Ask by Classical Liberal (libertarian): What do you think about this email hacked from the Climate Research Center?
The Climatic Research Unit is a component of the University of East Anglia U.K. and is one of the leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

It has around thirty research scientists and students and has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@virginia.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

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 from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK

Featured answer:

Answer by liberal_60
I think it is insignificant. The deniers don’t have a clue as to what he is actually saying. They pick up on a couple of words in the email that sound as if Jones is being deceptive, and conclude that thousands of studies over the last 10 years are deceptions. If you want to understand what he is actually saying, spend some time looking at it carefully and doing some research.

Answer by James E
This is very typical of how liberal minds function from observing them for more than 60 years now. The first thought of any liberal mind is how do I alter this material to reflect my current political desires and views. A conservative mind will be evaluating how do I find and explain the natural cause of this change so the general population can understand what is really causing this to happen.

So the liberal mind looks for a way to hide what he does not politically agree with so others will not realize climate is going against his heartfelt political view. The moderate or conservative mind works overtime for free to discover the reason why the climate is changing on its own so they can better explain it to the average person.

This is completely natural in all ways because the liberal mind works its hardest to cover up something that might be perceived as an error in their work. The conservative will always try and find a way so the most people are able to comprehend why the sun cooled down instead of warming up like their liberal leadership said it would.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/12/another-parallel-with-the-maunder-minimum/

http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj.html

http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/fish_wrapper_wont_publish_global_cooling_study

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTlhOTNiOWFlMmMzNmJkOWM3ZTk5NWJkNTU2Nzk5NWI=

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_heat_capacity

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle

http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-change-non-co2-causes/

http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

Response to a silly liberal. I know that the AGW scientists were all liberals and I have had regular reports from no less than a dozen maybe more very liberal scientists that went to several collages in Pasadena during the 60s and I took most if not all of their major exams and tests for them for money because at the time I needed it to support the cost of the girl I was dating. Most of them are now scattered around and no longer working in Pasadena but i am kept informed of things they see that the silly left are doing as do several more conservatives like myself who never had the money to go to collage but have several liberals dependent on us for ideas that keep us very well informed on what the dumber big shot liberals are currently up to.

Personally I thought it would be another year before somebody broke it wide open but there have been more than a couple of dozen Europeans who wanted to break the con game wide open and now they have.

Answer by Eric c
He is commenting on a historical temperature reconstruction using tree ring data. The problem is that using tree rings as temperature proxies, the temperatures started to decline in 1961. So what he did was graph on temperature records on the proxy records. The is the trick he is talking about.

The problem is,that is bad science, and they knew it was bad science. When confronted with it, they outright denied doing it. From Mann, the original author of the Hockey stick.

“No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.”

Edit: Dana said: ” As you can see, when taken in context, this email just shows climate scientists trying to accurately show the changes in the global temperature.” It clearly shows that using tree rings as temperature proxies is bad science. If tree rings cannot accurately predict the last 40 years why are you so confident that they could predict that last 1000 years?

Answer by Dana1981, Master of Science
I don’t think much of it.

The “trick” is just to append the instrumental temperature record onto a global temperature reconstruction to show how rapidly the planet has warmed this past century, like this:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pcn/fig6-10b.png

The “decline” Jones is “hiding” is known as the “divergence problem” in which some tree ring data seems to show that the planet has cooled this century. We know this isn’t true from the instrumental temperature record (satellites and surface stations). The problem with tree rings is that the temperature isn’t the only factor which impacts their size, so they’re not terribly reliable.

So in order to “hide” this bit of inaccurate data, Jones showed the instrumental temperature record instead, which we know is accurate. As you can see, when taken in context, this email just shows climate scientists trying to accurately show the changes in the global temperature.

See Myth #14 at the link below for further details.

Answer by Noah Tall
It shows what Mann said no respectable scientist would ever do, graft different data onto a another to try to make a point the original data did not prove (it showed the contrary). Guess he was right, no respectable scientist would do something like that.

Ya know it’s amazing how much time they waste on avoiding giving out information, and how petty they are about real scientists. Obviously none are lawyers, although I’m sure they have been given legal council in the past few days.

Just like my hero Jones, I’ll close this with
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !

Please Add your own answer in the comments!