90 thoughts on “Understanding Climategate: Who’s Who – a video

  1. 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.

  2. Can you remove the PSU logo? I’m an alumni, and he does not represent what Penn State is about. His actions speak for him only. Besides, many of his most questionable activities occurred while at Virginia.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Good video, I’d have emailed it to Hillary Benn MP with the email I sent him an hour ago about Climategate.

  6. Sorry Tucker but if he still works at Penn State the logo should remain, and gotten rid of when he is fired!

  7. 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.

  8. Just a quick question, I like the music. Anyone got a playlist?

    On the video, the text doesn’t look good against some of the backgrounds, unfortunately can be hard to read. Otherwise, a good vid.

  9. 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…)

  10. OT but very interesting comment from an IPCC member found at the Daily Telegraph

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018192/climategate-the-ipcc-is-over-says-uea-climate-scientist/comment-page-3/#comment-100089849

    If the link doesn’t work – look for a contributor called Ros at 11:48 27th November.

    [snip if you think is best]

    Here is the verbatim

    “I struggle to get Mike Hulme. He is part of the East Anglia crowd and does seem to be a fully paid up member of the supress the “bad guys” mob. He is both a recepient and sender in the CRU emails. As yet I haven’t seen any that suggest that he was opposed to the culture. Maybe it is an understanding that has emerged for him. I did hear him on All in the Mind and was very impressed. Felt he had the ability to penetrate fixed positions, he did imping on mine. But then came the CRU emails. And his role in IPCC

    I am a member of the IPCC Task Group on Climate Scenarios for Impacts Assessment and co-Manager of the IPCC Data Distribution Centre for climate scenario information for the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC. I am also a Convening Lead Author for Chapter 13 on climate change scenario development and Lead Author for Chapter 10 on regional climate information in the WGI report of the IPCC TAR.

    I am both taken by and yet bothered by his post-normal science position. Particularly worried by the fact that it seems to me that western science has indeed moved to being about risk and regulation (which is what post normal science is about?)with the rest of the world still being about science for production of things and knowledge etc. An eg China and its 40%, as my Engineer husband said, effeciency drive, good idea, and of course it is, it is a subset of China’s energy and economic security policies, not its environmental policies.

    Will continue to read Professor Hulme with interest and respect, but.”

    Delingpole left a comment asking for Ros to get in touch with him.

  11. 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.

  12. This is so risible – here is the BBC’s Environment reporter’s blog [ Mr Richard Helpful Black] – after getting a total kicking on other BBC blogs that did allow comments – they’ve left the last two posts up for comment. It’s like some weird messageboard where the landlord has gone on holiday and the mods pass anything through = email quotes, other media stories, code excerpts – its bizarre.

    Check out the earlier ones full of posts to sites like this and other MSM stories whilst the BBC go la-la-la. I find the whole thing really embarrassing.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/11/copenhagen_countdown_10_days.html#comments

  13. 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/

  14. 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

  15. marky48 (09:59:42) :

    Quite a “journalist” you are. I can just see you after the release of the Whitehouse Tapes:

    “Show me the tape that refutes this statement: Richard Nixon has had a long distinguished career as a public servant. He cares about the country and has been trying to do his best during these trying times”.

    I trust your “training in the sciences” is a little more rigorous than your investigative reporting skills.

  16. I’ve just tripped over this at the end of a documentary.

    This should be part 4 – it has loads of very interesting stats.

    Just for reference, I’m a political better and have been sharing concerns with others who are stat/probability experts on polling analysis. It’s a totally different field, but we’re only interested in facts rather than theories as we’ve wagered our money on it.

  17. marky48 (10:02:19)

    The amount of CO2 emitted by humans is minuscule compared with what the oceans and decaying vegetation outgas: click

    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.

    And of course, there is zero empirical evidence that CO2 is anything but beneficial. Bet you didn’t know that either, did you?

  18. Text too hard to read against graphics. Music unnecessary. Have to wait for buffer to skip ahead. Might work better as a PowerPoint document.

