Posts Tagged ‘Phil Jones’

Global Warming: The Pseudo-Science, The Lies, The Crap, The Cover-Ups – And The Skeptics Who Saw Through It From The GetGo

January 15, 2012

Came across this piece posted on JoanneNova.com and thought it was a great read:

THAT famous email explained and the first Volunteer Global Warming Skeptic

Years before Climategate, THAT email, from Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes told us everything we needed to know about the scientific standards at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia. THAT email was the tip of the iceberg, and below is what lay underneath the surface — the things that were said behind the scenes at the time. Geoff Sherrington has pieced together a sequence of climategate emails, his own emails, and parts of Warwick Hughes work to recreate the sequence.

And for the true skeptic-aficionados, here’s a new layer of history to the skeptical chronology. Where did this volunteer audit movement begin?

Who would have guessed that at least one skeptic, Hughes, was asking for the data Phil Jones worked with, as long ago as 1991? (That was way back in the days where people worked with hard copy print outs, and drew graphs by hand!) Does Hughes rank as volunteer Skeptic Number 1?

UPDATE: I asked Warwick, and he thinks the first unpaid skeptic was Fred Wood in 1988*. — Jo

Guest post by: Geoffrey H Sherrington, Scientist.

This is the longer story behind one of the more anti-science quotes in the short history of people attempting to be ‘climate scientists’, definition unclear. The pivotal short quote is in the opening email.

Original artwork: McCutcheon 1903. Adapted: Jo Nova.


“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

Here is a series of emails and articles with my interspersed comments in italics. Each email number is the one assigned in Climategate One and Two, presumably by the donor named FOIA. The Climategate emails are indented below, so the source can be picked up easily. There are sections cut from other emails as well. They are not indented. We start with the famous email, the one that some say was the start of the difficulty that scientists in general found when they tried to access data from some climate scientists.

———————-

From Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes.

1299. Between July 2004 and Feb 2005. (Exact date not on my copy of the email.)

I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top (sic) pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider. You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Australia isn’t restricted there.

ACRONYMS

WMO = World Meteorological Organisation.

IPR = Intellectual Property Rights.

GHCN = Global Historical Climatology Network.

NCAR = USA National Centre for Atmospheric Research.

WWR = World Weather Records of the World Meteorological Organization.

MCDR = WMO’s Monthly Climatic Data for the World.

Phil had had some prior thoughts about this.

0688. 16 July 2004.

The reason for emailing though is that I’m also being hassled by Warwick Hughes for the CRU station dataset. We put up the gridded fields, but not the station data. Over the last year or so, I’ve told people they can’t have the station data – go to the GHCN site and get it. I knew that avenue has been closed, but it got some of them off my back. I’m not that inclined to release it to Hughes (who Mike knows and maybe Tom). All he wants to do is to show how I’ve made some mistake or used some incorrect data for some stations.
There are a number of issues, though:

1. Should Res. 40 stop GHCN data being released?
2. Should I be hiding behind it too?
3. When does IPR kick in with the work I’ve put in on the CRU data?
4. Should people like this be able to request this kind of data?
5. NCAR release a precursor to GHCN – just WWR/MCDW+lots of other data, but in an unfriendly format.

From Phil Jones to Tom Peterson.

Thomas Peterson was near the top of NOAA, USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Seehttp://www.noaaworld.noaa.gov/scitech/sep2008_scitech_4.html

Jones seems to be unsure of the efficacy or legality of ways to avoid a direct answer to Warwick Hughes. Jones appears to know that he is deliberately telling people to go to a place where they will not find the answers they seek. Note the term “unfriendly format”.

Why was Warwick Hughes seeking certain data in 1990?

In Warwick’s words:

Warwick Hughes

“I started reviewing Prof Jones work in 1991 and I have a timeline of my work and published papers in those early years – many links. People have asked me how I got started looking into temperature data.”

“I first got curious about GW through media reports up to 1990 and wanted to check Australian data for myself – at that point I had never used a PC. I went into the BoM in Lonsdale Street and paid for hard copy printouts of stations from here and there – no idea how I selected sites – just places I knew and maybe the counter staff suggested stations. I drew a series of charts on graph paper and seeing a variety of disparate trends – being unable to find GW – showed them to some ex mining industry contacts. One guy gave me an intro to people at the Tasman Institute in the Melb CBD and about April 1991 I breezed in there with these hand drawn charts and showed a staffer – who said; “..you will have to get all this material onto disk – you can come in here and learn to use a PC.”
They gave me a little cubbie of a desk and a 286 PC with Win3.1 and I began pestering staff as to how to get some work out of this box thing. Anyway – the worst phase probably only took a few weeks and I could get some work out of Excel – my early data was entered to disk from my sheaf of hard copies printouts. Sometime in winter 91 I made contacts in the BoM and somebody gave me a copy of the US DoE TR027 report – which details – station by station – Jones et al Southern Hemisphere compilation of GW.
The Australian component of their Appendix A – was my basic source to track down Australian long term stations – I built on from there – for example work done building the data for the Balling, Idso & Hughes 1992 paper – that caused the BoM so much heartburn.”

