Bugs do Climategate

Depois dos emails, começou a ser escrutinado o código revelado a partir do Climate Research Unit. Este código, que há muito é solicitado, ao abrigo do Freedom of Information Act, foi conhecido no âmbito do ClimateGate. Steve McIntyre há muito que pede estes dados, para replicar as conclusões do estudo, mas agora sabemos que havia muitas Verdades Inconvenientes nele escondido...

Agora que o código é conhecido, as primeiras conclusões são de horror! Sendo que a teoria do Aquecimento Global está baseada nestes dados/algoritmos, codificados em programas informáticos com a qualidade atribuível a um caloiro de um qualquer curso de Informática, não há nada como começar a dar uma vista de olhos! E não me venham com a ideia de que são expressões manhosas de uns quantos emails. Estamos a falar dos programas dos supostos modelos, e das notas dos respectivos programadores, que preveêm um futuro Mundo muito negro. Espalhem pelos V/ amigos informáticos: eles vão adorar estes bugs...

• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.pro
  FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.pro
  FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro
  ; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
  
  
• FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro
  ; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
  
  
• FOIA\documents\harris-tree\calibrate_nhrecon.pro
  ;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
;
  
  
• FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon1.pro
  FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon2.proFOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_jones.pro
  ;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline
;
  
  
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
  17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that
a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative! Key
output from the debug statements:
(..)
forrtl: error (75): floating point exception
IOT trap (core dumped)
..so the data value is unbfeasibly large, but why does the
sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!
  
  
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
  22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software
suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the
definitive failure of the entire project..
  
  
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
  getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented. Every time a
cloud forms I'm presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with
references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with
one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have
it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.
  
  
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
  I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO
and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I
know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh!
There truly is no end in sight.
  
  
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
  28. With huge reluctance, I have dived into 'anomdtb' - and already I have
that familiar Twilight Zone sensation.
  
  
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
  Wrote 'makedtr.for' to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases not
being kept in step. Sounds familiar, if worrying. am I the first person to attempt
to get the CRU databases in working order?!!
  
  
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
  Well, dtr2cld is not the world's most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and I
immediately found a mistake! Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop that, for
completely unfathomable reasons, didn't include months! So we read 50 grids instead
of 600!!! That may have had something to do with it. I also noticed, as I was correcting
THAT, that I reopened the DTR and CLD data files when I should have been opening the
bloody station files!!
  
  
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
  Back to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by
Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station
counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived
at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented
sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps?
Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding
procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.
  
  
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
  Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)
  
  
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
  Well, it's been a real day of revelations, never mind the week. This morning I
discovered that proper angular weighted interpolation was coded into the IDL
routine, but that its use was discouraged because it was slow! Aaarrrgghh.
There is even an option to tri-grid at 0.1 degree resolution and then 'rebin'
to 720x360 - also deprecated! And now, just before midnight (so it counts!),
having gone back to the tmin/tmax work, I've found that most if not all of the
Australian bulletin stations have been unceremoniously dumped into the files
without the briefest check for existing stations.
  
  
• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
  As we can see, even I'm cocking it up! Though recoverably. DTR, TMN and TMX need to be written as (i7.7)./code>


• FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.


• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxdgrid2ascii.pro
printf,1,’Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season’
printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’


• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro
printf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:'
printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'


• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\combined_wavelet_col.pro
;
; Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)
;
kl=where((yrmxd ge 1402) and (yrmxd le 1960),n)
sst=prednh(kl)


• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro
; Tries to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperatures, on a box-by-box basis, from the
; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as predictors
; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a number of
; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different spatial
; coverage). *BUT* don’t do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are “manually” removed because
; they are isolated and away from any trees.


• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor


• FOIA\documents\harris-tree\briffa_sep98_e.pro
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
(...)
mknormal,densadj,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
mknormal,densall,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj


• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\pl_decline.pro
;
; Plots density ‘decline’ as a time series of the difference between
; temperature and density averaged over the region north of 50N,
; and an associated pattern in the difference field.
; The difference data set is computed using only boxes and years with
; both temperature and density in them – i.e., the grid changes in time.
; The pattern is computed by correlating and regressing the *filtered*
; time series against the unfiltered (or filtered) difference data set.
;
;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***


• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.pro
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;


• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\calibrate_correctmxd.pro
; We have previously (calibrate_mxd.pro) calibrated the high-pass filtered
; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.


• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\calibrate_correctmxd.pro
; No need to verify the correct and uncorrected versions, since these
; should be identical prior to 1920 or 1930 or whenever the decline
; was corrected onwards from.


• FOIA\documents\osborn-tree5\densplus188119602netcdf.pro
; we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-440)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1980, which is
; (1980-1400)/10 + 1 lines
(...)
; we know the file starts at yr 1070, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-1070)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1991, which is
; (1990-1400)/10 + 1 lines (since 1991 is on line beginning 1990)


Nota: Editado para corrigir falha de localização de código, originalmente referenciando FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro mas na verdade em FOIA\documents\harris-tree\briffa_sep98_e.pro

Rolo Compressor de Verdades Inconvenientes

O rolo compressor, formado por muitos internautas, e que iniciou ontem a sua viagem, na interpretação dos dados ontem revelados num site russo, tem debitado cá para fora Verdades de uma Inconveniência extrema. Há que recordar que está por provar a autenticidade dos dados, mas quem está por dentro dos temas, não tem grandes dúvidas de que é mesmo real... O próprio Phil Jones já reconheceu que foi um hacker. Deve-se todavia recordar que muitas questões persistem, sobre os reais motivos de quem lançou esta bomba atómica!

Do apanhado que efectuei em sites da Internet, o difícil é mesmo catalogar estas verdades... Dividi-as por temas, não traduzi os originais, limitando-me apenas a realçar expressões e frases absolutamente inacreditáveis. Nos três links abaixo está a decorrer a maior parte da análise, mas os servidores estão especialmente inundados, sobretudo no caso do segundo link.

Celebrating a sceptic death

From: Phil Jones, Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004
In an odd way this is cheering news !

Wrong data and practices

From: Tom Wigley, Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

From: Kevin Trenberth, before Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:01:24 -0600
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.

From: Michael Mann Date: 27/10/2009, 16:54
Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009
In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London's UHI and the effect that it hasn't got any bigger since 1900. It's easy to do with 3 long time series

From: Darrell Kaufman, Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:44:19 -0700
Regarding the "upside down man", as Nick's plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it's unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It's weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.

From: Keith Briffa, Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan.

Fixing the data

From: Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:44:19 -0700
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

From: Tom Wigley, Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these).

From: Tom Crowley, Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:13:28 -0400
I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval warm period - the attached plot has eight sites that go from 946-1960

From: Gary Funkhouser, Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. (...) I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian.

From: Keith Briffa, Date: Wed Sep 22 16:19:06 1999
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming.

From: ????
Another serious issue to be considered relates to the fact that the PC1 time series in the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150 years (on the assumption - following an earlier paper by Lamarche et al. - that this incressing growth was evidence of carbon dioxide fertilization) , by differencing the data from another record produced by other workers in northern Alaska and Canada (which incidentally was standardised in a totally different way). This last adjustment obviously will have a large influence on the quantification of the link between these Western US trees and N.Hemisphere temperatures. At this point, it is fair to say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable.

From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back

From: Phil Jones, Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 13:04:24 +0000
As all our (Mike, Tom and CRU) all show that the first few centuries of the millennium were cooler than the 20th century, we will come in for some flak from the skeptics saying we’re wrong because everyone knows it was warmer in the Medieval period. We can show why we believe we are correct with independent data from glacial advances and even slower responding proxies, however, what are the chances of putting together a group of a very few borhole series that are deep enough to get the last 1000 years. Basically trying to head off criticisms of the IPCC chapter, but good science in that we will be rewriting people’s perceived wisdom about the course of temperature change over the past millennium.

Deleting the data

From: Phil Jones, Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated ! Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series ! Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH. The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate!

