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
Censoring yet another of my posts (at 9:00 PM on 27 November), we have moderator REP writing in response to my discussion of doody (can I say “doody,” or must we descend to “caca” as a suitable euphemism?):
Tsk. I feel as if I’m confronted by my wife in the presence of the grandkids.
All of whom – even the six-year-old – roll their eyes when the Old Lady gets anal (in the Freudian sense, damnit) about such matters.
Ever heard of the expression “dogwhistle,” REP?
[REPLY: Tucci, the site policy is here. Please be kind enough to comply. You can whack trolls but you can’t abuse them. We leave that kind of behavior to RC and OM. Fair enough? -REP]
A physicist says:
November 27, 2011 at 8:37 pm
My best answer would be, that the history of both medicine and science is replete with examples of workers for whom clinical care is medicine’s near-term mission, and scientific understanding is medicine’s long-term mission. And it’s a pretty fair approximation of the truth to say that those people who hold this short-and-long merged view are responsible for medicine’s greatest advances.
It is these short-and-long-view physicians who are most likely to speak out regarding climate change, and it is not realistic to expect them to refrain from doing so.
Well, A Physicist, my whole reason for being here at WUWT is that Climate Science is clearly not practicing real science, which also needs all the support it can get against the onslaught of Climate “Science” as a model for the practice of science, apart from the other very deleterious effects it has already wrought upon real people.
And I don’t agree with your argument that because a BMJ editorial says something you like, it has any credence whatsoever simply because it comes in some manner or other out of the mouths of “short-and-long-view physicians”. That’s a classic “appeal to authority” and also a “begging the question” fallacy.
Whereas, the issue of the validity of Climate Science’s CO2 = CAGW “hypotheses” instead stands or falls completely on its own according the the established practice of real scientific method and principle science.
But I will indulge your thesis:
I did nearly 30 years of practice as E.R. M.D.. I know what science is, how what I employed got there, and I never did anything that I did not understand pretty well, either at a basic scientific level or else at a therapeutic level simply because it either worked or didn’t work. I didn’t jump on new wonder cures or see the latest disease everywhere.
Therefore, according to your logic, I can now tell you definitively that Climate Science is not practicing real science to begin with, and by using some actual reasons: 1] it is simply not following the principles and method of the practice of real science, as has been well demonstrated completely without the “Climategates”; and 2] it does not work: Climate Science’s CO2 = CAGW “hypotheses” have not provided even one relevant correct empirical prediction yet. It has recorded straight “F’s”.
So are you ready to take its medicine? And to recommend it to the whole world? Especially given its track record?
I personally think that by now it’s useless to respond to you, because you obviously don’t know what the practice of real science is and instead continue to offer up mostly “appeals to authority” as some kind of proof of the validity of Climate Science, which they aren’t, although the Climate Scientists also think they are.
But I’d like to add that in searching for your practical identity, I’ve called you many rather mundane things, but I certainly would never call you a “t**ll”. [That’s a joke.]
Okay…this is starting to get REALLY boring. Need a new topic. Now it has become “He said”, “She said”. Anthony, the turkeyday holiday is over. There are all sorts of stories out there emerging, even this weekend, about how th entire earth needs to get together to embrace this issue of global warming, and this website is STUCK on email tit for tat. Let’s get back to the science and activision to inform the ignorant.
JPeden, what most climate scientists expect to see is more-and-more hockey-sticks in the climate data.
And so far, they’re right.
A physicist says:
November 27, 2011 at 10:42 pm (Edit)
JPeden, what most climate scientists expect to see is more-and-more hockey-sticks in the climate data.
And so far, they’re right.
You think so? You really need to see this.
Mike Jonas says:
November 27, 2011 at 9:43 pm
[to barry] I resent having spent a lot of my limited time ploughing through those papers, only to find that your claim was in no way substantiated by them. In future, please extract the relevant bits from items you wish to cite, in order to save others’ time.
That’s a classic barry tactic. barry first used it on me in a discussion about glaciers. The conclusion of the paper barry referred me to was a direct opposite of what barry had implied – the author actually concluded that ~ nothing definitive could be said yet about the relationship of the forces acting in climate to the advance or recession of glaciers.
The tactic is also implicated in the Climategate2 emails, where the conclusions presented to the public were neither agreed upon nor established.
Mike Jonas @ur momisugly here
What deviant interpretation of the word ‘explored’ could possibly support such a bizarre claim? And let’s get the fuller version of Theo’s quote.
