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
Magnus says: November 23, 2011 at 12:18 pm
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… Are they expecting a tipping point around 400ppm to send us into a possible concentration of 22400 ppm by 2100?
No, CO2 concentration does not double in the way you describe. The theory is that the initial 1C temperature rise sets of a chain of positive feedbacks that act to increase temperature further. Examples might include rising water vapour (itself a potent GHG), lowering surface reflectivity as ice melts etc. The median result from scores of studies is +3C per doubling. See Knutti & Hegerl 2008 http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf. (A result of +6C seems extremely unlikely.)
“Magnus says:
November 23, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Are they expecting a tipping point around 400ppm to send us into a possible concentration of 22400 ppm by 2100?”
No, they understand it is logarithmic so in order to get the models to show such scenarios they have invented a set of hypothetical positive feedbacks. They say the warmth from the CO2 will:
1) Increase water vapor (down 10% in the last decade of real world measurements)
2) release methane from permafrost and other sources (methane has leveled off in real world measurements)
3) Melt the Greenland ice sheet, Antarctica and generally reduce albedo
In short, such models are little more than fan fiction for the climate community that exaggerate warming effects while minimizing or ignoring cooling effects.
A physicist says:
November 23, 2011 at 11:33 am
(replying to)
P.F. says: 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.
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.
Dead wrong. CAGW has nothing but a religious-led dogma behind it. “The Cause” as it is referred to in these released emails: The desire to “free” mankind from all (efficient and economical) energy use. The desire (unstated) to kill billions in order to “save the planet” from that virus known as humans.
The politicians feed on that dogma, that fear that they can inspire in their enviro-led leftist community who support them. From that fear, that feeding frenzied feedback of politics and the easily-deluded leftist/social-justice voters comes MONEY and POWER. The politician use both to control money and new projects. The universities? Even more dogmatic, more tied emotionally to the CAGW dogma. Even less tied to moral reason and moral codes.
You – wrongly – claim CEO’s and engineers believe in CAGW. They don’t. But their company’s current income (this year, the past years since 2007 when Pelosi began control of the federal budget now can ONLY come from fed-funded “green energy” projects. So they apply for them – the lucky ones, the ones who bundled millions of dollars for Pelosi and Obama, get the first loans and the first grants. The “insiders” who controlled the market since Al Gore began with Enron carbon tax and carbon trading schemes in the late 1990’s, make their billions already.
The rest? The honest ones? The engineers, the CEO’s, the writers, the REAL military analysts who didn’t “buy their retirement” by toeing the party line, and who didn’t payoff the democrats? Were screwed. Were fired. Lost their companies, their lived
Academics? You, the others who claim skeptical scientists change their results for money from “big oil” … So, that means you absolutely believe “money can change scientific results”.
If so, how many “scientists” did money, power, influence, and a righteous dogmatic religious fervor in “The Cause” change and influence results did 89 billion in federal money buy?
How many “pal-reviewed” articles were approved due to CAGW group think, and how many were rejected by unknown, never-accountable judges who follow the CAGW mantra? You stand condemned by your own words.
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.
====================================
If your point is that they’ve been wrong about everything…….then you’re right
FOX News has a new piece in SciTech titled: “Did £10 Stand in the Way of Climate Science?
Article here: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/23/did-10-stand-in-way-climate-science/
Best,
J.
A Physicist:
“And what every space-faring nation on earth sees plainly is accelerating climate change in the arctic ”
Doesn’t sound very “global” now does it? Oh wait, we can only say that about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age despite widespread proxy evidence that indicates otherwise.
It is awfully convenient that we only see this “accelerating climate change” in the arctic where we don’t have long records of any sort and where infillling makes things look warm – as they admit in their emails (to get things back on topic):
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=270
“The infilling is partly the reason they got 2005 so warm, by extrapolating across the Arctic from t the coastal stations.”
Warmest year EVER! Bwahaaha!
Mike Hulme sympathizes with Will Hutton:
“In particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about
power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable. There are not that many
“facts” about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal.”
