Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud

"Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

"Jeff's argument on LeBron James' failures in the NBA finals aren't worth reading, everyone knows he is a "LeBron" hater."

"What Ted Kaczynski[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski"][/ame] wrote about boundary conditions in mathematics is shown false due to his crimes"

 

There is another email supoena case ongoing; entirely unrelated to climate change research. You may have heard of it?

From the man at the center of the storm:

Scholar as Citizen

and I will quote one paragraph here. Written by the university's lawyer, it defend s communication privacy as a benefit to the university and to academia at large. In the instance of Michael Mann, that might be balanaced or tested against evidence (or faint scent?) of fraud.

" Intellectual communications among scholars. Faculty members like Professor Cronon often use e-mail to develop and share their thoughts with one another. The confidentiality of such discussions is vital to scholarship and to the mission of this university. Faculty members must be afforded privacy in these exchanges in order to pursue knowledge and develop lines of argument without fear of reprisal for controversial findings and without the premature disclosure of those ideas. The consequence for our state of making such communications public will be the loss of the most talented and creative faculty who will choose to leave for universities that can guarantee them the privacy and confidentiality that is necessary in academia. For these reasons, we have concluded that the public interest in intellectual communications among scholars as reflected in Professor Cronon’s e-mails is outweighed by other public interests favoring protection of such communications."

I liked that paragraph Anyway I am sure that the University of Virginia folks are already aware of it.

With all the drama surrounding climate change research, I can't help imagining that there is an opera in it somewhere, waiting to be composed. A hint to my friends in San Francisco.

 

More right wing garbage. Only in America, the laughing stock of the world for questioning science. And where is the American media? Playing along for the bottom line.

 

I am totally agreement that academics should not be subject to witch hunts where an organization can just go searching through their correspondence. Also Mann did finally after, congressional request, release his data so that it could be subject to peer review. There is not any missing data or smoking guns as there are with phil jones.

But here is where I differ with UVA and the politics of it all. UVA, when asked for the correspondence of micheals, a professor that is skeptical of mann, said that they would release it to greenpeace for a fee. They have instituted a double standard. If they like your politics they will happily remove your privacy, if they do not they will lie and say it was destroyed, until testimony shows that the documents are kept safe and sound.

We do know that Mann did play politics in selecting data, but I don't think he committed fraud or willfully falsified any data. Here is one of the most damaging climate gate emails between mann and jones. They did as Phil suggested use "mike's nature trick" to make the data look better than it was as discussed in the email..

​

 

A bit too harsh for me, PriusSport. Some way or another, we must continue to seek a way forward that will be found acceptable to at least a small majority.

Make your case as compelling as you can and hope that people will listen. Insult then and we may be sure that they won't.

The media? Chasing ambulances of course, just like always. But they'll follow when the wind changes direction.

I think that some degree of optimisn is absolutely essential.

 

Actually its also leftwing garbage .

30 | May | 2011 | JunkScience.com
"The Post, however, has been entirely silent on Greenpeace’s efforts to FOIA documents from the University of Virginia concerning Pat Michaels, University of Delaware concerning David Legates and from Harvard University concerning Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas — efforts that are truly “harrassing” and “nuisance” in nature as Greenpeace acted entirely in retaliation to the FOIA request concerning Mann."

Virginia university releases correspondence of professor involved in ‘Hockey Stick’ controversy
"the subject of the GMU request is Edward Wegman, who co-authored a report at Congress’s request that exposed the statistical methods employed (and ignored) by Mann, et al. The report also revealed how a small group of related professionals have turned peer-review in climate science into an almost meaningless and sometimes perverse “pal review.” ATI learned of this troubling disparity through another request for records, after a review of national news stories that addressed Wegman’s records. Unlike ATI’s FOIA, the GMU inquiry prompted no outcry from groups such as the ACLU, American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), all which claimed to be outraged out of principle at the prospect of the release of similar records for Mann."

 

Austin, UVA did not make it easier for me (to argue their side) when the released (or at least agreed to release) Michael's emails. That is for sure.

But if you haven't already, please look up Culccinelli's CID. Its inclusions and omissions are startling. And perhaps revealing. But maybe it matters not, having been superceded by the FOIA request.

Your final analysis of Mann differs from mine. Mainly though I am more concerned with the message than the man (Mann). The message is unprecedented 20th centruy warmth (over 100's, 1000, and with some confidence 2000) years. There has been a lot of independent corroboration for that, from a variety of different fields. Most compelling to me (again again again) are Lonnie Thompson's ice records.

I am no more willing to discuss (speculate upon) Mann's motives than I am for Anthony Watts, or many others who either of us could name.

There are climate scientists whose motive I believe I know. But it is because I know the individuals themselves. Not because of what somebody else has selected for me to read.

 

Why not look at the past 10,000 years?
EDIT I just noticed this graph is from Richard Alley.LOL
Alley doesnt know sh!t from shinola.
Im using his graph as an example of how ludicrous the argument is.
Hes using it to promote his AGW theory.
Go figure.

 

2 more fine examples of Ad Hominen

"how could we take what mojo posts seriously? he lives in gayest of all US cities, San-Francisco"

"just for the records; the documents pertaining to mojo alleged mental illness had not been released despite the efforts"

 

I think I must have worded my response very badly. I don't think professors should have their e-mails made public unless there is an over riding reason. This protection should be given to all of academia regardless of politics. I think there is too much politics on both sides, and rights to privacy have been thrown out the window. Culccinelli definitely seems politically motivated and on a witch hunt. The wegman case was different, there was evidence of plagiarism, which did give probably cause to search his correspondence.

