I have often noted that the number of climate scientists (including both real-and self proclaimed) around the world is quite small, and those with certain areas of expertise, such as in paleoclimatology is even smaller. This leads to the problem of finding qualified reviewers for scientific papers. Looking for something else today, I came across this Climategate email, and I thought it worth looking at in that context. While this email has had some discussions on forum comments, I don’t think it has ever been made a front and center topic.
Below is a screencap of an email sent by Professor Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.
So, what’s going on here is that Phil Jones is trying to influence a review of a paper that officemate Tim Osborn is doing, but he wants people he’s asking to “forget” that he ever inquired about the issue so that Phil [ensures Tom] is “squeaky clean” when it comes to his opinion.
Climate Science at it’s best, don’t you think?
UPDATE: I missed this while on holiday travel yesterday:
Climatologist Prof Phil Jones, who was at the centre of the Climategate row over hacked emails, will be succeeded by Prof Timothy Osborn.
Prof Osborn, who has worked at the UEA since 1990, said: “UEA provides a superb environment for climate research and so it is a privilege for me to become the Climatic Research Unit’s next director of research.
“I’m looking forward to leading our pioneering climate research, establishing with greater certainty the details of how and why the Earth’s climate is changing and the consequences for the future.”
…
“I am not leaving UEA, but will continue my research on a part-time basis.”
Prof Jones made national headlines in 2009, when UEA emails were hacked in what became known as Climategate.
Climate change sceptics claimed the content of the emails showed that scientists were manipulating data.
But a string of committees found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
Source: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/uea_s_climatic_unit_director_steps_down_1_4829565 (h/t to reader “mikewaite” and Paul Homewood
Anthony, I imagine that you know that Phil Jones is retiring , to be succeeded by Phil Osborn , and so the music plays on.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
Tim(othy) Osborn. But anyway, point taken.
Let us hope there are a rash of retirements in response the coming reduction in alarmist grant money. We might yet save science.
Well so he found a way to continue swilling at the public trough; what’s up with that picture.
g
Wow, just wow. How to believers not care about this? those that I know, don’t. they don’t see this, or any of climategate, of having any reason to be skeptical of anything related to climate science. it blows my mind
They won’t see it. They are willfully ignorant.
Richard Lindzen
(Source: April 9, 2010, “Earth Is Never in Equilibrium,” This is an essay by professor Richard Lindzen of MIT sent to “The Free Lance-Star” in Fredericksburg, VA for their Opinion Page in March and recently republished in the Janesville, WI “Gazette Extra” , https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/09/lindzen-earth-is-never-in-equilibrium/ )
klem:
(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/12/professors-fellowship-terminated-for-speaking-out-on-global-warming-in-the-wall-street-journal/#comment-1661959 )
I’ve also found they’re incompetent, Janice. Neither Phil Jones nor the rest of the CRU crew apparently know anything about instrumental resolution or about measurement error.
It appears, neither do the GISS people, nor the BEST.
To that extent, they’re all innocents. However, they do dismiss anyone who tries to expose them to these basic concepts in experimental science.
Janice, the menace:
…. Finally, there are the well-meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, psychic welfare is at stake. ….
______________________________________
at stake …. wait for it.
Cheers – Hans
I think Prof Lindzen believes that earth rotates on its tilted axis.
G
It is the definition of noble cause corruption.
‘Constructive ignorance’ – the art of wilfully remaining ignorant. Dr Richard North came up with it to describe those in our ongoing Brexit debate who just refuse to learn anything and expand their knowledge as opposed to repeating the same old disproven rubbish.
I call it ‘willful blindness’
Or selective inattention, which is a phrase I heard from John Griffin (“Black Like Me”) decades ago in a different but surprisingly pertinent context.
I call it ‘willful ignorance’, but really it’s the same thing.
Martin Luther King warned against sin
cere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
“…Climate change sceptics claimed the content of the emails showed that scientists were manipulating data.
But a string of committees found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct…”
Why be skeptical when the press says it was all on the level?
It really is mind blowing that all of this was white washed in today’s age that everything is completely available. All they need to do is look and think for themselves, too hard for some obviously.
Re: MBH98
David L. Hagen:
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/10/michael-manns-lecture-at-uri-and-the-blogger-who-must-not-be-named/#comment-47648 )
Note the date. Climategate broke on November 19, 2009.
Janice, I couldn’t get that first link with the pdf to work. It says “not found”.
Hi, TA. Thanks for letting me know. I used Google Scholard and found it here:
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf
(and now, I’ll go correct the WUWT 10th Anniv. anthology (at 227)!
In case it might help, it is Google Scholar{ } . Oops.
Ask yourself, what do these people fear the most? The answer…transparency. Methinks we will have the light shined on these bugs by the incoming administration.
They fear most a loss of funding. That’s all their “science” is about.
My standard sig these days is :
Peace thru Freedom
Honesty enforced by Transparency
Bob A
--
“Trust, but verify.” – Ronald Reagan
My own is:
“In ‘climate science’, 2+2=5 for a sufficiently large value of 2.”
Hey Gary!
“In ‘climate science’, 2+2=5 for a sufficiently large value of funding.”
When the money is right the statistics can say anything.
There is a reason it is called pal review.
It is all in the Club selection process – membership comes with a secret decoder ring
Listen to Little Orphan Annie, drink gallons of Ovaltine, get secret decoder ring.
Smithsonian Mag
Title and sub-title:
American Children Faced Great Dangers in the 1930s, None Greater Than “Little Orphan Annie”
Advertisements for Ovaltine were just part of the problem
Sounds just like the NAS where membership comes only by pal invitation.
G
he should test market ‘Charmin Sensitive’. does the bunghole feel nice after use?
Sir Alex Ferguson, legendary manager of Manchester United, is fond of the colourful phrase “squeaky bum time” meaning ‘An exciting part of a sporting event, particularly the final moments of a close game or season.’ Not sure if there’s any connection but these may be the end times for the CAGW/CC cult with any luck.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/squeaky_bum_time
Urban Dictionary gives the correct derivation rather than the bowdlerised Wiki version (last time I checked Wiki about 5 minutes ago) but you can look it up for yourselves.
