The contextual collection of ClimateGate 2.0 quotes

One of the first whines out of RealClimate ( a Fenton Communications/ Environmental Media Services production) was that they were “out of context” saying:

“Indeed, even the out-of-context quotes aren’t that exciting, and are even less so in-context.”

That’s typical Gavin putz-speak for “nothing to see here, move along”. His message, coming just a few hours after the release in the wee hours of the morning, and just before 8AM EST on 11/22 suggests that Gavin pulled a Peter Gleick and didn’t actually read the emails before writing a dismissive review of them.  Yet it appears that with what has been discovered so far in the 5000 plus emails, the context is quite rich.

Out of context, comes understanding.

Jeff suggested I repost this collection of quotes in the words of climate scientists as discovered in Climategate 2.0 context. He’s done a great job at collecting the relevant context. – Anthony

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

Their words – Guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent

They call us skeptics, deniers, fossil fuel funded, contrarians, anti-science, all because we criticize the IPCC, the hockey stick plots, temperature record quality, biased peer review, and the general politicizing that climate science has undergone. Don’t take it from me though, Climategate II explains the same things in the words of the scientists themselves.

In this post, I’ve posted a large number of quotes from the emails and other online sources which I have been gradually gathering for several days now. The consensus duma will say they are out-of-context so if you question that, check the numbers or links next to the comments. It is not possible that they could ALL be out-of-context but there are many  statements from climate science which leave me wondering. This post is started out with a quote from noted scientist Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog and it continues on with quotes from the consensus. All of whom are actual climate scientists.

Be sure that there are many more quotes in these emails. I am only one person and the documentation takes time. If there are more to add to the list (there are) just quote the email number and a few sentences below. No need to copy the whole email. Those interested enough will look it up anyway. I didn’t cover the FOIA and peer review issues here but hope to add them to this list in the future.

The IPCC

From the organization statement: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

Roy Spencer -on his blog regarding the IPCC

Unfortunately, there is no way to “fix” the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.

Hans VonStorch – Wall St Journal Climategate 1.0

What we can now see is a concerted effort to emphasize scientific results that are useful to a political agenda by blocking papers in the purportedly independent review process and skewing the assessments of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

#0714 Phil Jones – on finding authors for the IPCC AR4 report

Getting people we know and trust is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.

#4755 Johnathan Overpeck – Picking what goes into IPCC AR4

 The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change.

#3066 Peter Thorne – IPCC Zero’th order draft

I note that my box on the lapse rates was completely and utterly ignored which may explain to some extent my reaction, but I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

#2009 Keith Briffa – writing zero’th order draft of paleo IPCC AR4 chapter.

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!

#0170 Jones – Looking for hurricane paper to be included in the IPCC AR4

Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.

#1922 Johnathan Overpeck – on the message for the IPCC paleo section

Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

#3066 Tim Carter – on what is going into the IPCC. Written to IPCC authors because of amazing THC claims.

Regarding the phrase ‘IPCC position’? Would it be wise to check that McCarthy /Watson have the same understanding as we do.

[and the reply]

[TC] You could try, but it has been tricky getting anyone to make statements about anything. It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.

#4133 Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review. Doing what is necessary for the IPCC

Synthesis and Implications for Climate change combine ideas from the different time periods – it gives paleoclimate studies more of an unified feel, as if it were a real discipline rather than a bunch of people doing their own time-period thing. That’s necessary for IPCC, and necessary for the outside community to see as well. So I would vote for keeping the general order, but eliminating the overlap and inconsistencies in ways that seem most reasonable.

#0419 Mike Hulme –

I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies – including some of those I am involved in – and feel we are not really giving the right message to our audiences.

 Douglas Maraun Die Klimazweibel blog

Second, I agree with von Storch, that some climate scientists are alarmist, and even more, some climate scientists are politicised and give scientific results a certain spin to push their political agenda. Yet, as I experienced CRU, the institute was far from being alarmist or streamlined in any way.

NAS panel review of hockeysticks prompted by McIntyre and McKitrick.