  19. 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.

  20. I bet you don’t know the heat trapping capacity of CO2 and that one molecule stays in the atmosphere 100 years. This is all empirical.

  21. 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.

  22. marky48 (11:12:33) :

    I bet you don’t know the heat trapping capacity of CO2 and that one molecule stays in the atmosphere 100 years. This is all empirical.

    Do you know that the “heat trapping capacity” of CO2 and its presumed atmospheric lifetime only leads to about 1.5 deg C of warming for a doubling from 270 ppm? Care to apply your “reporting” and “scientific training” to tell us where the rest of the heating required for catastrophism comes from?

  23. 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.

  24. marky48 (11:12:33) :

    “I bet you don’t know the heat trapping capacity of CO2 and that one molecule stays in the atmosphere 100 years. This is all empirical.”

    You’re looking at the UN/IPCC’s incredible opinion of CO2 persistence time: click

    And “empirical” means real world evidence — not the IPCC’s 100 year WAG, which is based on no physical [empirical] evidence.

  25. 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.

  26. “…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.

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

  28. 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!

  29. Michal Mann on RC (RealClimate) “Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through…”

    So much for RC’s insistence that they don’t do this.

    You’re in it up to your eyes Gavin.

  30. Tom Wigley, “….Saiers…we could… get him ousted.”

    Deplorable, Tom. And we were told over and over this type of thing NEVER happened!

  31. Climategate

    Let’s see:

    a) subverting the peer review process
    b) stacking the UN IPCC
    c) obstruction of the Freedom on Information Act
    d) breach of university and state ethics codes

    … and we haven’t even talked about the data yet.

    Climate Science – the new Ponzi scheme!

    p.s. – Is this what Science is all about? Meet the new boss (science), same as the old boss (religion). When are they issuing funny hats to scientists?
    p.p.s. – Who needs Wall Street when you have Science?

  32. “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.

  33. If it can not be replicated it isn’t science. It really is as simple as that! The refusal to openly share method and data makes any papers etc involved simple rubbish!

    Questioning Patrick Michaels degree? I question the degree and the granting instituion of each of these guys. How did you manage to get a PhD in science without ever developing even a high school understanding of scientific method.

    What do you call it when a group conspires to block real scietists from publishing, in supposedly scientific journals, while at the same time demonstrating themselves to be incompetent in scientific method. Chutzpah?

  34. “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”

    This is highly unlikely given the accelerated rates of ice loss and the demonstrated positive feedbacks of water vapor under observed forcings of CO2. Not. Going. To. Happen.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

  35. 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.

  36. marky48 (12:21:52)

    “Fake graphs showing what you want won’t help you. NASA puts rovers on Mars and you folks take out the trash.”

    I’m taking time out from floor polishing with my rotary buffer to ask: What ‘fake graphs’?

  37. Gene Nemetz (11:35:45) :
    Gene Nemetz (11:37:00) :
    Gene Nemetz (11:40:22) :
    Gene Nemetz (11:43:37) :
    Gene Nemetz (11:47:18) :
    Gene Nemetz (11:49:07) :
    Gene Nemetz (11:52:54) :
    Gene Nemetz (11:56:16) :
    Gene Nemetz (12:02:27) :
    Gene Nemetz (12:04:36) :
    Gene Nemetz (12:07:19) :

    I think your keyboard repeat is malfunctioning.

  38. Echoing R Shearer above, it appears that the first quote in the presentation that is attributed to Tom Wigley did not come from him, although the second did. We must be fair.

    His name jumped out at me because I recently read Email #880476729.txt.
    (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=40&filename=880476729.txt) It reads even better if you have the complete email file from the download, so you can see exactly what he was responding to. In it he tells off a group trying to get him to sign one of those “consensus” letters, because in it they distort the facts. It seems he had better integrity in 1997.

  39. 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.

  40. First, great great video. I think this is going to get out a lot. Despite detail criticism problems (perhaps these can be dealt with in 2nd edition).

