Two separate examples show 2007 NRC review panel was stacked, except for a “token” skeptic and worked to supress dissenting science

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:

An E-Mail Communication Between Phil Jones and Ben Santer Indicating Inappropriate Behavior By The US National Research Council

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

About these ads

92 thoughts on “Two separate examples show 2007 NRC review panel was stacked, except for a “token” skeptic and worked to supress dissenting science

  1. My question is, will there be another whitewash? Or will they first have to whitewash the first whitewash?

  2. 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.

  3. “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.

  4. 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 @ 7:03 PM

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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?

  9. JPY says:
    November 25, 2011 at 3:38 pm
    You do know that these are two different NRC panels, right?

    Doublebad?

  10. ” 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

  11. 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.

  12. From jorgekafkazar on November 25, 2011 at 3:14 pm:

    “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” (…)

    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).

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. @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?”

  16. 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.

  17. 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”.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. “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.

  21. TAMINO
    Listen up. We’ve got a shortage of trolls over hear at WUWT since CG2 hit.>>>

    Tamino, I’m having second thoughts. I mean, why should I debate a tier 3 player like you in the first place? You’re just a cheer leader for the big guns of CAGW. You’re so mickey mouse that you don’t even show up in the CG2 e-mails. All that cheer leading Tamino, and they’re IGNORING you.

    So I figure here’s your shot at the big time. Come on over and put us in our place in a fair fight. That’ll get the attention of the big boys for sure. Show’em what you’re made of Tamino! I just have to warn you that I’m extending the invitation to Phil, Keith, Michael, Kevin, Ben, Jim, Gavin and the rest of “the team” to do the same. I don’t think any of them will have what it takes to step into the lion’s den with us kittens, so provided that none of them show up, I’ll be happy to debate you. But if one of the heavy hitters shows up, well, you’ll be back on IGNORE from both sides.

    In other words you have a shrinking window of opportunity to make a name in history for yourself by debating the science in an open forum without the protection of editorial control and showing us the “facts”. Better hurryup and grab my offer before one of the big boys steals away your opportunity to be truly famous.

  22. to Julian Williams…re. message not getting out and earlier comments re. wasting resources.
    Commenters here keep missing the point.
    The key pivot point in the issue is NOT the media.
    It is NOT the politicians.
    It is NOT even the climate scientists.
    It is the “high priests” of science.
    eg the APS the AMS and the Royal Soc in UK, and so on.
    If these bodies ignore the deep uncertainies and keep promoting alarm
    then all your other efforts are wasted, because the MSM and politicians will,
    correctly, in my opinion, take their advice.
    Instead of piling on at WUWT and other blogs, put your time into trying to influence
    the “high priests”.

  23. TheGoodLocust says:
    November 25, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    The name is Environmental Media Services – with ties to – Tides Foundation – Soros

  24. Damage6 says:
    November 25, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    These scoundrels absolutely must not be allowed to get away with this…..
    ___________________________
    The problem is the REAL scoundrels OWN our politicians, they OWN our judges, they OWN our Universities…. see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/world-bank-global-warming-journals-and-cru/

    That is what these e-mails truly show. Do not forget the USA Department of Energy TOLD Phil Jones to ignore the FOIA and hide the data.

    We would have to track down who these people are too.
    ARTICLE: Revolving-door between DOE and Company that Gets Energy loan http://shawsblog2011.blogspot.com/2011/11/revolving-door-between-doe-and-company.html

    I took a quick look at Open Secrets which has a listing of the government revolving door. But it would take a few days work to sort out all the references and who is now where and doing what.
    Revolving Door: Top Agencies http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=G

    Example:
    Former Assistant Secretary for Policy, Dept of Energy Sue Tierney: http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=70857

    LISTING
    Dept of Energy (212 people) http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/search_result.php?agency=Dept+of+Energy&id=EAENE

    First four on the list:
    DAN ADAMSON Now at Solar Energy Industries Assoc. was DOE http://www.seia.org/cs/about_seia/staff/SEIA_Government_Affairs_Regulatory

    Bud Albright DOE Undersecretary 2007-2009 now at CenterPoint Energy (gas & transmission)

    David Albright DOE advisor panel at ISIS ~ anti-nuclear http://isis-online.org/

    Allen Forrest DOE Dept Asst Sec for Enviro Mmgt… at DigitalGlobe (sat. Imaging) ==> Sinclair Knight Merz http://www.skmconsulting.com/Markets/Australia/Power/Geothermal-Power/ and http://www.skmconsulting.com/Markets/Australia/Water–Environment/Spatial/Practice-Areas/Digital-Globe.aspx
    ……..

    Environmental Protection Agency (141 people) http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/search_result.php?agency=Environmental+Protection+Agency&id=EIEPA

    Like I said a real big job following all the strings and the true puppet masters are not these people anyway. They like the climate scientists are just useful tools.

  25. Julian Williams in Wales says:
    November 25, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    “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.”

    It seems to me that our side has been winning for at least two years.

    The differences in getting out the message between our side and theirs are three:
    1. They have big money and they hire professionals to do their media work.
    2. They are willing to say anything to win. Remember the polar bears?
    3. The MSM have no critical capacity at all. They report as if they had no memory at all. They do not remember the polar bears. They have disappeared into Alzheimers or Marxism.

  26. A lot of folks do read blogs now.

    When reading the denialist blogs, they are trying to hush hush this, state there is nothing there when in fact if is very apparant the ruse is coming to an end.

    There is no joy in what I typed above, only sadness. That climate science has deteriorated to the point that folks, who at one time were credible, can now only seem to deny….deny…deny.

    There are no error bars in the e-mails. Black and white, and in English to boot. The certainty is 100%.

  27. @ Richard Hill – I think you have a very strong point and I entirely agree with you that the scientific establishment have sided with the wrong side. I fully understand your point that ” the MSM and politicians will, correctly, in my opinion, take their advice.” (“High Priests”)

    Where your analysis goes wrong is with your statement “Instead of piling on at WUWT and other blogs, put your time into trying to influence the “high priests”.”

    I think these “high priests” will be challenged and eventually turned through the influence of peer pressure, and that peer pressure is already organizing itself in the work provided by WUWT. I think what you are asking is already being effectively done. The readers of this blog already include many thousands of thoughtful and motivated scientists who are already putting their heads above the parapet and openly challenging the orthodox view of AGW. Reasoned argument, detailed discussion and analysis are exactly the right prescription for organising the peer pressure that will eventually turn round the wrong headed leadership of Royal society and other esteemed science establishment bodies.

