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

From Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

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.


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


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

From: Thorne, Peter <>


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.


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 <>

To: Roger Pielke <>

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


Roger — let me know what you think


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 <>

To: _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors


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

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



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


I e-mailed the following to Peter Thorne


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.


Peter Thorne replied

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

From: “Thorne, Peter” <>

To: Roger Pielke <>

Cc: Thomas R Karl <>

Subject: Email that bounced


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 <>

To: Roger Pielke <>

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


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.


With a further response from Tom Karl


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



Cc: _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors



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 (, 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.


Roger A. Pielke Sr.

Professor and State Climatologist

Department of Atmospheric Science

Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1371


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?




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


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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 26, 2009 8:59 am

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.

November 26, 2009 9:09 am

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

November 26, 2009 9:11 am

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
November 26, 2009 9:12 am

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
November 26, 2009 9:13 am

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.

November 26, 2009 9:17 am

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
November 26, 2009 9:26 am

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

Atomic Hairdryer
November 26, 2009 9:27 am

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-
“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’.

November 26, 2009 9:28 am


November 26, 2009 9:31 am

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

November 26, 2009 9:32 am

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.

November 26, 2009 9:32 am

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.

November 26, 2009 9:37 am

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
November 26, 2009 9:43 am

More Climategate:

November 26, 2009 9:49 am

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?

November 26, 2009 10:10 am
Heidi Deklein
November 26, 2009 10:19 am

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
November 26, 2009 10:25 am

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) ??
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.

November 26, 2009 10:32 am

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
November 26, 2009 10:33 am

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
November 26, 2009 10:37 am

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.

November 26, 2009 10:42 am

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

November 26, 2009 10:47 am

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?

November 26, 2009 10:48 am

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

David Walton
November 26, 2009 10:51 am

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
November 26, 2009 10:52 am

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
November 26, 2009 10:53 am

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
November 26, 2009 10:58 am

I think the UK Telegraph is becoming a MSM flag bearer. In the past hour a new article about C&T and the emails :
“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.”

November 26, 2009 11:00 am

An extraordinary posting at CA
Surely some jailtime….LOL

November 26, 2009 11:08 am

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.

November 26, 2009 11:09 am

ps Thank you Dr Pielke for this important contribution.

Henry chance
November 26, 2009 11:13 am

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.

November 26, 2009 11:16 am

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.
Have aliens taken over this planet?
I urge everyone to check for pods.

November 26, 2009 11:25 am

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! )

Jim Clarke
November 26, 2009 11:33 am

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.

November 26, 2009 11:43 am

@ 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 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.

November 26, 2009 11:50 am

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
November 26, 2009 11:53 am

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
November 26, 2009 11:55 am

“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
November 26, 2009 11:56 am

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

November 26, 2009 11:56 am

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

November 26, 2009 12:00 pm

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.

Roger Knights
November 26, 2009 12:02 pm

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

November 26, 2009 12:02 pm

Hope Delingpole runs with this – he said he’d try to post on it in response to mine.
“@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).”

November 26, 2009 12:05 pm
November 26, 2009 12:10 pm

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.

November 26, 2009 12:16 pm
‘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.”‘

November 26, 2009 12:20 pm

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

November 26, 2009 12:22 pm

“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. ”

Roger Knights
November 26, 2009 12:27 pm

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

November 26, 2009 12:29 pm

The science is unsettled
Ditto Nos Da

November 26, 2009 12:32 pm

From “Rules of the Game.pdf”
Many of the oft-repeated communications methods and messages
of sustainable development have been dismissed by mainstream
communicators, behaviour change experts and psychologists.
Before we go into what works, our principles make a ‘clean sweep’
of what doesn’t:
1. Challenging habits of climate change communication
Don’t rely on concern about children’s future or human
survival instincts
Recent surveys show that people without children may care more
about climate change than those with children. “Fight or flight” human
survival instincts have a time limit measured in minutes – they are of
little use for a change in climate measured in years.
— attack/break up the family —
Don’t create fear without agency
–trust IPCC and CRU instead —
Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’ to act upon
the threat. Use fear with great caution.
–clearly they have beat the drum of fear heavily–
Don’t attack or criticise home or family
It is unproductive to attack that which people hold dear.
— did that stop them…NO —
2. Forget the climate change detractors
Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but
unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate
change, but how we should deal with climate change.
— and blacklist thier papers —
3. There is no ‘rational man’
The evidence discredits the ‘rational man’ theory – we rarely weigh
objectively the value of different decisions and then take the clear
self-interested choice.
— we are useless stupid sheep to them —
4. Information can’t work alone
Providing information is not wrong; relying on information alone to
change attitudes is wrong. Remember also that messages about
saving money are important, but not that important.
— so when you hand them bogus information, do it with a heavy dose of guilt.
Or, better yet, the old saying: If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

