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.
Whoever this FOIA clown is, he’s a cowardly scumbag. Compared to him, Julian Assange, at his worst, is a saint.
Where is the smoking gun that destroys the AGW claims? FOIA has been in possession of (hundreds of?) thousands of e-mails for nearly at least 3 years and this is it? If he has proof that Mann et al are not telling the truth, then the world deserves to know.
If they are being truthful, then this coy ploy of sowing dissent borders on criminal behavior.
Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says: “Would Maraun know how to encrypt using 7z?”
Useless speculation likely to get someone snuffed by the guilty parties.
Anthony, mods,
As I suggested in the John Saley thread, a back ground reader such as a link to Lucy Skywalkers devastating critique of the Yamal reconstructions along with perhaps one or two gems (there are SO many!) exposing Mann’s hockey stick would be welcomed in threads such as this. For the new comers to the debate, there is a lot of information to process, and unlike those of us who have been following the debate in detail, names like “Phil” and “Michael” and “MBH” and “Yamal” are just names. I can see how a lot of people could read those emails and think “so what?”. But have them read Lucy’s article first, and/or a good critique of MBH98, and suddenly everything is in context. That would put DMarshall’s comment above right smack dab in the middle of the “context” it deserves, and would make it clear just who is distorting the big picture and how.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/
Found it! For those with any question in their minds as to what all the e-mail discussion about tree rings is really about, there’s your link. Lucy’s article puts all of those e-mails into their proper perspective by shining cold hard light on the Yamal travesty (the kindest words I have for it) and the article has links in it as well to additional material on both Yamal and the original Hockey Stick.
Read those, THEN read the various e-mails. That will be the “context” anyone needs to see what those e-mails are clearly saying.
davidmhoffer says:
November 23, 2011 at 8:16 pm
=========
Good point.
Maybe better yet make an app (whatever that is), send it to all elected officials, print it on toilet paper for the OWS protests, etc.
I know Anthony is too busy, maybe someone else could do it ?
Key question missing from the list: By the inherent most basic intent and definition of SCIENCE, aren’t all scientists required to be sceptics? If a Climate Scientist isn’t a skeptic, is he/she then by any stretch of the imagination still a scientist?
re post by: DMarshall says: November 23, 2011 at 7:48 pm
How utterly ridiculous and twisted can a person get, to make this sort of claim? Assange has released nationally classified material that could get people quite literally killed, and/or cause serious international problems and long term difficulties with all sorts of fallout on innocent people.
Meanwhile “this FOIA clown” has released information that legally should have been provided by UEA in response to legitimate legal FOIA requests, but which they stonewalled and stalled until it was past the absurdly short statute of limitations. There is no evidence of any illegal action – while the file may have been hacked which would be illegal, it could also far more easily and likely have been released by an insider whistle blower – which probably would not have been in any way illegal.
Yet you make it out that somehow the individual is far worse than Assange, to the degree that Assange is a saint?? Sheesh.
Here’s a quote of the week. I posted it on another thread, but I fear it may have been lost in the mix with a certain physicist’s troll comments. Poor mods. Anyway, Dr. David Viner of CRU sent this email to everyone in the unit back in 1999. Part of the text provides some pretty objective evidence that there is a confirmation bias going on. Makes wonder how Mann and Jones became friends.
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0059.txt
**please distribute to others who may be interested**
We would like to invite proposals from activists working on climate campaigning.
Following an activist and NGO meeting in March this year, attended by climate
activists from Europe, Asia, USA, Australia and Latin America, funding was obtained to
support two people to work on a project connected to the sixth United Nations Climate
Convention, otherwise known as the Conference of the Parties (COP6), which will
happen in Autumn/Winter 2000/2001. The United Nations is currently considering only
one possible location for the meeting – den Haag, The Netherlands.
The International working group formed after the activist and NGO meeting are looking
for two people who would be able to create something innovative and effective with
this funding. They will be based in a Climate research group in Portugal,
‘Euronatura’. The campaign will be supported by the International working group
which has experience of United Nations negotiations, direct action, campaigning,
economics and climate science. Groups supporting this campaign include : eyfa, Aseed,
Carbusters Magazine, Korean Ecological Youth, Free The Planet USA, EuroNatura, Climate
Action Network Latin America, Climate Action Network Central and Eastern Europe and
Oilwatch Europe.