#1104 -Heinz Wanner – on reporting his NAS panel critique of Mann to the media.

I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.

#1656 Douglas Maraun – on how to react to skeptics.

How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.

#3234 Richard Alley

Taking the recent instrumental record and the tree-ring record and joining them yields a dramatic picture, with rather high confidence that recent times are anomalously warm. Taking strictly the tree-ring record and omitting the instrumental record yields a less-dramatic picture and a lower confidence that the recent temperatures are anomalous.

Paleoclimate and hide the decline

#0300

Bo Christiansen – On Hockey stick reconstructions

All methods strongly underestimates the amplitude of low-frequency variability and trends. This means that it is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.

Ed Cook #3253

the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).

#4133 Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review.

what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got.

[and later]

Unsatisfying, perhaps, since people will want to know whether 1200 AD was warmer than today, but if the data doesn’t exist, the question can’t yet be answered. A good topic for needed future work.

Rob Wilson – 1583

The palaeo-world has become a much more complex place in the last 10 years and with all the different calibration methods, data processing methods, proxy interpretations – any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.

#3234 Richard Alley – on NAS panel and divergence

records, or some other records such as Rosanne’s new ones, show “divergence”, then I believe it casts doubt on the use of joined tree-ring/instrumental records, and I don’t believe that I have yet heard why this interpretation is wrong.

#4758 Tim Osborne – Criticizing other people for doing the same thing

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we’ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley’s!

#0497 – Phil Jones UEA – Scientists don’t know the magnitude of past warming.

Even though the tree-ring chronologies used have robust rbar statistics for the whole 1000 years ( ie they lose nothing because core numbers stay high throughout), they have lost low frequency because of standardization. We’ve all tried with RCS/very stiff splines/hardly any detrending to keep this to a minimum, but until we know it is minimal it is still worth mentioning.

#0886 Jan Esper on his own reconstruction – also hidden decline

And the curve will also show that the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together.

Tiim Osborne 4007

Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were

Tim Osborne #2347

Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible!

#3234 Richard Alley

Unless the “divergence problem” can be confidently ascribed to some cause that was not active a millennium ago, then the comparison between tree rings from a millennium ago and instrumental records from the last decades does not seem to be justified, and the confidence level in the anomalous nature of the recent warmth is lowered.

I think the best way to sum up all of this is a quote from a guest post at tAV and DieKlimazweibel by Bo Christiansen:

Where does all this lead us? It is very likely that the NH mean temperature has shown much larger past variability than caught by previous reconstructions. We cannot from these reconstructions conclude that the previous 50-year period has been unique in the context of the last 500-1000 years.

Of course we all know that the IPCC reports differently.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
ThePowerofX

Context Discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation
Somebody buy Anthony a dictionary.

REPLY:
The piece is by Jeff Id, please learn to read attributions before accusing others of interpretive problems – Anthony

Jay Davis

A nice, succinct listing of emails showing them in context with relative subject matter. A lot of work, but this was well worth it. The emails selected are very good samples. My hat is off to you!

David Davidovics

It will be quite entertaining to see how warmists contort themselves to either ignore, or defend the indefensible in the weeks ahead. A new movement will some day replace this pseudo communist sham, but for now I feel some comfort in knowing that the global warming movement is running out of steam. Its not over yet, but thanks blogs like this, and that heroic supposed ‘hacker’, some pretty heavy body blows have been landed.

The context is given with the email number linked to each quotation.
There are other laudable efforts to put individual email into the context of an exchange.
Every time someone widens and includes more context, the quotes become more damning.
When someone says they are taken out of context, this usually means “I want you to read this within a fictional and more acceptable context (that I may not even bother to provide), rather than the one that’s actually in evidence and that you’ve already got your nose stuck in”.
And so it is with almost every example “refuted” by the participants so far.

