Climategate 2.0 email – Mike Mann characterized as “crazy” over MWP and “serious enemy”

Edward Cook tells Phil Jones that Mike Mann is “serious enemy” and “vindictive”. Mike Mann had criticized his work.

Apparently Mann went “a little crazy” over a paper showing the Medeival Warm Period exists.

4101.txt

cc: k.briffa@uea.xx.xx
date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:56:46 -0500
from: “drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu” <drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu>
subject: RE: CCDD
to: p.jones@uea.xx.xx

Hi Phil,

Thanks for the added info. If Mike said that my calibration procedure is
“flawed”, I will be extremely pissed off. His grad student just submitted a
paper to The Holocene, with Mike and I as co-authors, that compares my
point-by-point method with his RegEM method (Keith should have received the
paper by now). There are “modest” improvements in some areas using RegEM,
but overall the two methods produce statistically identical results on a
regional basis.

Indeed, it is mentioned in the paper that the P-B-P method
could be improved by adding a dynamic search radius for each grid point,
thus making it even closer to RegEM and maybe even better. Indeed, the
P-B-P method produces classical calibration period information and
estimates that are very useful in understanding the fitted models. In
contrast, RegEM does not produce any such useful information and thus
operates much more as a “black box”.

Re standardization and low-frequency stuff, the vast majority of the
tree-ring chronologies have been standardized to preserve variance at least
up to 100 years (and generally more). I also agree with you that PDSI ought
not to have a great deal of multi-centennial variability because it is
dominated by precipitation, which is dominated by high-frequency, nearly
white, variance. I am surprised that Tom Karl does not seem to understand
that.

In all candor now, I think that Mike is becoming a serious enemy in the way
that he bends the ears of people like Tom with words like “flawed” when
describing my work and probably your and Keith’s as well. This is in part a
vindictive response to the Esper et al. paper. He also went crazy over my
recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as
another attack on him. Maybe I am over-reacting to this, but I don’t think
so.

Cheers,

Ed

Original Message:
—————–
From: Phil Jones p.jones@uea.xx.xx
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:17:30 +0000
To: drdendro@ldeo.xx.xx
Subject: RE: CCDD

Ed,
There isn’t that much more I can expand on really. Conversation only
last 5 minutes.
Probably you need to add how standardization done and any impact on
low-freq of  you calibration with your AR-1 process (pre-whitening).
Why Tom and others thought there should be a lot of low-freq is odd? I
don’t think there will be much in a PDSI series.
By the way Mark also presented your in progress work with the
enhanced grid and the work NCDC was doing to create the PDSI grid at 2 by 3 for you. May have got the wrong end of what they were doing here, but I got the impression that
Mark at NCDC-West and NCDC itself were helping you through your CCDD project.

The only person worth discussing this with is Mike Mann, who may be
able to expand on what I said. He can at least say why your calibration process is
flawed (in his mind).

I was saying all your trees were very carefully and consistently
standardized and you’d retained as much low-freq as possible. I hope you have !  I could find out from the paper
I presume, but I don’t have the time !

I now clasp my hands and bow in the buddhist way !

Cheers
Phil

At 05:53 07/11/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Phil,
>
>This is probably the first message you have received from Bhutan. I am here
>now with Paul sorting out mainly political issues for doing a lot of
>sampling here next year.
>
>Thanks for the heads-up on the low-frequency stuff. I return home on Nov 11
>and will deal with it as best I can. Any more inside info from you will
>also be appreciated.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ed
>
>Original Message:
>—————–
>From: Phil Jones p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:36:51 +0000
>To: drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu
>Subject: CCDD
>
>
>
>   Ed,
>      Just got back from the CCDD panel meeting. An issue arose outside the
>main sessions, so
>   although important it is only scientific !
>     Mark Eakin gave a presentation which showed how they have used your
>PDSI recons to
>   show droughts back 500-1000 years for parts of the US. All on a web
site,
>which has come
>   about from Mark’s group being part of NCDC.
>      All is well but Tom Karl said he was suspicious of the
reconstructions
>as we all know
>   trees lose low-frequency. I was trying to defend you but them Mike Mann
>said your
>   pre-whitening recon method won’t get low freq. My view is that you
>probably need some
>   text up on the site to say what the truth is. It may be there, but it
>needs to be more
>   prominent. All Mark said was that they carefully scaled your recons with
>the instrumental
>   PDSI. Mark certainly needs to note when presenting something.
>       My other view is that PDSI may not have much low freq and it is also
>one sided – trees
>   don’t respond to heavy precip, beyond a certain limit.
>
>      I can expand more if you want, but I have a mountain of email to go
>through from being
>   away, but I’m sure you get the points.
>
>      To some extent Keith, you and me have all oversold the tree/low-freq
>thing and now
>   everyone believes it but don’t appreciate it applies to all other
>high-freq proxies to a
>   similar extent, but in different guises.
>
>   Cheers
>   Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>NR4 7TJ
>UK
>—————————————————————————
-
>
>
>——————————————————————–
>mail2web – Check your email from the web at
>http://mail2web.com/ .

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.xx.xx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-

——————————————————————–
mail2web – Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

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

About these ads

60 thoughts on “Climategate 2.0 email – Mike Mann characterized as “crazy” over MWP and “serious enemy”

  1. Unfortunately, this will probably be spun as “this is how science works” and that people with obvious personal clashes can work together for the benefit of all. Its all good, doncha know?

    Read my bit over at CA about how Mann disinvited himself from a meeting because someone he didn’t like was going to be there. I try to follow Steve’s instruction not to editorialize, but damn, it was hard not to point out that this sounded like an 8 year old having a fit over a birthday party invitation…

  2. Mann is man in action

    from: Michael Mann
    subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    to: Kevin Trenberth
    Michael Mann wrote:
    extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
    since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job).
    From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
    We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

  3. Holy Consensus where are you now?

    I thought that 99.99% percent of world’s noble scientist agreed with each other about the current knowledge of climate science. The most common counter argument presented when debating with the alarmist gang.

