A link to where to download the new FOIA2011.zip file is posted below the fold – This will be a top post for a few days -NEW STORIES APPEAR BELOW THIS ONE -I’ve also reversed the order of the updates to be newest at top for better visibility – Anthony
UPDATE50: 1:15 PM PST 11/30 The genesis of RealClimate.org seems to have been found. Surprisingly, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin seems to have been involved in the genesis meeting.
UPDATE49: 10:00 AM PST 11/30 While not email related, just as Climategate breaks David Suzuki commits an egregious propaganda error second only to the 10:10 video where kids are blown up for not going along with carbon reduction schemes at school. He’s targeting kids and Santa Claus at Christmas – Santa’s home is melting.
UPDATE48: 9:20 AM PST 11/30 Dr. Phil Jones on the “lack of warming” -he may need a backup plan.
UPDATE47: 9AM PST 11/30 Fudge factor collection in the emails, or is climate modeling a social issue?
UPDATE46: A look at UEA/CRU’s email infrastructure and email systems in general suggests that the “deleted” emails to/from Phil Jones and others at CRU probably still exist and can be subject to FOIA.
UPDATE45: 1:30PM PST 11/29 If there was award for clueless timing, this would win it no contest: Penn State to lecture on “climate ethics”
UPDATE44: 9AM PST 11/29 Mike Mann reprises the role of Captain Queeg in The Cain Mutiny when seeing de Freitas being vindicated by the publisher of Climate Research (see the update in the article).
UPDATE43: 8AM PST 11/29 An Excel Spreadsheet with Climategate 1 and 2 emails ordered chronologically should be helpful in determining that supposedly missing”context”
UPDATE42: 7AM PST 11/29 The CRU crew says: “what we really meant was…”
UPDATE41: 4AM PST 11/29 James Padget schools Steve Zwick – Guide to Defending the Indefensible. Some people just can’t handle Climategate.
UPDATE40: 12AM PST 11/29 Penn State has the same “look the other way” problem with Climategate as they did with the Jerry Sandusky scandal.
UPDATE39: It seems “vexatious” is Dr. Phil Jones favorite new feeling word after summer 2009.
UPDATE38: Severinghaus says Mike Mann didn’t give a straight answer regarding why trees don’t work as thermometers after 1950
UPDATE37: Climate sensitivity can’t be quantified with the current data according to NCAR’s Wigley, with paleo data – even less so.
UPDATE36: Dr. Chris de Freitas responds to the ugly attempt by The Team at getting him fired.
UPDATE 35: “Stroppy” Dr Roger Pielke Sr. shows just how much a “old boys network” the peer review process is.
UPDATE34: More internal dissent of the hockey stick. Mann tries to beat down the concern over “hide the decline” while not letting the dissenting scientist know there was a decline.
UPDATE33: Gobsmacking! Rob Wilson proves McIntyre and McKittrick correct in an email to colleagues at CRU, showing that when random noise time series are fed into Mike Mann’s procedure, it makes “hockey sticks”. The confirmation that M&M is right never leaves the walls of CRU.
UPDATE32: 9:30PM PST 11/27 BREAKING – Canada to pull out of Kyoto protocol. Another Climategate fallout ?
UPDATE31: 4:30PM PST 11/27 BOMBSHELL An absolutely disgusting string of communications that shows the tribal attempt at getting an editor of a journal fired on made up issues – all because he allowed a publication that didn’t agree with “the Team”. This is ugly, disturbing, and wrong on every level.
UPDATE30: 9:45 AM PST 11/27 Newsbytes. Major crack in the warming wall at the UK prime minister’s office. BBC in collusion with Climategate scientists.
UPDATE29: 9AM PST 11/27 The saga of the missing station data at CRU and the “pants on fire” defense of it as told by Willis Eschenbach. Dr. Phil Jones is between a rock and a hard place, quite.
UPDATE 28: 1:30PM PST 11/26 An email shows the UNFCCC considers activists an essential tool saying “…organized and deeply committed environmental activism has long been an important part of the UNFCCC process…”
UPDATE27: 7AM PST 11/26 Climategate 2 features prominently in WUWT’s newest feature “Hits and Misses”
UPDATE26: 2:50 PM 11/25 Two separate examples show obstruction and collusion by members of “The Team” to prevent any dissenting science from being properly considered by the NRC in 2007.