“This work lead on to my construction of the two contrasting temperature histories from circa 1882, Graph 1 for 25 regional and remote Australian stations and Graph 2 for the six Australian capital cities.”

City Reviews takes you to many instances of urban heat island UHI contamination of city temperature data still used by Jones/UKMO/IPCC.”

About a half dozen people or more, like me, from larger companies, would meet monthly to distribute funds to Tasman and to review work in progress. Warwick made a presentation in 1991-2. He was more prescient than I was. I left the climate scene early in 1993 and did not reconnect until about 2005. The work presented to Tasman Institute contained several graphs. These two persist, see http://www.warwickhughes.com/1991/targw.htmfor a longer discussion.

Top graph: Geraldton, Narrabri, Hay, Albany, Rottnest Island Lighthouse, Walgett, Deniliquin, Bourke, Cape Naturaliste Lighthouse, Coonabarabran, Echuca, Cooma, Darwin, Moruya Heads Pilot Station, Omeo, Dubbo, Alice Springs, Gabo Island Lighthouse, Bathurst, Strathalbyn, Mt. Gambier, Yamba, Wilsons Promontory Lighthouse, Newcastle Signal Station, Cape Otway Lighthouse.

Lower graph: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart

It was Warwick’s contention that the search for UHI had been less that thorough as to choice of Australian stations. Here he shows that the temperature change in the average of several large Australian cities was positive, whereas that of a selection of rural sites was negative to level. (Temperature is in Celsius, Tmean annual compiled from half of the sum of Tmax and Tmin daily). Somehow, Phil Jones had concluded from figures similar to these that UHI was negligible in Australia, a finding that is still being quoted in 2011.

In 2004- early 2005, Warwick wrote a number of emails to CRU and WMO, which do not appear in Climategate records, but which are on file here. Some of them detail efforts by Phil Jones to stop bodies like the WMO from cooperating with Warwick. Much of his interest was in the raw data behind two papers from University of East Anglia, being –

Jones, P. D., S. C. B. Raper, T. M. L. Wigley, 1986: Southern Hemisphere Surface Air Temperature Variations: 1851–1984. J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 25, 1213–1230.

This first main paper involved an assembly of data for the USA DOE (Department of Energy) for CDIAC. (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge national Laboratories, Tennessee, USA.)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1986)025<1213:SHSATV>2.0.CO;2

The second main paper:

Jones, P.D., P.Ya. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W.-C. Wang and T.R. Karl, 1990: Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land. Nature 347, 169-172

.
This second paper dealt with data from China, Russia and Eastern Australia and it was one of the key papers promoting a stampede of thought under the Global Warming banner. It is an important paper, but it is wrong.

Warwick subsequently had the following papers published and a few more rejected, perhaps because they questioned the orthodoxy.

1992 Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, and Warwick S. Hughes. “Long-Term and Recent Anomalous Temperature Changes in Australia.” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 19, No. 23, pp. 2317-2320. [Abstract]

1995 Robert C. Balling, Jr. and Warwick S. Hughes. “Comments on “Detecting Climate Change Concurrent with Deforestation in the Amazon Basin: Which Way Has It Gone ?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 76, No. 4, 9. 559.

1995 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on D.E. Parker, “Effects of Changing Exposure of Thermometers at Land Stations.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 15, pp. 231-234.

1996 Warwick S. Hughes and Robert C. Balling, Jr. “Urban Influences on South African Temperature Trends.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 935-940. Online at [2]http://www.john-daly.com/s-africa.htm

1997 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on, “Historical Thermometer Exposures in Australia.” by N. Nichols et al. International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 17, pp. 197-199.

In year 2005, the Global Warming discussion was leading to many unscientific statements. I became involved, writing a letter to the national newspaper here. ‘The Australian’ 15 February 2006:

“THERE is an excellent argument for curbing the public statements of scientists like those from CSIRO, a former employer of mine. Scientists, like the public, cover a spectrum of beliefs, some of which are based on emotion rather than science.

An example is the selection of Australian weather recording sites used to construct the temperature measurements of the continent, which play a big part in southern hemisphere weather models. From the beginning, most sites that showed little or no temperature rise or a fall from, say, the 1880s to now were rejected. The few sites selected to represent Australia were mainly from capital cities and under suspicion for “heat island” effects. I could give example after example as it was one of my employment functions to distill the best results from the bogus on many mattersrelated to energy/greenhouse/nuclear etc. I found few truly objective submissions among those masquerading as science.” Geoffrey H Sherrington.

