Climategate: Pielke Senior on the NCDC CCSP report – "strong arm tactics"

From Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/img/ncdc-logo.jpg

E-mail Documentation Of The Successful Attempt By Thomas Karl Director Of the U.S. National Climate Data Center To Suppress Biases and Uncertainties In the Assessment Surface Temperature Trends

The release of the e-mails from Phil Jones further confirmed the attempts to suppress viewpoints of climate change issues, which conflict with the IPCC viewpoint.

In the example I present below, the issue is the robustness of the surface temperature trend record.  The three main groups that compile and analyze this information are NCDC (directed by Tom Karl), GISS (directed by Jim Hansen) and CRU (directed by Phil Jones).

In 2005, as I document in

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,

strong arm tactics of the Editor of this report (Tom Karl, Director of the US National Data Climate Center) were used to remove information in the CCSP report which raised questions about the robustness of his (and Jim Hansen’s GISS and Phil Jones’s CRU)  surface temperature data. Phil Jones was a  National Research Council panel member in a review of an interim draft of the CCSP report. In my Public Comment, I provided e-mail documentation of how these questions were excluded. At the time, my Public Comment did not receive much attention.

However, in light of the exposure of the inappropriate attempts to prevent the presentation of alternative viewpoints of climate science as seen in the Phil Jones e-mails,  I am posting below text from  several relevant e-mails (the complete emails are in the Public Comment).  Since Tom Karl was evaluating his own group’s surface temperature analysis, his conflict of interest is very clear.

E-mails

Subject: Chapter 6: an alternative? [email not for the faint hearted?]

Resent-From: CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@noaa.gov

Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:22:32 +0100

From: Thorne, Peter <peter.thorne@metoffice.gov.uk>

To: CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@noaa.gov

Dear all,

Health warning: This mail does not hold its punches as the youngest member of this panel I suppose that I have the most to lose through Chapter 6 in its current form in terms of future research career. I also suspect that I am the most likely to run around making a pain in the proverbial of myself. My apologies for that! I’ve tried over the past few weeks to help others in the Chapter 6 redrafting, but I really think that the structure we had just will not work. Therefore I took the liberty of spending 3 hours this morning developing an alternative, which I attach. I will caveat that David has looked at this, but the rationale and most of the text is my responsibility, not his (in other words the buck stops here).

This is punchier, almost devoid of references (actually not bothered with a reference list yet – there are limits!), more tightly linked to the chapters, and contains fewer recommendations that are more focussed. I believe unless I am seriously mistaken that these are all points

others have made over the recent past in relation to this chapter. They also directly assess the NRC review comments.

very time we have put a redraft back in the past few weeks the same pet subjects have been re-inserted, lengthening the draft and destroying the flow. I’m sorry, but I for one am now utterly bored of this. You will note in the attached there are comments where I suspect this insertion of pet subjects may happen, but, in my opinion, is not justified. I have, however, been scrupulously fair in targeting surface and upper-air records in all sections in line with the balance of the rest

of this report and with Roger’s concerns. I would be particularly interested in thoughts from the editorial team and other CLAs as to whether they think this is an improvement. My sincere apologies if this causes offence to Roger or anyone else. My sole interest is in seeing us get an excellent report out. I will now don my flame proof jacket, but please can everyone take the time to calmly consider this mail and the attachment first.

Peter

My suspicion is that Tom Karl encouraged or asked Peter Thorne to write this e-mail [for  a more recent comment on the poor professional ethics of Peter Thorne; see]. Thorne only required 3 hours to write his version, as he wrote in his e-mail, while we had spent several months writing ours.

Tom Karl quickly followed up Thorne’s e-mail with

Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:53:44 -0400

From: Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>

To: Roger Pielke <pielke@atmos.colostate.edu>

Subject: [Fwd: Chapter 6: an alternative? [email not for the faint

hearted?]]

Roger — let me know what you think

Tom

However,  I had not even seen what Tom Karl was talking about, which implies that this was discussed between Tom Karl and Peter Thorne beforehand.  I replied to Karl’s e-mail with

Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 06:55:54 -0600 (MDT)

From: Roger Pielke <pielke@atmos.colostate.edu>

To: _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors

<CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@noaa.gov>

Subject: Re: Chapter 6: an alternative? [email not for the faint hearted?]

Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:04:06 -0600

Resent-From: CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@noaa.gov

Peter

Since I was not even sent a copy of this suggested revision, it would be appreciated if you did so I can comment.

