This is pretty ugly. In 2007 the NRC was setup to review the state of climate science. The usual players were involved. Today we have two separate examples of inappropriate behavior designed to squash any scientific dissent.
First from Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. in this essay:
Excerpt:
date: Mon Feb 28 08:58:57 2005
from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
subject: Re: CCSP report review period
to: Ben Santer <REDACTED>
Ben,
Good to see you if briefly last Wednesday ! The rest of the meeting was rather odd. Some very odd things said by a few people – clearly irked by not having got a couple of proposals recently ! I’m not supposed to be contacting you ! I would urge you to write up what you presented on the day and in the report. It was the most convincing presentation and chapter of the report. You should have less to do than the other chapters. Not yet sure how the summary will fare.
We didn’t discuss the email evidence (as you put it) nor Pielke’s dissent. We shouldn’t and we won’t if the NRC people have their way.
I was never really sure what the point of the review was.
Cheers
Phil
This is a remarkable e-mail since it indicates that the NRC was in collusion with Phil Jones to suppress issues that I brought up as lead author on the CCSP chapter 6. Chapter 6 was tasked to focus on what further research issues need to be explored to reconcile surface and tropospheric temperature trends. Chapter 6, as it was on August 11 2005, is given in Appendix B of my Public Comment.
The e-mail also documents an inappropriate communication between a member of the CCSP committee (Ben Santer) and a member of the NRC review committee (Phil Jones).
That’s email 3614.txt which you can read here
=============================================================
Next we have this new essay from Steve Milloy
Climategate 2.0: Shocker — 2007 NRC review of hokey stick rigged by alarmists
The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Chris[t]y is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:
That’s email 4498.txt which you can read here
TAMINO
Listen up. We’ve got a shortage of trolls over hear at WUWT since CG2 hit.>>>
Tamino, I’m having second thoughts. I mean, why should I debate a tier 3 player like you in the first place? You’re just a cheer leader for the big guns of CAGW. You’re so mickey mouse that you don’t even show up in the CG2 e-mails. All that cheer leading Tamino, and they’re IGNORING you.
So I figure here’s your shot at the big time. Come on over and put us in our place in a fair fight. That’ll get the attention of the big boys for sure. Show’em what you’re made of Tamino! I just have to warn you that I’m extending the invitation to Phil, Keith, Michael, Kevin, Ben, Jim, Gavin and the rest of “the team” to do the same. I don’t think any of them will have what it takes to step into the lion’s den with us kittens, so provided that none of them show up, I’ll be happy to debate you. But if one of the heavy hitters shows up, well, you’ll be back on IGNORE from both sides.
In other words you have a shrinking window of opportunity to make a name in history for yourself by debating the science in an open forum without the protection of editorial control and showing us the “facts”. Better hurryup and grab my offer before one of the big boys steals away your opportunity to be truly famous.
to Julian Williams…re. message not getting out and earlier comments re. wasting resources.
Commenters here keep missing the point.
The key pivot point in the issue is NOT the media.
It is NOT the politicians.
It is NOT even the climate scientists.
It is the “high priests” of science.
eg the APS the AMS and the Royal Soc in UK, and so on.
If these bodies ignore the deep uncertainies and keep promoting alarm
then all your other efforts are wasted, because the MSM and politicians will,
correctly, in my opinion, take their advice.
Instead of piling on at WUWT and other blogs, put your time into trying to influence
the “high priests”.
TheGoodLocust says:
November 25, 2011 at 4:48 pm
The name is Environmental Media Services – with ties to – Tides Foundation – Soros
And Fenton Communication
Damage6 says:
November 25, 2011 at 3:28 pm
These scoundrels absolutely must not be allowed to get away with this…..
___________________________
The problem is the REAL scoundrels OWN our politicians, they OWN our judges, they OWN our Universities…. see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/world-bank-global-warming-journals-and-cru/
That is what these e-mails truly show. Do not forget the USA Department of Energy TOLD Phil Jones to ignore the FOIA and hide the data.
We would have to track down who these people are too.
ARTICLE: Revolving-door between DOE and Company that Gets Energy loan http://shawsblog2011.blogspot.com/2011/11/revolving-door-between-doe-and-company.html
I took a quick look at Open Secrets which has a listing of the government revolving door. But it would take a few days work to sort out all the references and who is now where and doing what.