This created a storm, because the Climatic Age of Innocence in Australia was again under threat.

For example, http://jennifermarohasy.com/2006/03/geoff-sherrington-responds-to-chattering-class/

Also, I sent emails to Phil Jones. These are too long to reproduce in full, so later I collated them for the Climate Audit blog. The first one starts a few paragraphs down from here, datde 24 March 2006. The “missing graphs” to which I refer are those in the text just above here. The Jones+Sherrington email exchange is not in the Climategate sets. Two recurrent themes are the evasion of a direct answer by Jones; and as we shall now see, the way in which data disappear, reappear, are available, are not available, are reliable, are not reliable. This might seem like fun, but it is not like Science.

The URL ishttp://climateaudit.org/?s=Sherrington+Jones+emails

At about this time, the subject of Freedom of Information law, especially in Britain, started to become mentioned more often.

——————-

5133. 20 Jan 2005.

From Phil Jones to Tom Wigley, CRU.

On the FOI Act there is a little leaflet we have all been sent. It doesn’t really clarify what we might have to do re programs or data. Like all things in Britain we will only find out when the first person or organization asks. I wouldn’t tell anybody about the FOI Act in Britain. I don’t think UEA really knows what’s involved…..

I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean that, if someone asks for a computer program we have to give it out??

As Phil Jones warms to the subject of Freedom of Information, he seems to have learned enough to become expert in advising others:

———————-

3341. 3 Dec 2008.

Phil Jones to Tom Wigley, CRU.

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on –

CA = Climate Audit blog (Steve McIntyre). VC = Vice Chancellor

Most of the following is self-explanatory parts of emails from Climategates One and Two.

——————-

0377. 9 December 2003.

Ian “Harry” Harris, CRU programmer to Keith Briffa, CR

Aaaaaand it’s obviously not just me having trouble with it :-)
…including additional documentation, fixing of minor typos in the
descriptions of different datasets, and providing some additional
minor methodological details of the MBH98 analysis. We are also
providing the full raw instrumental University of East
Anglia/Climatic Research Unit surface temperature dataset 1854-1993
(Briffa and Jones, 1992), because CRU has since updated their surface temperature dataset, and no longer archives the version that
we used when we began our study in the mid 1990s.

Ooh! Are we being scolded?

U.

Harry had reason to be concerned. Here are selected extracts from Climategate One as reported in ‘The Daily Inquirer” newspaper on 2 Dec 2009, http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/harry-read-me-the-climategate-report/127123

Harris is a climatologist/programmer at the CRU and his “Harry Read Me” documents his efforts to update a huge statistical database (11,000 files) of important climate data between 2006 and 2009. What’s scary is Harris admits that much of the center’s data and applications are undocumented, bug-ridden, idled with holes, missing, uncatalogued and, in short, utterly worthless. Here are some of the programmer’s comments (with the page number in the parenthesis):

– “Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!” (47)
– “As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.” (57)
– “COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!” (71)
– “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah — there is no ’supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )” (98)
– “You can’t imagine what this has cost me — to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance …” (98)
– “So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option — to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations … In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad …” (98-9)
– “OH F— THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases.” (241).
– “This whole project is SUCH A MESS …” (266)

Having established some reason to doubt the accuracy of the CRU data, we turn now to the “now you see it, now you don’t” aspect. Here is my first attempt to gather data from CRU. It overlaps with Warwick’s requests. This is not in the Climategate emails, it is personal.

——————

24 March 2006:

From Geoff Sherrington to CRU.

I seek the figures which were used from Australian weather stations at the start of your climate modelling work in the 1980s. I seek to know the first set of Australia weather stations used in modelling, plus the set that was rejected and if possible, the span of data by years (or the data itself) for each of the stations considered and eventually used initially. Is it possible to obtain this information?

—————-

March 25, 2006:

From CRU to Geoff Sherrington.

Dear Geoffrey, We no longer have the Australian station date we were using in the early 1980s. At that time we had a limited network. In the 1990s, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology began issuing a lot more station data each month. Up to that time it had been about 40 stations internationally. Through contacts with personnel in Melbourne, we got access to the back data from all the new stations, so added these. In order to use temperature data, we need historic series with at least the 1961-90 base period. We now have access to over 100 stations from BoM in real time … Australia is the only country to make additional data (additional to the about 1500 exchanged by Met Services) to us in real time.

