A response from Chris de Freitas

In the post: The tribalistic corruption of peer review – the Chris de Freitas incident Dr.  Chris de Freitas has left a response. Rather than argue his own position. Dr. de Freitas lets the director of the publication Climate Research speak for him in a letter sent in 2003 settling the matter.

He writes:

Chris de Freitas Submitted on 2011/11/28 at 10:58 am

Hello All

See copied email below:

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

Thu, 3 July 2003 12:42:48 +0200
To CLIMATE RESEARCH
Editors and Review Editors

Dear colleagues,

In my 20.06. email to you I stated, among other things, that I would
ask CR editor Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the
reviewers’ evaluations for the 2 Soon et al. papers.

I have received and studied the material requested.

Conclusions:

1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented
detailed, critical and helpful evaluations

2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested
appropriate revisions.

3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly.

Summary:

Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.

Best wishes,
Otto Kinne
Director, Inter-Research

————————————————-
Inter-Research, Science Publisher
Ecology Institute
Nordbuente 23,
D-21385 Oldendorf/Luhe,
Germany
Tel: (+49) (4132) 7127 Email: ir@int-res.com
Fax: (+49) (4132) 8883 http://www.int-res.com

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

The Team should be ashamed. Dr. Phil Jones and Dr. Tom Wigley should resign, in my opinion because rather than argue the science, they formed a tribe, and used the collective influence of the tribe to smear the reputation of the editor, de Freitas.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to A response from Chris de Freitas

  1. Tierney says:

    Wonder what the Team has been saying about Otto Kinne, though?

  2. cui bono says:

    Damn right!

  3. Bloke down the pub says:

    A nice, understated response to the critics which depending on your country of origin, is the equivelant to the raising of one or two digits in their general direction.

  4. Doug Taft says:

    It’s nice to see that peer review does not allways fold to peer pressure!

  5. PJB says:

    I wonder if prisons have climate science departments…. they may be getting an influx of inmates shortly. The humour possibilities are limitless but less than the grief caused by said individuals.

  6. crosspatch says:

    Look at 5321.txt and see for yourself.

  7. crosspatch says:

    OOPS, Meant:

    Tierney says:
    November 28, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Look at 5321.txt and see for yourself.

  8. Timo van Druten says:

    Last sentence: “…tribe to smear the reputation of the editor, de Frietas.” Please correct in “de Freitas”.

    REPLY: Fixed thanks, A

  9. Tierney says:

    crosspatch says:
    November 28, 2011 at 11:42 am
    Look at 5321.txt and see for yourself.

    yeah. A “de Freitas clone.” Nice. This is in keeping with their M.O. I doubt this letter from Kinne that de Freitas released will shame them very much.

  10. Robert Brown says:

    Goodness, it does seem as though a lawsuit smackdown of the perpetrators is in order, ESPECIALLY after this letter is in hand. Present this letter and the climategate emails to the jury. Simply forcing the hockey team to attempt to defend the indefensible in a public forum would be worth the cost of admission. How do you defend an obvious conspiracy to smear the character of somebody, apply pressure to them to alter the way they are doing their job, and try to get them fired all for publishing a paper after a fair review process that disagrees with you?

    rgb

  11. kwik says:

    Somethimes I kind of feel sorrow for them. Sort of, the same feeling you get when you see a small child crying when plaing in a sandbox, getting sand in its eyes.

    Then, suddenly I remember some of the consequences of what they have done, and the feeling sort of disappear.

  12. crosspatch says:

    How do you defend an obvious conspiracy to smear the character of somebody, apply pressure to them to alter the way they are doing their job, and try to get them fired all for publishing a paper after a fair review process that disagrees with you?

    Their gut reaction, I think, and by that I mean the reaction of The Cause, would be one of naturally coming to the conclusion that if you disagree with them, that is in and of itself evidence that you aren’t a climate scientist and shouldn’t write papers on the subject because the act of disagreeing makes you “fundamentally dishonest” (according to Mann). It is very handy. The act if disagreeing automatically disqualifies your opinion!

  13. DirkH says:

    crosspatch says:
    November 28, 2011 at 11:42 am
    “Look at 5321.txt and see for yourself.”

    Excerpts:
    Mike Mann ueber Otto Kinne:
    Michael E. Mann wrote:
    Thanks Mike
    It seems to me that this “Kinne” character’s words are disingenuous,
    At 07:51 04/07/03 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
    Mike (Mann),
    I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone.

    I (DirkH) find this absolutely wonderful; I will from now on refer to Mike Mann as “this ‘Mann’ character”; and to Wigley as “a ‘Mann’ clone”…

  14. RichieP says:

    Try these for starters
    105794165
    0255
    105794482
    106000234
    1457
    1695

    Just put Otto Kinne in the search box at
    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=8693
    which gets 17 results of which these are a few.
    Mann is a real nasty piece of work ain’t he? It shines forth like ‘darkness visible’. Ugh.

    ‘> Dear All,
    >REDACTEDFinally back in the UK after Asheville and IUGG. Attached is an
    > editorial from the
    > latest issue of climate research. I can only seem to save it this way.
    > Seems like we are
    > now the bad guys.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Phil
    >
    > At 07:51 04/07/03 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
    > >Mike (Mann),
    > >I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone. However, what
    > >would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell
    > >people to avoid the journal?
    > >Tom.
    > >__________________________________
    > >
    > >Michael E. Mann wrote:
    > >>Thanks Mike
    > >>It seems to me that this “Kinne” character’s words are disingenuous, and
    > >>he probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we
    > >>have to go above him.
    > >>I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in
    > >>this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all
    > >>levels–reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way
    > >>into oblivion and disrepute,
    > >>Thanks,
    > >>mike

  15. Interstellar Bill says:

    Ten thousand jet-setters going to Durban
    make more CO2 in two weeks than poor millions do in a year,
    but Big Media ignores it.
    Biofuel causes starvation in the Third World,
    but Big Media ignores it.
    American windmills kill thousands of birds
    (and maintenance workers too),
    but Big Media ignores it.
    Britain’s Green-stoked fuel-poverty kills the vulnerable,
    but Big Media ignores it.
    When the Team’s chicanery is uncovered,
    Big Media tries to ignore it,
    but the Internet and Fox News don’t.

