NCAR's Dr. Kevin Treberth's ugly intolerance of dissenting views from other scientists

And to think I almost wasted my time going to visit Dr. Trenberth at NCAR this fall. This is mind blowing intolerance in professional discourse. Here’s the email, bold mine.

email 3946

date: Thu Dec 9 08:28:11 2004

from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>

subject: Re: Correspondence with Chris Landsea

to: REDACTED

Kevin,

So you’ve heard. The other email may explain more and/or give details.

We will have to do without him. We still need to get a diagram, but we should

probably let this die down now.

Susan and Martin (and you can see the others) got the earlier email (which

you now have – if you’ve not got it from elsewhere). Keep me infomed.

By the way, still nothing from the Japanese contact, despite 2 reminders at

least. I’ll send an email to the first Japanese I contacted.

Cheers

Phil

At 02:24 09/12/2004, you wrote:

Martin

I have not seen any of this. I just heard today at the NCAR Xmas party from

Tim Killeen that this existed. So I feel blindsided. I understand he has

resigned from CA of our chapter.

I responded to his earlier message in a fairly low key fashion. I think he

has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an open enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting

hurricanes. I am quickly becoming outraged by this and I hope it backfires on

him!!!!

Kevin

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Martin Manning wrote:

> Dear Phil and Kevin

>

> Today Susan received a copy of some correspondence between Chris Landsea  and Dr Pachauri regarding coverage of hurricanes and global warming by the IPCC. Although we were aware that Dr Landsea was raising the issue

> generally, we were not aware of the approach to Dr Pachauri and it is

> perhaps unfortunate that this was not referred to Susan.

>

> However, Susan would now like to consider a further appropriate response to

> Dr Landsea and she has asked me to ask you to wait for that before you

> consider any possible response of your own (assuming that you have seen the

> correspondence anyway?).

>

> Thanks

> Martin

>

> —

> Dr Martin R Manning

> *** NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: REDACTED

> Director, IPCC WG I Support UnitREDACTEDPhone:REDACTED

> NOAA Aeronomy LaboratoryREDACTED Fax:REDACTED/ 5628

> 325 Broadway, DSRC R/AL8

> Boulder, CO 80305, USA

REDACTED

Kevin E. TrenberthREDACTED e-mail: REDACTED

Climate Analysis Section, NCARREDACTED[1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/

P. O. Box 3000,REDACTEDREDACTED(303) 497 1318

Boulder, COREDACTEDREDACTED(303)REDACTED(fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303

*******************************

Prof. Phil Jones

Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)REDACTED

School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0)REDACTED

University of East Anglia

NorwichREDACTED Email REDACTED

NR4 7TJ

UK

REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED——–

============================================================

And for the record Dr. Trenberth, there appears to be no correlation between huricane frequency or hurricane intensity with global warming.

Global tropical cyclone activity, as measured by frequency and ACE is still at the lowest in 30 years, despite 2010 being claimed as the warmest year ever:

Global Tropical Cyclone ACE ( Dr. Ryan N. Maue )
date: Thu Dec  9 08:28:11 2004

from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

subject: Re: Correspondence with Chris Landsea

to: trenbert@ucar.edu

    Kevin,

       So you've heard. The other email may explain more and/or give details.

    We will have to do without him. We still need to get a diagram, but we should

    probably let this die down now.

       Susan and Martin (and you can see the others) got the earlier email (which

    you now have - if you've not got it from elsewhere). Keep me infomed.

      By the way, still nothing from the Japanese contact, despite 2 reminders at

    least. I'll send an email to the first Japanese I contacted.

    Cheers

    Phil

   At 02:24 09/12/2004, you wrote:

     Martin

     I have not seen any of this.  I just heard today at the NCAR Xmas party from

     Tim Killeen that this existed.  So I feel blindsided.  I understand he has

     resigned from CA of our chapter.

     I responded to his earlier message in a fairly low key fashion.  I think he

     has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an open

     enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting

     hurricanes. I am quickly becoming outraged by this and I hope it backfires on

     him!!!!

     Kevin

     On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Martin Manning wrote:

     > Dear Phil and Kevin

     >

     > Today Susan received a copy of some correspondence between Chris Landsea

     > and Dr Pachauri regarding coverage of hurricanes and global warming by the

     > IPCC. Although we were aware that Dr Landsea was raising the issue

     > generally, we were not aware of the approach to Dr Pachauri and it is

     > perhaps unfortunate that this was not referred to Susan.

     >

     > However, Susan would now like to consider a further appropriate response to

     > Dr Landsea and she has asked me to ask you to wait for that before you

     > consider any possible response of your own (assuming that you have seen the

     > correspondence anyway?).

     >

     > Thanks

     > Martin

     >

     > --

     > Dr Martin R Manning

     > *** NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: <REDACTED>@noaa.gov

     > Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit                Phone: <REDACTED>

     > NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory                        Fax: <REDACTED>

     > 325 Broadway, DSRC R/AL8

     > Boulder, CO 80305, USA

     ---------------

     Kevin E. Trenberth                           e-mail: <REDACTED>@ucar.edu

     Climate Analysis Section, NCAR               [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/

     P. O. Box 3000,                          Phone:  <REDACTED>

     Boulder, CO 80307                         Fax:   <REDACTED>

     Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303

     *******************************

   Prof. Phil Jones

   Climatic Research Unit        Telephone <REDACTED>

   School of Environmental Sciences    Fax <REDACTED>

   University of East Anglia

   Norwich                          Email   <REDACTED>@uea.ac.uk

   NR4 7TJ

   UK

   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisements

115 thoughts on “NCAR's Dr. Kevin Treberth's ugly intolerance of dissenting views from other scientists

  1. The problem with Truth is it keeps popping up everywhere!
    Good graphic and I expect, unchallengable.

  2. Why do they seem to think that any opinion on the subject of the climate has to go through them first? Presumably to ensure its “on message”?
    They obviously dont believe in having a sceptical or contrary opinion (one of the founding tenets of science) and simply think that everyone should agree with their continuing blinkered world viewpoints.
    Its scandalous that these self proclaimed climate soothsayers should get so much attention and think they alone are entitled to it.

  3. The revelations in these emails may not become widely known, as major media outlets are collaborators and actively control the message, but we will know.
    Thanks, Anthony

  4. Good post, but can you redact the email and ‘phone numbers from the last bit? I know they could easily be found if one looked for them, but don’t give the nutters (from both sides) ammunition.
    Reply: Done ~ctm does a drive by

  5. The references to “the Japanese” have me intrigued.
    Here in Japan, NHK constantly plugs the AGW trope, much like the BBC in good old Blighty, and the ABC in Oz.
    What is it with these publicly funded organizations?

  6. “I am quickly becoming outraged by this and I hope it backfires on him!!!!” The sort of vindictive remark expected of a spoilt child, rather than from a world famous climate scientist. And what about four exclamation marks? This is really junior school stuff.

