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.
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.
Shurley Knot says:
November 22, 2009 at 11:20 am
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.
——————————————
who are you really? No-one! Just the latest in a long line of bitter trolls that have nothing better to do than deny the truth. This fraud is out in the open and your attempts to confuddle, accuse and riddicule are the worst types of denialism. Open your eyes to the truth, the position you are so passionately defending has been compromised beyond repair. It’s time you re-assed what you believe is real and true. Until then, your words are worth nothing here.
I’ve come to right place, then!
REPLY: But now you only get to watch. -A
Thank you, Anthony.
You wonder if “Shurley” is Gavin himself – you know he has to be beside himself with rage right now, especially at this site for doing what it’s doing to popularize the issue.
Surely not!
This link:
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13
and this link
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421
that someone poster earlier are unbelievable.
I mean, can the code and data really be that bad? I looks like they were incapable of handling the large data sets. And even with all that money. Did someone in the original big thread say that they had gotten Billions in grant money over the years? Man, oh man.
Ok, sometimes I am sarcastic, sometimes serious, but I do have a waste basket handy for unwanted snail mail, and I am of no real importance, so here goes nothing.
LarryOldtimer = Laurence M. Sheehan, Professional Civil Engineer, State of California, License # C17518
Just call me Larry, or whatever, just don’t call me late for dinner.
Our Gav is no fool.
There he is standing alone against all the rational people raising questions on Not Real Climate.
He is providing all the believers with the arguments they must use on other blogs and in the mainstream media.
One thing though is he is providing arguments which are easy to use back against him so he may not be such a clever boy.
British and Irish science has a world class reputation but the damage these disreputable characters have done is immense.
Trick or Cheat?
I’m sure a few scientists are now glad to have their suspicions about why their work was deep sixed confirmed. For any young scientist out there the bigger lesson is lies are always uncovered and honest research leads to usefull solutions. But gee it so frustrating to have the answer and too be silenced
Funny, funny, funny..
I was at a Global Warming (Man Induced) lecture by a retired U of Wisc. “Meteorolgy” professor yesterday (Saturday).
He CLEARLY did not know the difference between “Tree Ring Proxies” and O18/016 Isotope proxies. He showed the work by Briffa, attributed it to “a variety of methods, including those” when I asked him. When He showed a 150,000 year graph, he again harked to TREE RINGS. (Not knowing that there is a LIMIT on how far back the tree ring proxies go!)
A later question, asked because of MY CAUSE..that O18/O16 proxies are BOGUS (sorry skeptics, I’m a proxy skeptic!) because they represent the number and intensity of THUNDERSTORMS in warm (tropic) regions and their subsequent outflow to the whole “ecosphere”..NOT a direct TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT AT ALL! (Some argue it has to do with the fact that WARM WEATHER TS make the most enrichment. However, since it is a VOLUMETRIC measurement that results, the NUMBER and INTENSITY of TS’s is controlling, and there is NO known association between that and atmospheric temperatures.)
SO when someone slays someone on “our side” for that techincal point, I say,
“Let’s play QUIZ TIME” and line up 100 “Warmists” and question THEM about the fundamentals!
Now we know what the fancy computers are used for at the National Climate Data Center.
It wasn’t maintenance or quality control of the national weather station system; that institutional lapse we are painfully aware of, thanks to the gentle host.
Having been following this closely since the big break, I figure the three most salient points so far are:
1) Meddling in the FOI process. Especially putting pressure on and conspiring with FOI officials to make sure data is not released, and conspiring to delete data.
2) Admitting to use techniques to deal with results that don’t show the desired outcomes.
3)Conspiring to make sure any and all dissenting papers are not published and therefore cannot become part of THE TEAMS sanctioned peer reviewed dossier.
I am trying to get all of this straight in my mind.
I think is would be important to write a paper that states the problems that this leak has uncovered, and illustrate with the associated emails.
I am sure that this is being compiled to a very high degree as I type.
On another note, I thank all scientists and others who make this type of blog available. I am sure it is a time consuming endeavour .
Now that many if not all of the leaked or hacked CRU E-mail contents to which I refer below have been specifically acknowledged as authentic and responded to by various of the involved parties, it seems reasonable to summarize.
