Chris Horner sends us another Michael Mann Email from the NOAA FOIA release. One should remember this statement from Dr. Mann before continuing:
Mann: ‘I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate’
Hmmm. “Somewhat misplaced”, “pretty cool” and the stuff of prideful circulation, it’s all good but, well, which time were you telling the truth about icons?
The picture he was disapproving of/”thought it was pretty cool” as the IPCC icon…well, that is, apparently depending on to whom he is speaking, or what his needs of the moment are…was this, as you’ll see from the link he circulates with such pride and joy:
Now read the email:
Mann circulated an email to his coauthors for MBH98 (Bradley and Hughes) to tell them about it:
I thought you might be interested in this, from today’s BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid 1130000/1130501.stm
Not to slight Sir John(!), but its actually the chart in the background I’m referring to 🙂
cheers,
mike
Hughes sent a humorous reply to Mann:
Highly cool! – pity about the ugly old guy in front!
Cheers, Malcolm
Mann replied with this:
Hey, that’s Sir John you’re talking about! And a fellow brit, no less! I thought it was pretty cool too. I’d like to know what he was saying about the chart!
Here is the original as a PDF: Mann thinks HS as IPCC icon pretty cool
Not earthshaking by any means, but it is funny. The earthshaking stuff will come out in the upcoming discovery for Mann -vs- NRO.
So does this mean the climate didn’t change before man’s appearance?
Interesting logic–or lack thereof.
Epic fail by Sir John Houghton. He’s as accurate in his assessment as the chart behind him.
Note the fresh flowers in the immediate foreground which were probably grown in a CO2 enhanced greenhouse.
Huckster
Is it possible that one of the outcomes of the NRO suit is that whatever docs Mann provides during discovery are forever kept from public release as part of some settlement he and NRO agree to? And those privy to the contents likewise forbidden to discuss?
Sir John, Like AlGore, Robert Kennedy Jr., etc are sure that they will be part of the ruling elite in the new UN led global government, by virtue of their wealth. And they won’t sacrifice a thing.
EAT THE RICH that use AGW as a means to their progressive ends.
I have no desire to incite rebellion or dissent among the populace, but when one sees this sort of arrogant dictatorial clap trap, the Big Guvment buearucrats dishing out ever more regulations, restrictions, & the like, & the self-promotion & self-enrichment born of corruption, one has to ask, as does EU Referendum regularly, “And the reason why we don’t rise up & slaughter them all is…….?”
Mann can’t win however the case proceeds. He’ll be put under extreme pressure from his peers not to continue because of what might surface, and by that same token if he goes ahead his peers will leave him out to dry. When thieves fall out…
I think Sir John was mis-quoted. I think his original statement was “Temperature rise due to Mann.” He was actually a whistle-blower. sarc/
The earth-shattering stuff from discovery …. hmmmm.
What about Ball’s ‘suit? Dragging on and costing money is a tried-and-true technique of making your enemies drop out from fatigue (NIWA has been doing this very well, same with Penn State), but will it work on a small basis? What is holding up resolution of Mike and Tim?
” RockyRoad says:
August 24, 2012 at 8:35 am
So does this mean the climate didn’t change before man’s appearance?”
not quite . . . it didn’t change before Mann’s appearance
RockyRoad says:
August 24, 2012 at 8:35 am
“So does this mean the climate didn’t change before man’s appearance?
Interesting logic–or lack thereof.
Epic fail by Sir John Houghton. He’s as accurate in his assessment as the chart behind him.”
Your comment reminded me of the very interesting paper by : WILLIAM F. RUDDIMAN,Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
“THE ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE ERA BEGAN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO”.
The paper claims that the anomalous CO2 increases of recent times actually began about 8000 years ago with “civilization” and farming, not 150 years ago with industrialization. It further hypothesizes that drops in CO2 in paleoclimate data can be correlated to declines in human populations caused by plagues, famine, etc. Though the thrust of the paper is typical warmist doctrine, one could come to a very different conclusion if the hypothesis is correct. That being that the only way to stop the acceleration of CO2 increases and thereby AGW would be to eliminate major portions of the human population. Not a very uplifting scenario.