  7. Is this really a surprise , Treberth views are fairly clear and match Mann;s well , only he and his views are right no matter what the facts, and beware anyone that crosses him. The pair of them are like school yard bullies throwing their weight around .
    He really does give meaning to the first rule of climate science , ‘when the models and reality differ in value , its reality which is wrong ‘.

  8. Fired for not having an open mind? Wow. If that were the case, my office building would be pretty empty.
    You think Kevin would be happy with the opposite? To be fired for not having an open mind to the idea that global warming is having no effect on hurricanes?

  9. They like to control who works in climate science. They like to control whose work gets published. They like to control who is editor of journals. They like to control the peer review process. They like to control what message gets out to the media. They like to control which journals will be successful. They like to control the data. They like to control the investigations into their malpractice. They like to control who gets funding, etc etc.
    And they do this not by ‘nice’ politics, but by evil politics: character assassination, smears, trying to get people kicked out of their jobs, etc.
    Please don’t try to tell me that this is just scientists doing their job. They are destroying the scientific enterprise. They are little better than a bunch of criminals.

  10. Re-reading my own words and links (above!) makes me wonder, since people shout when they feel insecure, is there actually serious reason to doubt Trenberth’s magnum opus, the famous radiative transfers diagram? Did Trenberth himself have suppressed doubts?

  11. I have heard and seen accusations of flat earthers being banded about for the chaps and chapesses of the skeptical point of view.
    During our civil war we had a Witch Finder General, absolute nutter, Trenberth sound like he would fit the bill for the modern date general, with Jonesey backing him up hunting and burning flat earthers.
    Nothing changes only the actors.

  12. Kevin writes “I am quickly becoming outraged by this and I hope it backfires on him!!!!”
    Oh, the irony.

  13. ‘…not have an open enough mind…’
    Ahhh, I must not have understood what an open mind really was.
    Wonder if Grant Foster could help me out?

  14. Why is anyone surprised? These people are not scientists and are poor examples of the human species.
    As for fewer hurricanes in a warming world maybe there are fewer hurricanes in a cooling world. The temps have been so bastardised it’s possible the world has been cooling all this time. It is just as likely as CO2 causing catastrophes.

  15. “… for not have an open enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting
    hurricanes.”
    Yep. Fire the guy.

  16. Without a similiar pattern of behaviour elsewhere, this would simply be an innocent off-the-cuff comment. However, it is hard to believe that considering some other emails that have been seen, even if Dr Trenbath seems not to have had any support from Professor Jones on this suggestion (note that it was tactfully ignored – which could be read as thinking the suggestion was pointless/unworkable or simply as Professor Jones reading this as an expression of frustration).
    On its own not particularly bad. In conjunction with other emails, it paints a picture.

  17. Amazing for Trenbert to talk of “open minds” seem to remember that the Team’s lack of open minds on the role of oceans and the sun,this is not science..it’s a religion with a lage dose of propaganda thrown in

  18. What’s with this “Chapter” stuff, it’s beginig to sound like the Free Masons. Do they have a secret handshake?

  19. ian middleton says:
    December 2, 2011 at 3:04 am
    What’s with this “Chapter” stuff, it’s beginig to sound like the Free Masons. Do they have a secret handshake?

    I don’t know, but you had better check for missing rings and watches after handshaking with these characters.

  20. Your mind is like a parachute Kevin, it only works when it’s open, which means giving due consideration to all the factors and either ruling stuff in or out based on the facts alone, not some conviction you personally hold based on what your precious models might say or what jones/mann et al might tell you is right.
    Basking in the glow of adulation from the rest of your “team” for the amount of contrary views youve managed to supress, or other scientists youve gleefully smeared, or the number of bumpf papers youve had published wont make you any more right than youre currently wrong.
    Since youre at the pinnacle of your field (apparently) theres only one way to go, dont break too many branches on the way down…..
    Try looking up the definition of the word “objectivity” Kevin and see if what youre doing meets that definition, I dont think it comes even close.
    A better word would be “corrupted”, fits perfectly.

  21. Who is so open minded that they think it’s a travesty that the expected ocean heat is missing?

  22. “…and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an open enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting
    hurricanes. ”
    The truth is that Chris Landsea never said that climate change (global warming) won’t affect hurricanes. What he did say is that the to-date effects of 20’th century warming are too small to be detected in the noisy data.

  23. ian middleton says:
    December 2, 2011 at 3:04 am
    What’s with this “Chapter” stuff, it’s beginig to sound like the Free Masons. Do they have a secret handshake?

    Perhaps a “butt bump” would be more appropriate?
    🙂

  24. Yet Chris Landsea was right and Trenberth was wrong.
    The science has even now accepted that the hurricanes may not change much at all with global warming.
    So people are to be fired for having an “accurate” conclusion.

  25. “And to think I almost wasted my time going to visit Dr. Trenberth at NCAR this fall.”
    Did you ever explain why this never happened?

  26. The BBC have spent many segments basically dissing Jeremy Clarkson [Top Gear is one of the Beeb’s most watched programmes – so I doubt they will sack him] and all he was doing was his usual tongue in cheek verbal banter. If you don’t like it – change channels – don’t get pathetic lefty Trade Unionists banging on when most of their members are getting above average pensions anyway. Delayed by 3 years or so but all of us are involved in paying more for fuel because our stupid politicians think wind power will save the planet and pensions are along way off for a lot of their inmates anyway.

  27. Strongly suggest to change to BING climategate. Google climategate attemps to make it an old story by delaying the breaking events

  28. > date: Thu Dec 9 08:28:11 2004
    About a month or so later Landsea resigned from the IPCC, the full letter and more with communication with Pachauri is at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/18/pachauri-used-corporate-teri-email-account-to-conduct-official-ipcc-business/ and is well worth the visit.
    In part, he wrote:

    After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
    F or the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author – Dr. Kevin Trenberth – to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
    Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today.
    It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.
    I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

    Chris Landsea’s career has been entirely above board and focused on getting the best data for his studies. He spearheaded a project to review past hurricane records (e.g. ship log’s records of swells from distant storms) to provide a much improve historical base for comparisons.
    He was one of Bill Gray’s students before going to NOAA and brought a lot of knowledge and skill with him.

  29. Like many on the extreme left, they preach tolerance but what they really mean is that you should agree with their viewpoint. That doublespeak is seen here by Kevin Treberth by these words “not have an open enough mind”. If Chris Landsea had said that global warming was causing more hurricanes and refused to listen to dissenting viewpoints, in Treberth’s mind that would be an “open mind”. The ones that say we should be tolerant are the most intolerant of all.

