“Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020”
Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?
And if the world was still warming in 2009, why did Jones refer to “lack of warming”?
Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.
…
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Maybe he needs a backup plan:
MacCracken suggests that Phil Jones start working on a “backup” in case Jones’ prediction of warming is wrong
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Best, Mike MacCracken [Note that Obama’s chief science advisor, John Holdren, is copied on this email]
Thanks to Tom Nelson for spotting these
David L. says: November 30, 2011 at 10:10 am
So switching to low sulfur coal in our power plants was actually a bad thing? Now to put the sulfur back into the gasoline and the “problem” is solved!!!!
———————————————
David: Sulfur is actually added to natural gas and propane, in the form of mercaptans. It’s done to add the bad smell so people can detect leaks. While the quantity of sulfur is less than diesel or jet fuels, it’s not orders of magnitude less.
Western sulphates reduced in the 70’s/80’s and temperatures rose, sulphates rise in the east and temperatures stop rising. The AGW fear machine requires rise to be associated with anthropogenic CO2 and all falls to be natural. The more tangled the web they weave the more it comes unravelled. What sort of a paradox is that? I call it a Crumoron. When can the real world get back to progress and development without Crumoronicness?
crosspatch says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:36 pm
I just want Dr. Jones to explain to me how a COLDER atmosphere can radiate heat and warm the surface.
You’ve been told the answer to this time and again. Your refusal to accept what you are shown, even by the hardest core sceptics, is one of the things that allows the warmists to paint us all as people who deny the scientificly obvious. Please stop asking this. It is stupid.
The colder atmosphere does not warm the surface directly. It prevents it from losing heat as fast. Which has the identical effect. Just like putting a colder blanket on a bed “warms” the bed.
Now stop being deliberately dense and asking this STUPID question! I don’t care that it makes you look like a fool, but I care deeply that idiocy like this taints the rest of us.
Wishing and hoping and
thinking and praying,
planning and dreaming….
Can I be so bold as to suggest the only reason we haven’t seen any significant warming this century so far is because we have the satellite dataset as a check, in the custody of some real scientists with integrity?
R. Gates says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm
………The explanation you choose to accept for the motivations behind his comments, will, like most things in life, depend on what you want to see.
_____________________________________________________________
In regards to climate science, I want to see some more of the important relationships currently judged as having a low level of scientific understanding moved into a high level of scientific understanding so that the research can work with quantifiable relationships instead of concensus assumptions adjusted with fudge factors. It is unwise to bet the economy on such uncertainty.
Jay Davis said:
“But these so-called scientists have perverted peer review, tried to stack the deck on committees and panels, conspired to suppress research findings that contradicted theirs, lied about their data, and so on ad nauseum. ”
But that is exactly how Isaac Newton, the creator of modern science, conducted the debate with Leibniz, variously described as “the last universal genius” and “the most comprehensive thinker since Aristotle,” over who had discovered the infinitesimal calculus.
That’s just how science is. A bunch of ambitious people trying to prove their point by just about any means, the only restriction being that reproducible observations have to be acknowledged as fact. Newton called Leibnitz a “thief” and Liebnitz’s advocates referred to Newton’s supporters as “toadies” and “apes”. Climate scientists are certainly no worse.
“Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?”
Because just like a drowning man he will cling to anything to keep his head above water . His smart enough to know no ones buying the lack of warming as ‘proof of climate change ‘ they spent far to much effort and far to long a time telling everyone there would be ‘warming ‘ for people to forget this claim and accept another .
Friends:
Having been promoting real science as opposition to ‘climate science’ since the early 1980s, I have watched ‘Climategate 2.0’ without commenting because the emails make my case for me.
I write now to address the question posed by Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) at November 30, 2011 at 9:50 am, that was accurately answered with topical points by JohnH at November 30, 2011 at 11:12 am, but obfuscated with disingenuous tripe by CanSpeccy at November 30, 2011 at 10:58 am.
Maurizio Morabito asked;
“ What’s the sulfate hypothesis?”
I explain its importance as follows.