Theo Goodwin

With regard to the comment by “ThePowerofX,” the questions raised by this post are not about the meanings of individual words or phrases. The topic is not what the meaning of ‘is’ is. That is not the kind of context being investigated.
The question is whether doubt about published results was widespread among the contributing scientists and remained unresolved while they put forward public statements supporting CAGW. The context that is relevant here takes in claims made and “strategies” suggested by many corresponding scientists over a considerable length of time.
Take a logic course, ThePowerofX.

Brandon Caswell

Context:
– the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : environment, setting
Hey powerofx,
What good is a dictionary if you don’t bother to actually read it or just cherry pick the definition you like. The use of Context is correct. Your just a moron.

Nick Shaw

Sorry, Anthony, I object to this line, “All of whom are actual climate scientists”
Or maybe just the “scientists” part.
Good compilation. Now if some of the hoi poloi of government would just take the time to read this, we might get somewhere!

Frank K.

Brandon Caswell says:
December 4, 2011 at 9:54 am
Brandon – take powerofx inane response as a sign that Climategate II is getting under the skin of the CAGW cabal. These people are in full damage-control mode. Besides, I’m sure he is one of the many climate commandos working for:
THE CAUSE(tm)
(heh!)

Brandon Caswell

By claiming out -of -context, but not really giving a context to use instead, they are just trying to give the people a chance to dream up a context in their minds. This has been shown to work very well in phsycology, in that if you don’t give details, people will invent details that reaffirm their point of view.
But very few people who have followed climate science for any length of time will be fooled by the context defense. We all know the general context and the general issues involved.
Out of context works better to explain a quote when you were talking about eating, but someone cuts out a bit and presented it as though you were talking about sex. When you are talking about the errors in tree ring divergence and say the data is suspect, no amount of context would clear that unless someone just sent you an email saying, “lets have a contest to see who can act more like a skeptic”.
They just look ridiculous trying to defend their blatant political manuvering.

ThePowerofX

[Using multiple screen names violate site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

Bloke down the pub

Nice peice Jeff. Of course it won’t make any difference to the crew at the Durban jamboree. They will carry on in their merry way whatever the evidence put before them, because for them it was never about the climate but about the politics.

Wil and changing my name to albertalad from here on in.

I get the squabbles inherent in the climate field – its evident. Even Mann, Jones and company spend considerable time trying to deflect opposition views. However, in the course of human events and that of climate science – climate “change” if you will on all national and international stages is a runaway unstoppable and undiminished event with nothing – no amount of leaked emails, dissenting studies are able to slow this behemoth down. Climate change international conferences race ahead with no mention of leaked “emails” dissenting studies, nor previous world climate history ever playing any part on any national or international body, or news organizations. or even enter the dialogue.
AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming – meaning human driven global warming. Then exactly what is the percentage of human cause warming? Is it 3% or 4% or what? I still don’t have a definitive answer for the very question at the heart of the debate. If we can’t adequately make that fact clear then how is the guy on the street supposed to understand?
To my knowledge no one on this side has ever claimed there is NO global warming – now I’m not talking about the issues on this site which are brilliant in and of themselves – most understand the raw studies presented here. I’m talking about on the street – we rarely make a case FOR the earth’s historical climate history or of the number of massive and minor climate shifts as very normal in this planet’s history. And it was and is this very lack of earth knowledge for the general public on the street that allowed Mann, Jones and company to fill up the knowledge vacuum by creating their own fictional earth history where they control flow of information. We have yet to produce any earth history of our own – hence we spend all of our time playing within Mann’s and company universe. How can we win playing in another’s fake world? Hopefully some one here can prove me wrong.

Gail Combs

ThePowerofX says:
December 4, 2011 at 9:28 am
Context Discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation
Somebody buy Anthony a dictionary.
__________________________________
The Warmistra came up with the word not Anthony so take your complaint up with Phil Jones, Mike Mann and the rest of the “Team”

North of 43 and south of 44

Everybody needs to remember there are over 200,000 additional pieces of context yet to be released, well they have been released, but are hiding behind a wee bit of encryption.