    However, since Richard Hill has raised this axillary issue, I will add that it appears to me that there is missed opportunity to speed up the peer pressure. The rank and file scientists (and related occupations) need to “out” themselves in an organized fashion. I would suggest a petition with wording along the lines of “the scientists below do not believe that the primary cause of recent warming of the global climate is anthropomorphic”. The petition should be organized with signatories ranked according to specialized disciplines. Along with which universities and departments they come from. Statisticians should be one section, physicists another, meteorologists another….. The petition should be open and ongoing, with scientists allowed to join or un-subscribe as they feel fit.

    Such a powerful petition/statement would stand as defiance against the “high priests” and make them realize that the ground under their feet is shifting.

    Such a petition is a different matter from the need for a press department that collates news stories from the sceptic community and circulates the news to the wider lay public. They work in tandem but have different roles in the war against the prevailing AGW memeplex.

    I am not suggesting that Anthony Watts should be burdened with these extra duties. He has already shown he has a flair for orgainising discussion and debate amongst scientists. That role obviously suits his personality and he should not be distracted from carrying it out. Press and petitions could be organised by a team of dedicated scientists wanting to make their own novel contribution.

    Forgive my arrogance. I am an outsider who has no business to tell anyone here what to do. These thought emerged in my mind after reading FOIA’s plea for the misdirected money spent on bogus claims by a group of pseudo-scientists to be redirected back to helping humanity. It is such an important message, don’t we all agree?

  28. O/T
    Was visiting RC (Real Climate).
    I happened upon a thread and noticed the following (partial) exchange:

    ……….”However, no model can help you if you don’t understand the fundamental science at work, in the case of geochemistry/transport modeling; mineralogy, geochemistry and geohydrology. It is clear from several of the posts that there is a failure to understand either how science works or the fundamentals involved in climate science. Thanks for all the work RC does to keep focused on the science!”

    [Response: Great point. A strong argument could be made that the biggest problem with public understanding of any complex science is the misunderstanding of the various functions and purposes of models. Not everything is readily explainable.–Jim]
    ==============
    The comment mentions uncertainties in the science.
    The response mentions the inability of the unwashed masses to understand that even if the science is uncertain, the biggest problem is one of communication.

    For the full exchange go to # 301 here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=9931

  29. From u.k.(us) on November 25, 2011 at 7:27 pm:

    O/T
    Was visiting RC (Real Climate).

    Did you remember to practice safe computing? You never know what you could pick up from that site, that’s a pretty dirty crowd posting over there. On your firewall and anti-virus, did you turn on the “latex” option?

  30. davidmhoffer says:
    November 25, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    TAMINO
    Listen up. We’ve got a shortage of trolls over hear at WUWT since CG2 hit.>>>
    =======================================================
    Dave, they won’t come play, anymore. They never did do well in uncensored debate. The problem they have, of course, is of their own making. They clung to debunked clap trap like Mann’s Hockey stick far too long. When Nature started to kick their butts with reality, they still clung to their mythical climate gobblygook. The still insisted there wasn’t anything in the emails. Now, they’ve got nothing. Remember the proud announcement of a future rebuttal to Spencer? It was literally beat down in minutes! By the skeptics. The proud announcement of BEST’s preliminary findings……. well it took us as long as to get our hands on the data….. it was beat down.

    Today, ….. now we have members of their own team asserting the hockey stick was crap. We have members of the team admitting to the weakness of the science…… Today we even have a quote from Dr. Dessler…….. “I was not terribly worried about runaway climate change before this. After all, we know that the Earth’s had much higher CO2 in the past (and the temperature were correspondingly much higher), and the Earth did not turn into Venus.” ….. of course this is after today’s study that shows past estimates of CO2 sensitivity were completely over blown. ……… so, they won’t come play. They’ve got nothing to hang their hat on. The earth is not hotting and apparently it won’t, the consensus isn’t, the hockey stick is in some fireplace somewhere, what do they got? Some missing heat miles underneath the ocean?

    Its time to start thinking about how we can put this to bed. And, were I others, I’d start thinking about what the next issue will be for the Malthusian misanthropists.

  31. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    November 25, 2011 at 7:50 pm
    From u.k.(us) on November 25, 2011 at 7:27 pm:

    O/T
    Was visiting RC (Real Climate).

    Did you remember to practice safe computing? You never know what you could pick up from that site, that’s a pretty dirty crowd posting over there. On your firewall and anti-virus, did you turn on the “latex” option?
    ===========
    You betcha, my computer is on high alert just cus I’m on WUWT.

  32. @kadaka (KD Knoebel) Thank you for the most interesting link to the NRC paper. Reading it knowing the answer was pre-ordained via the email leak is very “interesting” and presents the paper in an entirely new “light”. It is amazing what one can learn by accident here reading at WUWT. And thank you Anthony for your amazing forum.

  33. “Jim Watson says:
    November 25, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    If you get a chance, you’ve really got to see the “dog and pony show” going on at The Guardian as they try to explain away these emails, like dancing between bolts of lightning.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/24/leaked-climate-science-emails

    She seems to be intentionally taking quotes out of context so she can make the argument that the emails are all taken out of context.

    This “journalist” should be fired for being either incompetent or intentionally deceptive.

    Have her explain away the things skeptics have a real problem with – like dredging up investigators to discredit your ideological opponents.

  34. @ Julian Williams in Wales says:
    November 25, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    We here at WUWT have taken the hard road haven’t we? Lot’s of good, sensible, and correctly analyzed comments but few ‘out there’ are listening therefore lacking the chance to judge for themselves what is true. You are right. No press coverage.

    That very fact has caused me to want to give up this cause many times, I keep coming back. As important as this subject is we are still letting a small group of environmental zealots to change this world in a way that is actually detrimental to all humans here, including our offspring. Many here simply don’t want their hypothetical ‘green’ 1984 totalitarian world for our children and grandchildren.

    We need help, maybe Anthony will listen to your words.

    Or… could a person as myself pick up a ‘pen’ and write press releases highlighting topics with a small comment for framing and substance and simply send it as you said above? Would any reporters on such list appreciate such an input? Wouldn’t want to be a bothersome hassle. Or, do you really need authority and position to be taken seriously?

    Bottom line….. someone needs to do what you said above. Please say more Julian, your words have as much a place here as anyone else. This is definitely not a private ‘club’ as many other blogs are.

