Understanding Climategate: Who's Who – a video

The Dr. Phil Jones section is missing his contribution to the Urban Heat Island discussion. That is: He’s the guy claiming a thermometer parked between two barbeques outside Grand Central Station is going to have the same temperature as a themometer in the same location without all of the buildings, people or heatsources. Within 0.1C, naturally – have to include the error limits.
CRU also actually implements “corrections” for the UHI they claim is so slight. They do this by depressing past measurements instead of by trying to more accurately calculate “what the gridcell temperature would be without the city.” (You don’t actually want a measurement of the city’s temperature, you want a measurement of the average temperature in the quite large gridcell that happens to contain a city.

Wonderful video.
These people are zealots and frauds.They need to go away in shame.
On the other hand maybe it would be better if they stayed where they are, but had their research data completely open to review. With their insider knowledge, if they go underground they could come up with tricks for others and never be called on them.

Way OT, but the song half-way through the video (“Hurt”) was done very powerfully by Johnny Cash just before he died.
My recommendation: Build a fire, pour yourself a stiff one, and watch.

[snip]

I thought it was funny

Under no circumstances should the Penn State logo be removed. Live by reputation, die by reputation. Penn State should be more careful about whom they hire, and most especially about what their faculty say.

If there was going to be a revision to this, I’d suggest just tidying up e.g. don’t need two identical references to the CEI lawsuit, footnote reference for ‘amount’ of arctic ice so as not to leave open to the extent vs thickness question, fix Dr Kelly’s employment status, not sure if there’s really room to discuss UHI.
Let this stand as is and move on to one with media/professional quotes about ‘political’ IPCC, etc. (while I’m dictating work for other folks…)

Nice. A minor suggestion — on many slides, you have a sub-title followed by a few quotes. So it looks like this:
– Sub-Title
– quote 1
– quote 2
I think it would be more impactful for the uninitiated if you used a format that looked more like:
Sub-Title
– “Quote 1”
– “Quote 2”
Where there’s no bullet for the sub-title and each of the quotes is bullet-ed and surrounded by quotation marks.

Copenhagen is what this is all about; fear of regulation even though most of you folks have no stake in the oil and coal companies, you believe in them no matter what they charge for their products. I’m just a curious journalist with actual training in the sciences so I like facts.
Where is the email that refutes this fact?
“In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon. Their response to warming may be real, but it is less than their response to increasing CO2 and other climate changes for the moment.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/

I knew that was Depeche Mode! Just enjoying the unravelling of this lying clique of scientists. They are a disgrace to all science.
Brent in Calgary

Music really appalling and likely to put people off if they are too lazy to press mute on

Its not the crime that gets them, its the cover up every time.
The attempted cover up in the UK means that only the new media is covering the scandal including MSM bloggers of course and the MSM editors cannot press the squelch button on them without raising suspicions but the main pages of the dailys/TV channels are bare of real coverage, almost as if an off button has been pressed.
The new media has its first big test now, the old media seems to be succumbing to outside pressure to smother and kill the scandal, in the UK the main political parties have identical policies and aims regarding AAM/AGW/MMCC, they are in effect just one party with a shared aim of following the faked consensus regardless of the facts.
I suspect that many arms are being twisted and editors leaned on in the MSM, the cover up attempt will lead to bullying and threats which will lead to a breaking of ranks, a handful of young stud reporters wanting to make a name for themselves will uncover more and more usually led by the NMM until the MSM can no longer ignore the scandal just as happened with the MP expenses scandal earlier in the year.
The BBC with its massive resources has played a huge part in drenching the airwaves with trash pseudo science mumbo jumbo and they are leading the desperate cover up, perhaps they fully realise that if the AGW fraud is exposed then the BBCs leading role will be exposed, a great many vested interests are in peril, a great many people have done well out the scam and they will move heaven and earth to suppress it.
Unfortunately the scandal has expanded to reach Australia/New Zealand/USA/UK and it will be impossible to hold back the tide.