Joe

@Brandon Caswell
The use of Context is correct. Your just a moron.
Oh please.”Your” is not the same as “You’re”

The context is clear! It is obvious that they are concerned because they are not sure they are correct and want to keep the cause alive so they pretend they know what is the truth about the climate even when they are uncertain or have lied to make the case for warming by green house gases. When will this cover up make it into the mainstream press? It is time to clearly reveal this hoax to the Ameican public before we spend any more money chasing a conspiracy.

Ian

Nice collection Jeff.
I think the reference for the Tim Osborn “completely artificial adjustment” email is incorrect. I believe it is #4005, not #4007.
Cheers.

Dave Springer

@Anthony
“putz-speak”
Putz is vulgar in case you didn’t know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Yiddish_origin

John M

Dave Springer December 4, 2011 at 11:03 am
One is generally safe using the first definition.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/putz
Of course, if other defintions happen to apply as well…well, c’est la vie

davidmhoffer

Joe says:
December 4, 2011 at 10:56 am
@Brandon Caswell
The use of Context is correct. Your just a moron.
Oh please.”Your” is not the same as “You’re”>>>
Oh Puhleeze! The purpose of language is to communicate. Do you propose that there was a single person who read Brandon’s comment and didn’t know exactly what he meant?
Ths ntpckng abt spllng is jst slly gvn tht wth almst no vwls at all, mst ppl knw xctly wht ths sntnc says.

I asked Anthony to cross post this because I’ve put a lot of time into this collection. If readers find simple quotes from the emails I hope they will take the time to place them in the thread here. Just the number and a few lines. Big emails which require discussion will be discussed in time. There are 5000 emails and a limited attention span for the media — which obviously is reading. The team deserves what they get from this and I’m certainly not letting go of it easily.
ThePowerofX,
I brought up ‘context’ because of the false claim that the emails were out-of-context obviously well before they were read. I did make the attempt to only select emails which were truly contextually accurate taken one at a time. I doubt many of them came from the hacker’s release. However, if you take them as groups as I have placed them, would you concede that the groups give context exactly according to your definition thus supporting Anthony’s sharp titles and remarks?
It seems hard to imagine that the extra quotes saying the same things don’t provide any context.

clarification:
I doubt many of them came from the hacker’s release.
should say
I doubt many of them came from the selection highlighted in the email release.

Roy UK

@ ThePowerofX:
December 4, 2011 at 11:09 am
Are you part of the team as well? Nice try at hijacking the thread. If you want context look at the original emails quoted in the body of the original post. You want Discourse(from Latin discursus, meaning “running to and from”) you came to the correct place. If you want to be back in your echo chamber go to fakeclimate.fake

mike williams

ThePowerofX says:
December 4, 2011 at 9:28 am
Context Discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation
ThePowerofX says:
December 4, 2011 at 11:09 am
Anthony Watts wrote: “The piece is by Jeff Id, please learn to read attributions before accusing others of interpretive problems”
But your annotation reads “He’s done a great job at collecting the relevant context.”
Nice try champ 🙂
It is telling that you dont blink at what the emails are actually saying..but make an orwellian attempt to make a word..into something else.
And exactly how many emails would give the subject matter “context” as a whole.
Is 5000 emails enough “context” for ya.
Not enough..I thought so..
Its better to say silent when baffled …
And once more..
“1/the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: 2.the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

David Ball

Wil and changing my name to albertalad from here on in. says:
December 4, 2011 at 10:21 am
Here is my fathers website. Hope it helps.
http://drtimball.com/
Here is his latest interview on the Corbett Report,
http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-421-dr-tim-ball/

“putz”
WoW !!
Unusually harsh language !!
GOOD !

Theo Goodwin

The quotes produced in Id’s post are wonderful. However, do not limit yourself to these. Go to Id’s site and do some exploring for some very rich contexts. He has a post on Briffa that is dynamite. Do not stop there. Go to climateaudit.org, Steve McIntyre’s website. He has made some posts in the last week that contain extended contexts, especially about paleo reconstructions. These posts make a knockdown case against The Team’s claim that they had high confidence in the paleo evidence for the hockey stick and similar graphs.

