UPDATE: After some late night insomnia, and re-reading Steve’s essay again, I have decided to make this introduction to his essay a “top post” for a couple of days. New stories will appear below this one.
Readers, I urge you to read and digest this story, because it forms the seminal basis for everything that is wrong with Team paleoclimate science: the hard earned field work of Russian field researchers whose inconvenient data was excluded, warnings from colleagues ignored, tribalism exposed, testimony self-contradicted, whitewashes performed, and in a hat-tip to Leibig’s Law, even a “reindeer crap theory”. As one CA commenter, Peter Ward, put it:
My 13-year-old daughter asked me what I was reading. I explained at a high level and showed her figure 4. She grasped it immediately. How can we get this figure publicised widely?
I urge every climate blog to pick this utterly damning story of forensic investigation up and make it as widely known as possible. – Anthony
By Steve McIntyre
In The Climate Files, Fred Pearce wrote:
When I phoned Jones on the day the emails were published online and asked him what he thought was behind it, he said” It’s about Yamal, I think”.
Pearce continued (p 53):
The word turns up in 100 separate emails, more than ‘hockey stick’ or any other totem of the climate wars. The emails began with it back in 1996 and they ended with it.
Despite Jones’ premonition and its importance both in the Climategate dossier and the controversies immediately preceding Climategate, Yamal and Polar Urals received negligible attention from the “inquiries”, neither site even being mentioned by Kerry Emanuel and his fellow Oxburgh panellists.
I recently submitted an FOI request for a regional chronology combining Yamal, Polar Urals and “other shorter” chronologies referred to in an April 2006 email – a chronology that Kerry Emanuel and the “inquiries” failed to examine. The University of East Anglia, which seems to have been emboldened by the Climategate experience, not only refused to provide the chronology, but refused even to provide a list of the sites that they used to construct the regional chronology.
This refusal prompted me to re-appraise Yamal and its role in the Climategate dossier.
Read the full story here: Yamal and Hide-the-Decline
============================================================
It appears the cardinals of deadwood at UEA and CRU have learned absolutely nothing.
Note to the person who’s running the BOT to keep posting one star like you did the last top post where over 1000 “1” star votes were logged (a new record). I have your IP address from the widget. If you keep it up, I’ll register a complaint with your ISP. In the meantime, “grow up”.
– Anthony
Smokey says:
April 13, 2011 at 9:53 am
SteveE says:
“The likelihood of vast concentrations of methane in the mantle is very slim…”
I don’t know if abiogenic oil exists, but there is solid evidence of abiogenic methane.
———
Yes but the question is weather there is large concentrations in the mantle of the earth. There is no evidence to support this idea.
SteveE,
In your opinion, what created the methane seas on Titan? Biological activity? Or biogenesis?
And methane [natural gas], is now hated by the enviros. Why is that? The eco crowd used to love natural gas. But ever since it became a viable salternative to oil, it is being demonized just like CO2.
Anyone who doesn’t see a coordinated agenda is blind. The cause of the increasing cost of energy, whether gasoline, natural gas or nuclear, must be laid at the feet of the environmental movement – which has been totally co-opted by the anti-American, anti-West Left.
Conservative free market proponents are far better stewards of the environment than the misguided eco-crowd, which insists on introducing non-native fish and frogs into new environments, like the folks that introduced kudzu to slow soil erosion. “Environmentalism” in general is simply a cover story to advance totalitarian world government.
As a matter of routine, I hereby confess that I am an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Yes, a mistake.
In my last post (April 13 2011 3.19am) in my answers to Richard S Courtney I advised him not to draw inferences from my adopted name. This was wrong and totally contrary to what I intend. I should have advised him that the inference he made was incorrect.
Everybody is invited to draw inferences from my introductory confession: it is there to provide information so that my contributions can be read in some sort of context. But I limit the information to that which I think readers need to know. I withhold my name because it provides nothing (A Google search on it reveals only that someone with the same name, might be me, might not, has one son.) but would provide a platform for identity thieves.
So readers know more about me than I know about, say, Smokey or Laurie Williams. I find, however, that Richard S Courtney is a well established polemicist. Well, well!.
Smokey says:
April 13, 2011 at 2:39 pm
SteveE,
In your opinion, what created the methane seas on Titan? Biological activity? Or biogenesis?
———
It’s probably primodial methane, nearly every planet in our solar system has traces of it and several comets.
It’s all on the surface though and there is no evidence that there is any significant production or quantities of methane in the Earth’s mantle as we would have likely seen then from xenoliths and diamonds that have been derived from there.
Abiotic petroleum as an explanation for the World’s hydrocarbons just doesn’t stack up.
Thanks for linking the map of Titan though, I enjoyed reading about the possible life on the moon as an explaination for the high levels on methane. Probably have to wait until 2029 to find out though. Interesting stuff none the less!
Ecclesiastical Uncle:
I read your post at April 13, 2011 at 11:15 pm.
And your point is?
Richard
Ecclesiastical Uncle says:
April 13, 2011 at 3:19 am
“In addition, your choice is made retrospective to the action with the benefit of hindsight; whereas I doubt the issue was as clear at the time as it has later become.”
EU,
While you certainly win the prize for blog verbosity, you make up for that with lack of understanding. Your attempt at ‘understanding’ quoted above fails, twice over. My choice to not participate in personal or bureaucratic deceit was and is made at the moment of their proposal. There was no need or time for ‘retrospective…benefit of hindsight… choice’. The choice was straightforward, as most ethical choices are. The issue was clear to me…. and I made my decision.
I have challenged others on other occasions to explain why they wanted me to participate in actions that I considered unethical. They offered dissembling relativism explanations much like yours. Under those circumstances, I chose and I choose to not participate. I always have a choice.
And, relatively speaking, you have made yours.