Quote mining code

David Kane asks me to look at two of the strongest arguments made by the “other side” following the break in and theft of data from CRU. OK, once he sees how weak the strongest arguments are, we can all agree that the affair is a beat up.

Today I’ll look at Eric Raymond’s alleged “siege cannon with the barrel still hot”:

From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions.

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
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
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1930s — see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.

But what is the code directly following the fragment Raymond quotes? Look:

;
;filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow
;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20
;

IDL uses a semi-colon to indicate a comment, so the only code to use yearlyadj has been commented out. Raymond must have known this since he is an Emacs user and Emacs colour codes the comments. This doesn’t seem to be a smoking gun so much as a gun that hasn’t been fired.

Furthermore, another piece of commented out code shows how the adjusted values were used: they were clearly labelled as “MXD corrected” and plotted along with the uncorrected values. They were not shown as temperature values despite what Raymond says.

;legend,['Northern Hemisphere April-September instrumental temperature',$
;  'Northern Hemisphere MXD',$
;  'Northern Hemisphere MXD corrected for decline'],$

In the comments to Raymond’s post, others pointed this out to him

As other have repeatedly pointed out, that code was written to be used for some kind of presentation that was false. The fact that the deceptive parts are commented out now does not change that at all.

In fact, it was it was labelled as “corrected for decline”, so it was not false or deceptive.

Raymond continues:

It might get them off the hook if we knew — for certain — that it had never been shown to anyone who didn’t know beforehand how the data was cooked and why. But since these peiple have conveniently lost or destroyed primary datasets and evaded FOIA requests, they don’t deserve the benefit of that doubt. We already know there’s a pattern of evasion and probable cause for criminal conspiracy charges from their own words.

In fact, they did not destroy primary datasets, and they did not have permission to redistribute the data requested using the FOIA.

Raymond has made no attempt to find out if the graph was actually used anywhere. The file name was osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro, so we should look for a paper with authors, Briffa and Osborn published in 1998 and sure enough there’s Briffa, Schweingruber, Jones, Osborn, Harris, Shiyatov, Vaganov and Grudd “Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1998:

In §4, we referred to a notable correspondence between
‘hemispheric’ MXD series (averaged over all sites) and an
equivalent ‘hemispheric’ instrumental temperature series.
Despite their having 50% common variance measured
over the last century, it is apparent that in recent decades
the MXD series shows a decline, whereas we know that
summer temperatures over the same area increased.
Closer examination reveals that while year-to-year
(i.e. mutually ten-year high-pass filtered) correlations are
consistently high between tree-growth and temperature
(ca. 0.7 for 1881-1981), the correlations based on decadally
smoothed data fall from 0.89, when calculated over the
period 1881-1960, to 0.64 when the comparison period is
extended to 1881-1981. This is illustrated in figure 6,
which shows that decadal trends in both large-scale-
average TRW and MXD increasingly diverge from the
course of decadal temperature variation after about 1950
or 1960.

And figure 6 is basically the graph plotted by the code above and it does not include the “corrected MXD” data:

i-f4d73c2366292d1fb592d8ac4534e05b-Briffa98fig6.png

Oh, and Raymond reckons the greens are controlled by commie puppet masters:

Most of the environmental movement is composed of innocent Gaianists, but not all of it. There’s a hard core that’s sort of a zombie remnant of Soviet psyops. Their goals are political: trash capitalism, resurrect socialism from the dustbin of history. They’re actually more like what I have elsewhere called a prospiracy, having lost their proper conspiratorial armature when KGB Department V folded up in 1992. There aren’t a lot of them, but they’re very, very good at co-opting others and they drive the Gaianists like sheep.

There’s more paranoid raving, but you get the picture — Raymond is the sort of person who will add 2 and 2 and come up with a commie plot.

Comments

  1. #1 Michael
    December 5, 2009

    Betula wrote:

    I don’t need a peer reviewed paper to know…[ad nauseum]

    Betula is absolutely right – the denialists require no resort to fact or scientific processes to support their opinions.

  2. #2 Betula
    December 6, 2009

    Janet….

    So if an unexplained cooling trend were to occur, and continue, is it a travesty that the cooling trend is occurring, or is it a travesty that you can’t explain it?

