FOI email: science is only influenced by ‘big oil’ if they do it

University of Arizona

University of Arizona (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here’s a stunning juxtaposition of two emails (released under FOI request and supplied by Christopher Horner to me) from the University of Arizona’s climate scientist Dr. Jonathan Overpeck regarding ‘big oil’ and influence in the climate debate.

First let’s look at Overpeck’s ugly email about Inhofe and big oil, plus a death wish for Oklahoma residents, bold mine:

XXX-­‐275

Thu Sep 22 00:12:22 2005
To: hegerl@duke.edu
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Inhofe activities
Cc: TomCrowley Bcc:
Re: Fwd: Inhofe activities

Hi guys – Being on sabbatical, I’m missing more of this kind of stuff than usual. Quite interesting, however, so thanks for sending. Looks like I got it too, but I read your email first.

I did buckle under and read Crichton’s book. It’s pretty amazing. The sad thing is that I’ve talked peers (e.g., Mo Raymo – another Brownie like me and Tom) who they are climate savvy scientists, who actually got fooled by his very selective use of science.

If someone had time, it would be useful to post (e.g., on real climate – must already be there, but I haven’t looked) a foot-note, by foot-note rebuttal of his book. Shocked to see it is getting this kind of traction.

Wish Oklahoma was on the Gulf Coast – then these guys might have a more realistic view. Until then, they’ll just do what the oil industry wants them to do, I guess.

best, peck

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

Now, compare that ugly tone to this one about six months later, bold mine:

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

XXX-­‐247

Fri Feb 10 11:55:39 2006
To: pinar.o.yilmaz@exxonmobil.com
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: nice to hear from you!
Cc:
Bcc: X-Attachments:

Hi Pinar – it was great to hear that you were coming to UA, and that you were interested in meeting with this Overpeck guy. I was just in Alaska and ran into Stan Foo in the airport (first time I’ve seen him since Hamilton days), and ditto for Greg Maynard at GSA. Both are doing very well in the minerals side of things. And now you… wonderful.

Bad news is that I’m on sabbatical (actually, this is nice for me and my family that includes two young boys). Moreover, wife (and UA prof) Julie Cole is enroute to Germany for up to a month (! – yes, my fraternity experience should come in helpful as I single-parent two boys). This means, unfortunately, that I can’t fly down to be on campus for your visit. I’m really sorry about this.

However, maybe there is a way to move things forward anyhow?

In addition to seeing and catching up w/ you, I’m also quite intrigued by what Exxon- Mobil and the University of Arizona could do together on the climate change front. As you’ve probably figured out, we have one of the top universities in this area, and lots of capability, both in understanding climate change at the global scale down to the regional scale, but also in terms of understanding how climate variability and change impacts society, and also how interdisciplinary climate knowledge can be used to support improved decision-making in society. On these two latter fronts, UA is arguably the best in the nation.

Perhaps we should talk on the phone and figure out what would be best for your UA visit. I could then help line up a mtg for you w/ the relevant people (including Joaquin Ruiz, who is very interested in climate-related activities), and I could also try to be on a phone link w/ this meeting. After Julie gets back from Germany in mid-March, I would be happy to fly down to Texas to meet with you and your colleagues face-to-face. I’d certainly like that instead of just hearing your voice on a phone. So, would you like to chat on the phone next week? Monday is looking tough w/ visitors and a big deadline, Tues a bit better, and Wed-Friday pretty much wide open.

Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks for looking me up too!

Best, peck

Jonathan T. Overpeck

Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721

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

The hypocrisy is stunning.

Where potential money is involved (translation – grant), Dr. Overpeck doesn’t display any concerns about being associated with ‘big oil’, in correspondence with a person at Exxon-Mobil, and in fact welcomes some sort of collaboration and goes on to sell the university’s stature to the Exxon-Mobil representative.

The next time somebody calls you a “shill for big oil”, show them this email.

UPDATE2: Here is the entire original email thread: Overpeck Exxon and Mann (PDF)

UPDATE: To be fair, I sent Dr. Overpeck this email shortly after this story was published:

Dear Dr. Overpeck,

This is just a note to inform you that your FOI obtained correspondence with Exxon-Mobile is on display here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/26/foi-email-science-is-only-influenced-of-big-oil-if-they-do-it/

I provide you this notice should you wish to defend yourself against the apparent stunning hypocrisy on display. I will print any response you care to offer.

Best regards,

Anthony Watts

Editor
WUWT

 I immediately got this autoreply back:

Professor Overpeck is on sabbatical out of the country until the beginning of Fall term, August 2013 and will not be in good constant email contact until then. If your message is urgent, please resend with “URGENT” at the beginning of the subject line, but note that there may still be a delay before he can get back to you. If you have an urgent need related to the UA Inst. of the Environment, please contact IE Project Coordinator Lesa Langan Du Berry at lesa@email.arizona.edu

Another sabbatical? Must be nice.

This might be a good time to remind everyone of how they measured temperature (in a parking lot) at an official USHCN climate station at Dr. Overpeck’s University of Arizona Atmospheric Sciences Dept.

How not to measure temperature part 24

Tucson1.jpg

The plaque on the fence reads:
Tucson2.jpg

You can bet that station wasn’t in a parking lot in 1867, and thus this speaks to the temporal inhomogenity of station siting. That station has been modified and removed from the United States Historical Climatological Network, since we brought it’s shoddy siting to the attention of the world.

