The website Gore Lied wrote:
…he also actually pondered, “how do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?”, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
Dr. Douglas Maraun, a scientist at the Climatic Reasearch Unit at the University of East Anglia wrote to his colleages in an e-mail on October 24, 2007. Dr. Maraun, who seems to have more of a conscience than many of his colleagues, had some concerns which he wished to address in a “discussion seminar” to be held in the coffee room that afternoon. Among Dr. Maraun’s points he wished to discuss were:
-How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.
Here’s the full email:
2007 11:05:20 +0100
from: “Douglas Maraun” <REDACTED>
subject: Informal Seminar TODAY
to: REDACTED
Dear colleagues,
I’d like to invite all of you to todays discussion seminar, 4pm in the
coffee room:
“Climate science and the media”
After the publication of the latest IPCC, the media wrote a vast
number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them
greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time
and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement.
However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing
or political correctness. Furthermore, recently and maybe especially
after the “inconvenient truth” case and the Nobel peace prize going to
Al Gore, many irritated and sceptical comments about so-called
“climatism” appeared also in respectable newspapers.
Against the background of these recent developments, we could discuss
the relation of climate science to the media, the way it is, and the
way it should be.
In my opinion, the question is not so much whether we should at all
deal with the media. Our research is of potential relevance to the
public, so we have to deal with the public. The question is rather how
this should be done. Points I would like to discuss are:
-Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and
are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this?
-How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think,
that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not
especially honest.
-How should we deal with popular science like the Al Gore movie?
-What is the difference between a “climate sceptic” and a “climate denier”?
-What should we do with/against exaggerations of the media?
-How do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?
-Should we comment on the work/ideas of climate scepitics?
If you have got any further suggestions or do think, my points are not
interesting, please let me know in advance.
See you later,
Douglas
REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
Dr. Douglas Maraun
Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
REDACTED3857
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~douglas
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mycroft says: November 23, 2011 at 11:55 am
WOW…. Sounds like a man with a conscience
Or a man with an agenda to adress a few problems he would rather not existed.
Mann really has his panties in a twist in 0112.txt!
Sent to Curt Covey
Duncan Binks says:
November 23, 2011 at 12:14 pm
(…)
” This is not a backwater scientific spat. This is genocidal in its further reaching implications.
Someone please tell me I’m wrong.”
Yeah, someone please tell Duncan he’s wrong, because I can’t.
Genocidal is the exact term. The whole thing from the beginning has been not simply anti-capitalist or anti-industry. It’s anti-human.
Human beings are just viruses, sickening the body of Gaia. Eliminate human beings, and Gaia can be healthy and happy again.
John in NZ – Thanks for the Fox story – love it.
I don’t understand something, someone please explain…
Michael Mann made errors???
No, seriously, Reaclimate has been convincing me for years that there were no errors made by Michael Mann…
/laughing hysterically at the obvious sarcasm.
The quoted text in 4600.txt shows Mann was rather perturbed by M&M one morning.
“Duncan Binks says:
November 23, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Do any of us (and please, do not use the ‘T’ word) have any idea whatsoever how much this bunch of clowns (the Scary sort) have cost us all?
The more I think about it all, the more sinister I find it. The breadth of this colossal fraud on humanity is beyond expression.
This is not a backwater scientific spat. This is genocidal in its further reaching implications.
Someone please tell me I’m wrong.
Duncan B (UK)”
You are not wrong and you touch on a very important aspect of climategate. The sceptic spend a lot of energy complaining about the bad science, not the consequences. These warmists have committed a crime against humanity (and science, but that is not the reason FOIA gave for releasing the information). FOIA has chosen to point out that his/her motive for downloading and distributing the climategate emails is because it is a crime against humanity, and they want it to be stopped.
Looks to me as if FOIA is not a scientist, but a politically motivated opportunist who came across this hoard of emails and simply copied them on to a disk. He/she seems not to be very confident about science, a scientist would have looked at what they were releaing and selected juicy bits and arranged them so that the scientific community could provide an audited narrative for future investigators to use to tear Jones and Mann apart with. (two years is a long time to twiddle your thumbs).
I think the delay is because FOIA was frightened by the scale of what they are holding. If it is a loner it must be a scarry place to be. Something triggered this new release. It would be interesting to know what it was.
