Climategate 3: Thank you Mr FOIA

SOMEONE hacked into the Climatic Research Unit, CRU, at the University of East Anglia and published thousands of confidential emails between leading climate scientists online in November 2009 [1]. Many of the emails showed that leading proponents of anthropogenic global warming were having great difficulty justifying their own propaganda. One of my favourite emails is from Kevin Trenberth, Head of Climate Analysis at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, to the infamous Michael Mann complaining that there has been no global warming:

“Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather)…

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

While the hack was widely condemned by mainstream climate scientists and the hacker would likely go to jail for a long time – if only he could be found. For me, the stolen emails represented a first opportunity to see the extraordinary deceit and corruption within the mainstream climate science community; the very people running the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, at the United Nations.

Indeed I have always held the hacker in high esteem. He is one of my heroes.   Along with Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) and Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), he is a great champion of science.

Anyway, yesterday the hacker provided several high profile bloggers, including Anthony Watts, with password access to some 220,000 additional emails!

WUWT will be publishing some of the new material over the next few days and probably also weeks and months [2].

In a covering email [3] the hacker explained he had done this because he was keen to off-load the remaining material and was not in a position to sort through the material and cull the sensitive and potentially socially damaging material:

“I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.
Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.”

I have often wondered who the hacker was, and what motivated him. In this latest email he provides significant insights. In particular, like many readers of this blog, he is clearly concerned about the increasing misallocation of resources by government in the name of anthropogenic global warming.

He is acutely aware that the opportunity for any one individual in a community to be fed, clothed and educated depends to a large extent on the collective wealth and wellbeing of that society. Towards this end, the covering email is also a plea for the better allocation of the “assets” at our collective disposal.

Mr FOIA, as he calls himself, wrote:

“Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Clearly Mr FOIA also places a premium on the truth, writing:

“Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.”

Thank you Mr FOIA.



[1] All the emails, documents and computer code, from the original release in November 2009, can be downloaded from Wikileaks at,_data,_models,_1996-2009


[2] I’m guessing that What’s Up With That will be a best place to find new emails as they are released. This morning the following was posted…

“In response to a polite media inquiry from Wall Street journal editorial writer Anne Jolis, Michael Mann rages — and then cc’s his response to Media Matters, Joe Romm and other allies in the warmest-media industrial complex.

The e-mail exchange is below.


from: Michael Mann
subject: Re: From the Wall Street Journal:
to: Anne Jolis , Joe Romm , Media Matters Erikka Knuti ,,
Dan Vergano , Bud Ward ,, AJ Walzer , “Paul D. Thacker”, Chris Mooney

Ms. Jolis,

I’ve taken the liberty of copying this exchange to a few others who might be
interested in it, within the broader context of issues related to the history of biased
reporting on climate change at the Wall Street Journal Europe,

Mike Mann

On Oct 23, 2009, at 12:42 PM,

Michael Mann wrote:

Ms. Jolis,

I am traveling through this weekend and have only brief email access, so can
only respond w/ a very short email to your inquiry.

I’m sad to report that the tone of your questions suggests a highly distorted, contrarian-driven view of the entirety of our science. The premise of essentially everyone of your questions is wrong, and is contradicted by assessments such as the IPCC report, reports by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, etc. The National Academy of Science report (more info below) reported in 2006 that “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence…”.

The conclusions in the most recent 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment report have been significantly strengthened relative to what was originally concluded in our work from the 1990s or in the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report, something that of course should have been expected given the numerous additional studies that have since been
done that all point in the same direction. The conclusion that large-scale
recent warmth likely exceeds the range seen in past centuries has been extended from the
past 1000 years in the TAR, to the past 1300 years in the current report, and the confidence in this conclusion has been upped from likely in the Third Assessment Report to very likely in the current report for the past half millennium.
Since then, the conclusions have been further strengthened by other work,
including work by us.

Please see e.g. the reporting by the BBC:


You don’t seem to be aware of the fact that our original “Hockey Stick”
reconstruction didn’t even use the “Yamal” data. It seems you have uncritically accepted
nearly every specious contrarian claim and innuendo against me, my colleagues, and the
science of climate change itself. Furthermore, I doubt that the various authors you cite
as critics, such as Pollack and Smerdon, would in any way agree w/ your assessment of
this work.

Misrepresenting the work of scientists is a serious offense, [what irony! – jen]

and would work
to further besmirch the reputation of the Wall Street Journal, which is strongly been
called into question in the past with regard to the treatment of climate change.
I’ve copied my response to a number of others who might wish to comment
further, as I will be unavailable to speak with you until next week.

I’ve pasted below various summaries by mainstream news venues which reported
a couple years ago that the National Academy of Sciences, in the words of Nature “Affirmed The Hockey Stick” below this message.
In addition, here are a few links you might want to read to better
familiarize yourself with what the science actually states with regard to the issues raised in
your inquiry below:

Finally, let me suggest, under the assumption that your intent is indeed to
report the reality of our current scientific understanding, rather than contrarian
politically-motivated spin, that any legitimate journalistic inquiry into
the current state of the science, and the extent to which uncertainties and controversy
have been overstated and misrepresented in the public discourse, would probably choose
to focus on the issues raised here:
Mike Mann

___________________NEWS CLIPS ON ACADEMY REPORT_____________________
from BBC (6/23/06 “Backing for ‘Hockey Stick’ graph”)
The Earth was hotter in the late 20th Century than it had been in the last
400 or possibly 1,000 years, a report requested by the US Congress concludes. It backs some of the key findings of the original study that gave rise to the iconic “hockey stick”
graph.) from New York Times (Andy Revkin, 6/22/06 “Science Panel Packs Study on
Warming Climate”):
At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several
members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had
intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result.
“I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation,” said one member, Peter
Bloomfield, a statistics professor at [11]North Carolina State University. He added that
his impression was the study was “an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure.
Boston Globe (Beth Daley, 6/22/06 “Report backs global warming claims”):
Our conclusion is that this recent period of warming is likely the warmest in
a (millennium), said John Wallace, one of the 12 members on the panel and
professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington.
Los Angeles Times (Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan, “U.S. Panel Backs
Data on Global Warming”):
After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation’s preeminent
scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree
over the last century, a development that “is unprecedented for the last 400 years and
potentially the last several millennia.”
The panel affirmed that proxy measurements made over the last 150 years
correlated well with actual measurements during that period, lending credence to the proxy data for earlier times. It concluded that, “with a high level of confidence,” global temperatures during the last century were higher than at any time since 1600.
Although the report did not place numerical values on that confidence level,
committee member and statistician Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University
said the panel was about 95% sure of the conclusion.
The committee supported Mann’s other conclusions, but said they were not as
definitive. For example, the report said the panel was “less confident” that the 20th century was the warmest century since 1000, largely because of the scarcity of data from
before 1600. Bloomfield said the committee was about 67% confident of the validity of that
finding the same degree of confidence Mann and his colleagues had placed in their initial
Associated Press (syndicate with 100s of newspapers accross the U.S. (John
Heilprin, 6/22/06 “The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, perhaps
even longer”):
The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes
research from the late 1990s was “likely” to be true, said John “Mike” Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the ’90s research “are very close to being right” and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.
Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the
20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a “Little Ice Age” from about 1500 to 1850.
Washington Post (Juliet Eilperin, 6/23/06 “Study Confirms Past Few Decades
Warmest on Record”):
Panel member Kurt M. Cuffey, a geography professor at the University of
California at Berkeley, said at a news briefing that the report “essentially validated” the
conclusions Mann reported in 1998 and 1999 using temperature records. The panel also
estimated there is a roughly 67 percent chance that Mann is right in saying the past 25 years were the warmest in a 1,000 years.
Nature (Geoff Brumfield, 6/28/06 “Academy affirms hockey-stick graph”)
“We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North,
the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less
certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global-warming sceptics
claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a ‘little ice age’ around 1600.
Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a
two-to-one chance of being right.
says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in
Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. “This study was the first of its kind, and
they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed,” he says,
adding that he “would not be embarrassed” to have been involved in the work.
New Scientist (Roxanne Khamsi, 6/23/06, “US report backs study on global
It was really the first analysis of its type, panel member Kurt Cuffey of the
University of California, Berkeley, US, said at a news conference on Thursday.
He added that it was the first time anyone has done such a large-scale and
continual analysis of temperature over time. So its not surprising that they could have
probably done some detailed aspects of it better.
But it was a remarkable contribution and gave birth to a debate thats
ongoing, thats teaching us a lot about how climate has changed.
Science (Richard Kerr, June 30, 2006, “Yes, Its been Getting Warmer in Here
Since the CO2 Begain to Rise”): In addition, none of the three committee members at the press briefing– North, Bloomfield, and paleoclimatologist Kurt Cuffey of the University of California, Berkeley- -had found any hint of scientific impropriety. “I certainly did not see anything inappropriate,” said North. “Maybe things could have been done better, but after all, it was the first analysis of its kind.”

On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:41 AM,

Jolis, Anne wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
My name is Anne Jolis, and I’m with the Wall Street Journal Europe, based in
London. I’m working on a piece about climate change, and specifically the growing
questions that people outside the field have about the methods and processes used by climatologists and other climate-change scientists – and, necessarily, about the conclusions that result.

The idea came from the recent controversy that has arisen once again over Steve McIntyre, the publication of the full Yamal data used in Keith Briffa’s work. This of course raises questions among climate scientistis, and observers, about whether the socalled “hockey stick” graph of global temperatures , as produced by Dr. Briffa and originally by yourself, was drawn from narrow data which, and then when broadened to include a wider range of available dendroclimatological data, seems to show no important spike in global temperatures in the last 100 year .

I realize this is not exactly the silverbullet to anthropogenic global warming that some would like to read into it, but it seems to me that it does underscore some of the issues in climate science. Specifically, the publication of the data, and the earlier controversy over your work, seems to illustrate that best practices and reliable methods of data collection remain far from established, and that much of what is presented as scientific fact is really more of a value judgment based on select data. Would you agree?
I’d love to get some insight from you for my article. I’ll be filing this
weekend, but I can call you any time it’s convenient for you on Friday – just let me know
the best time and number. Please note that if we do speak on the phone, I will email you
with any quotes or paraphrases that I would like to attribute to you, before publication, so
as to secure your approval and confirm the accuracy of what I’m attributing to you.