  35. Its time to start thinking about how we can put this to bed. And, were I others, I’d start thinking about what the next issue will be for the Malthusian misanthropists.

    There’s much more to it than that. It would mean rolling back regulations at international, national, provincial/state and local levels. Regulations that were imposed for no good reason. Regulations that “save the planet” from … not very much. We have bans on light bulbs, fuel regulations, fuel mileage regulations, carbon taxes, carbon sequestration boondoggles, billions in taxpayer money to “green” energy projects, think tanks, working groups, “centers” for this and that, all justified by what amounts to a load of “crap” (their words not ours).

    We not only need to get rid of this hysteria, we need to rip out by the roots the waste it has generated. Oh, sure, it probably provides hundreds, perhaps thousands of jobs … that produce exactly nothing but paychecks. It is the greatest fleecing of the world’s people in history. Nothing compares. We are being robbed and these people are facilitating it.

    Of course the world’s CO2 was higher in the past. Everyone knows that. And Earth can not become a “Venus” unless the volume of the atmosphere were to triple or more AND suddenly become nearly pure CO2. If you go into Venus’ atmosphere to where the pressure is the same as Earth’s surface pressure, the temperature is about 5C higher than Earth’s.

    I am serious, it should be pitch fork and torches time. Our (in the US) federal, state, and local governments have wasted huge sums in practically every agency of government. Even our schools are wasting valuable money and classroom hours on this “crap”.

    Interest in AGW should not wane as a popular issue among the electorate. On the contrary, it should rise to the very top issue with any politician supporting it being marked for elimination in the next election cycle. It should be a strong *negative* for getting elected. And we need to eliminate these agencies and regulations created in response to this “crap”.

    As far as I am concerned, this issue is over. It’s done. It was a charade. But more importantly, it was flat out robbery. They have stolen our money and lined the pockets of their cronies and often themselves. It’s time to end it.

  36. We need to get these juicy details onto talk radio. If the heavy hitters on the radio start and keep talking about all these new revelations for a while the national media won’t be able to keep ignoring it, especailly after the phone calls to Congressman and Senators start rolling in.

    Talk Radio is the best chance to get national attention to this.

  37. From u.k.(us) on November 25, 2011 at 8:16 pm:

    You betcha, my computer is on high alert just cus I’m on WUWT.

    Uh-oh. Don’t let the kids at RC know you’ve come there from WUWT. They’ll think you’re a climate virgin who just needs some scientific persuasion to let them get your globes warming. Major problem is their “negotiating skills” never got beyond that of 6-year-olds on a playground: You can’t hang around with us, you’re so stupid we can’t even listen to you! You wanna be on our playground, you gotta show us RESPECT!

    Now who needs an abusive relationship like that, and if you got a job with a boss then do you need another? Now, I can understand you might want to “experiment.” Forget RC, you can do that by going to a WWF-friendly site and pointing out how the best way to save cute white fluffy Arctic seal pups is to shoot polar bears.

  38. Camburn says:
    November 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    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

    This is what the last sentence says:

    This is not consistent with the near-constant temperatures observed since the late 1980s.

    What is not consistent? Well, one has to read farther back in the abstract to find:

    This non-decline of upper stratospheric temperatures would be a new and significant change from the more or less linear cooling of the upper stratosphere seen before the 1990s, and reported in previous trend assessments.

    What, Camburn, you don’t believe NASA and Harvard? The models (CCMs referred to in abstract) do not agree with the observations of the stratosphere. That is what the last sentence of the abstract says. Oops.

  39. All of this Climategate stuff reminds me of the Saturday Night Live skit from season 4 Episode 20 1976, “Watergate was a joke”. I’m not a big SNL fan, but for some reason that episode was hilarious to me and I recall splitting a gut back then. After this latest CG2 fiasco, right away I thought of this from SNL.

    I tried in vain to find a working video of it, but if anyone else can, post the link. It fits so well with what these scientists like Jones, Mann et al are doing today by claiming they are being taken out of context. Guaranteed to get a laugh.

    For those old enough to remember, recall what the Nixon tapes were about and try to follow along with the transcript from the SNL skit:

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Live#Buck_Henry.2FSun_Ra_.5B3.20.5D

    Richard Nixon V/O: We’d do anything to crack each other up! And I remember, that day, Dean was on a roll, so I just followed his lead, and.. “played along” with the “joke”…
    John Dean: [ standing over Nixon’s desk; a microphone is unseen underneath a small lamp on the desk ] Plus… there’s a real problem… in raising money.
    [ Dean holds up handwritten sign: “Let’s Pretend There’s A Cover Up”; Nixon laughs, removes lampshade to reveal hidden microphone ]
    Uh… Mitchell… Mitchell has been working on raising some money… feeling he’s got, you know.. he’s one of the ones with the most.. to lose.
    President Richard Nixon: [ covers microphone with hand, tries not to laugh ] Martha!
    ..but.. there is no denying the fact that the White House – Ehrlichman, Haldeman.. [ points to himself ] ..Dean – are all involved in some of the.. early.. money decisions.

    President Richard Nixon: [ stands slightly to speak directly into the microphone ] How much money do they need?

    John Dean: Well.. I would say these people are going to cost, uh.. uh.. [ looks to Nixon for help, who sticks both thumbs in the air to silently cue Dean to pick a high number ] ..a million dollars! Over the next.. two years.

    [ Nixon and Dean pound on the desk to subdue their laughter ]

    President Richard Nixon: We could get that.

    John Dean: [ stifling laughter ] Uh-huh.

    [ Nixon scribbles on a pad, then, laughing silently, holds it up to reveal the message: “Let’s Talk In Incomplete Sentences” ]

    President Richard Nixon: Uh.. uh.. You, uh.. on the money.. if you, uh.. need the money, I mean, uh.. you could get the money. Let’s say, uh..

    John Dean: Well, I think if we’re going to, uh..

    President Richard Nixon: What I meant is, uh.. you could get, uh.. you could get a million dollars. And you could get it in cash.
    [ Dean stick two pencils up his nose, resembling a walrus; Nixon practically falls out of his chair laughing at the sight ]
    I, uh.. I know where it could be gotten!
    John Dean: Uh, huh! [ puts lampshade on his head and dances in a circle, to nixon’s amusement ] [edit]

  40. Email 4092.txt shows that University of East Anglia has a ”strategic alliance” with Goldman-Sachs. This is proof of UEA scientists’ conflict of interest and a fixed agenda to drive the AGW narrative to enable carbon trading and renewable energy markets. Science is about being impartial and investigating the facts, not green activism to push a narrative that bankers want.

