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
2203
from: “Keiller, Donald”
subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology
to: <K BRIFFA
As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate
starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009).
As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole
scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;
1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
3) The concept of "teleconnection" by which certain trees respond to the
"Global Temperature Field", rather than local climate
4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature
in a linear manner.
Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use
inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find
difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers.
As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do
not agree with the accepted science.
Best headline ever!
This all is so telling. A small group, impressed by their own importance, acts in the interest of a “cause”. Hiding, tricking, deceiving, pushing … everything included, going from science to crime, but almost nobody of them really cares.
Politicians, as they have to save other things than climate now, should realize finally how they are being played like puppets on a string. Ridiculous, but not funny at all. As the intro text rightfully reminds everybody: Starving children are murdered this way by a green mafia.
I like Phil Jones admitting he deleted his e-mails and keeps printed copies at home. Where’s the Norwich plod when you need them!
Personally, I’m waging a war for science. I support the scientific method and seek open, fair and honest debate. That’s why I’m a skeptic.
I know science is not performed by consensus or proclamation. I know the truth of any scientific question can never be determined when one side attempts to block honest and fair inquiry. I know computer models do not output facts nor do computer models output data.
I know the difference between science and activism. That is why I’m a skeptic.
I am Michael Mann, as pure as the driven snow. A disinterested, objective scientist only concerned to discover the truth. So it must be a different Michael Mann who wrote:
“3115 It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction …”
and
“0810 I don’t know what she (Judith Curry) think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause”
and, on 29th August 2007 to Phil Jones (CRU, East Anglia University, England),
“I (Mann) have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests”
And the response of the second Michael Mann, to the Guardian today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails) is textbook paranoia. He describes the person/people who released the latest batch of CRU emails as:
“agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can’t contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial.”
I think the purely scientific Michael Mann needs to contact his paranoid doppelganger, and ask him to calm down, and get some treatment. He’s clearly not well.
You know how I know you’re not a physicist? You display no curiosity at all.
A physicist is a generally a person who demonstrates curiosity and does not cringe at learning something new, regardless of subject matter. I know this, I am one and I’ve spent lots of time around them. Go find a physicist and talk to them about sports, they’ll be interested. Go talk to them about art, they’ll be interested. Go talk to them about anything, they’ll generally find something of interest in it. They are true generalists that could find something interesting or something worthy of skeptical inquiry from anything in existence.
As far as “brand of skepticism”… “never be disproved”… what on earth are you talking about? Skepticism is defined as a state of mind, how can you disprove a state of mind?
You are displaying yourself as little more than a blogosphere troll. It is you who is repeating yourself accusing others of things they have not done. This thread is not a scientific thread, it is a thread about a leak of e-mails from scientists who have been abusing their positions. Coming onto this thread and trying to demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor is like jumping into a congressional debate and demanding people start kissing and hugging.
From the snippets in this post, I don’t see anything “damning”. Arrogance, yes, however that’s hardly damning; just unbecoming of those purporting to be engaged in science.
Does this show the foibles of some climate scientists?
2211 has a long discussion by Mann on M&M’s critique of his reconstruction
In my opinion, first prize so far should go to this one:
” Haimberger:
It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.”
Hmmm…I wonder how many of the plots that are supportive of his position get a similar level of scrutiny? Conclusion (belief) first, evidence (adjusted data) to be manufactured later?
“Chuck says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:23 am
The entire file needs to be released to put an end to the “taking out of context” charges by The Team.”
No, they’ll always say it was “out of context.” This is a very typical tactic since their defenders will believe them because they want to believe them.
For example, Obama’s pastor preached that white people invented HIV to kill blacks. The response? It was out of context.
And that worked until the pastor opened his nutty mouth again – then he just disowned him.
That’s why I think the ultimate defense of this, assuming these turn out to be unaltered/true, is that they’ll simply disown Mann and Friends, while still claiming the “vast majority of climate scientists” agree with AGW.