Roger Knights
November 26, 2009 12:34 pm

K: See here for studies that support the contention that the MWP was worldwide:
Pages 16-29 summarize eleven scientific papers that provide evidence of warming elsewhere on the planet during the MWP (along with ten papers dealing with Europe and the North Atlantic). Each summary occupies about half a page and contains a graph that illustrates key data points.

Ron de Haan
November 26, 2009 12:35 pm

Are these “clever” announcements to make as a President in the middle of Climategate?

November 26, 2009 12:35 pm

K, so is Mann is trying to marginalize both the LIA and the MWP to put more weight on current measurements that emphasize AGW? That sounds just like a political move that Progressives have used in the US to claim that opponants are simply “fringe” and do not represent the “concensus”. Mann has his Science and Politics mixed in a blender.

November 26, 2009 12:40 pm

Methow Ken (10:25:34) : ‘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”.’
Here’s another Google search string to track during weeks to come:
climategate, treason
8,070 hits as of 12:30 US PST

November 26, 2009 12:45 pm

JonesII, very interesting that this was WIRED blog but coming from For those outisde the US, Media was created by the Center for American Progress and is funded by wealthy liberals (think Progressives, leftists) with connections to John Podesta –
Self defined as “a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Anything that makes the left look silly is considered “misinformation”.

November 26, 2009 12:46 pm

IPCC “Global Warming” Parallel Universe Unaffected by CRU Data Fraud
UN says Science untarnished by “Climategate”
The head of the U.N.’s panel of climate experts rejected accusations of bias on Thursday, saying a “Climategate” row in no way undermined evidence that humans are to blame for global warming.
Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stood by his panel’s 2007 findings, called the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). “This private communication in no way damages the credibility of the AR4 findings,” he told Reuters in an email exchange. This report helped to underpin a global climate response which included this week carbon emissions targets proposed by the United States and China, and won the IPCC a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Pachauri said a laborious selection process, using only articles approved by other scientists, called peer review, and then subsequently approving these by committee had prevented distortion. “The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments,” he added in a written statement to Reuters. “There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.” This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental.”
“It is unfortunate that an illegal act of accessing private email communications between scientists who have been involved as authors in IPCC assessments in the past has led to several questions and concerns,” said Pachauri.
…So that’s OK then. Business as usual at the IPCC, no matter what.

November 26, 2009 12:48 pm

You are correct. Mann is containing the Medieval Warm Period by renaming it as the “Medieval Climate Anomaly.”

Ron de Haan
November 26, 2009 1:01 pm

As with the Truth about Acid Rain, the MSM Wants to Bury Climaquiddick
But this time they won’t succeed thanks to alternative media like Fox and the Internet Blogs.

November 26, 2009 1:04 pm

@ Lucy Skywalker
re: the poor state of science education in our schools
It truly is a travesty, what passes for ‘science’ education in our schools!
I was asked to prepare an afternoon hands-on presentation for a Grade 5 class on ‘Conservation of Energy’. I prepared fun, hands-on experiments on ‘conservation of momentum’ and worked the presentation from conservation of momentum to conservation of energy…
When I presented the material for approval, the educator said: “No, not THAT type of ‘Conservation of Energy’! The science curriculum says they are supposed to learn how important it is to turn off lights and such, to ‘conserve energy’….”
Needless to say, I did not do the presentation….

Kevin Kilty
November 26, 2009 1:38 pm

climatebeagle (10:47:19) :
Pick up any one of the exhaustive works of H.H. Lamb on the subject. I’d suggest “Climatic history and the future”, Princeton U. Press. It has some pretty convincing photographic plates with one showing large trees in the Canadian Arctic dated to 8000 ybp up where only tundra exists now. It was warm in the Arctic at the Holocene climate optimum.