From: Phil Jones, 2/2/2005 09:41 AM
The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please ! I'm trying to redress the balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the kettle black - Christian doesn't make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian message so you don't get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get more advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal. PLEASE DELETE - just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm

Wrongdoing

From: Phil Jones, Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 09:05:47 -0400
It is true that the skeptics twist the truth clockwise rather than counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere? There was indeed a lot of activity last week. Hans Von Storch's resignation as chief editor of CR, which I think took a lot of guts, couldn't have come at a better time. (..) It was on the night before before the notorious "James Inhofe", Chair of the Senate "Environment and Public Works Committee" attempted to provide a public stage for Willie Soon and David Legates to peddle their garbage (...) Fortunately, these two are clowns, neither remotely as sharp as Lindzen or as slick as Michaels, and it wasn't too difficult to deal with them. Suffice it to say, the event did *not* go the way Inhofe and the republicans had hoped. The democrats, conveniently, had received word of Hans' resignation, but the republicans and Soon/Legates had not.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish.

From: Ben Santer, Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Hiding information

From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to:
AD 1000
AD 1400
AD 1600
(...) But basically, you'll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig them up. (...) p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things...

From: Phil Jones, Date:Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM
You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.

From: Phil Jones, before 19/06/03 12:33 -0400
Keith and I have discussed the email below. I don't want to start a discussion of it and I don't want you sending it around to anyone else, but it serves as a warning as to where the debate might go should the EOS piece come out.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Mon Feb 9 09:23:43 2004
I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from individuals and not directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through GCOS.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008
Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond - advice they got from the Information Commissioner. (...) The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI - the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

Peer-review interference

From: Tom Wigley, Date: 1/20/2005 04:30 PM
If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Fri Aug 13 13:38:32 2004
I'd rather you didn't. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie's email that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR. Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.

From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...

From: Edward Cook, Date: 6/4/03 09:50 AM -0400
I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. (...) If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please

From: Tom Wigley, Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600
Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009
I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS.

From: Benjamin D. Santer, Date: 19/03/2009 16:48
If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.

From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Finantial practices

From: Andrew Manning, Date: 06/10/2009 00:13
is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK – looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases – I thought we’d moved the debate beyond this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).

From: Tatiana M. Dedkova, Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:41:07 +0500
Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.

From: Phil Jones, before 19/06/03 12:33 -0400There are also some snipes at CRU and our funding, but we're ignoring these here. Also Mike comes in for some stick, so stay cool Mike - you're a married man now ! So let's keep this amongst ourselves . (...) I say this as this might come out if things get nasty.

From: Mick Kelly, Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN. How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven't spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious. Politically this money may have to go through Simon's institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
www.climatedepot.com
http://wattsupwiththat.com
www.climateaudit.org

O melhor do Climategate 2.0

Estas são algumas das minhas citações favoritas, na revelação que se está a tornar o Climategate 2.0 (realces da minha responsabilidade):

Michael Mann -> Phil Jones (1680.txt)

I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy. I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them. Do you mind if I send this on to Gavin Schmidt (w/ a request to respect the confidentiality with which you have provided it) for his additional advice/thoughts? He usually has thoughtful insights wiith respect to such matters,

Phil Jones -> [vários] (1577.txt)

Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. (...) Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I've ascertained it most likely came from there, as I'm the only one who knows where the files are here.

Edward Cook -> Keith Briffa (4369.txt)

I will be sure not to bring this up to Mike. As you know, he thinks that CRU is out to get him in some sense. So, a very carefully worded and described bit by you and Keith will be important. I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead. I am afraid that he is losing out in the process. That is too bad.

Phil Jones -> Manola (0021.txt)

I've saved emails at CRU and then deleted them from the server. Now I'm at home I just have some hard copies.

