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.
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
@ur momisugly 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 !