NCDC’s Dr. Tom Peterson responds

After I published this story:

NCDC’s Dr. Thomas Peterson: “It’s a knife fight”

I wrote to Dr. Peterson to advise him that he had WUWT available to him for rebuttal should he wish. Here is his response verbatim. – Anthony

============================================================

In response to your kind offer, I have typed up the three relevant pages
of the notes I spoke from at that meeting, which I would appreciate you
adding to your forum. I had three lessons that I personally took from
Climategate.  Here are my notes verbatim for lessons 2 and 3, which are
the relevant ones to this discussion. You can agree or disagree with the
points I made, but let’s at least start with exactly what I said.

Regards,
Tom Peterson

Lesson 2: If the fight isn’t fair, then don’t fight – and maybe don’t
fight even if it is fair

Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
-The subset that was released was not random
–So it didn’t give a fair representation
-Releasing additional selected emails would make the fight fairer
–But not civil

There is a lot of incivility and ad hominem attacks out there
-We can’t control that

But we can control how we respond . . . or not respond
-Perhaps don’t even fight if the fight is fair
-Fights are never fun
–Even if you win them

The unfortunate downside is that some pseudoscientific nonsense can go
unchallenged.

Lesson 3: Collaborate with communicators

An aside from a Congressman after a hearing:
-You’re in a knife fight and need to fight back.

A science communicator:
-All scientists need to have their own blogs.

A good summary of similar issue though on a different topic by Michael
D. Gershon, M.D. (1999)
-“The experiments I conducted to this point gave me a feeling of
confidence that my work could withstand anyone’s scrutiny, which I
assumed (foolishly, it turned out) would be both logical and reasonable.”

Collaborate with communicators, 2

A scientist’s response to both knives and illogic tends to be more science
-Sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed science
-What we do best
-And in the end it will win the day
–Just ask Galileo

But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
on climate change to catch up to climate science

So partnering with communicators can help bridge the gap
-From nerdy scientists like myself to regular people.

About these ads

193 thoughts on “NCDC’s Dr. Tom Peterson responds

  1. Stupid investigators always look for only the good stuff and discard the chads … And the good stuff is very damning. What more do we need.

  2. Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
    =====================================================
    No one needs to see all of the emails, just the ones mentioning where the murder weapon was hidden.

    A crime was committed, by anyone’s standards.

    Just because the “rest of the emails” might show that the murderer loved his dog…..

  3. Kudos to Watts for the invitation, and to Peterson for his response.

    While they may have their disagreements, it’s refreshing to see that they can still engage in civil discourse.

  4. Its not a knife fight IMO. Its a fight for the truth, and as a regular person, I know the powers that be don’t want the truth to be known (Orwellian 1984 style). Show me the raw, unadjusted, data (Ok, forget the UK UEA CRU, the Aus BoM and NZ’s NIWA because the cat ate it), code, processes etc etc etc…

  5. The unfortunate downside is that some pseudoscientific nonsense can go
    unchallenged.

    There is pseudoscience on both sides and I think in today’s interconnected world nothing goes unchallenged — right or wrong.

    MikeEE

  6. Saying “we cannot afford to wait a century for views on climate change to catch up to climate science” is like saying ” we cannot afford to wait a century for views on accounting change to catch up with Enron”.

  7. Intriguing he should mention Galileo who showed that the academics and ‘consensus’ of his day were wrong.
    Odd how it sounds like an insurance salesman’s seminar.

  8. “A scientist’s response to both knives and illogic tends to be more science
    -Sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed science”

    Would be nice.
    However, didn’t the climategate mails show how peer-review became corrupted by some cheerleading climate scientists?

    Aren’t the sceptics on the knife side, facing guns, when
    – peers are pre-selected,
    – editors pressed,
    – FOIA requests turned down?

    Can’t help, but the “us humble innocent scientists” picture has some flaws.

  9. It’s back to a basic misunderstanding of science by the climate alarmists and scientists.

    They think that the deniers have to prove their case. They don’t. The alarmists are proposing a theory, not the deniers. It’s asymmetrical.

    Deniers just have to keep pointing out where the theory and the predictions in particular do not fit the facts. Falsification.

    The complexity with climate science is that the alarmist are working in a probability based world rather than true or false. It’s a question of what is the probability they are right.

    That question is tested by prediction against reality, not by back testing. Back testing also works for a curve fit.

    On the basis of prediction, they have failed dismally, The theory is wrong.

  10. Tom Peterson: ‘But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science’

    Around a thousand years ago the vikings were growing crops in Greenland.
    This has not been possible for the past seven hundred years or so (including recent decades), due to the fact that the temperature in Viking times was warmer than now.

    Tom, when is ‘Climate Science’ going to catch up with the historical record?

  11. Tom Peterson’s comments would be fair enough if this was some arcane dispute about the presence of black holes at the heart of the Milky Way. The trouble is it’s not. The climate science community has come up with a hypothesis relating to the earth’s ever changing climate which if true would have profound implications for every person on this planet and their descendants for many generations. It is the biggest ‘game changer’ ever proposed by the scientific community and although there is good evidence to support their position there is good evidence and argument that does not. In such circumstances climate scientists cannot rely on authority especially given the many hundreds of individuals – as evidenced by WUWT and other sites – who whilst not contributors to the relevant peer review journals are scientifically trained and whose experience in understanding, supervising a managing research in the sciences is extensive and hard won. Their point of view, and indeed of any concerned citizen, must be respected and their questions answered with integrity and clarity. If they want access to data bases, or better justification of science whose implications are so serious then climate scientists have a civil duty to engage and argue their case. It’s as simple as that.

  12. When it comes to AGW, there are two types of people on that side. Stupid people that believe anything and everything someone with a Phd on the end of their name says, and the ones with an agenda that has nothing to do with true scientific procedure or saving the planet. Thankfully, the public is finally waking up to the BS the likes of Dr. Peterson are, and have been shoveling.

  13. ….. but Copernican heliocentrism lasted barely 200 years before it was overturned by the observations of William Herschel.

    The AGW hypothesis will eventually itself be overturned by observation and reasoned arguement. That is the way of science.

    The greatest threat to science is not skepticism but the establishment of dogma. Galileo would have certainly understood the nature of that threat.

  14. But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science

    This presupposes that catastrophic climate change is strongly supported by the science at this point. I can’t see that it is.

  15. The unfortunate part of this whole mess is the partial use of some science to totally miss guide the world into believing the end is near.

    It can get a lot hotter before we die off and gators take over. As long as gators are held to the south, we have plenty of room in which to migrate as mammals.

    Thus, there was still room for more global warming. What’s the fuss?

    A populated world of fish, man, and mammals are always suffering. We just have more media outlets and more population that 10,000 years ago at the end of the ice age.

    Paul

  16. I’m always so glad when we get a chance to see the failure of logic exercised by alarmist climate scientists. When someone demonstrates that they cannot connect the dots in a logical fashion when the subject is one which is readily understood by ordinary people, it places into question their ability to connect the dots in a logical fashion with regard to the science about which they present themselves as experts.

    This argument about the e-mails being only a small subset is beyond stupid. That Peterson thinks it provides a defense for Jones and company says a lot about Peterson.

  17. Peterson, a NOAA employee, says:

    There is a lot of incivility and ad hominem attacks out there
    -We can’t control that

    Sure. Except that Peterson is a Climategate correspondent who willingly used the slanderous term “ClimateFraudit” in email correspondence with Phil Jones here:

    Hi, Phil,
    Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of sympathy, but I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii …

  18. One’s publications should stand on their own – clear, concise, unambiguous. If for some reason, a publication is not (limitations of the journal, bad editing etc.) a supplement must be published (on-line is best) to clarify.

    There is no need to respond to each and every comment, attack, rant and bombast. If clarification is necessary, it should be clear, concise and unambiguous and should not be written and published in haste or anger. Failing to respond to valid, reasonable and responsible comments, criticism and questions is unwise.

    You don’t need to respond on a critic’s turf. An on-line location that you control (website, blog) is best.

    Don’t say or put in writing anything you wouldn’t want published on the front page of your hometown newspaper or the New York Times.

    Communication is hard. You must either spend time and do it right or don’t do it at all. If your institution has a good communications/PR/marketing group, use them.

  19. I would respectfully submit that either Dr. Peterson is :

    A. Unaware of popular culture.

    or

    B. Subliminaly aware, but did not connect consciencely the knife fight comment with the Buch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid film of the ’70’s. I.e., “In a knife fight there ARE NO RULES!”.

    But then again, this is like parsing “deniers”, which may or may not be worth our time.

    It’s interesting to note, “denier” also has that place in terms of people “denying the faith”, and this cuts many ways as it has been used by many “faith based” groups over the years. (Deny the Emperors, the Popes, the Prophet, etc.)

    Some might therefore take being called a denier as a badge of honor!

  20. Again wondrous is it not that the high priests and doyens of AGW suddenly find it necessary to reply to a humble blog and one that so many of them along with the great and the good have repeatedly attacked with ad hominen s well as claims of junk science.

    And note how open debate is characterised as a fight and the still utterly defensive position of do not get into fights: which is code for do not debate. I wonder why not?

    Truly the ground is shifting and very fast too.

    Kindest Regards

  21. Funny how often the phrase, “ad hominem attacks” gets rolled out when someone’s stance is critisized for its lack of factuality and veracity…

  22. Dr Peterson,

    Thank you for taking time to post.

    You bemoan “pseudoscience”. I bemoan “pseuodologic”.

    How can the sea level rise be decelerating while man-made CO2 is ever rising?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/sea-level-may-drop-in-2010/

    How do GCM account for this La Nina pattern – a pattern highly likely to lead to cooler weather?

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/12/unusual-sea-surface-temperature-anomaly/

    What is there to be overly concerned (or concerned at all) about slightly higher global temperatures? Wouldn’t an ice age or even a “little ice age” be far worse?

    Do you really believe we are jeopardizing our very existence by generating a tiny fraction of CO2?

    Science? Where’s your logic?

  23. Professor Bob Ryan says:
    January 17, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Right to the point. Couldn’t have said it better.

  24. When a financial audit was done on my dept their first action was a data dump of every transaction, they then searched for anything unusual using their knowledge of what to look for and from that they digged deeper for dirt, the final report listed all the dirt but no mention of the 10,000,s of tranactions that they did not highlight.

    Thats life, deal with it.

  25. “Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released”.

    Just one turd in the fruit salad will stop me eating the fruit salad.


  26. “…we cannot afford to wait a century for views on climate change to catch up to climate science…”

    Dr. Tom Peterson, NOAA

    This statement, in a nutshell, is the central theme which drives nearly all of the scientists within the cult of CAGW. In fact, a statement of this form appears in nearly every paper or press release related to CAGW. It should be nominated for WUWT “quote of the week.”

  27. With all due respect to the guy – I cannot agree with some of Dr Peterson’s reply.
    As has already been mentioned in a slightly different context, it really matters not whether the climategate emails are a subset or wholly representative – the implication remains the same. That implication can only be described as a total ‘damning’ of the validity of climate science as practised by the various protagonists whose names appear within the emails. Even if say, one of those emails had been cc’d to myself (just as a ‘for example’) – I would consider myself complicit in the misdirection/fraud if I did not immediately bring it to the attention of other unconnected senior scientists, the professional organisations, journal editors and suchlike. There is no point in trying to dismiss the nature of the emails with a ‘wave of the hand’ and casual apology. Science is damaged, and the specific protagonists within climate science should hang their heads in shame. Even if the intention was not fraud, the resultant effects of the emails (as we now know) almost certainly are indicative of fraud (Carbon credits anyone?)! This wasn’t a one-off, this was a long term orchestrated spin at best; and a downright scientific fraud at worst. Over the time period concerned – that is not casual or innocent mistakes – that is intentional misdirection!
    So – sorry, but until all the protagonists are fully discharged from their involvement (at least in any supervisory capacity, but preferably ‘busted down to parking attendents’ !) the whole ethos of a ‘Team’ of scientists is completely destroyed in the eyes of the thinking public and other scientists. It is so widespread too – the CRU is a sham, and in conjunction with the MetOffice has spun us a merry yarn!

    If you had shares in a company and the company boss admitted fraud, but says ‘he wont do it again’ or ‘we have learnt lessons’ (yeah, like how to avoid being caught!) – are you going to invest your pension in that company whilst the same guy is at the helm? Hmm, I didn’t think so!
    Pinching sweets when you are a kid from the local shop is easily dismissed as a minor (learning) offence – still doing it when you’re an adult is most definitely not!
    MP’s and suchlike get hounded to resign for much lesser ‘wrong doings’ – s’funny how the climate boys are still there.

  28. Peterson’s notes contain the following:

    “A scientist’s response to both knives and illogic tends to be more science
    -Sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed science
    -What we do best
    -And in the end it will win the day
    –Just ask Galileo”

    It is heartening that a Warmista mentions Galileo. If you have visited Realclimate or the Guardian over the last few years, you know they haven’t a clue about Galileo. More accurately, they view Galileo as a trick that their critics play on them.

    Good start, Peterson. Now, can you state the fundamentals of scientific method as set forth by Galileo? Do you practice them? Please explain. I cannot see that any among the Warmista have a clue about Galileo. If they did, they would get their heads out of computer models and start work on hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict relevant atmospheric phenomena.

    That Peterson would say “Just ask Galileo” shouts that he is boiling with internal conflicts. After all, Galileo proved to be the pure scientist who chose to suffer for his science and to continue to practice it even under house arrest. He could have been sentenced to death. What risk is Peterson running? For whom is he running it? He should not invoke the memory of Galileo. This leads us to the really important point.

    Peterson is no longer doing science. He is now employed as a propagandist for Big Climate. If he were doing science, he would publish interesting research and we would criticize it. He would be excited about his research and he would point us to his work that addresses many of our concerns. But Peterson no longer pursues Galilean science. That is why he invokes the phrase “peer reviewed.” From his exalted position in the hierarchy of Big Climate, he is telling us that his work must be recognized as good because it is “peer reviewed” and that he will address none of our concerns because they are not “peer reviewed.” Of course, he ignores the point that there is solid gold evidence that Phil Jones and crew actively sought to corrupt the “peer review” process and were enormously successful in doing so. (Maybe Phil Jones’ other emails, those not published in Climategate, reveal that Phil was just joking when talking about corrupting the peer review process? /sarc off)

    So, where is the knife fight? It is not in science. It is in politics. Peterson makes that eminently clear in his notes. He confers with Congressmen on knife fights now, not with other scientists about science. His goal is no longer scientific truth but protection of the power and wealth that he and his fellows have created for themselves.

    Here is a standing Galilean challenge, Dr. Peterson: Provide one physical hypothesis that was created by Warmista, that can be used to explain and predict atmospheric phenomena that multiply the effects of atmospheric concentrations (forcings), and that has proved to be reasonably well-confirmed. You cannot do it. Because you cannot do it, and because you are a follower of Galileo, you must recognize that Climate Science is in its infancy and cannot provide scientific conclusions to support the claim that seriously harmful results must follow from human production of CO2.

  29. Sir, when the facts change I change my mind, what do you do?

    Science? Is science the art of communication or the impartial pursuit of knowledge?
    The science behind CAGW or whatever the newest trendy re branding exercise is being pushed today is not clear nor is it unequivocal. There are are valid concerns and growing doubts and uncertainties and unknowns and there is much to learn still.

