This is a repost from Jeff Id’s Air Vent as it needed the wider circulation that WUWT can offer. I’ve also added the update from comment #9 he refers to.
The Right Kind of People
Posted by Jeff Id on November 28, 2011
UPDATE: Reader Stacey left a bomb in #9 of the thread below.
Long time readers here will recognize this theme, new readers can assume it from the URL I’ve been using. The concept of a complete consensus among humans only occurs when a structure bands them together on an opinion. In AGW science, we know for certain that we don’t really know much, therefore a consensus must come from unscientific pressures. I and many others have maintained that government funding has corrupted the science and systematically eliminated dissent at all levels. It is a self-filtering process (not a centrally controlled conspiracy) which ensures that climate scientists have a nearly singular mindset on global warming and a singular cause to crusade for. Scientists are naturally skeptics as the infighting on truly major issues in these emails shows. Discussions are often had in terms of good and bad people, causes and damage. How is it that a paper causes damage? Much of the malfeasance in these emails focuses on mitigation of damage to the ‘message’.
When publicly funded, leaders know that outward appearance is critical to the mission. In something as big as global warming, the illusion of a perfect consensus must be maintained for the now massive environmental departments and organizations including the IPCC to succeed in their political goals. Probably the single largest message from both climategate releases is the open viewing of the effects this mechanism has on the science itself. Repression of conflicting evidence in exchange for more extreme results.
It is actually humorous reading these guys talk to each other about how skeptics are oil funded and politically motivated followed by the next proposal for 3million euros from the taxpayer. They never seem to notice that the blogs are unfunded or that their cohorts who disagree don’t take oil money and the few who have get values 1/100th of the UEA. There is even an email from Mike Hulme telling greenpeace that the UEA won’t support their extremist attacks on Exxon and a second ‘private’ email telling them that he does. In case you are unaware, Greenpeace has become an openly anti-capitalist group with a stated mission of reigning in capitalism for the purpose of reducing our standards of living. Hulme, and many of his friends, are absolutely political extremists who somehow never seem to notice that they all agree with each other on politics. If you happen to be one who doesn’t agree, well they know how to take care of that little problem.
This first email relates to a paper I haven’t read that very well may have problems, but it shows the filtering process in action. It is a long email but important. I have highlighted a few quotes which help bring my points above into light.
From email #3265
X-Sender: f037@pop.uea.ac.uk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:29:22 +0100
To: c.goodess@uea,phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Climate Research
Clare, Phil,
Since Clare and CRU are named in it, you may be interested in Chris de Freitas’ reply to
the publisher re. my letter to Otto Kinne. I am not responding to this, but await a
reply from Kinne himself.
Mike
From: “Chris de Freitas”
To: Inter-Research Science Publisher <ir@int-res.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:45:56 +1200
Subject: Re: Climate Research
Reply-to: c.defreitas@auckland.ac.nz
CC: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Otto (and copied to Mike Hulme)
I have spent a considerable amount of my time on this matter and had
my integrity attacked in the process. I want to emphasize that the
people leading this attack are hardly impartial observers. Mike
himself refers to “politics” and political incitement involved. Both
Hulme and Goodess are from the Climate Research Unit of UEA that is
not particularly well known for impartial views on the climate change
debate. The CRU has a large stake in climate change research funding
as I understand it pays the salaries of most of its staff. I
understand too the journalist David Appell was leaked information to
fuel a public attack. I do not know the source
Mike Hulme refers to the number of papers I have processed for CR
that “have been authored by scientists who are well known for their
opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering
global climate.” How many can he say he has processed? I suspect the
answer is nil. Does this mean he is biased towards scientists “who
are well known for their support for the notion that humans are
significantly altering global climate?
Mike Hulme quite clearly has an axe or two to grind, and, it seems, a
political agenda. But attacks on me of this sort challenge my
professional integrity, not only as a CR editor, but also as an
academic and scientist. Mike Hulme should know that I have never
accepted any research money for climate change research, none from
any “side” or lobby or interest group or government or industry. So I
have no pipers to pay.
This matter has gone too far. The critics show a lack of moral
imagination. And the Cramer affair is dragged up over an over again.
People quickly forget that Cramer (like Hulme and Goodess now) was
attacking Larry Kalkstein and me for approving manuscripts, in
Hulme’s words, “authored by scientists who are well known for their
opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering
global climate.”
I would like to remind those who continually drag up the Cramer
affair that Cramer himself was not unequivocal in his condemnation of
Balling et al’s manuscript (the one Cramer refereed and now says I
should have not had published – and what started all this off). In
fact, he did not even recommend that it be rejected. He stated in his
review: “My review of the manuscript is mainly with the conclusions
of the work. For technical assessment, I do not myself have
sufficient experience with time series analysis of the kind presented
by the authors.” He goes on to recommend: “revise and resubmit for
additional review”. This is exactly what I did; but I did not send it
back to him after resubmission for the very reason that he himself
confessed to ignorance about the analytical method used.
Am I to trundle all this out over and over again because of criticism
from a lobbyist scientists who are, paraphrasing Hulme, “well known
for their support for the notion that humans are significantly
altering global climate”.
The criticisms of Soon and Baliunas (2003) CR article raised by Mike
Hume in his 16 June 2003 email to you was not raised by the any of
the four referees I used (but is curiously similar to points raided
by David Appell!). Keep in mind that referees used were selected in
consultation with a paleoclimatologist. Five referees were selected
based on the guidance I received. All are reputable
paleoclimatologists, respected for their expertise in reconstruction
of past climates. None (none at all) were from what Hans and Clare
have referred to as “the other side” or what Hulme refers to as
people well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are
significantly altering global climate.” One of the five referees
turned down the request to review explaining he was busy and would
not have the time. The remaining four referees sent their detailed
comments to me. None suggested the manuscript should be rejected. S&B
were asked to respond to referees comments and make extensive
alterations accordingly. This was done.
