Readers may recall this yesterday: NOAA releases tranche of FOIA documents – 2 years later. I have a few to share from CEI now.
Here’s one email, right after Climategate1, that is uproariously funny, given NRO’s response to Dr. Michael Mann today.
Heh. Here’s that email thread plus others as PDF files.
NOAA emails reax to ClimateGate
How IPCC sausage is made in 2007:
The Team is unhappy with Andrew Revkins post CG1 questions on IPCC, one refuses to look at his blog anymore.
Alarmists not happy with Revkin for noting IPCC probs
Let’s meet with the President-elect.
See comments about the role science must play to help BHO to get cap and trade passed. That’s the old left, viewing science for its use in service of the state. All this amid fretting that people will be distracted by things such as the economic collapse actually going on around them.
Susan Solomon emails regarding Science in Service of the Cause
Revkin asks about why can’t we share temperature data post CG1.
NOAA on Temperature Data Sharing issues
We need an independent and transparent study, but let’s not question the IPCC, ‘kay?
Trenberth see’s Ben Santer’s paper published in Science as having “substantial problems”, due to spurious artifacts introduced by radiosonde equipment changes over time making the ERA-15 data “corrupted” in Trenberth’s words. Two words sum the problem up: temporal inhomogeneity.
But, why wouldn’t he send this to Science? Instead he just sends around to (I presume) a few trusted members (pals) of the team? Oh, right, “the cause” and all that.
Trenberth_just_not_that_into_Santer_et_al
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
IOW, Mann, get lost.
Whoa – “The paleodata always got a lot more attention from the general public than it deserved.”
And just who plastered the hockey stick curve throughout the IPCC’s third report? I’m not sure if he’s trying to blame UEA (with many contributors to the TAR), or the “climate community” (is that the staid term for the warmista? He doesn’t seem to be including folks like Lindzen or McIntyre in the community even though they are influential members of some community).
I like “simplified and exaggerated,” I would think that the NRO could point to that and call it the staid term for “fraudulent.”
Hmmm…
If I’ve got this right, this came from someone in the Dept. of Commerce (DOC) to a bunch of NOAA employees (Dec 4, 2009). Note that NOAA is organizationally in the DOC.
Note that NOAA is organizationally in the DOC.
What was all that whining about censorship of climate scientists during the Bush Administration?
From Susan Solomon in the “IPCC Sausage Factory” letter linked above:
“Having a cochair who is not unhelpful and is easy to work with is very important. …
“Do you know Anthony Njong? I don’t know him but politically if he were broadly supported by sub-saharan africa, that would help get past election politics.”
Amazing, there are still those who claim the IPCC reports are scientific, not political, documents!
Why can’t these people just tell the truth???
O, sorry. Livelihood and all that.
My bad.
I don’t get it.
Decades ago, when I got my first experience with writing proposals for the solicitation of grants-in-aid to support research, I was told that under no conditions whatsoever was I ever to make an assertion that I knew to be false.
In other words, I was never to lie in order to make a better case for the premises and objectives of the project being proposed. That – I was told – was deceit practiced for the purpose of obtaining funds under false pretenses, and both a criminal theft of value as well as being an actionable civil transgression making me and my associates liable for restitution and punitive damages.
So why the hell aren’t the members of this “little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate” being pursued by federal and state attorneys general as well as by civil process servers bent upon hounding them into bankruptcy for their manifold deceits on research grant requests as well as their other peculations?
–
I really love the discussion about the factually inaccurate headline! Priceless!
Richard
Well, first off this is old news – Dec 2009.
Second, it seems they are still stuck on messaging. One sure fire way to get to the top of the media S*** list is to accuse them of bad ( or biased) reporting. Whether that accusation is justified or not is irrelevant. Same goes for taking pot-shots at the public’s intellect or attention span.
There’s one huge bucketful of conceit in the warmist community, and the aroma wafting from it is enough to make normal people run for hills.
Unflattering, but still no smoking gun. There’s bound to be real fire with all this smoke (and legal mirrors)!
Give up on the jolly hockey sticks, guys. Try another sport – like tossing the caber. That would make Mann the prize tosser in the Team.
You might want to redact some of the e-mail addresses.
REPLY: They are all public, and can be located on the web, and aren’t click-able nor spamable in this form. NOAA didn’t see fit to redact them, knowing full well they would be discussed online, so not too worried – Anthony
Mann reminds me of the Wright Brothers. They wasted their lives and life energy suing everyone and making enemies when they should have been making airplanes. If Mann continues on this path he will forever be associated with the disgraced bitmap image of one of his early flawed efforts. The bulk of his career will be forgotten and he will be thought a life-long fool.
cui bono says:
August 22, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Give up on the jolly hockey sticks, guys. Try another sport – like tossing the caber. That would make Mann the prize tosser in the Team.
______________________
Should I publicly admit to laughing out loud at your post?
Never mind any flaws in the science.
It is the message that needs to be promulgated.
The Trenberth letter is pure climate “//$”%!
Santer must have had trouble walking after receiving that one.
This is almost as good if not better than CG 1 and 2.
Thank-you for persisting and fighting the good fight. We all owe you a debt of gratitude and many, many never to be paid taxes for carbon control.
It’s nice to see how objective scientists lament the electoral losses of Democrats, isn’t it?
How do I make an eyerolling smiley?