  4. Crazy? Serious enemy? Vindictive??

    Begs the question…if your science is robust, you can still be crazy, vindictive, and even a serious enemy…but why would you need to be? Unless of course you’re desperately defending work you know to be flawed.

  5. What on earth is a “Standard[ized] Tree”? That reeks. “a proxy, a proxy not…….” Really, I think Mann was thrust into the spotlight with his Hockey Stick, and elevated to rock-star status by a system loaded with sycophancy, while knowing, perhaps full well, that scrutiny was HIS worst enemy. Well, guess what? The microscope has been fired up. And he only has AdHom left in his tool kit.

  6. Keep in mind these emails are 9 years old. Mann might be all of those things, but this dispute could have been settled amicably long ago.

  7. ScientistForTruth put this email in comments over at Bishop Hill but it seems relevant here.

    If you displease Mann he gives you a humiliating dressing down in front of senior members of the Team:

    date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:54 -0500
    from: “Michael E. Mann”
    subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.]
    to: Stefan Rahmstorf , Gavin Schmidt , Caspar Ammann , Ben Santer , “Raymond S. Bradley” , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , James Hansen

    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? …I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this…and you must further know how your statements are going to be used…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

    Michael E. Mann Associate Professor
    Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
    Department of Meteorology
    Phone:REDACTED075 503
    Walker Building
    FAX:REDACTED663
    The Pennsylvania State University
    email:REDACTED University Park, PAREDACTED

    http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

  8. One of the UK MSM are beginning to wake up. Only in their online version so far

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html#ixzz1ejs4oeSp

    (large circulation, middle-brow)

    Revealed: How Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn’t fit their apocalyptic global warming claims
    By Rob Waugh
    Last updated at 6:11 PM on 25th November 2011

    5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man made
    Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a ‘strong message’
    Critics claim: ‘The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering’
    Scientist asks, ‘What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us all’

  9. After reading the main thread, and the follow up by artwest @10.21, it is no wonder that Mann and his University are doing everything they can to stop the release of his e-mails.

    I understand that some will say that his personal e-mails have nothing to do with me (and they are correct), but his work/research e-mails have everything to do with me and many others.

    To quote foai2011 Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
    hiding the decline.

  10. Notice also the undertone of worry about ‘low freq’ treemometer response. This is basically the issue that trees seem to adapt over decades to climate fluctuations, so the longer term (centennial signals) is lost in short term noise.

    This is why the hockey shaft is pretty flat throughout the MWP and LIA. Well, that and Mann’s shonky stats methods.

  11. Talking of being vindictive: Anthony, I am sure you know by now that this guy is not your biggest fan – but this is quite a rant from RC:

    “Fake skeptics like Anthony Watts try to blame global warming on bad station siting. Turns out he was wrong.

    Then they try to blame it on dropout of reporting stations. Turns out that was wrong.

    The fake skeptics can hardly contain their worship for a new team to estimate temperature (the Berkeley team) which is started by a skeptic. They’re sure the new estimate will prove that the other estimates are fraudulent. Anthony Watts proclaims that he’ll accept whatever their results are, even if it contradicts him. It contradicts him. He refuses to accept their results. He launches into multiple tirades to discredit the new effort.

    Fake skeptics try to blame global warming on UHI. Turns out they were wrong.

    Fake skeptics try to claim global warming has “paused” or “slowed down” or isn’t even happening. Turns out they were wrong.

    Scoundrels resort to stealing a bunch of private emails and take them out of context so they can launch a campaign of character assassination. Multiple investigations follow, the science of global warming is vindicated. Again.

    The fake skeptics have got nothing. Zero. Zip. Squat. With all the real science against them, apparently their only recourse is to look for “sloppy seconds” in the stolen emails in a lame attempt to revive their smear campaign. It tells us all we need to know about the so-called “skeptics.” They are pathetic.

    I’m tempted to laugh — but the health, safety, even survival of the next generation is at stake. They’ll know who it was who sealed their fate.

    Comment by tamino — 22 Nov 2011 @ 7:03 PM

    REPLY: Well, I plan to make Tamino eat those words in the first line. And he’ll have trouble doing it, but he’ll have to. I have data on my side, he has snark. – Anthony

  12. Whilst there appear to be quite a few deluded fools ready to defend the team, despite these e-mails, the crooks themselves don’t appear to be making too many public appearances right now. Can’t think why they haven’t, very publicly, sprung to the defence of their robust science.

    We live in wonderful times.

  13. So Mann and these others are soothsaying temperatures from tree rings and we’re expected to take this as serious science? Really?

    John L. Daly said it perfectly, to paraphrase, essentially using tree rings as a temperature proxy is pseudo-science, or more paraphrasing eloquently soothsaying temperature from tree rings is no different than soothsaying the future from entrails.

    The actual quote:

    “Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:47:57 +1100
    From: “John L. Daly”
    To: Chick Keller
    CC: “P. Dietze”, mmaccrac, Michael E Mann, rbradley, wallace, Thomas Crowley, Phil Jones, McKitrick, Nigel Calder, John Christy, Jim Goodridge, Fred Singer, k.briffa
    Subject: Re: Hockey Sticks again
    Dear Chick & allTake this from first principles.

    A tree only grows on land. That excludes 70% of the earth covered by water. A tree does no grow on ice. A tree does not grow in a desert. A tree does not grow on grassland-savannahs. A tree does not grow in alpine areas. A tree does not grow in the tundra We are left with perhaps 15% of the planet upon which forests grow/grew. That does not make any studies from tree rings global, or even hemispheric.