Warwick tried to get information from the USA Government. This related to the first main paper quoted above, from data collected by CRU for the US Government, who paid Phil Jones & Co on an ongoing basis. The response was negative.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?tag=phil-jones

In Oct 2005 I (Warwick Hughes) wrote to DoE CDIAC asking for the Jones et al/CRU station data and was told:

“.. Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items to CDIAC. I regret we cannot furnish the materials you seek.”

Phil Jones tells others that an Australian BOM officer is ignoring Climate Audit and Warwick Hughes.

————————-

2143. 19 June 2007.

From Phil Jones to Tom Wigley.

Just looked at the CA web site, and their latest is a real go at
the Jones et al. (1990) paper. When Wei-Chyung got the email from
Keenan he was going to Norway for a meeting. Maybe he’s back now.
It seems as though they didn’t give him much time to respond.
I have a JGR paper to review by a number of Chinese on temp trends
there. Warming looks much greater than CA would believe. They refer to a
J. Climate paper (which is either in press or resubmitted – depends where
it is referred to in the paper !) which reckons that 30-40% of the warming
there is urban related. Not keen on it being said this way, but need to
read the paper beyond the abstract and the urban section.
As for pointers, yes stress this is just USHCN and not global. Maybe
also point out that work on assessing homogeneity is best done within
the country (even if Russ doesn’t agree), so could mention Lucie re
Canada. There are apparently some Australian pictures as well on the
CA website. I had an email from David Jones of BMRC, saying they will
be ignoring anything on CA and anything from Warwick Hughes.
The other aspect to point out is that the SSTs are warming around most coasts,
and the open ocean as well, so UHIs can only be a small part of the overall
warming. There is a sentence or two on this in Ch 3, in the ES if I recall
correctly.
Could also point out that there are many totally rural sites around the world
which show strong warming.

More Acronyms

CA = Climate Audit blog.

BMRC = (Australian) Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre

SST = Surface Sea Temperature.

UHI = Urban Heat Island. (Natural temperatures artificially elevated by man-made developments near weather stations).

The puzzle deepens. Phil had the data after all!

————————–

2581. 27 February 2007.

Phil Jones to Thomas Karl NOAA USA.

I have had a request for the data from McIntyre, but I am not sending
the data. I am already tried and convicted, so there is no point
in sending them anything. I will not bother replying as well. I might
as well act as expected. They will run out of steam in a week or two
and move onto something else.
There is a clear thread running through the comments. By the way,
CRU isn’t changing any of the current data that is coming in on the
CLIMAT system, except where it is wrong. We are getting Australia
directly as their CLIMAT messages don’t calculate monthly means
as they used to pre-1994, and for a few sites in eastern Canada,
where Lucie Vincent developed homogeneous series – but adjusted
them to the pre-1960 period.

By the way, I do have the data from the study on disk! I was wise even when Steve McIntyre first requested the data many years ago. I think I could replicate the study if I had that rare commodity – time.
The penultimate paragraph of the 1990 paper was mainly written by
Tom – thanks. It even has pre-IPCC definitions of likelihood!
Neil – can you pass this on with my best wishes to Mike.

CLIMAT = a collective system of periodic climate reporting by countries under an arrangement of the World Meteorological Organization.

At this stage Phil is still sticking to his story that CRU no longer has the data sought by Hughes, Keenan (for China) and self (for Australia). Then in the Climategate Two:

—————————-

3114. March 27, 2007

From Phil Jones to Dave Palmer, FOI officer, CRU.
Subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations. request (FOI_07-13 ; EIR_07-03)

I have found all the input data for the paper from 1990. This includes the
locations of the sites and the annual temperature values. If I were to get
someone in CRU to put them on our web site, do you think that would
keep them quiet, or just spur them into more requests?
The 1990 paper data isn’t that much, just 6 small files, each of about a half
an A4 page.
My earlier email about the other request (the first one) for all our data still
stands.

Phil loses data – again. Reported in “Guardian” newspaper. 15 February, 2010.

“In an interview with the science journal Nature, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was “not acceptable” that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.

The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved, as it states in the 1990 paper, which was published in Nature. “It’s not acceptable … [it’s] not best practice,” Jones said.

I cannot understand what Phil means, as he has previously stated in 3114 , three years before, that the data are not lost.

Then we get this expose. The Australian data have a serious error in any case.

————————–

2963. 3 March 2009.

From Phil Jones John Kennedy, a Canadian official, by way of mention.

Earlier today we got an email from Australia – see below. So, Australia is still
issuing the wrong CLIMATs as far mean T is concerned.

In the files I gave you last week, all Australian data post-Nov 94 has mean T calculated the way
it should be using (Tx+Tn)/2. Using the correct data warms Australia as a
whole by +0.15C compared to what is released.