I am no paleoclimatolgist, far from it, but have collected opinions
from other paleoclimatologists on the S&B paper. I summarise them
here. What I take from the S&B paper is an attempt to assess climate
data lost from sight in the Mann proxies. For example, the raising on
lowering of glacier equilibrium lines was the origin of the Little
Ice Age as a concept and still seems to be a highly important proxy,
even if a little difficult to precisely quantify.
Using a much larger number of “proxy” indicators than Mann did, S&B
inquired whether there was a globally detectable 50-year period of
unusual cold in the LIA and a similarly warm era in the MWP. Further,
they asked if these indicators, in general, would indicate that any
similar period in the 20th century was warmer than any other era.
S&B did not purport to do independent interpretation of climate time
series, either through 50-year filters or otherwise. They merely
adopt the conclusions of the cited authors and make a scorecard. It
seems pretty evident to me that temperatures in the LIA were the
lowest since the LGM. There are lots of peer-reviewed paleo-articles
which assert the existence of LIA.
Frankly, I have difficulty understanding this particular quibble.
Some sort of averaging is necessary to establish the ‘slower’ trends,
and that sort of averaging is used by every single study – they
average to bring out the item of their interest. A million year
average would do little to enlighten, as would detailed daily
readings. The period must be chosen to eliminate as much of the
‘noise’ as possible without degrading the longer-term signals
significantly.
As I read the S&B paper, it was a relatively arbitrary choice – and
why shouldn’t it be? It was only chosen to suppress spurious signals
and expose the slower drift that is inherent in nature. Anyone that
has seen curves of the last 2 million years must recognize that an
averaging of some sort has taken place. It is not often, however,
that the quibble is about the choice of numbers of years, or the
exact methodology – those are chosen simply to expose ‘supposedly’
useful data which is otherwise hidden from view.
Let me ask Mike this question. Can he give an example of any dataset
where the S&B characterization of the source author is incorrect? (I
am not vouching for them , merely asking.)
S&B say that they rely on the original characterizations, not that
they are making their own; I don’t see a problem a priori on relying
on characterizations of others or, in the present circumstances, of
presenting a literature review. While S&B is a literature review, so
is this section of IPCC TAR, except that the S&B review is more
thorough.
The Mann et al multi-proxy reconstruction of past temperatures has
many problems and these have been well documented by S&B and others.
My reading of the IPCC TAR leads me to the conclusion that Mann et al
has been used as the basis for a number of assertions: 1. Over the
past millennium (at least for the NH) the temperature has not varied
significantly (except for the European/North Atlantic sector) and
hence the climate system has little internal variability. This
statement is supported by an analysis of model behaviour, which also
shows little internal variability in climate models. 2. Recent global
warming, as inferred from instrument records, is large and unusual in
the context of the Mann et al temperature reconstruction from multi-
proxies. 3. Because of the previous limited variability and the
recent warming that cannot be explained by known natural forcing
(volcanic activity and solar insolation changes) human activity is
the likely cause of the recent global change.
In this context, IPCC mounts a powerful case. But the case rests on
two main foundations; the past climate has shown little variability
and the climate models reflect the internal variability of the
climate system. If either or both are shown to be weak or fallacious
then the IPCC case is weakened or fails.
S&B have examined the premise that the globally integrated
temperature has hardly varied over the past millennium prior to the
instrumental record. I agree it is not rocket science that they have
performed. They have looked at the evidence provided by researchers
to see if the trend of the temperature record of the European/North
Atlantic sector (which is not disputed by IPCC) is reflected in
individual records from other parts of the globe (Their three
questions). How objective is their assessment? From a purely
statistical viewpoint the work can be criticised. But if you took a
purely statistical approach you probably would not have sufficient
data to reach an unambiguous conclusion, or you could try statistical
fiddles to combine the data and end up with erroneous results under
the guise of statistical significance. S&B have looked at the data
and reached the conclusion that probably the temperature record from
other parts of the globe follows the same pattern as that of the
European/North Atlantic sector. Of the individual proxy records that
I have seen I would agree that this is the case. I certainly have not
found significant regions of the NH that were cold during the
medieval period and warm during the Little Ice Age period that are
necessary offsets of the European/North Atlantic sector necessary to
reach a hemispherically flat pattern as derived by Mann et al.
S&B have put forward sufficient evidence to challenge the Mann et al
analysis outcome and seriously weaken the IPCC assertions based on
Mann et al. Paleo reconstruction of temperatures and the global
pattern over the past millennium and longer remains a fertile field
for research. It suggests that the climate system is such that a
major temporal variation as is universally recognised for the
European/North Atlantic region would be reflected globally and S&B
have given support to this view.
It is my belief that the S&B work is a sincere endeavour to find out
whether MWP and LIA were worldwide phenomena. The historical evidence
beyond tree ring widths is convincing in my opinion. The concept of
“Little Ice Age” is certainly used practically by all Holocene paleo-
climatologists, who work on oblivious to Mann’s “disproof” of its
existence.
Paleoclimatologists tell me that, for debating purposes, they are
more inclined to draw attention to the Holocene Optimum (about 6000
BP) as an undisputed example of climate about 1-2 deg C warmer than
at present, and to ponder the entry and exit from the Younger Dryas
as an example of abrupt climate change, than to get too excited about
the Medieval Warm Period, which seems a very attenuated version.
However, the Little Ice Age seems valid enough as a paleoclimatic
concept. North American geologists repeatedly assert that the 19th
century was the coldest century in North America since the LGM. To
that extent, showing temperature increase since then is not unlike a
mutual fund salesmen showing expected rate of return from a market
bottom – not precisely false, but rather in the realm of sleight-of-
hand.