    Can we please vote this crud out next November?
    Let Big Media try to ignore that.

  16. Dodgy Geezer says:

    “…Summary:….Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor….”

    That’s what he’s being accused of! He has let down The Cause by doing a correct job. Didn’t he know he was supposed to do a biased job…?

  17. Josualdo says:

    crosspatch says: November 28, 2011 at 12:08 pm: Their gut reaction, I think, and by that I mean the reaction of The Cause, would be one of naturally coming to the conclusion that if you disagree with them, that is in and of itself evidence that you aren’t a climate scientist and shouldn’t write papers on the subject because the act of disagreeing makes you “fundamentally dishonest” (according to Mann). [...]

    Yes, that’s a psychological warfare technique (well, propaganda): redefine the terms, create a new reality, trash your opponent with it. As in, for instance, “the people” means “the party’s secretariat”, and an ennemy of the people gets new meaning. It’s not even lying, it’s an entire alternate reality. After a few months everybody playing your game uses that frame of reference, and who doesn’t is a lackey of Big Something or whatever the chosen term is.

    For instance, if it’s unknown to The Team, it’s an improper referee panel. If its against The Team’s propaganda, it’s not science and it has been long debunked. If a journal publishes the wrong paper, it’s not peer-reviewed literature and shouldn’t be quoted. And so on.

  18. Josualdo says:

    Oops. Instead of “alternate reality” please read “alternate description of reality”.

  19. RobertInAz says:

    Sallie Baliunas on weather cooking.

  20. Frank K. says:

    I’ve been wondering about why such fervent tribalism would emerge in climate science, and the obvious answer is the Climate Ca$h. NCAR, GISS, Academia don’t want any “non-believers” trying to siphon off any of their Climate Ca$h, particularly for projects which attempt to reduce the impact of their work.

    It’s long past time to turn off the government money spigot for climate science. Let the climate scientists fend for themselves in the private and non-profit sectors…

  21. KnR says:

    If this lot is ever up in court of law that will be a good day, for to see them totally lost without pal review or back starching and having to deal with real questions [snip over the top]

  22. crosspatch says:

    It’s long past time to turn off the government money spigot for climate science.

    Well, there is a lot more than just grants to institutions for the research. The research gets fed into bodies such as IPCC and then policy recommendations flow out of UNFCC to the various governments. So then people like the EPA in the US produce regulations at the federal level and also state groups such as CARB in California produce their own regulation. These often force money into “Green” concerns causing a diversion of billions of dollars into industries that would not find that cash flow if they had to compete only on the merit of their product. Often these industries are headed by political cronies and collect huge amounts of taxpayer money.

    The scale of the corruption is boggling. It is all one giant international fleecing of the world’s public and at great cost at a time when we really don’t have the money to waste on stuff like this.

  23. Caz says:

    The wikipedia entry on this affair needs a lot of editing! It is still quite libelous.

  24. kwik says:

    RobertInAz says:
    November 28, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Hey, I think I like Sallie!

  25. Darren Potter says:

    Enough is enough with these Global Warming faux scientists, their abuse of their positions and standing, and their arrogant stone walling and cover ups.

    Given the Billions of Taxpayer dollars wasted on Global Warming fraud committed by these faux scientists and their politicking, it is time for law enforcement agencies in each faux scientists’ respective countries to bring the stated in for questioning. Along with serving warrants on each faux scientists’ employer for the immediate release of all their documents, data, and work.

    After those investigations have taken place, the appropriate faux scientists must be arrested and charged with fraudulent use of government funds, along with any other applicable charges. In a few faux scientists’ cases they should be charged with sedition against their respective countries for attempting (for personal reasons or profit) to institute external political control over their countries by a Global governing group.

    Next up, should be the political figures who were involved in the Global Warming fraud. Followed by the media outlets that assisted in selling the public on the fraud.

    Summary: It is time for heads to roll.

  26. wayne says:

    Robert Brown says:
    November 28, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Goodness, it does seem as though a lawsuit smackdown of the perpetrators is in order, ESPECIALLY after this letter is in hand. Present this letter and the climategate emails to the jury. Simply forcing the hockey team to attempt to defend the indefensible in a public forum would be worth the cost of admission. How do you defend an obvious conspiracy to smear the character of somebody, apply pressure to them to alter the way they are doing their job, and try to get them fired all for publishing a paper after a fair review process that disagrees with you?

    rgb

    But it seems that the criminality aspect should take precedence foremost. The civil suits can follow. I do think the huge monetary gain this “team” has amassed at the public’s detriment by the so apparent collusion should be seizes and returned to the taxpayers firstly. You would not it to look like the following civil lawsuits by damaged scientists were filed to pilfer the team’s purse in front of the tax payers rightful claims. Theses damaged scientists should sue just to get their damaged respect returned.

    Of course, “the team” does have hundreds, maybe thousands, of members so there should be enough money in their collective holdings to cover both aspects, criminal and civil. Many people have unrightfully become rich over this malfeasance.

  27. tallbloke says:

    Ben Santer:
    “Over a year ago, Tom and I reviewed (for JGR) a paper by Douglass et al. that
    was virtually identical to the version that has now appeared in Climate
    Research. We rejected it. Prior to this, both Tom and I had engaged in a long
    and frustrating dialogue with Douglass, in which we attempted to explain to him
    that there are large uncertainties in the deconvolution of ENSO, volcano, and
    solar signals in short MSU records. Douglass chose to ignore all of the comments
    we made in this exchange, as he later ignored all of the comments we made in our
    reviews of his rejected JGR paper.

