Climategate 2.0 emails – They're real and they're spectacular!

From Phil:
“…Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve
discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data…”
Seems to me that FOIA should be sent to the DoE – sure would love to see what bureaucrat signed off on that conversation.

If I were President of the US, I would request airtime for a Presidential Address, but I would not give the media a clue as to the nature/subject of the address.
I would then announce that in the wake of the Climategate 2.0 release which revealed the outright collusion of scientists and false, perhaps criminal behavior on their part, that the person(s) behind the release via “FOIA.org” would receive, in abscentia, the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom for services to the nation, and indeed the world, in the pursuit of truth.
I would then announce that the United States would immediately cease all funding to the UN IPCC, and freeze all existing grants/funding for AGW research to all institutions worldwide and cancel any pending awards.
I would then announce that I had directed the US Justice Department to add 1000 agents/investigators to fully investigate the conduct and research of all US scientists for potential criminal indictments.
Finally, I would announce that all funding within executive jurisdiction to or for green energy projects would be cancelled henceforth.
While the above is simply a feelgood wish for me, I sincerely hope that the republican presidential candidates will be made acutely aware of Climategate 2.0 and add these revelations into their campaign platforms and future debates.
God Bless FOIA.org
GW

petermue says:
November 22, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Michael Mann
“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.
I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them….”
Obviously this is how modern “real climate science” works….
/sarc
_____________________________________
That tidbit shows that it never was about science. With science you produce evidence that puts the other scientist’s work into question.
In Climate Scientology you attack and discredit the PERSON so your “Useful Innocents” will not look at the work showing you are full of B.S.
The fact that McIntyre and Keenan must be subjected to a smear campaign instead of rebutted with scientific evidence indicate there is no rebuttal possible.
“If the law is against you, argue the facts; if the facts are against you, argue the law; If both the facts and the law are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
Neither the facts or the laws are in the favor of the Climate Scientologists so when it comes to the FOIA’s we are seeing a lot of pounding on the table and yelling and squirming. Mann’s being provided with FREE lawyers tells you there is a lot of money hanging on the CAGW scam or he would have been hung out to dry by now. Whether Mann is tossed under the bus or not will tell us if the money men are determined to continue pushing the Carbon Trade Bubble down the throat of the world economy. I do not know if western economies can withstand another bubble, but that is part of the game, to collapse our civilization. “Would we not shatter it to bits, and then Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire!” This is written on the Fabian Society stained-glass window installed in the London School of Economics in a ceremony attended by Fabian Tony Blair in April of 2006. Bill Clinton has been one of their speakers and George Soros a graduate.
The great American Bubble Machine: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
How Goldman Sachs Created the 2008 Food Crisis: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis?page=0,1
The Coming Carbon Bubble: http://www.iatp.org/blog/2009/07/the-coming-carbon-bubble

elmer [November 22, 2011 at 11:11 am] says: :: “What do you guys think? [Link]”

That’s great work. I love you folks at M4GW.

More Soylent Green! [November 22, 2011 at 11:28 am] says: :: [to A physicist @ur momisugly November 22, 2011 at 10:38 am] “You’re obvious new to this trolling thing, aren’t you? … Consensus does not determine science, nor does appeal to authority. I find the progressive mind, like that of children, to be very susceptible to peer-pressure. That’s why progressives have such uniformity of opinion and so little original thought. Conformity is very important to progressives and they inhabit a shame sub-culture.”

Yep. It is positively Freudian. Parental issues are behind it. They long for a mommy and/or daddy, hence the overwhelming need for a nanny state. If things were left to the progressives, nothing in your life would be safe. They are about control. Forget abut ‘government in your bedroom’ as they sometimes complain about, with them it is the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, EVERYWHERE! They are spoiled children, the types that were never scolded. Good job trying to discipline this child here, but alas it probably will do no good.

sandw15 [November 22, 2011 at 5:43 pm] says: :: “This offer is specially prepared for A Physicist (or occupant troll) You are just the kind of forward-looking person I’m looking for. What you need is an investment strategy for the future. This is your opportunity to be among the first to get a ground-floor stake in the investment opportunity of the century. I’m talking about Sandw15’s South Texas Sea Resort Communities.”

Excellent response to this AGW cultist. You would think that in our enlightened technological era, that the age of the scam or hoax might be over. Nope. In reality, the abundance of male enhancement pills and free energy and fuel additives and instant cures and Nigeria investments exist primarily because of the self-broadcasting of their own stupidity of these victims-in-waiting all over the world, with these AGW zombies leading the charge. There is one born every nanosecond.

Jimmy Haigh [November 22, 2011 at 11:49 pm] says: :: [to Danielle Westerbank @ur momisugly November 22, 2011 at 10:56 pm] “Danielle. You remind me of the story of Louis Armstrong, when he was asked what jazz was, replied: “Lady? If you gotta ask, you just ain’t got it”.”

