Quote of the Week- Climategate 2.0 reaction to Mann’s errors: “not honest”

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

About these ads

86 thoughts on “Quote of the Week- Climategate 2.0 reaction to Mann’s errors: “not honest”

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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…

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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”.

  8. Maybe the psychologists need to to invent a new disease: Climaphobia: Fear of climate change.
    So Gore is a Climaphobe. Terminal case. Pity.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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?

  13. I am guessing Dr Maraun’s career in climate research came to a screeching halt shortly after the distribution of this email.

  14. 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:

    The worldwide scientific community has reached consensus that global warming is inevitable if humans continue to dump “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere at anything like present rates. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and a few others. These gases act like the glass covering a greenhouse, letting sunlight in but stopping heat from escaping, thus driving up the average temperature of our earthly “greenhouse” sooner or later.

    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.

  15. 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)

  16. 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…..?

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. Mycroft says: November 23, 2011 at 11:55 am
    WOW…. Sounds like a man with a conscience

    Or a man with an agenda to adress a few problems he would rather not existed.

  20. Mann really has his panties in a twist in 0112.txt!

    Curt, I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why
    you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What
    ib earth are you thinking? You’re not even remotely correct in your reading of the report,
    first of all. The AR4 came to stronger conclusions that IPCC(2001) on the paleoclimate
    conclusions, finding that the recent warmth is likely anomalous in the last 1300 years, not
    just the last 1000 years. The AR4 SPM very much backed up the key findings of the TAR The
    Jones et al reconstruction which you refer to actually looks very much like ours, and the
    statement about more variability referred to the 3 reconstructions (Jones et al, Mann et
    al, Briffa et a) shown in the TAR, not just Mann et al. The statement also does not commit
    to whether or not those that show more variability are correct or not. Some of those that
    do (for example, Moberg et al and Esper et al) show no similarity to each other. I find it
    terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You
    are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going
    to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that
    you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense
    out in an email to these sorts charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage. shame on
    you for such irresponsible behavior! Mike Mann

    Sent to Curt Covey

  21. Duncan Binks says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    (…)
    ” This is not a backwater scientific spat. This is genocidal in its further reaching implications.

    Someone please tell me I’m wrong.”

    Yeah, someone please tell Duncan he’s wrong, because I can’t.

    Genocidal is the exact term. The whole thing from the beginning has been not simply anti-capitalist or anti-industry. It’s anti-human.

    Human beings are just viruses, sickening the body of Gaia. Eliminate human beings, and Gaia can be healthy and happy again.

  22. I don’t understand something, someone please explain…

    Michael Mann made errors???

    No, seriously, Reaclimate has been convincing me for years that there were no errors made by Michael Mann…

    /laughing hysterically at the obvious sarcasm.

  23. “Duncan Binks says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    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)”

    You are not wrong and you touch on a very important aspect of climategate. The sceptic spend a lot of energy complaining about the bad science, not the consequences. These warmists have committed a crime against humanity (and science, but that is not the reason FOIA gave for releasing the information). FOIA has chosen to point out that his/her motive for downloading and distributing the climategate emails is because it is a crime against humanity, and they want it to be stopped.

    Looks to me as if FOIA is not a scientist, but a politically motivated opportunist who came across this hoard of emails and simply copied them on to a disk. He/she seems not to be very confident about science, a scientist would have looked at what they were releaing and selected juicy bits and arranged them so that the scientific community could provide an audited narrative for future investigators to use to tear Jones and Mann apart with. (two years is a long time to twiddle your thumbs).

    I think the delay is because FOIA was frightened by the scale of what they are holding. If it is a loner it must be a scarry place to be. Something triggered this new release. It would be interesting to know what it was.

    My guess is that is was either anger over poverty, or they felt the authorities were closing in on them and they wanted to protect their position. It could have been frustration that Jones and Mann were still in position feeding their junk to the world and causing poverty. FOIA does not seem to be excercised over the purity of science, the passion is about the consequence of bad science.

  24. It might be time, in view of the recent revelations, that someone reviewed the conclusions of the different reports on the scientific behaviour of those so called “scientists” to see if those conclusions are actually supported in light of the provided context.

  25. Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:57 am
    Would Maraun know how to encrypt using 7z?

    Dear Maurizio,
    I always enjoy your contributions here. I don’t always understand everything you say, but you say it well.
    I am just an old country doctor, but I think I can answer this (rhetorical) question. I have been known to stare at my shoelaces before successfully tying them. But even I know how to encrypt using 7z.
    Your friend, Henry

  26. Cliategate 2. I’m Lovin every minute of it!

    I noticed in a few emails made by some of the scientists – I detected an honest attempt to bring some honesty, common sense and a touch of decency to the IPPC fraud-feast, sadly as we have known all along most seemed to be totally corrupt!
    Here are some decent attempts I’m sure there are more and we should congratulate them, all the apples in a barrel can’t be bad as evidenced by these few examples!

