News Global Warming fraud uncovered?

[rynnor]

The Hadley CRU has been hacked by someone who wanted the truth to get out - I havent had a chance to look through it all but theres apparently some damning stuff.

Apparently proxy temperature data (tree ring's etc being used to judge global temperature) was 'fixed' to show a rising temperature from 1980 onwards because it was actually showing a decline...

If this is true (and so far it looks it) then Global Warming is in serious trouble!

Link to zip of data - Hadley CRU Files (FOI2009.zip) (download torrent) - TPB

I have downloaded - virus scanned using Kaspersky - looks clean and also looks legit to me.

Oh and checkout circ_inconsistency.doc - interesting one that says that observed behaviour in the Northern hemisphere is not consistent with AGW - interesting stuff!

BBC News - Hackers target world's leading climate research unit - hack story.

 

[Chilly]

I've heard mutterings about this kind of thing over the last year or two. There have been a couple of articles in nature about the validity of corrections ("fixes" in the language here) made to certain datasets. Some of the trends are so tiny that a fly farting near a sensor could put it out of kilter.

Im skeptical to read too much into it without an expert (and I mean expert, not some self appointed forum-professor) opinion or two.

 

[Tom]

I'd rather wait for independent verification of this before I comment, however scientists should be apolitical.

 

[rynnor]

Reading an interesting bit atmo - 'Mann uncertainty.doc' - its analysis of the standard error values used in the Mann et al. Mean Temperature Graphs (The infamous 'Hockey Stick' graph).

Basically you'd expect uncertainty to increase over time but the guy who produced the doc realised that the Mann data doesnt do this.

Standard error is 0.24 for the first 400 years from 1000-1400 then rather oddly uncertainty goes up a little for the next 200 years until the year 1600??


At 1600 standard error practically halves to 0.13 which is below the standard deviation 0.19 and from that point to 2000 the standard error only drops to 0.11 - its a odd looking graph for something that should trail off gradually over time.

Edit - corrected Granny Weatherwax punctuation

 

[rynnor]

Lol - just read 'the rules of the game.pdf' - its a set of guidelines on how to 'sell' the idea of Global Warming to the masses - it reads like a New Labour spin handbook - talk about politicised science

 

[Chilly]

Reading an interesting bit atmo - 'Mann uncertainty.doc' - its analysis of the standard error values used in the Mann et al. Mean Temperature Graphs (The infamous 'Hockey Stick' graph).

Basically you'd expect uncertainty to increase over time but the guy who produced the doc realised that the Mann data doesnt do this.

Standard error is 0.24 for the first 400 years from 1000-1400 then rather oddly uncertainty goes up a little for the next 200 years until the year 1600??


At 1600 standard error practically halves to 0.13 which is below the standard deviation 0.19 and from that point to 2000 the standard error only drops to 0.11 - its a odd looking graph for something that should trail off gradually over time.

Edit - corrected Granny Weatherwax punctuation

Not that surprising really. The quality of the measurements mate at the time go up and down.

 

[rynnor]

Not that surprising really. The quality of the measurements mate at the time go up and down.

Not really consistent with history - theres a damn sight more data from the 1500s than the 1000's so cant see how proxy data from the 1500s can be less dependable than the fragmentary data from 1000?

Some great emails - "it wasn't so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.

Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years."

Cutting the end off graphs and mentioning el nina a lot to explain the last decades cooling

 

[Chilly]

Because the one bloke who happened to be rich and bored enough in 1400 had better equipment than the government lackey who had a pencil and a marzipan dildo in 1600 ?

Before the 20th century so much stuff was recorded by well intentioned rich clever chaps rather than organised scientific groups and the methodology was not consistent across groups.

/dates not relevant but you get my meaning. nothing was properly organised then so inconsistent accuracy isnt a surprise.

 

[Scouse]

All I can say is that it's probably a precursor to increased invasive "security" at universities (since these places tend to be policial dissent hotspots)...and whatever comes off one server doesn't mean much in scientific terms...

...but I'm downloading now

 

[rynnor]

Because the one bloke who happened to be rich and bored enough in 1400 had better equipment than the government lackey who had a pencil and a marzipan dildo in 1600 ?

But its not saying that - its actually showing the error to be higher in the 1500's than the 1000's - one of the reasons the bayeux tapestry (1066ish) is so famous is because theres so little data from there.

Hell they had the printing press and movable type by the mid 1400's - it makes no sense to say there was less proxy data available then.

 

[Scouse]

Lol - just read 'the rules of the game.pdf' - its a set of guidelines on how to 'sell' the idea of Global Warming to the masses - it reads like a New Labour spin handbook - talk about politicised science

Just read it. And they're bob on if they believe that Global Warming is real to act in the way they propose.

Scientists (like most well educated people) know that the human race is, essentially, a legion of retards.

All they're proposing in that document is treating us exactly how religions, corporations and governments the world over have been treating us for centuries: like retarded children.

They understand that they need to win a propaganda war, and are proposing entering one to win it.

Remember, a "green PR company" wrote it - not necessarily scientists. In that context I can't see a problem with it, tbfh.

