Here’s a nice summary of the significant contents of the email dump. Regardless of the validity of the science, these people have thoroughly discredited themselves, and given AGW skeptics a vast arsenal. Thankfully, this is going to make it much more difficult for the warm-mongers to implement their anti-free-market agenda. I suspect that if cap’n’tax wasn’t already dead in the Senate, it will be now.
[Update mid afternoon]
Powerline has been going through the emails. The picture that emerges is not that of scientists seeking truth, but of partisans, protecting (at the least) their own pet theory, and possibly a broader agenda as well, at the expense of truth and the reputations of anyone who dares to question them..
[Sunday morning update]
When in doubt, delete:
These emails appear to show that, when faced with a legitimate request under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, these global warming alarmists preferred to delete their emails with one another about the crucially important IPCC report–the main basis for the purported “consensus” in favor of anthropogenic global warming–rather than allow them to come to light. This is one of many instances in the East Anglia documents where the global warming alarmists act like a gang of co-conspirators rather than respectable scientists.
I don’t think it’s an act.
I’d like to get some idea of the influence that this group had on climate science. I know they had good connections and influence with the Blair administration in the UK. They also seem to own completely the historical global weather records. Past that, I wonder what parts of climate science they might have distorted.
Also, I wonder how much this malfeasance extends to others in the general climate science community. There seems to be some statements by outsiders in this email log.
You can read things like this http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm detailing the alleged “destroying” of the journal that is being so talked about here.
I guess they were trying to prevent crap from being published so they wouldn’t have to fight it later. It didn’t work of course, and that study has been cited even though the editor saw it really should not have been published as it was so flawed.
This email thingy is just another case in a long line of “shocking revelations” that really amount to little things… Good for posturing on blogs like this.
It’s sad that libertarians and republicans have concentrated on denying the science instead of creating better policy.
We need to bring back the Beatles “Back in the U-S-S-R” song as a parody of the British “I’m Backing the UK” campaign.
That song worked on a number of levels. A parody of “Back in the USA” and “California Girls”, it riffed off the coarse Western stereotype of the Soviet Union, and played into the simple notion of rough-looking Soviet peasant women as a satire of the smooth American women celebrated by the Beach Boys. But Lennon’s lyric “Back in the U-S, back in the U-S, back in the U-S-S-R!” perhaps subversively suggested a kind of moral equivalence between America and the common stereotypes of the Soviets, perhaps insinuating that American social repression had some parallel, however remote, in Soviet political repression.
Not being off topic here, just suggesting that the Global Warming sanctimony unveiled in the UK requires some manner of parody song.
“It’s sad that libertarians and republicans have concentrated on denying the science instead of creating better policy.”
In other words: “Who are you going to believe? Me or your own lying eyes!”
Now Mike, don’t feed the trolls.
“This email thingy is just another case in a long line of “shocking revelations” that really amount to little things… Good for posturing on blogs like this.”
Goodness gracious, posturing about what amount to little things? In what I do I could lose my job over any one of those things. A colleague of mine didn’t lose his job, but he was shut out of future grant funding for something that didn’t even rise to the level of one of those remarks.
Maybe I don’t know how to explain this. The whole enterprise of the “ivy halls of Academe”, the “social contract” of those “up in the Ivory Tower” is that when a scientist flaps their arms in one of those ultra-condensed page-limited articles in Science or Nature, their statements and assertions are taken on trust. No Inspector General comes along wanting to “audit” your lab records and procedures, if you say you performed a given procedure and got a certain result, people take your word for it, that is, until something like this comes along.
Science is conducted on the “honor system”, and when someone commits and “honor violation”, that is a procedural violation of the Code that to lay people looks like some technicality that amounts “to little things”, it is a big, big thing.
But then again, I person in my position would have also lost their job over what Mr. Clinton had going on with Ms. Lewinsky, and I would have lost my job over a specific policy put into place by Mr. Clinton’s HHS Secretary. A Republican “elder statesman” friend of mine, however, someone you would consider to be a “Babbitt” suggested that the Republicans take a chill-pill about impeachment, he was way right and I was way wrong.
That these revelations “amount to little things” is strong evidence that Global Warming is all politics with just an odor of science about it.
Paul, you don’t address my point at all.
The quotes of emails didn’t show anything obviously damning to me at first look (I’ve only investigated some claims). A “-gate” seems to be made from everything nowadays. You get more audience with scandals.
Some scientists were advocating against the publication of an incorrect paper. This was documented in 2003 already, in the link I provided in my first post.