    Dr. Maraun:
    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.

    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.

    -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?

    *******************************************************************************************************************
    Coe:
    Swiss researcher Heinz Wanner writes: ‘In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I crit[i]cized [...] the Mann hockey[s]tick [...] My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times…I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science’

    Bradley:
    I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year”reconstruction”.

    Esper:
    Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why don’t you want to let the result into science?

    Cook:
    I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.

    Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]

    Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

    Wigley: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

    Cook:
    “One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not know where his estimates are coming from.”
    Disgraced British climate professor, Phil Jones is mired as much as Mann for his part in the sleazy cover up.

  27. OT- More good news:
    One more nail in the coffin of the Global warming farce – Google green Czar gone.

    Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/23/us-google-idUSTRE7AM03220111123

    (Reuters) – Google Inc has abandoned an ambitious project to make renewable energy cheaper than coal, the latest target of Chief Executive Larry Page’s moves to focus the Internet giant on fewer efforts.
    Google said on Tuesday that it was pulling the plug on seven projects, including Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal
    Google began making investments and doing research into technology to drive down the price of renewable energy in 2007, with a particular focus on solar power technology.
    In 2009, the company’s so-called Green Energy Czar, Bill Weihl, told Reuters that he expected to demonstrate within a few years working technology that could produce renewable energy at a cheaper price than coal.
    “It is even odds, more or less,” Weihl said at the time. “In three years, we could have multiple megawatts of plants out there.”
    A Google spokesman said that Weihl had left Google earlier this month.
    ************************************************************************************************************
    Congratulations Google, Glad business acumen has returned in the most successful technology company. Sadly the scam is still sucking billions of taxpayer money. When will it be over?
    You managed to learn what everybody else did in the 70s–renewable just doesn’t work as well as fossil and nuke and throwing a bunch of computer science professors at it won’t change anything. Anyway, the take-home point from the company’s ongoing realignment is that, like a lot of large organizations, they were spending far too much time and energy on multiple competing projects with marginal commercial or goodwill value. Unlike a lot of large organizations, Google doesn’t have the luxury of relying on corporate welfare to offset the gross inefficiency.
    Google’s new email format is terrible. The company’s searches are becoming less and less useful. If I were an exec, I would focus on core businesses

  28. I’d like to invite all of you to todays discussion seminar, 4pm in the
    coffee room:

    How do you all feel about Piltdown Man?

  29. Who knows what’s in the “all.7z” file, but:
    It seems Dr. Douglas Maraun may have a “get out of jail free …..” card.
    Probably a highly prized possession at this point of the game.

  30. “Dave says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Climategate 2. I’m Lovin every minute of it!”

    Has Dr. Tim Ball’s lawyer gotten a hold of you yet? : -)

  31. Werner Brozek says:
    November 23, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    “Dave says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Climategate 2. I’m Lovin every minute of it!”

    Has Dr. Tim Ball’s lawyer gotten a hold of you yet? : -)
    Werner.
    I have had the pleasure of meeting Dr Ball and have listen to him on as many occasions in a word he is brilliant. I can honestly say I would trust him with my life, he is truly beyond reproach.
    I do plan to attend any farcical court cases against him.

  32. “-What is the difference between a “climate sceptic” and a “climate denier”?”

    One is a man-made catastrophic anthropogenic global warming sceptic and the other does not exist. ;O)

  33. Just think of how tense the atmosphere must be in the University of East Anglia and at CRU and every pro-warming institution there is on the planet.

    It seems even one of the professors (a geologist) teaching first year “Environment” at UEA was using 43 slides taken directly from Climate Audit in two of his class presentations. We’ve got other UAE scientists posting on Climate Audit and WUWT and exchanging emails with the blog hosts.

    Obviously, some of the scientists are not in favor of the exaggeration that is going on. To have an office on the same floor and across the hallway from Jones, Wigley and Hulme must have been extremely stressful. One has to mind their Ps and Qs or careers are at risk.

    Even in this atmosphere, many of the scientists are speaking out. Many are privately communicating their doubts in the emails and requesting attendance at in-house seminars.

    The private expression of doubt is the most important thing in the Climategate emails (I and II). We should use the emails to request more public expression of doubt/correction of the facts from the pro-scientists and the doubters.

  34. RE: Dave: (November 23, 2011 at 1:26 pm)
    REF: Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy
    “In 2009, the company’s so-called Green Energy Czar, Bill Weihl, told Reuters that he expected to demonstrate within a few years working technology that could produce renewable energy at a cheaper price than coal.”