Who is financing Mann’s legal jihad?
In http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/24/hilarious-mann-email-ipcc-icon-pretty-cool/#comment-1064223, RockyRoad asks with respect to Sir John Houghton’s statement “Human effect on climate ‘beyond doubt'”:
and uses this question to claim an “epic fail” of logic on Sir John Houghton’s side.
To answer this question:
No, it doesn’t mean this. Sir John Houghton’s statement does not logically imply such an assertion. The fact that climate had already changed before humans’ appearance, due to natural factors, does not refute empirically or logically that human activities have become a climate changing factor in addition to natural factors now. There is no contradiction there.
Pointing to natural climate change before humans’ appearance to “refute” human influence on climate is one of the logical fallacies commonly applied. It’s a straw man argument. The fail of logic here is on your side.
Mann: ‘I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate’
ALWAYS????
Ty says:
August 24, 2012 at 8:48 am
Is it possible that one of the outcomes of the NRO suit is that whatever docs Mann provides during discovery are forever kept from public release as part of some settlement he and NRO agree to? And those privy to the contents likewise forbidden to discuss?
___________________________________
News Media agreeing to be muzzled??? You have to be kidding.
Monsanto did it to US and Canadian Farmers but that was because Monsanto had deep pockets and the farmers were facing bankruptcy. link but that is not the case here.
Re: RockyRoad
> So does this mean the climate didn’t change before man’s appearance?
So does this mean the past climate didn’t change
beforeafterman’sMann’s appearance?There, fixed it for you.
@RobRoy
“Sir John, Like AlGore, Robert Kennedy Jr., etc are sure that they will be part of the ruling elite….”
How do you think he got to be a ‘Sir’ in the first place? I’ll give you a clue – it wasn’t for displaying bravery in battle, or any of the traditional ways of showing your mettle.
And now he’s threatening to sue the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Mann vs. mankind?
Alan the Brit says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:02 am
“And the reason why we don’t rise up & slaughter them all is…….?”
Alan the Brit…aka Guido Fawkes? 😉
Perlwitz, posting here as usual in the middle of his taxpayer-funded work day, writes:
“Pointing to natural climate change before humans’ appearance to ‘refute’ human influence on climate is one of the logical fallacies commonly applied.”
It is clear that Mr Perlwitz has no understanding of the null hypothesis, or he would see his error. His chief attribute seems to be performing as a sycophant for James Hansen. I wouldn’t have a problem with that – to each his own – but he’s doing it at the taxpayers’ expense.
Of course Perlwitz will deny it. But look at the time stamp. And he does it constantly.
im G says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:42 am
….
Your comment reminded me of the very interesting paper by : WILLIAM F. RUDDIMAN,Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
“THE ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE ERA BEGAN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO”.
The paper claims that the anomalous CO2 increases of recent times actually began about 8000 years ago with “civilization” and farming, not 150 years ago with industrialization….
___________________________________
OH I really love it when they really step in it like that.
Look at the temperature data from the ice cores.
These are two graphs of five interglacials from Vostok: graph 1 and this one has the CO2 added: graph 2
This graph is for 140,000 yrs from Vostok, that is the Holocene plus the Eemain – graph
And an even Closer look at Greenland for 10,000 years note the 8,000 year mark is where the violent swings stopped. Greenland graph and vostok graph
So the evidence from the ice cores plus Dr. William Ruddiman’s paper shows mankind is STABLIZING THE CLIMATE
Stop the Presses, this should be front page news!
Mankind SAVES the Environment
Think we can get the Graniad, Huff & Puff and the NY times to print the story?