UPDATE25: 2PM 11/25 Keith Briffa asks another colleague to delete email to avoid FOIA
UPDATE24: 1:30PM 11/25 New Climategate 1/2 combined search engine here
UPDATE23: 9AM PST 11/25 via bishop-hill, strange infighting:
#4101 – Edward Cook tells Phil Jones that Mike Mann is “serious enemy” and “vindictive”. Mike Mann had criticized his work.
Apparently Mann went “a little crazy” over a paper showing the MWP exists.
Details here
UPDATE22: 11AM PST 11/24 Am unsurprising admission from a BBC environmental reporter to Dr. Phil Jones that they really have no impartiality at all (ho ho) when it comes to climate issues.
UPDATE21: 9:50AM PST 11/24 “FOIA2011″ and Climategate – A Chinese-POTUS connection?
UPDATE20: 9:30AM PST 11/24 World renowned climatologist Phil Jones can’t even plot a temperature trend line in Excel. I’ve offered a solution that WUWT readers can help with.
UPDATE19: 9AM PST 11/24 Gail Combs finds some disturbing connections between the Team and The World Bank
UPDATE18: 1:45PM Scott Mandia, aka “Supermandia” wins the award for the silliest climategate rebuttal, ever. It’s like stupid on steroids.
UPDATE17: 12:55PM PST 11/23 Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has an excellent piece on “Gatekeeping” related to Trenberth and the Pielke-Landsea hurricane paper and the IPCC. You may recall Landsea resigned from the IPCC over this. Pielke says: “The gatekeeping of the IPCC process is abundantly clear, and the shadowy suggestion that they can find out who the reviewers are from another colleague is a bit unsettling as well.” Trenberth looks particularly bad here.
UPDATE16: 11:30AM PST 11/23 Insider scientist at CRU says our “reaction to Mike Mann’s errors was not particularly honest” – story here
UPDATE15: 7:50AM 11/23 Ric Werme found an email from the late John L. Daly to Mike Mann and the team – it is well worth a read here
UPDATE14: 2:45 AM PST 11/23 Willis Eschenbach offers a guest post here explaining how his FOIA requests went astray. Mr. David Palmer was the Freedom of Information Officer for the CRU at the time. In the newly released emails, he expresses his frustration with the whole procedure.
UPDATE13: 12:05AM 11/23 Craig Stone writes:
I have published a searchable database of the emails at http://foia2011.org
All email addresses and phone numbers are automatically redacted. It’s extremely rudimentary right now, but I’ll be refining the functionality and improving the search capabilities and navigation over the course of the next week.
UPDATE 12: 9:30 PM PST We’ve known for some time that Al Gore made up a bunch of claims in his AIT movie that simply weren’t true. Now this revelation in the new email batch shows that in the case of Kilimanjaro’s disappearing snows, even Phil Jones and Dr. Lonnie Thompson don’t believe global warming is the cause, even though Thompson put out a press release nearly a year ago saying just that. Told ya so. Pants on fire and all that. Anything for “the cause” right?
UPDATE11: 4:45PM PST Kevin Trenberth gets all misty eyed and sing-songy at Christmas here
UPDATE10: 4:30PM PST Some thoughts on cracking the big remaining all.7z file here
UPDATE9: 2:25PM PST Josh weighs in with the first satirical cartoon here
UPDATE8: 140PM PST Mike Mann shows his true colors:
email 1680.txt
date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann”..
subject: Re: Something not to pass on
to: Phil Jones
Phil,
I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you provide. s They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should
consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.
I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar 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….
UPDATE7: 1:20 PM PST Phil Jones and Tom Wigley calls another scientist (The former state climatologist of California) a “jerk” for publishing his UHI results.
UPDATE6: 12:08PM PST Here’s an email that collaborates a radio interview I did in Seattle with Thomas Peterson in summer 2007, yes these are 100% real emails, no doubt whatsoever now. More here: Climategate 2.0 – NCDC: “Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position”
UPDATE 5: 11:00AM PST In a statement, UEA doesn’t deny these emails, but posts about the whitewash investigations of the past, like they matter now.