    That sounds a lot like the promise of Kirk Sorensen’s thorium reactor technology, if ‘renewable’ refers to ‘indefinite sustainability’ due to the abundance of thorium. While some of its proponents are motivated by CAGW fears and talk at length on how this technique will save our ‘endangered’ environment by putting the fossil fuel industry out of business, we might need that source of cheap energy if the ‘Peak Oil’ warnings come true, either due to diminishing available fossil or abiotic carbon, international unrest, or if we cannot obtain energy from foreign sources due to the burden of our national debt.

    I believe there is no way anyone could ever say that the poster renewable energy sources, wind and solar power, might be made cheaper than ‘Carbon Power.’

  35. Where is there any mention of science in this e-mail? If this e-mail had all references to AGW removed, then it could be a memo to a sales team trying to sell cars, washing machines, computers etc etc. Alternatively, it could be from a political party or TV evangelist. The one thing they all have in common? Make our product/ethos sound better than the others!
    This is not science but PR of the worst and most deceitful kind.
    As for Michael Mann telling everyone that these e-mails are all taken out of context; what about this one? In which context is this one out of? Science, maybe?

  36. Ken Hall says at 11:45 am on November 23, 2011
    “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”

    Please don’t trash other disciplines! It isn’t marketing, or politics or religion.
    It isn’t engineering or salesmanship (salespersonship?) either.
    It is just wrong.

  37. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
    November 23, 2011 at 3:57 pm
    Interestingly, there is a blaring silence from the usual WUWT Snark Squad. Come on, guys, pipe up!
    REPLY: We don’t need snark, just reasoned retorts – Anthony>>>

    Anthony – are you seriously suggesting that the Snark Squad is capable of a reasonable retort in the defense of the indefensible?

    Despite the MSM not having jumped on this big time (yet) the fact is the trolls, even the accomplished ones, are silent. I’m with Mike on this one. Pipe up you guys! Have the kahonies to come up with a reasonable response, or else admit that you have been defending the indefensible and you all are increasingly looking like total fools for having bought into the CAGW fiction in the first place.

  38. I think he sounds like a reasonable man who simply believes differently than most of us here. Still, rather a reasonable man with whom you disagree than a fanatic who believes the same as you. Being reasonable, ie, able to be reasoned with, is the essence of learning and education. Lumping the good doctor in with all AGW scam artists is as bad as us being called deniers in a single stroke of the brush.

    Just my two cents.

  39. Whoever this FOIA clown is, he’s a cowardly scumbag. Compared to him, Julian Assange, at his worst, is a saint.
    Where is the smoking gun that destroys the AGW claims? FOIA has been in possession of (hundreds of?) thousands of e-mails for nearly at least 3 years and this is it? If he has proof that Mann et al are not telling the truth, then the world deserves to know.
    If they are being truthful, then this coy ploy of sowing dissent borders on criminal behavior.

  40. Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says: “Would Maraun know how to encrypt using 7z?”

    Useless speculation likely to get someone snuffed by the guilty parties.

  41. Anthony, mods,

    As I suggested in the John Saley thread, a back ground reader such as a link to Lucy Skywalkers devastating critique of the Yamal reconstructions along with perhaps one or two gems (there are SO many!) exposing Mann’s hockey stick would be welcomed in threads such as this. For the new comers to the debate, there is a lot of information to process, and unlike those of us who have been following the debate in detail, names like “Phil” and “Michael” and “MBH” and “Yamal” are just names. I can see how a lot of people could read those emails and think “so what?”. But have them read Lucy’s article first, and/or a good critique of MBH98, and suddenly everything is in context. That would put DMarshall’s comment above right smack dab in the middle of the “context” it deserves, and would make it clear just who is distorting the big picture and how.

  42. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/

    Found it! For those with any question in their minds as to what all the e-mail discussion about tree rings is really about, there’s your link. Lucy’s article puts all of those e-mails into their proper perspective by shining cold hard light on the Yamal travesty (the kindest words I have for it) and the article has links in it as well to additional material on both Yamal and the original Hockey Stick.

    Read those, THEN read the various e-mails. That will be the “context” anyone needs to see what those e-mails are clearly saying.

  43. davidmhoffer says:
    November 23, 2011 at 8:16 pm
    =========
    Good point.
    Maybe better yet make an app (whatever that is), send it to all elected officials, print it on toilet paper for the OWS protests, etc.
    I know Anthony is too busy, maybe someone else could do it ?

  44. Key question missing from the list: By the inherent most basic intent and definition of SCIENCE, aren’t all scientists required to be sceptics? If a Climate Scientist isn’t a skeptic, is he/she then by any stretch of the imagination still a scientist?

  45. re post by: DMarshall says: November 23, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    Whoever this FOIA clown is, he’s a cowardly scumbag. Compared to him, Julian Assange, at his worst, is a saint….

    How utterly ridiculous and twisted can a person get, to make this sort of claim? Assange has released nationally classified material that could get people quite literally killed, and/or cause serious international problems and long term difficulties with all sorts of fallout on innocent people.