Revolving Door: Top Agencies http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=G
Example:
Former Assistant Secretary for Policy, Dept of Energy Sue Tierney: http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=70857
LISTING
Dept of Energy (212 people) http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/search_result.php?agency=Dept+of+Energy&id=EAENE
First four on the list:
DAN ADAMSON Now at Solar Energy Industries Assoc. was DOE http://www.seia.org/cs/about_seia/staff/SEIA_Government_Affairs_Regulatory
Bud Albright DOE Undersecretary 2007-2009 now at CenterPoint Energy (gas & transmission)
David Albright DOE advisor panel at ISIS ~ anti-nuclear http://isis-online.org/
Allen Forrest DOE Dept Asst Sec for Enviro Mmgt… at DigitalGlobe (sat. Imaging) ==> Sinclair Knight Merz http://www.skmconsulting.com/Markets/Australia/Power/Geothermal-Power/ and http://www.skmconsulting.com/Markets/Australia/Water–Environment/Spatial/Practice-Areas/Digital-Globe.aspx
……..
Environmental Protection Agency (141 people) http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/search_result.php?agency=Environmental+Protection+Agency&id=EIEPA
Like I said a real big job following all the strings and the true puppet masters are not these people anyway. They like the climate scientists are just useful tools.
Julian Williams in Wales says:
November 25, 2011 at 5:04 pm
“Our side has a compelling narrative that will prevail if it is articulated and propagated correctly. (Note FOIA articulates his/her motivation are worries about the poverty created by the AGW conspiracy against honest science). As scientists this sort of rewriting for lay audiences may feel like dumbing down, but it can be done with integrity and respect. I think we need this service now, and if there are some articulate scientists willing to do this work I think they would have a disproportionate impact on how these issues are reported in the MSM.”
It seems to me that our side has been winning for at least two years.
The differences in getting out the message between our side and theirs are three:
1. They have big money and they hire professionals to do their media work.
2. They are willing to say anything to win. Remember the polar bears?
3. The MSM have no critical capacity at all. They report as if they had no memory at all. They do not remember the polar bears. They have disappeared into Alzheimers or Marxism.
A lot of folks do read blogs now.
When reading the denialist blogs, they are trying to hush hush this, state there is nothing there when in fact if is very apparant the ruse is coming to an end.
There is no joy in what I typed above, only sadness. That climate science has deteriorated to the point that folks, who at one time were credible, can now only seem to deny….deny…deny.
There are no error bars in the e-mails. Black and white, and in English to boot. The certainty is 100%.
@ur momisugly Richard Hill – I think you have a very strong point and I entirely agree with you that the scientific establishment have sided with the wrong side. I fully understand your point that ” the MSM and politicians will, correctly, in my opinion, take their advice.” (“High Priests”)
Where your analysis goes wrong is with your statement “Instead of piling on at WUWT and other blogs, put your time into trying to influence the “high priests”.”
I think these “high priests” will be challenged and eventually turned through the influence of peer pressure, and that peer pressure is already organizing itself in the work provided by WUWT. I think what you are asking is already being effectively done. The readers of this blog already include many thousands of thoughtful and motivated scientists who are already putting their heads above the parapet and openly challenging the orthodox view of AGW. Reasoned argument, detailed discussion and analysis are exactly the right prescription for organising the peer pressure that will eventually turn round the wrong headed leadership of Royal society and other esteemed science establishment bodies.
However, since Richard Hill has raised this axillary issue, I will add that it appears to me that there is missed opportunity to speed up the peer pressure. The rank and file scientists (and related occupations) need to “out” themselves in an organized fashion. I would suggest a petition with wording along the lines of “the scientists below do not believe that the primary cause of recent warming of the global climate is anthropomorphic”. The petition should be organized with signatories ranked according to specialized disciplines. Along with which universities and departments they come from. Statisticians should be one section, physicists another, meteorologists another….. The petition should be open and ongoing, with scientists allowed to join or un-subscribe as they feel fit.
Such a powerful petition/statement would stand as defiance against the “high priests” and make them realize that the ground under their feet is shifting.
Such a petition is a different matter from the need for a press department that collates news stories from the sceptic community and circulates the news to the wider lay public. They work in tandem but have different roles in the war against the prevailing AGW memeplex.