Roger

I e-mailed the following to Peter Thorne

Peter

In order for us to track down the problem, please send us the e-mail as it actually bounced, so that we can use the tracking information that always appears on these.

Roger

Peter Thorne replied

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:04:53 +0100

From: “Thorne, Peter” <peter.thorne@metoffice.gov.uk>

To: Roger Pielke <pielke@atmos.colostate.edu>

Cc: Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>

Subject: Email that bounced

Roger,

I no longer have the bounced mail itself I’m afraid, but I have the

saved DNS error message which is attached below [DNS message is in Appendix C of my Public Comment]:

Is it possible that your server machine was temporarily down or having a patch applied at this time? That could explain it. For everyone else there was no bounce.

The clear suspicion is that I was deliberately left off. If my e-mail bounced, why did not he resend it to me?

Tom Peterson (who was on the Committee also; and the same Tom Peterson who ridiculed me in the Phil Jones e-mail collection; see) wrote

Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:05:52 -0400

From: Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov>

To: Roger Pielke <pielke@atmos.colostate.edu>

Subject: Re: Chapter 6: an alternative? [email not for the faint hearted?]

Roger, it was attached to Peter’s email that went out to the whole team

earlier today. Did you not get it?

More e-mails followed, which are reproduced in Appendix C my Public Comment.  The question of whether they actually sent me the original e-mail was, of course, not the substantive problem with the process (it just suggests they were communicating about this via e-mail and inadvertently left me off the final e-mail communication that disseminated Peter Thorne’s draft.

The end of the e-mail exchange, which forced me to resign from the Committee, is clear in the text and tone of the e-mail below from Tom Karl

From the Entire Editorial Staff: Roger, please do not take this request lightly. We politely ask you take Peter’s version, since everyone so far has indicated it is easier to understand, balanced, and does better represent their views and indicate where you would differ (small minorities views ok, but not desirable). This would be your opportunity to highight specific issues or points that are not adequately addressed in the version that Peter has put out on the Table. It seems you are representing yourself, at the expense of all the other authors who have weighed in on this. We do not understand your intransigence on this.

In other words, since I would not acquiesce to the view of Tom Karl, with regards to the robustness of his surface temperature data and other issues, he was pressuring me to  accept the replacement chapter which does not raise the issues with its robustness. There was also no poll of the Commttee with respect to his claim that everyone accepted Peter Thorne’s chapter, as I document in my Public Comment).

I replied

Tom

Lets accept that Peter’s e-mail bounced. As a primary person involved in Chapter 6, as soon as this was found out, efforts should have been made to contact me, as it was clearly recognized by the header of the e-mail that this was going to result in a significant response.

In regards to the more serious issue, it is quite easy for me to document your intransigence on this, rather than you trying to spin the history of this issue so that it is my fault. Peter is invited to contribute to the process in the defined framework as everyone else has, using the existing Chapter draft as the template. It is clear from your published work that you have much to offer scientifically but you also have a conflict of interest, and, in my view, are inappropriately exercising it in your capacity as Editor. By repeatedly stating that I am representing only myself in this debate mischaraterizes the diversity of views of others which exist in our community, and which is reported in the peer-reviewed literature

Using your words, I hope you and the Editorial Staff do not take this controversy lightly. It is documentable that you are seeking to produce a document that is not balanced in its perspective on the issues of surface and tropospheric temperature changes.

I will continue to work on Chapter 6, and look forward to resolving this by encouraging authors to work within the framework of the existing Chapter.

Roger

With a further response from Tom Karl

Roger,

Thank you for your speedy reply. Once again, “We politely ask you take Peter’s version …. to highlight specific issues or points that are not adequately addressed in the version that Peter has put out on the Table.”

Tom, Bill, Chris and Susan

I then decided that the CCSP report process led by Tom Karl is not interested in assessing the science issue with the surface and tropospheric temperature data. He wanted a rubber stamp of the robustness of his data analysis.

Here is my resignation e-mail which I then sent

Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:14:59 +0000

From: pielke_r@comcast.net

To: james.r.Mahoney@noaa.gov, james.r.Mahoney@noaa.gov

Cc: _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors

<CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@noaa.gov>; richard.moss@pnl.gov,

<richard.moss@pnl.gov>

Subject: Resignation

Dear Dr. Mahoney

I am resigning effective immediately from the CCSP Committee “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere-Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”. For the reasons briefly summarized in my blog (http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/blog/), I have given up seeking to promote a balanced presentation of the issue of assessing recent spatial and temporal surface and tropospheric temperature trends. The NY Times article today was the last straw. This entire exercise has been very disappointing, and, unfortunately is a direct result of having the same people write the assessment report as have completed the studies.