In the period from ~1940 to ~1970 the global mean temperature seemed to cool. This global cooling was claimed by scare-mongers to be a threat to the world and a result of sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions from power stations (see the post from JohnH for explanation of the supposed mechanism).
Then the global mean temperature seemed to warm. By 1980 there had been a decade of global warming so the global cooling scare could not be sustained. Therefore, (mostly the same) scaremongers morphed the global cooling scare into a global warming scare. The global warming was claimed by the scare-mongers to be a threat to the world and a result of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power stations.
The period of cooling from ~1940 to ~1970 was excused by saying it was probably the cooling from sulphate emissions having overwhelmed the warming from CO2 emissions.
Then the period of warming from ~1970 ceased at ~2000. This was excused by claiming that sulphate emissions from power stations in developing countries (e.g. China) were overwhelmed the warming from CO2 emissions; i.e. the sulphate excuse for pre-1970 global cooling was resurrected. This excuse for lack of warming since ~2000 is the ‘sulfate hypothesis’.
However, the ‘sulfate hypothesis’ fails to fulfil the desire to scare about global temperature change if it results in no significant change to mean global temperature (as has been seen since 2000). Therefore, the scaremongers need to replace it.
Richard
Peter Taylor @11:30 a.m.
Your book “Chill” is an excellent examination of the current state of climate science. Your environmental credentials are impressive. It should have caused a crumbling of the alarmist position; that it hasn’t is further proof that this isn’t about science.
Newton called Leibnitz a “thief” and Liebnitz’s advocates referred to Newton’s supporters as “toadies” and “apes”.
Yes, but they weren’t spending a heap of public money while they did it…
R. Gates;
Of course there is an alternative and equally plausible explanation. Jones really does believe that long term human induced warming is a serious issue that requires attention, and feared that any short-term “natural variability” that caused short-term cooling, no matter the cause (sulfates, quiet sun, PDO, etc) might mask the long-term warming and forestall the global action required to slow the build-up of greenhouse gases. This alternative explanation will of course upset skeptics who’d rather paint Dr. Jones as a money-grubbing tool of the political power elite, rather than a truly concerned scientist. The explanation you choose to accept for the motivations behind his comments, will, like most things in life, depend on what you want to see.>>>
Really R. Gates, I expect a better attempt out of you than that. I’ve seen your work, I know you are capable of it. Please try again. There’s just no fun in debunking you and making your comments look silly when all one has to do is read what you said because the rest of us are mostly thinking to ourselves….has he switched to 75% warmist and 25% comic?
I’d hate to give up our close working relationship, but right now I might have to drop you and pick up this CanSpeccy guy as my favourite troll to torture. I’m waiting to see if he has any real staying power such as you have demonstrated over the years, but seriously, I need just a wee bit of a challenge. Could you please try again?
CanSpeccy says:
“You do rather tie yourself in knots, don’t you, Smokey…”
Not really, CanSpeccy. Note that I put quotation marks around “climate change.” Everyone has their own definition of “climate change”. It’s a vague, nebulous term that was morphed from “climate disruption”, and “runaway global warming” before that. It’s an alarmist term that constantly moves the goal posts, because none of their numerous predictions came about.
A rise in temperature, however, is specifically quantifiable. A 1°C rise is measurable, unlike “climate change”. The climate always changes – and those changes are regional, not global. The Northern Hemisphere has warmed by about 0.7K, while the Southern Hemisphere hasn’t. Climate means specific regions, such as, “Italy has a Mediterranean climate.” But now the word is widely misused. I admit I’ve used it in place of “climate disruption” and “runaway global warming”. Like most here, I know the secret handshake. “Climate change” means whatever the alarmist crowd wants it to mean. And they always say it like it’s something bad. Me, I think a 2 or 3 degree rise in temperature would be fine, since it would primarily take place at night, in the winter, and in the higher latitudes. Unfortunately, the odds are that the planet will get colder, not warmer. Any further warming will likely be temporary and beneficial. Warm is good; cold kills.
