Gotta love the dedication. Tom Nelson writes:
Just FYI: I’m reading all of the ClimateGate 2.0 emails
For a while, I was looking at the ClimateGate 2.0 emails by searching them for certain names and keywords.
Now, my plan is to read all 5,349 of them at this link. I didn’t want to start at #1, so I started at #5000, read to the end, then went back to 4,000. I’m currently about 1,000 emails into this project. If you don’t want to read a lot of ClimateGate email excerpts, you might want to avoid this blog for a while. I can’t wait to see what’s in the next 4,300 emails.
So far, it’s been fascinating to get a look at the climate hoax from the inside. The data fudging, the demonization of doubters, the knee-jerk rejection of alternate hypotheses, the quest for funding, the travel to exotic locations, the pal review, the left-wing politics, the fear of debate, the swagger in the early days, then the panic as the skeptics closed in–it’s all there.
Another thing I’ve learned is that Michael Mann is evidently vastly smarter than me, because while it’ll take me months to finish all of these emails, he finished up his stellar analysis back on Day 1.
==============================================================
I’ll do regular WUWT updates as Tom progresses.
Here’s some recent samples:
Email 4160, Warmist Richard Somerville: “We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.”
I also think people need to come to understand that the scientific uncertainties work both ways. We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long. Singer will say that uncertainties like these mean models lack veracity and can safely be ignored. What seems highly unlikely to me is that each of these uncertainties is going to make the climate system more robust against change. It is just as likely a priori that a poorly understood bit of physics might be a positive as a negative feedback. Meanwhile, the climate system overall is in fact behaving in a manner consistent with the GCM predictions. I have often wondered how our medical colleagues manage to escape the trap of having their entire science dismissed because there are uncured diseases and other remaining uncertainties. Maybe we can learn from the physicians.
Email 4180, July 2000, on who should be on the Tyndall Centre Climate Change Hoax advisory board: “Certainly we need advice but we also want cash”; how about these wind power guys?
subject: Re: TC Advisory Board
…On the SME front I would suggest:
Mr Alan Moore MD of National WInd Power (a subsidiary of National Power) or
Dr Andrew Garrad MD of Garrad Hassan (UK wind energy consultancy with 45 staff)
Please let me know if you are interested in either of these and I will call them to ensure they will devote the time to the TC which we need
I think British Biogen may be a Trade Association but I am not sure.
I would like us to be very clear on what we want from the Advisory Board. Certainly we need advice but we also want cash (i.e industrial support for projects PhD students etc). Therefore the Business Members need to have both the desire and ability to support us.
Email 4225, Aug 2001: Warmists Rob Swart and Tom Wigley agree that cutting CO2 emissions would not make any distinguishable difference to the climate until “well into the second half of the century”
[Rob Swart] My expectation would indeed be that comparing climate changes resulting from reference cases and from stabilization cases would not be distinguishable until well into the 2nd half of the century (like in the GRL paper), but if this is so, so be it.
[Tom Wigley] YES — BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON’T EVEN REALIZE THIS.
Email 4047, May 2001, Mike Hulme: “The earlier part of the morning will ‘sell’ environmental science in the broader context, before we sell the particular challenge of climate change.”
Email 4055, June 2005: Warmist Ray Bradley: “We got the $$ from a Congressional earmark…We hope to get another one next year, so as to give us an additional couple of years cushion.”
…We got the $$ from a Congressional earmark, so it comes directly through NOAA. We hope to get another one next year, so as to give us an additional couple of years cushion….
Email 4478, October 2008, UEA’s David Palmer on requests for data: “quite frankly, I am surprised that not more requests of this nature have been made”
As to Tim’s larger point regarding the provision of data ‘in response to requests’, a request for data is a request for information like any other under FOIA or EIR and has to be treated similarly on its merits. If there is a valid exemption and public interest not to disclose, then that is what we do; otherwise a requester is entitled to see the data (and yes, I am aware of the implications for the research community writ large of this – quite frankly, I am surprised that not more requests of this nature have been made). [Dave Palmer]
Email 4559, Phil Jones, Aug 2003: “The Science Editor-in-Chief’s response…should be rammed down Singer’s throat…”
date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:50:08 +0100 from: Phil Jones
subject: Aug 1 Science issue to: “Michael E. Mann” ,Tom Wigley , Keith Briffa , Michael Oppenheimer , Raymond Bradley , Malcolm Hughes , Jonathan Overpeck , Kevin Trenberth
,Tom Crowley , Ben Santer ,Steve Schneider , Caspar Ammann ,Gabi Hegerl , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
Dear All, The letter exchange on pp595-6 is worth a read. The Science Editor-in-Chief’s response is a fantastic put down ! Brilliant – should be rammed down Singer’s throat when he does similar things in the future. I hope Kennedy enjoyed writing it as much as I enjoyed reading it. I can’t see Singer writing to Science again !
Cheers Phil
I’d like to see that put-down of Singer (Fred I presume). Guaranteed to be crooked.
Poor Tom if someone releases the passphrase for the 7zip file !!!!
i spent hours reading those files and i found myself just getting so angry about the bastardization of science that i quit….
ethics is lost i fear and until these folks have a come to Jesus meeting it won happen…
Good Luck
I have no idea who Tom Nelson is, but I read his blog regularly. He always has good posts and accurate statements. Strange thing is that readers don’t respond there very much, but he keeps on posting. So, he must have a very strong inner drive to keep on fighting the hoax of AGW.
Regarding Climategate 2 he already has found a lot of pretty astonishing messages from the Causists. So, I would like to say: Thanks Tom! Keep on searching!
President Obama recommends abolishing Commerce.
Papers and e-mails relating to NOAA’s conduct regarding “climate science” lost or missing.
Or, as Secretary of State Clinton might suggest, “time to hit the re-set button!”
.
