With apologies to The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, here’s a a comment worth repeating from the Hit and Misses thread.
What I find interesting about the entire email corpus is the focus on the minutia of the statistics and the different proxies. In none of the emails from the core team members do we see any physics of radiation. It seems that if it were your role to “prove” the positive feedback of CO2 you would want to actually do some physics of radiative and convective transfer of energy in the atmosphere. This is where the rubber meets the road.
It seems that the entire consensus group have taken an assumption (positive feedback of CO2 increase) and are going deeper and deeper into the details of the proxies in order to show what the results of their assumption are.
I think that this is why as a discipline, more and more physicists are dismissing AGW.
too many comments but i do believe what been said..the stolen fact indeed
Not only was the paleo ‘Team’ of AR4 WG1 gamers not physicists, they weren’t statisticians either.
They were assigned by the ‘save the planet’ ideologues to clearly show unprecedented warming in the 20th and early 21st century. They failed while getting a score of zero points for professionalism and integrity.
I suggest the paleo team members were selected because they were expendable. Whoever picked them was right . . . they are indeed expendable.
John
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
November 26, 2011 at 6:57 pm
….The USAF in the 1940′s and 1950′s literally drove the technology of infrared and visible spectrometers in their famous “upper atmospheric research” flights in B29′s and other jets during that period. They took increasingly detailed spectrograms, down to where they could eventually measure the gaussian of an individual CO2 absorption feature at different altitudes…..
____________________________________________
One of the crucial assumptions seems to be that CO2 is “uniform” through out the atmosphere. As a chemist who dealt with real world mixing problems in industry, I have a major problem with that assumption.
Can you shed any light on that point???
Paul Murphy says:
November 27, 2011 at 7:07 am
99 comments and only one (by Davidson) states the obvious? “The team” doesn’t use physics because the physics contradicts their thesis.
Not quite. They don’t use physics because they are not doing real science and are in fact intentionally avoiding it. Climate Science is only a massive Propaganda Op. = Postnormal “Science”. “Onward,
comradescompadres, perceeption ees reeality! Vaminos!”In addition to a lack of physics how much biology is being used if you work on the assumption that lack of growth in tree rings gives you a good proxy for temperatures. Trees fail to thrive for lots of reasons and the width of a tree ring is hardly a good measure of the average temperature over a whole year.
Si se pueda!
Rattus Norvegicus says:
November 26, 2011 at 6:04 pm
“Dude, this is a group of people who study paleoclimates, what did you expect? I expect that you would have had a lot more discussion of physics if the emails of a modeling group had been stolen.”
I have to agree. These are climatologists and climatology is an actuarial science not an experimental science. In fact it’s SO actuarial they’re actually selling an insurance policy (a rose by any other name…) when they talk about the precautionary principle as the reasoning behind limiting carbon emissions.
“Vaminos, Teeemnachos!”
The Gringos banished Speedy Gonzales, long live Speedy Gonzales!
With due respects to Blazing Saddles, which should also be banished! Along with coffee.
David L says:
November 27, 2011 at 3:07 am
Everyone needs physics!!!!! 🙂 ” ]
NOT TRUE!! 🙂
I’m gonna grow big boobies [ Or buy them ] – win a talent or beauty contest – appear in a movie…..
AND Join the all come back…. Al Gore Show…:)
Elephant in the room on this topic is the Slayers’ science that refutes the greenhouse gas effect. If you want rigorous atmospheric physics that also applies experimental evidence to back it up then simply read the research papers over at Principia Scientific International (PSI) under ‘Publications.’
http://principia-scientific.org/
Note: this is not a plug for any book – the above papers are free to view to anybody – this is merely a suggestion that some people need to take a long hard look at what’s been productively achieved by an independent think tank of 22 scientists, 11 with PhD’s who have done detailed research (unpaid) on the failing GHE hypothesis.
David L says:
November 27, 2011 at 3:07 am
By the way, Mr. Mann started out Yale grad. school in Theoretical Nuclear Physics prior to switching over to geophysics dept. ” ]
Thank goodness he quit…can you imagine him putting a reactor in upside down? [ Contaminated Tiljander sediments upside down. Mann et al 2008 ].
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
November 26, 2011 at 7:28 pm
I swear by Gropthar’s Hammer that I got this email from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) after this thread started.
Colleagues,
The next Enterprise Chapter meeting….
_____________________________________
HOLY BAT GUANO ROBIN! http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/68863/batman%20horrified.jpg
Jean Parisot says:
November 26, 2011 at 7:54 pm
I have submitted several experiments for consideration that would measure specific model parameters, no USAF interest. No one wants to open Pandora’s box.
______________________
This along with other scientists who truly want to do REAL work is the smoking gun in my opinion.
Dr Jaworski was also turned down when he wanted funding to further study whether the Ice Core CO2 measurements were correct. I can not find the PDF but the reason given was that his findings might upset CAGW.
Dr Jaworski discusses the politics in this link: http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
johnosullivan says:
November 27, 2011 at 8:31 am
OT but maybe, you can ask Mr Watts for room to explain about what happened surrounding / to the Japan Satellite Story????
But – but – they (paleos, dendros et al) are in cahoots with those running MODELS (ostensibly ‘physics based’) to show linkage with/causation due to rising CO2 levels?
Rattus attempts to ‘move’ the goal line once again. Don’t take your eye off the ball for a moment. These e-mails are damning and give insight into the ‘practices’ they employ.
.
crosspatch says:
November 26, 2011 at 8:00 pm
No one wants to open Pandora’s box.
There’s no butter on that side of the bread. You will need to present the experiment in such a way as it looks to be a shoo-in to validate AGW. You position it that way in order to get the funding, pretend that you are out to validate the hypothesis and then once it is done, publish what the data show.
