The sad part of all this, it that 90% or more of the population don’t know what is happening. They only look at little clips on the news that mann ops men is killing the planet and change channel to look at Oprah.

Don’t be so sure about that.

I was in my local Lidl store & mentioned that the sh1t was hitting the fan over climate science and the disclosures/leaks from CRU. The cashier at the till actually knew what I was talking about! He hadn’t heard of Lucias blackboard but you can’t have everything. He had heard of CA & WUWT though.

DaveE.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”

~~Richard Feynman

h/t Lubos Motl!!

The data sets are quite small by modern database standards – just a few million rows. This could be done quite easily.

It’s the End of the Global Warming Gravy Train.

Tout le monde descend, s’il vous plait.

I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley. / 25 Apr 2007

Douglass is the guy who famously concluded (after examining the temperature response to Pinatubo) that the climate system has negative sensitivity. Amazingly, he managed to publish that crap in GRL. Christy sure does manage to pick some brilliant scientific collaborators… / 12 Dec 2007

[H]appy holidays! May all your “Singers” be carol singers, and not of the S. Fred variety… / 13 Dec 2007

I share your frustration about having to devote valuable time to the rebuttal of crappy papers. Douglass et al. is truly awful. It should never have been published. Any residual respect I might have had for John Christy has now vanished. I can’t believe that he’s a coauthor on this garbage. / 04 Jan 2008

This is a little disappointing. We decided to submit our paper to IJoC in order to correct serious scientific errors in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper. We believe that there is some urgency here. Extraordinary claims are being made regarding the scientific value of the Douglass et al. paper, in part by co-authors of that paper. One co-author (S. Fred Singer) has used the findings of Douglass et al. to buttress his argument that “Nature not CO2, rules the climate”. The longer such erroneous claims are made without any form of scientific rebuttal, the more harm is caused. In our communications with Dr. Osborn, we were informed that the review process would be handled as expeditiously as possible. Had I known that it would take nearly two months until we received a complete set of review comments, I would not have submitted our paper to IJoC. / 05 May 2008

Dr. Douglass: … I note that you did not have the professional courtesy to provide me with any advance information about your 2007 IJoC paper, which was basically a commentary on previously-published work by myself and my colleagues. Neither I nor any of the authors of those previously-published works … had the opportunity to review your 2007 IJoC paper prior to its publication – presumably because you specifically requested that we should be excluded from consideration as possible reviewers. … I see no conceivable reason why I should now send you an advance copy of my IJoC paper. Collegiality is not a one-way street, Professor Douglass.” / 27 May 2008

Prof. Douglass, … you have access to the same model and observational data that we used in our 2008 IJoC paper. … You are quick to threaten your intent to file formal complaints against me “with the journal and other scientific bodies”. If I were you, Dr. Douglass, I would instead focus my energies on rectifying the serious error in the “robust statistical test” that you applied to compare modeled and observed temperature trends. … Please do not communicate with me in the future. / 14 Oct 2008

While on travel in Hawaii, I received a request from Steven McIntyre for all of the model data used in our IJoC paper (see forwarded email). After some conversation with my PCMDI colleagues, I have decided not to respond to McIntyre’s request. / 31 Oct 2008

Dear Mr. McIntyre, I gather that your intent is to “audit” the findings of our recently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology (IJoC). … I gather that you have appointed yourself as an independent arbiter of the appropriate use of statistical tools in climate research. Rather that “auditing” our paper, you should be directing your attention to the 2007 IJoC paper published by David Douglass et al., which contains an egregious statistical error. Please do not communicate with me in the future. / 10 Nov 2008

Yeah, I had already seen the stuff from McIntyre. Tom Peterson sent it to me. McIntyre has absolutely no understanding of climate science. … I see that McIntyre has put email correspondence with me in the Supporting Information of his paper. What a jerk! / 29 Jan 2009

Congratulations on the AGU Fellowship! … I hope that Mr. Mc “I’m not entirely there in the head” isn’t there to spoil the occasion… / 29 Jan 2009

Dear Mr. Smith, Please do not lecture me on “good science and replicability”. … Your criticism was entirely unjustified, and damaging to my professional reputation. I therefore see no point in establishing a dialogue with you. Please do not communicate with me in the future. I do not give you permission to distribute this email or post it on Mr. McIntyre’s blog. / 30 Jan 2009

The CEI and Michaels are applying impossible legal standards to science. … In my personal opinion, Michaels should be kicked out of the AMS, the University of Virginia, and the scientific community as a whole. He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks on the reputations of individual scientists … and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member of our professional societies. / 09 Oct 2009

Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. / 09 Oct 2009

Arthur Glass (07:26:50) : Who, exactly, among the ‘climate sceptics’ has claimed that the leaked material shows a ‘conspiracy’?

Well, Andrew Bolt (bless his heart) has for one:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_the_australian_link/

I was wondering the same thing. Has anyone noticed if some of the data files contain any of the information that Steve M and others have been trying to get hold of?

When you use the contact address it’s interesting the alternate name that comes back since the contact is on vacation. Probably a coincidence. Made me wonder about also cc’ing the local MP to ensure the message would get through, but I couldn’t figure out quickly who would be the MP that covers UEA.

Top ten:
moron
Al Gore
trick
delete
revkin
foi
hide the decline
fraud
steve mcintyre

At the moment I’m digging thru the other files, looking for nuggets.

Hummh, shall I apply for a job at Hadley?
Looks like they need a good IT-Manager (with some good expertise re. security)

rgds

KlausB

I would be very interested in hearing about anything you can find on “1945″ & “COWL” (cold ocean – warm land).

This relates to clouds & EOP (Earth orientation parameters) – i.e. 2 things that are too inconvenient for top alarmist operatives to acknowledge, it often seems.

Thanks to some of Bob Tisdale’s articles, it is clear to me that top alarmist operatives would find it convenient to erase the ~1945 spikes in the following records:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/NutationObliquity.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumALPI.png

Either ignorance or deceit is at play. Investigation is warranted.

It might also be insightful to search “chandler wobble”, “polar motion”, “1920-1940″, “arctic warming”, “dirty 30s”, “southern ocean”, “Sidorenkov”, “Barkin”, “Vondrak”, etc. to see if they have any clue about:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/PolarMotionPeriodMorlet2piPower.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/GA_MapXL.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/sqrtaayoy.sq22.png

Evidence of deception &/or ignorance on these fronts would be very telling.

“Copenhogen 24/7″

http://www.oneclimate.net/2009/11/19/pioneering-new-tv-livestream-gives-everyone-a-free-pass-to-the-heart-of-the-uns-copenhagen-climate-conference/

Yes, this is profoundly true. Nothing kills a cause so fast or thoroughly as those most fanatically devoted to it. Look what Cyril Burt did to inherited abilities. When the twin studies were proved fakes, he put the issue out of consideration for a generation. But actually, some abilities really are inherited. Just not with the racial and social implications that he faked the data with a view to attaching to this fact.

This is the same sort of thing. It could be that climate change, and human caused climate change is a real threat. But this is now going to be impossible to seriously advocate, thanks to the idiotic antics of a few venal fanatics.

‘Yet each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!’