The thing that joins these people together is the desire to work together to
radicalise the agenda of the climate negotiations. The current direction of the
negotiations cannot hope to define targets nor build mechanisms of implementation and
compliance which will stop the currently dangerous emissions levels of Greenhouse
Gases.
Ideally, the collaboration between the two funded volunteers, Euronatura and the
International working group, will touch on all aspects of climate change and the
related campaigns of oil, forest, marine and transport. Equally, the collaboration
will be aware of all strategies to counter the weakness of the United Nations and the
dominance of certain lobbying groups (notably the oil and nuclear industry). The
strategies discussed by the International working group revolve around direct action,
research and negotiation.
Project ideas which have been discussed are a counter/alternative meeting at the same
time and place as the UN meeting and/or a symbolic event such as The Climate Train to
Kyoto. Please bring YOUR ideas to us! What do you think would be the most effective
way to radicalise the UN agenda and protect the climate from our current economic
and political systems? There are plans for a team to work in USA on a parallel
campaign.
The project should begin by the end of the 1999.
Are you a person who has the energy, skills and commitment to coordinate the European
component of an international campaign?
(unfortunately, the funding is only for people *under 26 years of age *from Iceland,
Norway, Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Palestine,
Syria, Tunisia, Turkey or any EU country)
Please make your proposal for the campaign which you would like to be part of…
Deadline 30th September 1999.
@RationalDebate
I’m not ridiculous or twisted – I’m blunt. If the ponderings and pandering on WUWT is to be believed, then the posturings of the Team and their supporters are the greatest threat ever to global progress and prosperity and will cost many needless lives because of actions that would not otherwise be taken or because of huge sums of money that would be wasted on pointless remediation.
I’m implying that Assange is a saint, BY COMPARISON – whatever his motives or his character, he’s not a manipulative cherrypicker like this shadow-dwelling, bottom-feeder.
Julian (or his group) have given warning of documents to be released and have done so, unredacted and unvarnished. .Yes, he put lives at risk, and that’s deplorable – but the fact is that the actions of those he exposed also treated human lives as worthless, and have done so for decades.
In the recent past I’ve made a point of calling for the full release of all documentation of those who have skin in the climate game, not just those who work for universities – the argument of public vs private in this context is largely specious. If you’re an influencer, then you should be fully transparent – FOIA is a Machiavellian chickenshit.
And, speaking of twisted – that’s a wonderfully convoluted sentence you’ve constructed of what may or may not probably might be an illegal hack or a possibly legally protected insider document release.
DMarshall says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Dear dear…meds will be coming soon. )
DMarshall says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:48 pm
[ ” Where is the smoking gun that destroys the AGW claims? ” ]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In religion or philosophy there are no “smoking guns”. Both are subjective speculations – conjectures.
In science – I have to support my “claims” [ hypothesis ] – That burden becomes mine!
AND it continues to be mine with every opposing hypothesis presented.
Master Popper had some views to separate religion and philosophy from science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
DMarshall says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:48 pm
[ ” If he has proof that Mann et al are not telling the truth ‘]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
He [ FOIA ] doesn’t need “proof”.
It would be the same, to ask you, for evidence [ “proof” ] that Mr Mann at el ARE honest brokers.
Especially in light of this and other emails…BTW we don’t have to rely on just emails – we have many “claims” made with the MSM which show bias….[ bias… is what separates science from religion / philosophy ] these emails, RECONFIRM that bias exist.
[ ” -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.” ]
Are they “honestly” brokering science….. OR religion?
@kim2000 There are many things I don’t like about the e-mails that have been released but it’s clear that all they’re good for is to spark gossip.
And those “claims” of “bias” cut both ways and both sides have been bickering back and forth for years. These e-mail releases don’t settle that one way or the other.
Without full disclosure from any of the main players, on either side, then there are NO “honest brokers”
And you’re completely missing the point about the smoking gun – the predominant belief of the anti-AGW herd is not just that Gore, Mann et al are wrong or innocently mistaken but they are deliberately duplicitous for the purpose of maintaining cushy lifestyles on the public dime, or instituting a communist agenda of world control or conspiring to keep the 3rd world down or some other speculation.