    Although the Douglass et al. Climate Research paper is largely a criticism of
    our previously-published JGR paper, neither Tom nor I were asked to review the
    paper for Climate Research. Nor were any other coauthors of the Santer et al.
    JGR paper asked to review the Douglass et al. manuscript. I’m assuming that
    Douglass specifically requested that neither Tom nor I should be allowed to act
    as reviwers of his Climate Research paper. It would be interesting to see his
    cover letter to the journal.

    In the editorial that you forwarded, Dr. Kinne writes the following:

    “If someone wishes to criticise a published paper s/he must present facts and
    arguments and give criticised parties a chance to defend their position.” The
    irony here is that in our own experience, the “criticised parties” (i.e., Tom
    and I) were NOT allowed to defend their positions.

    Based on Kinne’s editorial, I see little hope for more enlightened editorial
    decision making at Climate Research. Tom, Richard Smith and I will eventually
    publish a rebuttal to the Douglass et al. paper. We’ll publish this rebuttal in
    JGR – not in Climate Research.”

    Well that’s fine Ben, you and Tom rejected the Douglass et al paper when it was submitted to JGR. The reviewers at Climate Research took a different view and recommended it for publication. So publish your rebuttal in JGR and stop whining. Let others decide which is the better science; you are too attached to your own work to objectively judge (or be an impartial reviewer of work which runs counter to your own).

    Sheesh! Grow up!

  28. RAH says:

    In the original post on this topic, I made a comment that on re-reading sounds far too non-chalant in brushing past the Climategate collusion’s human impact — here, involving the appalling spectacle of their gunning for another scientist’s reputation and job. Following “[m]aybe worse…” I should have mentioned this human impact as the worst element of the whole fiasco.

    And, of course, I never considered that Dr. de Freitas himself might stumble across my comment. (Out of my element, indeed.) You’ll note I’m still hiding behind anonymity, but I’d like to apologize, Dr. de Freitas, if my asking questions about the S&B paper’s review process and validity in esssence (or in fact) gave aid and comfort to the character assassins. I don’t want to sound like I’m falling back on the last refuge of Rosie O’Donnells, “I’m just asking questions!”; I was trying to ask about the paper in good faith.

    Thing is, I can’t even imagine the practitioners in my neck of the scientific woods (a light-on-math field in the physical sciences) going into such convulsions over a single contrary publication. Junky papers might slip through peer review (for whatever reason) and get mocked and disparaged; minority — even sole — dissenters to the prevailing theories might be argued against vociferously on the merits, but are never subjected to an all-out Sherman’s March through their careers. But there’s no politics in my field. And the Climategate crew’s actions here (along with all the attention they devote to PR and journalists) amply demonstrate that they’re as much in the political game as they are in the science.

    But I’m uncomfortable attributing the theory of CAGW entirely to hoax, conspiracy, wishful thinking, perpetual funding machine, etc., based on the machinations of some unscrupulous scientists. (I’m not implying that anyone here takes that view, either.) They may be unscrupulous; but they might also be right, no? I ask this, admittedly, from a position of complete and horrible ignorance. Which was why I asked about the Soon paper, specifically; and now I ask about historical global temperatures generally: What should a hypothetically apolitical, influenced-only-by-the-science, well-informed commentator say about the topic? Is the Soon paper good? Is our current warming period unique to terrestial history, no… Or do we just not know with any certainty?

  29. Alan Wilkinson says:

    Clearly this mob are simply a bunch of thugs who, even by the low standards of academic politics, are a disgrace to science.

  30. Rob Potter says:

    Dear RAH ( November 28, 2011 at 4:17 pm)

    Excellent questions and – as someone who is also in a different branch of science, but who has spent some time looking at the data (that’s what I do) I would say that in my opinion there is nothing in the various records which is inconsistent with historical (i.e. natural) climate changes. This does not mean that humans are not having an effect, but certainly does – in my opinion – rule out making drastic changes to our energy supply system because the costs are simply not justified based on any current data.

    This was implicitly accepted by one of the main advocates recently (Kevin Trenberth, I think), when he called for the burden of proof to be on those claiming that climate change was not caused by humans – i.e. accepting anthropogenic influences as a given and shifting the level of significance. I say this was an implicit acceptance of the lack of significance for the anthropogenic theory, because otherwise there would be no need to switch things around in this manner.

    Sadly, it appears that we are in a period of our history when the scientific method appears to be being subsumed by a legal approach. By this I mean that instead of attempting to falsify a theory, we are instead caught up in a game of hunting down supporting evidence and querying the veracity of anything (and anybody) which refutes it. Consequently, instead of welcoming criticism and addressing it as a useful test of a theory, critics are seen as the enemy and some pretty unscrupulous attempts to silence them are being employed. That this was happening with “malice aforethought” seemed like it was just some kind of wild conspiracy theory up until two years ago when the first climategate emails were released – this new tranche is more of the same, but in such detail that it now provides unimpeachable evidence that there has been a concerted effort to silence critics.

    I am saddened that the perpetrators still seem to think they can just ignore this and carry on claiming these to be “quoted out of context”.

  31. Jan says:

    Is our current warming period unique to terrestial history, no… Or do we just not know with any certainty?

    In my estimation, if they were right, they would not have to be unscrupulous and the more vicious they are about making sure they are seen to be right, the more likely it is they are wrong.

    The one thing I do know is that if this behaviour is permitted to continue in ‘Climate Change Science’, we will never know the truth. The bullies and the gatekeepers, the reputation destroyers and those of thin skin and big ego will never allow any challenge to their precious ’cause’ to survive. This isn’t science. I’m not sure I can even call it politics. It’s truly more akin to religious fervor.

    It is an awful thing they have done to Dr. de Freitas.

    It it is not stopped, the only thing we can pray for is that people like Anthony, JeffID, Steve M, and the other brilliant minds who post to their sites continue to generously and openly toil in the spirit of truth seeking, learning and teaching.