    The amount climate science does not know far outweighs what you are certain of yet still climate science pretends otherwise, you seek to assure us of your certainties while you know full well the massive gaps in your knowledge of climate change.
    You and the climate science community are attempting to sell us a lemon, you realise it and we suspect it yet still you claim to hold the keys to to the mysteries of our climate.

    Do you expect us to believe that the CAGW theory is failing because climate science is failing to sell it properly? Do you believe that by improving the ways you sell the CAGW theory to a larger world it will make the uncertainties disappear? You cannot make them go away by hiding them away, that much everyone knows.

    It seems to me that you and climate science are attempting to improve the way you sell your product to those you class as somehow less expert or knowledgeable than yourselves but it seems to me that you should be attempting to improve your product instead and better yet holding forth all the uncertainties and doubts and mistakes and errors and failed predictions. Instead of hiding your mistakes bring them out into the light of day for all to see, instead of secrecy and elitism and hostility toward those you see as your enemies show us your mistakes as eagerly as you now hide them.

    Communication is a two way street, if you are so sure of your findings then offer them up for all to see, if you wish us to understand then be honest and open and self critical and humble and ever ready to revise your position, that is the only way forward. In other words trust us. What climate science is doing now is morally wrong, you know it and we know it, you are attempting to persuade by domination and bullying and secrecy, you are attempting to push the political class into forcing us to acepting irreversible socio economic changes while freezing out, insulting and ignoring those who point out flaws and errors.

    Climate science has forgotten that it serves society, it is clear that this young branch of science has become arrogant and elitist and too sensitive to healthy criticism, you are not the priesthood of some ancient tribe that is able to dictate and proclaim to an ignorant and servile and obedient masses, we are determined to ask the awkward questions and we will not be cowed or awed into silence by you or anyone else, if climate science will not police itself then why on earth are you surprised that we will do it for you?

    Its time to stop selling us your science as if it were a new soap powder or beauty product and start proving it to us by good old fashioned scientific endeavour and honest hard work.

  30. Defining/framing the Red-Green AGW fraud.

    Red-Green Mao Stlong’s fraud.

    Mao Stlong, aka Maurice Strong, is Canadian Liberal leader Bob Rae’s Uncle Mo.

    More here* framing Liberal Iggy and his O’Harvard buddy.

    “*Al Gore, Maurice Strong
    Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story”.

    “SUPPORTING THE SUN

    Every solar company in the world relies on some form of subsidy to build or sell its products. That’s because solar electricity is still about eight times more expensive than power generated by coal-fired plants. The global solar industry only really began to take off when, about a decade ago, governments introduced subsidies for clean energy systems in an effort to trim their carbon dioxide output and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.”

    “The difference with China

    The big difference with China, its solar critics say, is that Beijing helps only its own manufacturers — who then send their panels around the globe to reap additional subsidies in other countries.”

    “Toronto senior dies in extreme cold”
    A Toronto senior whose calls for help may have been ignored in the freezing cold on Monday has died.”
    (canoenews)

    …-

    “Is a solar trade war about to flare?”

    “EBERSWALDE, Germany – Germany’s fifth-biggest solar power park emerges as a smudge on the horizon long before you reach it on the outskirts of the small, sleepy village of Eberswalde, an hour’s drive north of Berlin. “In the far distance, you can see it,” Peter Kobbe says, pointing through heavy December snowfall as he steers his Citroen van along an icy road.

    Kobbe, 64, works at Finow airport, where a local investment firm built the 58 million euro (C$76 million) solar park in 2009. Finow itself was built by the Nazis before World War Two and later became one of the Soviet Union’s main Cold War hubs. Now the small aircraft that still use the airport share it with about 90,000 solar modules — which together generate enough to power 6,400 households a year.

    “This is where they (the Soviets) used to store their nuclear weapons,” says Kobbe, who runs a small museum documenting the airport’s history, guiding his van over the snow-covered landing strip.

    Now there’s a different foreign presence in Finow. When the first solar modules arrived for installation they came not from a local manufacturer — German solar company Conergy runs a factory just 45 minutes away in Frankfurt an der Oder, for instance — but from China’s Suntech Power Holdings, now the world’s largest maker of photovoltaic (PV) solar modules. “We were quite surprised when the trucks brought Chinese modules, and not German ones,” Kobbe says. “But they were probably cheaper.” Solarhybrid, which spearheaded construction of the park, says reductions in Germany’s renewable subsidies meant it had to use Suntech modules to stay competitive.

    Germany has long been the global solar industry’s engine. Europe’s biggest economy consumed more than half the solar panels produced around the world in 2010. Solar accounts for just 2% of Germany’s power production, but the country added a record 8,000 megawatts (MW) of solar modules last year — equal to the capacity of eight nuclear reactors — far outpacing Italy, Japan and the United States.

    So why are China’s solar companies benefiting at the expense of renewable energy manufacturers in Europe and the United States? Virtually non-existent a decade ago, Chinese solar companies now control two thirds of solar cell production in the $39 billion US global PV market.”

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2011/01/17/16915251.html

    *O’Fraud:

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

    http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2011/01/17/ctv-gives-iggy-a-hand/#comment-59006

  31. But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science

    This is a big fail, Mr Peterson. You are justifying brainwashing for a cause. you are saying, “We all may die, so lets all of us assume to be true what we cannot conclusively prove (otherwise known as a flight of fancy) so that we might save ourselves.”

    There is only one species on earth that does this, Humans. We usually call humans who distance themselves from reality crazy, regardless of whatever situation caused it. We give these people treatment and try to bring them back into the real world with lots of attention and controlled experiences. You seem to be saying that the cause is just, therefore do not question the conclusion, ignore whatever may be reality so that we can all be saved.

    That will only work if you are right in your prognostication. If you are wrong, well…, sad to say, but Jonestown was a good example of what happens when this kind of thinking is finally faced with cold reality.

  32. “Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
    -The subset that was released was not random
    –So it didn’t give a fair representation”

    I have a question. What could any unreleased email contain that would make Jones’ comments about deleting data before he handed it over OK?

  33. Sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed science

    Yes, but not in the way the Hockey Team and its cheerleaders rigorously ensured that only the “right” type of climate science was peer-reviewed.

  34. Apologies above for calling Dr. Peterson “Mister” Peterson. I did not mean to be disrespectful in that manner, it was simply a mistake.

  35. Looks like another lesson in the dangers of snippets of an out of context quote on an emotional issue. Thanks to Dr. Peterson for responding in a civil fashion.

  36. Ah!
    So it’s not that Dr. Peterson stands behind his “science” and thus strives to make it accurate, factual and repeatable for us “deniers”, it’s all about turning up the volume on the propaganda amplifier, and whining cuz he feels picked on.

    Weak.

  37. I find it interesting that Dr. Peterson continually refers to “collaborating with communicators.” I am going to assume that he is referring to people who can both present his message with the best spin, as well as have the ability to get this message out to the most people through the mass media. It is somewhat like propaganda in that it is one-sided. Certainly Dr. Peterson can understand that there are real, factual, scientific reasons to doubt his views, and I doubt he is planning to give this information to the “communicators.”

    Also, there are two stages to this “knife fight.” The debate in the mass media continues to ignore this second stage: that is, the assumption that warming would be intrinsically bad. Many people have argued that even if AGW was provably true, humanity would certainly be able to adapt to its negative consequences (e.g., moving away from the coastline) and at the same time benefit from its positive consequences (e.g., more farmable land).

  38. Would like to echo what Bob Tilsdale said a few threads up… Dr. Peterson, thanks very much for responding. To me, and others her, it shows class to wade into what you may view as the lions den… so to speak.

    Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
    -The subset that was released was not random
    –So it didn’t give a fair representation
    -Releasing additional selected emails would make the fight fairer
    –But not civil

    This part struck me. If you know the fight isn’t going to get more civil one way or the other, then why not release the e-mail that would make things fairer? The cat is already out of the bag, why not add material that would bolster the defense of Dr. Jones?

  39. Kudos to Anthony Watts and Thomas Peterson for engaging in debate – it is interesting to watch.

    The ‘knife fight’ imagery seems rooted in the fact that the only policy response to the catastrophic ending proferred was a complete re-wiring of the global economy with massive redistribution of wealth.

    But when a scientist says that “we cannot afford to wait a century for views on climate change to catch up to climate science” – he has injected himself into the POLICY debate and is advocating a solution. Its just that simple. I have a different solution is all.

  40. It is meaningless that other of Phil Jones’ e-mail might have been pure as the driven snow. The e-mail we saw were enough to see that he was not above being unprofessional and unscientific and that he obviously thought and communicated this at least some of the time. The e-mail also show that his thinking was not limited to only his thinking; he shared such thinking with others in a manner that showed that he felt that they thought along the same lines. Now we are talking collusion and fraud.

  41. Where is the sound scientific evidence that proves AGW/CC/ACD?

    All I see is rising polar bear populations, lower rate of rising sea levels, ice breakers stuck in ice, floods in drought areas, blizzards in snow free areas……………….

    Plus continual manipulation of data to favour AGW by so called scientists working for the USA and UK governments and their politicians taking the lies and taxing the masses accordingly.

    Hopefully my grandchildren will not be so gullible as the present generation seems to be.

    The Greens have a lot to answer for. History’s latest Witchfinder Generals and Dragon Slayers.

  42. Peterson’s notes contain:

    “Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
    -The subset that was released was not random
    –So it didn’t give a fair representation
    -Releasing additional selected emails would make the fight fairer
    –But not civil”

    The emails clearly showed that Jones and others contemplated corrupting the peer review process and illegally violating FOIA requests. Maybe they are not actually guilty, as Peterson suggests. However, the matter must be taken seriously. There must be an investigation that uses all the apparatus of a criminal investigation to get at the truth. We cannot afford to commit a trillion dollars to CO2 mitigation programs and then discover that Jones was acting illegally and corrupting science.

    Peterson’s attitude toward this is lackadaisical. A Galilean, a person whose heart is in the science, would recognize that science must be no less thorough in ridding itself of those who would corrupt science than is the Pope in ridding the Catholic priesthood of pedophiles. As that scandal has hurt what is most precious to the Catholic Church, the trust of the faithful, so Climategate threatens to destroy the trust that all rational people have placed in science.

  43. Dr Peterson’s response is in the language of politicians that have dubbed “sloganbyte.” His comments are frequently irrelevant and non-responsive.

  44. “Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
    -The subset that was released was not random”

    Sounds like an indictment of tree ring and ice core proxies.

  45. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

    Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation
    January 17, 1961

    Wish we would have heeded this warning…we wouldn’t be in this mess.

  46. Dr. Tom Peterson,

    thanks for contributing, but I failed to understand your point (if there was one). The point about climategate is that we saw people calling themselves — supposedly impartial observers and impartial judges of the evidence — being highly partisan in their approach in a way that is not permissible in real science (it may be in climate “science” but that really questions whether climate “science” should be called a science not whether such behaviour is permissible in real science)

    As for the suggestion that all scientists should have a blog … totally the reverse! If people like Michael Mann didn’t have highly biased websites and highly biased staff editing Wikipedia in order to LIE to the public by suppressing even basic information like the 20th century pause, then there wouldn’t be websites like this one set up in response.

    The simple solution is for the climate “scientists” to stop behaving like spoilt children who have had the sweety jar taken away because they were caught with their hands in the tin, to stop believing that the louder you cry, the more attention you’ll get, and start acting responsibly. Get on with science in a scientific way (not e.g. redefining the scientific method and reversing the NULL hypothesis like Trenberth) and ensure everyone in your subject behaves with integrity by completely removing their dirty hands from the petty politics, PR and media hype and stop their nasty blogging and manipulation of Wikipedia!

  47. Well done Dr Peterson and WUWT.
    To refuse to debate in an open forum with experts who hold a different view is more than strange. Just present the unambiguous evidence that rising CO2 is linked to rising temps. without mentioning computer modelling and maybe you will win the argument.
    I totally agree with Prof. Ryan that the economic and energy consequences which follow on from AGW are so huge that it would be foolish in the extreme to embark on such a course without compelling evidence.

  48. It is interesting that it was a congressman that supports AGW that brought the knife into the discussion. The congressman also indicated there was a greater need to fight back.

    This is the perfect example of the real problem which is the scientists getting pressure from politicians. Supporting global warming is politically correct. The politicians have corrupted the science through a combination of money, pressure and power.

    Cheers to Dr. Peterson for releasing his notes. Of course if he turned against the orthodoxy then he would really be in trouble.

    John Kehr
    The Inconvenient Skeptic

  49. “But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science”

    Oh, the benefit of hindsight! The point made is that “climate science” is advanced and correct and “views on climate change” have to “catch up”. Well, what if climate science is wrong on attribution, or models, or understanding, or physics? Do we really want to advance “views” and policies towards what is wrong, then? This example of Galileo is disingenuous – we happen to know now that heliocentrism is right so we can say “Galileo was right”. We absolutely cannot say that “climate science” is right in many of its assertions and assumptions. But, sure, in a hundred years we will know one way or the other. Anyway, Galileo was wrong on many, many things. He didn’t accept Kepler’s laws, nor that planets move in ellipses, he was wrong on the cause of the tides, and lots more besides. Moreover, he was mostly the cause of his own troubles – not because he believed in heliocentrism, but because of the foolish way he behaved. He was a self-serving egotist and made a lot of enemies. Heliocentrism would have caught on a lot quicker if he hadn’t tried to paint those who were sceptical of his views – including the Pope, who was originally his friend – as ignorant fools.

  50. Dr T G Watkins says:
    Just present the unambiguous evidence that rising CO2 is linked to rising temps. without mentioning computer modelling and maybe you will win the argument.

    Better still, just present unambiguous evidence and leave the political arguments to politicians and better than “win the argument”, we’ll all respect you as scientists!

  51. Tom Peterson
    Archive of data and code. Who, What, Why, When, and Where.
    Original data and if changed by who and how much and Why. Where was it done. When was it done. This is simple. Working in the age of computers version control is a must. To not have a public standard for an archive is incompetence. To not make these public archives public is criminal! Talking about Emails etc. is just a distraction. Why has the NCDC under your direction been so negligent!

  52. Jeremy says:
    January 17, 2011 at 9:21 am
    But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science

    ‘This is a big fail, Mr Peterson. You are justifying brainwashing for a cause. you are saying, “We all may die, so lets all of us assume to be true what we cannot conclusively prove (otherwise known as a flight of fancy) so that we might save ourselves.”’

    Very well said. Long ago, Bertolt Brecht wrote a play titled “The Measures Taken.” It is about a communist cell that travels from Russia to China shortly after the end of WWI. The last act of that play shows the survivors explaining their actions to their local party back in Russia. Brecht was openly communist. He fled the US because of the McCarthy hearings. His play contains the best explication and condemnation of the dogma that all else must be subjugated to the goals set by the Communist Party.

  53. Unfortunately for Dr Petersons side they have no understanding of the tactics required to win fights.

    Let the enemy have the least defensible ground.
    The alternative is to take enormous casualties losing something you were going to lose anyway.

    Trying to make the Middle Ages Warm Period go away was a foolish move.
    Claiming 20 foot sea level rises was a foolish move.
    Claiming more hurricanes was a foolish move.
    Constantly changing the temperature of 1934 is a foolish move.
    Claiming the ‘sun doesn’t matter’ without knowing whether a deep and extended solar minimum was right around the corner was a foolish move.

  54. Dr. Peterson, thank you for coming to WUWT and allowing us to see your notes and an overview of how you see things. I must shamefully admit that I chuckled sometimes as I read some the comments down to this point. I could kick you in the shins as well but prefer to not do that.