November 26, 2009 1:39 pm

Roger Knights (12:27:22) : Here’s another quote (from a German general circa 1941): “We’ll win and win until we lose.” Climategate is the greenshirts’ Stalingrad
Today is the anniversary of the battle of Stalingrad 1942, if I’m not mistaken. The year the weather, the Russian winter, gave the Russians victory over Hitler. Just like the Russian winter gave the Russians victory over Napoleon. And now it’s Yamal’s extremophile trees, able to survive the Siberian Arctic. Third lucky break with Russian weather.

November 26, 2009 1:41 pm

… oh heck, missed my line again… no, it’s the encounter with the quality of persistence that is typified by the Russian ability to live with Siberian winters.

November 26, 2009 2:33 pm

It looks like a sequel to “How to lose friends and alienate people” – climate science version.

Daniel H.
November 26, 2009 2:35 pm

@Squidly asked:
“Should not the AGW believers now be overwhelmed with relief at even the prospect that mother Earth may not be in such proclaimed peril?”
The condition you’ve observed is called “Münchausen syndrome by proxy”, which Wikipedia describes as “the involuntary use of another individual to play the patient role. For example, false symptoms are produced in children by the caregivers or parents (almost always mothers), to produce the appearance of illness, or they may give misleading medical histories about their children. The parent may falsify the child’s medical history or tamper with laboratory tests in order to make the child appear sick.” See here:
In specific cases, where people have used a pet as the proxy, the illness has been classified as “Münchausen syndrome by proxy: pet”. See here for details:
Therefore, in light of the pro-AGW alarmist types who continue to assert that “Mother Earth” is dying (despite there being overwhelming evidence to the contrary), I hereby propose a new sub-classification–“Münchausen syndrome by proxy: Planet”. Or perhaps–“Münchausen syndrome by Tree Ring proxy”. What do you think?

November 26, 2009 2:40 pm

The following is excerpted from: Letter to a ‘co-conspiracy theorist’: Reflections on Modernity, Climategate, Peer Review, and Science in the Service of Empire
“In any event, as the political science thesis contained in my aforementioned Letter to Editor argues, there is indeed a prime reason for “cooking that science”. And that is to fabricate plausible sounding justifications for legally ushering in the architecture of ‘carbon credit’, regardless of whether there is global warming, global cooling, or no significant temperature change.
That is the real heart of the matter and the focus of heated debates for the past ten years being whether or not there is global climate change, as now in the climategate that there isn’t, is a gigantic red herring.
The point of focus shouldn’t be the unraveling of the deception, but the unraveling of the crucial agendas behind the deception for which mantras are so painstakingly fabricated and consent manufactured.”
And that is necessary in order to resist when resistance can have an impact. After fait accompli, protest cannot bring back the decimated tabula rasa of Messapotamia for instance, nor its despoiled DNA. The same will occur if the focus is not shifted from temperature changes, of which Global Warming is one mantra, to the agenda of ‘carbon credit’. Tomorrow they will invent a new mantra, Global Cooling, and end up having some very intelligent people spin on their intellect showing that to be false. And then another will be spinned. All the while, baby-step fait accompli is seeded.
Thanks for a very informative site.
Zahir Ebrahim

Roger Knights
November 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Let’s start swinging at Pachauri’s piñata. (New thread?)

November 26, 2009 2:57 pm

a direct result of having the same people write the assessment report as have completed the studies

Pal review ot better, self review!
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

Oh I see, Gavin’s not at work so no moderation?

November 26, 2009 3:20 pm

Why is it whenever I see Pachauri’s name I wanna say ‘gesundheit’.
Let the mocking begin.
We’ll find our own Monty Python so be afraid, be very afraid.

Micky C
November 26, 2009 3:21 pm

I went over to RealClimate and had a look at the Copenhagen Diagnosis document that was linked from there. In light of the emails recently exposed, it makes a very sobering read. Every ‘trick’ i.e. statement, that appears to be credible but is actually based on a dodgy paper is in there. Even the proxy stuff. Steig et al. The Jesus Paper. It feels like a bid document or a manifesto rather than an objective report. It does feel like it’s been generated by a club.
For example, there’s a great diagram of Antarctic ice loss showing that loss was high in the 50’s but no real mention of context with the reported low levels at the moment (I’m not sure if this is correct or not). There’s no talk of radiative-convective coupling i.e. one of the fundamental processes for heat transfer in the atmosphere, and the still unmeasured (experimental) values of CO2 forcing in a representative environment (hence more uncertainty as to the magnitude of it)
But it ‘reads like’ a scientifically based report. So I expect that journos will jump on it.
After recent events I’m reminded more and more of Shakespeare: There is something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark

November 26, 2009 3:24 pm

roger, thank you for posting this. The happiness I feel for your vindication is even greater than the satisfaction of seeing the arrogant fall. May you always be allowed to stand tall!