Additionally, if you’d like to correspond via email, that’s fine too. I’ve listed below some
of the questions and assumptions I’m working on – if, in lieu of a phone call, you’d
like to answer and/or respond to these, as well as share any other thoughts you have
on these issues, I’d be most grateful. Feel welcome to reply at length!

I thank you in advance for your time and attention, and look forward to any of your comments.
All the best,

Anne Jolis
Mobile: +44 xxxxxx

– Given that methods in climate science are still being refined, do you
agree with policy makers’ and advocates’ use of data such as your own? Do you feel it is
accurately represented to laymans, and that the inherent uncertainties present in the
data are appropriately underscored? As a citizen, do you feel there is enough
certainty in the conclusions of, for instance, the latest IPCC report, to introduce new
economic regulations? Why or why not?

-What methods do you feel are the most accurate for predicting future climate
change, for evaluatinag the causes of climate change and for predicting whether or what
man can do to try to control or mitigate climate change in the future in the future? Why
do you feel these methods are the most accurate? Do you feel they’re given enough weight
in the current debate?

-What is your opinion of the value of Steve McIntyre’s work? Clearly he is
not a professional scientist, but do you feel there is nonetheless a place for his
“auditing” in the climate science community? Why or why not?

-Do you think McIntyre’s work and findings are likely to change the way
leading climate scientists operate? Do you think his recent campaign to get Dr. Keith Briffa
to publish the Yamal data he used is likely to make climate scientists more forthcoming
with their data? Do you think his work will make scientists, policymakers and advocates
any more exacting about the uncertainties in their procedures, methods and conclusions
when they present scientific data?

-How would you respond to the critique that, as a key part of the review
processes of publications in the field of climate science, as something of a “gatekeeper,”
you have rejected and otherwise sought to suppress work that contradicted your work.
Is this fair?
Why or why not? How would you characterize your selection process for work
that is worthy
of publication?
-Do you stand by your original “hockey stick” graf, even after the
publication of borehole
data from Henry Pollack and Jason Smerdon that seems to contradict your
conclusions? Or
work published in 2005 by Hans von Storch that seems to indicate that the
capabilities of the method you used in your original “hockey stick” would not
be able to
predict current temperatures?
Michael E. Mann
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) xxxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) xxxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [12]
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [13]
“Dire Predictions” book site:


[3] Following is the entire covering email from my hero, Mr FOIA

It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.

Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time.  After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural 😉

If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on).

The “all.7z” password is [redacted]

DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD.  Quote other parts if you like.

Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality.  I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around.

I prepared CG1 & 2 alone.  Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.

Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort.  Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.

To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out,  I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.

Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise.

I’m not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven’t got better ideas at the moment.  If you feel this makes you seemingly “complicit” in a way you don’t like, don’t take action.

I don’t expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises.  Yet it’s possible that the most important pieces are among them.  Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2.

That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil.  The Republicans didn’t plot this.  USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK.  There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.

If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…

The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to  garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary.  I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.

It was me or nobody, now or never.  Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future.  The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen.  Later on it could be too late.

Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”.  The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script.  We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life.  It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.

If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc.  deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit.  No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc.  don’t have that luxury.  The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try.  I couldn’t morally afford inaction.  Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).

Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.

Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others.  My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated).

Oh, one more thing.  I was surprised to learn from a “progressive” blog, corroborated by a renowned “scientist”, that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.

I wasn’t aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project.  For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.

More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause.  The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts which are part of climate scientists’ repertoire of tricks these days.

Keep on the good work.  I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering.  I will several batches, to anyone I can think of.

Over and out.




147 Responses to Climategate 3: Thank you Mr FOIA

  1. Bob Tisdale March 15, 2013 at 11:00 am #

    I hope it won’t take too long until someone posts the emails with a search feature–after weeding out the personal ones, like the ones to someone’s dentist, assuming they exist.

  2. el gordo March 15, 2013 at 11:45 am #

    Wonderful news in an election year.

  3. jennifer March 15, 2013 at 12:20 pm #

    Does anyone have any experience with Bitcoin?

    Mr FOIA writes:

    “I wasn’t aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project. For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.”

  4. Mark A March 15, 2013 at 2:29 pm #

    Hi Jennifer,

    here is an article that can tell you the bare bones about Bitcoin.

    Just out of curiosity a while ago
    I have downloaded the Bitcoin application and joined Mt Gox (
    but I find it impractical and of no interest to me.

    Check it out you may find something in it.
    To use it to the full extent you have to verify your identity etc.

  5. spangled drongo March 15, 2013 at 2:37 pm #

    As the old bull said to the young bull, “No rush, the job is more enjoyable if we do ’em slowly”.

  6. Mark A March 15, 2013 at 4:28 pm #

    Sorry this is where I got the app.

  7. kd March 15, 2013 at 5:55 pm #

    The most illustrative thing about so-called climategate is how delusional youse king kanute style climate change deniers are. And you keep going. On and on and on and on no matter how much evidence against your case piles up in front of your eyes. You deserve to be ridiculed. In fact, JM’s performance on Q&A a while ago was an example of you lot being self ridiculing.

  8. jennifer March 15, 2013 at 6:16 pm #

    There has been no warming for the last decade, I said it on Q&A. No one believed me. The general consensus now is no warming for 15, or is it 17 years? But apparently only sensible people believe in catastrophic global warming. Who’s ridiculous?

  9. Luke March 15, 2013 at 7:18 pm #

  10. kd March 15, 2013 at 7:52 pm #


    Your shrill repetition of the same discredited facts do not make your assertion true. However they do continue to make you look ridiculous. Nonetheless it is important that we expose the climate delusional charade for what it is, and I applaud your activity in the field.

    p.s. I was amused at your use of the word catastrophic without defining what you meant by it.

  11. el gordo March 15, 2013 at 8:19 pm #

    CAGW is a well known expression and relates to the imminent destruction of everything on earth because of human folly.

    But seeing as temperatures have been flat for 17 years, even as CO2 continues to rise, we should return to the null hypothesis. Its the sun KD and the models are seriously flawed.

  12. el gordo March 15, 2013 at 8:30 pm #

    The ‘climate delusional charade’ of the Klimatariat is being exposed in these emails and history will judge them harshly. I applaud the hacker for his courage and intelligence.

    In a similar way I’m cheering for Matt Ridley.

  13. kd March 15, 2013 at 9:10 pm #

    “CAGW is a well known expression and relates to the imminent destruction of everything on earth because of human folly.”

    Oh look a straw man. It’s nice when you give people rope and they know exactly what to do with it. Which is to accidentally hang themselves when they’re trying to hang you. 😉

  14. Johnathan Wilkes March 15, 2013 at 9:51 pm #

    This site attracts the strangest people.
    Never heard from kd before Jen resumed posting.
    A stalker Jen picked up mayhap?

  15. Skiphil March 16, 2013 at 6:23 am #

    Re: “shrill”

    kd, you seem to be the only shrill voice on this thread so far.

    Just a calm, non-shrill observation from one who has never visited this site before.

  16. Robert March 16, 2013 at 6:31 am #

    The method: Always refer to any contradiction as a “straw man” and describe all contrary evidence as “cherry picked”. Take a general attitude of lofty amusement and remember your hipster irony!

    But I must be careful not to hang myself with a rope some guy gave me, which I’m trying to hang that guy with, but which I accidentally put around my own neck, though I know exactly what to do with the rope, even though I’m doing it accidentally…Aw, you guys know what I mean. It’s all such a bunch of cherry-picked straw men!

    On the subject of music: This chick looks like a pommie headmistress, and the video is rough. But by the end, you may know what sublime is.

  17. cohenite March 16, 2013 at 8:36 am #

    kd is an old troll whose initials stand for kiddie dope or some such thing; it affects a condescending tone to compensate for its lack of substance.

    But luke needs cheering up after posting that sad little song:

  18. ianl8888 March 16, 2013 at 8:42 am #

    Just for kd:

    Now let the ad-homs roll, eh ? wink, wink, nudge , nudge, say no more, ad-homs always do it

    Oh, and here for reassuring renewabubble rhetoric (imagine relying on this whilst undergoing bypass surgery):

    Not one single hard engineering fact on reliability of supply, just arm waving feeel-gooodery

    Hip, cool, edumacated, scientifically literate and mathematically numerate, kd is able to reassure us on 24/7 reliability of supply with heaps of hard applied science/engineering quality studies, using measured terms like GWh (actual numbers) … isn’t he ?

    On both counts (temp vs CO2, renewabubble adequacy) we have no reason to believe him

  19. Debbie March 16, 2013 at 10:03 am #

    Shrill repetition of the same discredited facts?
    Which particular discredited facts kd?
    Perhaps you could consider what you would define as ‘facts’?
    How does one discredit a fact?
    If I analyse your behaviour here I could conclude that you think a fact can be discredited by launching a personal attack on Dr Jennifer Marohasy.

  20. Bob K March 16, 2013 at 10:54 am #

    Perhaps kd’s initials are reversed and they are actually a scientist from, oh, I don’t know, maybe U. Melbourne.

  21. el gordo March 16, 2013 at 11:30 am #

    KD is a rusted on watermelon troll, enjoys being the odd man out. His lack of substance and wit is regrettable, but in the absence of Luke he may have to do.


  22. Tom March 16, 2013 at 11:38 am #

    After reading FOIA’s E-mail I’m fairly certain this was a hack nor was it an inside leak. A hacker doesn’t refer to improbale prerequisites nor does a leaker who should have easy access. IMHO FOIA is an IT contractor who had the CRU emails fall right intohis/her lap.

  23. Debbie March 16, 2013 at 12:07 pm #

    I found this an interesting read.
    It looks at the impracticalities of some of our policies re solar panels. (And is also pro nuclear)
    kd could perhaps notice that this piece relies largely on what most of us would consider ‘facts’ of the ’empirical’ and ‘mathematical ‘variety rather than of the “ideological” and ‘personal/emotional’ variety that kd has attempted to use here.

  24. el gordo March 16, 2013 at 12:23 pm #

    ‘Blog sites are moving targets, issues change from day to day. We can’t do science this way.’

