[ShortcutToMoncton]

I'm scratching my head a little at the repeated insinuation of coldishness considering 2009 thus far is ranking, what, 5th-warmest on record? Something like that?

You keep referring to "Mick Kelley's graphs" but seem unwilling to clarify that Mr. Kelly was apparently talking about giving a presentation. At least that's what the email you quote says: a "talk."

Do you have emails which show the removal of "recent coldishness" in any scientific publications?

greg

[sek929]

It's been an incredibly mild winter so far over in this part of the world.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'm scratching my head a little at the repeated insinuation of coldishness considering 2009 thus far is ranking, what, 5th-warmest on record? Something like that?

I'm cold *right now*, therefore the planet is clearly *not* warming.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'm scratching my head a little at the repeated insinuation of coldishness considering 2009 thus far is ranking, what, 5th-warmest on record? Something like that?

I'm scratching my head more at having to mention that 2009 being an abnormally hot year is not evidence of AGW, it's climate change.

Mick Kelly, a leading scientist at CRU comments on a 10-year trend, Trenbirth affirms it, but 2009 being an abnormally hot year is sufficient to rebut their observations?

You keep referring to "Mick Kelley's graphs" but seem unwilling to clarify that Mr. Kelly was apparently talking about giving a presentation. At least that's what the email you quote says: a "talk." Do you have emails which show the removal of "recent coldishness" in any scientific publications?

CRU represents a substantial data mill for the IPCC and are often involved in giving "talks" to folks like scientists and policy makers at the WMO. They give "talks" to major investors like those at Shell Oil to procure major grants for continued work. The reason they're giving talks to an audience of this scope is because they are the preeminent scientists of their field. These "presentations" are a representation of their life's work. At what point would it be acceptable to mention a 10-year trend in one setting using one set of data and give a conflicting account in another setting using different data?

The spin on this issue has been fascinating to watch. I mean, unless you've got emails talking about the removal of warmishness in a scientific publication.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'm cold *right now*, therefore the planet is clearly *not* warming.

Pine Mountain® Firelogs may warm you and they likely burn cleaner than your neighbor's VW Vanagon with the greenpeace bumper sticker and multi-colored dancing bears window decal.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm scratching my head more at having to mention that 2009 being an abnormally hot year is not evidence of AGW, it's climate change.

Mick Kelly, a leading scientist at CRU comments on a 10-year trend, Trenbirth affirms it, but 2009 being an abnormally hot year is sufficient to rebut their observations?

What "trend"? That is my question. The quote you used from Mick Kelly stated "...longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures." You've characterized this as a trend, and have specifically mentioned recent coldishness. Could you clarify where you are getting these conclusions?

And do you have any date re: this email from Mick Kelly? I just looked him up and seems that he left East Anglia in early 2007. (Which is also when his impressive publication record ends.) Given that 2005 may have been the hottest year on the temp record (depending which data set you use), I'm curious as to when this email was sent. Did he mean "recent coldishness" as... the 2006 year?

At what point would it be acceptable to mention a 10-year trend in one setting using one set of data and give a conflicting account in another setting using different data?

The spin on this issue has been fascinating to watch.

Indeed... hopefully you can update me on Mick Kelly's "10-year trend" and we'll go from there.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

What "trend"? That is my question. The quote you used from Mick Kelly stated "...longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures." You've characterized this as a trend, and have specifically mentioned recent coldishness. Could you clarify where you are getting these conclusions?

From an email of Mick Kelly's? In full context:

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.

And do you have any date re: this email from Mick Kelly? I just looked him up and seems that he left East Anglia in early 2007. (Which is also when his impressive publication record ends.) Given that 2005 may have been the hottest year on the temp record (depending which data set you use), I'm curious as to when this email was sent. Did he mean "recent coldishness" as... the 2006 year?

This email thread begins on October 24th, 2008 @ 8:39pm. From this same email thread preceding the above statements from Mick addressed to Phil Jones:

Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a public talk and noted that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or so and 2008 doesn't look too hot.

He did not isolate singular years other than "dealing with 1998". He mentions nothing of isolating 2006 or anything of the like. He closes his first email to Phil Jones on 10/24/08; Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!.