  30. Brian Johnson uk:
    You provide a good attempt at troll disruption of this thread at December 2, 2011 at 4:39 am where you dangle a red-herring about Jeremy Clarkson with hooks concerning trades unionists, pensions, etc.
    But this thread is about the disgraceful behaviour of Phil Jones.
    I am a left-wing, socialist, trade unionist who refuses to bite on any of your hooks, and I call on all others of every political persuasion to ignore your trolling, too.
    Address the subject of this thread or go away.
    Richard

  31. Ooops, of course I meant to type Kevin Trenberth and not Phil Jones (but they are all much the same).
    Sorry.
    Richard

  32. Does the MSM realize that people are beginning or have already figured out that they are not impartial and are politically biased (liars)? That they cannot be trusted to report the news and facts accurately?
    You’d think that they would be somewhat concerned with their reputation and public trust in them. Alas, apparently NOT.

  33. In any sane world (or one where Climagegate 1 and 2 emails are widely disseminated), this Dr. Trenberth would be the one that would be terminated.

  34. Andrew says:
    December 2, 2011 at 5:16 am

    Strongly suggest to change to BING climategate. Google climategate attemps to make it an old story by delaying the breaking events

    Or use http://www.dogpile.com. It isn’t owned by an organization that’s about as deceptive as the one who owns Bing.

  35. I don’t see Landsea’s e-mail(s). Were they not quoted? Might he send them to WUWT?
    I’m assuming that the bold face and Maue chart were inserted by Anthony, and were not due to Landsea.

  36. “Yet Chris Landsea was right and Trenberth was wrong.
    The science has even now accepted that the hurricanes may not change much at all with global warming.
    So people are to be fired for having an “accurate” conclusion.”
    This hits the heart of the matter, not only were they trying to sideline and have fired a man who being an expert on hurricanes would be more likely to know what was happening with them than almost anyone on the planet
    But he was as you say actually right – to lie to make a theory (or cause) more plausible isnt science
    But then we wll know that already

  37. The back story will eventually be incredible. I do not believe it will turn out to be a criminal conspiracy to turn the world into some commy red government (maybe it will in the 007 movie version) but rather something much worse. We have in place a culture of blind faith mob behavior mixed with very poor science methodology crowned in our higher institutions. When the house of cards falls, and it will, there will be outrage and a call for both broad and deep scrutiny of graduate programs, dissertation committees, and grant departments in every Ivory tower that dipped into climate research funds. And with scrutiny comes regulations. One such regulation should stipulate (are you listening new president?) that all publicly funded research efforts, funded in whole or part, must be made available free and immediately to public scrutiny. No more pay-walled secret society pal journals. And every peer review panel should include unencumbered statisticians whose job is to screen out papers that cannot be supported statistically. These climate scientists are cooking their own stuffed and trussed goose and gander.

  38. So sad to see that this bullying actually works. Soon after Chris Landsea disengages from the IPCC. This is exactly what these climate propagandists wanted. Get rid of the real experts and fill the positions with like minded Eco-fascists.
    The MSM have some explaining to do, however, they control the witness so you can expect more silence about the travesty of the scam of man-made global warming.

  39. Landsea is a hero for not allowing his integrity be undermined. Briffa could have taken this path but was not as strong in character.
    Both scientists are brilliant, iconic and mirror images of each other.
    I just wish the strong ones made more money. If that were the case there would be more of them.

  40. Call me dense but the lyrics to that song, which I had to look up because I couldn’t tell what he was saying, reminds me of parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme. I am in my dodderhood and can’t figure out the message for all the tea in China deary.

  41. I responded to his earlier message in a fairly low key fashion. I think he
    has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an open enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting
    hurricanes.

    Maybe he wanted actual evidence? When theory meets the real world, are we supposed to just discard facts that don’t fit the theory?
    Treberth seems to think so.

  42. I’ve come across about 5 different spellings of Trenberth in this thread, including the headlines spelling of ‘Treberth’ 🙂

  43. Lucy Skywalker says:
    December 2, 2011 at 2:06 am
    Re-reading my own words and links (above!) makes me wonder, since people shout when they feel insecure, is there actually serious reason to doubt Trenberth’s magnum opus, the famous radiative transfers diagram?
    ___________________________________
    Yes that diagram is a real doozy. He starts with 342 W m-2 at the top of that atmosphere and ends up with 168 absorbed at ground level and 30 W m-2 reflected for a grand total of 198 W m-2. Real life measurements make him look like the Donkey’s rear he actually is. Heck Oslo Norway receives 2.27 kWh/m 2/day as a yearly average.
    Trenberth’s cartoon: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif
    My snarky comment on the cartoon with links to a solar panel website with measurements by NASA. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/senior-ncar-scientist-admits-quantifying-climate-sensitivity-from-real-world-data-cannot-even-be-done-using-present-day-data/#comment-812522
    * Oslo , Norway = 2.27 kWh/m 2/day (very low)
    * Miami , Florida = 5.26 kWh/m 2/day (very high)

    http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/solar-insolation-levels/
    Las Vegas has a yearly avg of 5.3 kWh/m 2/day and a monthly high of 7.69 kWh/m 2/day in June. Phoenix a high of 7.7 kWh/m 2/day.
    If Trenberth was correct the planet would be frozen solid!

    • Black body radiation, as i´see it, is marwelous, ad so simple that yuo cannot imagine
      SB law, because it is part of myself, too near, and i´cant understand it?
      But i´m not alone.
      Maybe we shall discuss later of it, Claes Johnson vision is like same as me?
      Ilkka.

  44. “I think he (Trenberth) has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NCAR for not have an open enough mind to even consider that climate change might NOT be affecting hurricanes.”

    • Maybe that is trenbeth, be carefull, it´s active HTML code.
      Must change to ascii or put it to HTML editor to see what has he eaten.
      It must be US ascii before outting it to FOIA ripper.
      ***********************************************
      of the model relative to obsevations
      thanks
      John
      >
      > –=====================_??? ==_
      > Content-type: text/plain; charset=”us-ascii”
      Ilkka.

  45. Just to emphasize, Landsea with his scientific and intellectual INTEGRITY would not roll over for Trenberth’s b.s. and so had to be re-defined as an enemy of “The Team” — CG1 and CG2 emails show very clearly how they operate!
    Landsea (quoted above):
    “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.”
    quoted above:
    Ric Werme says:
    December 2, 2011 at 5:34 am
    > date: Thu Dec 9 08:28:11 2004

  46. ian middleton says:
    December 2, 2011 at 3:04 am
    What’s with this “Chapter” stuff, it’s beginig to sound like the Free Masons. Do they have a secret handshake?
    _________________________________
    The IPCC report is arranged in “Chapters”. They are talking about the stuff they will “Allow” in a chapter of the report going to world governments and what scientific information will be “BANNED” from the report.