UPDATE4: 9:45 AM PST I’ve changed the headline from Climategate 2.0 to Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular! with a hat tip to Jerry Seinfeld. The relevance of that headline is particularly interesting in the context of where Dr. James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has his office in NYC.
UPDATE3: 9:25 AM PST – Having read a number of emails, and seeing this quote from Mike Mann in the Guardian:
When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”
I’m going to conclude they are the real deal. I’ve posted a BitTorrent link to the file below. One big difference between Climategate 1 and 2 is that in 1, it took days for the MSM to catch on, now they are on top of it.
UPDATE2: 8:45AM PST The Guardian has a story up by Leo Hickman, and this excerpt suggests they may be the real deal:
Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is “of interest” to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.
The emails appear to be genuine, but this has yet to be confirmed by the University of East Anglia. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages.
UPDATE1: 8:20 AM PST These emails have not been verified yet, and this story was posted by one of my moderating staff while I was asleep. Until such time they are verified, tread lightly because without knowing what is behind the rest of the zip file, for all we know it’s a bunch of recipes and collection of lorem ipsum text files. I’m working to authenticate these now and will report when I know more – Anthony Watts
===============================================================
Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time.
The original link was dropped off in the Hurricane Kenneth thread at about 4 AM Eastern. It is still there.
Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:
<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.
<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
<3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.
<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause
<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process
<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.
JeffId has some initial reaction
From the ReadMe file:
/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///
“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”
“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”
“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.
“Poverty is a death sentence.”
“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.
This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.
The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
to publicly release the passphrase.
We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
as…
==============================================================
Here’s one about UHI that is convincing:
cc: liqx@cma.xxx
date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:16:37 +0800
from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= <limmy@xxx>
subject: Re:Re: thank you
to: p.jones@xxx
Dear Phil,
Again I find that the emails from my CMA mail boxes can not get to you.
From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural stations (by your
list) and a reference of homogenization of the data. we have tested and adjusted the abrupt
discontinuities of the data during 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only
been quality controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the relocation
during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most of the stations.
I partly agree with what Prof. Ren said. and we have done some analysis on the urban heat
island effect in China during past years. The results are differnt with Ren’s. But I think
different methods, data, and selection of the urban and rural stations would be the most
important causes of this. So I think it is high time to give some new studies and graw some
conclusion in this topic. I hope we can make some new achives on this both on global scale
and in China.
Best
Qingxiang
—– Original Message —–
From: “Phil Jones” < p.jones@xxxx >
To: “Rean Guoyoo” < guoyoo@xxxx >
Cc: “%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4” < limmy@xxx>, < liqx@cma.xxx >
Sent: 2007-09-24 16:25:59 +0800
Subject: Re: thank you
Dear Guoyu,
I think I emailed you from America last week. I am away again next week,
but here this week.
I do think that understanding urban influences are important. I will
wait for Dr Li Qingxiang to send some data, but there is no rush, as I am
quite busy the next few weeks.
Best Regards
Phil
At 00:59 20/09/2007, you wrote:
The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I send it again via
this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, Li Qingxiang.
Regards,
Guoyu
Dear Phil,
Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry
for the delayed response.
I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of
climate change.
In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air
temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we
analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there
might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses
are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990
period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations
used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be
more representative for the baseline change.
We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent
our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.
It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air
temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are
going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome.
As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his
group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the
past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his
center. The datasets we used are also from his center.
I’d be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a
co-author because my contribution would be rather minor.
Best regards,
Guoyu
NCC, Beijing
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. [1]Join our Network Research Panel today!
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
=======================263ÌìÏÂÓÊ£ÐÅÀµÓÊ×Ôרҵ=======================
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\Detecting and Adjusting Temporal Inhomogeneity in
Chinese Mean Surface Air Temperature Data.pdf” Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\To
Jones.rar”
====================================================================
Here’s a bit torrent link to the FOIA2011.zip file
You’ll need a bit torrent client
BETTER LINK:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37
Documentation Of A Cozy Interaction Between An AMS BAMS Editor And Phil Jones
Stephen, your post correctly summarized in one sentence the fundamental reason why global warming is real, serious, human-caused, and accelerating.
