Det er efter min mening også et godt argument mod, hvorfor CRU skulle have forfalsket sit datasæt af “alarmistiske” grunde……..

Bizart nu når det er tydeligt at CRUs data og model er helt f*cked up, hvordan i al verden kan de så matche, uden det er tegn på at de begge er f*cked up og kun matcher pga. et alt for tæt samarbejde.

Her er hvad CRUs Phil Jones har at sige om GISS: “GISS is inferior”

From: Phil Jones
To: Tom Wigley , Ben Santer
Subject: Re: help please
Date: Tue Oct 6 13:35:34 2009

Tom,
Agreed that NCDC must have some data gaps – but this isn’t very clear from the web
site.
GISS is inferior – not just because it doesn’t use back data. They also impose some
urbanization adjustment which is based on population/night lights which I don’t think is
very good. Their gridding also smooths things out. Plotting all three together for land
only though they look similar at decadal timescales. GISS does have less year-to-year
variability – when I last looked.
I assume NCDC should add the back data in – although there isn’t the need if infilling
is going on OK.
I’ve never looked to see if NCDC changes from year to year.
I think you can say that GISS is inferior to CRUTEM3. In Ch 3 of AR4 I put the station
number counts in.
GISS and NCDC have more, but almost all of this is more data in the US. Their non-use of a
base period (GISS using something very odd and NCDC first differences) means they can use
very short series that we can’t (as they don’t have base periods) but with short series it
is impossible to assess for homogeneity. So some of their extra series may be very short
ones as well. As you know the more important thing is where the stations are (and in time).
The paper I sent you by Adrian Simmons shows great agreement with CRUTEM3 when
subsampled according to CRU grid boxes. Also shows that ERA-INTERIM is very good.
ERA-INTERIM’s absolute is also within 0.2 deg C of the CRU 14 deg C value. It would give
about 13.8 for 1961-90. Sometime I should write this up as more and more people seem to be
using 15 deg C.
Away from tomorrow till next Tuesday.
Cheers
Phil
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1042&filename=1254850534.txt

Nu har Phil Jones altså overfor Stephen M. skrevet i en tidligere email, at han har slettet alle emails
klik her

M42

Det er sikkert disse. Bare rolig de har stadig deres forbedrede data. Intet at komme efter.

Jeg indrømmer blankt at være forvirret, for så vidt jeg kan se af Jones (mig bekendt) første interview siden hackeriet, siger han intet af det, som din avis påstår, at han “indrømmer”:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

Phil Jones i interviewet:

We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit – I would categorically deny that.”

Der er et eller andet galt her. Er det måske den historie med de forurenede og uanvendelige data, som “Times” henvser til (fra før hackeriet)?

If we have “lost” any data it is the following:

1. Station series for sites that in the 1980s we deemed then to be affected by either urban biases or by numerous site moves, that were either not correctable or not worth doing as there were other series in the region.

2. The original data for sites for which we made appropriate adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s. We still have our adjusted data, of course, and these along with all other sites that didn’t need adjusting.

3. Since the 1980s as colleagues and National Meteorological Services (NMSs) have produced adjusted series for regions and or countries, then we replaced the data we had with the better series.

Der er klart nok noget mærkeligt her, men jeg kan p.t. ikke afgøre, hvem der taler sandt, og hvad der er overdrevet. Så du ikke er i tvivl, har jeg i øvrigt gjort klart, at hvis noget uretmæssigt er blevet slettet for at undgå FOI-forspørgsler, må det naturligvis få konsekvenser for Philip Jones.

Jeg indrømmer blankt at være forvirret, for så vidt jeg kan se af Jones (mig bekendt) første interview siden hackeriet, siger han intet af det, som din avis påstår, at han “indrømmer”:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

Phil Jones i interviewet:

We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit – I would categorically deny that.”

Der er et eller andet galt her. Er det måske den historie med de forurenede og uanvendelige data, som “Times” henvser til (fra før hackeriet)?

Der er klart nok noget mærkeligt her, men jeg kan p.t. ikke afgøre, hvem der taler sandt, og hvad der er overdrevet. Så du ikke er i tvivl, har jeg i øvrigt gjort klart, at hvis noget uretmæssigt er blevet slettet for at undgå FOI-forspørgsler, må det naturligvis få konsekvenser for Philip Jones.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14966227

“The sceptics should not be silenced”

Du svarede på et af mine tidligere indlæg:

“For det første er langt det meste af hele CRUs datasæt allerede fuldt offentligt tilgængeligt og ikke på nogen måde blevet væk. Gavin Schmidt forsikrer om, at ingen af CRUs data er blevet væk – og det ser jeg foreløbig ingen grund til at betvivle (han er videnskabsmand og har adgang til alle data). ”

Endnu engang viser Gavin Schmidt på hele fagets vegne, hvilken troværdighed klimaeksperterne har:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Ser du stadig “ingen grund til at betvivle”?

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/peer-221438-reviewed-climate.html

“The trouble with outsourcing your marbles..”. LOL. Det er lige min humor

“Looking forward to Copenhagen, Herman Van Rumpoy, the new president of the European Union and an eager proponent of the ecopalypse, says 2009 is “the first year of global governance.” Global government, huh? I wonder where you go to vote them out of office. Hey, but don’t worry, it’ll all be “peer-reviewed.”"

“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.”

Du har måske ikke engang gidet at se på den graf, der var mailens emne? sikkert ikke.

Og hvad angår de omvendte proxier, har du selvfølgelig heller ikke forstået pointen.

Mann’s sensitivitetsstudie uden Tijanders sedimentproxier (dem der blev brugt omvendt) var _ikke_ uden træringe. Det inkluderede de berygtede “strip-bark bristlecones”.

De omvendte sedimentproxier (Tijander) blev brugt i den rekonstruktion, som skulle vise, at de ikke behøver træringproxierne.

På Google har “climategate” i øvrigt nu flere hits (10,7 mill) end “global warming”, som vist har været brugt en smule længere..

Det virkelig sørgelige ved denne sag er, at den kan komme til at gå ud over troværdigheden for videnskaben som sådan. Phil Jonen, Mike Mann og Co har meget på samvittigheden. De skulle skamme sig.