Finally, I agree with you that there has always been intense competition at times between scientists. But it is infinitely worse now, because those falsely demonizing “carbon” have arranged to game the system so that unwilling taxpayers are forced to subsidize their grand lifestyles and pour public loot into undeserving third-rate institutions and NGOs with a one-world government agenda, instead of using the old system of benefactors. CO2=CAGW is simply a government funded cover story. That’s the big difference. As IPCC WG-3 Co-Chair Ottmar Edenhofer candidly admits: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
Look at this article’s title. The principals know the truth, as their emails show. Therefore, they are deliberately lying to the public in order to keep the payola flowing. Before the two email dumps they could have been given the benefit of the doubt. But no more. They are knowingly engaging in scientific misconduct. You can apologize for them, but I won’t.
This has long been one of my pet peeves about the whole climate debate. If the “scientists” had any real morality at all, they would jump for joy at finding evidence that they are wrong. They predict catastrophe, and cheer every bit of news they can which suggests that catastrophe is really going to happen. Confronted with evidence that no catastrophe is at hand, do they wipe their brows and say “Whew, glad it turned out I was wrong”?
No. They wail, complain, and gnash their teeth. They make it clear that their true feelings are that they are RIGHT and that a catastrophe SHOULD be at hand. They CHEER for the catastrophe! Why?
For the children of course. Oh, not my children, or Anthony’s children, they do it for THEIR children. 50 years from now when their grandchildren read the history books, how will they respond to the news that their grandparents were charlatans? I think I can guess.
“Gee, so that’s how we got rich. Cool. I wonder if I’m getting a Ferrari or a Porsche for my birthday”
No shame. Money conquers ethics.
But that is exactly how Isaac Newton, the creator of modern science, conducted the debate with Leibniz, variously described as “the last universal genius” and “the most comprehensive thinker since Aristotle,” over who had discovered the infinitesimal calculus.
I don’t doubt that many scientific debates have become heated and personal; but the dispute between Newton and Leibniz wasn’t about science, it was about credit for a discovery. Whether Newton or Leibniz invented calculus is a matter of history, not science.
R Barker says:
November 30, 2011 at 3:16 pm
R. Gates says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:05 pm
………The explanation you choose to accept for the motivations behind his comments, will, like most things in life, depend on what you want to see.
_____________________________________________________________
In regards to climate science, I want to see some more of the important relationships currently judged as having a low level of scientific understanding moved into a high level of scientific understanding so that the research can work with quantifiable relationships instead of concensus assumptions adjusted with fudge factors. It is unwise to bet the economy on such uncertainty.
______
I wouldn’t disagree with your last sentence, and also note that it has nothing to do with Dr. Jones’ motives. If, as is plausible, Dr. Jones really believes that humanity is facing something awful in the future unless we get our CO2 emissions under control, then his sentiment and emails make complete sense. His “wishing for warming” to show up, in that context, means he doesn’t want to see anything (like short term cooling) that might, even for a brief period, pursade policymaker not to proceed with some kind of regulatory actions. In Dr. Jones’ mind, there may be no time to waste.
But note, my first line in my reply. I agree that it is currently unwise to bet the current economy on possible future climate disruption from AGW, as there might be better uses of our resources and attentions. But either taking action now, or not taking action now, are both bets on the future.
Look at the emails that reference Edenhofer:
0098.txt
2242.txt
2664.txt
5087.txt
I found the one from the WWF particularly interesting:
Apparently the shift key is broken on his keyboard but as you can see, this has nothing to do with REALLY reducing CO2, or at least CO2 increases are LESS important than economically punishing utilities which appears to be the real goal here. Again, using AGW to promote a policy agenda.
R. Gates;
If, as is plausible, Dr. Jones really believes that humanity is facing something awful in the future unless we get our CO2 emissions under control, then his sentiment and emails make complete sense. >>>
Going down hill R. Gates. That was just lame. 50% warmist and 50% lame comedian?
Please, give it another shot.
If I understand the context of the communications correctly it leads me to this- the parties in the communications (including someone on Mr. Obama’s staff) are saying the AGW Science isn’t Settled in private.