With this vast cache of correspondence between some of the chief conspirators, there certainly must be something more substantive than “hide the decline” or “flaws in the community”.
If FOIA were “an honest broker”, he or she would have released all the info years ago.
DMarshall says:
November 23, 2011 at 10:10 pm
I understand what you are saying.
BUT you see…the “smoking gun” has ALWAYS been present 🙂
As soon as they introduced their bias……it became a religious / philosophical debate – Not a scientific debate.
Bias – is the “smoking gun”.
It seems in this email that Dr Moron is attempting to put powdered sugar on cow patties and pass them off as brownies. It seems to me he has partaken of too much of the post normal science crapolla and completely failed real science. Reality is not a friendly place for climate scientists…
Basically, what I see is a magnification of the effect of carbon dioxide out of all proportion of reason. The MODTRAN radiative forcing plots seem to show this effect is equivalent to that of a one-foot diameter tree in the middle of a twenty* foot wide stream. Adding more CO2 just makes the tree longer in the direction of the flow.
I can only assume this basic fact is being ignored as a result of a mutual deceptive bias by workers in the field. It may be that a concern for the environment and a worry that modern technology is poisoning the Earth may have been a determining factor for selecting climate science as a career. One less concerned with the environment may have chosen nuclear physics, electrical engineering, computer science, chemistry and so on.
This mutual bias may be the reason that they have, probably unintentionally, woven a tissue of theories and data together to support their belief that modern society is on the brink on an environmental catastrophe. Anyone who does not accept this anointed construct is deemed ‘antiscientific denier’ and a willful despoiler of the planet.
*[ten-foot half peak-depth width]
Ian (Harry) Harris, aka Harry Read Me is the obvious suspect. Seemingly the only guy at CRU who knows anything aboout IT
The e-mail states:
“…-Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this?….”
……..
I do not know about anyone else here, but I was not even interested in politics at all until the World Trade Organization tried to rob me of my livelihood and I woke up. For me indignation about the corruption in Washington DC came first and then my eyes opened to all the corruption around me. CAGW being only one of many battles in the war.
Sir, next time be sure not to forget the /SARC tag. Someone might actually take you seriously and assume you actually believe that very funny satire you posted above. 😉
Holy crap you were serious! Well at least you seem to finally understand what some commenters here are voicing. “… the Team and their supporters are the greatest threat ever to global progress and prosperity and will cost many needless lives …”. Exactly right. Every tax dollar diverted to this religious cult (your church AGW Climatology) is wasted. But understand this, no-one, I said no-one here would care a wit if you raised your own capital (bake sales, telethons, gifts from Soros) to fund your church. As clichéd as it sounds, we’ll fight to death for your right to do that.
Of course, in reality your real intent (Team AGW) is to steal *our* money from us and use it to finance our own destruction, Scientifically, Economically, Technologically, Politically …
Stop trying to blur the lines. If the emails involved are at all connected with taxpayer money, they are property of the taxpayer, not your personal heroes. No-one is asking for Mann or Jones’s home AOL or Hotmail accounts. However if these accounts show up in these FOIA’d releases then I suspect they will have something else to worry about later.
So stop confusing this very simple issue. How is that you cannot grasp the concept of private and public? Are you vaguely aware of the rules and regulations of civil servants and outside contractors at all? Do you think the taxpayers are here to fund your little Pseudo-Scientific playground without oversight? Where are you in this cabal? Have you shown up in the emails yet? Why don’t you explain your stake in this game?
“Duncan Binks says:
November 23, 2011 at 12:14 pm
….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.
_________________________________
Julian Williams in Wales says:
November 23, 2011 at 1:08 pm
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.
__________________________________
What I think may have been the “trigger” is the death of Friday Mukamperezida an ill young boy who was burned alive in his home as a direct result of Al Gore’s Greed.
Al Gore is president of the New Forests Company.
