Comment On The Post “Enemies Caught In Action!” On The Blackboard
By Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
Lucia Liljegren at the Blackboard has a post Enemies caught in action! with an image depicting several individuals including me [thanks to Lucia for her post!]. The source of this juvenile presentation was in a an e-mail from Tom Peterson to Phil Jones in 2007.
The communication of this reads in part
From: “thomas.c.peterson” To: Phil Jones Subject: [Fwd: Marooned?] Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:10:02 -0500
Hi, Phil,
I thought you might enjoy the forwarded picture and related commentary below.
I read some of the USHCN/GISS/CRU brouhaha on web site you sent us. It is both interesting and sad. It reminds me of a talk that Fred Singer gave in which he impugned the climate record by saying he didn’t know how different parts were put together. During the question part, Bob Livzey said, if you don’t know how it is done you should read the papers that describe it in detail. So many of the comments on that web page could be completely addressed by pointing people to different papers. Ah well, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it think.
Warm regards,
Tom
The more serious concern is that both Phil Jones and Tom Peterson have been involved at the highest levels in the assessment of climate science. Phil Jones, for example, was on a National Research Council Committee that reviewed a draft of first CCSP report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”. Tom Peterson, of the National Climate Data Center, was one of the members of the CCSP Committee.
During the CCSP Committe process, I completed two reports
Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2005: Minority Report, Comments Provided to the NRC Review Committee of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s Synthesis and Assessment Product on Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere. Atmospheric Science Bluebook No. 758, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, 8 pp.
Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”. 88 pp including appendices.
In the second report, I wrote
“The process that produced the report was highly political, with the Editor taking the lead in suppressing my perspectives, most egregiously demonstrated by the last-minute substitution of a new Chapter 6 for the one I had carefully led preparation of and on which I was close to reaching a final consensus. Anyone interested in the production of comprehensive assessments of climate science should be troubled by the process which I document below in great detail that led to the replacement of the Chapter that I was serving as Convening Lead Author.”
The Editor of this report is Thomas R. Karl, Director of the National Climate Data Center; the supervisor of Tom Peterson at NCDC.
The perspective that Tom Peterson illustrates in his communication to Phil Jones clearly illustrates that he is unable to present a balanced assessment of the climate science issues. Moreover, he does not even accurately understand that I am not a “climate skeptic”.
My view is clearly summarized in our recent EOS article
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. An edited version of this paper was published by AGU. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union
where we concluded the scientific evidence supports the view that
Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and involve a diverse range of first- order climate forcings, including, but not limited to, the human input of carbon dioxide (CO2). Most, if not all, of these human influences on regional and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades.
Tom Peterson’s e-mail is not only juvenile but incorrectly communicates my view of the climate issue.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lucia also has the original photo. http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/cast-of-gilligans-island.jpg
I guess the 2007 version was before http://joannenova.com.au/ came online. 🙂
The quality of their Photoshop matches the quality of their research.
That really is the worst bit of photoshop work that I’ve seen in a long time.
After reading a lot of the emails, and after reading all of the commentary about them, it is becoming more evident to me that at the very least, the people (CRU) are completely unprofessional. They are NOT what I would call scientists. I have been a computer scientist for 30 years, and I have NEVER seen such a thing as this.
It is indeed wonderful that the IPCC consists of professional, serious, responsible – and above all – credible members of the scientific community. Hoorah!
….so, when do we predict that politicians will be running for the door en’masse? Sometime around spring 2010?
This further illustrates quite clearly that for the alarmist, so-called scientists, AGW is clearly not a scientific issue for them as much as it is a political, emotional, religion.
Pathetic!
This is the sort of thing one might expect from a party activist busy trying to ram through his pet legislation, but certainly not from a “dispassionate”, evenhanded scientist. Even worse is the idea that these “gentlemen” have been allowed to be the gatekeepers of world opinion on “man made global warming” through their positions with the UN.
Shabby as the yells of a drunken bricklayer on a Friday night is my take. (no offense intended to bricklayers)
Trick or Cheat
So it appears that Wegman was right all the time :-
“In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe
that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue.”