________________________________________
You forgot something Smokey,
AND you add the get out of Peer Review free card
“This study does not in any way negate the validity of the dangers from anthropogenic greenhouse gases”
I am so sick of seeing that sentence or its like stuck on every peer reviewed paper. Even when the paper SHOWS it is a crock.
Dennis Ray Wingo hits on a very good point. “If I wanted to “prove” AGW, there are ways to do it today and do it experimentally. Why are these experiments not being undertaken?”
We can all guess the answer to that question, but his idea for qualified scientists to carry out these experiments is really just what we need right now. If the research proposals are couched in standard AGW speak there should be plenty of funding sources available. A number of well conducted studies by respected lukewarmer type physicists is just the scientific stake we need to drive through the heart of the global warming belief system.
Gray
Katabasis & Wayne,
An interesting pdf. I like the bit where one of the participants laments the fact that the emails are not deleted from the backup server after a period of time. Surely if the university were to implement doing so it would be a breach of the data protection act.
Whether the emails were obtained via local or remote hacking / access we may never know unless the people behind it come to be known. Whoever did it deserves a medal for delivering some of the information that so many obstructed foia requests asked for.
I can understand that the police have to do their job and try to track down the hero or hero’s responsible for the release of these emails. But I would like to know why the police are neglecting to investigate and prosecute Jones et al for the many admissions relating to deleting of emails etc.shown in both releases of emails.
If the police only pursue the path of perceived political correctness and do not enforce ALL the laws, then we are on the way to a form of police state last seen in communist Europe, and still present in many tin pot countries.
Perhaps the police are in collusion with the hacker and have taken away the server in order to prevent the truth from coming to light ? OK, that one does rather go against Occam’s razor.
The backup server may itself have been backed up to tape (or hard drive), if that’s the case then there would not necessarily be any traces to be found in the backup server itself. You simply take a tape and copy it, post the copy to Russia, then put back the original tape where you got it from. Unless of course some Unix expert can tell me this wasn’t possible for some techy reason.
It considerably disturbs me that the UEA and the police are allowing the blatant admissions of foia obfuscation and email deletion by members of the team to go unpunished. My taxes pay for the police and I expect them to do their duty even handedly. If they pursue hackers / leakers / whistle-blowers, then they should also pursue apparent breaches of the data protection act. That might also include asking why the UEA servers and IT systems were not better secured. Perhaps the UEA is itself in breach of the data protection act.
kim2000;
By the way, Mr. Mann started out Yale grad. school in Theoretical Nuclear Physics prior to switching over to geophysics dept. ” ]
Thank goodness he quit…can you imagine him putting a reactor in upside down? >>>
That was so funny that I had to clean the coffee off my keyboard twice. Once when I read it and once more when I wiped off the screen and the comment was still there to read again.
Kim 2000
The question is what career path could Mann etc follow once they have served any jail time society might hopefully one day succeed in levying.
My first thought was supermarket shelf stacker, until I thought more about it, and realised that I would have a hard time reading the labels if they were upside down, the contents may well also have been adjusted in unfortunate ways and the signs in the store directing me to the relevant ails would have been obfuscated to say the least.
Flower arrangers perhaps, but then again, some flowers stuffed into the vase upside down, stalks cut at inconvenient lengths.
Has anyone got any ideas to help rehabilitate the team to become useful members of society ?
TomT says:
November 27, 2011 at 7:06 am
Ok so I saw the passworrd protected folders mentioned here, and it occurred to me that perhaps the reason FOIA has released the email the way it has because the folders were password protected one inside another, and they caked the first password two years ago and then this one now, but they gave up on the next one and so released it too in the hope that someone would be able to crack it.
I find it unlikely that the e-mails were encrypted originally. Even less likely that there were several layers. Why would an administrator do that?
Someone probably got (or had if there’s anything to the whistleblower theory) root access and offloaded the entire spool directory of the mail server (or a copy of it). I would be unusual to encrypt this, and if it was, everything would probably need the same password.
Mac the Knife says:
November 26, 2011 at 9:46 pm
…If this is the foundation atmospheric physics that must be run, let’s get white paper proposals in place to secure funding to make it happen! Dress it up in AGW frippery to get the funding, maintain secure control while you run the experiments, analyse the data and publish the results openly and honestly.
___________________________________
Depending on the amount there is a possibility of funding from sources outside the usual. The Koch brothers come to mind and others in industry that are the target of this whole mess.
I know from watching another issue that we are not talking about a united front among ALL the elite.
davidmhoffer says:
November 27, 2011 at 9:40 am
Ha ha ha ha……. 🙂
Thank you for letting me know…feedback is appreciated.
Dear Mr Watts,
Since I have a hard time telling Mr Mann – Mr Schmidt – Mr Black apart in their pictures…could you please post Mr Manns’ upside down for me?
I believe it would be of great service to us readers 😉
davidmhoffer says:
November 26, 2011 at 10:04 pm
…..Researchers of Jones et al vintage would have grown up self sufficient in UNIX administration, including setting up and running email servers. I’m not saying I know they did, just that it would not surprise me in the least that they could and did…..
_________________________________________
Actually that is where my Spouse got his Computer experience. He ran the computers FOR the scientists at MIT Lincoln labs during the Vietnam era. We are talking punch cards era and forward.
So the labs did hire people to take care of the computers even back then.
If Jones can not even run Excel, I VERY much doubt he was running Unix or any other of those more difficult languages.
That is why “BASIC” was invented. A simple language for us dumb scientists to use. I had a ONE HOUR lecture on BASIC during my training in undergrad Chemistry in 1970.