Climate frauders can't even follow Fed's minimum requirements for openness

[TelepesT]

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ray bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


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
-------------------------------------------------------------


WHOA! then i found this one - Mentions how the Federal Reserve Bank shakes up the data.
WTF!!!!!!!!!!

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE "DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE" SCARE
Date: Wed Apr 27 09:06:53 2005

Mike,
Presumably you've seen all this - the forwarded email from Tim. I got this email from
McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I'm concerned he has the data - sent ages ago. I'll
tell him this, but that's all - no code. If I can find it, it is likely to be hundreds of
lines of
uncommented fortran ! I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series.
I know why he can't replicate the results early on - it is because there was a variance
correction for fewer series.
See you in Bern.
Cheers
Phil
Dear Phil,

In keeping with the spirit of your suggestions to look at some of the other multiproxy
publications, I've been looking at Jones et al [1998]. The methodology here is obviously
more straightforward than MBH98. However, while I have been able to substantially emulate
your calculations, I have been unable to do so exactly. The differences are larger in the
early periods.

Since I have been unable to replicate the results exactly based on available materials, I
would appreciate a copy of the actual data set used in Jones et al [1998] as well as the
code used in these calculations.

There is an interesting article on replication by Anderson et al., some distinguished
economists, here [1]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf discussing the
issue of replication in applied economics and referring favorably to our attempts in
respect to MBH98.

Regards, Steve McIntyre

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:28:53 +0100
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE "DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE" SCARE
Keith and Phil,
you both feature in the latest issue of CCNet:

(4) GLOBAL WARMING AND DATA
Steve Verdon, Outside the Beltway, 25 April 2005
[2]http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10200
A new paper ([3]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf) from the St. Luis
Federal Reserve Bank has an interesting paer on how important it is to archive not only
the data but the code for empirical papers. While the article looks mainly at economic
research there is also a lesson to be drawn from this paper about the current state of
research for global warming/climate change. One of the hallmarks of scientific research
is that the results can be replicable. Without this, the results shouldn't be considered
valid let alone used for making policy.
Ideally, investigators should be willing to share their data and programs so as to
encourage other investigators to replicate and/or expand on their results.3 Such
behavior allows science to move forward in a Kuhn-style linear fashion, with each
generation seeing further from the shoulders of the previous generation.4 At a minimum,
the results of an endeavor-if it is to be labeled "scientific"-should be replicable,
i.e., another researcher using the same methods should be able to reach the same result.
In the case of applied economics using econometric software, this means that another
researcher using the same data and the same computer software should achieve the same
results.
However, this is precisely the problem that Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have run
into since looking into the methodology used by Mann, Hughes and Bradely (1998) (MBH98),
the paper that came up with the famous "hockey stick" for temperature reconstructions.
For example, this post here shows that McIntyre was prevented from accessing Mann's FTP
site. This is supposedly a public site where interested researchers can download not
only the source code, but also the data. This kind of behavior by Mann et. al. is simply
unscientific and also rather suspicious. Why lock out a researcher who is trying to
verify your results...do you have something to hide professors Mann, Bradley and Huges?
Not only has this been a problem has this been a problem for McIntyre with regards to
MBH98, but other studies as well. This post at Climate Audit shows that this problem is
actually quite serious.
Crowley and Lowery (2000)
After nearly a year and over 25 emails, Crowley said in mid-October that he has
misplaced the original data and could only find transformed and smoothed versions. This
makes proper data checking impossible, but I'm planning to do what I can with what he
sent. Do I need to comment on my attitude to the original data being "misplaced"?
Briffa et al. (2001)
There is no listing of sites in the article or SI (despite JGR policies requiring
citations be limited to publicly archived data). Briffa has refused to respond to any
requests for data. None of these guys have the least interest in some one going through
their data and seem to hoping that the demands wither away. I don't see how any policy
reliance can be made on this paper with no available data.
Esper et al. (2002)
This paper is usually thought to show much more variation than the hockey stick. Esper
has listed the sites used, but most of them are not archived. Esper has not responded to
any requests for data. '
Jones and Mann (2003); Mann and Jones (2004)
Phil Jones sent me data for these studies in July 2004, but did not have the weights
used in the calculations, which Mann had. Jones thought that the weights did not matter,
but I have found differently. I've tried a few times to get the weights, but so far have
been unsuccessful. My surmise is that the weighting in these papers is based on
correlations to local temperature, as opposed to MBH98-MBH99 where the weightings are
based on correlations to the temperature PC1 (but this is just speculation right now.)
The papers do not describe the methods in sufficient detail to permit replication.
Jacoby and d'Arrigo (northern treeline)
I've got something quite interesting in progress here. If you look at the original 1989
paper, you will see that Jacoby "cherry-picked" the 10 "most temperature-sensitive"
sites from 36 studied. I've done simulations to emulate cherry-picking from persistent
red noise and consistently get hockey stick shaped series, with the Jacoby northern
treeline reconstruction being indistinguishable from simulated hockey sticks. The other
26 sites have not been archived. I've written to Climatic Change to get them to
intervene in getting the data. Jacoby has refused to provide the data. He says that his
research is "mission-oriented" and, as an ex-marine, he is only interested in a "few
good" series.Jacoby has also carried out updated studies on the Gasp

[voodo0]

WOW! Wonderful find my friend!