—————————

2963. 3 March 2009.

To David Jones BOM from Blair Trewin BOM Australia

Australian temperature data [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

I’ve finally had a chance to have a look at this – it turned out to be more complicated than
I thought because a change which I thought had been implemented
several years ago wasn’t.

Up until 1994 CLIMAT mean temperatures for Australia used (Tx+Tn)/2. In 1994, apparently as part of a shift to generating CLIMAT messages automatically from
what was then the new database (previously they were calculated
on-station), a change was made to calculating as the mean of all available
three-hourly observations (apparently without regard to data completeness,
which made for some interesting results in a couple of months when one
station wasn’t staffed overnight).

What was supposed to happen (once we noticed this problem in 2003 or thereabouts) was that we were going to revert to (tx+Tn)/2, for historical
consistency, and resend values from the 1994-2003 period. I have, however,
discovered that the reversion never happened.

In a 2004 paper I found that using the mean of all three-hourly observations rather
than (Tx+Tn)/2 produced a bias of approximately -0.15 C in mean
temperatures averaged over Australia (at individual stations the bias is
quite station-specific, being a function of the position of stations
(and local sunrise/sunset times) within their time zone.

Perhaps this is a good end point. It shows that CRU and some of its people were unprepared to participate in the normal conduct of science; that they tried to thwart progress; that they invented reasons to explain disarray of their data, which disappeared and reappeared episodically; that they were prepared to flaunt Freedom of Information laws; that as Harry the programmer wrote, they were prepared to fabricate data; that they were manipulative; that they were Hell-bent on pushing a cause to the extent of rejecting wise counsel.

Perhaps, in regard to the start of this article, Warwick should have asked “Are your data worth having” before he asked if he could have some. There is good case that they were wrong then; and that they are wrong now, 2 decades later.

Credits:

Besides Warwick Hughes and trivial me, there were others seeking data from CRU. The list is too long for complete mention, but several stand out. These include Steven McIntyre of Canada, whose “Climate Audit” blog shows sophisticated analytical prowess. They include Douglas Keenan, whose legal investigations of the Chinese component of Jones at al 1990 paper were most revealing; and Willis Eschenbach, whose article on the Anthony Watts blog “Watt’s Up With That?” is on somewhat similar lines to my article above. (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/an-open-letter-to-dr-phil-jones-of-the-uea-cru/ )

Willis wrote, inter alia, about Phil Jones –

“Rather than just saying that, however, you came up with a host of totally bogus reasons why you could not give me the data. Those were lies, Phil. You and David Palmer flat-out lied to my faceabout why you couldn’t send me the data.”

This makes an appropriate ending to my piece.

——————————————————————

Disclaimer: Apart from verbatim quotes by others, views expressed in this guest post are those of the author.

*Of course Sherwood Idso, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christie, Pat Michaels etc were all skeptics tackling this from professional positions at the time.

“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it,” asks the global warming “scientist.”  And the answer, of course, is “Oh, I don’t know, BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT LEGITIMATE SCIENTISTS DO!!!

Of course, “legitimate” scentists share their data so other scientists can confirm their findings.  Unlike “global warming scientists”:

“I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top (sic) pass on to others.”

[…]

“Over the last year or so, I’ve told people they can’t have the station data – go to the GHCN site and get it. I knew that avenue has been closed, but it got some of them off my back. I’m not that inclined to release it to Hughes (who Mike knows and maybe Tom). All he wants to do is to show how I’ve made some mistake or used some incorrect data for some stations.”

[…]

I have had a request for the data from McIntyre, but I am not sendingthe data. I am already tried and convicted, so there is no pointin sending them anything. I will not bother replying as well. I might
as well act as expected. They will run out of steam in a week or two and move onto something else.

Is the following a legitimate way to deal with incredibly important issues of “science”?

Jones seems to be unsure of the efficacy or legality of ways to avoid a direct answer to Warwick Hughes. Jones appears to know that he is deliberately telling people to go to a place where they will not find the answers they seek. Note the term “unfriendly format”.

An important question is whether the question:

Should I be hiding behind it too?

is the kind of question any legitmate scientist representing any kind of legitimate field ought to ask?

Then we go from Phil Jones not wanting to share his “data” to refusing to share his “data” to finally claiming he lost his “data”:

“In an interview with the science journal Nature, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was “not acceptable” that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.

The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved, as it states in the 1990 paper, which was published in Nature. “It’s not acceptable … [it’s] not best practice,” Jones said.

Oh, well, I guess we’ve got no choice but to accept their conclusions and spend the $76 trillion the United Nations says we need to spend.  All liberals and Democrats shall henceforth reduce themselves to abject poverty paying for this boondoggle first.