It is interesting that The Team et al are not running more scared about the now-public, but encrypted file.
I only surmise they don’t know/remember what is there.
So much of science has become pay-for-play (in medicine, in particular) but this scandal is one that will be long remembered. Many, many books to come, I expect. …..Lady in Red
Thumbs up for Tom. A regular reader at his blog.
I know it shouldn’t be, but the more emails I read the more shocked I am.
You don’t have to read too many of these emails to see the agendas writ large, the hidden uncertainties, the venal, crush the opposition attitudes. Call me naive, but I’m still shocked that the msm can claim there’s nothing to see. If these emails were tied to one of their favourite targets (e.g. Bush, Republicans, Tea Party, etc.) we would see a nightly parade of the 5,000 mails.
I commend Tom. Someone has to go through these mails to document just what went on. I only hope I live long enough to be able to look back on this dark episode in history and say to my grandchildren and great grandchildren vanitas vanitatum.
Gotta be better than reading Kilgore Trout….
Scarface–regarding the relatively low comment volume on my site: I think the reason is that I put up so many posts (maybe 200 per week) that long comment threads just aren’t going to happen–posts just get buried too quickly.
In the past, when I blogged on other subjects, I had much lower blog traffic, but a lot more comments per post.
Go Tom Nelson. I visit his blog at least once a day. He is a machine!
Email 4160, Warmist Richard Somerville: “We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.”
Email 4160
“I have often wondered how our medical colleagues manage to escape the trap of having their entire science dismissed because there are uncured diseases and other remaining uncertainties. Maybe we can learn from the physicians.”
The vast majority of physicians are not scientists. Their primary goal is to relieve suffering and they will do all sorts of unscientific things to meet that goal. Some physicians do scientific research but their work serves the ends of medicine first and science secondarily.
Climate scientists, as physicists, serve the goal of all pure science, namely, the satisfaction of curiosity and the production of genuine understanding about the universe. Mainstream climate science has demonstrated that it has no clue about the ends or moral obligations of the scientist.
Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?
Do I support everything revealed in the Climgate 1.0 and 2.0 emails? Of course not…but no less than I support all the kinds of human behaviors that go on in every walk and facet of human endeavor, especially when reputations and money are involved.
But in all the thousands of emails, though the levels of uncertainty in the human activity/climate connection are more bluntly laid out in the emails than in “official public” findings, (and this is their real value in my estimation), I’ve not seen even one reference that seriously undermines the basic tenant that humans are altering the global climate through our activities. Thus, the emails reveal more about human nature and the level of uncertainty in study systems on the edge of chaos, than actually undermining of the human activity/climate connection.
Oh come now !!!
Why waste time doing that !!
We’ve already been told “Nothing to see here, move along”
I commend you for your dedication going through all of the emails !!
R. Gates says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
Yes. In all my years working in industry, I have never come across this type of e-mail – the major reason being that disciplinary action would have followed. You wouldn’t be walked out of the building, that’s pretty much a no-no here in Germany, but there would have been consequences. The entire conduct of the Team is deeply unprofessional and dishonest on a level that defies the imagination.
R. Gates says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“Thus, the emails reveal more about human nature and the level of uncertainty in study systems on the edge of chaos, ”
And stop the weasel words. Climate is not “on the edge of chaos”, it is a chaotic system, not more, not less.
Yes
These days I usually refer to him as the indefatigable Tom Nelson: and not for for nothing as is now only too apparent.
May his shadow never grow less.
Kindest Regards
This from 2064 2011-Nov-23 04:43:29 4.9K text/plain
The density chronology shows a low-frequency decline over the last century which appears
anomalous in comparison with both the TRW data and the instrumental data over the 19^th
and 20^th centuries. These facts suggest that the density-coefficients in the regression
equation may be biased as would be the case if the density decline were not climate
related (CO2 increases and/or the potential effects of increasing nitrogen input from
remote sources may be implicated here.) &The residual MXD data (actual estimated) are
plotted in Fig. 7. A systematic decline is apparent after 1750. By fitting a straight
line through these residuals (1750-1980) and adding the straight-line values (with the4
sign reversed) to the RCS density curve, the anomalous post-1750 decline was removed.
This corrected RCS curve was then used along with the RCS ring-width curve in a final
reconstruction of the April-August temperatures.
This hardly seems like justifiable statistical procedure.Without the fudge, the
“reconstruction” shows declining temperatures in the 20th century. A very similar
decline in residuals occurs from 1100 to 1250 and one wonders whether a similar
adjustment would be allowable then.”
R. Gates said:
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
————————————
Who said it was? This is about the inner workings of the climate hoax, not about the human condition in general.
Smarmy effort to change the focus.
@R Gates
With respect, it is all very well you having your beliefs – but I put it to you that in defending the indefensible, you are as guilty of the fraud as the perpetrators, not least because being ‘full of faith’ has led you to be blind to truth and honesty – and that, sir, is a damned disgrace.
Sad to think that the human nature is one of deceit ….. but alas it is… the Bible was right..
R Gates – you are starting (some would say continuing) to sound ridiculous. You say “I’ve not seen even one reference that seriously undermines the basic tenant [tenet?] that humans are altering the global climate through our activities” under a post that quotes a climate scientist saying “We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.”.
Now, do you want to weasel out of this by saying that “altering” might mean only altering a little bit, or are you prepared to admit that the IPCC’s claim of a large amount of “altering” is seriously undermined by this climate scientist’s admission that they don’t understand the science on which the claim is based.
Well done indefatigable Tom. Your snippets are quoted everywhere, but you seem to be anonymous.
A book would surely be a bestseller. Threats, vitriol, intrigue, conspiracy, humour (“damn this Excel spreadsheet”), backstabbing, incompetence, panics… Bound to be a film in it – nominations for comic actor to play Jones.
Go for it, and be anonymous no longer. You deserve it.