    The width and density of tree rings is dependent upon the following variables which cannot be reliably separated from each other. sunlight – if the sun varies, the ring will vary. But not at night of course.

    cloudiness – more clouds, less sun, less ring.

    pests/disease – a caterpillar or locust plague will reduce photosynthesis

    access to sunlight – competition within a forest can disadvantage or advantage some trees.

    moisture/rainfall – a key variable. Trees do not prosper in a drought even if there’s a heat wave.

    snow packing in spring around the base of the trees retards growth temperature – finally!

    The tree ring is a composite of all these variables, not merely of temperature. Therefore on the 15% of the planet covered by trees, their rings do not and cannot accurately record temperature in isolation from the other environmental variables.

    ” – John L. Daley, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/23/john-l-dalys-message-to-mike-mann-and-the-team/

  14. artwest says:
    November 25, 2011 at 10:22 am

    date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:54 -0500
    from: “Michael E. Mann”
    subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.]
    to: Stefan Rahmstorf , Gavin Schmidt , Caspar Ammann , Ben Santer , “Raymond S. Bradley” , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , James Hansen

    “…I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this…and you must further know how your statements are going to be used…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”

    This is not science. This is not academia. This is demonstrative control of a group and a group message. Unless these people pushed backed against Mikey and did so effectively, this is conspiracy. Regardless of what the addressees did, Mikey takes for granted a conspiratorial organization.

  15. I wouldn’t be too smug Anthony and others. After all these guys are doing real research and are merely discussing the details of their work.

  16. A little O/T, but I am struck by this particular email:

    0845217169.txt:
    Barnett knows how easily this can happen. He was a lead author for a critical chapter in the last IPCC scientific assessment, which investigated “the detection of climate change and attribution of causes”. It formulated the IPCC case that the evidence points towards a human influence on climate, but it warned repeatedly that great uncertainties remained. “We wrote a long list of caveats in that chapter,” says Barnett. “We got a lot of static from within IPCC, from people who wanted to water down and delete some of those caveats. We had to work very hard to keep them all in.” Even so, when the findings were first leaked to the New York Times, it was under the headline “Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming”.

    I believe that this demonstrates just how far IPCC and MSM are willing to go to perpetuate the AGW hoax. Amazing to me …

    (bolding mine)

  17. “hugh pepper said
    don’t be too smug these guys are doing real research”.
    Wouldn’t class using models over real time observations as real research..have you read any of these new emails??

  18. Anthony, if I may be so bold, I nominate this comment for the “Friday Funny”:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    November 25, 2011 at 11:49 am

    I wouldn’t be too smug Anthony and others. After all these guys are doing real research and are merely discussing the details of their work.

    Good news, I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read that. Bad news, I was eating a dry crumbly cookie. How do I get out the cookie crumbs I just reverse-snorted into my sinuses?

    That comment is hilarious!

  19. Mike Bromley says

    “….think Mann was thrust into the spotlight with his Hockey Stick, and elevated to rock-star status by a system loaded with sycophancy, while knowing, perhaps full well, that scrutiny was HIS worst enemy.”
    * * *
    Agreed, but in this case I think he has another wost enemy….proper science, of which he is uncapable of performing.

  20. I’m tempted to laugh — but the health, safety, even survival of the next generation is at stake. They’ll know who it was who sealed their fate.

    Comment by tamino — 22 Nov 2011 @ 7:03 PM (at RC)

    Hyperbole much? Stalin, Hilter, Mao….Watts. Right.

    Dr. Foster needs to get a handle on that anger, it isn’t healthy. Amazing what cognitive dissonance, a superior attitude, and a pinch of Messiah complex can do to an individual. Reminds me of John Kerry sputtering during the 2004 election, “I can’t believe I’m losing to this idiot!”

    Keep up the good work Anthony, and stay safe.

  21. Squidly says:
    November 25, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    I believe that this demonstrates just how far IPCC and MSM are willing to go to perpetuate the AGW hoax. Amazing to me …
    >Amazing to me
    >Amazing to
    >Amazing

    …most of you folks are REAL slow to learn about the MSM. They do this stuff with lots of issues. PLEASE wake up.

  22. After carefully studying photographs of Michael Mann using rigorous proxy techniques I have concluded that, in his youth, he originally wanted to be a bar bully but his mother wouldn’t let him.

  23. Hugh Pepper says:
    November 25, 2011 at 11:49 am

    I wouldn’t be too smug Anthony and others. After all these guys are doing real research and are merely discussing the details of their work.

    I second the motion. This has got to be the most hilarious comment of the week. The idea that you can read through those 5,000 emails and come to the conclusion that “these guys are doing real research and discussing details of their work”. Is like saying that Genghis Khan was on a summer retreat!

  24. Nice one Hugh, good to know you have a sense of humour.

    And Tamino has got it all wrong again, most people here are real sceptics, not fake ones.

  25. Hugh Pepper says:
    November 25, 2011 at 11:49 am

    I wouldn’t be too smug Anthony and others. After all these guys are doing real research and are merely discussing the details of their work.
    ……………………
    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    November 25, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Anthony, if I may be so bold, I nominate this comment for the “Friday Funny”:

    _________________________________
    Anthony I agree.

    ROTFLMAO. Now I have to clean the tea off my computer again.

  26. Phil Jones in an e-mail exchange also involving Mike Mann, about proxies:
    “3) Trees may not grow everywhere but they are more global in extent
    than the others. There are also many more chronologies
    available and this is a factor. We had much more choice there
    than in the other paleo groups.”

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=667

    I see, choice… probably to choose from different proxies.

  27. Really now, between Mann and Schmidt I don’t know who’s got the more smarmy grin between the two but I know one thing, it’s infuriating each time I see their mugs.

