Ny Climategate?

[silas]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University, who is quoted in the batch of released emails described the release as "truly pathetic".


When asked if they were genuine, he said: "Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."

[Amatør1]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University, who is quoted in the batch of released emails described the release as "truly pathetic".


When asked if they were genuine, he said: "Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."

Ny rekord i å gjennomlese 5292 eposter? Mann leser fort! 

Oppdatering: Heisann, silas! Velkommen!

[ConTrari]

Hei, BoriA!

Velkommen til forumet!

Ja, det blir nok litt huskestua framover. Hva angår media her i landet, har jeg nærmest mistet all tro. De er ikke særlig sannhetssøkende eller politisk uavhengige. Kanskje vi klarer å lage så mye oppmerksomhet om dette rundt om kring, at de til slutt må?

Media er i lykkerus over å ha møtt den nye klima-guruen Climatinator. Han prediker et trivelig budskap; ikke skremme folk mer, bare fortelle alle at overgangen til karbonfritt samfunn blir enkelt, behagelig og gratis. Love and peace and SUVs.

Denne karamellen kan media suge på helt til svømmebassengene i Durban.

[ConTrari]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University, who is quoted in the batch of released emails described the release as "truly pathetic".


When asked if they were genuine, he said: "Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."

Heisan Silas, gratulerer med ditt første innlegg her! Vil gjerne takke deg for strålende innsats på VGD også! 

[Jostemikk]

Velkommen, Silas!

Kan vi ikke alle være enige med Michael Mann? Etter å ha lest et par-tre hundre av e-postene, synes jeg patetisk er en meget presis betegnelse av disse "forskerne".

Eller kan jeg ha misforstått Mann her?

[Bebben]

#3890

cc: Jerry Meehl <xxx@xxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <xxx@xxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <xxx@xxx.xxx>
date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:51:05 -0700
from: Caspar Ammann <xxxx@xxx.xxx>
subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Recommended reading?]]
to: Tom Wigley <xxx@xxx.xxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <xxx@xxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Tom and Kevin,
below the summary I just sent to a few realclimate folks for further
comment. I will keep you posted on any additional information that is
coming.
Caspar



Well, if I recall right the most recent 'venting' on climateaudit did go
towards the hurricanes and sea level. Currently their site is not
responding, and it might just be strategic... I would assume that
they are going to launch a multi-pronged approach trying to undermine a
string of arguments that are currently either in the chain to link to
GHG forcing and/or that have one of the biggest impacts in the popular
perception. Its going to be in their usual fashion: Stir up a lot of dust
and move to the next thing before anybody can answer. In the end there is
little left...


Trying to interpret a priority list from my personal feeling of this
guy. I do this based on a google-cash because his site is down or
something. So here is my hunch/speculation. I'll see if I can get the
document somewhere but I'm not very optimistic about this. By the way,
I'm also going to forward this to Susan an few others that might have
heard the rumor. Before I do send it to Susan, you might chip in on
this list for "internal and IPCC use":


- keeps bugging away about the HadCRUT3 data, looking at some individual
grid cells.

- stationarity in the climate system (see below; but my hunch is that
they go for much larger real world variability than in most models, and
thus there is a chance that its all noise; so their argument. Of course
the space-time-geophysical process framework is much stronger, but at
least this is a direction they might go; key is that models are only one
way to do detection-attribution).

- declining temperatures in Antarctica: inconsistent with polar
amplification ... not sure if he knows that central Antarctica has no
sea ice feedback, but more importantly what circulation changes can do
(difference vortex inside and outside)

- "Statistics of Rekordbreaking Temperatures": human landuse/heat island
effect; also check this paper that McIntyre has been looking at (single
point: Philadelphia and record breaking temperatures):
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0509/0509088.pdf

- hurricanes are a poisson process not driven by a systematic underlying
forcing increase.

- Arctic ice shelves: break off individual parts not unusual. Arguments
might come that initial breakup started 1930s not now and "everybody"
knows that it has been warm then when CO2 was low... etc.