Their premature representation of aspects of the report to the media and in a Senate Hearing before we finalized the report has made me realize that, despite the claims of some of them to the contrary, only the minimal representation of the perspective that I represent will be begrudgingly included in the report. I also learned earlier this week that a member of the Committee drafted a replacement chapter to the one that I had been responsible for and worked hard toward reaching a consensus, which was almost complete. This sort of politicking has no place in a community assessment. If such committees are put together with no intention of adequately accommodating minority, but scientifically valid perspectives, then it would be best in the future not to invite such participation on CCSP committees I will be submitting a statement as part of the public record when the report appears documenting the specific process and science issues I have with this report. On the science issues, the community at large can made a decision as to whether or not they have merit.

Respectively

Roger A. Pielke Sr.

Professor and State Climatologist

Department of Atmospheric Science

Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1371

phone:970-491-8293/fax:970-491-3314

As a direct result of my inability to present issues associated with uncertainties and possible systematic biases with the surface temperature record, I invited a number colleagues to co-author a peer reviewed paper which raises these issues. The peer reviewed paper appeared in 2007

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

As of today’s data, 4 years after the completion of the report, Tom Karl and his associates as NCDC continue to ignore these issues.  As Phil Jones wrote to Ben Santer and Tom Wigley in his August  22 2005 e-mail with  respect to my resignation

I almost missed the one with Pielke’s resignation in. Is this going to make your CCSP task easier or harder? Presumably now you’ll get all his comments to officially deal with. Maybe

you’ll be able to ignore them?

Cheers

Phil”

[from http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=584&filename=1124742148.txt]

Phil Jones also wrote in an  e-mail dated January 29 2009, with respect to a Comment/Reply with respect to our 2007 JGR paper

> …He is a prat. He’s just had a response to a comment

> piece that David Parker, Tom Peterson and I wrote on a paper

> they had in 2007. Pielke wouldn’t understand independence if it

> hit him in the face. Both papers in JGR online. Not worth you

> reading them unless interested.

>

> Cheers

> Phil

>Prat

Where the Comment he is referring to is our JGR paper and the Comment/Reply that he was involved in. The referees of the  Comment/Reply supported the conclusions of our JGR paper (see).

The issues of the conflict of interest illustrated by the sample of e-mails from Phil Jones, as well as the above e-mails from Tom Karl, illustrate the extent that this corruption of climate assessements has permeated climate science.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Well this is certainly adding fuel to the fire. It is unfortunate that Roger Pielke has to find out this way how insulting the team can be but clears up what is going on here.
I think that we will see more of the same in the coming days but this is significant and should be made public as soon as possible.

I just can’t wait til Oliver Stone comes out with a movie about all this.
(I won’t, however, be holding my breath).

BOTO

realclimate and climatelounge (PIK) turned commets off.
i think they have pretty much stress now and the next weeks, i hope so…
REPLY: Thanksgiving holiday here in the USA, they don’t have anyone moderating so probably turned it off for that reason. – A

Douglas DC

Another smoking gun aimed at the foot of Karl and Jones. Thank you Professor Pielke.
I think this is an AK-47 on full auto,doing the foot shooting BTW..

Craig Moore

Pielke Sr’s commitment to follow the data wherever it leads is the gold standard of what science is all about. I wish his integrity could be cloned and implanted into the souls of others.

Pops

With this trio leading things…
NCDC (directed by Tom Karl), GISS (directed by Jim Hansen) and CRU (directed by Phil Jones).
…you can understand Pielke Sr’s frustration.
Ok, so we’ve seen the e-mails of one of the musketeers, let’s see the e-mails of the other two. Any more whistle-blowers out there?

Calvin Ball

I’m as cynical as the next guy, and even I’m speechless. What can you say?

Atomic Hairdryer

Re: Craig Moore (09:13:29) :
Pielke Sr’s commitment to follow the data wherever it leads is the gold standard of what science is all about. I wish his integrity could be cloned and implanted into the souls of others.