    I am an engineer who has a long and extremely varied work record in many technical fields, all around the globe. I have reviewed many technical investigation reports, geology reports, research and development status reports and technical papers. I have done many, many literature searches using many libraries and have applied my library knowledge to become an excellent searcher on the internet. On the subject of climate change, I am a Lukewarmer. With that preamble, let me simply state that in many years of searching, I have yet to find anything that even starts to prove that carbon dioxide is the root cause of the observed warming from the early 1980s to 1995. I think that we are primarily dealing with natural cycle variations, not carbon dioxide. There are indeed some impacts of human activities on climate change. For example, simple calculations show that produced groundwater from no or slow to recharge aquifers account for 2.6 mm per year of the observed rise in the oceans level.

    I do not share your view that we cannot wait to do something about carbon dioxide. I have 15 grandchildren, so have not drawn my conclusion lightly.

  55. “…we cannot afford to wait a century for views on climate change to catch up to climate science…”

    OK, so if that’s the case why have they been stonewalling the release of the data and codes for so many years? That’s wasting precious time, is it not?

  56. Dr. Peterson,

    I wonder what unchallenged pseudoscientific nonsense it is to which you are referring?

    Many of us have simply been asking for a full accounting of the methods by which you come to your conclusions. When you adjust data, we want to know how and why you adjusted the data, particularly when the unadjusted data leads one to the completely opposite conclusion you have reached.

    Challenging you when you do not support that effort is a basic principle of science and engineering.

  57. “we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science”

    Tom – everything I have read during the last 6 years about our climate convinces me that governments need to wait at least a century before making any fiscal decisions. Or do you have some as yet undisclosed hard evidence that suggests otherwise?

  58. The vibe I get is that of someone who is not comfortable in his own skin but sees nowhere to turn to in order to free himself from a decayed paradise now rusting to bits all around him. Here come the worms.

  59. “A scientist’s response to both knives and illogic tends to be more science
    -Sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed science”

    You mean, like: “I’ll keep that paper out of publication if I have to redefine the peer review process”

    Is that the type of rigor and soundness you’re speaking of?

  60. That was sloppy, Anthony.

    When you gonna start allowing posts on the widescale geoengineering that’s already going on? Many of your fellow weathermen have talked about it on the air.

    Brad

  61. I keep seeing the idea advanced (as here) by the MSM and even our venerable “scientific societies” that if a theory, program, new law, or other initiative is not being well-accepted by the public, then the problem just has to be that the logic/benefits/truth are not being EXPLAINED well enough and that the majority of the public is just too damn stupid to understand what great things have been done/are being done by the very knowledgeable elitists in the ivory towers and in the Government. It can’t possibly be that the initiative or theory might be WRONG or HARMFUL….Perish the thought!

    It looks to me like The Public has spoken on this and many other issues in the 2010 eleections. Maybe most climate scientists are not listening? But of course our wonderful system allows them to keep trying. I’m an old guy, and it’s been my experience that marketing guys always think people are dumber than they are.

  62. Cassandra King says:
    January 17, 2011 at 9:20 am
    “Communication is a two way street, if you are so sure of your findings then offer them up for all to see, if you wish us to understand then be honest and open and self critical and humble and ever ready to revise your position, that is the only way forward. In other words trust us. What climate science is doing now is morally wrong, you know it and we know it, you are attempting to persuade by domination and bullying and secrecy, you are attempting to push the political class into forcing us to acepting irreversible socio economic changes while freezing out, insulting and ignoring those who point out flaws and errors.”

    Wow! I wish I had said that. We must at all times and all places emphasize that selling science, as described by Ms. King, is truly a major moral wrong. It is not like selling cars. It debases its own product.

  63. “But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science”

    So essentially, instead of properly and rationally respecting the planet taking its natural merry time on its go around the sun, and instead of acting rational and properly adhering to democratic rules and regulations and people’s freedoms, climate hippie communist want to “geo-engineer” rocket propeller for the planet so it can fall into a nicer line, and bash the “regular” folks into line.

    Or is it essentially just that you all go broke otherwise? :p

    The irony is this though:

    “The unfortunate downside is that some pseudoscientific nonsense can go
    unchallenged.”

    Because if the hippie pseudo-scientist actually made use of qualitative and real science and still ended up with the same results they wouldn’t have had the need to wait until “regular” folks fell in line.

  64. harrywr2 says: “Unfortunately for Dr Petersons side they have no understanding of the tactics required to win fights.

    But that is their whole problem. They think about this subject as “winning” and losing the argument, and not about presenting the scientific facts and their conclusions in an open and honest way.

    Instead, they see being open and honest as weaknesses, clearly because they don’t have the scientific facts to fact up their conclusions. So, they dare not debate this in an open and honest way which would actually persuade someone like me, and instead they try to hide the data and force through the argument by PR.

    And like someone in quicksand … they just can’t seem to realise that once they are in the mire, the harder they struggle (to force the public to accept their beliefs) the deeper they will be sucked down so that no one will ever trust them again.

    Stop trying to run some PR circus, stop struggling in the quicksand, relax, get on with the science and sooner or later, you’ll float back to the surface and escape the mire!

  65. Dr. Peterson’s “lesson 2″ seems to be, in large part, taken verbatim from “Real Climate’s” response to the Climategate emails.

    As others have pointed out they are quite illogical and no defense at all, but it is revealing that he is simply repeating what he has been told by others – it indicates not only a lack of mental independence but it is also a symptom of the cognitive dissonance that he is suffering from.

    He rails against the illogical while using the very same to defend his worldview.

    Very sad.

  66. I love the “we’re right, we know it, this changes everything and WE CAN’T AFFORD TO WAIT” argument.

    Stalin would definitely approve.

  67. That’s it?

    I’ve seen presentations like that — by corporate administrators trying to control rumours and reports that the organisation is facing bankruptcy or litigation. They address a couple of issues tangential to the problem and assure everyone that everything is fine. At the end of it, the employees attending the presentation immediately send out our resumes with the now-confirmed knowledge that the company is going under.

    It’s actually this kind of thing that first really started me leaning towards the sceptic camp. I would read something that appeared to be damning evidence against AGW, find an article responding to such critiques, and watch in mounting disappointment as the writer sidestepped the significant points (only the e-mails showing guilt were release), made non-specific attacks (“a lot of pseudoscience”), and then claim that the issue was too important to wait for all the facts to be in (“unfortunately we can’t wait a century”)

    Once or twice, or even a dozen times, I would have chalked this up to a few bad communicators. But it seemed to be relentless. Some were far more complex, showing lots of graphs and figures that, when closely examined bore more resemblance to “transparent incomprehensibility” than actual arguments. And the more the fight went on, the more aggressive and irrelevant the AGW crowd’s responses became, and the more outlandish and obviously false their warnings about imminent doom.

    To be honest, the Climategate emails were little more than another blip on my bullshit radar. A big blip, to be sure, but hardly the most compelling.

    In the end, the AGW proponents and their incessant claims of unfair opposition did more to sway me against them than anything else. It’s been like watching the worm Ouroboros complaining about being attacked from the rear.

  68. Dr. Peterson, thank you for responding……what happened to lesson 1 Anthony?

    But do you not see you are talking of how to oppose political enemy, not address valid criticisms of science.

  69. “But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science”

    ____________________________________________________________

    Tom Peterson has got it bass-ackwards.

    It is the climate science that needs to catch up, but it can’t. The AGW hypothesis can only be PROVEN by repeated observations over a long period of time. As long as the observed temperature changes remain in the range of natural variability, there will be genuine cause for doubt…

    By over-hyping the possible future consequences of continuing CO2 emissions – with the co-operation of a main-stream media which just LOVES to sensationalise everything – they are attempting to short-cut the scientific process – pretending the science is “settled” when it most assuredly is not.

    In doing so, they are morphing from climate scientists into political propagandists. What should be a scientific investigation has become a moral crusade to “save us from ourselves.”

    Their biggest problem of course is that nature, so far, is refusing to co-operate. Temperature and sea-level rises are not accelerating the way they are supposed to, and people are starting to notice. If the disconnect between observations and AGW theory continues to grow, the problem can only become even more acute.

    Politicians who have bought into AGW, largely on the advice of climate scientists, are not going to be happy if it turns out they have been “sold a pup”. Unlike snow, publicly-funded climate research may become a thing of the past. The stakes are that high….

  70. Wow, it looks like Dr. Peterson bought his rubber knife and is getting cut to pieces by real scientific arguments.

  71. “We cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science”

    Neither can the world risk or wait 100 years to see if the current version of global warming science is even valid. There have to be short term realistic milestones for the near term and if these are not being observed or achieved then quite rightly other scientists must speak up and ask more questions. There is too much at stake to have unproven climate models as the under pinning for future energy and economic policy of the entire world .If climate science is unwilling to share its data and findings with other scientists , then it is not following its own cardinal rules about what constitutes the scientific process. The problem is that IPCC scientists have entered the political arena and allowed politics and science to mix and there are no fair rules in politics.

  72. Thanks for suiting up and showing up, Dr. Peterson. That takes fortitude, as does keeping your mind open.

  73. “There is a lot of incivility and ad hominem attacks out there
    -We can’t control that”
    ========================================================
    To borrow the words of a U.S. congressman, “You lie!!”

    As Steve McIntyre points out, Tom Peterson engages in the very acts of incivility that he decries. (Isn’t this remarkably similar to another national discussion of recent times?) Alarmists wrote the book on ad hominem attacks and drive-byes. The fact that some skeptics got fed up with being ignored or viciously degenerated and started using the same tactics as the alarmists should come as no surprise. Kinda sucks don’t it Tom? It shouldn’t have been started Tom, it should have been quelled by the more level headed genuine scientists. They should have looked at what McIntyre was saying, they should have acknowledged what Watts was doing and it should have set off alarms to go back and look again at the science. Well, Tom, you and the team didn’t do any of that. You guys went on attack. Too bad, there is nothing left to do about it other than suck it up and reap what was sown. Of course, you could try your other non-approach,

    “-Perhaps don’t even fight if the fight is fair” Isn’t this a hoot? The team has painted themselves into a corner. The team ceded the moral high ground from the offset of the climate discussion. The team lost any credibility it ever had because of the alarmism the team participated in. Did you guys think no one would keep track? So, you can choose not to engage, but you lose if you do. You don’t have the credibility anymore. Your morality and hypocrisy has been exposed. The only thing you have left to stand on is your science. And you, me and the rest of the world knows its an awful shaky crutch to be forced to stand on, but you all did it to yourselves.

  74. “But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science.”

    In my opinion, the debate is at least 30 years ahead of the science already.
    What little science there is (as far as i know) has not been replicated. Had it been replicated, there would be very little to debate. The fact that it has not and further that the actions of scientists (in particular the Hockey Team) have demonstrated that they are prepared to go to any length to withold their data,rather suggests that they have nothing of any consequence to confirm that which they claim. Climate will continue to dominate this debate and will ultimately prove to be the undoing of the whole AGW Hoax.

  75. Constable: Yer hunder arrest, Sirr.
    Murderer: What on earth for?
    Constable: There’s a body in your billiard room.
    Murderer: Oh, that! I assure you, officer, if you’d only inspect the conservatory, the library, the ball room, the kitchen, the hall, the study, the dining room, and the lounge, you’d see that the rest of the entire house is quite free from bodies, yes, indeed.
    Constable: “Yer do not ‘ave to say hanything but it may ‘arm your defence…”
    Murderer: Officer, you’re taking that body entirely out of context!
    Constable: “…hif yer do not mention, when questioned, something that you later rely on hin court….”
    Murderer: You’re calling me a criminal! That’s nothing but an ad hominem attack!
    Constable: “…Hanything you say may be given in hevidence.” Put the darbies on ‘im, ‘Awkins.

  76. “But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science”

    Then let’s wait 10 years and see whether somebody finds the missing heat, how about that?

  77. Is that it??

    When you sum it up, it’s odd stuff to be talking about. The notes appear to musings jotted down over a coffee at Starbucks. Fits in better with PR guys meeting to work out strategy for a political campaign.

    Still seems as though they don’t get it and at this rate never will. This cabal is past the point of no return.

    Could be worse though, they could’ve actually taken on board what Willis Eschenbach said. Too proud for that though.

  78. Dr. Peterson: “But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science”

    Maybe we can afford to wait half a century. Hopefully our grandkids will be a lot smarter about climate………. and wiser too. Does anyone think we will not learn more and make more technological progress in 50 years? Think back 50 years.

    IPCC AR-4 , Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM.2 displays 9 radiative forcing components. The level of scientific understanding was judged by the authors to be high for 2 of 9, medium for 1 of 9, medium to low for 2 fo 9 and low for 4 of 9. More low understanding than anything else. That clearly says to me not enough understanding has been gathered to even define the problem, much less offer solutions or, worst of all, encourage politicians to go off helter skelter imposing non-solutions. As Pogo sez: “We have met the enemy and they is us.”

  79. Dr Peterson, you say one sometimes should back away from a fight, “Fights are never fun. Even if you win them”.
    What determines if a fight is worth fighting is not the entertainment value in the fight, it is what is to be gained or lost in fighting – not fighting.
    If a maniac with a knife attacks me, I can’t just shrug my shoulders and give him my back because the fight isn’t fair, or I don’t think it is fun, I must protect myself.
    When I am taxed to much I must fight for my rights, when my boss pays me to little money I must fight for more, It is not fun but It must be done.
    We all chose how to fight, Ghandi fought very aggressively by not using violence, that was his strongest weapon, but you bet he was one of the greatest fighters this planet has seen.
    A scientist fights ignorance with science, even if it is not fun, because that is how science progress. Phil Jones fought very hard to keep his data from going public, I guess he had his resons, why give 20 years work to someone who is only interested in finding something wrong with it? Well, this is what science is, a battle of ideas, a good scientist is a tenacious fighter. May the best man win.

  80. Good for the Dr in sharing his notes. It is a place to start.

    However, being on record discussing ClimateFraudit is neither civil nor bright. As a certain blogger has recently said, Credentialed but Uneducated. Everything one writes in the course of the job is subject to discovery, so try to behave in a manner you can be proud of.

  81. It is also very telling that Tom Peterson compares the warmist science to heliocentrism. Sometimes they compare themselves to Einstein or Newton, sometimes it’s Darwin, now Galileo. We don’t do it under that calibre after cashing in a Noble peace prize, no, we are the most important people since, well one of the mentioned geniusses.

    How about comparing yourself to Faraday or Maxwell next time, maybe it impresses the engineers, or how about Turing, you might need a li’l bit of street cred with the hackers. You know, better science communication and all.

  82. Thank you, Dr. Peterson for providing your notes. Others up thread have made some fine points relative to your notes some of what I have to say my repeat what they have noted. Lets start.

    Lesson 2: If the fight isn’t fair, then don’t fight – and maybe don’t
    fight even if it is fair.

    A. Had Steve McIntyre taken this advice, some of the wrong doing would never have been exposed.
    B. There never had to be a fight in the first place if Mann and Jones had released their code and data. Had Jones not tried to use the FOIA officer unfairly in our fight for
    data, you wouldn’t have had climategate. Had Trenberth and Jones treated mcKitrick Fairly, no fight would insue.

    The real lesson is this. Don’t start fights unless you know you can win. Now, Dr. Peterson, it took your organization 2 years to respond to my FIOA to you. I don’t know why it took so long as there was nothing to hide. I’ll assume it was an honest mistake.

    Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
    -The subset that was released was not random
    –So it didn’t give a fair representation
    -Releasing additional selected emails would make the fight fairer
    –But not civil

    ###################
    If you think this is a fine defense then you have to ask yourself why Hilary Clinton
    and the State department don’t use it with regard to the wikileaks fiasco. The idea that there are unreleased mails which would “undo” the facts around the key
    climategate crime, beggars belief. Were there such mails, had you read them, you would surely explain for us how the ICO was wrong in its conclusion that CRU
    violated FIOA regulations. Were there such mails CRU would be wrong to hold
    them back from the independent investigations. As it stands the independent investigations found that CRU brought the trouble on themselves by their behavior in thwarting FIOA. If additional mails would change this conclusion, then surely CRU would have produced them for the inquiry. So either CRU did release more mails to the inquiry and they made no difference, OR CRU did not release these additional mails. If the former, your point is wrong. If the latter, well, one wonders what additional wrong doing the mails may have revealed.

    ##
    There is a lot of incivility and ad hominem attacks out there
    -We can’t control that
    #####
    well, you can do your part. You could suggest to Dr. Trenberth that “denialist” is
    not a construct term. You can suggest to others that refering to Steve Mc as “Fraudit” is uncalled for. You can do things to police your side. In a public fight in america if one side is name calling and the other side refrains from joining in the name calling, it becomes pretty clear to the great “undecided” who is being civil and who is not.

    Finally, your example from Gershon is Bizarre. I loved his book ( the second brain) and would recommend it to evryone here on the site (” basically you got brain cells through your entire gut… ) Anyways, The quote you provide from Gershon has more to do with the situation that Steve McIntyre faced than the situation you face.
    Folks can read the quote IN CONTEXT here

    http://juno.cumc.columbia.edu/psjournal/archive/archives/jour_v19no2/second.html

  83. jorgekafkazar says:
    January 17, 2011 at 11:32 am

    Thanks for suiting up and showing up, Dr. Peterson. That takes fortitude, as does keeping your mind open.

    —…—

    But I would note that Dr Peterson has NOT engaged in the “debate”at all. Rather, he has lectured and violently attacked his critics with rhetoric and a false doctrine of “Science by Self-Appointed Favorable Peer-Reviewed Consensus Takers” rather than the rigorous scientific analysis he supposedly praises and hypocritically desires.

    He presented his notes (which were actually only a summary of only two pages of his one-liner notes to himself) for a three-part speech to others whose entire scope and attitude are NOT repreented. Thus, we do not really know “what” he was going to say, nor what his conclusions are, nor even what his argument will be. Further, as the remarks so, EVERY one of his one-liner notes to himself can easily be – as should be – used to rebut his own CAGW propaganda.

    Then, after presenting those 2 of 3 “answers” he has failed to answer any of the 99 comments rejecting with facts and rebuttals the supposed “resolution” of the debate he – as a prominent CAGW propagandist! – is using in the mainstream media and the political tax-writing, taxpayer-funded economic world. CAGW and eco-alarmism was used by Pelosi and Reid to create the legislative environment that raised oil prices in mid-summer 2007 that led to the world’s current recession in spring 2008. Eco-political power IS the method used to destroy the world’s economy and cause the early death of millions, and the life-long enslavement into poverty of billions.

    Bringing a knife to a “science” fight? I thought Peterson’s president wanted a more civil discussion.

  84. Tom Peterson: ‘But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science’

    Ah, the old “Chevaliers du terre platte” insult.

    Yawn.

  85. Kev-in-UK
    “If you had shares in a company and the company boss admitted fraud, but says ‘he won’t do it again’ or ‘we have learnt lessons’ (yeah, like how to avoid being caught!)”

    Exactly. The charge is ‘caught cheating’ folowed by a promise, ‘not to get caught cheating again’. Right.

    Skeptic: “A skeptic is someone who doubts that something or other is true. The original Skeptics were members of a Greek school of philosophy who believed real knowledge was impossible (except, one assumes, the knowledge that real knowledge is impossible). The Greek source of the term is ‘skeptesthai’, “to look about,” from the Latin ‘skepticus, “inquiring, reflective.” ”
    – Paul McFedries, Weird Word Origins, Alpha, 2008

    Skeptically yours,
    Crispin

  86. Dear Dr. Peterson,

    Thank you for providing your notes. It is very clear that you did not suggest engaging in a “knife fight” and that the reference was an aside from Congressperson. Your allusion was intended to be descriptive of the predicament that Establishment climate scientists find themselves in, and by no means a recommendation on your part. Those who might hold you to task for incendiary speech are in the wrong.

    The “fight” we (all of us) find ourselves in is not fair. On one side are numerous governments large and small, myriad scientific institutions, the U.N., global monopolists, deep-pocket environmental lobbies, the Main Stream Media, and over $100 billion in funding to date. On the other side are a handful of bloggers with no funding to speak of.

    The fight is not fair at all. We (the bloggers) have you licked.

    Because despite your eminences, connections, political power, and vast resources, we have better scientists, more probing analyses, the Internet, freedom of speech, and the Truth on our side.

    We win, you lose. It’s just not fair.

    Again, thank you for your rectitude. I empathize with your position, battered as you are and against the ropes. It is not a pretty sight. Unfortunately I cannot offer you any useful tips, because for all intents and purposes the fight is over. You are outmatched. The end is nigh, and I’m not talking about Thermageddon.

  87. It continues to be a puzzle that main-stream climate scientists complain about misrepresentations and simplistic arguments, but they don’t follow the obvious route of making information available. Here Tom Peterson notes that only a fraction of e-mails were released, but he doesn’t himself release exculpatory e-mails or demand that others inv0lved do the same. Similarly, there are screams of protest when requests are made for archiving and release of basic, unadjusted data and model parameters. The requests are met with (false) assertions of the proprietary nature of the data and cries that following normal procedures for data integrity and openness are cruel attacks on the “team.” Journals waive normal data availability rules without blushing when the “team” are involved. When statistical critiques and divergence of modern data for proxies from theoretical predictions do demonstrate problems with proxy modeling, the publications are delayed and “team” reviewers are allowed to publish virtually simultaneous critiques of the papers without normal access to response by the original authors.

    Most of the folks who follow this website and similar climate blogs are open to science. Mostly, we believe the direct effect of CO2 is in the warming direction; but we also note that the models are suspect regarding the sensitivity to other factors–aerosols, water vapor, etc.–as well as to factors that may not be considered by current models. I am open to persuasion, but Lindzen, Happer, M&M, Spencer, Soon and other skeptics haven’t been fully answered by the climate community; and broadly supportive folks like Judith Curry and the two Pilkes are routinely denigrated as if they were “deniers.” A true skeptic like Monckton is nit-picked and denigrated for minor errors in lengthy posts, while the original presentations that he critiques (and which have major whoppers) are widely embraced.

    The policies of “Real Climate,” the capture of the review process (i.e., having climate journals refuse to publish critiques of statistics as being too arcane while statistical journals reject them as too ordinary to be considered for statistical journals, as one example), excluding respected polar ice specialists from conferences on sea ice extent, and rejection of direct engagement of critics do not contribute to the moral authority of CAGW believers.

    Such behavior strongly suggests that the conventional “experts” know that there are basic issues that haven’t been properly addressed. Doing so will require too much time and effort resulting in delays in implementing the revolutionary changes in energy policies favored by the “in” side and their political colleagues, and that can’t be allowed.

  88. Is he’s saying “only talk through a communicator” because only spin doctors communicators can the spin communicate their science correctly?

    And he’s intellectually proud of this?

    As if the fight is not fair because we demand the scientific method be followed, post normal rhetoric indeed.

  89. Terry Jackson:”…Credentialed but Uneducated”

    Right on!

    Schooled and credentialed, but after all, uneducated. The pencil box remains but the protractor is cracked, the ruler broken and the moral compass lost more than a decade ago.

    I am continuously surprised by the puerility of the responses to well-founded charges of multiple, serious malfeasance arising from the content and consequences of the actions mooted (and accomplished!) by those active in the Climategate email trails.

    I think there is still time for at least some of the Team members to come clean and help get climate science back on the rails. Until then it will continue to be difficult to convince the Ordinary Man there is such a branch of science at all. Bleating and chain rattling is not science. We can do much better than that.

  90. Wait. the warmists are totally ruling the research apparatus of the western world and compare themselves with Gershon, a guy who says about his work “Besides, in those days the National Institutes of Health was tolerant of ideas that opposed received wisdom.” (Thanks for the link, Steve)

    That’s even more bizarre than the Galileo comparison. They pretend they’re the underdog – they might even believe it themselves! GISS, NCDC – conspirative cells of the worldwide warmist underground! RC – idealistic bloggers on a mission to bring truth to the world! The ABC, BBC, CBC and NYT – the last beacons of truth in a world dominated by, what, the WSJ? Bizarre.

  91. Dr Peterson’s language about knife fights is absurd, all that needs to happen is for the self named climate scientists to show their data and working outs. If they are unable or unwilling to then their research has no value.

    A knife would be useless against his straw man arguments?

    Sorry for the repetition but anyone who reads the emails and comes away saying there is nothing wrong is either:-
    1 Stupid.
    2 Very Stupid.
    3 A pathological liar.
    4 Clinically insane.
    5 On the green gravy train.

    Steve McIntyre draws attention to Dr Peterson’s hypocrisy in referring to Climate Fraudit. One thing about the emails i have noticed is these scientists are seem to be always travelling to exotic places, certainly not in a boat made out of balsa wood.

    As I have said before the only thing worse than a hypocrite is a sanctimonious hypocrite.

  92. As I remember it:
    Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.

    My paraphrase (see Steve McIntyre above):
    Don’t bring a Peterson, Jones, Mann, or Hansen to a McIntyre fight!

  93. Patrick Davis says:
    January 17, 2011 at 8:18 am

    I’ve spent some time with those raw, unadjusted CRU data sets from Dr. Phil Jones.
    They show that, depending on one’s locale (I only looked at the Western US) that the warmest times were the 1870’s-1880’s and 1920’s-1930’s. After that, it’s been a roller coaster ride. Big deal. This Grand Minimum may soon change all that.

  94. DirkH says:
    January 17, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    “How about comparing yourself to Faraday or Maxwell next time, maybe it impresses the engineers, or how about Turing, you might need a li’l bit of street cred with the hackers. You know, better science communication and all.”

    Yeah, those three are good. You never hear about them. Though, when I take up the question of digital computers and thought, I give a brief history of Turing and explain his famous thesis. As for Maxwell, he is most likely the most underrated scientist in all of history. My son is taking physics at El Supremo Elite PC High School and I asked him what he thought of Maxwell. Never heard of him. (OK, he’s in the textbook.)

    Of course, the comparison would fail in one very critical particular. Peterson writes:

    “So partnering with communicators can help bridge the gap
    -From nerdy scientists like myself to regular people.”

    To take Turing as the example, he set aside his science for a short time in which he invented the modern digital computer, cracked the Nazi code, and contributed greatly to winning WWII. Turing just rolled up his sleeves and got the work done. Such people do not need communications partners.

  95. since Gershon is one of my favorites I will quote the entire passage from which Peterson lifted a quote.

    You tell me, what lesson should Peterson and other scientists draw from Gershon’s work?

    “The experiments I had conducted to this point gave me a feeling of confidence that my work could withstand anyone’s scrutiny, which I assumed (foolishly, it turned out) would be both logical and reasonable. I also thought that my data would be considered to be important by other neuroscientists. I wrote up my results in a series of three articles that appeared in Science and the Journal of Physiology. My suggestion that serotonin might be an enteric neurotransmitter was based on the following pieces of information: (i) Serotonin is manufactured and stored in the bowel. (ii) Following its biosynthesis from its immediate precursor, serotonin is preferentially located in enteric nerves. (iii) These nerves release serotonin when they are stimulated. (iv) Others had previously shown that serotonin exerts the same effect on the bowel as does the stimulation of enteric nerves. If serotonin was not a neurotransmitter, therefore, it was certainly giving a pretty good imitation of one.

    My Mother Never Told Me It Would Be Like This
    Since I had not anticipated that my suggestion that serotonin might be a neurotransmitter in the gut would be viewed by the scientific world as outrageous, I was upset by the reaction I actually encountered. My first impulse was to feel empathy with those of my ancestors who faced the Inquisition. Later, after I became numb and ceased to feel pain, I understood the reaction that I had inadvertently caused. According to the scientific gospel that was prevalent at the time, only two transmitters, acetylcholine and norepinephrine, took care of all of the neurotransmission that went on in the peripheral nervous system. The thought that an additional molecule might be a peripheral neurotransmitter was considered not just wrong but perverse and immoral. Scientists, more than most people, admire order, and the order that had been established in the peripheral nervous system left no room for another neurotransmitter.

    Disorder is so widespread in nature that when scientists believe that order has been encountered, they immediately think that some great force has been at work to overcome the sinister effects of chance. All fledgling scientists learn in Physics 101, if they have not been taught it earlier in Introductory Chemistry, that disorder in the universe is always increasing. This ever-escalating disorder is called entropy. To overcome entropy, the Darth Vader of reality, serious work has to be done. The molecules that assemble to form the human body would never do so on their own if they were simply mixed together. Countless thousands of unlikely chemical reactions have to occur in just the right place and at just the right time. Those with a deeply religious inclination contemplate the sheer improbability of these events and turn to God for an explanation. Scientists, however, have surrendered this option, even if they, like me, believe in God.

    When we scientists see order, we tend to think that we have found biological reality. Biological processes exert the kind of work and provide the energy necessary to overcome entropy. They impose order on the otherwise reluctant molecules of life, getting them to react with one another to establish the form that we have come to love. For me to upset the order that people thought had been found in the peripheral nervous system was not to be tolerated lightly. My idea that serotonin might be an enteric neurotransmitter was incompatible with the orderly belief that had been held for a long time and thus was much cherished. “

  96. Frosty says:
    January 17, 2011 at 12:46 pm
    “Is he’s saying “only talk through a communicator” because only spin doctors communicators can the spin communicate their science correctly?”

    Apparently, the steps of PostModern Scientific Method are:
    1. Select a funding agency.
    2. Select a project loved by the funding agency.
    3. Write a grant.
    4. Hire a Spin Meister to handle all the rest.

    Next time I will have steps for the Spin Meister.

  97. DirkH says:
    January 17, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    Wait. the warmists are totally ruling the research apparatus of the western world and compare themselves with Gershon, a guy who says about his work “Besides, in those days the National Institutes of Health was tolerant of ideas that opposed received wisdom.” (Thanks for the link, Steve)

    #####
    Imagine my surprise when I saw Peterson quoting Gershon! Man he walked into that one. Don’t bring a noodle to a duel.
    rapier wit is required.

  98. It might have been more realistic for him to say:

    We cannot afford to wait a century for climate science to catch up to (our) views on climate change.

  99. I wonder if Dr. Peterson and his ilk sleep well at night or do they lay there worrying and wondering whether or not real world observations will eventually show their computer modelling to be wrong in due time ?

    I only have one thing to say to Dr. Peterson regarding this so-called “knife fight” with so-called pseudoscientific nonsense…

    Your science had damn well better be spot on 100% accurate in its bleatings of catastrophic predictions as well as your CO2 trumping all other climate processes (ie: the hydrological cycle, the sun’s energy forcings), because if you’re not, you and your associates will go down as being the active participants in the most horrific faux pas, nay, scientific screw up in human history.

    Do you stand 100% behind your computer models ? Are you absolutely 100% sure that you want to force world societies into irreversable public policy and economic damage caused from taking “immediate action” ?