In the U.S., it’s referred to as the “pucker factor.”
You may want to have a look at Scott Adams’ site today http://bit.ly/1OZ5lyz
He issues a challenge:
“So today’s challenge is to find a working scientist or PhD in some climate-related field who will agree with the idea that the climate science models do a good job of predicting the future.
Notice I am avoiding the question of the measurements. That’s a separate question. For this challenge, don’t let your scientist conflate the measurements or the basic science of CO2 with the projections. Just ask the scientist to offer an opinion on the credibility of the models only.
Remind your scientist that as far as you know there has never been a multi-year, multi-variable, complicated model of any type that predicted anything with useful accuracy.
Case in point: The experts and their models said Trump had no realistic chance of winning.
Your scientist will fight like a cornered animal to conflate the credibility of the measurements and the basic science of CO2 with the credibility of the projection models. Don’t let that happen. Make your scientist tell you that complicated multi-variable projections models that span years are credible. Or not.”
Note: “The basic science of CO2” is of such limited use outside a highly controlled laboratory setting as to make it USELESS for knowing anything about climate shifts on earth.
(See, e.g., “Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast and Climate Models,” Dr. Christopher Essex — this deals with “the basic science of CO2,” as well as the failed models, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19q1i-wAUpY&t=4s )
That is, BOTH the “basic science of CO2” and the unfit-for-purpose, failed, GCMs are worthless (vis a vis climate projections).
Janice, I don’t see how I could not agree with you any more.
What a wonderful sentence from markstoval.
Do you mean that you can’t see a way to be less in agreement or can’t see a way to continue to disagree?
Absolutely, it is astoundingly obvious and yet…here we are with people like you and others having to repeat the obvious over and over.
There is no basic science of climate, we understand parts. But of the chaotic, dynamic eco-system called earth we have only scratched the surface as to the complex relationships and components involved. Climate science is like the blind-man who having felt the tail of an elephant concluded that elephants were remarkably similar to snakes since he had felt snakes “in the lab”.
Experts find it impossible to accurately predict the outcome of chaotic systems. Their educated guesses are worse than those produced by a dart-throwing monkey. Honest experts try to avoid predictions. link
Someone who claims predictive skill for climate models is either not honest, not an expert, or is neither honest nor expert.
Given the well understood limitation of expert opinion, it is gobsmackingly astounding that people put any faith in expert opinion at all. Thomas Frank, in Listen Liberal, points out that the Democrat elite love complexity and view the opinions of their fellow experts with religious devotion. link IMHO this is literally insane.
First define climate and climate variability.
Which definition(s) to use?
Is 30 years enough time to make a definition? I don’t think so. Have all the variables been taken into account when people claim climate change? But then climate always changes so what is natural and what isn’t given both are occurring. How much is attributable to each of the things we might think cause climate change and what is the sign of each of the variables that make up whatever it is that you think defines climate?
http://www.new-learn.info/packages/clear/thermal/climate/diversity/world.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ldplants/sunsetzn.htm
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-012-0801-0?no-access=true
http://www.plants.usda.gov/hardiness.html
Or from our trusted Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
The image that always pops into my head when the whole “trust the experts” discussion occurs with regard to “climate science” is the one from the AAMCO commercial where the owner of the (non-AAMCO) transmission shop proclaims “Our mechanics are experts” while monkeys beat on transmissions with sticks behind him.
I love that commercial! The art of American advertising at its best. And applies perfectly to “climate scientists”.
I’ll email Wifey and see if she can grab a vid clip of it from one of her American pop culture webpages, she loves that stuff.
Scott Adams’ challenge is meaningless for a number of reasons. Firstly there is no definition of “good”
secondly the models all rely on assumptions about future CO2 emissions which are highly speculative
so if people believe the models and reduce their emissions then the models will all be wrong. Finally
there is also no definition of climate in the challenge.
similarly it is unclear what Scott Adams means by “realistic chance”. FiveThirtyEight gave him a 33% chance
of winning. Which seems like a realistic assessment to me. At the end day if 50 000 people changes their
vote out of 120 million then he would have lost. So he probably got lucky and perhaps didn’t have a realistic
chance of winning.
Amazing that denial.
He won anyway.
Every one of your statements can be applied to climate science in general.
Mike,
Trump won the electoral college while losing the popular vote by over 2%. The chances of that
happening are slim. Which suggests that either Trump was very lucky or exceedingly clever in
knowing exactly which states and which voters to target. And I don’t think anyone believes he is
that clever.
“Good” == it may not be defined, but as Scott Adams stated, try to find a climate scientist that will tell you the models are good, or reliable, or credible. I don’t know what it is, but I’ll know it when I see it.
You don’t have to be clever to target swing states where the vote is nearly equally divided, which is exactly what Trump did, and Hillary did not (to the dismay of most of her staff and advisors). The entire Bush v. Gore contest was a direct result of EXACTLY that.
Had popular vote mattered, more Trump supporters would have come out in CA and NY, which would have been a serious problem for Hillary as well.
These things are apparently only unknown to regressives.
Geronimo December 28, 2016 at 1:39 pm
This is the fifth time that the elected President has not won the popular vote I believe so 1 in 9 seem to go this way on average. I’ve seen it suggested that people don’t bother to vote in states where they feel it’s a foregone conclusion I don’t know how true that might be. Turnout was about 58% and about 93 million eligible voters didn’t. I don’t think you’d need to be that smart to concentrate on getting the best result from the system which is what seems to have happened.
There was a Board game named “Politics”. Showed children which states they needed to win to become president. Same applies today.
He won, so the probability of him winning is…1.
Geronimo,
Let’s do chance/probability again. First, losing the popular vote is meaningless and irrelevant. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with American football (i.e., football), but that’s like saying that the team that got the most points should have lost because the other team got more yardage. Presidents are elected by the electoral collage. Period. End of story. Stop.
Second, he won, so the chances (i.e., probability) of that happening are….1. Nothing slim there.