    Phil Jones

  25. John Sayers March 16, 2013 at 3:52 pm #

    Yes Debbie – it just shows how ridiculous the dream of solar power is. I used to work on Beyond 2000 and we did a story on the solar tower back in 1987 – they’ve been saying they were going to build one at Mildura for years and years but it never gets built, same with tidal power, lots of experimental units built with great hope for the outcomes, but they never eventuate.

    here’s an interview with David Mills regarding solar power. He’s the aussie scientist who created the solar array at a Hunter Valley power station but was unable to get funding so he went to the US and formed a company called Ausra. In this interview he and his backer claim they can power the whole of the US with their new exciting solar technology.

    This was 6 years ago – David Mills has since left the company and what’s left is the mob planning to add a solar booster to the Kogan Creek power station in Queensland as part of this Government new wizz bang renewable energy scheme.

    the videos are on right of screen.

  26. John Sayers March 16, 2013 at 3:56 pm #

    cohenite – in case you missed it a similar thread has been going on at the conversation

  27. jennifer March 16, 2013 at 3:56 pm #

    Hi Tom

    You are missing a “not” in your first sentence. I can add it, if you would like.

    And I agree with you.

    I am increasingly starting to think that I was wrong to begin this blog post by stating “someone hacked into… “.

    It is intriguing to get such a long letter from Mr FOIA. On first reading it confirmed much of what I had thought, but on re-reading and thinking I see more and more that contradicts my assumptions and prejudices.

    I’m going to open a Bitcoin account.

  28. Luke March 16, 2013 at 4:24 pm #

    Jen opines “he is clearly concerned about the increasing misallocation of resources by government in the name of anthropogenic global warming” Oh so it was “clearly” by he/she/it – Jen has already memed that it’s a dude !

    “Concerned” – maybe he’s/she’s/its just showing off? Maybe he’s/she’s/its got a bee in his bonnet? Who knows. Do we know?

    Jen’s “hero” jeez…. Give us a break. The guy is obviously an A-grade hacker and into crypto.

    Jen has memed M Mann as “Infamous”. Wow – like Hitler or Pol Pot. Some heavy duty meming there.

    And just slip in a “catastrophic” or two. Just slip that one in as if nobody is looking.

    “For me, the stolen emails represented a first opportunity to see the extraordinary deceit and corruption within the mainstream climate science community” – pigs bum – what a load of utter spinning. Rev up the old rhetoric on that one. “Deceit and corruption” – for a moment I thought we were talking about the general behaviour of sceptics. Frankly I got zip out of the emails.

    Zip – nadda – nyet. What did you really get on the big inside story?

    But I did enjoy Monckton’s latest venue – “Speaking at Reach out for Christ International Ministries 288 Gooding Drive, Carrara (RUAP sponsored event free entry) – RISE UP AUSTRALIA PARTY – woo hoo – your mates guys? Friends? Divine climate scepticism would involve faith and belief I guess. Probably along with a 6000 year old Earth. I confess I couldn’t make it as I was at the witch and warlock’s coven AGM. Hahahahahahaha

    And then there was Cohenite doing his Walter Mitty act on OLO pretending he knows something. Good lord. So embarrassing. Let’s just get out our crayons and draw a flat line where I think it should go…. Woo hoo.

    I enjoyed the automatic pile-on to ward off “kd” – boy they came from everywhere – crucifixes, garlic and silver all round – maybe it’s k.d. lang – could we be so lucky? Perhaps after the Lord’s last venue we might say Hallelujah – Hallelujah Hallelujah

    So if anyone disagrees with kd – it’s because kd is a troll. Yuh yuh.

    I see pasting more and more net filler as comments is the trade-mark here rather than actually discussing the topic. Where’s Neville. The yelling of fraud index is declining? Could it be a statistically significant trend? Oh that’s right – I forgot the place is bereft of any science intelligence. I wonder what a statistically significant trend is? Does anyone here know? (and no googling now!)

    Debbie mounts the Lamington-brigade gish gallop Gatling gun defence … “why’s this”, “why’s that”. Beats any discussion I guess as Debbie is not interested in the detail – just the broad social vague concept thingy milieu doover sponge roll aspects.

    So Jen reckons – “There has been no warming for the last decade, I said it on Q&A. No one believed me. The general consensus now is no warming for 15, or is it 17 years? But apparently only sensible people believe in catastrophic global warming. Who’s ridiculous?”

    Well Lucia ain’t ridiculous …

    Good Lord !

  29. ianl8888 March 16, 2013 at 4:36 pm #


    “IMHO FOIA is an IT contractor who had the CRU emails fall right into his/her lap.”

    Back in 2009, after I’d finished sorting CG1 [with a great deal of help from Steve McIntyre at CA], I though that FOIA was an IT bloke who’d been hired by the admin at UEA (unbeknownst to Jones et al) to try and measure any actual exposure UEA might have to breaches of the UK FOI regulations. Thus the ability to rake in all the emails and sift for FOI comments. In the event, Jones et al had breached FOI regs but this was by then beyond the statute limitation period

    I still think that. I also believed that CG1 was released in deliberate timing with Copenhagen. Although SMc disagreed, I still believe that … FOIA’s CG3 password letter seems to confirm this

    Speculating on identity is pointless, although perhaps interesting to some. Motive is likely as per FOIA’s letter with the limited CG3 password release

    But what impresses me most is the IT ability to post CG1,2,3 tranches on the net, and yet evade traceability by the worlds’ best IT cops. Absolutely awe-inspiring

    Such people, with both integrity and high-level ability, reaffirm my hope in a world that mostly inspires deep, abiding cynicism

  30. toby March 16, 2013 at 5:18 pm #

    Nobody with any understanding of the data could disagree that temp has not risen for a long period of time. KD can yell as much as he wants with his/ her fingers in ears, but it is indeed KD who is ignoring the facts. So KD, its ok to manipulate data? to lie? to exagerate? to wste resources leading to lower living standards for all…but most of all the poor? Its ok to destroy the environment in name of saving the planet ( chopping down rainforest to grow palm oil etc…..). the world has gone mad.

    just what does it take to disprove CAGW? OR at least except that the science is clearly not settled ?
    such a soft science this AGW , unproveable and unfalsifiable…really makes for a solid theory that should lead to a change in how we use resources!

    Does a lot for science as well…….

  31. Luke March 16, 2013 at 5:37 pm #

    “So KD, its ok to manipulate data? to lie? to exagerate? to wste resources leading to lower living standards for all…but most of all the poor?”

    Yes Toby skeptics shouldn’t do those things ! (Get a spell checker Toby). Just keep making shit up Toby – cutting down rainforest to make palm oil – gee that was a bunch of greenies doing that. Do you really believe the utter crap that you write mate?

    Yes It’s fine not to adjust your UAH crappy data for multi-satellite platform and sensor drift and hide the incline. Fine to conflate inter-annual variation with centennial trends. Fine to publish drivel in soft review journals especially on solar cycle wank.

    “such a soft science this AGW” yep that maths and physics is just so soft. What piffle mate. Just recycled drivel and fabricated memes that runs from your tea party mouths.

  32. cohenite March 16, 2013 at 6:06 pm #

    Focus on a point luke; your last 2 posts are like technicolour yawns.

  33. John Sayers March 16, 2013 at 6:07 pm #

    Oh god – Luke is back abusing everyone AS USUAL.

    Lets’ look at the Yellow line in context Luke.


    “Sure looks like a pause to me, especially after steep rises in OHC from 1997-2003. Note the highlighted period in yellow:”

    NOTE! highlighted period! NOT recreated flat line, NOT trend line, but highlighted period – they even used a highlighter pen – as you do.

    the point of the article was to demonstrate how the OHC measurements changed when they shifted to the sophisticated Argo Buoy system in 2003. In fact they had no idea of the OHC prior to these devices.

    As for Lucia – I stopped visiting site as I got sick of her playing with little squiggles trying to sit on both sides of the fence, like Lomborg and playing silly guessing games about he next temperature reading. – we all know damn well that the world is not heating up dramatically as all the computer models have suggested it would.

  34. Luke March 16, 2013 at 6:39 pm #

    Scientifically clueless mate. Go and do a stats course. Get out your tea party denier crayons and have a widdle draw. Can I play too – here’s my graph Probably a Cohenite analysis.

    Wattsup is just a unmitigated disinformation fest. Have some decency and at least research your topic properly. Perhaps Lucia appears to be sitting on both sides of the fence to you coz there is some level of debate and that requires unlike we have here “scientific discussion”.

    “no idea of OHC” – really? it just runs out of your mouths doesn’t it – just flows out – brains long since failing to discriminate anything – parroting your hymn sheets …. just sad pathetic stuff

    ” how the OHC measurements changed when they shifted to the sophisticated Argo Buoy system in 2003″ what crap – who – says you? proof being what?

    “is not heating up dramatically as all the computer models have suggested it would.” more dogshit John – just keeps on drivelling out. You just can’t help yourselves framing, memeing and bullshitting can you?

  35. Debbie March 16, 2013 at 7:04 pm #

    Hello Luke,
    Where have you been?
    Maybe on one of those LSL things that employees get? 🙂
    Did you bother to read the link I posted above at 12.07?
    I’m way more interested in your comment on that than your personal abuse tactics.

  36. Luke March 16, 2013 at 7:22 pm #

    In fact this is what you lot are about – going down the up escalator …

    And yes I know it’s SkS and you’d rather eat your own vomit than go over there but the point is still made.

    Debbie – don’t confound my passion for the argument as a reflection for the deep personal affection I hold for you all. Who’ll tell you you’re full of it if I don’t? Surely you want a run for your money?

    I confess I missed your 12:07 as I was installing a new screen after having punched the other one out after reading this thread and comments. So much money invested in anger management therapy all undone in one post. Anyway you Bravenewclimate needs a considered read – always admired Prof BB – him having done the systems analysis that AGW is occurring and a reasonable risk he has moved to solving the issue with engineering. Difficult as that may be.

    as said to Jen the other night we’re all liars now. The truth is so hard to find when vested interests and high levels of disinformation are at play. LSL Debs? nope – moreover LTSIRDM – long time scale integration run disenchantment moratorium

  37. cohenite March 16, 2013 at 7:25 pm #

    The Watts ‘little yellow line’ has been discussed at length here;

    My last comment to Agronomist whi is probably a mate of luke’s:

    “Agro’s little yellow line; what I said before:

    “Agronomist; little yellow line is an approximation; I have linked to a Willis analysis of it above, look at it; data is there; for the 1993-2003 data the increase is approx. +0.1C (11 years); the Error is about 0.02C, R2 0.8309. For 2003-2012 the increase is about +0.02C. (10 years). The error is about 0.01C, R2 0.5597. That is not quite flat but close enough at statistical significance. That blows AGW out of the water.“

    I did use poetic licence to say ‘flat’ at the 2nd post and agro picked it up and ignored the first; good trolling.