About these ads

102 thoughts on “FOI email: science is only influenced by ‘big oil’ if they do it

  1. Classic reflexive thinking. The author thinks in cliches. A demonstration of the inability to process information, but to make a pretense of doing the same with a auto-response. The military has been trying to rid itself of such types for 40 years, when they proved to be disastrous in Vietnam.
    It is worth noting that ‘New Math’ and similar modern teaching techniques, which reward ‘creativity’ rather than knowledge were to bring an end to such. Instead we are burdened with ‘scientists’ that are without a broad science foundation and think in cliches.
    I run into such morons all the time in my occupation.

  2. That is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo stunning, overwhelming. It’s like going into shock.

    I reel at the hypocrisy. Joe Romm…. tell me where the bucks are coming from, eh?

    This is not my America. …..Lady in Red

  3. It’s really amazing to the extent climatologists are full of Bull Siht. They are so impressed with themselves in their perceived ability to save the world that it boggles the mind.

    The other striking thing I’ve found while reading the FOI material is the widespread inability of these geniuses to be able to write. The collective lot of them can barely push a noun at a verb at a junior level. I know emails are infornal but come on, it’s just stream of contiousness mental dumping all the time with these folks.

    [Perhaps not even a typo. Is there any difference between the Team's "infernal .. stream of contentiousness" and their "informal .. stream of consciousness"? 8<) Robt]

  4. @pat

    Well said. I have to encounter/deal with the consequences of this sort of ‘thinking in cliches’ in my work though I had not given it that name. There are a set of responses: “If they say this say that and stand pat’. It is infuriating because many of the cliches are gross simplifications of reality and are very misleading if digested alone or in groups of three.

    It goes without saying that much of the Team response to pointed, well presented and inviolable arguments about the state of the climate, now or in the past, is similar. The site ‘skeptical science’ is the place where science cliches are mounted for easy access. “If they say this, refer to that paper by so-and-so. That will stall them for a while as we pass the Grant Hat once more.” It is as if enough cliches will create global warming from all that server activity.

    To create a balanced and knowledgeable person, creativity, the capacity to process information and to be a storehouse of knowledge are all necessary. We are quite capable of delivering this should we choose to, but not by blindly imitating our fathers.

  5. `Wish Oklahoma was on the Gulf Coast`

    Always interesting, to see how the Climate Gods wish so fervently, for people to be in harm`s way.

  6. The autoresponder msg says he’s on sabbatical until August 2013. Must pay pretty well to be a climate scientist these days if you can take an entire year or more off…

  7. Anthony: Overpeck’s autoresponder says August 2013, not August 2012.

    REPLY: Yes, that’s been caught within a couple of minutes and fixed right away. Refresh. – Anthony

  8. Two-faced, double-dealing…..

    Hey! I just noticed something! Every time this fellow is on sabbatical, a major hurricane hits the oil producing areas of the Gulf Coast, driving up oil prices.

    There is actually more evidence he is up to something than there is the World’s temperatures are rising.

    Hmmm. But what is up to?

    Where’s my tinfoil hat?

  9. Maybe resend the email with Urgent since his email did say he would be gone until next August, not this August. I would love to hear his response.

  10. Lady in Red says:
    August 26, 2012 at 9:45 am
    “I reel at the hypocrisy. Joe Romm…. tell me where the bucks are coming from, eh?”

    From your recent comments I assume that you’re an Obama campaign intern, but anyway: Joe Romm’s bucks come from George Soros, in case you didn’t know.

  11. Exactly who but university professors get sabbaticals at all, much less like the good prof has. It must be nice and certainly explains some of the 8% tuition increase each year. Obviously for a sweet job, go to university and never leave.

  12. Now if only the rest of the Team would take a sabbatical we could make a start at getting the world back on the straight and narrow.

  13. Just for context, university faculty usually do research or scholarly activities while on sabbatical leave that they could not do on their regular appointments. Often it involves overseas travel and a temporary appointment at another institution. It’s undertaken as a broadening experience and faculty bring back to their universities skills and ideas that can improve their teaching and other activities. It rarely, if ever, is just a paid vacation. The quality of the experience may vary, but every professional needs to interact with colleagues and learn new things if he/she is to continually improve. Sabbaticals provide an extended time for doing this. Typically, the opportunity for a sabbatical comes around every seven years or so.

  14. I could have sworn that educating children with information that has been proven wrong was some kind of felony.

  15. Big Oil has vested interest in promoting the climate scare, that much should be clear by now. When burning hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide emission is only half that of pure carbon for the same energy output. On one hand it is a simple fact of chemistry, however, on the other hand, if carbon dioxide can be sufficiently vilified, it grants hydrocarbons an undeserved competitive edge over coal through regulations, which help pushing up prices.

    New coal fired power plants are already regulated out of business in the US this way. The only alternative available on large enough scale is, guess what, natural gas. One should of course forget “renewables” like solar or wind in this context and forget them fast, because they are unbelievably expensive and unreliable. The current “miracle” of decreasing carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. of A. is entirely due to natural gas resources made available recently by applying a several decades old technology (fracking) on large scale.

    Current overproduction and extremely low price of natural gas is a transient phenomenon, it is for building market. As soon as enough facilities are driven away from coal and they can’t possibly return to it due to convenient regulations, there is almost no limit to rising prices. Exceptionally high profits are guaranteed in the long run.

    However, it is only made possible through the unholy alliance of Big Oil & cAGW folks.