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:54 am
Though there is much data to support human impact upon CO2 levels there is no convincing evidence that climate change is caused by same. There is your logical disconnect. Too many other variables are involved to make this connection, the models are showing themselves to lack predictive capability, CO2 is still rising while temperatures have not for 10-12 years, historical data on CO2 shows that it follows temperature, does not lead it, model data on temperatures has been buggered by “believers” to show increase where there is none, heat island phenomina adulterate the data, etc, etc. And in the end, warming is good, cold is bad for the human population and CO2 makes green things grow, so we actually need to burn more coal.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:54 am
Absolutely! Land use changes through farming, slash & burn, and all that sort of stuff are underepresented by the CAGW folks’ analyses. It all helps to show that there’s more to understanding CO2’s effect than lab based measurements away from large scale convective processes. Until global temps start looking more like the CO2 curve from Mauna Loa, than the noisy, air, ocean, and solar oscillations that dominate reality, I’d worry more about the upcoming glaciation than what will happen if we don’t get CO2 back down to 350 ppm.
Smokey whines:
The taxpayer doesn’t have any saying about my workday schedule, and you are not entitled to tell me at what times I must work, and when I’m allowed to do something else. But I’m happy that you are a taxpayer. LOL
Besides that, Smokey doesn’t have anything substantial to offer to refute the content of my previous comment. As usual. Thus, he resorts again, – surprise, surprise! – to an ad personam attack. How pathetic.
Perlwitz/Smokey
Both of you – put a sock in it. There’s now an enforced comment time out 24 hours for both of you.
I’ll be sending a query to NASA directly.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:54 am
….To answer this question:
No, it doesn’t mean this. Sir John Houghton’s statement does not logically imply such an assertion. The fact that climate had already changed before humans’ appearance, due to natural factors, does not refute empirically or logically that human activities have become a climate changing factor in addition to natural factors now. There is no contradiction there.
Pointing to natural climate change before humans’ appearance to “refute” human influence on climate is one of the logical fallacies commonly applied. It’s a straw man argument. The fail of logic here is on your side.
_______________________________
So taking it that you are correct and human activity has impacted the climate you STILL come out with the data showing mankind has stabilized the climate for the last 600 years Graph 1
Jim G. says,
“That being that the only way to stop the acceleration of CO2 increases and thereby AGW would be to eliminate major portions of the human population. Not a very uplifting scenario.”
I fear this has been the idea all along. The ghost of Malthus walks! As does eugenics and many other nasty zombies. As Linus so wisely put it, “I love mankind, it’s people I can’t stand.”
Smokey says:
August 24, 2012 at 10:25 am
Perlwitz, posting here as usual in the middle of his taxpayer-funded work day,…..
Of course Perlwitz will deny it. But look at the time stamp. And he does it constantly.
_______________________
Well maybe we have just figured out what Perlwitz’s actual job is.
“Arctic sea ice melt set to break record”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/19362809
“Summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is expected to shrink to a record minimum amount sometime next week and then continue melting.
The previous record was set in 2007, when Arctic ice cover shrank to 1.66 million square miles (4.28 million square km), 23 percent below the earlier record set in 2005 and 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado says this year’s melt started between ten days to two weeks earlier than usual in some critical areas including northern Europe and Siberia. It’s expected to continue to melt into September.
BBC Weather’s John Hammond explains.”
A video clip from the BBC
I’m really starting to get concerned about the significant numbers of “Sirs” this / that / whatever, who are ardent sponsors of the catastrophicarthropomorphicmanmadeglobalwarmingclimatechange mantra.
I once suggested to NZ Prime Minister John Key (very nice chap), that he and NZ could lead the world out of the misery of this pox on the planet, by telling the UNIPCCKYOTO bunch, “Nuts”; or words to that effect, and become a hero, and a savior of the millions who are being doomed to starvation, or lives of energy poor poverty and misery.
PM Key referred my suggestion to his Science advisor, who is a Sir somebody, or maybe a Lord somebody ( and apparently a scientist of some repute ). Well when it comes to power, there’s no substitute for cubes; so my pledings were puny in comparison.