    But let’s dig down further to Agro’s comeback where he says:

    “Using the most simple, least squares fit, the slope the trend line between 2003 and 2012 comes out at 2.46 zeta joules per year with 95% confidence intervals of 0.61 to 4.31 zeta joules per year. The slope is significantly non-zero p=0.016.”

    In energy terms that is not flat; but it is still FIVE times LESS than the pre-2003 increase which Agro doesn’t mention; more importantly when you convert the energy increase from joules to temperature, guess what, it is FLAT:

    Toughen up luke.

  38. Debbie March 16, 2013 at 7:45 pm #

    I don’t know about ‘liars’ Luke.
    The real climate/environment couldn’t give a toss about statistics and human calendar points.
    Not one of those vested interests possesses a crystal ball.
    The precautionary principle was always a mostly dumb concept, despite the good intentions.
    It unfortunately results in people like prof BB and so many other sensible people being largely ignored.

  39. John Sayers March 16, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

    “My last comment to Agronomist whi is probably a mate of luke’s:”

    Could even be Luke – they both display the rabid dog syndrome – when they bite onto something they won’t let it go no matter how many times they are shown the contrary. You demonstrate to Luke that it was never intended to be a flat line, it was a highlight, but he won’t let go – comes back snarling and growling as much as before.

    maybe you need worming Luke?

  40. Luke March 16, 2013 at 7:59 pm #

    Your significance levels are just arbitrary nonsense. Join John at a stats course instead of arts.

  41. Luke March 16, 2013 at 8:11 pm #

    As Tamino says “This is the pathetic standard to which they hold themselves.”

    ROFL !

  42. cohenite March 16, 2013 at 8:55 pm #

    Luke’s back 5 seconds and already resorting to silly tammy.

    Fact; according to NOAA’s own data the pre-2003 trend was FIVE times GREATER than the reliable post-2003 data.

    Fact; temperature since 2003 is flat, only in energy terms is there a relatively slight increase which be just be due to ENSO.

    Fact; when has tammy ever been right about anything?

  43. Luke March 16, 2013 at 9:25 pm #

    So the centennial trend has a bump – gee whiz – who’d have thought

  44. el gordo March 16, 2013 at 9:27 pm #

    ‘Calculations based on ensembles of climate models suggest prolonged standstills of about ten years can occur once every eight decades. Standstills of 15 years are much more difficult to explain. This report shows, that if we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change.’

    Dr David Whitehouse

  45. Luke March 16, 2013 at 9:38 pm #

    Would he be from the Global Warming Policy Foundation who post articles about not stat sig increase in temperature. Yea right …. do go on. You’re onto source there mate.

  46. John Sayers March 16, 2013 at 9:40 pm #

    Yes Luke, but what happens when you forget Tamino’s slight of hand and show his trend with the correct Y axis?

  47. Luke March 16, 2013 at 11:05 pm #

    Gee whiz John – you mean to say that trends can change over time. Well I never …. that was never considered. You might be on a winner there mate.

  48. John Sayers March 16, 2013 at 11:08 pm #

    Oh F**K off luke – the trends change when the source of the data changes. That’s what this is about.

  49. John Sayers March 16, 2013 at 11:12 pm #

    What’s up with you?? can’t you realise that the trend prior to Argo has changed dramatically post Argo. I’m sick of your BS and abuse – please go away. I can only assume you are an a**hole!

  50. John Sayers March 16, 2013 at 11:34 pm #

    please forgive my outburst

    but hey – Luke is so frustrating – he ignores the real evidence and harps on the non evidence. It’s like a game yet the stakes are very high!

    Clearly the OHC temps have changed since the introduction of Argo yet all he can concentrate on is the yellow line by Watts which had nothing to do with it. They did the same to Anthony over at OLO. Ignoring what was as plain as your face and playing games with data etc.

    I’m so sick of it!

  51. John Sayers March 17, 2013 at 12:06 am #

    maybe this will cheer you up after all my negativity.

  52. Bob Tisdale March 17, 2013 at 6:30 am #

    Luke, let me paraphrase what you’d written earlier: And yes I know it’s my website and you’d rather eat your own vomit than go over there but the following points were still made.

    I responded to the SkepticalScience post about Anthony Watts’s highlighting in the discussions of Figures 27 through 30 (and under the heading of A QUICK NOTE ABOUT FIGURE 1 FROM NUCCITELLI ET AL 2012) in the following post:

    Regarding the NODC’s pentadal ocean heat content data, it’s not a credible dataset. Far from it. Their pentadal datasets magically create heat that does not exist in the annual or quarterly data:

    So those, like the followers of SkepticalScience, who present the NODC’s ocean heat content data in its pentadal form are arguing from a position of no credibility, too.


  53. Neville March 17, 2013 at 7:03 am #

    I think John and Bob would get more sense discussing AGW with a strainer post than trying to get any sense out of Luke.

    Don’t bother because Lukey is a fact free zone. But he knows that there has been zero SS warming for 17 years, even his darling Pachy now concedes this fact.

    Pachy also states that there should be more scepticism about climate science. Whoopppeeee dooo. Better late than never I suppose.

    BTW Lukey the EU Co2 tax is heading even further south. ( EU south and OZ north until 2015) So explain how that insanity works without making our budgetry mess even worse?

    You could also do worse than watch Matt Ridley’s talk praising the virtues of a fossil fueled world.

  54. Neville March 17, 2013 at 7:29 am #

    Looks like Marcott has been suffering through one final UP tick. Steve won’t leave this HS bone alone, great fun to watch. Just like relying on one lonely tree to falsify an entire study.

    But how long before this nonsense has to be withdrawn? Just like the Gergis and Karoly OZ HS embarressment.

  55. Luke March 17, 2013 at 7:41 am #

    I see our local newsagent Neville is back providing us with press clippings. So helpful. Obviously Neville can’t do stats either. Well we know Neville can’t do stats and after being provided with some has done a runner.

    And the great unpublished Tisdale is back selectively torturing data sets till they squeal.

    But back to John S. Poor John has blown a valve.

    That’s the spirit John – get angry. But ignoring evidence is stock in trade for you guys.

    Yes perhaps it’s the measurement method – but maybe it’s not. You could of course see if there was any correlation with other INDEPENDENT measurements and those observations. I wonder what that might tell you? Try any temperature series.

    BTW the trend is still up unless you’re a complete shonk. and like to draw trends with crayons

    Lucia and Tamino have smashed the assertions here about temperature trends and all you’re doing is having a big sook.

  56. cohenite March 17, 2013 at 9:01 am #

    Thanks Bob, a great overview of the OHC situation.

    “Lucia and Tamino have smashed the assertions here about temperature trends and all you’re doing is having a big sook.”

    Links please.

  57. el gordo March 17, 2013 at 9:42 am #

    ‘….ignoring evidence is stock in trade for you guys.’

    The irony burns, welcome back comrade.

  58. Robert March 17, 2013 at 10:22 am #

    So China’s been subsidising (dumping) solar panels, as only China can. That’s the China who will presently be talking about presently introducing a carbon tax the size of a tick’s dick…presently. (Did I leave out a “presently”?)

    Because the US decided, last november, to protect their local industry with a 36% tariff, and because solar sucks anyway, one of the world’s biggest solar companies, China’s Suntech, is close to going belly up. It may not go belly-up, because China still has money to waste (we think) and Solyndra has shown that government intervention can save such vital industries for, oh, up to several days if they re-use their teabags and take the subway.

    It only remains to be seen whether the US, after all that practice it’s had with corn, can find a way to subidise the tariffs which resulted from the subsidies which etc etc…

    Don’t you just love Aussie coal? I’m not talking “like” here. I’m talking lurrrv. I’m talking chocolate sunshine.

  59. spangled drongo March 17, 2013 at 10:58 am #

    “BTW the trend is still up unless you’re a complete shonk.”

    Actually it’s “ONLY if you’re a complete shonk”.

    You haven’t learnt much since you’ve been gone Lukie. But good to know you survived.

  60. toby March 17, 2013 at 11:32 am #

    lovely to see luke back dribbling at the mouth , making the same old statements that ignore the lack of temp rise and accusing people who point it out as repeating the same old bile….(read truth).

    shakes head, sighs, thinks how can people be so fkn stupid.

    seriously you can really only have contempt for people that are so hinged to their faith that ntg can open their eyes.

  61. Luke March 17, 2013 at 12:32 pm #

    Done like dinners guys. No answers. No stats – just bleating sheep.

    You’ve had a serious stats analysis put up and all you’re doing is mouthing off.

    What a ratshit non-science bunch you are. How stupid can you be Toby ? What’s the difference between Toby and a computer – you only have to punch the data into the computer once.

  62. cohenite March 17, 2013 at 12:45 pm #

    Where’s the links luke?

  63. Neville March 17, 2013 at 1:07 pm #

    I think he’s just BSing again Cohers. BTW Lomborg exposes the con and fraud of electric cars.

  64. cohenite March 17, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

    Neville, lucia did a series on the Knight papers, 2008, 2009, which removed/adjusted ENSO to achieve the ubiquitous AGW temperature; she got preoccupied with the defects of the adjustment method rather than the issue of whether temperature has been flat for the last 15, or whatever, years.

    Without considering the ‘pure’ AGW signal which Foster [tammy] allegedly found in his 2012 paper, it is plain that temperature has been flat for many years across all the indices:

    I don’t know what luke is on about.

  65. Johnathan Wilkes March 17, 2013 at 2:02 pm #

    “Lomborg exposes the con and fraud of electric cars.”

    I always wondered about the greens’ infatuation with electric cars.
    I don’t care about how much CO2 created to produce them per Se, because so far I
    have not seen any concrete proof of it being the cause of anything
    dangerous like heating the place up.