  32. Robert Austin says:

    RAH says:
    November 28, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    “They may be unscrupulous; but they might also be right”

    RAH, they might be right but they have yet to demonstrate it by scientific method. There is nothing in known climate history on any time scale that points to our present climate being in any way unusual or “unnatural”. So the default view, the null hypothesis, must be that the minor changes in climate we observe are predominately natural. And the onus is on climate scientists to show otherwise, despite Trenberth’s pathetic attempt to pervert the null hypothesis by putting the onus on society to prove that mankind wasn’t causing CAGW.

  33. juanslayton says:

    RE: Tallbloke
    Let me see if I understand. Ben and Tom publish an article in JGR. Douglass submits a rebuttal to JGR and Ben and Tom are reviewers? WUWT?

  34. Doug in Seattle says:

    “How do you defend an obvious conspiracy to smear the character of somebody…?”

    This is how politics is waged in America. The left has proved itself to be quite adept at it (eg Mr. David Axelrod). The right becomes hopelessly mired in damage control instead of campaigning on their ideas. Ask Mr Cain how well his message is getting across.

    It should come as no surprise that the same tactics are used by ideologues such as Michael Mann and the IPCC “Team”.

  35. Smokey says:

    RAH,

    Others have answered your questions better than I could. But my 2¢:

    You ask: “They may be unscrupulous; but they might also be right, no?”

    No. They are wrong up to this point in time, based on the fact that there is no evidence to support their CO2=CAGW conjecture. None at all. If evidence is found that verifiably, testably connects CO2 with rising temperatures in a cause and effect manner, I will change my mind. But so far there is zero evidence for AGW. And CAGW is laughable.

    That is not to say that humans do not have an effect; they do. Changes in land use cause changes in local and regional climates. And CO2 may have a small effect on temperature, but that is still conjecture. After a rather large 40%+ rise in CO2, the widely predicted runaway global warming and climate disruption is nowhere to be found. Reasonable people will conclude that blaming “carbon” was completely in error.

    Further, rises in CO2 always follow rises in temperature on all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia. Effect cannot precede cause. The likely cause of the current rise in CO2 was the very warm global Medieval Warm Period [MWP], which ended about 800 years ago. Human activity adds to the total. But empirical observation confirms that CO2 is at most a minuscule forcing – if it has any effect at all [my view is that it adds a small, fraction of a degree warming, which is entirely beneficial]. The “carbon” scare is baseless, without any evidence to support it. Belief in the evil “carbon” still exists only due to the immense amount of money supporting the failed CO2=CAGW conjecture.

  36. Robert in Calgary says:

    Bravo Smokey.

    That’s a pretty good 2 cents

  37. It is obvious that Jones et al. are being protected by some one with more political and financial clout then they have. I wounder who that might be? I wounder who they managed to buy this loyalty?

  38. AlexS says:

    “now I ask about historical global temperatures generally: What should a hypothetically apolitical, influenced-only-by-the-science, well-informed commentator say about the topic?”

    Not much. We don’t have historical and reliable information down to the 0.x’s Cº that supposedly are in question…

  39. Ray says:

    Now we know where the tv show “Survivor” is coming from.

  40. Philip Bradley says:

    From wikipedia,

    Based on the CRU email leak, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli attempted to obtain documents from the University of Virginia relating to several Mann grant applications. The request, which sparked widespread academic condemnation,[12] was denied in August 2010 by a judge for failure to state sufficient cause.[13][14] Cuccinelli has tried to re-open his case by issuing a revised subpoena.[15]

  41. Richard111 says:

    kwik says:
    November 28, 2011 at 2:38 pm
    RobertInAz says:
    November 28, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Hey, I think I like Sallie!

    Me too!

    Advice to RAH; try honesty and science. The above video explains what could happen when those attributes are abused.

  42. Mike H. says:

    Dennis Nikols says:
    November 28, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    Perhaps Geo. Soros with his Tides Foundation. Big in the political environmental movement.

  43. J Bowers says:

    “In conclusion: … CR should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication.”
    – Otto Kinne, August 5th, 2003. ‘Climate Research: an article unleashed worldwide storms’. Climate Research Vol. 24: 197–198, 2003.

    The email to De Freitas is dated 3 July 2003.

    [Reply] the article J Bowers references is available online by googling for the title. It provides wider context than his cherry picked quote, including:

    “While admitting that the routine
    review procedure continues to require critical attention,
    Inter-Research is determined to protect the principles
    of the review process, the freedom of editors
    and reviewers and the presentation of diverging
    opinions, theories and facts.”

  44. Galane says:

    @Mike H. Ohhh yeah. I’d like to see George Soros in court, then in jail. He donates to a few actually worthy things as a fig leaf for all the ultra-leftist, anti-freedom garbage he gives money to.

    I shake my head in wonder at how Soros and many other ultra-wealthy people can support ideologies that when in control of large numbers of people put people like Soros up against the wall or dragged them out into the woods to shoot them. If they achieve their dream, the nightmare will eat them first.

  45. jason says:

    Obviously a clear example of malpractise. Will anyone know are care? Nope.

    Where are R Gates and the never sleeping N Stokes, I would like to read their defence.

  46. Ryan says:

    I really think you are over-egging this one. I’m a sceptic and I can’t support the comments being made here. Fact is that what Team AGW was doing is little different from what has been done to Michael Mann by sceptics eager to see him in jail for misuse of public funds. It is a matter of perspective only.

    What these emails expose is not so much that Team AGW tried to destroy de Freitas (the emails aren’t really strong enough to conclude that) but what you can conclude is some other, perhaps some more important facts:-

    1] AGW theory isn’t really the work of several isolated disinterested parties that have independently come up with this theory. In fact it is the work of a single team who all know each other personally despite their geographic separation.