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
“juvenile”? If you want to see “juvenile” consider the state of the rogues’ software. Courtesy of chiefio, contemplate this:-
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13
I thought Pielke Sr. was on your side? It appears he’s just another bitchy academic who believes in AGW
Ah, who needs that grumpy old man anyway!
REPLY: By the same logic. who needs cowardly Internet trolls like yourself? Dr. Pielke has the courage to put his name to his words, you don’t. Your opinion is worthless noise. – Anthony Watts
I just went to the link Dr. Pielke provided and noticed that Dr. Pielke did not include all of the email. He left off the caption which was a quote from an editorial in Nature: “The IPCC report has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from under the sceptics’ feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous.”
Dr Pielke,
The contrast between the science you practice – with integrity, respect, dignity and transparency- and what those who have been ridiculing you practice, could not be greater.
Please keep up your excellent work.
Respectfully,
There you have it — the real science of Dr. Pielke and then there’s the sophomoric science that puts out such images as shown above.
Those-who-say-there-is-consensus graphically illustrates that there is no consensus.
Thank you Dr Peterson, for helping us with our arguments!
Confusing. Too many acronyms. Not enough background info on the players.
And I’d like to draw your attention to this revelation of juvenilia:-
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421
I keep reading on this site that climate scientists aren’t real scientists. Well, a picture is worth a thousand words. Consider: (a) I’ve never met a scientist in real life who had an artistic bone in all his body; (b) this picture, while admittedly quite droll, is on the whole completely artless; (c) it was made by a climate scientist at CRU; therefore (d) climate scientists at CRU are real scientists, all qed-like.
So wrong you are, denialists, again.
I wanted to propose something. RC is letting all sorts of things through, although not all, because they know that what they are doing there may be looked at more closely in the near future. Given that they are trying to make themselves look good, I think someone with more websavy than myself should start an online petition with people who have had comments deleted/scrubbed. They are going to use their current comment sections to misrepresent themselves when questioned. If there were an ongoing list of people who have had their comments scrubbed, it would not look good. I for one would sign it. If we could also list the comment it would have more sway. Anthony, do you have an idea on how to create such a thing? If others who read this could spread the idea to other sites that would be awesome. Maybe it has already been done and I don’t know about it.
One more quick note. If there was a website or page that clearly illustrated the connections between all of these people, fenton communications, Al Gore, wiki, it would help spread the word more effectively. The problem with the Blog’s are that they cover so many things with so many comments, there is no concrete wikipedia style site that any laypersons can go to and see the TRUTH. Just the facts. WUWT is the best but it is not easy for someone who is not as devoted to reading and putting together the puzzle. Again, ideas? THANK YOU Anthony, Moderators, and all those who spend their lives trying to help others.
An apostate suffers far more slings and arrows than a mere infidel.
I can attest directly that Dr. Pielke is a man of great integrity and never gives an easy pass to theories and methods merely because they appear to support a particular position.
I actually posted this image on Friday 😉
See here.
Cheers,
Simon
ACM
I keep reading on this site that climate scientists aren’t real scientists.
Oh, they’re real scientists, all right. But a lot of what some of them produce isn’t science. More’s the pity. They not only materially harm the lives of others, they make a travesty of their own.
Well, mother loves me, that makes everything better.
REPLY: Love is not the issue, science and truth in practicing it is the issue. Troll bin for you. – A
So, due to warmal globing (they assert) a perfectly preserved viking was discovered thawed out of a glacier.
Further,the story goes,said Viking on being first examined started to show signs of life,so they took him him to the eminent neurologist,Professor Walker,to see if brain function could be revived but they failed.
Thus,it is demonstrated that “You can take a Norse to Walker but you can’t make him think”
Petersen is a crap comic.
Your opinion is worthless noise. – Anthony Watts
I’ve come to right place, then!
REPLY: But now you only get to watch. -A
Shurley Knot (11:20:58) :
I believe it was made by Tom Peterson of NCRC.
Darn, and such a logical argument otherwise.