The website Gore Lied wrote:
…he also actually pondered, “how do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?”, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
Dr. Douglas Maraun, a scientist at the Climatic Reasearch Unit at the University of East Anglia wrote to his colleages in an e-mail on October 24, 2007. Dr. Maraun, who seems to have more of a conscience than many of his colleagues, had some concerns which he wished to address in a “discussion seminar” to be held in the coffee room that afternoon. Among Dr. Maraun’s points he wished to discuss were:
-How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.
Here’s the full email:
2007 11:05:20 +0100
from: “Douglas Maraun” <REDACTED>
subject: Informal Seminar TODAY
to: REDACTED
Dear colleagues,
I’d like to invite all of you to todays discussion seminar, 4pm in the
coffee room:
“Climate science and the media”
After the publication of the latest IPCC, the media wrote a vast
number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them
greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time
and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement.
However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing
or political correctness. Furthermore, recently and maybe especially
after the “inconvenient truth” case and the Nobel peace prize going to
Al Gore, many irritated and sceptical comments about so-called
“climatism” appeared also in respectable newspapers.
Against the background of these recent developments, we could discuss
the relation of climate science to the media, the way it is, and the
way it should be.
In my opinion, the question is not so much whether we should at all
deal with the media. Our research is of potential relevance to the
public, so we have to deal with the public. The question is rather how
this should be done. Points I would like to discuss are:
-Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and
are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this?
-How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think,
that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not
especially honest.
-How should we deal with popular science like the Al Gore movie?
-What is the difference between a “climate sceptic” and a “climate denier”?
-What should we do with/against exaggerations of the media?
-How do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?
-Should we comment on the work/ideas of climate scepitics?
If you have got any further suggestions or do think, my points are not
interesting, please let me know in advance.
See you later,
Douglas
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
Dr. Douglas Maraun
Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
REDACTED3857
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~douglas
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Weathering Man-Made Climate Change
“Poverty, not global warming, is the cause of death and destruction in the face of extreme weather.”
. . . . “boosting the wealth of poor people through economic growth is their best protection against meteorological disasters in the long run, whether fueled by future man-made climate change or not.”
http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/22/weathering-man-made-climate-change
How do they deal with errors? They grab a broom and do like any entry-level employee at a burger joint that can’t find a dustpan and finds a throw rug handy. It’s that easy.
My guess is that if they had listened to and addressed Douglas Maraun’s message then we would not be discussing these emails. He sounds a lot like Judy Curry.
Water is wet???
Where in science101 does it state that if your data is a bit dodgy, or incomplete and there is uncertainty, lie!?
That is not science. That is marketing, or politics or religion. It is not science.
I would love to know the answer to these questions first please:
-What is the difference between a “climate sceptic” and a “climate denier”?
-What should we do with/against exaggerations of the media?
As far as I can tell:
Everyone who is not Pro-Cause is a denier.
Anything which is Pro-Cause is never questioned by the “team” (exaggeration or not).
Maybe Dr Douglas Maraun will come on here and tell us what was decided at the meeting and the answers to those questions…
Maybe I should not hold my breath…
What is evident from this email & Climategate 2.0 in general is there is a lot of internal doubt & dissent within the climate community which is being squashed & not seeing the light of day (unitl now). It really shows that there are very few “true believers” – most would be put in the “luke warmers” camp, not the alarmist camp, but the alarmist clearly controls the message – probably because they have the most at stake from a financial / political standpoint – can’t keep their power without an alarmist message.
The positive part of this is that is appears to be a few bad apples spoiling the whole cart & there are plenty of reasonable climate scientists out there – they just need to speak up
WOW…. Sounds like a man with a conscience ,must have been as welcome as a fart in a space suit at CRU
EDIT.
it seems that the good doctor is still at CRU
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/#Associate Fellows
Would Maraun know how to encrypt using 7z?
I think the vast majority of these scientists started off with wonderful intentions, dreams of Jorel.
The problem they built was they followed the bright shiny R&D funding gong back to the source and realized politicians will sign up to fund just about anything that makes them look like they love Gaia and are saving the world.
But once the politicians spend $$$$$Trillions of dollars on capturing low energy puffs & winds and rays of sunshine, they needed the scientists to keep up their end of the deal and keep producing the science required to justify the massive shoveling of public funds from Education, Healthcare and road repairs to wonderful, kumbayah, greenie dreams.
And professional politicians will always whipsaw some university professor type.
Yes, Minister.