    2] Team AGW have the same politics. They refer to de Freitas as being “right wing” because they already know they can use this term to dismiss somebody outright. Imagine you were at a meeting at work and dismissed someone outright on the basis of their politics – your colleagues would consider it irrelevant, and some might share the same political views as the colleague you are attacking. Not within Team AGW. Here we have a group of scientists who not only have a shared left-wing politic but also know that everyone within Team AGW shares the same politics. They clearly discuss their politics openly. No wonder they tend to cleave to left-wing political activist causes. Team AGW is responsible for the politicisation of AGW science, not the sceptics.

    3] Team AGW really believe the word is warming. This is not a conspiracy by a group of left-wingers with a hidden agenda. They really believe in what they are saying with the fervour of a religious fundamentalist. Sceptics are not going to change the ninds of these individuals – they can only hope to change the minds of those beyond Team AGW and their disciples.

    4] The tendency of Team AGW to hold AGW beliefs with a religious fervour causes them to lash out at those that are against them. They share a messianic belief that they are saving the world and will continue to do so regardless of any evidence to the contrary (which they will simply ignore). As sceptics we must realise that simply reacting to Team AGW by hitting back will not achieve very much – we will find ourselves conforming to Team AGW descriptions of us and this will be used against us. It is probably better to voice our support for those that stand up against this onslaught and keep an open mind. Consider that open-minded scientists like Judith Curry must be treading a very dangerous and lonely path – they need our support to remain open-minded without being considered to be co-opted into a sceptic “movement”. Such brave scientists need to feel they are not alone.

  47. AGW_Skeptic says:

    See the P.S. at the email of this email string.

    How did Mann know Chris de Freitas was going to be dismissed?

    Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:41:55 -0600
    From: Jerry Meehl
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
    X-Accept-Language: en
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: [Fwd: Harvard-Smithsonian Climate study]
    X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.1 required=5.0
    tests=FWD_MSG,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03,
    USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_XM,X_ACCEPT_LANG
    version=2.41
    X-Spam-Level:
    Mike,
    Thanks! It never ceases to amaze me what tactics the naysayers come up
    with–this latest, using what would appear to be a quasi-legitimate
    “journal” to publish results that they then claim are peer-reviewed and
    mainstream to launch a disinformation campaign, is very devious. Plus
    it appears they have won–the current administration is on their
    side–but they keep it up anyway. Bizarre.
    Johannes Loschnigg (the AMS congressional fellow I mentioned) may
    contact you directly if he needs more ammunition in his capacity of
    climate person assigned to deal with these issues in Liebermann’s
    office.
    Thanks again!
    Jerry
    “Michael E. Mann” wrote:
    >
    > HI Jerry,
    >
    > This is crap of the worst kind–it was written explicitly for
    > political purposes; there is no science there at all–the mainstream
    > media completely ignored it, having figured that out, but various
    > right-wing groups (such as “Western Fuels Association”) have continued
    > to try to promote this in fringe media circles and through political
    > channels within washington DC (so the story continued to appear on web
    > sites like “Techcentralstation” and Murdoch-supported newspapers).
    >
    > I’ll forward a whole bunch of emails (in confidence) that should
    > clarify the situation. We’ve all decided that this is so bad a direct
    > response cannot even be made. Phil Jones and I, and Ray Bradley, Henry
    > Diaz, and Malcolm Hughes are writing two review papers which will
    > dismiss much of what they’ve said.
    >
    > please feel free to contact me for more information,
    >
    > cheers,
    >
    > mike
    >
    > p.s. NYT, Scientific American, and a few other journalists are working
    > on exposes of Baliunas and co., and those should appear soon. It
    > looks like Chris Defrietas, the editor at “Climate Research”
    > responsible for publishing the Baliunas et al piece, and numerous
    > other dubious other awful articles by “skeptics” over the past couple
    > years, will be dismissed as a result of this latest act.
    >

  48. LazyTeenager says:

    Smokey says
    Further, rises in CO2 always follow rises in temperature on all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia. Effect cannot precede cause. The likely cause of the current rise in CO2 was the very warm global Medieval Warm Period [MWP], which ended about 800 years ago.
    —————
    Well Smokey that’s an ingenious proposal. I’ ll have to think in detail about the processes that could deliver heat into the oceans 800 years ago and just now account for the current rate of increase of CO2.

    But I think the immediate killer is that when the oceans fizzed out CO2 in the interglacials, the levels reached maxed out at 300pm. Now we are at 390ppm and still rising.

  49. Gail Combs says:

    Interstellar Bill says:
    November 28, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    Ten thousand jet-setters going to Durban
    make more CO2 in two weeks than poor millions do in a year,
    but Big Media ignores it…..
    but the Internet and Fox News don’t.

    Can we please vote this crud out next November?
    Let Big Media try to ignore that.
    ______________________________
    I am sorry Interstellar Bill but you have that incorrect. It is not “Big Media” it is “Banker owned Media”

    http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Morgan-Buys-Newspapers9feb17.htm
    http://www.newsandtech.com/dougs_page/article_f3a45be0-4717-11df-aace-001cc4c03286.html

    Interlocking Directorates
    Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies. This list shows board interlocks for the following major media interests…..
    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2870#dow

    MSNBC, it is fun to take a closer look at who actually is in charge of our propaganda outlets.

    NOTE: GE is the world’s second largest company after JPMorgan Chase

    Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA; CMCSK) and General Electric (NYSE: GE) yesterday closed their transaction to create a joint venture…

    The new company is 51 percent owned by Comcast, 49 percent owned by GE,…

    J.P. Morgan was lead financial advisor to GE with Goldman Sachs and Citi acting as co-advisors….
    http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-and-ge-complete-transaction-to-form-nbcuniversal-llc.html

    Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman & CEO, of GE and now Obama’s Chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, said point blank “…I am a globalist. So I am a big believer that basically it is a win-win game of global trade….” http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-11-15/news/27612907_1_jeffrey-immelt-ge-indian-market
    I would laugh if I was not crying over the irony of appointing a fox to guard the hen house. So where is Occupy Wall Street’s protest over this brain dead behavior on Obama’s part?
    http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Why_Did_Obama_Choose_Outsourcing_Champion_Jeffrey_Immelt_as_Jobs_Advisor_110208

    The other player is Stephen B. Burke Chief Operating Officer, Comcast Corporation President, Comcast Cable Communications.