Lets see what we have so far:
1) We have the CRU director writing that he thinks he will delete some of the Center’s temperature data files rather than comply with Freedom of Information Act requests that may arise for that data.
2) We have the CRU director reporting that he has successfully instilled a sympathetic attitude in those individuals responsible for seeing to it that his organization honors legal requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. He notes that those parties will be “supportive” (presumably of his stated intention to hide and even destroy requested data – see items # 1 & 3).
3) We have the CRU director writing that he intends to “hide behind” the U.K.’s “data protection act” and advising others to do the same.
4) We have the CRU director bemoaning measured data that conflicts with the global temperature story he and his fellows wish to present and noting what adjustments to that data would cause it to comport with that story. He also calculates the limit of how much that particular data set could be adjusted before it lost credibility in relation to other adjusted data sets that already support the story.
5) We have a climate blog offering to collude with the CRU to screen out viewer comments unhelpful to the CRU story and to “hold up in the queue” viewer comments where necessary in order to give CRU time to study and intervene or preemptively respond.
6) We have the CRU director strategizing with others to stack the “peer review” process in AGW’s favor and to prevent contrary papers from making it through that peer review process.
The really insidious thing about all of this is that the participants in these acts appear to see nothing wrong with what they have done. They seem to genuinely believe that their “cause” justifies whatever means they may choose to employ and that anyone who disagrees with that cause is stupid, ignorant or evil. I submit that it should be apparent to even the most casual observer that the long list of first-class scientific minds who question AWG theory are neither stupid nor ignorant and, with possible rare exception, they are not evil.
Ethics is sometimes described as doing the right thing even when no one is watching and even when doing so disadvantages you personally. I see no semblance of ethical conduct in the six actions listed above. Justification for most any human act can be rationalized, but the ethical parameters of that act are not so malleable; it either “is” or it “is not” ethical on its face.
CH
mtnrat-
I think your last point is the one that resonates most with a layman like me. Yea, there’s all kinds of bad stuff coming to light but the amount of collusion going on between scientists, gov’ts, trade journals, international agencies such as the UN, etc., is simply breathtaking.
Scientists are held in great regard by most citizens due not just to their intelligence but their supposed integrity and commitment to discovering the truth no matter where it leads. These emails go a long way towards proving what many of us have felt in our gut, AGW is nothing more than a rigged game designed to give vast money and power to statists who want to contol virtually all aspects of our lives. These guys have done serious damage to themselves, their cause and the profession of science.
How anyone can take these clowns seriously now is beyond me.
Not sure which is the best thread to post this. Here’s Hans von Storch’s take on it, from his official website;
“21. November 2009 – A hacker has stolen many e-mails (and other files) from the server at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom. For an account refer to New York Times or to Roger Pielke jr.’s weblog. The hacked mails have been published at several sites, and I got through a journalist a full copy. As far as I myself can judge, and according to responses by others, the files are authentic, but not complete.
Going through the files, which due to the sheer size I can do only in a sampling mode, the mails begin in the late 1990s and extend to about today. They are all mails to/from Phil Jones. There are a number of problematic statements, which will be discussed in the media and the blogosphere. The style of communication, speaking about other people and their ideas, exchanges about to improve representations, I found revealing.
Also mails from/to Eduardo Zorita and myself are included; also we have been subject of frequent mentioning, usually not in a flattering manner. Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained about efforts to destroy “Climate Research”; that we in the heydays of the hockeystick debate shared our ECHO-G data with our adversaries; and that Mike Mann was successful to exclude me from a review-type meeting on historical reconstructions in Wengen (demonstrating again his problematic but powerful role of acting as a gatekeeper.)
I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or assessment activities like IPCC.
For an account of our role in the hockey-stick deconstruction, refer to our 2007-article on the nature blog. An account on the problem around “Climate Research” is provided on this web-page of mine from 2003.”
Wow! Since when did science go to 2nd graders. I’m surprised they didn’t call you a poo-poo head.
It is very pathetic when the people who are supposed to be enlightened scientists acting like my 4 year old niece throwing one of her trademarked temper tantrums. No, not pathetic, just sad.