    Next, my pennyworth. WHERE IS BEN SANTER?? I haven’t forgotten that he is likely the scientist who edited the IPCC Summary for Policymakers to turn it from science into alarmism, this was not agreed by the rest of the scientists.

    Next, marky48. The news has scarcely begun to come through regarding the level of multiple issues of questionable and downright c**p science. I know every single issue where warmists claim to have “debunked” skeptics because I used to believe them all because I’d checked them all with Royal Society, New Scientist, Gristmill and Skeptical Science. Try reading my Primer (click my name).

    Next Dave Dardinger. The science is not in re. the cause of the CO2 increase. There are strong arguments (still) for a large proportion of natural processes – but please, not here, not tonight!

  41. 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

  42. Very good information – Lousy Graphics.

    This isn’t an art festival display looking for style points.
    The White Letting over White and Light Colored background photos
    is almost unreadable.

    Why defeat the primary objective with a poorly done presentation,
    when the primary objective is to transmit information,
    via the words on the screen?

    Please – if possible – get them to alter the graphic backgrounds
    so that the readers don’t just say screw it and stop reading the details
    because of the poor presentation of white lettering on white backgrounds.

    Some examples:

    * Mann’s info over the White PSU logo and his Light wood tree ring.

    * Wigley’s info in white over a White Cloud – are you kidding? A White Cloud?

    Please give people every chance to get your messages.
    Don’t defeat those who try to take the time to view the info.

    As they say, “keep the main thing the main thing.”

    Print the words in a clear format, so that the reader does NOT have to fight to read them.

    Just sayin…

  43. The global temperature is made to appear very alarming when the y-axis is in tenths of a degree, which greatly amplifies what are actually just small natural fluctuations.

    By using a normal y-axis, we can see that there is no reason to panic: click

    Global temperatures are very close to their long term average: click. Certainly there is no warming that is not well within normal and natural historical fluctuations.

  44. Can anyone give me some idea just how far the ‘post-normal science’ perversion has spread thru the scientific community in university systems? Is it just in the AGW/climate change/global warming community, or ??

  45. marky48 (13:33:01) :

    Everyone knows 10 years is a short time in terms of climate.

    But not for Arctic ice, apparently. Or is there something else on the “over-the-fence” link of yours you’d like to expound on, Mr. or Ms. “Journalist”.

    Maybe you’d like to expound on why the “amplifying” global warming is giving us the same rate of warming from 1975-2000 as it did from 1910-1945? Of course, that might involve more than just pasting a link.

  46. I think marky48 demonstrates one of the big problems in this debate. Everything s/he has attempted to use as evidence for their case is really just elements of the scientific process. Nothing has been proved. In any normal scientific endeavor these figures (like CO2 residence time) would get tested over the years and the numbers changed along the way as more and more information became available. However, the pols/greens/bankers have jumped upon these “best guesses” as proof of something when it is simply ongoing research. Unfortunately, many climate scientists got caught up in the process and started playing along for a variety of reasons (fame and money ? … or maybe just a belief they were saving the world).

    People like marky48 either doesn’t understand the scientific method or simply choose to ignore it to further their own belief system. I hope it’s the former as it simply means s/he is naive.

  47. Marky48, quite clearly you are a true believer. If you ever had any science training, you either totally failed to understand it, or you’ve lost it over the years.

    Once the credibility of a scientist is seriously called into question on such a basic level, as has occurred here with so many of those that are key in the AGW debacle, then every bit of their scientific work is also questionable and worthless unless or until it can be replicated and verified by more than one other truly independent scientist.

    That means that not only is every paper done by each of the involved scientists utterly moot for the time being, but also any other papers that they reviewed, all of their contributions to bodies such as the IPCC, and so on.

    Meanwhile, you come here quoting from Realclimate – which was at least in part founded by these same ‘scientists’ and is well known for censoring any actual scientific debate that runs contrary to their political agenda. In other words, you are quoting a non-scientific site as if it had some merit and authority on scientific issues. It does not. That reflects on both a lack of understanding of science, and also rather lazy ‘journalism.’