#2037
shackley_Simon,REDACTED
date: Mon Dec 8 14:10:21 2003
from: Mike Hulme
subject: Re: Will Hutton’s A-level essay
to: “Richard Starkey”
Richard,
The McIntyre and McKitrick paper (MM03) has got a hidden agenda behind it. Check out this
web site for some commentary on it. As with the contentious Soon and Baliunas paper, MM03
has been published by Energy & Environment and is part of Sonja Christriansen-Boehmer’s
on-going campaign.
[1]http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/Mann/EEReply.html
So while not endorsing this attempt at undermining our basis for current exceptional global
warming, I must say I find myself in sympathy with much of what Will Hutton writes. In
particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about
power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable. There are not that many
“facts” about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal.
I am copying this to Asher Minns, since Asher has been giving the issue of “sound science”
and Tyndall’s reaction to it some thought recently.
Mike
@A Physicist
For these three reasons, climate scientists expect to see evidence for AGW most plainly and most quickly in the arctic.
Temperature change in Alaska – notice the step change around 1975.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html
Please explain to me how a 5F step change in a couple of years is caused by ‘gradual warming’ due to Co2 emissions. I think it’s called the ‘PDO’.
How about this? A parody of ” A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall” by Bob Dylan
“For The Cause of Global Warming”
Oh, where have you been my balding son?
And where have you been my bearded one?
I’ve stumbled on glaciers on twelve misty mountains
I’ve walked and I’ve crawled to both polar ice caps
I’ve taken tree ring samples from seven sad forests
I’ve been out in front of a dozen dead oceans
I’ve been to ten thousand weather stations that are all next to pavement
It’s for the cause, for the cause, for the cause, for the cause
It’s for the cause of global warming
Oh, what did you see my balding son?
And what did you see my bearded one?
I saw a newborn baby exhaling carbon dioxide
I saw a mass transit system with nobody on it
I saw a big glacier that seemed to be drippin
I saw 3 things floating that might have been polar bears
I saw a tall building all covered with water
I saw ten thousand tree rings that were flat as a pancake
I saw one tree ring sample that went up on the right
It’s for the cause, for the cause, for the cause, for the cause
It’s for the cause of global warming
And what did you do my balding son?
And what did you do now my bearded one?
I took the tree data that was flat as a pancake
I merged in the one tree but multiplied it by a hundred
I added the compromised land station temperature
I formed it and bent it till it looked like a hockey stick
I used it to get a lot more grant money
I showed it to a man who used it in a movie
It’s for the cause, for the cause, for the cause, for the cause
It’s for the cause of global warming
Oh, who did you meet my balding son?
Who did you meet my bearded one?
I met a young child beside a dead eagle
I met a white man who drove an SUV
I met a young woman shoveling her driveway
I met a young man, he was wearing a rainbow
I met an old man who looked really scary
I met a bunch of old men all wearing dark robes
It’s for the cause, for the cause, for the cause, for the cause
It’s for the cause of global warming
And what’ll you do next my balding son?
And what’ll you do next my bearded one?
I’ll tell all the people the oceans are rising
We’ll tax them untill their pockets are all empty
We’ll scatter the landscape with a million wind turbines
Where the spinning blades will kill all of the raptors
Where the home in the valley is a damp dirty prison
Where the executioner’s face is always well hidden
Where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten
Where black is the color, where none is the number
And I’ll tell and think it and speak it and breathe it
And reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it
Then I’ll stand on the ocean until I start sinkin’
But I’ll know my songs well before I start singin’
It’s for the cause, for the cause, for the cause, for the cause
It’s for the cause of global warming
Someone has said it already, “a physicist slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting”
Is John Sidles
http://en.gravatar.com/sidles
Found this out last night but the internet went down and couldn’t post it, he is not a physicist.
A physicist says:
November 23, 2011 at 12:24 pm
(Responding to)
Smokey asserts: “And global temperatures are not accelerating.”