I thought the end was nice, too, as LEGITIMATE scienstist Willis Eschenbach concludes to the total abject lying fraud named Phil Jones:

“Rather than just saying that, however, you came up with a host of totally bogus reasons why you could not give me the data. Those were lies, Phil. You and David Palmer flat-out lied to my faceabout why you couldn’t send me the data.”

This is an excellent piece that just damns these false prophets (because the term “scientist” is a category fallacy with these frauds) with their own words.

It gets real good as you get to the part where the global warming “scientists” chat amongs themselves:

– “Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!” (47)
– “As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.” (57)
– “COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!” (71)
– “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah — there is no ’supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )” (98)
– “You can’t imagine what this has cost me — to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance …” (98)
– “So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option — to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations … In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad …” (98-9)
– “OH F— THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases.” (241).
– “This whole project is SUCH A MESS …” (266)

Well, shoot.  Al Gore says it’s true, and he won a Nobel Peace Prize for SCIENCE.

It doesn’t matter if that man is an abject scientific fraud, too.

“Global warming” was bogus, so they called it “climate change” as if changing the name would change the fact that it is bogus by ANY name.

Not only is global warming a religion, but it is a religion that is so pathologically stupid and dishonest the priests purged their own sacred texts rather than submit them to critics.

I would suggest that you click on the article link and read it there as the formatting is better than my copy/paste.

Advertisements

75 Facts Showing Global Warming Is Psuedo-Science

February 25, 2010

Josh Fulton has this excellent refutation of global warming on his blog.  I suggest going to his site, because there is additional information contained in the comments to the article.

75 reasons to be skeptical of “global warming”


* Carbon dioxide contributes to only 4.2 – 8.4% of the greenhouse gas effect

* Only approximately 4% of carbon dioxide is man-made

* Water vapor accounts for 90 – 95% of the green house gas effect


* 99.99% of water vapor is natural, meaning that no amount of deindustrialization could get rid of it

* There have been many times when the temperature has been higher than it is now including the Medieval Warming Period, the Holocene, the Jurassic, and the Eemian

* Increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature by about 800 years, not precede them

* Phil Jones of the Hadley CRU, and key figure in the “climategate” scandal, admits that there has been no “statistically significant” global warming since 1995

* 2008 and 2009 were the coolest two years of the decade

* During the Ordovician period carbon dioxide concentrations were twelve times what they are now, and the temperature was lower

* Solar activity is highly correlated with temperature change:

* Studies show that half of all recent warming was solar

* Mars has warmed about 0.5°C since the 1970’s, approximately the same that earth has warmed over the same period

* The 0.7°C increase in temperatures over the last century is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends


* The distance between Earth and Sun changes every year, affecting the amount of energy the earth receives

* Earth’s tilt oscillates between 21.4° and 24.8°, which affects the distribution of the sun’s energy

* Dr. Roy Spencer has written that clouds have been a more important driver of climate than carbon dioxide since 2000

* Approximately 40% of the uncertainty in temperature projections come from uncertainty in the strength of the “feedback loop” between temperature and carbon dioxide. Recent research suggests the “feedback loop” is less than half as strong than many had presumed

* James Hansen of NASA said in a simulation of temperatures from 1880 to 2000 soot accounted for 25% of observed global warming

* Research suggests that soot could have nearly as much impact on climate change as carbon dioxide

* Antarctica has 90% of earth’s ice and it is growing

* Arctic sea ice has returned to 1979 levels, which is when records began

* The Arctic ice caps have recovered from their loss in 2007

* The Arctic is now 1°C cooler than it was in the 1940’s

* Polar bear populations are increasing

* Polar bears are able to swim over 60 miles continuously

* Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher than it is now while carbon dioxide levels were lower

* A chart of sea level change over millions of years looks like this:



* According to satellite data, sea level has been decreasing since 2005

* Instead of hurting forests, the increased level of carbon dioxide has been helping them grow

* The official “record” for temperatures only goes back 150 years

* Although the IPCC may have 2500 members, only approximately 800 contribute to the scientific writing of the report

* Only 52 scientists contributed to the 2007 IPCC summary for policy makers, although diplomats from over 115 countries contributed

* Only 20% of the members of the IPCC deal with climate science

* Head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri has no background in climate science. His PhD is in economics and he worked as a railway engineer before becoming head of the IPCC

* Former IPCC lead author Ben Santer openly admits that he altered portions of the 1995 IPCC report to make them “consistent with the other chapters”

* John Christy, former lead author on the 2001 IPCC report, speaks of his former co-lead authors deliberately trying to sensationalize the report

*Richard Lindzen, another lead author on the 2001 IPCC report, accused the IPCC of being “driven by politics”

* Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, which was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC report, was created using only portions of a data set. The red line is the graph of Mann’s selected data, while the black line is the graph of all the data:


* When asked to act as an expert reviewer on the IPCC’s last two reports, Dr. Nils Axel-Morner was “astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist”

* Until 2003, the IPCC’s satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend in sea level, so they used an increase of 2.3mm in one Hong Kong tide-gauge to adjust the entire global sea level up 2.3mm

* The IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers were melting was based off of a phone interview with a non-scientist. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC claim that global warming was led to increased natural disasters was based on an unpublished report that had not been subject to peer-review. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC’s claim that global warming was going to lead to deficiencies of up to 50% in African agriculture was based on a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC’s claim that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” was based on a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC reported that 55% of the Netherlands was below sea level when just 26% of the country is below sea level. They were later forced to retract the claim

* According to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHNC,) 90% of US climate-monitoring surface stations have been found to be “poorly situated,” meaning that they have a margin of error greater than 1°C, more than the global warming in the entire 20th century. (The US surface data is generally considered the best surface data in the world):



* Many climate-monitoring surface stations are in locations that look like this:

* Temperature measurements from climate-monitoring surface stations are collected by hand. At one surface station in California, Anthony Watts found that only data from 14 out of 31 days had been completed in a month

* If a surface station is missing data for a particular day, data from surrounding surface stations is used to fill-in. Since 90% of all surface stations are poorly situated, even if a surface station itself is not poorly situated, if its data is missing for a day, there is a very good chance its temperature will be calculated using data from surface stations that are poorly situated

* In April 1978, there were 6,000 climate-monitoring surface stations. There are now about 1,200

* The vast majority of climate-monitoring stations that were lost were rural ones, which have been shown to give the most accurate data:


* The raw data is “adjusted” by a computer program. The net effect of this “adjustment” has been to increase the “adjusted” numbers over the “raw” numbers by .5°F, an increase that has been growing year by year:


* Difference between the USHCN “raw” data (in blue) and NASA “homogenized” data (in red):

* According to a leaked email in “climategate,” “temperatures in Darwin [a monitoring station in Australia] were falling at 0.7 Celsius per century […]but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celsius per century. […][W]hen those guys “adjust,” they don’t mess around.”

* According to a leaked email in “climategate,” computer programmer Harry Harris called the CRU data set “hopeless,” and said “the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. […]This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!”

* When looking at source code leaked in “climategate” used to “process” and “adjust” temperatures, software engineer John Graham-Cumming said he found at least five errors and “wouldn’t trust it”

* The Hadley CRU, the institution at the center of the “climategate” scandal, threw out original temperature data because it claimed it did not have “storage space”

* In 1990, Dr. Phil Jones, the man at the center of the “climategate” scandal, contributed to a paper arguing that the effect of urban warming in eastern China was “negligible.” This became a key reference source for the IPCC. It turns out that 49 of the 84 climate-monitoring stations used for this report had no history of their locations or other details. This included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had “certainly been moved” during the study period, including one that was moved five times over a total distance of 41 km. When Jones “re-examined” data in the same area for a 2008 paper, he found that urbanization was responsible for 40% of the warming found from 1951 to 2004

* Ross McKitrick and Patrick Michaels have argued that half of the global warming trend from 1980 to 2002 is caused by urban warming

* The Hadley CRU has been accused of using data from just 25% of Russia’s surface stations, deliberately overstating Russia’s warming by .64°C between the 1870’s and 1990’s

* According to emails leaked in “climategate,” when “Climate Research” published articles by global warming skeptics, Phil Jones and others urged scientists to “stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal”

* William Connolly, a Wikipedia administrator and co-founder of Realclimate.org, a website that supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming, “touched” over 5,400 Wikipedia articles, routinely omitting voices that were skeptical of global warming

* Large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years

* This is a picture of what Britain looked like in the summer of 2009 when its sophisticated climate “supercomputer” had predicted a “barbeque summer”:

* The US government spends over $2.5B funding climate research every year, and over $7B when grants for technology, tax breaks, and foreign aid are included (this is while Exxon gave $22M to global warming skeptics over a 10 year period)

* Many scientist assert that government grant money is given preferentially to advocates of man-made global warming

* Bart Chilton, a CFTC commissioner, said “carbon markets could be worth $2 trillion in transaction value – […]within five years of trading (starting). […]That would make it the largest physically traded commodity in the US, surpassing even oil”

* The owners of the trading floor where the carbon credits will be traded, including Goldman Sachs and Al Gore, stand to earn trillions if cap-and-trade is passed


* The cap-and-trade bill allows the government police powers to come into your home and inspect it for “energy efficiency,” and to fine you every day your home is not compliant