    With all due respect, I strongly suggest you think long and hard about that, sir.

  100. “But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science”

    A bit of a double edged sword this one. Climate Science will continue to evolve and presumably as a little more light is shed on the darkness, so will peoples views.
    I suspect that in the near term, what we see as the battle lines today will seem irrelevant and archaic tomorrow. The chance of either side being entirely vindicated is very small given how little we actually know about climate

  101. Maybe, just maybe, the likes of Petersen here and Crowley at CA have begun to realise that the game is up, however grudging their comments are?

  102. “Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
    -The subset that was released was not random”

    Of course the emails weren’t random. Climategate wasn’t a bloody sociological survey but a carefully prepared, wonderful release of precisely the emails that showed what Jones and his cronies were up to, compelling prima facie evidence of serious wrongdoing and deceit. Frankly, I couldn’t give a toss about whether Jones took his kids/grandkids to McDonalds or had had a great weekend in Lllandudno or didn’t know how to order more biros for his clerical staff.
    I hope there are more emails to come which shine yet more light on the climate scam. Dr. Peterson is just a marketing man now, for a lost cause, lost because it sold its scientific integrity for fame, fortune and illusory power.

  103. Frosty says:
    January 17, 2011 at 12:46 pm
    ‘Is he’s saying “only talk through a communicator” because only spin doctors communicators can the spin communicate their science correctly? ‘

    Maybe he thinks he’s on Star Trek?

  104. I think that the only thing that matters is whether or not the AGW idea is correct or not.It is a rightful thing to try to find weakness and inconsistency in the ideas put forward by those who support the AGW position, it is not a fight.Claiming that time is short to save the planet from AGW as you propose only serves to hide the weakness of your case and comparing yourselves to famous scientists does not prove to us that what you are proposing is true.I am not impressed by your computer models predicting vast changes in climate in the coming years,it would be reasonable to want to see unequivocal evidence that we are facing climate disaster before taking any action in my opinion.

  105. A good summary of similar issue though on a different topic by Michael
    D. Gershon, M.D. (1999)
    -“The experiments I conducted to this point gave me a feeling of
    confidence that my work could withstand anyone’s scrutiny, which I
    assumed (foolishly, it turned out) would be both logical and reasonable.”

    Fee fi fo fum, do I smell a great Trenberthian leap, from the fact that there are always people who are illogical and unreasonable, to the implication that all scrutiny of Climate Science’s work is illogical and unreasonable, essentially by a kind of “null” definition, Tom’s? Or else perhaps to an inherently futile justification of Climate Science’s failure to expose its work to the sceptical scrutiny of the scientific method, when the latter is instead the only way any work alleging to be science can come to “withstand scrutiny”?

    Isn’t it really just more of the same old strange, needing to be clarified, Climate Science talk and thinking?

  106. Dr Peterson.
    My my don’t you sound like the wronged kid who threw something from the back of the class and the teacher just catches it out of the corner of his eye
    and the kid retorts, “it wasn’t me sir” knowing full well it was and WE SAW you.. don’t play the wronged kid
    WUWT commenter’s must be getting really sick of this ploy from these guys.i know i am.

  107. You tell me, what lesson should Peterson and other scientists draw from Gershon’s work?

    That fighting a consensus requires both bowel and gut?

  108. Hi Dr. Peterson, your decision to post here is much appreciated.

    Usually when someone from the “other” side posts here they take some flack, but there are always some “skeptics” who go out of their way to find points of agreement, out of politeness or in order to advance the dialogue. This doesn’t appear to be happening in your case.

    Not even a passing troll to the rescue? And these trolls post here regularly and stridently and unhindered.

    Well, you made the effort, and you could conclude you’ve done your bit and that “they’re all out of step except my Tom”.
    Then again, maybe the response may prompt you to think it out again.

    Why, you even have Steve Mosher talking out of one side of his mouth for a change!

    Strange times.

    tim

  109. Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
    -The subset that was released was not random
    –So it didn’t give a fair representation
    -Releasing additional selected emails would make the fight fairer
    –But not civil”

    The night of the Climategate release I remember well. I downloaded and isolated two separate copies of the zip file but waited to scan them for virus & malware until I heard from others that the files were genuine. Instead, I spent countless hours transfixed to the postings and observations of others here and at CA, Bishop Hill, the Air Vent and elsewhere.

    It utterly astounds me that after this release there was not an immediate demand and search for the proverbial missing 18½ minutes.

    If instead of climate the November FOIA file release was relating to a nuclear accident, the BP Deep Horizon blowout, or even Viagra, I cannot help believe the MSM & our politicians would not have risen to the occasion and demanded actual investigations instead of the multiple whitewashes and massive campaigns of denial we have all witnessed.

    Albedo is all over the Climategate affair. It is high time to cast the clouds aside and let sunlight disinfect this truly sad episode in science!

  110. Warmists make extraordinary claims. Skeptics demand extraordinary proof. Ne’er the twain shall meet.

  111. There is a second issue related to the Climategate emails that has not gotten enough play. In those emails Phil Jones, Mann, Biffra, and the rest were asked to comment on mitigation strategies for climate change. Ok, if we take the premise, which they do, that you must be trained in the field of your expertise in order to be able to make authorative statements, then none of these gentlemen have the least expertise in systems engineering, nuclear power, or any of the other engineering disciplines that are required in order to be able to develop authorative positions on measures to mitigate CO2 production.

    Why is it that all of their solutions more or less align with the position of books such as “Limits to Growth” and Al Gore’s “Earth in the Balance”. I would have much more respect for their position if they came out and said (Like James Lovelock has), that we must embrace nuclear power.

    If the U.S. embarked on a program to develop 500-1000 Uranium and Thorium reactors, and used the electricity to displace oil, coal, and natural gas, and to implement a transportation technology based on fuel cells, then I could get behind their solution even if I doubted their science.

    If CO2 is your problem, then in 25 years the above outline of power and transportation technology would remove the United States from the Hydrocarbon economy, and thus reduce global emissions of CO2 by 25%.

    However, foolish schemes such as Cap and Trade, originally developed by none other than Enron, the elimination of the personal automobile, and the de-industrialization of the west, is nothing more than what the hippies and environmental whackos proposed during the last environmental scare period of the 1960’s and 70’s.

    I am such a person as to be able to make an authorative statement regarding the engineering of this with my degrees (engineering physics), plus decades of work on power systems, transportation systems, and systems engineering for developing industrial infrastructure on the Moon and Mars.

    Stay in your field of expertise of climate science and let the engineers fix the problem, if the problem indeed exists.

  112. “…we cannot afford to wait a century for views on climate change to catch up to climate science…”

    We don’t need a century Dr Peterson. We already have enough evidence to dismiss AGW on not one count but many.

    I used to believe what you believe, and was involved in “doing my bit to help”, only “my bit to help” always involves checking the truth of claims right back to source. When I did that, your statement convinced me for a while, but when a crack appeared the whole hypothesis exploded and every single claim of AGW was found wanting. Every single claim, Dr Peterson. The world is NOT warming unnaturally, its trends are well within natural limits. When UHI and other data issues are properly factored in, the correlation with solar cycles reappears. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant at current levels, its concentration has to increase a hundredfold for that to happen; it is fundamental plant food, and if its level were to fall, the whole of agriculture would suffer. Sequestration is both economic and political suicide. And there is plenty of good evidence that even the CO2 rise is natural – isotopes notwithstanding.

    Children in schools are being taught lies and are being frightened by a nonexistent bogeyman, when there are enough real problems in Life to worry about. This is a shameful legacy to leave our children.

    You can tell me I’m not a trained scientist with peer-reviewed papers behind me. That is irrelevant where the basics of scientific method are missing from the whole peer-review process. Truth matters, Dr Peterson, and even if you believe you have a noble cause to support, you cannot support it with poor science, misrepresentations, and avoidance and suppression of debate. And another thing. Courtesy is an incredible tool for advancing Science, discourtesy is not. Courtesy includes the power to listen and to be willing to say “I was wrong”. You would not be thought of less for doing this.

  113. when so many people with Phd’s are suggesting that a theory based on incomplete computer models with limited predictive ability, using unreleased data and code is such good evidence that science has to be turned on its head and it is the job of the sceptics to disprove the conclusions of the unreleased code and data then it is hard to view them as scientists.

    The “what if your wrong, think of your grandchildren” argument might have some impact if the solutions weren’t so ridiculous. Green initiatives rolled out time and time again with some immense cost of carbon, and government reports suggesting we are going to fix it with massively cheaper cost of carbon in the future. I know of no other situation where people would say “buy lots of it today because it will be cheaper tomorrow” – a difficult enough argument but to then infer a competitive advantage from un-patented investments today will be somehow uncopiable and unassailable in the future beggars belief. We are apparently to be scared of missing out on the flushing the money down the toilet party.

    This appears to be the position of the warmists – believing not only that their phds should guarantee the success of the scientific argument – but should naturally give them the final say on the solution in entirely unrelated fields.

  114. Ken Lydell says: “Warmists make extraordinary claims. Skeptics demand extraordinary proof. Ne’er the twain shall meet.

    Oh, no Ken!

    Us skeptics aren’t asking for any extraordinary just normal proof or if that isn’t available, how about an open and honest discussion laying before us the data and working, if they did that … fine no problem, we’d all agree.

    But, when you have secret data, secret workings, PR scamsters trying to sell snake oil and calling it “science” as if just labelling it science means everyone should swallow their BS.

    … I’ll never meet someone half way if it’s half way to a lie!

  115. 1) To a scientifically skeptical person this is a fight for the truth…
    2) To the AGW supporting scientists this is a knife fight…
    Everyone chooses who to follow.

    But people, if one day it becomes apparent that you are clearly scientifically wrong, please swallow your pride and admit it, for the moment, that goes for both sides, but even that conclusion could revert futher into the future, science is always moving.

    Someof these scientists need to just grow up.

  116. Tim says: Hi Dr. Peterson, your decision to post here is much appreciated.

    Usually when someone from the “other” side posts here they take some flack, but there are always some “skeptics” who go out of their way to find points of agreement, out of politeness or in order to advance the dialogue. This doesn’t appear to be happening in your case.

    Tim, I support what you are saying and yes Dr Peterson is to be commended for engagement in the discussion. I think most people here are genuinely interested in the climate, and truly want to know what has been/is/will happen(ing) to the climate. Listening to well thought our views and hearing the details of the evidence for/against can only help us better understand – particularly as we have a very robust “peer review” process. So, I would love to encourage Dr Peterson to contribute more.

    But, to be frank, I don’t see how you can count what Dr Peterson wrote as “well thought our views” and “details of the evidence” … it’s a few scribbled notes, largely unintelligible and quite honest well below the normal standard of articles that we get.

  117. Perhaps Peterson’s reference to heliocentrism and Galileo has it exactly backwards. The cAGWers are the gospel preaching Pope and McIntyre is Galileo.

  118. Nick

    Deniers just have to keep pointing out where the theory and the predictions in particular do not fit the facts. Falsification.

    Yes, this is how science works. Any piece of peer-reviewed science can and should be criticized if there are flaws in the methodology, data or conclusions of the original paper, and then that peer-reviewed criticism can itself be criticized if it contains errors. It is in this way that science approaches the truth, but it is essential that this process remains scientific, that we have a peer-review system to weed out the non-science and the nonsense, or else the whole thing becomes muddied and confused.

  119. ScientistForTruth

    what if climate science is wrong on attribution, or models, or understanding, or physics? Do we really want to advance “views” and policies towards what is wrong, then?

    If the science turns out to be wrong and yet we’re already some way down the road of transitioning our economies to a post-fossil fuels world, building nuclear power stations, investing in and developing renewables, well, this is something we’d have had to have done sooner or later as these fossil fuels are running out, plus our dependance on them binds us to some pretty unsavoury regimes. But if the science turns out to be right but we have not taken action to reduce our emissions, then the consequences could be grave.

  120. I think Dr. Peterson is right. There has not been enough effective communication about global warming.

    Only 6.5 billion of the 7.0 billion of the people on the planet have heard about it. There should be a concerted effort to turn the tide and communicate to the final 0.5 billion.

    20 years is not enough time to get the point across in a convincing way. People need to hear about the problems of global warming 3 times a day instead of just twice per day over the next 10 years.

    And the raw records need to be adjusted for a 10th time so that the point will be even more clear. Perhaps an 11th time in a year or so. Then maybe a 12th. The actual recorda need to keep up with what is known to be happening.

  121. matt v.

    “We cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science”

    Neither can the world risk or wait 100 years to see if the current version of global warming science is even valid.

    So what is the sensible course of action? Do we start building nuclear power stations and phasing out coal burning planets, or do we burn ever more fossils fuels, pumping up atmospheric CO2 to levels the earth hasn’t seen for millions of years in the hope that the science is wrong?

  122. RichieP says:
    January 17, 2011 at 2:32 pm
    Frosty says:
    January 17, 2011 at 12:46 pm
    ‘Is he’s saying “only talk through a communicator” because only spin doctors communicators can the spin communicate their science correctly? ‘

    Maybe he thinks he’s on Star Trek?

    It’s SCIENCE Jim…. but not as we know it.

  123. “–Just ask Galileo” (re heliocentrism, no doubt!)
    If only. He would turn in his grave at the thought that his lonely courageous stand against a corrupt or pig ignorant establishment would be twisted so perversely in defence of to-day’s corrupt or pig ignorant establishment.

    @ ScientistForTruth January 17, 2011 at 10:03 am:
    “Heliocentrism would have caught on a lot quicker if he hadn’t tried to paint those who were sceptical of his views – including the Pope, who was originally his friend – as ignorant fools.” They were just that.

  124. Mr. Peterson, there are some great posts above, I hope you read through them with an open mind. I have found weather fascinating since my first job emptying the trash at the weather office 35 years ago (I took home the discarded maps to study them). I have also studied man-made warming since before the 1998 “acceleration”. I already knew some of the warming was natural, but in 1998/99 there was a shift from some kind of balance to alarmism in my view (although now I realize it had happened prior to that). Well after 1998 it turned out it was only El Nino and there was a deceleration in warming, but despite that fact, there was a ratcheting up of the alarmism.

    But here’s the honest truth: climate change, global warming, what-you-call-it, is the one of the most boring topics I can imagine. Weather has it beat 100 to 1, literally and figuratively. The small amount of man-made warming is mildly interesting, but only in a good way, warmer arctic, warmer winters, in short warmer where and when it needs to be warmer. Weather blasts past that warming into heat waves or freezes Florida to its coldest December ever. Lots of current weather is as interesting as the 70’s We are getting floods and droughts like the 30’s.

    So your crowd has now latched onto weather in your dying gasps of alarmism. But you are digging your hole even deeper because increased extreme weather (if part of AGW) is a negative feedback. It is far from proven that there is any increase in extreme weather beyond natural variations (e.g. 70’s, 30’s, and earlier). It is even more far from proven that AGW has anything to do with it (e.g. AGW does not cause negative AO). The ignorance of climate scientists about weather in general is quite astounding (I could give many examples, but the recent blaming of cold Europe on missing ice was a good one). The climate scientists are also drawn like drowning rats to the recent flooding and trying desperately to claim that it is unnatural. It will wash away their last bit of credibility while swaying a few gullible folks. Is it really worth spending what remains of your credibility to get a point or two in an opinion poll?