    Meanwhile “this FOIA clown” has released information that legally should have been provided by UEA in response to legitimate legal FOIA requests, but which they stonewalled and stalled until it was past the absurdly short statute of limitations. There is no evidence of any illegal action – while the file may have been hacked which would be illegal, it could also far more easily and likely have been released by an insider whistle blower – which probably would not have been in any way illegal.

    Yet you make it out that somehow the individual is far worse than Assange, to the degree that Assange is a saint?? Sheesh.

  46. Here’s a quote of the week. I posted it on another thread, but I fear it may have been lost in the mix with a certain physicist’s troll comments. Poor mods. Anyway, Dr. David Viner of CRU sent this email to everyone in the unit back in 1999. Part of the text provides some pretty objective evidence that there is a confirmation bias going on. Makes wonder how Mann and Jones became friends.

    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0059.txt

    **please distribute to others who may be interested**

    We would like to invite proposals from activists working on climate campaigning.
    Following an activist and NGO meeting in March this year, attended by climate
    activists from Europe, Asia, USA, Australia and Latin America, funding was obtained to
    support two people to work on a project connected to the sixth United Nations Climate
    Convention, otherwise known as the Conference of the Parties (COP6), which will
    happen in Autumn/Winter 2000/2001. The United Nations is currently considering only
    one possible location for the meeting – den Haag, The Netherlands.

    The International working group formed after the activist and NGO meeting are looking
    for two people who would be able to create something innovative and effective with
    this funding. They will be based in a Climate research group in Portugal,
    ‘Euronatura’. The campaign will be supported by the International working group
    which has experience of United Nations negotiations, direct action, campaigning,
    economics and climate science. Groups supporting this campaign include : eyfa, Aseed,
    Carbusters Magazine, Korean Ecological Youth, Free The Planet USA, EuroNatura, Climate
    Action Network Latin America, Climate Action Network Central and Eastern Europe and
    Oilwatch Europe.

    The thing that joins these people together is the desire to work together to
    radicalise the agenda of the climate negotiations.
    The current direction of the
    negotiations cannot hope to define targets nor build mechanisms of implementation and
    compliance which will stop the currently dangerous emissions levels of Greenhouse
    Gases.

    Ideally, the collaboration between the two funded volunteers, Euronatura and the
    International working group, will touch on all aspects of climate change and the
    related campaigns of oil, forest, marine and transport. Equally, the collaboration
    will be aware of all strategies to counter the weakness of the United Nations and the
    dominance of certain lobbying groups (notably the oil and nuclear industry). The
    strategies discussed by the International working group revolve around direct action,
    research and negotiation.

    Project ideas which have been discussed are a counter/alternative meeting at the same
    time and place as the UN meeting and/or a symbolic event such as The Climate Train to
    Kyoto. Please bring YOUR ideas to us! What do you think would be the most effective
    way to radicalise the UN agenda and protect the climate from our current economic
    and political systems? There are plans for a team to work in USA on a parallel
    campaign.

    The project should begin by the end of the 1999.

    Are you a person who has the energy, skills and commitment to coordinate the European
    component of an international campaign?

    (unfortunately, the funding is only for people *under 26 years of age *from Iceland,
    Norway, Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Palestine,
    Syria, Tunisia, Turkey or any EU country)

    Please make your proposal for the campaign which you would like to be part of…

    Deadline 30th September 1999.

  47. @RationalDebate
    I’m not ridiculous or twisted – I’m blunt. If the ponderings and pandering on WUWT is to be believed, then the posturings of the Team and their supporters are the greatest threat ever to global progress and prosperity and will cost many needless lives because of actions that would not otherwise be taken or because of huge sums of money that would be wasted on pointless remediation.
    I’m implying that Assange is a saint, BY COMPARISON – whatever his motives or his character, he’s not a manipulative cherrypicker like this shadow-dwelling, bottom-feeder.
    Julian (or his group) have given warning of documents to be released and have done so, unredacted and unvarnished. .Yes, he put lives at risk, and that’s deplorable – but the fact is that the actions of those he exposed also treated human lives as worthless, and have done so for decades.
    In the recent past I’ve made a point of calling for the full release of all documentation of those who have skin in the climate game, not just those who work for universities – the argument of public vs private in this context is largely specious. If you’re an influencer, then you should be fully transparent – FOIA is a Machiavellian chickenshit.

    And, speaking of twisted – that’s a wonderfully convoluted sentence you’ve constructed of what may or may not probably might be an illegal hack or a possibly legally protected insider document release.

  48. DMarshall says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    Dear dear…meds will be coming soon. )

    DMarshall says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:48 pm
    [ " Where is the smoking gun that destroys the AGW claims? " ]

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    In religion or philosophy there are no “smoking guns”. Both are subjective speculations – conjectures.