I am not suggesting that Anthony Watts should be burdened with these extra duties. He has already shown he has a flair for orgainising discussion and debate amongst scientists. That role obviously suits his personality and he should not be distracted from carrying it out. Press and petitions could be organised by a team of dedicated scientists wanting to make their own novel contribution.
Forgive my arrogance. I am an outsider who has no business to tell anyone here what to do. These thought emerged in my mind after reading FOIA’s plea for the misdirected money spent on bogus claims by a group of pseudo-scientists to be redirected back to helping humanity. It is such an important message, don’t we all agree?
O/T
Was visiting RC (Real Climate).
I happened upon a thread and noticed the following (partial) exchange:
……….”However, no model can help you if you don’t understand the fundamental science at work, in the case of geochemistry/transport modeling; mineralogy, geochemistry and geohydrology. It is clear from several of the posts that there is a failure to understand either how science works or the fundamentals involved in climate science. Thanks for all the work RC does to keep focused on the science!”
[Response: Great point. A strong argument could be made that the biggest problem with public understanding of any complex science is the misunderstanding of the various functions and purposes of models. Not everything is readily explainable.–Jim]
==============
The comment mentions uncertainties in the science.
The response mentions the inability of the unwashed masses to understand that even if the science is uncertain, the biggest problem is one of communication.
For the full exchange go to # 301 here:
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=9931
From u.k.(us) on November 25, 2011 at 7:27 pm:
Did you remember to practice safe computing? You never know what you could pick up from that site, that’s a pretty dirty crowd posting over there. On your firewall and anti-virus, did you turn on the “latex” option?
davidmhoffer says:
November 25, 2011 at 5:08 pm
TAMINO
Listen up. We’ve got a shortage of trolls over hear at WUWT since CG2 hit.>>>
=======================================================
Dave, they won’t come play, anymore. They never did do well in uncensored debate. The problem they have, of course, is of their own making. They clung to debunked clap trap like Mann’s Hockey stick far too long. When Nature started to kick their butts with reality, they still clung to their mythical climate gobblygook. The still insisted there wasn’t anything in the emails. Now, they’ve got nothing. Remember the proud announcement of a future rebuttal to Spencer? It was literally beat down in minutes! By the skeptics. The proud announcement of BEST’s preliminary findings……. well it took us as long as to get our hands on the data….. it was beat down.
Today, ….. now we have members of their own team asserting the hockey stick was crap. We have members of the team admitting to the weakness of the science…… Today we even have a quote from Dr. Dessler…….. “I was not terribly worried about runaway climate change before this. After all, we know that the Earth’s had much higher CO2 in the past (and the temperature were correspondingly much higher), and the Earth did not turn into Venus.” ….. of course this is after today’s study that shows past estimates of CO2 sensitivity were completely over blown. ……… so, they won’t come play. They’ve got nothing to hang their hat on. The earth is not hotting and apparently it won’t, the consensus isn’t, the hockey stick is in some fireplace somewhere, what do they got? Some missing heat miles underneath the ocean?
Its time to start thinking about how we can put this to bed. And, were I others, I’d start thinking about what the next issue will be for the Malthusian misanthropists.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
November 25, 2011 at 7:50 pm
From u.k.(us) on November 25, 2011 at 7:27 pm:
O/T
Was visiting RC (Real Climate).
Did you remember to practice safe computing? You never know what you could pick up from that site, that’s a pretty dirty crowd posting over there. On your firewall and anti-virus, did you turn on the “latex” option?
===========
You betcha, my computer is on high alert just cus I’m on WUWT.
If you get a chance, you’ve really got to see the “dog and pony show” going on at The Guardian as they try to explain away these emails, like dancing between bolts of lightning.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/24/leaked-climate-science-emails
@kadaka (KD Knoebel) Thank you for the most interesting link to the NRC paper. Reading it knowing the answer was pre-ordained via the email leak is very “interesting” and presents the paper in an entirely new “light”. It is amazing what one can learn by accident here reading at WUWT. And thank you Anthony for your amazing forum.