It should be noted that there is nothing at present to question the authenticity of any of the emails collected. The only claim is that these are an "honest exchange of ideals" (omg) and that they are taken out of context. You're welcome to parse dates of employment and scientific contribution so long as you acknowledge a continued relationship as a consultant and in fact one connected to the "CRU5" as they affectionately put it. Again, the authenticity of the emails is not in contention; not by CRU and not by the very senders themselves.

Indeed... hopefully you can update me on Mick Kelly's "10-year trend" and we'll go from there.

The good news for AGW apologetics is that none of the emails specifically state; "AGW is a farce and I hope those skeptics don't catch wind of how we've duped the public!" though I'm not sure how that would be any less damning at this point.

[mattyb]

'CRU cherrypicked Russian climate data', says Russian

Time for some more popcorn me thinks.

Of course this guy is a member of a right wing think tank so anything he says or thinks can be safely ignored.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The good news for AGW apologetics is that none of the emails specifically state; "AGW is a farce and I hope those skeptics don't catch wind of how we've duped the public!" though I'm not sure how that would be any less damning at this point.

Less damming? How? I'm honestly stumped here. You've been apparently talking about a retired scientist cutting two years off his presentation graph for effect, because 2008 was so "cold"?

What does this have anything to do with the science behind climate change? I'm failing to put two and two together here.

Are you going to come out and say that research publications have been "faked" in this manner? That seems to be the logical conclusion here, but you're talking around it rather than making the statement. Or am I wrong, and is the "damning evidence" truly Mick Kelly's presentation graph? I mean, it's certainly a head-shaker of a decision on his part... but damning?

(And where were you when the Global Warming Swindle movie repeatedly cut 25 years off its graphs? I'm tempted to go back just to check out the outrage....)

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

talking about a retired scientist cutting two years off his presentation graph for effect

No greg. Talking about him saying "maybe" he will do this, "next time." I've been watching for anyone to claim he actually did it, and no one has.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well, yes, there's also the possibility that it was a completely tongue-in-cheek comment; that he was perhaps making a casual joke about the same "Global Warming Swindle" movie antics to which I alluded, and both of them were chuckling at their computers at the very thought. With email it's hard to tell of course, and the email could just as easily be read that way as well.

But either way, even if he did cut some years off... I really don't see how it affects the research record.

greg

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

'CRU cherrypicked Russian climate data', says Russian

Time for some more popcorn me thinks.

Of course this guy is a member of a right wing think tank so anything he says or thinks can be safely ignored.

If the title had said "says American", I would not have believed it.

But it says "says Russian". That's all the proof I need to know it's true.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Less damming? How? I'm honestly stumped here. You've been apparently talking about a retired scientist cutting two years off his presentation graph for effect, because 2008 was so "cold"?

What does this have anything to do with the science behind climate change? I'm failing to put two and two together here.

I think it's because the scientists behind the data that is being used politically as part of a call to action for left-leaning lifestyle changes have been caught trying to make the science appear to show something it does not and/or hiding information they don't want out in the public which would hurt their political goals.

You don't hide things that support your scientific conclusions. You don't refuse to supply data that can be used to check your "science" even when compelled to via a FOI request if there's nothing that can be found which might suggest you were cherry picking data or got your math wrong (again).

Between the "hockey stick" graph that will make a hockey stick out of any data, math "errors" which would seem designed to support conventional AGW wisdom about when it's been hotter, and trying to refute skeptics using cherry picked data, I think its fair to question the "science" at this point.

If there was nothing to hide, they wouldn't be hiding anything.

[Orion27]

"The Climategate files forced the UK Meteorological Office to make at least part of their raw data available. One of the first was Willis Eschenbach, at Watts Up With That. Read the whole discussion and also Eschenbach's answer to a critique published in the Economist for the details, but here is the "money shot":

"In this figure, the blue line is the raw data. The black line is the adjustments that had been applied to that data, and the red line is the result following the adjustments."

Power Line

Can someone here please educate me and justify this kind of Data manipulation?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Can someone here please educate me and justify this kind of Data manipulation?

The problem with all of this is that I have no way of knowing that the chart proving data manipulation weren't manipulated themselves.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The problem with all of this is that I have no way of knowing that the chart proving data manipulation weren't manipulated themselves.

If that were the only example.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

If that were the only example.

Even *all* of the examples. I've seen enough manipulation and misinterpretation to know that the anti-climate-change crowd is *just as motivated* to manipulate the information to show that the climate isn't changing as the climate-change crowd is motivated to show that it is changing. Personally, I think the loudest people on both sides of the equation are lying to us.