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
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=5323.txt&search=convince
Lady in Red:
To do so would tip their hand and suspicions would be confirmed.
Mark
Here is a suggestion.
Stop going through the emails looking for stuff that you can interpret to satisfy your preconceived ideas. Instead start looking for emails that disprove your preconceived ideas. Might get you closer to the truth.
I always ask myself this question. Ok I have got this crazy idea. But now is it really true? What evidence contradicts the idea?
This is much more effective at getting to the truth than trying to come up with contrived and distorted justifications of some idea. That route leads to self delusion and is rather a common human habit.
R. Gates says:
“Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
They are far from “typical”! The “Team” is a small clique of dishonest, corrupt nerds who gradually realized that enormous amounts of grant money were becoming available, based largely on the gaming of the climate pal-review / journal / university / government system. They did nothing whatever to counter the bogus scare stories and misinformation being promoted by Al Gore, 10 – 10 and the like; in fact they energetically fanned the flames of Gore’s pseudo-scientific climate alarmism. And they’re still at it.
As the Climategate emails make crystal clear, they began to actively conspire with one another to block all skeptical voices and papers, and to corrupt the climate journals with threats and intimidation – and they bragged about their successes in emails to one another. They flouted the written journal rules and schemed to promote a non-problem into an international scare, which in turn produced ever more grant money – money based on their trumped-up lie demonizing harmless “carbon”. They are self-serving charlatans and scoundrels, engaging in scientific misconduct and coverups. And they are still at it, supported by their toadies in the media, and by their pals running censoring climate alarmist blogs.
So no, you do not see that in other branches of science. You will not find that kind of coordinated scientific fraud in physics, or in engineering, or in chemistry, or geology, or mathematics, or in any of the other hard sciences. Yet you make the preposterous assertion that the very same thing “goes on in every field”.
A thief suspects that everyone else is a thief, too. But FYI, most scientists are honest, and adhere to their professional ethics. And they do not appreciate the pseudo-scientific grant-gaming shenanigans perpetrated by Mann, Jones, the UoP, the UEA, and their ilk, which makes the public suspect that all scientists are conniving charlatans lying for money, political power, and endless jaunts to holiday resorts. The great majority of scientists are nothing like them. And they know that the climate alarmist clique diverts needed funds from their own fields, to be wasted instead on “studying climate change” and its associated nonsense. $Billions a year. Wasted.
A couple of questions: don’t you ever get tired of being the water boy for those devious reprobates? And isn’t it about time that you quit being an apologist for the Climategate clique’s defrauding of the public, and start demanding, at the very least, that the RealClimate propagandists and their ilk start providing complete transparency per the scientific method to back up their claims, instead of head-nodding to their squeals of “academic freedom” as a pretext to deny the public what the public is paying for? Quit carrying their water, Gates.
Hi Tom.
I applaud your work ethic – 5000 emails.
Thanks
R gates says, “Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
Absolutely completely and totally a-typical.
The emails read more like political intrigue or something one might expect of religious discourse.
The emails are so very far from science that I can only surmise that these major climate scientists were failures at real science and somehow found gainful employment reading “tea leaves”. There is nothing scientific in anything they have done – it is Jude arm waving and speculation. A true scientist would never hang their hat on such a ludicrous speculation as we see from the hockey stick team unless they are motivated politically or from gravy train funding.
FWIW; Your insistence that man is having a warming effect is specious rubbish. Clearly, you are not a scientist. If you were then you would have to simply admit that it is plausible that man may have a very slight warming effect, however, so far, given our pathetic understanding of atmospheric science there is absolutely no solid measurable, empirical or theoretical evidence.
R. Gates says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Sir, your standards are not acceptable in any level of engineering. Let alone they be let loose on the wellbeing of the whole of mankind.
You will get a lot more respect and understanding if you cease defending the indefensible.
You must have noticed by now that the horse you are riding can’t hack up anymore? Reason? It is up to its hocks in detritus, all of which has been deposited by the “good and great” of the “team”.
Time to get off the horse and clean out the stable and clear the track. It ain’t going to get any better until you do.
R. Gates says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
Absolutely. Liars are not tolerated. Suggest a lie to better your company’s position and not one of your colleagues will trust you. You might as well start looking for another job.
Large companies consult with one another all the time but there are “strategic secrets” that cannot be shared. No one would ever dream of sharing those secrets. Anyone who attempted to take those secrets or his special skills to an industry competitor would ruin his name throughout the industry.
Lying is just one example. The emails reveal moral judgement worthy of a testosterone poisoned teenager.
Only recently did I find Tom Nelson’s blog, and I’ve been impressed with what he was doing. It DID seem like he was reading them all! Good on ya, Mate!
Somerville:
Unlikely? Unlikely?
Wait a darn minute! Now, that may seem like a reasonable position, and it might have some validity in a system that has never been looked at before, one that has no history. But saying that about a system with a history of over a millennium and that has (according to their own reconstructions, even) a +/- of less than 1/2°C over that time period, well that is just stupidity.
The SYSTEM is stable, dummkopf! You don’t look at a stable system and call it non-robust. It’s stability IS its robustness. And if you think +/- 1/2°C is not robust, Dick, you need to get into a different line of work.
This is the gist of the entire global warming issue: They are trying to call a robust system a fragile system. It’s history says it is robust. THAT is the starting point. If anything, they should be looking at it and asking, “Wow! How is it so stable?!”
Well said Smokey! As a practicing life scientist, I fully concur. Yes, human nature being what it is, there are bad actors, but the vast majority are honest, ethical and follow the rules. Relationships matter; people do promote their closest colleagues, but it’s nothing on the scale of what we see in these emails. Nothing.
R Gates said:
But in all the thousands of emails, though the levels of uncertainty in the human activity/climate connection are more bluntly laid out in the emails than in “official public” findings, (and this is their real value in my estimation), I’ve not seen even one reference that seriously undermines the basic tenant that humans are altering the global climate through our activities.
