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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phil @ur momisugly 11.34 pm
That would be this building as addressed in the email?
Chicargoesque as spelled & described……………. appropriately.
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=102866
James Sexton;
Dave, they won’t come play, anymore. They never did do well in uncensored debate. >>>
Precisely. That’s exactly why we should be challenging them at every opportunity. Challenge them to debate without censorship. Specify, over and over, that we want to debate them, we’ll be civil, we’ll not descend to ad hominem attacks, we’ll gladly publish every word of every argument from both sides for all to see. But under no circumstances do we debate in a forum where one side can censor the other.
Think it over for a moment. What are they going to do? The more they respond to the invitation to debate UNCENSORED, the more they look like they are frightened of a fair fight. If they DO show up and debate in a fair forum, they’ll get sliced to ribbons for all the world to see.
I won’t bother issuing the challenge over at RC. It would never see the light of day, or they’d snip the pieces about agreeing to it being uncensored out of it, and then claim victory by censoring me, or anyone else. That’s the whole point. They can’t win a fair fight, and the more they get called out on that point, the more guilty they look by not showing up.
The truth is that the warmascience alarmist armadda is made up of full time researchers with huge budgets, gigantic compute resources, armies of staff, and they are AFRAID of a fair fight. They can’t hold their own with a bunch of part time amateurs who donate their time to forums like this one and hold down other jobs during the day. Sure, some of us are physicists or chemists or engineers, and some of us are electricians, or welders or plumbers, and some of us are computer programmers, or accountants, or sales reps. We’re a rag tag bunch when you think about it, and the fact is that the whole pack of them, “the team” are AFRAID of us.
Call ’em out every chance you get. You’re right, they won’t show. Because they’re tough as nails when their opponant has both hands tied behind his back and his feet bound together. But in a fair fight they not only can’t win, they don’t even show up.
C’mon Phil. Michael. Keith. Kevin. Ben. James. Gavin. Prove me wrong. I dare you.
davidmhoffer @ur momisugly 4.53PM
Is this why Ira Glickstein is encouraging bridge building in his post Slipping past the Goalie ?
In southern Australia we excel at that, including Royal Commissions of Bridges and secret business!
Also from 2007:
At the Bureau of Meteorology, prominent alarmist David Jones boasts of “snowing sceptics”, and cites as evidence of global warming – a drought – now passed and a prediction since debunked:
0601.txt
cc: “Shoni Dawkins”
date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:03 +100 ???
from: “David Jones”
subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
to: “Phil Jones”
Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week.
Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also
easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the Australian data is in pretty good order anyway.
Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need
meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse – across NSW farmer have received a 0% allocation of water for the coming summer and in Victoria they currently have 5% allocations – numbers that will just about see the death of our fruit, citrus, vine and dairy industries if we don’t get good spring rain).
The odd things is that even when we see average rainfall our runoffs are far below average, which seems to be a direct result of warmer temperatures. Recent polls show that Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism.
Regards,
David.
See more:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Love to hear what the Jones boy says about the latest 4 day rainfall all over SE Australia.
Wonder if “Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant” that he didn’t need his rain gauge to see it!
David, I concur with your take on this. Many examples of conflicts of interests in the emails. I think Climategate II is one of the main reasons there is panic in the carbon markets at this time–traders are realising the AGW sham is falling apart and they are dumping carbon credits while they can still get out.
Wow Jessie, great detective work! Just shows the tentacles of the AGW carbon trading scam is spread far and wide. I think its not a coincidence that FOIA waited until the Australian carbon tax was passed into law, before releasing the climategate II emails.
Media hypocrisy: Wikileaks good, Climategate bad
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/11/media-hypocrisy-wikileaks-good-climategate-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-13348
Why good point coming out of Australia.
King of Cool;
Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. >>>
And there you have it. Just as I said, they’re afraid of a fair fight. They think that the skeptics in Australia are scientifically incompetent, and that is fortunate. Read that again. They feel it fortunate that they aren’t being called upon to debate their position with competent skeptics.
What could they possibly be afraid of? Nothing. Unless they knew of course that their science was bullsh*t from the get go, and then yes, they would consider it fortunate they didn’t have to debate anyone competent.
How about it David Jones? Wanna come over to an open forum and discuss the science sans censorship? BTW, there’s some aussie commenters active on this blog who are pretty sharp and they’d probably want to go a couple of rounds with you on their competence level by engaging you on the science you feel so fortunate as to not have to defend. Alas, there will be nothing left of you when they are done, so no fun for me. Maybe you could bring a friend or two along? Phil? Keith? Someone?
I’ll tell you what David Jones. How about we take you on with a huge handicap. We’ll only respond by cutting and pasting from things John L Daly wrote? He’s passed on, and there’s been a lot of science published since, but with a little help from us commenters to cut and paste, he can still bury your “science”.
Where was he from again? Oddly, I thought it was your neck of the woods….
Just popped over to RC to see how much they’re enjoying the party. Spotted this one in the comments….
Explain this!
