This is pretty ugly. In 2007 the NRC was setup to review the state of climate science. The usual players were involved. Today we have two separate examples of inappropriate behavior designed to squash any scientific dissent.
First from Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. in this essay:
Excerpt:
date: Mon Feb 28 08:58:57 2005
from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
subject: Re: CCSP report review period
to: Ben Santer <REDACTED>
Ben,
Good to see you if briefly last Wednesday ! The rest of the meeting was rather odd. Some very odd things said by a few people – clearly irked by not having got a couple of proposals recently ! I’m not supposed to be contacting you ! I would urge you to write up what you presented on the day and in the report. It was the most convincing presentation and chapter of the report. You should have less to do than the other chapters. Not yet sure how the summary will fare.
We didn’t discuss the email evidence (as you put it) nor Pielke’s dissent. We shouldn’t and we won’t if the NRC people have their way.
I was never really sure what the point of the review was.
Cheers
Phil
This is a remarkable e-mail since it indicates that the NRC was in collusion with Phil Jones to suppress issues that I brought up as lead author on the CCSP chapter 6. Chapter 6 was tasked to focus on what further research issues need to be explored to reconcile surface and tropospheric temperature trends. Chapter 6, as it was on August 11 2005, is given in Appendix B of my Public Comment.
The e-mail also documents an inappropriate communication between a member of the CCSP committee (Ben Santer) and a member of the NRC review committee (Phil Jones).
That’s email 3614.txt which you can read here
=============================================================
Next we have this new essay from Steve Milloy
Climategate 2.0: Shocker — 2007 NRC review of hokey stick rigged by alarmists
The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Chris[t]y is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:
That’s email 4498.txt which you can read here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My question is, will there be another whitewash? Or will they first have to whitewash the first whitewash?
Many of the people discussed in Climategate 1 and 2 work for the US Government, or are funded by the US Government. It’s quite clear by now that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is a consummate fraud, and these people are a large part of it. They not only deserve to be fired immediately, they should also lose any pension considerations they haven’t privately funded. The “Environmental Protection Agency” should be stripped of all funding used to “respond” to CAGW, and any capability to impose regulations relating to it. It won’t happen due to the person in the White House, but it should.
..as always,
we never met
this discussion never happened
stay low, and nobody will ever know
“The National Research Council of The National Academies of the United States is empanelling a committee to study “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past REDACTED Years”. ”
Why was this number censored? it must have read “the Past 1,000-2,000 Years” Did it look too much like someone’s phone number? The redaction algorithm seems poorly written.
If only they’d put a fraction of the effort they wasted on politics, into scientific research.
Not totally relevant, but if you want to read a lot of vindictive nonsense on the subject, you need to read the comments at Real Climate. Here is one from Anthony’s greatest fan Tamino, I thought it was very revealing about the depth of thought in the AGW cult. I promise I did not make this up, it’s real:
“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 @ur momisugly 7:03 PM
These scoundrels absolutely must not be allowed to get away with this. After all the attacks, all the suppression of dissenting views, the wholesale deaths of over 20 million people by starvation while these fatuous jerks push the diverting of 40% of the country’s corn crop to be converted to fuel for SUV’s, there must be aggressive in depth investigation of this wretched cabal followed by vigorous prosecution.
charles: “If only they’d put a fraction of the effort they wasted on politics, into scientific research.”
But who would have given them millions in grants to say it was natural variability? There method was way more lucrative.
In Canada Small Claims Court exists so you can sue people for up to 25,000.
Is there one in the UK? If every skeptic in the UK sued Phil Jones et al for fraudulently increasing their energy bills it would be appropriate.
In #4498: “Its (sic) important that they hear from the legitimate scientists.”
You mean the ones that confuse “it’s” with “its”, can’t spell, can’t fit a line in Excel, engage in logical fallicies, etc. etc. etc.
You do know that these are two different NRC panels, right?
Seems like some of the “scientists” have this idea that things should be “friendly”.
Talk about absolute hogwash. The evidence that the science is settled is becoming more apparant each and every day. It is settled that GAWG is bogus through and through.
No tropical hotspot, which some sites indicate was never an issue…OH??????
Stratosphere not cooling………OH??????????
NO statistical increase in temps for the past 13 years…..unless you use fake Ocean Heat Content……which Dr. Hansen disagrees with……OH??????????
How many things need to be shown for these suedo scienstists to finally be held accountable?
JPY says:
November 25, 2011 at 3:38 pm
You do know that these are two different NRC panels, right?
Doublebad?