I long ago decided that I did not want to be a member of the Royal Society, or to be a Nobel Laureate (fortunately I have a sustitute namesake there). I’m beginning to think that I should also eschew being “Sirred” for any reason, as that seems to go to one’s head, evidently displacing some brain capacity. No i’m not casting any aspersions on PM Key’s Science advisor; wish I knew him, and his bacground. NZ has good representation in the Climate Science reality community, so they don’t need any help from me. Too bad they can’t get some traction with their Government, and NZ is actually one of the good guys, when it comes to resource efficiency.
Compared to India, with it’s renewable Unfossil fuel (aka cow dung ) and 121 KWh per person annual electricity usage, NZers use over 8,000 KWh of electricity (twice USA) and 70% plus comes from green sources (hydro/geo); so they don’t need to tap their vast reserves of sheep pellets, which can be naturally recycled to keep NZ green, and lush.
So too bad about Sir John Houghton; he’s making it hard for all Sirs to be respectable.
“””””…..Smokey says:
August 24, 2012 at 10:25 am
Perlwitz, posting here as usual in the middle of his taxpayer-funded work day, writes: “””””
Nice catch there Smokey. I wish I was half as smart as you are; those clues seem to go over my head. But now being forewarned, I will start paying attention to some of those tax kitty leakages. At my age, I need a rest, from paying well over half my wages directly to the tax thieves, only to see it squandered by those swilling at the public trough.
Really put me in a bad frame of mind to recently find from “Physics Today” that two thirds of all PhD Physicist graduates, will never find a pemanent job, and are doomed to become post docs in perpetuity.
Really explains what the big heavy weight on the other end of the see-saw from “Big Oil” is, that is driving this charade.
And for the record; nobody will pay me for putting my two cent thoughts down here; so this is entirely on my nickel, and being as it’s Friday, I’m taking a break from a very tough week, only part of which, I can report for compensation.
Gail Combs says:
August 24, 2012 at 10:31 am
“So the evidence from the ice cores plus Dr. William Ruddiman’s paper shows mankind is STABLIZING THE CLIMATE”
Excellent point, though I would not make the connect between CO2 and climate irrespective of the result being stablizing or changing the climate. Too many other variables and all that I posted in response to Perlwitz.
That aside, what did you think of the ice core squiggles (in his paper) and their relationship to the times of the historical plague/ famine humane die offs? I found this very intriguing. It does make logical sense, more people more CO2, farming,heating etc irrespective of the technology. Less people, and we are talking big numbers of less people, less CO2.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:54 am
Ok, you assert I’ve had a “fail of logic” so I’ll ask you a logical question:
HOW MUCH of our climate change is due to anthropogenic factors? Put this in terms of “warming the Earth” as per Sir John–that should be easy to do.
I require that you come up with a number and while you’re at it (since this scientist/engineer deals in the real world) a Confidence Interval associated with your number. So, delta T +/- CI, please.
Ball’s in your court–you may respond after your 24 hour “time out” imposed by Anthony.
(I’m a very patient man, Mr. Perlwitz–but we’ll see if your assertion of my “lack of logic” can be supported with a number and CI, as requested above. I’ve been looking for such a number and CI for years–you supposedly work in an organizaiton that should know it–should one exist. And no, dart boards are NOT allowed.)
Again, ball’s in your court, Mr. P.
And if no number and CI is forthcoming, I take that as prima facia evidence that you are the one making a “logical fallacy” (your words, by the way).
We’ll see if what you claim has sufficient merit to be of interest.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 24, 2012 at 10:44 am
Smokey whines:
Perlwitz, posting here as usual in the middle of his taxpayer-funded work day,…
The taxpayer doesn’t have any saying about my workday schedule, and you are not entitled to tell me at what times I must work, and when I’m allowed to do something else.
The taxpayer has a big say. You might be one election away from redundancy.
