CLIMATEGATE II - FOIA 2011 has arrived! !

[marchesarosa]

TWO YEARS ALMOST TO THE DAY SINCE CLIMATEGATE I

(Here's a searchable database of the latest tranche of CRU email disclosures.

foia2011.org/index.php?id=4 )

and here is another one which combines a search of both Climategate I and II

www.ecowho.com/foia.php












In the build-up to Durban
another miracle has happened?

tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived/

[marchesarosa]

Tallbloke says: OK, it’s genuine, and as far as I can tell, virus free.

Message to ‘FOIA’

Thank you, whoever you are, freedom of information is a principle worth upholding.

Here’s the README contents:

/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
to publicly release the passphrase.

We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
as…


/// The IPCC Process ///

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]
<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.
<3456> Overpeck:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?
<1104> Wanner/NCCR:

In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I critcized [...] the Mann hockeytick [...]
My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the
internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.
<0414> Coe:

Hence the AR4 Section 2.7.1.1.2 dismissal of the ACRIM composite to be
instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial. Similarly IPCC
in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on
the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to
reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in
the ISSI workshop. All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2
for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since
methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing.

<2009> Briffa:

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
<2775> Jones:

I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.
<1219> Trenberth:

[...] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the
stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting
Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report
saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. [...] I am leaning
toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a
Japanese.
<0890> Jones:

We can put a note in that something will be there in the next draft, or Kevin
or I will write something – it depends on whether and what we get from Japan.
<0170> Jones:

Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does
say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.
<0714> Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.
<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)
<4923> Stott/MetO:

My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement ["probably the
warmest of the last millennium"] in or whether I should remove it in the
anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we’ll have withdrawn
this statement – Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.

/// Communicating Climate Change ///

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.
<0813> Fox/Environment Agency:

if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.
<4716> Adams:

Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
<1790> Lorenzoni:

I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion [...] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
evolving phenomenon
<3062> Jones:

We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written
[...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.
<1485> Mann:

the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.
<2428> Ashton/co2.org:

Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to
one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. [...] the most
valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
possible
<3332> Kelly:

the current commitments, even with some strengthening, are little different
from what would have happened without a climate treaty.
[...] the way to pitch the analysis is to argue that precautionary action must be
taken now to protect reserves etc against the inevitable
<3655> Singer/WWF:

we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy
<0445> Torok/CSIRO:

[...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change
<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media

Kjellen:

I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming

Pierrehumbert:

What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

/// The Medieval Warm Period ///

<5111> Pollack:

But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.
<5039> Rahmstorf:

You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
solar forcing
<5096> Cook:

A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
“Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.

/// The Settled Science ///

<0310> Warren:

The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases [...] As it stands
we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.
<1682> Wils:

[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]
<2267> Wilson:

Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially
since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models,
surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the
models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from
the sun alone.
<5289> Hoskins:

If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone
up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the
warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.
<5315> Jenkins/MetO:

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?
<2292> Jones:

[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.
<1788> Jones:

There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent
extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist.
<4693> Crowley:

I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
cost of damaged personal relationships
<2967> Briffa:

Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
real?
<2733> Crowley:

Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.
<2095> Steig:

He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he
thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the
supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.
<0953> Jones:

This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.
<4944> Haimberger:

It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
<4262> Klein/LLNL:

Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some
negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface
warming do this
<2461> Osborn:

This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however,
it raises some interesting results [...] the analysis will not likely lie near to
the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind
this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.
<4470> Norwegian Meteorological Institute:

In Norway and Spitsbergen, it is possible to explain most of the warming after
the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940
cannot be explained in this way.

/// The Urban Heat Effect ///

<4938> Jenkins/MetO:

By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI
has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”.
<0896> Jones:

I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can’t
think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the
data that makes by their Figure 3.
<0044> Rean:

[...] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.
This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.
[...] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately,
when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.
<4789> Wigley:

there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets –
we don’t want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].

Jones:

The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at
all Californian sites.
<1601> Jones:

I think China is one of the few places that are affected [urban heat]. The
paper shows that London and Vienna (and also New York) are not affected in the
20th century.
<2939> Jones:

[...] every effort has been made to use data that are either rural and/or where
the urbanization effect has been removed as well as possible by statistical
means. There are 3 groups that have done this independently (CRU, NOAA and
GISS), and they end up with essentially the same results.
[...] Furthermore, the oceans have warmed at a rate consistent with the land.
There is no urban effect there.