Frank K.
November 26, 2009 3:40 pm

I have seen this e-mail archive from Roger Pielke Sr. as he had posted this on his web site previously, but I’m glad to see it emerge again in light of the CRU e-mail scandal. Please read the entire exchange – it shows you how very political the IPCC review process had become at that time. The attitudes, biases, and conflicts of interest are identical to those exposed in the CRU e-mails.

Bill Illis
November 26, 2009 4:57 pm

It really is a “travesty” what Tom Karl has done here and done elsewhere.
The NCDC is supposed to be charge of collecting/archiving all the climate data yet the people in charge of it have been shown to have little scientific integrity.
The true scientists in the climate research community and in science in general have to step up the plate now and correct this mistake. And it appears a lot of them will be required to do so since there are so many others that are perfectly willing to go along with this lack of scientific integrity culture. If you are reading this, that means you.

old construction worker
November 26, 2009 6:41 pm

JonesII (12:22:39) :
“NASA scientist: Emails do not show that “global warming is a hoax”
No, global warming is a fact. Global cooling is also a fact.
CO2 drives the climate is the Hoax.
CO2 Lags Temperature. That’s a fact. The Hot Spot in the Atmosphere Heat does not exist. That’s a fact.
Oceans are cooling. That’s a fact.
Hockey Stick is Broken. That’s fact Jack.
Take your finger out of your ears and open your eyes
Media Matters lies. Then again maybe you believe in socialism.

November 26, 2009 7:17 pm

Say, where’s Tom P these days?

November 26, 2009 11:31 pm

Reading this sent me back to re-read Michael Crichton. Specifically the piece on science and public policy. As he points out there are few fields that matter where we would the producers of a product to write their own ticket.

I find this inexplicable. We’re talking about spending trillions of dollars to control carbon emissions on a global scale because computer models of climate predict a dangerous future. And yet nobody is willing to subject these climate models to the kind of rigorous testing that we require to license a drug.

And yet here we are.

November 26, 2009 11:32 pm

As he points out there are few fields that matter where we would *allow* the producers

Ron de Haan
November 27, 2009 1:05 am

Just for the record, know where you are up against:
Our political establishment including the Royals from Great Britain and The Netherlands, “Nobel” the United Nations and half of their “brainwashed” populations. have provided the cover to this happy bunch of scientists cooking the books. They will be safe until we role up the entire chain from top to bottom. Just to know where you are up against. You are taking on your own Governments who are in control of “everything”, you are taking on Big Money, Big Business, the environmental movement and the combined Secret Services.
We can call for the resignation of Jones and Co, but we should concentrate on an independent international investigation and block Copenhagen.
And if Inhofe wants the Americans in the streets in protest, go for it.
Block the streets, block the stations, block the airports, get the coal workers, the farmers, the red necks into the streets. Boock the offices of MSM not reporting about this scam, block the White House, the US Congress and the Hill.
It’s the only way to put this on the records.

Ron de Haan
November 27, 2009 1:14 am

Jones deceived US Congress:

November 27, 2009 2:43 am
November 27, 2009 9:56 am

Ah yes the Peter Thorne who also re-adjusted the radiosonde data to add a warmth that wasn’t originally there then declared to all and sundry that he had found additional “evidence” of data matching the models.

November 27, 2009 12:31 pm

Since NCDC is now complicit in the triad (Hadley CRUt, GIStemp, NCDC) and since I’ve got my hands on both the GIStemp and CRUt source code (or whatever fraction of it ended up in the FOIA file for CRUt) that just leaves NCDC as a “dangling end”.
All three of them point in a circle for validation from each other, and 2 of the three are now shown to be bogus, biased, cooked. Soo….
If anyone knows where / how to get any of: source code, external data description, work product spec, downloadable NCDC data set, etc.
Please let me know. I’ve now put them “on my shopping list” 😎
Even if all I can get is their data product, I can match it to GIStemp and GHCN and produce a “variance metric”. IFF they are substantially the same, then, well, they ARE substantially the same: biases, bogosities, and all..