We are so DARN LUCKY to be living in a time of both higher CO2 level and slight warming. Holocene temp reconstructions show a gradually downward slope with peaks every1000 years or so. The last couple of warm peaks have both been times of great human prosperity. Medieval Warm period, Roman Warm period, and possibly even the Mayan period the peak before that(history is not precise enough). The temp at the top of this current peak will likely be LESS than either the RWP and the MWP. The cold periods between were very tough periods for humans
So. how about we ENJOY the warmth, and CHEER that CO2 levels are for once actually a bit above plant subsistence levels (well done humans), and hope like crazy that there still quite a bit of the current peak go, because when the next trough comes, its going to cause very major problems for a lot of the world’s population.
PS, we really are being EXCEEDINGLY STUPID actually trying to STOP the warm period (not that we can, because it totally natural.)
Trying to reduce the one gas that provides us with food, and wanting to stop it being warmer.. How MONUMENTALLY DOPEY is that !!!!!
Enjoy the abundance and warmth while it lasts, I say !!
Hey Clipe , Here! Here! Our friend Jan reeks of entitlement with that remark.
I think that all climate scientists should be made to have a brain scan
Nitwits is employed at the GISS apparently to post to WUWT on the taxpayer dime. It is government employment after all. Not like the government could go broke if no productive work gets done.
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Ever ask why the US manned program has never been back to the moon? Never made it to Mars? The program was hijacked, the money diverted to climate science. They left the “space” in the name when GISS switched from space studies to climate studies.
What did the space program bring the US? A huge leap forward in electronics and material sciences. Much of the competitive advantage enjoyed by the US today is a product of the $$ invested in space exploration. Much of our lifestyle is a product of investment in space exploration.
Climate studies on the other hand have contributed little if anything positive to the US economic well being. The billions of dollars invested have largely gone to generate a climate of fear and uncertainty that is a large part of the economic problems in the US (and the EU) today.
Except for the efforts of US industry to develop fracking technology and the gas surplus that resulted, the US energy policy would have been a disaster. The government (and it backers) bet on solar power and corn ethanol, and did its best to make everything else uncompetitive. Coal and fracking are both under attack and if successful, oil and gas prices will go through the roof. As promised by Obama ahead of the elections.
Little wonder that the Founding Fathers of the US recognized that governments are inherently the enemy of a free people and did their best to prevent that abuses of power that have today become all to common.
Jan Perlwitz says:
“Pointing to natural climate change before humans’ appearance to “refute” human influence on climate is one of the logical fallacies commonly applied.”
Likewise, pointing to natural climate change after humans’ appearance to “prove” human influence on climate is one of the logical fallacies commonly applied (by climastrologists).
Stop pointing at every hurricane, heat wave, blizzard, drought, monsoon, forest fire, and earthquake and telling us it’s human induced climate change. We’ve been paying your salary and funding your “research” for over two decades, waiting for empirical data that links anthropogenic CO2 to climate catastrophes. So far, all NASA GISS has produced is an unending string of questionable data adjustments, fraudulent statistical tricks, and busted computer model projections.
So how about get off your high horse and use some of that taxpayer funded spare time you seem to have so much of to come up with some reproducible data? If you put up, we’ll all gladly shut up.
ferdberple says
Ever ask why the US manned program has never been back to the moon? Never made it to Mars? The program was hijacked, the money diverted to climate science.
——-
I reckon you got it back to front. If the earth sciences program was not in place NASA and the space program would have been iced decades ago.
Remember they prematurely terminated the Luna program because it was not sufficiently popular and long before climate science became an issue.
You need to get your facts right ferdberple. Sorry but your position is an epic fail.
Ty on August 24, 2012 at 8:48 am
Is it possible that one of the outcomes of the NRO suit is that whatever docs Mann provides during discovery are forever kept from public release as part of some settlement he and NRO agree to? And those privy to the contents likewise forbidden to discuss?
————
Sure looks like you guys have already given up on finding juicy tidbits in this set of emails. And now it looks like there is some manouvering to explain why the legal case is also going to be devoid of things to exploit.