Regards
Chris
His email exposes not only how he has been attacked but the general weakness of our understanding of extreme warming – which is the real reason for the vehement attacks. In another email (#3052), the correct reaction to this paper was discussed extensively by the ‘in crowd’.– my bold again.
cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au, Peter.Whetton@csiro.au, Roger.Francey@csiro.au, David.Etheridge@csiro.au, Ian.Smith@csiro.au, Simon.Torok@csiro.au, Willem.Bouma@csiro.au, j.salinger@niwa.com, pachauri@teri.res.in, Greg.Ayers@csiro.au, Rick.Bailey@csiro.au, Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au, mmaccrac@comcast.net, tcrowley@duke.edu, rbradley@geo.umass.edu
date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:21:50 +1200
from: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz
subject: Another course of Action – Recent climate sceptic research and the
to: Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, mann@virginia.edu, Phil Jones, harvey@geog.utoronto.ca, wigley@ucar.edu, n.nicholls@bom.gov.au
Dear All
For information, De Freitas has finally put all his arguments
together in a paper published in the Canadian Bulletin of Petroleum
Geology, 2002 (on holiday at the moment, and the reference is at
work!)
I have had thoughts also on a further course of action. The present
Vice Chancellor of the University of Auckland, Professor John Hood
(comes from an engineering background) is very concerned that
Auckland should be seen as New Zealand’s premier research
university, and one with an excellent reputation internationally. He
is concerned to the extent that he is monitoring the performance of
ALL his senior staff, from Associate Professor upwards, including
interviews with them. My suggestion is that a band of you review
editors write directly to Professor Hood with your concerns. In it
you should point out that you are all globally recognized top
climate scientist. It is best that such a letter come from outside
NZ and is signed by more than one person. His address is:
Professor John Hood
Vice Chancellor
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, New Zealand
Let me know what you think! See suggested text below.
Regards
Jim
Some suggested text below:
***************
We write to you as the editorial board(review editors??) of the
leading international journal Climate Research for climate scientists
….
We are very concerned at the poor standards and personal biases
shown by a member of your staff. …..
When we originally appointed … to the editorial board we were
under the impression that they would carry out their duties in an
objective manner as is expected of scientists world wide. We
were also given to understand that this person has been honoured
with science communicator of the year award, several times by
your … organisation.
Instead we have discovered that this person has been using his
position to promote ‘fringe’ views of various groups with which
they are associated around the world. It perhaps would have been
less disturbing if the ‘science’ that was being passed through
the system was sound. However, a recent incident has alerted us
to the fact that poorly constructed and uncritical work has been
allowed to enter the pages of the journal. A recent example has
caused outrage amongst leading climate scientists around the
world and has resulted in the journal dismissing (??).. from the
editorial board.
We bring this to your attention since we consider it brings the
name of your university and New Zealand into some disrepute. We
leave it to your discretion what use you make of this
information.
The journal itself cannot be considered completely blameless in
this situation and we clearly need to tighten some of our
editorial processes; however, up until now we have relied on the
honour and professionalism of our editors. Sadly this incident
has damaged our faith in some of our fellow scientists.
Regrettably it will reflect on your institution as this person is
a relatively senior staff member.
********************
>
>
> At 16:19 17/04/03 +1000, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >
> >I just want to throw in some thoughts re appropriate responses to all
> >this – probably obvious to some of you, but clearly different from
> >some views expressed. This is not solely a reply to Phil Jones, as I
> >have read lots of other emails today including all those interesting
> >ones from Michael Mann.
> >
> >1. I completely understand the frustration by some at having to
> >consider a reply to these nonsense papers, and I agree that such
> >replies will not get cited much and may in fact draw attention to
> >papers which deserve to be ignored.
> >
> >2. However, ignoring them can be interpreted as not having an answer,
> >and whether we ignore them or not, there are people and lobby groups
> >which will push these papers as ‘refereed science’ which WILL be
> >persuasive to many small or large decision-makers who are NOT
> >competent to make their own scientific judgements, and some of whom
> >wish the enhanced GH effect would turn out to be a myth. In our
> >Australian backwater for example, such papers WILL/ARE being copied
> >to business executives and politicians to bolster anti-FCCC
> >decisions, and these people do matter. There has to be a well-argued
> >and authoritative response, at least for private circulation, and as
> >a basis for advice to these decision-makers.
> >
> >3. I see several possible courses of action that would be useful. (a)
> >Prepare a background briefing document for wide private circulation,
> >which refutes the claims and lists competent authorities who might be
> >consulted for advice on this issue. (b) Ensure that such misleading
> >papers do not continue to appear in the offending journals by getting
> >proper scientific standards applied to refereeing and editing.
> >Whether that is done publicly or privately may not matter so much, as
> >long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the journals, but
> >that might leave them even freer to promulgate misinformation. To my
> >mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed and
> >proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers
> >might work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading
> >authors. (c) A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices
> >might work and embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are
> >capable of being embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter
> >for Science or Nature. Offending editors could be labelled as “rogue
> >editors”, in line with current international practice? Or is that
> >defamatory? (d) Legal action might be useful for authors who consider
> >themselves libelled, and there could be financial support for such
> >actions (Jim Salinger might have contacts here). However, we would
> >need to be very careful to be moderate and reasonable in our reponses
> >to avoid counter legal actions.
> >
> >4. I thoroughly agree that just entering in to a public slanging
> >match with the offending authors (or editors for that matter) on a
> >one-to-one basis is not the way to go. We need some more concerted
> >action.
