# I Pit the Hadley CRU and the jerks that hacked their emails. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 20, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347 "2009-11-20T22:40:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/101 "2009-11-22T17:38:34Z")
Gosh, **intention** , dreadful news! Your point by point rebuttal of Kimstu’s excellent post in the GD thread has been suppressed by the evil hamsters, it has totally disappeared. One would think that you hadn’t even made it! And the poor dear did such a good job, too, bringing you precisely those lists and things that you so loudly demanded! Would it help if I cut and paste it, bring it here? Would that help? I know that someone as devoted to intellectual honesty as yourself must be anxious to respond, but must be thwarted by some unknown force. Is it Gore and his $300 million dollars, is that it? The pity of it is, of course, that to the untrained eye, to someone who is not familiar with your intellectual rigor and forthright honesty…well, it looks like you buggered off when presented with the evidence you demanded. Scarpered. Bailed out, hit the silk. We can’t have that, now can we? Your many, many admirers here would be tempted to think you’re a bit of a weasel, demanding a huge investment of time and effort to rebut you, and when that effort is made, you scamper away. Can’t have that, now can we? So, let us know how we can help you restore your dignity! Would you like me to bring it here, would that help? Tell us what we need to do to help you out, here! We’re here for you! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/102 "2009-11-22T17:56:07Z")
> **[Trick'n](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2009/11/22/806704/-Trickn)** > > A common exercise in any intro statistic class is to split the students into two groups, one group flips a coin 100 times and records the results, another just makes 100 entries up off the top of ... The evil hive mind over at _Daily Kos_ has produced an interesting insight into all of this, especially as regards “Mikes trick”, which may soon take on the cultural significance of the “grassy knoll”. (_Daily Kos_ is, as you may know, rather thoroughly partisan. Those concerned with maintaining their intellectual purity might well wish to proceed with shield power on maximum. Sniveling weasels, of course, are best advised to dismiss it out of hand…) ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/103 "2009-11-22T19:27:00Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > How can you _pretend_ to know this? > You don’t know how many people were wasting the researche’s time with their input, requests, and ceaseless blathering about bullshit. Um, because their own e-mails state that they convinced UEA to bin any FOIA request, as seen up thread. My post wasn’t about the number of requests, it was about who was handling them. > [@](#): > > Even **one** crank is pretty goddammed annoying. Sure. What counts as a crank? Somebody requesting information on the data used for publications? I’d have thought all data would be made public, and freely available, as a matter of form. That’s how it happens in my field, when empirical investigations are made (by the way, can anybody propose why this isn’t the case here? Is this standard practice in the climate sciences?). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/104 "2009-11-22T20:07:25Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Um, because their own e-mails state that they convinced UEA to bin any FOIA request, as seen up thread. My post wasn’t about the number of requests, it was about who was handling them. > > Sure. What counts as a crank? Somebody requesting information on the data used for publications? I’d have thought all data would be made public, and freely available, as a matter of form. That’s how it happens in my field, when empirical investigations are made (by the way, can anybody propose why this isn’t the case here? Is this standard practice in the climate sciences?). Well, the crank part is when they tell their diminishing peanut gallery that the data was \*\*still \*\*hidden regarding the latest new paper supporting the so called “Hockey stick”. McIntyre and others at Climate Audit claimed that the recent new supporting evidence regarding the “hockey stick” had data that omitted evidence that showed that there was no unprecedented warming happening recently. Only to find later that McIntyre had all of the data and cherry picked himself to get his evidence for his “points”: > **[Let the backpedalling begin](https://deepclimate.org/2009/10/07/let-the-backpedalling-begin/)** > > The latest battle over the “hockey stick” has taken quite a turn, one that may finally lay to rest all the  absurd claims of its demise made by contrarians (not to mention apparently li… > **[Let the backpedalling begin](https://deepclimate.org/2009/10/07/let-the-backpedalling-begin/)** > > The latest battle over the “hockey stick” has taken quite a turn, one that may finally lay to rest all the  absurd claims of its demise made by contrarians (not to mention apparently li… > [@](#): > > First let’s review the accusations from McIntyre, as best we have been able to discern them [Updated Oct. 7 to ensure it is understood these are the alleged actions]: > > 1. Briffa allegedly failed to disclose and archive raw tree-ring measurement data sets for several years, despite an obligation to do so by the data disclosure policies of the journals that published his work, such as Nature and Science. > 2. Briffa (or someone else) allegedly cherrypicked the 17 live tree-ring core samples used for the modern period. (The term “cherrypicking”, of course, implies an intention to affect the result to match a preconceived notion, as seen at Wikipedia here and here. “Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to actuality”.) > 3. Briffa also allegedly cherrypicked by failing to include other available tree-ring data from another site in the same region (the Schweingruber chronology from Khadyta River), even though he had combined more geographically disparate series in other cases where sample sizes were low. The “proper” chronology constructed from these two sites’ data makes the hockey stick “disappear”. > [@](#): > > As to the first accusation, it should be clear now if it weren’t already (as one Eli Rabett and dhogaza have both shown) that Briffa did not have control, or the right to distribute, the raw data. The data belonged to the Russians (Hantemirov and his co-author Shiyatov). Not only that, but it appears they may not have even let Briffa have the complete data set, only the samples they used in their own work. Why? It might be they had not yet published results using the complete data set, and were loathe to let Briffa do so before they did. But it could also be that not all the living tree samples were available before; the timeline for taking of the samples is not clear. Whatever the details, McIntyre has been clearly barking (and snarling) up the wrong tree, so to speak. > > [Update, Oct. 8: It turns out that McIntyre had the Hantemirov raw data all along - since 2004 (h/t Craig Allen with more at Tim Lambert’s Deltoid)! To quote one Steve McIntyre: “You can’t make this stuff up”.] > > As to the second accusation, it’s true that the Russians pre-selected for age. But they also eliminated some samples for other reasons. More to the point, there is no evidence whatsoever that preselecting for age, necessary for the Russians’ corridor method, would somehow skew the result towards a “hockey stick” shape, let alone that that was the intention. (And, again, it’s not even clear when additional younger living-tree samples were taken; some or most may have been taken later). But in fact, as Hantemirov explains, his application of the RCS (regional curve standardization) method to the larger live core data set now available, gives a result very close to Briffa’s, as seen in Hantemirov’s graphs below. The Yamal hockey stick has magically repaired itself. > > In my view, the third accusation is specious on its face, and the analysis and jerry-rigged chronologies proffered by McIntyre to support it simply do not hold up, as I discussed previously (also see Delayed Oscillator for an analysis of the issues). If McIntyre still thinks his versions of the Yamal chronologies have merit, then he should submit them to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, as many commentators have already noted. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/105 "2009-11-22T20:20:10Z")
As for the matter at hand. Isn’t wishful thinking to assume that any climate researcer will be convicted for any alleged wrongdoing in this case? The evidence was obtained thanks to a crime. Not to mention that IMHO any groups doing the cherry picking of quotes are helping and abetting the crime. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/106 "2009-11-22T20:26:31Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Sure. What counts as a crank? Somebody requesting information on the data used for publications? I’d have thought all data would be made public, and freely available, as a matter of form. That’s how it happens in my field, when empirical investigations are made (by the way, can anybody propose why this isn’t the case here? Is this standard practice in the climate sciences?). **intention** may have been asking for further information than what is publicly available like personal emails, financial reports, etc. I.e. things which aren’t part and parcel of actual research. I don’t know what is or isn’t expected to be released under the FOIA nor what he was asking for. If he was asking for something that is required by the FOIA and they didn’t do so, even though it might not be strictly relevant to actual research, they still have no legal standing on which to refuse. In this, they would certainly be in the wrong. But of course, it’s entirely possible that **intention** et. al. were asking for stuff that isn’t required, and the one e-mail follows after years and years of refusing requests for information that is legally private. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/107 "2009-11-22T20:27:17Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > How can you _pretend_ to know this? > You don’t know how many people were wasting the researche’s time with their input, requests, and ceaseless blathering about bullshit. … Because they talk about it in the emails, duh … ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/108 "2009-11-22T20:49:27Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Um, because their own e-mails state that they convinced UEA to bin any FOIA request, as seen up thread. My post wasn’t about the number of requests, it was about who was handling them. So the fuck what? A person doesn’t need to be fending off FOI requests in order to be plagued by assholes. Jerk plagues come in many forms, and you cannot know whether there was a problem at the CRU or not. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/109 "2009-11-22T21:33:09Z")