    The anti-nuclear lobby was also a necessary ingredient, but that has already completed its job by blocking development of any advanced nuclear energy production technology beyond old fashioned Cold War Plutonium factories with energy as a byproduct.

    This kind of hijacking of the (originally honest) environmental movement is one of the most detrimental developments in contemporary politics.

  16. How about asking Exxon to respond?

    It has always struck me that they and other “big oil” companies seem oblivious to the manner in which they are demonized by the people they are funding. That they don’t care seems unlikely, that they don’t know seems equally unlikely, yet they are silent on the issue.

  17. “…we have one of the top universities in this area, and lots of capability, both in understanding climate change at the global scale down to the regional scale, but also in terms of understanding how climate variability and change impacts society, and also how interdisciplinary climate knowledge can be used to support improved decision-making in society.”

    Aaahhh….I doubt it! They don’t understand climate change, globally and certainly not regionally. They don’t really understand society, as they are too removed from it in their ivory towers. (Life at the university is unlike anything in the real world, where people don’t get to take long sabbaticals every other year.) Consequently, any input they have in decision-making will be counter productive at best; with a very high probability of being disastrous. The intelligentsia have a very long and consistent history in this regard.

  18. “and also how interdisciplinary climate knowledge can be used to support improved decision-making in society. ”

    And there you have the ugliest comment in the whole exchange. An arrogant assumption that what is best for society is known to this tiny group of busy bodies who will unashamedly use a combination of money from “big oil” and their own self importance to manipulate society (and “big oil”) into fulfilling their view of what is best for society.

    I repeat my earlier question regarding seeking comment from Exxon. How do they feel about being both demonized and manipulated in this fashion?

  19. Ian Stirling, renowned polar bear biologist, reported in the acknowledgements of his 2011 book (“Polar Bears: The Natural History of a Threatened Species”), that he has been funded by Dome Petroleum and Esso Canada, as well as the World Wildlife Fund (both Canadian and International versions).

    He considers this statement to protect him from accusations of bias:

    “The opinions expressed in the book are my own however, and do not necessarily reflect those of Environment Canada, the University of Alberta, or any of the agencies that have supported my research.”

    If it’s good enough for him, then it’s good enough for me, I say.

  20. milodonharlani says Overpeck has been suggested as the “scientist” who told presumed fellow Team member Deming that they needed to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”, & has not denied the charge:

    Er, yes he has, in one of the illegitimately obtained emails….

    ” Hi Phil, Kevin, Mike, Susan and Ben – I’m looking
    for some IPCC-related advice, so thanks in
    advance. The email below recently came in and I
    googled “We have to get rid of the warm medieval
    period” and “Overpeck” and indeed, there is a
    person David Deeming that attributes the quote to
    an email from me. He apparently did mention the
    quote (but I don’t think me) in a Senate hearing.
    His “news” (often with attribution to me) appears
    to be getting widespread coverage on the
    internet. It is upsetting.

    I have no memory of emailing w/ him, nor any
    record of doing so (I need to do an exhaustive
    search I guess), nor any memory of him period. I
    assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long
    ago, and that he’s taking the quote out of
    context, since I know I would never have said what
    he’s saying I would have
    , at least in the context
    he is implying.

    In fact Deming did not retain the email, and so there is no hard evidence that anyone ever actually used the phrase…..

  21. DirkH says:
    August 26, 2012 at 10:49 am

    Lady in Red says:
    August 26, 2012 at 9:45 am
    “I reel at the hypocrisy. Joe Romm…. tell me where the bucks are coming from, eh?”

    From your recent comments I assume that you’re an Obama campaign intern, …

    She’s been a regular here for over a year and made many valuable comments. Her critique of the GOP’s abortion stance is one shared by many secular Republicans.

    … but anyway: Joe Romm’s bucks come from George Soros, in case you didn’t know.

    She knows that he’s backed by Soros, as that’s been said here often in the past year. What she was probably alluding to was Romm’s one-sided regular “oil-funded” smear when criticizing skeptics.

  22. Nothing in this article makes me bat an eye…this is standard behavior and should be assumed by skeptics by this point. For instance, we already know that Phil Jones accepted money from Shell, right?

    As an example, I’m a research scientist working at a state university. In a few weeks I’ll be starting work on a project funded by big oil. However, I’m also sort of the head of the group’s environmental research “subgroup”, so I’m the go-to person when talking to new graduate students (before they join the lab) on anything environmental. Well, last week I talked to a new graduate student who just kept repeating “I’m very environmentally oriented” in our conversation. She even went off about “all the oil spills” and how bad fracking was for the environment. Never mind she didn’t mention one specific example. I tried to explain to her that we weren’t studying environmental cleanup work and instead looking to improve the efficiency of oil extraction. Her response? “I’m completely fine taking big oil’s money” along with something about using it against them. Needless to say, I wasn’t at all impressed by this student. In my area of research, in a hard science, unbiased measurement and critical thinking is required…not a bunch of activist garbage.

    Anyway, personal anecdote aside, this sort of behavior should be expected by skeptics at this point, and every commenter on this thread should be saying something like “Not surprised at all.”

    All that said, why were these e-mails important to FOIA?

    -Scott

  23. GRRRRRR. Okies are the realistic ones. They’ve been living with the smell and mess of oil for 100 years, and they’ve learned that the smell and mess are basically harmless. Oil also brings prosperity and jobs for actual people (i.e. people without PhDs who don’t get sabbaticals or trips to Germany). And that more than compensates for the smell and mess.