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4092.txt&search=Goldman-Sachs

    date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:00:38 +010 ???
    from: Trevor Davies ???@uea.ac.uk
    subject: goldman-sachs
    to: ???@uea,???@uea,???@uea

    Jean,

    We (Mike H) have done a modest amount of work on degree-days for G-S. They
    now want to extend this. They are involved in dealing in the developing
    energy futures market.

    G-S is the sort of company that we might be looking for a ”strategic
    alliance” with. I suggest the four of us meet with ?? (forgotten his name)
    for an hour on the afternoon of Friday 12 June (best guess for Phil & Jean
    – he needs a date from us). Thanks.

    Trevor

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Professor Trevor D. Davies
    Climatic Research Unit
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich NR4 7TJ
    United Kingdom

    Tel. +44 ???
    Fax. +44 ???
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  41. 0073.txt Phil Jones sends email to UEA staff about carbon trading:

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0073.txt&search=carbon+trading

    How is this not conflict of interest?

    http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/11/european_carbon_market_plummet_1.html

    If you’re a scientist, not a market trader, you might hope this will have little direct effect on research. But if today’s low prices persist for a few more months, they will slash billions of euros from a European fund dedicated to clean energy projects. That’s because the fund, named NER300, is about to raise its cash by selling 300 million carbon credits on the ETS. Eight carbon capture projects and 34 renewables projects were set to benefit from the money. But at current prices, the sale would raise only €2.1 billion, instead of the €4.5 billion hoped for when the fund was proposed. Sales of the first 200 million carbon credits are due to start in December, and continue for the next 10 months, says Stig Schjølset, head of EU carbon analysis for the consultancy firm Thomson Reuters Point Carbon.

  42. Bare with me. I’m no scientist and have no experience in academia politics, but this is getting redicilous. Too redicilous.

    With close ties to media, governments, world bank and other banks like goldman sucks that will make huge money on every carbon credit exchange. Is it possible that these scientists are under threat for themselves and their families?
    I am getting the feeling that something is not right and this might be bigger. I just know this stinks and is far from what science is supposed to be but I’m also getting suspicious that there is something we’re missing here.

    I hope I’m wrong and this is just crappy science by nasty people. But the feeling that there is something more to this story is needling me.

  43. http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0816.txt

    Ok, so what I gather from this email is that the carbon sequestration businesses ended up going back to the universities for verification. I would appreciate someone else’s take on what:

    “I have suggested we maght in Tyndall assist them in possibly validating the science behind this.”

    would actually mean. It seems that this is a flat out admission that the carbon sequestration market was total bunk from the outset. The company they are talking about, Future Forests, is still alive as Carbon Neutral Company.

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

    They are an offset provider. Of note in the Wiki article, if correct, is that the company was founded a full five years before they consulted with climate change scientists to have the ‘science validated’, as it were.

  44. James Sexton;
    Dave, they won’t come play, anymore. They never did do well in uncensored debate. >>>

    Precisely. That’s exactly why we should be challenging them at every opportunity. Challenge them to debate without censorship. Specify, over and over, that we want to debate them, we’ll be civil, we’ll not descend to ad hominem attacks, we’ll gladly publish every word of every argument from both sides for all to see. But under no circumstances do we debate in a forum where one side can censor the other.

    Think it over for a moment. What are they going to do? The more they respond to the invitation to debate UNCENSORED, the more they look like they are frightened of a fair fight. If they DO show up and debate in a fair forum, they’ll get sliced to ribbons for all the world to see.

    I won’t bother issuing the challenge over at RC. It would never see the light of day, or they’d snip the pieces about agreeing to it being uncensored out of it, and then claim victory by censoring me, or anyone else. That’s the whole point. They can’t win a fair fight, and the more they get called out on that point, the more guilty they look by not showing up.

    The truth is that the warmascience alarmist armadda is made up of full time researchers with huge budgets, gigantic compute resources, armies of staff, and they are AFRAID of a fair fight. They can’t hold their own with a bunch of part time amateurs who donate their time to forums like this one and hold down other jobs during the day. Sure, some of us are physicists or chemists or engineers, and some of us are electricians, or welders or plumbers, and some of us are computer programmers, or accountants, or sales reps. We’re a rag tag bunch when you think about it, and the fact is that the whole pack of them, “the team” are AFRAID of us.

    Call ‘em out every chance you get. You’re right, they won’t show. Because they’re tough as nails when their opponant has both hands tied behind his back and his feet bound together. But in a fair fight they not only can’t win, they don’t even show up.

    C’mon Phil. Michael. Keith. Kevin. Ben. James. Gavin. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

  45. davidmhoffer @ 4.53PM

    Is this why Ira Glickstein is encouraging bridge building in his post Slipping past the Goalie ?
    In southern Australia we excel at that, including Royal Commissions of Bridges and secret business!

  46. Also from 2007:

    At the Bureau of Meteorology, prominent alarmist David Jones boasts of “snowing sceptics”, and cites as evidence of global warming – a drought – now passed and a prediction since debunked:
    0601.txt
    cc: “Shoni Dawkins”
    date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:03 +100 ???
    from: “David Jones”
    subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
    to: “Phil Jones”

    Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week.
    Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also
    easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the Australian data is in pretty good order anyway.

    Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need
    meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse – across NSW farmer have received a 0% allocation of water for the coming summer and in Victoria they currently have 5% allocations – numbers that will just about see the death of our fruit, citrus, vine and dairy industries if we don’t get good spring rain).

    The odd things is that even when we see average rainfall our runoffs are far below average, which seems to be a direct result of warmer temperatures. Recent polls show that Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism.

    Regards,
    David.

    See more:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

    Love to hear what the Jones boy says about the latest 4 day rainfall all over SE Australia.

    Wonder if “Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant” that he didn’t need his rain gauge to see it!

  47. David, I concur with your take on this. Many examples of conflicts of interests in the emails. I think Climategate II is one of the main reasons there is panic in the carbon markets at this time–traders are realising the AGW sham is falling apart and they are dumping carbon credits while they can still get out.

  48. Wow Jessie, great detective work! Just shows the tentacles of the AGW carbon trading scam is spread far and wide. I think its not a coincidence that FOIA waited until the Australian carbon tax was passed into law, before releasing the climategate II emails.