[TelepesT]

http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf

Its right there

[EvadingGrid]

GUILTY

That's evidence of fraudulent science

However, this is precisely the problem that Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have run
into since looking into the methodology used by Mann, Hughes and Bradely (1998) (MBH98),
the paper that came up with the famous "hockey stick" for temperature reconstructions.
For example, this post here shows that McIntyre was prevented from accessing Mann's FTP
site. This is supposedly a public site where interested researchers can download not
only the source code, but also the data. This kind of behavior by Mann et. al. is simply
unscientific and also rather suspicious. Why lock out a researcher who is trying to
verify your results...do you have something to hide professors Mann, Bradley and Huges?

This is an outrage, these people have totally disregarded the scientific methods, they are hiding the data and the source code, yet they insist on the validity of there results - ? -

[TelepesT]

http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf

Its right there

From the above fed doc:

Many analysts have noted that actual researchers seek not only truth but also fame and fortune, that is, researchers seek individual rewards. For most academic researchers, publication is essential to their livelihood.

[JBS]

From the above fed doc:

Many analysts have noted that actual researchers seek not only truth but also fame and fortune, that is, researchers seek individual rewards. For most academic researchers, publication is essential to their livelihood.

Uh huh. I read some emails and it looks like some funding was obtained for fraudulent reports. These dirtbags were paid to lie and disgraced the entire scientific community. I hope they like it in the soup lines with the rest of us.

[DaInfoMan]

I feel the title is somewhat misleading because the document is available online so I wouldn't consider it to be a secret. Secondly, the report was pushing gaining a consensus  for researchers & journals to publish their data & codes, but it does mention that it wouldn't benefit researchers who are "incompetence or deceptive" & goes into how there's  little demand for this type of information & a few other tidbits of the process & how most almost all published works nowadays can't be replicated. However, if you didn't know that it'd be beneficial to be secret about your work if you trying to pull one of the biggest hoaxes, you've got to be a complete idiot!

[Dig]

I feel the title is somewhat misleading because the document is available online so I wouldn't consider it to be a secret. Secondly, the report was pushing gaining a consensus  for researchers & journals to publish their data & codes, but it does mention that it wouldn't benefit researchers who are "incompetence or deceptive" & goes into how there's  little demand for this type of information & a few other tidbits of the process & how most almost all published works nowadays can't be replicated. However, if you didn't know that it'd be beneficial to be secret about your work if you trying to pull one of the biggest hoaxes, you've got to be a complete idiot!

correct
correct
correct
correct
correct
correct

I  changed the heading. if there other changed required on this thread feel free to pm me. this was my error, not telepest's

thanks

[agentbluescreen]

GUILTY

That's evidence of fraudulent science

However, this is precisely the problem that Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have run
into since looking into the methodology used by Mann, Hughes and Bradely (1998) (MBH98),
the paper that came up with the famous "hockey stick" for temperature reconstructions.
For example, this post here shows that McIntyre was prevented from accessing Mann's FTP
site. This is supposedly a public site where interested researchers can download not
only the source code, but also the data. This kind of behavior by Mann et. al. is simply
unscientific and also rather suspicious. Why lock out a researcher who is trying to
verify your results...do you have something to hide professors Mann, Bradley and Huges?

This is an outrage, these people have totally disregarded the scientific methods, they are hiding the data and the source code, yet they insist on the validity of there results - ? -

I'm afraid your assessment is totally correct. One has to remember that climate-temperature modeling is exactly the same as polling or so-called "economic" modeling.

 While it would be childs play itself to use remote infrared satellite data to generate a perfectly accurate and consistent evaluation of overall temperature conditions and their variations over the surface of the earth such data does not go back far enough to show the type of "warming" they sought to demonstrate (note the pre-assumption as cooling is never an option) so they have to go back to prehistoric temperature polling data (often regenerated by elaborate sets of subjective symptomatic investigative deductions) to replace the missing data.

For temperatures taken in populated regions there are therefore inherent biases and inaccurate anomalies. For instance, in polling, if one takes an opinion sample of ten households in Beverly Hills or Riverside or South Central L.A. or of ten prisonplanet forum members one has to weight the results of each dataset against a neutral unbiased  "reference". Often just finding such a "weighting" reference is nearly impossible by any other means than a long experience of subjective experimentally validated trials and errors.

To complicate matters further, temporal fixed point temperature measurements (historical records) are highly subjective data in and of themselves. Factors such as peak and average precipitation, the vagaries of cloud cover, vegetation or development (tarmac and roofing) and their influence on winds aside from sunny or shady-side, hill or vale localizations and even whether a bird was perched on one's weather vane can all seriously distort otherwise impartial-looking data.

SO much as the experience and technical proficiency of modern sensory systems allows us to produce highly accurate and unbiased thermal dataset models over wide sampling areas on a global scale, (which are still for some reason "classified")  old, "historical" local parochial datasets generated under poorly documented conditions and at sparse and limited or merely conjectural investigative sampling points is highly suspect and must be remodeled against modern criterial references.

The point the Fed statistician was making was that if for instance, we know that a weather station has been operated on a particular building at Greenwich for 300 years we should have a programmatic "weighting" model that compares and rationalizes it's data generating performance today with unbiased satellite infrared baselines for it's region to show more or less how inaccurate it is and in what ways and how often.

Cherry picking is anathema to accurate modeling, one needs to have a tailored algorithm based upon verifiable weights to produce a statistically comparable dataset from stale recordings. These complex trial-and-error determined experimental results must be verifiably repeatable, or the assumptions one is making from old data are biased.

The fact that such source code and data are concealed reveals the invalidity of the results. Science that cannot be repeated is voodoo.

[kushfiend]

david de rothschild on MSNBC right now 8:52 EST on morning joe hyping GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

WE MUST EXPOSE THIS TO THE MAXIMUM!!