First look: 'Hit on the head with a hockey stick' – some selected emails from the recent NOAA FOIA release 2 years later

Readers may recall this yesterday: NOAA releases tranche of FOIA documents – 2 years later. I have a few to share from CEI now.

Here’s one email, right after Climategate1, that is uproariously funny, given NRO’s response to Dr. Michael Mann today.

Heh. Here’s that email thread plus others as PDF files.

NOAA emails reax to ClimateGate

How IPCC sausage is made in 2007:

IPCC_Sausage_factory

The Team is unhappy with Andrew Revkins post CG1 questions on IPCC, one refuses to look at his blog anymore.

Alarmists not happy with Revkin for noting IPCC probs

Let’s meet with the President-elect.

See comments about the role science must play to help BHO to get cap and trade passed. That’s the old left, viewing science for its use in service of the state. All this amid fretting that people will be distracted by things such as the economic collapse actually going on around them.

Susan Solomon emails regarding Science in Service of the Cause

Revkin asks about why can’t we share temperature data post CG1.

NOAA on Temperature Data Sharing issues

We need an independent and transparent study, but let’s not question the IPCC, ‘kay?

Don’t_Tug_on_IPCC’s_Cape

Trenberth see’s Ben Santer’s paper published in Science as having “substantial problems”, due to spurious artifacts introduced by radiosonde equipment changes over time making the ERA-15 data “corrupted” in Trenberth’s words. Two words sum the problem up: temporal inhomogeneity.

But, why wouldn’t he send this to Science?  Instead he just sends around to (I presume) a few trusted members (pals) of the team?  Oh, right, “the cause” and all that.

Trenberth_just_not_that_into_Santer_et_al

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
ChE

IOW, Mann, get lost.

Whoa – “The paleodata always got a lot more attention from the general public than it deserved.”
And just who plastered the hockey stick curve throughout the IPCC’s third report? I’m not sure if he’s trying to blame UEA (with many contributors to the TAR), or the “climate community” (is that the staid term for the warmista? He doesn’t seem to be including folks like Lindzen or McIntyre in the community even though they are influential members of some community).
I like “simplified and exaggerated,” I would think that the NRO could point to that and call it the staid term for “fraudulent.”

John M

Hmmm…
If I’ve got this right, this came from someone in the Dept. of Commerce (DOC) to a bunch of NOAA employees (Dec 4, 2009). Note that NOAA is organizationally in the DOC.

All communications on this issue are being coordinated with White House. Therefore, no communications to Hill or Press should go out without DOC coordinating with WH.

Note that NOAA is organizationally in the DOC.
What was all that whining about censorship of climate scientists during the Bush Administration?

Richard Keen

From Susan Solomon in the “IPCC Sausage Factory” letter linked above:
“Having a cochair who is not unhelpful and is easy to work with is very important. …
“Do you know Anthony Njong? I don’t know him but politically if he were broadly supported by sub-saharan africa, that would help get past election politics.”
Amazing, there are still those who claim the IPCC reports are scientific, not political, documents!

barryjo

Why can’t these people just tell the truth???
O, sorry. Livelihood and all that.
My bad.

Tucci78

I don’t get it.
Decades ago, when I got my first experience with writing proposals for the solicitation of grants-in-aid to support research, I was told that under no conditions whatsoever was I ever to make an assertion that I knew to be false.
In other words, I was never to lie in order to make a better case for the premises and objectives of the project being proposed. That – I was told – was deceit practiced for the purpose of obtaining funds under false pretenses, and both a criminal theft of value as well as being an actionable civil transgression making me and my associates liable for restitution and punitive damages.
So why the hell aren’t the members of this “little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate” being pursued by federal and state attorneys general as well as by civil process servers bent upon hounding them into bankruptcy for their manifold deceits on research grant requests as well as their other peculations?

richardscourtney

I really love the discussion about the factually inaccurate headline! Priceless!
Richard

Curiousgeorge

Well, first off this is old news – Dec 2009.
Second, it seems they are still stuck on messaging. One sure fire way to get to the top of the media S*** list is to accuse them of bad ( or biased) reporting. Whether that accusation is justified or not is irrelevant. Same goes for taking pot-shots at the public’s intellect or attention span.
There’s one huge bucketful of conceit in the warmist community, and the aroma wafting from it is enough to make normal people run for hills.