    …Before joining Comcast, Mr. Burke served with The Walt Disney Company as President of ABC Broadcasting…. Mr. Burke serves on the Board of Directors for Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co….

    …Michael J. Angelakis serves as Chief Financial Officer for Comcast Corporation…
    Prior to joining Comcast in 2007, Mr. Angelakis served as Managing Director and as a member of the Management and Investment Committees of Providence Equity Partners, one of the leading private equity firms investing in communications and media companies around the world. Before joining Providence Equity Partners in 1999, Mr. Angelakis was President and Chief Executive Officer of State Cable TV Corporation and Aurora Telecommunications, LLC. He also served as Vice President at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company in New York, where he oversaw one of the bank’s media and communications portfolios. Additionally, Mr. Angelakis spent several years in London developing Manufacturers Hanover’s acquisition finance and merchant banking activities throughout Western Europe….

    Jeff Shell serves as President of Comcast Programming Group for Comcast Corporation…
    Prior to joining Comcast, Mr. Shell was CEO of Gemstar TV Guide International where he successfully navigated Gemstar through a number of legal and operational challenges. Before joining Gemstar, Shell held a number of positions within News Corporation including President of the FOX Cable Networks Group, Shell also worked… at Salomon Brothers Inc…. http://www.comcast.com/nbcutransaction/pdfs/Bios%202.13.10.pdf [/blockquote]

    “…Salomon Brothers was a bulge bracket, Wall Street investment bank…. the investment banking operations of Citigroup” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Brothers

    I especially love that the last guy used to work for FOX as well as Citi group.

  50. There has clearly been a conspiracy here to blackmail Climate Research into firing De Freitas. Also the University of Auckland.

    Is this legal?

  51. Dave Springer says:

    [snip] OTT

  52. Mark says:

    I would like in a spirit of this discussion to ask a question: what would constitute a scientifically and theoretically proven evidence of CAGW? With my pure math background it is sometimes hard to identify the limits of a (climate) physics conjecture. Assuming that climate theory is falsifiable (eventually), what would actually satisfy those of us who agree with ‘skeptical’ ( for lack of a better word) arguments? Please do not take the question the wrong way, just trying to reconcile As and Bs.

  53. J Bowers says:

    “the article J Bowers references is available online by googling for the title. It provides wider context than his cherry picked quote”

    Ironic, given what happened last week.

    If anyone wants to read von Storch’s side here’s a LINK. Click on ‘editorial’ to see what he was blocked from publishing.

  54. Pete H says:

    Dr. Chris de Freitas
    NICE!

  55. Gail Combs says:

    Dennis Nikols says:
    November 28, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    It is obvious that Jones et al. are being protected by some one with more political and financial clout then they have. I wounder who that might be? I wounder who they managed to buy this loyalty?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    How about Dr. Robert T. Watson, who was Chief Scientist and Director, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development for the World Bank at the same time he was IPCC chair??? The SAME World Bank who in the Danish text, a secret draft agreement, would get effective control of climate change finance. Seems like a great big hint right there.

    International Bankers have a big money stake in this. Do not forget they are the ones who LEND countries fiat, created on the spot, money for all those “Green Projects” and the taxpayer pay interest on that funny money with their LABOR.

    Without some knowledge of Fractional Reserve Banking practices, Central banks, the World Bank, IMF Structural Adjustment Programs and gold it is tough to see what the actual game plan is.

    Fractional Reserve Banking
    Fractional reserve banking means Joe Sixpack and Suzy Schoolteacher put $1500 each into the bank for a $3,000 total deposit. With todays three percent reserve requirement that means the bank can produce a $100,000 mortgage by making up the other $97,000 using an accounting entry. Today 97% of the US money supply is bank loans. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/fractional-reserve-banking-part-ii/

    Congress does the same thing only when they borrow from the Federal Reserve the entire million is an accounting entry and fiat money is created on the spot. Fiat currency in conjunction with fractional reserve lending allows politicians to buy votes and pay off campaign contributors with the Federal Reserve loans. Tax payers get the double whammy of having to pay interest on hot air AND see their wages dwindle because of inflation. Politicians do not even have to raise taxes if there is a graduated income tax. As the wage for the same work goes from $6,000/yr ===> $60,000/yr the tax rate is automatically raised. A PRIMER ON MONEY: by US House Committee on Banking and Currency

    A second mechanism is also in place. The selling off of gold. Tony Blair sold off the UK’s gold at rock bottom prices and then later went to work for J P Morgan Chase. The USA’s gold was sold off long ago but no one outside the Fed knows just what happened and STILL there has been no audit. China on the other hand, being one smart cookie, is grabbing gold as fast as she can. There is a link below that describes why. But the short and sweet of it is to destroy the dollar as the world reserve currency.

    What happens if the US dollar loses world reserve currency status? The creation of a “Global Currency” run by the bankers and possible Hyperinflation within the USA leading to “Currency revulsion” by US citizens and the acceptance of a different currency as happens in any country with run away inflation. Right now the USA has a very bad trade balance thanks to the ratification of the World Trade Organization as well as around a 20% unemployment rate.

    So why the heck would bankers want to push the EU and the USA into bankruptcy by supporting idiotic carbon legislation?? ~ Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs). With a Structural Adjustment Program the Bankers dictate how a country will be run. It puts THEM not us in charge and bring us another step closer to the ultimate goal of “Gobal Governance”

    That is the ONLY reason I can think of for the collusion between Bankers and International Corporations who are actually running this Hoax. They want to get rid of inconvenient National borders, National laws, Sovereignty and the constant bribing of politicians. They want to be completely in charge with out the illusion of democracy except at the local level as a means of keeping the ignorant masses happy.

