.png)
On November 17, 2009, hackers broke in to Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia e-mail server and released thousands of documents to the public. The stolen data was later posted to a Russian web server and quickly disseminated among climate skeptics. Phil Jones, Director of the UEA-CRU, confirmed that all of the leaked emails appeared to be genuine.
Global warming deniers, including Fox News talk-show host Glenn Beck, have asserted that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.
However, prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign. Phil Jones called charges that the e-mails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous", and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the skeptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to derail the Copenhagen summit on global climate change in December.
According to an offical statement from the University of East Anglia, "The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way".
Alhough there are thousands of e-mails that have been released by the hackers, one in particular has sparked the most debate.
The e-mail was authored by CRU director Phil Jones and includes the phrase "hide the decline" which many climate skeptics claim is proof of scientists "cooking the books" and running a public misinformation campaign.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature(Magazine) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. -Phil Jones
The problem with global warming deniers attempting to skew this to match their own agenda is that scientists are using "real temps" i.e. actual thermometer data from NASA and NCAR to hide the decline in temperatures predicted by proxy models.
Instead of proving that scientists were "cooking the books" as deniers would say, it proves that global warming has actually been increasing at a higher rate than predicted by climate models.
RealClimate.org (a commentary site on climatology by a group of climate scientists for the interested public and journalists) takes this explanation a step farther:
The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Skewed and partial e-mails do not disprove anthropogenic climate change.
Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies sums it up best:
There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research ... no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from shadowy socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.
Photo Courtesy Wikimedia.
Comments
I see no debunking, just a lot of hand waving. Debunk this:
strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420
or this:
strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11542
Good luck
You are incompetent, completely incompetent. Basically, the proxy appears to be unreliable and consequently, temperature reconstructions for the past centuries based on tree data are unreliable. Thus, there is simply no foundation for the famous hockey stick.
Your analysis is pathetic.
It's over. Watch the house of cards (AGW) crumble.
Ha! That was good for a chuckle. You can't wish away the biggest scandal in modern science just by saying it's debunked. That methodology only worked when people thought the AGW science community had credibility.
Data suppression, manipulation, deletion, silencing dissent, criminal activity, outright fraud....sorry, but your religion of AGW is falling apart and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
I don't personally understand what everyone's problem is with the "trick" email. That's a non issue. But the emails about finding it a travesty to not be able to explain the lack of warming, the blackballing of publications, the corruption of the peer review process, the deletion of data to foil FOI requests, the programmer's notes etc etc... Sorry... nobody's explained that yet.
To hell with the "trick" email... that one's NOTHING compared to all the others...
Is this article mistitled? I could not follow the "debunking" reasoning here. The article provides no evidence that the emails are tainted or faked. It simply quotes people who claim the emails are not important. The quotes sound like desparate attempts by guilty or embarrassed parties to deflect scrutiny in the hope that this will blow over.
That email is the least of it. The programmes used to create the temperature curves used by the IPCC to say the globe is warming, yes the very one that you have plotted here, are a complete mess! The famous HARRY_read_me.txt tells the story of how the original data became meaningless because of to much was undocumented. It also has comments all the way through showing how the data was artificially manipulated to hide declines in temperatures.
Oh, and they also show that Mann "inverted" the sediment record to remove the increased temperatures through the Medieval Warm Period, something he is now trying to reinvent as the Medieval Anomaly Period.
Who are you trying to fool? Employing sophistry isn't going to make this go away. All it's going to do is ruin your reputation along with everyone else's. Stop insulting readers' intelligence. And shame on you for included that debunked hockey stick chart in your article.
What about the refusal to release the data under the FOI? Hell, why should someone even need the FOI? If their research is so solid, what are they afraid of?
You are wrong. It is a vast conspiracy and East Anglia was ground zero. Other institutes around the world had the people approved by East Anglia put in place, such as in the New Zealand government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA. The ripple effect of those only approved out of East Anglia continued on outward from their satellites like NIWA.
The report the US government and the United Nations is working off of is also straight from East Anglia.
There is no way anyone with a logical mind could not see that it is indeed a vast conspiracy based on disinformation and greed.