My guess is that is was either anger over poverty, or they felt the authorities were closing in on them and they wanted to protect their position. It could have been frustration that Jones and Mann were still in position feeding their junk to the world and causing poverty. FOIA does not seem to be excercised over the purity of science, the passion is about the consequence of bad science.
It might be time, in view of the recent revelations, that someone reviewed the conclusions of the different reports on the scientific behaviour of those so called “scientists” to see if those conclusions are actually supported in light of the provided context.
And if the conclusions of the whitewash reports are not supported, then more heads will roll.
Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
November 23, 2011 at 11:57 am
Would Maraun know how to encrypt using 7z?
Dear Maurizio,
I always enjoy your contributions here. I don’t always understand everything you say, but you say it well.
I am just an old country doctor, but I think I can answer this (rhetorical) question. I have been known to stare at my shoelaces before successfully tying them. But even I know how to encrypt using 7z.
Your friend, Henry
Cliategate 2. I’m Lovin every minute of it!
I noticed in a few emails made by some of the scientists – I detected an honest attempt to bring some honesty, common sense and a touch of decency to the IPPC fraud-feast, sadly as we have known all along most seemed to be totally corrupt!
Here are some decent attempts I’m sure there are more and we should congratulate them, all the apples in a barrel can’t be bad as evidenced by these few examples!
Dr. Maraun:
How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.
The media wrote a vast number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them greatly exaggerated.
The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement.
However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing or political correctness.
-What should we do with/against exaggerations of the media?
-How do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?
-Should we comment on the work/ideas of climate scepitics?
*******************************************************************************************************************
Coe:
Swiss researcher Heinz Wanner writes: ‘In my [IPCC-TAR] review […] I crit[i]cized […] the Mann hockey[s]tick […] My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times…I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science’
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”.
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.
Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary […]
Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
Wigley: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]
Cook:
“One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not know where his estimates are coming from.”
Disgraced British climate professor, Phil Jones is mired as much as Mann for his part in the sleazy cover up.
OT- More good news:
One more nail in the coffin of the Global warming farce – Google green Czar gone.
Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/23/us-google-idUSTRE7AM03220111123
(Reuters) – Google Inc has abandoned an ambitious project to make renewable energy cheaper than coal, the latest target of Chief Executive Larry Page’s moves to focus the Internet giant on fewer efforts.
Google said on Tuesday that it was pulling the plug on seven projects, including Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal
Google began making investments and doing research into technology to drive down the price of renewable energy in 2007, with a particular focus on solar power technology.
In 2009, the company’s so-called Green Energy Czar, Bill Weihl, told Reuters that he expected to demonstrate within a few years working technology that could produce renewable energy at a cheaper price than coal.
“It is even odds, more or less,” Weihl said at the time. “In three years, we could have multiple megawatts of plants out there.”
A Google spokesman said that Weihl had left Google earlier this month.
************************************************************************************************************
Congratulations Google, Glad business acumen has returned in the most successful technology company. Sadly the scam is still sucking billions of taxpayer money. When will it be over?
You managed to learn what everybody else did in the 70s–renewable just doesn’t work as well as fossil and nuke and throwing a bunch of computer science professors at it won’t change anything. Anyway, the take-home point from the company’s ongoing realignment is that, like a lot of large organizations, they were spending far too much time and energy on multiple competing projects with marginal commercial or goodwill value. Unlike a lot of large organizations, Google doesn’t have the luxury of relying on corporate welfare to offset the gross inefficiency.
Google’s new email format is terrible. The company’s searches are becoming less and less useful. If I were an exec, I would focus on core businesses
I’d like to invite all of you to todays discussion seminar, 4pm in the
coffee room:
How do you all feel about Piltdown Man?
Who knows what’s in the “all.7z” file, but:
It seems Dr. Douglas Maraun may have a “get out of jail free …..” card.
Probably a highly prized possession at this point of the game.
“Dave says:
November 23, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Climategate 2. I’m Lovin every minute of it!”
Has Dr. Tim Ball’s lawyer gotten a hold of you yet? : -)
Werner Brozek says:
November 23, 2011 at 2:46 pm
“Dave says:
November 23, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Climategate 2. I’m Lovin every minute of it!”