  47. Btw Anthony,
    Isn’t hurricane season over? Are you going to do a follow up on how predictions went this year?

  48. “And every peer review panel should include unencumbered statisticians whose job is to screen out papers that cannot be supported statistically. ”
    Unfortunately that is what they are using in Oz to remove dissenting papers. The problem with all statistics is the problem of “priors”. If your initial assumptions are wrong about the nature of your sample, your conclusions are wrong, but they appear statistically correct.
    For example, if you assume that climate is a coin toss, then temperature should average out over time, and if it doesn’t then it must be changing due to human activity.
    However, if temperature is a more typical time series (non-gaussian), then temperatures will not average out in the long tern, and cannot be predicted with any more skill than can the stock market.
    The assumption most people make is that climate behaves like a coin toss and will average out over time, because that is what common sense tells us. This leads to the gambler’s fallacy. When you toss a coin and it lands heads, you bet the next toss will be tails because heads and tails must even out.
    Yet in the real world things don’t work that way. A hot day today is more likely to be followed by a hot day tomorrow. If the stock market goes down today, it is not more likely to go up tomorrow. It is the naive application of statistics that underlies much of the poor quality of climate science.

  49. There is an article on the front page of the WSJ today regarding scientists failure to reproduce studies. The article is about pharmaceutical research but you can plug in Climate very easily. The pressure to publish to keep the grant funds coming is now a cancer that could set trust of the profession back decades.

  50. Gail Combs says:
    December 2, 2011 at 7:05 am
    If Trenberth was correct the planet would be frozen solid!
    If you look at Trenberth’s diagram you will notice a very curious effect. A percentage of Incoming solar radiation is reflected by the surface, however 100% of back radiation is absorbed.
    It is physically impossible that 100% of back radiation be absorbed by a surface that is partially reflective to solar radiation.
    This in itself is proof that Trenberth’s diagram is not correct. The back radiation must be reflected to some degree, yet this is not accounted for in the diagram. Clearly this is the missing heat Trenberth cannot account for.

  51. ferd berple says: “A hot day today is more likely to be followed by a hot day tomorrow”
    Yes, autocorrelation isn’t found in coin tosses.

  52. But if there is no problem they might lose their job to study ‘it’. They have families with little children who need to buy new clothes for school. The deniers want those children to go to school in rags and not have enough to eat! So you see, there HAS TO BE a ‘problem’, – for the children!

  53. “… and ought to be fired by NOAA.”
    Can’t help but wonder if the Global Warming weasels would be so bold as to call for people’s firings, if they were standing face to face with them?

  54. Sarc/on
    I’ve heard it said that if all the fossil fuel on earth was burned, the CO2 trace gas volume would amount to a Fart in a Hurricane. So, it I think Hurricane’s would be affected and he should be fired at NOAA!!

  55. Ferd – the spectrums you are comparing (incoming solar and back radiated IR) are very different. The down welling IR does, though, produce up welling IR, unavoidably. This effect is seen in a fireplace where two logs are burning. The hottest part of the logs are those areas facing each other owing to mutual IR heating. The Trenberth diagram is misleading. But that’s our Kevie.

  56. I hope this is not OT since I wish to address the broader topic of groupthink and dissent among climate scientists…..
    There is a post over on Bishop Hill from Alan Kendall of UEA defending his university generally and his CRU colleagues as not so intolerant as being portrayed (although he does not get into any details about the course lectures that so upset Phil Jones etc.):
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/12/2/on-monoliths.html?currentPage=3#comments
    My impression is of a well meaning guy who is simply showing a general loyalty to his colleagues (even the ones who deserve nothing of the sort, arguably). Perhaps those who follow these issues more closely than I have to date will have something interesting to say about Kendall’s situation … which as I understand it was not about a specific paper or program of research, but more about teaching a couple of lectures on the “dissenting position” with slides from Climate Audit, according to the vociferous Phil Jones email on the matter.
    So far Kendall has made at least two comments today that I have seen at Bishop Hill, so there might even be a possibility of engaging him there with some respectful questions and comments.

  57. Defeating their theory defeats their goals.
    Climate change theory is not the sudden and irreversible out of control climate but actually represents sudden and irreversible out of control taxes and regulations. How research is used by politicians to make decisions should be charted but that may not be relevant here.
    ESTRELLA
    European project for Standardised Transparent Representations in
    order to Extend Legal Accessibility
    Theories in chapter 4 caught my eye and while not relevant here it is out of context.
    By ‘theory’ we mean here simply a set of propositions. The theory need not be
    about anything or be consistent or coherent or have any other desirable properties.
    The theory is completed using a finite set of inference rules, which can be applied to the axioms and, recursively, the consequences of these rules, to derive the remaining propositions of the theory.
    In summary, legal reasoning in general is an argumentation process in which theories and proofs are constructed in dialogs. Legal reasoning cannot be reduced to a mechanical, deductive application of rules to facts.
    Rules can be defeated in two ways by challenging their validity or by showing that some exclusionary conditions apply.
    I am sure this makes perfect sense to the legal profession. Consider that most legislators are lawyers.
    About the article: Suppressing opposition is no different than hiding the truth.

  58. Keep in mind, your reading what they thought at the time where private e-mails.
    Consider what they said and did when in private speaking/acting out with and to one another.
    You know just the team in a huddle.

  59. @ Ric Werme: RE
    December 2, 2011 at 5:34 am
    Ric, thanks for the link to Chris Landsea’s entire resignation letter and the back story. His symbolic resignation draws stark attention, once again, to the irony of the IPCC’s title, which is so different from it’s mission statement.

    The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming.

    (From the Landsea letter)
    Stuck with misleading and ever so bor-r-r-ing “International Panel on Climate Change” moniker must be a constant vexation to the spirits of the delinquent teens heading up the panel.
    Lord Monckton’s version should really become standard usage: IPECAC.
    As for Mr. Landsea, I wonder if he kept his job at NOAA, despite Trenberth’s “outrage”.

  60. @Bill Parsons Dr. Landsea was hired as the Science and Operations Officer at the NHC shortly afterwards and has retained that position to today. Seems the group responsible for predicting storms and saving lives and property had a bit more respect for his expertise.
    [MODERATOR’S NOTE: Scott, site policy requires a valid e-mail address. Please comply. -REP]

  61. Ilkka, thanks for pointer. It does appear Susan Soloman was the hatchet person. Not at all surprising. Wouldn’t it be interesting to get a copy of her emails for the past 15 years.

  62. Bill Parsons says:
    December 2, 2011 at 9:32 am
    ……..Lord Monckton’s version should really become standard usage: IPECAC………
    ______________________–
    I just got it. LOL
    Syrup of ipecac
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Syrup of ipecac ( /ˈɪpɨkæk/), commonly referred to as ipecac, is derived from the dried rhizome and roots of the ipecacuanha plant, and is a well known emetic (substance used to induce vomiting).

  63. Global tropical cyclone activity, as measured by frequency and ACE is still at the lowest in 30 years, despite 2010 being claimed as the warmest year ever:

    We have just come out of the hottest decade on the record and zip, zilch. Can’t climate scientists just put up their hands and say we got it wrong.