Geronimo, Gary Johnson won over 4 million votes and Jill Green must have won a million, so Hillary didn’t win half of the total votes cast. The 4 million votes was certainly more “Conservative” than “Liberal”.
the strong National Museum Of Play
‘Oswald B. Lord’s Game of Politics’. Produced by Parker Brothers from 1935-1960.
This website has the game description of how to become President by winning the Electoral votes needed.
http://www.museumofplay.org/online-collections/3/48/88.146
Perhaps Mr. Trump had more than just luck on his side?
The GCMs fail partly because they are so complex and partly because they use the false premise that CO2 has a significant effect on climate and that water vapor is included only as a feedback. A ‘top down’ emergent analysis works (98% match to measured temperatures 1895-2015): http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Climate science at its best:
2009 Climategate email:
Phil Jones writes that “The original data for sites for which we made appropriate adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s” is lost, but Jones continues: “we still have our adjusted data, of course.” So now the temperature record often has no discernible relation to reality!
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-case-you-missed-it-phil-jones.html
2004 ClimateGate email:
Antarctic meteorologist lists a litany of problems in collecting Antarctic temperature data, including sites that “suffer from snow accumulation” and “one of the coldest spots” not being considered: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/2004-climategate-email-antarctic.html
Read the extended excerpt at the above link and you get a picture of thermometer stations in total disarray, and obviously not reliable. We must scrap the “expertly manipulated” surface temperature data in favor of satellite data, when available.
Looks to me like an elaborate, co-ordinated warp & weft of fabricated cherry-picked data of the right hue to suit the tapestry they are weaving. If the thread and tint don’t match, it’s excluded.
BTW, are there any efforts under way to reconstruct the original (pre-homogenized) data sets? One of our vocal correspondents [???] consistently insists that they “are all there if one goes looking for them”. If the conspirators have busily been ‘burning the books’ that don’t suit what hey want us to believe from day-to-day, surely it’s imperative for that altruistic among us to OBTAIN, PRESERVE AND MAKE FREELY AVAILABLE such “deep-sixed” material, all the while retaining the base data in a secure archive.
If I remember the Danish chap who ran hidethedecline.eu had an article here in WUWT where he enumerated the written records he had collected with original temperature readings, but it would appear that his site has been discontinued. Someone with better knowledge might be able to find his WUWT article. Tony Heller might also have some information and I remember that THEGWPF here in UK also announced a few years ago they were going to investigate the surface temperature records. Nothing has been heard since the original announcement. Maybe they could not find any original records.
Maybe the Trump administration should post a cash reward for folk who can find untainted climate data. On the other hand, maybe they could also prosecute those who were responsible for altering the data – I guess the charge would be ‘Noble Cause’ corruption.
“THEGWPF here in UK also announced a few years ago they were going to investigate the surface temperature records. Nothing has been heard since the original announcement. Maybe they could not find any original records.”
No they gave up. The refused to publish any of the response folks sent to them
( data, code, descriptions of methods)
Ask Roger Pielke Sr about it.
Basically no skeptic dares to take on the job.. because the answer is the records are good, the methods
are proven, and the answers are correct.
Come Jan 20th.. every last bit of climate data will have a Trump Brand attached to it.
And skeptics will have these choices.
Leave it Stand, and thereby endorse it
Destroy it, and prove they are anti science.
Try to do a better job.
That’s it. Starting Jan 20th every last bit of data is Trump endorsed, unless they can find something wrong or destroy it.
I remember the WUWT article and conversation, too. IIRC the gentleman was quite impressive; he seemed energetic and had already archived a lot of unsullied, original data. I have occasionally over the years (and just recently) wondered about what ever happened to him and his project. Unfortunately, I don’t have the original WUWT citation, either.
I think you are thinking of Frank Lansner.
1. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/16/rewriting-the-decline/
“The great thing about old magazines is that once published, they can’t be adjusted. Jo Nova has a great summary of some recent work from occasional WUWT contributor Frank Lansner who runs the blog “Hide the Decline” and what he found in an old National Geographic…”
2. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/18/weather-balloon-data-backs-up-missing-decline-found-in-old-magazine/
“… Frank Lansner has done some excellent follow-up on the missing “decline” in temperatures from 1940 to 1975, and things get even more interesting. …”
3. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/17/frank-lansner-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011/
“Conclusion …Finally, can we then use temperature data without the above adjustment types?
Given the complexities involved with such adjustments, it is definitely better to accept the actual data than a datasets that appears to be fundamentally flawed. … .”
(In the WUWT 10th anniversary anthology, use “Ctrl-F” with “Frank Lansner” in the search box to find the above and more in his comments quoted there.)
*************************************************************
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO:
1. the WONDERFUL Mr. Lansner?
2. his excellent website, Hide the Decline?
Janice Moore December 28, 2016 at 4:32 pm
Janice he is alive and kicking if this is the same “Frank”
Hope your Christmas was good, ours was.
michael
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/interesting-and-positive-changes-in-arctic-sea-ice-volume/comment-page-1/
Hi, Mike,
Thank you for taking the time to tell me. Good to know that, at least as of August 24, 2016 (date of his final comment on the thread of the WUWT article linked by you), Mr. Lansner was okay. Hopefully, he still is!
What is the deal with his website (Hide the Decline . eu), though, I wonder?
I’m glad you had a good Christmas. Mine was good. That I was missing my most precious person on earth was a GOOD thing, for, as the tears welled up once in awhile, it made me focus higher and deeper. “God so loved… ” Pretty amazing. Grace.
Here’s to our next 365.25-day journey around the Sun!!! 🙂
May 2017 be an extra-fine year for you and yours,
Janice
Steven Mosher wrote: “Basically no skeptic dares to take on the job.. because the answer is the records are good, the methods
are proven, and the answers are correct.”
Steven, here’s a link you need to follow. Look at Figure 8, and read the “Conclusions” immediately below the graph. Your statement above is incorrect.
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf
Might be on Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://hidethedecline.eu
“cherry-picked data of the LEFT hue”
Mea culpa ….. a very bad typo!!!
Tks, Allan, for pointing-out this egregious mistake!