  28. Somebody at CRU is on a very strange mailing list.

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1726

    “Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter
    REDACTED Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter
    REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    This Press release from Earth Government is found at
    [1]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/HNewsPR05.htm
    REDACTEDREDACTEDFormation of Earth Government for the good of all
    March 27th, 2003
    To all Peoples of the Earth,
    Earth has long been waiting for a truly global governing body based on universal values,
    human rights, global concepts and democracy.[...]“

  29. I was scanning the emails, and found a few tidbits for you, but they got lost on an old thread. The wiggly brackets are my comments. {{ }}

    .

    {email – 1635}

    date: Tue Dec 7 16:23:04 2004
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: FYI
    to: Kevin

    Kevin,
    Wasn’t rung about this one !
    What an utter load of rubbish. He should go back to the oil company who pays his salary. He should take the logic course he says we should go on. Claims climate can’t be predicted (as the weather can’t) and we can’t modify the climate anyway.

    He should be working for the Bush govt, with this sort of logic !
    Phil

    {{ Not sure who this email is about – but he is a skeptic, and must be working for the oil companies ….. you know it makes sense. }}

    .

    {email – 4184}
    date: Wed Feb 13 09:17:10 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: Feb 7-8
    to: “James Hansen”

    Jim,
    Even though it’s been a mild winter in the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!
    Cheers
    Phil

    {{ Ah, I see. Not waiting for AGW to ride to the rescue, but waiting for El Nino. Shame we got a big La Nina instead… ;-) }}

    a French scientist called Vincent Courtillot. He is making Edouard Bard’s life awful in French. If you’re there on the Friday when Vincent is talking then tell him he’s just completely wrong. He will likely say the climate isn’t warming and even if it was it has little to do with greenhouse gases. So shouldn’t be difficult!! If you’re not there on the Friday, just make sure one or two reasonable scientists are aware that they have invited a bit of rogue!
    Cheers
    Phil

    {{ If you are not a ‘believer’, then you are wrong and a ‘bit of a rogue’, and in need of dusting up a bit. Just threaten his grant supply, that will do it. }}

    .

    {email – 4195}
    From Phil Jones
    To Prof. Chris Folland
    Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting
    Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter,

    Chris – I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather forecasts. Maybe because I’m in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems a bit over the top re the cold. Where I’ve been for the last 20 days (in Norfolk) it doesn’t seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.

    {{ How dare you say the weather is ‘freezing’. Stay on message, the weather is simply ‘not as hot as during the summer’ }}

    Tim, Chris,
    I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like – half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998! I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

    {{ Stay on message, Chris. I told you before, a lack of warming is ‘not warming quite as much as before’. }}

    .

    {email – 4370}
    date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:39:06 -0000
    from: “Robert Matthews” BBC Focus Magazine
    subject: Re: BBC Focus magazine
    to: “Phil Jones”

    Great – thanks ! I see the (skeptic) story has been picked up on CC-NET; perhaps you should post this really handy rebuttal on there, before this story “gets legs” and is picked up by all the usual suspects. It’s the Christmas silly season, and the papers are desperate for stories……

    Robert

    {{ This is the BBC urging Phil Jones to stop a ‘cooling’ story on the net. They don’t call them the Biased Broadcasting Corporation for nothing. }}

    .

    {email – 4663}
    date: Thu Nov 13 16:19:22 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: [Env.faculty] Global Environmental Change Projects
    to: Claire Reeves

    To almost all in-government circles (including the US from) the science is done and dusted. The reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, i.e. the counter argument is rarely made. There is, however, still a vociferous and small majority of climate change skeptics (also called deniers, but these almost entirely exclude any climate-trained climate scientists) who engage the public/govt/media through web sites.

    {{ The good old Biased broadcasting Corporation can always be relied upon to be, well, biased. }}

    .

    {email – 2317}
    date: Thu Jul 15 16:25:46 2004
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Paleo data
    to: Gabi

    Dear All, Gabi,
    I was answering one of the skeptics yesterday. The answer is below.

    Susan Solomon was here on Tuesday getting an honorary degree. She says we will
    have to deal with all these crackpots in the IPCC !

    As for your email, there was some press activity related to this skeptic below {{McIntyre}}, but
    managed to talk the BBC out of doing anything.

    {{ The BBC were about to tell the truth, for once, but managed to talk them out of any such heresy. Pheww!! Can’t have the ‘great unwashed’, knowing the truth. }}

    .

    {email – 2509}
    date: 14 Oct 2009 18:21:07 -0400
    from: Gavin Schmidt
    subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    to: Michael Mann
    cc: Tom Wigley , Kevin Trenberth , “Philip D. Jones”, Jim Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer

    Kevin Trenberth wrote:
    Hi all
    Well I have my own article on ‘where the heck is global warming’? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

    Kevin
    Michael Mann wrote:
    Extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

    {{ Extremely disappointing to see the BBC telling the truth. Where was our pet rodent (Black), while all this was going on? – I’ll have words with him. No more freebee trips to exotic locations for at least two months….. }}

    .

    {email – 2496}
    date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:48:13 -0000
    from: “Gillian Watson”
    subject: RE: sceptics
    to: “Mike Hulme”

    Mike,

    I heard the Stott vs. Houghton item on the BBC Today programme this morning… There are a series of links to related web pages at the BBC online article today on “Sceptics denounce climate science ‘lie’ “ at:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1833000/1833902.stm.

    Links are included to the ESEF web site (http://www.scienceforum.net/) and the sites for George C Marshall Institute (http://www.marshall.org/) and Philip Stott (http://www.ecotrop.org/). Note also that the Tyndall web site is listed 3rd on the internet links section…

    Gillie

    {{ Oo-err, the BBC has twigged the truth. All hands on deck…. }}

    From: Mike Hulme
    Sent: 25 February 2002 12:35
    To:
    Subject: sceptics

    Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today {{BBC}} radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of {{BBC}} reporting at source.