    But what has intrigued me is, that they always forget that the electricity has to come from somewhere
    and that is not from renewables for sure.
    At least not in the foreseeable future.

    Also the recharging time and range is a problem although that can
    and probably will be solved by, simple battery exchange stations.

  66. John Sayers March 17, 2013 at 2:47 pm #

    Tesla give their batteries a 100,000 mile warranty and when you return the batteries they say they recycle and rebuild them. Their 300 mile (482km) range would require one charge between Brisbane and Sydney with the charge taking just under 5 hours if you had access to their fast charge terminal – which would be a long lunch, but preferably an overnight stay.

    I don’t see why they couldn’t make the battery banks replaceable so you pull in and they swap your expended batteries with full charged ones. That way they could have a huge solar system that charges the battery banks during the day but it would require a 20KW system just to charge one bank as the fast charge Tesla system uses an 80amp outlet at 240V which is 19.2KW!!

    The Prius Hybrid is another story – they are the most popular car for Taxis because they are so fuel efficient and the electric motor has high torque at low speeds so they are good in traffic. They are also low maintenance because the motor is not actually driving the wheels, only providing charge so it can run at constant revs.

  67. el gordo March 17, 2013 at 3:38 pm #

    The latest speculation on FOIA is that he’s a bi-lingual Canadian.

  68. Luke March 17, 2013 at 4:28 pm #

    All above Cohenite – do try to read and keep up.

    And with all that thar anti_ENSO La Nina in there too. You’re just shameless you lot. Pathetic in the extreme.

  69. Pingo March 17, 2013 at 5:10 pm #

    What a damp squid. Until the password is released i’m turning off sceptic blogs. Having your own fun reading the emails without releasing them is shoddy behaviour.

  70. John Sayers March 17, 2013 at 5:58 pm #

    Luke – Lucia says the following:

    “The 17 year HadCrut4 trend was discussed above. However, the lower bound for the 18 year trend is 0.006C/decade, which though small, is positive. So, we decree HadCrut4 shows statistically significant warming”

    I want what she’s smoking! She’s just grandstanding, a major character flaw that appears in people who run blogs for extended periods and run out of sensible things to post!

  71. cohenite March 17, 2013 at 6:20 pm #

    Pingo; to be covered by whistlebower legislation material released must be relevant to the public interest; the fact that a CRU researcher’s left leg is shorter than his right leg and discussed in an email may be fascinating but will be outside the protection of what is in the public interest. The people who have the emails are looking at the emails and will protect their backsides when choosing what emails to release.

    luke; yes lucia’s analysis is faultless; how is it different from this:

    I would also draw your attention in lucia’s post to the comparison between what she finds is the 17 year and 23 year trends and that trend predicted by the AGW bot’s.

    Perhaps Christopher was thinking of Schneider’s research on the temeprature trend in the world’s lakes:

  72. Luke March 17, 2013 at 8:11 pm #

    John perhaps a stats course is in order for you. The piss antery knows no bounds. Do you know what a lower bound is? Just keep changing dem goal posts. What else did she say John – all lost on you.

    Cohenite – again changing the goal posts is tres annoying. All I ask for some precision in the sceptic argument and less rhetoric. I mean surely you’re not short of doubtful material. I’m simply miffed by the sheer crumminess of the usual arguments.

  73. spangled drongo March 17, 2013 at 8:36 pm #

    Read this Lukie and then remind us again what a clever lot of stat artists you warmers are:

  74. Johnathan Wilkes March 17, 2013 at 8:37 pm #

    quality of posts or quantity of posts?

    Now that is a question?
    If ads are paying the bills, by all means go for the numbers, otherwise …

  75. John Sayers March 17, 2013 at 9:03 pm #

    Sure Luke – you are right – it is beyond me but what is she on about?

    Is she trying to put down Lord Monckton – yes. Why and for what end?

    Even Phil Jones has admitted there has been no SIGNIFICANT warming, couldn’t she just leave it at that?

  76. cohenite March 17, 2013 at 9:14 pm #

    “changing the goal posts ”

    You brought up lucia not me.

    Her analysis shows that LM dipped into the gilding the lily pot slightly; but my link shows there is no doubt temps have paused in a way which also reflects the complete lack of unity between all the temperature indices, at least in this instance, in respect of duration of the pause.

    And I’m not just saying RSS is the stand-out simply because it shows over 16 years of pause with one more year to reach Santer’s magical figure; it is now the benchmark.

    So, that’s temp paused, OHC flat, SST down, insurance down and didn’t Steffan spit the dummy about that:

    In respect of the alleged January heatwave and alleged maximum temp records, consider this:

    “Australia’s hottest ever day claimed on 7 January 2013 had a raw average maximum of 35.1C at 721 weather stations, whereas 17 January 1908 had a raw average maximum of 38.9C at 221 stations.

    It may be argued that the density and range of the 1908 and 2013 weather station networks makes comparison impossible.

    If so, this leaves open the question of how 221 stations in 1908 is insufficient but 84 stations in 1911 is sufficient to make a valid daily comparison with 2013 temperatures that are area averaged 5.2C above their raw maximum.”


    There is an embarrassment of riches of evidence against AGW; in favour just embarrassment, eg Marcott.

  77. Luke March 17, 2013 at 10:29 pm #

    Well John if you don’t know what she’s on about stop talking nonsense about this topic and toddle off. You want to do science with no science eh?

    Cohenite still doesn’t get it – playing games with crayons. Why they just laugh at you lot. Flakes.

  78. John Sayers March 17, 2013 at 10:37 pm #

    The topic is Mr FOIA – I’ll stick around.

  79. Luke March 17, 2013 at 10:47 pm #

    “It may be argued that the density and range of the 1908 and 2013 weather station networks makes comparison impossible.” no that’s just dumb like you are.

    If you haven’t done the analysis of percentile area trends well mate – give it away. Instead of grunging around trying to divine something off BoM’s general graphs. Do some science for change. The centennial areal trend statistics are remarkable but you wouldn’t know.

  80. Luke March 17, 2013 at 10:47 pm #

    Read Jen’s editorialising Sayers.

  81. Robert March 17, 2013 at 10:48 pm #

    To illustrate the poor understanding of these handy observation sets which some compulsive intellectuals treat as simplistic mechanisms:

    The BOM does not recognise 1908 as an El Nino. The El Nino which is associated with the disastrous conditions of 1902 is classified as “weak”. By contrast, the super El Nino of 1998 was fairly benign in its effects on Australia. The El Nino which played fair was that of 1982-3: it was a monster and its effects were monstrous.

    While I’ve seen a contrary opinion by another climate body, according to the BOM the lethal 1938-39 summer occurred in La Nina conditions, with an average SOI of 12.8. In S. E. Oz rainfall was well below average, though the heat was the real problem.

    There were piggy-backed “strong” El Ninos from 1940 to ’42. The first year brought drought everywhere, but not of long duration. The second brought drought to the South East but a drenching to the Central West of the continent.

    While the stupendous wets of 1950 and 1955 occurred in La Nina years, my own region on the mid-coast of NSW had its wettest known year in 1963…which only showed the beginnings of a weak El Nino after September!

    I could go on. Recently someone asked me to nominate a year of extremes such as the last year in North America. As soon as I mentioned the period from autumn to summer 1935-6, a no-brainer, I realised that the question was rhetorical. One is allowed to refer to the past, not examine it. I was even accused of indifference to the suffering caused by Sandy because I pointed out that the Long Island Express of 1935 was far more powerful.

    And, yep, as with the year past, the BOM does not record 1935-6 as either a marked El Nino or La Nina. That’s just the BOM, and you might see other opinions from other bodies. Living in the bush, I’m quite happy to have these rough observation sets till something else comes along. They say the PDO flipped a few years back, and I’ve certainly noticed a huge change in dominant wind patterns since ’07. But I don’t fall in love with acronyms, and marriage is out of the question.

    Something tells me that the science may not be quite settled. In fact…what’s the opposite of “settled”?

  82. John Sayers March 17, 2013 at 11:26 pm #

    Robert – February 1893 was an extreme weather event. The February rainfall in 1893 for Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Gympie, Brisbane, Warwick, Drake, Casino, Lismore, Ballina and even Yamba are records that have never been broken.

    It must of been a mighty cyclone or maybe two.

    You won’t find it in the current open sites, but you will in the closed sites like Lismore, and Casino Airport etc.

  83. Robert March 18, 2013 at 12:15 am #

    John, the 1890s seemed to have it all. Here we had our biggest flood cluster, three years in a row, though it wasn’t as severe as ’49-’50, which really knocked the stuffing out of the area. (Surprisingly, the drier decades may have been easier here, since timber was so important and constant wet makes the work much harder.)

    The 1890s also produced one of Australia’s biggest death tolls from a natural disaster, in the Big Heat of 1895-6. Then the Fed drought!

    The El Nino of 2002-3 ranks with those of 1902 and 1982-3. It was foul, so I really hope that we’re due for more of this fifties style weather, now that timber is less important. On the other hand, if there’s a repeat of the 1955 Maitland flood we won’t hear the end of it from our urban analysts. It’s no fun when an inland sea forms to the west of Sydney…one that’s the size of England and Wales. Imagine what the bedwetters would do with that if it happened again. And it probably will. This being Australia and all.

  84. cohenite March 18, 2013 at 7:59 am #

    “It may be argued that the density and range of the 1908 and 2013 weather station networks makes comparison impossible.” no that’s just dumb like you are.”

    Ok, so you do think 1908 was hotter nationally then?

  85. Luke March 18, 2013 at 8:00 am #

    Of course John and Robert could do something incisive and look at trends which would be the point but alas that would require analysis instead of old codger anecdotes. zzzzzzzzzz

  86. Neville March 18, 2013 at 8:06 am #

    Hey Luke don’t forget to turn your house off for a week to try and make a difference to the climate and temp.
    Meanwhile China and India etc just plough on regardless, with soaring emissions year after year.

    But come on Luke tell us how to fix your problem. I mean you’d die in the gutter arguing your hopeless futile case but won’t give us an answer on mitigation that works.
    Come on Mr jellyback give it a go.

    Of course the only answer is adaptation and more R&D but you have’nt got the brains to see it.