/// Temperature Reconstructions ///

<1583> Wilson:

any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.
<4165> Jones:

what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.
<3994> Mitchell/MetO

Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no
<4241> Wilson:

I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
<3373> Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.
<4758> Osborn:

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
<0886> Esper:

Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don’t you want to let the result into science?
<4369> Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.
<5055> Cook:

One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.

/// Science and Religion ///

<2132> Wigley:

I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse
skeptics have extreme religious views.
<4394> Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]

[...] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the
Earth [...] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We
must pray that they pick up that message.
<0999> Hulme:

My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a
job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of
God’s planet into research and action.
<3653> Hulme:

He [another Met scientist] is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about
the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting.

/// Climate Models ///

<3111> Watson/UEA:

I’d agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
scale. But the “big climate picture” includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time.
<5131> Shukla/IGES:

["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
<2423> Lanzante/NOAA:

While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a
lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model
or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so
that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the
breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.
<1982> Santer:

there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
tests we’ve applied.
<0850> Barnett:

[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
<5066> Hegerl:

[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
<4443> Jones:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
level clouds.
<4085> Jones:

GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
correct.

/// The Cause ///

<3115> Mann:

By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
<3940> Mann:

They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.
<0810> Mann:

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause
<3594> Berger:

Phil,
Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.
<0121> Jones:

[on temperature data adjustments] Upshot is that their trend will increase
<4184> Jones:

[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! [...] Even though it’s been a mild winter in
the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the
La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!
<5294> Schneider:

Even though I am virtually certain we shall lose on McCain-Lieberman, they are
forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate policy

/// Freedom of Information ///

<2440> Jones:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process
<2094> Briffa:

UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails]
anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.
<2459> Osborn:

Keith and I have just searched through our emails for anything containing
“David Holland”. Everything we found was cc’d to you and/or Dave Palmer, which
you’ll already have.
<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:

As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
<1577> Jones:

[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data.

files.sinwt.ru/download.php?file=25FOIA2011.zip

[marchesarosa]

Here's a gem!

1680.txt

date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: Re: Something not to pass on
to: Phil Jones

Phil,

I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of
context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly
publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you
provide. s They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there
is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should
consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.

I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an
investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his
thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the
same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and
discrediting them.

Do you mind if I send this on to Gavin Schmidt (w/ a request to respect
the confidentiality with which you have provided it) for his additional
advice/thoughts? He usually has thoughtful insights wiith respect to
such matters,

mike

[marchesarosa]

Amy Ridenour at WUWT says


Interesting that Mann (in the Guardian story at www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails ) asserts that the emails were released by “agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry” when no one but those involved in the release knows the indentity of the leaker/whistleblower/hacker/sharer and the emails have not even yet been verified as genuine, even though he seems to suspect they are.

Even if we knew nothing of Michael Mann before, we would have to wonder about the reliability of a man who will confidently announce to a major newspaper the motives of a person or person whose identity is (presumably) unknown to him.


--------

Yes, he's a prat!

[marchesarosa]

Here's another email exchange (1695.txt) between Wigley, Hulme and Mann about the decision by Climate Research to carry the Soon and Baliunas article that concluded "Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium. "

-----------


cc: Mike Hulme <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Ben Santer <[e-mail]>
date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 07:51:43 -0600
from: Tom Wigley <[e-mail]>
subject: Re: Fwd: Climate Research
to: "Michael E. Mann" <[e-mail]>


Mike (Mann),
I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone. However,
what would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively
tell people to avoid the journal?
Tom.
__________________________________

Michael E. Mann wrote:
> Thanks Mike
>
> It seems to me that this "Kinne" character's words are disingenuous, and
> he probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we
> have to go above him.
>
> I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in
> this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all
> levels--reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way
> into oblivion and disrepute,
>
> Thanks,
>
> mike
>
> At 01:00 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Mike Hulme wrote:
>
>> Phil, Tom, Mike,
>>
>> So, this would seem to be the end of the matter as far as Climate
>> Research is concerned.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>> To
>>> CLIMATE RESEARCH
>>> Editors and Review Editors
>>>
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>> In my 20.06. email to you I stated, among other things, that I would
>>> ask CR editor Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the
>>> reviewers' evaluations for the 2 Soon et al. papers.
>>>
>>> I have received and studied the material requested.
>>>
>>> Conclusions:
>>>
>>> 1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented
>>> detailed, critical and helpful evaluations
>>>
>>> 2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested
>>> appropriate revisions.
>>>
>>> 3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly.
>>>
>>> Summary:
>>>
>>> Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Otto Kinne
>>> Director, Inter-Research