The iconic Sir John Houghton, patron saint of the Hockey Stick. His short briefing paper on global warming, climate change, and sustainability is worth a read. The latest version is probably still the 2009 one. It shows his obsession with eliminating the disparities of wealth between nations and his recognition that action on climate change was a means of achieving that goal.
Part of his argument in the essay:-
“Perhaps the most condemning of world statistics is that the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer – the flow of wealth in the world is from the poor to the rich…”
“The moral imperative for the rich countries is inescapable…”
“Sustainability will never be achieved without a great deal more sharing.”
“… emissions should first be allocated to everybody in the world equally per capita, then transfer of allocations being allowed through trading between nations.”
How long was he co-chair of the IPCC? 14 years wasn’t it?
Jan Perlwitz says: But I’m happy that you are a taxpayer. LOL
But who is going to have the last laugh dear chronic welfare recipient?
So Mr. wise & shine…
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:54 am…
Ever hear of the current ice age? We’ve cycled back and forth between periods of glaciation (100,000 years or so) and interglacial periods of warmth (20,000 years or so) about 20 times in the last 2.5 million years (all time frames are approximate, but generally correct). Where does the hockey stick fit in that calculous? Or is this just another factual logical fallacy?
And by the way, I thought that Manhattan was supposed to be under water by now. Are your wading boots enough to keep you dry? /sarc
Interesting comment made at openmarket.org –
“patrick michaels July 15, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Mann was not denied tenure at UVa. He certainly would have acheived it. I was a member of the Department (Research Professor) during his time there, and I was asked to contact him for initial recruitment.
He left because a dispute about salary for himself and his soon-to-be-wife. He wanted UVa to give her a faculty position and they declined. Penn State did what Mike wanted, and so he left.”
http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/13/the-other-scandal-in-unhappy-valley/
Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:54 am “Pointing to natural climate change before humans’ appearance to “refute” human influence on climate is one of the logical fallacies commonly applied. It’s a straw man argument. The fail of logic here is on your side.”
Not a complete fail as it is for the CAGW supporters to demonstrate scientifically the “man made CO2” influence on the climate, i.e. showing clearly and demonstrably the CAGW effect as part of the observed changes. The null hypothesis belongs to the natural changes prior to man’s emissions.
Oh dear
Richard S Courtney
October 20, 2010 at 7:13 pm · Reply
Spatch:
At #74 you say:
I’m still looking for a credible rebuttal of my comment #151.
OK. Try these.
1.
You made no comment at #151 because 151 is less than 74.
2.
You have yet to make a credible comment so it is not possible to make a sensible response other than ridicule to anything you have said.
3.
Nobody has any reason to respond to personal lies and insults from an anonymous troll.
Repeat your lies and insults under your own name and with your home address and my lawyer will give you a credible rebuttal on my behalf.
Richard
Hughes reply to Mann was, in reality, a Freudian slip. What Hughes really meant to say was “pity about the ugly science on the graph behind the old guy”.
Right on! It is my single message to the warmists and I repeat it as often as I can. Thanks for joining this grand song with harmony. If people would only count their blessings… GK
ferdberple says:
August 24, 2012 at 5:40 pm
“What did the space program bring the US? A huge leap forward in electronics and material sciences. Much of the competitive advantage enjoyed by the US today is a product of the $$ invested in space exploration. Much of our lifestyle is a product of investment in space exploration.”
Bottom line, though, is the military aspect of space exploration, rocket science, electronics, computers, etc.from which your above mentioned benefits derived their funding. War, even the cold war, if one can for a moment ignore the disaterous results of hot wars, has been decidedly beneficial to the advancement of human technology and quality of life for those not destroyed by the wars themsleves. A real conundrum, particulary if one has any Christian beliefs.