  87. Luke March 18, 2013 at 8:06 am #

    Records aren’t that important – trends are. Records then to be products of many things including the peculiar conditions of everything synoptic at the time. You could of course attempt to estimate the Australia land area of extreme temperature in percentile bands over time. But gee that might have a very positive slope. Best not to look.

  88. Robert LePage March 18, 2013 at 8:11 am #

    Trenberth’s email says this:

    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

    After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it’s apparent that what he meant was this:

    “Global warming is still happening – our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren’t able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can’t definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That’s a travesty!”

  89. Luke March 18, 2013 at 8:13 am #

    Well Neville – as usual your stupidity is boundless. In Neville’s world inability to fix a problem = problem doesn’t exist. In Neville’s world having an incurable disease means the disease doesn’t exist. Now that is really smart. SO logical.

    But that’s Neville – reduced to being the resident press clipping service which is handy as it saves time slumming around the usual disinformation sites sorting through the usual reams of crap. Who knows what might happen with accelerating thorium reactor research. But that would require some effort unknown to our defeatist press clipper and fraud ranter – got a law case on any frauds yet Neville or still shadow boxing like the little piss ant that you are ? Neville’s idea of a good time is hanging around the never ending whinging of Bolter waiting to be told what to think next.

  90. Robert March 18, 2013 at 8:45 am #

    The inability to live with contradiction and flux, the need to reduce complexity and uncertainty to false mechanisms, the unwillingness to accept trends as temporary and misleading…all essential to the mass neurosis that is climate alarmism. The retreat to the comforting superficiality of numbers is, of course, highly symptomatic. I myself have quoted some numbers above, but I know that they tell a very limited and even deceptive tale of what really went on with past climate. I even feel silly talking of a political zone called Australia as if it were some sort of climate zone. I do it, but I know it’s rather silly to relate Cape York to Albany rather than to New Guinea. The fact that the northern hemisphere has just had its lowest official temp is a mere curiosity. What cold did to India this past winter is not mere curiosity.

    Of course, you could show these people a trend, but if it’s not the one that fits the script, your homework will have been in vain. Recent northern winters have made the climate neurotics understandably nervous. Now there’s a trend! But don’t try pointing it out: you’ll just get an adolescent talk-to-the-hand response, or some pompous techno-chatter.

    It’s no wonder sufferers have a hatred of history, an obsession with age and a great discomfort with their own aging. Pity. I like Luke. He’s bright and entertaining (in bursts). Hey, maybe he comes here to secretly soak up the codgerism and get himself some real edumacation – even while he’s snarling and flicking rubber bands at the teachers.

  91. cohenite March 18, 2013 at 9:04 am #

    “Records aren’t that important – trends are.”

    I agree, except when the records claimed are dodgy and that goes to the integrity of the ‘official’ source; but that aside how do you explain the fuss over this:

  92. Debbie March 18, 2013 at 9:09 am #

    I apologize for the heavy use of rhetoric BUT?
    If records aren’t that important, WTF are all the recent BoM and CC press releases about?
    Why are they forever reporting and issuing press releases about records and/or extremes?

  93. Robert March 18, 2013 at 9:45 am #

    Deb, the spin consists of taking the heat off whatever is a prickly subject. (Notice the recent moves on the MWP, as they try again to get that hockey stick handle straightened out?)

    Records don’t matter…unless they do. Extremes? Our Green Betters will tell us which ones matter. Trends? The problem with all past trends is that they ended (eg lousy rainfall figs pre-1950). That reflects badly on present trends, real or confected. Why, some codger might conclude that trends end! Nope, trends need to be in the hands of climate trendoids, who will control their interpretation.

    With the approach of the End of Days, there will be an unstoppable trend to extremes, as distinct from mere extreme events. No trend will end, even Billy Ray and Miley will have to go Gangnam. Then the End Time, as Bob Brown becomes president and vows to govern not just for the one percent but for all the Undead.

  94. Luke March 18, 2013 at 12:15 pm #

    Well I don’t why BoM and CSIRO get involved in stuff like the endless summer or whatever it was. Mugs game really.

    Debbie to be fair you’d have to get all BoM’s releases and work out what % you disagree with. Overall it may not that many and much flows out without comment.

    Basically the sceptics should stop mucking around and get their own copy of all the ADAM data and do some analyses of their own. If one did that you might find something like the area of extremes at the 5, 1, 0.1 and 0.01 range increasing over a century. What does it mean – dunno – but sure an interesting bunch of trends. Maybe the team can score a record but any individual player may not.

    Instead of cherry picking rebuttals one might think that sceptics would want to have their very own serious analysis of everything.

  95. Luke March 18, 2013 at 12:19 pm #

    Robert – the main thing I done on this thread is simply give Lucia’s trend analysis of warming – the lack of significant warming isn’t true. Don’t you it’s erroneous of your colleagues to make out otherwise.

    Now if you want to change the goal posts and say its not what they expected well that’s another debate – but that’s also debatable too.

    Go the Thorium reactors

  96. cohenite March 18, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

    “Robert – the main thing I done on this thread is simply give Lucia’s trend analysis of warming – the lack of significant warming isn’t true.”

    It isn’t true at the 17 year scale; it is true at 16 years, for RSS, and lessor periods for the other metrics.

    That’s a fact.

    It is also a fact that there has not been any movement in Australian maximum temperature since 1979.

    Mean temperature is slightly up and IMO is due to UHIE.

    Unfortunately BOM and the CSIRO are blotting their copybook and Stockwell and Stewart say why:

  97. John Sayers March 18, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

    “Instead of cherry picking rebuttals one might think that sceptics would want to have their very own serious analysis of everything.”

    We did that – it was brushed off by BoM.

    So tell me – what is the ADAM data?

  98. John Sayers March 18, 2013 at 12:47 pm #

    Try this link.

  99. John Sayers March 18, 2013 at 12:48 pm #

    wow – it’s broken too.

    it’s on this page under pre-prints.

  100. cohenite March 18, 2013 at 1:16 pm #

    Thanks John; I don’t know why that link isn’t coming up; but I noticed sometimes I cannot link here at Jen’s; the paper is:

    David R.B. Stockwell* and Kenneth Stewart

  101. Neville March 18, 2013 at 1:21 pm #

    Luke you’re talking garbage again. I’ve told you before about Christy’s estimate of the impact of 1000 nuclear power stations and it’s zilch.

    Here are the only numbers that matter, the projections to 2035 of OECD and non OECD co2 emissions.

    Until you look at and understand these simple sums you’ll be forever yapping silly nonsense and helping create an argument for delusional idiocy like a co2 tax.

    Remember I agree that doubling co2 will probably increase temps by 1C, but I’m certain that co2 taxes etc are ridiculous and won’t change the climate or temp.
    Also I’m not sure whether a 1C temp is a problem at all. Certainly we’ll see many less deaths from a temp increase than from a decrease.

  102. Neville March 18, 2013 at 1:43 pm #

    Steve McIntyre shows how Marcott etc hid the decline and provides a graph of the holocene temps using the omitted end numbers from the real studies.

    How did these fools expect to get away with this deception?

  103. Luke March 18, 2013 at 2:07 pm #

    You’re the one banging on about a CO2 tax Neville not me. Funny how funnies such as yourself never ask anyone else what they think isn’t it?

    What would Christy know? Mate as you said you’re a not scientist and it shows – you don’t even understand half the stuff you read and live off Bolt’s every nuance. Hopeless. You wouldn’t even understand what McIntyre is on about. If you can’t do kindy stats I wouldn’t be hanging around over there. He could tell you anything. All you are doing is parrotting what others tell you to think.

    John – ADAM is BoM’s climate database. Like where the data are?

  104. John Sayers March 18, 2013 at 2:13 pm #

    So is the data in Adam different to the data online?

  105. sp March 18, 2013 at 2:15 pm #

    Luke – everybody agrees you are talking rubbish. Thats a concensus, a bit like the “science is settled” climate concensus.

    Only you are convinced you know everything about everything, except your own fallibility.

    Time to change sides – the CO2 alarmist game is over, and you will only look more stupid in 1 or 2 years than you do know.

    Stop being nasty and see some sense – come on over and join the rest of humanity.

  106. Mack March 18, 2013 at 5:02 pm #

    Yep, come over to our side Lukebaby, but leave the Pajero with the polar bear skin car seat covers behind. It might give you away.

  107. Luke March 18, 2013 at 5:06 pm #

    ADAM is the raw data – well after basic error checks etc.

  108. Debbie March 18, 2013 at 5:24 pm #

    No argument from me Luke,
    It definitely looks like a mugs game.
    To be fair, maybe something needs to be done about the PR dept? They’re not doing BoM any favours.

  109. John Sayers March 18, 2013 at 7:03 pm #

    ADAM is the raw data – well after basic error checks etc.

    well Luke- actually it isn’t either – it’s the Torok adjusted data, the raw data is no longer available online, it was removed probably when the HQ data set was established.

    Basic Error checks you say – let’s compare the before and after.

    Here’s the current chart of Sydney Observatory Hill from the BoM site for monthly maximum temperatures.

    Here’s Sydney Observatory Hill from the raw data – the data I have is up till 1993 and was the Data Torok documented and made his adjustments to.

    chalk and cheese.

    That’s the problem as we now have ACORN – Who knows how much that has been adjusted!

  110. Luke March 18, 2013 at 10:17 pm #

    Sayers you are just talking utter shit. You’ve shown NOTHING except you’re a twit. So you’re comparing someone’s analysis (context, purpose??) with a chart you have – get real doofus. Context zero?

    I assume you’d think a 3 degree temperature reading at Burketown in mid-summer would be a correct reading and you would accept it unquestioningly ? Have you ever seriously worked with met data – answer no.

    Here’s your standard JS – ask a serious question then retort with some random crap. WTF?

    Is the Torok data what’s in ADAM – that’s right JS – engage mouth and wait for brain to catch up.

    The crap just drivels out of you lot. Content free, context free drivel.

    I really am disgusted at your pathetic amateurism.

  111. John Sayers March 18, 2013 at 10:38 pm #

    Luke – you are full of shit. You told me that trend is the important factor and I just demonstrated that the trend has been changed by the BoM.

    My data is real – it doesn’t take a genius to operate Excel, just someone who has spent the time to learn it as I have.

    I have all the Torok data in a TXT file – every site he adjusted and all original data up to 1993.