    Oh wait. It’s a travesty because the unexplained cooling trend will lull all the common folk into believing warming isn’t occurring. This will result in a lack of action and the inability to prevent catastrophe.

    Of course, the catastrophes are based on speculation, but we will make an exeption in this case. As you said at #299, “lets just pronounce speculation as fact”.

  3. #3 dhogaza
    December 6, 2009

    So if an unexplained cooling trend were to occur, and continue, is it a travesty that the cooling trend is occurring, or is it a travesty that you can’t explain it?

    The travesty is that you’re lying about what Trenberth was talking about.

  4. #4 luminous beauty
    December 6, 2009

    Petula,

    >A Denier will irrationally label himself a skeptic, therefore, all people who call themselves skeptics are assumed to be irrational deniers

    You’ve just proven yourself to be irrational by drawing a conclusion that is a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid or hasty generalization.

    This is known in the parlance as an ‘own goal’.

  5. #5 dhogaza
    December 6, 2009

    This guy deserves a pile-on for his outright lies about the implications of the code at hand, and for the fact he’s getting linked to by a bunch of people in the denialsphere.

    I didn’t bother trying to be polite over there …

  6. #6 Janet Akerman
    December 6, 2009

    Betula, more speculation, still no supporting evidence. Why is that?

    Let me help you, and put an end to your baseless speculation.

    Trenberth’s specific views on this, he topic of the email exchange, were published in a 2009 paper.

    He was discussing the many difficulties in measuring heat content at ocean depths. As a scientist, Trenberth wants to put quanta on were the heat moves when it leave the sea and land surface. I.e. when we get a La Nina, were exactly does the heat go?

    Its a travesty that we can’t measure it. Errors in Argo sensor decent rates, depth compression limiting thermal expansion. Its a travesty that we can’t point to exactly where that heat goes in a La Nina phase, because jokers like to pretend that a La Nina drop in temperature means the end of global warming

  7. #7 Janet Akerman
    December 6, 2009

    Betula,

    Knock yourself out reading some primary source document’s [here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/). Including Trenberth’s paper.

  8. #8 Jim Smith
    December 6, 2009

    So have an independent commission explore whether there was data fudging and such.

    As for writing people off because they think there is a conspiracy, I think that is disingenuous. Just because most conspiracies are loonie based, does not mean there are no real conspiracies.

    I for one, think the global warming problem is more long term, but scientists are lying to make it sound more urgent. They want to make people think the bad things will happen in our lifetimes so people will act. I think they likely have been caught in this lie.

  9. #9 Gaz
    December 6, 2009

    I for one, think the global warming problem is more long term, but scientists are lying to make it sound more urgent.

    Is this just a gut feeling or is there an actual reason for this opinion?

    I mean, it’s a pretty outrageous claim to make, that people are lying. Do you have an example? Which “scientists”?

  10. #10 Janet Akerman
    December 6, 2009

    Jim Smith write:

    >*As for writing people off because they think there is a conspiracy, I think that is disingenuous. Just because most conspiracies are loonie based, does not mean there are no real conspiracies.*

    I think this comment is baseless and disingenuous, we are writing off wild conspiracies becasue of the lack of evidence; the mountains of contradiction to the conspiracy and; the surge of whack jobs making wild assertions and speculation without the rigor to go into specific context nor present evidence that standsup to srcutiny.

  11. #11 Amused
    December 6, 2009

    Thank you Jim Smith your thoughts are important to us. Please hold the line and we will be with you shortly. If you would prefer to not wait now but go crack a textbook and get yourself an education … don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

  12. #12 Betula
    December 6, 2009

    Janet…

    Your joking, right?

    @302 I wrote…….”Oh wait. It’s a travesty because the unexplained cooling trend will lull all the common folk into believing warming isn’t occurring. This will result in a lack of action and the inability to prevent catastrophe.”

    @306 you write….”Let me help you, and put an end to your baseless speculation”….and then proceed to back up your attempt at making sense by attaching a link to Trenberths paper at #307

    Interesting paper Janet. In the first pargraph, Trenberth states the following:

    “Arguments are given that developing the ability to do
    this is important, as it affects interpretations of global and especially regional climate change, and prospects for the future.”

    Umm, that’s what I said in #302 which is quoted at the beginning of this post.

    In addition, Trenberth concludes his paper with this…..