Someone wanted to punch someone. I’m certain many doctors would want to punch alternative medicine types, whose so called treatments result in patients suffering, even dying. But you make so good money selling that stuff! Just like writing papers with fossil fuel grants, like Pat Michaels. Distributed via think tanks of course. Pays much better than jobs in any government universities or labs*. Back in the olden days there were scientists and doctors employed by tobacco companies as well. Actually many of the same institutions are used today by the fossil fuel companies to do similar disinformation campaigns.
There are thousands of pseudoscience quaks out there. AIDS is not caused by HIV is another stupid meme pushed by many. If someone writes an incorrect paper supporting that view, it could cause damage, especially if used as evidence by a government with vested interest in it. So one should carefully review those papers. If the paper is correct, then of course it would be important and interesting and should be published.
I’m all for more open data and algorithms though, be it temperature reconstructions or climate models. The FOI request things look to me the most serious of the allegations that could have potential merit here, the rest seems quite irrelevant.
*)
Here’s a direct quote from a leaked Intermountain Rural Electric Association memo from 2006 :
“Dr Michaels has been supported by electric cooperatives in the past and also receives financial support from other sources … In February of this year IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels.”
The outrage displayed at Transterrestrial Musings regarding these leaks is noted…
The outrage displayed at Transterrestrial Musings regarding these leaks is noted…
What “outrage” have I displayed about any leaks on the subject of climate change?
And as the e-mails make clear, a lot of them (Mann, Jones, etc.) are pretending to be climate “scientists”.
“The outrage displayed at Transterrestrial Musings regarding these leaks is noted…”
And will go on your permanent record.
I’m so far unconvinced on AGW – but in objective analyses of this recent release of emails and data, I’m also unconvinced that this is anything close to a smoking gun, and may end up being much ado about nothing. And, regardless of the causes for climate change, there are plenty of good reasons we ought to be “cleaning up our act.”
The quotes of emails didn’t show anything obviously damning to me at first look (I’ve only investigated some claims).
gravityloss, there are two actions hinted at in the emails that at least are criminal activities. First, destroying data so that you don’t have to comply with a (UK) freedom of information request. Second, tax evasion in Russia. When you add in numerous remarks about distorting or eliminating data in order to influence policies that can have effects in the trillions of dollars, that strikes me as a profound warning that we should heed. Maybe they don’t actually do the things they mention in these emails. But if they did these things, it’s an assault on the whole of society not just the practice of science.
Not only libertarians and republicans should be outraged. Everyone should be.
Then there are the scientific ethical lapses that are openly discussed. The discussions of ways to make the data fit the conclusions. The withholding of data that might provide support for alternate hypotheses. And the subverting of the peer review process by mounting vendettas against publications and editorial board members with differing viewpoints. These are not the actions of open-minded, dispassionate seekers of The Truth, but politcal/religious fanatics defending the One True Faith.
The people involved in this, matter what the outcome of Global Climate Warming Change debate, should never be believed or trusted ever again. Those that cite them as a source or an authority should themselves be considered suspect (or just stupid). A whole body of evidence has been tainted, and if this were a legal proceeding, it would all have to be thrown out and the perp acquitted. These pseudo-scientists, these modern Lysenkoists, have just made making the case for Algore’s dreamworld harder, and for that, we “deniers” should give thanks.
The fruits of centralized public funding of science.
Just as large corporations will only give scientific grants to research that is favorable to the corporation, government bureaucracies and their MSM/University subsidiaries will only give scientific grants to research that is favorable to the expansion of their power and stipends. Decentralized private funding from multiple independent sources is a solution that can strengthen the reliability of the peer review process.
Ageed.
We need a seperation between Science and State.
Gravityloss, you imply that the $100,000 to Dr. Michaels was a personal payment to him, as in direct income. No question, that’s the conclusion we are expected to draw from your reference.
For what specific purposes was the money given to him? What use did he make of it? And if any money given by a third party to any scientist is to be seen as personal income, how does someone like James Hansen compare to Pat Michaels with regards to annual income from such sources?
Nevermind, I’m sure that I can guess the answer – Pat Michaels is an evil profiteer off the evil ooooiiiiiilll companies, while James Hansen is a noble, selfless monk serving the cause of science with unimpeachable objectivity. (snort)
What gravityloss and his ilk are trying to do is to destroy the opposition to the global warming church, by incrementally defunding it. Make research grants from oil companies, then power companies, then car companies, down the list through any and all industries, so completely toxic to any independent-minded scientist who takes his reputation and integrity seriously that they won’t touch them for fear of the mere perception that their work is somehow biased by association. If it works, the smear campaign will deny any meaningful funding from sources other than those (like Al Gore’s crowd, Tides Foundation, other Progressive-aligned groups) with an interest in skewing the result to a politically useful end.