    We can see what is wanted just by looking at the EU. Just ask World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy: http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/ and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00047.x/full

    The global debt clock: http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

    References:
    http://news.investors.com/Article/554439/201011191859/The-Climate-Cash-Cow.htm
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
    http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/03/us-banks-operate-without-reserve.html
    http://www.michaeljournal.org/appenE.htm
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/mom.html
    http://theinternationalforecaster.com/International_Forecaster_Weekly/The_Fed_Participates_In_The_Destruction_Of_The_Economy

    US Debt
    http://www.helium.com/items/1858357-why-top-economist-arthur-laffer-predicts-collapse-of-2011-us-economy?page=2
    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/19/opinion/kotlikoff-us-debt-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
    http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/markets/dollar/index.htm?iid=RNM

    SAPs
    http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html
    http://www.whirledbank.org/development/gender.html

    GOLD
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/wikileaks-discloses-reasons-behind-chinas-shadow-gold-buying-spree
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/gold-standard-never-dies159.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262683/Brown-defied-Bank-warning-6bn-gold-giveaway.html
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/weber-c1.1.1.html

  56. PhilJourdan says:

    The team is down right vindictive (another V word for Phil Jones).

  57. Gail Combs says:

    Galane says:
    November 29, 2011 at 1:40 am

    I shake my head in wonder at how Soros and many other ultra-wealthy people can support ideologies….
    _________________________________
    It is no wonder at all he is a graduate of the London School of Economics started by the Webbs who also started the Fabian Society. George Bernard Shaw was another founding member. Shaw also had a big mouth, therefore we get a glimpse under the sheepskin and see the wolf as depicted on the shield in the stain glass window he designed. The window now hangs at the London School of Economics and was recently installed with due ceremony by Tony Blair.
    The Window depicts Sidney Webb and Shaw striking the Earth with hammers to “REMOULD IT NEARER TO THE HEART’S DESIRE,” the motto written at the bottom of the window.

    Here are a few quotes from the “Real George Bernard Shaw” http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=7948

    “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”
    George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

    EXTERMINATION OF THE “SOCIALLY INCOMPATIBLE”

    “The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else.”
    Source: George Bernard Shaw, “On the Rocks” (1933), Preface

    “We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill.…
    Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910

    KILLING THOSE “UNFIT TO LIVE”

    “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

    Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

    A lovely person was he not?

  58. Sean Peake says:

    @Gail Combs, Margaret Sanger was equally nefarious

  59. John Whitman says:

    RobertInAz says:
    November 28, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Sallie Baliunas on weather cooking.

    RobertInAz,

    Thank you for the link to the Baliunas talk on weather cooking. It is the first time I have seen her on video. She is a presence.

    Her talk highlights a wealth of parallels to a manipulation of our culture via fear spread consistently by the supernatural advocates of ideological environmentalism.

    Is the basis of ideological environmentalism a reformation of the surviving remnant of 20th century totalitarianism? There are some convincing parallels.

    Also, any western civilization cultural guilt utilized by the leadership of ideological environmentalism likely has some roots in the original sin of the Judeo-Christian traditions.

    That a duped group of core (to the IPCC reports) climate scientists supported the fear, supernaturalism and quilt is pathetic.

    John

  60. Ryan says: November 29, 2011 at 3:04 am

    Very well said. Thank you.

    There is another factor to consider. Those who have least to say tend to shout loudest and quickest. Very often the threads here show little wisdom through all the first remarks. The first reactions to Climategates (hehe have to laugh at that) 1 & 2 were WOW!!!!!! SENSATION!!!!!!!! just as the Team’s reactions have been WOW!!!!!!!!! SENSATION!!!!!!!!!!! (the world is warming and its due to us, dudes, and we discovered it).

    We all do this.

    It takes time to distil the wisdom and combine that wisdom with targeting, to return the world to sanity. Now me, I’d like to see a wiki organized to help that, but all I can do at present is keep on suggesting it. Still, the idea is continuing to mature, and no doubt will eventually come to pass if Climategates still do not crack the problem.

  61. LazyTeenager says:

    Gail Coombs says
    That is the ONLY reason I can think of for the collusion between Bankers and International Corporations who are actually running this Hoax.

    (plus another 50 thousand words)
    ————————
    Gail this hyper convoluted scheme you have come up with means you need to learn about Occam’ Razor. And that it is time to question your basic assumptions. At least that is what you would do if you were a scientist.

  62. I am very glad that Soon & Baliunas is surfacing. I am looking forward to us looking at the whole paper. What I saw way back convinced me that the science was perfectly reasonable and not something to put von Storch’s nose out of joint. Moreover, I think the science is the bit we need – the solar effects.

    Meanwhile, here is Emily Oster’s graph, adapted, to support Sally’s point about the persecution of witches correlating the bad weather of the cold times.

    FYI, the the two monkish rascals who published Malleus Maleficarum used much the same trick to fool the Pope as did Wahl and Ammann referring to the unpublished Ammann and Wahl (whichever way round it was – the Jesus Paper) to get their tricks fraudulently accepted by IPCC. They put in the place of publication in all copies sold OUTSIDE that place, and claimed papal sanction, which they later forced the Pope to do because (as a result of the fraudulently-sanctioned book) everyone was already baying for the witches’ blood and the Pope had better concur hadn’t he?

  63. LazyTeenager says:

    Smokey says
    The likely cause of the current rise in CO2 was the very warm global Medieval Warm Period [MWP],
    ———–
    It also seems there is a timing issue. The MWP peaked at 1100 AD and plus 800 equals 1900 AD. So that would mean we should be seeing a fall off of CO2 over the last 100 years.

    Also the period was only about 200 years. With an ocean time constant of 800 years the response of the system to the transient temperature change would be very small.