Happy New Year Ross!
Best, Al 🙂
Anthony says:
“I have often noted that the number of climate scientists (including both real-and self proclaimed) around the world is quite small, and those with certain areas of expertise, such as in paleoclimatology is even smaller. This leads to the problem of finding qualified reviewers for scientific papers.”
With some considerable frustration, I have been banging-on in these columns on the very subject of:
What constitutes a “Climate Scientist?
Which of the various relevant branches of Science qualify?
What min. Professional affiliations are necessary”
What Degrees and Professional credentials are essential?
Shd there not be an umbrella group, such as an Institution of Professional Climate Scientists, with Professional Rules of Conduct and Disciplinary recourse, promulgated by Gov’t Charter, to sort out the (many??) charlatans from the (few??) altruistic Scientists who aspire to the truth?
If not, WHY NOT?
I am a (retired) Professional Engineer, and we are constrained by the Rules of our respective Engineering Institutions (Civil, in my case) and by by the Council of engineering Institutions [name??] Self-regulation only comes according to their resp. Charters.
So for 30-40 years, we’ve had these charlatans riding shotgun, making their own rules as they go to suit themselves, and NOTHING I can see to rein them in. High time Climate Science was properly Regulated.
I have yet to receive a *single* response to my previous rantings on the important subject, to the extent I’m beginning to suspect that WUWT is philosophically indisposed to the idea. If so, WHY?
See “moderately cross” below.
Ross, I would argue this is what ‘they’ attempted to do with the IPCC. While not a regulating body, it attempted to create credibility much like professional engineering organizations (PEO) that the public believes has their best interests in mind. I would further argue, a governing body would be hotly contested by the same climate scientists. Why would they want minimum standards and to be upheld to a strict code of professional ethics and conduct. If you were to read through codes of conduct for any profession (Doctor, PEO, etc.), Climate Sciences would fail at many of them (Resist any influence or interference that could undermine your professional integrity or full disclosure of conflict of interests as examples).
Duncan:
Tks yr input.
But the playing-field was not level with IPCC, surely? As I understand it, their remit was premised on AGW being a fact, and to determine its extent and threat (pls correct if my memory fails).
If they were effectively the “Institution for Studies into Post-Industrial Revolution AGW”, then that begs a counterbalancing “Inst. for Paleo-Climatic Science” which studies long-run cycles, including the Holocene to date …. you get my drift. (The latter may well include a ‘Faculty of Skeptical AGW Climate Science’.)
Ross, you are correct in your above statements regarding the IPCC. Climate Change Science was not invented until the 19th century. It is not a profession unto itself. People specializing in Climate Change are made up of other sciences and professions (Geologists, Physics, Mathematics, Meteorologist, etc). I don’t think you can make a governing body just for Climate Scientists as it is an area of study/specialization only. The IPCC was the was avenue to combine these multi-disciplined sciences under one umbrella.
Duncan,
Thank you for putting into words something I have thought a long time, and why I always cringe when I hear the term, “climate science” or “climate scientist,” like it’s some new, specialized field. If “climate science” exists, it is a multidisciplinary field that includes all the professions you note plus oceanographers, biologists, sedimentologists, glaciologists, chemists, etc. I get extremely annoyed when I see people claim they are “climate scientists” or people who otherwise have no idea what they’re talking about say, “97% of climate scientists say…”
Thanks Phil, I don’t pretend to be a know it all, there are a lot of people smarter than me here. And yes there is not Climate Scientist that exists today (IMO). Like saying an Astronomer cannot understand soil composition on Mars. Science in of itself organizes (or construes in the case of AGW) knowledge. This is the fact that gets lost on the plebs. Agreed, the words “Climate Scientist” should be banded from verbal language as an oxymoron.
@Ross King.
I’m not a scientist, far from it, I was a Glasgow policeman in the 70’s/80’s before going into business, where ‘anything went’. The cultural shock was agonising!
From an environment where the slightest deviation from honesty, integrity and professionalism risked not only one’s job, but the justice for victims, that they deserved, I walked into the Wild West.
However, in its own way, there were rules, founded more on trust and the common desire to succeed, it was frequently brutal, double dealing and often self-serving. But never in 40 years of civil service and business dealings have I come across such casual, blatant, and accepted, corruption and collusion.
I don’t suppose it will ever happen, but I truly hope people like Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et al are eventually prosecuted for their attempts to serve their own purposes, irrespective of the cost to science, truth, fact, and the public good.
Your profession and my past employments are entirely undermined by these self-serving, self-opinionated, unscientific charlatans, and they are the root cause of the public’s distrust of ‘experts’, which, to the main part, is entirely unjustified.
The AGW fiasco needs to be put to bed and many of its expert promoters must be put to the stocks for ritual public humiliation in order that this type of pseudo-science is never again allowed to happen.
May the term ‘Climate Scientist’ be struck from the lexicon of scientific terms and may scientists operate in their own environment, readily admitting their own ignorance of a subject so incredibly complex, no one can hope to understand it.
Within universities there are committees to review new courses, new degree programs, and various name designations. Years ago there were various departments that included parts of “climate” things within their realm. Some were physics, chemistry, biology, history, geography, geology, bible studies, and more.
More recently, university types allowed students to follow interdisciplinary paths. A student might take several courses in each of several departments and receive an “interdisciplinary” degree. This sort of thing leads to in-fighting as to the attribution of credits and money. Did the student take most courses in a Physics Department or a History Department? Shake all of this up and after about 5 to 10 years there are “climate science” programs, that attract students, grants, and internal university clout [Deans respond to overhead $$ from outside grants].
You might visit a university with a “climate science” degree program and follow the trail of its development, then report back, and make a case for whatever you think “properly Regulated would entail. In contrast to Civil Engineering, where “professional” has a meaning with consequences, being a climate scientist does not. But might, if you are successful.
You might wish to direct your energies toward investigating the field, comparing it with “professional” fields, and making a case for whatever you think is needed.
I’m not sure where you would present your findings but the web does have some sites that might help.
Good luck.