    I’m no stupid fool as you would try to portray me, I’m currently in Dubai designing a 500 sqm, 4 studio recording complex for an Emerati Client. What are you doing Luke? living off my taxes again?

  112. John Sayers March 19, 2013 at 2:58 am #

    “Torok may have adjusted the daylights out of what ever he did – who knows – it’s a separate topic”

    It IS the topic and you are avoiding it like the plague. You know damn well that the data on BoM online is NOT the raw data adjusted for basic error checks.

    I give up.

  113. Neville March 19, 2013 at 8:00 am #

    No doubt about it Steve McIntyre is a sane, decent man. Just read his reply to a fellow blogger at Watt’s latest post. What a contrast to the haters out there who seem to despise him and put in the boot ( or so they think) at every opportunity.

    Steve McIntyre says:
    March 18, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    I agree with many of Robert’s points.

    I try to write clearly enough so that an educated non-specialist can understand the issues, which often are fairly elementary points of data analysis. On some of the Marcott issues, I think that some people have arrived at “informed” agreement.

    However, there is also a considerable amount of piling on by readers who “like” the result. I delete many comments at CA for “piling on”.

    On the other hand, there was widespread endorsement of the Marcott results by reporters and specialists who did not have an informed understanding of the results in the paper – in the sense, that an informed understanding is emerging through ongoing analysis. Robert, I think that your criticisms on this issue would be more telling if you had equally criticized the promotion of the paper.

    On the truncation of data points: I report phenomena and try to avoid speculating on motives. It is possible that the truncation of negative recent values arose through the application of an undescribed algorithm rather than manual truncation (in the style of Briffa’s deletion of data after 1960, a procedure often and inaccurately referred to as Mike’s Nature trick.). As I stated in the article, I am unable to identify such an algorithm in the Methods and thus far am unable to think one up, but I do not exclude the possibility. While Marcott’s answer to my original inquiry was uninformative, I agree that he should be given an opportunity to comment on this point and I will contact him directly and give him that opportunity.

  114. Luke March 19, 2013 at 10:26 am #

    Debbie – “no answer” was to his last response my dear. He changed the subject.

    How about grow up Debs – you’re opinionated as anything, but like all on here scientifically clueless which have demonstrated again and again. Yet oh so happy to put the boot in on people you don’t know and opine on matters you clearly have no idea bout.

    Listen to sp rant. Another clueless advocate. Rant/rave – engage mouth think less. Having produced a statistical fact sp continues to talk shit. Difference between sceptics and computers – you have to punch the data into the computer once. sp is as dense as a brick. I have never seen an intelligent contribution from him/she/it – a complete tool of a troll. That’s what you all are – simple an stupid cheer squad. No wonder fascist regimes come to power. Witch burnings anyone?

  115. Neville March 19, 2013 at 12:48 pm #

    Here’s that encouragement from Labor’s resources minister to turn the Latrobe valley into another Pilbara etc. See above to back up my argument.

    Starting to think for oneself are we you hopeless little sheeple?

  116. Debbie March 19, 2013 at 1:18 pm #

    Jennifer Marohasy plus other commenters are HIGHER QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS than Cook!
    And since Cook is an accolyte of Lewandowsky’s I guess I could possibly deduce that either
    a) Your remarking friend got that quote from SKS and/or something written by Cook and/or Lewandowsky and/or a commenter at the SKS site…. or….
    b) YOU got it from SKS and/or something written by Cook and/or Lewandowsky and/or a commenter at the SKS site….or….
    c) Something very similar to a) or b).

    But that’s just a guess because of your following comment and link.

    Shooting messengers because you can’t deal with the message is entirely political and nothing to do with science or even a respect for science and/or scientists and/or scientific/statistical methodology.
    Your little lecture to me about ‘scientifically clueless’ is totally farcical and highly ironic.

    I also note you failed to answer the questions.


    You obviously thought your remarking friend said something clever and lucid….?????
    OK then Luke?
    What was so clever/intelligent/lucid or even vaguely logical about that remark????

  117. John Sayers March 19, 2013 at 1:54 pm #

    Luke – I really don’t care whether you reckon I answered your pathetic rave or not. You are the one in denial. I showed you two different sets of data for Sydney Observatory hill, yes I didn’t have an x axis on one because I’m on my laptop with the junior version of Excel – it really doesn’t matter in the demonstration of the differences between the two curves.

    As I said, I have a TXT file that contains all the original data of every station in Australia prior to it being adjusted by Simon Torok and the BoM.

    To say that ADAM contains the raw data adjusted for basic error checks is just wrong!.

  118. cohenite March 19, 2013 at 3:53 pm #

    luke, great link to s..tscience! I nearly cacked myself; they endorse Marcott! What mirth.

    And then this, a graph from the Foster nutcracker paper:

    It purports to show that because all elements of ENSO have the same temperature trend consistent with the temperature data that therefore AGW is real. Great stuff! The decomposition of ENSO is predicated on this assumption:

    “Short-term cyclical factors like ENSO and the solar cycle average to about zero net effect over time, and volcanic influences are temporary.”

    So, when the ENSO components, La Nina, El Nino and Neutral, are isolated the remaining trend is due to AGW. In effect the knuckleheads are treating the linear trend as an independent variable and therefore they have shown that global warming is well correlated with global warming!

    What they have done is take a series of data points on a line with slope 1, intercept 0,0. Call these ENSO. Call the slope Trend.

    ENSO= (0,0)(1,1)(2,2)(3,3)(4,4)

    By linear regression fit this to

    ENSO = 1.0 * Trend + 0.0 * anything

    subtract and you get

    0 = 0 * anything

    Therefore you have proven that you have removed “anything” from ENSO and whatever is left is a valid Trend.

    You truly are an entertainer luke!

  119. Luke March 19, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

    Sayers – Why is ADAM wrong – your proof is what? What has your retort got to do with ADAM – your chance for the big explanation. This should be good. HAve you sourced data from ADAM (I’m trying hard not to laugh)….

    Cohenite after your outings with crayons I don’t think you shoudl be passing comments on Foster’s paper.

    As I remind you continuously the simplest PCA analysis of SSTs does not show ENSO as the primary component of centennial change. The end. Clearly you believe in Jack’s beanstalk where you get a big something from nothing.

    Frankly arts graduates having done the odd geography assignment should keep away from science.

  120. Luke March 19, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

    Sayers – you ask a question then change the topic.

  121. John Sayers March 19, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

    Luke, are you thick or something? I asked you what ADAM was and you said it was the BoM data base. I then asked if it is the same data that is available online. You said it was , “it’s the raw data adjusted for basic error checks” was your answer.

    Now I happen to disagree with you.

    So I accessed the BoM data and showed you the Max Temp chart for Syd Observatory Hill site. I then showed you a different Max Temp chart for the same site. They were totally different. One shows temperatures flat, or decreasing, the other shows temperatures increasing.

    I then pointed out that the first chart from the BoM site ( the one increasing) was in fact the adjusted temperature data by Torok in 1996. The second chart, the flat chart, was taken from the TXT file I have of the raw data BEFORE Torok adjusted it.

    I therefore confirmed that the data on the BoM ADAM site is NOT the raw data adjusted for basic error checks. It dramatically different and it applies to all sites. Like the Uni of East Anglia data in the UK the original raw data appears to have been removed.

    Now what don’t you understand about that?

  122. Bob Tisdale March 19, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

    cohenite says: “And then this, a graph from the Foster nutcracker paper:”

    The nonsensical graph is a Dana Nuccitelli (Dana1981) creation. It’s not from the self-contradictory Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) paper.


  123. Bob Tisdale March 19, 2013 at 7:51 pm #

    Luke, Nuccitelli from SkepticalScience had to redefine El Niño, La Niña and ENSO-neutral years over the past 45 years and assume there were 15 of each in order to create his meaningless graph. NOAA’s method provides only 8 El Niño years over that period.

    Note also that Nuccitelli made 2010 an ENSO neutral year, when, in fact, the 2009/10 El Niño was a moderately strong El Niño.

    As noted above in my reply to cohenite, Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) contradict themselves. They provide Trenberth et al (2002) as a reference for using linear regression to remove the linear effects of ENSO from the global surface temperature record, but Trenberth cautioned against doing so, stating that it leaves an ENSO residual.

    Luke wrote, “And the great unpublished Tisdale is back selectively torturing data sets till they squeal.”

    You contradict your complaint by providing links to SchlepticalScience with that nonsensical graph from Dana Nuccitelli.

  124. jennifer March 19, 2013 at 8:16 pm #

    I consider myself pretty tolerant, but I’ve just deleted about a dozen of the worst of the last lot of comments. If you want more people to chat with, on these threads, then try and stay civil. Use of the term “idiot” is not enlightening. Lowering your standards because you have been provoked is not becoming. And I’ve always had a policy that allows and respects pen names.

  125. cohenite March 19, 2013 at 8:23 pm #

    Poor luke, still mired in Parker; this shows a larger role for ENSO, albeit a complex one as determined by PCA:

    My critique of s..tscience only indirectly dealt with Foster; the idocy of the s..tscience post stands by itself.

  126. Bob Tisdale March 19, 2013 at 9:42 pm #

    Thanks for the link to Karnauskas et al (2012), cohenite. I enjoyed their two implications:

    “1) If nature exhibits such strong natural variability of tropical Pacific SSTs on centennial time scales, then assumptions that the observed trend over the past century to a century and a half is a response to radiative forcing are tenuous. It could in fact be that the observed trend over the past century and a half is merely reflective of internal variability. If so, it could strengthen or weaken in the future as the natural variability evolves. This will combine with, and potentially interact with, any forced response and thus have implications for tropical Pacific and global climate.

    “2) If the centennial variability in the models is spurious, then it nevertheless is a robust component of the three analyzed models, is likely to exist in other models, and therefore will continue to influence coupled GCM projections of future climate, as well as initialized decadal hindcasts and forecasts conducted with GCMs. In all cases, it must be known at what stage the natural centennial variability exists at the beginning of a forecast or projection to isolate the forced change from the modeled internal variability.”

    I haven’t seen a lot of references to it. Sounds like a good idea for tomorrow’s post!

