CEI’s Chris Horner asks WUWT readers for some help in locating “Phil Jones’s Aspirations”
So, I’m leafing through another 1,500 pages of emails dumped on me by NASA in an apparent attempt to forestall litigation we informed them was coming this week after the clock tolls on their requirement to comply with requests under the Freedom of Information Act (it’s complicated, so here’s the gist of what two of the requests were about; the third one is about NASA using taxpayer resources to produce content for and manage the third-party “global warming” activist operation RealClimate, which you will read about soon).
Near the end of the first of three large folders of documents I see a particular email thread between James Hansen and Phil Jones.
In Jones’ final reply at the top of the thread, there is some mildly interesting discussion of e.g., China temperatures, and then, after a little nattering about how those ocean temperature observations seem too cool for their tastes and so clearly the observations are wrong, Jones writes to Hansen, “As I think you might has said earlier, we aren’t doing a great job in measuring surface T[emperatures] in a consistent manner”.
But, before this and in the same email, Jones admits to Hansen, “I hope the Met Office prediction for 2015 in last week’s Science are correct!” [hyperlink to Met Office press release added]
He is referring to the prediction by the Met Office, in Science magazine’s August 10, 2007 issue, of accelerating “global warming” leading to record temperatures, beginning 2009 or so. The article (by Doug Smith et al.) is behind a paywall, but it declared an understanding, courtesy of a new modeling technique, that we will see at least five years claiming “warmest ever” by the year 2015.
It is possible that someone in Jones’ position hopes for record temperatures simply because their enterprise thrives on the global warming panic. But I was reminded of an earlier email of Jones’s, which I thought had made the rounds pre-CRUGate, asserting in response to a challenge that, yes, he does wish/want/need disruptive anthropogenic climate change to be true/real (the precise word choice eludes me), because it will cause society to straighten up and fly right in terms of its policies and lifestyles.
I cannot locate this email, either by web-searching or on the various East Anglia email sites. So, I appeal to readers: who can recall and produce a copy of that earlier Jones email?
I ask because together they do rather support the argument that the global warming alarmists, even if donning the vestments of “science”, remain ideological advocates. They want their Man-as-agent-of-doom theory to be true, they need it to be true. Such evidence would certainly color their claims, and the exposed fudging, lying, withholding and the rest of the nasty little bag of tricks that collectively amount to pushing an agenda. With a line of reasoning that goes do what I want or people die! In the name of “science”.
The irony here is that the same issue of Science published a letter [subscription required] by Robert Gitzen of the University of Missouri, titled “The Dangers of Advocacy in Science”.
Regardless, any help in tracking down this earlier Phil Jones email is appreciated.
I still reckon Jones et al actually believe in all this, that they are not cooking the books per se for a political agenda, so it’s a direct consequence of using the scientific method to deduce outcromes from an imaginative construct that seems to be physically reasonable. I suppose it’s how the social sciences think science is done.
davidmhoffer (19:23:03) : To paraphrase a wise man, “Discerning the placement of a comma, does not account for a scientific coma.”
I believe this was identified some time ago. The truncation appears whenever there is a non-ASCII character in the text. For example, the English pound sign. Whoever created the east anglia site used a script to load the database and that script didn’t process non-ASCII characters correctly.
Nothing sinister about it, though it would have been nice if it had been fixed by now. However, whoever did it did so as a free service, so we can’t complain. The benefits of what they’ve done certainly outweigh small errors such as this one.
The mail in question is in the climategate files.
If you search for it in the online version you wont find the text in question because those files are clipped.
It was a mail from Jones to John Christy.
Horner can just write me.. Also, We discussed this mail in depth on Lucia’s site
Chris, ask Charles for my email
Mr. Horner
Page 63 of our book.
Anthony,
This article came out in Feb. 16 of this year…I know it’s not about Jones but very similiar in its nature…Sir John Houghton made a quote:
“God tries to coax and woo, but he also uses disasters. Human sin may be involved; the effect will be the same.”
Yet, particularly noteworthy is this quotation:
“If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
Unquote!
The article is here at
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1965.post
Sorry, haven’t found what you want on Jones in the “pre-ClimateGate” emails yet!