  24. Phil Clarke,

    So we have a situation where Overpeck admits his memory may be bad. But Dr Deming does remember, as he testified to Congress.

    The incident is now in the Congressional Record, which should help jog Overpeck’s failing memory.

  25. Anthony, I am sure that “Peck” will appreciate your letting him know that you were posting his emails at WUWT. I think that it would also be nice of you to send Pinar Yilmaz a similar heads up of your posting “Peck’s” email to Gabi Hegerl as well as “Peck’s” email to him (Yilmaz.) Afterall, fair is fair. ;-)

  26. For anyone commenting about Exxon and “Big Oil”. Remember that Exxon doesn’t have much in the way of oil reserves. The crude all owned by sovreign state oil companies and Exxon just refines it. Exxon reserves are in natural gas. The CAGW fear is a very good thing for them. The only pratical substitution of power from coal is power from natural gas. The issue is not the hypocrocy of Dr. Overpeck and other members of the climate science consensus but that he (they) are in fact a patsies for the likes of Exxon and other “Big Oil” companies who are positioning themselves to make a fortune on a switch to cleaner fossile fuels.

  27. Time seems right for Iowahawk’s selected Readings From The Book of Barak:
    “Cursed are you above all livestock
    and all wild animals!

    And I will keep you from tenure
    and grants and the airwaves,
    and condemn you to the bowels of internet.”
    (read it all if dare via http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that.html)

    Maybe you already know Iowahawk from his 2007 “Earn Your Eco-Salvation”:
    “… Losing sleep over the long-term ecological damage resulting from those greenhouse gases constantly emitted by your family, your cars, your pets, and your shrubbery?….”
    “…Carbon atonement is no longer the exclusive preserve of the Malibu set … the Iowahawk EcoPals Network …lets you, the average Joe planet rapist, cleanse your tortured psyche of the stain of enviro-guilt ….”

  28. Climate scientists are like the police chief in Casablanca. “I’m shocked SHOCKED there is gambling going on here.” “Your winnings, sir” “Oh thank you.”

  29. As Lenin said: “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

    Overpeck would rephrase that as: “The oil companies will give us the grants with which we will hang them.”

  30. Smokey – Deming is not what you would call an uncontroversial figure and while his hearsay is in the Congressional record, that testimony dates from over a decade after the event actually occurred – and we all know that memory can play tricks.

    So in the absence of the actual email, there is not a shred of hard evidence that anyone ever actually used the phrase, additionally the alleged quotee denies he said it, would ever say it or indeed any knowledge whatsoever of Dr Deming. Hardly a historical record.

    • Well Mr. Clarke, there are penalties for lying to Congress. So tell me Mr. Clarke, why would Dr. Deming risk his tenure and career to “make stuff up”? Rita Lavelle in 1983 for example: Indicted for lying to Congress; convicted; sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000.

      So go ahead, file charges against Dr. Deming, let’s get the discovery going.

      I wonder, will there ever be a day that Phil Clarke comes to his senses? Given the way he behaves, more and more I’m surer that he’s a paid shill, despite his protestations otherwise, because he’s unable to accept anything contrary to his rigid world view, and it seems very driven and pointed. His view, which seems to be that climate science, and climate scientists, is/are perfect, beyond reproach, and not susceptible to any of the usual human foibles.

      His defense if this stuff has become laughable entertainment.

  31. davidmhoffer says:
    August 26, 2012 at 11:07 am

    It has always struck me that they and other “big oil” companies seem oblivious to the manner in which they are demonized by the people they are funding.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    They know full well what is being said about them and by whom.
    They know full well that it is cheaper to pay small token bribes to the eco ninnys rather than fight them head on in every case.
    They butter both sides of the bread.

  32. Phil Clarke,

    Such a weak argument. First off, Overpeck does not deny anything; he says he can’t remember.

    But Dr Deming remembers quite well. And his comment was only a side issue in his testimony to Congress. Unless you can provide verifiable evidence that Dr Deming tells falsehoods, then he should be be taken at his word – as should Overpeck, whose whiny apologia shows that he is not even sure what’s what.

    The fact that Overpeck said the exact same thing that Mann and the rest of the climate charlatan crowd were saying fits the narrative. What would be surprising is if Overpeck went against the narrative, and correctly pointed out that the existence of the MWP has been confirmed in more than 100 peer reviewed studies. Now that would have been news.

  33. Some college profs will do anything for money. Bunch of rotten hypocrites. And those that say they won’t are the ones who have secure teaching positions or very large grants funding them. Wait till they have to scrounge up money to justify their own existence and then you get to see who’s a hypocrite and who’s not.

  34. At most universities, tenured faculty can apply for sabatticals every 6 years, so 2006 and 2012 makes good sense. Typically it’s one semester with full pay or one year with half pay. I am an American who has taken all of my sabatticals at European Institutes. Being able to work full time on research at exceptionally well-equiped institutes has make those sabatticals my most productive research periods. This has also meant that I have had to start and finish projects (except for publication) that my European colleagues would typically take twice as long to finish. The results of the sabattical research have often lead to very productive lines of research that I carried out back in the States. Being able to work with colleagues from around the world has been one of the most valued parts of my career.