Theo is clearly saying no one has ever tried to understand the issue – tested the data, examined the trees, examined related data (precipitation, solar radiance, soil moisture content) – what else is the meaning of ‘explored’?
‘They’ (some of the paleoclimate community), identified the issue. They constrained it temporally. They intercompared data and isolated the particular proxy sets (NH MXD trees) that exhibited divergence. They speculated on various causes, both anthropogenic and natural. They sampled MXD trees and took measurements of the rings and Carbon isotopes to try and understand the issue (Barber 2000). Tests of samples and data – temperature, precipitation, soil moisture and temperature, solar variance, ozone indices etc – have been undertaken to get a fix on the issue. The question of whether this divergence is an indication of a long-term issue with the data, or if it is limited to the late 20th century, has also been examined, in order to determine what impact the divergence may have on the longer-term proxy record.
I do not understand the kind of mind that would announce that all this does NOT amount to the issue having been explored.
The reason for MXD divergence is not yet fully understood, despite a lot of examination of the issue. Perhaps in the mind of the Climate Skeptic, this equates to “they never even tried to understand it.”
Mike, you should have read the study I provided that was an overview of the literature. I note it is was the one paper from my post missing from your comments. Try again.
http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende//cherubin/download/D_ArrigoetalGlobPlanCh2008.pdf
Read that and tell me the issue has not been explored!
Seriously, how do you manage to wave all this away? It doesn’t make sense.
I think the most tragic thing, and I suppose many are really thrilled but it really is tragic, is that so many people one would expect to be intelligent so obviously were not. How on Earth did they think that work they knew was fraudulent pretty much from the start, through and through, would not eventually be revealed as such?
This also puts those who said, “Nothing to see here” after the first release in a terrible light. No amount of whitewash will be enough.
Now, perhaps, we can get the politics OUT of science and stop all the chicken-little nonsense about how if we don’t immediately go back to the stone age it will be too late?
Somehow, I doubt it. Some people NEVER LEARN!
0850.txt
2007, Tim Barnett of UCSD says to Gabi Hegerl of Duke University
“right now we have some famous models that all agree surprisely well with 20th obs, but whose forcing is really different. clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer….so let’s preempt any potential problems.”
Theo Goodwin
Ok, I think I finally understand. The skeptic dictionary is anomalous.
Anomalous
1. Deviating from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. Equivocal, as in classification or nature.
deviating from the normal or usual order, type, etc.; irregular, abnormal, or incongruous
[from Late Latin anōmalus, from Greek anōmalos uneven, inconsistent
(I could nowhere find definitions matching yours in the regular dictionaries)
But lets get the full quote from MBH99, shall we?
In what way is this substantively different from the other papers I cited?
Let’s review the conversation here. I suggested that much of the millennial reconstruction literature was congruent with the findings of MBH99 (and also MBH98, by the way), particularly in the characterisation of MWP compared to recent temperatures: that if you threw out every paper Michael Mann co-authored, the preponderance of the remaining body of work would say much the same thing. I provided corroboration by linking and quoting non-Mannian studies saying pretty much the same thing as MBH. That is, it is likely that NH temperatures in the decade/s from 1990 exceeded that of the MWP.
That’s just how it is. The only way to see it differently, apparently, is to redefine the English language and mischaracterise MBH.
Again, I’m not defending these papers (any of them) – I’m not qualified. I’m not trying to persuade anyone that the flipping MWP was cooler than now. I’m just appalled that people invest so much passion in the subject and don’t have the basic facts straight. All you need to be able to do is read and comprehend English. And if you want an informed opinion on the issue of MWP compared to recent temps, you need to read the literature broadly, not just blogs. I know of maybe two papers that posit warmer NH temps during the MWP than the last couple of decades, but the majority of non-Mannian papers on NH millennial temps tend to the opposite. These are the facts, whether you know them or not, and regardless of your (or my) opinion of Michael Mann.
Where, oh where are the real skeptics?
[snip. The d-word is not allowed per site policy. ~dbs, mod.]
That is an excellent question, Barry. My own experience here on WUWT has been entirely consistent with an increasingly widespread opinion:[snip. Not credible. See the sidebar concerning skepticalscience. -mod.]
“Even if a reasoned post does appear [on WUWT] the comments usually take care of cherry picking, ad homs, distortion, vitriol, conspiracy theories etc., and at that point their host, Anthony Watts, is only too happy to gently encourage them.
