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.
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.”