  35. Here is something I prepared earlier.

    Here is the global warming alarmist, The Sierra Club, secretly taking $26 million from the natural gas interests.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/earth/after-disclosure-of-sierra-clubs-gifts-from-gas-driller-a-roiling-debate.html

    Here is the Climate Research Unit (CRU) acknowledging funding from oil, gas and nuclear power interests.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    Here’s Stanford Global Climate and Energy Project and Exxon funding to the tune of $100 million.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/us/exxon-led-group-is-giving-a-climate-grant-to-stanford.html

  36. From earlier emails:

    13:34:27 2000
    from: Mike Hulme
    subject: BP
    to: shackley
    Simon,

    Have talked with Tim O about BP and he knows Paul Rutter but reckons he is junior to his two contacts Charlotte grezo (who is on our Panel!) and Simon Worthington.

    Tim is meeting Charlotte next week and will do some lobbying and we will also make contact with Simon Worthington.

    So I guess there is no necessity to follow up on Paul right now (I’ll wait for Tim’s feedback), but if you feel there is a strong enough UMIST angle then by all means do so (but bear in mind that we will be talking to some other parts of BP).

    We’re getting a few letters back from people here too which I will copy onto you – two water companies, Shell and the Foreign Office (the latter is not really business though).

    All for now,
    Mike

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=246

    looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from
    this largesse?

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4767

    …> Re funding: we took $1M from a bunch of oil companies (inc EXXON) via
    > IPIECA about 10 years ago. We used it to come up with the first estimate
    > of the second indirect cooling effect of aerosol on predictions. ………

    > Bestw ishes
    >
    > Geoff

    http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/0277.txt

  37. As further background , Pinar is a geoscientist @ exxon ( know this from my time working there ).

    To me , these emails don’t represent hypocrisy as much as the current state of scientific research. The fact of the matter is researchers have to get funding wherever they can. Just so happens most of that funding is via the govt one way or another, thus the potential that research is biased to a political conclusion. It’s just human nature to keep your employer ( or funder ) happy so the $s keep coming your way. Until we have double blind funding from both govt & private sector, there will be politicized science research, especially when it comes to subject like AGW which has such large financial & social implications.

    Perhaps sources like WUWT are better forums for the truth as no one’s livelyhood is is dependent on this blog ( as far as I know). This appears to be purely a labor of love for Anthony & many of the other regular bloggers.

  38. Matthew W;
    They know full well what is being said about them and by whom
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I would not be so certain. For starters, “big oil” companies are, by definition, big. What they VP of Finance “knows” and what the VP of Production “knows” and what the VP of Sales “knows” are all rather different things. I’ve dealt with one on one with a variety of industry execs over the years. Some of them were very informed, but most were rather oblivious to the debate as a whole and frequently completely uninformed about what their largesse is funding.

  39. Smokey – Overpeck denies ever interacting with Dr Deming, period.

    Mr Watts – I don’t suppose Deming lied to Congress – my point is that, eleven years after the event, memory alone is unreliable – it would be a remarkable feat indeed to remember the exact wording and context of a message from ten years earlier without documentary support.

    Then we have the person who is meant to have used the phrase saying I know I would never have said what he’s saying I would have, at least in the context he is implying.

    So the status of the quote is hearsay, denied by the alleged quotee. No historian would use such evidence.

    Speaking of evidence, there is none that I am a ‘paid shill'; there is no evidence because it is not the case.

    REPLY: Well, you ACT like a paid shill, because you attack most anything here on predictable terms, as if that’s a job for you. You run a consulting business, have you ever published any of your work? I’d like to see what sort of consulting you do. From my viewpoint you may very well consult for Greenpeace or some other NGO, and of course I’d expect you to deny it.

    As for Deming, thanks for admitting he didn’t lie, and thus if he didn’t, then he’s telling the truth about the email. That’s an eyewitness account. In a court of law, an eyewitness account holds more weight. Therefore, your complaint is denied.

    – Anthony

  40. Phil Clarke, why do you continue to defend the indefensible?

    In addition to the link milodonharlani provided and Dr. Deming’s testimony to congress, one of Michael Mann’s emails also indicates that it was Overpeck (Peck) who wanted to “contain the putative MWP”:

    “I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP” [Medieval Warm Period], even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back. . .”
    Michael Mann, University of Virginia

  41. Here is a YouTube video of David Deming testifying before Congress quoting Jonathan Overpeck’s someone’s statement that, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!”

    As a bonus, there’s a short segment at the end with Christopher Monckton illuminating a touch of IPCC hypocrisy about its adherence to scientific consensus.

    One would think after testimony like Deming’s, along with that of other forefront scientists like John Christy and Richard Lindzen, that both sides of Congress would see that the science of AGW is polarized and therefore very uncertain. It is highly imprudent to base policy on one side only of conflicted and inter-contradictory expert testimony. Those doing so are either studiedly ideological or reflexively imbecilic. Really, the fault for the social and economic disasters of AGW rests entirely with Congress; specifically those who have passed and implemented laws based on one side of a conflicted debate.

  42. Phil Clarke,

    As Peck admits, his memory may be deficient:

    “I have no memory of emailing w/ him, nor any record of doing so (I need to do an exhaustive search I guess), nor any memory of him period. I assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long ago…”

    Dr Deming had testified before Congress:

    “I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period’.”

    Most of us can easily remember events from a decade past, especially if they were of an “astonishing” nature – as Overpeck’s email certainly was. Overpeck was attempting to overturn more than one hundred peer reviewed and cited papers, which stated exactly the opposite. For someone working in the climate change field, a contrary statement like that would certainly be memorable.

    Phil Clarke should pick battles he has a chance of winning. This isn’t one of them.