Marky48,
Despite what you sometimes see (as in Smokey’s post) there is not real doubt that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily from human burning of fossil fuels. [Smokey and others confuse total emissions with net emissions.] What people at places like RealClimate misrepresent is that there’s no good evidence that CO2 causes anything like the amount of warming that AGW proponents claim. CO2 by itself will produce about .5-1deg C for a doubling. The whole CO2 alarmism comes from assuming that this small warming will lead to a much larger warming due to H20 evaporation. This might make sense except that there are clouds and precipitation to be accounted for and even the warmers admit they haven’t gotten it anyway close to being locked down on those issues. Further, there’s a likelihood bordering on certainty that the atmosphere is in a negative feedback mode under present conditions and that each degree of warming will be largely offset by changes leading to stasis. One well-known skeptic even thinks the feedback will be large enough to reduce the net warming to less than the CO2 only warming would suggest. I’m not sure he’s right, but there’s not a smoking gun on that issue.

Are the emails about Steve McIntyre that Phil Jones deleted still recoverable from the harddrive? I think they would be.
The harddrives at CRU should be seized by the police immediately before Mike, or others, do some ‘trick’ with them.

Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act.
Robust discussion among (these) scientist.
I don’t know if it’s illegal to instruct someone to do this but it has the appearance of being illegal.

“…showing them what CA was all about.”
Which was verifying your work, right Mr. Jones? You know, that inconvenient scientific process. You may have heard of it.

Mick Kelly and globalization—so much for trolls insisting there is no globalization agenda behind global warming.

Michael Mann, “…best to clean up the code….but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.”
DOH! It got into their hands!

Tom Wigley, “….Saiers…we could… get him ousted.”
Deplorable, Tom. And we were told over and over this type of thing NEVER happened!

Tom Wigley tried to sit on heat data.
You in the hot seat now Tom? You made it yourself.

“According to the Department of Energy and the UN IPCC, out of 793,000 MMtons of CO2 emitted, only 23,000 are emitted by human activities. So realclimate is wrong once again.”
Nope. Sorry Charlie.
“Note the absorption number and the net accumulation in the air – around 50% of the human addition. And this is the same thing, year after year.”
Fake graphs showing what you want won’t help you. NASA puts rovers on Mars and you folks take out the trash. There’s no comparison in the real world.

marky48 (12:21:52) :
Please address the questions above about CO2 sensitivity and feedbacks.

I thought there was going to be a flood of comments in this thread. I thought my comments would end up between many other comments. I am posting a lot because over the last 2 1/2 years everything I instinctively felt about what was happening in global warming is revealed to be true in ClimateGate. But seeing it before my eyes it’s a little ‘worse than I thought’.
Everything the trolls have told us was not happening actually was happening.
I’ve received nasty messages and one death threat (I know that’s nothing compared to what others have received) in the last 2 1/2 years. But we’ve told been told by the trolls those thing never happen either.
The trolls have a great track record for accuracy.

marky48 (12:28:24) :
I guess as a “journalist” you prefer to blindly link, rather than inform.
OK, I’ll do you job for you.
From the NASA link, I see they highlight the “Copenhagen Diagnosis” (no political intent there, I’m sure, but what do I know, I’m not a “journalist”.)
“”The answer is yes, this amplifying feedback has been detected: water vapor does become more plentiful in a warming atmosphere (Dressler et al 2008). Satellite data show that atmospheric moisture content over the oceans has increased since 1998, with greenhouse gases being the cause (Santer et al. 2007).”
I would presume an “amplifying feedback” should actually “amplify”. What is the warming trend since 1998 compared to the ten years prior to 1998?
Of course, one might be tempted to ask how “greenhouse gases being the cause” was determine by Dr. Santer, but he might threaten to beat me up.

tucker (07:54:09) :
Sen Inhofe has sent letters to some of the scientists in the ClimateGate emails informing them the US government is going to investigate. I am almost certain Michael Mann is among them. He could end up testifying before the Senate. All the emails and computer code will be easily seen on C-Span if such a hearing took place.
The only thing most people associate with Penn St. is JoePa and Penn St. football. Now they could have a second face associated with it.
You may want to start considering now how to handle the public relations on that—just in case.
————————–
video of Sen Inhofe letters, 2:55 to 3:35 of this video

It does “amplify” all the way to 2008. Nothing stopped in 1998 contrary to your gospel. Everything is movin’ on up. One spike in a graph doesn’t make the graph. Everyone knows 10 years is a short time in terms of climate.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#GlobalTemperature

mehh, screwed up that blockquote. The last two smart a$$ paragraphs are mine.

Well at least my links aren’t fake like Smokey’s here. He lives in his Own Private Idaho, is my take but has plenty of company. Perhaps John M, you could demonstrate why you are smarter than the entire NASA team and every scientific organization on Earth?
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
I’ll be that would take more than pasting a faked graph.