  64. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:
    December 2, 2011 at 8:36 am
    Keep in mind, your reading what they thought at the time where private e-mails.
    Consider what they said and did when in private speaking/acting out with and to one another.
    You know just the team in a huddle.

    But, should they have thought that emails on “company time” using “company assests” are private?

  65. ian middleton says:
    December 2, 2011 at 3:04 am
    What’s with this “Chapter” stuff, it’s beginig to sound like the Free Masons. Do they have a secret handshake?

    Well now, that is an insult to all Free Masons, if there ever was one. The Free Masons conspire with style and grace, unlike these hacks.

  66. Gail Combs says:
    December 2, 2011 at 1:50 pm
    Ilkka Mononen says:
    December 2, 2011 at 7:22 am
    Wont´you spread this ?
    NR4 7TJ ,seems to be very important.
    Search:
    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=NR4+7TJ
    ____________________________
    Some interesting stuff. I am only a very small way through because my computer is very old and very slow.
    _________________________
    A postal code?

  67. Watchman says:
    December 2, 2011 at 2:43 am
    Without a similiar pattern of behaviour elsewhere, this would simply be an innocent off-the-cuff comment. However, it is hard to believe that considering some other emails that have been seen, … On its own not particularly bad. In conjunction with other emails, it paints a picture.

    That’s the point the “yawners” are missing. We should stress it.

  68. Goatweed says:
    December 2, 2011 at 12:18 pm
    Do we have a Wall of Honor for all those that the team has tried to have fired?

    Good idea. Plus a list of all the journals they tried to destroy. Gather all those who we currently know of – alas, I have a feeling there are more we don’t know of yet.
    And while we’re at it, gather all the instances they tried to find who the reviewers were (surely to invite them for tea) if a study was published they didn’t like. And all the cases they tried to interfere with peer-review, if they got wind of a possible publication of a study they might not like.

  69. Don says:
    December 2, 2011 at 3:04 pm
    NR4 7TJ is the postal code for the UEA.
    _________________
    Could be the locker combination at the Area 51 Aliens Only hot tub?

  70. Gail Combs says:
    December 2, 2011 at 1:50 pm
    Ilkka Mononen says:
    December 2, 2011 at 7:22 am
    Chris B says:
    December 2, 2011 at 2:51 pm
    NR4 7TJ is a postcode for:
    University Of East Anglia
    Norwich Research Park
    Earlham Road
    Norwich
    NR4 7TJ
    Not surprising to find that in amongst the emails.

  71. Chris B, Gail Combs etc, regarding the posts by Ilkka, check also in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/01/steve-mcintyre-on-the-bolt-report/#more-52371 in the comments where another commenter (_jim) has deciphered her cryptic posts, and has run a mime decoding on some of the attachments. In this thread she seems to be saying some are also in US http format, assuming i am understanding correctly.
    I have no idea if this is worth looking more deeply into, but given that these newly released emails have been a goldmine so far, it may be that her approach will yield yet more ore.

  72. 2004 was a very active year for hurricanes in the tropical Southern North Atlantic. 2005 was also very active. However every year since that high period, activity has been weaker. 2008 was the most recent year with a lot of named storms, as was this past season but the numbers of storms hasn’t equalled the 2004-2005 period nor has the storm intensity. It seems to be more linkable to things like sea serface temperatures and temperature of the water at depth. These in turn may relate to CO2, but the steady climb in CO2 of recent years is not reflected in recent Atlantic hurricane activity. At least not in an obvious Occams Razor manner.
    One of the things that happened between 2004 and 2008, is that the National Hurricane Center became a part of NOAA. This leads to a bit of a fox in the hen house problem, with NOAA making annual predictions of therange of named storm activity with intensity. To add to the confusion, Penn State with Dr. Mann leading their effort also makes predictions. It seems like these wanna be hurricane season prognosticators are trying to out do the Colorado team led by the venerable Dr. Gray who has been spear heading their effort for decades.
    On another front, the use of models in trying to predict tropical cyclone genisis and the consequent tracking plus intensity has been going on year after year. The main GCM models and supercomputers from the US, Canada, Britain, and Europe have been used. In this past decade there has been no appreciable improvement in there output. Every year the GCM models seem to get tweaked. Like a horse race some will improve yet some will disimprove. For those of us with actual skin in the game we have to rely on actual observations and satellite tracking info, but it is fun to watch the youngsters tout this or that particular GCM in advance of the actual cyclonic genisis. Weather Underground has a blog where comments in this genre gets collected. At the end of the day, the GCMs are highly accurate at 2 days in the future, but beyond 5 days things get fuzzy and out at about 10 days their performance fairly sucks. Beyond that, lies the trophy of climate.

  73. I suspect this is the whole rationale behind Fear-Forced (Post-Normal) Science, the proposition that the environmental consequences of a human activity, as revealed by a plausible ‘scientific’ theory can be so dire that public scientific opposition cannot be tolerated, even if there might be a preponderance of evidence casting doubt on the theory, since emergency counteraction must be taken without delay. They seem to claim the consequences of not taking timely action (thermal runaway) will outweigh the consequences of taking that action unnecessarily, should the theory prove to be false; skepticism is not an option. I think our free society cannot survive the acceptance of any such philosophy.
    There is a YouTube video entitled ‘The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See’ (2007) that promotes this line of thinking.

  74. “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Judging by the Climategate e-mails, Trenberth, Mann, and Jones are examples of three climate scienists who have thrived on power over the world of climate and are most certainly examples of scientists who let their powerful positons in the climate community absolutely corrupt themelves.

  75. Two interesting implications here:
    Trenberth probably knew at the time that Landsea’s data was correct, hence the plaintive “…and I hope it backfires on him!!!!..”. Phil Jones also apparently also knew it was no good fighting it; “…but we should probably let this die down now….”
    The second one is that Landsea’s resignation from the IPCC had apparently already been triggered at this point. Phil Jones; “….We will have to do without him…”

  76. harles the Moderator
    Please look into what ILKKA is saying.
    Rhere was also someone cannled BILL on another thread who claims to understand her and has translated one of the long encripted threads.
    Either ILKKA has cracked the code or she is mistaken.
    If mistaken she may have to be banned or at least cuationed.
    If correct – this is explosive, for many different reasons.
    Will if harm FOIA or lead him to yet more sets of emails.
    The one that BILL translated seems to be more about administrative matters that science.
    That could lead us up, to a completely different level of concern.
    But please do not keep ignoring her.
    She just may be onto something big.
    Regards

  77. Charles the Moderator
    Appologies for my typing which is terrible today.
    The second person is someone called Bill, who claimed to have used ILKKA’s method to translate a long email into plain text.
    I hope you can manke sense of the rest of my previous post.

