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
The chief medical officer fizzycist is to issue guidelines for people who want to keep breathing and have bodies
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-%26-technology/leaked-climate-emails-force-carbon-dioxide-to-resign-201111234578/
Is it normal behaviour for scientists to hire private investigators to dig the dirt on people who disagree with their work?
And why have the BBC gone straight to Mann and asked him for his views on these e-mails but not the person that Mann was proposing to nobble?
Odd
Rob Dekker says:
November 24, 2011 at 2:26 am
These bunched up greasy sploogemops and their neophytes have laughed at us, smeared us, vilified us and committed hate crimes against us for merely inquiring into their methodology, requiring replicability and questioning their inferences. The opportunity presents itself for some of us to let off steam and joke amongst ourselves over their privately expressed uncertainty, amongst other far less wholesome shenanigans, versus the public facade they have presented of the polar opposite.
I will take that opportunity. I will not blame others for doing the same, or worse.
As to your cited paper – how did the waters warm? Hairdryer + bath = aeons.
The junk is seriously beginning to smell now. Global delta T in stasis is insufficient to prevent the stench of zombie corruption.
Pete in Cumbria UK says:
November 24, 2011 at 3:43 am
The chief medical officer fizzycist is to issue guidelines for people who want to keep breathing and have bodies
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-%26-technology/leaked-climate-emails-force-carbon-dioxide-to-resign-201111234578/
That is priceless! 🙂
What seems surprising is how little interest the UK press seems to be taking in the story, Mostly, they seem to report the new leak and then refer to the old ones and how the “scientist” involved had been cleared of impropriety. These new and damning e-mails appear to have been discarded as irrelevant, Curious!
@ur momisugly FirstClassFool says:
November 23, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Little long, but clever and humorous.
crosspatch says:
November 23, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Good recap.
Small enough for “A Physicist” to laminate to carry around in his wallet.
For those that enjoy Thanksgiving – step away from your computer and have a great day.
And the temperatures in the above 80°N as been below normal during the ice melt season this year as well as last year. Antarctic sea ice has been growing. This is in-consistent with the theory of anthropogenically forced warming.
We have discussed this very thing already on this blog. Search the archives.
Ah but these aren’t just “some emails” now are they? These are emails that are in whole or in part owned by the taxpayers. They are a product manufactured while on our clock, using our equipment, processing our data. They also happen to be emails that were kept from their owners through a concerted effort of the perps involved. So moving on now, barely a day after these things were liberated is illogical, which is no doubt why you (AGW worshipper perhaps?) would suggest it.
Scientific arguments are constructed here every day, and night, 24.7.365. Since there is an extremely high level of intelligence and integrity among the people here you will find that they walk and chew gum at the same time just fine. In fact you should imagine WUWT as a massively parallel, multitasking and multithreaded universe as opposed to the cooperative multitasking one from whence you came. Your concern over WUWT spending time on ClimateGate 2.0 while duly noted, rings hollow.
Oh yeah, this bit: “I know it’s a lot harder to actually construct a scientific agument [sic] sustained by evidence …”, if you are talking about the AGW ‘Team’, I would have to agree fully. They do have this precise problem. In fact, that *is* the whole problem. They are very long on argument: (‘we’re gonna die‘), while completely devoid of evidence. All of the evidence as it comes along contradicts their arguments. It is they who have to work on that evidence thingie.
“Frankly, it is time that the tiny but well-connected and lavishly-funded clique that has been driving this scare from the outset realized that the science is in, the truth is out, the game is up and the scare is over.“ — Monckton of Brenchley [November 21, 2011 at 2:32 am] — mere hours before ClimateGate 2.0 occurred!
I just have to comment about that troll John Sidles that was identified thanks to Jeff C, Lance of BC, Rob Crawford, Dallas1965. If he isn’t the perfect example of the Peter Principle in action I don’t know what is. Or perhaps a cry for help really. I do feel very sad for those parents that are spending their dwindling resources on tuiton for their young’ins, and for the taxpayers at large that are extorted into financing this fiasco of tenuring crackpots.
But for those worried about his successful threadjack, let’s look at the bright side …
As I write this there are 901 posts on this thread.
The troll posted 32 (plus 3 more snipped).
He received 153 replies, none favorable that I can see.
Thus, we can call this Anatomy of an Epic Fail in light of his often stated anticipation of everyone leaving the skeptical camp to join him!
Long ago we saw this phenomenon play out in countless newsgroups before we had this web thingie. The phrase ‘Don’t feed the troll‘ originated there but many of us realized that a troll almost always defeats their own purpose, particularly when the ‘feeding’ is detailed hammering counter-arguments.
You see, (and pay attention now John if you’re lurking), he caused nearly a 5:1 ratio in increased posts to a thread at an enemy camp. Or stating it another way, his actions netted 121 more posts arguing against his, and the Hockey Team’s AGW position. They can’t win for losing! John Sidles directly added 121 more posts countering the AGW ‘consensus’ to the blogosphere all by himself, and this is only today at WUWT. There is no upside for the Team and the AGW cult at all.
Mann, Jones, Hansen and Sidles are sitting in a rowboat that is taking on water and sinking fast. Now imagine that for every bucket of water that the three stooges scoop out, our genius troll John Sidles dumps in five more. Way to go! And keep up the good work John, but somewhere else!
Apologies if this has already been done:
Here’s the freshly decoded Mime attachments to the Climategate 2011 emails
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IQEKC5SR
Looks like the MSM are stirring – this has just been picked up by the Daily Express here in UK.
CLIMATEGATE: LEAKED EMAILS SHOW SCIENTISTS MANIPULATED DATA ON GLOBAL WARMING
Link to article here…
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/285743/Climategate-Leaked-emails-show-scientists-manipulated-data-on-global-warming
[snip. O/T, trolling and threadjacking. -REP]
Rob Dekker says:
November 24, 2011 at 2:26 am
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.
Maybe someday Climate Science will generate just one “hypothesis” that is not “consistent with” everything that happens, and that therefore might actually assert something possibly factual? Instead of its usual functional nonsense = gibberish? As in:
“These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.”
Look, Rob, the extremely bland use of the term “consistent with” is actually telltale of the decrease in Arctic sea ice not being of any particular use in confirming CO2 = CAGW, as I and others have already noted above. So it is you who apparently knows nothing about the practice of real scientific method and principle science.
Climate Science will simply not let its “hypotheses” be contradicted by empirical evidence much less falsified, but instead just pushes on with trying to win a vague “perception is reality” Propaganda War by using every cynical Propaganda tactic known to man, including everything that happens being “consistent with” CO2 = CAGW, of course in isolation from everything else that has contradicted and even falsified the hypotheses involved.
So just what is your excuse for supporting Climate Science’s specifically anti-scientific “method” and its literal nonsense as compared to the real world?
The noble Climate Scientists are still trying to get just one empirical event to “prove” their “hypotheses” correct, which the decrease in Arctic sea ice doesn’t. But they don’t really care if they ever get anything right, because they are specifically not practicing real science.
Wake up!
Normal people do not wear orange shirts and huge bow ties.
The only sort of people who do are:
1. People who want people to think they are different and special. Those people are usually extroverts trapped in introverted lives. Such attire screams “look at me I’m different, treat me as special and superior”.
2. Clowns.
Make up your own minds and then for crying out loud stop feeding the troll.
What do sociologists say on climategate?
Interesting stuff!
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,694484,00.html
My last angry request. Could you PLEASE list accuweather as a TOP 100% WARMIST site. NOT ONE story on climategate 2 Pluuuuzzzz!!!!. You are doing a disservice to science by allowing them to be tagged as lukewarmers
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/Science
thank you
Jason says:
November 24, 2011 at 6:39 am
“Make up your own minds and then for crying out loud stop feeding the troll.”
“Troll”? When they’re giving Climate Science’s very best, er, arguments?
Blade says:
November 24, 2011 at 5:46 am
Mann, Jones, Hansen and Sidles are sitting in a rowboat that is taking on water and sinking fast. Now imagine that for every bucket of water that the three stooges scoop out, our genius troll John Sidles dumps in five more. Way to go! And keep up the good work John, but somewhere else!
Nice analogy Blade, except while the boat is taking on water,
these guys are trying to scoop out CO2!
🙂
http://memegenerator.net/cache/instances/400x/11/11359/11632170.jpg
Now we got rid of the Fizzy Cyst, how about back to the program?
#1393:
If you want the paleo information spread around all chapters, you need people with paleo expertise on each chapter – and more than one person. Unfortunately, most colleagues dealing with modern climate still have little knowledge about paleo issues.
#5131
I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large
errors in simulating the statistics of regional (climate) that we are
not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for “action”
at regional scale. I am not referring to mitigation, I am strictly
referring to science based adaptation.
For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building the
city of New Orleans – or more generally about the habitability of the
Gulf-Coast – using climate models which have serious deficiencies in
simulating the strength, frequency and tracks of hurricanes.
Is “A physicist” Michael Mann?
A physicist who lost his fizz? He needs to pump himself back up w/CO2…
[REPLY: No he is not. The troll has been already been outed and routed and he is NOT TCO, Dr. Mann or Professor Mandia. -REP]
This one made me laugh, Consensus? Where? 1953.txt
Tim,
> I have had a reply from Barbara saying I have until mid-Dec.
> I had to go to London yesterday and I took the file with me. I began by
> reading what I’d written before and looked at Michael’s report. I can’t
> really face up to writing more. Barbara wants two things :
>
> 1) What IPCC has concluded ?
> 2) What are Michael’s main points ?
>
> (2) is very difficult to summarise. I’m not sure what points he’s trying
> to make his science is so bad. If this paper were submitted to any
> reasonable peer-review journal it would not see the light of day.
>
> (1) IPCC concluded an awful lot – the best any reader can do is to
> read its summary. I made reference to this in my piece.
>
> I’ll accept your offer of a letter if you swing it.
>
> I’m away all next week in Crete !
>
> Cheers
> Phil
> Dr Phil Jones
Oh, BOY ~ I think I may have struck GOLD!
Do not forget Friday Mukamperezida: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/
At http://foia2011.org I searched for worldbank.org and found 32 e-mails going back as far as 1998. I have only looked at three so far. Looks like the good old World Bank may be something of a puppet master.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4628
Summary for Policymakers to: Rwatson
Dear Bob, [Robert Watson of World Bank]
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to react to your thinking. It forces us to think more clearly about the main messages. I must admit that I am somewhat confused about the 26 page summary, since this comes very close to (although it is different from) the full-scale document the various teams are currently writing. My view would be that those teams take their own text as the starting point and try to improve/shorten it on the basis of your text. Here, I only respond to your main messages in italics and mainly focus on WG3 issues…..
Question 2:
I would not include a WG3 paragraph, like “The Kyoto Protocol has led to the
creation of new market mechanisms”……
Long but worth reading. Seems Robert Watson of the World Bank was TELLING good old Rajendra Pachauri and the crowd what to put into the Summary for Policymakers
I wonder what the crowd at Occupy Wall Street would think of this e-mail?
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4953
is about drumming up CAGW projects for the “USAID on the Supplemental Grant Program” and R. Watson at the World Bank is copied.
Here is another goodie where Kenneth M. Chomitz of the World Bank is interfering with how a peer reviewed journal is run.
So it seems the Professional journals are also getting direction from the World Bank.
Climategate the present that just gives and gives. I can not wait to get back to the other 29 e-mails.
My search is here: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4&search=worldbank.org&sisea_offset=0
Sven says:
November 24, 2011 at 6:44 am
What do sociologists say on climategate?
Interesting stuff!
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,694484,00.html
Yes, it’s narrative is interesting and even valuable, imo.
But what appeared at first glance to be fraud was actually merely a face-saving fudge: Tree-ring data indicates no global warming since the mid-20th century, and therefore contradicts the temperature measurements. The apparently erroneous tree data was thus corrected by the so-called “trick” with the temperature graphs.
Uh-huh, so in the current world of Sociology it’s not fraud to “correct” the inconvenient data behind the very Icon of CO2 = CAGW itself? Demonstrating that the “method” behind Climate Science is to never allow its “hypotheses” to be or even appear to be falsified in favor of its “perception is reality”, “consistent with” everything that happens, “anything goes” Propaganda Operation “science”?
Yes, the article’s narrative is interesting and contains a lot of good stuff, but it appears the Sociologists are indulging in a bit of postnormal shaping and modeling themselves. They gave credence to what is nothing more than just another run of the mill Apocalyptic pronouncement, didn’t mention its already massive deleterious effects, and never did refer very approvingly to the practice of real science’s very clear method and principles, at least beyond someone else’s call for complete transparency as the way out of the narrative’s apparent attempt to “equalize” the ~”warring camps”.
When the issue is that amongst everything else going on, one side is not practicing real science and the other is, and Sociologists should be able to recognize this. Back around 1964 the Sociologist, David Reisman, did in fact anticipate this Sociological shift in Individualism Reconsidered where he noticed a shift from “inner directed”, inherently principled individualistic thinking, to “other directed”, arbitrary groupist thinking in America. That’s all Climate Science is, a play on pre-Enlightenment groupthink.
So the current Sociologists apparently think the latter is what they are supposed to do, too, in raising up Climate Science via their own Sociology, that a little face-saving fudge against reality is ok?
While Mann and Co. were stone walling FOIA’s from sceptics, it seems the “Team” was very happy to give the World Bank RAW DATA fast!
You have to read the entire group of e-mails lots of other juicy bits on temp data uncertainty but here is the info on just how fast the rats jump when it is the World Bank who comes calling.