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall in James Hansen’s office when this hit the fan.
” I’ve never met a scientist in real life who had an artistic bone in all his body.”
Poor soul, you’ve never met Michaelangelo?
“Scientists are held in great regard by most citizens due not just to their intelligence but their supposed integrity and commitment to discovering the truth no matter where it leads,”
One suspects that you have never worked at a large university.
the rules of the game (pdf):
5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before
persuasion works
Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is
as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise
(or remember) that climate change relates to them….
look at the docs and letters, they are more usefull than e mails…
14. Raise the status of climate change mitigation
behaviours
Research shows that energy efficiency behaviours can make you
seem poor and unattractive. We must work to overcome these
emotional assumptions.
holy [snip]…
(the rules of the game)
Reply: That must be straight from David King. ~ charles the moderator
I want my weather back.
I want to complain to my neighbor or anyone else when it’s too blasted cold.
I want to complain about the awful heat when it’s too hot for me.
I want to complain about the unending rain & snow and drought and fog.
I don’t want to have to look over my shoulder because man’s best griping subject has been abducted by Alien Climate Forms.
Lord, don’t we just love the 20,000 yrs we have been free to bitch about the weather.
Until the Climate Grinches from the Black LaGoon stole it, and turned it into a Weapon of Mass Political Correctness to beat and abuse us with.
I’m am so sick of this Climate Hijack.
I want my weather back.
Don’t you?
Their Photoshop runs on supercomputer hardware also used for super intensive climate model simulations. Crap results all around. They should use their brains instead.
dearime:
Thanks for the links to the HARRY_READ_ME.txt threads. The contents of that file are as stunning as the emails.
>>One suspects that you have never worked at a large university.
No, but apparently a large amount of my tax dollars continue to be employed by various institutions of higher prostitution. That may be a slight to hookers, they at least admit they are willing to be bought by the highest bidder.
When you have people involved in the highest levels of science behaving like this it is a travesty. In Australia the CSIRO and BOM (who are implicated in the emails) have similar issues. When you get self serving groups like the WWF who also exert undue influence on policy making no wonder this ends up being a can of worms.
Old joke, but there is an angle that relates to this.
Two statues, one male and one female in naked perfection, stand opposed to each other across a small pond. After one hundred years, an angel comes down from heaven.
“I grant you one hour of human life” said the angel: “To do what you have wanted to do for so long.”
So they went behind the bushes where sounds could be heard and branches seen to move. They came back laughing and happy.
“You still have 30 minutes” said the angel.
“Let’s go back” said the man: “Only this time let’s do it the other way around.”
“Yeah” said the lady: “This time I’ll sit on the pigeon while you sh*t on it.”
What has struck me about all this is that they have such a misanthropic viewpoint. They seem to hate people (and love their research grants) so much that instead of being overjoyed at discovering their evidence is wrong, all they are concerned about is persisting in trying to convince us that we are all going to burn.
I would have thought that finding out that, really, all is well would be a good thing.
Obviously I am a little naive!
Claude Harvey (13:13:16) :
“The really insidious thing about all of this is that the participants in these acts appear to see nothing wrong with what they have done. They seem to genuinely believe that their “cause” justifies whatever means they may choose to employ and that anyone who disagrees with that cause is stupid, ignorant or evil”.
Not according to Marc Shappard:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html
” I’ve never met a scientist in real life who had an artistic bone in all his body.”
Sorry Leonardo we have to revoke your membership in the Scientist Union, you painted too many pretty pictures.
The Global position now is…. Any elected member of any countries Government who has voted for/plans to vote for any form of ETS (Expensive Tax Scam) legislation has/will be COMMITTING FRAUD PERIOD.
The tone of this image fits in perfectly with the tone of the emails. It exposes a coterie of individuals whose contempt for science is matched only by their arrogance. It is revealing indeed that, through the vision warped by their own dogma, a legitimate dissenting opinion cannot exist. Thus, the cognitive dissonance invoked from such dissent is dealt with by ridicule, for surely, anyone who doesn’t share their viewpoint must be either deluded, scientifically illiterate or worse. The dissonance must have become unbearable by now, because the number of dissenting voices and conflicting evidence is continuing to grow.