    “Decisions are being made that depend on improved information about how and why our climate system is varying and changing, and the implications.”

    Janet, he needs improved information to determine climate change and it’s implications!

    That’s right, he needs better information to speculate on the impending doom!

    And I’m the one speculating?

    Classic Janet. Thanks for the link and the laugh.

  13. #13 Lee
    December 6, 2009

    re Betula, @ 312:

    That right there, folks, is as fine an example of quote mining as you will see anywhere, inside or outside the creationist circles that so popularized the technique.

  14. #14 Janet Akerman
    December 6, 2009

    Betula,

    No joking necessary, you demonstrated your preference for innuendo rather than addressing context and fact. [When I challenged](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php#comment-2126299)
    ) you on this your statement:

    >*And lastly, I don’t need a peer reviewed paper to know that when a lead scientist thinks the “lack of warming is a travesty”…..that it is a travesty*

    When you declined the opportunity to present clear evidence and context to support your statement, and instead opted to make [further speculations]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php#comment-2127142); I put an end to it a presented Trenberth’s paper.

    Betula writes:

    >*Janet, he needs improved information to determine climate change and it’s implications!*

    Let’s be clear what Trendberth wants to know. He wants to quantify and track the movement of heat that is stored in the earth sytstem. Wanting to know more is not a challenge to the science of climate change.

    How does this relate to the braoder science such as outlined by the IPCC? [This is]( http://www.desmogblog.com/kevin-trenberth-standing-ipcc-process) what Trenberth says about the IPCC. And the IPCC want to know if we are going to heat the planet by 2 degrees or 6 degrees this century.

    Now you wish to compare your half baked musings, with the rigorous assessments and compilation of evidence on global warming? You think these are equivalent? You would have us completely remove the weight of evidence and act like your cursory speculation is as good as the hard yards of observation and detailed study of decades of science.

    You have to be joking Betula!

  15. #15 Betula
    December 6, 2009

    Lee @312

    Is that your way of being able to hear yourself without actually having anything to say? Let me guess, it’s one of your little “tricks”.

    Lee is correct folks, Trenberth didn’t really mean to write those lines I quoted. Let’s just say I made it up and call it a day.

    Stay warm.

  16. #16 Betula
    December 6, 2009

    Janet.

    Your talking about the “rigorous assessments and compilation of evidence on global warming” and I’m talking about the speculated implications.

    Trenberth, or anyone for that matter, is speculating if the earth will warm more and how much it will if it does. The whole process is then taken a step further by creating hypothetical scenarios for the speculated answer.

    So Trenberth can’t account for where the heat is, and that’s a travesty. It’s a travesty why? It’s a travesty because we need the heat to get people to implement policies to stop the heat we can’t find.

    Without those policies, the heat we can’t account for will increase by an amount we’re not sure of and cause damage we can only imagine and speculate about.

    Travesty indeed.

  17. #18 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    Betula writes:
    >*Your talking about the “rigorous assessments and compilation of evidence on global warming” and I’m talking about the speculated implications.*

    Betula, can you be more precise about which implications you are refereeing to when you are claiming some are not based on “rigorous assessments and compilation of evidence”

    When you assert that “*Trenberth, or anyone for that matter, is speculating if the earth will warm more*”, haven’t you just magically disappearing the “rigorous assessments and compilation of evidence on global warming”?

    Betula continues:

    >* So Trenberth can’t account for where the heat is, and that’s a travesty. It’s a travesty why? It’s a travesty because we need the heat to get people to implement policies to stop the heat we can’t find.*

    It’s a travesty that monitoring stations are not able to quantify were all the heat moves during 2008 a La Nina year. A travesty because denailists preying on short tern fluctuations, use the dip in temp to assert global cooling.

    A travesty because if the data were available it may be easier to communicate specifics rather than talking about unquantified short term fluctuations.

    Betual continues:

    >* Without those policies, the heat we can’t account for will increase by an amount we’re not sure of and cause damage we can only imagine and speculate about.*

    Please refer to my request (opening paragraph) for clarification of your terms, about what you believe is not based on “rigorous assessments and compilation of evidence”.

  18. #19 Dave
    December 7, 2009

    > Just because most conspiracies are loonie based, does not mean there are no real conspiracies.