  49. King of Cool;
    Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. >>>

    And there you have it. Just as I said, they’re afraid of a fair fight. They think that the skeptics in Australia are scientifically incompetent, and that is fortunate. Read that again. They feel it fortunate that they aren’t being called upon to debate their position with competent skeptics.

    What could they possibly be afraid of? Nothing. Unless they knew of course that their science was bullsh*t from the get go, and then yes, they would consider it fortunate they didn’t have to debate anyone competent.

    How about it David Jones? Wanna come over to an open forum and discuss the science sans censorship? BTW, there’s some aussie commenters active on this blog who are pretty sharp and they’d probably want to go a couple of rounds with you on their competence level by engaging you on the science you feel so fortunate as to not have to defend. Alas, there will be nothing left of you when they are done, so no fun for me. Maybe you could bring a friend or two along? Phil? Keith? Someone?

    I’ll tell you what David Jones. How about we take you on with a huge handicap. We’ll only respond by cutting and pasting from things John L Daly wrote? He’s passed on, and there’s been a lot of science published since, but with a little help from us commenters to cut and paste, he can still bury your “science”.

    Where was he from again? Oddly, I thought it was your neck of the woods….

  50. Just popped over to RC to see how much they’re enjoying the party. Spotted this one in the comments….

    Explain this!

    Dec 31 23:49 1999
    From: Phil Jones
    Subject: One world government
    To: IPCC-group
    Comrades,

    Soon our once-great nation will rise from the ashes of the greatest war the world has ever known. Russia has changed. But our lives will not be wasted. The master plan is proceeding apace. Adolf Hitler once said “The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” Indeed, the best kept secrets are the ones that everyone knows. Double agent Anthony Watts has a remarkable summary of the global warming charade. Stupidly is his sword and Folly his shield. By placing the truth where everyone can see it — nobody can! Today we have recruited over 2,000 scientists to The Team. To you I say we have only completed a beginning. There remains much that is undone. There are great tricks undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth’s protective layers. Onward.

    Phil.

    [Response: Darn! Can’t explain that one, but wasn’t it also cc-ed to our vegetarian overlords? – gavin]

    Comment by ThePowerofX — 22 Nov 2011 @ 4:06 PM

    Spoof I guess but…….. I have to ask…..

    Anthony! Double Agent! ‘Secret Squirrel? Inch High Private Eye?

    C’mon Anthony! Confess!

    [Spoof LOL – quick search of the emails – nada ~jove, mod]

  51. I thin foia is waiting with his/her other stash to really cause major damage. They better get out while the going’s good

  52. Justin Williams in Wales says:

    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.

    I facetiously suggested that in my Notes From Skull Island:, here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/05/out-manned-but-what-happened-to-the-science/#comment-760039

    Seriously, “packaging” the skeptical case into an organized database, and/or into a point-by-point counterpoint to consensus claims, or at least into a best-of-WUWT sister-site is desperately needed–and would be done if Our Side were indeed “well-funded and well-organized.” I wish someone would give Lucy Skywalker a grant to get started on her somewhat similar project.

  53. It is this type of pathetic, feces-throwing from the “worlds leading climate scientists” that is reason-enough to no longer give the correlation-is-causation chimps any benefit of doubt.

  54. I think that when you do a whitewash like this the object you whitewash gets increasingly dirty for every whitewash?
    The whole “team show for a cause” is dominated by a very large negative feedback?

  55. @ Roger Knights
    “Seriously, “packaging” the skeptical case into an organized database, and/or into a point-by-point counterpoint to consensus claims, or at least into a best-of-WUWT sister-site is desperately needed–and would be done if Our Side were indeed “well-funded and well-organized.” I wish someone would give Lucy Skywalker a grant to get started on her somewhat similar project.”

    I looked at your link. That is a very big operation you are proposing that would need a big team. I am suggesting a much smaller team of scientists spending a few evenings a month collecting together and rewriting the important news into copy that can be taken by lazy journalists and pasted word for word into articles for their newspapers.

    Then emailing “the press releases” to a list of journalists using an email personalising program like maillist king.

    It really is that simple. At first you may get few takers, but if you provide balanced well written articles you will eventually find that journalists begin to trust your output and use it as a way of filling their newspapers.

    BTW I think what Lucy Skywalker is doing is brilliant, but it is different from what I am suggesting needs doing. Many journalists, especially for provincial press, are not researching their copy. They are looking for cut and paste stories.

    It is very interesting to google news stories and looking at the list of stories you get, often you will see all with the same titles and stories from many newspapers around teh world. Phil Jones put out a press release cherry picking quotes from climategate 2 and answering them: A clever move because he chose his straw men and then knocked them down. this gave the impression that Climategate 2 had provided nothing new and was a storm in the teacup. Our Team would have issued a press release : “Phil Jones fails to answer important Questions” and in a very graceful and honest way put concrete boots Phil Jones’ press campaign.

    It is about reaching out to friends in the media and making their lives easier.

  56. @Wayne

    “Or… could a person as myself pick up a ‘pen’ and write press releases highlighting topics with a small comment for framing and substance and simply send it as you said above? Would any reporters on such list appreciate such an input? Wouldn’t want to be a bothersome hassle. Or, do you really need authority and position to be taken seriously?”

    When you started you would get a lot of that sort of reaction, but if you provide integrity and well written stories you will eventually build up a group of friendly journalists. Especially if you can provide warmth in your stories – For instance FOIA links his whistle blowing to the plight of the poor. This is a wonderful angle for a press release, maybe providing outsiders with a reason to sit up and think is this the work of a hacker or a whistle blower, what is behind this story?

    This thread has many comments about how models are bad science. We need a press release that introduces the public to the idea that models are not the same as empirical evidence. But you have to introduce and piggy back those ideas inside news stories.

    There is a lot of fun to had. But I do emphasis that integrity has to be given priority over bias.

  57. There is a small claims court in the UK. Generally, with claims below £5,000 neither side can recover their legal costs save other than disbursements/court fees.

    It would be a difficult case. It would not be easy to claim fraud since that carries the criminal standard with respect to the burden of proof, ie., one would have to establish matters beyond reasonable doubt. Usually in civil actions there is a lower standard based upon the balance of probabilities.

    The better case would be based upon negligence but issues arise whether Jones/the Team owe a duty of care and if so to whom? It may be that they owe the IPCC and governments funding their work and even their empolyer a duty of care but it does not automatically follow that a duty of care is owed to Joe Public. Joe Public is once or even twice removed. The advice given by Jones/the Team influence the reports issued by the IPCC. Those reports in turn influence government policy. It is government policy that has a bearing on the loss (extra expense) sustained by Joe Public.

