fire up a compiler! opcorn:
Oh and the next time someone accuses a "skeptic" of being funded by Exxon... :rofl: Seriously... just for the record I don't think this implies anything!
this story is bigger and better than i thought, and jiboo is absolutely laying down the law on it. i like it.