Alex

Unflattering, but still no smoking gun. There’s bound to be real fire with all this smoke (and legal mirrors)!

cui bono

Give up on the jolly hockey sticks, guys. Try another sport – like tossing the caber. That would make Mann the prize tosser in the Team.

Joe Public

You might want to redact some of the e-mail addresses.
REPLY: They are all public, and can be located on the web, and aren’t click-able nor spamable in this form. NOAA didn’t see fit to redact them, knowing full well they would be discussed online, so not too worried – Anthony

dp

Mann reminds me of the Wright Brothers. They wasted their lives and life energy suing everyone and making enemies when they should have been making airplanes. If Mann continues on this path he will forever be associated with the disgraced bitmap image of one of his early flawed efforts. The bulk of his career will be forgotten and he will be thought a life-long fool.

Luther Wu

cui bono says:
August 22, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Give up on the jolly hockey sticks, guys. Try another sport – like tossing the caber. That would make Mann the prize tosser in the Team.
______________________
Should I publicly admit to laughing out loud at your post?

u.k.(us)

Never mind any flaws in the science.
It is the message that needs to be promulgated.

eqibno

The Trenberth letter is pure climate “//$”%!
Santer must have had trouble walking after receiving that one.
This is almost as good if not better than CG 1 and 2.
Thank-you for persisting and fighting the good fight. We all owe you a debt of gratitude and many, many never to be paid taxes for carbon control.

timetochooseagain

It’s nice to see how objective scientists lament the electoral losses of Democrats, isn’t it?
How do I make an eyerolling smiley?

ChE

Yikes. From the “cause” emails:

Friends in Climate Science

Is that like “friends in Jesus”?

Maus

John M: “What was all that whining about censorship of climate scientists during the Bush Administration?”
That was my first thought after tripping over that line in the emails. If there is a need for a coordinated narrative, produced by political spokesholes such as with the WH, then it is not science that we are concerned about. But if we are concerned about the narratives then the ‘private’ emails are part of the political record produced by the current regime in a democratic society.
One cannot pretend to be above and beyond politics — and thus deserving of opacity — when one is directly involved in political narratives. Otherwise known in quainter times as propaganda. Any pretense to the contrary has now been laid bare by the injection of the Whitehouse into establishing such propaganda for scientific endeavours.
On the all it seems like it would be best to return to the traditional validity of science: Replication and transparency. Not good for politics or grant proposals. But hey, what’re gonna do?

rk

Gus Speth is quite a character. His wikipeida entry is very interesting. Long history of enviro activism (eco-lawyer). Currently affiliated with DEMOS…a groups that Obama help found
from a piece of his writing (via wikipedia)
Integral to the needed transformations is a change in values – a transition to
new habits of thought and a new consciousness captured well in the Earth
Charter, which urges us “ to bring forth a sustainable global society founded
on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture
of peace.”
what’s there not to like?

Take that, you, you, Revkin you.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
From: Michael S…
Andy:
I will not send anymore of your blogs to my FYI e-mail list.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
That oughta teach him, Michael.
I wish I was a cartoonist. Josh’ll have a field day with this nonsense.

John M says: “If I’ve got this right, this came from someone in the Dept. of Commerce (DOC) to a bunch of NOAA employees (Dec 4, 2009). Note that NOAA is organizationally in the DOC.”
And I always thought DOC stood for Department of Corrections.