This guy is quoting members of the hockey team to defend the other members of the hockey team. What the hell do you think these lying a-holes are going to say? Kinda reminds me of Nixon and his famous "I am not a crook" statement. That didn't fool anyone then and this won't fool anyone now.
AGW is an out and out complete and utter fraud. That so-called scientists are at the heart of this fraud is obvious and shameful. They had a chance to stand on the shoulders of giants and they chose to wallow in the sewer. They should all be striped of their degrees.
ok, debunk this then:
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(this is one of the many places where the data is adjusted, this being how much to adjust each five year period starting at 1904). It isn't complicated, and it isn't subtle.
This article is a waste of bandwidth. The writer has nothing intelligent to say, perhaps because he lacks the IQ to reason things out? Kind of dumb, like Snake Oil Al.
It's clear he's alackey for the global warming conspirators.
Ha! Who is the denier now?
It's amazing to watch the left go into denial mode. Google has CENSORED the keyword "climategate" from their autocomplete suggestion function. Not too surprising, given their history of colluding with the Chinese government to CENSOR any pages relating to Tienanmen Square!
Big Brother is a LEFTIST.
Al Gore is a SENIOR ADVISOR to Google.
Google is doing their part to coverup the TRUTH.
Shame on you for being blind to the truth. You are a disgrace for even attempting to debunk such a obvious abuse of the public trust. You sir are a menace and your keyboard should be confiscated. Dont even know why we bother to talk sense to brainwashed environmental lemmon heads..
"What about the refusal to release the data under the FOI? Hell, why should someone even need the FOI? If their research is so solid, what are they afraid of?"
Kinda like Obamas refusal to answer Qs about his birth certificate, school records, etc. There are many scams going on in the world. Hopefully "We" will all wake up.
Judson, I guess you didn't check the latest AP feed: "Jones, Mann, Somerville under congressional investigation". I'm fairly certain that Trenberth is being charged as well. If I were you I would distance myself from this thing and be a little more impartial.
This guy like the rest of the AGW movement is a religious zealot and they have every intention of forcing us to convert to their faith.
GOOGLE = COMMUNIST?
On Nov 9, the world commemorated 20 years of the Fall of the Berlin Wall, which freed millions of soviet slaves in Europe. A modern-day decisive, and unprecedent historical event that redefined the face of our world. I expected Google to have this event in their logo on their main page, as they do with other historic or important dates. To my amazement, Google's logo on that day was about Sesame Street. Needless to say they didn't return any of my emails complaining.
I have stopped using any of the Google pages until they gather enough ethics, and courage to stand against oppression, and dictatorships, and stop overtly advanvancing left-wing-communist-secular-progressive agendas.
Richard
The good thing about scientists is that they have yet to be adequately trained in the slimy, low art of political spin.
I know, I know, they clearly have zero qualms about lying and conspiring to defraud governments into spending tens of trillions of dollars on their particular field of interest. They have no problem exaggerating their findings to make themselves and their work appear more significant than it is. They flat out state that they have no qualms about freezing out competing opinion, but they do all of these things with so little skill that, when caught in flagrante delicto, they lack the political polish to effectively deflect the appropriate criticsim and turn the offense on their accusers ... but, as evidenced by this very article, not for lack of trying.
I know, it no longer matters whether climatologists present real scientific fact or not, whether their models are adequate or not, whether studies are peer reviewed or not, their credibility is forever gone. Wors
Worse, the last shred of credibilty of the entire field of climate study has gone, as well.
Once science crossed the seductive threshold of politics, its credibility had to be called into question. Once they conducted themselves in action as venal as demonstrated in the Climate Gate e-mails, any credibility was forever shot to hell. .................. But wait, perhaps all is not lost. Perhaps scientists can be trained to lie like politicians, to spin like them, to compllete the politicization of science, to bastardize the very language we speak to gain political advantage. Perhaps “public relations” should be included in all science curricula, perhaps,...
Dear debunked,
Please explain why this news is plastered all over the world, but you have to dig pretty deep to find it mentioned anywhere in the U.S. media. Thank you for continuing to bring this dead topic up for discussion...
