Lots of smart and gifted people are poring over the emails and data that was hacked out of the the UK’s  high church of global warming = the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre. I myself am reviewing two documents which support my long standing claims that the accuracy of the raw data is incapable of detecting a global warming trend of less than a degree over the period of actual temperature data that began in 1880. I am seeing indications the data cannot detect a warming trend under a degree for countries and regions, let alone the Earth. In fact, I am seeing data that shows entire regions of the world (e.g., South America) have seen no significant warming between the 1940 and 2000 (the only time period I think the data could be accurate to within a degree).

But until I can finish my cursory analysis of the data, I will have to let our readers relish the discoveries of others (who clearly did not have all-star soccer playoffs this weekend!). Bishop Hill has an excellent round up of the CRU emails and their contents which do paint the picture of falsified data and a coordinated cover up.

I especially found these interesting:

Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

…

Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075) [AJStrata: Many of the CRU Temp records show a decline]

…

Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)

…

Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

…

Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975) [AJStrata: Heat generated by concentrations of humanity are not CO2 driven, therefore cannot be contained by limiting CO2. But it also means the temp records are biased, since most thermometers are in and around cities, which means the Earth (e.g., that 75% covered by water) is not heating at all (probably absorbing the heat)]

…

Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944) [AJStrata: What I am beginning to see in the CRU temp data is that the only way to get the dramatic global warming is to add dodgy proxies (like Yamal Larches) to the data and create man-made global warming (statistically)]

…

Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796) [AJStrata: A rare but hidden moment of honesty]

…

Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573) [AJStrata: showing one’s steps is required to validate the results. Deny this validation is not science, it is a con]

…

Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers – Saiers was subsequently ousted]

Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)

…

Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)

…

Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)

…

Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)

Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)

Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)[AJStrata: These papers, no doubt, prove the skeptics’ case]

The story these emails reveal (if they are all in fact untouched by the hackers) is a conspiracy by faux scientists who were twisting the scientific method and community to their own agendas. There are indications of data manipulation, hiding the real data and working to silence critics. It is a gang of greedy criminals who have been exposed to real transparency and scrutiny.

And those politicians who once stood by them? They either throw these clowns under the bus or join them in the dustbin of history.

Update: I love a good damning timeline the proves lies and false accusations (that Perry Mason kick I got on when I was young. Powerline provides such an example today as they weave the behind the scenes  emails in with the bombastic public lies of these CRU charlatans against real scientists challenging their shoddy methodologies.

Update: What I love about this email series is how one CRU scientist conspiracist admits that if you take the magic larches out of the Yamal data sets current warming is about the same as the Medieval Warming Period:

Certainly in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100. Plus there is the additional uncertainty, discussed on the final page of the supplementary information, associated with linking the proxy records to real temperatures (remember we have no formal calibration, we’re just counting proxies — I’m still amazed that Science agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14!

…

But this is fine, since the IPCC AR4 and other assessments are not saying the evidence is 100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just “likely” that modern is warmer than M[edieval] W[arm] P[eriod].

Emphasis mine. I have been saying this all along! There is no way to create a temperature record via these proxies accurate to a degree (let alone much less). There are too many other factors involved that just overwhelm ‘global temperature’ – which is just an average single index smeared over the Earth. They don’t even pretend they have a mapping (i.e., ‘formal calibration’) of rings to temperature. It is all unsubstantiated hypothesis. They snar

It is nowhere near settled fact.

Tags: CRU, Global Warming