In November 2009, some photos of Mr Fox appeared on the internet. No one
knew who released the photos, but they showed Mr Fox covered with blood and
feathers with a dead chook in his mouth.The background looked like the inside of
the henhouse. Mr Farmer was said to be appalled.
People who thought Mr Fox had been killing chickens for some time were quick to
declare that this was overwhelming evidence. Incontrovertible, they said.
Obviously, an independant inquiry would be needed. Mrs Fox was of course the
obvious choice to head the investigation. Parrallel investigations were also
launched by Mr Weasel and Ms. Stoat.
Mr Fox was asked for an explanation and was quickly able to answer all their
questions.
They rapidly concluded their investigations and completely exonerated Mr Fox.
They had asked him to explain, and he did. The photos had been stolen. They
were private property and had been taken out of context.
The investigations felt there was no case to answer.
Mr Farmer declared the investigations to be a whitewash, but then he would
wouldn’t he.
In November 2011 some more photos of Mr Fox emerged on the net. What
appeared to be Mr Fox’s hands were shown to be wrapped around the throat of a
dying rooster.
Mr Fox is reported as saying
“Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at
all”.
Maybe the psychologists need to to invent a new disease: Climaphobia: Fear of climate change.
So Gore is a Climaphobe. Terminal case. Pity.
I note that he sees a difference between scepticism and denial. If only most of those on the warm side of the argument exhibited the same ability to discriminate.
What I get from all this is simply “why are scientists discussing this”?
Running through the whole thing is the fact that these are primarily activists. Always worrying how people will view their results. It is therefore the smallest step to assume they are only going to get the results they need to support that activism.
Everything else is just noise. They are simply activists who have been given credibilty.
Rats, taken already (fear of climbing). Have to go with Climatophobia.
Yes, fancy that. Honest, skeptical (and I mean that in the Feynmanian sense of a skilled practicioner assuming imperfection in all human endeavor) voices at CRU.
By contrast, Mann sounds like something right out of the Nixon White House. The Mike snippets in this release make it all the more important that ATI’s efforts re UVA succeed.
Humm do we have our wistleblower?
What we need are more lukewarmers at the top of the climate change people. Mann, Jones and all those lot should be relegated to have as much power as us “denialists” have now days. This way more science and less politics will be made.
There’s so much wrong in climate science today. Ideally, all science should be like what those ‘faster than light neutrinos’ people practice. But that isn’t how the world works. There are no neutrino lobbyists or neutrino taxes imposed on the world, are there?
I am guessing Dr Maraun’s career in climate research came to a screeching halt shortly after the distribution of this email.
I first note the word “consensus” in relation to “global warming” mentioned in a Times Daily article on August 31, 1990 in the context of the Sundsvall, Sweden conference of the IPCC under Bert Bolin.
I note that it is not “deniers” who push the idea of “consensus” but quite the opposite as seen in this article from “greenleft” in 1995:
There are almost 600 different “hits” on the word “consensus” in the context of “global warming” prior to 1996.
Bolin said in 1990: “While there are always uncertainties, Bolin said, there is a general scientific consensus emerging about the validity of global-warming projections”
So the notion that there is consensus is not something the “deniers” or the “skeptics” created, this is a meme created by the “warmanistas”. Any attempt by “the cause” to portray the skeptic community as creating some illusion of non-existent consensus is itself just more smoke and mirrors.
Do any of us (and please, do not use the ‘T’ word) have any idea whatsoever how much this bunch of clowns (the Scary sort) have cost us all?
The more I think about it all, the more sinister I find it. The breadth of this colossal fraud on humanity is beyond expression.
This is not a backwater scientific spat. This is genocidal in its further reaching implications.
Someone please tell me I’m wrong.
Duncan B (UK)
I am glad to see these kind of questions (nearly all rhetorical) being asked…. But I
I surmise that the coffee must have been a failure…..?
Yeah. Pretty much.
come on, this guy is marginally in opposition. The whistleblower is most likely someone who is in IT as East Anglia. Wasn’t there an analysis posted on WUWT after the first email dump by someone who knew IT matters which demonstrated that multiple servers had to be accessed and this thing had to be an inside job done over a period of time? Also the encryption and dissemination of this information demonstrates superior knowledge of computer/server world, not a climate scientist.
Ugh.
Cardinal Maraun, the “reasonable” Inquisitor.
“Some of our torturings, burnings and drownings may have been a bit excessive.”
Fine, Cardinal, if that helps you sleep at night.