  78. Cover Letter/ http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=5323.txt&search=+uk
    “date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:09:35 0100
    from: Joseph Alcamo
    subject: Re: Climate Statement Version 4
    to: Mike Hulme
    Mike,”
    Thanks for your positive comments.
    If it’s OK with you, I would like to take your comments into
    account in the next version of the statement (Version 5).
    In the meantime, I would like to take you up on your offer that you
    would distribute the current version (Version 4) for comment around
    the UK. The idea that Rob Swart and I have is to keep the circle
    fairly small right now so that we can have a good statement agreed
    upon by some prominent people before we send it out for signing.
    Therefore we would like to send the Statement to no more than about
    5 or 10 rather prominent people in the climate scene in our
    respective countries. For example, I will be discussing it in the
    next few days with Schellnhuber, Grassl, Crutzen and others here
    in Germany.
    Who do you propose to send it to in the UK?
    (By the way, I already received comments back from S. Subak.)
    Another issue is what you use as a cover letter for the Statement. I
    think it is important either to send the cover letter you now have
    (signed by me) or a modified one (signed either by you alone or both
    of us) because it spells out the aims and intended audience of the
    Statement.
    What do you think?
    With best wishes,
    Joe Alcamo
    ————R Diane ???@crseo.ucsb.edu
    Geography, Univ of California, Santa Barbara, USA
    SCIALDONE John N ???@killians.gsfc.nasa.gov
    Hughes-STX Corp, NASA EOS Data Information System, USAFrom ???@??? Tue Jul 01 10:11:21 1997
    Received: from mailgate1.uea.ac.uk by cpca2.uea.ac.uk; (5.65/1.1.8.2/29Jun95-0305PM)
    id AA13175; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 10:03:54 +010 ???
    Received: from hrz-sun1 (actually host hrz-sun1.hrz.uni-kassel.de)
    by mailgate1.uea.ac.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 1 Jul 1997 10:03:36 +010 ???
    Received: from usf.uni-kassel.de by hrz-sun1 (SMI-8.6/SMI-4.1) id LAA03880;
    Tue, 1 Jul 1997 11:03:35 +020 ???
    Message-Id:
    Received: from USF1/SpoolDir by usf.uni-kassel.de (Mercury 1.31);
    1 Jul 97 11:03:31 +010 ???
    Received: from SpoolDir by USF1 (Mercury 1.31); 1 Jul 97 11:03:03 +010 ???
    From: Joseph Alcamo
    To: Mike Hulme
    Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 11:02:55 0100
    Subject: Re: Climate Statement Version 4
    Reply-To: ???@usf.uni-kassel.de
    Return-Receipt-To: ???@usf.uni-kassel.de
    Priority: normal
    In-Reply-To:
    References:
    X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1)
    Status:
    Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:54:29 +010 ???
    To: ???@usf.uni-kassel.de
    From: Mike Hulme
    Subject: Re: Climate Statement Version 4
    Joe,
    I can approach a few people over here if you wish, using your cover letter
    with a couple of amendments and signed by me and you.
    That would be great!
    One question to be
    clear about is how is it going to appear in public – as an independent
    statement or under the umbrella of some organisation?
    This is the current idea:
    1. You, Rob Swart and I should first consult with a
    manageable-number of people about the content of the Statement. The
    three of us would act as “Coordinators” of the Statement.
    2. After this fairly small group agrees on the content of the
    Statement we should try and convince ten or so “prominent” scientists
    from different parts of Europe to be official signers.
    The names of these prominent people would appear on the
    same page as the Statement. Rob and I have not discussed who these
    ten people should be. Some could be from the original circle that we
    consult in step 1.
    3. After “The Ten” have signed on, we need an enthusiastic
    organization to carry out the time-consuming task of collecting as
    many signatures of scientists in Europe as possible, so that we can
    say “1,865 European scientists, including (the prominent ten) have
    signed a Statement that says .. and so forth”. I don’t think that
    either you or Rob or I have the time to do this. For the American
    statement this job was done by an organization called “Redefining
    Progress”. Perhaps for us it could be WWF. What do you think.
    4. The last step would be to hold a press conference(s) to announce
    the Statement. For this we would try and get as many of “The Ten”
    as possible to attend. My idea would be to aim for the AGBM meeting
    in October, when the debate should be pretty hot, and media
    interest in anticipation of Kyoto should be increasing.
    People here I would think of are:
    Martin Parry
    Kerry Turner
    Melvyn Cannell
    Mick Kelly
    Michael Grubb
    David Carson
    What about John Mitchell?
    I would also limit number to about five at this point.
    e.g. In the coming two weeks I will speak to Schellnhuber, Jill
    Jaeger, Grassl, and maybe two others about the Statement.
    Best regards,
    Joe Alcamo
    —————————————————-
    Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo
    Center for Environmental Systems Research
    University of Kassel
    Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
    D-34109 Kassel
    Germany
    Phone: +49 ???
    Fax: +49 ???

  79. Its like, if you are not a true believer you can not be a member of the new religion. Mix the idea that they are psycopaths and you begin to see how the plan works.

  80. **Moderation hold – do not post**
    [From Moderation team – we are looking into this – however these posts are not understandable to most of the commenters here and the versions on your web page are not easily found and understood. If you wish us to take this seriously please let us work with you to get a proper summary of this as a guest post (or however it should be treated) #jove, Mod]
    ASCII Table.
    http://www.asciitable.com/
    Dec Hx Oct Html Chr ALT ALT/Dec
    45 2D 055 &H45; – –
    63 3F 77 &H77 ? ?
    Extended ASCII Codes
    Keep ALT pressed and key rihght numbers 196 and release.
    Dec 196 Asciitable KeybSu

    252 ▬
    Seems that they have used two difrent – and ▬
    This is a NOTE, Keyboards and ASCII codes are not exacly same,
    we have here in Scandinavia Ä Ö Å etc.
    On some mails i´have noticed ————▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
    *********** UNICODE disappears when saving it to ANSI **************
    Thi is only a draft, im´so hurry ….
    Further versions are on my page.
    Ilkka.