- Satellite record (Mears-Wentz and also Christy): Not uniform warming
at all... he points out that S-Hem is flat.

- solar: well one could only hope that he follows the
so-idiotic-that-its-already-funny versions that Haemeranta is sending
around. Sun is as active as never before, and then the predictions are
for cooling... I think MM will try to simply say that solar
contributions have been not well included and are actually much more
important. By the way: Ammann et al. has now been accepted by PNAS,
should have a say in the solar influence...

- climate reconstructions 1 (the obvious and usual): key issues are
bring proxies up to date, contamination of all reconstruction with bad
data that is shared and thus all are wrong, secrecy in proxy data

- climate reconstructions 2: Maybe the "bomb" is their claim of
non-stationarity. Maybe they want to show that calibration on present
day is tainted with problems, jumping on the bandwagon of VS that
degrees of freedom are limiting stats. My answer of course is think
physically and use time history...  (some paper by Sonechkin, which
really doesn't understand how field reconstructions work, but the
stationarity issue is more difficult to blow off the table with
arguments... maybe we should be prepared for that one).

- climate reconstructions 3: Tree line and glaciers as indicators: It
was "warmer" before so why bother now. My answer generally is that we
have a GW signal of 30 years. If in medieval times there would have been
current temperatures for the durations as it had in these times
(different actual timing in different locations) then the so called
signal of Medieval Warm Period would be much stronger. Currently almost
nothing is in equilibrium. Glaciers are collapsing (mass!) not simply
melting and the trees take many decades to change the tree line.

- sneaking in papers into AR4 that were past deadline


--
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: xxx@xxxx.xxx  tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
--

Oppdatert: Fjernet e-postadresser

[Bebben]

#1680

date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400
from: "Michael E. Mann" <xxx@xxx.xxx>
subject: Re: Something not to pass on
to: Phil Jones <x.xxx@xxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
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

Phil Jones wrote:
>  Kevin, Mike,
>      Sending just for your thoughts. The Appendix of this attachment
> has gone
>  to SUNY Albany and is being dealt with by them. Not sure when, but
>  Wei-Chyung has nothing to worry about.
>      I've sent to Wei-Chyung and also to Tom Karl. Q is should I respond?
>  If I don't they will misconstrue this to suit their ends.  I could
> come up
>  with a few sentences pointing out the need to look at the Chinese data
>  rather than just the locations of the sites. Looking further at Keenan's
>  web site, he's not looked at the temperature data, nor realised that the
>  sites he's identified are the urban stations from the 1990 paper. He has
>  no idea if the sites for the rural Chinese stations moved, as he doesn't
>  seem to have this detail. Whatever I say though will be used for
> whatever, so it
>  seems as though I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.
>
>      Does the email suggest to you this is a request for a formal review?
>  E&E have an awful track record as a peer-review journal.
>
>  Footnote 8 is interesting. Grape harvest dates are one of the best
> documentary
>  proxies.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>> Subject: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:04 +0100
>> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>> Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>> thread-index: AcfqPgYII3NKEW8US8uwftlkhnxNhgAB/4xQAAA5K8A=
>> From: "Peiser, Benny" <xxxx@xxx>
>> To: Phil Jones <xxx@xxx.xxx>
>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 14:18:06.0729 (UTC)
>> FILETIME=[6B4F5F90:01C7EA47]
>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>
>> Dear Dr Jones
>>
>> I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged Wang fraud
>> that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of Energy & Environment
>> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene.
>>
>>
>> I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its content and
>> factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be much
>> appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17.
>>
>> I look forward to hearing from you.
>>
>> Yours sincerely
>>
>> Benny Peiser
>> Guest editor, E&E
>> Liverpool John Moores University, UK
>>
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia

--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  xxxx@xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


</x-flowed>

[Jostemikk]

Er dette vanlig oppførsel i akademiske kretser?

[seoto]

... despite them having been taken out of context.

Er dette noe vi har hørt før?