  43. big oil, big banks, big pollies, big CAGW scam…

    23 Aug: AP: AP Exclusive: Energy loan watchdog an Obama donor
    A veteran Wall Street executive who performed an independent review that exonerated the Obama administration’s program of loans to energy companies contributed $52,500 to re-elect President Barack Obama in the months since completing his work, according to an Associated Press review of campaign records…
    The campaign contributions to Obama started just weeks after Herbert M. Allison Jr., in congressional testimony in March, minimized concerns that the Energy Department was at high risk in more than $23 billion in federal loans awarded to green energy firms. Two weeks later, Allison began giving to the Obama campaign…
    Allison previously was the former head of the government’s mass purchase of toxic Wall Street assets.
    Allison did not make any Obama donations during his four-month review of Energy Department loans, and he has a long history of working with and giving money to both political parties…
    A former Merrill Lynch executive, Allison worked for several Republican administrations and earned a reputation for tackling troubled federal programs…
    Allison left the Treasury Department in 2010 but returned last year to head up the review of energy loans…
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_OBAMA_DONOR?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE =

  44. Robert of Ottawa says:
    August 26, 2012 at 2:55 pm
    Does Peckers not fear being corrupted by the evil oil money?
    ————————————
    He should fear. Look what happened to the last lot they supported!

  45. Cannot agree more – such hypocrisy:

    Lets look at some of the very ugly DEATH wishes posted here with moderators agreements

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/catlin-crew-out-of-time/#comment-123269

    Chemist says:
    April 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm
    I’ll be the one to say it: I hope they die so that their deaths will draw attention to the truth of this issue. If they succeed, then it will be just another propaganda

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/04/question-for-catlin-arctic-survey-what-happens-to-the-fuel-drums/#comment-126853

    Daniel L. Taylor says: May 5, 2009 at 6:51 am
    …Maybe I’m just a cold hearted SoB, but in my opinion they need to freeze to death on that ice. The world needs to see the headline “Global Warming scientists …
    I’m sorry, but if the deaths of everyone on that ice survey team helps raise awareness of and opposition to the global warming political train wreck then so be it. It needs to happen.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/admiration-for-the-catlin-explorers/#comment-105433

    Rachelle Young says:
    March 26, 2009 at 8:52 pm
    I would be content to see all three of them freeze to death or be eaten by ‘endangered’ polar bears
    ============
    Is Overpeck’s statement worse than wishing someone dies?

  46. Your link to the University of Arizona station 028815 is dated 2007. The station continued reporting data for almost another year, but we don’t know what form the station was in (nor where it was). I express doubt as to the location because the online maps show it under a building, so some construction might have been taking place.

  47. TomE and others on “sabbaticals” :
    In academia you have sabbaticals, study break. Outside, you have “annual leave” entitlements (if you are lucky). The word “holiday” is strictly taboo. Uttering it will result in SIB (sharp intake of breath). In my experience academia is a combination of a monastery and a thieves’ kitchen. Added to that is the extraordinary propensity to stab oneself in the back as well as routinely stab others.
    Flagrant editing of material released under FOI is not a recent phenomenon. I have seen documents altered with magic tape, correction fluid, so obvious even a 5-year old could see it.
    Recommended viewing if you are contemplating going into academia: “The Name of the Rose” (film version of Umberto Eco’s book).

  48. What I noticed is that his first email is barely literate. Must be nice to be a rich college professor, yet have the grammar skills of an 8th grader.

  49. SergeiMK says:
    August 26, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Is Overpeck’s statement worse than wishing someone dies?

    No, for that we have to turn to Phil Jones, who found the actual death of someone to be cheering news.

  50. That is cringe worthy.
    How obsequious can you get ?
    Overblowns obvious delight at being “thrown a biscuit” is only matched by his rolling over for a tummy tickle by the over familiarity and disclosure of family business.

    I can imagine the Exxon executive reporting “in the bag” after the one correspondence.

  51. Louis – a 1K reconstruction would not have included or contained the MWP, whereas a 2K reconstruction did contain the period. In the author’s own words:- In this email, I was discussing the importance of extending paleoclimate reconstructions far enough back in time that we could determine the onset and duration of the putative “Medieval Warm Period”. Since this describes an interval in time, it has to have both a beginning and end. But reconstructions that only go back 1000 years, as most reconstructions did at the time, didn’t reach far enough back to isolate the beginning of this period, i.e. they are not long enough to “contain” the interval in question. In more recent work, such as the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007, the paleoclimate reconstructions stretch nearly 2000 years back in time, which is indeed far enough back in time to “contain” or “isolate” this period in time.

    Smokey says “Most of us can easily remember events from a decade past, especially if they were of an “astonishing” nature – as Overpeck’s email certainly was. ”

    So we agree that Deming is making an extraordinary claim,; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – and Deming has none.

  52. You don’t understand , by the fact the money gets used for ‘the cause ‘ the money becomes cleansed of all sins of association, think holy-water or confessions in application and you see how it works. Of course when its not used for ‘the cause ‘ its retains it ‘dirty ‘ nature and on one can be trusted how sups from such evil sources.

    Once again this is NOT SCIENCE its much close to religion and politics in these peoples minds , when you understand that you can understand how there guys can do these things and keep a straight face.

  53. SergeiMK says:
    August 26, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Is Overpeck’s statement worse than wishing someone dies?

    Well aside from your post being a red herring, lets look at it in more detail. First of all, you posted three quotes, but your above statement (“wish”) can only be applied to the first one of the three, at most. And because you actually cited your sources (props on that), it was easy to see what you left out on them.