  125. To follow on to my previous comment, here is the CAGW mindset writ large.

    The Price of Change by James Hansen

    I found this cited at Lubos Motl’s blog, The Reference Frame. It was originally published in the South China Morning Post, and therefore is meant for a Chinese audience.

    The money quotes:


    “Burning all fossil fuels would increase carbon dioxide to more than 550 ppm and create a different planet – a desolate, ice-free planet with sea levels 75 meters higher than today.”

    and…


    “Climate change will soon emerge as the great moral issue of the 21st century, a matter of intergenerational justice.”

    Read it all. It is quite chilling to me, especially since he seems to have developed a seething and irrational hatred for all fossil fuel companies – the same fossil fuel companies that right now are helping deliver power, heat, food, and water to the NASA GISS headquarters in New York City (and to Jim Hansen’s home, no doubt).

    Humorously, the paper cites Jim Hansen as writing “as a private citizen” – errr a private citizen pushing a new book and whose day job just happens to reap huge sums of money by scaring the public about climate change.

    What say you, Dr. Peterson?

  126. Dear Anthony,

    In August 2009, I did a critique of a paper by Dr. Tom Peterson (published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres) on alleged changes in climate extremes in the Caribbean. It was rejected by the journal editor, a colleague of Dr. Peterson at NOAA. Fortunately, Professor Emeritus Roger Pielke Sr. posted my critique on his blog at climatesci.org and invited Dr. Peterson to provide a rebuttal to my critique. To date, Dr. Peterson has declined the offer. Perhaps, you may have better luck in getting Dr. Peterson to respond.

    My critique is available at the following link:

    http://climatesci.org/2009/08/05/comment-on-%e2%80%9crecent-changes-in-climate-extremes-in-the-caribbean-region-by-peterson-et-al-2002%e2%80%9d-by-rj-stone/

    Best wishes,
    Reynold Stone

    REPLY: I’ll have a look, thanks -A

  127. Let’s see, then – if a non-team person wants to replicate work and asks for the data and methodology and metadata, and he is stonewalled to the point of needing to use FOIA, is that FOIA request the knife fighting?

    Or is the knife fighting when emails are circulated to increase the stonewalling?

    Is being astounded that the data isn’t made public the knife fight?

    Or is it when the hopeful replicators are called “deniers”?

    Is it a knife fight because team members circle the wagons when they could more easily have simply told everyone, “The dog ate my homework” (Phil Jones, on his slovenly record keeping)?

    Or is the knife fight when an disillusioned insider who knew where all the skeletons were buried decided to out the cover-up?

    If this was Watergate, was the knife fight when the cops arrested the burglars?

    Or was it when Nixon, Haldeman and Ehrlichman covered it all up?

    It was a knife fight in all of those (and more) because the ones who jealously guarded the power they thought the possessed paranoically thought they had enemies all around them, and they went into battle mode to protect that perceived power. That kind of mentality happens all the time with institutions: Those who find themselves at the center of things believe they are infallible as long as they are “defending the faith.” And when that happens, all rules of gentlemanly behavior (such as the scientific method and objective peer review) are repealed – and the gloves come off. That is Climategate in a nutshell. Everyone “out of the loop” who read any of the damning emails and files could see it plain as day. The insiders are still deluding themselves that they are the good guys in this.

  128. Roger Otip says:
    January 17, 2011 at 5:01 pm
    “It is in this way that science approaches the truth, but it is essential that this process remains scientific, that we have a peer-review system to weed out the non-science and the nonsense, or else the whole thing becomes muddied and confused.”

    How do you propose to address the assault on the peer review process that was launched by Phil Jones and his fellows?

  129. Bob Barker

    IPCC AR-4 , Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM.2 displays 9 radiative forcing components. The level of scientific understanding was judged by the authors to be high for 2 of 9, medium for 1 of 9, medium to low for 2 fo 9 and low for 4 of 9. More low understanding than anything else. That clearly says to me not enough understanding has been gathered to even define the problem

    Here’s the page you’re referring to. Note the error bars, indicating the levels of uncertainty. The two radiative forcing components where the level of scientific understanding is judged to be high are also the two components with the greatest (positive) radiative forcing. They are carbon dioxide and methane, both major products of human activity. Thus they can conclude that the total net anthropogenic forcing is positive and almost certainly lies between +0.6 and +2.4 Watts per square meter, though is probably close to +1.6 Watts per square meter.

  130. Steve McIntyre

    Peterson is a Climategate correspondent who willingly used the slanderous term “ClimateFraudit” in email correspondence with Phil Jones

    That was a private email though, wasn’t it? It was not intended to be published.

    REPLY:
    Sorry, you are wrong on that point. Emails done by government employees are not private and subject to FOIA queries. This is the law. In the UK and the USA. It has been suggested this batch of emails was in response to FOIA requests that the University of East Anglia deferred, illegally, and somebody decided to make them public when it was known they were skirting the law. The British office responsible for FOIA said they had broken the law, but only escaped punishment due to statute of limitations. See

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/25/loophole-in-uk-foia-laws-will-allow-cru-to-avoid-prosecution/

    and

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/25/uea-the-new-crimestoppers/

    The relevant quote:

    …the ICO has been alerted by the complainant and by information already in the public domain via the media, to a potential offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act. The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence…In the event, the matter cannot be taken forward because of the statutory time limit.

    – Anthony

  131. Roger Otip,

    The CLIMATEGATE emails were written on “company time,” regarding a taxpayer-funded work product. That has never been disputed. The correct term is “misappropriation of public funds.” The work product is the property of those who fund it, not the individual employees who wrote it. Tough luck that one of their own spilled the beans, huh?☺

  132. Anthony

    Emails done by government employees are not private and subject to FOIA queries. This is the law.

    Not in Wisconsin apparently.

    REPLY: Heh, lame, can’t win your argument so you throw up an aberration. As we both know, the UK is not Wisconsin, and the ICO would have prosecuted them if he could.

    -Anthony

  133. “But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science”

    Well…uhm…I hate to break it to your buddy…but, climate science HAS become just LIKE “heliocentrism”, EVERYTHING revolves around AGW…..Okay…”egocentrism”.
    No debate simply means you can’t defend your position…whatever the excuse to avoid debate.

  134. Wanna play Clue?

    Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
    -The subset that was released was not random
    –So it didn’t give a fair representation
    -Releasing additional selected emails would make the fight fairer
    –But not civil

    sort of piques my interest. It is my guess that this “subset” of emails was actually selected by Phil Jones himself, as those most damning to him and his cause, and nominated as those that most definitely had to be deleted (along with all the collateral comments of his consortium and the ghastly “code” by which they actually made their calculations). My further guess is that the “murder” was done in the computer room, by the FOIA officer, with a password.

  135. Anthony

    Heh, lame, can’t win your argument so you throw up an aberration. As we both know, the UK is not Wisconsin, and the ICO would have prosecuted them if he could.

    Sorry, I didn’t realize this was an argument. I’m not a lawyer. I’m more interested in the science than this legal stuff. If you say the emails of government employees are not private then I take your word for it. It’s not something I’d investigated, until just now I tried googling it and came up with that Wisconsin teachers case, which it seems to me suggests there may be cases when the law decides that certain instances of electronic communication by government employees may be deemed private.

    I’m aware that Wisconsin is not in the UK, but I’m assuming Dr Peterson also wasn’t in the UK when he sent the email, and I’m not sure where the server the emails were taken from was located, or whether that even matters. The law is whatever it is, and that’s only really ever known for sure when it’s tested in court my legal friends tell me, but I’d say taking without permission correspondance that was intended to be private and publishing it is a tad unethical, unless one can clearly demonstrate that disclosure is in the public interest (not simply that the public are interested in it) and that that overrides any personal harm that could result from publication (I guess that applies as much to Wikileaks as to this).

    Anyway, I suppose the next time I email a government employee I’d better be careful what I say, or perhaps I’ll use the phone instead.

  136. Roger Otip,

    Peterson hasn’t denied the validity of the email. His intention to make the email public or not has nothing to do with the slanderous and defamatory content of the email. Surely you agree that it is hypocritical for Peterson to complain about uncivil language from others while he himself makes defamatory slurs – a hypocrisy that is all too common among climate scientists, as we’ve recently seen in the preprint of Trenberth’s speech.

  137. Dr. Peterson,

    A great many scientists from not just a few disciplines have watched this non-debate for many years, some for several decades. Beginning about the same time as the UN’s Food for Oil scandal. Not just a few have had papers rejected out of hand in ways never experienced before, and watched the same done to others. We have watched sites like RealClimate spring up, offered scholarly opinions and watched them either disappear or never appear, when they were quite well-focused and carefully considered scientific opinions. And then we watched the Climategate scenario unfold.

    The entire situation indeed reminded us of Galileo except church and science seemed to have switched sides. And now we see that it isn’t so much the science as how the science is packaged.

    Personally, I rather doubt it is possible for this long practicing scientist to effectively communicate the contempt that we hold the rather young science of climatology, and the even lower esteem that we have for climatologists. Many of us who have written complex models for things like geophysics and hydrogeology know that the only way to be taken seriously is to both publish your code and your data. To not do so, and to engage in the byzantine chicanery and skullduggery that has thankfully now been daylighted, goes beyond destroying credibility. It conveys the probable permanence of it. To engage in psychological repackaging of such discredited messages takes this into a domain for which I still await a proper name.

    In the world of environmental litigation support we know which “experts” have “cred” and which ones do not. That in no way means that we are not sometimes put into the position of recommending the engagement of those that do not. It is done specifically with the goal of bamboozling judges and juries. Once so branded that is all such “experts” ever do again. And they are well known.

    Climategate was a “come to Jesus moment” for climate scientists. Off the top of my head of the many such “scientists” involved only Judith Curry rates listening to, but with a properly jaundiced ear. But that does not mean those of us anticipating the next many years of climate litigation support are not keeping very assiduous notes. It happens to be part of our business not to forget. You would be wise to take a note.

    Remember, WE choose the dark paths down which we walk. In this electronic world, those dark paths can become quite well lighted by such things as Climategate, FOIA shenanigans etc., so it isn’t just the path anymore, it’s each little step along it. And some of the attorneys I work with are ever so good at just needing a single one…..

  138. Steve McIntyre

    Surely you agree that it is hypocritical for Peterson to complain about uncivil language from others while he himself makes defamatory slurs

    I think there is a huge difference between something said publicly and something said privately – and in that I include something that was meant to remain private and that the author believed would remain private. The difference lies with the intention of the author. If you really wanted to bring someone down then you’d be shouting out your defamation from the rooftops, getting it out there on whatever media you can lay your hands on, blogging it, tweeting it, broadcasting it in whatever way, not just narrowcasting it to one sole individual. And there are people out there, many people, blogging and twittering and broadcasting uncivil and in some cases libellous words about other people with the express intention of undermining their reputations.

  139. Roger Otip says:
    January 17, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    ScientistForTruth

    what if climate science is wrong on attribution, or models, or understanding, or physics? Do we really want to advance “views” and policies towards what is wrong, then?

    If the science turns out to be wrong and yet we’re already some way down the road of transitioning our economies to a post-fossil fuels world, building nuclear power stations, investing in and developing renewables, well, this is something we’d have had to have done sooner or later as these fossil fuels are running out, plus our dependance on them binds us to some pretty unsavoury regimes. But if the science turns out to be right but we have not taken action to reduce our emissions, then the consequences could be grave.
    ========================================================

    Hi Roger, hope you’re still here………a response to your response…..

    Errr, no, we’re not building new nuclear plants. At least not anywhere near what is necessary. What we are doing is building wind and solar plants. We’re a few centuries or so away from running out of fossil fuels. And no, you nor anyone else knows what we would have done 10/20/50/100 years from now. As to wind and solar, REE are necessary materials for these to work. The U.S. mines none. China does. Nice, we’re spending billions so we can be more dependent on a leftist regime as opposed to being more dependent on a leftist regime. (China or Venz.) Somehow, I don’t feel good about this. Strange. But here! This is your money quote!…….

    “But if the science turns out to be right but we have not taken action to reduce our emissions, then the consequences could be grave.”

    There is a large body of science that says it isn’t correct. So much so, it would be ludicrous to act before more information is available. But, as you’ve stated we’ve already taken steps towards these goals. Indeed, we have. We’ve come up with a wonderful scheme to turn a food source into a fuel source for motorized vehicles. Brilliant! The fuel is less efficient and costs more to produce. That on it face really isn’t what the problem is, though. But, I’m sure you know all of this already. What the problem is, a very foreseeable consequence was that food prices have dramatically risen. We’re now using wind and solar generation for electricity, backed up by natural gas. This in turn has raised the price of both electricity and natural gas(used for cooking and heat). For everybody! So, in sum, in our Quixotic quest, we’ve managed to raise the cost of food, fuel, and electricity, for nearly every person on this planet! I’ll repeat what you said, “then the consequences could be grave.”

    Sir, have you check the alarmist body count lately? People have starved. We’ve doubled the price of corn! This in turn has raised the prices of all other commodities! How many died in the U.K. because they had to choose between food or warmth? And that is just one very affluent nation! What of the less fortunate nations? Why? Because we’re afraid of 1 or 2 degrees more warmth? History tells us this is good for the world. Because someone thinks an essential molecule is evil? Even if all of the dark fantasies of the warmists were true, this would only present a slight challenge for mankind to overcome just as all of our predecessors had done ins the past. The cowardice displayed by a significant portion of this planet disgusts me to the point of revulsion. Scared, others have to die because you and people like you are scared of the unknown.

    The consequences could be grave and indeed they were. Many souls took your consequences to the grave. And you and I helped pay for it.

  140. Thanks for responding.
    The comment that “we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science” is a political judgment not a scientific one, that is one major problem I have with your side of the argument, while claiming to be the side upholding science your side quite often makes the political arguments, often in response to the scientific arguments made on the other side.

  141. I am not sure I understand the point of the rebuttal.

    1. If I have thousands of emails in my account but only two of them describe my shoplifting, am I any less of a shoplifter because there are thousands of other emails that don’t describe shoplifting?

    2. The idea that one is “in a fight” assumes they have set their sights on a goal. They aren’t allowing they data to lead them where they will, this shows an almost limbic protection of their hypothesis in the face of criticism. It is a matter of protecting the conclusion and not a matter of close analysis of the data. A scientist or (worse) a group of scientists striving to be victorious seems somehow anti-science. The truth doesn’t “fight”, it just is.

    Nobody is “fighting” the AGW scientists but many are looking closely at the data and saying, “wait a minute, 2+2 does not equal 5″. The adjustments; the removal of rural, high latitude, and high altitude stations; the continuing changing of the adjustments over time that walk older data colder and newer data warmer; all of this is giving people pause. Added to this the appearance of hiding data and methods, and finally the climategate emails on top of all of that like a nice neat ribbon with a bow to wrap it all up … it looks bad. It looks very bad.

  142. In other words, it doesn’t appear that the scientists are so much “fighting” for the conclusion of AGW so much as they are “fighting” for the policies that the conclusion would tend to warrant. When the conclusion is questioned, then naturally follows a questioning of the policies based on that conclusion and that seems to be what the “fight” is about.

  143. Roger Otip says:
    January 17, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    “ICO would have prosecuted them if he could.”
    _______________________________________________________

    I admire your implicit faith that there is no corruption in AGW science circles.

  144. Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
    -The subset that was released was not random
    –So it didn’t give a fair representation
    -Releasing additional selected emails would make the fight fairer
    –But not civil

    Excellent! Then all Dr. P has to do is release all of his emails and convince Dr. Jones to do the same! I can hardly wait!