“Jim Watson says:
November 25, 2011 at 8:23 pm
If you get a chance, you’ve really got to see the “dog and pony show” going on at The Guardian as they try to explain away these emails, like dancing between bolts of lightning.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/24/leaked-climate-science-emails”
She seems to be intentionally taking quotes out of context so she can make the argument that the emails are all taken out of context.
This “journalist” should be fired for being either incompetent or intentionally deceptive.
Have her explain away the things skeptics have a real problem with – like dredging up investigators to discredit your ideological opponents.
@ur momisugly Julian Williams in Wales says:
November 25, 2011 at 7:25 pm
We here at WUWT have taken the hard road haven’t we? Lot’s of good, sensible, and correctly analyzed comments but few ‘out there’ are listening therefore lacking the chance to judge for themselves what is true. You are right. No press coverage.
That very fact has caused me to want to give up this cause many times, I keep coming back. As important as this subject is we are still letting a small group of environmental zealots to change this world in a way that is actually detrimental to all humans here, including our offspring. Many here simply don’t want their hypothetical ‘green’ 1984 totalitarian world for our children and grandchildren.
We need help, maybe Anthony will listen to your words.
Or… could a person as myself pick up a ‘pen’ and write press releases highlighting topics with a small comment for framing and substance and simply send it as you said above? Would any reporters on such list appreciate such an input? Wouldn’t want to be a bothersome hassle. Or, do you really need authority and position to be taken seriously?
Bottom line….. someone needs to do what you said above. Please say more Julian, your words have as much a place here as anyone else. This is definitely not a private ‘club’ as many other blogs are.
There’s much more to it than that. It would mean rolling back regulations at international, national, provincial/state and local levels. Regulations that were imposed for no good reason. Regulations that “save the planet” from … not very much. We have bans on light bulbs, fuel regulations, fuel mileage regulations, carbon taxes, carbon sequestration boondoggles, billions in taxpayer money to “green” energy projects, think tanks, working groups, “centers” for this and that, all justified by what amounts to a load of “crap” (their words not ours).
We not only need to get rid of this hysteria, we need to rip out by the roots the waste it has generated. Oh, sure, it probably provides hundreds, perhaps thousands of jobs … that produce exactly nothing but paychecks. It is the greatest fleecing of the world’s people in history. Nothing compares. We are being robbed and these people are facilitating it.
Of course the world’s CO2 was higher in the past. Everyone knows that. And Earth can not become a “Venus” unless the volume of the atmosphere were to triple or more AND suddenly become nearly pure CO2. If you go into Venus’ atmosphere to where the pressure is the same as Earth’s surface pressure, the temperature is about 5C higher than Earth’s.
I am serious, it should be pitch fork and torches time. Our (in the US) federal, state, and local governments have wasted huge sums in practically every agency of government. Even our schools are wasting valuable money and classroom hours on this “crap”.
Interest in AGW should not wane as a popular issue among the electorate. On the contrary, it should rise to the very top issue with any politician supporting it being marked for elimination in the next election cycle. It should be a strong *negative* for getting elected. And we need to eliminate these agencies and regulations created in response to this “crap”.
As far as I am concerned, this issue is over. It’s done. It was a charade. But more importantly, it was flat out robbery. They have stolen our money and lined the pockets of their cronies and often themselves. It’s time to end it.
We need to get these juicy details onto talk radio. If the heavy hitters on the radio start and keep talking about all these new revelations for a while the national media won’t be able to keep ignoring it, especailly after the phone calls to Congressman and Senators start rolling in.
Talk Radio is the best chance to get national attention to this.
From u.k.(us) on November 25, 2011 at 8:16 pm:
Uh-oh. Don’t let the kids at RC know you’ve come there from WUWT. They’ll think you’re a climate virgin who just needs some scientific persuasion to let them get your globes warming. Major problem is their “negotiating skills” never got beyond that of 6-year-olds on a playground: You can’t hang around with us, you’re so stupid we can’t even listen to you! You wanna be on our playground, you gotta show us RESPECT!
Now who needs an abusive relationship like that, and if you got a job with a boss then do you need another? Now, I can understand you might want to “experiment.” Forget RC, you can do that by going to a WWF-friendly site and pointing out how the best way to save cute white fluffy Arctic seal pups is to shoot polar bears.
Camburn says:
November 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm
As far as the stratosphere, of course, Harvard and Nasa are not to be relied upon……..right?????