David Ball

davidmhoffer says:
December 4, 2011 at 11:28 am
Another excellent post by Mr. D.M. Hoffer.
The powerofZ; If that is the best you can come up with, I am hoping you are not a product of our Uni’s. You reveal more than you realize in your posts.

David Ball

Thanks to Jeff Id for his efforts. Much appreciated.

Peter

Jeff, I think you may have quoted #4755 out of context.
The only reason I know that is because I happened to read that particular email just yesterday.

Wil and changing my name to albertalad from here on in.

David Ball says:
Thanks – I’m on that site now. Good stuff there. Stuff folks on the street desperately need.

Peter
How so? Because it seems less nefarious than it sounds when you read the whole thing? I re-read and don’t see anything wrong with the quote. Keep in mind that it would be impossible to read this post if I had copied every email in its entirety. The point of 4755 was to reduce the content of the previous AR4 pass and sell the right message of the IPCC.
If people would like to critique the context, feel free but this isn’t about one email, it is about a large selection. However, if the context of an individual email must be critiqued, please say why it is wrong. I’ll remove it from the group if you convince me.
In the meantime, feel free to add more to the group.

billy

All the quotes taken together provide the context. The scientists are being scientists, but only between themselves, therefore treating the rest of us like second class citizens. They are not sharing the uncertainties with us, because they think they know what is best. The message is the priority.
One problem with doing all this is making the assumption that the rest of us are not as smart and clever.
Why should the tax payer fund you if you are engaging in mass fraud? Thankfully, we are smart enough to answer this one.

Steve Garcia

I think the two email quotes Jeff listed that are the most powerful are the two by Osborne from #4007 and #2347. (Emphasis added.)

Tiim [sic] Osborne 4007
Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were.

Applying a “completely artificial adjustment” means that the resultants have no relationship at all to what the original data was. It is almost universal among the general public that they trust the numbers that go into the graphs the public sees. After all, these are scientists, and scientists don’t just make up numbers! This quote shows that, after all, this particular gaggle of scientists do, in fact, make up numbers.

Tim Osborne #2347
Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible!

This is 100% unbelievable, that scientists would have such balls. They are not only nudging the numbers a bit. When they have a large group of data that they don’t agree with, or that doesn’t agree with them, they don’t even bother pretending to use the data. Instead, they just REMOVE the inconvenient numbers “set all post-1960 values to missing.” This is ERASING the numbers, as if they never existed.
Then, based on the surrounding data (which they deem acceptable), they use one of their algorithms – “the method,” whatever that is – to “infill,” to extrapolate the now “missing” data into large swaths of FAKE data. The fake data is then treated as if it is real. So, they end up with a dataset that is part real and part fraudulent. No wonder Mike Mann doesn’t want to turn over his dataa and methodology to anyone with the capacity to replicate his work. And no wonder Phil Jones “lost his homework” in his now legendary incapacity to record what he did or where he stored his data (alone a reason to consider him a terrible scientist).
“Crap science,” these people call the efforts of those who just want to see what is behind the science they produce.
Crap science, indeed.

Dave Springer says:
December 4, 2011 at 11:03 am
what is truly offensive is that these clowns have been getting away with things a second grader knows are wrong and then they get mad when they are called on it.

