Skip to comments.
Two separate examples show 2007 NRC review panel was stacked, except for a “token” skeptic ...
watts up with that? ^
| November 25, 2011
| Anthony Watts
Posted on 11/26/2011 1:06:00 PM PST by 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
TOPICS: Conspiracy; Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: climatechange; climategate; climategate2; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; thecause
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
To: TigerLikesRooster; landsbaum; Signalman; NormsRevenge; steelyourfaith; Lancey Howard; ...
Now its getting interesting....
Who set up the NRC?
To: All
From the comments:
********************************EXCERPT********************************************
Mike Weatherford says:
Many of the people discussed in Climategate 1 and 2 work for the US Government, or are funded by the US Government. It’s quite clear by now that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is a consummate fraud, and these people are a large part of it. They not only deserve to be fired immediately, they should also lose any pension considerations they haven’t privately funded. The “Environmental Protection Agency” should be stripped of all funding used to “respond” to CAGW, and any capability to impose regulations relating to it. It won’t happen due to the person in the White House, but it should.
To: All
More:
***************************EXCERPT***************************************
jorgekafkazar says:
“The National Research Council of The National Academies of the United States is empanelling a committee to study “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past REDACTED Years”. ”
Why was this number censored? it must have read “the Past 1,000-2,000 Years” Did it look too much like someone’s phone number? The redaction algorithm seems poorly written.
To: All
A Conversation on America's Climate Choices*********************************EXCERPTS*******************************************
The National Research Council released the final report in the America's Climate Choices series on May 12, 2011. The public was invited to participate in a special event later that day -- A Conversation on America's Climate Choices, followed by a question-and-answer period and a reception.
Climate Central's Heidi Cullen hosted the conversation with several members of the report's authoring committee, including the Chair of the committee, Al Carnesale, University of California Los Angeles, and the Vice Chair, Bill Chameides, Duke University.
Other participants included:
Marilyn Brown, Georgia Institute of Technology
Donald Boesch, University of Maryland
Thomas Dietz, Michigan State University
Jim Geringer, Environmental Systems Research Institute
Philip R. Sharp, Resources for the Future
Robert Socolow, Princeton University
America's Climate Choices Final Report
 |
May 12: The National Research Council has released the final report of America's Climate Choices. The report is available now through the National Academies Press. It includes a CD of the four panel reports of the America's Climate Choices series as well as materials based on those reports.
Several members of the report's authoring committee discussed will discuss the findings in A Conversation on America's Climate Choices on May 12 (see details below).
The report finds that the significant risks that climate change poses to human society and the environment provide a strong motivation to move ahead with substantial response efforts. Current efforts of local, state, and private sector actors are important, but not likely to yield progress comparable to what could be achieved with the addition of strong federal policies that establish coherent national goals and incentives, and that promote strong U.S. engagement in international-level response efforts. The inherent complexities and uncertainties of climate change are best met by applying an iterative risk management framework and making efforts to: significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions; prepare for adapting to impacts; invest in scientific research, technology development, and information systems; and facilitate engagement between scientific and technical experts and the many types of stakeholders making America's climate choices.
Press Release
Report in Brief (pdf)
Key findings from the report (pdf)
If your organization has an important forum or event where you'd like to hear more about the America's Climate Choices studies from the reports' authors, please contact Nancy Huddleston at 202-334-1260.
For media inquiries, email the National Academies' Office of News and Public Information at news@nas.edu or call 202-334-2138.
To: All
More from the comments at WUWT to the article:
**************************************EXCERPT*************************************
Peter Miller says:
Not totally relevant, but if you want to read a lot of vindictive nonsense on the subject, you need to read the comments at Real Climate. Here is one from Anthony’s greatest fan Tamino, I thought it was very revealing about the depth of thought in the AGW cult. I promise I did not make this up, it’s real:
“Fake skeptics like Anthony Watts try to blame global warming on bad station siting. Turns out he was wrong.
Then they try to blame it on dropout of reporting stations. Turns out that was wrong.
The fake skeptics can hardly contain their worship for a new team to estimate temperature (the Berkeley team) which is started by a skeptic. They’re sure the new estimate will prove that the other estimates are fraudulent. Anthony Watts proclaims that he’ll accept whatever their results are, even if it contradicts him. It contradicts him. He refuses to accept their results. He launches into multiple tirades to discredit the new effort.
Fake skeptics try to blame global warming on UHI. Turns out they were wrong.
Fake skeptics try to claim global warming has “paused” or “slowed down” or isn’t even happening. Turns out they were wrong.
Scoundrels resort to stealing a bunch of private emails and take them out of context so they can launch a campaign of character assassination. Multiple investigations follow, the science of global warming is vindicated. Again.
The fake skeptics have got nothing. Zero. Zip. Squat. With all the real science against them, apparently their only recourse is to look for “sloppy seconds” in the stolen emails in a lame attempt to revive their smear campaign. It tells us all we need to know about the so-called “skeptics.” They are pathetic.
I’m tempted to laugh — but the health, safety, even survival of the next generation is at stake. They’ll know who it was who sealed their fate.”
