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
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.