& Happy New Year
Governments supervise executives who nominate whomever they want to the UN panels. And UN cannot refuse them. That’s how ‘climate scientist’ is defined.
Ross King should be careful what he wishes for. If there were to be some kind of professional governing body for Climate Science it would likely be dominated by the very people who have dragged the reputation of the subject – in all its allied disciplines – through the mud in the eyes of the so-called skeptic community. The extent to which money has led the political correctness of the narrative in our universities should not be underestimated.
We should also NOT allow our disgust at what is happening to be labelled as believing in a conspiracy to promote global climate alarmism, which enables the reasoned case against climate alarm to be portrayed as the preserve of cranks. What is going on is a collusion of interests coming together to form an effective but monsterous many headed hydra which has wasted trillions of dollars etc on an unsubstantiated scare.
And please don’t accuse WUWT of being some kind of accessory to any part of the collusion, it is one of the bastions or refuges of sanity in what has been going on.
Michael Mann as Czar of some professional body? No thanks!
Dear Moderately Cross:
You raise good points in yr first and last two paragraphs Sir/Madam! The foxes wd be running the chicken-farm!
As to yr 2nd., *they* have labelled us as “Cranks” to bolster their position of being the only repository of Pure Truth. The more *we* undermine this position, the more hysterically *they* are going to call *us* “Cranks”. So “Cranks” we are, and “Cranks” we’ll remain in their vocabulary … get used to it! As to your “collusion of interests”, *they* have formed a cabal of monopolizing practitioners. The big question, then, is how to dismantle it and allow dispassionate & enlightened debate to surface and prosper?
If you don’t like my idea of a governing Body to counter “a collusion of interests coming together to form an effective but monsterous [sic] many headed hydra which has wasted trillions of dollars etc on an unsubstantiated scare.”??
As to WUWT, I am merely trying to prod them into opening discussion on this topic. I find it strange that it does not appear to suit their raft of acceptable topics.
P.s. Maybe a better suggestion wd be to promote an Institution of Climate Skepticism. Now Trump might be amenable to that!
The foxes wd be running the
chicken-farmChicken Little farm! FIFY!I’m an engineer who has raised this idea several times on WUWT. The “Colonel Sanders looking after your chickens” problem would require the entire ship being righted and the old colonels having retired or died off before such a thing could be instituted. I think a broader idea would be to have all scientists under such a body regulating ethical behavior under a well crafted code. Don’t forget, medical researchers and others have a bad track record, too – cancer research, pharmaceutical research… The entire social sciences have been virtually irredeemably corrupted by socialist politics for half a century or so, perhaps with the possible exception of economics, although these days, I can’t be sure about that. Even in rightish capitalist economies, social problems are seen from a neomarxbrothers perspective: their wards are all victims of capitalism. They even invented some specialties like “social psychology” – if you aren’t a card carrying socialist, you couldn’t get a paper published in their journals. We slipped into an age of amorality. All this has to be corrected before we consider licensing anyone. Engineers, yes, incompetence, negligence and dishonesty kills people and destroys property. They are naturally foreclosed on creating airy fairy, indifferent calculations and designs.
Exactly. Ross is an engineer, so he is in a profession where the rules as to who gets in, how they practice their profession etc. etc. are all decided by engineers who get elected from time to time. Those engineers who get elected to regulate the rest of the engineers (mostly, I hope) care about the quality of engineering done in their jurisdictions, and try and set up protocols to maintain that quality. Most of these professional organisations exist under a national or sub-national statute because they can regulate people who do important stuff, e.g. engineers who design things that can be disastrous if they aren’t designed right, etc. etc. Others seem to have appeared by spontaneous generation from the members..
It’s the very last thing that we should hope for, that “climate scientists” could get to regulate who gets in to their club. They do this anyway in an informal, sort of “old boys’ club” way, plus their manipulationof the peer review process. To give them the power to exclude dissenters, and to grant them the enhanced veneer of respectability that membership in a “professional” organisation would give, would be disastrous. Let’s not give them ideas!
No, he’s not the “Czar”. Never was. He served his purpose. Now he’s the “cannon fodder”. He only still gets $$ from others for his various lawsuits because his name is still remembered as being associated with CAGW. As soon as his name is sufficiently forgotten and distanced from that original claim so as not to cause harm to “the cause”, the money will go the way just as the supporting amicus briefs from his fellow scientist were a “no show”.
Thanks for another revealing post re Climategate.
Please check your next to last closing paragraph as I think there’s a minor glitch you might want to correct. I believe from rereading the original PJ email, it was Tim who wanted to be “squeaky clean.”
“…but he wants people he’s asking to “forget” that he ever inquired about the issue so that PHIL is “squeaky clean” when it comes to his opinion.”
A minor oversight. Doesn’t change the overall thrust of the post or the perfidy revealed.
Ed
Noted, fixed, thanks
So let me see if I have this straight… Phil Jones asked Little Mikey Mann if he reviewed any papers that contradicted Mann’s own assertions in MBH98? Reviewers are supposed to be unbiased and impartial. But as we full well know, Little Mikey is incapable of such requirements, especially when it concerns his own fraudulent work. The mere fact that Jones, a leader in the climate charade movement, assumed that somehow Mann was reviewing said papers indicates that the review process is corrupt.
Wouldn’t it be amazing if our government and politicians were this behind the back manipulative?
……….not
Nothing was found because ther were looking for the incorrect word
fraud
/frôd/
noun: fraud; plural noun: frauds
wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
—————————————————————————————————-
misconduct
noun | mis·con·duct |\-ˈkän-(ˌ)dəkt\
Definition of misconduct
1: mismanagement especially of governmental or military responsibilities
2: intentional wrongdoing; specifically
: deliberate violation of a law or standard especially by a government official
—————————————————————————————————-
mal·fea·sance
/ˌmalˈfēzəns/
noun: malfeasance
wrongdoing, especially by a public official.
—————————————————————————————————-
OK WELL looking at all 3 anyone or all probably apply
Speaking of the MBH98 Hockeystick chart creation, go to this webpage and look at figure 8, and the conclusions.