Skiphil

Seeking context, I’m still very new to these issues and will appreciate any help here….
I think the email linked below is extremely ‘interesting’ for what it says about the state of Wigley and ‘the science’ just before Kyoto and before MBH98.
i.e., Wigley, at least, is still able to distinguish sharply between the scientific work and the “policy” pronouncements. In terms of the development of these issues, has anyone looked at the motivation and impact for MBH98 with respect to ‘policing’ scientists rather than the public? To what extent did MBH1998 serve to create and enforce a new “consensus” among scientists that was implausible even a year or two before?
I do realize that Wigley did sneer at “skeptics” at the end of this email, and that he was not necessarily opposed to massive govt actions etc. He emphasizes the needs to better understand costs and benefits, competing proposals, etc., and even that theme is toxic to the CAGW activists.
Still, it is interesting to me to see someone central to these controversies able to distinguish clearly (back in 1997 anyway) between the ‘science’ and one’s policy ‘opinions’ about how to respond.
[1997 email]: Tom Wigley blasts 11 climate scientists organizing a pre-Kyoto statement of what he regards as a dubious and “dishonest” linkage of previous IPCC work to a call for “immediate control” of emissions. One can see Wigley responding to what he regards as a politicized and “dishonest” attempt to claim the previous IPCC work had specific policy implications.
088047672
From: Tom Wigley
To: REDACTED, REDACTED, Klaus Hasselmann , Jill Jaeger , REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED,
REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)
Reply-to: Tom Wigley
Cc: Mike Hulme , REDACTED
Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both “immediate control” and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options. It is not IPCC’s role to make “convincing cases”
for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement….
…. [more at link]

Peter

Jeff,
Here’s the relevant part:

Hi Ricardo – good to hear from you. Thanks too for the interesting figure. I have some
comments on this section (6.5.4) and also for the others’ you’re helping to lead
.
Regarding 6.5.4 – I hope Dick and Keith will have jump in to help you lead, and I can too.
I think the hardest, yet most important part, is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In
looking over your good outline, sent back on Oct. 17 (my delay is due to fatherdom just
after this time), you cover ALOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use
that to guid what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is
relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to
have solid data – not inconclusive information

Reading the whole thing, particularly the bolded bits, I believe Overpeck was simply giving Ricardo advice on how to create a short summary from a long paper, whilst retaining its meaning.

Theo Goodwin

Steve Garcia says:
December 4, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Excellent work! Keep it up. People who have trouble seeing “the context” in your post are blind to context or pretending to be.

Robert of Ottawa

Regarding the released, but still encrypted e-mails.
The authors, after climategate 1.0 probably t hought that was all there was, so their white-wash investigations were adequate.
Now that there is a second release, which provide a great deal of CONTEXT, they cannot adopt the same tactic as they know there is more to come … and they MUST have some idea what, as they were the authors and recipients of those e-mails.
It may be interesting to watchany investigations (there won’t be any) into this release, or the obvious lies given to the previous investigations. Phil, DID INDEED, delete e-mails.

Robert of Ottawa

Following up on my previous comment, it would be interesting if anyone notices “signs of sweating” from any of these miscreants. Not sure what to look for, though. perhaps a shuffling of positional feet. However, I expect continued wagon-circling … they will not believe, as the team is in control… the FOIA agent would not get the secret code out.
Probably got their heads in the “plane crash” position.

For anyone interested, here are some choice quotes from Climategate1.

ROM

RealClimate ( a Fenton Communications/ Environmental Media Services production)
Love the attribution. Hope it is maintained to give a regular reminder of the real opportunistic political and financial power seekers behind their pseudo Climate Front blog.

Theo Goodwin

Robert of Ottawa says:
December 4, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Mann has been sweating bullets for months. He and his fellows at the University of Virginia have pulled out all the stops to prevent a release of Mann’s emails while at the University of Virginia.

Dave Wendt

Good job with this Jeff! Are you acquainted with anyone in the public relations business? This really should be organized into a press release to as many media outlets as possible. It might need a little editorial tightening and should be accompanied by an extensive contact list of significant skeptics who are willing to provide context for the context for the mostly scientifically illiterate journalism community It would be nice if in the massive present day media there were a few folks who could match what Jules Bergman did for science and technology journalism at ABC for over 25yrs, unfortunately nowadays no one is even close. For most of them, even if you provide them with people who have the information the public needs to know, they’re too ignorant or biased to construct the simple questions required to bring that info out.
Despite all that we need to keep the pressure on them, so they can’t just sit back comfortably and regurgitate the Team’s lame excuses, as they have for years.