Ugandan farmers kicked off their land for New Forests Company’s carbon project http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/09/23/ugandan-farmers-kicked-off-their-land-for-new-forests-companys-carbon-project/
I have been so angry about this that I have posted comments repeatedly including just what the the eucalyptus trees will do to the target areas; Africa, South America and the US south. As Josualdo Silva says @ur momisugly September 25, 2011 at 4:39 am [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/#comment-751743 ]
“These people are indeed on a war of extermination of life itself. Where eucalyptus are grown, nothing else will ever grown again.”
I looked into the statement and posted the science behind that statement:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/#comment-754959
and more information
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-767559
Add in the farmland grab http://farmlandgrab.org/
to what I wrote here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-767575
And it makes a very nasty picture. I think this is what FOIA also saw, thought about, investigated and decided it was time to spike the guns of the vicious sociopaths again. Also remember Kyoto agreement expires very soon so this is the year to kill CAGW.
DMarshall says:
“Where is the smoking gun that destroys the AGW claims? FOIA has been in possession of (hundreds of?) thousands of e-mails for nearly at least 3 years and this is it? If he has proof that Mann et al are not telling the truth, then the world deserves to know.”
Even if the emails do not prove that Mann et al are not telling the truth, they do show that the Hockey Team knew that the admitted uncertainties in their results were being ignored or played down by the IPCC and the media. They did know that sloppy work was being published in peer reviewed journals and they kept their mouths shut so long as it assisted the CAUSE. In other words Jones, Manm et al. allowed their missionary zeal to override their scientific judgement. Had they been honest they would have come forward and admitted out loud, rather than quietly amongst themselves, that there was room for doubt. As we now know, between themselves they acknowledged that McIntyre and McKitrick were correct but they still attempted to rubbish them with ad hominem attacks.
There is a distinction between being dishonest and being untruthful, while the emails do not prove that Mann et al were untruthful they do show that they were dishonest. If AGW claims are fact why was there need for deception, dissimulation and dishonesty? And is there any reason to believe that this deception, dissimulation and dishonesty is not continuing?
Bill Illis said: “To have an office on the same floor and across the hallway from Jones, Wigley and Hulme must have been extremely stressful.”
Indeed. I read in one e-mail, that Jones was all for the (in)famous 10:10 campaign, setting a departmental taskforce of staff and students. You know, that one with the video of exploding heads titled No Pressure…
Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness – I’ve signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it….
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1575
BarryW says:
November 23, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Maybe the psychologists need to to invent a new disease: Climaphobia: Fear of climate change.
So Gore is a Climaphobe. Terminal case. Pity.
Barry, Al Gore is SCARED the climate will NOT change…
“Dave says:
November 23, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy”
Apparently the stimulus money is drying up. No stimulus 2 hand-outs to friends of the government – read political campaign donors. Something about the taxpayer being broke / in hock to China.
Google PowerMeter: A Google.org Project
We are pleased that PowerMeter helped demonstrate the importance of access to energy information, and created a model for others. We retired the service on September 16, 2011.
http://www.google.com/powermeter/about/
[SNIP: Site rules require a valid e-mail address and common courtesy requires you to be on topic. Spamming blogs is not a good way to get support for your candidate. -REP]
Does this mean I can finally relax?
DMarshall says:
If he has proof that Mann et al are not telling the truth, then the world deserves to know.”
You can’t prove that people have been lying if they have deleted the emails that show they are lying. All you can show is they were lying about not having deleted emails.
What the emails show is that Jones admits in his email having deleted emails and having told other to delete emails. Mann is fighting efforts to release his emails.
Call me naive, but I’m pretty sure that folks don’t go around deleting emails, and telling others to delete emails, that show they have been telling the truth.
“Hide the decline” isn’t about temperature. It is to hide the decline in scientific standards and scientific integrity. Scientists are so afraid of losing their funding that only the most senior scientists, those that are retired or near retirement, only they spoke out.
Science is no longer driven by truth. It is driven by political correctness. You can see it in the emails. Findings that are politically correct are the only findings that get published. Publish a politically incorrect finding and your career is over. You will be attacked, not for your science, but because you are politically incorrect.
For example, say there are two studies. One shows white is good and black is bad. The other shows white is bad and black is good. In science these two studies should deserve equal treatment. Political correctness says they will not.