Gotta love the dedication. Tom Nelson writes:
Just FYI: I’m reading all of the ClimateGate 2.0 emails
For a while, I was looking at the ClimateGate 2.0 emails by searching them for certain names and keywords.
Now, my plan is to read all 5,349 of them at this link. I didn’t want to start at #1, so I started at #5000, read to the end, then went back to 4,000. I’m currently about 1,000 emails into this project. If you don’t want to read a lot of ClimateGate email excerpts, you might want to avoid this blog for a while. I can’t wait to see what’s in the next 4,300 emails.
So far, it’s been fascinating to get a look at the climate hoax from the inside. The data fudging, the demonization of doubters, the knee-jerk rejection of alternate hypotheses, the quest for funding, the travel to exotic locations, the pal review, the left-wing politics, the fear of debate, the swagger in the early days, then the panic as the skeptics closed in–it’s all there.
Another thing I’ve learned is that Michael Mann is evidently vastly smarter than me, because while it’ll take me months to finish all of these emails, he finished up his stellar analysis back on Day 1.
==============================================================
I’ll do regular WUWT updates as Tom progresses.
Here’s some recent samples:
Email 4160, Warmist Richard Somerville: “We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.”
I also think people need to come to understand that the scientific uncertainties work both ways. We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long. Singer will say that uncertainties like these mean models lack veracity and can safely be ignored. What seems highly unlikely to me is that each of these uncertainties is going to make the climate system more robust against change. It is just as likely a priori that a poorly understood bit of physics might be a positive as a negative feedback. Meanwhile, the climate system overall is in fact behaving in a manner consistent with the GCM predictions. I have often wondered how our medical colleagues manage to escape the trap of having their entire science dismissed because there are uncured diseases and other remaining uncertainties. Maybe we can learn from the physicians.
Email 4180, July 2000, on who should be on the Tyndall Centre Climate Change Hoax advisory board: “Certainly we need advice but we also want cash”; how about these wind power guys?
subject: Re: TC Advisory Board
…On the SME front I would suggest:
Mr Alan Moore MD of National WInd Power (a subsidiary of National Power) or
Dr Andrew Garrad MD of Garrad Hassan (UK wind energy consultancy with 45 staff)
Please let me know if you are interested in either of these and I will call them to ensure they will devote the time to the TC which we need
I think British Biogen may be a Trade Association but I am not sure.
I would like us to be very clear on what we want from the Advisory Board. Certainly we need advice but we also want cash (i.e industrial support for projects PhD students etc). Therefore the Business Members need to have both the desire and ability to support us.
Email 4225, Aug 2001: Warmists Rob Swart and Tom Wigley agree that cutting CO2 emissions would not make any distinguishable difference to the climate until “well into the second half of the century”
[Rob Swart] My expectation would indeed be that comparing climate changes resulting from reference cases and from stabilization cases would not be distinguishable until well into the 2nd half of the century (like in the GRL paper), but if this is so, so be it.
[Tom Wigley] YES — BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON’T EVEN REALIZE THIS.
Email 4047, May 2001, Mike Hulme: “The earlier part of the morning will ‘sell’ environmental science in the broader context, before we sell the particular challenge of climate change.”
Email 4055, June 2005: Warmist Ray Bradley: “We got the $$ from a Congressional earmark…We hope to get another one next year, so as to give us an additional couple of years cushion.”
…We got the $$ from a Congressional earmark, so it comes directly through NOAA. We hope to get another one next year, so as to give us an additional couple of years cushion….