Velkommen, Silas - hyggelig å se deg i gang også her. Du, og også flere her, gjør en god jobb på VGD! Best å holde trolla i beredskap

[Josik]

Tom Nelson har sin egen oppsummering her: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived.html

[Jostemikk]

En ørliten oppsummering

Dette ble en hektisk klimadag. Naturlig nok var IPCC-skeptikerne de som var først på banen, men sannelig fulgte AGW-gjengen rimelig raskt opp, med sine sedvanlige forsøk på å tåkelegge saken. De er nærmest desperate etter å vende fokus bort fra forskere som for lenge siden har glemt å oppføre seg som forskere, og i flere år har opptrådt som politiske aktivister. Aktivister som oppfordrer hverandre til å begå lovbrudd.

De to forskjellige Climategate-sakene har bekreftet en del ting for meg. Blant annet har de nedjustert varmeperioden på 30- og 40-tallet. Dette kunne vi lese i Climategate1. Nå, i den nye saken, Climategate2, har jeg opplevd den tvilsomme gleden å kunne lese om en oppjustering av den kalde perioden fra 1950-1970.

Jeg har lenge forsøkt å sette fokus på at det ikke kan være særlig varmere i dag enn det var på 30- og 40-tallet. At mennesker som kaller seg forskere, de får statlig lønn for å være forskere, de har fått vitenskapelige utmerkelser for å være forskere, kan oppføre seg slik som denne gjengen gjør meg sjuk. At media og politikere fortsetter å støtte disse jukserne, disse politiske aktivistene, gjør meg enda sjukere.

Det som kanskje er det aller tyngste å ta inn over seg, er det ufattelig tragiske faktum at norske forskningsmiljøer fortsetter som om ingen ting har skjedd de to siste år. Alt har råtnet på rot. Yrkesstolthet og vitenskapelig integritet er kastet på havet. Jeg vil ikke skjære alle over en kam, det finnes alltid hederlige unntak. Jeg føler allikevel at skal disse miljøene ha en fremtid, er det på høy tid at folk begynner å stå fram og ta sterk avstand fra det disse klima"forskerne" har stått bak de siste årene.

[Amatør1]

Det som kanskje er det aller tyngste å ta inn over seg, er det ufattelig tragiske faktum at norske forskningsmiljøer fortsetter som om ingen ting har skjedd de to siste år. Alt har råtnet på rot. Yrkesstolthet og vitenskapelig integritet er kastet på havet. Jeg vil ikke skjære alle over en kam, det finnes alltid hederlige unntak. Jeg føler allikevel at skal disse miljøene ha en fremtid, er det på høy tid at folk begynner å stå fram og ta sterk avstand fra det disse klima"forskerne" har stått bak de siste årene.

Veldig enig i dette, Jostemikk, det er tragisk at dette er den korrekte oppsummeringen.

Disse "klimaforskerne" viser igjen og igjen at de skjuler, jukser og sletter etter eget forgodtbefinnende, de har overhode ingen forskerintegritet. Briffa, for eksempel:

date: Fri Oct 12 15:35:06 2001
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx>
subject: part c ideas
to: Stephen.Juggins@xxx.xx.xx

   Steve
I am IN GREAT CONFIDENCE attaching the Part C section of a proposal that may give a fewideas. It is really important that you don't just copy or reproduce any bits because it is not my proposal and it would be a court case in theory if a similarity was noticed. I have just had a rather heated discussion with more than one colleague and I am not able to send the C part of my own proposal - as this is definitely going to the same jury , and will almost definitely be seen by at least some mutual referees. The area is simply just to sensitive here and so I ask that you appreciate the problem and forgive my not sending that. As I said before , the proposal will have had to get through the first reviewing stage before it would be scrutinized with regard to Part C , and I really believe that the referees would accept the logic of its community value without the usual need for elaborate social context. The way forward is to push the implementation of the PAGES and HOLIVAR agendas . With the others you have I hope the one I am sending will be enough but for GODS SAKE please respect the sensitivity here and destroy the file immediately when finished and please do not tell ANYBODY I sent this. Cheers
   Keith

   --
   Professor Keith Briffa,
   Climatic Research Unit
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Er det slikt norske forskermiljøer vil være assosiert med?

