Two separate examples show 2007 NRC review panel was stacked, except for a “token” skeptic ...

watts up with that? ^ | November 25, 2011 | Anthony Watts

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Two separate examples show 2007 NRC review panel was stacked, except for a “token” skeptic and worked to supress dissenting science

This is pretty ugly. In 2007 the NRC was setup to review the state of climate science. The usual players were involved. Today we have two separate examples of inappropriate behavior designed to squash any scientific dissent.

First from Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. in this essay:

An E-Mail Communication Between Phil Jones and Ben Santer Indicating Inappropriate Behavior By The US National Research Council

Excerpt:

date: Mon Feb 28 08:58:57 2005
from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>

subject: Re: CCSP report review period
to: Ben Santer <REDACTED>

Ben,

Good to see you if briefly last Wednesday ! The rest of the meeting was rather odd. Some very odd things said by a few people – clearly irked by not having got a couple of proposals recently ! I’m not supposed to be contacting you ! I would urge you to write up what you presented on the day and in the report. It was the most convincing presentation and chapter of the report. You should have less to do than the other chapters. Not yet sure how the summary will fare.
We didn’t discuss the email evidence (as you put it) nor Pielke’s dissent. We shouldn’t and we won’t if the NRC people have their way.

I was never really sure what the point of the review was.

Cheers

Phil

This is a remarkable e-mail  since it indicates that the NRC was in collusion with Phil Jones  to suppress issues that I brought up as lead author on the CCSP chapter 6. Chapter 6 was tasked to focus on what further research issues need to be explored to reconcile surface and tropospheric temperature trends. Chapter 6, as it was on August 11 2005, is given in Appendix B of my Public Comment.

The e-mail also documents an inappropriate communication between a member of the CCSP committee (Ben Santer) and a member of the NRC review committee (Phil Jones).

That’s email 3614.txt which you can read here

=============================================================

Next we have this new essay from Steve Milloy

Climategate 2.0: Shocker — 2007 NRC review of hokey stick rigged by alarmists

The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Chris[t]y is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:

That’s email 4498.txt which you can read here

[BfloGuy]

The release of this batch of emails is a blessing. The impact of the first had started to wear off and, perhaps, this will help keep some pressure on Obama about his failed green subsidies and loan guarantees.

[Matchett-PI]

bttt

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Greenie Watch

[FreedomPoster]

And the woman you are remembering was almost certainly Judith Curry from Georgia Tech.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Hmmmm....

Trying to remember the name of Her website...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

WUWT had a Link:

Climate Etc

Found this article:

Two new papers vs. BEST

Has some graphs.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Found 4 articles relating to BEST on the second page:

Page2

One of them:

Best of the BEST critiques

[Marine_Uncle]

RE: "Now its getting interesting...Who set up the NRC?"
I believe we read from one of your earlier posts the National Academy of Sciences created the NRC.

[Enchante]

an aside but I hope not OT, if we wonder about the attitudes of Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and all of "The Team" in hiding data, misleading the public, refusing to cooperate properly and legally with "FOI" requests etc. the following comment from a Phil Jones email is extremely revealing (he thinks FOI only matters between govt depts and not at all for citizens!!):
[this is specific to Phil Jones and CRU contemptuously subverting the UK's FOI process, but the attitude is pervasive among these people, that they will ignore legal FOI requirements as much as possible and show only contempt for ethical and legal norms]
=========================================================
Phil Jones Shows His Contempt for Compliance with FOI in the UK

1207.txt
[About trying to circumvent FOI requests, even for the ICO]

==========================================================
cc: Tom Wigley
date: Fri Apr 3 09:39:50 2009
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Final version of agenda?
to: REDACTED

[BRIEF EXCERPT BELOW]:

.... The whole FOI was set up by government principally for government depts. The ICO generally finds for the complainant, but there are numerous cases where the government dept ignores the decision. The new department of Justice is the principal dept to ignore FOI decisions!

[Enchante]

My general point is that whether in the UK or USA, whether about our NRC panel or anything else, we’ll never get one bit of honest info out of these scumbags except by the most vigorous and continual applications of every political, legal, and institutional pressure that can be brought to bear.

They have no qualms at all about subverting FOI processes, inquiries and review panels, and all forms of oversight and accountability.

They are the Lord Masters on a holy crusade, and the rest of us are supposed to salute-obey-submit.

[Enchante]

just in case it wasn't clear, this is a quote from Phil Jones' own email, displaying his contempt (shared widely by the people on his 'team') for the idea that FOI requests from citizens should be respected or fully answered:

".... The whole FOI was set up by government principally for government depts. The ICO generally finds for the complainant, but there are numerous cases where the government dept ignores the decision. The new department of Justice is the principal dept to ignore FOI decisions!"

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks,....

I wonder if this attitude about FOIA from Citizens would interest The Committee run by Rep Issa>

[Marine_Uncle]

RE: "I wonder if this attitude about FOIA from Citizens would interest The Committee run by Rep Issa"
I would be very surprised if someone on his committee are not carefully watching what is un folding.

[Enchante]

another kind of example of dishonesty from the AGW "team".... One thing that struck an ignorant non-scientist like me as obvious from the first time I was reading about tree-ring issues and paleoclimate is that an elementary test of the tree ring data would be to see how it correlates (or doesn't) with temperature records of the past 50 years.... I mean if they don't have even that initial level of calibration they don't have ANYTHING, one might think.....

well now it is exposed that vaunted "peer review" was totally subverted by these scumbags for years, as they spread black ink like squid to obscure any serious questions and answers, even with "friendly" climate scientists.

The exchange reported on below is with a friendly and sympathetic climate scientist, Severinghaus, who simply wanted to get clear on why the tree ring data should be trusted over a millenium or more when it could not even replicate the past half century??!!! Severinghaus did not even know at the time of this exchange that Mann & co. where "hiding the decline" and a sharp divergence, he simply picked up that even the altered, fabricated graphs were not showing an appropriate "sensitivity" to the supposedly important tree ring data. Mann and Jones are FRAUDS, not honest scientists:

Mann and Jones Subvert Elementary 'Peer Review' With Dishonesty

"Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test." [climate scientist Jeff Severinghaus, questioning Mann and Jones & co. about tree ring data in pvt email]

note: this was not a formal "peer review" process for a pending journal article, but this was attempted "peer review" in the larger more fundamental sense, a highly expert peer scientist attempting to understand apparent anomalies in the work which was being used to influence public policy and potential expenditures of billions and trillions of dollars.... there was stonewalling, deception, obfuscation.... but not honest explanations and DATA that would help advance the science and "peer review"....