> >
> >5. One other thought is that it may be worthwhile for some authors to
> >do a serious further study to bring out some statistical tests for
> >the likelihood of numerous proxy records showing unprecedented
> >synchronous warming in the last 30+ years. This could be, somewhat
> >along the lines of the tests used in the studies of observed changes
> >in biological and physical systems in the TAR WGII report(SPM figure
> >1 and related text in Chapter 19, and recent papers by Parmesan and
> >Yohe (2003) and Root et al. (2003) in Nature 421, 37-42 and 57-60).
> >Someone may already have this in hand. I am sure the evidence is even
> >stronger than for the critters. That is of course what has already
> >been done in fingerprinting the actual temperature record.
> >
> >Anyway, I am not one of the authors, and too busy (for a retired
> >person), so I hope you can collectively get something going which I
> >can support.
> >
> >Best regards to all,
> >
> >Barrie.
> >
> >Dr. A. Barrie Pittock
> >Post-Retirement Fellow, Climate Impact Group
> >CSIRO Atmospheric Research, PMB 1, Aspendale 3195, Australia
> >Tel: +613 9239 4527, Fax: +61 3 9239 4688, email:
> > WWW:
> >http://www.dar.csiro.au/res/cm/impact.htm
> >
> >Please Note: Use above address. The old >barrie.pittock@dar.csiro.au> is no longer supported.
> >
> >Currently I am working on a couple of books and other writing re
> >climate change and science issues. Please refer any matters re the
> >Climate Impact Group to Dr. Peter Whetton, Group Leader, at
> >, tel.:
> >+61 3 9239 4535. Normally I am in the lab Tuesdays and Thursdays.
> >
> >”Far better and approximate answer to the right question which is
> >often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question which can
> >always be made precise.” J. W. Tukey
> >
> >
> >—–Original Message—–
> >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
> >Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2003 6:23 PM
> >To: Mike Hulme; Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au
> >Cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au; Peter.Whetton@csiro.au;
> >Roger.Francey@csiro.au; David.Etheridge@csiro.au; Ian.Smith@csiro.au;
> >Simon.Torok@csiro.au; Willem.Bouma@csiro.au; j.salinger@niwa.com;
> >pachauri@teri.res.in; Greg.Ayers@csiro.au; Rick.Bailey@csiro.au;
> >Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au Subject: Re: Recent climate sceptic research
> >and the journal Climate Research
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear All,
> > There have been a number of emails on these two papers. They
> > are bad.
> >I’ll be seeing
> > Hans von Storch next week and I’ll be telling him in person what a
> >disservice he’s doing
> > to the science and the status of Climate Research.
> > I’ve already told Hans I want nothing more to do with the
> > journal. Tom
> >Crowley may be
> > writing something – find out also next week, but at the EGS last
> > week Ray
> >Bradley, Mike
> > Mann, Malcolm Hughes and others decided it would be best to do
> > nothing.
> >Papers
> > that respond to work like this never get cited – a point I’m
> > trying to
> >get across to Hans.
> > We all have better papers to write than waste our time responding
> > to
> >drivel like this.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ———————————————————————-
> ——
>
>
*********************************************************
Dr Jim Salinger, CRSNZ
NIWA
P O Box 109 695
Newmarket, Auckland
New Zealand
Tel + 64 9 375 2053 Fax + 64 9 375 2051
e-mail: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz
**********************************************************
Now even if the paper was bad, you can see the extremeness of the team response to it. I can tell readers from my own experience in publication that even papers with ‘less’ global warming message are forcefully resisted by some. I have also been privy to other paper’s reviews which suffer the forceful gatekeeping as is implied above. If the authors truly did make an honest attempt at publishing as DeFreitas wrote, and it truly was accepted by four reviewers, even if it had a mistake, can you imagine the difficulty they will now have in promotions or acceptance of future work in their field? I wonder if the huge climate funds will still find their way to them or if their proposals will fall on deaf ears?
There are literally mountains of similar emails. So many that I can’t even begin to discuss them. Of course, feel free to copy your own on-topic ones below. If you select the right data as paleoclimate does by standard practice, you get the predicted result.
If you select the right people…..
================================================================
UPDATE: Comment #9 below. Reading his response to Kinne, I think Mike Mann has the same sort of problems Captain Queeg did.
Stacey said
Dear Jeff ID
The following email trail shows the Teams response after having complained about Dr deFreitas they are written to by Otto Kinne who has investigated their complaint and states he is satisfied with the handling of a paper submitted to CR.
They conspire to bring down a commercial organisation because it publishes things they don’t like?
Mann and Hume seem thick as theives and one wonders are they the controlling minds on both sides of the atlantic.
I drew Dr deFreitas’s attention to the following and he did respond you may find him responsive to you.
Sorry how the emails are presented.
Regards
S
date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:27:32 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: Re: Fwd: Climate Research
to: Mike Hulme , p.jones@uea.xxxxxx, wigley@ncar.xxxxxx
Thanks Mike
It seems to me that this “Kinne” character’s words are disingenuous, and he probably
supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we have to go above him.
I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in this eventuality,
terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels–reviewing, editing, and
submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute,
Thanks,
mike
At 01:00 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Mike Hulme wrote:
Phil, Tom, Mike,
So, this would seem to be the end of the matter as far as Climate Research is concerned.
Mike
To
CLIMATE RESEARCH
Editors and Review Editors
Dear colleagues,
In my 20.06. email to you I stated, among other things, that I would ask CR editor
Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the reviewers’ evaluations for the 2 Soon et
al. papers.
I have received and studied the material requested.
Conclusions:
1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented detailed, critical
and helpful evaluations
2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions.
3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly.
Summary:
Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.