Theo Goodwin

Peter says:
December 4, 2011 at 2:01 pm
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what’s included and what is left out.”
What part of scientific method do you not understand? There is no “main message” in scientific method. What one does is evaluate the evidence as best as one can, present the evidence fully and its impact for the hypotheses, and let the cards fall where they may.
“Let the cards fall where they may” is that part of scientific method known as objectivity. “Having a main message” is that part of subjectivity that expresses the corruption that pervades the body of The Team’s so-called science.

Gail Combs

Wil and changing my name to albertalad from here on in. says:
December 4, 2011 at 10:21 am
….. We have yet to produce any earth history of our own – hence we spend all of our time playing within Mann’s and company universe. How can we win playing in another’s fake world? Hopefully some one here can prove me wrong.
____________________________________
Actually Lucy Skywalker has done it. http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/
Probably the best illustration is her great flick graph: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif
Check on the right hand side for the skeptic blogs under Skeptical Views.
Digging in the Clay for example is by a Geologist. http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/
And at the top you have references: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/
There is a heck of a lot of information connected to this website. It is really mind boggling when you think about it.

Steve Garcia

Not exactly criminal, but…
#4758

cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk
date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:47:38 +0100
from: Tim Osborn
subject: RE: seasonaliy
to: Keith Briffa
Hi Phil & Keith,
you should find (on the colour laser) some more plots. Maps same as before but with better colours. Grey means near to zero. The oceans are often grey due to their lower variability, but I decided that pre-normalisation of summer & winter data wasn’t the right way to go.

“I decided”??? Holy crap, Batman!
I can’t help but comment further, though…
Tell me there are actually SOME standards in climatology. A researcher like Osborne can just decide on his own, “I will go this way, not that way.” Huh????!!!
This may be one of the things that we haven’t exactly put our finger on – that each researcher is just making all kinds of independent calls on how to handle each situation. Yes, Mann was/is trying to impose HIS decisions on everyone, but as any CG2.0 reader can see, that was/is going over like a lead balloon.
If they have no standards, every reconstruction or present-day paper they author should be looked at with a fine-toothed comb. (Supposedly, that is what peer-review is all about, but when a core clique which dominates the reviewer population is so mono-minded about humans being the one and only cause, peer-review will fail.) How does anyone else determine if the decisions that author made are valid?
In any new science field, I imagine that it takes time for standards to take hold. But at the same time, the participants should be at least TRYING to get standards started and tested out, not just emailing that, “Oh, BTW, I did this (or that) to the data.
But I think one of the things that upsets so many of us is that they don’t seem to HAVE any standards, because we expect science to be codified to a high extent, fencing in the researchers, so that they don’t go off like loose cannons, in all directions. Loose cannons would be BAD for the science.
Duh.

Peter

Theo Goodwin says:
December 4, 2011 at 2:58 pm

What part of scientific method do you not understand?

Who said anything about the scientific method?
I’m merely pointing out that we shouldn’t be giving people ammunition to accuse us of quoting things out of context.

Kev-in-UK

Steve Garcia says:
December 4, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Absofreakinlutely! This has been the basis of most folks’ distrust of the AGW meme (by most folk, I mean those who can be bothered to check it out for themselves – which of course means us skeptics!)
It needs to be repeated time and time again – and preferably far and wide so Joe Public can eventually get a grasp of the scam that’s been perpetrated! If the data was there, if the data was correct and IF the data really really showed catastrophic GW – NONE of this skepticism would be happening or necessary!!!
The real (raw) data is unavailable, the actual methods, codes, algorithms are not fully available, but yet the conclusions of there nefarious ‘work’ is forcefully and continuously thrown down our throats! Feck the lot of them I say – they are treating us like sheep and religious sheep at that! Relying on ‘Faith’ in the belief or ‘theory’ has no place in science and certainly no place in defining the life or death situation of billions of people!

ROM

OT / Anybody running a book on who will crack first and hang the head and “cry uncle” to try and extricate himself / herself from the poo before they are wiped out completely, scientifically speaking.
i suspect it’s coming and soon!