Pretty clever strategy!
“The quotes of emails didn’t show anything obviously damning to me at first look (I’ve only investigated some claims). A “-gate” seems to be made from everything nowadays. You get more audience with scandals.”
I trust your job responsibilities don’t include submission of scientific findings for peer-review, participation in peer-review as a reviewer or journal editor, and you have never been an investigator on a Federal research grant?
A remark about how to “hide the decline” is about as damning as any remark that could ever be attributed to a scientist. Commonly in a “scientific integrity” investigation, there is never such a direct self-admission from an investigator — the evidence is commonly “too good to be true” data over which hired-gun stats people pore over to find support for the notion of fabrication or perhaps an accusation from a “rival or underling with an axe to grind.”
I sure as anything did “address the point.” If this is politics, what is uncovered in the e-mails is standard operating procedure in this day and age and would not rate-a-gate as a scandal. If this is supposed to be science, it is poison. Certainly to the parties involved, maybe not to the AGW Hypothesis, but it will give critics and skeptics more confidence, and evidence for AGW will have to come from other avenues.
But perhaps science has become politics, and then yes, the e-mails are completely unremarkable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyKUblhXJw8
Of course at first you argue with the substance.
But after a while of whack-a-mole playing with wrong stuff popping up left and right, it gets obvious that there’s a reason why the think tank “science” is crap – because the results that are ordered by the funding companies are at odds with reality. Just like with tobacco. That’s why the Royal Society said to Exxon that they should stop funding this misinformation.
Of course government or any science isn’t totally faultless or pure. At least it’s better to publish in journals with review, and make the work open and reproducable.
Any tries to play up some symmetry, companies vs government research, in this situation is ridiculous.
gravityloss said:
Denying human nature is ridiculous.
Here’s moldbug’s take on centralized public funding of science.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/ur-is-on-vacation.html
This really supports the models of Thomas Kuhn on how science actually works. Spock and Holmes would be very disappointed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/21/cru-emails-search-engine-now-online/
The above is a searchable database of all of the emails, set up in Russia.
Latter-day samitzdat — we live in interesting times.
@Dennis Wingo: gravityloss and his friends must be very happy with that.
Of course government or any science isn’t totally faultless or pure. At least it’s better to publish in journals with review, and make the work open and reproducable.
Even better, as some of these emails show, is to make sure only people you know agree with you are allowed onto those journals editorial boards. Make sure you only publish in venues where you will get favorable treatment, and that those same venues will prevent those who disagree with you from having the same access. That’s the scandal here, and you seem totally (if not willfully) oblivious to it.
What these emails show is that you should be careful what you say in email. You never know where it’ll end up.
This reminds me of those PETA “hidden-camera exposés” of animal testing facilities. Take a few comments out of context, claim that it’s “damning evidence”, and it’s easy to mislead people who want to be mislead.
Looks like gravityloss ran away after I called him out on his ridiculous denial of human nature. His name should be “brainloss” instead of “gravityloss”.
Maybe it’s just me, but does it seem that every time there’s a big Obama/Democrat agenda issue raised on this board that someone pops up to to take the Obama line? And they’re not the normal snark monster species of troll but the “Mr. Reasonable” debater type.
There were reports of the Obamabots recruiting paid responders to lay the party line on libertarian/conservative blogs. Who knows, perhaps this blog is getting a sort of backhanded benefit of some stimulous funds.
They can’t predict the weather 3 days forward and I’m supposed to take their temperature predictions for the next century for granted? I never put much faith in these global warming scare mongers.
That they subverted the peer review publishing process is the most damning evidence to those in the scientific establishment there can be, closely followed by them fitting the data to the results instead of the other way around. They speak of ruining other people’s careers in there. They operate like a cartel. I certainly hope these people get banished after this.
Godzilla, not that I’m defending these guys, but there’s a big difference between weather and climate. Namely the scale at which you’re making the prediction. It may be easier to predict general statistical properties (like global average temperature) years in advance than to predict the weather three days out.
Karl:
I still remember climatologists warning us of the impending doom from the next ice age. Because global temperatures were going down. Now it’s global warming. Well, I suppose if they keep randomly spouting off every possibility, eventually they are going to get something right.
We have to remember that the climatologists of the 70’s had little clue. They’re better now, but obviously need a lot of work (and to get rid of the shysters in their midst).
Actually, now that I think of it, there are some random phenomena that will throw off any climate predictions, solar changes (which we have no real clue how to predict) and volcanic eruptions.