The usual Warmist misdirection. Humans started altering the Earth’s climate when they started killing off the grazing mega-fauna 50,000 years ago. A process that accelerated with the advent of agriculture 5,000+ years ago.
The issue isn’t whether human activities are changing the climate. The issue is how much CO2 has/will warm the climate. And there is plenty to undermine the IPCC’s 3C+ claim as the scientific uncertainties quote above illustrates.
Well done Tom! The heroic anonymous Stakhanovite of Climategate.
There must be a bestseller in this. It has all the classic ingredients – threats, backstabbing, vitriol, skullduggery, humour (“blast this Excel spreadsheet!”), cloak and dagger, turf wars…
Call it Godfather 4.
Bound to be a film too – nominations for comic actor to play Jones (John Cleese hitting his PC with a tree branch – “blast, blast and triple-blast this Excel spreadsheet!”).
Write it Tom, and earn much money, fame, and (only if you want) an end to your anonymity.
“Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
How charming! Someone who has never heard of “tu quoque”!
That last email quoted is confusing — just what problem is there for pubicly-funded research if the data is made public? Shouldn’t they be doing that anyway?
Tom is a man on a mission and he always comes up with the goods.
Thanks a million Tom.
Somerville:
What seems highly unlikely to me is that each of these uncertainties is going to make the climate system more robust against change.
This is a fundamental scientific error. One can not make statements about scientific unknowns. It’s sometimes called the Future Knowledge Problem.
A man sees what he wants to see.
None so blind as he who will not see.
I can’t hear you.
Nothing to see here.
The science is settled.
No science without consensuses.
consensuses is an old boys club.
R.Gates.
“I have often wondered how our medical colleagues manage to escape the trap of having their entire science dismissed because there are uncured diseases and other remaining uncertainties. Maybe we can learn from the physicians.”
Yes you could. You could compare the robustness of a randomized, double-blind clinical trial designed to test a single primary efficacy endpoint with the fishing expeditions that Michael Mann conducts. You could compare the Good Clinical Practices requirements for detailed audit trails documenting EVERY single change to the data set, including when the change was made, why the change was made, and who made the change to the FOIA-opposing clandestine approach of Phil Jones.
R. Gates,
despite the fact that you are a troll, you are a Dick with a capital D. You say,
“Do I support everything revealed in the Climgate 1.0 and 2.0 emails? Of course not…but no less than I support all the kinds of human behaviors that go on in every walk and facet of human endeavor, especially when reputations and money are involved.”
Of course, when challenged on any specific point you never say this. In fact, I’d be hard pressed to say you’ve ever specifically (referenced to a specific statement) said anything like this. In fact, it is all just a little too troll-like to comment. Oops, I think I commented! Shame on me!
In fact, I apologize for rising to the bait. Tom Nelson’s efforts are so much above your comments or mine.
The famous Tom Nelson can usually be found on the right-side panel.
http://www.climatedepot.com/
R. Gates
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?
###
Ah, spoken like a true Marxist brainwashed propagandist. What you wrote speaks volumes about your twisted world-view!
The many responses to R Gates’ question of such things happening in other areas of human existence are all dealing with science and engineering. These two fields are perhaps the last bastions of integrity left in Western society. The lies, fraud, and corruption extant in Climate Science are commonplace, two examples coming to mind: Finance, and Government. I’m guessing (though could always be wrong) that R Gates is supportive of this sort of activity in most of the Western world’s governments.
>>AndyG55 says:
January 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Poor Tom if someone releases the passphrase for the 7zip file !!!!<>1024-bit RSA encryption cracked by carefully starving CPU of electricity
With a small cluster of 81 Pentium 4 chips and 104 hours of processing time, they were able to successfully hack 1024-bit encryption in OpenSSL on a SPARC-based system<>with only the most brutish of brute force efforts (and 1,500 years of processing time) felling its 768-bit variety earlier this year<<
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/09/1024-bit-rsa-encryption-cracked-by-carefully-starving-cpu-of-ele/
So, from 1500 hours of extreme brute force to crack 768 bits to 104 hours on a fairly basic server to crack 1024 bits.
That should put the cat well and thoroughly amongst the pigeons.
And not just in the field of Climate McScience, either.
Anyone got 81 P4s they don't need for a week or two?
mike
>
> PS I noticed you said ‘Our proxy network made use of *all* … which were
> available in the public domain/published literature at the time’ .
> Does this mean we can gain access to all the series you used in your 1998
> and 1999 papers ?
>
As you aptly note, the converse of the statement I made isn’t quite true.
ie, not all records that we did use *were* in the public domain, although
I believe we used just about all of the records that were (which is the
statement I was making).
I think you guys know that I find the “data witholding” silly, and if it
were up to me you would have every single record we have. It is
particularly irking to me to not be able to give them to you, because I
know that the key ones you’re thinking of (morroccan dendro) don’t amount
to a hill of beans in the end [I did the reconstructions ommitting those
data a couple years back, to convince myself that the difference was
negligible], and until we have access to identical datasets, our
comparisons are going to be apples-and-oranges, which helps nobody. So I’m
going to push Malcolm on this. Perhaps, over beers next week at AGU, and I
can convince him to convince Stockton to allow these to be distributed.
That having been said, when Tim comes to visit (hopefully in June–need to
get back to him!) and works on our computer, and on the planned
cross-comparisons, I’m not going to be policing what data he does and
doesn’t have access to.
So it will be in his hands, and he’ll be able to do with it what he may.
It’s just that, for cover, I cannot have officially “given him” the data…
mike
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3019.txt&search=convince
@R. Gates
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
Well, we here are not addressing those others. We choose to address this particular outrage. We leave it to others to be outraged by those other wrong activities. That is our choice, to focus our attention on this one. Those others are beside the point. We are outraged by what outrages us. Your deflection lessens our outrage not one whit. If you don’t want share the outrage, we don’t care one bit.
