From Michael E. Mann (withholding of information / data):
Dear Phil and Gabi,From Nick McKay (modifying data):
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):
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 from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.From Michael Mann (truth doesn't matter):
Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.From Phil Jones (withholding of data):
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers PhilFrom Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide dissent):
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein 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 the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.From Phil Jones (withholding of data):
If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.Seriosly, don't take my word for it. Take a look at the files themselves. They are quite damning. Even more importantly, I spent the last few days trying to make the smallest of the computer models work. I have some experience with coding using FORTRAN77. The programs are a mess and literally don't work.
Mostly, I feel very sorry for the mysterious "Harry" who spent 3 years trying to make these programs work. He must be a gibbering idiot by now. I gave up after a few days and this porr man spent over 3 years trying to make the operate in the manner CRU claimed they would. No wonder why the CRU was hiding it. They can't make their models work, much less match the historical trends. Nor can they show in their models that they can accurately predict the future, much less match the present and historical date.
Yet, we are told that the science is "settled" and if you present a countervailing view, you are a "denier" and are the equivalent of someone who denies they Holocaust took place. It certainly appears to me that not only has the science not been "settled" but they haven't reached the level of a theory, only that of a hypothesis. I always learned way back in grade school, that scientific research started with an idea, which was then built into a hypothesis:
A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon...People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis — often called an "educated guess" — because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.But, if you deny any other hypothesis as invalid, without either testing, or modeling are you not creating invalid science yourself? Therein lies the problem here as I see it. These men are not only denying access to their data/models, but they are refusing to allow anyone else to test their hypothetical models, thus they don't have a theory, and the science is not only not "settle" but they are imposing a viewpoint that hasn't been proven in any manner at all.
It is upon this base that they demand that our entire civilization completely alter the way we create energy, and how we approach our daily lives. That's not science, it's politics and perhaps economics, but it's certainly not politics.