I have written about the orchestration of victories in the climate debate, that happens on the AGW website Real Climate, before. This is the leading AGW alarmist web site, and they seem to have more credibility than others because the people who run the site are published climate scientists and they are cornerstones of the IPCC. I have noticed in the past that there is a pattern to the way that Gavin Schmidt and the other contributors moderate the site so as to appear to be engaging in open discussion and letting skeptics have their say, while at the same time, they censor any and all comments for which they have no adequate answer. In other words, the outcome of the debates are known because Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and the others will always censor their way to winning the arguments. Of course complaints about RC censoring can be found all over the net from hundreds if not thousands of people. I wrote a short piece about my findings regarding RC here:
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2009/11/function-of-real-climate-in-climate.html
I also took some screen shots of comments that I made that were subsequently deleted here:
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-fraudulent-censorship-at-real.html
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-climate-attacks-mcintyre.html
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2009/10/briffa-yamal-data-debate.html
Notice the quality of the debate that Schmidt is not screening out in the comment before mine. That comment passed moderation.
So now it turns out that Climategate has exposed the reality of RC’s debate orchestration policy in Michael Mann’s own words:
Michael Mann:
“Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC. Rein any way that you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can.”
Not only does Mann reveal that RC tactic, but he also reveals a second one that I had suspected but was unsure about. During the Briffa/Yamal debate on RC I asked some questions and made some points concerning those issues. I noticed that my comments remained in a state of moderation for two or three hours at a time. In the meantime, other comments that were posted after mine continued to flow through. So I knew that there was a moderator at work. I wondered why he didn’t simply post my comments or delete them. It occurred to me that Gavin didn’t know how to answer the comments and so he asked for help, either from Keith Briffa, or from another dendrochronologist But I had no way of confirming my suspicion. Now my suspicion has been clearly confirmed by one of the Michael Mann emails.
Michael Mann:
“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 you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.”
My long held comments were eventually deleted. So I assume that Briffa, or whoever Schmidt went to, was unable to respond to my points.
But the bottom line comes to this, RC may be run by peer reviewed, published, climate scientists that contribute to the IPCC, but they are dishonestly pushing the AGW propaganda on their climate site none the less.

I wonder why Keith Briffa doesn’t come into the scene.
Is he a mere backseat player in this affair?

marky48 (15:11:47) :
Ahh, when all else fails, resort to appeals to authority and “consensus”.
We’ve already seen how your “scientific training” has served you, with your refusal to respond to specific questions about ice and temperture.
Now, let us return to how marky the “journalist” would have covered the Challenger, Columbia, or Mars Orbital disasters (we’ve already speculated on how our “journalist” friend would have covered the Watergate tapes):
“Perhaps the people complaining about these disasters could demonstrate how they are smarter than the entire NASA team? ”
As far as the “organizations” that have gotten on board this bandwagon? Perhaps you could use your investigative “reporting” skills to find out for us how many of them actually put it up to a vote of their memberships. As a member of one of those organizations, I can tell you that I didn’t get a vote.

Sorry I dropped the quotation marks on Marky’s post in my second paragraph.

Nice wrap up of the players….