[marchesarosa]

Another on the same theme from Wigley, email 1700.txt


cc: Jonathan Overpeck <[e-mail]>, "Michael E. Mann" <[e-mail]>, Caspar M Ammann <[e-mail]>, Raymond Bradley <[e-mail]>, Keith Briffa <[e-mail]>, Tom Crowley <[e-mail]>, Malcolm Hughes <[e-mail]>, Phil Jones <[e-mail]>, Tim Osborn <[e-mail]>, Kevin Trenberth <[e-mail]>, Ben Santer <[e-mail]>, Steve Schneider <[e-mail]>
date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:13:12 -0600
from: Tom Wigley <[e-mail]>
subject: Re: letter to Senate
to: Michael Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>

<x-flowed>
Folks,

Here are some thoughts about the Soon issue, partly arising from talking
to Ben.

What is worrying is the way this BS paper has been hyped by various
groups. The publicity has meant that the work has entered the
conciousness of people in Congress, and is given prominence in some
publications emanating from that sector. The work appears to have the
imprimateur of Harvard, which gives it added credibility.

So, what can we as a community do about this? My concerns are two-fold,
and I think these echo all of our concerns. The first is the fact that
the papers are simply bad science and the conclusions are incorrect. The
second is that the work is being used quite openly for political purposes.

As scientists, even though we are aware of the second issue, we need to
concentrate on exposing the scientific flaws. We also need to do this in
as authoritative a way as possible. I do not think it is enough to speak
as individuals or even as a group of recognized experts. Even as a
group, we will not be seen as having the 'power' of the Harvard stamp of
approval.

What I think is necessary is to have the expressed support of both AGU
and AMS. It would also be useful to have Harvard disassociate themselves
from the work. Most importantly, however, we need the NAS to come into
the picture. With these 4 institutions, together with us (and others) as
experts, pointing out clearly that the work is scientific rubbish, we
can certainly win this battle.

I suggest that we try to get NAS to set up a committee to (best option)
assess the science in the two BS papers, or (less good, but still
potentially very useful) assess the general issue of the paleo record
for global- or hemispheric-scale temperature changes over the past 1000
years. The second option seems more likely to be acceptable to NAS. This
is arguably an issue of similar importance to the issue of climate
sensitivity uncertainties which NAS reviewed earlier this year (report
still in preparation).

I am not sure how to fold AGU and AMS into this -- ideas are welcome.
Similarly, perhaps some of you know some influential Harvard types
better than I do and can make some suggestions here.

The only way to counter this crap is to use the biggest guns we can
muster. The Administration and Congress still seem to respect the NAS
(even above IPCC) as a final authority, so I think we should actively
pursue this path.

Best wishes,
Tom.

[marchesarosa]

Shub Niggurath takes a cool view of the shennanigans
nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-ii-more-skeletons-in-the-closet-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comments

....A few things however seem to be clear. Climate scientists entertain the same kinds of questions that the skeptics ask around on blogs. They have a conscience, they are human, and they are emotional. As observers and members of the lay public skeptics may freely criticize anyone, but as working professionals, scientists cannot be as free and open with their fellow colleagues. Would you run around your office or workplace loudly gossiping about your co-worker?

But these scientists do criticize, and they do recognize the points that the skeptics have to make. A few of them unfortunately appear to be victims and continue to want to be victims of an earlier archaic worldview, that ‘data belongs to the scientists’. One is reminded of the case of Geoffrey Chamberlain, who unwittingly lent his name to a dubious case report, simply because ‘that is how things were always done’ and had to resign. But that bane of the modern world called ‘global policy’, and countless lives literally depend on open access to data and methods now. The old style of squirreling away data and publicly-funded professors hiding behind ‘intellectual property rights’, is going out of fashion.

And then, there clearly are the bad apples. A bunch of a new breed of scientist-activists, with whom it is difficult to discern what hat they are wearing, even in private. One feels sad for their colleagues who have to read their messages and keep a straight face.