But then, to the inmates of a lunatic asylum, the rest of the world must seem insane.
Just watched my local BBC news (local news following the national news). No mention of the CRU hack on the main news, but there was something about it on the local news (it’s in my region). They described it as a “cyber attack”. BBC interviewed climate campaigners, who said it was disgusting that this kind of thing could happen to a University doing important work for the future of the planet. Senior Climate Scientist (retired!) was intervewied, I didn’t catch his name, saying that Climate Scientists were very honest (!). University also said the Police had been called in.
That’s it for now. Can’t find reference on the BBC website (i.e. the local news section, which is BBC East).
Jamie (13:53:59) :
http://climate.usurf.usu.edu/products/data.php?tab=coop
Red Bluff, CA COOP is from 1892 onwards, and contains -9999’s to at least 1900. No data.
from HARRY_READ_ME text file:
These are from the following stations:
720344 408 1158 1539 ELKO-FAA-AP———USA——— 1870 1996 301870 -999.00
725837 408 1158 1549 NV ELKO FAA AP 1930 1990 101930 -999.00
725910 401 1223 103 RED BLUFF USA 1878 2006 101878 -999.00
My concerns are that historical data has been scrubbed/damaged/lost
Where are the original archives?
I know there are places in No. CA where records go back as far as the late 1850’s, but they are nowhere to be found in today’s datasets. There is no reason for me to assume that this data clobbering did not include areas around the globe.
From
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13
Candidate for quote of the month
”
Posts: 142
Incept: 2009-03-19
“Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t, and can’t teach, create a fake ecological disaster so that they can get grant money.”
This is deeply embarrassing for the United Nation
Inter-government Panel on Climate Change. Credibility is very important for professional scientists. An official IPCC apology is the only way to go. Time for responsibility.
This is also deeply embarrassing for any body that has ever been close to the IPCC (all the people who have passionately defended the process).
The bias towards human causation is beyond a joke. These emails have confirmed the worst case scenario for the IPCC (at the upper limit).
65 million years ago when climate scientists ruled the earth…..
May I wonder aloud what the Chancellor (“President” for American readers) of the University of East Anglia thinks of the disrepute that Jones, Briffa, et al have brought upon his Academic Institution and, more importantly, what he is considering doing about it?
A. Lovell …
I’m with you. But I find the same problem with the general populace in the UK. Any skeptic that dares to express an opinion on shows like ‘Any Questions’ or ‘Question Time’ gets roundly booed. Why, for God’s sake? Do they actively want the alarmists to be right?
And surely a scientist will take the rough with the smooth. You may be personally mildly p***ed off when the real-world observations don’t match your precious hypothesis but if that’s the case then change the hypothesis. Admit you weren’t quite as right as you thought you were and start again.
It can’t be money; there’s more grant to be got by saying the hypothesis isn’t working and we need to look at it again than by saying “the science is settled”. At least you’d think so. Wouldn’t you?
It will not fool anyone if Realclimate abruptly allows dissenting views, for the archives will show that they only began doing it when the -bleep- hit the fan.
What will be really interesting is if they attempt to meddle with the archives, and attempt to transplant dissenting views backwards in time.
If they wove a tangled web before, practicing deception, they will likely tangle themselves up utterly in nooses, attempting deception now.
If you weren’t convinced ‘warmism’ was a religion before last week, merely look at there defence of these hacks after the CRU ‘revelation’.
Unfortunately David, the spin being put on this (on the local news, as I described above) is that it’s an act of vandalism. The impression I got was more, “oh these poor bearded Scientists, trying to make the world a better place for your children and grandchildren; whatever did they do to deserve this?”.
No mention of the content of the emails, of course. If they had been emails between politicians discussing, say, their expenses, it would have been a very different matter.
Anthony ,
Thanks for chucking Shurly . The response to one of his posts that I had formulated would have gotten more snips than a prostate biopsy . One of your best moves “evar” .
Sam the Skeptic (14:49:34) : “…I find the same problem with the general populace in the UK. Any skeptic that dares to express an opinion on shows like ‘Any Questions’ or ‘Question Time’ gets roundly booed. Why, for God’s sake? Do they actively want the alarmists to be right?”