Ronan (17:17:25) :
Couldn’t he simply have hoped the Met office prediction was correct because he was working at the Met office, and didn’t want to have been at least partially responsible for an error?
…Just saying.
————-
True. People who forecast like to be right, and there is nothing wrong with that.
davidmhoffer (19:23:03) :
Whilst I am a closet spelling nazi – I do it only to correct people. Sometimes people do not speak english as a first language and appreciate corrections. Other times less so. Either way, I would not try and paint a spelling mistake as a marker of intelligence, or sneer at a group of people who make mistakes.
What you see is the sneering, seething side of snobbery and elitism. I’ve been more attuned to this lately, and I realise just how many people I know indulge themselves in this. It’s very popular amongst young people and especially so in academic circles. It’s the worst type of self-delusion there is – that somehow you are a better person because you worry about high scientific, economic and social theories all day, and look down in disgust at those who do not. Putting other people down doesn’t make someone a better person. It takes all types to make a world go round, and each person should be acknowledged for the contribution they make to their community. If everyone had a phd there would be nobody left to clean the floors and pick up the rubbish.
The type of groupthink and elitism going on at realclimate and climateprogress contains the seeds of these websites own downfall. Eventually they will become so exclusive and inward thinking they will become useful to nobody and traffic will fall dramatically – a textbook case of groupthink causing self destruction of the group.
Leif, the sun is presently blank, no sunspots:
http://www.spaceweather.com/
I’m guessing that, after readjusting its magnetic fields, the sun is headed back into a deep minimum.
Some theorize that this is a long-term effect of planetary gravitational forces, discussed in this CERN speech: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
We shall see…we might be grateful for all that extra Siberian methane after all!! Cheers…
I have read the article cited by Chris Horner and found it very infomative: that is, R. A. Gitzen, “The Dangers of Advocacy in Science,” Science, 317, 748 (2007).
In particular, its only one reference (R. Hilborn, Faith-based Fisheries, Fisheries 31, 554 (2006)) tells us about the dangerous condition of scientific papers on fishery.
This no doubt will remind you the miserable situation of IPCC. As a matter of fact, the climate science IPCC shows us now is no more than a “faith-based science.”
John M (17:58:19) : I go to exxonsecrets for my conspiracy theories, though that’s getting a little stale If you want fresh “oil money” conspiracies, RealClimate is pretty good.
The oil money business was also referenced recently by Judith Curry and — oh dear — she was serious. The entire premise is designed to appeal to those who are already predisposed to think that corporations are evil, or at least untrustworthy, which seems to underscore the left/right political dichotomy re the AGW issue (as a rule the right rejects AGW.) Even on the face of it, this type of accusation is utterly absurd.
I found this worrying.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19702
IPCC Science Designed For Propaganda
Bureaucratic Structure
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was specifically designed by Maurice Strong as a political vehicle to further his objective of crippling the industrial nations. An acknowledged master of bureaucratic systems he set up every segment of the organization for the maximum public relations effect. This meant emphasis on emotional impact, especially by exploiting fear. The first need was to direct and control the science. It was achieved at the 1985 meeting in Villach Austria chaired by Canadian bureaucrat Gordon McBean with Phil Jones and Tom Wigley from CRU in attendance. The second need was for maximizing the fear factor to force political action.
Notice the date and the names.
Boris (17:40:41) :
I don’t know if you’ll find the email, but if you are looking to find a conspiracy theory, you came to the right website.
There was a lapel button that was pretty popular during the ’60s that read, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.”
Today’s version would read, “Just because you’re a conspiracy theorist doesn’t mean that there aren’t any conspiracies.”
Pamela Gray (19:57:03) : “Hay! I rezent that remark! My spelling is ackurut to within pluss or minus .5330205e4odne3o4t5u digreze. Addmitudly, it gits better win I drink milk insted ov zinfindell.”
And we won’t even mention NyQuil!
Pamela Gray,
‘Hay! I rezent that remark! My spelling is ackurut to within pluss or minus .5330205e4odne3o4t5u digreze. Addmitudly, it gits better win I drink milk insted ov zinfindell.’
I’m sorry, but I don’t think that is significant.
It isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a conspiracy conjecture. But if we treated it as a hypothesis, where is the falsifying evidence?