Best wishes,
Otto Kinne
Director, Inter-Research
–
————————————————-
Inter-Research, Science Publisher
Ecology Institute
Nordbuente 23,
D-21385 Oldendorf/Luhe,
Germany
Tel: (+49) (4132) 7127 Email: ir@int-resxxx
Fax: (+49) (4132) 8883 [1]http://www.int-res.com
Inter-Research – Publisher of Scientific Journals and Book Series:
– Marine Ecology Progress Series (MEPS)
– Aquatic Microbial Ecology (AME)
– Diseases of Aquatic Organisms (DA0)
– Climate Research (CR)
– Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP)
– Excellence in Ecology
– Top Books
– EEIU Brochures
YOU ARE INVITED TO VISIT OUR WEB SITES: [2]www.int-res.com and [3]www.eeiu.org
April, … “a science purity panel” Muggles need not apply for any climate studies.
Some insite into Mike Mann…in his own words:
Email #4666 is far too long to copy here, but you have to read it. Mike Mann ripping into Anne Jolis from Wall Street Journal Europe for simply asking him some questions for a news article.
Here are two bits:
“I’m sad to report that the tone of your questions suggests a highly distorted, contrarian-driven view of the entirety of our science. The premise of essentially everyone of your questions is wrong, and is contradicted by assessments such as the IPCC report, reports by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, etc.”
and the threat:
“Misrepresenting the work of scientists is a serious offense, and would work to further besmirch the reputation of the Wall Street Journal, which is strongly been called into
question in the past with regard to the treatment of climate change.”
April, I did not see the science purity panel you reference. Could you point it out as I only saw a call to have an ethics meeting, such as Penn state is doing, which is great because it will draw attention to their previous whitewash.
I feel ill from reading this stuff. These guys are really, really creepy. This is like Nazi bookburning, only worse. Then it was in public for all to see. Now we have to scour this email trail to see just how dark these men are, and that they will do their able best to secure their views as the only ones acceptable. Brrrr-rrr. The public expression? This Ethics gong-show from Penn State. They are so bloody arrogant.
DCA:
“Thirteen of the authors Baliunas and Soon cited in the paper refuted her interpretation of their work, and several editors of Climate Research resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process that allowed the publication.”
…..
I searched a couldn’t find anything backing this up. Is there anything?
Wikipedia gives this reference to support that claim:
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf
I think this thread is the story that has legs. Soon and Baliunas are good scientists and good people with honourable intent, making an important scientific point that everyone can understand. They get the first flush of Mann’s blitzkrieg (Godwin can stuff it here).
The other side of feeling sick is strengthening the committment to fight for what is right. To use our ingenuity. Our cunning. Our knowledge. Our collective, distilled wisdom and power. Prayer. Positive thinking. Speaking Truth to Power, as the Quakers say. Keeping on looking for Whatever Will Work. Not wasting time on anything else.
As Pasteur said, “Chance favours the prepared mind”. Have a 12-step program ready to offer “defectors”. Be prepared to handle 200,000 emails efficiently and effectively. Each time I hit another sickening piece of news, it sharpens my resolve to get a wiki going.
I’ve seen the level of Joe Public’s scientific literacy rising, in following MSM responses. Also the level of awareness of the fraud, the level of awareness of the importance of courtesy and debate, and the level of skills to undermine and expose the corruption and force a return to justice. We have further to go still, but we can do it, if we can work together and use our resources efficiently.
A question: Is that 100 year cutoff a limitation of your spectrum analysis software? The reason I ask is because it seems to me that there is another component possibly in there with a period of 700 or more years. I wonder if there is enough data for it to be picked up.
Here’s the membership of the Gang of Thirteen from the EOS article: Mann, Amman, Bradley, Briffa, Jones, Osborn, Crowley, Hughes, Oppenheimer, Overpeck, Rutherford, Trenberth, Wigley.
Looks like the usual suspects. Should have been a step forward for CR.
Well isn’t that a convenient piece of circular logic. As they had great influence in the production of the IPCC report and much of it is their work, they can’t point to it as an external validation of their work, but they do. My response would have been along the lines of “nice try, pal”.
David L, that 4666 is a doozie. If that’s a brief reply, I’d hate to see Mann in a state of verbosity
I think a good besmirching from “Doctor” Mann might be more a badge of honor. If I were the WSJ, I think I would give it notice on the masthead.
The Wall Street Journal — Besmirched by Michael Mann!
Hey, maybe we can get a “Smirch”andise page going on Cafe Press or something. Smirch for sale!
Shameful. Infamous. A hideous violation of scientific and personal ethics.
“Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism.”—CG Jung
The more I think about it, the more I like the Smirchandise thing. Coffee mugs maybe with key quotes from the climategate emails. Maybe start with a t-shirt that says “Misrepresenting the work of scientists is a serious offense.” on the front with a particularly damning quote on the back.
I like that Mann has no problem whatsoever misrepresenting the work of scientists whose results are counter to his hypothesis.
Dave Summers (Heading Out) says:
November 29, 2011 at 2:22 pm
=============
Thank you for the reply. Not to distract from WUWT, I will visit your site. Your coverage of the Horizon incident on ‘theoildrum’ was excellent. Continued eyesonu!
In regard to misrepresenting the work of scientists it might be pertinent to note that Phil Jones is revealed as equally guilty of that particular scientific crime. He writes (in e-mail 31 of the current series):
But in her seminal book on The Little Ice Age, what Jean Grove actually said was:
But then she had died in 2001, so I suppose he didn’t expect any rebuttal.
Many years ago in an undergrad humanities class –I needed to have a “well-rounded” education– I fiercely defended the notion that the hard sciences were superior to the liberal arts and soft sciences because they had certain built-in checks to arrive at the truth: peer review, falsifiability, rigorous statistical methods, etc.
Seeing this disgusting chain of e-mails more suited to a high school clique than the impartial and noble pursuit of knowledge I can only conclude that I was wrong.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 29, 2011 at 3:46 pm
crosspatch says:
November 29, 2011 at 3:35 pm
So now if we add up those wavelengths into a composite signal, well, all of them starting with, say, the roughly 34-year peak ……………… and I will bet some surprises will pop out when things line up just right. I will bet some very warm and some very cool periods show up.
It has been done
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
============
@ur momisugly M. A. Vukcevic and crosspatch
Thank you M. A. Vukcevic.
I’m glad this has been done. I tried to do the same a year or so ago and ended up with lots of handwritten graphs of differing cycles but not complete enough to put all together.
This is something that one with greater knowledge and resources than myself needed to to do in depth. A composite of signals could be like a rabbit in the hat.
Search the archive for ‘Boehmer’ to see the pressure that Phil Jones put in on Hull University to get them to rein in Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. And he gets a result.
What a nasty man he is turning out to be.
@ur momisugly M. A. Vukcevic
I should have added that I also was trying to include the PDO, solar, and other cycles all into one overlapping composite. I drew the cycles that I could find at the time to look at possible / probable overlaps but I was only trying to prove to myself and would have just added to ‘my vast wealth of useless knowledge’. Other issues / projects caused me to drop the ball. Maybe someone else can find the rabbit.
The climate conmen seem very much like the usual gutless nerds online who pack stalk and pack defame people, the only real difference being that the climate decepticons have paying daytime “jobs” (albeit only evolutionary deadend work for the dole Uni jobs).
The entire Climategate “CRU” should be hanged from lamp posts, with damning quotes from these emails prominently displayed below them for all to read. This isn’t the first time Science has gotten ugly, but this IS the first time the entire civilized world has been threatened with destruction to satisfy the vanity of a bunch of hypocritical ########s. I will be emailing a few congresscritters weekly until there’s an investigation of the so-called “science” behind CAGW, and especially the EPA’s “assessment” that CO2 is a “pollutant”. I urge the rest of you to do the same. If we pound them loud enough, long enough, something will give.
“It is actually humorous reading these guys talk to each other about how skeptics are oil funded and politically motivated followed by the next proposal for 3million euros from the taxpayer. They never seem to notice that the blogs are unfunded or that their cohorts who disagree don’t take oil money and the few who have get values 1/100th of the UEA.”
I concur, the hypocrisy here is ridiculous. Below is a summary of the fossil fuel industry’s involvement in “climate science”…
—— Forwarded message follows ——-
To: ???@igc.topica.com
From: “Bill Hare, CNE” ???@diala.gl3
Subject: [can-talk] IPCC Chairman: Pachauri in, Watson out
Date sent: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:05:25 +020 ???
Send reply to: ???@diala.gl3
Organization: Greenpeace
[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]
Dear Can colleagues
This note covers the outcome of the IPCC Plenary concluded on Saturday in Geneva in relation to the Chairmanship position. Many other decisions were taken and these will be covered in a subsequent note this afternoon or tomorrow.
As many of you would have seen from press reports over the weekend the IPCC has voted Dr Pachauri of India into the position of Chairman of IPCC. Dr Robert Watson was outvoted in a secret ballot on Friday afternoon – Pachauri 76; Watson – 49; and Goldem berg – 7. As far as we can determine based on the expressed or inferred voting intentions, the vast majority of African countries voted heavily for Pachauri as did all the OPECs, several LatinAmerican countries (Venezuela, Peru and Chile), Japan and some other Asian countries (India plus others). Voting for Watson were all of Europe except Russia, China, Canada, NZ and probably Australia plus a collection of Asian countries and a few small island states present. For those present it was certainly the ugliest and most vile IPCC meeting ever.
Pachauri in the end refused any role for Watson, a gesture of indecency not seen before in the IPCC and entirely against the spirit of the IPCC since it began and all that it has stood for in all of the times past. The fossil fuel industry was crawling all over the process it seems from beginning to end: and the beginning it seems was a long time before the plenary itself and has involved a few senior UN officials acting in extraordinary a partisan ways.
Speaking personally, whatever view one takes of Pachauri the manner of his victory and the forces so blatantly and we strongly suspect immorally, behind the campaign to get him elected, are very likely to haunt his tenure of the IPCC and probably the IPCC itself. In terms of body language at the meeting Pachauri spent an inordinate amount of time in consultation with Don Pealrman and others associated with that camp and were overheard on numerous occasions plotting and scheming on how to use rules of procedure to bring on a vote and to keep Watson out should Pachauri win. He was too engaged with such discussions to talk with NGOs on Saturday.
Objectively there were clear concerns from a group of developing countries over Watson and his behaviour in the past as well as the concern for this to be the turn of developing countries. The latter position of course was spearheaded by the USA in its pre Plenary diplomacy throughout
Africa and Asia, it seems. In this context proposals for a Co-Chair arrangement were dismissed as tantamount to suggesting that developing country scientists were inferior to developed country scientists. Inaddition to the election of Pachauri as Chair the Working Group co-chairs were apppointed and overall there is a very strong and credible line up. Drs Solomon (USA) and Qin (China) were appointed to WGI on Science, Drs Canziani (Argentina) and Parry (UK) to WGII on Impacts and Drs Davidson and Metz (NL) for WGIII (as befor e).
It is anticipated by most that Pachauri will not pay as much attention to the details of the IPCC as Watson or Bolin before him and hence the strength of the WG Chairs will be very important. In relation to Pachauri himself it is apparent that many concerns were expressed as to an apparent conflict of interest between his position as IPCC Chair and position on the board of the Indian government’s oil company. I feel he will need to resolve this soon.