Rob Wilson-> [vários] (4241.txt)

The whole Macintyre issue got me thinking about over-fitting and the potential bias of screening against the target climate parameter. Therefore, I thought I'd play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could 'reconstruct' northern hemisphere temperatures. I first generated 1000 random time-series in Excel - I did not try and approximate the persistence structure in tree-ring data. The autocorrelation therefore of the time-series was close to zero, although it did vary between each time-series. Playing around therefore with the AR persistent structure of these time-series would make a difference. However, as these series are generally random white noise processes, I thought this would be a conservative test of any potential bias. (...) The reconstructions clearly show a 'hockey-stick' trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. It is certainly worrying, but I do not think that it is a problem so long as one screens against LOCAL temperature data and not large scale temperature where trend dominates the correlation.

Raymond Bradley -> Keith Briffa (3373.txt)

Also--& I'm sure you agree--the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction".

Phil Jones -> Tom Wigley (4789.txt)

Bryan Weare is at US Davis. He would know about some of the things you mention. The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at all Californian sites.

A entropia da AAAS

Um leitor enviou-me uma nota para o facto do alarmista Público propagar o comunicado ínfame da AAAS. E anda por aí disseminado, porque interessa criar entropia, quando a principal reunião dos cépticos está a decorrer. É reconfortante ver nos comentários, que há cada vez mais portugueses informados sobre a verdadeira extensão desta fraude da suposta ciência climática.

O artigo do Público começa com as supostas perseguições que se estão a fazer aos cientistas. Talvez se refiram à proposta dos cépticos serem tatuados. Ou da proposta dos cépticos serem gaseados, tal como se fazia nos campos de concentração Nazis. Estas ameaças foram públicas, e não privadas, que a existirem devem ser evidentemente também investigadas e julgadas.

O que a AAAS e o Público confundem, são as ameaças que referi anteriormente, com os pedidos de FOIA, que são acções claramente enquadradas em termos jurídicos. O que acontece é que esses supostos cientistas passam o seu tempo, pago genericamente pelos contribuintes, a distorcer a ciência! E depois tentam defender o Mann, o mais ilustre manipulador da ciência climática, que referi na passada terça-feira, e que nesse artigo mantém a perpetuação da sua ciência invertida...

É claro que o Mann é apenas parte do puzzle. E que está a atingir figuras mais acima, como o Hansen. Mas este é apenas o início! Onde isto vai parar é mais acima, quando retirarem o Nobel ao Gore e ao IPCC... O problema deste clero é que o povinho está a acordar, e que reuniões como as do ICCC (podem ver em directo neste momento) começam a ter uma visibilidade que os incomoda...

Patetice histórica

Da próxima vez que ouvirem falar que a Ciência está definida nestas questões das Alterações Climáticas, que os cientistas são todos à prova de bala, blábláblá, pensem nesta posta. Via Watts Up With That, recebemos hoje um dos argumentos mais patéticos de que há memória na investigação científica e histórica.

Richard Nevle, um geoquímico da Universidade de Stanford, avançou com a hipótese estúpida de que Cristóvão Colombo, e outros exploradores que se lhe seguiram (presume-se que os Portugueses também foram culpados) desencadearam uma cadeia de eventos, que levaram ao arrefecimento da Europa durante séculos!

Para ele, a conquista das Américas e o dizimar da sua população pelos Espanhóis (parece que os Portugueses afinal já não são culpados...), deixou muita terra por trabalhar, o que permitiu o crescimento das florestas, limpando o CO2 da atmosfera, diminuindo o efeito de estufa e arrefecendo o clima. O estúpido do Nevle adianta que tudo se deveu ao regresso das árvores numa área equivalente pelo menos à da California!

Para mostrar a estupidez deste investigador, mesmo Michael Mann, que sabemos pelo Climategate ser já um dos piores alarmistas, não alinha por este disparate! Ele explica o que todos sabemos da História, relativo à Pequena Idade do Gelo, e que essencialmente resultou do Mínimo de Maunder.