Note the last sentence of the abstract:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.A12B..01S
This is what the last sentence says:
This is not consistent with the near-constant temperatures observed since the late 1980s.
What is not consistent? Well, one has to read farther back in the abstract to find:
This non-decline of upper stratospheric temperatures would be a new and significant change from the more or less linear cooling of the upper stratosphere seen before the 1990s, and reported in previous trend assessments.
What, Camburn, you don’t believe NASA and Harvard? The models (CCMs referred to in abstract) do not agree with the observations of the stratosphere. That is what the last sentence of the abstract says. Oops.
All of this Climategate stuff reminds me of the Saturday Night Live skit from season 4 Episode 20 1976, “Watergate was a joke”. I’m not a big SNL fan, but for some reason that episode was hilarious to me and I recall splitting a gut back then. After this latest CG2 fiasco, right away I thought of this from SNL.
I tried in vain to find a working video of it, but if anyone else can, post the link. It fits so well with what these scientists like Jones, Mann et al are doing today by claiming they are being taken out of context. Guaranteed to get a laugh.
For those old enough to remember, recall what the Nixon tapes were about and try to follow along with the transcript from the SNL skit:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Live#Buck_Henry.2FSun_Ra_.5B3.20.5D
Email 4092.txt shows that University of East Anglia has a ”strategic alliance” with Goldman-Sachs. This is proof of UEA scientists’ conflict of interest and a fixed agenda to drive the AGW narrative to enable carbon trading and renewable energy markets. Science is about being impartial and investigating the facts, not green activism to push a narrative that bankers want.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4092.txt&search=Goldman-Sachs
date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:00:38 +010 ???
from: Trevor Davies ???@uea.ac.uk
subject: goldman-sachs
to: ???@uea,???@uea,???@uea
Jean,
We (Mike H) have done a modest amount of work on degree-days for G-S. They
now want to extend this. They are involved in dealing in the developing
energy futures market.
G-S is the sort of company that we might be looking for a ”strategic
alliance” with. I suggest the four of us meet with ?? (forgotten his name)
for an hour on the afternoon of Friday 12 June (best guess for Phil & Jean
– he needs a date from us). Thanks.
Trevor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel. +44 ???
Fax. +44 ???
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
0073.txt Phil Jones sends email to UEA staff about carbon trading:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0073.txt&search=carbon+trading
How is this not conflict of interest?
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/11/european_carbon_market_plummet_1.html
If you’re a scientist, not a market trader, you might hope this will have little direct effect on research. But if today’s low prices persist for a few more months, they will slash billions of euros from a European fund dedicated to clean energy projects. That’s because the fund, named NER300, is about to raise its cash by selling 300 million carbon credits on the ETS. Eight carbon capture projects and 34 renewables projects were set to benefit from the money. But at current prices, the sale would raise only €2.1 billion, instead of the €4.5 billion hoped for when the fund was proposed. Sales of the first 200 million carbon credits are due to start in December, and continue for the next 10 months, says Stig Schjølset, head of EU carbon analysis for the consultancy firm Thomson Reuters Point Carbon.
Bare with me. I’m no scientist and have no experience in academia politics, but this is getting redicilous. Too redicilous.
With close ties to media, governments, world bank and other banks like goldman sucks that will make huge money on every carbon credit exchange. Is it possible that these scientists are under threat for themselves and their families?
I am getting the feeling that something is not right and this might be bigger. I just know this stinks and is far from what science is supposed to be but I’m also getting suspicious that there is something we’re missing here.
I hope I’m wrong and this is just crappy science by nasty people. But the feeling that there is something more to this story is needling me.
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0816.txt
Ok, so what I gather from this email is that the carbon sequestration businesses ended up going back to the universities for verification. I would appreciate someone else’s take on what:
“I have suggested we maght in Tyndall assist them in possibly validating the science behind this.”
would actually mean. It seems that this is a flat out admission that the carbon sequestration market was total bunk from the outset. The company they are talking about, Future Forests, is still alive as Carbon Neutral Company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carbon_Neutral_Company
They are an offset provider. Of note in the Wiki article, if correct, is that the company was founded a full five years before they consulted with climate change scientists to have the ‘science validated’, as it were.