Some in industry are saying that Pachauri’s election means that the IPCC and governments are distancing themselves from the IPCC TAR and from Watson. This is wrong but is obviously a pre-determined message and the possibility of running such a message is likely one of the reasons that many big US industries supported Pachauri and the reason why he got such high profile support from the OPECs. Already one government has had to ask him to come and address this issue soon because their business associations are spinning the election this way . As to the NGO approach, we have to work to make sure that damage to the IPCC is limited as a consequence of this affair whilst ensuring that its integrity is maintained over time. My gut feeling is that industrial and political forces supporting Pachauri and upon whom he so visibly relied (in addition to his own government) will not rest and nor will they be interested in free lunches. We need to tell Pachauri that he should be at least as accessible to NGOs as his predecessors were, and not just to big industries.
I will limit my remarks here.
Cheers
Bill Hare
Visiting Scientist
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\EM letter general1.doc”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3150.txt&search=exxon
Shell
From: “Mick Kelly”
To: ???@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +010 ???
Reply-to: ???@uea.ac.uk
Cc: ???@uea.ac.uk, t.o’???@uea.ac.uk
Mike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc, etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell’s name came up at the TC meeting. I’m ccing this to Tim who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me! I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team but this approach will do equally for the new foundation as it’s only one step or so off Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s within the remit.
Regards
Mick
______________________________________________
Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44??? Fax: 44???
Email: ???@uea.ac.uk
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/
___________________________________
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0962818260.txt&search=shell
From: “Mick Kelly”
To: ???@uea.ac.uk, ???@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Shell International
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:05:29 +010 ???
Reply-to: ???@uea.ac.uk
Mike and Tim
Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
Sorry about the delay.
I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation including the foundation as they seem to have good access to the top levels.
Mick
______________________________________________
Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44??? Fax: 44???
Email: ???@uea.ac.uk
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/
______________________________________________
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\shell.doc”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0968691929.txt&search=shell
Exxon-Mobil
From: John Shepherd <???@soc.soton.ac.uk
To: Mike Hulme <???@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: BGS, Esso, & CV for Tyndall bid
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:37:30 +000 ???
Mike
BGS are now on board, so please leave them in the text : I have drafted a letter for David Falvey to sign and sent it. I hope we shall get it back in time…
The Esso (Exxon-Mobil) situation is still promising, but they’re having to get clearance from HQ in the USA (my best contact retired (with cancer) just a few weeks ago, so we’ve had to work around the new CE, to whom all this is news…). They know the deadline and will do their best for us.
Finally, my short informal CV is attached, as requested.
Hope the drafting is coming together well.
John
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\JGS_CV_informal.doc”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0951431850.txt&search=exxon
From: John Shepherd <???@soc.soton.ac.uk
To: ???@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: ESSO
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:00:43 +010 ???
Cc: Mike Hulme <???@uea.ac.uk
Trevor
I gather you’re going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree witrh Mike’s analysis : i.e. there’s room for some constructive dialogue…
See you on the 1014 from Ipswich (0940 from Norwich), for a kick-off at 12 noon ??
John
At 14:07 19/05/00 +010 ???, Mike Hulme wrote:
John,
It will be Trevor on the 19th for ESSO – too tricky for my schedule. I will pass the Esso booklet onto Trevor.
Esso have selectively quoted to (over)-emphasise the uncertainties re. climate change, but at least they have moved beyond denial and recognise that potential unknown long-term risks may require tangible short-term actions. Seems to be some room for negotiation over what research needs doing. I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso. Uncertainty and risk analysis and C sequestration may be the sort of things that appeal.
See you Wednesday,
Mike
At 16:23 10/05/00 +010 ???, you wrote:
Mike
Despite my efforts Esso have gone firm on 19th (to fit the schedule of their man from the USA). Can you decide between you who should come (I suggest one is enough) : it’ll be lunchtime somewhere in London. I shall be travelling from Ipswich (it’s my week for the Aldeburgh Festival) so we could possibly meet on the train there ??
Copies of the Esso booklet arrived yesterday and are now on their way to you… I read it last night and wrote “misleading” and “wrong” in the margins in quite a few places !
John
At 10:04 05/05/00 +010 ???, you wrote:
John,
I can make a London lunch on either 19 or 20, but with a strong preference for 20th. Trevor could also make both days if necessary. By then we will have got further with the Tyndall contract so it would useful to talk with Esso (do you have a copy of the Exxonmobil booklet referred to?).
Let me know how this proceeds,
Mike
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0959187643.txt&search=exxon
Enron (It’s interesting that there’s no follow up emails to the chain below, but then again Enron went bankrupt less than 3 months later…)
date: Mon Sep 17 10:17:17 2001
from: Keith Briffa
subject: RE: Climate Research at The University of East Anglia
to: “Jean Palutikof”
I am interested but happy for you and Phil to meet with him/them . If a visit to CRU is requested , I would be happy to take part in a general discussion.
Thanks
Keith
At 10:11 AM 9/17/01 +010 ???, you wrote:
Does anyone have a strong desire to meet him? Otherwise, I guess Phil and I can handle it.
Phil – do you want me to reply?
Jean
—–Original Message—–
From: Hamilton, Tony [[1]mailto:???@enron.com]
Sent: 14 September 2001 19:31
To: ???@uea.ac.uk; ???@uea.ac.uk; ???@uea.ac.uk;
???@uea.ac.uk; ???@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Climate Research at The University of East Anglia
Dear Sirs/Madam,
I am a senior specialist in statistical forecasting and meteorology with the research group at Enron Europe Ltd., based at Grosvenor Place, London. As you will know energy demand and supply is heavily dependant on climate, weather and weather forecasts. Also, increasingly, global energy demand and supply depends on climate and weather around the whole northern hemisphere.