Mac the Knife

cui bono says:
August 22, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Give up on the jolly hockey sticks, guys. Try another sport – like tossing the caber. That would make Mann the prize tosser in the Team.
CB,
I don’t think that little pudge bucket can toss a caper, let alone a caber. He’d just get splinters in his lotion soft hands…. and never clear the ground with the caber.
No – Tossing the caber is man’s work, not Mann’s work. Don’t send a boy to do a man’s job.
MtK

Pat Frank

The “Susan Solomon emails” document is actually an email originating from Gus Speth at Yale to a whole slew of people including many of the usual suspects such as Ben Santer, Michael Mann, Jim Hansen, and Stephen Schneider, as well as Susan Solomon. Donald Kennedy of Stanford is also included on this insider’s list, which illuminates his outspokenly partisan and unscientific editorship at Science Mag.
Jane Lubchenko, now administrator of the US NOAA, and John Holdren, now the White House Science Advisor are also on the list. One can see the source and inspiration of Obama’s choices for the direction of US science.
It’s interesting to see the expectation Gus Speth has of getting access to Barack Obama both before and after his swearing-in as president. Clearly these people have, and expect to have, ready access to Democratic power mongers.
The follow-up email from Berrian Moore, of Climate Central, is even more interesting. Climate Central bills itself as a “501(c)3 tax-exempt nonprofit organization,” that also claims to do independent scientific work. Heidi Cullen, notorious for calling for the decertification of all meteorologists who disagree with her, is Climate Central’s “VP for External Communications and Chief Climatologist.” So, Climate Central is a non-profit that is also an AGW lobby arm. Is that legal?
The most revealing of all was that Gus Speth mentioned his initiative alliance with Betsy Taylor, relaying the clearly unspoken expectation that all the scientists in the list agreed with his highly partisan focus. Betsy Taylor is on the Governing Board of “1Sky” (One-Sky). 1Sky is allied with 350.org and is an outspoken advocate of AGW, “green solutions,” and “sustainability;” irrational and insupportable ideas, all.
The 1Sky board also includes Van Jones, Barack Obama’s late-but-not-lamented choice for “Green Jobs Czar,” Anthony’s fav, Bill McKibben, and Gus Speth himself, the originator of the email thread.
Gus Speth is “Professor of Law, Vermont Law School. and from his CV appears to have begun in environmental law and the partisan advocacy required of a successful lawyer finally pushed him into an extreme position. He now finds himself, “currently serv[ing] on the boards of the Natural Resources Defense Council, World Resources Institute, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Population Action International, the Center for Humans and Nature, and the Institute for Sustainable Communities.” That is, he ended up believing his own guff.
Betsy Taylor turns out to be “President of Breakthrough Strategies & Solutions,” which specializes in “high-impact, catalytic initiatives to address climate change and promote sustainable economic development.
So there we have it: a whole slew of scientists including Susan Solomon, high-mucky-muck of the IPCC, secretly allying themselves with green partisans, climate alarmists, and income-conflicted consultants to exploit their channels to power, so as to influence the president-elect. Betsy Taylor probably stood to gain plenty of business, given the success of the venture. And their success must have been beyond their dreams, because two of their number (Lubchenco and Holdren) were appointed to President Obama’s inner science circle and a third (Van Jones) almost made it into a position to cripple the economy.
One peculiarity of the address list is the consistent redaction of Micheal MacCracken’s email address. All the others are visible. One wonders why the censoring of this one and no others.

R. Shearer

I think we have the makings of another Obama scandal, this one involving NOAA climate scientists. It might be called “Loose and Spurious.”

David Ross

The mess as UEA is a disaster for the climate community. The paleodata always got a lot more attention from the general public than it deserved. And now we pay the price (or these guys grabbing so much attention in the past and, especially, now.
Joseph M. Prospero
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/noaa-emails-reax-to-cg-1.pdf
page 16

What an excellent name for a climate scientist.

To an unsettled fancy cure thy brains,
Now useless, boil’d within thy skull! There stand
[…]
Begin to chase the ignorant fumes that mantle
Their clearer reason.
Prospero, The Tempest: Act 5, Scene 1

David Ross

In proper science, if “eminent physicists” or “great…intellect[s]” publicly dispute your scientific claims
1. it is an honour
2. you respond publicly
3. a polite scientific debate ensues
In “post-normal” climate science, you:
1. do not answer their arguments
2. pretend they don’t exist
3. claim that only “climatologists” are qualified to speak on climate
4. declare that 97% of climatologists speak in unison
5. declare the science to be settled
6. brand anyone who disagrees with you a “denier”
7. accuse them of being funded by oil-companies
8. question their motives
9. question their sanity
In public, that is. Whisperings within the climate science cabal are different.

