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
[snip. O/T, and endless threadjacking.]
Please snip all further posts by a physicist until he addresses the post with substance.
I would love to a fly on the wall a the Department of Energy. WHO likes the idea hiding the raw data.
Briffa in 2944.txt apparently concerning an audit of “98 and or 99 work in light of M and M”
Anthony or mods:
Since not one word I have read coming out of “A physicist”‘s typing fingers having to do with physics could you please snip any further comments referencing “slogan-chanting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting”, no matter who is propagating it? Enough insults.
He is clearly speaking of himself but using diversion tactics. (propaganda rule #13)
April First, 2009?
David Ball, was not speaking of you! Sorry you thought that. Simply agreeing that this man (or boy, or lady) has gotten out-of-line, over-the-top. I can tolerate these persona’s insults but only to a point and he is way past it.
wayne, appreciate your reply. They do not realize how very revealing their posts are. Was looking at your links as well. Interesting,…..
In 2336.txt we have Ben Matthews of UEA in 1997 mailing around a story to “Use the story to campaign for your workplace, university, school or town to use less fossil fuels. This could fit it with Local Agenda 21”
Of course, it appears the “bad guy” is Uncle Sam. Quite a display of political activism from someone’s official account. Is that generally allowed in the UK?
5107.txt is Julie Burgess wondering if an email from an activist organization might be of interest to anyone as she blasts it out to everyone at CRU:
And it is filled with the usual “watermelon organization” (green on the outside, red on the inside) buzzwords.
Do they have a web page that automatically generates some of these phrases like the old “web economy B.S. generator” had? “macro interdisciplinary” indeed!
Thread behavior comments:
1. I am ASTOUNDED that people are still responding to the troll named “A Physicist.” He IS a troll, identified by several people here, but not many have paid attention.
PEOPLE: STOP RESPONDING TO THE IDIOT.
YOU ARE LETTING HIM HIJACK THIS POST. PLEASE STOP.
It has been a PAIN, seeing so many of you let him drag you into pointless off-topic discussions that go nowhere.
2. More than a few comments mention “One of the emails said…” or something like that. On behalf of myself and everyone else, please NOTE THE NUMBER OF THE EMAIL IN YOUR COMMENT..
Just for fun, repeat, courtesy Lewis Carrol.
The Hippie and the Corpulent
or
Ode to WUWT and Steve to WUWT and Steve
The sun was shining on the earth,
Dimming with all his might:
He did his very best to make
Mann’s reason really bright–
And this was odd, because it seems
At Starbucks there’s no light.
The profs were griping sulkily,
Because they thought no one
Had got business probing them
After the fraud was done–
“It’s very rude of Steve,” they said,
“To come and spoil the fun!”
The sea was huge as wet could be,
The deserts still were dry.
The winds were swirling
Just the same,
As reason passed us by.
The questioners were honest,
The scientists would lie.
Hippie and the Corpulent
Were surfing on the net
They wept like anything to see
That Wall Street’s just a bet.
“If we could only scare the world”
They said, “we’d get their debt!”
“Oh greenies come and surf with us”
Hansen did beseech
A simple trick, a mindless trip
In Google Earth’s fake reach.
We cannot do with more than four
To give a mil to each.
The sober thinkers looked at him
But not a word they said
“We need to get off foreign oil.
Who cares what’s in his head?
I’m sure our ends are similar,
But we’re not easily led.”
But four researchers hurried up
All eager for the trick
Their thinking stoned, their tactics honed,
Their ethics mostly sick–
And this was RIGHT, because you know,
extortion is a kick!
Four other dreamers followed them
And yet another four,
And thick and fast they came at last,
The media and more!
All looking for a Brand New Car,
And dreamily at Gore.
Hansen and the Goracle
slouched on a year or so.
And then they stooped down from the heights,
Conveniently low.
And all the little acolytes
just waited in a row.
“The time has come”, the UN said,
“To pay for many things.
For sycophants and secret clubs
To fly and live like kings.
And private jets and Switzerland,
Rapt groupies in the wings.”
“But wait a bit”, the public cried,
“Before we pass the hat,
We all are in foreclosure
And the future’s fallen flat!”
“Panic!”, said the Goracle
“Steve’s nose can smell a rat!”
“Hockey sticks and subterfuge
Are what we chiefly need.
Disable all reality,
This hoax we have to feed!
