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
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.