    In science – I have to support my “claims” [ hypothesis ] – That burden becomes mine!
    AND it continues to be mine with every opposing hypothesis presented.

    Master Popper had some views to separate religion and philosophy from science.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

    DMarshall says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    [ " If he has proof that Mann et al are not telling the truth ']
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    He [ FOIA ] doesn’t need “proof”.
    It would be the same, to ask you, for evidence [ "proof" ] that Mr Mann at el ARE honest brokers.

    Especially in light of this and other emails…BTW we don’t have to rely on just emails – we have many “claims” made with the MSM which show bias….[ bias... is what separates science from religion / philosophy ] these emails, RECONFIRM that bias exist.

    [ " -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." ]

    Are they “honestly” brokering science….. OR religion?

  49. @kim2000 There are many things I don’t like about the e-mails that have been released but it’s clear that all they’re good for is to spark gossip.

    And those “claims” of “bias” cut both ways and both sides have been bickering back and forth for years. These e-mail releases don’t settle that one way or the other.
    Without full disclosure from any of the main players, on either side, then there are NO “honest brokers”
    And you’re completely missing the point about the smoking gun – the predominant belief of the anti-AGW herd is not just that Gore, Mann et al are wrong or innocently mistaken but they are deliberately duplicitous for the purpose of maintaining cushy lifestyles on the public dime, or instituting a communist agenda of world control or conspiring to keep the 3rd world down or some other speculation.
    With this vast cache of correspondence between some of the chief conspirators, there certainly must be something more substantive than “hide the decline” or “flaws in the community”.

    If FOIA were “an honest broker”, he or she would have released all the info years ago.

  50. DMarshall says:
    November 23, 2011 at 10:10 pm

    I understand what you are saying.

    BUT you see…the “smoking gun” has ALWAYS been present :)

    As soon as they introduced their bias……it became a religious / philosophical debate – Not a scientific debate.
    Bias – is the “smoking gun”.

  51. It seems in this email that Dr Moron is attempting to put powdered sugar on cow patties and pass them off as brownies. It seems to me he has partaken of too much of the post normal science crapolla and completely failed real science. Reality is not a friendly place for climate scientists…

  52. Basically, what I see is a magnification of the effect of carbon dioxide out of all proportion of reason. The MODTRAN radiative forcing plots seem to show this effect is equivalent to that of a one-foot diameter tree in the middle of a twenty* foot wide stream. Adding more CO2 just makes the tree longer in the direction of the flow.

    I can only assume this basic fact is being ignored as a result of a mutual deceptive bias by workers in the field. It may be that a concern for the environment and a worry that modern technology is poisoning the Earth may have been a determining factor for selecting climate science as a career. One less concerned with the environment may have chosen nuclear physics, electrical engineering, computer science, chemistry and so on.

    This mutual bias may be the reason that they have, probably unintentionally, woven a tissue of theories and data together to support their belief that modern society is on the brink on an environmental catastrophe. Anyone who does not accept this anointed construct is deemed ‘antiscientific denier’ and a willful despoiler of the planet.

    *[ten-foot half peak-depth width]

  53. Ian (Harry) Harris, aka Harry Read Me is the obvious suspect. Seemingly the only guy at CRU who knows anything aboout IT

  54. The e-mail states:
    “…-Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this?….”
    ……..

    I do not know about anyone else here, but I was not even interested in politics at all until the World Trade Organization tried to rob me of my livelihood and I woke up. For me indignation about the corruption in Washington DC came first and then my eyes opened to all the corruption around me. CAGW being only one of many battles in the war.

  55. DMarshall [November 23, 2011 at 7:48 pm] says:

    “Whoever this FOIA clown is, he’s a cowardly scumbag. Compared to him, Julian Assange, at his worst, is a saint. Where is the smoking gun that destroys the AGW claims? FOIA has been in possession of (hundreds of?) thousands of e-mails for nearly at least 3 years and this is it? If he has proof that Mann et al are not telling the truth, then the world deserves to know. If they are being truthful, then this coy ploy of sowing dissent borders on criminal behavior.”

    Sir, next time be sure not to forget the /SARC tag. Someone might actually take you seriously and assume you actually believe that very funny satire you posted above. ;-)

    DMarshall [November 23, 2011 at 9:48 pm] says:

    “I’m not ridiculous or twisted – I’m blunt. If the ponderings and pandering on WUWT is to be believed, then the posturings of the Team and their supporters are the greatest threat ever to global progress and prosperity and will cost many needless lives because of actions that would not otherwise be taken or because of huge sums of money that would be wasted on pointless remediation.”