@Scarface 1:36 pm:
“I have no idea who Tom Nelson is, but I read his blog regularly. He always has good posts and accurate statements. Strange thing is that readers don’t respond there very much, but he keeps on posting… Regarding Climategate 2 he already has found a lot of pretty astonishing messages from the Causists.”
This is pretty much the way science itself is supposed to be done – go out and observe and collect; don’t try to piece anything together, not before all the information is collected.
The work Tom is doing could, in itself become a paper for a journal. Many papers over the years have been not science itself, but about the scientists. I find that a bit odd, but I’ve seen them.
I am sure FOIA was expecting or hoping that someone would do what Tom is doing.
As is so often true, the devil is in the details.
Steve Garcia
R. Gates
“Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
Two incidents come to mind in 40 years of work:
Business scientist-“I want this project to bear my mother’s maiden name, not your daughter’s favorite Greek god.”
Government funded group- (Very Loud) CFO: “I’m not going to jail for them!” (Audible) President: Ph D, Geophysics: “You’re fired!”
Notice they weren’t foolish enough to put these statements in emails. Petty, egotistical and ugly but not the same as the “Team’s” pervasive and persistant collusion for “the cause”.
R. Gates says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?
========
Yes, they are not a-typical, yet they are.
feet2fire,
Tom’s usually cleaning up the climate scene in one clean sweep. He’s been on my beat, forever now.
You’ll see a lot of patterns in media reporting and Tom picks it out himself many times. There was this one post where he compiled a list of newspaper articles from different places around the world, all claiming at the same time, that their city/town/country would be the ‘worst hit’ by climate change. It is just absurd! The real danger in what Tom does is to one’s own sanity really.
Tom, take it easy and keep going.
@Steve Garcia: Shocking that someone who calls himself a scientist can fail to appreciate that stable systems are dominated by negative feedback, isn’t it? I’m so glad that I wasn’t the only one to catch that one.
Hey, it jumped out at me. What was I supposed to do? I HAD to point it out.
It is obvious that if something has a history of being stable, there has to be something (whether we see what it is yet, doesn’t matter) that is acting as a governor. Look at the entire history of the Holocene, compared to earlier times, and you see a pretty flat graph. (If you don’t take the Younger-Dryas into account. And I, for one, am getting convinced that the Y-D was caused by a cometary impact. The evidence is building up all the time, even if Anthony isn’t posting it. The one skeptical POV on that was posted here, but none of the more recent studies that argue the other way. I should probably send Anthony that info.)
I consider anything within +/- 2-3°C a flat graph. Before the Holocene it was all OVER the map, so +/- 2*3°C is really flat by comparison. Obviously, whatever regime existed in the Pleistocene had a different governor – and maybe it didn’t really have one. The Y-D dropped about 12°C in some places, if memory serves. But after that it stabilized, and has stayed stable since then. Mann and Team Posers can yell about 0.7°C all they want – no rational person can get worked up over 0.7°C, not when compared to 12°C.
So, what the search should really be looking for is that governor. At least the skeptics are looking into mechanisms on that line. Team Poser is spending all their time pimping themselves for grant moneys and trips to Bali and Villach and Bora Bora. Every part of what they are doing seems to be based on, “Will this cover our costs for another year?” I include in that their interpretations, their reconstructions, their adjustments, their UHI position, their blogs, their FOIA stonewalling, their papers, their inter-personal networking, their code – it is all aimed at one thing: Let Hansen scare the bejeezus out of everybody about boiling oceans, and they will swoop in for the bloodsucking.
And for that, they HAVE to tell everybody there is no governor, no feedback, no stability.
The bottom line: There is no money in a climate that isn’t doing anything.
Some call it dedication others, like in the psychiatric field, call it a sickness.
The idea is to always use the internet to help you, so you don’t have to do everything yourself. It’s friggin’ weird when you don’t. Think web two point oh. ;-p
Mike Jonas says: “R Gates – you are starting (some would say continuing) to sound ridiculous. You say “I’ve not seen even one reference that seriously undermines the basic tenant [tenet?]…”
No, Mike, he surely meant tenant. These climate diddlers are nothing but a tribe of rent seekers. Tenant, it is.
The climate emails are hugely important in what they do reveal:
1. The predetermined agenda/pre-determined result
2. The persistent suppression of any dissent (within and without).
Many of the emails do reveal scientists being honest about their work, about the lack of understanding of the systems, questioning of ‘shady’ data processing, etc., as it all should be. But all of this is countered and suppressed by powerful egotistical men in a manner which reveals only the pre-decided outcome, and perhaps the subsequent ‘fame’ to those individuals was important.
So R Gates, no this is not typical, especially of scientists.
It may however be typical of Machiavellian back room politics and manipulation.
OKAY, FOLKS. R Gates is a TROLL.
He has hijacked this post.
He has gotten WAY too many people trying to convince him of something not having anthing to do with Tom Nelson’s work. And none of us care if ONE warmist thinks the way he does.
Way too many people here are posting off-topic – 90% of which is one of those two.
PLEASE, STOP REPLYING TO HIM.
Anthony shows great patience. I am not speaking for Anthony, but very few people are posting about Tom Nelson’s work.
PLEASE, STOP REPLYING TO HIM.
DirkH says:
January 14, 2012 at 3:08 pm
R. Gates says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
Yes. In all my years working in industry, I have never come across this type of e-mail – the major reason being that disciplinary action would have followed.
______
In all your years of working in industry, you have read thousands of selected private emails exchanged between professionals in similar circumstances? (with reputations, ego, and funding at issue?)