ROTFLMAO! That’s gonna leave a mark. But will she even realize it?

Michael [November 23, 2011 at 1:54 am] says: :: “This thread will definitely go over 1,000 comments.”

Not only that. I predict a new hockey stick in the near future. This one will again be found on Alexa graphs when WUWT is plotted alongside RealClimate. The blade will be WUWT, the handle will be RC, and Gavin will whine about someone Hiding the Incline.

David L [November 23, 2011 at 7:10 am] says: :: [to You Guys are unreal on November 22, 2011 at 3:39 pm] “Your last sentence is completely wrong. Look up the scientific process. It is NOT the burden to disprove the theory…. It is the burden to PROVE it. The theory is stated, data is supplied (and picked apart)…. If the theory can survive then it is advanced. And there’s no statute of limitations on this either. The law of gravitational attraction was proposed in the 17th century and effectively challenged by Einstein in the 20th century.”

Perfectly stated sir, absolutely perfect. That *is* Science pure and simple. The destruction caused to Science by the AGW cult is simply unimaginable. If that troll has any sense whatsoever he will listen up and learn something, because as it stands now, he knows nothing at all and in fact has it exactly ass-backwards.

A physicist [November 23, 2011 at 7:34 am] says: :: “Prof. Bickmore’s much-viewed lecture (on YouTube) titled “How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change” summarizes clearly the logical arguments that you and many other posters are WUWT are (rightly) seeking. Prof. Bickmore’s lecture’s includes video clips of Newt Gingrich arguing too that AGW is real, serious, human-caused, and accelerating.”

That makes you both crackpots. I don’t need Newt Gingrich to tell me the planet has warmed since the LIA, *and* since the 1970’s, *and* since the Holocene began. You are the worst kind of cherry picker on the planet. You are lucky enough to live in an age where the confluence of not one, but all THREE of those warming events are occurring simultaneously. And you have the nerve to measure the small difference between the temps now and when it was naturally colder. Then you run around madly screaming: ‘We caused this by using fossil fuels to keep warm and for transportation! We must stop!’. You’re all sick. In reality you lot are the same as earlier eras that ran wild when a comet appeared in the sky, or more recently when pacific cultures tossed virgins into volcanoes. Of course neither of these earlier peoples had science or the Internet for a reference. So what is your excuse?

A physicist says: “Prof. Bickmore’s much-viewed lecture (on YouTube) titled “How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change” summarizes clearly the logical arguments that you and many other posters are WUWT are (rightly) seeking. Prof. Bickmore’s lecture’s includes video clips of Newt Gingrich arguing too that AGW is real, serious, human-caused, and accelerating.”

Blade responds: “That makes you both crackpots. I don’t need Newt Gingrich to tell me the planet has warmed since the LIA, *and* since the 1970′s, *and* since the Holocene began. You are the worst kind of cherry picker on the planet. You are lucky enough to live in an age where the confluence of not one, but all THREE of those warming events are occurring simultaneously. And you have the nerve to measure the small difference between the temps now and when it was naturally colder. Then you run around madly screaming: ‘We caused this by using fossil fuels to keep warm and for transportation! We must stop!’. You’re all sick. In reality you lot are the same as earlier eras that ran wild when a comet appeared in the sky, or more recently when pacific cultures tossed virgins into volcanoes. Of course neither of these earlier peoples had science or the Internet for a reference. So what is your excuse?”

With respect, Blade, it seems to me — and to most CEOs, military strategists, mathematicians, scientists, and engineers — that Prof. Bickmore’s brand of thoughtful science-respecting conservatism is superior to the less rational brand of conservatism that your post represents.
It seems likely to me, Blade, that in the near future more-and-more climate-change skeptics like you will be changing their minds. There will always be some skeptics, even among business and military leaders, but it is true too that both their reputations and numbers are steadily diminishing.
Another well-conceived lecture, that reaches similar conclusions to Prof. Bickmore’s, is US Admiral David Titley’s YouTube video US Navy Chief Oceanographer: I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic.
Recommended.