An interesting read.
http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf
Maybe Mr. Foster can enlighten us as to why the stats/methodology are wrong.
As far as the stratosphere, of course, Harvard and Nasa are not to be relied upon……..right?????
Note the last sentence of the abstract:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.A12B..01S
” jorgekafkazar says:
November 25, 2011 at 3:04 pm
My question is, will there be another whitewash? Or will they first have to whitewash the first whitewash?”
Well do they need to, or can they simply ignore Climategate 2. It seems the newspapers are not latching on to the significance of these emails but they are reporting the rebuttals by Phil Jones. Before throw your arms in the air and saying well the press is biased stop a moment and think.
Now I am a interested non-scientist, by profession I run a business and am an artist, who has followed this blog for years. When I look at these emails they do not jump out at me. A journalist reading this post would probably be even more in the dark.
It strikes me that the sceptic side is not getting the recognition it deserves because ordinary folk are simply a sea when it comes to understanding what is being found in these emails. The warmist put out press statements, and if you google climategate news you will find their press statements regurgitated, often word for word, by countless newspapers across the world.
Sites like WUWT are really good discussion and analyzing boards, but the product of those discussions need to passed on in a form that is usable by the press. This is why your findings are being ignored. It is not that the press are always against you, and many are, it is because you are not packaging the results of these posts in wording that can then be distributed to the average non-scientist journalist.
What I am suggesting is that the impact of all the studious research and hard work that has gone on for years on WUWT is often not reaching the public because blogs like this one do not have a press department. If this blog, and other sceptic sites, were to combine to put together a team of scientists (maybe retired but still wanting to contribute and change the world for the better) with the ability to translate stories from blog posts into press releases, then the balance of reporting in the press would shift in our direction. It is not a hard thing to do; rewrite the important stories for lay people and then send them by email to lists of friendly reporters.
You have already won the arguments, most of what is arriving on your desks is reinforcing what you already know, now you have to find a way of putting this victory in front of the press so that it will be adequately covered in the newspapers
FOIA.org has left an escape route.
Those choosing not to use it, face the onslaught of an additional 22,000 messages between interested parties (made during the party).
The party is over, the intensity of the hangover is poorly bounded.
From jorgekafkazar on November 25, 2011 at 3:14 pm:
https://motherjones.com/files/21_nrcreport.pdf
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years (2006)
Online version:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676
Soft-sided carbon storage format from NAP is $40, registered users can download the pdf for free, don’t know what it takes to register. Or try the Mother Jones magazine link. It seems to be working, but being an encrypted connection (https) it’s taking way too long on dial-up so I’m killing the download. And I DO NOT know why it’s encrypted.
Found faster un-encrypted source, downloaded fine:
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Surface_Temps_final.pdf
The “2000” probably got killed by whatever redacts the postal codes, it’s a string of numbers that’s more than 3 continuous digits that’s not to the immediate right of a decimal point (or comma).
Peter Miller says:
November 25, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Tell Tamino to hold his horses for a short while.
There is a new study coming out (not peer reviewed) that will show how Phil Jones and co made the temps look like they were going up.
There is quite a few emails in the latest batch dealing with this episode. I’m assuming Roger Pielke Sr has searched through them.
Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Phil Trenberth, Tom Karl, Tom Peterson, Peter Thorne.
These are the names that come up the most frequently associated with the more darker aspects of the emails. This is the group that forms the leadership of the coordinated suppression of dissent. Their names will go down in the future Wiki about how the global theory got so out of control.
@Julian Williams in Wales
You may be right. People like Mann are very active at manipulating the media. I assume they were trained at RC when they were first set up by that PR organization that I can’t remember the name of right now.
Perhaps Anthony needs to issue “press releases?”
Julian Williams said, “Sites like WUWT are really good discussion and analyzing boards, but the product of those discussions need to passed on in a form that is usable by the press. This is why your findings are being ignored. It is not that the press are always against you, and many are, it is because you are not packaging the results of these posts in wording that can then be distributed to the average non-scientist journalist.”
I’m afraid I have to respectfully disagree with your supposition. It doesn’t matter what form the truth takes. If it is contrary to the progressive agenda it will be ignored if possible and attacked outright if it can’t be ignored. With very few exceptions the traditional media (print and television) is part and parcel a liberal institution. There are mountains of evidence in their own words that conclusively point out their entrenched liberal bias on all issues (not just CAGW alarmism). Under the best of circumstances this leads to outlets that have retained a small shred of objectivity and ethics simply ignoring anything contrary to their ideology. If it is not possible to igonore they will do their level best to minimise the impact of inconvienant stories. Then you have the sizeable percentage of reporters and outlets which actively collude with anyone on “their side” to push “their” agenda at all costs regardless of how low they have to stoop. These hacks will stop at nothing to push their propaganda and actively attack and deride anyone who dares challenge their agenda.