  81. CASE “Susan Salomon”, strange to me, will somebody tell me something abouot her.
    There is some MIME data, maybe i take closer look.
    There is a Gigantic mass of unseen emails.
    “cc: “Press Office”
    date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:44:13 +010 ???
    from: “Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)”
    subject: RE: FW: Data access – request from Ian Hinds
    to: “Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)” , “Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)”
    Phil,
    Thanks for this. I do think that some thought has to go into our response as the answer
    to Mr. Peters is, quite frankly, in our correspondence with Mr. McIntyre, and the response
    to Mr. Eschenbach is (a) either you give the data to him (or mount it on the web), or (b)
    he puts in a FOIA request as he did in 2007. What I don’t know is whether what is being
    referred to is any different than what we dealt with back then….
    As to a possible s.14, were we to find a link from the website to these individuals, we
    might start thinking about invoking s.14, but, there would be quite a stink raised by these
    individuals and we, as an organisation, would need to be convinced that the aggro &
    publicity would be worth the result.
    As Michael stated in his separate email to you, he and I (and our colleagues in the Press
    Office) will need to consult on how best to approach this……
    In spring, a young man’s fancy turns to thoughts of HadCRUT obviously…..
    Cheers, Dave
    ______________________________________________________________________________________
    From: Phil Jones [mailto:???@uea.ac.uk]
    Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:47 PM
    To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
    Subject: RE: FW: Data access – request from Ian Hinds
    Dave,
    Here they are. The first was the person who sent the FOI in 2007.
    The second is for an explanation. I don’t want to go through that again,
    so won’t be replying. Any reply would just appear on the CA site.
    Neither are specific requests. If I get any more tonight I’ll send them.
    If the moderator of the CA site hadn’t put a new thread up, none
    of these emails would have come. It is just a lot of lackeys doing
    the moderator’s work.
    Moderator is a bit of a grand title – but I couldn’t think of another polite word.
    Cheers
    Phil
    From: Willis Eschenbach
    To: Phil Jones
    Thread-Topic: Source Data
    Thread-Index: AcnSpJfM1qIAWD6XEd68pwAbY5aqXw==
    X-Assp-Whitelisted: Yes
    X-Assp-Envelope-From: ???@solomon.com.sb
    X-Assp-Intended-For: ???@uea.ac.uk
    X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
    X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @???@RPTN, f028)
    X-Spam-Score: 1.80 (*) [Hold at 5.00] HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,SPF(none,0)
    X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
    X-Canit-Stats-ID: 22008561 – 56709cea0225
    X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
    [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22008561&m=56709cea0225&c=f
    X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
    [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22008561&m=56709cea0225&c=n
    X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22008561&m=56709cea0225&c=s
    X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185
    Dear Dr. Jones:
    On the Hadley Center web site at
    they say:
    To obtain the archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create
    CRUTEM3, you will need to contact Phil Jones at the Climate Research Unit at the
    University of East Anglia.
    I am interested in obtaining that data. What is the procedure for obtaining it?
    Many thanks for your assistance,
    w.
    From: Doug Peters
    To: ???@uea.ac.uk
    Subject: Climate data
    Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 19:20:50 -0700
    X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
    X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00
    X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @???@RPTN, f028)
    X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] SPF(none,0)
    X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
    X-Canit-Stats-ID: 22009039 – 2472d9aa9c08 (trained as not-spam)
    X-Antispam-Training-Forget:
    [5]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22009039&m=2472d9aa9c08&c=f
    X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam:
    [6]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22009039&m=2472d9aa9c08&c=n
    X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [7]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=22009039&m=2472d9aa9c08&c=s
    X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185
    Prof. Jones – Could you kindly provide an explanation for why you
    refuse to give Steve McIntyre the data he requested? Thank you , Doug
    Peters
    At 14:10 12/05/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote:
    Reviewed the comments – was aware of the activity of Mr. Holland. I
    think we would need to look at any new reques5st carefully to see if it
    fit the statutory definition of a repeat request under s.14 of the Act.
    It might be useful to have the other emails as well if, for example, we
    wish to consider a claim for a vexatious request under s.14….
    Cheers, Dave
    >—–Original Message—–
    >From: Phil Jones [[8] mailto:???@uea.ac.uk]
    >Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:00 PM
    >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
    >Cc: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
    >Subject: Re: FW: Data access – request from Ian Hinds
    >
    >
    > Michael,
    > If you think we need to respond to this nasty email, then you can.
    > I’ve had two others overnight as well. I wasn’t planning on
    >responding to
    > any of them – instead wait till the FOIs come.
    > By the way, what they are requesting is the same as what they
    > were after in 2007. My position is still the same. We replied through
    > FOI then and can use the same responses now. I hope we can
    > have some quick meetings.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Phil
    >
    > PS to Michael/Dave – you might like to look at the link and
    >to comment #17.
    > It seems that out friend has 5 complaints in with the Information
    >Commissioner!
    >
    >
    >At 13:52 12/05/2009, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote:
    >>Phil,
    >>
    >>Dave Palmer alerted me to the recent email to you. I asked his advice
    >>on what advice/support we should give you. The view is that
    >a response
    >>acknowleding the email and saying that we await the formal
    >FOISA request
    >>should be sufficient. Simone Dunford from the Press Office
    >is happy to
    >>respond in this way if you would prefer it.
    >>
    >>Regards
    >>
    >>Michael
    >>
    >>Michael McGarvie
    >>Director of Faculty Administration
    >>Faculty of Science
    >>Room 0.22B
    >>University of East Anglia
    >>Norwich NR4 7TJ
    >>
    >>tel: ???
    >>fax: ???
    >>
    >>???@uea.ac.uk
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>—–Original Message—–
    >>From: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC)
    >>Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:54 AM
    >>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
    >>Cc: Press Office; Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD)
    >>Subject: RE: Data access
    >>
    >>Hi all
    >>
    >>I’ve had a brief discussion with Annie about this and we
    >agree that any
    >>response should simply acknowledge receipt of the email and state that
    >>the FOI request will be dealt with in the normal manner when
    >it arrives.
    >>
    >>
    >>Perhaps Phil should be kept right out of it. I’m happy to respond on
    >>Phil’s behalf if you like.
    >>
    >>Simon
    >>
    >>Simon Dunford, Press Officer,
    >>University of East Anglia,
    >>Norwich, NR4 7TJ.
    >>Tel:+44 ???
    >>[9] http://www.uea.ac.uk/comm
    >>
    >> >—–Original Message—–
    >> >From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [[10] mailto:???@uea.ac.uk]
    >> >Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:45 AM
    >> >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
    >> >Cc: Press Office; Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD)
    >> >Subject: RE: Data access
    >> >
    >> >Michael,
    >> >The writer clearly indicates that a request is to come and
    >I think that
    >> >we should wait for that. The first question could be answered
    >> >I suppose
    >> >with a general statement regarding our processing of FOIA
    >requests but
    >> >clearly the second is unanswerable in any form that would not appear
    >> >either provocative or slightly ludicrous.
    >> >
    >> >I would look to Annie or Simon for advice on a response from Phil
    >> >directly – flame wars are dangerous things to get into and given the
    >> >apparent antipathy to Phil by this person (and community),
    >any response
    >> >would (a) immediately get published and (b) likely be rubbished
    >> >completely.
    >> >
    >> >I would very much recommend against any emotive response or internal
    >> >correspondence with any declarations regarding other
    >persons; opinions
    >> >about other persons are the personal information of that person and
    >> >liable to a data subject request under the Data Protection Act 1998.
    >> >
    >> >In terms of impact, what I don’t know is the reach of the
    >contributors
    >> >to this site outside the climate research field, i.e. in the larger
    >> >’media world’. I can state that the writer below is not
    >> >someone that we
    >> >have had dealings with in the past.
    >> >
    >> >Hope this helps move things along.
    >> >
    >> >Cheers, Dave
    >> >
    >> >Cc. JC for information
    >> >
    >> >>—–Original Message—–
    >> >>From: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
    >> >>Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:03 AM
    >> >>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
    >> >>Cc: Press Office
    >> >>Subject: RE: Data access
    >> >>
    >> >>Dave,
    >> >>
    >> >>Thanks for this.
    >> >>
    >> >>As a FOIA request will come on the back of it I suggest that
    >> >>we wait for that to come. If you feel that Phil should not
    >> >>respond to this but wait for the formal request could you let
    >> >>him know please?
    >> >>
    >> >>Regards
    >> >>
    >> >>Michael
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>Michael McGarvie
    >> >>Director of Faculty Administration
    >> >>Faculty of Science
    >> >>Room 0.22B
    >> >>University of East Anglia
    >> >>Norwich NR4 7TJ
    >> >>
    >> >>tel: ???
    >> >>fax: ???
    >> >>
    >> >>???@uea.ac.uk
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>—–Original Message—–
    >> >>From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
    >> >>Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:56 AM
    >> >>To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
    >> >>Cc: Press Office
    >> >>Subject: FW: Data access
    >> >>
    >> >>Michael,
    >> >>I am not sure whether this qualifies as a request and clearly
    >> >>we should be expecting something more detailed in the near
    >> >>future. The link is to an update from Mr. McIntyre on the
    >> >>HadCRUT data that had been requested from us back in 2007.
    >> >>The article clearly states an intent to make a FOIA request.
    >> >>
    >> >>Cheers, Dave
    >> >>
    >> >>Cc. Press Office for information
    >> >>
    >> >>—–Original Message—–
    >> >>From: Ian Hinds [[11] mailto:???@orange.net]
    >> >>Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:29 PM
    >> >>To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV)
    >> >>Cc: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Goodess Clare Dr (ENV);
    >> >>???@rmets.org; Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI); David Keith
    >> >>Palmer; Carruth Geoffrey Mr (ACAD); Goodwin Nicholas Dr
    >> >>(ACAD); Schofield Julie Ms (ACAD); Danino-Appleton Vittoria Dr
    >> >>(ACAD); Johnson Sue Mrs (ACAD); Carter Jon Dr (ACAD); Press
    >> >>Office; Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Dunford Simon Mr (MAC); Bartman
    >> >>Cat Ms (MAC); Horton Lisa Miss (MAC)
    >> >>Subject: Data access
    >> >>
    >> >>Dear Mr Jones
    >> >>
    >> >>As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you
    >> >>please explain
    >> >>why you restrict access to data sets that are gathered using
    >> >tax payer
    >> >>funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you believe how embarassing this is to
    >> >>a UK TAX
    >> >>PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non disclosure of
    >enviromental
    >> >>information.
    >> >>
    >> >>For reference [12]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 refers to
    >> >>your absymal
    >> >>attitude to public data, although this is just the latest in an
    >> >>embarassing set of reasonable requests from CRU, who the
    >hell do you
    >> >>think you are? There will of course be an FOI on the back of this
    >> >>
    >> >>Regards
    >> >>Ian
    >> >>
    >> >
    >
    >Prof. Phil Jones
    >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ???
    >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ???
    >University of East Anglia
    >Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk
    >NR4 7TJ
    >UK
    >—————————————————————
    >————-
    >
    >
    >
    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ???
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ???
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk
    NR4 7TJ
    UK
    —————————————————————————-