    I think the loonie conspiracies are just a smokescreen…

  19. #20 Betula
    December 7, 2009

    Janet…

    “Betula, can you be more precise about which implications you are refereeing to when you are claiming some are not based on “rigorous assessments and compilation of evidence”

    Compilation of evidence of global warming is different than speculating on the cause and implications of that warming.

    This is especially true if you don’t know how long the warming will or will not continue (going on 12 years now), if you can’t account for the lack of warming, if you admit you need “improved information about how and why our climate system is varying and changing” and if your not sure how much warming will occur.

    The only fact here is that you don’t know.

    Now, the global warming implications are speculated, not on a foundation of facts, but probabilities compiled by methods that have flaws, information that admittedly needs improvement, and by a select group (the IPCC) that is fraught with biases and adverse to criticism.

    The implications themselves are speculations, and they are biased speculations. How high the seas will rise, more intense hurricanes (haven’t seen many this year, what a travesty), poor little polar bears drowning, running out of time, millions displaced, famines, plagues, cannibalism, increases in jellyfish, a decrease in circumcisions, ginger bread houses collapsing etc…

    C’mon Janet, you know “Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb,” and “we have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.”

    Riveting isn’t it? Do I need to tell you who said that? That was 4 years ago, we only 6 years left. So much “epic destruction”, such little time…

    Janet, you go on to say:

    When you assert that “Trenberth, or anyone for that matter, is speculating if the earth will warm more”, haven’t you just magically disappearing the “rigorous assessments and compilation of evidence on global warming”?

    No, because the evidence is of warming, the speculation is of more warming…… how much more and over what period of time. The implications are all speculations based on probabilities, you know like hedge funds. By the way, I could recommend a few hedge funds for you if you wish…

    Hey, someone once said “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”, which is kinda of like saying we don’t know. Dontcha think?

    Janet, I know you’re convinced the lack of warming is a short term fluctuation, but would you be dissapointed if it’s not?

    It’s a rhetorical question.

  20. #21 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    Are you saying that we only have evidence of warming, and every thing else is just speculation? That everything except the evidence of current temperature is not based on “rigorous assessments and compilation of evidence”?

    Is that your position?

  21. #22 Betula
    December 7, 2009

    Janet,

    Are you saying your vision of the future is fact?

    Still want to buy into that hedge fund? We have completed a rigorous assessment and compilation of data to spread the risk and ensure a future return that would be hard to pass up.

    I advise you to ignore the short term fluctuations, as we have formulated projected upward trends based on calculated probabilities.

    As an added safety measure, we had these trends peer reviewed by the brightest on Wall street.

    The consensus is buy.

  22. #23 guthrie
    December 7, 2009

    Betula – I’ll raise you with the physical laws of the universe.

  23. #24 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    Betula, a simple question:

    >Are you saying that we only have evidence of warming, and every thing else is just speculation? That everything except the evidence of current temperature is not based on “rigorous assessments and compilation of evidence”?
    Is that your position?

    And relevenat because you are trying to compare your half-baked musings with the “rigorous assessments and compilation of evidence” such as that of the IPCC.

    You are making long winded murky claims about what is mere speculation and what is “rigorous assessments and compilation of evidence”, why won’t say what is which?

    Here is an easy starter, based on your recent posts: *Are you saying that we only have evidence of warming, and every thing else is just speculation?*

  24. #25 Carl C
    December 7, 2009

    I’m a bit late to this — but well spotted Tim. My take on the skeptic-glee over this “smoking gun” is they can spin it as a “hidden WMD” — i.e. within 45 minutes somebody could uncomment these lines and use this commie variable.

  25. #26 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    Betula writes

    >”This is especially true if you don’t know how long the warming will or will not continue (going on 12 years now), if you can’t account for the lack of warming, if you admit you need “improved information about how and why our climate system is varying and changing” and if your not sure how much warming will occur.

    Betula, if one searches for more precise measurements, it does not invalidate, nor even challenge the overall warming mechanism. Trenberth is is addressing to short term variation in the terms of climate.

    It is well understood that 1998 was well above the warming trend due to a super El Nino, and 2008 below because of combined solar minima and La Nina. Trenberth want’s to quantify where the heat (eg. La Nina)goes move in these relative short time frames.