    Holy crap you were serious! Well at least you seem to finally understand what some commenters here are voicing. “… the Team and their supporters are the greatest threat ever to global progress and prosperity and will cost many needless lives …”. Exactly right. Every tax dollar diverted to this religious cult (your church AGW Climatology) is wasted. But understand this, no-one, I said no-one here would care a wit if you raised your own capital (bake sales, telethons, gifts from Soros) to fund your church. As clichéd as it sounds, we’ll fight to death for your right to do that.

    Of course, in reality your real intent (Team AGW) is to steal *our* money from us and use it to finance our own destruction, Scientifically, Economically, Technologically, Politically …

    “… the argument of public vs private in this context is largely specious. If you’re an influencer, then you should be fully transparent – FOIA is a Machiavellian chickenshit.”

    Stop trying to blur the lines. If the emails involved are at all connected with taxpayer money, they are property of the taxpayer, not your personal heroes. No-one is asking for Mann or Jones’s home AOL or Hotmail accounts. However if these accounts show up in these FOIA’d releases then I suspect they will have something else to worry about later.

    So stop confusing this very simple issue. How is that you cannot grasp the concept of private and public? Are you vaguely aware of the rules and regulations of civil servants and outside contractors at all? Do you think the taxpayers are here to fund your little Pseudo-Scientific playground without oversight? Where are you in this cabal? Have you shown up in the emails yet? Why don’t you explain your stake in this game?

  56. “Duncan Binks says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    ….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.
    _________________________________
    Julian Williams in Wales says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Something triggered this new release. It would be interesting to know what it was.

    My guess is that is was either anger over poverty, or they felt the authorities were closing in on them and they wanted to protect their position. It could have been frustration that Jones and Mann were still in position feeding their junk to the world and causing poverty. FOIA does not seem to be excercised over the purity of science, the passion is about the consequence of bad science.
    __________________________________
    What I think may have been the “trigger” is the death of Friday Mukamperezida an ill young boy who was burned alive in his home as a direct result of Al Gore’s Greed.

    Al Gore is president of the New Forests Company.
    Ugandan farmers kicked off their land for New Forests Company’s carbon project http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/09/23/ugandan-farmers-kicked-off-their-land-for-new-forests-companys-carbon-project/

    I have been so angry about this that I have posted comments repeatedly including just what the the eucalyptus trees will do to the target areas; Africa, South America and the US south. As Josualdo Silva says @ September 25, 2011 at 4:39 am [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/#comment-751743 ]

    “These people are indeed on a war of extermination of life itself. Where eucalyptus are grown, nothing else will ever grown again.”

    I looked into the statement and posted the science behind that statement:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/#comment-754959

    and more information

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-767559

    Add in the farmland grab http://farmlandgrab.org/

    to what I wrote here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-767575

    And it makes a very nasty picture. I think this is what FOIA also saw, thought about, investigated and decided it was time to spike the guns of the vicious sociopaths again. Also remember Kyoto agreement expires very soon so this is the year to kill CAGW.

  57. DMarshall says:

    “Where is the smoking gun that destroys the AGW claims? FOIA has been in possession of (hundreds of?) thousands of e-mails for nearly at least 3 years and this is it? If he has proof that Mann et al are not telling the truth, then the world deserves to know.”

    Even if the emails do not prove that Mann et al are not telling the truth, they do show that the Hockey Team knew that the admitted uncertainties in their results were being ignored or played down by the IPCC and the media. They did know that sloppy work was being published in peer reviewed journals and they kept their mouths shut so long as it assisted the CAUSE. In other words Jones, Manm et al. allowed their missionary zeal to override their scientific judgement. Had they been honest they would have come forward and admitted out loud, rather than quietly amongst themselves, that there was room for doubt. As we now know, between themselves they acknowledged that McIntyre and McKitrick were correct but they still attempted to rubbish them with ad hominem attacks.

    There is a distinction between being dishonest and being untruthful, while the emails do not prove that Mann et al were untruthful they do show that they were dishonest. If AGW claims are fact why was there need for deception, dissimulation and dishonesty? And is there any reason to believe that this deception, dissimulation and dishonesty is not continuing?

  58. Bill Illis said: “To have an office on the same floor and across the hallway from Jones, Wigley and Hulme must have been extremely stressful.”
    Indeed. I read in one e-mail, that Jones was all for the (in)famous 10:10 campaign, setting a departmental taskforce of staff and students. You know, that one with the video of exploding heads titled No Pressure…
    Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness – I’ve signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it….

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1575

  59. BarryW says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Maybe the psychologists need to to invent a new disease: Climaphobia: Fear of climate change.
    So Gore is a Climaphobe. Terminal case. Pity.

    Barry, Al Gore is SCARED the climate will NOT change…

  60. “Dave says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:26 pm
    Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy”

    Apparently the stimulus money is drying up. No stimulus 2 hand-outs to friends of the government – read political campaign donors. Something about the taxpayer being broke / in hock to China.