I expect you’re aware that part of our problem is all the eminent physicists, like Freeman Dyson, who appear to be under the (understandable!) illusion that the IPCC consensus is based entirely on dodgy climate models. It seems that even so great an intellect as Dyson might be ignorant of what Archer explains so clearly and quickly.
Michael McIntyre
Centre for Atmospheric Science, Cambridge, U.K.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/noaa-emails-reax-to-cg-1.pdf
page 11

Freeman Dyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1of2 Bogus Climate Models

Freeman Dyson: Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society
Hosted by Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future on November 1, 2005.

More videos where Dyson responds to critics of his stance on global warming.
http://bigthink.com/devils-advocate/freeman-dyson-climate-change-predictions-are-absurd

Theo Goodwin

Pat Frank says:
August 22, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Outstanding post! Thanks much for your excellent work.

Crispin in Waterloo

Re Mr Mann
“The bulk of his career will be forgotten and he will be thought a life-long fool.”
I still have hope for Mr Mann to repent. Everyone is capable of it. Were he to do so, we should be ready with respectful acceptance. He can blow this whole thing open probably like no other individual on Earth. There are many who are beyond hope, or seem to be but Michael can still transform the mindless waste that has befallen (particularly) the Western world as the CAGW hype bites deeper and deeper into the bank accounts of the increasingly impoverished and deprived. What drives such a conversion no one can say, but self-realisation and an enlightened understanding of consequences is a powerful agent.
More surprising things have happened. For example, who would have thought that any small clique could impose such an extraordinary financial loss on billions of people around the planet with such a small number of erroneous guesses and downstream cover-ups! No one would have bet on their being able to pull it off. Too many voices of reason would speak up, right? Too much broad understanding in the science community to succeed with such a box of vaporous fluff. Well, this CAGW thing is once-and-for-all proof that scientists and academics are corruptible. Lots and lots and lots of them.
But never completely rule out personal transformation.

David Ross

Hypocrisy squared
John M wrote:

All communications on this issue are being coordinated with White House. Therefore, no communications to Hill or Press should go out without DOC coordinating with WH.

“What was all that whining about censorship of climate scientists during the Bush Administration?”
Wow, that may be the most significant revelation within this latest release of emails.
Hansen’s complaint that his rants had to be cleared by NASA management was the moment the global warming media machine went into high gear -funded by George Soros.
For the Soros funding see my comment here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/24/fighting-the-mann/

courtdom12

Sorry, this kept playing in my head when I read the last two blog entries as viewed through the eyes of their attorneys…… LOL !

David Ross

cui bono wrote:
“Give up on the jolly hockey sticks, guys. Try another sport – like tossing the caber. That would make Mann the prize tosser in the Team.”
Mann method
1. carefully select caber
2. avoid any with a “latewood density” “divergence problem”
3. attempt to toss caber
4. when your caber fails to soar, hide the decline

OssQss

My grandmother always told me >> “If you always tell the truth, you never have to remember what you said”.
I agree and still follow that rule of thumb today, successfully!
Some folks, so obviously, don’t!

Theo Goodwin

Crispin in Waterloo says:
August 22, 2012 at 6:25 pm
“Well, this CAGW thing is once-and-for-all proof that scientists and academics are corruptible. Lots and lots and lots of them.”
From a slightly different angle, it is a demonstration that when the science is not mature and the government steps on the funding accelerator then the result is corruption on a huge scale. Some very serious dissertations need to be written on this point.

If you see zebras in these emails that’s because you don’t give any legitimate credit to anyone who disagrees with what you want to believe. Pretty sad seeing this stuff as any sort of evidence against climate science when in fact it shows an honest belief in their work. There is nothing to see here…

eyesonu

Pat Frank says:
August 22, 2012 at 5:21 pm
===============
Thank you.