[marchesarosa]

Can there be any doubt that Team members conspired to distort and control the Peer Review process? These conversations concern the Soon and Baliunas papers.




From email 4808.txt

date: Fri, 16 May 2003 16:11:04 -0400
from: "Michael E. Mann" <REDACTED>
subject: Re: Climate Research and adequate peer review
to: Mike Hulme <REDACTED>

Dear Mike

Did anything ever come of this?

Clare Goodness was in touch w/ me indicating that she had discussed the matter w/ Von Storch, and that DeFrietas would be relieved of his position. However, I haven't heard anything.
A large segment of the community I've been in contact with feels that this event has already done its damage, allowing Baliunas and colleagues to attempt to impact U.S. governmental policy, w/ this new weapon in hand--the appearance of a legitimate peer-reviewed document challenging some core assertions of IPCC to wave in congress.
They appear to be making some headway in using this to influence U.S. policy, which makes our original discussions all the more pressing now.
In this context, it seems important that either Clare and Von Storch take imminent action on this, or else actions of the sort you had mentioned below should perhaps be strongly considered again.
Non-action or slow action here could be extremely damaging. I'll forward you some emails which will indicate the damage that the publication has already caused.
Thanks very much for all your help w/ this to date, and for anything additional you may beable to do in this regard to move this forward.

best regards,
mike

At 06:47 PM 4/16/REDACTEDyou wrote:

Dear Co-Review Editor,
You may or may not have seen/read the article by Soon and Baliunas (from the Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysics Lab) in the JanREDACTEDissue of CR (volREDACTEDA variant of this analysis has just been published in the journal Energy and Environment.
The authors/editor made a big media campaign to publicise this work, claiming it showed clearly the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century and that the IPCC (and other) analysis claiming the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium was plain wrong.
In the UK, the Sunday Telegraph ran the story. I have followed some email discussion about this amongst concerned paleoclimate experts here at UEA, in the USA and in Oz and NZ and their is overwhelming consensus that the Soon and Baliunas work is just crap science that should never be passed peer review (for a flavour see Mike Mann, Phil Jones and Barrie Pittock below).
These paleo-experts have decided it is not worth a formal scientific response since the story has not run that widely in the mass media (although is now used by sceptics of course to undermine good science) and that the science is so poor it is not worth a reply.
The CR editor concerned is Chris de Freitas and I have followed over the years papers in CR that he has been responsible for reviewing. [Wolfgang Cramer resigned from CR a few years ago over a similar concern over the way de Freitas managed the peer review process for a manuscript Wolfgang reviewd].
Whilst we do not know who reviewed the Soon/Baliunas manuscript, there is sufficient evidence in my view to justify a "loss of confidence" in the peer review process operated by the journal and hence a mass resignation of review editors may be warranted.
This is by no means a one-off - I could do the analysis of de Freitas's manuscripts if needbe.
I am contacting the seven of you since I know you well and believe you may also have similar concerns to me about the quality of climate change science and how that science is communicated to the public.
I would be interested in your views on this course of action - which was suggested in the first place my me, once I knew the strength of feeling amongst people like Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, Tom Crowley, etc.
CSIRO and Tyndall communication managers would then think that a mass resignation would draw attention to the way such poor science gets into mainstream journals.
Of course, we would need to be sure of our case and to argue on grounds of poor conduct of peer review (I can forward a devastating critique of the Soon/Baliunas method from Barrie Pittock if you wish) rather than on disagreeable content of one manuscript.
CR does of course publish some good science, but the journal is not doing anyone a service by allowing crap science also to be published.

Thoughts please,

Mike
______________________________________
FROM MIKE MANN

Dear all,

Phil relayed this message to me--this echos discussions that others of us here have had as well, and at Phil's request, I'm forwarding some of these (Phil seems to have deleted them). I am encouraged at the prospect of some sort of action being taken.
The "Energy and Environment" piece is an ad hominem attack against the work of several of us, and could be legally actionable, though I don't think its worth the effort.
But more problematic, in my mind, is the "Climate Research" piece which is a real challenge to the integrity of the peer-review processes in our field.
I believe that a boycott against publishing, reviewing for, or even citing articles from "Climate Research" is certainly warranted, but perhaps the minimum action that should be taken.
A paper published there last year by a University of Virginia "colleague" of mine who shall remain nameless contained, to my amazement, an ad hominem attach against the climate modeling community, and the offending statement never should have seen the light of day (nor should have any of the several papers of his which have been published there in recent years, based on quality and honesty standards alone).
A formal statement of "loss of confidence" in the journal seems like an excellent idea.
It may or may not be useful for me to be directly involved in this, given that I am a primary object of attack by these folks. However, I'm happy to help in any way that I can, and please keep me in the loop.