    If I can’t measure exactly how the heat moves around the water in a pot on a hot stove, I can still accurately predict the water will boil.

    Now please answer my simple [question above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php#comment-2130299)

  26. #27 Betula
    December 8, 2009

    “If I can’t measure exactly how the heat moves around the water in a pot on a hot stove, I can still accurately predict the water will boil.”

    That’s brilliant. Great analogy.

    Janet, do you feel we’re in a pot of water that is beginning to boil?

    Is this because the pot has been on the stove for a year and you’ve noticed some warming over the past second?

    For a moment, let’s pretend we are all in this pot together. I’m floating by you on an ice cube and you tell me of your dire prediction of our coming demise….

    First, I ask a few questions…

    1. How is knowing how the heat moves in the water going to change anything. Won’t it still boil? And why is it a “travesty” if we don’t know?

    2. If we’re in the pot, and the water isn’t getting any hotter, how do we know the stovetop heat is turned up, let alone still on?

    Regardless, we must assume the stove is on.

    Now in panic mode, we need to find a way to turn off the stove from inside the pot. We know we can do this, since we believe we are the ones who turned it on in the first place.

    Here’s an idea. If we all make waves, the upper tiers of the biggest waves will fall over the side and onto the hot stovetop, reducing the heat. At this point, the temperature will equal out to a nice comfortable consistency.

    But wait, is the stovetop still on, or is it off?

    Oops, drifting away on my ice cube…bye Janet……bye!

  27. #28 Janet Akerman
    December 8, 2009

    Betula,

    You continue to dodge [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php#comment-2130299). I’m beginning to think you want to remain a moving target rather than clarify a position.

    Failing to answer basic clarifying questions is not a truth seeking trait.

    In the interest of truth seeking I will do want you will not, I will answer your question.

    >*Janet, do you feel we’re in a pot of water that is beginning to boil?*

    I believe this is an suitable analogy:

    We have a system, closed except for the energy inputs and outputs at the TOA (Top of Atmosphere). Energy is radiated in, and is radiated out. If the sun maintains the energy input and we slow the energy output, then the temperature will rise. (The pot’s water can be accurately predicted to warm. We don’t need to measure short term ocean movement to make that assessment)

    Substitute the temperature range for a boiling pot (20 to 100 degrees C) for the predicted average global anomaly (from 0 to 3 degrees C ); then substitute the currents and cycles set up in a warming pot of water for ocean ocean currents and cycles. Then Trenberth is wanting to measure relatively short cycle heat movement. Trenberth in the analogy wants to track a relatively hot spot of water in the pot as it rolls from away from where current thermometer is placed.

    Trenberth’s work will be helpful, as I said:
    >*It’s a travesty that monitoring stations are not able to quantify were all the heat moves during 2008 a La Nina year. A travesty because denailists preying on short [term] fluctuations, use the dip in temp to assert global cooling.*

    >*A travesty because if the data were available it may be easier to communicate specifics rather than talking about unquantified short term fluctuations.*

    Perhaps you would like to offer a better analogy, or would you like to pursue more diversionary tactics to avoid backing up to your (seemingly erroneous) claims about which I ask for the most basic clarification?

    It should be transparent to readers that when a commenter such as Betula continues to run away for the most basic clarification questions, and then murkys the discussion with diversionary tactics (an apparent attempt to avoid clarity), then that behaviour in itself says something.

    [A reminder of the context](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php#comment-2128644)