Has Dr. Tim Ball’s lawyer gotten a hold of you yet? : -)
Werner.
I have had the pleasure of meeting Dr Ball and have listen to him on as many occasions in a word he is brilliant. I can honestly say I would trust him with my life, he is truly beyond reproach.
I do plan to attend any farcical court cases against him.
Interestingly, there is a blaring silence from the usual WUWT Snark Squad. Come on, guys, pipe up!
REPLY: We don’t need snark, just reasoned retorts – Anthony
One is a man-made catastrophic anthropogenic global warming sceptic and the other does not exist. ;O)
Just think of how tense the atmosphere must be in the University of East Anglia and at CRU and every pro-warming institution there is on the planet.
It seems even one of the professors (a geologist) teaching first year “Environment” at UEA was using 43 slides taken directly from Climate Audit in two of his class presentations. We’ve got other UAE scientists posting on Climate Audit and WUWT and exchanging emails with the blog hosts.
Obviously, some of the scientists are not in favor of the exaggeration that is going on. To have an office on the same floor and across the hallway from Jones, Wigley and Hulme must have been extremely stressful. One has to mind their Ps and Qs or careers are at risk.
Even in this atmosphere, many of the scientists are speaking out. Many are privately communicating their doubts in the emails and requesting attendance at in-house seminars.
The private expression of doubt is the most important thing in the Climategate emails (I and II). We should use the emails to request more public expression of doubt/correction of the facts from the pro-scientists and the doubters.
RE: Dave: (November 23, 2011 at 1:26 pm)
REF: Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy
“In 2009, the company’s so-called Green Energy Czar, Bill Weihl, told Reuters that he expected to demonstrate within a few years working technology that could produce renewable energy at a cheaper price than coal.”
That sounds a lot like the promise of Kirk Sorensen’s thorium reactor technology, if ‘renewable’ refers to ‘indefinite sustainability’ due to the abundance of thorium. While some of its proponents are motivated by CAGW fears and talk at length on how this technique will save our ‘endangered’ environment by putting the fossil fuel industry out of business, we might need that source of cheap energy if the ‘Peak Oil’ warnings come true, either due to diminishing available fossil or abiotic carbon, international unrest, or if we cannot obtain energy from foreign sources due to the burden of our national debt.
I believe there is no way anyone could ever say that the poster renewable energy sources, wind and solar power, might be made cheaper than ‘Carbon Power.’
Where is there any mention of science in this e-mail? If this e-mail had all references to AGW removed, then it could be a memo to a sales team trying to sell cars, washing machines, computers etc etc. Alternatively, it could be from a political party or TV evangelist. The one thing they all have in common? Make our product/ethos sound better than the others!
This is not science but PR of the worst and most deceitful kind.
As for Michael Mann telling everyone that these e-mails are all taken out of context; what about this one? In which context is this one out of? Science, maybe?
The NEW meat must be in those encrypted messages…
Ken Hall says at 11:45 am on November 23, 2011
“Where in science101 does it state that if your data is a bit dodgy, or incomplete and there is uncertainty, lie!?
That is not science. That is marketing, or politics or religion. It is not science”
Please don’t trash other disciplines! It isn’t marketing, or politics or religion.
It isn’t engineering or salesmanship (salespersonship?) either.
It is just wrong.
Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
November 23, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Interestingly, there is a blaring silence from the usual WUWT Snark Squad. Come on, guys, pipe up!
REPLY: We don’t need snark, just reasoned retorts – Anthony>>>
Anthony – are you seriously suggesting that the Snark Squad is capable of a reasonable retort in the defense of the indefensible?
Despite the MSM not having jumped on this big time (yet) the fact is the trolls, even the accomplished ones, are silent. I’m with Mike on this one. Pipe up you guys! Have the kahonies to come up with a reasonable response, or else admit that you have been defending the indefensible and you all are increasingly looking like total fools for having bought into the CAGW fiction in the first place.
I think he sounds like a reasonable man who simply believes differently than most of us here. Still, rather a reasonable man with whom you disagree than a fanatic who believes the same as you. Being reasonable, ie, able to be reasoned with, is the essence of learning and education. Lumping the good doctor in with all AGW scam artists is as bad as us being called deniers in a single stroke of the brush.
Just my two cents.