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I’ve never been known for my brevity. One of the video quotes prompted me to uneasily call Anthony as I could not find the source initially and was worried it was not real (please disregard my message–sorry for jumping the gun–I was worried it was a Trojan horse).
Now that I have sourced it (from file greenpeace.txt), I can’t believe it has not been more visible in the media. It is fairly prevalent in the blogosphere, but only two links show up on Google news. It is the quote attributed to Mick Kelly at the 3:07 mark regarding the “globalisation agenda” and reads:
“The IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO.”
The thing that was making it more difficult to find in the files was that the video uses “z” instead of the actual “s” in “globalisation” and “organisations.” There actually is another issue with the quote in that it is from Paul Horsman to Mick Kelly rather than the other way around (perhaps that and the incorrectly attributed Trenberth quote can be fixed in v2 of the video). Regardless, I think it is an explosive revelation.
Considering the initial response from RealClimate I would have thought this would have been played up a bit. They said:
“More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.”
Socialist Communist Vegetarian Overlord is actually on Horsman’s business card. Sorry. I kid, but I have for the past few months been hammering the globalization/redistribution point over on Media Matters for America, lately using the [url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf]Copenhagen negotiating text[/url] as my primary and most contemporary evidence.
My reward for doing so was being told I was (and these are all quotes) clinging to fear, confused, deluded, living in another universe, [believing in] global-tax conspiracy nonsense, like the 9/11 conspiracy people, an ignorant buffoon whose view is based on paranoia…well, you get the point. I even had a lady say, “I hope you drown yourself when the sea level increases.” So much for “tolerance” and “celebrating diversity.”
So I guess I have a vested interest in that particular quote going mainstream public. With that in mind, I would recommend WUWT do a small story on the topic to shed additional light on the globalization angle. I know I will be using the quote judiciously on MMfA (had a blast there last night with [url=http://mediamatters.org/research/200911250005]this thread[/url]–forgive the overly snide tone of my comments but they’ve been all over me for months).
Another thing that I do not think has gotten enough play is the “what do the scientists have to gain” defense I so often get thrown back at me. I know that the $22 million in Jones grants got some press, but what about all of these trips to exotic locales they mention throughout the emails. Without really trying I found Tahiti, Bali, and Hawaii and I’m sure there are others. I know that is a minor point, but all-expense paid “business” trips to places like Tahiti would certainly qualify as something to gain (or lose it would appear).
Finally, one of the funniest things to me in all this is that members of the AGW camp (I have started using the term AGW-fraud deniers) think this is going away, despite the preponderance of evidence that this is actually the death knell (just look at the latest posting on WUWT). The spin isn’t working now nor will it ever work.
I for one am ready to nominate McIntyre, Watts, and an unknown Russian hacker for the next Nobel Peace Prize (unless they think it has been sullied by having been awarded to the likes of Al Gore and the IPCC). Keep up the awesome work. It’s hard to believe, but really this site and others like it have altered world history (for the better I might add).

marky48 (11:12:33) :
between 13.5 and 16 microns is the answer, with a peak of 15 microns
That is for one molecule of c02 just as any other molecule. There are 3000 other molecules apart c02 in th esame voume of air so the chances of one c02 molecule colliding with another are quite thin, and the equalisation thermslisation is quite small for the vibration. On average at 15C radiation leaves earth at 10 microns which gives a clear exit of radiation without being absorbed by c02, so c02 is most active in the mid-upper troposphere, as it does little at the surface. When put against temperatures ranging from -30C to -70C however that is precious little energy for c02 to absorb. Since the energy that c02 absorbs is fixed by the 1st 100ppm, climatologists had to invent a cascade theory, since extra c02 doesn’t add extra heat – meaning that the energy inthe system is constant, and absorbed overhead, it percolates back down to earth. At this point however, its thermally equal to subzero, so not a fraction of extra energy is added below.
c02 excitation is quite a rare phenomenon in the atmosphere and a co2 molecule doesn’t have the energy to cause other molecules to vibrate. If we were in a warming world, then c02 would absorb even less heat, as the atmosphere would move further away from teh 1 micron wavelength.
It’s a bold statement to say that doubling c02 would not give even an extra fraction of added energy anywhere in the atmosphere due solely to these windows, though as it stands the efefct of c02 is so miniscule that it hasn’t actually, and can’t be measured.

tokyoboy (16:47:14)
After reading just a few emails, its abvious that Briffa didn’t believe tree rings telling a complete climate picture, and even a little contetemps with Mann followed. However, he wielded to his senior, Jones, and the demands of Mann. Briffa expressed that the demands of science and those of the IPCC are not the same.

When I first became aware of “Climategate”, I Remember my late Mum used to say to us kids:-
” Don’t tell lies, I always know when you’re lying, and one lie leads to another, eventually no one will believe anything you say”.
How right she was, after watching this video, only one word comes to mind “Nuremberg”.

What’s up with the line that says that Phil Jones received £2,725,000 in grants since 1990? Shouldn’t that be £13,718,547 (~$22,630,526 at today’s exchange rate)? That is what the grant amounts total up to on the pdj_grant_since1990.xls spreadsheet.

Just noticed my “who’s Who” video got used by the Examiner. http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d28-Climategate-the-video–Whos-who-and-what-was-said
It’s great to see the information getting out and want to thank Anthony once again for posting the video here.
I also want to say that I’m placing the video in the public domain, so that there’s no Copyright, IP, or other barriers to other organizations using the video.