best regards,
Mike Mann


FROM PHIL JONES

Dear All,
There have been a number of emails on these two papers. They are bad. I'll be seeing Hans von Storch next week and I'll be telling him in person what a disservice he's doing to the science and the status of Climate Research.
I've already told Hans I want nothing more to do with the journal. Tom Crowley may be writing something - find out also next week, but at the EGS last week Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes and others decided it would be best to do nothing.
Papers that respond to work like this never get cited - a point I'm trying to get across to Hans.
We all have better papers to write than waste our time responding to drivel like this.

Cheers

Phil Jones

FROM BARRIE PITTOCK

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I hope the co-editors of 'Climate Research' can agree on some joint action. I know that Peter Whetton is one who is concerned. Any action must of course be effective and also not give the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr - the charge should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than publishing contrarian views as such.
If a paper is contested by referees that should at least be stated in any publication, and minimal standards of statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on. Bringing the journal and publisher into disrepute may be one reasonable charge.
'Energy and Environment' is another journal with low standards for sceptics, but if my recollection is correct this is implicit in their stated policy of stirring different points of view - the real test for both journals may be whether they are prepared to publish refutations, especially simultaneously with the sceptics' papers so that readers are not deceived.
On that score you might consider whether it is possible to find who de Freitas got to review various papers and how their comments were dealt with.
I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a reviewer.

Cheers,
Barrie Pittock.

[marchesarosa]

Prof Roger Pielke Jr discusses how Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth kept his work on hurricanes out of the IPCC Assessment Report 4 and references the newly leaked emails.

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/foia2011-on-shameful-paper.html

Roger says of the IPCC

its review of the literature somehow missed key articles that one of its authors (in this case Trenberth, the lead for the relevant chapter) found to be in conflict with his personal opinions, or in this case "shameful." Of course, there is a deeper backstory here involving a conflict between my co-author Chris Landsea and Trenberth in early 2005, prompting Landsea to resign from the IPCC.

So almost seven years after we first submitted our paper how does it hold up? Pretty well I think, on all counts. I would not change any of the conclusions above, nor would I change the reply to Anthes et al. Science changes and moves ahead, so any review will eventually become outdated, but ours was an accurate reflection of the state of science as of 2005.

-----------

One of the commenters on Roger's blog, Paul M said

The email is number 4972.txt in case people want to read the whole thing.

This is by no means the only paper on hurricanes that Phil and Kev decided to leave out of AR4 because it didn't tell the story they wanted to tell.

There's also Henderson-Sellers et al 1998, "Tropical Cyclones and Global Climate Change:A Post-IPCC Assessment" which found 'no clear evidence of long-term trends', and Wu et al 2006, "Trends in Western North Pacific Tropical Cyclone Intensity" which also found no trend.

[marchesarosa]

The set-to between Chris Landsea, a hurricane expert, and Kevin Trenberth, co-ordinating lead author for the IPCC AR4 has already been highlighted here

Chris Landsea Hurricanes and storm damage
« Thread Started on Dec 4, 2009, 11:22am »

thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=22

See this open letter to his colleagues at the University of Co,orado explaining Chris Landea's resignation from the IPCC process
sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html


17 January 2005
Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation - though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements – would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely, Chris Landsea

Attached are the correspondence between myself and key members of the IPCC FAR, Download file cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/ipcc-correspondence.pdf



See also this subsequent article on the resignation spat between Landsea and Trenberth by Lawrence Solomon

Dr Christopher Landsea (lovely name for an oceanographer)

is a hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science. He received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society's committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Banner I. Miller Award for the "best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting." He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,Journal of Climate, and Nature.

When the United Nations decided to study the relationship between hurricanes and global warming for the largest scientific endeavour in its history it called upon his expertise and he became a contributing author for the UN's second International Panel on Climate Change in 1995, writing the sections on observed changes in tropical cyclones around the world. Then the IPCC called on him as a contributing author once more, for its "Third Assessment Report" in 2001. He was invited to participate yet again as an author in the "Fourth Assessment Report." This report would specifically focus on Atlantic hurricanes, his specialty, and would be published by the IPCC in 2007.

