Because Climate Audit:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
has been overloaded all day, I'm going to pull a sample of the first posting-- keep trying the site, it will eventually come up...
Mike’s Nature trick
by Jean S on November 20th, 2009<P>So far one of the most circulated e-mails from the CRU hack is the following from <strong>Phil Jones</strong> to the original hockey stick authors - <strong>Michael Mann</strong>, <strong>Raymond Bradley</strong>, and <strong>Malcolm Hughes</strong>.</p>
<blockquote><p>From: Phil Jones<br>
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, <a href="mailto:mhughes@xxxx.xxx" title="mailto:mhughes@xxxx.xxx">mhughes@xxxx.xxx</a><br>
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement<br>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx" title="mailto:k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx">k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx</a>,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx</p>
<p>Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,<br>
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or<br>
first thing tomorrow.<br>
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps<br>
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from<br>
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual<br>
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land<br>
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999<br>
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with<br>
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.<br>
Thanks for the comments, Ray.</p>
<p>Cheers<br>
Phil</p>
<p>Prof. Phil Jones<br>
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx<br>
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx<br>
University of East Anglia<br>
Norwich Email <a href="mailto:p.jones@xxxx.xxx" title="mailto:p.jones@xxxx.xxx">p.jones@xxxx.xxx</a><br>
NR4 7TJ<br>
UK</p></blockquote>
<p>The e-mail is about <a href="http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/wmo913.pdf">WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999</a> -report, or more specifically, about its cover image.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/wmo913.png" alt="" width=600></p>
<p>Back in December 2004 <strong>John Finn</strong> asked about "the divergence" in <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/#comment-345">Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"</a> -thread of <a href="http://RealClimate.org" title="http://RealClimate.org" target="_blank">RealClimate.org</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.</p></blockquote>
<p>mike's response speaks for itself.</p>
<blockquote><p>No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.</p></blockquote>
<p>But there is an interesting twist here: grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually the original "Mike's Nature trick"! Mann did not <i>fully</i> graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC over <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1553#comment-340175">here</a>.<p><I>Read it all at the links, and especially the comments...</i>