    Looking at the first quote, the end of that comment had this phrase:

    …this piece written in the form of “A Modest Proposal” type satire…

    Why didn’t you include that part of the comment? In the second quote, you have a “…”. So what’s included in that “…”? How about this:

    How much suffering has there already been due to the global economic collapse? Carbon regulation is going to cause an even greater contraction of the global economy than we just witnessed. How many people will die sooner due to the reduced living standards, the stress, the hardship? How many people will continue to live in poverty because doors of opportunity were shut? The last global depression led directly to World War II. How many people will die if stress between nations struggling for energy, wealth, and improved living conditions reaches the breaking point and the world goes back to war?

    Sure doesn’t sound like a malicious person to me. And the final person you quoted also said this a few sentences after your out-of-context quote:

    They have put their lives at risk, and, much worse, are also risking the lives of those who have to fly supplies and, perhaps, rescue to them.

    A completely logical and true statement that gives at least some justification for them being “content” (definitely different than wishing) if the team died.

    So I’m wondering, Anthony writes a post with complete e-mails rather than just cherry-picked sentences. Why couldn’t you do the same with your red-herring argument?

    -Scott

  54. Phil Clarke says:

    “So we agree that Deming is making an extraordinary claim,; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – and Deming has none.”

    We agree on nothing, and Phil is so deluded that he believes he has some kind of argument. He doesn’t.

    The ‘extraordinary claim’ is Overpeck’s own assertion that ‘we must get rid of the MWP’. That preposterous claim is directly contrary to 100+ peer reviewed, cited studies showing that the MWP was global in extent, and warmer than current temperatures. The “astonishing” nature of Overpeck’s email was in the fact that he attempted to propagandize the science. Now he’s climbing down, citing a faulty memory.

    Someone please give Phil an aspirin. He needs to lie down until the Algore fever passes.

  55. Phil Clarke; So let me get this straight, Overpeck says he has no memory of that event and that he never would have said that anyway. Well, glad that’s settled then.

  56. From AnonyMoose on August 26, 2012 at 3:41 pm:

    Your link to the University of Arizona station 028815 is dated 2007. The station continued reporting data for almost another year, but we don’t know what form the station was in (nor where it was). I express doubt as to the location because the online maps show it under a building, so some construction might have been taking place.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/surfaceinventories.html

    From the Master Stations Inventory (which was real fun to feed into a spreadsheet and parse out into individual elements):

    COOP ID 028815, Station ID 10100064, in the last two of eleven listings, was moved “150 FT SSW” and operated “20010802” to “20021218”. With no movement noted and still at lat 32°13’45”, long -110°57’13”, and still at 2435ft elevation, it next ran “20021218” to “20080318”.

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_PROGRAM=prog.climsite_monthly.sas&_SERVICE=default&id=028815

    Examining the monthly data, the last month reported with real readings was April 2008. (Guess it got through the quality checks despite the station shutting down on March 18.)

    For the station there are still monthly temperatures given to the end of 2011 (end of file) as estimates “from surrounding values”.

  57. The AGW accusation that skeptics are financed by big oil money is a classic example of psychological projection. For Freud, projection of one’s faults onto others was said to be a subconscious defence mechanism. But under Stalin and the Nazis projection became a calculated smear technique. The bolder the lie, the more powerful the effect! Classic Goebbels.

  58. Phil Clarke says:

    “a 1K reconstruction (MBH 98) would not have included or contained the MWP, whereas a 2K reconstruction did contain the period.”

    Horse poop. The MWP was from ~950 AD through ~1250 AD. Any valid paleotemperature reconstruction from ~1000 AD to ~2000 AD (e.g. MBH 98) would show ~80% of the MWP. The ‘robustness’ of MBH 98 is demonstrated by the fact that it missed it completely:

    The emails, which speak for themselves, lead most people believe that was the point to begin with. Only after MBH 98 was utterly destroyed did Mann ‘rediscover’ the global MWP (that the world had known about from historic, archaeologic, and geologic records for nearly a millennia):

    http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=552&tbm=isch&tbnid=RmAmO5PzjWJ_yM:&imgrefurl=http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/tag/ipcc/&imgurl=http://i.imgur.com/MdwKc.png&w=1155&h=840&ei=zc06UKSfHYT48gSVpYHYCA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=380&sig=103330367060918604064&page=1&tbnh=104&tbnw=152&start=0&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:82&tx=69&ty=56

    The irony is that Mann’s “new & improved” hockey stick negates MBH 98. But that’s irrelevant. It’s just lipstick on a pig.

    And despite the fact that Mann rediscovered the MWP, Stephen Schneider, infamous for his statement: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” is still using Mann’s debunked hockey stick to try and do just that:

    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/EarthsSurfaceTemp.html

  59. Phil Clarke says:
    August 26, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    “So we agree that Deming is making an extraordinary claim, [about the 'need' to eliminate the MWP]; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – and Deming has none.”

    Speaking of the erased-without-debate MWP and “cliche’d thinking”, Phil….how’s about mainstream Climate Science’s “unprecedented!” current and still short warm period – especially concerning the alleged reign of CO2 from 1950 to current? er, “Where’s the beef?”

  60. I’m under the impression that “sabbatical” means that one gets off an entire year EVERY seven years, and that, is one of the perks of being a tenured academian.

    In view of the Physics Today revelation, the 65-70 %of graduate PhD Physicists, will never find a permanent job, and must remaint in post doc status; it must be nice to get a year off every now and then to go look for a real job.