Figure 8 shows Mann’s Hockeystick profile and the corrected profile together. You can see how Mann cooled the past enough so that it makes it look like things are a lot hotter today than then, but as you can also see, the corrected version shows it was hotter in the past than today. The exact opposite of what the Hockeystick chart shows. No “hotter and hotter” on the corrected chart.
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf
TYPO!
Should be:
“I’m looking forward to leading our pillagering climate research….”
“…the details of how and why the Earth’s climate is changing…”
If that’s really what he’s after, then where’s the data and the codes?
Where are Michael Mann’s UV emails?
What hide from FOIA request?
PS Thank you again, “Mr. FOIA”, whoever you are.
“I am not leaving UEA, but will continue to hide the decline on a part-time basis.”
Couldn’t resist! BTW, no investigations could find any evidence of hacking in the Climategate affair. Everything points to a leak from an internal whistle-blower.
I thought we knew for sure that the Russians did it. The CIA has proof but is not disposed to release it this century.
One of the beliefs common to these people, which the Janice Moore comment back thread exposes, is that their “opponents” are widely and lavishly funded by oil companies and other fossil fuel interests. This betrays a defense mechanism used by zealots often. To compensate for what they may recognize subconsciously is wrong behavior they invent a grand conspiracy. It also betrays a deep bias against energy companies.
Just to be sure people realize that the comment of mine which K. Kilty refers to in which Steven McIntyre is falsely labeled “fossil fuel funded” was quoting a comment by David L. Hagen. (here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/28/an-example-of-squeaky-clean-climate-science/#comment-2384101 )
Thank you for being so generous as to give me credit even for just quoting that assertion, Mr. Kilty.
YOUR point is an insightfully good one.
Sigh. I should go to bed — grr. Mr. Hagen did not falsely label Mr. McIntyre (as my sleepy writing makes it sound) — he correctly cited the false labeling done by the AGW Thugs.
Prof Timothy Osborn reads WUWT. Below are links to two comments he made to earlier articles where adjustments to HadCRUT were discussed:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/05/is-wti-dead-and-hadcrut-adjusts-up-again-now-includes-august-data-except-for-hadcrut4-2-and-hadsst3/#comment-1755584
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/05/is-wti-dead-and-hadcrut-adjusts-up-again-now-includes-august-data-except-for-hadcrut4-2-and-hadsst3/#comment-1756969
Osborn talks about homogenisation, but where else it’s used than in ‘climate science’? Even in dairy industry the product may be homogenised, but surely not microbiological test results. Luckily for us.
“I’m looking forward to leading our pioneering climate research, establishing with greater certainty the details of how and why the Earth’s climate is changing and the consequences for the future.”
They have been greatly certain for many years. Pioneering settled science. It boggles the mind how incoherent these people are.
The problem of finding peer-reviewers is common to every academic field, or at least those in the sciences. Doing an adequate job is very time-consuming, and takes time that could be spent pursuing other interests. I have had two journals in the past year ask me to review papers in subject areas for which i have no trail of research or publication for at least two decades–don’t even know how they got my name. This is a sign of desperation, though I did my best. Some journals may even ask authors for the names of potential reviewers. This enables the sort of pal review that has become so destructive in areas of research with political overtones. Shortages of reviewers explains the wide variation in quality of reviews.
A particular problem in climate research is the broad variety of skills required and the odd assortment of backgrounds employed–for example the surprising number of astronomers the field attracts (may equate to lack of other employment opportunities). It is common for a climateer to be a first rate scientist, but a very poor statistician, as many examples attest.
I and my associates have some experience here, albeit not in climate, wading through junk papers and confronting ‘cliques’. Too many paper submissions because of perverse academic incentive structures. Too little prechecking (e.g. statisticians at journals). Too much slotting (paleoclimate papers reviewed by paleoclimate ‘experts’ leads directly to the kinds of nonsense exposed by McIntyre). When over half of biomedical research is not reproducible at all by pharma, your know the system is broke beyond climate. Now add the politics of climate, abd the funding rewards, and the result is incomparably, irretrievably broken.
Oh, but it doesn’t have to be this way. Consider the “expert” view and review technique of CRU’s (now former?) Dr. Phil Jones.
In late January, 2004, Jones wrote to St. Stephen of Stanford, aka (the now late, great ‘climate warrior’) Dr. Stephen Schneider, Dr. Peter “Yuck” Gleick and cc’d to others …[my bold -hro]
See: Phil Jones keeps peer-review process humming … by using “intuition” for the rest of this excerpt in all it’s shining glory, along with my speculation regarding the identity of “Reviewer A”.
If nothing else, Jones’ “technique” makes for a “squeaky clean” review, does it not?;-)
Aaaack … penultimate paragraph above should read “,,,,in all its shining glory …”
OT but…ugh
The storm will bring heavy precipitation to Maine tomorrow afternoon into early Friday morning, with the wind increasing to over 40 mph as well. The exact track of the surface storm later tomorrow into early Friday will determine what parts of Maine see mostly rain and some mixed of precipitation and what regions remains all snow. At this time it looks like coastal Maine will see more rain than snow, while from Lewiston too Augusta on northeast through the Bangor Region sees a combination of snow and some mixed precipitation. Areas north and west of the Bangor will likely be cold enough to receive mostly if not all snow and will likely receive between 8 to 16” by the time the snow tapers off Friday morning.
will be 20 hours straight plowing I bet
Ross King: I enjoyed a faint smile at the”Sir/Madam” title, it reminded me of the advice I always gave to students about never writing formal letters asking for employment beginning “Dear Sir/Madam” as most people over the age of 16 have usually sorted out whether they wish to be a sir or a madam and schizophrenic transvestites are rare in senior managerial positions in industry.
Actually, I frankly don’t care what insults are hurled at me or the people who stand up to thuggish climate alarmists because it exposes the fact to most sensible people that they are unwilling to engage in proper and honest debate.
And I don’t even like the resort to insults we sometimes see directed at the pro-AGW proponents we sometimes see in discussion threads on WUWT . If people are prepared to argue a case within the terms of reasonable politeness they should be treated respectfully, no matter how much we disagree with their views. Most of the people who think human CO2 emissions are endangering the planet are not evil or corrupt, but they may be misled – a different thing entirely.
