Posted on 11/20/2009 2:58:40 PM PST by PapaBear3625
Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.google.com ...
At that point not a word will be ever again spoken about it being solid proof of the global warming scam conspiracy.
Don’t we have enough evidence of this already? Including from the Grand-High NASA Poo-bah, whatever his name is?
“..... climate scientists conspired to overstate ..”
Overstate ? Overstate! Give me a break. They weren’t trying to “overstate” a damn thing.
Motivated by greed, political persuasion and their twisted desire for recognition and advancement, these so called scientists conspired to deceive the world.
A lie is not an overstatement... it’s a damn lie, period.
Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable ( Global Warming Hoax exposed....)
Credit for finding this goes to winoneforthegipper
Belief in man-caused is a religion, and not subject to scientific method.
Not that they would admit. They certainly are trying to defend something they have taken on faith, but can’t show on paper.
I read my database (Bible) almost every day.
See the link at #26...lots of folks digging up good stuff.
#1 1196795844.txt
From: "Kevin Trenberth" To: "Andrew Revkin" Subject: Re: clearing up climate trends sans ENSO and perhaps PDO? Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:33:44 -0600 (MDT) Reply-to: trenbert@ucar.edu Cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, mann@psu.edu, davet@atmos.colostate.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk, wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov, ackerman@atmos.washington.edu, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, tbarnett-ul@ucsd.edu, sarachik@atmos.washington.edu, peter.thorne@metoffice.gov.uk, john.kennedy@metoffice.gof.uk, cwunsch@mit.edu Andy Here's some further results, based on the time series for 1900 to 2007 Results: (0) correlation between ENSO and PDO: for the smoothed IPCC decadal filter: 0.490662 (0) correlation between ENSO and PDO: for the annual means: 0.527169 (0) regression coef for PDO with global T : 0.0473447 (0) regression coef for N34 with global T : 0.0664886 Data sources: ;---------------------------------------------- ; PDO: http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ ; http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest ;---------------------------------------------- ; N34: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/Nino_3_3.4_indices.html ; http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/TNI_N34/index.html#Sec5 ; --------------------------------- ; CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ ; Hadcrut: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt ;=================================================================== ; Files were manually stripped for 1900 to 2007 ;============================================/======================= These numbers mean that for a one standard deviation in the ENSO index there is 0.066C change in global T, or from PDO: 0.047C, but that much of the latter comes from the ENSO index. Very roughly, since the correlation is 0.5 between PDO and ENSO, half of the 0.066 or 0.033C of the 0.047 is from ENSO. Strictly one should do this properly using screening regression. Kevin > dear all, > re-sending because of a glitch. > > finally got round to posting on an earlier inquiry I made to some of > you about whether there was a 'clean' graph of multi-decades > temperature trends with ENSO wiggles removed -- thanks to gavin (and > david thompson) posting on realclimate. > here's Dot Earth piece with link to Realclimate etc.. > http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/climate-trends-with-some-noise-removed/?ex=1216094400&en=a57177d93165cba3&ei=5070 > > next step is PDO. has anyone characterized how much impact (if any) > PDO has on hemispheric or global temp trends, and if so is there a > graph showing what happens when that's accounted for? > > as you are doubtless aware, this is another bone of contention with a > lot of the anti-greenhouse-limits folks and some scientists (the post > 1970s change is a PDO thing, etc etc). hoping to show a bit of how > that works. > > thanks for any insights. > and i encourage you to comment and provide links etc with the current > post to add context etc. > > -- > Andrew C. Revkin > The New York Times / Science > 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 > Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 > Fax: 509-357-0965 > www.nytimes.com/revkin ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
that quote jumped out at me too. where is the proof for that statement?
I love it.
From: "Kevin Trenberth" To: "Andrew Revkin" Subject: Re: clearing up climate trends sans ENSO and perhaps PDO? Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:33:44 -0600 (MDT) Reply-to: trenbert@ucar.edu Cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, mann@psu.edu, davet@atmos.colostate.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk, wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov, ackerman@atmos.washington.edu, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, tbarnett-ul@ucsd.edu, sarachik@atmos.washington.edu, peter.thorne@metoffice.gov.uk, john.kennedy@metoffice.gof.uk, cwunsch@mit.edu Andy Here's some further results, based on the time series for 1900 to 2007 Results: (0) correlation between ENSO and PDO: for the smoothed IPCC decadal filter: 0.490662 (0) correlation between ENSO and PDO: for the annual means: 0.527169 (0) regression coef for PDO with global T : 0.0473447 (0) regression coef for N34 with global T : 0.0664886 Data sources: ;---------------------------------------------- ; PDO: http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ ; http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest ;---------------------------------------------- ; N34: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/Nino_3_3.4_indices.html ; http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/TNI_N34/index.html#Sec5 ; --------------------------------- ; CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ ; Hadcrut: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt ;=================================================================== ; Files were manually stripped for 1900 to 2007 ;============================================/======================= These numbers mean that for a one standard deviation in the ENSO index there is 0.066C change in global T, or from PDO: 0.047C, but that much of the latter comes from the ENSO index. Very roughly, since the correlation is 0.5 between PDO and ENSO, half of the 0.066 or 0.033C of the 0.047 is from ENSO. Strictly one should do this properly using screening regression. Kevin > dear all, > re-sending because of a glitch. > > finally got round to posting on an earlier inquiry I made to some of > you about whether there was a 'clean' graph of multi-decades > temperature trends with ENSO wiggles removed -- thanks to gavin (and > david thompson) posting on realclimate. > here's Dot Earth piece with link to Realclimate etc.. > http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/climate-trends-with-some-noise-removed/?ex=1216094400&en=a57177d93165cba3&ei=5070 > > next step is PDO. has anyone characterized how much impact (if any) > PDO has on hemispheric or global temp trends, and if so is there a > graph showing what happens when that's accounted for? > > as you are doubtless aware, this is another bone of contention with a > lot of the anti-greenhouse-limits folks and some scientists (the post > 1970s change is a PDO thing, etc etc). hoping to show a bit of how > that works. > > thanks for any insights. > and i encourage you to comment and provide links etc with the current > post to add context etc. > > -- > Andrew C. Revkin > The New York Times / Science > 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 > Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 > Fax: 509-357-0965 > www.nytimes.com/revkin ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