Agreed, and also a trait inherited by his son. Good scientists will come out of this well, bad scientists may need to brush up on their scientific method and take some ethics classes.
On this subject though, I thought this email highlights Teamthink nicely-
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=444&filename=1101999700.txt
“Dear Toms, Chris and Ben,
If large-scale is important (as said by Tom W), I can’t see how microclimatic
issues that Roger goes on about can be that important. Maybe when you all
meet at the delightful Chicago Airport Hilton, you can remind him of spatial
degrees of freedom.”
I’d have thought measuring in microclimates like urban heat islands was rather important to understanding exactly what the Team thought it was measuring. Still, we might have some nice data showing airport climate change, assuming the unadjusted data hasn’t been ‘lost’.

SpencBC

[snip]

When the book about this sorry episode, I suggest that it be titled: “A Tree Grows in Yamal”.

Robert

When a team member with the standing of Dr. Pielke resigns for cause, it must always be a message of some importance.
It takes not a small amount of courage to do this of course, and an internal compass with the arrow set firmly on truth.
Not enough of us listened though. Had we done so and raised holy h*ll then, things might have come out earlier.
Resolved.

Robert

This is taken out of context. You don’t understand the science. Our models are robust. All the data is available. These are not the ‘droids you’re looking for.

Aeronomer

As a scientist, it’s hard for me to envision a situation where I would refer to a colleague as a “prat”. I used to have enough faith in the scientific process to believe that the data would (eventually) speak for itself. I hope this scandal forces the scientific establishment to take a long, hard look at how they do business. I think the average citizen should be moved to an even greater level of skepticism than I usually endorse from scientific authorities. These AGW-proponents are all starting to sound like a bunch of whining babies.

Ron de Haan

More Climategate:

TIM CLARK

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.,
The issues you raise(ed) are incredibly important, but there’s much more tomfoolery. Have you seen the dissection of Gisstemp code provided by E.M. Smith?
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/

peter
Heidi Deklein

Some clown was arguing today on the BBC blogs that the fact that the “other teams” produced temperature records that matched HadCRUT showed that there wasn’t actually anything wrong with the “Harry” code.
The obvious riposte, of course, came that he had it backwards and rather that it showed there were similar stupidities and manipulations going on at the other major climate centres – unsurprising as they’re no doubt implicated in many of the same emails.

Methow Ken

Wonder just how many smoking guns (or as others have said: ”mushroom clouds”) it will take before an unequivocal tipping-point is reached, and the accelerating collapse of the whole AGW house of cards becomes unstopable; regardless of the ever-more-desperate efforts by AGW partisans and their MSM lap-dogs to explain away the glaringly obvious and trivialize the truly momentus.
So far we have CRU, New Zealand, and now the Aussies.
Who’s gonna be next in line (I join others in nominating GISS) ??
Yet another SIDEBAR FOOTNOTE:
While as per my comment on a prior WUWT thread it does not by itself prove anything; and it’s not something worth bringing up every day:
Confess I continue to be fascinated by the raw Google statistics on the newly-minted ”climategate”; especially having now compared them to competing long-established key words; i.e.:
As of 10:15 hours US PST Thursday 26 Nov, Google finds:
7100K hits on ”climategate”;
749K hits on ”anthropogenic global warming”;
10100K hits on ”global warming”;
22000K hits on ”climate change”.
”Climategate” has for practical purposes only been around for ONE WEEK.
How long have ”climate change” and ”global warming” been kicking around ??
When the Google hit count for ”climagegate” passes ”global warming” (at this rate only a few more days), I humbly suggest all supporters of ruthlessly objective science raise a glass of their favorite beverage and cheer.
BTW: Happy Thanksgiving to all US fans of WUWT. Charge.

Pops (09:17:09): With this trio leading things… NCDC (directed by Tom Karl), GISS (directed by Jim Hansen) and CRU (directed by Phil Jones).
And we can include NOAA (Lubchenco), EPA (Jackson), IPCC (Pachauri et al.), and many others in the AGW Cabal.
The public revelations of ClimateGate are that an Alarmist conspiracy has been highly placed, that they have fabricated and altered data to to conjure up a false crisis, that they have used a variety of means to hide their corrupt machinations and to silence critics, and that their motives have been greed and lust for power.
All of the above have been observed and repeatedly pointed out by numerous individuals, groups, and websites for years, and who as a result have been defamed and dismissed by the AGW Cabal. Now, however, smoking gun evidence of the Alarmist conspiracy has found the light of day.
The global warming myth is last gasping. It turns out the seas are not going to boil away after all. That bogeyman never existed and never will. It isn’t even getting a little bit warmer; the globe is cooling and the best science surmises it will continue to cool over the long-term for the next 100,000 years.
The best science is difficult to discern in the mountainous mess the AGW conspirators have made, (unless you follow WUWT, CA, TAV, and other expert climate realist websites), but hopefully it should rise to the top over the next few months.

sally allix

It’s good that you have been able to publish this here. How
though do we get it into the media which has been well softened up by those averring anthropogenic global warming?