Enfim, é isto a suposta Ciência, que nos enfiam pela goela abaixo? E estes cientistas ainda recebem dinheiros para produzirem esta porcaria? Tem uma agenda escondida, que é uma solução alternativa para o actual problema do Aquecimento Global? E que reforça a teoria da conspiração, de que a solução é matar uns quantos milhares de milhões de seres humanos, para o Aquecimento Global deixar de existir? Pensem nisto! A sério...

Actualização: Acabei de dar os meus parabéns ao Richard pessoalmente! Que continue por muitos e bons anos a escrever estes disparates, para que o pessoal acorde ainda mais depressa!

Nível do mar no passado

Há uns dias saiu mais um artigo "hockey-stick", de Mann & companhia. Obviamente, os alarmistas andam alarmados com o facto de que a taxa de subida do nível dos mares está a baixar, e por isso socorrem-se de todos os truques sujos para esconder esse facto. Este artigo, aqui disponível na íntegra, diz-nos que nunca o mar subiu tão depressa nos últimos dois milénios, tendo começado a subir em 1865!?

Mas se recuarmos mais tempo, este alarmismo esfuma-se. Já me tinha referido a isso aqui e ali. Mas volto a este tema com dois dos artigos mais citados em termos da evolução histórica do nível do mar. Em Waelbroeck et al. (2002), donde retiramos a imagem ao lado, verificamos que a subida nos últimos milénios foi muito significativa. Ainda mais interessante é verificar que o nível dos mares foi mais elevado que no presente, nomeadamente há cerca de 120000 anos. Porque haveria Aquecimento Global, numa altura em que os Neanderthais e os Homo sapiens andavam provavelmente entretidos à pedrada?

Noutro artigo muito citado, Siddall et al. (2003), analisam em grande detalhe a evolução desde esse máximo há 120000 anos, visível na imagem ao lado. Aí verifica-se claramente que o mar estava então vários metros acima de onde está hoje. Igualmente interessante é a constatação de que o mar chegou a subir cerca de 2 cm por ano, desde a última glaciação, o que é uma taxa mais de 6 vezes superior à que temos hoje, e que é de cerca de 3 mm por ano...

The ClimateGate Secret Meeting

A usual reader of the blog sent me yesterday an interesting news from a Portuguese newspaper. It deals with the classic Medieval Warm Period problem, in the most green Portuguese newspaper. I immediately recognized one of the worst environmental journalists in Portugal, dealing with one of my favorite issues. Interestingly enough, Ricardo Trigo, a portuguese climatologist, was trying to explain the pseudo-science behind climate change and global warming, confusing things like Greenland's vikings and Maunder's Minimum.

But what really interested me in the story was a reference to Phil Jones, the person in the center of the ClimateGate controversy. And references to a conference in Portugal, regarding the Medieval Warm Period. I spent some time trying to figure out what had happened. Turned out that I had not read the news with attention: the conference had happened a month before!

Between 22 and 24 of September, a symposium entitled "The Medieval Warm Period Redux: Where and When was it warm?" was organized in Lisbon, Portugal. The Climategate mob was here, including Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Malcolm Hughes and Raymond Bradley. I bet the main point on the agenda was how "to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". The abstracts for the conference are available here. Probably, the best abstract of the symposium was for Malcolm K. Hughes (highlights are my responsibility):

We meant the title of our 1994 review “Was there a Medieval Warm Period, and if so Where and When?” (Hughes and Diaz, 1994) to be read in two ways. Firstly, it was to be read quite literally. Secondly, it was meant to be ironic. The literal reading was rewarded by an attempt to identify and synthesize records thought to be appropriate to this task. Irony was used to imply that, since a clear and simple answer was not forthcoming from the review, it might be useful to reformulate the question. Please read the title of this abstract in the light of this explanation of the 1994 title. The trajectories of these two concepts (“Medieval Warm Period” and “Medieval Climate Anomaly “) will be traced. A case will be made for the abandonment of both of them, on the grounds that they are inappropriate, uninformative, and that they very probably divert attention from more revealing ways of thinking about the Earth’s climate over the past two millennia. It is clear from many recent publications, especially many of the abstracts submitted for this meeting, that high-resolution paleoclimatology has moved firmly from the mode of descriptive climatology to that of physical climatology. As a result, there is little utility in picking over definitions of the geographic and temporal extent of putative epochs, especially in the Late Holocene. The pressing questions concern the dynamics of the climate system, and the relative roles of free and forced variations, whether the forcings are anthropogenic or not.