    As an additional point a Japanese satellite has just produced measured CO2 fluxes. So in principle you should be able to add up all of the over ocean fluxes, average them over the 4 seasons and see if the value is positive or negative. My eyeball of the map says its negative over the great southern ocean and that is the dominant contribution. If my eyeball is correct that means the ocean is absorbing CO2, NOT releasing it.

  64. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From LazyTeenager on November 29, 2011 at 12:19 pm:

    Gail this hyper convoluted scheme you have come up with means you need to learn about Occam’ Razor. And that it is time to question your basic assumptions. At least that is what you would do if you were a scientist.

    People are greedy. If we come across a resource, we will consume all of the resource possible (food, water). We seek security, as in we desire easy access to that which prolongs our survival. So we claim ownership and defend (cave, den, water hole, remainder of carcass). We will also seek greater security by “pro-actively defending” ourselves from those who may challenge us for resources (chasing off and often killing wolves, lions, humans, other predators).

    When we do share, it is with family, our pack, those who act to prolong our own survival which may include genetic survival. But sharing is only done after our own needs are satisfied unless there is an overriding compulsion (mother-child bond, protecting offspring), and not among those not contributing to the survival of self or pack (abandoning of the weak). And the pack will seek greater security by “pro-actively defending” itself against those outside of the pack.

    The concept “I have enough” is not natural to us, its seeming appearance comes when further expenditures will decrease survivability (territory is as large as can be defended).

    This is basic human nature, hardwired by evolution. From this foundation is built the framework that Gail Combs writes thereof, the motives of those involved are easily seen. We are observing individual/pack behavior with the acquiring of greater security (greater control over resources). Confusing to some, we see cooperation among packs, but that can reduced to one group having dominance (coyotes control the plains, wolves stay to the forest, because the wolves prefer the forest, don’t want the plains, and drove the coyotes out of the woods).

    It really doesn’t get much simpler than this. Occam’s Razor is satisfied. If it doesn’t makes sense to you, you need to alter your viewpoint and see things from the bottom up. Going from the basic principles of human nature, it can indeed be understandable.

  65. John M says:

    In the case of climate science, it’s as simple as Occam’s “Fund Raiser”.

    No need for a conspiracy when people can financially benefit from a common vested interest.

  66. J Bowers says:

    “In the case of climate science, it’s as simple as Occam’s “Fund Raiser”.”

    I take it that includes de Freitas, Lindzen, Soon, Baliunas, Michaels, Idso, Idso, Spencer and Singer?

  67. John M says:

    I take it that includes de Freitas, Lindzen, Soon, Baliunas, Michaels, Idso, Idso, Spencer and Singer?

    Sure, if you want to compare pennies to dollars.

  68. Alan Wilkinson says:

    J Bowers November 29, 2011 at 6:20 am, a strange affair: Storch describes himself as Editor in Chief then says he was appointed from 1 Aug 2003 and stepped down 3 days later having been refused the right to publish his editorial condemning the Soon et al paper.

    A very brief “Editor in Chief” indeed. And I would have thought the correct way to criticise a paper is via another (reviewed) paper rather than via an editorial.

  69. J Bowers says:

    “Sure, if you want to compare pennies to dollars.”

    I wouldn’t call: thousands a day for consultancy work; $100,000 for a contribution to a debunked report; $1 million dollars over ten years; and up to a quarter of a million dollars salary (plus bonus) …. which is only what’s known …. exactly pennies.

  70. John M says:

    It appears you have a bit of a problem with “nuance”. I would call $1 millioin over ten years “pennies” when compared to billions of dollars to mainstream climate scientists and policy over the same period of time.

    As they say in West Virginia (and figuratively at least in certain areas of climate science)…

    It’s all relative.

  71. J Bowers says:

    “…when compared to billions of dollars to mainstream climate scientists and policy over the same period of time.”

    How are those satellites doing? Of course, they just cost pennies, aren’t part of any international satellite rescue network, and don’t help contrarians and even outright fruitcake fringe theorists cry foul on mainstream science. Maybe up to two thirds of US business does not rely on climate services, or even if anthropogenic global warming had never even been thought of as plausible since the 19th Century billions of dollars would still not have been spent in order to plan for the future? In your dreams.

  72. John M says:

    Calm down now. As far as I can make out from your fractured French, are you implying that proxy studies, subsidized trips to Bali and Cancun for climate scientists, and ethanol subsidies launched satellites?

  73. J Bowers says:

    I’m saying a number of sceptics make a fair penny from their advocacy.

  74. David S says:

    If anything JB mainstream climate science has actually hindered the satellite programme. NASA has all but given up trying to send rockets anywhere but seems to have unlimited resources to spend on the Team and associated projects.

  75. Rob Dekker says:

    Thank you Anthony, for posting on behalf of de Freitas, who is posting on behalf of Otto Kinne, regarding the original review of Soon and Baliunas.
    With such derivatives of derivatives being presented, one may forget the real reason that Soon and Balinuans became so controversial was the way the scientific REBUTTAL to the paper was handled. For those who are not aware, the rebuttal to Soon and Baliunas was refused by de Freitas and the directors of Climate Research, and this is why half the editorial staff, including chief editor von Storch resigned. To put it in von Storch’ own words :
    “my resignation as editor of Climate Research had nothing to do with any pressure from Jones, Mann, or anyone else, but was instead “because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper”

    Here is the rebuttal to Soon and Baliunas, which was published in EOS, since de Freitas refused it in Climate Research :
    http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf

    Now, I know this is WUWT, and I understand that von Storch’ words make Anthony’s demand that “Dr. Phil Jones and Dr. Tom Wigley should resign” look silly, but maybe de Freitas can shed some light on the real reason Soon and Baliunas became so controversial, and why half the editoral staff resigned : Why did de Freitas refuse to publish this rebuttal to Soon and Baliunas ?
    And this time, it woould be nice to hear de Freitas’ own words, rather than a second derivative.

Comments are closed.