Remember too, Anthony Watts is close to Monckton and has on several occasions allowed his site to be used from which to launch attacks on scientists.”
The culture that SkepticalScience describes certainly matches what I have personally experienced! Thus (it seems to me) the widely-believed perception of WUWT is in fact reasonably accurate.
Hopefully, skepticism can do better.
barry,
You just don’t understand, do you? Read the first and second batch of emails and related communications. The “team” conspired to ‘get rid of the MWP’. That is a documented fact.
Wake up, pal. The whole runaway global warming conspiracy is based on the immense taxpayer loot flowing into “climate studies”. Ignorance is no excuse. You’re wilfully avoiding reality: there is no evidence for the AGW conjecture. None. It’s all based on models programmed by people with a vested interest. The GCMs have been wrong, every one of them. Not one predicted the flat to declining temperatures of the past decade and a half, they all predicted accelerating global warming.
In any area of the hard sciences those people would hang their heads in shame, as everyone else pointed and laughed at them. Their funding would be slashed. But in CAGW climate “science” they get financially rewarded. The question is, what do you get out of being one of their religious lemmings, barry? You have bet on the wrong horse, and you lost. There is no runaway global warming, as was universally predicted by the CAGW cult. Normal folks would say, “They lied to me,” and move on. Not you. Cognitive dissonance in action.
Military Industrial Complex (mick-MIC). Viewed by the naive listener as those dirty Generals. I told you so, is common. Perhaps the most brilliant planning of the past 5000 years in How to get the commoner in line Permanently. Some 18,000 or more new Millionaires/billionaires created between January 1942 and August 1945. None of these new rulers were at the time in uniform – Congress motivated with Cost plus 10%. Grants to produce full employment, those not 4F were conscripted into uniform.
Today’s extension of the MIC key-mouse of governance is this creation of a manmade Crisis – all government at cost plus 10% creating the University-Government brothel. A Destrier vs. Palfrey purpose.
Makes Water Gate look mighty palfrey -paltry in burden of labor
A physicist says:
The culture that SkepticalScience describes certainly matches what I have personally experienced! Thus (it seems to me) the widely-believed perception of WUWT is in fact reasonably accurate.
Hopefully, skepticism can do better.
Henry@A physicist
My experience with Sceptical Sience is somewhat opposite to yours: they wipe all my comments and I am so severely censored there that any logical discussion with anyone there is completely impossible. I have decided that their name is not appropriate. It should be called : GullibleScience.
I am not going back there again, I am sorry to say.
Trust me, you will get the best scepticism on earth right here, on WUWT.
By the way, both Barry and yourself must still point out to me what, exactly, what is bad about global warming, seeing that the extra greening of earth (which we all want?) also causes some of that warming,
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
By the way, get a life, get a better name if you want to be on a blog, and when are we going to have that coffee?
The global warming bubble is popping:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/global_warming_bubble_is_popping.html
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
A physicist says:
November 28, 2011 at 6:11 am
Remember too, Anthony Watts is close to Monckton and has on several occasions allowed his site to be used from which to launch attacks on scientists.
Yes, but Anthony sure doesn’t let Rush Limbaugh post at WUWT, so he must have some scruples, right?
In other words, you are trying to use the fallacious tactics of what I’d call a “from Anti-Authority” tactic, and the usual but even unestablished ad hominem smear in order to valiantly establish a general “perception is reality” case for the validity of Climate Science’s “science”, which then also commits the fallacy of being totally irrelevant to the actual case – which we used to call an ignoratio elenchi = “it just makes no sense at all”, iirc.
But, A physicist, Anthony does let you post here. So how do you account that fact within your quite nuanced “balance” as relating to the real question?
And I still say you almost have to be a Climate Scientist. Because your thinking sounds a lot like their “reasoning” as revealed in the emails.
barry, are you seriously attempting to claim that the Mann Hockey Stick was debunked a decade prior to Al Gore using it in his film?
A physicist, are you still claiming that CAGW is obviously real because investment capital is being dumped into unviable business plans?
A physicist says:
November 27, 2011 at 10:42 pm
JPeden says: Climate Science’s CO2 = CAGW “hypotheses” have not provided even one relevant correct empirical prediction yet.
JPeden, what most climate scientists expect to see is more-and-more hockey-sticks in the climate data.
And so far, they’re right.
Well, I sure hope they’ve got at least this one, completely unhinged anecdote right. Because if things keep going they way they look otherwise, and the Greenies have their way with us, we’re going to have to move up there with the Polar Bears just to survive. Either that or get as close to YAD06 as possible! Heap plenty of caribou in Yamal, too!