    A small claims action is unlikely to involve much in the way of costs but unfortunately, the Court rarely orders disclosure (still less full disclosure) so such an action is very unlikely to reveal other incriminating emails/documents which couyld if disclosed demonstrate a case of negligence or serious wrong doing or even fraud.

    That said, if a few people were to instigate such an action, it would pile some pressure on Prof. Jones and it appears that he is thin skinned and made of not particularly strong constitution.

  58. Julian Williams in Wales says:
    November 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    I agree with this and I have raised this point in the past. One needs to collate 6 to 12 of the most damming emails (any more and people will lose interest) and explain the significance of these in a punchy letter to be sent to media outlets.

  59. The problem with a scam that starts off small is that if it gets completely out of hand, original agenda (some more research funding and kudos for leading a nascent field) is swamped with the in-rushing gold-diggers who have different fantasies.

    A relationship of convenience may work for a while, but usually the initiators find in the end their entire purpose has been compromised, other mafias have taken over and they are threatened or sidelined. There are dozens of movies with this as the plot premise. Seeing what happened to the sensible-minded founders of Greenpeace and Sierra Club is demonstrative. The fields of Green are ever more dominated by louts, yobbos, extortionists and money launderers. That was not the original plan!

    “Please explain to the court, Mr Bonafides, how you came into such a huge sum of money, all the while having no visible means of support.”

    “I bought some carbon futures on credit using my Goldman-Sachs account, reselling some borrowed Chinese promises to ‘do nothing’ to the Russian casino industry who leveraged them using their fortunate’ discovery that a forest plantation project in Cameroon they had financed had ‘done even less’ than expected. Who knew? We were so surprised… Goldman-Sachs audited the savings themselves and increased the Cameroon project rating to Triple-A. That raised the value of all future African forest projections to do nothing allowing me to sell my additional ‘do nothings’ to a Chinese power plant where my friend Lothario works as a carbon trader. It turned out those Chinese were actually doing something the German’s were paying them not to and had, in an attempt to cover for themselves, mistakenly bought Somali carbon futures at an inflated price from my uncle Sot who owed me a lotta money, by the way, since the wedding. When the Germans found out about the Chinese-Somali over-priced deal, they had to rush to buy the available Russian-Cameroonian forest underperformance which my agent at Goldman-Sachs (quite coincidentally) told them was the only large enough deal available this week – you know, enforcement stuff and alla dat. Ya can’t be too careful. By da time all da money changed hands and I had paid off my original loan from Goldman-Sachs, I was up $33 million.”

    “Mr Bonafides, how do we know you didn’t just get protection payoff money from the Russian casino?”

    “You insult me sir! Would I lie to you?! If you don’t trust me or the Russians or the Chinese or the Cameroonians or the Somalis then who do you trust! You sir, need to have a little more respect for the emerging nations! As a group they are very nice people and they have always treated me well. Besides, the carbon market is unregulated. You can’t prove nuttin’ and you got nuttin’ on me! I know my rights! Talk to the hand cause the face ain’t listenin’.”

    “Is it true Mr Bonafides, that you own a defunct toxic waste processing company in Equatorial Guinea?”

    “Talk to the hand!”

  60. jorgekafkazar says:
    November 25, 2011 at 3:14 pm
    “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.

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

    Download the file for yourself if you want to see redacted material. Very little is redacted from those. Phone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, street addresses… none are redacted.

  61. Julian Williams in Wales says:
    November 26, 2011 at 5:41 am

    Roger Knights says:
    November 26, 2011 at 3:42 am

    wayne says:
    November 25, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    —————

    Wayne/Roger Knights/Julian Williams in Wales,

    I applaud those who are energized to provide an organized residual body of thoughts from the open climate science sites like WUWT, etc.

    I applaud those who reach out to the media with copy they (the MSM) can cut and paste.

    I find the strength of independent and unassociated contributors /commenters at the open climate science sites is the unique and creative approaches to well-worn and too familiar discourse. That is how we got the material that anyone would seek to organize and/or project to the media. It is how we will continue to advance our knowledge further in the open climate science sites.

    I cannot see that there can be any hint of intellectual authority in open discourse, so I would encourage efforts at the open climate science sites to persist in the current independent and non-associated format.

    John

  62. Anthony – I think you have grounds for a defamation action against Tamino: “fake” sceptic! As opposed to a “real” sceptic? What a moron! Is he something other than someone who runs a poor and rarely-visited blog?

  63. I supported an NRC committee about six years ago and my experience is that it too was stacked with “unbiased experts” that led to an entirely predictable outcome. I really hope that the evidence clearly shown in these emails galvanizes two people to action… Issa and Inhofe.

  64. November 26, 2011 at 6:56 am
    [SNIP: You come by offering nothing and do it with a fake -email address. Brave, bright lad. -REP]

    You mean, come by offering a counter view to your Group Think here? Of course, all the other other comments are filled with scientific wisdom and insight?

    You guys take yourselves a little too seriously – sadly nobody else does.

    Fake email address? Just an excuse for you to snip those that disagree with you.

    [REPLY: You will note that we publish many comments that disagree. Some of those commenters, like Joel Shore, for example, have the courage to put their names to their opinions. WUWT policy requires a valid e-mail address. You can check the policy here. Last warning. -REP]

  65. Here’s t summary provided by the popular late-night talk-show Coast-to-Coast AM about its broadcast of Friday, Nov. 25:

    Climategate:

    Filling in for George Noory, John B. Wells hosted space historian Robert Zimmerman, in the first half of the program, for a discussion about Climategate and other science-related issues. Zimmerman contended that Climategate was the “perfect example” of scientists distorting data to come to conclusions that were preferable to their research community. He pointed to money as the key factor which drove Climategate, since climate research is fueled by multi-billion dollar grants issued from various governments around the world. Additionally, Zimmerman surmised that misplaced “good intentions” have clouded the judgement of climate researchers who are adamant that global warming is an imminent danger to the planet.

    Regarding the aftermath of the controversy, Zimmerman lamented that, rather than punish the scientists involved in the disputed findings, the research community “spent the next two years whitewashing those scientists that had committed that fraud.” He called this turn of event the “biggest tragedy” of the scandal, since it undermines the public trust in not only the climate research community, but also the scientific establishment as a whole. Chillingly, Zimmerman warned that, in light of our culture’s overhwelming reliance on science as a foundation for human knowledge, “if we don’t trust our scientists or they become untrustworthy, then we’re in big trouble.”