  82. How many of these emails have to do with (a) actually discussing scientific data and theory, and (b) covering each others asses with agenda driven issues and smearing dissent?
    Seems to me its almost none of the former and all of the latter.
    What do these guys have to hide other than their scam?

  83. ****
    Ilkka Mononen says:
    December 3, 2011 at 3:58 am

    ****
    Ilkka, I assume English isn’t you’re native language, and as a result your posts are difficult to understand. Unfortunate. Perhaps you can find someone to assist you in your writing? Otherwise we can’t tell if you’re really on to something, or spamming, etc.
    Mods, wouldn’t a quick search thru the emails confirm or deny if these are “new” emails?

  84. beng says:
    December 3, 2011 at 6:36 am
    Ilkka, I assume English isn’t you’re native language, and as a result your posts are difficult to understand.
    With a post like that your qualifications to comment on the language skills of others are highly questionable.

  85. Charles the Moderator
    I have sent the following message to Anthony.
    I hope somebody can give us an answer:
    Message: Could you please give us a brief thread about the posts being made by this person? Presumably he or she is Finsh and it is very difficult to comprehend what is being said. Is this person a supporter or a critic of AGW? – I can’t decide from her blog. Has she made a real break through? Is there anything new? Is it important to our understanding of the Team and all their works? Thank you.
    Subject: Ilkka Mononen

    • @AusieDan
      There’s nothing here. No AES 256 password break has occurred and there’s nothing embedded in the MIME data that I can see that suggests a password. While it could be plausible that Steganography was used to embed a the password, the modus operandi of the leaker “FOIA” doesn’t lend itself to such a suggestion. This person has been patient and in control, doubtful that he/she would leave the password in place for somebody to find.
      The time for this final revelation is something he/she likely wants to control. Patience is a virtue.
      Therefore, I won’t wast time on the issues raised by Ilkka Mononen unless I see something fare more concrete than the rambling speculations and infotainment posts presented thus far. – Anthony

  86. Gail Combs,
    When comparing Trenberth’s cartoon and the kwh figures available to solar panels, you are making a mistake. Even Trenberth couldn’t get away with figures that far off base. Trenberth’s 168W/m^2 plus 30W/m^2 are globally and annually averaged figures. Thus they are averaged over night and seasons where the night is longer and in some places last months. The other mistake is not to realize that the power per m^2 available to solar panels has been concentrated by raising them to an angle orthogonal to the sun. If you look at the shadow cast by such a 1 m^2 solar panel, you will see that it is intercepting more than just the power available to 1m^2 of surface at that latitude. The variation in kwh available to solar panels orthogonal to the sun varies even at the same latitude because the amount of sunny cloudless time varies. Even a bright cloudy day diffuses the sunlight, so that the effective concentration achieve by raising the panel orthogonal to the sun is reduced. regards

  87. If this was just about fund raising to keep useless PhD’s out of the way, then having a Grand Argument over AGW, etc. would benefit the entire gang of them. “We’re all going to die unless… [fill in the blank]” works marvelously if both camps have ‘The Solution’, “but further research is necessary to prove it.”
    So, I can only conclude that either the warmists are stupid, overly greedy about funding, or they have a major political agenda driving them. (Do I smell watermellons….??)

Comments are closed.