Dec 31 23:49 1999
From: Phil Jones
Subject: One world government
To: IPCC-group
Comrades,
Soon our once-great nation will rise from the ashes of the greatest war the world has ever known. Russia has changed. But our lives will not be wasted. The master plan is proceeding apace. Adolf Hitler once said “The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” Indeed, the best kept secrets are the ones that everyone knows. Double agent Anthony Watts has a remarkable summary of the global warming charade. Stupidly is his sword and Folly his shield. By placing the truth where everyone can see it — nobody can! Today we have recruited over 2,000 scientists to The Team. To you I say we have only completed a beginning. There remains much that is undone. There are great tricks undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth’s protective layers. Onward.
Phil.
[Response: Darn! Can’t explain that one, but wasn’t it also cc-ed to our vegetarian overlords? – gavin]
Comment by ThePowerofX — 22 Nov 2011 @ur momisugly 4:06 PM
Spoof I guess but…….. I have to ask…..
Anthony! Double Agent! ‘Secret Squirrel? Inch High Private Eye?
C’mon Anthony! Confess!
[Spoof LOL – quick search of the emails – nada ~jove, mod]
I thin foia is waiting with his/her other stash to really cause major damage. They better get out while the going’s good
It would seem just with a quick skimming of the emails that a lot of folk were uneasy about the power of the AGW clique!
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4025.txt&search=mann+adjustment
Other emails would seem to suggest Mann et al were having harmfull effects on the freedom of scientific research and integrity.
I facetiously suggested that in my Notes From Skull Island:, here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/05/out-manned-but-what-happened-to-the-science/#comment-760039
Seriously, “packaging” the skeptical case into an organized database, and/or into a point-by-point counterpoint to consensus claims, or at least into a best-of-WUWT sister-site is desperately needed–and would be done if Our Side were indeed “well-funded and well-organized.” I wish someone would give Lucy Skywalker a grant to get started on her somewhat similar project.
It is interesting that Briffa was doing everything to wriggle out of the Inquiry. I suspect he knew he would not be able to stand up to the questioning.
Pointman has a very readable post on CG2 here:
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/some-thoughts-and-some-questions-about-the-climategate-2-0-release/
Brgds from Sweden
//TJ
It is this type of pathetic, feces-throwing from the “worlds leading climate scientists” that is reason-enough to no longer give the correlation-is-causation chimps any benefit of doubt.
I think that when you do a whitewash like this the object you whitewash gets increasingly dirty for every whitewash?
The whole “team show for a cause” is dominated by a very large negative feedback?
@ur momisugly Roger Knights
“Seriously, “packaging” the skeptical case into an organized database, and/or into a point-by-point counterpoint to consensus claims, or at least into a best-of-WUWT sister-site is desperately needed–and would be done if Our Side were indeed “well-funded and well-organized.” I wish someone would give Lucy Skywalker a grant to get started on her somewhat similar project.”
I looked at your link. That is a very big operation you are proposing that would need a big team. I am suggesting a much smaller team of scientists spending a few evenings a month collecting together and rewriting the important news into copy that can be taken by lazy journalists and pasted word for word into articles for their newspapers.
Then emailing “the press releases” to a list of journalists using an email personalising program like maillist king.
It really is that simple. At first you may get few takers, but if you provide balanced well written articles you will eventually find that journalists begin to trust your output and use it as a way of filling their newspapers.
BTW I think what Lucy Skywalker is doing is brilliant, but it is different from what I am suggesting needs doing. Many journalists, especially for provincial press, are not researching their copy. They are looking for cut and paste stories.
It is very interesting to google news stories and looking at the list of stories you get, often you will see all with the same titles and stories from many newspapers around teh world. Phil Jones put out a press release cherry picking quotes from climategate 2 and answering them: A clever move because he chose his straw men and then knocked them down. this gave the impression that Climategate 2 had provided nothing new and was a storm in the teacup. Our Team would have issued a press release : “Phil Jones fails to answer important Questions” and in a very graceful and honest way put concrete boots Phil Jones’ press campaign.
It is about reaching out to friends in the media and making their lives easier.
@Wayne
“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?”
When you started you would get a lot of that sort of reaction, but if you provide integrity and well written stories you will eventually build up a group of friendly journalists. Especially if you can provide warmth in your stories – For instance FOIA links his whistle blowing to the plight of the poor. This is a wonderful angle for a press release, maybe providing outsiders with a reason to sit up and think is this the work of a hacker or a whistle blower, what is behind this story?
This thread has many comments about how models are bad science. We need a press release that introduces the public to the idea that models are not the same as empirical evidence. But you have to introduce and piggy back those ideas inside news stories.
There is a lot of fun to had. But I do emphasis that integrity has to be given priority over bias.
There is a small claims court in the UK. Generally, with claims below £5,000 neither side can recover their legal costs save other than disbursements/court fees.
It would be a difficult case. It would not be easy to claim fraud since that carries the criminal standard with respect to the burden of proof, ie., one would have to establish matters beyond reasonable doubt. Usually in civil actions there is a lower standard based upon the balance of probabilities.