    Going forward, Zimmerman shared some solutions for fixing the damaged reputation of climate research. He first suggested expunging the scientists responsible for perpetrating the controversial findings from the climate research community. Beyond that, he called for an end to the United States’ funding of the UN climate change research as well as stricter distribution of government funded grants to independent scientists. He also said that greater transparency is needed from climate researchers, who have been reticent to share their raw data in the past. Ultimately, he called on the media to do a better job of investigating the claims of climate researchers. To that end, he expressed dismay that much of the press has seemingly supported the embattled scientists and, even worse, appears to have not even read the complex leaked e-mails which began the scandal.

  66. Julian Williams in Wales says:
    November 26, 2011 at 5:41 am
    @ Roger Knights
    “Seriously, “packaging” the skeptical case into an organized database, and/or into a point-by-point counterpoint to consensus claims, or at least into a best-of-WUWT sister-site is desperately needed–and would be done if Our Side were indeed “well-funded and well-organized.” I wish someone would give Lucy Skywalker a grant to get started on her somewhat similar project.”

    I looked at your link. That is a very big operation you are proposing that would need a big team. I am suggesting a much smaller team of scientists spending a few evenings a month collecting together and rewriting the important news into copy that can be taken by lazy journalists and pasted word for word into articles for their newspapers.

    As I said here, that is a semi-facetious list of all the things Our Side would be doing if indeed it were well-organized and well-funded. I didn’t mean to propose it en bloc as a current plan of action. My 3rd item parallels yours:

    3. There’d be a PR agency to “package” stories emerging from the blogosphere and articles in scientific journals or contrarian columnists and feed them to media sources in easy-to-read, pre-edited form. (Or at least an unincorporated online network of funded individuals performing a PR function.) This is a topic that is so complex and filled with jargon that it desperately needs such pre-chewing to get the MSM to swallow it. But what do we have? Only Climate Depot, which provides leads, but no packaging.

  67. Ok, here’s the thing:

    I don’t think ANYONE in their right mind disagrees that climate has warmed. THAT is not the issue. It would have been expected to warm coming out of the Little Ice Age. The warming progresses fairly steadily up to about the 1930’s. Then temperatures begin to cool a bit as we go through a cool Pacific Ocean cycle until the middle 1970’s and then warm up, basically to close to where temps were in the 1930’s. We don’t see any “global warming” after the 1998 “mother of all el ninos” event.

    I think everyone agrees that climate changes. The question is “to what degree are humans having any influence”. I believe Pielke has the right answer in that we can change climate but it is probably an aggregation of local land use changes and not a global atmospheric change that we are measuring. We are measuring the temperature and precipitation changes from local deforestation, converting of land to farmland, irrigation, creation of huge lakes where there weren’t any before, UHI impacts, the impacts of poorly sited measuring stations, the impacts of defective electronic measuring devices (which often get left in the record), and the impacts of changing which ground stations are used in creating these data.

    Heck, I can remember a time (early 1980’s) when Santa Clara County, CA was quite different. The Great America amusement park was in the middle of nowhere surrounded by fields. You could actually TELL when you left Santa Clara and entered Sunnyvale because there was open space between the towns. The Santa Clara valley is now completely built up. That is BOUND to change thermometer readings without any associated change in Earth’s climate system. Many other areas of the country have gone through the same process. I remember when the city of Moreno Valley, California was the Riverside Raceway, some melon and bean fields, and March AFB. The city was created basically out of whole cloth in 1984 and currently has a population of 193,365 (2010).

    The fundamental problem with GISS and CRU and the rest are their reliance on surface station measurements. They are seeing an aggregate of thousands of local changes and attempting to come up with a global atmospheric change that will account for that aggregate change. This is directly in the face of data from places that HAVEN’T seen any significant surrounding land use changes showing no significant “warming” but these places are actually rather difficult to find these days and get swamped out of the record because so many other places HAVE experienced dramatic surrounding changes. Note how reluctant they are to use the satellite data.

    And as for climate, there has been no steady gradual rise that would would expect from steady gradually increasing CO2. Judith Curry shows it most clearly on a fairly recent article on her blog. It is a series of step changes. Bob Tisdale shows the same thing with ocean temperatures on his blog. Temperatures go along ranging around a fairly flat median for several years and suddenly the median temperature takes an abrupt step up and then goes along for another 10-20 years about that median. You can sort of visualize it looking at this graph:

    Imagine a line from 1979 to 1997 at about -0.1. That would be the pre-1998 median (roughly, just eyballing). Now in 1998, you step that line up to +0.2 and take it across. So it looks like we had a step change in about 1998 (there was another that this graph doesn’t show because we didn’t have satellite measurements in 1976, but there was another step up in ’76 or so) What this graph shows is basically one single step change up in 1998, not a gradually rising temperature due to rising CO2.

    The funny thing is that aggregate land use changes WOULD be expected to produce a gradually rising signal as more and more areas experience changes. That would be until the impact from those changes is fully established and then those stations no longer rise because the land around them is now fully built up. At that point the stations are likely to reflect changes in cloud cover from year to year. A dry summer with little cloud cover is going to bake that concrete and asphalt. A cloudy rainy summer is going to be much cooler in those areas. It will even matter what time of day it is cloudy and what time of day it rains. You could have two years with the same rainfall amounts but if it falls mainly in daylight hours one year but mainly in nighttime hours the next, the average temperatures in a town of steel and concrete are going to be very different and not really reflect “global climate” at all.

    It REALLY is time for some common sense to seep in. The people at UEA are making a mistake I see people make every day when faced with troubleshooting a complicated problem. They are looking for one single cause that can create all the measurements they see. I have seen technicians pull their hair out for hours looking for what could be the cause of a problem they are seeing in a piece of equipment when there is no one single cause, there are maybe three separate issues. You take ONE problem and troubleshoot that one. Take ONE station and see if you can account for local impacts that would make the temperature change. Then attempt to quantify those local changes and remove them from that record. Now you have a meaningful “adjustment” for THAT station only. Then move to the next. Pick an array of locations where things haven’t changed much and use those stations or site new ones there. I’m willing to bet things haven’t changed much in Ellinwood, KS or Millington, MD.

    Their data is “crap” so their product is “crap” and they seem to conveniently overlook the things that might cause temperatures to rise over time outside of their hypothesis because those things actually help validate the hypothesis even though they are completely unrelated.