For many CEOs, military strategists, mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, Stephen’s one-sentence summary is sufficient; the above-named on-line lectures by Prof. Barry Bickmore and by Admiral David Titley work through the scientific and military implications very clearly.
Other folks may prefer to delve more deeply into the fundamental math and physics of climate change, and to help these ambitious learners abundant scientific resources are available on-line and free-as-in-freedom.
A third option is to embrace the peculiarly popular brand of skepticism that is grounded mainly in slogan-chanting, cherry-picking and witch-hunting. This brand of skepticism has the advantages of being easy and fun, but in the long run it has little or no enduring value.
AW have you seesn this
http://brohan.org/philip/job/crutem3/docs/
can you do anything with it?
davidmhoffer says:
November 22, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Trenberth is an awful poet. I figure even I can do better:
We, the kings, of climate are
Raising the price, of running your car…..
________________________
ROTFLMAO I hope Anthony puts this in a prominent place. Or maybe elmer (November 22, 2011 at 9:47 am) can do it as another video.
(Give them permission Hint, Hint)
This is weird, when the archive is searched for the word “moon” (no quotes), it crashes.
Oh, this is good. Skeptics are funded by Big Oil, but who is running everything by Shell so they don’t “rock the boat”?
…The report back etc will be to Shell International in London and not Shell
Solar in Holland or South Africa. This is a critical point as there are
numerous sensitivities here. To over-simplify somewhat – Shell
International are interested in generic conclusions regarding the
viability of CDM (and we should have some very useful information for
them). Shell Solar do not want anyone ‘interfering’ with their set-up in
South Africa (so we have to be a little circumspect in regard to the
specifics of that situation). That’s in strictest confidence!
Regards
Mick
Mike Hulme later writes:
Mick,
Thanks for clarifying. We have no intentions of ‘rocking the boat’.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=752
A physicist said:
“Stephen, your post correctly summarized in one sentence the fundamental reason why global warming is real, serious, human-caused, and accelerating”
You should read my stuff because there is more:
The water cycle gets bigger and/or faster to speed up the transfer of energy to space thus offsetting the GHG effect.
All you get is an infinitesimal shift in the surface air pressure distribution. Merely a tiny fraction of the similar shifting from oceanic and solar causes.
Keep it simple.
A physicist says: November 23, 2011 at 10:56 am “Stephen, your post correctly summarized in one sentence the fundamental reason why global warming is real, serious, human-caused, and accelerating.”
I believe the “accelerating” part has been disproved. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I’m a sea level guy mostly and whether it be decadal or century long, there is no signal of present acceleration. Indeed, all evidence says the rate of change has diminished such that the recent decadal rate is less than the mean rate going back more than 100 years. (That means deceleration.)
You, dear physicist, are resorting to slogan-chanting. I invite you to demonstrate that the present rate of sea level rise (or surface temperatures) is accelerating and is within the projections put forth by the IPCC and its ilk. In the absence of such effort, you are, simply, a slogan chanter.
A physicist says:
November 23, 2011 at 10:56 am
From the on-line 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.
__________________________________
And just how many Angel’s do you think can dance on the head of a pin, and why?
Robert Clemenzi says:
November 23, 2011 at 11:05 am
I have had some issues also. When I try to go to the second page of the 30 results for ‘Mick Kelly’, it is blank.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4&search=mick+kelly&sisea_offset=10
It isn’t a URL problem.
Climategate-the gift that keeps on giving
#1737
About our friend Steve McIntyre (who sent a request to Phil to retract a statement in a paper)….See 1737 for the full thread. Mann’s advice to Phil how to respond to Steve:
To: Phil Jones
From: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: Re: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
Phil,
I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud.