All the information I've got till now makes me believe that this was an almost secret meeting. No news transpired, not even here in Portugal. Given the abstracts, and the one seen above, their intentions are clear! If Ricardo Trigo kept his mouth shut, nobody would probably hear about it. So I wish to thank my loyal reader for bringing this to our attention.

As respostas de Miguel Ambio

Miguel Araújo, do blog ambio, conseguiu que um artigo seu fosse publicado na versão online do Expresso. Tentou rebater a argumentação de Delgado Domingos, num artigo absolutamente espectacular que havíamos aqui anteriormente referido. Todavia, para além de confirmar envergonhada e subrepticiamente muitas das afirmações de Delgado Domigos, o problema dele é que não deve ler o Ecotretas, senão teria visto que a sua argumentação é infeliz e errada:

• Miguel refere que O que se afirma no relatório de 2007 (página 281, Capítulo "The Physical Basis") é que se estima que os furacões do atlântico poderão tornar-se "menos frequentes mas mais intensos"
  mas isto já foi demonstrado errado aqui, sendo que a realidade é que o valor do ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) é o mais baixo dos últimos 30 anos!
  
• Miguel refere que Ora todos sabemos que as projecções de tendências têm associadas a si uma variação inter-anual que é de carácter estocástico (melhor dizer, não se pode explicar à luz do conhecimento actual), e que escolher um ano quente para depois demonstrar uma evolução é negativa é certamente uma boa forma de produzir argumentos retóricos
  mas o que Miguel pretende ignorar é que o IPCC posiciona convenientemente os seus gráficos depois de períodos frios, como foram a década de 1970 e a Pequena Idade do Gelo. Nestas circunstâncias, a subida é garantida!
  
• Miguel entende que é abusiva e carece de demonstração, a possibilidade de ter havido uma fraude que compromete a ciência climática no seu conjunto
  mas esquece-se, como aqui já referimos, que Phil Jones, o cientista no centro do escândalo, é o quarto autor mais citado, em investigação no âmbito das mudanças climáticas, no período 1999-2009. Se excluirmos os domínios da biologia e ciência marítima, é mesmo o mais citado!
  
• Miguel refere que A verdade é que hoje se questiona que o Período Quente Medieval tenha sido um fenómeno global
  mas esquece-se de dizer que este é um artigo de Michael Mann, o autor do hockey-stick, repetidamente desmascarado no passado! O Miguel devia dar uma vista de olhos a www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html onde facilmente constata que dados publicados por 772 cientistas distintos, de 458 instituições de investigação, de 42 paises diferentes, confirmam a existência do Período Quente Medieval por todo o planeta Terra!

Escutas climáticas

Enquanto nós temos cá o nosso caso das escutas, veio hoje a lume uma situação que pode alterar para sempre a História do Aquecimento Global. Por meios certamente condenáveis, hackers russos retiraram informação do Hadley Climate Research Unit em Inglaterra, onde trabalham alguns dos mais suspeitos tretas do Aquecimento Global...

A serem verdade algumas das transcrições já apresentadas, das quais transcrevo uma a seguir (realce meu), retirada do primeiro link abaixo, o Mundo não irá ficar calado...

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html

Bomba nos Himalaias

Agora que todos já têm uma noção que Copenhaga não levará a lado nenhum, a menos que o barrete nos seja enfiado por baixo da mesa, começam a emergir os verdadeiros heróis. Aqueles cientistas que já não têm medo de falar verdade, mesmo que alguns tretas ainda pensem que conseguem esconder a verdade.