A related sentiment was uttered by former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth:
“we’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/10/climate-twilight-of-the-gods/
Chris Horner:
I have a post that I put up a few days ago which fits rather well with the questions that you are exploring here:
Phil Jones and the ‘expert judgement’ of the IPCC
It also refers to the significance of Jones’ 1120593115.txt email to Christy, but in this case in the context of predictions about extreme weather events in the AR4 WGI SPM.
I hope that the latest tranche of emails you have received from NASA will be available on the net soon.
davidmhoffer (19:23:03) :
hunter (18:52:00) :
Denial is all that is left to the AGW hardcore, now>>
Not so. They’ve got spelling. I was going through a thread on Tamino’s site and there was a whole section calling down WUWT for being full of bad spellers. I mean like tiresome and repetitive and like it somehow proved something. I’m feeling real bad about this because me and spelling don’t get along so good, I had no idea that this was proof of flawed science. I’m really did believe that accurate data, documented procedures, clearly described theory, accurate measurements from relevant experiments and comparison of reults in order to draw realistic conclusions was more important.
Do you mean like this.
Denny (20:40:04) :
Sir John Houghton made a quote:
“God tries to coax and woo, but he also uses disasters. Human sin may be involved; the effect will be the same.” … If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
As I understand it, this quote was not taken from the book as suggested and the author denies ever having said it.
Mike Haseler
You understand incorrectly. Read here.
jeez
“the third one is about NASA using taxpayer resources to produce content for and manage the third-party “global warming” activist operation RealClimate, which you will read about soon”
I am looking forward to this. It’s mildly personal, not scientific, but the snitty moderating and outright rudeness of the moderators annoy the hell out of me.
This is about the consideration of banning fishing (yes, Angling) in US waters and oceans….. note the players. From ESPN site:
‘……”When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario,” said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.
Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President. The current U.S. direction with fishing is a direct parallel to what happened in Canada with hunting: The negative economic impacts on hard working American families and small businesses are being ignored….’
Wow. Banning sport fishing?!
Leif: To be fair to the other site about the sunspots. I injected the title ‘Sun on Spring Break’. They merely reported the absence, though they expect something to happen today, of Sunspots for past 5 days. Not even a fleck.
———————————————————–
Leif Svalgaard (19:28:36) :
johnnythelowery (18:11:23) :
SUN GOES ON SPRING BREAK
This from Layman’s SunSpot site […]
This is complete nonsense. The sun is ramping up towards [probably a weak] maximum, but up nevertheless….[…]
———————————————————–
Leif, the sun is presently blank, no sunspots:
http://www.spaceweather.com/
I’m guessing that, after readjusting its magnetic fields, the sun is headed back into a deep minimum.
Some theorize that this is a long-term effect of planetary gravitational forces, discussed in this CERN speech: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
We shall see…we might be grateful for all that extra Siberian methane after all!! Cheers
————————————————————-
Alright. Really stupid question here: We are having some earthquakes and
the sun has ground to a halt producing sun spots. Related perhaps somehow in some way?
Richard111 (23:29:33) :
1984/5 The miners strike.
margaret thatcher (dennis in reality – his friends were all in nuclear based businesses) decided that unions were evil and the coalminers’ was the biggest, therefore worst and deserving of being broken first.
She is claimed to have said to john houghton, head of the Met office at the time, “Prove that coal changes the climate and there is money on the table”. The rest is history.
He later went on to say “If there was any danger of exaggeration we would play it down” with respect to accusations that the IPCC, on his watch, was alarmist and economical with the truth.
By the by – houghton’s wikipedia page is an object lesson for those who believe the entity to be unbiased. Compared, for example, with Richard Lindzen’s page it is transparently alarmist.
Wave hello to Hakin for me.
johnnythelowery (04:58:32) :
They merely reported the absence
They said more than that, viz.:
“Activity has been extremely weak with not a lot to report, which in itself is of supreme interest.”
That is the give-away. They are trying to imply that we are in a Grand Minimum, which we are not.
We are having some earthquakes and the sun has ground to a halt producing sun spots. Related perhaps somehow in some way?
Show me how. At the time of the Chilean quake, there were spots. And it is simply not true that we just had five days without a sunspot. Officially we had only one day, namely March 6th. This solar minimum there has been 775 days without spots, think of all the earthquakes that should have caused.