  28. #29 Mike Lorrey
    December 9, 2009

    Janet its a bit more than that despite Trenberth’s/barth’s current equivocations about what he meant he said. They were discussing the fact that temps have been flat for the past decade, even ignoring the 1998 el nino, and HadCRUT actually was showing a slight down trend for this decade, which was contradicting GISS and the other one.
    Frankly it is too bad that it is CRU that got exposed by the CRUtape Letters, because HadCRUT was actually the most sympathetic temperature record to the skeptics cause, while GISS is clearly being cooked by Hansen and Schmidt (and they also have been dodging FOIA requests for some time as Phil was).
    Trenberth’s travesty is that, the past decade of flat or cooling temps is causing a major divergence problem in comparison with how alarmists were claiming pre-2000 how temperatures were going to go this decade, their models, because they use insanely high sensitivities that have no scientific basis in fact, show that temp anomaly by now should be well over 1.0 when it is in fact still bouncing happily between 0.0 and 0.4 from year to year.
    This divergence (ignoring the whole 1960 dendro divergence issue that self-debunks the idea of using ring widths as temp proxy) demonstrates that a) climate sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than alarmists claim, and b) sensitivity to H20 vapor is also much much less than alarmists claim.
    Despite the continuous string of immature, unprofessional, and unscientific ad hom from the alarmists toward skeptics, most of us do not disbelieve that CO2 is capable of warming. What we disbelieve is alarmist tripe that sensitivity is anywhere near as high as is claimed in the models, a position which is perfectly normal and scientifically supportable. If you want to disabuse us of these notions, you need to release your data, metadata, and methods (programs) to the public so your work can be crosschecked and replicated. Despite the appeals to authority, it is not scientific to refuse disclosure and rely on “trust me I am a scientist”.
    Add in all the suppression of publication and peer review of opposing views, falsification of expense reports to government agencies (NOAA), evasion of FOIA laws, and illegal structuring of payments to russian researchers to evade taxes and reporting requirements (all this stuff is in the emails, look for yourselves), and the Hockey Team has got itself in the soup and at least for them, it is starting to boil…

  29. #30 Joseph
    December 9, 2009

    Still want to buy into that hedge fund? We have completed a rigorous assessment and compilation of data to spread the risk and ensure a future return that would be hard to pass up.

    There’s a simple problem with this analogy. How predictive is the regression model (how well does it hindcast outside of the time range that was used to derive the model?) What are the explanatory variables? Can we forecast the explanatory variables reasonably well?

  30. #31 Sean Givan
    December 9, 2009

    One thing I noticed with people talking about version ‘e’ of the program having the “ARTIFICAL correction” uncommented, is that

    1) The Date Modified of version e is actually earlier than version d.

    2) Version e has been relegated to another project tree called ‘harris-tree’ – away from the group of other files related to the project. Looking at the tree, I think it’s meant to be a home for template and snippets for the programmer to cut-and-paste with.

  31. #32 Janet Akerman
    December 9, 2009

    Mike Lorrey writes:

    >* HadCRUT actually was showing a slight down trend for this decade, which was contradicting GISS*

    Actually HadCrut is in a [slight positive]( http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2010/trend) trend for this decade. None the less GISS shows [more warming]( http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2010/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2010/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000) because GISS factors in the rapidly rising temperature in the Arctic, which [HadCRU does not capture]( http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf).

    >“*GISS is clearly being cooked by Hansen and Schmidt*”

    How do you support this wild allegation Mike?

    Mike Lorrey contiues:

    >*Trenberth’s travesty is that, the past decade of flat or cooling temps is causing a major divergence problem in comparison with how alarmists were claiming pre-2000 how temperatures were going to go this decade, their models*

    What did [Trenberth say](http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt):

    >*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. […] but the data are surely wrong. Our **observing system is inadequate.***

    [Emphasis added]

    And to put it in context Trenberth was bouncing of this comment to promote his paper:

    >*Any of you want to explain decadal **natural variability and signal to noise** and
    **sampling errors** to this new “IPCC Lead Author” from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary–presumed–vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing […] **Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat??***

    So it is as I’ve previously stated, Trenberth is asking for better measurement capability to track relatively short term heat movement, he puts this in the context of a freak cold spell:

    >*We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.*

    Mike Lorrey contiues:
    >* their models, because they use insanely high sensitivities that have no scientific basis in fact, show that temp anomaly by now should be well over 1.0 when it is in fact still bouncing happily between 0.0 and 0.4 from year to year.*

    Mike, [here is]( http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025259.shtml) some of the scientific basis. And [here is]( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/abs/nature05699.html) some more. You don’t need to look very hard to [a sample of publications]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity) on the detailed scientific basis for estimating climate sensitivity.

    (BTW, you need to factor in time for temperature equilibration due to radiative imbalance.)

    Mike, I find your post full of wild claims and lacking in supporting evidence.

  32. #33 Betula
    December 9, 2009

    Janet,

    You expain away Trenberth”s “travesty” comment with this:

    “It’s a travesty that monitoring stations are not able to quantify were all the heat moves during 2008 a La Nina year. A travesty because denailists preying on short [term] fluctuations, use the dip in temp to assert global cooling.”