[Wiskedjak]

I love how people can blindly accept one chart proving that this other chart has been lying to us. It all boils down to a want to believe. Both sides have people who want to believe their charts and will do so easily without questioning the data behind the charts.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Between the "hockey stick" graph that will make a hockey stick out of any data, math "errors" which would seem designed to support conventional AGW wisdom about when it's been hotter, and trying to refute skeptics using cherry picked data, I think its fair to question the "science" at this point.

This is the crux of the point IMO.

While much of what I've been pointing out has been related to Mick Kelly, it is not Mick Kelly's stated desire to manipulate data alone that bolsters suspicion. It is this statement in context of the multiple other statements demonstrating budget-fudging, the who, what, when, where, and how of massaging data to bias warming, and the hive mentality prevalent in the tone of the "CRU5". Their methodology wreaks of the same dubious tactics they're quick to indict "the opposition" for while shamelessly joking about FOIA requests and encouraging one another to conceal, manipulate, and eliminate data they think casts doubt on AGW. I see an immediate willingness to give this coffee-clutch as much benefit of the doubt as possible while there is no reason to do so. I'd challenge the AGW apologetics of this forum to consider whether or not they'd play this fast and loose with the context of skeptics.

The good news is there was more collected than simply emails. There are attachments and documents that provide a great deal of specific information related to the models' codes and the input data. Over some time, this will allow others outside the circle-jerk of peer review @ CRU to establish their merit. I'm hoping the scheduled investigation of this issue is conducted with more transparency and integrity than it appears climate science has been conducted.

To Shortcut and Uncle:
The fact of the matter is that Mick Kelly's work appears more focused on adaptation and mitigation and I can find no graphs from him, let alone any that show a "hiding of the decline". He appears most useful for giving "talks" and "presentations" to people that fund research and draft policy. As far as I know he is responsible for little more than bastardizing others' data in order to speak to it confidently, but I'll concede that the only evidence of this is in the emails themselves; subject to varying interpretation contingent upon which side of this issue one sits apparently.

I'm seeing the possibility that Mick Kelly was just joking about "maybe removing" data and I'm being asked to show a Mick Kelly graph that actually shows the manipulated data in order to establish the questionable nature of those email threads. While I suspend disbelief at the degree of spin necessary to make this claim with a straight face I'll simply ask; can you cite for me anything of any of the CRU5 that acknowledges the relative stability of global temps the last 10 years, "coldish years", or the notion that their "observations are inadequate" outside of those emails?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The problem with all of this is that I have no way of knowing that the chart proving data manipulation weren't manipulated themselves.

Interestingly, you can see that the "money shot" graph was itself manipulated. If you follow Orion's link to "Read Eschenbach's answer" there is a similar but different graph, and the black "adjustment" line is clearly different:

It looks like it was drawn in by hand trying to mimic the other one ("by hand" being the root of the word "manipulate").

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I love how people can blindly accept one chart proving that this other chart has been lying to us. It all boils down to a want to believe. Both sides have people who want to believe their charts and will do so easily without questioning the data behind the charts.

I'm inclined to agree with your wrap-up Wiskedjak with the exception that you have actual discussions between the foremost authorities on this issue related specifically to data manipulation among other things. In other words; it's one thing to show problems with data or how it's represented on a graph from the skeptical perspective, it's another thing entirely to read proponents' discussions on what those problems are (otherwise generally denied) and how exactly to address the contradictory data. It becomes even more profound when you realize how much of our collective resources are dedicated to producing this data and how it is being used to affect our livelihoods.

Any banter on "sides" is lame without acknowledging the differences in their impact IMO.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Interestingly, you can see that the "money shot" graph was itself manipulated. If you follow Orion's link to "Read Eschenbach's answer" there is a similar but different graph, and the black "adjustment" line is clearly different: It looks like it was drawn in by hand trying to mimic the other one ("by hand" being the root of the word "manipulate").

Here's the second graph you're referencing;


A quick stare and compare shows that it is not the raw data that has been "hand drawn" or manipulated (Temperature anomaly (C)). The difference between the two charts is simply the scale of the secondary axis used on the second chart showing the dichotomy between the adjusted and actual.

Both illustrations show the same methodological problem.