But again, show me an example of something in these emails that somehow completely discredits that notion that human activity is altering the hyrdosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere in significant ways.The study of anthropogenic climate change is so much bigger than the ‘team’, that the focus on these emails simply seems a huge waste of time…unless you simply want to study the human condition. The emails prove that scientists are not immune from certain human weaknesses, but what science is challenged by anything revealed in this emails? And what really, is to gain by spending so much time going over and over the same old territory? Show me something that changes the science and perhaps the world will care.
feet2thefire says:
January 14, 2012 at 5:34 pm
@R. Gates
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
Well, we here are not addressing those others. We choose to address this particular outrage. We leave it to others to be outraged by those other wrong activities. That is our choice, to focus our attention on this one. Those others are beside the point. We are outraged by what outrages us. Your deflection lessens our outrage not one whit. If you don’t want share the outrage, we don’t care one bit.
______
You are entitled to be outraged at whatever you’d like. I simply would rather focus on the actual science. The “team” hardly controls the science being done around the world. I’ve seen nothing in the nature of these emails that I’ve not heard in private conversations among professionals behind closed doors. The idea that PhD’s are immune from (just because they are “scientists”) from human weaknesses, and “above it” in some dispassionate way, is not realistic. If you don’t think the Einstien and Bohr said similar things in private about each other as are expressed in these emails, you fail to know that science is done by humanss, worts and all. It didn’t mean that Einstein and Bohr weren’t both excellent scientists, who happened be passionate about what they thought was right. But go ahead, be outraged if it makes you feel better.
Gah!
I can barely persuade myself to read the stuff in my own inbox.
The path to today´s destruction of Science into Junk Science, and the Global Warming Hoax, started with the Birth of Environmentalism in 1962 with the release of Rachel Carson´s “Silent Spring,” and then the neo-Malthusian book “The Population Bomb” in 1968 by Paul Ehrlick, as well as, the foundations of WWF in 1961, The Club of Rome in 1968, EPA in 1970, Greenpeace in 1971, EPA´s banning of DDT in US in 1972, largely due to Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlick, the 1960s: The Beginning of the End for DDT, and Malaria As Population Control, Immorally Killing 35 – 40 Million Humans, the conference “Study of Man´s Impact on Climate” in 1971 in Stockholm, Sweden, the 1975 “Endangered Atmosphere” conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, US, led by Anthropologist Margaret Mead (= Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born), the foundation of IPCC in 1988, James Hansen´s testimony on climate change (= ACC) in Congress in 1988, UNFCCC/the Kyoto Protocol in 1992, and the emerging of AGW/Global Warming Hoax propagandists as Al Gore, Michael Mann, Phil Jones since the 1990s, et cetera, emerging into Climategate 1 and 2, in 2009 and 2011, with a major crisis for Science, due to violation of the Scientific Method, and turning Science into Junk Science, as well as, its final objective of a Global Governance.
SAY NO TO GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
SAY NO TO JUNK SCIENCE
SAY NO TO GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
DEFEND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Tom Nelson is impressive! If he remembers the spirit of all of them, someone should make interviews with him to convey the insights from the whole archive. 😉
R. Gates said:
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
I think I see what you are trying to suggest. You are attempting to say all humans have weaknesses, but these weaknesses do not influence the science involved. Unfortunately, in this case we are not talking about an engineer who may have some weaknesses in his private life, but still can build a good bridge. In this case we are talking about the bridge itself. The very foundation of Climate Science is rotton. The very facts utilized are fudged. The peer review is compromized. Financial Grants are tantamount to bribes.
When something stinks this badly, you can’t hold your nose and call it human nature. You are talking about a bridge you and your children and your grandchildren are suppose to cross a river on. If the foundation is this rotton, you can’t trust what is built upon it.
jorgekafkazar says:
January 14, 2012 at 7:31 pm
‘Tenant, it is.’
You beat me to it, v. good.
@Anon, correction:
Paul Ehrlich!
Honest Phil what a nice man.
Lazy Teenager
Might note that from post to here that he/she has been scrutenised with a very intense scrut and ignored with a very large ig
catweazle666 January 14, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Poor Tom if someone releases the passphrase for the 7zip file !!!! 1024-bit RSA encryption cracked by carefully starving CPU of electricity
That wouldn’t work on the Climategate file(s). It requires the key to be in use during the cracking process, and it probably requires bazillions of messages to be transmitted during the process.
Tom Nelson is one of the star sceptics. He is a real digger.
This ‘climate change’ scandal will have to end soon. The vast majority of the press have missed a great opportunity and it will be a sad reflection on their profession as they deliberately went along with the climate cargo cult.
Of course not. The answer can be found at $$$$$$$$$$$$
Just read the above post. Funding, exotic jaunts etc. These scientists have been corrupted by money and status but the reality of the recent flatline temps cannot be fudged. It would be very interesting to see their reaction should we enter a prolonged cooling period.
Finally, R. Gates, your are correct, we humans are altering the climate through land use changes (Mount Kilimanjaro), soot on the glaciers of the Himalayas, black carbon in the Arctic affecting albedo, non co2 greenhouse gases etc………… As for carbon dioxide it may be responsible for the recent greening of the biosphere. This is terrible alteration. ;>)
R. Gates says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:38 pm
“”Does anyone believe that these climate emails are a-typical of what goes on in every field of science, business, government, politics…indeed in every field involving human interactions?”
Yes, I believe they are totally a-typical.
In a career as academic in Britain and the USA in several universities, at senior level with several industrial research labs and in the customer support organization of a major computer company, I have come across nothing remotely similar to the climategate emails.
Apart from anything else, they expose a kind of arrogant stupidity on the part of the senders.
From the earliest days of email, it seemed obvious to me that sending an email was like sending a postcard that was perfectly capable of finding its way to the desk of whoever you would least like to read it. Such an ideal never seems to have crossed the Team’s minds.
Caleb says (to R. Gates)
“I think I see what you are trying to suggest. You are attempting to say all humans have weaknesses, but these weaknesses do not influence the science involved.”