The interesting question in all of this is whether any of this manipulated data has been used as supporting evidence in legislative and/or regulatory processes. If so, it should be grounds for overturning some of the resultant rulemaking. In particular I am thinking of the EPA finding that CO2 is a “pollutant” and can be regulated as such.
Couple of things:
And, regardless of the causes for climate change, there are plenty of good reasons we ought to be “cleaning up our act.” WHS.
Godzilla, actually the 70s Ice Age stuff was a media event based on limited data that the then climate scientists didn’t even really agree on.
William Hyde, regular web posted and long term climate scientist mentions it from time to time.
Perhaps we could start focusing on Climate Change, which we certainly appear to be in the middle of – record rainfall in the UK, Pacific NorthWest having the 6th winter storm hit in 3 weeks blah blah…
Leaching carbon out of hydrocarbons and dumping it in the atmosphere is dumb whether you agree with AGW or not. We need more nuclear power, more solar, more efficient vehicles etc… if nothing else but to reduce our dependancy on unstable geographies and potential enemies.
Deja vu!
Yes, another one of those things we dam yankees can’t seem to get right, except this one would actually be helpful. Again, it’s the Left’s fault — their “no nukes” agitprop spread to power generation, not just warheads. On the bright side: eventually those drones will die off. 🙂
McGehee, the difference then was you didn’t find many actual climate scientists agreeing with it. There’s a much wider consensus now.
William Hyde (3rd comment on this page: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/remember_when_right-wingers_di.php) is usually pretty reasoned on that topic.
Here’s a full breakdown of the myth itself: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/10/the_great_global_cooling_myth.html
Godzilla, actually the 70s Ice Age stuff was a media event based on limited data that the then climate scientists didn’t even really agree on.
This is a myth perpetuated by the likes of Mike Mann. Read H.H. Lamb’s book on the subject, first published in the 70’s. He provided a wealth of peer reviewed research indicating that we were headed toward the tipping point into another ice age.
The book’s title is “The Climate History of the Modern World”. It is available on abe.com
The interesting question in all of this is whether any of this manipulated data has been used as supporting evidence in legislative and/or regulatory processes. If so, it should be grounds for overturning some of the resultant rulemaking. In particular I am thinking of the EPA finding that CO2 is a “pollutant” and can be regulated as such.
It has. The Hockey Stick climate reconstruction is one such piece of crap.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
Now I see the CRU has published a paper stating that they expect a 6C rise in temperature (based as far as I can tell by extrapolating a few years of economic growth by China) by the end of the century. The hack has an interesting timing.
Here is an interesting article by Steve MacIntyre regarding the time of the whistleblower data dump.
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/
Here’s the fundamental problem: The best “smoking gun” in these emaisl is one email relating to changing one piece of data. Moreover, the data that’s being changed – tree rings – is the least critical data, and it’s being changed for the present era – where we don’t need tree rings because we can look at a thermometer.
the other “smoking guns” are scientists being pissy about non-climatologists questioning them and trying to decide if the data requested is subject to the UK Freedom of Information Act.
Nothing in the emails refutes the vast bulk of the data or the conclusions obtained.
Here is an interesting email regarding potential tax fraud.
Original Filename: 826209667.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: “Tatiana M. Dedkova”
To: K.Briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: schijatov
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:41:07 +0500
Dear Keith, March 6, 1996
I and Eugene received your E-mail of 04.03.1996. This day I talked
over the telephone with Eugene and he asked me to send an answer from
both of us.
Thank you for the information concerning proposals to the
INCO/COPERNICUS. We agree with your strategy used and we hope
that this proposal will not be rejected.
The results of INTAS-RFBR proposal will be known at the beginning
of May. We know that they received many proposals and a competition
is high (only 1 in 10 proposals might get money). Of course, you
included in as a participant. Fritz is a coordinator from the INTAS
countries.
This year our laboratory received two small grants (approximately
8,000-10,000 USD per year) from the Russian Foundation of Basic
Researches (RFBR) for the next three years: the first one for
developing the Yamal supra-long chronology and the second one for
developing tree-ring chronologies from living trees growing at the
polar timberline in Siberia (together with Vaganov’s laboratory).
These money are very important for us as they will allow to maintain
the staff of our laboratories.
I and Valery Mazepa were in Krasnoyarsk during one month and
together with E.Vaganov wrote the manuscript of book “Dendroclimatic
Studies in the Ural-Siberian Subarctic”. The problem now is to find
money for its publication. If we find enough money soon (20 million
roubles), the book will be published this autumn. We analysed 61 mean
ring-width and 6 cell chronologies which we intend to publish in form
of tables in the Appendix. We can send to you all raw measurements
which were used for developing these chronologies.