The best part about all this is that it has brought out the retards in droves, who suddenly feel comfortable making even bigger fools of themselves than usual. This "issue" has given them the courage to reveal just how bat-shit crazy they really are, and it has been such a pleasure to read their comments. There are so many of us who just laugh and laugh and laugh. Thank you to whoever hacked the CRU computers. Thank you so, so very much.
I am proud of my Thanksgiving Day carbon footprint.
there were no hackers. some sysadmin in the university's IT department did it. nobody hacked into the email server. they used a pretty traceable server in russia to try and remain anonymous.
the hacker part of the story was an attempt to keep the perpetrators out of the discussion, so the anti-climate change neanderthals could make a big stink over something specious.
if the U.K's MI5 was a serious organization, they would look into this and put the smack down on this information operation.
This is comic. Even for their standards this is laughable.
First of they completely ignore this:
"We cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant"
Washinton Post
which in itself is grounds for disregarding the whole 'article'(or whatever you wish to call it). But to ensure complete failure on their part they put up a picture of a graph which is outdated and dont show recent years in which we have experienced a decline in temperature.
Sorry "Climategate Debunked" doesn't measure up, none of the "evidence" you present negates the importance of those hacked e-mails. They show that the most fundamental aspects of global warming are flat out wrong, manipulated and a fraud. You can present all the global warming people you want to say there is no "evidence of a conspiracy" but that doesn't change the facts. Nor does the statement "there is no admission that global warming is a hax" because it doesn't matter if they admit it or not, it's all a fraud. All of it. This article is just an attempt to keep the global warming myth alive, but it's too late for that.
Judson, I guess you didn't check the latest AP feed: "Jones, Mann, Somerville under congressional investigation". I'm fairly certain that Trenberth is being charged as well. If I were you I would distance myself from this thing and be a little more impartial.
Dear debunked,
Please explain why this news is plastered all over the world, but you have to dig pretty deep to find it mentioned anywhere in the U.S. media. Thank you for continuing to bring this dead topic up for discussion...
You are a disgrace to yourself.
Your white wash of climategate is just foolish.
Did you try to save the Berlin-wall from falling as well?
Ok, I don"t think you peopel understand. It is so much werse! I have seen the truth behing all of this "global warming" nonsence, and it is a vast conspiracy, incuding Al Gore and evryone on the left. I have seen the truth on several Youtube vids, and aperantly there are lizard people for realz! And they want to take over us, and they are using global warmiung somehow. Please beleive me! The left and all there stupid enviranmenilists have been tricked! They've wernt smart enough to figure it out, but we were! If your not sure about this impotent issue, wake up! Dont fall for Al Gores lies!!! And screw that stupid monkey Obama!!! He's a Muslim sand-n***** who wasn't even born here he was born in Kenya!!! And he's in on it with Al Gore and his type. They're trying to ruin America and give the world over to the lizard peopel. Don't let that happne! Vote Republican if you hate tree huggers and porch monkies like I do!!!!
So tell us more about the "decline" the people in this case have been hiding -- by their own admission.
Nothing was debunked at all. In fact, everything I have seen has made the scandal worse. Global warming is dead.
Very nice article.
Please don't feel bad if you read the comments. Explaining actual science to the American people is a losing proposition. (U.S.A: Where over 50% of the population can't define Scientific Theory.)
This reminds me of a blind cat I once saw trying to cover up on a tile floor. The harder it tried, the worse the mess. Pitiful.
Ooh, the scientific scandal of the century is now "debunked," is it?
When Phil Jones is indicted for criminal evasion of the U.K.'s Freedom of Information Act and his colleagues get similarly hauled away for conspiracy to concert with Dr. Jones on this criminal connivance (and for suborning officers of H.M. government responsible for overseeing the fulfillment of Dr. Jones' obligations under the FOIA), let's see your "debunking" again.
Mr. Parker, please make your way out into the Okefenokee and find yourself a couple of 'gators to swim with. Like "cap-and-trade," you're dead.
You just haven't realized it yet.
