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
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!