  127. Bob Tisdale March 19, 2013 at 9:57 pm #

    cohenite: Slipped my mind. I had already presented a post about it:

  128. Luke March 20, 2013 at 12:02 am #

    John – ADAM contains daily data for a start. You’re looking at annual summaries. Might tell you something eh?

    If you want to prove your point you need to get the daily data from ADAM and recalculate the means. I would be personally very concerned if this was adjusted as one couldn’t even then justify the adjustments should they be justifiable.

    As far as I am concerned any data shown to be highly erroneous or unlikely should be deleted if it is deemed to be an error. i.e. 3 degrees in Burketown on Xmas day. This is not “adjusting data” – this is basic quality control.

    This is why I get really angry with you lot – you’re talking through your hat – wildly making accusations and have not checked even the most basic of facts. Disgraceful.

    Just because BoM has some data sets online does not imply they are directly from ADAM.

  129. Luke March 20, 2013 at 12:08 am #

    Cohenite – dumber gets dumber. Parker merely makes the analysis. It shows a dominant PCA which is a centennial trend not ENSO. PC2 is the IPO and PC3 the AMO.

    Doesn’t prove what the centennial trend is – just that one exists in the SST data and is the dominant PC. Analysis 101.

    Thought you lot would have at least determined the major patterns in the data !!

  130. John Sayers March 20, 2013 at 1:17 am #

    Luke – ADAM has daily and monthly data. From that the get the annual data.

    What I have is the monthly data (max and min) Torok used when he adjusted the monthly data of the whole nation. It is decidedly different to what the BoM now put up as their current monthly data because of his adjustments.

    “I would be personally very concerned if this was adjusted as one couldn’t even then justify the adjustments should they be justifiable.”

    Torok adjusted all the data in 1996 and justified his actions to no one except a couple of peer reviewers who facilitated his PhD. There are adjustments of 1.3C made to the data. (that’s two centuries of global warming)

    the original website I got the data from was

    but it no longer exists.

    In the directory there was a readme.txt file that says:

    The files in this subdirectory are associated with the Australian
    High Quality Temperature Data Set

    The directory should contain these files

    readme ‘This file’
    method.utx ‘Outline of the method used to prepare the data sets.’
    alladj.utx.Z ‘List of adjustments made to the data
    and reasons for adjustment.’
    finaln.utx.Z ‘Data file of minimum temperatures’
    fianlx.utx.Z ‘Data file of maximum temperatures’

    Files ending in .Z have been compressed using the unix compress
    command. To uncompress them type uncompress FILENAME at the
    unix promt once you have transferred the file to your system.

    readme.txt ‘This file in DOS format’
    method.txt ‘Outline of the method used to prepare the data sets.’ ‘PKzip compressed List of adjustments made to the data
    and reasons for adjustment.’ ‘PKzipped Data file of minimum temperatures’ ‘PKzipped Data file of maximum temperatures’

    For files ending in .zip, you will need to port the file to a dos/windows
    machine then use either pkunzip.exe or winzip to unpack.

    If you have any difficult in obtaining these files, extracting their contests
    or other problems manipultating the files please contact;

    Alex Kariko
    Bureau of Meterorology Research Centre
    GPO BOX 1289K Ph: [613] 9669 4481
    Melbourne Fx: [613] 9669 4660
    Victoria 3001 E-mail: A.Kariko@BoM.Gov.AU

    For information about the methodology refer to the files method.txt or method.utx.
    A more comlete description, including results and discussion refer to

    Torok, S. and Nicholls, N., 1996. An historical temperature
    record for Australia. Aust. Met. Mag. 45, 251-260.

  131. Luke March 20, 2013 at 7:44 am #

    “The files in this subdirectory are associated with the Australian
    High Quality Temperature Data Set”

    Yuh and that is not ADAM daily data which was my answer to your question.

    If raw daily data in ADAM were adjusted beyond basic quality control, I for one would be mortified. You have no evidence to say they are, except what you want to believe, as like all sceptics you believe in the grand conspiracy and must continually feed it.

    1996 eh? Torok must have known what was coming in the big AGW scam and got adjusted early. Strange that new data flow into ADAM every day. Strange that nobody has reported the big ADJUSTMENT that occurs as they go in.

    In terms of your issue with Torok’s analysis you could do something unheard of and actually correspond with him -there’s this technology called email and THE telephone ? – surely for a international class bloke building gold plated recording studios for noveau riche oil shieks – a mere bagatelle. As you earn vast amounts of export income for Australia all fully declared of course solely for propping up all those parasites trying to enslave the nation into UN world government.

  132. Neville March 20, 2013 at 7:55 am #

    More from Pielke jnr on Oz’s so called hot angry summer and what insurance losses really show.

    As soon as Abbott gets in he should close down the Climate Commission.

  133. Neville March 20, 2013 at 8:10 am #

    McIntyre exposes more fiddled nonsense from Marcott.

    When will they withdraw this stupid study?

  134. cohenite March 20, 2013 at 9:04 am #

    Good on you Bob.

    Luke, a good concession by you; indeed Parker does not exclude natural variation for the trend; you say it can’t be ENSO, my link says otherwise; read Bob’s post.

  135. cohenite March 20, 2013 at 10:07 am #

    Toorak 1996:

    Was appraised by Della-Marta in 2004;

    This paper revised Toorak and is the source of data for the current ACORN and former HQ temperature networks. The process whereby Della-Marta ‘revised’ Torrak is discussed by Stockwell and Stewart:

    Stockwell and Stewart say:

    “The HQN is an Australian network of selected individual stations (or sites),
    currently composed of 100 rural and 34 urban continuous temperature series dating
    back to 1910 [14; 15]. Subsequently reviewed by Della-Marta (2004) [21] (DM),
    they found on average six homogeneity adjustments per site to control for changes in
    location, instrumentation or measuring practice at sites. DM noted that ”the decision
    [by Torok] whether or not to correct for a potential inhomogeneity is often a subjective
    Sites were originally classified as urban by Torok and Nicholls [15] if their
    population exceeded 10,000. However, Torok [22], who studied urban heat island
    (UHI) effects of small Victorian towns and Melbourne, found that “smaller but
    significant UHI can be detected even in small towns”. DM reclassified 15 formerly
    urban sites as non-urban and included them in the rural network. One site (Innisfail) is
    classified as urban although its population is less than 10,000. Plausibly, UHI is site
    specific and not dependent entirely on population size, as Australian regional cities are
    rarely more densely populated than most country towns. The potential effect of
    excising urban sites from the average of Australian regional trends needs to be

  136. John Sayers March 20, 2013 at 12:57 pm #

    Following Luke’s mention of daily temperature data I inverstigated the data I have more thoroughly.

    The data is laid out in a text file like this:

    6606210011859M 25.731 25.428 24.231 23.130 19.531 15.730 14.731 17.731 18.330 23.931 23.630 25.431 22.6

    the first number stating the site (this is Observatory Hill site 66062 in 1859, Note the BoM has changed it to 066062) then follows monthly averages for January thru December followed by the yearly mean.

    Yet when I compare it to the current data it is identical (though to 3 decimal places) except for the yearly mean. If you add the monthly mean and divide by 12 you get 21.4 NOT 22.6.

    It appears Torok and Nicholls changed all the daily data, which changed the monthly data, but he didn’t change the annual mean in the Data I have. So when I plotted the annual mean and compared it to the current annual mean I got a different curve.

    Further the difference between the two is 1.2 degrees which is the adjustment Torok and Nicholls made to the original data.

    So Yes Luke – the original daily data has been altered by the BoM and I suggest there is no record of what the original data was unless you reverse engineer back using their written methodology as listed in the method.utx file.

    This is what my associate Greg Connolly ( a retired engineer ) did for me when I first posted about this. He asked for the data as he was curious. I made up a full graphic using the images and text he sent me so the comments are his.

    This is how he replied to my question:

    So using the FTP data method one could re-engineer all the data back to the original data??

    “Yes. Off course many of the white coats have nibbled at the adjusting game so it may be equivocal. But I don’t think we should have to. What has happened is clear. It is wrong. The BoM should be commissioned to trash it and show only original data – so the “climate change” contour map of Australia would be all blue instead of all red. That is where I will be attempting to exert pressure. I do not see any desirable career in doing all this work for free. It would be OK if the BoM also gave “the public” their suggested adjustment scheme for each and every station with some logical argument. These should be subject to open public criticism.”

    My gut feeling is the dominant influence on Australian “Climate Change” is the stations at Sydney, Melbourne and Darwin.

  137. Luke March 20, 2013 at 7:48 pm #

    Cohenite – far from a concession. It’s simply what the analysis shows. That there is a global centennial scale signal and it don’t look like ENSO old chum. I’d think if ENSO was the big driver of increased centennial temperatures one might find some evidence of that signal….. hmmmm

    Incredible that you lot cannot undertake the most basic data analysis.

    John Sayers – doing some investigation. I’m incredibly sceptical.

  138. cohenite March 20, 2013 at 7:59 pm #

    “My gut feeling is the dominant influence on Australian “Climate Change” is the stations at Sydney, Melbourne and Darwin.”

    And Sydney and Melbourne are going nowhere:

  139. John Sayers March 20, 2013 at 8:51 pm #

    “doing some investigation. I’m incredibly sceptical.”

    Thank you Luke – you are the first person who has shown interest in investigating this. I’ve been trying since early 2010 to get this looked into.

    You can download the files from here

  140. toby March 21, 2013 at 10:12 am #

    sadly John, I dont think that is what he meant……..he is sceptical of you doing research…….

  141. cohenite March 21, 2013 at 4:34 pm #

    Yeah, luke only researches his navel.

    However I have passed John’s work onto some researchers and I am waiting to see what they think.

  142. John Sayers March 21, 2013 at 4:52 pm #

    Thanks Tony.

  143. cohenite March 21, 2013 at 6:53 pm #

    They seem enthused John; if what you done is right it means BOM has been feeding artificially high data into the world averages, for a start.

    Do you want to sent your email to Jennifer and she can pass it on to me?

  144. cohenite March 21, 2013 at 7:46 pm #

    Ignore that John, I’m going senile!


  1. Jennifer Marohasy » Climategate 3: Thank you Mr FOIA | Cranky Old Crow - March 16, 2013

    […] Jennifer Marohasy » Climategate 3: Thank you Mr FOIA. Like this:Like Loading… […]

Website by 46digital