 

[rynnor]

"I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working
with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are
scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines.
You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense
realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios
provided by the synthesis team.

If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity
analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and
must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are
ultimatley a political decision"

Lol - this one says dont try to be realistic but go Doom-monger as directed by the Politicians - whatever happened to Science?

 

[rynnor]

They understand that they need to win a propaganda war, and are proposing entering one to win it.

That might be ok if they werent making it up...

 

[rynnor]

On the IPCC -

"I feel rather
unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed
material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions).
I realize that chapter 9
is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the
fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point
that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science
(which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results.
<snip>
Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very
little rules and almost
anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the
IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable
that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this."


Lol - so much for the Scientific credentials of the IPCC reports.

 

[Raven]

whatever happened to Science?

They are probably afraid of getting fired for not providing facts that back up government opinion.

 

[rynnor]

They are probably afraid of getting fired for not providing facts that back up government opinion.

Isnt it better to get fired than to give up your integrity? Eventually if people find out that you faked data or played down uncertainty surely your scientific career is over?

 

[rynnor]

Ooh - some of this contains the infamous Yamal tree-ring data that proves if you cherry pick from enough samples you can show anything

Take a look here - Treemometers: A new scientific scandal ? The Register

 

[rynnor]

Parts of it have been authenticated by the CRU - I wonder if its all Pukka or has had some juicier sections added - theres a mail about deleting emails on a subject relating to the IPCC report to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests - isnt that a criminal action?

 

[Scouse]

Whatever happened to Science?

Nothing. It's the same as it always was. Many scientists complained about the politicisation of the IPCC, some resigned.

This was mentioned on this very forum, but nobody gave a fuck.


Oh, and irony:

That might be ok if they werent making it up...

And you reading some leaked documents and jumping to conclusions is "science" now? Whatever happened to Science eh?



Gah, and:

Lol - so much for the Scientific credentials of the IPCC reports.

See above. And remember that a scientist wrote what you quoted

 

[Jeros]

*facepalm*

Im studying global environmental processes at the moment, people who bury their hand in the sand and ignore what is going on are in for a big shock, of course.....proboly not in their lifetime....but in mine.

 

[Bodhi]

Seriously, you're only just finding out MMGW is a load of shite? Where have you been for the last year or two?

What I want to know is why no one was taxed for the Ice Ages. As clearly sentient being existed before then, SO WHY WEREN'T THEY TAXED????? Were they offered a phony "trade in your old cars we'll wreck the environment and buikd you a new one, which gets 5mpg less. Earth will thank us!!!"?

I really rather doubt that.

Basically Enivronmentalism = communism by another face. Get a grip folks, and stop trying to make those of us who work hard for a living pay for your useless fuck up of a life?

 

[Krazeh]

*facepalm*

Im studying global environmental processes at the moment, people who bury their hand in the sand and ignore what is going on are in for a big shock, of course.....proboly not in their lifetime....but in mine.

And what science are your studies based on? Would it be the science which has allegedly been "doctored" to suit political ends?

 

[Embattle]

My response remains the same as it always has and that is evne without reading the article.

 

[rynnor]

And you reading some leaked documents and jumping to conclusions is "science" now? Whatever happened to Science eh?

No I realised pretty early on that it was a scam to raise taxes- your welcome to check back over the last few years of threads here - but theres a big difference between suspecting the politicisation of science and having 'apparent' proof of it.

Still the timing of this release is very suspect so I shall wait n see but it 'feels' authentic - theres just so damn much of it lol.

 

[rynnor]

*facepalm*

Im studying global environmental processes at the moment, people who bury their hand in the sand and ignore what is going on are in for a big shock, of course.....proboly not in their lifetime....but in mine.

Lol - your on the 'doom-monger' course based on dodgy computer simulations eh - I would change to a real science if I were you - once this goes titsup theres going to be an awful lot of unemployed 'climate scientists' - try something more realistic like crop circles?

 

[Bugz]

I wouldn't know where to start in re: to global warming without first hand evidence I have extracted and analyzed myself.

 

[Jeros]

And what science are your studies based on? Would it be the science which has allegedly been "doctored" to suit political ends?

Yes and all the weather monitering stations, all the scientists, all the universitys are in on it. They even went so far as to fake the geological evidence and pumped massive amounts of CO2 into the atmopshere and blamed it on industry!

Ya thats right....

 

[Tom]

Perhaps Jeros you could explain how people hope to accurately model the Earth's environment, to produce such projections—when they can't even accurately model the Stock Exchange.

 

[Raven]

If they didn't use it as a massive excuse to tax just about everything and then fail to spend said tax on doing something about the so called problem I would be more inclined to believe it.

 

[Scouse]

Basically Enivronmentalism = communism by another face. Get a grip folks, and stop trying to make those of us who work hard for a living pay for your useless fuck up of a life?

Lets compare salaries and then decide who has a useless fuckup of a life eh Bodhi. I work for living myself you know, and bet the amount of tax I pay per annum = a lot of people's salaries. Stop believing the crusty people = environmentalist hype.

Thinking Environmentalism = Communism = useless fuckup of intellect


Edit: And those who think it's about tax know nothing, nothing, about our economic system.