Eli Rabett

You folks are really reaching.

I’m enjoying ^the bunny’s^ delusion and desperation. ☺

Jeff D

drew says:
August 22, 2012 at 7:30 pm
If you see zebras in these emails that’s because you don’t give any legitimate credit to anyone who disagrees with what you want to believe. Pretty sad seeing this stuff as any sort of evidence against climate science when in fact it shows an honest belief in their work. There is nothing to see here…
————————
Read a bit more. What is sad is that some of them have guzzled the Kool-aid of a handful trying to stage this farce. So in a way I think you are correct and thousands have been misled by a few. Apparently you as well.
The core “Team” have known what they were doing for a very long time.

Greg Cavanagh

The report threads read like a bunch of cannibals arguing over who they’ll eat last.
A very interesting read indeed.

eyesonu

Eli Rabett says:
August 22, 2012 at 7:34 pm
========
We are really reading.
“Finally released” batch of emails. You should check it out. It’s a great way to get to know people.

dp says:
August 22, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Mann reminds me of the Wright Brothers. They wasted their lives and life energy suing everyone..
===========================================================================The Wright brothers are universally known as the inventors of the airplane, I have a degree in aeronautics, which included studying the history aviation, and I never heard that they sued anybody, if Mann is like the Wright brothers he will go down as one of the most important people in history. I doubt that will happen.

Maus

drew: ” Pretty sad seeing this stuff as any sort of evidence against climate science when in fact it shows an honest belief in their work.”
And Hitler had an apparently sincere belief that the Jews were destructive of German Society. Whether he was correct or not has nothing at all to do with whether he believed he was correct or not. And no, there is no “But no, I don’t want to Godwin this..” clause attached.
One can simply go through the emails to find a plethora of insular echo chamber dehumanizations of the out-group. From the ClimageGate reax pdf we have ‘deniers’, ‘professional disinformers’ and an ‘unprecedented attack’ that needs to be counteracted by ‘talking points’, being ‘less concerned about defending the science than defending the integrity of our scientists’, that no communication should be had without being passed by the political minders (”… no communications … should go out without DOC coordinating with WH’), ‘formulating a communications strategy and talking points’, that address ‘legistlative outreach’, signing statments to ‘demonstrate the force of numbers who agree’, that ‘consensus is based on something far greater than any individual’, and other issues of appearance. Especially the notion that Freeman Dyson and other physicists are simply daft when they object to the physics in the models of climate science.
Do these notion support the idea that the folks involved are True Believers? Absolutely and in just the same manner as Uncle Adolf they’re ready to resort to any propagandic twist to sell you on the narrative that they are fighting the good fight against the Evil Jew. Or, in this case, our two-minutes hate is Skeptihassen.
It’s all fine and dandy that they’ve taken such a stance of religious fundamentalism to their weltanschauung as to their own correctness. But that’s not at all anything to do with science. Perhaps a Freudian issue in which dreams of smokestacks are actually phalluses and represent their repressed desire to have sex with someone that drives a Cadillac, an SUV, or owns an air-conditioned home. But self-flagellating Skepithassen and carbon internment camps to deflect from their guilty energy dreams has not one thing to do with the complete and total lack of empirically valid results in this wannabe field of science.
For that they’re left only dividing things into Climate Science and Jew Science. Beg pardon, I mean Denier Science.

David Ball

Anthony Watts says:
August 22, 2012 at 8:10 pm
“I’m sure Joshua Halpern won’t be so amused when we put his emails on display”
Cannot wait !!! Wipe the smug off his mug. Two choices, he is deluded or he is deceptive. We all get what we deserve in the end. In his heart, he knows this.

