Bronwyn,

You don’t need a "random sample" to prove fudging.

I have managed to gather what I THINK is a reasonably complete set of hacked emails.

Excerpt: Email from Mick Kelly to Phil Jones dated 26 Oct 2008.

"Yeah, 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."

In other words when I give the talk again I'll exclude the inconvenient data points.

Phil Jones is director of the Climate Research Unit.

I think "Mick Kelly" is the editor of Tiempo. See:

http://www.tiempocyberclimate.org/newswatch/editors.htm

Excerpt of email from Phil Jones, 16 Nov 1999.

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 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 (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

"Ray" seems to be Ray Bradley. See:

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/

"Malcolm" is probably Malcolm Hughes. See:

http://www.environment.arizona.edu/

I think "Mike" is Michael Mann. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

On the face of it these seem pretty damning.

FOR THE RECORD

I do not doubt the risks inherent in continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I hope Copenhagen and its aftermath will lead to a binding treaty on emission reduction.

However I despise scientists who cook their data. IF (repeat, IF) that's what's happened here these guys need to be fired for the good of science.

The Guardian article notwithstanding CRU appears to have confirmed that the documents and emails are genuine.

its funny its been a talking point all week..
on the links

finally it hit the..our..papers today....
and hopefully by tony abbot..at question time

hopefully an..oppology to tony from tony..on lateline tonight

anyhow..here is more on the scam
and the..eugenics adgenda..behind the lie

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-road-to-copenhagen-part-iii-a-%e2%80%9cplanetary-regime%e2%80%9d-in-the-making.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-bombshell-hacker-leaks-thousands-of-emails-showing-conspiracy-to-hide-the-real-data-on-manmade-climate-change.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/portland-protest-of-al-gore.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/stolen-e-mails-reveal-venomous-feelings-toward-climate-skeptics.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/how-we-discovered-verizon%e2%80%99s-spamdetector-could-be-twisted-into-a-disguise-for-censorship.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/inhofe-to-boxer-we-won-you-lost-now-get-a-life.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/britains-new-internet-law-as-bad-as-everyones-been-saying-and-worse-much-much-worse.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/wells-fargo-says-it-doesnt-have-to-reserve-against-its-off-balance-sheet-residential-exposure-because-the-fha-meaning-the-taxpayers-will-pay-for-it.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-allies-want-new-tax-to-pay-for-cost-of-protecting-afghan-opium-fields-bribing-taliban.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fed-sicks-attack-dogs-on-ron-paul-after-audit-amendment-passes.html

It would not surprise me at all if our SA Premier now becomes a champion of the gw movement. It seems integrity means nothing to them both. I wonder who will be the first Labour pollie to have some integrity in this issue? Don't hold your breath.

I've been reading through a few of the emails this morning, and I can't see any "smoking gun".

The flat-earthers are going to seize on the apparent discussion of "spin" - how to present data and theory in order to give a particular view of the science - but I can guarantee you right now that they'll refuse to recognise the context. Most of the supposedly conspiratorial emails are discussions of how to present the science intelligibly without giving industry spin-doctors ammunition to misrepresent the case.

The industry lobby and its employees rely on the fact that the public is ill-informed and not very scientifically literate. This allows them to publish any old rubbish (It's the sun! People who research climate for a living never even thought of the sun!) and have it believed by a decent minority of the population because it tallies with a political ideology.

Personally, I'm going to enjoy this entire episode. The "sceptics" are going to dig themselves even further into the conspiracy theory that the world's scientists are sleeper agents for global socialism - thus alienating anyone who isn't, you know, mad - and prompt environmentalist hackers to go for payback.

The real gems are going to be the leaked emails from Astroturfed think tanks and neo-Lysenkoists like Ian Plimer. Would any "sceptics" like to place their bets now on whether that correspondence will contain either rigourous science or outright discussion of how to lie most effectively?

Steven,
I beginning to see a pattern here, I wonder if you aren't simply playing games.

Nice neat tidy bundles in science don't exist nor do godlike scientists.

I find it amazing that you seem to be implying that there is anything odd about the in fighting in scientific circles much less in *Observational sciences*.

Last time I checked most scientists are human (well almost) that simply means, they are less than perfect and one should expect all of the above.

My limited exposure to the scientific communities confirms this.
One wonders at time how these characters can agree on when and where to hold the conferences based on the back room hostility. Every conference unleashes clandestine motives and a flurry of axe grinding and knife sharpening.

As an observational science there will be a larger area for interpretations and 'fudge' levels etc.

Despite the enormous computing power involved their models are still relatively speculative. No computer or group thereof would be able to make all the calculations let alone the inputs to provide pin point accuracy.

As for the IPPC report it is/was a snap shot based on a conservative synthesis of published (peer reviewed) articles. Add to this it was for policy makers not scientists.

Untill I see contexts I am neither surprised nor shocked (I assumed there would that and a lot more.)

Of course the BBC only gave the bare bones. Details may turn out to be libelous.

There is an old joke " what do you get if you line competing scientist in a line?"
Answer: "I don't know but it will be noisy and it won't be a conclusion".

The whole topic at the moment is a sensationalized beat up. Comes under the heading of "yes dear" (unless you have an axe to grind)

Sancho,

I am not a climate change denier. On the contrary I think the case for anthropogenic global warming is VERY strong

Is there a "smoking gun"? That's a matter of opinion. There is certainly PRIMA FACIE evidence that some scientists engaged in data fudging – something that goes beyond "data presentation".

That fact that climate change deniers like Plimer engage in similar deception brings no comfort.

Examinator,

Having been in the scientific world myself many decades ago I know that science is a BLOOD SPORT. The backbiting, bitchiness and insults don’t bother me at all.

What does bother me is indications that some scientists may have fudged their data.

It is precisely because I think the integrity of the scientific enterprise is so important that I would like to see these allegations investigated in an OPEN AND TRANSPARENT MANNER.

Here is how the NY Times covered the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&ref=science

Quote:

"In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, ... said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

"Dr. Mann ... confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”

This is ingenuous to say the least. Good scientists do not normally use "tricks" to hide something.

To repeat, it is the INDICATIONS of FUDGING, not the atmospherics, that concern me.

So far I have not come across any rebuttal or explanation from Phil Jones, CRU head.

Examinator,

Regardless of your opinion of me personally I would have thought that you, of all posters here, would appreciate the importance of maintaining the integrity of science. Indications of data fudging on important matters need to be taken seriously and you can hardly deny the indications are there.