Of course, we are in need of additional money, especially for
collecting wood samples at high latitudes and in remote regions.
The cost of field works in these areas is increased many times
during the last some years. That is why it is important for us
to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE
and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer
the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier
and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day)
will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid
big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please,
inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must
represent you and your administration for these money.
I and Eugene have a possibility to participate in the Cambridge
meeteng in July, but we need extra many and special invitations.
If you do not have enough money to invite both of us, Eugene does
not insist upon this visit.
The best wishes to you and Phil.
Yours sincerely Stepan Shiyatov
Here is another one where a solar influence was found, but never reported.
Original Filename: 839635440.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: John Daly
To: n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Climatic warming in Tasmania
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 20:04:00 +1100
Cc: Ed Cook , NNU-NB@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Mike Barbetti , zetterberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rjf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Neville,
You mentioned to me some time ago that in your view, the 11-year solar cycle
did not influence temperature. There have been numerous attempts by
academics to establish a correlation, but each has been shot down on some
ground or other. I remember Barrie Pittock was especially dismissive of
attempts to correlate solar cycle with temperature.
Have you tried this approach?
Load “Mathematica” into your PC and run the following set of instructions –
data = ReadList[ “c:sydney.txt”, Number]
dataElements = Length[data]
X = ListPlot[ data, PlotJoined-> True];
fourierTrans = Fourier[data];
ListPlot[Abs[fourierTrans], PlotJoined -> True];
fitfun1 = Fit[data,{1,x,x^2,x^3,Sin[11 2 Pi x/dataElements],
Cos[11 2 Pi x/dataElements]},x];
fittable = Table[N[fitfun1], {x, dataElements}];
Y = ListPlot[fittable, PlotJoined -> True];
Show[X, Y]
The reference to “c:sydney.txt” is a suggested pathname for the following
set of data – which is Sydney’s annual mean temperature.
16.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.4
17.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.1
16.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.4
17.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.5
17.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.4
17.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.8
18.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.4
17.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.1
18.6
So Far so good.
“Mathematica” first plots out the data itself (see Atachment 1)
The first part of the instruction set lets “mathematica” do a Fourier Transform
on the data, ie. searching out the periodicities, if there are any. The result is
shown on Attachment 2.
The transform result shows a sharp spike at the 11 year point (I wonder
what is significant about 11 years?). The second part of the instructions
now acts upon this observed spike (the Cos 11 bit), to extract it’s
waveform from the rest of the noise. The result is shown as a waveform
in attachment 3, the waves having an 11-year period, with the long-term
Sydney warming easily evident.
Attachment 4 shows the original Sydney data overlaid against the 11-year
periodicity.
It would appear that the solar cycle does indeed affect temperature.
(I tried the same run on the CRU global temperature set. Even though CRU
must be highly smoothed by the time all the averages are worked out, the
11-year pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of Sydneys).
Stay cool.
John Daly http://www.vision.net.au/~daly
Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachSydney.gif
Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachFourier.gif
Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachSolar1.gif
Attachment Converted: c:eudoraattachSolar2.gif
Another interesting email.
Original Filename: 843161829.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Keith,
Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central
and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I’ll send
it to you.
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk
something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm
what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating
the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought
at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation
even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle
the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just
are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I’ll have
to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.
Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I’d be
optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time
collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.
Yeah, I doubt I’ll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I’d like
to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably
someday though.
Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
phone: (5xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: (5xxx xxxx xxxx
e-mail: gary@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dennis Wingo – yes, there are people arguing that solar cycles are influencing global warming. You will note from your email that Daly is showing pulses in the existing data supporting global warming. In other words, the warming is not completely linear, which a casual look at any of the climate graphs will show.
Regarding the Russian email – I have no expertise in Russian tax law. I see somebody for whom English is clearly not their first language asking for money to do research. I don’t see what that email does to “prove” that their data is wrong.
Wikipedia articles that do or should record this event in a neutral and balanced manner, with journalist-written sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Godzilla @November 22nd, 2009 at 7:15 am
A good read is P.J O’Rourke’s All the Trouble in the World, published in 1994. In it, he recounts periodic newspaper articles from the past century claiming that the globe is alternately warming or cooling dangerously. The common feature is that the culprit is always human industrial activity, and even though they got it wrong last time, they are much more knowledgeable now and are certain of the current prognosis.
Chris Gerrib @ November 22nd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“You will note from your email that Daly is showing pulses in the existing data supporting global warming. In other words, the warming is not completely linear, which a casual look at any of the climate graphs will show.”
Have you ever done Fourier analysis? Never mind, I know the answer.