“If people are prepared to argue a case within the terms of reasonable politeness they should be treated respectfully, no matter how much we disagree with their views.”
I agree. Sometimes people let their frustrations get the better of them.
Dear Moderately Cross of East Anglia:
You said — as below — to which I insert my responses, prefixed thus ‘&&&’
YOU: “I enjoyed a faint smile at the”Sir/Madam” title, it reminded me of the advice I always gave to students about never writing formal letters asking for employment beginning “Dear Sir/Madam” as most people over the age of 16 have usually sorted out whether they wish to be a sir or a madam and schizophrenic transvestites are rare in senior managerial positions in industry.
&&&&& “Schizophrenic transvestites”???!!!! This is a new ‘low’ in the Climate debate. You’re wasting WUWT’s space and my time … and my patience (maybe that’s your aim? BTW, are you a functionary at UEA? Is *your* main area of interest “Schizophrenic Transvestites”?)
YOU: “Actually, I frankly don’t care what insults are hurled at me …….
&&&&&&& Are you suggesting I have “hurled insults” at you? …. You must be hyper-sensitive to so over-react — and (in the process) relegate any subsequent views of yours to dismissiveness from an academic perspective. If you engage in debate, the first lesson (as you shd tell your students) is that you must be prepared to defend your views dispassionately and in the best traditions of the Greek School.
YOU: ….. or the people who stand up to thuggish climate alarmists because it exposes the fact to most sensible people that they are unwilling to engage in proper and honest debate.
&&&&&&& “Thuggish”? Who started *that*? The conduct of the Alarmists over the years is full of thuggish bhvr. From the tenor of the ClimateGate emails, it is clear that the Alarmists’ Cabal got their own way by ‘muscling’ people around in a manner worthy of the Mafia: if not by direct physical violence, by threat of, by indicative innuendo (as in the case of Santer’s comment), by elbowing non-consenting parties out of “the Club”, out of being published, out of their tenure, out of their sources of livelihood, being discredited, and the litany of other devious means to which we have most unfortunately become accustomed.
Your proposition presupposes that Alarmists would be prepared to listen & debate the issues coherently, dispassionately, and according to Scientific Principles. Having stopped calling us “Deniers” and “Cranks”, and called-off those who would restrict our liberties (jail, no less!!!) , and started taking our arguments seriously, the “constructive period” may have a chance of evolving. My guess is that this have to wait until pigs can fly.
……
&&&&& P.S. Anthony — interestingly, from the record — in response to my (deliberately provocative) post, directed me to *your* reply. Are you his alter ego on an ad hoc basis? If so, the follow-up Q. is whether or not you (singularly) or you (plural) are UEA affiliated?
Ross King December 28, 2016 at 4:21 pm
I think you and “Moderately Cross of East Anglia” may be misunderstanding one another. Both of you are on the same side. “Moderately” is a good sort, and was speaking in general, his ire like yours was directed at the CAGW people not you. Its very easy to jump to the wrong conclusions when reading, all of the body language that people normally exhibit is missing.
It is not a good thing for allies to fight.
michael
Alter ego? No. Where the hell do you come up with that? I’m not one of those people unafraid to stand behind my own words. Your post really wasn’t all that provocative…more mind numbing if anything. Ampersands much? UEA affiliated? No, have you had a stroke?
Ross King December 28, 2016 at 4:21 pm
I found your comment objectionable and on several different levels. I don’t know if “Moderately” is connected to UEA, but I rather doubt it. East Anglia covers a very large area of England, including Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. I feel that, upon your reflection, an apology should be tendered to both “Moderately” and to Anthony.
The metafor of rats and sinking ships comes to mind.
Little fish, caught a big wave, rode it way, way, longer than he or any imagined possible.
How history will regard this particular man and the climate debate is going to be interesting. From the emails, he does not fair well, from the destruction of original data he does not fair well! So it is difficult to envisage him as a scientist.
Squeaky clean? Like torturing the data until it squeaks?
/snark
The squeaking and cleaning will start on 1-20-2017.
http://brownb315.weebly.com/uploads/8/9/4/1/8941926/squeakycleanlogo_orig.jpg
lol — good graphic find, O’s and Q’s. 🙂
So, they are just gonna keep it in the family. Did Phil give Tim tree fiddy? If he did that is why he won’t go away, damned Loch Ness Monsta!
“a string of committees found no evidence of fraud “No, no, no, that’s not what happened. A committee of strings investigated, and when they were asked if any fraud took place, they said, “we’re a frayed knot.”
[ba DUMP bump]
ps. More thought went into this joke than went into those investigations.
lol 🙂
http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm
clipe! That was SO FUNNY. Digusting, but FUNNY. “Is this for real?” I thought as I read it. I’d forgotten just HOW bad those e mails were. lol. (Sickening, though.)
Here’s to Steven McIntyre, et al.:
From the Climategate emails:
” Janice,
Most of the data series in most of the plots have just appeared on the CRU web site. Go to data then to paleoclimate. Did this to stop getting hassled by the skeptics for the data series. Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are just trying to find if we’ve done anything wrong.
Damn them! Damn their impudence!”
That is SO telling! These guys are all about deception. And so arrogant.
“But a string of committees found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”
You can’t find what you don’t look for. The string of committees ran a string of exonerations, not investigations. I read transcripts and listened to recordings of the sessions. They just didn’t ask the right questions.
IIRC Jones was able to set the the scope of the data and questions of those committees. So the result was as expected, nothing to see here, move along.
When criminals are the ones investigating their crimes of course they find no crimes. Democrat Party has built this in to a form of art, and that is where “climate scientists” go to hire their legal counsel.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7530961/Can-we-trust-the-Climategate-inquiry.html
Who was the woman (and what was the actual quote) who said something like “Who needs an inquiry when you can clearly see fraud” – or something like that ? I’m annoyed with myself that I can’t recall the exact quote.