The fake skeptics have got nothing. Zero. Zip. Squat.
Comment by tamino on (I think) RC
TAMINO
Listen up. We’ve got a shortage of trolls over hear at WUWT since CG2 hit. The dearth of trolls has gotten so bad that some skeptic commenters have taken to copying comments like yours from PR sites like RC (hey, I’m not the one that called it a PR site, that was one of YOUR guys).
So how about stepping up? If you think we’ve got nothing, how about proving it? How about proving that claim by discussing both the science and the emails and making the case for your side with facts and logic? I’d be happy to discuss the issues with you, as I’m certain a lot of the rest of the WUWT regulars would.
Since we’ve got “nothing”, you ought to be able to tromp all over us. Sort of like Hercules walking into the lion’s den and finding it full of kittens. C’mon over Tamino. let’s see what you’ve got.
I’d even volunteer to have the debate on your own site if you feel more at home there. Just a couple of conditions.
1. You publish ALL comments.
2. You edit NO comments.
Let’s see how well you do in a debate where you don’t have editorial control over who gets to say what and when. What could you have to lose? We’ve got “nothing”.
Peter Miller,
I had to laugh at Tammy’s psychological projection [imputing one’s own faults onto others].
I suppose there are no mirrors in his mom’s basement.
Isn’t Tamino one of the ones who can’t count, and who believes there is a way to calculate the earth’s “appropriate” temperature using Gas law on solids and liquids, etc?
I remember seeing him say the most inane things imaginable through the years, always claiming to have ‘calculated’ this or that; yet seemingly oblivious to the absurdity of proclaiming temperatures based on models no one ever had much regard for.
I guess he found out who was ‘wrong.’ The guy who can’t use excel who was taught to calculate doomsday by the guy who can’t count.
It’s so hilarious to watch a scammer at work; pretense they haven’t been arrested as proof of correctness.
How many times will people take Micheal Mann’s data, put it in his Magic Mixer, and spit out a hockey stick lol?
How many times will they sit there silent as we all chuckle how they claim to know the sky might catch on fire due to the very class of gases that contains by FAR as it’s largest constituent, the phase-change REFRIGERANT, WATER?
People claiming to have taken into account all the many phases of water and IT’s effects, then to have SUBTRACTED this signal from overall signal THEN discovered the TOTAL CO2 signal and AGAIN combed out the amount added by mankind: and a temperature so accurate be derived,
Tamino and company want everybody to stop using fire real quick till we “figure out how close we are to the magic gases setting the sky on fire.”
It’s just criminal that’s all there is. My pop’s a retired chief of police who died a few months back; we used to talk about the transparency of socio/criminopaths once they are onto a scent of some scam they can perpetrate.
They go into myopic denial, and simply try to REPEAT and REPEAT themselves until everyboy “understands.”
Oh – we understand, Tamino. We understand the Prophet of Doom in Chief, melted down and lost his mind when he lost the election, and inadvertently exposed a small funding scam in an effort to get the country to install his policies in SPITE of the election.
We understand who can count Tamino, and who can’t: and we know you can’t. But you WILL be able to count the total indictments on one or two hands, I feel fairly safe in betting.
“Damage6 says:
November 25, 2011 at 4:49 pm
I’m afraid I have to respectfully disagree with your supposition. It doesn’t matter what form the truth takes. If it is contrary to the progressive agenda it will be ignored if possible and attacked outright if it can’t be ignored ”
It may seem that way, but perhaps you are looking at an illusion that has been created by the other side. In climategate 2 there are emails, such as the one to Kirby, where it is clear the AGW crowd have identified the hacks on their side, trained and positioned them in the media. Over time they have prevailed by a process of assisted selection.
Journalists are mostly ordinary folk like me, non scientists with everyday biases and preoccupations. If they are fed by one side they will drift in that direction. This creates the illusion that they are all born with these neo-liberal/fascist values.
Our side has a compelling narrative that will prevail if it is articulated and propagated correctly. (Note FOIA articulates his/her motivation are worries about the poverty created by the AGW conspiracy against honest science). As scientists this sort of rewriting for lay audiences may feel like dumbing down, but it can be done with integrity and respect. I think we need this service now, and if there are some articulate scientists willing to do this work I think they would have a disproportionate impact on how these issues are reported in the MSM.