    {{ In other words, if the media tells the truth (even the BBC, for once), you slap them down via as many political friends as possible. }}

    In the meantime the Carbon Trust were very annoyed by the piece (also an article in The Daily Mail – surprise, surprise) and have talked to me about their best line of action. I have pursuaded them that a knee-jerk reaction is not the best. However:

    Two questions can anyone help me with:

    Are there any on-line web sources reporting on the US Panel that reported to Bush last June on the credibility of the IPCC Assessments?

    Can anyone find out about this European organisation that published this report that has caused the flurry of activity? I’ve heard of it before but is there a web site?

    {{ So we can send the CRU heavies around, with baseball bats. }}

    Simon, could we have a chat about this soon, and Vanessa, please could you
    buy me a Daily Mail today?

    Thanks,
    Mike

    {{ Oh, the ignominy of it, Mike Hulme having to buy a ‘Daily Mail’ (a UK newspaper slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan) }}

    .

    {email – 2747}
    date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:06:31 +0100
    from: “Michael Duffy”
    subject: BBC Documentary
    to: Phil Jones

    Hi Phil,

    Mike Duffy here from the BBC factual programming department. I wonder if you can help me. We’re researching a documentary about snow which will include the history of British winters. We’d love to do a bit about the Little Ice Age, taking in its causes and how it affected Britain socially and economically.

    {{ This email appears to have gone unanswered… Ha, ha, ha….. }}

    .

    {email – 1885}
    date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:07:00 -0000
    from: “Bob Ward”
    subject: RE: More nonsense on climate change
    to: “Phil Jones”

    Dear Phil,

    Thanks for responding so comprehensively. I have plotted the data before, and as you observe, the trend is up but the result isn’t statistically significant, which I think makes it open to attack. …… I’m not sure how to argue against this point – it appears to imply that there is no statistically significant trend in the global temperature record over the past few years.

    From: Phil Jones
    Sent: 20 December 2007 13:58
    To: Bob Ward
    Subject: Re: More nonsense on climate change

    Bob,
    Quickly re-reading this it sounds as though I’m getting at you. I’m not – just at the idiots who continue to spout this nonsense. It isn’t an issue with climatologists. All understand. If I tried to publish this I would be told by my peers it was obvious and banal.

    I will try and hide it in a paper at some point. I could put it on the CRU web site. I would have thought that this writer would have know better! I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing. I’m not
    adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.
    What you have to do is … work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. Trend won’t be statistically significant, but the trend is up.

    {{ More hiding of the decline (or the ‘no significant trend’). }}

    .

    {email – 3499}
    cc: Tom Crowley
    date: Tue Aug 10 15:47:04 2004
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: Mann and Jones (2003)
    to: Gabi Hegerl , “Michael E. Mann”

    Michael E. Mann wrote:
    Dear Phil and Gabi,

    I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

    In the process of trying to clean it up, I realized I had something a bit odd, not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference. It seems that I used the ‘long’ NH instrumental series back to 1753 that we calculated ….. Not sure why I used this, rather than using the CRU NH record back to 1856 for this purpose. …. Turns it, this has the net effect of decreasing the amplitude of the NH reconstruction by a factor of 0.11/0.14 = 1.29.
    Mike

    {{ Ahh, so under pressure from the ‘idiots’ at WUWT, Michael Mann discovers an error in his computer model. But no worry, it is only 1.29 (presumably 1.29 degrees per century) }}

    .

    {email – 0112}
    date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:54 -0500
    from: “Michael E. Mann”
    subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.]
    to: Curt Covey,
    cc: Gavin Schmidt , Phil Jones, James Hansen

    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 on earth are you thinking?

    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. …..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

    {{ Naughty boy, Covey – stay on message, and don’t talk to anyone with different ideas – you may get, ‘contaminated’, and we may have to ‘deny’ you…. }}

    .

    {email – 0665}
    This is a nice email from: Rod Eaton, MBA, DMS (Leeds), MCMI, FIET explaining why the CRU is wrong, and why Wiltshire County Council will opt out of the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change (why does Nottingham have any such ‘declaration’? Isn’t local government about emptying the bins and maintaining the schools?)

    .

    {email – 5215}
    date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:01
    from: “Kevin Trenberth”
    subject: Re: A couple of things
    to: “Phil Jones”

    Hi Phil

    Kevin,

    Finally, that idiot Lord Monckton or Brenchly, is making his own DVD, based on that awful Ch 4 program ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ !

    Hopefully soon Ofcom (the UK group who assesses complaints against programs) will have ruled on that program – which had many more errors than Al’s DVD.

    Cheers
    Phil

    {{ Beastly man, that Monckton – threatening our grants like that. Shouldn’t be allowed. }}

    .

    {email – 1683}
    date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:56:57 +0100
    from: “Jonathan Renouf”
    subject: Final thoughts
    to: “Keith Briffa”

    Hi Keith,
    Good to talk to you this morning. Just a few thoughts to reiterate what we’re hoping to get out of filming tomorrow.

    1) Your interview appears at a crucial point in the film. Up until now our presenter (Paul Rose, he’ll be there tomorrow) has followed two conflicting thoughts. On the one hand he’s understood that the world is currently getting warmer. But on the other he’s discovered lots of historical stories (the Bronze Age, the MWP, the LIA) which tell him that climate changes naturally all the time. In trying to resolve this paradox he’s come across this thing called the hockey stick curve, and he’s come to you to explain it to him.

    2) Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is – the present warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that. This is a very big moment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global warming.

    3) The hockey stick curve shows that what Paul thought were big climate events (the Bronze Age maximum, the MWP, the LIA) actually when looked at in a global context weren’t quite as dramatic as he thought. They’re there, but they are nothing like as sudden or big.