Oo, ooh, that’s Orwell’s two-minute hate, right?
Wikipedia articles that do or should record this event in a neutral and balanced manner, with journalist-written sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Robinson (15:11:51) :
May I wonder aloud what the Chancellor (“President” for American readers) of the University of East Anglia thinks of the disrepute that Jones, Briffa, et al have brought upon his Academic Institution and, more importantly, what he is considering doing about it?
Personal letters to Chancellor Gough at University of East Anglia with copies to Charles Clarke MP for Norwich, calling for a full investigation, is a good start.
The University is ultimately responsible to British Parliament and citizens for the behavior of its employees. As Dr. Phil Jones is an employee and the author of many of the most troubling emails – a call for a full, open investigation is prudent. I would suggest that letters insist that the unethical behavior of CRU employees jeopardizes the integrity and prestige of the University in the eyes of the world. Swift action to investigate is in the interest of good science, the University, and the British public.
As the Chancellor and MP Clarke are both public servants I will list their emails here:
clarkec@parliament.uk
Gough’s contacts:
jennifer.jones@uea.ac.uk,
C.Kreetzer@uea.ac.uk
Or Da Vinci (or maybe that’s who you meant? I don’t remember Michelangelo being scientific in nature)
Or even any sci-fi writer who was also a scientist, such as Asimov…
“May I wonder aloud what the Chancellor (“President” for American readers) of the University of East Anglia thinks of the disrepute that Jones, Briffa, et al have brought upon his Academic Institution and, more importantly, what he is considering doing about it?”
might I suggest that if there is any evidence of criminal intent wrt FOI that an official compliant be put in to the nearest police station to the CRU? Remind the police that they do have a common law duty to uphold the law and a legal duty to investigate fully any complaint.
Arthur Glass (13:26:16) :
” I’ve never met a scientist in real life who had an artistic bone in all his body.”
Poor soul, you’ve never met Michaelangelo?
I think Aurthur mean DaVinci.Then there’s Bacon, Copernicus,Newton,Galileo, all fair with the pen and ink.
Thanks surely, Anthony, for giving Shurley the ‘ol cyberboot….
I suggest that we all take our time to write any media outlet i.e. AP’s Seth Borenstein and question why there is no reporting on this issue while they report the alarmism. If we can get enough people to write to these organizations, them maybe just maybe the tide will change.
Shurley Knot
As well as being a “cowardly internet troll” it is glaringly apparent that you are no scientist. Your first point, on which the whole of your argument rests is:
“(a) I’ve never met a scientist in real life who had an artistic bone in all his body”
How many scientists have you met in real life? All the scientists in the world? All (any) of the scientists whose behaviour is under scrutiny? Any scientists at all? As it is extremely unlikely you can answer yes to the first of these questions your entire reasoning falls into a very large hole. It is people such as yourself, with an obvious lack of any reasoning power at all and with no understanding of any science, who in supporting AGW, encourage the sceptical viewpoint
speaking of Gavin; he believed his h-index to be about 30. Scopus returns 23, although there is another researcher with the initials G.A. that could ‘bump up’ this figure. The idea that one does not track who is citing ones work is a bit odd for a professional scientist.
I couldn’t help but notice that many of the citations in three of the papers I examined were quite incestuous; where the authors of a paper self-cite. The typical range should be in the order of 5-25% and maximum number of self-citations should be about 30%.
Could one of you computing bod’s do a search of the teams papers and workout the self-citation rate per paper, say over the last decade?
I would give it a go but this is not a good week for me.
Asimov:
My god people, have you just been skipping over everything I’ve posted from that HARRY_READ_ME.txt file!?!?
The data itself is a HUGE unknown, even to the researchers themselves as they attempt to decode what’s gone before.
Sure, the emails indicate the possibility (and certainty in some cases) of fraud. That one file PROVES HOW UNRELIABLE THE DATA ITSELF IS!!
They “lost” the original data?? I believe it now. v2.10 was run with a ****ton of code that was undocumented, made no sense and was FULL of bugs. Is v3.0 better when half the data from 1980 on is SYNTHETIC?!? Or when it used the output from the buggy 2.10 version (which is all they had) to produce NEW data?!?!