    “A travesty because if the data were available it may be easier to communicate specifics rather than talking about unquantified short term fluctuations.”

    Janet, you like to use the phrase “short term fluctuation” a lot don’t you?

    How do you know if something is a short term fluctuation before it has finished out it’s term? Speculation?

    And to answer your question:

    “Are you saying that we only have evidence of warming, and every thing else is just speculation?”

    No. I’m saying you have evidence of warming, and any evidence of how much more warming will occur, where it will occur, when it will occur, and the uncertain affects of it’s occurrance, based on probabilities derived from flawed models built by big egos…….are speculation.

  33. #34 Janet Akerman
    December 10, 2009

    Betula asks,

    >“How do you know if something is a short term fluctuation before it has finished out it’s term? Speculation? “

    Evidence. Clear longer trend warming [is evident ](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:360/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/trend). And short term [cooling trends are normal]( http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1987/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1973/to:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1970/trend) despite the underlying long term warming.

    And the extreme 1998 warm is well understood to be far above the long term trend and associated with a super El Nino. Just as the extreme 2008 below trend temperature is associated with a double whammy La Nina and solar minima.

    Combine this evidence with the fact that the Earth is [absorbing more energy than it is releasing]( http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2634.1). And the strong evidence for [ocean heat gain]( http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-global-warming-is-still-happening.html) (despite Trenberth’s desire for even better measurement capacity). And you have a very strong set of evidence supporting the argument that the warming trend will continue.

    Then we could bring further evidence re in the radiative physics for greenhouse gases, and the physical laws that are used to model climates. But I’ll leave that for later.

  34. #35 Rob Record
    December 11, 2009

    — Interval —

  35. #36 Chris Tucker
    December 11, 2009

    I share a mailing list with esr. He came by the list, pulled his ego out of his trousers and waved it about, going on about his Siege Gun and whatnot. Essentially cut and paste from his blog.

    (his siege gun is now pretty much a superannuated pop gun that has lost its cork)

    He went on about how the raw data was destroyed and how that wasn’t SCIENCE!

    When corrected about data retention, he then claimed that it wasn’t science at all, just a hollow mockery.

    Then, the REAL scientists, who do REAL science on a daily basis (particle physicist at FermiLab and a laser propulsion specialist) slapped him down hard about REAL science and how REAL science is done and how data retention is often less than useless.

    esr then told them, “You’re Doing It Wrong!”

    Keep in mind esr has no science degrees, never took any science courses in college and, apparently, never graduated, according to his c.v. on his website.

    Further, esr then went on to remind us that he’s gotten death threats, allegedly from someone in Iran. He further alleges that the FBI contacted HIM about this.

    One of his quotes about this is that he’ll be keeping his hand closer to his holster from now on.

    To which, the only reply can be:

    “Dear SOLDIER OF FORTUNE Forum: I never thought this would happen to me, but…”

    I realized esr was a fatuous git the day he decided to lecture me about the working conditions for coal miners.

    I’m the son of a United Mine Workers of America union organizer. My father joined the union as a field organizer right after WWII.

    I know, far better that esr ever will about coal miners working conditions. Something about meeting some of these gentlemen who have spent their whole lives in coal mines when they would be meeting with my father. Talking with them myself, seeing the results of black lung and the injuries received while working in the mines.

    Jeebus, fatuous git doesn’t come anywhere NEAR properly describing esr. Why anyone would pay the slightest bit of attention to him is beyond me.

  36. #37 Hank Roberts
    December 14, 2009

    ESR wrote good advice for newbies: how to ask hackers good questions.

    He doesn’t demonstrate, as a newbie in climatology, that he remembers it.

    Well, if he were perfect, he’d ascend directly to heaven, so no doubt he’s maintaining one imperfection so he can stay earthbound a while longer.