    4) Paul can question you on things like: How reliable is the hockey stick curve? How do you work out past climate (cue for you to talk about proxies)? What drives all the “natural” fluctations in climate (this can be answered in very broad terms eg it’s down to changes in the sun’s output, volcanoes etc)

    Hopefully this makes it clear what I’m trying to achieve.
    Look forward to tomorrow.
    All best
    Jonathan

    Jonathan Renouf
    Series Producer
    Science Department
    201 Wood Lane
    London W12 7TS

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/

    {{ How to make a propaganda documentary, in three easy lesson – by a BBC producer. Impartiality? What the hell is that?… }}

    And here is the theme tune, to go with Jonathan Renouf’s BBC ‘documentary’ (above).

    .

  30. And these guys are supposed to be scientists? They behave more like adolescents. In fact, if adolescents behaved like that at school it would be a subject of ongoing meetings between teachers and their parents.

    I for one am heartily sick of these people. They should go out and do proper jobs instead of running around the playground throwing things on the tax payers dime. If there could possibly be a tiny sliver of good that will come from the impending bankruptcy of Western nations, it is that it will put paid, once and for all to the antics of this bunch and their junk science. When people have no jobs and their savings are vanishing faster than a glacier in the Himalayas, we will all know which is worse – economic meltdown or so-called global warming.

  31. How these people can live with themselves is beyond me. The more I read, the sicker I get.
    It’s disgusting to see the tricks, the deceive, the disdain.. omg.

    I hope and pray these people will do a lot of time. They are a total disgrace to modern times. It’s a cult of the worst kind. One day it will be over, but the fight will be long and hard. So much people and so much organizations are so deep in it…

    How this could go so wrong will be the topic of a lot of future books on 21st century history. In the mean time, the only thing I can do is spread the word about the flaws and wrongdoings in CAGW.
    Thanks Anthony, for all the info. I will keep spreading it.

  32. Hugh Pepper says:
    November 25, 2011 at 11:49 am
    I wouldn’t be too smug Anthony and others. After all these guys are doing real research and are merely discussing the details of their work.

    Tongue in cheek?
    Or lack of reading comprehension?

    Game changer…….

  33. Hugh Pepper says:
    November 25, 2011 at 11:49 am

    I wouldn’t be too smug Anthony and others. After all these guys are doing real research and are merely discussing the details of their work.
    ===================================================================
    I completely agree with the several other posters that this be the FUNNY OF THE MONTH !!!

  34. > To some extent Keith, you and me have all oversold the tree/low-freq
    >thing and now
    > everyone believes it but don’t appreciate it applies to all other
    >high-freq proxies to a
    > similar extent, but in different guises.
    ———————-

    Uhm… “oversold the tree/low-freq thing” ????

    OVERSOLD?

    Hey, Hugh Pepper, help me out here.
    How does “over selling” something fit with the scientific method? How does real research work when something is “oversold” and now “everyone believes it”?

    Not to mention that’s quite an admission on Phil’s part. He’s openly saying that “everyone believes it” and explaining how they are applying it incorrectly as a consequence. Could we get a list of who Phil means by “everyone”? Or better still, a list of the papers published by “everyone” that Phil knew to have been incorrect because he convinced them of something he shouldn’t have?

    Hey Phil! If you are paying attention, perhaps you could answer that yourself? My guess is that Hugh Pepper won’t.

  35. Don’t get to overjoyed here folks. Dispite another traunch of vidictive bile, chicanery and suppression of dissenting views served up from the AGW cabal they still have the media on their side and will not go quitely into the dustbin of scientific history. Expect a full court press round of vilifying all who oppose their scam backed by the full weight of a complicit media and the political scoundrels fighitng to perserve the money flow. I’m afraid we’ve still a ways to go before we get the stake pounded fully through this one.

  36. This is not science. This is not academia.

    The first statement is correct, but sadly, the second statement hasn’t been correct for many years, if indeed it ever was..

  37. Quote: Hugh Pepper says:
    November 25, 2011 at 11:49 am

    I wouldn’t be too smug Anthony and others. After all these guys are doing real research and are merely discussing the details of their work.

    Sorry Hugh, if you believer that you are simply naïve, a global warming activist or both.

    Patrick.

  38. Peter Miller [November 25, 2011 at 11:32 am] says:

    “Talking of being vindictive: Anthony, I am sure you know by now that this guy is not your biggest fan – but this is quite a rant from RC:” (Tamino)

    For the many newcomers coming on the heels of ClimateGate 2.0, some orientation is in order: Who is Tamino? At his blogsite, Closed Mind, he is often found sniping at Anthony, Monckton, Goddard, Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, (… etc.) behind their backs like the little girl he is.

    You see, Foster Grant is kinda like the personal attack puppy of the Hockey Team. However, in all the years I have been following this I do not believe he has ever crawled out of his hole to engage these good folks in public, i.e., debate!

    Certainly we do not expect him to muster the courage for a stand-up steel-cage match in front of the press and public that Monckton enjoys, however surely you would think he could find the time for a sit-down blog-based confrontation, right? Well if you thought that you would be wrong. In fact this Tamino Foster Grant feller has been invited to guest post here by Anthony himself, yet all we hear are the sounds of crickets (and the incessant wailing from his stable of groupies). Note to Anthony: I would suggest that you amend that offer (in light of the BEST doublecross) to have him commit to answering questions with replies here. Just sayin’, a hit-and-run post without replies is exactly what I would expect from this, person.

    Perhaps the best example occurred a year and a half ago, in Bart Verheggen’s VC Random Walk thread. Practically the whole thing was a systematic takedown by the commenter VC of the faulty statistical conclusions from the crushed average surface temps that the AGW fanatics love to play with. VC addressed Tamino Foster Grant directly but alas he failed to show up there, ever, in the thousands of comments. VC even went directly to Tamino’s blog to face him head-on, but the abbreviated discussion suggests that he did what they all do, censoring the action.