TomC

The thing I always notice about these released emails is their incessant clamoring about Kerry, Gore, and the Democrats in general – they’re always upset, lamenting electoral losses by Democrat politicians. Is there any question which political party these so-called climate scientists kowtow to? It also proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that their entire global warming theory is nothing more than a political means to reach their Utopian ends.

davidmhoffer

drew;
Pretty sad seeing this stuff as any sort of evidence against climate science when in fact it shows an honest belief in their work. >>>
Eli Rabett (aka Joshua Halpern who insists on referring to himself in the 3rd person as if he was royalty);
You folks are really reaching.>>>>>>
Really? We have Solomon p*ssing all over the paleo researchers (Jones, Mann, Briffa), we have Trenberth p*ssing all over Santer, and we have a “disaster for the climate community”.
So what happened to the consensus? Turns out there isn’t one? What happened to the science is settled? Turns out it isn’t? Why is climategate a disaster? Do you suppose it was a disaster because nothing wrong was found in the emails?
And all those question arise from just TWO emails in this batch. Just TWO.
drew I suppose is anonymous so he can afford to look the fool in defense of the indefensible. Eli Rabett aka Joshua Halpern though out to think twice about publicly doing the same.

dp

TomT – the brothers were credited with inventing control surfaces. In the defense of that patent everyone in the industry made money selling airplanes but them. Their lawsuits included foreign nationals and Glenn Curtiss. It sapped them and cost them valuable business relationships. Wilbur spent his last two years of life in the defense of patents. By 1917 the patent had expired, Wilbur was dead, and Oroville had sold the company in 1915, and took his last flight in 1918. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Patent_war
Glenn Curtiss went on to invent (figuratively speaking) the aviation industry.
Your post is a good example of what they are wrongly remembered for. The airplane, and powered aircraft preexisted the Wright flier but none had three-axis controls that were effective. Their aircraft designs were deemed unsafe by the military. Patent concerns doomed them to maintaining faulty components of their design while others went on to innovative designs.
Mann is on that same path.

u.k.(us)

Greg Cavanagh says:
August 22, 2012 at 8:06 pm
The report threads read like a bunch of cannibals arguing over who they’ll eat last.
A very interesting read indeed.
————————————-
Cast your aspersions, they only strengthen the resolve.
Interesting how ?

Crispin in Waterloo

@Theo Goodwin
>>“Well, this CAGW thing is once-and-for-all proof that scientists and academics are corruptible. Lots and lots and lots of them.”
>From a slightly different angle, it is a demonstration that when the science is not mature and the government steps on the funding accelerator then the result is corruption on a huge scale. Some very serious dissertations need to be written on this point.
I work with a social anthropologist who spent 4 years studying the Amerindians in Motto Grosso, Brazil. He compiled a 3-foot high stack of field notes on how they do things and why, what they believe about everything from dreams to who is in those satellites orbiting overhead. He helped bring them out of the stone age in a single generation.
All that is nothing compared with the analyses that will be done on the tribe that took science back a generation. There is so much still to be released. It is inconceivable that the “WH” was not coordinating with “Buck” across the pond on the same points. Clearly a decisions was made long before that there was to be a full scale scare story to create a ‘new economy’ with new energy sources that would be technologically dominated by the developed West who could afford to waste that much money. It is a sort of cold war spending idea that brought the USSR to its knees – they couldn’t compete. Climate fraud in service of geopolitics, yes? And all of NATO bought into this hare-brained scheme? Is this their plan to economically defeat China and India – with electric SUV’s?
Too bad about that crooked Wall Street banker thing – ok… things. Doesn’t look so affordable now. From what has pitched up already, this is Climategate III: let the lawsuits begin. Buy your popcorn at the kiosk out front (this is America). Buy two or more and you get a Carbon Tax ‘Eli Rebate’ coupon.

David Ross

Eli Rabett wrote:
“You folks are really reaching.”
Anthony Watts wrote:
“I’m sure Joshua Halpern won’t be so amused when we put his emails on display”
Yeah, but I’m sure we will 🙂
For those who may not know. Eli Rabett is the troll pseudonym that Howard University Chemistry Professor Joshua Halpern hides behind.
As mentioned in this (interesting) article.
http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_mccarthyism_part_i_joe