Our devoted weather research and synoptic forecasting team based in our Houston office, and myself here in London, are extremely interested in the potential for collaborative University-University and University-Industry applied research projects, particularly between joint US/European research institutes and ourselves. We are interested in all aspects of Meteorology from new ideas in theoretical atmospheric physics through more practical aspects such as short-range deterministic forecasting, medium-range ensemble forecasting and long-range seasonal/climatic forecasting and analysis. My colleagues from Houston (who are currently planning visits to research institutes on the US side in the near future) will be in London in early November and I would very much like to set up an introductory meeting with the heads of the research groups at The Climatic Research Unit to introduce ourselves to you and discuss possible areas of mutual research interest.
If this is something that you would be interesting in setting up, or if you can direct me to a more suitable group or individuals at The University of East Anglia, please let me know and we can hopefully arrange a date for sometime in early November. I am currently in Houston, but hope to be able to return to London early next week depending on the current tragic situation here in the US. I can be contacted by email in the meantime.
Look forward to the opportunity of meeting with you in the near future.
In confidence,
Tony Hamilton
_______________________________________
Dr. Tony Hamilton
Senior Specialist, Meteorology and Forecasting
Weather Research
Enron Europe Ltd.
Enron House
—
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +4 ???-1603-593909
Fax: +4 ???-1603-507784
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2241.txt&search=enron
British Petroleum (BP)
date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:45:57 +010 ???
from: “Measures, Jane”
subject: FW: Briefing paper
to: ‘Mike Hulme’
Mike
Just between meetings and have picked up some quick feedback from Simon on our BP HSE team. Pleased to see how positive they are and what do you think of the suggestion?
Regrds
JAne
Jane Measures
BP
Britannic House
Tel. +44 ???
Fax. +44 ???
E mail ???@BP.COM
———-
From: Worthington, Simon
Sent: 24 June 1998 09:08
To: Measures, Jane
Cc: Thomas, Charles; Grezo, Charlotte AB
Subject: RE: Briefing paper
Jane,
This is really good – balanced clear and concise, covering a wide area well.
When completed I would like to get it in to a format to go out to our climate change list as a briefing paper and to all HSE managers – would this be OK with Mike of course we would quote him as the author.
Simon
Simon Worthington
Environmental Policy Adviser
Group Health, Safety and Environment
The British Petroleum Company p.l.c.
Britannic House, 1 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7BA
Tel. +44 ???Fax. +44 ???
———-
From: Measures, Jane
Sent: 24 June 1998 08:42
To: isobel; Russell; Thomas, Charles; Waumsley, Lorraine;
Worthington, Simon
Subject: FW: Briefing paper
Jane Measures
BP
Britannic House
Tel. +44 ???
Fax. +44 ???
E mail ???@BP.COM
———-
From: Mike Hulme[SMTP:???@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 23 June 1998 22:51
To: Measures, Jane
Subject: Re: Briefing paper
<<File: bp.briefing.doc
Jane,
Attached is a nearly complete briefing paper on the science of climate change. Two topics remain to be completed. It is incredibly hard to condense such a wide-ranging and complex topic into such a format. I hope this is what you had in mind.
I will have a go later today at drafting one of these topics in terms of information sources.
Your feedback would be welcome before I progress much further.
Mike
At 11:40 16/06/98 +010 ???, you wrote:
Mike
Can you give me a ring please as I’m getting no response from your
telephone number.
Many thanks
Jane
Jane Measures
BP
Britannic House
Tel. +44 ???
Fax. +44 ???
E mail ???@BP.COM
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4264.txt&search=Petrol
<strong Industrial and Commercial Contacts</strong
From: Mike Hulme <???@uea.ac.uk
To: ???@umist.ac.uk
Subject: Re: industrial and commercial contacts
Date: Mon Jan 10 17:01:32 2000
Simon,
I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:
– Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
– Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
– Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
– ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.
And then Simon Gerrard here in our Risk Unit suggested the following personal contacts:
– ??, someone senior at AMEC Engineering in Yarmouth (involved with North Sea industry and wind energy)
– Richard Powell, Director of the East of England Development Board
You can add these to your list and I can ensure that Tim and Simon feed the right material through once finalised.
I will phone tomorrow re. the texts.
Cheers,
Mike
At 20:30 07/01/00 BST, you wrote:
dear colleagues
re: List of Industrial and Commercial Contacts to Elicit Support
from for the Tyndall Centre
This is the list so far. Our contact person is given in brackets afterwards. There is some discussion on whether we should restict ourselves to board level contacts – hence Dlugolecki is not board level but highly knowledgeable about climate change. I think people such as that, who are well known for their climate change interests, are worth writing to for support. There may be less value in writing to lesser known personnel at a non-board level.
SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom contact the same as Nick Jenkin’s below? Also, do you have a BP Amoco contact? The name I’ve come up with is Paul Rutter, chief engineer, but he is not a personal contact]
We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector. Does anyone know any investment bankers?
Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can finalise the list.
I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person in brackets).
Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
Jenkins]
Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
Shepherd]
Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
[Mike Hulme]
Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
Shackley]
Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
Possibles:
Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
Jenkins]
Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
[Nick Jenkins]
Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
Cannell]
Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
With kind regards
Simon Shackley
So “the fossil fuel industry was crawling all over the [IPCC Chair selection] process” and the UEA was in bed with every oil company they could get in contact with, but those of us who are skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative are supposedly in the pocket of big oil? The hypocrisy, it burns, unleaded of course…
– Cross-posted at the Vent
David, can you not read? Here it is.
“……..I am convinced that an International Committee on Ethics in Geo-Sciences is needed.
Indeed either we do not answer their attacks or we lose time and money doing it. The third solution is an official statement telling what the members of such a Committee of Ethics think about irresponsible statements by such anti-CO2 fellows.”
There is no mention of a “meeting”, only a new committee, complete with the authority of capitalisation. A purity panel. The new committee’s motto might as well be, “Only those scientists who support our science are ethical. All other science is unclean.”
For my liberal friends!
Disgusting stuff, nothing to do with Science (truth finding) and all with pride (ego bolstering).