On a general AGW study the science is definitely more important than the people. But we are on a thread about climateGate, and here men have tried to manipulate science to get their political message out. I put out that mann e-mail to show where his head was at scientifically. But I think it also showed that he truly believed in AGW, and did not look like he was putting out fraudulent data. I also think Watts is very politically motivated. His blog definitely leaves out pertinent facts when it comes to making points. I think we would all be better off if we could remove the political motivation, and most warming scientists do good unbiased work.

I definitely don't want you to make judgements based on that one little e-mail, and your stance is noble. I can not however see how people can defend Phil Jones as a scientist. The man talked in his email's about destroying data so that it could not be reviewed. This was a fraudulent act to hide the science and promote a political agenda.

 

We have good records for the last 150 years. We have strong confidence in our reconstruction for the last 400. Beyond that things get very sketchy, and we can determine mean with in a decade but resolution to years or seasons goes down. In other worlds the further back you go the less confidence we have. Models do go back hundreds of thousands of years, and that is were the 2 degrees number comes from. The head of PIK estimated that the peak temperature that humans lived in was 2 degrees warmer than the beginning of the industrial age, or about 1.25 degrees warmer than today. This warmth is reconstructed from before the last ice age, so there can not be high confidence that individual years were not higher, but..... it is very likely are living at the highest decadal temperatures in the last 1000 years. Past that ymmv depending on what proxy you are using..

There is wide consensus on a warming earth, and wide consensus on human caused deforestation and burning of fossil fuels contributing to it. The difference in those honestly looking at the data is how much is human caused and how fast we will warm or cool in the future.

 

"What Ted Kaczynski wrote about boundary conditions in mathematics is shown false due to his crimes"

 

Since we dump an extra 31 Billion tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, why should we not accept that the massive rise in CO2 is due to us? Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps in IR radiation, preventing the Earth from cooling, why should we not accept that we are causing it? Since all the glaciers and ice caps are melting and the land and oceans are getting hotter on average each year, why should we not accept that we are the cause?

 

I believe CO2 warms the atmosphere .Just not very much.
The glaciers are not ALL melting.Antartica is growing ,as are several aroundthe globe.I recall Mt Shasta and the glaciers in Wash state are growing.As is parts of Greenland.Turns out Mt kilamenjaro is glacier is receding but its not due to temp change.Precipitation has declined.
Arctic is receding ,but that may be from water temp.Turns out its over an underwater volcanic range.

 

If you want the real data read James Hansen's " storms of my Grandchildren".

 

Mojo, I downloaded the reference mentioned in your thumbnail image (#88 on this thread). I got it here:

http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/books/qsr2000-papers/alley.pdf

and in that paper I do not see the image you posted. I'm curious then, where you found it? I understand that you do not respect Alley's work; perhaps (in another thread?) we could talk about glacialogy research that you do find merit in.

As often the case, this thread (renovated by me) has led off in several other directions. But my initial point was actually quite narrow. Up to 2009 the recent-decades surface air temperature record did not show significance at p<0.05. This was widely reported and interpreted as a fail.

Now, including 2010 data, the trend is significant. A neutral observer (like me ) would have thought that newer result just as news worthy as the former. But it does not seem to be so, yet.

I'm less concerned than some might imagine who performs such analyses. Anyone could, using HadCRUT or GISSTEMP. Those who consider those records to be 'cooked' could do the same for whatever data they choose.

Can't recall mentioning it here before, but there is a source to purchase worldwide (raw data) weather station records. I'd have to dig it up, but I recall that the data CD (or CDs) cost about $1000. A tidy sum, but perhaps not beyond the reach of many climate research institutes. I'll avoid making a list here, no need to get sidetracked. My point is that whoever wants to, can BUY the frikkin' data and analyze it however they see fit.

As Hadley has taken a hit for not releasing proprietary data (I think that was their term), a neutral observer is again left to wonder why someone (anyone) has not apparently take such a step. Similary, all the US coop observer data is for sale at NCDC. About the some price if memory serves, but it only covers the US.

If anyone here thinks about taking that bait, I'll further mention that the trend-detection procedure that now seems to be favored in statistics is called Mann-Kendall, and it's in the free R software package. So that won't cost you nothing'.

 

I think Alley's theory is ridiculous,but I have no doubt about the accuracy of temp in ice core data.Or Galactic cosmic ray count in stalactites.Are they not reliable?

 

I think its all about significance. For some of us, the significance of the admission of lack of significance showed another reason for motivation for Jones to hide his data. I never thought the minor variance mattered, as we need to look at longer periods of time.

Its not so easy playing with the raw data. Which is probably why we have the GISS data disagreeing with Jones's numbers. How do you average given the changing station, urban heat island effect, geograwphical sampling. This uncertainty should be taken into account when analysing statistical significance of changes. A smoothing function also needs to be added, and once that is done there is clear evidence of warming, with 1998 just being an exceptionally warm year easily accounted for in the climate variability.

 

It seems to be a reconstruction of greenland ice cores, but the curve, that is the model they use, looks different from other reconstructions of that data.

Ice cores, bore holes, tree rings are all just proxies for the temperature record. I'll let tochatihu discuss the accuracy of the ice cores. Even if they told us exactly what the temperature in greenland was at the time, we need another model to tell us how the greenland temperture relates to global temperatures as the earth does not warm or cool uniformly. That is why we try to include each measure from multiple locations and use multiple proxies to build a model. That is why even in 2011 there is some disagreements between models on whether it is warmer now than in the mideaval warming period, although most models say we are. When we get to times a long time ago, ice cores seem the most reliable proxy, but they should be taken in multiple locations.

 

I'm really enjoying the quality information provided in this thread but Steven Milloy? Really? Lmao!