_______
Nope, that’s not it at all. Their human weaknesses might very well have influences their judgement about their practice of sceince. Go review the history of Einstein’s “cosmological constant” gaff, or his nasty fight with Bohr. There was money and reputation and high passion at stake in all of it. Perceptions of scientists, and their moral judgement can be warped by their human weaknesses, just as it can for all of us, no matter how much we might wish otherwise.
But my point is that “the team” does not represent the entire field of climate study, nor is their even one revelation in all the thousands of emails that brings into questions the underlying contention that humans are altering the climate, warming the oceans and the atmosphere, altering the biosphere, etc.
R.Gates says; “I’ve not seen even one reference that seriously undermines the basic tenant that humans are altering the global climate through our activities.”
Below is an email from Tom Wigley at the University Corporation for Atmospheric (UCAR) to Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit of University of East Anglia, United Kingdom, in 2009. What Wigley is talking about here is the significant warm period of the 1940’s, and that it’s existence in the instrumental temperature record doesn’t quite fit the paradigm of human induced climate change. Why, you ask? Because reportedly, a large portion of today’s atmospheric CO2 actually came after the start and finish of the warm period of the 1940’s, of course, during the world’s largest economic expansion of the late 40’s and beyond. So, a significant warm period, nearly equal to today’s, that came and went, all prior to the bulk of CO2 build up, is sorta hard to explain, IF you go about claiming our climate is controlled by human’s day to day activities. This email pretty much proves these guys have a non-scientific agenda, and therefore should not be taken very seriously, even when they speak-of and publish their so-called science. No?
“Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. [Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer]”
So, if only one email from/to leading climate “scientists” strongly implies scientific FRAUD, on such a crucial issue as interpretation of the instrumental temperature record, then should not everyone, including you R.Gates, wait until ALL the Climate-Gate emails are read, reviewed and interpretations/books published by many, many people before we finally determine their value in characterizing the level of fraud pervasive in today’s climate science? Should not the authors of these emails be required to defend and/or comment on them long before the entire world commits to potentially, economically crushing carbon taxes, carbon emitting mitigation, unreliable, expensive alternative energy sources…?
Your claim that the Climate-Gate emails provide nothing new about the veracity of climate science’s conclusion of human induced change sounds a bit like “the science is settled”, i.e., extremely premature.
R.Gates says: “I’ve not seen even one reference that seriously undermines the basic tenant that humans are altering the global climate through our activities. ”
Below is an email from Tom Wigley at the University Corporation for Atmospheric (UCAR) to Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit of University of East Anglia, United Kingdom, in 2009. What Wigley is talking about here is the significant warm period of the 1940’s, and that it’s existence in the instrumental temperature record doesn’t quite fit the paradigm of human induced climate change. Why, you ask? Because reportedly, a large portion of today’s atmospheric CO2 actually came after the start and finish of the warm period of the 1940’s, of course, during the world’s largest economic expansion of the late 40’s and beyond. So, a significant warm period, nearly equal to today’s, that came and went, all prior to the bulk of CO2 build up, is sorta hard to explain, IF you go about claiming our climate is controlled by human’s day to day activities. This email pretty much proves these guys have a non-scientific agenda, and therefore should not be taken very seriously, even when they speak-of and publish their so-called science. No?
“Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. [Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer]”
So, if only one email from/to leading climate “scientists” strongly implies scientific FRAUD, on such a crucial issue as interpretation of the instrumental temperature record, then should not everyone, including you R.Gates, wait until ALL the Climate-Gate emails are read, reviewed and interpretations/books published by many, many people before we finally determine their value in characterizing the level of fraud pervasive in today’s climate science? Should not the authors of these emails be required to defend and/or comment on them long before the entire world commits to potentially, economically crushing carbon taxes, carbon emitting mitigation, unreliable, expensive alternative energy sources…?
Your claim that the Climate-Gate emails provide nothing new about the veracity of climate science’s conclusion of human induced change sounds a bit like “the science is settled”, i.e., extremely premature.
“I’ve not seen even one reference that seriously undermines the basic tenant that humans are altering the global climate through our activities.”
If there’s nothing to be undermined, then why can’t these folks be open, forthright, and honest – especially in their position as scientists?
It’s not an argument that humans aren’t altering the global climate – it’s the extent and how to deal (or adapt) with it that is at stake.
Gates, you seem like a smart guy, I don’t see how you miss the point that $$$-driven climate research results in poor science that is relied-upon by politicians as reason to pass legislation, or declare executive fiats and agency rules, that damage the economy, reduce personal freedom, and hurt individuals financially.
Extrapolation(?):
Given (not all that much) time, any “system” must inevitably be dominated by negative feedbacks. Otherwise, there won’t be much of a system left. I.e., the neg-fb dominated system is what’s left after the pos-fbs have done their worst, and expired.
So a blue giant is not a system; a red dwarf is. 😉
RG is just being rational. He knows well which side of the bread is buttered!
Jimbo said, “These scientists have been corrupted by money and status but the reality of the recent flatline temps cannot be fudged. It would be very interesting to see their reaction should we enter a prolonged cooling period.”
Interesting? As a new cuckoo clock after several days of screeching hour on the hour. And their reaction is far more predictable than the climate or the weather, Jimbo. Watch and marvel at how verything, including the arrival of an Ice Age tomorrow at noon will somehow provide the proof of the inafallibility of their models and the dire urgency for peddling new taxation schemes, money showers to croneys in “green” technology and to submitting national sovereignity to the UN and its real idvisory panels, such as Greenpeace and WWF. That’s what the switch from the AGW to the “climate change/disruption” moniker was all about; the scheme will work just as well whether climate warms, cools or flatlines. Resistance is futile.
Tom Nelson’s site is the first one I read everyday. Thanks Tom for taking the time to go through the emails (as well as finding all those AGW articles) and posting them. I also like the way you sometimes note the deficiencies of the MSM on the issue of AGW.