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.
False. Dead wrong.
Arctic Sea ice is declining slightly, but Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Explain that inconvenient fact.
The ONLY temperatures showing the Arctic temp’s have increased are NASA-GISS extrapolated 1200 km smoothed areas around limited single thermometers on land areas extrapolated out over the sea. And Russian stations that Russians claim are wrongly presented! (But does Hansen have any reason to present false conclusions? At 1.5 person millions is payoff a year????)
DMI Latitude 80 north summer temperatures have declined since 1959. They are declining even more since the last 12 years. What increase in temperatures are they (not) measuring? Nothing ‘melts” at -25 degrees in the winter.
It would be good if they had a proper inquiry into these peoples activities, only this time appoint an unbiased chairman! Now there’s a revolutionary idea!!
ROFL … ah, what a great crowd—the comments are more entertaining than the dancing emails! 🙂 … pass the popcorn … pass the soda … pass the icecreams …
Robert, you raise plenty of good points. In medicine, about one-in-ten physicians is mentally ill and/or substance-impaired and/or unethically profit-centric — yet medicine progresses. In mathematics, science and engineering, roughly half of all articles (in my opinion, and to use Pauli’s famous phrase) are “not even wrong” — yet mathematics, science, and engineering all progress.
The point is that progress in medicine, mathematics, science, and engineering is driven entirely by the best practitioners … not the worst.
The same general principles apply both to the climate science and to skepticism of that science: (1) it is a grave mistake to focus exclusively on the weakest climate science (which to my mind is that climate science which is unimaginatively data-centric), and (2) it is equally a grave mistake to criticize climate-change science by the weakest expressions of skepticism (which to my mind are cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-chanting).
The plain fact is, a planet inhabited by seven-going-on-ten billion people cannot afford either kind of weakness, and our children’s generation is depending utterly upon our generation not to make either kind of mistake.
3556.txt is rather interesting. Here we have Briffa apparently “setting up” someone to arrange for a reviewer for someone who apparently wouldn’t want him as a reviewer. In other words, looks like Briffa is stacking the deck here for an unfavorable review:
The paper in question is “Manuscript ID HOL-09-0054 entitled “A 622-year regional temperature
history of southeast Tibet derived from tree rings” has been submitted to The Holocene.”
HenryP says:
November 23, 2011 at 9:31 am
…….You have to also look at the increase in maxima and minima
Note the correlation with the leaf area index, that I have picked up on…
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
___________________________
Henry, you really should cross post this stuff. That is what Willis Eschenbach has done and he ended up with a peer reviewed paper by the end of it. I hate seeing your work buried in the bottom of the comment section. Several people Like Bob Tissdale, George E. Smith (ChiefIO) Roy Spencer, and others cross post here to see that ideas get a wide exposure and a proper vetting.
The Thermostat Hypothesis: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
Tropical Tropospheric Amplification – an invitation to review this new paper: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/30/tropical-tropospheric-amplification-an-invitation-to-review-this-new-paper/
This is an extension of the ideas I laid out as the Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis on WUWT…. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/28/sense-and-sensitivity/
Willis publishes his thermostat hypothesis paper: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/willis-publishes-his-thermostat-hypothesis-paper/
Further Evidence for my Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/07/further-evidence-for-my-thunderstorm-thermostat-hypothesis/
I have just completed a 6 month contract engineering job. I developed a Quality Assurance plan, wrote the manual, revised about 40 detailed operational procedures…fought with the “Certification Agency” to demonstrate that we met their 40 page certification guideline.
I created and recieved over 4,000 Emails in that 6 months time.
I archived and indexed the 4,000 Emails, leaving them under a folder for the QA department, for ANYONE to review.
NOTHING in my PROFESSIONAL/Courteous Emails would be found that I would NOT PUBLISH TO THE WORLD! I NEVER put any emotion into my “professional work”. I never put anything that cannot be transparently justified as “fact”. I’m not afraid of discussion and “point by point” rebuttal or responses. I’m not afraid to say, “I think you will find according to section 14.0 of the Guide, paragraph 4, this sentence (I quote.) and would ask if this document and our section (?) do not meet this criteria.