The short-term answer is the Salon des Skeptique Refusés … the comments rejected by WUWT.
The long-term answer is that science is useless without skepticism, and that skepticism is useful if and only if it is rational skepticism.
REPLY: I agree, your irrational skepticism is not useful, nor is your constant snark and threadjacking. Basically what you are doing is creating posts that flaunt policy so they will be rejected, so you can post them elsewhere as “proof” that we don’t meet your criteria and that we are “bad”.
So here’s the deal Dr. Sidles (outed earlier on this thread by another commenter), I’m putting you in the troll bin. All your posts will automatically go to an extra level of moderation. Some might be approved, those that don’t meet policy might not. Be as upset as you wish, but do be careful how you post things and there won’t be any problem. – Anthony
The long-term answer is that science is useless without skepticism, and that skepticism is useful if and only if it is rational skepticism.
Well, if you actually did know the definition of “rationalism”, that is, insofar as words and logic are applied to the real world so as to make good contact with it, or agreed that real science should be practiced according to the principles and method of real science, then you would be a real sceptic. It’s pretty simple, really, but your intentional appeal to “everything but” really does not qualify you.
barry – As I said last time, I am not ploughing through a paper, you need to quote the relevant bit to make your point and save others’ time. To avoid getting bogged down in semantics, let’s go back to basics and the original statement. “On the divergence issue, it is NOT an ‘inescapable conclusion’ that the data is ‘useless’, but that outcome is a strong possibility that must be explored.“.
In this case, “explored” clearly means to investigate and find a valid reason. Without a valid reason, the data is indeed useless. It’s pretty obvious that the people involved would have looked at the problem, but they found nothing and used a trick to hide it. That’s not “explored”. Not in this context.
Irrational skepticism is no better than irrational belief, in this case, of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Here, it appears, Dr. Sidles’ (“a physicist”) purpose is “…constant snark and threadjacking.” Basically what he (Dr. Sidles) is doing is creating posts that flaunt policy so they will be rejected, so that he can post them elsewhere as “proof” that WUWT doesn’t meet his criteria and that WUWT is “bad”, while he defends his belief in CAGW.
I would suggest he sidle up to the bar that good science has set and engage some of the knowledgeable folks here in rational skepticism.
We all learn something when that happens.
Anthony, here’s an idea: give Sidles his own page where you can toss his posts wherever he has made them. Think of it as a Troll cage in a zoo (he’ll need a tire swing) where we can all watch from a distance but not feed. That way he can never say you blocked his posts.
barry says:
November 27, 2011 at 11:18 pm
‘They’ (some of the paleoclimate community), identified the issue [the divergence]. They constrained it temporally. They intercompared data and isolated the particular proxy sets (NH MXD trees) that exhibited divergence. They speculated on various causes, both anthropogenic and natural. They sampled MXD trees and took measurements of the rings and Carbon isotopes to try and understand the issue (Barber 2000).
As usual, barry, Barber’s conclusion, as published in Letters to Nature 405, doesn’t support your idea that she was investigating the “divergence”, that she was even aware of it, or that the North American white spruce stands she studied have anything to do with the trees used in generating the Hockey Stick:
Our data show that temperature-induced drought stress has disproportionately affected the most rapidly growing white spruce, suggesting that, under recent climate warming, drought may have been an important factor limiting carbon uptake in a large portion of the North American boreal forest. If this limitation in growth due to drought stress is sustained, the future capacity of northern latitudes to sequester carbon may be less than currently expected.
However, I did come across a paper by Craig Lohle, “accepted” Climate Change 6/2/2008, who did reference Barber 2000, although I don’t know if it was in the substance of his paper or only in his list of references. One of his conclusions for dealing with the divergence problem was:
More specific tests are also possible. If a reconstruction already shows divergence,
it is an indication that recent temperatures are already in the nonlinear zone. Such
reconstructions should not be used for evaluating past climates.
Which I think would erase all of the current ring width contributors to the Hockey Stick, under his assumption of a nonlinear response of growth to increased temperature, and under which a significant MWP sometimes emerges.
Thanks Anthony,
Time out might help him.
One thing, get this information to Mark Levin of the http://www.marklevinshow.com
Lots of followers there and Sean Hannity and Rush Linbaugh talk to him. That and his Landmark legal team may have ideas on what laws “the team” may have broken.