This is a ****ing joke. The emails are FAR from the most damning thing in this. I can’t wait for somebody familiar with the code to start going over it and seeing how many “So we’ll just gloss over that entirely ;0)” instances exist.
Some posters above have attempted to summarize what we have learned from this data dump from Hadley CRU. Don’t miss the point made by others that the e-mails between the “scientists” is now just part of the picture.
A new angle is that the Hadley CRU dataset and any conclusions drawn from it must be thrown out based upon a long comment file by a data modeler detailing the shocking limitations/corruptions of their data and the completely unwarranted liberties they took to modify it to fit their conclusions. See these links mentioned by others above:
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421
This is bigger than the e-mails and the dagger to the heart of the global warming “theory.” The conclusion has to be drawn that the Hadley CRU dataset is absolutely worthless.
I just put this on the blackboard for their consumption because I’m out of my depth with it. So, apparently were folks at CRU.
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-harry_read_me-file/
Well I’m banned from RC and now from WUWT for asking a binned commenter if he had met any scientists at all and dismantling his ludicrous argument. I guess I need to understand the American way a little better
REPLY: Banned? Not that I’m aware of. SPAM filter had your response. -A
@ rbateman (13:38:25) :
“I want my weather back.”
Oh! I so know what you mean!
I find myself gauging my reaction to warm/cold in just the way you say.
Yes. I, too, want my weather back.
Thanks everyone for the Harry_read_me extracts for the mess of scaffolding used to hold up their graphs.
Hanging out for you stats geeks to do your work on this.
It looks like the data files are gonna be stage II of this scandal.
Are the days of the hockey stick numbered? I thought I would take some time out from all this excitement, just to meditate on the glorious hockey stick on the Australian Gov website…the way it ascending almost vertically into the future sky….Thought I might take a screen capture of for the grand-kids. But its gone!
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/faq/question2.html
If anyone can find it please tell
Well, we see that Tom Peterson was a key member of the Team and Thomas R. Karl also knew what was going on and condoned it.
Why Roger Peikle Sr.’s chapter was suddenly replaced probably has to do with the Team and a number of emails which were not released in this series.
There has to be people who are supervisors to both these individuals who have a higher level of integrity and will be asking questions come Monday morning.
I will guarantee this will be happening at the University of East Anglia, Penn State, the NCDC and UCAR come Monday morning. There will be dozens of emails from reputable scientists in the inboxes of the people ultimately in charge of these institutions.
Hey Bernie, you wish is my command.
Wayback Machine:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080720082852/http://climatechange.gov.au/science/faq/question2.html
The data that HARRY_README worked on was pre-mangled. I prefer to think of it as being purged sometime in the 1990’s, when Anthony tells us the rural stations started going offline.
Do I have that timeframe correct, Anthony?
Further, the bulk of station data prior to 1912-13 appears to have been purged (replaced with -9999’s), when there was a system of volunteer weather-bureau reporting stations set up in 1894. I believe the US Army kept nationwide weather data as well as local drug store pharma types from the late 1860’s to 1893. It should have made it to the National Archives.
REPLY: sounds accurate -A
Cathy (18:02:23) :
Looks to me like the 1st step in getting our weather back is to fight for the original data to be returned to it’s proper place.
I wish I knew where to start, but I will start with my Congressman, who grew up in No. CA, and no doubt he’ll want to know why CRU was allowed to monkey with his weather too.
hotrod:
“Where exactly do you find a neutral honest broker to audit a world wide problem of this financial magnitude? Is there a professional computer programing association that can bring together a team of skilled programmers, database administrators, and investigators to unravel this ball of spaghetti code, and data management disaster?”
Having taught software engineering courses, and assuming the disastrous mess of the warmists’ software and database, it would be much easier to start from scratch – with oversight, of course, to prevent any tricky programming. Collectively, as a country, I believe India has the best programming teams that could do this in a reasonable amount of time.