Some geeks are adding all this up,
Prohibit all that screed!”
“But don’t tax US”, the public said,
“We have to think this through!
Our math, so bad, but we can add,
Our earnings go to you!”
“The ice is gone!”, Jim Hansen screamed,
“Next summer, we’ll be through!
Real Climate thanked the remnant
and silenced all the rest.
For what use are the numbers,
when Gaia serves you best?
It failed to pay upon the day
the mole poop fouled the nest!
“It’s such a thrill”, the thinkers said,
“To roust them from their dumps,
Of simple tricks and media
That kicked us in the rumps.
We will not stop until their ilk
Has taken all their lumps.”
“We laugh at you”, the people said,
“We do not sympathize!
Unearthing all your data
Has opened up our eyes.
The blogosphere is EVERYONE
you need a good disguise!”
“Oh peons”, said the media
You fail to see the light,
“The hoax goes on, the stocks are pawns,
the planet’s in a plight!
If we can’t fool you one more time
we will resort to might”.
And then the savior stepped up
to cover all our sin.
“The planet first, the world is theirs,
we never planned to win.
I think that math and all that stuff,
are subject to my whim!”
The people saw the UN
had made a secret scheme
to grab it all in pretense
of making a new meme.
When really all they wanted,
was our financial cream.
The rest is up to you, dumb geeks,
the battle almost won.
Will we surrender common sense
or thank the quiet sun?
Thank EVERYONE who looks around.
and Watts is number ONE!
I think the DoE mail pretty well shows us who the master pupeteer is. I am sure you all remember the youtube video where president after president in the US speaks of how important it it for the US to stop the dependence of oil.
President after president. All the way back to the 50’ies. But nothing happened.
Their problem was that fossil fuels are so cheap. So their solution is to make it artificially expensive.
With taxes.
That, in their mind, will force research and development on reneewables. They dont want to wait for it to happen through free markeds. That is, when fossile fuels gets scarce, the price goes up.
So, they need to tell the public that there is a reason for tax increase.
Hence, CO2.
Is it just me or did the ads in this page suddenly became processor hogs?
FD
paulsNZ says:
November 23, 2011 at 9:11 pm
“I would love to a fly on the wall at the Department of Energy. WHO likes the idea hiding the raw data.”
>>>
Staffer: Uhmmm, Secretary Chu ?, do you have a minute to meet behind closed doors ?
Chu: What is it now ? ..another Solyndra debacle ?
Staffer: I rather discuss it with you confidentially ?
Chu: No time, can’t you see we already have too many fires to put out ?
Staffer: We’ve had another email release…
Chu: On what ? Bright Source, SunPower, Keystone ??? ..which one ?
Staffer: No sir, five thousand more emails of a “Climategate” nature…
Chu: I thought we took care of that ? ..I thought we hid the data ??
Staffer: Sir, they seem to be rather damning… ..what would like me to do ?
Chu: Just bury it until after the election. Call what’s his name – – “A physicist” to start spinning it……..
Phil Jones has replied on CRU
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/phrasesexplained
‘Phrases Explained’ – : Perfect for those that want to be patronised.
Addundum:
“I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show the warming.”
Phrase Explained :
The full email exchange reveals that we were choosing colours for a chart covering periods that showed warming.
Just imagine, there are another 1/4 million emails to misinterpret, and to throw mud at scientists. WUWT has a bright future.
Normally I would not do this because I do not use the F-word, but it zooms in on interesting emails like a homing pigeon. Use it for a search word to get some emotive emails like this one, whose second last line could make quote of the week:
cc: Tim Osborn
date: Mon Dec 16 08:52:20 2002
from: Keith Briffa
subject: Re: Manuscript Files
to: Ed Cook
ED sorry I thought the text had already been sent. I attach it.
Re the modelling fucking up the recent submissions – I am sending you (later today) also a
couple of proposals we have just had funded. Is it possible you can include some analysis
of the these model runs (albeit from European Modelling institutes?). As you can see , the
only plans in this context are to do 500 year runs , but they incorporate control, natural
, and natural+anthropogenic runs. You can argue that the common “natural ” runs use
forcings that may not be correct (ie land use change is a problem in my opinion , and the
volcanic forcing put together by Tom Crowley could be disputed), but virtually the same
forcings are used in both models and this allows inter-model sensitivities to be examined.
You can have access to these results and anyway you are explicitly a collaborator on these
contracts . We would need to talk about who would do analyses of the model/data but this
might offer something alternative to deflect the model critics over there – this is
probably a model group conflict thing. best wishes
Keith
At 11:31 AM 12/13/02 -0500, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Did you intend only to send me the figures and not the ms? Send me the ms to if you can.
Otherwise, I can’t proceed with my review of it.
I think that you are off the INQUA hook. I thought that the Organizing Committee had
accepted my proposed symposium on supra-long tree-ring chronologies based on email with
them last Spring. Of course I have done fuck-all on it since which may have been just as
well. I went to the INQUA website today ([1]http://inqua2003.dri.edu/symposia.htm) and
did not find any reference to my proposed symposium. So I guess it is not going to
happen. Probably I should have contacted them before to let them know that I was still
intending to do it. Anyway, it is almost certainly too late now. I must say that I am
not shedding any tears over it. I’ve got much too much to do and have been receiving a
number of proposal rejections lately that have me a bit depressed. That includes the big
drought proposal with you and Tim as sub-contractors. We got fucked because of the
modelling part again. The proposal will be re-submitted to ESH on Jan 15.
Cheers,
Ed
—
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
I think it is important to understand why this happend and still is happening?
As I see it “The Team” is just an effect of a political established doctrine.
It is politicians that established(1992) the UNFCCC, UN convention on climatic change. And since they have spend more than 10 billions USD each year to support their political established UNFCCC convention.
Its mostly ideology that is controlling science. Or science based on politics and policy.
Not what the age of enlightment is about. Politics and policy based on science.
In that context the real sinners and problem for democracy are the people behind and supporting the UNFCCC politically and with lots lots of money.
You guys seem to spend a lot of energy expressing your opinion on something as modaine as email exchanges between scientists, but slet me remind you that cientists actually publish their findings in the open. So here is one of the latest to contemplate :
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
I know it’s a lot harder to actually construct a scientific agument sustained by evidence, than it is to simply vent an opinion about some emails, but maybe at least some of you can actually go beyond mere slander and come up with a scientific reasoning that addresses something more than taking emails out of context.
Steve Garcia says:
November 23, 2011 at 10:23 pm
“Thread behavior comments:
1. I am ASTOUNDED that people are still responding to the troll named “A Physicist.” He IS a troll, identified by several people here, but not many have paid attention.
PEOPLE: STOP RESPONDING TO THE IDIOT.”
Willis Eschenbach started it Steve!
November 23, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Best advice? DFTT, Don’t Feed The Trolls. and then Willis Eschenbach @ur momisugly
November 23, 2011 at 6:37 pm fed him!
Naughty, naughty boy Willis! Go stand in that corner! 😉
@wayne
November 23, 2011 at 7:52 pm
I read your link…now I have another thread to track!!! My time spent behind the computer is growing exponentially. (Should I fit these two observations with an exponential, polynomial, sigmoidal, Weibull, other?)
My further point to all this nonsense model fitting for folks that don’t believe it truly is nonsense at the core: If model building based on backcasting predicted the future there would be a lot more Wall Street Millionaires. Why don’t we have accurate models to predict the stock market? There are certainly underlying principles governing the ebb and flow of stocks…and we have excellent historical stock data. In fact this data is far superior to any climate data that exists. It’s real data, collected in real time…not proxy data. We also have data of the environment in which the stock values fluctuate (socio-economic factors,political climate, etc). And yet there isn’t one model that can predict the future. Not one. Why? Nobody in the world would like to predict future stock values? Nobody tried? No…it’s because you can’t predict the future with a model because you don’t know all the underlying factors, interactions of those factors, etc. and most likely never will. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle guarantees that at some level (usually the quantum level) you can’t know all factors with certainty. (For those that don’t know this principle it states you can either know the momentum or the position of a particle but not both at the same time)
There is clearly no evidence that the thermal characteristics of human emissions of CO2 have any measurable effect on global temperature equilibrium.
The bickering between scientists revealed in the emails provides proof of that.
Most of the comments in the emails relate to efforts to maintain the cause in spite of the lack of evidence.
“and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.”
Consistency with an unproven hypothesis has no value in itself. Correlation is not causation. The observations are also consistent with a more active late 20th century sun causing more zonal jets producing less clouds, more solar energy into the oceans, stronger El Ninos, more warm water flowing under the Arctic ice and so less ice.
I favour that explanation.