A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am
That’s the practical reason why CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, are rejecting the peculiar brand of skepticism that is increasingly practiced here on Watt’s Up With That.
===========================
You are a hoot!
…the whole time you are claiming that you are jumping to a conclusion that “move along, there’s nothing to see here”
Take a good dose of your own hypocritical advise…..and wait and see
=====
Overpeck:
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?
======
Jones:
I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.
=======
…and just to lighten the mood
Mann:
the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing (sic) the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.
2212, Phil Jones: “Don’t put too much faith in the models”
though not clear to me which models he is discussing, perhaps someone more familiar with this stuff can help
2213
“I happen to agree with him and I actually think our statement is too
strong. It almost seems that we are suggesting physical models should be
thought of as empirical ones, which, despite the tuning, I think is an
overstatement. ”
Empirical models, you know, as opposed to made up projections
RE: the_Butcher: (November 22, 2011 at 9:17 am)
“When will these charlatans get behind bars?”
That may prove difficult for self-elected ‘heroes’ of the green revolution who honestly believed they were acting for the good of all mankind. Only those who can be proved to have knowingly corrupted science for personal gain run that risk. Note that all juries are likely to include people sympathetic to the ideals of the green revolution.
Since you didn’t, I’ll provide the link: http://www.entergy.com/our_community/environment/ceo_letter.aspx
There is nothing in the letter you reference that has anything to do with conservatism. Do you mistaken believe that because Mr. Leonard is CEO of a corporation, that he’s a conservative?
Having read the letter in question and some other pages on the site, I found nothing there that is not a rehashing of the IPCC “consensus view” of climate change, including the call for various federal programs. There is no science there at all.
Either you’re a poor excuse for a physicist or just another troll. You’re not even clever enough to direct people to a website that supports your contentions.
It’s sad “a physicist”, really apparently nothing more than a propagandist, doesn’t offer any actual arguments for her position but instead does nothing but spout empty psychobabble rhetoric that means nothing as if if were somehow a profound criticism.
Really Miz “a propagandist” needs to present coherent logical arguments not just the empty disenfranchised language that they have used for this is the practical reason why CEO’s, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters not to mention most mathematicians, scientist, and engineers are rejecting the peculiar brand of religion that states that man is causing catastrophic climate damage and instead embracing the skepticism that is seen in much of the world.
I can remember reading an interview with Phil Jones. It was when he came out of hiding after the first climategate. In it, he said he was just ‘waiting for the other shoe to drop’.
I have often wondered since then exactly what he meant. I guess this is it!
PS ‘A physicist’……….do put a sock in it. You sound inebriated.
“I think he [Chris Landsea] has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an open enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting hurricanes.” – Kevin Trenberth
Was the file created with 7zip? Just Google 7 zip password cracker and go from there. Be sure to carefully check all downloads for malware@ur momisugly
A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am
I thought “commieBob’s” post (above) was one of the most sensible on this whole thread … not a trace of slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting in it. blah, blah, blah..
Wordy troll is troll.
My guess is that this person is very patient and totally dedicated to his cause. Listen up Warming loonies. I suspect that he has sorted these mails into good, very good and EXPLOSIVE!! Bang. You stop lying or the next load is going to go boom. he he he !!!
A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am
That’s the practical reason why CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, are rejecting the peculiar brand of skepticism that is increasingly practiced here on Watt’s Up With That.
==============================================================
Interesting….. I live in a decidedly conservative part of the country, where farmers, fishers, and hunters appear in this location. I’m not sure which of those you think are rejecting this “brand of skepticism”, but I think your a bit off. While its been a while since I personally spoke to any military strategists, and CEO’s but the dynamics are completely different. But, all of that aside, what do you say about this?
Blockquote>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”.
Osborn:
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
Esper:
Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. […] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don’t you want to let the result into science?
Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.
@the_Butcher says:
yes, “the cause”
I like it.. I like it a lot