You’ve probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes
McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is–pure crap. Of course, we’ve already done this on
“RealClimate”, but Wahl and Ammann is peer-reviewed and independent of us. I’ve attached
it in case you haven’t seen (please don’t pass it along to others yet). It should be in
press shortly. Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things
can come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate–he is funded by
the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc…
Other than this distraction, I hope you’re enjoying the holidays too…
talk to you soon,
mike
P.F., that’s easy. Decadal variations in Arctic sea-ice coverage are relatively small compared to predicted AGW effects, and in this relatively low-noise data-set we see the acceleration of AGW plainly, at a rate well above IPCC’s highest predictions.
Needless to say, this marked acceleration of AGW has not escaped the attention of the world’s shipping companies and military strategists; and this a major reason why prominent CEOs and military leaders are turning away from AGW skepticism. For one plain, simple, non-ideological reason: AGW skepticism doesn’t work.
A physicist says:
November 23, 2011 at 10:56 am
Other folks may prefer to delve more deeply into the fundamental math and physics of climate change, and to help these ambitious learners abundant scientific resources are available on-line and free-as-in-freedom.
Really? You really haven’t paid any attention to what is being said on data ‘ free-as-in-freedom’. FOI means freedom of information act for your further reading on the issue. Good reading.
a physicist says:
“…global warming is real, serious, human-caused, and accelerating.”
Two out of three wrong = FAIL.
Of course global warming is real. The planet is still emerging from the LIA. Temperatures have been much higher [and much lower] prior to the industrial revolution, when CO2 was very low. So you got that one right, but for the wrong reason.
There is ZERO testable, empirical evidence that warming is human caused. That is simply a conjecture. It may be true that added CO2 causes some minor, beneficial warming. But real world, falsifiable evidence is non-existent.
And global temperatures are not accelerating.
You don’t know much about this subject, and what you ‘know’ is wrong.
Police: Stop right there!
Killer: What?! What did I do?
Police: You killed that man!
Killer: No I didn’t!
Police: We caught you red handed. You’re standing over the body with a smoking gun.
Killer: So?!
Police: And a check from the dead man’s wife, made out to you, with “for killing my husband” in the memo section.
Killer: … well you’re just cherry picking!
Please note that neither Climategate 2.0 or the password protected 7zip file
will contain e-mails that were circulated exclusively among Team
members here in the United States and Canada.
The trioika of Mann, Bradley and Hansen may not have shared many of their
e-mails with their cousins at UEA/CRU.
If true, then the exclusively American side of the “CAUSE” will be found in
those e-mails currently sequestered by the court in the University of
Virginia FOIA case concerning the e-mails emanating from Mike Mann back
then.
Mann’s proclivity for snarky or downright insulting comments about
anyone who disagrees with him in the slightest may be why he wants
those particular e-mails to be considered his very personal and very private
property.
He could never afford to be seen offending his fellow travelers and defenders.
foia2011.org id=5102 Susan Solomon calling for emails to be written to New Scientist, in rebuttal to a suggestion that there was political influence in the drafting of SPM.
Motsatt, to mathematicians, scientists, and engineers the phrase “free-as-in-freedom” means even more than that: it means a sustained commitment that scientific publications, data, and software should none of them be hidden behind paywalls.
Two patron saints of the “free-as-in-freedom” movement are Richard Stallman and Al Gore. For some reason, neither name is commonly applauded by conservatives … both names should be.
At the end of the day, broader acceptance of the conservative principle “free-as-in-freedom” means swifter acknowledgement of the sobering realities of climate change. Both outcomes are good for conservatism and liberalism alike.
Folks, don’t waste your time engaging “A physicist”. He isn’t a physicist but rather college professor John Sidles of the University of Washington.
http://faculty.washington.edu/sidles/FRIAS_2011/
Google his favorite phrase, “slogan-chanting, cherry-picking and witch-hunting” and you’ll find him using it among his own community with his real name. Charlie Martin at PJ Media outed him months ago, he’s a troll of the worst sort.
I’m reasonably sure he’s also the infamous TCO, banned from Climate Audit, WUWT, Lucia’s, Air Vent, and numerous right-wing political blogs including PJ Media, Just One Moment, and Patterico. He was “scientist” at Climate Audit last year and I’m sure has countless other aliases.