    Google PowerMeter: A Google.org Project
    We are pleased that PowerMeter helped demonstrate the importance of access to energy information, and created a model for others. We retired the service on September 16, 2011.

    http://www.google.com/powermeter/about/

  61. [SNIP: Site rules require a valid e-mail address and common courtesy requires you to be on topic. Spamming blogs is not a good way to get support for your candidate. -REP]

  62. DMarshall says:
    If he has proof that Mann et al are not telling the truth, then the world deserves to know.”

    You can’t prove that people have been lying if they have deleted the emails that show they are lying. All you can show is they were lying about not having deleted emails.

    What the emails show is that Jones admits in his email having deleted emails and having told other to delete emails. Mann is fighting efforts to release his emails.

    Call me naive, but I’m pretty sure that folks don’t go around deleting emails, and telling others to delete emails, that show they have been telling the truth.

    “Hide the decline” isn’t about temperature. It is to hide the decline in scientific standards and scientific integrity. Scientists are so afraid of losing their funding that only the most senior scientists, those that are retired or near retirement, only they spoke out.

    Science is no longer driven by truth. It is driven by political correctness. You can see it in the emails. Findings that are politically correct are the only findings that get published. Publish a politically incorrect finding and your career is over. You will be attacked, not for your science, but because you are politically incorrect.

    For example, say there are two studies. One shows white is good and black is bad. The other shows white is bad and black is good. In science these two studies should deserve equal treatment. Political correctness says they will not.

  63. ferd berple says:
    November 24, 2011 at 7:32 am

    “Political correctness says it is correct to lie for a good cause.”

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Political correctness says it is correct to lie for a MY cause. :)

  64. Mike Mann’s work had errors? You don’t Say! I thought his work was verified by Penn State! I guess they shouldn’t have put the Athletics department in charge of the investigation. What did Mann know about the football staff? Not the first snow job at Penn State.

  65. This is another voice of sanity in UEA.

    To Dr Paul Dennis and Prof Alan Kendall I can now add Dr Douglas Maraun.

    People here may wonder why some of these sane people haven’t spoken louder but I am NOT going to judge without hearing people’s own defences, as far as possible.

  66. Duncan Binks

    What David Hoffer suggests, my piece on Yamal treering “temperatures” compared with local thermometer records, is a good introduction to the world of Climate Science.

    For what I see as the real science, the story of corruption, and my own journey from “Warmist” to “Skeptic” – read my “Primer” – click my name. It’s my own conclusions, drawing on both peer-reviewed and amateur scientific work. It’s slightly dated but many people find it really useful as a starting-point for proper understanding.

    Keep up-to-date here at WUWT. Note that “skeptics” list our opponents, which “warmists” never do. Check both sides.

    Thanks again David Hoffer for your support! And thanks too to u.k.(us) for thinking about apps. Keep thinking! I’m sure something (app, wiki, a mirror to John Cook) will emerge between us all eventually! THAT would be a real gift to our grandchildren.

  67. Lucy Skywalker says:
    November 24, 2011 at 11:38 am
    That’s easy. They had families to feed. What choice? The courage required is more than most can imagine.

  68. Maraun acquits himself well here. I would like to think that I would be raising the same kind of questions if I were at CRU. In fact a general impression garnered from both batches of emails is that there were a number of scientists on the periphery of the team who were uncomfortable with the goings on. But they had little influence as far as we can tell. And they had strong negative incentives to take their misgivings public, being employed and fed by employers on the take.

    We are reminded of Edmund Burke’s admonition; “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

  69. What universities offer excellent graduate studies and degrees in the history of science? Although the AGW vs. Skeptics debate is on-going and doesn’t have a long history, now is the time for some grad student to do all the oral intakes on the top proponents on both sides, and defend and publish a foundational thesis upon which others can expand, and we can cite as an impassioned and unbiased reference.

  70. re post: DMarshall says: November 23, 2011 at 9:48 pm

    I’m not ridiculous or twisted – I’m blunt. If the ponderings and pandering on WUWT is to be believed, then the posturings of the Team and their supporters are the greatest threat ever to global progress and prosperity and will cost many needless lives because of actions that would not otherwise be taken or because of huge sums of money that would be wasted on pointless remediation.
    I’m implying that Assange is a saint, BY COMPARISON – whatever his motives or his character, he’s not a manipulative cherrypicker like this shadow-dwelling, bottom-feeder.
    Julian (or his group) have given warning of documents to be released and have done so, unredacted and unvarnished. .Yes, he put lives at risk, and that’s deplorable – but the fact is that the actions of those he exposed also treated human lives as worthless, and have done so for decades.
    In the recent past I’ve made a point of calling for the full release of all documentation of those who have skin in the climate game, not just those who work for universities – the argument of public vs private in this context is largely specious. If you’re an influencer, then you should be fully transparent – FOIA is a Machiavellian chickenshit.