Chris Schoneveld

Jim Watson (09:09:18) :
“I just can’t wait til Oliver Stone comes out with a movie about all this.”
Michael Crichton would have made a State of Fear-2 movie out of this saga, no doubt.

Vincent

I think it is now time for “Great global warming swindle part 2”. I wonder if Martin Durkin is following all this?

climatebeagle

Maybe we are being too precise with the temperature data. I propose a “noticeably different” graph, plotting time against events that are noticeably different to other periods of time. Since in the last twenty years of living in the same location I’ve not experienced anything “noticeably different” in the climate, but we do have historic records that show noticeable differences. E.g. the Thames freezing over, dinosaur fossils in Canada, Greenland being inhabited, etc. While naturally these are all regional, I wonder what would happen if one started to collect them and graph them, While some might be shown to be false (e..g the discussion about the Thames flow differences between then and now), I wonder if one could find evidence that some periods in history were globally cooler or hotter than before. Anyone know of any collections of such evidence?

theduke

Thank you, Dr. Pielke, for your contributions to good, honest science. Your integrity in all this shines through.

David Walton

Re: “This entire exercise has been very disappointing, and, unfortunately is a direct result of having the same people write the assessment report as have completed the studies.”
Such is how “peer review” is done by the AGWF crowd.

Indiana Bones

If there is anything that can be called a lesson in this debacle it is the need to make ethics-in-science a requirement for advanced degrees. How this cabal of “scientists” have been allowed to rise to the heights they are at can only be due to an astonishing corruption of ethical standards. The ethical standards practiced by Dr. Phil and pals indicates the real catastrophe in ClimateGate is with education.

Antonio San

Here is what the climate blog at Le Figaro wrote (google translation):
“CRU: skeptics
leave traces on the canvas
By Yves Miserey the November 26, 2009 15h00 | 9 Comments
The climate Blog Figaro is brand new. The first paper was released on 11 November. The reviews “Skeptics”Were quick to arrive. New to the blogosphere, I’ve discovered with some dismay on my email when they are transferred so that I can filter them. The tone is sometimes so virulent that very quickly I’ve watched more than one eye, caught by other tasks.
I was wrong. On November 19, a first comment referred to ‘the case of computer hackers of the CRU (section of our London correspondent), A center for climate research at the University of East Anglia, Great Britain. (…)
I have not seen happen in case of CRU simply because I do not know the skeptics. It is no deliberate intention to censor information disturbing. To dwell on the arguments, opinions or rumors they broadcast, I first need to put the skeptics to know what this “collective”Or that”aggregate”As Bruno Latour call groups now involved on the canvas (the vaccinia climate skeptics, etc.). I advise you to hear about the long interview he gave to Xavier Delaporte in the excellent program Place the Web on France Culture.
Instead of taking the arguments of skeptics at face value and study them as such, Bruno Latour provides a mapping (like the one published above) Of the principal actors of the skeptical view on the web. Several European laboratories which one he has created at Sciences Po Paris (The Medialab) Work on such issues. If among the actors of the thesis the skeptical argument, there are some who need less regulation for oil exploration, it’s interesting to know. I’ll soon see the results of their work (the currency of their site: “democracy is the right not to agree “).
There are so many things circulating on the web now that we need to figure it out back. However, there are tools to be able to do so and include software to map the links between key players in the skeptical argument or lots of other controversies. But beware, Bruno Latour is not a Minister of the Interior is a sociologist and a philosopher. What interests him in this exercise is to see and try to understand how ideas, how “The infra-individual cross individuals”. It is gone in our familiar world, with individuals clearly identified. With the traceability all data on the Internet, we have for the first time access to”flows imitative” (a term borrowed from Gabriel Tarde) Changing and superimposed caractérient the functioning of human societies and individuals. Hopefully that skeptics belong to this world and do not consider themselves victims of a conspiracy of the international climate research.”
1984 in 2009. EOM. Beware, they are preparing lists for the future when democracy will only be the right to agree…

Scouse Pete

I think the UK Telegraph is becoming a MSM flag bearer. In the past hour a new article about C&T and the emails :
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018034/climategate-e-mails-sweep-america-may-scuttle-barack-obamas-cap-and-trade-laws/
“The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”. For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.
At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars.
But the real car crash for Obama is on Capitol Hill where it is now confidently believed his Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast. It was always problematic; but with a growing awakening to the scale of the scientific imposture sweeping the world, as far as the Antipodes, the clever money is on Cap and Trade laws failing to pass, with many legislators sceptical and the mid-term elections looming ever closer.”