    The host of that memorable thread, Bart, even invited Tamino to join in personally, and once again no joy. Instead, what happened (and this is key), is that all the groupies from his blog (picture the fainting teenage girls at Beatles concerts ;-) tried unsuccessfully to fight a proxy war for their prince by ganging up on VC in this single thread, but who managed all by himself (with perhaps one or two allies) very nicely.

    Curiously Bart never answers the question when put to him: What did Tamino say about the invitation? Why didn’t he show up? Why won’t he agree to a debate in a neutral forum? It’s not like Tamino doesn’t have the time. Looking at his blog posting traffic and reading some of his excuses for ‘being away’ tells me he’s just phoning it in anyway. Doesn’t the man realize that if he were to emerge from his hiding place and decisively win a public debate with someone like Monckton, he would singlehandedly win the Climate war and be a hero to the Team! There must be some reason he doesn’t step up to the plate, hmmmm, what could it be? Yep, they got nothin’, they know it, and are scared to death the world will find out.

    Anyway, for the newly arrived skeptics (and sceptics), that is who Tamino Foster Grant is. IMHO he is just as cowardly as Gore, Mann, and James Cameron and countless others that are afraid to have the light shined upon them and their alleged bulletproof Science Fiction.

    That also explains this angry post about Anthony, he is the opposite of Tamino. He operates in the light and certainly does not phone it in.

  39. Arrrgh! Repeated typo in my comment above.

    VS was the commenter not ‘VC’. Sorry VS!

    Senility settling in. But I was a C, C++, VC programmer for a while. Yeah, I’m going with that. Now where did I park the car?

  40. I remain unmoved by the likes of Mann (of Bugger U…) et al… show me the data and the code… all of it… nothing more nothing less until that time I consider this ‘science’, so called, as a scam to get tax-payers money and live on the public dole a.k.a. welfare cheating…

    Climate can only be considered a science iff all variables are known… which they are NOT… case closed… Any high school kid knows that a polynomial with more than one unknown is…??? is…??? think hard Mann et al… think really hard and it will come to you…

    Don’t get me wrong, climate change IS real and has been changing longer than we mere mortals have walked this path. It seems that the Sun might have a lot more to do with it than anyone might think… Let’s give credit where it is due.

    Oh yeah… the latest e-mail dump… I suspect there will be more coming down the pike… sooner or later… count on it :-)

    later
    vince

  41. What fascinates me in reading these emails is how “scientists” attempt to bully the media and other scientists into toeing the company line in furthering the “cause.” Failing to push the cause leads to loss of intimidation in front of peers and “denying” access. In light of this, we know who the true deniers are.

  42. I don’t think that many are going to be fooled this time around by the spin which characterizes private conversations as anti-science, deceptive or examples of bullying. The work of the scientists, whose private conversations have been stolen and made public, stands on its own merits, as has been shown by five independent investigations. If there are problems with their work, your comments should be targeted there. Do your own research and publish the results. The net effect of all these efforts will become settled science. Your failure to publish research refuting the mainstream position speaks for itself, as does you persistent effort to demonize scientists who actually publish their work.

  43. Hugh Pepper says:

    The work of the scientists, whose private conversations have been stolen and made public, stands on its own merits, as has been shown by five independent investigations.

    Mr. Pepper, the emails were not “stolen,” because they are public property and nothing is missing. They were obviously copied by someone on the inside. Otherwise, a (fictional) hacker would have provided everything. Many emails are missing frrom the first email leak. Why are they missing, if not to protect the identity of the whistleblower?

    Please also dispense with the fiction that any of the investigations were “independent.” They were not. Others have noted that Dr. Mann took part in meetings to formulate and decide what questions he would be asked. Dr. Jones remained in his office with full pay and benefits during his temporary time out. Furthermore, not one opposing witness was permitted to make a statement, or even attend any of the investigations. Every investigation was a coverup of wrongdoing, no more and no less.

  44. Hugh Pepper;
    I don’t think that many are going to be fooled this time around by the spin which characterizes private conversations as anti-science, deceptive or examples of bullying.>>>

    REPLY
    I think you are partly right. Those who have a modicum of sense and bother to read for themselves who said what, when they they said it, and what it was in regard to, will not be fooled in the slightest. They know rampant dishonesty when they see it.

    Hugh Pepper;
    The work of the scientists, whose private conversations have been stolen and made public, stands on its own merits>>>

    REPLY
    Darn right it does. Or perhaps collapses like the house of cards it is would be more accurate. Read those “private” conversations plotting to eliminate evidence, exclude contrary work by other scientists, trying to get people fired for disagreeing, co-operating with financial companies to provide evidence that will support already made investments in carbon trading. Indeed, left to “stand” on its own “merit” it is a house of cards collapsed into a stinking pile of poo and anyone with an ounce of ability to think on their own can see that. BTW, they don’t give a flying **** if the emails were stolen or public property in the first place. It doesn’t matter. They say what they say and it should turn your stomach to read them.

    Hugh Pepper;
    as has been shown by five independent investigations.>>>

    REPLY
    I read the questions that were asked in those investigations, how they were answered, and the conclusions drawn. Same answer as above. It should turn your stomach to read how those investigations were carefully conducted so as to arrive at a conclusions already written before the investigation started. I particularly liked the one into Michael Mann where the investigation took all the charges against Mann, dismissed all except one of them out of hand, and then turned in a “nothing to see here” verdict. That would be the same administration that just got caught “investigating” sexual assaults in their football team’s locker room and decidiing there was nothing to it until they got caught red handed whitewashing the whole episode. Stomach turning.