    But when, oh when, are these academics going to finally stop pretending that they are doing science?

  145. Dr Peterson invokes the spirit of Galileo and adds “.. but unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views on climate change to catch up to climate science …”.

    Above all, Galileo was an empiricist.
    In astronomy, he would not submit to the prevailing model and, by patient observation, proved it was wrong.

    Is Dr Peterson seriously suggesting that after just 60 years of observing alleged AGW (as defined by IPCC AR4) during which time there has been only one period of sustained net warming (1980-2000), that now he has sufficient evidence of the warming effect of a constant, monotonically rising CO2 concentration — sufficient evidence to warrant the immediate and complete dismantling of world economy with unimaginable civil consequences?

  146. Roger Otip says:
    January 17, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    The law is whatever it is, and that’s only really ever known for sure when it’s tested in court my legal friends tell me, but I’d say taking without permission correspondance that was intended to be private and publishing it is a tad unethical, unless one can clearly demonstrate that disclosure is in the public interest (not simply that the public are interested in it) and that that overrides any personal harm that could result from publication (I guess that applies as much to Wikileaks as to this).

    Anyway, I suppose the next time I email a government employee I’d better be careful what I say, or perhaps I’ll use the phone instead.

    We are at the interface between the electronic web based technology and the laws that used to apply for posts etc.
    What people do not realize yet is that writing up thoughts in an electronic format and trusting on the electromagnetic waves to deliver them to their recipient is not like the postal system. It is more like wall newspapers, where young men write “John loves Linda” and any passer by reads it. Most ignore it, unless they know a Linda.
    Scripta manent, meaning “written stuff persists”, now has a corolary, “and anybody might intercept it”.
    With search engines and smart hackers-for-fun there is no privacy in the electronic world , something the coming generations have to assimilate.

    Keep to snail mail for privacy. Even phones are recorded on computers.

  147. “-Releasing additional selected emails would make the fight fairer
    –But not civil”

    History is not filled with civility in the quest for truth.

    Ergo, is the call for civility a quest for lies?

    The same people that will cry fowl at the the medieval persecution of scientific persuits, not acknowledging the lack of civility in attainment of scientific freedom, now call for civility against scientific freedom, lest exposure of bad science and ego’s fall. Science for the sake of science?

    Wether it’s the squabbling over the “Hobbits” hominids because it doesn’t fit a concensus that is based in theory only, anyway. Or, the concensus of Dr. Hawass in his overbearing assurtions of Egyptology providing, once again, civility in place of debate.

    Science should be a Donnybrook, let the best science win.

  148. @Roger Otip

    If the science turns out to be wrong and yet we’re already some way down the road of transitioning our economies to a post-fossil fuels world, building nuclear power stations, investing in and developing renewables, well, this is something we’d have had to have done sooner or later as these fossil fuels are running out, plus our dependance on them binds us to some pretty unsavoury regimes. But if the science turns out to be right but we have not taken action to reduce our emissions, then the consequences could be grave.

    This is just a re-wording of the precautionary principle.

    A brief analog: My ex-wife and I used to argue over whether to go see what our first baby daughter was squawking about. I’d tell her she needed to not respond immediately, that sometimes babies just squawk and then calm down. Early on she asked, “But what if she puked and is lying in it?” Well, of all the things that might have been bothering the baby, lying in puke wasn’t the most urgent, not by several magnitudes.

    Climate scientists have pulled up every form of “puked and lying in it” poppycock since AGW was first considered a possibility – from rising sea level to coral reefs to ice sheets falling into the ocean to leaving our grandkids a desert planet, everything but “the sky is falling.” As soon as facts refuting one of the claims are brought into the argument, they shift to one of the others, giving us skeptics (not Trenbreth’s “deniers”) a moving target – a moving target that we’ve gotten pretty adept at hitting.

    Peak oil has been dredged up by every Boy That Cried Wolf since Malthusian Paul Ehrlich told us not only oil but all our raw materials were going to run out – soon. As has happened many times since Ehrlich, we’ve found new oil fields right and left and are no closer to running out now than we were in 1975.

    No, the world did not puke and it is not lying in it. We do not have to run scared every time an alarm is sounded by the same crowd. That was the lesson of that Boy Who Cried Wolf, wasn’t it – that after a while people stop listening? What is it about “false alarms” do you not understand?

  149. Dr Peterson has forgotten that science is a bit like pregnancy-you can’t be a little bit pregnant and in science you can’t be a little bit dishonest. [one email is sufficient]. In Oz we had the sad spectacle of a scientist winning fame for noting the connection between thalidomide and birth defects. He became so enthused that he fudged the results that didn’t fit until his staff were compelled to expose the matter and he duly went to goal. In my estimation the actions of the climate enthusiasts were as bad and they would be wise to be humble amd polite lest they be judged by less complaisant committees. Geoff Broadbent

  150. Roger Otip says:
    January 17, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    Steve McIntyre

    Surely you agree that it is hypocritical for Peterson to complain about uncivil language from others while he himself makes defamatory slurs

    I think there is a huge difference between something said publicly and something said privately – and in that I include something that was meant to remain private and that the author believed would remain private.

    #######
    Let’s take the example of Steve Mc saying (god forbid) Snarky things about Mann.. in PUBLIC. What’s a poor Mann to do? Of course he has many options. He knows exactly what Steve is saying.

    Now lets look at Mann’s private behavior. What he said to newspaper reporters in private, what he wrote to other scientists who would have to review McIntyres work.
    what he said to editors. Far more damage is done by those private mails that steve has no chance to respond to.

    In all of his private communications with me and his public communications, steve has never suggested that Mann is a fraud. His position is clear in private and public.

    Mann got an inquiry to “clear” his good name. Doesn’t Steve deserve one to get his good name back? Don’t we need to see all the dastardly things they said about him in private?

  151. “A good summary of similar issue though on a different topic by Michael
    D. Gershon, M.D. (1999)
    -“The experiments I conducted to this point gave me a feeling of
    confidence that my work could withstand anyone’s scrutiny, which I
    assumed (foolishly, it turned out) would be both logical and reasonable.””

    So are you saying that scientific work no longer has to withstand scrutiny? That is NOT science.

    “A scientist’s response to both knives and illogic tends to be more science
    -Sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed science
    -What we do best
    -And in the end it will win the day”

    Please define “winning the day”? How can you win anything if you haven’t already set a goal – and by doing so you already have a preferred outcome. This is NOT science.

    Please Dr. Peterson, do answer these worrysome questions.. I have no knife :)

  152. That only some of the emails were leaked raises the very interesting question of the process by which the leaked emails were selected. Tom Petersen invites us to infer that some malicious person went through all Phil Jones’ emails and picked out only the most incriminating. I find this unlikely. So if not all emails were leaked, how were the leaked ones selected?

    As I understand it the CRU was resisting/ignoring several FOIA requests at the time. It seems quite likely that data responsive to these FOIA requests may have been assembled at some point just in case, but then not actually released. Perhaps what was dumped on the net was such a cache of assembled information.

  153. William McClenney says:
    Personally, I rather doubt it is possible for this long practicing scientist to effectively communicate the contempt that we hold for the rather young science of climatology, and the even lower esteem that we have for climatologists.

    Now here I think I can mount a defence of the subject. Climate is a long term phenomena and any change occurring over periods of less than a decade really aren’t meaningful. So, in essence we can boil down the whole of this global warming “theory” into 16 decadal measurements from 1851 to 2011.

    Now that we’ve had the first measurement of this century, what have the climate “scientists” got to do for the next 9 years of the decade except speculate and discuss the last 16 data points?

    There is simply so little real data in global warming “science” that the whole of the measurement system could be done by three people almost literally sitting in the pub once a month with a laptop spreadsheet whilst watching football on TV.

    That’s the science of global warming and what on earth was left to these guys to do for the remaining 99% of the time except make wild speculations and because they can’t honestly create new data, what other alternative did they have to expand their subject other than to try to find new ways to “interpret” the same data to better “explain” their speculative theories.

    The devil makes work for idle hands, and perhaps if those in related fields like geology and archaeology and weather forecasting had paid closer attention to what these guys were doing, then they would have paid more heed to what the data really said rather than what they wanted it to say and we wouldn’t have created such a contemptible subject.

  154. “But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science”

    Precautionary principle. So why the hell aren’t we building massive installations up in space to counter the proven threat of asteroids dropping on our heads? Oh, I know, the luddites in the green movement wouldn’t like that, it would in no way damage capitalism and probably get us no closer to their socialist utopia.

  155. 6/26/2007. 12:10pm

    “Does the Congressman[Linder] know what he is asking for? I’m afraid the answer is yes and no.
    Yes: I personally expect the Congressman knows exactly what he is asking for:
    he is asking for all the information that we use so that the climate skeptic folks at climateaudit.org can try to find problems with our methodologies and results…..”

    Guess who wrote that mail? You won’t find it in the climategate stack of stuff.
    No this isn’t a tease for more better stuff to follow.

  156. To continue what I was saying. Global warming “science” is really the “science” of 16 data points and the next one isn’t due for another decade.

    If some gets appointed to a senior post today, they can spend 9 years of a honeymoon period making wild speculations about past data without the cumbersome detail of any new data to contradict them.

    Then, after 9 years of wild speculation, they can ignore any new data that doesn’t agree with their wild speculation as “an outlier”, giving them another 10 years a free time to continue with their wild speculation aka “science career”, finally retiring on a huge government pension just before the next result is due.

    In other words, this is a subject where the senior guys can spend their whole career at a senior level pontificating from on high about their pet politically inspired view of the world without ever once having the burden of explaining why their “theories” didn’t match the data.

  157. But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science

    Seems the esteemed Dr. James Hansen concurs.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/17/china-style-dictatorship-of-climatologists/

    http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/hansen-us-democracy-not-competent-to-deal-with-global-warming-calls-on-communist-china-to-save-humanity/

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/hansen-chinese-communists-have-to-lead.html

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/1/12/more-green-tirades-against-democracy.html

    Somehow I missed hearing about these enlightened views of Dr. Hansen until I noticed the Washington Times piece, where Climate Depot was mentioned. Went there, found these links.

    I think all WUWT readers should examine Dr. Hansen’s remarks. And wonder exactly what Hansen’s fellow (C)AGW-accepting climatologist Dr. Peterson means by “…we cannot afford to wait…” As well as what “we” are willing to do instead of waiting.

  158. Re my previous post:

    I read, I wrote, I proofread, I checked there were no WUWT articles about it, then whipped up a snack and ate, proofread again, hit Post…

    And find Anthony had slipped in his piece!

    *groan* Well at least the other links are nice to have.

  159. How can Dr P know that the released Climategate emails were a biassed sample?

    I suppose good ole honest Phil told him.

    How about he gets ALL GOHP’s emails and lets us decide.

  160. Nick wrote (8:29 am):

    “On the basis of prediction, they have failed dismally, The theory is wrong.”

    Aye, there’s the rub. If Dr. Peterson wishes to stand or fall by the content of his science, may he make falsifiable predictions. A statement such as “If the UAH MSU stays below +0.6C for the next decade, at New Year 2021 I will concede defeat and declare the AGW theory refuted,” would show his integrity.

  161. From Brent Hargreaves on January 18, 2011 at 2:49 am:

    Aye, there’s the rub. If Dr. Peterson wishes to stand or fall by the content of his science, may he make falsifiable predictions. A statement such as “If the UAH MSU stays below +0.6C for the next decade, at New Year 2021 I will concede defeat and declare the AGW theory refuted,” would show his integrity.

    From this would come the deadline of “before New Year 2021″ for Dr. Peterson et al to maneuver the installation of “qualified individuals” to facilitate the “scientifically valid adjustments” to the UAH satellite records to ensure that doesn’t happen. ☺

  162. Dr. Peterson writes:
    A scientist’s response to both knives and illogic tends to be more science
    -Sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed science

    A statement which I would have immediately agreed with 20 years ago, but what climategate has demonstrated is yet another example of the failure of peer review in science. The delusion that since everyone who is working in the same area agrees with ones conclusions then ones research findings must be true may be of no consequence if one is studying mating habits of mosquitoes. In the area of climate “science” the incestuous relationship between statist politicians and proponents of CAGW threatens fundamental freedoms and external auditing of CAGW conclusions is mandatory.

    The effect of factors unrelated to the subject being studied is well known in medical research and researchers are required to list in detail the sources of their funding and if they sit on pharmaceutical company advisory boards. The role of politics in climate “science” is paramount and I am immediately suspicious of any research that is funded by a government which will use the results as the basis for increased regulation or to increase taxes. Scientists working in such areas should be subject to the same sort of scrutiny as medical researchers who have to indicate whether they own significant amounts of stock in the drug company whose drug they are researching.

    Almost two decades before climategate, Dr. E. Suter published a paper entitled Guns in the medical literature, a failure of peer review which provided an damning indictment of the research findings of researchers who had anti-gun views and published numerous papers supporting their views in such prestigious journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine. This was an example of political interference with science and fortunately the majority of Americans saw through the invalid conclusions from this “peer reviewed” research.

    When I see a medical paper in the area of pharmacology whose funding is from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, I immediately downgrade the significance of the paper in my mind as my experience has been that researchers funded by NIDA tend to publish alarmist interpretations of pharmacology. As one of the primary drives of most grant supported scientists is to obtain future research grants, then publishing papers whose views reflect those of the granting agency occurs.

    Climate science is not a difficult discipline. The raw data is available to anyone who has a computer and sufficient disk storage for temperature records. 20 years ago performing calculations of mean world temperature required computing capacity which was only available to universities but now every person with a PC has the equivalent of a 1980’s supercomputer on their desktop. This is an area which is well within the reach of any amateur climatologist and people who frequent WUWT have an impressive array of academic credentials. If they fail to replicate results of “peer reviewed” climate science then it is likely that the inbred climate “science” establishment is at fault, not the non-government grant supported amateur scientists.

    It is no longer sufficient to state that a paper is “peer reviewed”, but one must also indicate the source of the research grants and personal interest that the authors of the paper have in their conclusions. I only hope that climategate doesn’t lead to a massive public distrust of science.

  163. “But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science…”

    And there we have it. Scientific enquiry not required when you know you are right. He is then a soothsayer not a scientist: the precautionary principle trumps all.

    Dr Peterson and his chums had plenty of time to engage in civilised, scientific discussion with other scientists and the general public but took the view they did not see why they should. The pervading reason as emphasised by Dr Jones in one of his uttering, and echoed by Dr Peterson that people might try to prove them wrong, or they would get bogged down in “pseudo-scientific nonsense”. Hubris!

    I found this quote attributed to Darwin of which Dr Peterson should take note:

    “False views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for everyone takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened”.

  164. Graham says:
    January 17, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    “–Just ask Galileo” (re heliocentrism, no doubt!)
    If only. He would turn in his grave at the thought that his lonely courageous stand against a corrupt or pig ignorant establishment would be twisted so perversely in defence of to-day’s corrupt or pig ignorant establishment.

    @ ScientistForTruth January 17, 2011 at 10:03 am:
    “Heliocentrism would have caught on a lot quicker if he hadn’t tried to paint those who were sceptical of his views – including the Pope, who was originally his friend – as ignorant fools.” They were just that.