From: Michael Mann To: Andrew Revkin Subject: Re: mcintyre's latest.... Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:11:03 -0400 p.s. Tim Osborn ([1]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk) is probably the best person to contact for further details, in Keith's absence, mike On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Andy, I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus. It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method), let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming is anomalous in a long-term context. So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don't think there is any problem with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of this, in Keith's absence. if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will be in the discredited contrarian home journal "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer review. Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right? mike I'm sure you're aware that you will dozens of bogus, manufactured distortions of the science in the weeks leading up to the vote on cap & trade in the U.S. senate. This is no On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote: needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements about Yamal data-set selectivity. Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking journal publication for his deconstruct? -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 [2]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin -- Michael E. Mann 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: [3]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html -- Michael E. Mann 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: [6]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [7]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [8]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html References Visible links 1. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk 2. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin 3. mailto:mann@psu.edu 4. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html 5. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html 6. mailto:mann@psu.edu 7. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html 8. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html Hidden links: 9. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 10. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
From: Michael Mann
To: Andrew Revkin
Subject: Re: mcintyre's latest....
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:25 -0400
Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
HI Andy,
Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don't quote
anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically--thanks.
Re, your point at the end--you've taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential
for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But
legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in
particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition
for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate
scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside
of this system are not to be trusted.
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:
thanks heaps.
tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the
reviewed lit or shut up. i'm going to post that soon.
just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU ... a little unclear . ?
I'm copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions
made over at climateaudit.org.....
I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on
the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.
peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge
building happens, would you agree?
p.s. Tim Osborn ([1]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk) is probably the best person to contact for
further details, in Keith's absence,
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Andy,
I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and
is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I
have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.
It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some
of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of
these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method),
let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature
shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming
is anomalous in a long-term context.
So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key
conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don't think there is any problem
with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual
information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of
this, in Keith's absence.
if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in
question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his
comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic
warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't
submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will
be in the discredited contrarian home journal "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you
are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap
published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and
the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn
Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are
parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections
with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer
review.
Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right?
mike
I'm sure you're aware that you will dozens of bogus, manufactured distortions of the
science in the weeks leading up to the vote on cap & trade in the U.S. senate. This is
no
On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:
needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid
picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements
about Yamal data-set selectivity.
Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking
journal publication for his deconstruct?
--
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax: 509-357-0965
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
--
Michael E. Mann
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: [3]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
--
Michael E. Mann
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: [6]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [7]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[8]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
--
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax: 509-357-0965
[9]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
--
Michael E. Mann
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: [10]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[12]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
References
Visible links
1. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
2. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
3. mailto:mann@psu.edu
4. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
5. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
6. mailto:mann@psu.edu
7. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
8. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
9. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
10. mailto:mann@psu.edu
11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
12. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Hidden links:
13. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
14. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
15. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
The simple truth is that in an age when our standard of living is so high that we can't even economically produce the things we want to consume, our economy relies more and more on the production and consumption of useless things. In essence, we "monetize" non-existent things and sell them as if they were actual products or services.
I would count collateralized mortgage bonds among these things, along with accounting services related to taxation. And the whole "ethanol fuel" hoax may be the best recent example, too.
Most of what we think of as "the green economy" is nothing more than an attempt by corporate giants like GE to sell products whose only "need" is related to government mandates that require people and industries to use them.
The NY Times reporter, Revkin, fails to disclose that he has a close working relationship with the researchers in question. See emails copied earlier in this thread.
Plateau in Temperatures Adds Difficulty to Task Of Reaching a Solution
New York Times, The (NY) - Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Author: ANDREW C. REVKIN
The world leaders who met at the United Nations to discuss climate change on Tuesday are faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.
The plateau in temperatures has been seized upon by skeptics as evidence that the threat of global warming is overblown. And some climate experts worry that it could hamper treaty negotiations and slow the progress of legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.
Scientists say the pattern of the last decade — after a precipitous rise in average global temperatures in the 1990s — is a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere.
But trying to communicate such scientific nuances to the public — and to policy makers — can be frustrating, they say.
(snip)
Source: Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research
//
George F. Will
“Plateau in Temperatures Adds Difficulty
To Task Of Reaching a Solution”
— The New York Times, Sept. 23
IN this headline on a Times story about difficulties confronting people alarmed about global warming, note the word “plateau.” It dismisses the unpleasant — to some people — fact that global warming is maddeningly (to the same people) slow to vindicate their apocalyptic warnings about it.
(snip)
“It dismisses the unpleasant — to some people — fact that global warming is maddeningly (to the same people) slow to vindicate their apocalyptic warnings about it.”
Yeah, but let’s end western civilization just in case.
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.