Vg

An extraordinary posting at CA
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/willis-eschenbachs-foi-request/#more-75
Surely some jailtime….LOL

Indiana Bones (10:52:25) : If there is anything that can be called a lesson in this debacle it is the need to make ethics-in-science a requirement for advanced degrees. How this cabal of “scientists” have been allowed to rise to the heights they are at can only be due to an astonishing corruption of ethical standards. The ethical standards practiced by Dr. Phil and pals indicates the real catastrophe in ClimateGate is with education.
All my website material on Climate Science (click on my name) was done with this strongly in mind. In the UK particularly, I am utterly appalled to hear about the current state of science education. In particular, “Health and Safety” here have a lot to answer for, by making so much science too “dangerous” and therefore too expensive to experience head on. Result: children have no chance to learn by knocks from Life and grow up soft and ignorant. Dangerous and unhealthy.

ps Thank you Dr Pielke for this important contribution.

Henry chance

BOTO (09:11:02) :
realclimate and climatelounge (PIK) turned commets off.
i think they have pretty much stress now and the next weeks, i hope so…
REPLY: Thanksgiving holiday here in the USA, they don’t have anyone moderating so probably turned it off for that reason. – A
I mentioned this yesterday. Real climate is moderated by Gavin schmidt. He had complained the day before and asked for some help. He is being named in a lawsuit. CEI has gone for years not getting information requested under FOI aand schmidt is blogging his heart out instead of working. Part of the suit asked for reasons why Gavin Schmidt was goofing off on a blogg instead of working for NASA GISS.
They said they were closing comments for at least a few days because negative comments out numbered flattering ones by 10:1 margin.
Gavin Schmidt is facing employment disipline problems if he keeps up working for Real climate when he is paid to work for NASA GISS.
Back to the topic. Dr Peilke Sr is on task. He is facing a group that acts like a gossiping sorority house. They have internal rumors and decide who to trash and what can be printed. It is very immature and explains why Dr Pielke Sr. may actually not fit in.

Rich

Note sure where to post this, it may have been posted elsewhere-
Stop the presses….new manmade CO2 deadly impact just found, no need to mention warming at Copenhagen with this looming crisis to overshadow all else. (sarc)
The rules of the game have changed, now we must reduce C02 emissions because….they are a risk to the health of millions!
The nature of the new game is defined as follows….“.. slashing carbon dioxide emissions also could save millions of lives, mostly by reducing preventable deaths from heart and lung diseases, according to studies published this week in the British medical journal The Lancet.”
It’s not AT ALL about the warming…it’s about health now.
Ths story here at Small Dead Animals blog (with appropriate links)…story under the heading “The Sound Of All Hell Breaking Loose: Every Breath You Take”.
By the way that site has been keping track of all that has transpired this week and I found it very useful.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/
Have aliens taken over this planet?
I urge everyone to check for pods.

steve

You can watch Adam Curtis’ ‘Century Of The Self’ in 4 parts here. Gore and the other money backers will have employed all these PR means up to this point (just so you know what you’re up against! )
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=8339

Jim Clarke

I remember when some of us long-time skeptics would get on RP Sr’s blog and make comments about the nature and tactics of leading AGW supporters in the scientific community. Roger would defend the community, the process and peer-review, saying it was the proper way to address the issues.
I understand his desire to believe in the integrity of fellow scientists. I understand his desire to believe that all scientists are simply interested in discovering the truth. Unfortunately, all scientists are also human and seemingly no better than the rest of the lot.
The corruption of climate change science goes back at least to 1988, when they shut off the air conditioning in the Senate Hearing Room before James Hansen gave his poorly supported testimony on AGW. soon, man-made climate change became the goose laying golden grant eggs all over the atmospheric science community and the corruption took root.
If you pointed out the profound weakness of the AGW hypothesis, like Prof. William Gray, you were cut off from government funding, even if your work was more beneficial to society than anything else in the field. If you found something contrary to the theory, like the fact that Antarctica had been cooling for decades, you had to include a disclaimer in your conclusions. If you wanted to make a good living and improve your social status, you had to show that humanity was cooking the planet. Good science didn’t matter at all, and was actually frond upon (as in the case of RP Sr.).
The corruption has been evident for almost two decades. It has been obvious for at least a decade, since the IPCC embraced the Hockey Stick over the vast majority of previous paleo climate studies. But so many refused to see it because it just wasn’t spelled out for them or they held a firm belief in scientific integrity. The CRU emails and code are not an aberration, but are right in line with the public behavior displayed by the AGW elite.
It has long been predicted that the atmospheric science community will be the big loser when AGW balloon bursts. And so it begins.