  37. #38 RockyRoad
    December 17, 2009

    There hasn’t been a comment posted on this article for 3 days now. Maybe all those defending the CRU have come to realize that the data is stacking up against them:
    1) New Zealand’s data was massaged with a hockey-stick incline (along with suppression of temps before 1972).
    2) Australia’s data was massaged with a hockey-stick incline (along with suppression of temps before 1972).
    3) Canada is doing a thorough investigation of their data because it looks suspect.
    4) Russia has announced that their data was cherry-picked to enhance temperature increases.
    (Note that Siberia and Canada are, according to the CRU, the Hot Spots that really show the world is heating up, but if Canada finds their data was cooked, well, folks, that pretty well puts the hangman’s noose around anthropogenic global warming, doesn’t it?)
    The two databases from satellite observations are calibrated to the terrestrial databases, but if these are fudged, well, there goes the ballgame.
    I can tell you as a geologist that what we’re (really) seeing is normal variations in the earth’s climate. I can also tell you that I’d never want to be in Phil Jones’ or Michael Mann’s shoes–never in a million years. The hockey stick approach has lied about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice age.
    May polar bears dance on their graves.

  38. #39 Bernard J.
    December 18, 2009

    What is this peculiar pathology that afflicts so many geologists, and renders them incapable of seeing the evidence of other disciplines of science?

    Their AGW-denial argument is akin to the logical fallacy that “all ducks are birds, therefore all birds are ducks”.

    [RockyRoad](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php#comment-2151398).

    Did you consider that there might not have been any comments here, simply because Raymond’s misrepresentations died and were thoroughly buried?

    Oo, and:

    1) [no, they were not](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php)
    2) [no, they were not](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php)
    3) who says they look “suspect”
    4) [no, they were not](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php)

    Note: “data” is plural, “datum” is singular”.

  39. #40 Ed Darrell
    December 21, 2009

    Oh, and Raymond reckons the greens are controlled by commie puppet masters . . .

    What do I know — I’m just a lawyer — but it sure does tick ‘em off when I ask them to name some of the commies involved. Over at the Volokh Conspiracy they got a little loose in the glued joints and demanded that I acknowledge all environmentalism is socialist/communist crap, and it really seemed to tick ‘em off when I noted that the Rockefellers and other Robber Barons were in on the start of the conservation movement.

    So, I figure, since I’m not a programmer, there must be some mystery code there I can’t fathom.

  40. #41 dhogaza
    December 21, 2009

    Oh, God, Ed, the only difference between the denialists there and those at WUWT are that the lawyers write better. Their level of scientific ignorance is no different, however.

  41. #42 Chris O'Neill
    December 21, 2009

    RockyRoad :

    There hasn’t been a comment posted on this article for 3 days now. Maybe all those defending the CRU have come to realize

    By the way, I think most Australians know the weight you can put on emails.

  42. #43 John McManus
    December 22, 2009

    re: 339 – rocky roads. What? I’m a Canadian and have heard nothing and can find nothing. What we do hear on a regular basis is no climate scientists returning from Canada’s north with details about the accelerating warming.

    Maybe I’m stupid and they don’t mean what they say , but the Hadley site has an online request form for access to data. Before you can apply, you have to agree to their policies( I know I usually don’t read these agreements either). One of the rules is : the data must be deleted after the project is completed.

    Again: am I stupid or is this what Phil Jones did. If so, his honesty has been adequately punished.

  43. #44 John McManus
    December 22, 2009

    #343 Typo alert.

    What I meant was non climate scientists. ( Biologists, politicians, tourists, Inuit, jounalists, hitchikers, Cree, students, truck drivers etc.). Not climate scientists , but not blind either.

    Do the think tanks seriously believe that these people can be told that arctic ice is increasing. Cato, heartland and the rest are rolling shitballs for bloggers to throw, but eventually people learn that they are shit.

  44. #45 Jacob Weiss
    April 16, 2010

    Funny thing: Peer reviewed scientific literature is only considered so when the data, every process for that data, and code are available to reviewers.

    Climate Science under Ole Petey never released the data was never provided to reviewers, Ole Petey himself hasn’t the foggiest what happened between the original data from sources like MET and the data he has on hand, and nobody but nobody has the code. Even with the FOIA upload, you have to *guess* at the code.

    But you who call skeptics “deniers” want to consider this crap “peer-reviewed” do you?

    Science is tested for validity by skeptics. By calling them “deniers” you have admitted your status as AGW cultists.

    Shame on you.

  45. #46 Johnmacmot
    April 16, 2010

    The shame is entirely yours, Jacob. You’ve let yourself be conned, and are anything but sceptical. Large amount of ignorance on display in your post, and lots of belief.

Current ye@r *