    And, speaking of twisted – that’s a wonderfully convoluted sentence you’ve constructed of what may or may not probably might be an illegal hack or a possibly legally protected insider document release.

    Ah, I see now. So if the person(s) who released the climategate emails happens to be a lowly clerk or IT person who doesn’t work in Jones’ department but was aware of files compiled because of FOIA requests, then that clerk/IT person has ‘skin in the climate game and is ‘an influencer.’ Or if the person was a student or outsider who ran across the FOIA files on a public ftp server – Influencer with skin in the game, no question.

    You’re right, clearly such a person really ought to be fully transparent, and risk their livelihood or worse, simply because they publicly released FOIA information Jones et. all illegally withheld, so we can all decide for ourselves just how insignificant the information really is. Just as clearly, if said individual decided that it would be more effective and meaningful if they released part of the material, then waited to see the response of those involved and the response of the media before releasing the rest… Well, clearly that makes said individual a truly perfidious skin influencer scoundrel who ought to be drawn and quartered or at the very least arrested, thrown in a deep dank dark dungeon, and the key thrown away. /massive sarc

  71. > Given the incendiary and sometimes quite rude
    > emails that came out at the time when ECS and
    > Briffa/Osborn were published, I could also go
    > into the whole complaint about how the review
    > process at Science was “flawed”. I will only say
    > that this is a very dangerous game to get into and
    > complaints of this kind can easily cut both ways.
    > I will submit an appropriately edited and
    > condensed version of this reply to Science.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Ed
    > —
    > =================================
    > Dr. Edward R. Cook
    > Doherty Senior Scholar
    > Tree-Ring Laboratory
    > Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
    > Palisades, New York 10964 USA

    That was from April 11th 2002
    It can be found here: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=159

    If you read through this email, we find Mann, Cook(Ed, not John), and Hughes talk frankly about different methods used i.e. RCS and ECS, which we can find other websites have covered, which are methods that determine a datapoint using tree ring data.
    The exchange of words are heated and we can assume Mann bullied his way through the peer review process and took credit for this flawed science and refused to look other sources, well after he and his co-author Hughes got the hockeystick published.

    Even Malcolm Hughes, co-author of the hockeystick is quoted as saying,”The RCS method therefore requires greater chronology depth (i.e. greater sample replication) to provide the same level of confidence in its representation of the hypothetical “true” chronology.” ECS mention this issue.”

    In another e-mail the next day, which can be found here:

    Mann is quoted as saying,”Given the readily acknowledged level of uncertainty in both estimates, combined with the “apples and oranges” nature of the comparison between the two (which I have sought to clarify in my letter to Science, and in my messages to you all, and the comparison plot I provided), I believe it is either sloppy or disingenuous reasoning to argue that this is the case. The fact that this sloppiness also readily serves the interests of the skeptics is quite unfortunate, but it is indeed beside the point!”

    What kind of freaking double speak is this Mann is doing? He is saying that trying to compare the two is like comparing apple and oranges and then says it is sloppy to argue the differences, because it serves up the interest of the skeptic.

    Just so we are all on the same page. the estimates and comparisons is between the Mann et al 1999 and the Esper et al. 2002 papers.

    While the MBH99 shows a flat line for the last 1000 years and a sharp incline for the last 100, the Esper paper or as some refer to it as the ECS, shows a higher temperature for the MWP and a lower temperature anomaly for the LIA. The two datasets have been graphed and spaghetti-ed together numerous times. I would go look at the graph to get a idea what the difference is.

    But as we read through these e-mails, we find Mann bulldozing his friend Ed Cook over, calls the Esper paper perilous, though perilous could describe the MBH99 as Ed comments, and then Mann comments on sins of omissions regarding MBH99.

    “> Malcolm says. I think there are some real sins of omission with
    > regard to the use of RCS too, and it would be an oversight on our
    > part now to comment on these.
    >
    > Finally, with regard to the scaling issues, let me simply
    > attach a plot which speaks more loudly than several
    > pages possibly could The plot takes Epser et al (not
    > smoothed, but the annual values) and scales it against the
    > full Northern Hemisphere instrumental record
    > annual mean record, and compares against the entire 20th
    > century instrumental record, as well as with
    > MBH99 and its uncertainties.”

    The hockeystick, which the world over used as a measuring stick of success for the Global Warming movement is said in Mann’s on words as being,’uncertain’ and yet he calls into question the Esper paper as perilous, because it shows a higher temp for the MWP and a lower temperature for the LIA, while the MBH99 shows a flat line.

    Its not like we did not know all of this, but to see in Mann’s own words belittle another paper by his colleagues and try to bulldoze them into submission and then call his own paper as uncertain is quite telling.

    Happy Thanksgiving.

Comments are closed.