Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (12261)	8/15/2009 2:29:16 PM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

That's just freakin' ridiculous!! This guy supposedly is collecting all this data and suddenly "loses it"?? Methinks he may actually become the Bernie Madoff of GW.. He gets paid to collect data, fakes it, and sends out falsified or unreliable data to be used. Devastating to the GW movement. Hawk

To: Brumar89 who wrote (12261)	8/15/2009 4:24:36 PM
From: Bearcatbob	2 Recommendations Respond to of 86356

The whole GW issue has become a joke. I pity the poor Dem reps who had to walk the GW plank for Obama! May they all be sent to alumni status next year. investors.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (12261)	8/16/2009 10:13:34 AM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

These stories are pretty funny. I'm thinking National Inquirer... If you want to get records on the worlds climate you can go to NOAA. They keep the records for the U.S. and mirror for storage a lot of WX records from around the world in their database going back to the 19th century.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (12261)	11/20/2009 7:21:58 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 86356

Phil Jones threatened to destroy his data before releasing it and he did - he should face legal charges: The warmist conspiracy: the emails that most damn Jones 28 Comments \| 0 Trackbacks \| Permalink Andrew Bolt Blog Andrew Bolt Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 10:19am These are the emails that should have Professor Phil Jones most worried about his future. Jones, head of the CRU unit whose emails were leaked, has been under most fire so far over one email in particular in which he boasted of using a ‘“trick" to “hide the decline” that would have otherwise spoiled his graph showing temperatures soaring ever-upward. But far more serious - at least in a legal sense - may be his apparent boasting of destroying data to stop sceptics from checking this alarmist work. If, as some emails suggest, he destroyed it to thwart FOI requests from Professor Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, who’d already exposed as fake the Michael Mann “hockey stick”, Jones, one of the most active of the IPCC lead authors, could even face criminal charges. (Note: in saying that, I should add that these emails may simply be poorly worded, out of context or even altered by the whistleblower who leaked them. Jones may also not knowingly have done anything wrong.) Whether laws were broken or not, the emails prove beyond doubt how resistant Jones and his colleagues were to having their work properly scrutinised by anyone not of their “team”. The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM - McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added): At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it ! Jones admits he was warned by his own university against deleting data subjected to an FOI request from McIntyre - or anyone: From: Phil Jones To: santer1@XXXX Subject: Re: A quick question Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008 Ben, Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails - unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email. Anyway requests have been of three types - observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter - and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these - all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business - and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here! Makes you wonder very strongly what Jones is trying to hide, doesn’t it? Also makes you laugh all over again at his claim once that the data being sought had, sadly, been ... um, lost. In1212063122.txtm, Jones urges another colleague, Michael “Hockey Stick”, Mann, to join in the deleting - at least of emails about the IPCC’s controversial ARA report on man-made warming which Jones co-authored, and which claimed warming was “unequivocal” and “most likely” caused by humans: From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann” Subject: IPCC & FOI Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008 Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! Cheers Phil: For years Jones has made clear his determination to keep crucial data from the eyes of sceptics: From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxx.edu Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005 Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes” Mike, Ray and Malcolm, The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated ! Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series ! Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH. The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate ! Cheers Phil 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 ! And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data, he considers ways to make checking it more difficult or annoying: Options appear to be: Send them the data Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them. blogs.news.com.au