Comment by tamino — 22 Nov 2011 @ 7:03 PM
To: All
More:
*********************************EXCERPT***************************************
Camburn says:
Seems like some of the “scientists” have this idea that things should be “friendly”.
Talk about absolute hogwash. The evidence that the science is settled is becoming more apparant each and every day. It is settled that GAWG is bogus through and through.
No tropical hotspot, which some sites indicate was never an issue…OH??????
Stratosphere not cooling………OH??????????
NO statistical increase in temps for the past 13 years…..unless you use fake Ocean Heat Content……which Dr. Hansen disagrees with……OH??????????
How many things need to be shown for these suedo scienstists to finally be held accountable?
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
but the health, safety, even survival of the next generation is at stake. They’ll know who it was who sealed their fate.”If its true that the next generation is all going to die, how will they know?
8
posted on
11/26/2011 1:47:29 PM PST
by
Raycpa
To: All
More:
*********************************EXCERPT****************************************
” jorgekafkazar says:
November 25, 2011 at 3:04 pm
My question is, will there be another whitewash? Or will they first have to whitewash the first whitewash?”
Well do they need to, or can they simply ignore Climategate 2. It seems the newspapers are not latching on to the significance of these emails but they are reporting the rebuttals by Phil Jones. Before throw your arms in the air and saying well the press is biased stop a moment and think.
Now I am a interested non-scientist, by profession I run a business and am an artist, who has followed this blog for years. When I look at these emails they do not jump out at me. A journalist reading this post would probably be even more in the dark.
It strikes me that the sceptic side is not getting the recognition it deserves because ordinary folk are simply a sea when it comes to understanding what is being found in these emails. The warmist put out press statements, and if you google climategate news you will find their press statements regurgitated, often word for word, by countless newspapers across the world.
Sites like WUWT are really good discussion and analyzing boards, but the product of those discussions need to passed on in a form that is usable by the press. This is why your findings are being ignored. It is not that the press are always against you, and many are, it is because you are not packaging the results of these posts in wording that can then be distributed to the average non-scientist journalist.
What I am suggesting is that the impact of all the studious research and hard work that has gone on for years on WUWT is often not reaching the public because blogs like this one do not have a press department. If this blog, and other sceptic sites, were to combine to put together a team of scientists (maybe retired but still wanting to contribute and change the world for the better) with the ability to translate stories from blog posts into press releases, then the balance of reporting in the press would shift in our direction. It is not a hard thing to do; rewrite the important stories for lay people and then send them by email to lists of friendly reporters.
You have already won the arguments, most of what is arriving on your desks is reinforcing what you already know, now you have to find a way of putting this victory in front of the press so that it will be adequately covered in the newspapers
To: All
More:
************************************EXCERPT***************************************
Bill Illis says:
There is quite a few emails in the latest batch dealing with this episode. I’m assuming Roger Pielke Sr has searched through them.
Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Phil Trenberth, Tom Karl, Tom Peterson, Peter Thorne.
These are the names that come up the most frequently associated with the more darker aspects of the emails. This is the group that forms the leadership of the coordinated suppression of dissent. Their names will go down in the future Wiki about how the global theory got so out of control.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; rdl6989; bamahead; Nervous Tick; SteamShovel; Tunehead54; golux; tubebender; ..
11
posted on
11/26/2011 2:01:46 PM PST
by
steelyourfaith
(If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
To: All
More....See post #9:
*************************************EXCERPT*************************************
Richard Hill says:
to Julian Williams…re. message not getting out and earlier comments re. wasting resources.
Commenters here keep missing the point.
The key pivot point in the issue is NOT the media.
It is NOT the politicians.
It is NOT even the climate scientists.
It is the “high priests” of science.
eg the APS the AMS and the Royal Soc in UK, and so on.
If these bodies ignore the deep uncertainies and keep promoting alarm
then all your other efforts are wasted, because the MSM and politicians will,
correctly, in my opinion, take their advice.
Instead of piling on at WUWT and other blogs, put your time into trying to influence
the “high priests”.
To: All
More:
**********************************EXCERPT*******************************************
kim2ooo says:
TheGoodLocust says:
November 25, 2011 at 4:48 pm
The name is Environmental Media Services – with ties to – Tides Foundation – Soros
More:
************************************EXCERPT*****************************************
kim2ooo says:
And Fenton Communication
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Ernest, what is the latest on the report the media was talking about how a study led by a skeptic and invested in by the Koch brothers that supposedly proved global warming and convinced the skeptic?
It was in the news for about 2 days. On the first, the news came on and on the second there was a woman saying lead scientist was holding back info that would disprove global warming. By the third day, the media dropped it like a bad habit. Any good CAGW skeptic site keeping track of that? I would google the name of the study, but I don't even know the name of the study or people involved
15
posted on
11/26/2011 2:10:17 PM PST
by
nerdwithagun
(I'd rather go gun to gun then knife to knife.)
To: All
To: nerdwithagun
The only thing that comes to mind is the Berkely Study also know as the BEST study.
Been quite a bit on it at WUWT.
To: nerdwithagun
To: nerdwithagun
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thank you for all the responses. :)
20
posted on
11/26/2011 2:40:27 PM PST
by
nerdwithagun
(I'd rather go gun to gun then knife to knife.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