    We have a gradual increase in temperatures caused by an aggregate of global land use changes near surface stations combined with some “step” changes in climate that haven’t been explained and would not be explained by gradual rises in CO2. What changed in 1975/6 and 1997/8? Any ideas?

  68. Roger Knights, Julian Williams;

    I agree that the skeptic message suffers from a lack of packaging. I called it a lack of context in other threads, but it amounts to the same thing. Those of us who follow the climate debate in any depth hear about some e-mail that corroborates the “hide the decline” comment, and we think to ourselves AHA! MORE PROOF. The casual reader thinks “what’s hide the decline?”. The reporter trying to come up with copy for tomorrow’s paper who similarly doesn’t follow the details on a regular basis wonders the same thing. Quick google search, top ten hits are about Phil Jones explaining why it doesn’t mean what it says, and presto cutto pasto article is done.

    For the casual reader, or a reporter trying to make a deadline, what stands out to us as ironclad proof is nothing but an obscure reference to another obscure reference.

  69. crosspatch,

    Excellent commentary as usual. I also recall large open farmland in the same county in the ’70’s. The small town of Milpitas was mostly corn fields [a Mexican friend calls it Milputo – ‘thousand whores’.☺]

    And I’m still waiting for someone to try and falsify my hypothesis that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. I suspect the ‘crap data’ response will be the evidence-free ‘ocean acidification’ scare, which has been thoroughly debunked by Dave Middleton and Willis Eschenbach in several articles.

    I don’t know what causes step changes. But they’re regional, aren’t they? Possibly the great buildup of urban temp recording stations during that time, and the subsequent removal of particular stations later on contributed.

  70. And I’m still waiting for someone to try and falsify my hypothesis that CO2 is harmless and beneficial.

    I am expecting that increased atmospheric CO2 will cause some small amount of atmospheric warming. So far we are talking about warming of 1.5C since the start of the 20th century and most of that is recovery from the LIA prior to the 1930’s. Plotting linear trends is rather silly when it is obvious that the temperatures are not rising linearly.

    Here is an interesting thought experiment I came up with last night in my usual wondering about things: How much fossil fuel of all types existed before we started using it for energy on a large scale (coal in the industrial revolution)? Now, do you think maybe we have burned at least half of all recoverable fossil fuel resources? If we have, then things can’t possibly get any worse going forward than they have looking back because if we have already burned half of what is available, then we can’t burn any more in the future than we already have in the past. If the past has resulted in 1.5C of temperature change (assuming for the sake of this that we attribute ALL 1.5C to CO2) then the most we can expect is a bit less than 1.5C more in the future as we burn the rest of what we have.

    If you believe we have burned less than half of what is available, then what percentage of total recoverable fossil fuel to you believe we have taken so far? Multiply the 1.5C by the reciprocal and you have what we might expect to be the climate impact. And also realize that CO2 is constantly being scrubbed from the atmosphere so once fossil fuel consumption begins to fall, CO2 levels from human actions also begin to immediately fall. Left on its own without any additional sources (natural coal seam fires, for example, emit as much CO2 as all automotive traffic on the face of the earth) the atmosphere would gradually deplete itself of CO2 and all the plants and animals would die. Only as long as volcanism matches exactly the scrubbing rate does CO2 remain stable (ocean + atmosphere).

  71. “I agree that the skeptic message suffers from a lack of packaging. I called it a lack of context in other threads, but it amounts to the same thing. Those of us who follow the climate debate in any depth hear about some e-mail that corroborates the “hide the decline” comment, and we think to ourselves AHA! MORE PROOF. The casual reader thinks “what’s hide the decline?”. The reporter trying to come up with copy for tomorrow’s paper who similarly doesn’t follow the details on a regular basis wonders the same thing. Quick google search, top ten hits are about Phil Jones explaining why it doesn’t mean what it says, and presto cutto pasto article is done.

    For the casual reader, or a reporter trying to make a deadline, what stands out to us as ironclad proof is nothing but an obscure reference to another obscure reference.”

    That in a nutshell is what is happening. Can we have a thread on this subject Anthony, and find out if there are a group who are willing to do this work?

  72. davidmhoffer says:
    November 25, 2011 at 5:08 pm
    TAMINO
    Listen up. We’ve got a shortage of trolls over hear at WUWT since CG2 hit.>>>

    Tamino, I’m having second thoughts. I mean, why should I debate a tier 3 player like you in the first place? You’re just a cheer leader for the big guns of CAGW. You’re so mickey mouse that you don’t even show up in the CG2 e-mails. All that cheer leading Tamino, and they’re IGNORING you.
    =====================================

    TAMINO is just fluffing about. And a person fluffing about is a … ? Your friend is Google.

  73. Streetcred;
    TAMINO is just fluffing about. And a person fluffing about is a … ? Your friend is Google.>>>

    Hmmmm…. there’s several meanings. The most used one has to do with spinning a story for PR purposes in order to do damage control or imply facts not in evidence. That sure sounds like Tamino.

    Frankly though, I think this whole climate thing is obscene to the point of being pornographic. At days end Tamino never makes the main scenes, he’s just a wannabe with some minor off screen duties. He thinks he’s got an important job, but he’s just a tool polisher.

  74. Perhaps the folks here that want to create a AGW skeptics organization could volunteer their time and support with GWPF. They publish here regularly, you know.

  75. “Cecil Coupe says:
    November 26, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    Perhaps the folks here that want to create a AGW skeptics organization could volunteer their time and support with GWPF. They publish here regularly, you know.”

    Yep – I will look up GWPF, but it needs a scientist to lead this venture. A non-scientist like myself would make too many bloomers and do more damage than good.

    There is a really excellent article about climategate2 and what we have learnt about thr BBC here:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music–game-shows.html#ixzz1eu0PZAeb

    the author – David Rose – must be a very sympathetic journalist to have done so much research. He is just the sort that we should be feeding stories to.

  76. Having followed the debate and controversy of Global Warming, now call Climate Change after the IPCC mandarins could not support their hypotheses for number of years, it amazes me that the fundamental function and disciplines of science is abrogated for political expediency and political correctness.
    As comments presented on this thread regarding the culpability of the proponents of ‘climate change’ dogma, criminal and litigation procedures should be initiated to stop this fraudulent travesty.

  77. David L says:
    November 25, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    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.

    Yep. “fallacies”, even! Don’t forget them!

    Dave, don’t ignore those squiggly red underlines your Firefox spell-checker puts under words. Sometimes they’re important.
    >:)

Comments are closed.