Yikes. From the “cause” emails:
Is that like “friends in Jesus”?
John M: “What was all that whining about censorship of climate scientists during the Bush Administration?”
That was my first thought after tripping over that line in the emails. If there is a need for a coordinated narrative, produced by political spokesholes such as with the WH, then it is not science that we are concerned about. But if we are concerned about the narratives then the ‘private’ emails are part of the political record produced by the current regime in a democratic society.
One cannot pretend to be above and beyond politics — and thus deserving of opacity — when one is directly involved in political narratives. Otherwise known in quainter times as propaganda. Any pretense to the contrary has now been laid bare by the injection of the Whitehouse into establishing such propaganda for scientific endeavours.
On the all it seems like it would be best to return to the traditional validity of science: Replication and transparency. Not good for politics or grant proposals. But hey, what’re gonna do?
Gus Speth is quite a character. His wikipeida entry is very interesting. Long history of enviro activism (eco-lawyer). Currently affiliated with DEMOS…a groups that Obama help found
from a piece of his writing (via wikipedia)
Integral to the needed transformations is a change in values – a transition to
new habits of thought and a new consciousness captured well in the Earth
Charter, which urges us “ to bring forth a sustainable global society founded
on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture
of peace.”
what’s there not to like?
Take that, you, you, Revkin you.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
From: Michael S…
Andy:
I will not send anymore of your blogs to my FYI e-mail list.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
That oughta teach him, Michael.
I wish I was a cartoonist. Josh’ll have a field day with this nonsense.
John M says: “If I’ve got this right, this came from someone in the Dept. of Commerce (DOC) to a bunch of NOAA employees (Dec 4, 2009). Note that NOAA is organizationally in the DOC.”
And I always thought DOC stood for Department of Corrections.
cui bono says:
August 22, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Give up on the jolly hockey sticks, guys. Try another sport – like tossing the caber. That would make Mann the prize tosser in the Team.
CB,
I don’t think that little pudge bucket can toss a caper, let alone a caber. He’d just get splinters in his lotion soft hands…. and never clear the ground with the caber.
No – Tossing the caber is man’s work, not Mann’s work. Don’t send a boy to do a man’s job.
MtK
The “Susan Solomon emails” document is actually an email originating from Gus Speth at Yale to a whole slew of people including many of the usual suspects such as Ben Santer, Michael Mann, Jim Hansen, and Stephen Schneider, as well as Susan Solomon. Donald Kennedy of Stanford is also included on this insider’s list, which illuminates his outspokenly partisan and unscientific editorship at Science Mag.
Jane Lubchenko, now administrator of the US NOAA, and John Holdren, now the White House Science Advisor are also on the list. One can see the source and inspiration of Obama’s choices for the direction of US science.
It’s interesting to see the expectation Gus Speth has of getting access to Barack Obama both before and after his swearing-in as president. Clearly these people have, and expect to have, ready access to Democratic power mongers.
The follow-up email from Berrian Moore, of Climate Central, is even more interesting. Climate Central bills itself as a “501(c)3 tax-exempt nonprofit organization,” that also claims to do independent scientific work. Heidi Cullen, notorious for calling for the decertification of all meteorologists who disagree with her, is Climate Central’s “VP for External Communications and Chief Climatologist.” So, Climate Central is a non-profit that is also an AGW lobby arm. Is that legal?
The most revealing of all was that Gus Speth mentioned his initiative alliance with Betsy Taylor, relaying the clearly unspoken expectation that all the scientists in the list agreed with his highly partisan focus. Betsy Taylor is on the Governing Board of “1Sky” (One-Sky). 1Sky is allied with 350.org and is an outspoken advocate of AGW, “green solutions,” and “sustainability;” irrational and insupportable ideas, all.
The 1Sky board also includes Van Jones, Barack Obama’s late-but-not-lamented choice for “Green Jobs Czar,” Anthony’s fav, Bill McKibben, and Gus Speth himself, the originator of the email thread.
Gus Speth is “Professor of Law, Vermont Law School. and from his CV appears to have begun in environmental law and the partisan advocacy required of a successful lawyer finally pushed him into an extreme position. He now finds himself, “currently serv[ing] on the boards of the Natural Resources Defense Council, World Resources Institute, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Population Action International, the Center for Humans and Nature, and the Institute for Sustainable Communities.” That is, he ended up believing his own guff.
Betsy Taylor turns out to be “President of Breakthrough Strategies & Solutions,” which specializes in “high-impact, catalytic initiatives to address climate change and promote sustainable economic development.”
So there we have it: a whole slew of scientists including Susan Solomon, high-mucky-muck of the IPCC, secretly allying themselves with green partisans, climate alarmists, and income-conflicted consultants to exploit their channels to power, so as to influence the president-elect. Betsy Taylor probably stood to gain plenty of business, given the success of the venture. And their success must have been beyond their dreams, because two of their number (Lubchenco and Holdren) were appointed to President Obama’s inner science circle and a third (Van Jones) almost made it into a position to cripple the economy.
One peculiarity of the address list is the consistent redaction of Micheal MacCracken’s email address. All the others are visible. One wonders why the censoring of this one and no others.
I think we have the makings of another Obama scandal, this one involving NOAA climate scientists. It might be called “Loose and Spurious.”
What an excellent name for a climate scientist.