Then something went wrong. Within days of the invitation, in October, 2004, he discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth (one of the CRU “Climategate” conspirators) -- the very person who had invited him -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed Landsea - "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." This was some kind of mistake because he not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.

Equally perplexing was the fact that none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability. Neither were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability, showed NO reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin.

To add to the utter incomprehensibility of the press conference, the IPCC itself, in both 1995 and 2001, had found no global warming signal in the hurricane record. And until Landsea’s new work would come out, in 2007, the IPCC would not have a new analysis on which to base a change of findings.

To stop the press conference, or at least stop any misunderstandings that might come out of it, Landsea contacted Dr. Trenberth prior to the media event. He prepared a synopsis for him that brought him up to date on the state of knowledge about hurricane formation. To his amazement, he simply dismissed Landsea’s concerns. The press conference proceeded.

And what a press conference it was! Hurricanes had been all over the news that summer. Global warming was the obvious culprit -- only a fool or an oil-industry lobbyist, the press made clear, could ignore the link between what seemed to be ever increasing hurricane activity and ever increasing global warming. The press conference didn't disappoint them. The climate change experts at hand all confirmed the news that the public had been primed to hear: Global warming was causing hurricanes. This judgement from the scientists made headlines around the world, just as it was intended to do. What better way to cast global warming as catastrophic than to make hurricanes its poster child?

Landsea was outraged at the mockery made of his scientific field. He wrote to top IPCC officials, imploring: "Where is the science, the refereed publications, that substantiate these pronouncements? What studies are being alluded to that have shown a connection between observed warming trends on the earth and long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity? As far as I know, there are none." But no one in the IPCC leadership showed the slightest concern for the science. The IPCC's overriding preoccupation, it soon sunk in, lay in capitalizing on the publicity opportunity that the hurricane season presented.

He then asked the IPCC leadership for assurances that his work for the IPCC's 2007 report would be true to science: "[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have already come to the conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity and has publicly stated so. This does NOT reflect the consensus within the hurricane research community. ... Thus I would like assurance that what will be included in the IPCC report will reflect the best available information and the consensus within the scientific community most expert on the specific topic."

It was not to be, The politicos driving the IPCC bandwagon and the small netwrok of politically motivate scientists ignored all findings which did not fit the catastrophism “scenario”.

From an article by Lawrence Solomon in the National Post 8 Dec 2006

[marchesarosa]

Here's a searchable database of the latest tranche of CRU email disclosures.

foia2011.org/index.php?id=4


and here is another one which combines a search of both Climategate I and II

www.ecowho.com/foia.php

[marchesarosa]

Prof Roy Spencer speaks about the latest email disclosures
www.drroyspencer.com/2011/11/climategate-2-0-bias-in-scientific-research/#comments

Climategate 2.0: Bias in Scientific Research
November 23rd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Ever since the first Climategate e-mail release, the public has become increasingly aware that scientists are not unbiased. Of course, most scientists with a long enough history in their fields already knew this (I discussed the issue at length in my first book Climate Confusion), but it took the first round of Climategate e-mails to demonstrate it to the world.

The latest release (Climategate 2.0) not only reveals bias, but also some private doubts among the core scientist faithful about the scientific basis for the IPCC’s policy goals. Yet, the IPCC’s “cause” (Michael Mann’s term) appears to trump all else.

So, when the science doesn’t support The Cause, the faithful turn toward discussions of how to craft a story which minimizes doubt about the IPCC’s findings. After considerable reflection, I’m going to avoid using the term ‘conspiracy’ to describe this activity, and discuss it in terms of scientific bias.

It’s Impossible to Avoid Bias

We are all familiar with competing experts in a trial who have diametrically opposed opinions on some matter, even given the same evidence. This happens in science all the time.

Even if we have perfect measurements of Nature, scientists can still come to different conclusions about what those measurements mean in terms of cause and effect. So, biases on the part of scientists inevitably influence their opinions. The formation of a hypothesis of how nature works is always biased by the scientist’s worldview and limited amount of knowledge, as well as the limited availability of research funding from a government that has biased policy interests to preserve.