Email 4478, October 2008, UEA’s David Palmer on requests for data: “quite frankly, I am surprised that not more requests of this nature have been made”
As to Tim’s larger point regarding the provision of data ‘in response to requests’, a request for data is a request for information like any other under FOIA or EIR and has to be treated similarly on its merits. If there is a valid exemption and public interest not to disclose, then that is what we do; otherwise a requester is entitled to see the data (and yes, I am aware of the implications for the research community writ large of this – quite frankly, I am surprised that not more requests of this nature have been made). [Dave Palmer]
Email 4559, Phil Jones, Aug 2003: “The Science Editor-in-Chief’s response…should be rammed down Singer’s throat…”
date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:50:08 +0100 from: Phil Jones
subject: Aug 1 Science issue to: “Michael E. Mann” ,Tom Wigley , Keith Briffa , Michael Oppenheimer , Raymond Bradley , Malcolm Hughes , Jonathan Overpeck , Kevin Trenberth
,Tom Crowley , Ben Santer ,Steve Schneider , Caspar Ammann ,Gabi Hegerl , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
Dear All, The letter exchange on pp595-6 is worth a read. The Science Editor-in-Chief’s response is a fantastic put down ! Brilliant – should be rammed down Singer’s throat when he does similar things in the future. I hope Kennedy enjoyed writing it as much as I enjoyed reading it. I can’t see Singer writing to Science again !
Cheers Phil
I’d like to see that put-down of Singer (Fred I presume). Guaranteed to be crooked.
Poor Tom if someone releases the passphrase for the 7zip file !!!!
i spent hours reading those files and i found myself just getting so angry about the bastardization of science that i quit….
ethics is lost i fear and until these folks have a come to Jesus meeting it won happen…
Good Luck
I have no idea who Tom Nelson is, but I read his blog regularly. He always has good posts and accurate statements. Strange thing is that readers don’t respond there very much, but he keeps on posting. So, he must have a very strong inner drive to keep on fighting the hoax of AGW.
Regarding Climategate 2 he already has found a lot of pretty astonishing messages from the Causists. So, I would like to say: Thanks Tom! Keep on searching!
President Obama recommends abolishing Commerce.
Papers and e-mails relating to NOAA’s conduct regarding “climate science” lost or missing.
Or, as Secretary of State Clinton might suggest, “time to hit the re-set button!”
.
It is interesting that The Team et al are not running more scared about the now-public, but encrypted file.
I only surmise they don’t know/remember what is there.
So much of science has become pay-for-play (in medicine, in particular) but this scandal is one that will be long remembered. Many, many books to come, I expect. …..Lady in Red
Thumbs up for Tom. A regular reader at his blog.
I know it shouldn’t be, but the more emails I read the more shocked I am.
You don’t have to read too many of these emails to see the agendas writ large, the hidden uncertainties, the venal, crush the opposition attitudes. Call me naive, but I’m still shocked that the msm can claim there’s nothing to see. If these emails were tied to one of their favourite targets (e.g. Bush, Republicans, Tea Party, etc.) we would see a nightly parade of the 5,000 mails.
I commend Tom. Someone has to go through these mails to document just what went on. I only hope I live long enough to be able to look back on this dark episode in history and say to my grandchildren and great grandchildren vanitas vanitatum.
Gotta be better than reading Kilgore Trout….
Scarface–regarding the relatively low comment volume on my site: I think the reason is that I put up so many posts (maybe 200 per week) that long comment threads just aren’t going to happen–posts just get buried too quickly.
In the past, when I blogged on other subjects, I had much lower blog traffic, but a lot more comments per post.
Go Tom Nelson. I visit his blog at least once a day. He is a machine!
Email 4160, Warmist Richard Somerville: “We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.”
Email 4160
“I have often wondered how our medical colleagues manage to escape the trap of having their entire science dismissed because there are uncured diseases and other remaining uncertainties. Maybe we can learn from the physicians.”
The vast majority of physicians are not scientists. Their primary goal is to relieve suffering and they will do all sorts of unscientific things to meet that goal. Some physicians do scientific research but their work serves the ends of medicine first and science secondarily.
Climate scientists, as physicists, serve the goal of all pure science, namely, the satisfaction of curiosity and the production of genuine understanding about the universe. Mainstream climate science has demonstrated that it has no clue about the ends or moral obligations of the scientist.
Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?
Do I support everything revealed in the Climgate 1.0 and 2.0 emails? Of course not…but no less than I support all the kinds of human behaviors that go on in every walk and facet of human endeavor, especially when reputations and money are involved.