Ross King. I think you’ve let your rage run riot here. Sorry you don’t like my humour, can’t be helped! No, not a UEA stooge or any of the other over the top nonsense you suggest. Nor do I think people ever change their mind by being insulted however, as TA points out, frustrated one gets by their resistance to change. Please feel free to ignore my occasional contributions to WUWT discussions, I’ve never regarded them as in any way definitive or of world shattering importance. But a lot of the articles and contributions are important and interesting.
FAO Janice Moore,
I do not know whether it is because I am in England that I could find this, but this pdf should be of interest.
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/AutoDMI/Statistical%20analysis%20of%20DMI%20and%20Frank%20Lanser%20data%20short%20version%20(2).pdf
He might also be on Facebook.
Thank you, Perry. That was so kind of you to do that. Perhaps it IS because I am in the U.S. that I cannot access Lansner’s site. Clicking just now on the link you provided above, I, once again, only got this grimly terse message:
Not Found
The requested URL /media/AutoDMI/Statistical analysis of DMI and Frank Lanser data short version (2) was not found on this server.
Apache / ZoneOS Server at hidethedecline.eu Port 80
🙁
If you would be so kind, if you can access Mr. Lansner’s site and if there is an e mail address/other means of contact with him, how about asking him if he’s okay and reporting back? If you would, also, let him know we U.S.’ns can’t access his site anymore. Or, just copy a bit of the most recent writing there by Frank (and note the date for us)?
Grateful for you!
Janice
Janice, the link is broken because it omits the “.pdf” at the end. If you copy the entire text WITH the “.pdf” included and paste it into your address field, you’ll see the file.
Google search.
The Arctic Sea Ice Canary Refuses to Die | Energy Matters
euanmearns.com/the-arctic-sea-ice-canary-refuses-to-die/
5 Sep 2014 – Another source for historic sea ice data comes from this amazing article by Frank Lanser in WUWT. The article displays many beautiful maps …
http://euanmearns.com/the-arctic-sea-ice-canary-refuses-to-die/
DMI’s Danske Temperaturmålinger 1873-2012 Version I – Klimadebat.dk
http://www.klimadebat.dk/…/dmis-danske-temperaturmaalinger-1873-20...
Translate this page
22 Jan 2014 – 11 posts – 3 authors
Dette er bl.a. sket via en artikel i Ekstra Bladet skrevet af Frank Lanser Klima-Frank:Temperatur-målingerne DMI ikke taler om. I denne artikel …
Southern Ocean: Udviklingen i saltkoncentrationen ? – Klimadebat.dk
http://www.klimadebat.dk/…/southern-ocean-udviklingen-i-saltkoncentra...
Translate this page
24 Aug 2014 – 1 post – 1 author
Frank Lanser hævder, at saltkoncentrationen for hele havet omkring Antarktis er voksende. Der er ikke belæg for denne påstand i de data, der …
Sahel – ørkenspredning – Klimadebat.dk
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/sahel-oerkenspredning-d13-e2721.php
Translate this page
10 Oct 2014 – 12 posts – 7 authors
Frank Lanser har i mange indlæg behandlet Sahel og selv om han som udgangspunkt afviser den menneskabte globale opvarmning og …
It is interesting to remember Climategate now, just after the US elections, and the Democratic National Committee-gate / Wikileaks-gate / Russia-gate / DNC-gate.
Several ingredients are similar in these 2 cases.
1) In Climate-gate there were furious attempts to highlight “hack” versus possible “leak”.
2) There was no acknowledgement of the corruption. In both cases the “hack” / “leak” would not have been newsworthy if it did not reveal corruption, wrong-doing, collusion, nefarious practices, lack of integrity.
3) An attempt to deflect to other news, other issues, rather than actually address the corruption and nefarious practices.
4) Massive arrogance in that there was an assumption that the public accepted these practices or that the people involved were somehow above the law.
5) Both were largely products of the left.
Climategate and Democratic National Committee-gate: same type of issue, same response, wilfull ignorance, deception, cover-up.
They are all inextricably intertwined. Problem is Democrat Party can survive without “climate scientists”, while “climate scientists” are defunded and broke without Democrat Party patrons. Really rather sad for science, letting these scumbags drag real scientists down into the political cesspool they exist in.
Anthony: Typo in your head post: “Tom” should be “Tim” in:
Janice,
I hope this works. http://hidethedecline.eu/media/AutoDMI/Statistical%20analysis%20of%20DMI%20and%20Frank%20Lanser%20data%20short%20version%20(2).pdf
I wish it had. 🙁
Thanks, anyway! 🙂
Cut & paste the whole link including the pdf in black. That works for me.
Hey! Cool. Thank you, Perry! That gave me access to the .pdf.. And that was nice. I guess, however, that what I’m looking to find I did not make clear. I hoped to find: 1) Frank’s website (and be able to access it) — and not for the site’s contents, but to see a recent post by Frank to verify if he is okay; and or 2) to hear of Frank’s well-being from some other evidence/testimony.
In other words, I’m grateful to you for the excellent content you provided. What I’m after, though, is mostly, “Is Frank Lansner okay?” (as well as a way for me and others to access his site)
Janice
Re: Hide the Decline websits
Whenever I just enter (cut and paste or any search method or directly typing it in) the Hide the Decline website in the navigation bar, it comes back with “Not used RSS …. click here to receive RSS feeds from Hid the Decline …. Login…. Username…. Password…. etc..”
websits!!!! lolololol
Janice Moore December 29, 2016 at 9:56 am
Janice I think he is fine. When you showed concern for him the first thing I checked for was an Obit. Thankfully I did not find one. I feel a bit creepy bringing the “point” up, I don’t know how else to convey the information.
michael
Thank you, Mike. No, NOT creepy. Good to know!
#(:))
Time to stop calling them scientists.
+1
Hence the use of ” ” when speaking of them. And it really pisses them off no end.
Well Yes, such is handed down to us as ‘russian hackers’ pro Trump / against Hillary – Obama:
phil-jones-retires
Climatologist Prof Phil Jones, who was at the centre of the Climategate row over hacked emails,