Squidly

@ Rich (11:16:48) :
I read your comment and decided that I would try to post a comment I just left on Megan McArdle’s site, which is as follows:
This has all transpired at a good time for me, during a much needed vacation which has allowed me to immerse myself into this ClimateGate scandal. Timing could not have been better for me, as I was one of the first few to download the FOI2009.zip file from Russia. Just lucky I guess.
I have also been spending a tremendous amount of time with the ClimateGate files, reading the emails, analyzing the email chains and inspecting the code and comments. I have also spent a tremendous amount of time watching news reports, reading news posting and browsing dozens, if not hundreds, of blogs on the issue.
I am not new to climate science and the AGW hypothesis. As a computer scientist, practicing for almost 30 years, I have had an intrinsic curiosity about the subject for many years now. I was initially very alarmed about the prospects of global warming, running to and fro telling my colleagues we were all going to die.
As I began to research the subject, it seemed the more I dug into it, the less plausible the hypothesis seemed to be. My alarm-ism turned to skepticism. I am now, and have been for a few years, a full-blown skeptic of the AGW hypothesis. I guess one could take this skepticism further, and it would be fair to say that I simply do not agree with the AGW hypothesis at all. I no longer believe the hypothesis to be even the slightest bit plausible, for more reasons that I can state on this blog.
Since ClimateGate broke, I have become quite puzzled by some who are firmly planted in the AGW camp (ie: “the believers”). As I have stated, I have spent a lot of time processing the ClimateGate materials and responses. Many of my prior suspicions have been affirmed by what I have learned, with far more examples than I can write about here. With this understood and as I eluded to, one thing that puzzles me most about this, is the response from those that proclaim to be so deeply concerned about our mother Earth.
Consider yourself having a child who is seemingly ill. You don’t know why she is ill, doctors cannot figure it out, but she “seems” ill none the less. Suppose now you find out that she was never ill to begin with, she has been just fine all along. Her temperature was never above normal at all, and that in fact the doctors from whom you were seeking advice, simply made up prognosis for sake of a paycheck.
Ones first likely response would be relief, for your lovely little daughter is fine, healthy and well. This would be a tremendous relief for anyone out there that is a parent. From here your feelings would likely transpire into anger against those doctors for misleading you. Perhaps even law-suites would ensue.
Now, consider the present situation, the environmentalists who have been speaking loudly that mother Earth is ill and has a fever. Scientists have been dealing out prognosis after prognosis, proclaiming that she is on her death bed and something needs to be done “fast” or she will die. Grand schemes have been developed to combat her problem, as it seems human CO2 emission is the cause for her terminal condition.
Now, just as we found our daughter to be fine, healthy and well, we find that our mother Earth is indeed fine, healthy and well. And further that, just like our daughter, the scientists have only been perpetuating a faulty prognosis for their own gains or their own preconceived agenda.
Now I ask you, why is the response to these two events so vastly different? Why is the parent so relieved, but the environmentalist or AGW alarmist not? Should not the AGW believers now be overwhelmed with relief at even the prospect that mother Earth may not be in such proclaimed peril? Should they not be relieved that $trillions of wasted resources have been averted? With emergency called off, would it not be joyful to know that we can now utilize more resources for those things that ARE emergency? Or even utilized just for necessary improvements?
This is of course, all because the AGW hypothesis and the alarm-ism that has ensued, was NEVER about the health and well being of mother Earth, but in fact has and is nothing more than a positioning scheme. A scheme to position power, a scheme to position money and resources.
Yes my friends, this is and has always been a con! A diversion. A method to consume the rights, liberties and most of all, the resources of the masses for the benefits of just a few.
WAKE UP!!!

JonesII

Rich (11:16:48) : “The rules of the game have changed”
Sure, they will try any new idea to keep copenhagen on track. I think that by changing from discredited “climate change” to “pollution prevention” will work for them, we are already hearing some arguments of this kind.

