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:
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?
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is the type of brazen “science” in the public interest being promoted on that Climate Central web site:
“Asking whether it’s natural or caused by humans is silly,” said Eric Steig, of the University of Washington, who wrote a Nature commentary on the new research. “We’ve changed the atmosphere so dramatically that it has to be mostly human.
Pat Frank says:
August 23, 2012 at 11:00 am
Another excellent post. You are hot. Thanks for your good work.
‘Hit on the head with a hockey stick’
In Canada it’s known as a “wood shampoo”.
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.
Am I the only one who got “Mann the prize tosser”?
Great reference. I had no idea it was Derrida who brought us Deconstructionism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida)
Of course it was Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty that first said “When I use a word It means just what I choose it to mean – neither more or less.” (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/23101.html)
Derrida is actually derivative of Humpty Dumpty, don’t you think?
“We’ve changed the atmosphere so dramatically that it has to be mostly human.”
Substitute:
Flat earth, Atlas holding up the earth, a giant turtle holding up the earth, the sun goes around the earth, alchemy, the earth being a mere 6000 yrs old, etc
THEY ALL MUST BE TRUE TOO. Oh wait…
RobW,
You noticed that logical fallacy too, I see. It is called the Argumentum ad Ignorantium, the argument from ignorance: “Since we can’t think of any other explanation, then it must be due to human activity.”
But that’s all hogwash. The currently observed climate is quite normal. It has been much warmer, and much colder in the past, when CO2 levels were well below today’s. We have actually been fortunate enough to be living in a “Goldilocks” climate. When things get back to ‘normal’, watch out! It will be all downhill from here.
Thanks, Theo, not that the posts will do much good. 🙂
I liked this line in reaction to CG1 first breaking.
“I assume this will be with us for some weeks and then fade away.”
At first I thought that prediction must have been made by Hansen but that would have been to good to be true.
(It was by Eystein.)
Pat Frank says:
August 23, 2012 at 11:00 am
Second, crediting KT’s actual criticisms, Ben Santer’s 2003 paper is worse than flawed. It reflects incompetence. Ben Santer should have known the data on which his paper rested were completely unreliable. etc.
That makes me curious what Trenberth thinks of Santer’s 17 years now that RSS is within striking distance of that with 15 years and 8 months of no warming. See
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
clipe says:
August 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Am I the only one who got “Mann the prize tosser”?
No mate, though I suspect mainly it would be Brits and Aussies that would have got it 😉
[Theo Goodwin says:
August 23, 2012 at 9:40 am
more soylent green! says:
August 23, 2012 at 9:29 am
Yes! The fact that there are such things as graduate programs in “science communication” shows how low our standards have fallen. Derrida and postmodern literary theory now trump science.]
Actually, that is a necessary course to take if you want to be taken seriously in your research. It was called Technical Journalism 301 when I took it in 1976.
However, if your goal is to be scientifically literate while defending bogus conclusions, then not so much.
Werner Brozek says:
August 23, 2012 at 6:42 pm
That makes me curious what Trenberth thinks of Santer’s 17 years now that RSS is within striking distance of that with 15 years and 8 months of no warming.
>>Obviously, Santer et al. will come out with a paper upping the 17 years to 20. With a follow-up making that 25, in about five years. Science must keep up with the data.
Or, they’ll do a better job at getting the data to keep up with the “science”.