R. Gates says:
November 30, 2011 at 4:40 pm
===================================
Gates, unfortunately history says that there have been a lot of people, that truly believed something…..
…and did awful things to humanity
Nothing has changed.
@R Gates
“Of course there is an alternative and equally plausible explanation. Jones really does believe that long term human induced warming is a serious issue that requires attention”
+++++++++
He is free to believe what he likes. He is not however above the law, whether of FOIA or libel or fraud or misallocation of funds, nor of false witness.
We are free not to believe a single thought, jot or tittle of the universe in which Jones lives.
CAGW is clearly a sham, and not even a very good one. It just makes more money than most scams for those perpetrating it at the expense of a long-suffering, increasingly deprived humanity.
The doctors have erred.
They know not the disease.
They know not the cure.
A scientist preparing a “back up theory” just in case his primary explanation is wrong?
A prime example of confirmation bias.
R. Gates says….
“If, as is plausible, Dr. Jones really believes that humanity is facing something awful in the future unless we get our CO2 emissions under control, then his sentiment and emails make complete sense.”
Thanks for the laugh.
Yes, I suppose, if we ignore all his crimes, we might give dear old Dr. Jones the Nobel in recognition of his “sincere” efforts.
C’mon R. Gates, give it another shot.
I’ve got this great riposte all ready to go based on the travesty of the missing heat per Kevin Trenberth.
Or maybe you could point to a quote by Hansen (or Trenberth, or Mann, or Briffa, or Hansen, or Santer, or any of the big climawarmaholics) that goes along the lines of:
“Well, I’m really hoping I’m wrong here because if I’m right things could get real bad, but these are my results…”
Something, anything, that shows that these arrogant pieces of total sh*t aren’t actually cheering for a disaster that will kill a few billion people.
Anything R. Gates?
CanSpeccy, as MJW pointed out, Newton and Leibnitz were fighting for the credit for “inventing” calculus. Phil Jones has been fighting to prevent his data and methodology, upon which his claims of “global warming” are based, from being examined. And if I read the emails correctly, he doesn’t even have all of his raw data. What Jones is doing doesn’t even come close to qualifying as “scientific” debate. And the same can be said about Michael “hide the decline” Mann. Instead of debating McIntyre about his “hockey stick” data and methodology, Mann wants someone to dig up dirt on McIntyre to discredit him. That certainly doesn’t qualify as science. The emails are full of this crap. These charlatans are causing great harm to humanity through their antics while amassing wealth for themselves.
crosspatch says: November 30, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Look at the emails that reference Edenhofer:
0098.txt, 2242.txt, 2664.txt, 5087.txt
I found the one from the WWF particularly interesting:
as much as i do agree that all possibilities to render dangerous nuclear waste into less dangerous one should be explored, it is by no means acceptable that limited funds to generate support for climate-friendly measures to cut GHG be used for nuclear research. utilities earned a fortune with that dirty technology in the past – and most are still subsidised. therefore they shall pay for its save removal incl. the waste.
Apparently the shift key is broken on his keyboard but as you can see, this has nothing to do with REALLY reducing CO2, or at least CO2 increases are LESS important than economically punishing utilities which appears to be the real goal here. Again, using AGW to promote a policy agenda
—————————
Yeah, it’s not about reducing CO2 emissions (which nuke power plants do very well). First, the “dirty” technologies are not net subsidized. The subsidies are a tiny fraction of the taxes these industries pay. Second, nuke power plants collect decommissioning costs as part of their rates during their operating lifetime. That’s why there’s a decommissioning fee in California; it’s to pay for the early shutdown of an operating reactor. And if California votes for the latest petition cum referendum to shutter the 4 still operating, we in California will see rolling blackouts AND higher bills to pay for the more expensive renewables and to pay the decommissioning fees not collected in the operating rates.
Reference: http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2011/11/29/ballot-initiative-would-close-california_1920_s-nuclear-plants_2c00_-cause-rolling-blackouts-112901.aspx
Third, subsidies for nukes are mostly in the form of government sponsored research and price breaks on government fees for licensing. Remember, it takes many YEARS of effort on the part of power generators to get a license.