The CHILDISH, petulent, silly, politically (translate, EMOTIONALLY) driven nature of these communications drive me NUTS!
These are written by people with NO FEAR OF GOD or MAN. This is a tragedy of first order. These people have no “higher authority” to respond to. Thus they behave as their own “Demigods”. We must strive to cut off their FUNDING, to allow them to “die on or off the vine” as it would be.
I have no sympathies for them. Also, at least in the “medical field” when people are found to engage in deliberate FRAUD they are: 1. Censured. 2. Loose academic positions, 3. Banned from further research or publication for periods of time. 4. Occassionally stripped of their Medical License. IT is to bad this cannot be done to the “climate scientists”. I would recommend that PHD granting Universities consider revoking PHDs for some of the more aggregious offenders!
Max
“(from her/his handle, claiming to be ‘A physicist’, but using only non-Physics arguments)”
The fellow calling himself “a physicist” used to frequent the PJMedia “Tatler” comments until he apparently got tired of having it pointed out that he never actually makes a scientific argument in favor of CAGW. His “arguments” are invariably logical fallacies and propaganda techniques: appeals to authority, appeals to the bandwagon, etc.
Kudos to the people here for recognizing his… quality… so quickly!
(BTW — weep that he apparently actually holds a PhD and a university position.)
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/foia2011-on-shameful-paper.html
Trenberth:
“I am just back from travel and I have not seen any of the new batch of emails yet. Whatever is there is highly selective.”
Ha ha. Have not seen it, but it’s ‘highly selective.’ Sounds a little like, “I haven’t read Donna’s book, but it’s terrible.”
Being on The Team means you don’t need to see any evidence. And if you do see it, it supports your position completely…
…or is Big Oil-funded denier quackery right-wing anti-science confusing the public.
That’s strange, since they previously said they expected to see a “hot spot” over the high-altitude tropics based on their model results. That “hot spot”, btw, has completely failed to materialize. So exactly what kind of new modeling behavior now demonstrates that whatever Arctic changes have been definitively observed is enough to declare the old models wrong?
This is basic goalpost movement behavior. “Oh that model doesn’t work, quickly create a new explanation for what we expect to see to confirm CAGW and make sure it agrees with what we see.”
RACookPE1978, the short answer is that the Arctic is a shallow ocean that is surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is a deep ocean that surrounds an island — two very different climatological set-ups. A longer answer is given on-line by the folks at SkepticalScience.
The longer answer is that science and skepticism equally serve humanity best when the most rational forms of skepticism are directed against the strongest scientific evidence.
What’s happening here on WUWT is that the least rational kinds of skepticism (namely, cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-chanting) are being directed against the weakest kinds of climate science (namely, theory-free curve-fitting to noisy observational data sets).
What that combination creates is a doubly-toxic public dialog that ill-serves our children’s generation.
@ur momisugly physicist:
Counting by billions, 8 is after 7. Your welcome.
A Physicist,
As you are so sure of the case of human caused global warming, a date boundary should be easy for your math skills to pass on to us of less knowledge.
Year 2030, 2070, 2100, some mark by you with your name on it for history to review in time.
“science and skepticism equally serve humanity best when the most rational forms of skepticism are directed against the strongest scientific evidence. ”
Of course. But I couldn’t find any strong scientific evidence in favour of AGW.
The strongest there is being the simple observations of Arrhenius but that tells us nothing of the system response to that which he observed. Everything since is just speculation unsupported by empirical data.
Nothing yet observed is outside the normal range of natural variability.
We owe it to our children to stop bad science. We also owe it to the energy poor around the world now and in the future.
Update 17: This is truly shocking. This is so clear cut that I would expect that Trenberth will have to resign or be fired somehow. This is because he is in the USA. Jones will stay on he is in Europa.