Admittedly, the existence of bias in scientific research – which is always present — does not mean the research is necessarily wrong. But as I often remind people, it’s much easier to be wrong than right in science. This is because, while the physical world works in only one way, we can dream up a myriad ways by which we think it works. And they can’t all be correct.

So, bias ends up being the enemy of the search for scientific truth because it keeps us from entertaining alternative hypotheses for how the physical world works. It increases the likelihood that our conclusions are wrong.

The IPCC’s Bias

In the case of global warming research, the alternative (non-consensus) hypothesis that some or most of the climate change we have observed is natural is the one that the IPCC must avoid at all cost. This is why the Hockey Stick was so prized: it was hailed as evidence that humans, not Nature, rule over climate change.

The Climategate 2.0 e-mails show how entrenched this bias has become among the handful of scientists who have been the most willing participants and supporters of The Cause. These scientists only rose to the top because they were willing to actively promote the IPCC’s message with their particular fields of research.

Unfortunately, there is no way to “fix” the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.

I believe that most of the hundreds of scientists supporting the IPCC’s efforts are just playing along, assured of continued funding. In my experience, they are either: (1) true believers in The Cause; (2) think we need to get away from using fossil fuels anyway; or (3) rationalize their involvement based upon the non-zero chance of catastrophic climate change.

My Biases

I am up front about my biases: I think market forces will take care of the fact that “fossil” fuels are (probably) a limited resource. Slowly increasing scarcity will lead to higher prices, which will make alternative energy research more attractive. This is more efficient that trying to legislate new forms of energy into existence.

I also think currently proposed energy policies will cause widespread death and suffering. The IPCC not only destroys scientific objectivity and scientific progress, it also destroys lives.

Therefore, I view it as my moral duty to support the “forgotten science” of natural climate change, a class of alternative hypotheses that have all but been ignored by the IPCC and government funding agencies.

I hope I am correct that most climate change we have experienced is natural. But I also know that “hoping” doesn’t make it so. If I had new scientific evidence that human-caused climate change really was a threat to life on Earth, I would publish it. It would sure be easier to publish than evidence against.

But from everything I’ve seen, I still think Nature probably rules, and that humans (as part of nature) also have some unknown level influence on climate. We know that the existence of trees affects climate – why not the existence of humans?

Countering the Bias

Scientists are human, and so you will never remove the tendencies toward bias in scientific research. You can’t change human nature.

But you can level the playing field by supporting alternative biases.

For years John Christy and I have been advising Congress that some portion of the appropriated funds for federal agencies supporting climate change research should be mandated to support alternative hypotheses of climate change. It’s time for the pendulum to start swinging back the other way.

After all, scientists will go where the money is. If scientists are funded to find evidence of natural sources of climate change, believe me, they will find it.

If you build such a playing field, they will come.

But when only one hypothesis is allowed as the explanation for climate change (e.g. “the science is settled”), the bias becomes so thick and acrid that everyone can smell the stench. Everyone except the IPCC leadership, that is

[marchesarosa]

Steve Fitzpatrick on the Air Vent says this about the latest release of emails
noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/upside-down-tiljander-is-bad-who-knew/#comment-58479

....... the most surprising message in many of these emails is the level of questioning/doubt among wroking climate scientists, which neither makes it to public discussion nor into the literature. The leadership (Trenberth, Mann, Jones, and the rest of the cabal) show not a hint of doubt, and are 100% pulling for ‘the cause’, but the troops seem a lot less certain.

The encouraging thing is (I guess) that these folks are a lot more aware of the many weaknesses in the CAGW argument than they ever let on publicly, which speaks well of their intellect. The discouraging thing is that, well, they never do let on about their doubts, which speaks rather poorly of their courage….. and the social environment they must work in. Climate science is not healthy; the top brass needs to go.

[marchesarosa]

Stuck-record on Bishop Hill says
bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/11/24/jones-and-the-absence-of-snow.html

The contempt shown in the emails for 'Deniers' is palpable and obvious, but the big surprise is the outrage directed at otherwise sympathetic scientists, politicians and media who either don't do exactly as they are told, are not precisely on-message enough, or attempt (God forbid) to think for themselves.

This leads me more and more to believe that the leaker is an inside source. Someone at UEA (probably) was sick to death of being spoken to like that by these guys.

[striker16]

David Attenborough is the man I listen to. How can someone of his stature be wrong about AGW?