A physicist says: November 23, 2011 at 8:40 am “It seems to me that Prof. Bickmore’s analysis is rational, respectful, and fact-driven.”
Without going into a long treatise about Prof. Brickmore’s lecture’s short comings, I will point out just a few of the problems.
Brickman used Oreskes’s 2004 paper in Science to demonstrate the “consensus.” Oreskes was rebuked on several levels. For one, she neglected to cover any geophysical papers that presented data that made the AGW statements based on modeling incorrect on their face. In particular, the many papers regarding the MWP refuted on evidence MBH98’s model of 1,000 year global temps. None of them were mentioned as going against the consensus.These numerous peer-reviewed papers do not expressly try to refute the “consensus” by stating they go against the consensus and so, did not appear in her search for papers. But the works that show explicitly the sea level was higher and the atmosphere warmer during the MWP strongly refute the “consensus” that bought into MBH98 (the “Hockey Stick”).
Further, the six-scenario modeling used by the IPCC and Hansen in his testimony to Congress in 1988 had its roots in the mid 1980s. We’re now more than 30 years on — plenty of time to see if those models are proving at all correct. They are not. So poorly have the models performed that their results show no statistical relevance to what really transpired. For example, Hansen predicted that, under the “do nothing” premise, the global average temperature should rise more than 1.2°C over that period. The average global temperature rise from Hansen’s base line is only about 0.2°C and declining.
Brickman himself resorted to cherry-picking when he went after Monckton’s recent decadal comparison of observed temperatures with the IPCC projections. If he had considered the IPCC’s century-based sea level projections and compared them to the PGR-adjusted tide-gage studies (Gornitz & Lebedef for example), he would have noticed that there was no agreement at all between the two projections — the IPCC’s best case scenario showed a higher sea level rise than the highest estimate of sea level rise parsed from the observed data. When the subsequent directly observed sea level rise played out over the past couple of decades, reality did not conform with the IPCC projections. The requisite accelerating rise of over 4mm/yr necessary to achieve the IPCC “target” by the end of this century, ended up more like less than 2mm/yr and decelerating. In deed, the sea level fell 6mm in 2010 and is expected to fall even farther this year when all data is in.
Brinkman’s lecture is clever, rational, and somewhat respectful, but missed (avoided?) the heart of the entire matter — what has really happened with the global climate(s).

Dave Wendt asks: “What in your understanding is the residence time of a photon of infrared energy emitted from the earth which is absorbed by a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere?”

Michael Jennings says: “I have to agree with “a physicist” here. There is a lot of slogan-chanting, cherry- picking and witch-hunting going on but most of it comes from people like him/her at other sites. I am still waiting for his answer to Dave Wendt’s last question.”

It’s pleasant to see such a thirst for knowledge here on WUWT. A certain humility is helpful, since as Chen, Laane, Wheeler, and Zhang accurately assert in their article (available free on-line) in the November Notices of the American Mathematical Society titled “Greenhouse Gas Molecules: A Mathematical Perspective”

“At a most fundamental level, the understanding of the greenhouse effect requires atomic and molecular physics and chemistry, as well as the associated mathematics: partial differential equations, group theory, and large-scale scientific computing. In fact, in order to fully understand the relevant properties of H2O, CO2, CH4, and others, one needs at least a whole year’s worth of graduate courses in physical chemistry. This will far exceed the scope of this article. Regardless of however small the amount of information we may be able to convey here is, we hope that we can arouse some interest in physical chemistry in the mathematics community.”

In a similar vein, a concrete place to start in grasping why Dave Wendt’s one-sentence question leads planetary climatologists to write book-length answers is the American Institute of Physics (AIP) web site “The Discovery of Global Warming” in particular Spencer Weart’s (lengthy) survey page titled “Basic Radiation Calculations” (a Google search will find it).
Spencer Weart’s survey is highly recommended … if you’re extraordinarily keen on math, physics, and the history of science! 🙂

This troll is making this thread too long, too boring.
later when its gone,,,

“At a most fundamental level, the understanding of the greenhouse effect requires atomic and molecular physics and chemistry, as well as the associated mathematics: partial differential equations, group theory, and large-scale scientific computing. In fact, in order to fully understand the relevant properties of H2O, CO2, CH4, and others, one needs at least a whole year’s worth of graduate courses in physical chemistry. This will far exceed the scope of this article. Regardless of however small the amount of information we may be able to convey here is, we hope that we can arouse some interest in physical chemistry in the mathematics community.”
Yeah, right. As in “certain molecules slow down the transfer of energy to space a bit more than others”.
Talk about obfuscation.

Jeffrey Davis says:
November 22, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Gail Collins sez, “Beliefs” and “Causes” belong to religion and politics they have absolutely no place in science because it leads to “Confirmation Bias”
Well, no.
Scientists are scientists only when they do science. The rest of the time, they have ordinary lives to lead…….
__________________________
I know about “Confirmation Bias” because I have caught “Scientists” in the act and had the owners of the firm fire their rumps. I have also been fired because I would not falsify lab data at the directive of other firms. I have had several knock down drag out fights because of the issue of “Confirmation Bias” during my forty year career as a chemist. From my experience “Confirmation Bias” is probably one of the biggest problems in science and the scientists not effected by it are a lot few than those who are.
Why the heck do you think new information must be replicated at three independent labs is a rule of thumb?
For example if I come up with a new drug it will be handed to a second scientist within the company to be validated BEFORE the company will spend the money for sending it to an outside testing firm.
The Fleischmann–Pons cold fusion controversy was all about independent lab validation. This is how science is SUPPOSED to be done!