17 replies to this topic

[stocks]

The Hadley climate center has been hacked by a whistleblower who could no longer stand the dirt and the files have been freely posted

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@virginia.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline

From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have -

http://motls.blogspo...2009-files.html

[OEXCHAOS]

Background: K. Briffa is the lead author on one of the few remaining "Hockey Stick" supporting studies. He published a big, important paper on tree ring "temperature proxies" going way back. After stonewalling for years and years, Dr. Briffa screwed up and had to show his work. His tree ring study showing recent and "unprecedented warming"? 10-12 trees. One was such an outlier that it was responsible for most of the observed warming. If you know anything about science, you have to be saying "what the...?!?!?!?"

[stocks]

Surely these emails can’t be genuine. Surely the world’s most prominent alarmist scientists aren’t secretly exchanging emails like this, admitting privately they can’t find the warming they’ve been so loudly predicting?:


From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***



How to minimise data to exaggerate a warming trend (bold added):


From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.


http://blogs.news.co...ey_hacked#63657

[stocks]

Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists

Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.

These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.


http://canadafreepre...p/article/17102

[*JB*]

Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists

Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

http://canadafreepre...p/article/17102

James Hansen from NASA is on the e-mail circulation lists as well. He is ALSO behind the efforts to block the audit of the system of earth based temperature stations found to be WIDELY compromised by buildings, AC exhausts, asphalt, etc. that are NOW placed in such a way to raise temp records as much as 6% higher.

Also, it is interesting to note that in one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Edited by *JB*, 21 November 2009 - 08:24 PM.

[OEXCHAOS]

There's lots more on this on http://www.climateaudit.org/ Note, this is a VERY credible blog but it's running slow.

Also, www.wattsupwiththat.com is great on this stuff.

M

[Rogerdodger]

Heresy!
Heresy takes only a moment to enter into the church, yet it takes many years to get it out. May we be on guard against such things. ...

I don't believe the fraud should be exposed.
Doing so makes one both a "skeptic" and "denier."
Both charges could land you before the inquisition with Galileo who believed the earth revolved around the sun.


Skeptic: from skeptikos: thoughtful a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion.

Denier: Date: 15th century: one who denies <deniers of the truth>

Galileo, the skeptic and denier, standing against the consensus of his day.
On 22 June 1633 Galileo was forced to kneel in front of the Inquisition and recant his belief in the Copernican planetary system and the motion of the Earth. He was condemned to life imprisonment.

You may be next.

[rameshutt]

Heresy!
Heresy takes only a moment to enter into the church, yet it takes many years to get it out. May we be on guard against such things. ...

I don't believe the fraud should be exposed.
Doing so makes one both a "skeptic" and "denier."
Both charges could land you before the inquisition with Galileo who believed the earth revolved around the sun.


Skeptic: from skeptikos: thoughtful a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion.

Denier: Date: 15th century: one who denies <deniers of the truth>

Galileo, the skeptic and denier, standing against the consensus of his day.
On 22 June 1633 Galileo was forced to kneel in front of the Inquisition and recant his belief in the Copernican planetary system and the motion of the Earth. He was condemned to life imprisonment.

You may be next.

It probably won't make any difference to the opinions here or change already made up minds regardless of science, but here is another take on the subject: Real Climate

[OEXCHAOS]

Heresy!
Heresy takes only a moment to enter into the church, yet it takes many years to get it out. May we be on guard against such things. ...

I don't believe the fraud should be exposed.
Doing so makes one both a "skeptic" and "denier."
Both charges could land you before the inquisition with Galileo who believed the earth revolved around the sun.


Skeptic: from skeptikos: thoughtful a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion.

Denier: Date: 15th century: one who denies <deniers of the truth>

Galileo, the skeptic and denier, standing against the consensus of his day.
On 22 June 1633 Galileo was forced to kneel in front of the Inquisition and recant his belief in the Copernican planetary system and the motion of the Earth. He was condemned to life imprisonment.

You may be next.

It probably won't make any difference to the opinions here or change already made up minds regardless of science, but here is another take on the subject: Real Climate

It might be worth knowing that RealClimate is a propaganda blog. It's owned and operated by EMS and associated with a Washington PR firm called Fenton Communications.

From Wiki:

Environmental Media Services (EMS) is a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit organization that is "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues"[1]. EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s.

Their primary activities include holding forums that bring scientists knowledgeable in current environmental issues together with journalists, providing web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate[2], and providing recommendations to journalists trying to locate experts knowledgeable on environmental topics. They also issue press releases related to environmental issues and provide an aggregration service that disseminates recent news on environmental topics.

EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications[3][4], "the largest public interest communications firm in the [United States]"[5], which specializes in providing public relations for nonprofit organizations dealing with public policy issues. The Washington branch of Fenton shares the same address as EMS.

Fenton Communications is a public relations firm that was founded by David Fenton in 1982. They describe themselves as the "largest public interest communications firm in the country",[1] and maintain offices in Washington, D.C., San Francisco and New York. They specialize in public relations for not-for-profit organizations, and state that they do not represent clients that they do not believe in themselves.[1] Their client list includes organizations associated with a diverse array of social issues, but they are most known for their work with liberal causes such as MoveOn.org and Greenpeace.

Fenton has been criticized by some for "spreading fear" related to some environmental issues, such as pesticide control, while having only weak evidence to support their position.[2]

You don't have to deny AGW theory, but if you've done your homework, you ought to be VERY skeptical of any claims you hear about it. This is mostly politics and agenda and damned little science. Trust nothing.

[Rogerdodger]

Open debate or Punish the "skeptics"?
The newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this group, we won't send you any papers.' "