    A decent journalist should also be unbiased in their approach and reporting – you show yourself clearly to be far from unbiased.

    So many key linchpins to the entire theory of AGW caused by CO2 have been scientifically either debunked or at the least called into serious question that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the entire field is very much in its infancy, the basic knowledge of the involved systems is so shaky and uncertain that there is no possible way to draw any meaningful conclusions.

    Science is not guessing. Its not speculation. Its not experiments that fail to account thoroughly for possible confounding factors. Its not conclusions that go beyond what the data and results can actually support. Its not causation by correlation. Its not politics. Its not agenda driven. Its not socially conscious or social justice or whatever that way. Its not about pushing people into changing their behavior for whatever reason you happen to think is good.

    Any of the research or papers or IPCC reports, etc., that are based on things in the above paragraph are automatically MOOT, WRONG, NOT SCIENCE. Any of the research, papers, reports, chapters, etc., that perhaps appear to be scientific, but base their root assumptions, data, or anything that way on bogus science, are therefore also bogus. You cannot base sound science on faulty science. A bad foundation is a bad foundation, and it invalidates any subsequent conclusions.

    In other words, as to AGW, or even natural CO2 changes causing GW, at this point in time the body of available science simply does not support those theories. Its that simple. That’s science.

  48. 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.

  49. Thanks for putting up the video. And thanks for al the comments.

    Just a note that Mick Kelly is still listed as a visiting fellow for CRU. Nice catch on the “record snow” quote actualy being from Kevin Trenberth. I’ll add a note to the video indicating that.

    Thanks again. :)

  50. MagicJava
    Thanks for the vid. Please post the transcript or text – the vid is a bit slow for those of us who like to read.

  51. 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.

  52. ln all seriousness Marky 48 Get a clue:

    “This is highly unlikely given the accelerated rates of ice loss and the demonstrated positive feedbacks of water vapor under observed forcings of CO2. Not. Going. To. Happen.”

    Siting something known to not be happening (accelerating ice loss) is an interesting way to prove a point. Maybe being a “journalist” gives you some special scientific skills of which lowly physicist types like myself are unaware. Perhaps read my earlier post? If scientific method isn’t followed it ain’t science, simple as that.

  53. Marky48: Sure a warming world would goose the moisture content of the air.

    But then what happens?

    The moisture turns into an increased cloud cover, reflecting more sunlight = negative feedback. But this is a bridge too far for the IPCC, etc.

  54. 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).

  55. 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.

  56. addendum in penultimate paragraph: …as the lower atmosphere moves further away from the 10 micron wavelength…

  57. 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.

  58. John M (12:53:20) :

    The number of vapour as opposed to c02 molecules in a volume of air matters and they both vibrate in the 15 micron band – vapour follows 7-15.6 microns and there are many more vapour than c02 molecules ina given volume of air., although CO2 excited with one quanta in the bending mode or the asymmetric stretch does not have enough energy to excite an H2O molecule CO2 excited with one quanta in the symmetric stretching mode does, but that requires so much energy that it isn’t found in the atmosphere, even at ground level on a hot day.

  59. 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”.

  60. marky48 (12:21:52) :
    Fake graphs showing what you want won’t help you.

    Which fake graphs — Mann’s?

    NASA puts rovers on Mars and you folks take out the trash. There’s no comparison in the real world.

    NASA also destroys satellites when employees use the Clean Room crane to hoist them over the worktable, then lower them without putting all the jackstands in place.

    NASA also turns Rovers into Martian meteorites by designing equipment to withstand impacts measured in feet per second and then trying to land them at speeds measured in meters per second.

    NASA is also being sued for ignoring repeated FOIA requests for climate data since 2006.

    Ooops. Time to take out the trash…

  61. 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.

  62. marky48 – Is it possible for you to post unbiased info from sources other than those of the scientists that conspired to defraud the world?

  63. 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.

Comments are closed.