* Australian homes now have to undergo a mandatory energy-efficiency assessment – costing up to $1500 per property – before they can be sold or rented under new laws to tackle carbon emissions

* UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has called for “global governance structure” to monitor greenhouse gases, which everyone on the planet emits with every exhale

* The United Nations forecasts that the global population will rise, peak and then decline between 2050 and 2300 to just under 9 billion

* Despite proclamations that there is a “consensus” and the debate is “settled,” 18% of scientists surveyed in the last poll trying to discern scientific opinion do not believe in man-made global warming

* 45% of Americans think global warming is man-made, down 9% from just half a year earlier

* In the court case Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills, a British judge ruled that there were nine “inaccuracies” in An Inconvenient Truth, including Gore’s claim that sea level could rise by up to 20 ft. The IPCC’s own report predicted a maximum rise of 59cm in sea level over 100 years. The Science and Public Policy Institute has taken issue with thirty five of Gore’s claims in An Inconvenient Truth

* Al Gore bought a $4M condo feet from ocean in Fisherman’s Wharf, San Fransisco, a city he had explicitly warned about in An Inconvenient Truth

Hmm, well, that’s suspicious, but I suppose that doesn’t matter if he tells us it’s alright.

I have a couple of articles that are now several months old, but which report information contained in the incredible book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

Global Warming ‘Scientists’ Admit Purging Their Raw Data

November 30, 2009

This is what a massive scientific hoax looks like.

November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

“Trust us.”  That’s what it all boils down to.

Silly me, but I thought “science” was supposed to amount to something more than that.

Here’s your bottom line: global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it, is a load of nonsense.  And the only anthropogenic or “man-made” problem is the giant sack of lies that an elitist group of pseudo-scientific ideologues  sold us.

One of the emails simply demonstrates what patently bad “science” global warming has been in the first place.  At its core, science is an endeavor which predicts a certain measurable outcome, and then attempts to determine whether that prediction is verified in nature according to a fair, open, and repeatable process.  Global warming isn’t even close to being science by the very standards of science:

At the end of 2008, the scientists at East Anglia predicted that 2009 would be one of the warmest years on record:

On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4∞C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 ∫ C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.

We know now that the alarmists’ prediction for 2009 didn’t come true.

But bad science wasn’t all these global warming alarmists were guilty of.  They were also guilty of making skeptics of their bogus man-caused global warming alarmism modern versions of Galileo (I’ve previously written about this chilling development in postmodernized academia to punish politically “incorrect” academics and scientists).  They used the peer-review process as an ideological club to attack and undermine fellow scientists rather than using it as a means to get at the truth:

Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”,“misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain.

The emails include deliberations amongst the scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include their own research and exclude that of dissenting scientists.

In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

This is a startling quote, given that Jones and Mann as climate scientists have the authority to review papers and determine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals.

Mann even discussed how to destroy a journal that had published papers with contrary views, telling his colleagues that he believed it had been “hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board” who had “staged a coup”.

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann wrote.

One article, entitled, how “The Alarmists Do “Science:” A Case Study,” describes just “one of many exchanges that shed light on the priority that the global warming alarmists give to politics and career advancement over science.”  The author provides a fairly lengthy segment of an email conversation that is frankly chilling.

Another article compiles emails under the title, “When In Doubt, Delete,” that documents a pattern of deceptive behavior by people who called themselves “scientists” and yet were more interested in destroying evidence than producing and preserving it.

There are so many emails to go over no single article can do so, but here’s a few tidbits:

From a Powerline article entitled, “Global Warming Bombshell“:

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized “blip” in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, 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 the land 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”.

This and many other emails convey the impression that these theorists are making the “science” up as they go along, with data being manipulated until it yields the results that have been predetermined by political conviction.

One email from Phil Jones is particularly damning about “scientists” making up their own version of “science” in order to sell an ideology:

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] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

A RealClearPolitics article entitled, “ClimateGate: The Fix Is In” explains what the “trick” is:

Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the “trick” consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature “proxies” from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward “hockey stick” slope.

A “trick” to “hide the decline.”  And these demagogues call US “deniers.”

As loathsome of a collection of frauds as our global warming “scientists” have proven to be, they don’t hold a candle to the mainstream media propagandists who made this colossal hoax possible in the first place – and who are still trying to conceal the fraud even now.

Barack Obama is going to go to Copenhagen to sign some pathologically insane economy-destroying accord because he is a true believer in the religion of liberalism.

And that is what global warming has now been proven to be: a religion.  It is an ideology advanced by religious fanatics.  This latest admission proves they have no raw data; they have no “science”; all they have is a rabid faith commitment that their own self-created narratives must be true because they believe it is true.