Uma das supostas consequências do Aquecimento Global será o derreter dos glaciares. Na Ásia, se derretessem os glaciares, a Índia arriscava-se a ficar sem água potável. Mas um estudo suportado pelo Ministério do Ambiente da Índia, afirma sem rodeios que não existe evidência que o Aquecimento Global tenha causado uma diminuição anormal dos glaciares dos Himalaias. Vijay Kumar Raina, o geólogo responsável pelo relatório, admite que alguns glaciares estão a recuar, mas que não é nada de extraordinário, e que não há nada que possa sugerir que desapareçam...

O Ministro do Ambiente Indiano, Jairam Ramesh, referiu a sua preocupação em reforçar o conhecimento indiano dos Himalaias, reforçado pelo conhecimento dos dados locais, alguns apenas divulgados agora. O relatório governamental olhou para 150 anos de informação sobre 25 glaciares importantes, no estudo mais compreensivo na região. A análise do documento, disponível no primeiro link abaixo, revela realmente uma profundidade assinalável!

Mas quem não gostou foi Rajendra Pachauri, o tretas mor do IPCC. Para ele, o IPCC é que sabe, e têm uma ideia clara do que está a acontecer. Não percebe porque é que o ministro suporta este estudo. E não percebe porque é que produz uma declaração tão arrogante! Queixa-se que o relatório não foi peer-reviewed, e que apresenta poucas citações científicas, como se isso fosse minimamente importante: para ele é mais importante que os artigos citem as confirmadas mentiras, de Mann, Briffa, et al.

Na minha opinião, quem tiver oportunidade de ler o relatório, não terá dúvidas sobre quem tem razão!

http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion Paper _him.pdf
www.hindustantimes.com/Government-quells-panic-over-Himalayan-glacial-melt/H1-Article3-474713.aspx
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers

A importância da fraude de Briffa et al

O estrondo provocado pelo estudo de Steve McIntyre, relativamente à forma como Briffa et al. aldrabaram os dados que suportaram vários estudos climáticos importantes, é enorme. Para além do seu site ter estado temporariamente indisponível, tem suscitado um enorme interesse por toda a Internet. Como o tema é extremamente difícil, e tão intrincado, é preciso contextualizar a história toda. Nesse sentido, recomendo o link abaixo, embora reconheça que é preciso bastante tempo para interiorizar toda a informação nele disponibilizada.

Por isso, resumem-se aqui os pontos mais importantes:

-Os gráficos de temperaturas das últimas centenas de anos, estilo hockey-stick, são baseados essencialmente em dados proxy de árvores. Estão disponíveis muitas séries, mas Mann, Briffa et al. têm utilizado um subconjunto muito pequeno dessas séries.
-Os dados de Yamal foram tratados pelos cientistas russos, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, mas Briffa antecipou-se com um paper na Quaternary Science Reviews: Annual climate variability in the Holocene: interpreting the message of ancient trees. Os dados são semelhantes aos dos russos, mas no de Briffa os valores no final do século XX são muito superiores. Este paper é uma das fundações científicas do Aquecimento Global de origem antropogénica.
-Um artigo na Science, em 2006, The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years, também de Briffa, aguça a curiosidade de Steve McIntyre. Apesar dos pedidos dos dados à Science, considerada a segunda revista científica mais importante do mundo, a Science entendeu não ter que fornecer os dados, porque o artigo referenciava dados num artigo anterior. A Science recomendou que Steve contactasse o autor desse artigo original, que é o próprio Briffa!!! Obviamente, este nunca forneceu os dados...
-Em 2008, Briffa volta a publicar numa publicação muito respeitável, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, o artigo "Trends in recent temperature and radial tree growth spanning 2000 years across northwest Eurasia". O artigo baralha e volta a dar. Só que a publicação exige que os dados dos artigos sejam disponibilizados...
-Steve McIntyre escreve à revista exigindo os dados. Respondem pedindo desculpa pelo facto de não terem assegurado uma das suas próprias exigências. Depois de vários meses, a revista informa Steve que os dados seriam disponibilizados no final de 2008 ou início de 2009.
-No final de 2008 aparecem os dados utilizados por Briffa, mas convenientemente omitindo duas parcelas de dados, nomeadamente os relativos a Yamal. Em Setembro de 2009, um internauta avisa Steve que os dados foram disponibilizados no início do mês no site de Briffa, mais de um ano depois do pedido original.