  61. “””””…..Smokey says:

    August 26, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    Phil Clarke says:

    “So we agree that Deming is making an extraordinary claim,; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – and Deming has none.”

    We agree on nothing, and Phil is so deluded that he believes he has some kind of argument. He doesn’t……”””””

    Actually, “extra-ordinary” claims require only the same standards of evidence, as even the most boring of scientific claims.

    Claims become “extra-ordinary” only in the new knowledge they lead to. Not all science is front page news.

  62. Scott says above “In a few weeks I’ll be starting work on a project funded by big oil. However, I’m also sort of the head of the group’s environmental research “subgroup”, so I’m the go-to person when talking to new graduate students (before they join the lab) on anything environmental. ”

    Scott, why are you operting in this mode? Did you consider, for example, that your examples could be drawn not from environmentalism, but from nutrition, using examples such as ways to help feed the underprivileged? Or in disease control, with exciting futures like molecular biology?

    So how where you sucked into this greenie approach that saturates our institutions of learning? Did you have a choice, or was it prescribed? Did you feel that there was more money it it. or no job at all if you dared to differ?

    Were you under intellectual or financial pressure to take this course, knowing it would propagate through succesive intakes?

  63. Anthony

    Could you draw more attention to the following climategate email?

    I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!

    http://bit.ly/SDBmS0

    I thought it is a damning one.

  64. ” Louis Hooffstetter says: August 26, 2012 at 7:58 pm
    Phil Clarke says:

    “a 1K reconstruction (MBH 98) would not have included or contained the MWP, whereas a 2K reconstruction did contain the period.”

    Horse poop. The MWP was from ~950 AD through ~1250 AD. Any valid paleotemperature reconstruction from ~1000 AD to ~2000 AD (e.g. MBH 98) would show ~80% of the MWP. “

    You haven’t even bothered top respond to what Phil said. Maybe 1000-2000 would show 80% (dates vary), but it would not contain the MWP. Whereas 0-2000 certainly would.

  65. If I were still a grant proposal writer it would be a relatively task to compile a list of grants from oil companies to university climate researchers. I wish someone with access to the pertinent electronic databases would do that.

  66. The ‘autoreply’ is total BS and just an excuse.
    These days, with wifi, laptops etc, academics are constantly in touch with their email, whether they are travelling, visiting colleagues, at conferences or whatever.

  67. Thw sad thing is Jonathan has led a group of interdisciplinary scientists who actually have worked with real people to find ways to use El Nino and other teleconnection information to make better water management decisions. Some of their forest fire planning work has been really valuable.

  68. Since Climate “Scientists” are not [in general] interdisciplinary, they were probably excited about having a “official USHCN climate station” outside of their window. Watching it must re-leave the boredom of Climate Science.

    /sarc I think?

  69. Who’s paying for Overpeck’s “sabbaticals”? Arizona? US government? Big Oil? George Soros? All of the above?

  70. DirkH, waaaaayyyy off base regarding Lady in Red. Way off base. Assume at your peril. You may soon share the attributes of a donkey.

  71. I see that Nick Stokes is back at water-carrying for hypocrites liar Phil Clarke. How about addressing the breathtaking hypocrisy of Overpeck that is the title of this post? Do you need to water-carry for every fraud?

  72. Wish Oklahoma was on the Gulf Coast – then these guys might have a more realistic view. Until then, they’ll just do what the oil industry wants them to do, I guess.

    First let’s look at Overpeck’s ugly email about Inhofe and big oil, plus a death wish for Oklahoma residents, bold mine:

    Overpeck’s desire for Oklahomans to experience Katrina (presumably), which he incorrectly attributed to AGW, was undoubtedly born of his frustration – unjustified but real, apparently – at Inhofe’s courageous, lonely stance in the Senate. But to characterize it as a death wish for Oklahomans (or even ugly) is a bridge too far.

    OTOH, the difference in tone between the two emails – arrogance in the first and courtier-like bowing & scraping in the 2nd – is both hilarious and pathetic (and a great addition to my “Funding Hypocrisy folder). Great find!

    You should have left it at that, Anthony; these thin-stretched moralizing judgments do nothing but provide ammunition for the warmers, and besides, they do moral preening better than anyone, so why try to compete in that arena?

  73. David Deming testifies before Congress that he received an “extraordinary” email from a prominent climate scientist – “We have to get of the MWP.”, but has yet to name the author, and if one of the above comments is correct, claims to have lost it. That’s a little troubling, but since I seriously doubt he would have used a fabricated story in testifying before the US Senate, I believe, as a working assumption, that the email is real.

    But: Since Deming has never named the author, and Overpeck claimed in (what he thought was) a private email to not remember ever writing it, the only reasonable conclusion at this time is that someone wrote it, but not necessarily “Peck.” If Deming finds the email and decides to go public with it, it will then be an entirely different story.

    Therefore, commenters here bashing Overpeck (and Phil Clark) on this issue only are off-base, and as I stated above, are providing ammunition to the AGW camp and damaging the credibility of skeptics. And why even bother? It’s off-topic from the post, and as I also stated above, the “Two Overpecks” story is more damning, and a lot funnier.

  74. David L says:
    August 26, 2012 at 10:00 am

    inabilityto be able to write….
    I know emails are infornal

    Heh. Beware Muphry’s Law!

  75. It’s only to be expected that Big Oil would grease the palms of whoever’s writing the rules at the moment! Greasing is what Oil does best!

Comments are closed.