Joe Black

climatebeagle (10:47:19) :
I’d guess that the Romans have all sorts of documentation of the climate in Europe of more than 2000 yr ago

Roger Knights

“I hope this scandal forces the scientific establishment to take a long, hard look at how they do business.”
They’ll look in the mirror, like Dorian Grey, and pronounce themselves perfect. Nothing wrong except a hair or two out of place.

Roger Knights

PS: “Science” is the latest god that’s failed. It was bound to happen, once it became a god.

Stacey

Our Gav has taken a bit of a breather, he is a miracle maker, and has handed the pulpit over to Eric the Red, at my favourite site, Not The Real Climate, Nice lad, but a bit careless sometimes, lovely boy though
“Like the IPCC report, everything in the Copenhagen Diagnosis is from the peer-reviewed literature, so there is nothing really new.”
I wish our Gav would check things before they went out because I have just posted to Eric to advise him of his mistakes and reproduce in full:-
“”Like the IPCC report, everything in the Copenhagen Diagnosis is from piss poor reviewed literature, so there is nothing really new.”
Our Gav has a great responsibility, what with saving the planet I should’nt be so hard on him. And you lot, leave him alone he’s got enough on his plate with all these shenanigans going on with our Phyllis.
Nos Da

hotrod

Unfortunately this sort of political alliance behavior is actually quite common in large organizations and is in my experience driven by the toleration of such behavior by senior leadership. It is a process of decay that sets in very slowly as manipulative individuals test the rules and are either allowed to abuse the system and impugn the work or others or they are pulled up short by an ethical leader that does not let them play political games, and insists that reasonable questions be answered and stays on task without allowing them to re-define issues so that reasonable concerns are avoided.
I worked in a State Government agency for years, and after an administrative move changed our parent organization from a results focused organization to a politically motivated organization the ethics of the agency decayed very rapidly. Reports were written then edited to remove concerns that were politically inconvenient for the Governor even though they were obvious to everyone.
Unfortunately there is evidence that political games is hard wired into primates as a survival strategy, and we ignore that fact at our peril. The defense against it is a strong leader with a moral compass who refuses to play the game.
Meanwhile as everyone is focused on climate gate, the Arctic sea ice freeze up is going along nicely and is now on a trajectory that puts is well within the norm and (if it continues for just a few more days), will make arctic sea ice levels near seasonal high levels compared to the same date in recent years.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Larry

Roger Knights

Here’s a quote for the day: “Nothing is so dangerous as being too modern; one is apt to grow old fashioned quite suddenly.”
–Wilde

Hope Delingpole runs with this – he said he’d try to post on it in response to mine.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/
“@platosays – thanks for that fascinating link. Will post on it if I have time. Confirms what Anthony Watts – of Watts Up With That – said in a very interesting talk he gave in Brussels at Roger Helmer’s conference last week. He showed dozens of photos of officially weather stations which had effectively been rendered useless by their repositioning (eg near heating vents, in the middle of car parks, at airports).”

Boudu
Stacey

Dr Pielke
Thank you it was rude of me to post of topic.
What is science if it is not about the search for some absolute truth.
Those that debase science deliberatley we owe one thing only our absolute contempt.

K

http://www.physorg.com/news178459644.html
‘Mann and his colleagues reproduced the relatively cool interval from the 1400s to the 1800s known as the “Little Ice Age” and the relatively mild conditions of the 900s to 1300s sometimes termed the “Medieval Warm Period.”
“However, these terms can be misleading,” said Mann. “Though the medieval period appears modestly warmer globally in comparison with the later centuries of the Little Ice Age, some key regions were in fact colder. For this reason, we prefer to use ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ to underscore that, while there were significant climate anomalies at the time, they were highly variable from region to region.”‘

Trev

Should the film be called “On the trail of the lonesome pine”?

JonesII

“NASA scientist: Emails do not show that “global warming is a hoax”
NASA’s Gavin Schmidt: Critics “are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way.” Wired’s Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: “There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. … There’s no funding by nefarious groups. There’s no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There’s nothing hidden, no manipulation. It’s just scientists talking about science, and they’re talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way.” Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails “involve people” at Real Climate. ”
http://mediamatters.org/research/200911230052

Roger Knights

Here’s another quote (from a German general circa 1941):
“We’ll win and win until we lose.”
Climategate is the greenshirts’ Stalingrad.