The better case would be based upon negligence but issues arise whether Jones/the Team owe a duty of care and if so to whom? It may be that they owe the IPCC and governments funding their work and even their empolyer a duty of care but it does not automatically follow that a duty of care is owed to Joe Public. Joe Public is once or even twice removed. The advice given by Jones/the Team influence the reports issued by the IPCC. Those reports in turn influence government policy. It is government policy that has a bearing on the loss (extra expense) sustained by Joe Public.
A small claims action is unlikely to involve much in the way of costs but unfortunately, the Court rarely orders disclosure (still less full disclosure) so such an action is very unlikely to reveal other incriminating emails/documents which couyld if disclosed demonstrate a case of negligence or serious wrong doing or even fraud.
That said, if a few people were to instigate such an action, it would pile some pressure on Prof. Jones and it appears that he is thin skinned and made of not particularly strong constitution.
Julian Williams in Wales says:
November 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I agree with this and I have raised this point in the past. One needs to collate 6 to 12 of the most damming emails (any more and people will lose interest) and explain the significance of these in a punchy letter to be sent to media outlets.
The problem with a scam that starts off small is that if it gets completely out of hand, original agenda (some more research funding and kudos for leading a nascent field) is swamped with the in-rushing gold-diggers who have different fantasies.
A relationship of convenience may work for a while, but usually the initiators find in the end their entire purpose has been compromised, other mafias have taken over and they are threatened or sidelined. There are dozens of movies with this as the plot premise. Seeing what happened to the sensible-minded founders of Greenpeace and Sierra Club is demonstrative. The fields of Green are ever more dominated by louts, yobbos, extortionists and money launderers. That was not the original plan!
“Please explain to the court, Mr Bonafides, how you came into such a huge sum of money, all the while having no visible means of support.”
“I bought some carbon futures on credit using my Goldman-Sachs account, reselling some borrowed Chinese promises to ‘do nothing’ to the Russian casino industry who leveraged them using their fortunate’ discovery that a forest plantation project in Cameroon they had financed had ‘done even less’ than expected. Who knew? We were so surprised… Goldman-Sachs audited the savings themselves and increased the Cameroon project rating to Triple-A. That raised the value of all future African forest projections to do nothing allowing me to sell my additional ‘do nothings’ to a Chinese power plant where my friend Lothario works as a carbon trader. It turned out those Chinese were actually doing something the German’s were paying them not to and had, in an attempt to cover for themselves, mistakenly bought Somali carbon futures at an inflated price from my uncle Sot who owed me a lotta money, by the way, since the wedding. When the Germans found out about the Chinese-Somali over-priced deal, they had to rush to buy the available Russian-Cameroonian forest underperformance which my agent at Goldman-Sachs (quite coincidentally) told them was the only large enough deal available this week – you know, enforcement stuff and alla dat. Ya can’t be too careful. By da time all da money changed hands and I had paid off my original loan from Goldman-Sachs, I was up $33 million.”
“Mr Bonafides, how do we know you didn’t just get protection payoff money from the Russian casino?”
“You insult me sir! Would I lie to you?! If you don’t trust me or the Russians or the Chinese or the Cameroonians or the Somalis then who do you trust! You sir, need to have a little more respect for the emerging nations! As a group they are very nice people and they have always treated me well. Besides, the carbon market is unregulated. You can’t prove nuttin’ and you got nuttin’ on me! I know my rights! Talk to the hand cause the face ain’t listenin’.”
“Is it true Mr Bonafides, that you own a defunct toxic waste processing company in Equatorial Guinea?”
“Talk to the hand!”
jorgekafkazar says:
November 25, 2011 at 3:14 pm
“The National Research Council of The National Academies of the United States is empanelling a committee to study “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past REDACTED Years”. ”
Why was this number censored? it must have read “the Past 1,000-2,000 Years” Did it look too much like someone’s phone number? The redaction algorithm seems poorly written.
=========================================================
Download the file for yourself if you want to see redacted material. Very little is redacted from those. Phone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, street addresses… none are redacted.
[SNIP: You come by offering nothing and do it with a fake -email address. Brave, bright lad. -REP]
Julian Williams in Wales says:
November 26, 2011 at 5:41 am
Roger Knights says:
November 26, 2011 at 3:42 am
wayne says:
November 25, 2011 at 9:17 pm
—————
Wayne/Roger Knights/Julian Williams in Wales,
I applaud those who are energized to provide an organized residual body of thoughts from the open climate science sites like WUWT, etc.
I applaud those who reach out to the media with copy they (the MSM) can cut and paste.
I find the strength of independent and unassociated contributors /commenters at the open climate science sites is the unique and creative approaches to well-worn and too familiar discourse. That is how we got the material that anyone would seek to organize and/or project to the media. It is how we will continue to advance our knowledge further in the open climate science sites.
I cannot see that there can be any hint of intellectual authority in open discourse, so I would encourage efforts at the open climate science sites to persist in the current independent and non-associated format.
John
There’s an embarrassingly bad editorial in the Irish times today ….
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1126/1224308182362.html
Nothing will get through to these people.