Did I miss any TCO? I thought you were an HVAC engineer?
http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/01/lights-0-air-conditioners-22/#comment-96953
A physicist says:
November 23, 2011 at 10:56 am
We now have incontrovertible evidence that “A Physicist” is a bot.
Phil Jones saying that he stopped World Service from doing anything on a press release prior to COP…”control the message”!!!!
excerpt below…see #2245 for full text
from: Phil Jones
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby”
Alex,
Of course, I’ll still talk. I was just looking at your items as the COP-10
is coming up very soon – could have started.
I managed to stop the World Service doing anything on this lot (see below).
Julian could see it was just pre-COP propaganda, and all the issues are
being dealt with, some better than others.
The report is not worth getting involved with as it is all the same sort
of rubbish that these groups peddle at this time.
Cheers
Phil
From: Julian Siddle [[1]REDACTEDREDACTED]
Sent: 07 December 2004 11:01
To: REDACTED
Subject: Climate change
Dear Cathy Young,
Hi I was just speaking to Emma in your press office who suggested I send you
an email. I am a radio producer with the BBC World Service responsible for
science news coverage.
I have received a press release, copied below, from a group which
fundementally opposes the conventional views of climate change. Please could
you show this to your colleagues in the climate research unit, I would be
interested in their views on the assertions put forward in the release.
Unfortunately I do not have the full report at present.
Please could they comment on the assertions which follow the paragraph
‘There are key issues that must be better understood if policy is to more
closely match current knowledge levels. Examples of issues that are not
adequately understood in the climate debate include:’
I am hoping to produce a news report about this later today for broadcast
after midnight. Please do give me a call with any questions.
Many thanks
Julian
Julian Siddle
BBC Science Radio
Bush House
London
WC2B 4PH
I have a very elementary physics question since I am a pretty stupid, so any of you physics ppl out there feel free to explain:
I have read that the basic sensitivity of climate (the power of the GHG-effects) is logarithmic expressed as about 1 degree celsius for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Does this mean that models stating a possible 6 degree increase by 2100 expect feedbacks to make the concentration (let’s assume a starting point of 350ppm) 350×2=700 (1C), 700×2=1400 (2C), 1400×2=2800 (3C), 2800×2=5600 (4C), 5600×2=11200(5C), 11200×2=22400 (6C).
Are they expecting a tipping point around 400ppm to send us into a possible concentration of 22400 ppm by 2100?
Sorry for this very basic question, but I need it sorted out.
Smokey, looking for evidence of AGW in high-variability data-sets is futile: skeptic and true-believer alike shamelessly cherry-pick their data, hunt their witches, and chant their slogans … as we are seeing very plainly here on WUWT.
On the other hand: (1) oceans act as thermal reservoirs that average short-term variations, (2) shallow oceans respond more rapidly than deep oceans, and (3) high-latitudes are most sensitive to greenhouse gas effects.
For these three reasons, climate scientists expect to see evidence for AGW most plainly and most quickly in the arctic. And what every space-faring nation on earth sees plainly is accelerating climate change in the arctic … at a pace substantially more rapid than the IPCC’s most pessimistic predictions.
That’s a major, sobering, common-sense reason why the world’s prominent CEOs and military leaders are turning away from AGW skepticism.
@Ron Cram says:
November 22, 2011 at 10:19 pm
“When is someone going to put these emails into a searchable format online? I can’t wait to run a few keywords!”
Ron –
I’ve been successful just using Window’s XP’s search. I narrow it down to the Mail or Documents folder, and then enter the term in the “a word or phrase in the file” field. It’s been finding things every time.
If you have Windows 7 which has a search UI I freaking HATE, I can’t help you.
A physicist says:
John, you’ve done a fair job of thread-hijacking, but this thread is about the revelations in the latest group of e-mails. You are an award-winning researcher, so tell me, are the events documented here also common practice in your lab? Do you hide data and methods, obfuscate results, attempt to recruit investigative journalists to discredit your critics? Do you downplay negative results to present a nice tidy picture? If you became aware of such practices in your field, would you just shrug your shoulders and say that the underlying science is sound?
Frankly, despite your credentials and accomplishments you are just another political troll contributing nothing but sound and fury.