Evidence of AGW data fudging and tampering

polarbear

I eat morons
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
2,376
Reaction score
408
Points
140
Location
Canada
First I invite you all to go to this link and download the emails yourself:
Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 - WikiLeaks
Unzip the file the open the file folder FOIA.
Here is just one of the many examples of tampering fudging and outright falsification + suppression of contradictory evidence.
For example this subfolder= Mail, Document number = 0839635440
Here are some extracts from this file

Dear Neville,

You mentioned to me some time ago that in your view, the 11-year solar cycle
did not influence temperature. There have been numerous attempts by
academics to establish a correlation, but each has been shot down on some
ground or other. I remember Barrie Pittock was especially dismissive of
attempts to correlate solar cycle with temperature.

Have you tried this approach?

Load "Mathematica" into your PC and run the following set of instructions -[/quote]
This is followed by the section of source code how to make the solar spike disappear and the explanation how the program does it:
"Mathematica" first plots out the data itself (see Atachment 1)

The first part of the instruction set lets "mathematica" do a Fourier Transform
on the data, ie. searching out the periodicities, if there are any. The result is
shown on Attachment 2.


The transform result shows a sharp spike at the 11 year point (I wonder
what is significant about 11 years?). The second part of the instructions
now acts upon this observed spike (the Cos 11 bit), to extract it's
waveform from the rest of the noise. The result is shown as a waveform
in attachment 3, the waves having an 11-year period, with the long-term
Sydney warming easily evident.

Attachment 4 shows the original Sydney data overlaid against the 11-year
periodicity.

It would appear that the solar cycle does indeed affect temperature.

(I tried the same run on the CRU global temperature set. Even though CRU
must be highly smoothed by the time all the averages are worked out, the
11-year pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of Sydneys).

Stay cool


Not far down the list there is this in #0843161829:

Keith,
Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central
and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send
it to you.
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk
something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm
what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating
the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought
at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation
even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle
the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just
are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have
to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.


If you got some programming expertise and the patience to look for it you can find their "fudge factors"
they employ to shape the temperature data they publish as "evidence":
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930.

Believe me it`s well worth your while to spend some time sifting through what wikileaks has on this AGW swindle.
Of course it won`t be long before the likes of "Crick" will spam this posting under a ton of his usual crap or suck another reader into a 20 post argument...so don`t fall for it...that`s all he does here.
He is not here to debate, his sole purpose is to disrupt & spam
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
23,263
Reaction score
5,315
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Here is just one of the many examples of tampering fudging and outright falsification + suppression of contradictory evidence.
Yet you can't show even a single example.

The data's tempting but there's too much variation
even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle
the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just
are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have
to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.
So he said there was too much noise, and they couldn't pull a signal out of it. That would be why the that data wasn't used.

If you got some programming expertise and the patience to look for it you can find their "fudge factors"
Which were used for sanity checking the code, not processing the actual data.

Leaving out pertinent information like that is ... fudging.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,069
Reaction score
1,446
Points
275
Location
N/A
Of course it won`t be long before the likes of "Crick" will spam this posting under a ton of his usual crap or suck another reader into a 20 post argument...so don`t fall for it...that`s all he does here.
He is not here to debate, his sole purpose is to disrupt & spam
Well, I seem to have SOMEbody on the run.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top