    ********************************************************

    No, this is naive. Sure, some scientists and historians and playwrights have distorted the history to make Galileo’s position seem like a “lonely courageous stand against a corrupt or pig ignorant establishment”, but that is just junk history. Sure, the Roman Catholic church was a corrupt establishment; everything else in that sentence is false. The establishment was by no means ‘pig ignorant’, nor were those who defended geocentrism ‘ignorant fools’. Sure, by and large, the establishment didn’t agree with Galileo, though many Jesuit astronomers did. Although the counter arguments now seem to have been wrong (no parallax detected, vertical projectiles not falling sideways etc) Galileo had no real answers to the objections. Although he had abandoned the Aristotelian idea of geocentrism, he still clung to the idea that circular motion was essential, even though Kepler showed that the planets move in ellipses. Galileo was rude to Kepler, and just about anyone else who didn’t agree with him. Had he published his work as a theory there would have been no problem, but he went about promoting it as a fact and regarding everyone else as stupid who did not agree with him: he was arrogant and unpleasant to the point of rudeness. Considering he enraged one of his best friends (who became Pope) by breaking his agreement with him and painting him into a dialogue as a fool, and for persisting in publishing his views when Europe was fighting the bitter Thirty Years War over religion, Galileo was lucky not to come out worse than he did. Yes, Galileo was right on a few things, we now know with the benefit of hindsight, but the establishment was not ignorant (though it was, ultimately, wrong) and Galileo should not be painted as some sort of martyr for science – he would have been far more effective if he had behaved reasonably and honourably.

  165. “-Sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed science
    -What we do best
    -And in the end it will win the day
    –Just ask Galileo”

    I agree with the first and third lines. The problem is with the second line. Unfortunately much of climate science may be peer-reviewed, but much of it is demonstrable garbage, more propaganda than science. But I believe that in the end honest science will indeed win the day. I just hope I live to see it. Unfortunately for Dr Peterson it will be the sceptics who will win, and it is the scientists who have abandoned science for political and personal gain who will lose.
    “Just ask Galileo”.
    Ummmm, Dr Peterson, you seem to have forgotten something rather important. In his day Galileo was the sceptic. He was a “the world goes around the sun denier”. Of course, in the long run scientific sceptics often turn out to be right.
    In fact Galileo is a hero of mine precisely because he was a sceptic.
    Chris

  166. Chris Wright says:
    January 18, 2011 at 5:46 am
    “In his day Galileo was the sceptic. He was a “the world goes around the sun denier”. ”

    Think you mean “the sun goes around the world denier”.

    Why all this adulation of Galileo, anyway? He didn’t believe that the planets were attracted to the sun but that they went in perfect circles because that was perfect motion – an Aristotelian dogma. He opposed Kepler who had data showing that the planets move in ellipses – and Kepler knew about the sun’s attraction: he was within a whisker of Newton’s law of gravitation, and was trying to figure out what the ‘power’ of the distance factor in the denominator should be. When Newton postulated that it was a square law he proved it by demonstrating that this was consistent with Kepler’s laws. In 1604 Kepler had published showing the inverse square law for light. The first published work defending heliocentrism, after Copernicus, was by Kepler in 1596, which he sent to prominent astronomers and patrons in 1597, and he worked out the laws of planetary motion in several important publications up to 1621. Galileo only built a telescope in 1609 after he learned how to make one when in Venice, and others were using telescopes before him and drawing pictures of the moon. Kepler improved telescopic optics in 1611 by substituting a convex lens for an eyepiece, allowing much higher magnification. Kepler’s ‘Epitome of Copernican Astronomy’ (seven books, completed 1621) was read all over Europe and by 1630 was the most popular astronomy textbook, supporting heliocentrism, with planets following elliptical paths due to helio-attraction (unlike Galileo’s idea of perfect circular motion, where they moved in perfect circles because they were NOT acted upon by a force – a bastard Aristotelian concept). Galileo’s ‘Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems’ came out in 1632, very, very late in the game, and Galileo’s troubles through this were almost entirely his own making: political and personal rather than scientific.

  167. Dr. Peterson,
    Thank you for taking the time to respond.
    Here is some feedback, based on years in finance, operations and international dispute resolution:
    – the defense of the e-mails fails. The selected release more than shows probable cause to investigate whether those exposed in the e-mails were up to what they appear to have been doing. The reasonable approach in normal industries when leaks like this occurs is to investigate more, not less. Each of the four ‘inquiries’ carefully avoided doing any sort of actual reviews.
    Positioning yourself to defend the continued non-investigations does not put you on the side of the angels.
    – in light of Tuscon, why do you keep using violence-laden metaphors? I am not aware of opinion leaders in the skeptics community implying violence. I am, however, aware of a distressing number of AGW opinion leaders who do. Do you want to join that unseemly group?
    The fight is about non-falsifiable theories of AGW promoters, their efforts to hide data, suppress dissent and demean critics, all to the effect of imposing radical, amazingly expensive polices that are shown to not work as intended or at all.
    Why talk about knives and not fighting?
    The fight will continue until the climate science consensus loses its social power.
    – The focus on marketing (messaging) is a tell that you do not really have the science.
    The more you focus on the marketing efforts, the more plain that is.
    Just some notes from the field.
    I urge you to consider them.

  168. Congratulations to both Dr. Tom Peterson and to Anthony Watts — a significant advance in civil conversation.

    Some of my fellow posters here seem to be unable to give up the knife fight and engage in the improved conversation. Silly intellectual blood lust, IMHO.

  169. Galileo wrote ‘on the tides’ and was completely wrong because of his dogma. He mocked Kepler for suggesting that it was the moon’s gravitational attraction that caused the tides.

    “If the earth ceased to attract the waters of the sea, the seas would rise and flow into the moon…”

    “If the attractive force of the moon reaches down to the earth, it follows that the attractive force of the earth, all the more, extends to the moon and beyond”

    Galileo thought that he should get people to laugh at such ideas. But Kepler was streets ahead of Galileo. Although he did not quite derive that it was a square law (which he had demonstrated for light) he knew that gravitational attraction was proportional to the masses of the attracting bodies and inversely proportional to a a factor of their separation. Galileo could have politely disagreed (and been wrong), but chose mockery of Kepler instead.

    Kepler was pretty close to getting there:

    “Gravity is a mutual corporeal disposition among kindred bodies to unite or join together; thus the earth attracts a stone much more than the stone seeks the earth… If two stones were placed anywhere in space near to each other, and outside the reach of force of (other bodies), then they would come together…at an intermediate point, each approaching the other in proportion to the other’s mass.”

  170. Dr Petersen deserves some credit for taking up Anthony’s offer and I applaud him for that. Anthony, kudos to you for offering Dr Petersen this forum to explain himself.
    One of the facets of this discussion and of Dr Petersen’s comments that fascinates me is the idea that civilised professionals in the 21st century might take weapons along with them to settle arguments. This highlights a psychological aspect of American society wherein protagonists in a discussion go as far as to perceive themselves as embattled and anonymous historical characters which, to me, seems juvenile and silly. Life is not a game of ‘Cowboys and Injuns’ which most boys in the Western world played until it become definitely non-PC to refer to Native Americans as ‘Injuns’ and we all grew up and learned that the ‘Cowboys’ were not always pure and morally upright and that the ‘Injuns’ were frequently the good guys..
    Most of the mythology of the ‘Wild West’ is just that, but some Americans seem to have a deep psychological need to see themselves as the mythological good cowboys who always wore white 10-gallon hats.
    As I see it, Dr Petersen, you do not qualify for a white 10-gallon hat as you fired a nasty sneak shot at a reputation from behind the saloon; this shot was the term ‘Climate Fraudit’. Cowboys who qualify for white hats have a code; they are so expert at what they do, including being amazingly fast on the draw, they always wait for their opponent to go for their six-guns first, they always tell the truth and they always face life squarely and with honour.
    And sorry, Dr Petersen, but casting yourself as taking a similar position on science and truth as Galileo did is just a transparent piece of utter silliness.

  171. Mods;
    I clicked ‘post comment’ and the comment immediately become lost in the ether;
    I won’t post it again as it is now nearing my tea-time. No doubt it will pop up at some time.
    Thanks [it went into the spam filter which happens for several reasons but the wrong 'uns largely get put back into the debate]

  172. @Ian H January 18, 2011 at 12:53 am:

    That only some of the emails were leaked raises the very interesting question of the process by which the leaked emails were selected. Tom Petersen invites us to infer that some malicious person went through all Phil Jones’ emails and picked out only the most incriminating. I find this unlikely.

    A: Dr. P’s term “malicious person” argues that the attitudes in the emails themselves was not malicious, but that a whistleblower’s actions are. (It has never been determined that the release was an outside job, so an internal whistleblower is very much still on the table.)

    B: Unlikely? I do expect that it is very likely that the emails were targeted and not random. At the same time, I do not believe that all the damaging ones have been released. The other shoe may yet be dropped.

    So if not all emails were leaked, how were the leaked ones selected?

    As I understand it the CRU was resisting/ignoring several FOIA requests at the time. It seems quite likely that data responsive to these FOIA requests may have been assembled at some point just in case, but then not actually released. Perhaps what was dumped on the net was such a cache of assembled information.

    This logic would work if these emails were not damaging ones, but were on-topic for a FOIA request. They are anything but that.

  173. Steve McIntyre:
    January 17, 2011 at 8:44 am

    And I’ll bet that trip to Hawaii was via CO2-spewing jet. Failing to practice what one preaches is called hypocrisy.

  174. Impressive that Dr. Peterson took the whole 3.5 minutes to write this staccato response. Heart warming that he did not engage a communicator to deliver the message. His comment, however, is not on AGHG warming or on “climate change” it is about the corruption of science. There may be more pleasant ways to corrupt science but the surest of all is engaging communicators. They will come up with a story, not with science.

  175. But unlike heliocentrism, we cannot afford to wait a century for views
    on climate change to catch up to climate science

    Correction: we cannot wait a century for climate “science” to start resembling actual science, because these people want to spend trillions of our dollars right now.

  176. “Lesson 3: Collaborate with communicators”
    “You’re in a knife fight and need to fight back”
    “partnering with communicators can help bridge the gap
    -From nerdy scientists like myself to regular people.”
    How typically delusional, as well as patronizing of “regular people”. Paterson, no matter how much lipstick you paint on your CAGW pig, it still doesn’t change the fact that it’s a pig. A knife fight? That’s hilarious. Climategate alone was an atomic blast against your side. November 2 was another.
    So, go ahead and deploy your “science communicators”. Just more cannon fodder.

  177. @Feet2the Fire, 8.57 am
    “This logic would work …. etc”

    Being of a devious nature I think it would work:
    Jonesy and friends don’t want to risk breaking the law over FOI unless they really, really have to, but they cannot know what further FOI requests may come at any time.
    So, they create a special folder/file/cache (or whatever) and systematically sift through their past Emails over a period to displace any that might prove embarrassing, with a view to ‘losing’ them if necessary as a last resort.
    Someone within the unit then finds them, is not happy, so contrives to release them anonymously.
    It makes much more sense than an outsider hacking everything and then trying to select which are worth releasing – after all, who better knows what is embarrassing than the author/recipient?
    (Who knows – if Mann’s archive is ever forced into daylight it may prove to have those very same Emails now missing, which would be awful for them all!)

  178. Seems like the file released from UEA contained about the sorts of files; e-mails and code and the like, that would comply with an FOI request; and seeing that such a request was on file; then it seems that the released file; was it FOIA2009, contained only the materials being requested.

    Maybe that is why it didn’t contain all the unrelated e-mails of Phil Jones. Remind me again; what was the name of the gal who was convicted of stealing all those files illegally; I can’t seem to remember who it was now; it’s been so long.

  179. @ ScientistForTruth January 18, 2011 at 5:12 am says
    “…the establishment was not ignorant (though it was, ultimately, wrong) and Galileo should not be painted as some sort of martyr for science – he would have been far more effective if he had behaved reasonably and honourably.”

    Disingenuous spin. Galileo’s experience is a most apt analogy to-day. Your statement may be rephrased as: A section of “the establishment (is) not ignorant (though it (is) wrong)” and hideously corrupted. The rest of the establishment is pig ignorant. Sceptics would be “far more effective if (the establishment) had behaved reasonably and honourably.”

  180. From Peterson’s Lesson 2 he says, “Only a small percentage of Phil Jones’ emails on that server were released
    -The subset that was released was not random.”
    This suggests to me, if Jones was not the leaker, that someone else had access to many or all of Jones’ emails. It could be that, as George E Smith says above, ” that the released file; was it FOIA2009, contained only the materials being requested. Maybe that is why it didn’t contain all the unrelated e-mails of Phil Jones.”
    Or could it be that the subset emails (FOIA2009?) were taken out so as to be NOT included in the FOI request, as they are (presumably) the most damning. Just a thought.

  181. Mr. Peterson (Dr.?, I think I remember some issue about this title but nevermind), if you are still reading any of these comments I would like to send you a serious message.

    You may still believe that you sit on the righteous side of the table, but it is important to realize that whether or not your side of table turns out to right, wrong, somewhat right etc., history will not judge your side well at all.

    The behavior of you, Trenberth, Mann, Rahmstorff, Jones et al and others on the Team will be used as a textbook example of noble cause corruption. You really need to read up on the subject, take a deep breath and do a good deal of introspection.

    You will also be compared in history of Science classes to Lysenko or worse. Students will be asked to write essays comparing and contrasting your actions.

    The walled garden you call science is wilting and dying for a lack of sunlight. Defections are occurring from the inside as this behavior continues.

    You have to realize WHETHER YOUR IDEAS ARE CORRECT OR NOT, you and the post modern team you work with are no longer doing or researching anything which could be called “Science”. By refusing to confront challenges to ideas, whether you are withholding information of any kind, or by evasive verbage, or hurling invectives, or playing politics to push your ideas, you are simply advocates and tellers of tale. You may write sciency-sounding papers and get them fast-tracked into the most prestigious of journals, but you are simply wearing a mask of science, with no science beneath the mask.

    Science is about being open to criticism, in fact seeking out the most shattering and difficult criticism you can find, in order to validate your ideas.

    Free the data. Free the code. Free the communication. Free the process. End the circling of the wagons. Invite challenge.

    You’ll sleep better.

  182. So, it seems that random snapshots of the gang leaving in the getaway car aren’t reflective of the actual crime. Hmmm.

  183. James Sexton

    we’re not building new nuclear plants. At least not anywhere near what is necessary.

    Something we can agree on then, and an issue where you would also be in agreement with James Hansen. On this at least, does it really matter so much why we want to build nuclear power stations, whether it’s as a way of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions or as a way of having a cheap and safe energy supply? What matters is that we get more of them up and running.

    We’ve come up with a wonderful scheme to turn a food source into a fuel source for motorized vehicles. Brilliant!

    I also agree with you on this one, assuming your “wonderful” and “Brilliant!” are meant sarcastically, which I thnk they are, but the fact that Bush & co. tried to pretend they were promoting biofuels for environmental reasons was completely bogus (as bogus as the alleged environmental benefits of these fuels) just a PR stunt to obscure the actual motives which were financial. Still, that’s all history now.

  184. Roger Otip says:
    January 19, 2011 at 5:00 pm (Edit)

    steven mosher

    In all of his private communications with me and his public communications, steve has never suggested that Mann is a fraud.

    In fact, he’s asked people to stop claiming that the hockey stick is fraudulent. I applaud him for that and I hope the people making those claims take heed of his words.

    OK.

    So, since the Mann-made Hockey Stick is dead wrong, deliberately wrong, completely inaccurate and distorts what (little) valid data can be extracted from tree cores, what does “your” endorsement of S. Mosher reveal about your thought process and your knowledge and your judgment?

Comments are closed.