    Hugh Pepper;
    If there are problems with their work, your comments should be targeted there. Do your own research and publish the results. >>>

    REPLY
    What do you think this site is about? It is chalk full of exactly THAT. Long threads with detailed analysis of both skeptic and non skeptic science examined in detail. Most if not all the alarmist science exposed for what it is, science fiction. More importantly, the e-mails we’re talking about corroborate the accusations of faulty science that were made before the e-mails were released, and the e-mails clearly show that the “scientists” knowingly conspired to publish contrived results that they knew in advance were wrong.

    Not to mention that there is skeptical science published all over this blog, and that warmists are just as open to critique it as are skeptics. Oddly, the warmists don’t show up. They’re happy to snipe from the safety of their own politicaly motivated blogs (hey, the WARMISTS labelled RealoClimate a “PR” site, not us!) where rebuttal is heavily edited to as to make it non sensical, or deleted completely. Why is that Hugh? Why do they fear open debate?

    Hugh Pepper;
    Your failure to publish research refuting the mainstream position speaks for itself, as does you persistent effort to demonize scientists who actually publish their work.>>>

    REPLY
    LOL. Publish their work? You mean publish their results and then REFUSE to show their work. Then we read the ClimateGate emails and we find out WHY they refuse to show their work. Turns out it is fiction.

  45. Hugh Pepper;
    Your failure to publish research refuting the mainstream position speaks for itself,>>>

    OK Hugh, let’s see you defend the “mainstream” position. Can I ask what part of the mainstream position stands on firm ground? Let’s go through the big ones:

    1. The Temperature Record. Ooops. The temperature record is about 150 years long and shows warming and cooling phases folllowing each other with a general upward trend. The upward trend from before 1920, the year when CO2 supposedly started increasing measurably, and the period after, show no appreciable difference. In fact, the last fifteen years have been flat or slightly declining.

    2. Ocean Heat Content: The first really comprehensive data we have on OHC is from the deployment of the Argo Buoys… which show OHC has been declining.

    3. Millenial Reconstructions: Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” turns out to come from a computer program that draws a hockey stick no matter what data it is provided. Keith Briffa’s work turned out to be based on just twelve trees from Siberia, and half the data from just one of them. One tree is supposed to accurately show the temperature of the earth for a thousand years? No wonder they don’t want to show their work! Then there was the graphic that was supposed to grace the cover of the last IPCC report. It was pulled back at the last minute because it turned out that Jones and Mann had truncated the tree ring data that was supposed to be accurate in terms of global temperatures and replaced it with other data. They didn’t want anyone to notice that the supposedly accurate tree rings didn’t match the temperature data for about half the temperature record. The tree ring data started to “decline” at just the point it was supposed to show an increase, so they deleted it and replaced it with temperature data. This was Michael Mann’s “trick” that he first pulled off in a paper published in Nature, and suddenly Phil Jones corroborates the total evisceration of anything remotely like actual science by doing the same, hence his comment that he had completed Mike’s “Nature trick” in order to “hide the decline”. Tell me Hugh, does that sound like science? Tell me Hugh, if the tree ring data clearly does NOT match the temperature record for nearly HALF the temperature record, and nobody can explain WHY, then WHY should we consider any tree ring data from before the temperature record that started in the mid 1800’s to be anything other than a wild *ss guess?

    4. Sensitivity. First they figured 5 to 8 degrees. Then 3 to 4.5 degrees. Now an upper limity of 2,6 degrees is the latest “science”, See the problem here Hugh is that you can’t have it both ways. If sensitivity is HIGH, then we would have seen MAJOR temperature changes by now. But we haven’t, so sensitivity is more likely to be LOW. Now if it is LOW…it doesn’t matter. Based on the “known physics” over half of whatever CO2 doubling is going to cause is ALREADY HAPPENING, and we can BARELY MEASURE IT.

    I could go on. and on. and ON. But how about you throw one out there Hugh? What basic tenet of the AGW theory is there left that hasn’t been similarly made a mockery of in the same way that the above four points have done?

    C’mon Hugh. You keep complaining about us not engaging onthe science. So, I’m engaging. Whaddya got?

  46. “Hugh Pepper says:
    November 26, 2011 at 12:52 pm
    The work of the scientists, …stands on its own merits, as has been shown by five independent investigations.”

    How does this agree with the following quote:
    Lord Oxburgh wrote,

    Dear Dr Mcintyre, Thank you for your message. What you report may or may not be the case. But as I have pointed out to you previously the science was not the subject of our study. Yours sincerely, Ron Oxburgh

  47. Ralph says:
    November 25, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    “a French scientist called Vincent Courtillot. He is making Edouard Bard’s life awful in French. If you’re there on the Friday when Vincent is talking then tell him he’s just completely wrong”

    Jo Nova says this of Prof Vincent Courtillot:

    Video’s bore me usually, but I enjoyed watching Courtillot — he’s possibly the clearest, fastest, crispest speaker I’ve ever heard, and it’s all the more amazing because he speaks with an accent. Don’t misunderstand — there are no jokes, no satire, and no punch lines here, just an honest summary of the state of the current scientific play, especially with his synopsis of the cosmic ray theory. (He is a colleague of Nir Shaviv).

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/prof-vincent-courtillot-speaks-with-clarity/

    One of the best summaries I’ve heard. Check it out. I guarantee you won’t be disappointed

  48. Thanks for alerting me to my latest appearance in the Climategate archive. I think my freelance BBC affiliation has led you to see things in my email to Phil Jones that aren’t there. Your commentary on the exchange says I’m seeking to suppress the cooling story. As the email explicitly states, however, I was simply suggesting that Jones submit what he told me to the CC-Net forum, to put the alternative side to what was likely to be a widely reported issue. Encouragement to publish alternative viewsp hardly constitutes an attempt at suppression.

Comments are closed.