But in all the thousands of emails, though the levels of uncertainty in the human activity/climate connection are more bluntly laid out in the emails than in “official public” findings, (and this is their real value in my estimation), I’ve not seen even one reference that seriously undermines the basic tenant that humans are altering the global climate through our activities. Thus, the emails reveal more about human nature and the level of uncertainty in study systems on the edge of chaos, than actually undermining of the human activity/climate connection.
Oh come now !!!
Why waste time doing that !!
We’ve already been told “Nothing to see here, move along”
I commend you for your dedication going through all of the emails !!
R. Gates says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
Yes. In all my years working in industry, I have never come across this type of e-mail – the major reason being that disciplinary action would have followed. You wouldn’t be walked out of the building, that’s pretty much a no-no here in Germany, but there would have been consequences. The entire conduct of the Team is deeply unprofessional and dishonest on a level that defies the imagination.
R. Gates says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“Thus, the emails reveal more about human nature and the level of uncertainty in study systems on the edge of chaos, ”
And stop the weasel words. Climate is not “on the edge of chaos”, it is a chaotic system, not more, not less.
Yes
These days I usually refer to him as the indefatigable Tom Nelson: and not for for nothing as is now only too apparent.
May his shadow never grow less.
Kindest Regards
This from 2064 2011-Nov-23 04:43:29 4.9K text/plain
The density chronology shows a low-frequency decline over the last century which appears
anomalous in comparison with both the TRW data and the instrumental data over the 19^th
and 20^th centuries. These facts suggest that the density-coefficients in the regression
equation may be biased as would be the case if the density decline were not climate
related (CO2 increases and/or the potential effects of increasing nitrogen input from
remote sources may be implicated here.) &The residual MXD data (actual estimated) are
plotted in Fig. 7. A systematic decline is apparent after 1750. By fitting a straight
line through these residuals (1750-1980) and adding the straight-line values (with the4
sign reversed) to the RCS density curve, the anomalous post-1750 decline was removed.
This corrected RCS curve was then used along with the RCS ring-width curve in a final
reconstruction of the April-August temperatures.
This hardly seems like justifiable statistical procedure.Without the fudge, the
“reconstruction” shows declining temperatures in the 20th century. A very similar
decline in residuals occurs from 1100 to 1250 and one wonders whether a similar
adjustment would be allowable then.”
R. Gates said:
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
————————————
Who said it was? This is about the inner workings of the climate hoax, not about the human condition in general.
Smarmy effort to change the focus.
@R Gates
With respect, it is all very well you having your beliefs – but I put it to you that in defending the indefensible, you are as guilty of the fraud as the perpetrators, not least because being ‘full of faith’ has led you to be blind to truth and honesty – and that, sir, is a damned disgrace.
Sad to think that the human nature is one of deceit ….. but alas it is… the Bible was right..
R Gates – you are starting (some would say continuing) to sound ridiculous. You say “I’ve not seen even one reference that seriously undermines the basic tenant [tenet?] that humans are altering the global climate through our activities” under a post that quotes a climate scientist saying “We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.”.
Now, do you want to weasel out of this by saying that “altering” might mean only altering a little bit, or are you prepared to admit that the IPCC’s claim of a large amount of “altering” is seriously undermined by this climate scientist’s admission that they don’t understand the science on which the claim is based.
Well done indefatigable Tom. Your snippets are quoted everywhere, but you seem to be anonymous.
A book would surely be a bestseller. Threats, vitriol, intrigue, conspiracy, humour (“damn this Excel spreadsheet”), backstabbing, incompetence, panics… Bound to be a film in it – nominations for comic actor to play Jones.
Go for it, and be anonymous no longer. You deserve it.
3. After “The Ten” have signed on, we need an enthusiastic
organization to carry out the time-consuming task of collecting as
many signatures of scientists in Europe as possible, so that we can
say “1,865 European scientists, including (the prominent ten) have
signed a Statement that says .. and so forth”. I don’t think that
either you or Rob or I have the time to do this. For the American
statement this job was done by an organization called “Redefining
Progress”. Perhaps for us it could be WWF. What do you think
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=5323.txt&search=convince
Lady in Red:
To do so would tip their hand and suspicions would be confirmed.
Mark