Got to give R Gates some credit. He sure knows how to push peoples buttons to get a reaction. I don’t like censoring but Gates is basically thread-jacking. We can all see this and he/she does this post after post after post. Perhaps the moderators should chime in from time to time and ask other regular commenters to please ignore R. Gates. Let him/her coment but ignore those comments. This request is in the interests of more fruitful lines of discussion.
Yes, this one is absolute gold. Of course it’s just as likely, because over the last couple of billion years positive feedbacks have cause the Earth to roast into a glowing carbon & silicon ember. Several times.
Rob R says:
January 15, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Got to give R Gates some credit. He sure knows how to push peoples buttons to get a reaction. I don’t like censoring but Gates is basically thread-jacking. We can all see this and he/she does this post after post after post. Perhaps the moderators should chime in from time to time and ask other regular commenters to please ignore R. Gates.
_____
Hmmm. Because I express an opinion different than the mainstream here at WUWT? If I posted strongly skeptical AGW posts here, and agreed completely with the regular postings from Tom Nelson, Lord Monckton, Willis, Bob T., and the rest, then I’m sure I wouldn’t be the subjected to commment like “please ignore R. Gates”. As it stands, I am polite (almost always), and usually stay on the subject of the thread, unless someone’s question to me takes me away. Morever, my posts and the responses they generate bring a bit a balance here, and maybe even make Anthony a few pennies in the process, which don’t begin to compensate him for having this open forum of ideas. I even tolerate what I consider to be an excessively alllowed number of ad hominems against me, that I’m sure he wouldn’t allow if they were leveled at say…Lord Monckton. Respect should be an absolute standard.
“Of course it’s just as likely, because over the last couple of billion years positive feedbacks have cause the Earth to roast into a glowing carbon & silicon ember. Several times.”
Really??? Wow!!! Funny how that hasn’t made it into the AGW advocates’ catalogue of “proof” of the dangers of runaway global warming …
/irony
If I were in the shoes of “the team” I would be checking my liability coverage very closely.
R. Gates;
But my point is that “the team” does not represent the entire field of climate study, nor is their even one revelation in all the thousands of emails that brings into questions the underlying contention that humans are altering the climate, warming the oceans and the atmosphere, altering the biosphere, etc.>>>>
No, the team just represents what the MSM, the United Nations, and most western government consider the “consensus”. It is upon their work that the AGW meme rests, and it is upon their work that government policy robbing billions of their hard earned money, condemning billions more to a life of poverty is based. It is upon their work that the life blood of the economy is being sucked dry while projects that could actually benefit humanity are shelved. It is due to their efforts that the very dissenting opinions that you claim are possible amongst other scientists doing independent research are suppressed, grants blocked, papers blocked, editors fired.
What is worse is the ignorance of your sta6tement to the effect that nothing in the emails undermines the underlying AGW contention. EVERYTHING in the emails undermines the underlying contention. If the underlying contention had an ounce of creibility, there would be no need for the very people who influence the outcomes of IPCC reports and government policy world wide more than all other researchers in the face of the earth combined, to suppress dissent, block contrary papers, get editors who publish contrary work fired, and to go to extraordinary lengths to cover up their duplicity.
Nice use of Dilts’ “Sleight of Mouth” technique known as “chunk up” though.
This is the gist of the entire global warming issue: They are trying to call a robust system a fragile system. It’s history says it is robust. THAT is the starting point. If anything, they should be looking at it and asking, “Wow! How is it so stable?!”
There’s no opportunity for power and control in that, not to mention large and ongoing grants.
Merovign says:
January 15, 2012 at 5:05 pm
This is the gist of the entire global warming issue: They are trying to call a robust system a fragile system. It’s history says it is robust. THAT is the starting point. If anything, they should be looking at it and asking, “Wow! How is it so stable?!”
There’s no opportunity for power and control in that, not to mention large and ongoing grants.
——–
The climate has only been relatively stable over the current interglacial, but in general the past few million years have been marked by dramatic swings, just as black swan events pretty much dictate most of the significant turns of human history.
Email 4854, at http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4854-oct-2003-phil-jones-is.html refers to the now classic paper “Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998), Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series,” by Stephen McIntyre & Ross McKitrick in Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, 2003, at http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf that debunks MBH98, i.e. Michael Mann´s et. al. “hockey stick” graph. (My remark: MBH98 is “Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries,” Nature, No. 392, pp. 779-787, 1998, by M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes.)
Stephen McIntyre´s & Ross McKitrick´s paper “Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998)” of 2003 states in its “Abstract,” page 751:
“The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 – is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.”
SAY NO TO GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
SAY NO TO JUNK SCIENCE
SAY NO TO GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
I would give R. Gates this much. There is an astonishing largesse when it comes to American government funding and grants available in just about any field of endeavor. For example, I find it most alarming that the scientist who was accused of fraud in the red wine study, was in line or his university was in line to recieve an aditional 900,000 from the American taxpayer. In no way should this detract from pointing out the corruption and misbehavior of our climate scientists but it does seem to me that all kinds of funding for research is going to require closer scrutiny in the future.
R. Gates;
The climate has only been relatively stable over the current interglacial, but in general the past few million years have been marked by dramatic swings, just as black swan events pretty much dictate most of the significant turns of human history.>>>>
So seminal events in human history somehow equate to the laws of physics?
How much more idiotic can you get?
R. Gates;
The climate has only been relatively stable over the current interglacial, but in general the past few million years have been marked by dramatic swings,>>>
Thanks for pointing out that the climate has gone through major changes many times in the past that had nothing to do with human beings, and hence that there will be changes in the current time frame and in the future that also have nothing to do with human beings. Until you can quantify those accurately, attributing any given observed change to any specific cause, including human beings, is nonsense.