Em apenas poucos dias, Steve começou a desmoronar este castelo de cartas que é o Aquecimento Global antropogénico. A forma como a Ciência sai maltratada é todavia a conclusão mais importante. A displicência com que as revistas científicas ao mais alto nível tratam a correcção dos seus artigos é arrepiante. Por mim, nunca mais comprarei uma. Viva a Internet e os internautas!

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

2008 Weblog Awards

O Ecotretas é um blog escrito em Português, para leitores da língua de Camões. Os artigos aqui colocados são preferencialmente sobre a realidade portuguesa, procurando também cada vez mais satisfazer a curiosidade da realidade do Brasil e mesmo dos PALOPs. Todavia, a realidade internacional é tão disparatada que também aqui realço os aspectos que considero mais significativos.

Uma prova de que ainda há muito a fazer é relativo à escassez de Blogs em Português com verdades inconvenientes. Neste momento, só conheço três que verdadeiramente desafiam a lógica do dogmatismo ambiental. Obviamente, se houver mais, mais links colocarei.

Em termos da língua inglesa, felizmente a realidade é outra! Existem blogs de qualidade impressionante, que tem encostado às cordas os ecologistas da treta. Desses, há dois que tenho aqui referenciado habitualmente nos artigos. O Watts Up With That, de Anthony Watts, é um blog de grande diversidade de artigos, que nasceu da paixão de um ex-meteorologista de expôr a realidade das temperaturas. O Climate Audit, de Steve McIntyr, é um blog onde este matemático começou por desafiar o hockey stick do Mann. Ambos têm uma qualidade indiscutível! Por isso é que sugiro aos leitores a visita a um destes dois sites, e o vosso voto, no 2008 Weblog Awards num deles.

Mais machadada no IPCC e no hockey-stick

A saga do hockey-stick continua. Depois de se pensar que Mann et al. tinham sido finalmente expostos, eles voltaram. Com mais uma série de manobras que embaraçam seriamente a ciência, e afundam completamente a credibilidade do IPCC.

Há umas semanas, apareceu no site do Caspar Amman, a informação e o código que vinha sendo pedida há três anos por Steve McIntyre. Com apenas uns dias de trabalho, o Steve conseguiu afundar ainda mais a inexistente crdibilidade do hockey-stick!

O problema é que o mal está feito. O IPCC continua a basear o seu prémio Nobel e a assustar-nos com base no hockey-stick. É impressionante como um único matemático consegue desmontar uma teoria, enquanto as centenas/milhares de investigadores afectos ao IPCC andam a dormir, e a citar-se mutuamente.

O que está em causa não é unicamente o Quarto Relatório de Avaliação. O que está em causa é o IPCC. Falhando no processo de peer-review, insistindo em basear as suas metodologias em dados que sabe estarem adulterados, e persistindo nessas práticas nos últimos três anos, nada mais há a fazer a não ser acabar com o IPCC!

www.climateaudit.org
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf

O famigerado hockey stick

A história do famigerado Hockey Stick já foi aqui abordada. O conceito do Hockey Stick é fundamental na consolidação da estrutura catastrofista dos relatórios do IPCC, bem como do drama do filme "A Verdade Inconveniente", do Al Gore. Todavia, a dificuldade de interpretação das fórmulas matemáticas/estatísticas detalhadas por Steve McIntyre, no seu blog Climate Audit, tornavam para o comum dos mortais difícil perceber cabalmente o que se passava.

Bishop Hill, no seu blog, resolveu este problema. E o que ele explica é a forma atabalhoada e anti-científica, como Michael Mann, Caspar Amman and Eugene Wahl, aldrabaram a comunidade científica nos últimos anos, não fornecendo dados, escondendo outros, conseguindo ainda a publicação de papers à margem das regras de peer-review estabelecidas.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html