Leo G says:
August 24, 2012 at 6:27 pm
“The iconic Sir John Houghton, patron saint of the Hockey Stick. His short briefing paper on global warming, climate change, and sustainability is worth a read. The latest version is probably still the 2009 one. It shows his obsession with eliminating the disparities of wealth between nations and his recognition that action on climate change was a means of achieving that goal.
Part of his argument in the essay:-
“Perhaps the most condemning of world statistics is that the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer – the flow of wealth in the world is from the poor to the rich…”
“The moral imperative for the rich countries is inescapable…”
“Sustainability will never be achieved without a great deal more sharing.”
“… emissions should first be allocated to everybody in the world equally per capita, then transfer of allocations being allowed through trading between nations.”
How long was he co-chair of the IPCC? 14 years wasn’t it?”
The watermellon syndrome, if they are green on the outside they are usually red on the inside.
I came up with this at the end of an earlier Mannian thread, with the HS icon theme, perhaps here is more appropriate. http://i47.tinypic.com/2i7mfex.jpg
@george Smith – SIr Peter Gluckman (Chief Science Advisor) is a pediatrician —
Born in Auckland, he attended Auckland Grammar School before studying paediatrics and endocrinology at the University of Otago gaining a MBChB in 1971. This was followed by MMedSc in 1976 and a DSc in 1987 from the University of Auckland.
He is the Professor of Paediatric and Perinatal Biology and was the Director of the National Research Centre for Growth and Development at the University of Auckland. He was formerly Head of the Department of Paediatrics and Dean of the university’s Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences as well as the founding Director of the Liggins Institute.
In 2007 he was appointed Programme Director for Growth, Development and Metabolism at the Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences. He also holds honorary chairs at National University of Singapore and the University of Southampton. From the dreaded Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gluckman
And perhaps if you check into the background of the Prime Mincer [local joke] you might find him not such a nice guy. I personally have little time for derivatives money traders (http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/76097/john-keys-finance-credentials).
See Bishop Hill’s site for an interesting discussion of several important emails:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/8/25/fighting-mad.html
“””””…..Annette Huang says:
August 25, 2012 at 12:13 pm
@george Smith – SIr Peter Gluckman (Chief Science Advisor) is a pediatrician –
Born in Auckland, he attended Auckland Grammar School before studying paediatrics and endocrinology at the University of Otago gaining a MBChB in 1971. This was followed by MMedSc in 1976 and a DSc in 1987 from the University of Auckland…..”””””
Thanks for that research Annette. One of my high school graduating class chums got a DSc from UofA. That’s the only science doctorate, that I would want. Well I’m sure That Sir Peter dresses better than I do. AGS kids always looked spivvier than Otahuhu Technical High School kids, and I was among the lesser clad of those. But I still got my name on the wall.
Another of my class mates recently retired a Professor of Pediatrics, and Behavioral Psychology from the U of Miami; as did his wife. They may be the world experts on the learning processes of retarded children.
So Sir Peter could very well be deserving of his knighthood I think NZ is a leader in that field, and also Maternity issues; The Plunket Society and all that.
I think they are better at that, than climate.
RockyRoad says:
August 24, 2012 at 12:39 pm
It has been over 48 hours since I issued the above challenge to Mr. Perlwitz, and he has yet to respond–and all of it on a weekend free from work obligations, yet.
Mr. Perlwitz likes to call people names and disparage their comments, even impugning their character, but when asked to present a specific metric upon which the argument hangs, he fails to do so.
I repeat, Mr. Perlwitz fails to do so. He has nothing of sufficient merit that would withstand honest scrutiny.
I request an apology, Mr. Perlwitz, but considering how this whole CAGWCF meme is largely manufactured, your issuing an apology would be tantamount to admitting your complicity and subterfuge. Either way, your reputation is cooked: no number, no apology.
Sad, sad little man.
Human are having a great affect on warming the world. (sarc)
Oh, wait?
Surface and troposphere
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2002/plot/rss/from:2002/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/plot/uah/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002
Ocean
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/plot/hadsst2nh/from:2002/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2002/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2nh/from:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2002/trend