November 27, 2009 1:10 pm

Lucy Skywalker (13:39:04) : day is the anniversary of the battle of Stalingrad 1942, if I’m not mistaken. The year the weather, the Russian winter, gave the Russians victory over Hitler. Just like the Russian winter gave the Russians victory over Napoleon. And now it’s Yamal’s extremophile trees, able to survive the Siberian Arctic. Third lucky break with Russian weather.
Hmmm… and the FOIA docs leaked via a Russian anon relay site… Maybe I’ll dig my old Russian text out of the “university is over” box and brush up… I’ve gotten totally non-functional in the language lately. But it does have a brazen directness about it that makes certain types of analysis and ‘direct thinking’ flow well… Kind of like “simplified Greek with the Byzantine Bits removed”… (Where French has 7 past tenses, Russian has one, so not so good at precise ordering of the past; but really good at cutting through the flowery distracting frosting to see if the cake is there, or not… )

November 27, 2009 2:46 pm

MattN (19:17:46) :
“Say, where’s Tom P these days?”
“Well, that explains a few things … they’ve managed to “persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.” I hadn’t noticed that exemption in the FOI documentation I’d seen. Call me crazy, but I don’t think that’s in FOI Exemptions, I doubt if it’s legal, and it definitely isn’t ethical. I note that they are circling the wagons in Australia as well … this is followed by:
Phil Jones to Thomas Peterson of NOAA, 6/20/2007 AM (1182342470) :
Tom P.
Just for interest. Don’t pass on.
Might be a precedent for your paper to J. Climate when it comes out. There are a few interesting comments on the CA web site. One says it is up to me to prove the paper from 1990 was correct, not for Keenan to prove we’re wrong. Interesting logic.
Wei-Chyung, Tom,
I won’t be replying to either of the emails below [FROM STEVE MCINTYRE AND DOUG KEENAN], nor to any
of the accusations on the Climate Audit website. I’ve sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we
should be discussing anything with our legal staff. The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me,
and somehow split up the original author team. I do now wish I’d never sent them the data after their FOIA
He obviously views sending data in response to an FOIA request as optional.
Thomas Peterson to Jones, same email:
Fascinating. Thanks for keeping me in the loop, Phil. I won’t pass it on but I will keep it in the back of my mind when/if Russ asks about appropriate responses to CA requests. Russ’ view is that you can never satisfy them so why bother to try?”
REPLY: Not the same Tom P. The Tom P. that posts here is based in the UK at a college there – no connection to NCDC’s Tom Peterson that I know of, except that he’s got a similar demeanor about climate – Anthony

November 27, 2009 6:24 pm

Can anyone tell me if climate scientists belong to a professional association that oversees matters of ethics and discipline? As a professional engineer I know that a member of the public can lodge a complaint of misconduct or incompetency against an engineer and our disciplinary committee has to investigate and publish its findings. I think there is a bona fide case to file complaints on many of these climate scientists who’ve been cooking the books on AGW.

November 27, 2009 6:55 pm

E.M.Smith (12:31:36) : Since NCDC is now complicit in the triad (Hadley CRUt, GIStemp, NCDC) and since I’ve got my hands on both the GIStemp and CRUt source code (or whatever fraction of it ended up in the FOIA file for CRUt) that just leaves NCDC as a “dangling end”.
My little “pea brain” aided by some google time has finally worked out that “NCDC Data” is GHCN. It’s just a different name for the same thing.
Given that GHCN is the base for the bulk of GIStemp and HadCRUT it is no surprise that they agree. They are the same pig with different lipstick.

Jeff Alberts
November 27, 2009 8:22 pm

Thomas Peterson to Jones, same email:
Fascinating. Thanks for keeping me in the loop, Phil. I won’t pass it on but I will keep it in the back of my mind when/if Russ asks about appropriate responses to CA requests. Russ’ view is that you can never satisfy them so why bother to try?”

Mr. Peterson, none of you eve made the effort to satisfy any of the requests, so how can you possibly know if they can ever be satisfied? In fact, all of you took GREAT pains NOT to comply with any request.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights