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
I would like to applaud Michael E Mann’s use of the term ‘contrarian’. I don’t view ‘denier’ as offensive though many do and it is intriguing to see that Mann appears to have taken that view on board.
Ah yes, the way of the climate skeptic. Read snippets, alert the press, but do not read the full text the snippets came from, in case the fuller context reveals the snippets to be distortions of what was actually meant.
But I’m a poor climate skeptic. My bias for fact-finding made me google for the full emails and replies. Lo! It was just as I feared – the snippets were distortions of the authors’ meaning, and the fuller context gave the lie to the original impression.
I will try to mend my ways, and pass on the quotes without checking the full context, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, not provide links to the full email the snippets come from.
Context is nothing. Quote mining = truth.
Rob Dekker says:
November 24, 2011 at 2:26 am
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
Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. 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.
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
REPLY
While there is evidence the Atlantic ocean has warmed and flows towards the sinks near and around the Arctic ocean, this is nothing new. The AMO shows this multidecadal timescales and has warmed and cooled before. This has nothing do with anthropogenically forced warming, there is no evidence CO2 has caused this trend and is just conjecture,
The AMO is an Atlantic ocean based cycle and has been warming as it should at this stage.
fhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg/300px-Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg.png
Shows typically known sinks around the Arctic ocean where warm water (red) is surface current and blue (cold) deep flow (that has sunk)
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/oceanus/GlobeCurrentsMap_550_47170.jpg
Raymond S. Bradley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_S._Bradley
responding to Frank Oldfield http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/thompson/Frank.pdf
# 157 Dated: 10 Jul 2000 Dated
…..”Unfortunately, the proxy network we used has not been updated, and furthermore there are many/some/
tree ring sites where there has been a “decoupling” between the long-term
relationship between climate and tree growth, so that things fall apart in
recent decades….this makes it very difficult to demonstrate what I just
claimed. We can only call on evidence from many other proxies for
“unprecedented” states in recent years (e.g. glaciers, isotopes in tropical
ice etc..). But there are (at least) two other problems — Keith Briffa
points out that the very strong trend in the 20th century calibration
period accounts for much of the success of our calibration and makes it
unlikely that we would be able be able to reconstruct such an extraordinary
period as the 1990s with much success (I may be mis-quoting him somewhat,
but that is the general thrust of his criticism). Indeed, in the
verification period, the biggest “miss” was an apparently very warm year in
the late 19th century that we did not get right at all. This makes
criticisms of the “antis” difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen
to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the
scent”). Furthermore, it may be that Mann et al simply don’t have the
long-term trend right, due to underestimation of low frequency info. in the
(very few) proxies that we used. We tried to demonstrate that this was not
a problem of the tree ring data we used by re-running the reconstruction
with & without tree rings, and indeed the two efforts were very similar —
but we could only do this back to about 1700. Whether we have the 1000
year trend right is far less certain (& one reason why I hedge my bets on
whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been
“warm”, to the irritation of my co-authors!). So, possibly if you crank up
the trend over 1000 years, you find that the envelope of uncertainty is
comparable with at least some of the future scenarios, which of course begs
the question as to what the likely forcing was 1000 years ago. (My money is
firmly on an increase in solar irradiance, based on the 10-Be data..).
Another issue is whether we have estimated the totality of uncertainty in
the long-term data set used — maybe the envelope is really much larger,
due to inherent characteristics of the proxy data themselves….again this
would cause the past and future envelopes to overlap.”…..
“I would like to applaud Michael E Mann’s use of the term ‘contrarian’”
Not so fast. English is a subtle language.
The epithet ‘contrary’ (pronounced ‘contrairy’ as in ‘fairy’) implies disagreeing for the sake of it without regard to the facts.
It is a less honest way of saying ‘denier’.
Alix, I really think you need to read this: (loons yes, but they are here… here now….)
Eeek. Looks like that not only have the lunatics started running the asylum, but they actually designed, built and staffed it as well.
Rich, you quote Michael Mann’s email about the MCA:
You asked
Did you google for the full email?
It was written in 2006. Look up Mann’s work prior to 2006, and see if what he says in the email is inconsistent with his professional output.
No, Mann does not suggest NH MCA was probably cooler than now based on hemispheric differences, but on regional differences in the NH.
—————————————————————————————————-
I tell you what, unless a link to the original, full email accompanies any more snippets, I’m not going to bother. Lack of such tells me the contributor is only interested in the noise, not the signal, and that it will probably be pointless replying. The few I’ve already checked out give me no confidence that any actual smoking guns will be unearthed.
ate: Sat Nov 4 16:45:25 2000
from: Mike Hulme
subject: Fwd: BP funding
to: barker,vira
Any idea who at Cambridge has been benefitting from this BP money?
Mike
From: “Simon J Shackley”
Organization: umist
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:44:09 GMT
Subject: BP funding
Reply-to: Simon.Shackley@umist.ac.uk
CC: robin.smith@umist.ac.uk,
brian.launder@umist.ac.uk
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a)
dear TC colleagues
looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from
this largesse? I wonder who has received this money within Cambridge
University?
Cheers, Simon
17) BP, FORD GIVE $20 MILLION FOR PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
EMISSIONS
STUDY
Auto.com/Bloomberg News
October 26, 2000
Internet: [1]http://www.auto.com/industry/iwirc26_20001026.htm
LONDON — BP Amoco Plc, the world’s No. 3 publicly traded oil
company, and Ford Motor Co. said they will give Princeton
University $20 million over 10 years to study ways to reduce
carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. BP said it will give
$15 million. Ford, the world’s second-biggest automaker, is
donating $5 million. The gift is part of a partnership between the
companies aimed at addressing concerns about climate change.
Carbon dioxide is the most common of the greenhouse gases believed
to contribute to global warming.
London-based BP said it plans to give $85 million in the next
decade to universities in the U.S. and U.K. to study environmental
and energy issues. In the past two years, the company has pledged
$40 million to Cambridge University, $20 million to the University
of California at Berkeley and $10 million to the University of
Colorado at Boulder.
So who benefits from big oil?
JonasM says:
November 24, 2011 at 9:36 am
WTF????
Email 4659.txt
date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:49:11 -0700
from: Spiritual Leader of the Global Community
subject: Planetary biodiversity zone under the protection of the GPA
__________________
Unfortunately I think it is for real.
Dr. Robert T. Watson, Chief Scientist and Director, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, the World Bank., the guy in the e-mails I mentioned, (Former IPCC chair)
The plan in the USA was called the “Wildlands Project” MAP: http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/wildlands_project_map-_us-_or.htm (Green is where people are allowed)
Info on the bills: http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/YNTKwildlandsproject_table.htm
It has not died….
Rewilding Institute http://rewilding.org/rewildit/the-science-behind-continental-scale-conservation/the-need-for-roadless-wilderness-cores/
http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoviews/ecoview060319.htm
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=77497531-2B35-221B-69365BD2F8F3AF8B
http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article/?id=643
As far as I can tell the elite want to turn North American into one large Hunting Preserve like the kings and nobles of old had. They even want to bring back “Pleistocene” fauna! http://www.rewilding.org/pleistocene_rewilding.html
More Soylent Green
If the action is a matter of principle, he won’t.
#0497 is an interesting one, Phil Jones angry at Mike Mann for slagging off CRU in “Science”:
cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, rbradley@geo.umass.edu
date: Thu, 06 May 1999 17:37:34 +0100
from: Phil Jones
subject: Straight to the Point
to: mann@snow.geo.umass.edu
Mike,
Just back from two weeks away and from discussions with Keith
and Tim and some emails you seem quite pissed off with us
all in CRU. I am somewhat at a loss to understand why. It is
clear from the emails that this relates to the emphasis placed
on a few words/phrases in Keith/Tim’s Science piece. These may not
be fully resolved but the piece comes out tomorrow. I don’t want
to open more wounds but I might by the end of the email.
I’ve not seen the censored email that Ray has mentioned but this
doesn’t, to my way of working, seem to be the way you should be
responding – ie slanging us all off to Science. We are all
trying to work together for the good of the ‘Science’. We have
disagreements – Ray, Malcolm, Keith and me have in the past,
but they get aired and eventually forgotten. We have never
resorted to slanging one another off to a journal ( as in this
case) or in reviewing papers or proposals. You may think Keith
or I have reviewed some of your papers but we haven’t. I’ve
reviewed Ray’s and Malcolm’s – constructively I hope where I
thought something could have been done better. I also know
you’ve reviewed my paper with Gabi very constructively.
So why all the beef now ?
Maybe it started with my Science piece last summer. When asked
to do this it was stressed to that I should discuss how your
Nature paper fitted in to the current issues in
paleoclimatology. This is what I thought I was doing. Julia
Uppenbrink asked me to do the same with your GRL paper but
I was too busy and passed it on to Keith. Again it seems a
very reasoned comment.
I would suspect that you’ve been unhappy about us coming out
with a paper going back 1000 years only a few months after
your Nature paper (back to 1400). Ray knew all about this as
he was one of the reviewers. Then the second Science comment
has come out with a tentative series going back 2000 years.
Both Science pieces give us a chance to discuss issues highly
relevant to the ‘science’, which is what we have both tried to
do.
Anyway that’s enough for now – I’ll see how you’ll respond,
if at all.
There are two things I’m going to say though :
1) Keith didn’t mention in his Science piece but both of us
think that you’re on very dodgy ground with this long-term
decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. What
the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what
it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic
forcing are two very different things. I don’t think the
world was much warmer 6000 years ago – in a global sense
compared to the average of the last 1000 years, but this is
my opinion and I may change it given more evidence.
2) The errors don’t include all the possible factors. Even
though the tree-ring chronologies used have robust rbar
statistics for the whole 1000 years ( ie they lose nothing
because core numbers stay high throughout), they have lost
low frequency because of standardization. We’ve all tried
with RCS/very stiff splines/hardly any detrending to keep
this to a minimum, but until we know it is minimal it is
still worth mentioning. It is better we ( I mean all of us
here) put the caveats in ourselves than let others put them
in for us.
3) None of us here are trying to get material into IPCC. I’ve
given you my input through the review of the chapter in
Asheville. I may get a chance to see the whole thing again
at some stage, but I won’t be worried if I don’t.
I can’t think of a good ending, but hoping for a favourable
response, so we can still work together.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
barry says : “My bias for fact-finding made me google for the full emails and replies. Lo! It was just as I feared – the snippets were distortions of the authors’ meaning, and the fuller context gave the lie to the original impression.”
I, and no doubt others here, have noted that you provided no supporting information in your comment. Present the information that supports what you say, and I (and I am sure, we) will listen.
barry says:
“If the action is a matter of principle, he won’t.”
barry, you are ethically blind. Michael Mann has no principles. None. Climategate 1 & 2 prove that beyond any doubt.
And your “hemispherical MCA” is an Orwellian fantasy. The global MWP has mountains of supporting evidence showing that it was a global event. Historical revisionism began with Mann’s bogus Hokey Stick, which has been thoroughly debunked.
Everywhere I have read comments about CG2 there are alarmists chanting the “context” mantra.
It’s as if they feel they can disregard all of the CG2 by pretending every email and quote is taken out of context.
Of course only they know what the correct “context”. And without their explanation CG2 is meaningless.
Hey alarmists,
We can read and the “context” in most cases is not elusive or needing anything from you. So enough already.
I’m pretty sure all of us non-alarmists grasp the notion of “context”. Just as we easily understood “weather is not climate” long before that stupid chant of yours began.
Now shut up with the “context” crap and tell us something useful.
Like where the ocean is acidic.
I might actually start believing in Santa Claus again: Whomever got ahold of 1/4 million emails from under the noses of the ‘best and brightest’ has the stuff of legedary status. NOT.
Somebody (ranking very high in the upper eschalons) took the lone lifeboat and watches, as the rest of them go down with the ship. There is a hint of who is doing this in the emails across CG Email releases. This person is in plain sight, and extremely shrewd, picking just the right blend of exchanges.
Lance of BC says:
November 23, 2011 at 1:03 pm
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually John Sidles is a medical physicist. I wonder if he ever worked for the Clinical research organization Cetero Research.
Gail,
Thanks for your: November 24, 2011 at 2:06 pm post. I am sure the folks advising Mr. Putin, or the party leadership in China, would be interested in having someone at the UN tell them what to do in regards to development…. That “Principle 2: “National sovereignty is subject to international law . . . ;” might cause a few nations some consternation
M
Being a physicist myself, I can recognize one when I see one, and A Physicist simply falls way short. So let me make this simple for you.
1. Mathematics is a tool. Great mathematics cannot make bad science true. Fortunately all scientific hypotheses must be rigorously tested by the tenants of the scientific method.
2. The ONLY “evidence” of a future warming given a certain rise in atmospheric CO2 is based on global climate models. But models themselves are actually a “hypothesis”, subject to falsification, and must be tested empirically. So far the models are complete failures. They are simply too crude and do not accurately represent the non-linear and chaotic nature of the earth’s climate. But don’t take my word for that. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., an internationally recognized climate scientist with peer reviewed published papers on the subject AND a non-skeptic will tell you the same thing. Dr. Pielke says:
“Global and regional climate models have not demonstrated skill at predicting regional and local climate change and variability on multi-decadal time scales”.
Pielke is not the only scientist coming to this conclusion. From Koutsoyiannis et al 2011
“….we tested whether the model outputs are consistent with reality (which reflects the entire variability, due to combined natural and anthropogenic effects). Our results extend Huard’s statements further. Specifically, we show that, climate models are not only unable to predict the variability of climate, but they are also unable to reproduce even the means of temperature and rainfall in the past.”
Huard 2011:
“under constant external forcing, TAR and AR4 simulations have no predictive skill whatsoever on the chronology of events beyond the annual cycle. A climate projection is thus not a prediction of climate, it is an experiment probing the model’s response to change in GHG concentrations”
“However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms.”
So in term you can understand, A Physcist, the models suck. The alarming predictions of a future temperature increase are pure junk.
3. Mann’s hockey stick graph is pure crap. The climategate emails are just another nail in the coffin. Plus, tree ring proxies are poor indicators of historic temperatures. Mann and his ilk tried to get rid of the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age because they needed a crisis. But the fact is that today’s temperatures are in no way unusual by any means as other more accurate proxies have indicated (and as well as historical records have indicated)
So, in summary. We don’t have a temperature crisis, and absolutely no scientific evidence of a future warming given a rise in CO2.
So put up or shut-up, A Physicist, and take your silly math and stuff it (like a turkey).
[snip]
Peter Whale,
The feedback of Big Oil funding is entirely dependent on who receives it!
When Geoff Jenkins bags $1million or more for UEA the effect is positive.
When Willie Soon gets some the effect is negative.
The albedo of cash is variable depending on the location of the pocket it goes into.
From email 0277:
“Re funding: we took $1M from a bunch of oil companies (inc EXXON) via IPIECA about 10 years ago. We used it to come up with the first estimate of the second indirect cooling effect of aerosol on predictions. I have to say that at no time did we come under any even slight pressure to get us to say or omit anything in papers we wrote. Of course in Soon’s case they already knew where he stood, so I guess could be confident that he would use their money to come up with more sceptical stuff.”
What’s so bonkers with all these self proclaimed climate experts is the fact that it is so little about the climate of weather and instead to use their positions of ad hoc de facto authority to pervert the free market, and, the science and research communities.
From one email to Hulme this starter network analysis can be done:
CSIRO->by post retirement CSIRO fellow->at the time IPCC author->who uses his son whom is a leading staff member at WWF OZ->Who’s coworker is a WWF staff member who is on CSIRO sector advisory committee with other industry people. Following through with the other csiro fellows this email was cc:d to and it connect to other NGO’s as well not least because they to were included by the IPCC. Coincidentally the same people did influence the emissions trading scheme in OZ.
In other emails to Hulme one finds the intricate colluding with the gelatinous brain slugs (suckling your reason away from you) from Greenpeace to, but of course, have ExxonMobil loose market shares, to the benefit of such righteous corporations such as BP and Shell–both seemingly to have come onboard the ship called “the cause” quiet early on it seems (when did they notice they were running out of oil really? to get going on supplements). Maybe it’s not such a wonder that Greenpeace, and WWF for that matter, was so quiet come the BP’s Gulf disaster, since they’ve been a boon to each other for so long and BP’s very own NGO.
It gets all very funny though when a brain slug is to support the very Prince “miller time” Phillip on trying to best the evil-because-by-bad-oil-supported people of the, apparently, too cold, Anchorage.
To say the, by tax, lavishly funded IPCC induced climatological community is a tight nit community is like saying there’s only five fingers on each hand but they both support each other.
Mike Jonas @ur momisugly here,
The irony here is sharp! You have quoted only a part of my post. Allow me to repeat a bit you chose to omit from your snippeting.
I have read a thread of x hundred posts, almost all that quoted the emails failing to provide links to the full email (easily sourced from here). In the post you commented on, I was mocking the Way of the Climate Skeptic. I am glad you have a problem with it, but somehow your criticism only applied to me, not the other x hundred comments upthread. Think about why that might be.
Each of the quotes in the article at the top of this page could easily have a link to the original appended. None do. So I had to do some searching. Now it’s my responsibility to provide links and context?
Why the hell should I bother? The faithful here will quote mine and avoid context, and post outrage on decontextualised snippets. I’m not going to try any harder than they are. I’ll just note what I observed and you and maybe others will all of a sudden develop a desire for substance and context over innuendo.
But that is how this all should have started. Asking me to suddenly ‘do the right thing’ is putting the cart before the horse.
And that is why my post had no referencing – to make the point.
If you’re genuine (which I doubt), choose the first quote at the top of this page, from the article, provide a link to the full email, and tell me how you interpret the quote within the full context. If you do that, I’ll definitely reply and do the same with the second quote. This is the only way I know how to gauge your sincerity – if you do exactly this.
The conversation could take time, but unearthing the truth – being properly skeptical – usually does.
Smokey,
as usual, your comments are ruined by simple errors of fact.
The hockey stick wasn’t about global temps, only NH. There were no global reconstructions prior to MBH99 anyway, so nothing global to revise. In the real universe, global reconstructions have only recently been attempted.
As posted at Lucia’s:
The only reason that Phil Jones can claim that he isn’t LITERALLY a criminal is that the statute of limitations in the U.K. for destroying evidence subject to an FOI request is SIX MONTHS.
I’m not a lawyer, but is there any other criminal act that gives you a “get out of jail” card after only six months?
This is not an email, but this caught my eye today. Something strange is going on. Are the press beginning to see through this stuff?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jUP3GJriAWio1vrR5pNnRsRCxedg?docId=CNG.aa7c247e63265d1dd5470037b7118e67.351