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.
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.