[ConTrari]

Det som kanskje er det aller tyngste å ta inn over seg, er det ufattelig tragiske faktum at norske forskningsmiljøer fortsetter som om ingen ting har skjedd de to siste år. Alt har råtnet på rot. Yrkesstolthet og vitenskapelig integritet er kastet på havet. Jeg vil ikke skjære alle over en kam, det finnes alltid hederlige unntak. Jeg føler allikevel at skal disse miljøene ha en fremtid, er det på høy tid at folk begynner å stå fram og ta sterk avstand fra det disse klima"forskerne" har stått bak de siste årene.

Små, lukkede miljøer, der bare idealister har interesse av å gå mot "konsensus". Store pengestrømmer uten spørsmål. Ingen utenforstående miljøer som har mulighet eller nytte av å komme med korrektiver til de vedtatte sannheter. Nei, dette får nok putre og gå i lang tid, men innflytelsen er allerede sterkt svekket. Det kommer ingen Mars-landing, for å si det sånn  og månen er permanent formørket og tåkelagt, så der kan ingen dessverre lande.

[ebye]

Kloke og riktige oppsummerende tanker ved dagens slutt, Jostemikk, Amatør1 og ConTrari, men dog deprimerende. Anne B. Ragde har skrevet boken: Jeg vinker ikke, jeg drukner. Det gir meg en balansert oppfatning av det vi står foran. Hvis nå ClimateGate 2.0 fører til det paradigmeskifte vi venter på, ja da er det noen spørsmål som popper opp her:

Hvilken norsk klimaforsker står fram først med det hvite flagget?
Hvilken norsk klimaforsker har det "varmest" nå?
Hvordan vil Forskningsådet opptre?
Har regjeringen ryggrad nok til å holde pressekonferanse?
Hvordan vil IPCC-familien kommunisere etter dette?

Jeg setter på "Vår beste dag" - den er livgivende!

[ConTrari]

Kloke og riktige oppsummerende tanker ved dagens slutt, Jostemikk, Amatør1 og ConTrari, men dog deprimerende. Anne B. Ragde har skrevet boken: Jeg vinker ikke, jeg drukner. Det gir meg en balansert oppfatning av det vi står foran. Hvis nå ClimateGate 2.0 fører til det paradigmeskifte vi venter på, ja da er det noen spørsmål som popper opp her:

Hvilken norsk klimaforsker står fram først med det hvite flagget?
Hvilken norsk klimaforsker har det "varmest" nå?
Hvordan vil Forskningsådet opptre?
Har regjeringen ryggrad nok til å holde pressekonferanse?
Hvordan vil IPCC-familien kommunisere etter dette?

Jeg setter på "Vår beste dag" - den er livgivende!

Hvilken norsk klimaforsker står fram først med det hvite flagget?
Svar: Har vært alt for mye skittentøyvask i miljøet, intet hvitt plagg finnes.

Hvilken norsk klimaforsker har det "varmest" nå?
Svar: De er ikke reellt truet. Hvem i maktapparatet vil angripe dem, uten å bli trukket ned i søla selv?

Hvordan vil Forskningsådet opptre?
Svar: Som før.

Har regjeringen ryggrad nok til å holde pressekonferanse?
Svar: Ja, om Durban.

Hvordan vil IPCC-familien kommunisere etter dette?
Svar: Med budbringer. Som i antikken, der en hemmelig budbringer fikk tatovert meldingen i skallen, og ventet til håret var grodd ut igjen, før han ble sendt gjennom fiendens linjer. Etter snauklipp kom meldingen frem, og siste del lød: "Vennligst drep budbringeren."

Setter på Vårvisa Nordaførr. Skulle vært nasjonalsangen, synes jeg.