elucidator, you say: > [@elucidator](#): > > By the way, have you found the time to read Kimstu’s post in the GD thread? Rather cogent, full of cites, figured you’d be right on that. Oddly, you’re here, and not there. Real good one, brought to you all the evidence you claim to demand, and you go poof! gone. and [QUOTE=elucidator] Now, of course, I remember, he was mentioned prominiently in some of GIGO’s posts. Just before Kimstu gave you what you claimed to need, and you hit the silk. Bailed out. Scarpered. Brave, brave, brave Sir Robin… [/QUOTE] and > [@elucidator](#): > > Gosh, **intention** , dreadful news! Your point by point rebuttal of Kimstu’s excellent post in the GD thread has been suppressed by the evil hamsters, it has totally disappeared. One would think that you hadn’t even made it! > > And the poor dear did such a good job, too, bringing you precisely those lists and things that you so loudly demanded! Would it help if I cut and paste it, bring it here? Would that help? I know that someone as devoted to intellectual honesty as yourself must be anxious to respond, but must be thwarted by some unknown force. Is it Gore and his $300 million dollars, is that it? > > The pity of it is, of course, that to the untrained eye, to someone who is not familiar with your intellectual rigor and forthright honesty…well, it looks like you buggered off when presented with the evidence you demanded. Scarpered. Bailed out, hit the silk. > > We can’t have that, now can we? Your many, many admirers here would be tempted to think you’re a bit of a weasel, demanding a huge investment of time and effort to rebut you, and when that effort is made, you scamper away. Can’t have that, now can we? > > So, let us know how we can help you restore your dignity! Would you like me to bring it here, would that help? Tell us what we need to do to help you out, here! > > We’re here for you! Jeez, elucidator, get a life. I last posted on that thread at 4 pm on the 21st. Twenty six whole hours go by without me posting, and you accuse me of being a coward and running away? Twenty six fucking hours?? Get real … Meanwhile, as you might imagine, I’ve had a few other things to do, including trying to analyze the hacked CRU emails as they impact my FOIA request, and discussing their implications with other people who were involved. However, my apologies, elucidator. I am deeply sorry that I have been so thoughtless as to go a whole 26 hours without mentioning your name, dear. I hope your feelings of abandonment are assuaged. Now run off and play … (For those not following the thread, Kimstu posted a list of the “Most cited authors on climate”, in order by number of citations. Unfortunately, the “most cited” authors are not cited for their work in climate, but in other fields. I have more Google Scholar citations for my publications on climate (10) than the second “most cited” guy on Kimstu’s list, who has … well … none.) ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/110 "2009-11-22T21:36:01Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > **intention** may have been asking for further information than what is publicly available like personal emails, financial reports, etc. I.e. things which aren’t part and parcel of actual research. > > I don’t know what is or isn’t expected to be released under the FOIA nor what he was asking for. If he was asking for something that is required by the FOIA and they didn’t do so, even though it might not be strictly relevant to actual research, they still have no legal standing on which to refuse. In this, they would certainly be in the wrong. > > But of course, it’s entirely possible that **intention** et. al. were asking for stuff that isn’t required, and the one e-mail follows after years and years of refusing requests for information that is legally private. I asked for the data and the station list. Not for emails. Not for financial reports. Not for stuff that isn’t required. Not for stuff that is legally private. Temperature data and a list of the stations. Period. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/111 "2009-11-22T21:39:17Z")
> [@intention](#): > > … Oh, wait, I miscalculated. Now I understand why elucidator was so upset. It wasn’t 26 hours between my postings on the other thread … it was 29 hours. Now it all makes sense … ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/112 "2009-11-22T21:43:36Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Yup, no one likes being plagued by morons who think they know how to do your job better than you do. You know, I am very certain that all scientists in the world have to respond to every request that they get _ **personally** _ because there is no way a scientist would have, like, secretaries or administrative assistants. Yep, them damned scientists insist on doing everything themselves so the data they use must remain secret because they are too busy saving the world. The big thing here, that you seem to be missing, is that no one can evaluate if the guys who are writing these report are correct. What if the guys writing the reports are the morons? How could we tell? Well, since they won’t release the data, there is no way to tell. We just have to rely on them. I have never heard of any scientific field in which hiding data while publishing the conclusion is acceptable except for the AGW crowd. The whole point of science is that you publish your data, how you got your data, how you evaluated your data and have others check it to see if is correct. If some group of scientist came out and said that a huge meteor was going to smash into the earth destroying all life but wouldn’t tell anyone where this meteor was, how they found it, how they determined it was going to hit the earth, etc , do you think we ought to just say ‘Ok’ and do whatever they suggest? Slee On a side note, I know a couple people who really want to review this data themselves. One is a guy with a PHD in math (4.0), ran a nuclear reactor safety division for the government for ~30 years. During that time he did huge amounts of modeling. The other is a guy with a PHD in Physics, was a full professor at BYU then went on to work for a national lab. After that he built a contracting business doing physics for anyone that wanted to hire him and his staff. Most of his business was modeling various complex systems. Oh, and he worked with [Richard Feynman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman). They are both experts at modeling, they both want the data and they are both extremely qualified. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/113 "2009-11-22T21:56:00Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Oh, wait, I miscalculated. Now I understand why elucidator was so upset. It wasn’t 26 hours between my postings on the other thread … it was 29 hours. Now it all makes sense … Well, now, hoss, that’s a mite thin. For two-three pages, you’re all over it, its the \*\*Intention \*\*Show, starring **Intention**. And then Kimstu comes up with a heckuva post. And one that clearly shows the fruits of much labor, the sort of labor that is well respect in these parts, Google-slogging. All of that to deliver to you what you claimed to need. And suddenly, in a thread you couldn’t keep out of, a thread where your word count rivals _War and Peace_…you’re gone. Poof! And your response? To ignore the bulk of the posting to take up a sniper position on a couple of scientists, as if they comprised the bulk of **Kimstu** ’s effort. Weak gruel. No doubt you regard popular opinion with Olympian disdain, but those sure look like weasel-tracks. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/114 "2009-11-22T22:08:18Z")
> [@intention](#): > > I asked for the data and the station list. Not for emails. Not for financial reports. Not for stuff that isn’t required. Not for stuff that is legally private. Temperature data and a list of the stations. Period. Take em to court. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/115 "2009-11-22T22:09:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > [Trick'n](http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/22/806704/-Trickn) > > The evil hive mind over at _Daily Kos_ has produced an interesting insight into all of this, especially as regards “Mikes trick”, which may soon take on the cultural significance of the “grassy knoll”. > > (_Daily Kos_ is, as you may know, rather thoroughly partisan. Those concerned with maintaining their intellectual purity might well wish to proceed with shield power on maximum. Sniveling weasels, of course, are best advised to dismiss it out of hand…) Ah, yes, the historical revisionism begins, and **elucidator** is the first to fall for it … For those who would really like to understand “Mikes trick”, there is a very clear [post](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810) by Jean S. (a statistician in real life) at Climate Audit. It loading slowly right now, because as you might expect this whole thing has lots of people accessing CA to find out what us evil people are doing to cause all of this fuss. See [here](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/release-of-cru-files-forge-a-new-hockey-stick-reconstruction/) for another example of this phenomenon. But I digress … The problem was, the most recent data of a proxy reconstruction of temperature was trending down, down, down. This was very inconvenient, because the reconstruction ended in 1980 and the temperatures were rising. How could we believe a proxy that was dropping while temperatures were rising? So to “hide the decline” in the proxy reconstruction, they spliced instrumental (thermometer) data on to the end of the proxy data. Now this is very shonky in and of itself. Michael Mann (who wrote the original "Hockeystick paper) was asked about this practice over at [realclimate](http://RealClimate.org/), viz: > [@](#): > > Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least. to which Mann replied > [@](#): > > 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. Bullshit, as usual, from the Mann, honesty is not his long suit … But that was not the “trick”. If you have a proxy trending downwards, and you add on data that is trending upwards, you end up with an ugly “knuckle” in the resulting graph, and this knuckle is an obvious giveaway that you have “grafted the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record”. So the “trick” was to then smooth the proxy to instrumental splice, in order to conceal any visual evidence that the instrumental data had been grafted on to the reconstruction. And of course, none of this was mentioned in the paper. Mann and others (Daily Kos) have claimed that “trick” means an easy way to solve a hard problem. And they are correct, it can have this meaning, the dictionaries are clear on that. But when you splice instrumental data on to proxy data (which Mann himself correctly says is a no-no), smooth the result to hide your fingerprints, and don’t mention it in the paper, that’s the other meaning of dictionary meaning of “trick”. From Merriam-Webster, very first definition: > [@](#): > > 1. An act or procedure intended to achieve an end by deceptive or fraudulent means. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/116 "2009-11-22T22:25:06Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Bullshit, as usual, from the Mann, honesty is not his long suit … > **[Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology)** > > NCEI manages the world's largest archive of climate and paleoclimatology data. Our mission is to preserve and make this data and information available in order to understand and model environmental variability on an interannual to millennial time... Summary of Proxy Temperature Studies > [@](#): > > Scientific References of Studies > > Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time. > > The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions: > > ``` > * Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century. > * The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years. > > ``` Yes, Mann is referenced there, but he is not the only one. When someone says “the most recent data of a proxy reconstruction of temperature was trending down, down, down.” Then one has to realize that that one is resorting to tricks, of the very first definition. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/117 "2009-11-22T22:30:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, now, hoss, that’s a mite thin. For two-three pages, you’re all over it, its the \*\*Intention \*\*Show, starring **Intention**. And then Kimstu comes up with a heckuva post. And one that clearly shows the fruits of much labor, the sort of labor that is well respect in these parts, Google-slogging. All of that to deliver to you what you claimed to need. > > And suddenly, in a thread you couldn’t keep out of, a thread where your word count rivals _War and Peace_…you’re gone. Poof! > > And your response? To ignore the bulk of the posting to take up a sniper position on a couple of scientists, as if they comprised the bulk of **Kimstu** ’s effort. Weak gruel. > > No doubt you regard popular opinion with Olympian disdain, but those sure look like weasel-tracks. That’s not “a couple of scientists”. That’s their stars, the first two people on their list. If I have more citations on climate science than their top two people have combined, it doesn’t say much for their list. And yes, I know this is hard for your ego to take, but I found (and still find) Climategate much more interesting than discussing your rantings and Kimstu’s bogus list … so sue me. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/118 "2009-11-22T22:32:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html) > Summary of Proxy Temperature Studies > Yes, Mann is referenced there, but he is not the only one. > > When someone says “the most recent data of a proxy reconstruction of temperature was trending down, down, down.” > > Then one has to realize that that one is resorting to tricks, of the very first definition. Huh? Are you saying that the most recent data of that proxy reconstruction was going up? I said nothing about other proxies, they have their problems, but we weren’t discussing them, were we? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/119 "2009-11-22T22:33:21Z")
Right. I’ve started reading and clicked the emails at random. Most of them so far are the usual chit-chat and paint the Hadley people in a positive, normal light, but there are others which are at best infelicitously phrased. For instance, I’ve found the message about ‘hiding behind’ the Data Protection Act. I found another where they realise they’re going to dump an Italian (?) contributor. I also found one which appeared to be both trying to be correct and suggesting that they lie with statistics: > [@Dr Olga Solomina](#): > > 1. During a good half of the Holocene the glaciers were SMALLER than now. I attach here the figure with the same axes as at the Valerie’ picture (warmest/wettest periods), and the detailed comments on it. To be “scientifically correct” we probably can shade these periods for the regions that we are presenting at our figure (see a separate file “smaller than now” ). What is unusual about the modern retreat is the RATE, though we do not know much about the rate of the former retreat (again because of the lack of continuous records). This can be taken very poorly, but since English is not [Dr Solomina](http://paleoglaciology.org/~Solomina/)’s first language, I suggest that allowances must be considered. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347/120 "2009-11-22T22:45:15Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > You know, I am very certain that all scientists in the world have to respond to every request that they get personally because there is no way a scientist would have, like, secretaries or administrative assistants. Yep, them damned scientists insist on doing everything themselves so the data they use must remain secret because they are too busy saving the world. > > The big thing here, that you seem to be missing, is that no one can evaluate if the guys who are writing these report are correct. What if the guys writing the reports are the morons? How could we tell? Well, since they won’t release the data, there is no way to tell. We just have to rely on them. You might be shocked by this, but scientists don’t typically have chauffeurs and bevys of secretaries and stuff. That sort of excess is usually reserved for the captains of industry, whilst scientists run lean organizations where they actually do end up looking at much of their fan mail. > [@](#): > > What if the guys writing the reports are the morons? How could we tell? We could tell because they published their crap in shitty journals that don’t take peer review seriously. Heck, we could _read_ the articles and decide if they make any sense, or not. Of course, when I say ‘we’ I am referring only to the subset of the population that posesses a general scientific literacy. Those of you who thought freshmen chemistry was the hardest course _ever_ are just plain SOL. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-hadley-cru-and-the-jerks-that-hacked-their-emails/518347.md?page=7)