Exactly ! That is why some time ago, in another thread several of us were discussing a from scratch re-write of the code. Analyze the current code to define modules and what they are doing, (and what they should be doing), then recode them in new well commented code with an accompanying document explaining the translation process, specifications, and assumptions incorporated in the new code.
At that point, you have an open source well documented generic climate model that people can work with and as refinements and improvements are developed by different researchers, they could submit them to the open source team for inclusion as a standard module in the latest release code.
From the standard release you could spin off variants that incorporate different assumptions and methods but all are traceable back to a trusted and audited source code.
That would be much cleaner than trying to pry valid calculations out of the mess they are describing.
Larry
Anthony,
I just wanted to offer you my support. I’ve been watching your work for a while now, and have always been impressed (as I have with Steve’s).
I haven’t posted on here before, and have been working away quietly trying to get the word out.
But it seems the latest revelations have made my recent posts quite prominent!
I propose a toast. To good science. May truth conquer all.
Steve
“If you don’t want it plastered on the wall of the lunchroom, don’t put it in an email!” — sounded like good advice ca. 1980; still does!
Michael Mann and Phillip Jones
along with forty others
have lied and stolen and conspired
but worse, disgraced their mothers.
For who will pay the highest price
in taxes and in prices?
Their kith and kin and lowly men
are victims of their vices.
The forty-two must pay a price
that’s fitting for their crimes.
A double life sentence spent in
Iraq or warmer climes.
Will science free of graft and greed
survive this grand illusion?
Or will the hateful hoax succeed
by evil men’s collusion?
Mike Bryant
Tom in Texas (17:44:42) :
Asimov:
> My god people, have you just been skipping over everything I’ve posted from that HARRY_READ_ME.txt file!?!?
I don’t see any in this thread, what are you referring to? I recently made some comments at http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/hadley-hack-and-cru-crud/#comment-1664 which is a good blog for it.
rbateman (13:38:25) :
I want my weather back…..
—————————————————–
Too bluddy true mate. You’ve stated it exactly. Thanks for the laugh:-)
I have this strange pleasant feeling about the CRU data leak that reminds me of an old Russian joke that circulated in 1980s:
Moscow, 1999. An elderly man walks into a street cafe and asks for a cup of coffee, and for the latest issue of “Pravda” newspaper. A waiter brings him coffee but apologizes for not having any issues of “Pravda.”
The customer silently drinks his coffee and orders one more cup — again, together with the latest issue of “Pravda.”
The waiter is nonplussed: “As I have told you, sir, already: unfortunately, we don’t have any “Pravda” here. Actually, nobody has. Don’t you remember? The Soviet Union collapsed, there are no more communist newspapers…”
The customer whispers with a beatific smile: “Keep telling me this, just keep talking…”
Wasn’t Thomas Peterson the same guy that wrote the NCDC talking points awhile back?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/29/mcintyre-on-the-ncdc-talking-points-memo/
The more I read this stuff from these esteemed “scientists” , I think they have the emotional, if not intellectual, maturity of a 3rd grader. Do you think they pass notes around at conferences too?
Bernie Maddof’s merely financial Ponzi scheme made off with an estimated $50-billion. Maddof got jail for life. When all is added up, over the past 12-years the Gore, Mann, Hansen, Briffa, Jones, Pelosi, and Reid Gang has stolen and wasted at least 20-times as much, and done untold damage to life, liberty, and happiness. Public employees? Public servants? Public trust? As Mme. Pelosi screeched when asked if Elephant Ears’ No-Heath-Care bill was Constitutional, “Are you KIDDING me?”
About complaining about the weather there might be more to complain about if El Modoki turns into an El Super Modoki if a third westerly wind burst just starting gets going.
On second thought maybe not complaints about the resulting warming world like this article would say
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N46/B2.php
More like complaints you can’t keep your ground covering plants from going all over the place because of El Modoki possibly strengthening to the point where CO2 rises by several PPM and then more of those incidents over the years ahead, but hey it will be good for farmers. 🙂
rbateman –
You can only have your weather back if you promise to:
1. take good care of it (don’t let it get hacked)
2. keep it warm (really warm if you can)
3. nurture it into a multi-billion worldwide business (very capitalistic for anti-capitalist movement)
4. and never debate it !