Testimony of Richard C. Levin
President, Yale University
Committee on the Environment and Public Works
April 3, 2008
"The Panel concluded that, in the absence of corrective measures, global temperatures are likely to rise between 1 and 6 degrees centigrade by the
end of this century, with the best estimates ranging between 2 and 4 degrees."
Actually Richard, your a bit high but very close, but I think it will be about 1.95 degrees (2.6 * 0.75);
The human contribution to global warming:
---
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
---
That code is from the IDL program:
FOI2009/FOIA/documents/harris/tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro
Those numbers where typed in by a human to adjust the results of the data.
They are not from the data.
Those number may be the cause of human induced global warming.
Your article is hardly a debunking, rather it displays the depth of ignorance that pervades the journalism "profession". Seriously, you guys spent your undergraduate years taking courses like "the history of journalism" and other socio-garbage instead of studying history or any hard science. What's truly sad, it only takes a solid foundation and ability to apply the laws of logic and basic statistics to understand the lies of "man made global warming".
Add to all of this, just like the bunk you believe, you pull ONE email out and claim it debunks the very clear attitude that the emails in total make evident.
The good part of your piece, it shows where the true ignorance, error, and bias of this debate lay. With the ignorant media "professionals".
"Instead of proving that scientists were "cooking the books" as deniers would say, it proves that global warming has actually been increasing at a higher rate than predicted by climate models."
Nope they are hiding the fact that Proxy data does not match real world temperatures and this same proxy data extends into history beyond actual temperature data. So to be clear the proxy data used to say that temperatures in the past were colder then temperatures today actually cannot be trusted because the data has diverged from what temperatures are today.
The Climategate emails and other files show that prominent climate scientists have colluded to hide this fact from the public.
Go to climatescience dot org dot nz and find the global_warming_nz2.pdf
See the charts in the linked pdf.6 of 7 New Zealand ground temperature measuring stations had their temperatures adjusted 0.5C Downward right from the beginning to produce any 'warming' in New Zealand at all! A clear case of fraud.
Here's some great articles on Climategate. And no, it is has not been debunked at all.
Go to the Guardian in the UK and search on "coffin nail Global warming"
Or go to Pajamasmedia and they have tons of great articles explaining how these scientists are a disgrace.
Judson, I guess you didn't check the latest AP feed: "Jones, Mann, Somerville under congressional investigation". I'm fairly certain that Trenberth is being charged as well. If I were you I would distance myself from this thing and be a little more impartial.
nice try but no cigar. The word "debunked" gave the game away son...
LOL - the author if this article is about 3-4 days behind the news. The evidence keeps getting worse, and soon people will start getting fired and prosecuted.
Wow, good disinformation. The Climate Alarmists (aka. bedwetters) are really struggling to keep the lie going.
So, in order to debunk revelations of a bogus and fake graph you use a bogus and fake graph (at the top)?
"Instead of proving that scientists were "cooking the books" as deniers would say, it proves that global warming has actually been increasing at a higher rate than predicted by climate models."
No, you idiot. If the divergence proves anything, it proves that tree rings are not a valid proxy for temperature. The discrepancy has nothing to do with "climate models".
Oh I see . . . so taking time-specific data (from a literal handful of trees) and replacing it with data from another source when it suits your preferred conclusion renders evidence of said monkeying-about "debunked"?
Wow, how easy! You should become a defense lawyer! Next time there's a murder trial with camera evidence involved, you can just edit the video to cut to another camera whenever the defendant is visible at the crime scene. If the prosecution protests, just tell 'em you're "hiding the decline".
Piece of cake!
"Very nice article.
Please don't feel bad if you read the comments. Explaining actual science to the American people is a losing proposition. (U.S.A: Where over 50% of the population can't define Scientific Theory.)"
I have to agree with Decay (above). I'm not a scientist nor do I personally have enough scientific knowledge to argue or judge - nor do most of you, if any. At least I'll admit it, and know it's established fact the average person in America is not scientifically literate - certainly not enough (myself included) to feel overly confident judging this matter before all facts are in.
The wisdom of using a quote from RealClimate is questionable, given that it is itself implicated in the scandal.
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go there personally, but so I'm informed).
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in [do
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!