Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/27/2009 9:46:15 PM PST by neverdem
Some prominent climate scientists are calling for changes in the way research on global warming is conducted after a British university said thousands of private e-mail messages and documents had been stolen from its climate center.
The scientists say that the e-mail messages, which have circulated on the Internet and which disclose the inner workings of a small network of climatologists who chart the planet’s temperature, have damaged the public’s trust in the evidence that humans are dangerously warming the planet, just as many countries are poised to start reining in greenhouse gas emissions.
“This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails,” said Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology.
She and other scientists are seeking more transparency in the way climate data is handled and in the methods used to analyze it. And they argue that scientists should re-evaluate the selection procedures used by some scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the panel that in 2007 concluded that humans were the dominant force driving warming and whose findings underpin international discussions over a new climate treaty.
A fierce debate over the significance of the hacked material erupted as soon as the e-mail messages and other documents surfaced on Web sites just over a week ago. Some see in the e-mail correspondence — which includes heated discussions about warming trends, advice on deleting potentially controversial e-mail messages and derisive comments about climate skeptics — evidence of a conspiracy to stifle dissenting views and withhold data from public scrutiny, or, as some have put it, “Climategate.”
To others, the e-mail messages are merely evidence that climate scientists can be as competitive, proprietary, defensive and caustic as people engaged in any other high-level enterprise. They cast...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You mean changes on how to not get caught in fraud?
(Some e-mail exchanges involved or described this reporter and other journalists).
“No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science,” he wrote. “We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.”
There are two conclusions that can be made as you watch Congress try to brush off this scandal as irrelevant, and that is either they are beyond stupid or they have known all along that it was a hoax but were using it to gain power and control.
“the disclosures could offer a chance to finally bring the practices of climate researchers and the intergovernmental panel into the modern era, where transparency — enforced legally or illegally — is inevitable and appropriate.”
Interesting choice of words “legal or illegally” however these climatologists need to be fired and prosecuted and the conclusions based on the data be declared tainted beyond usability. Transparency was just one issue. The important issues were the politicizing of a scientific process and the potential destruction of our economy.
“The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production,” he said in an e-mail message, “just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.”
Again the UN is involved in another scandal, the UN agenda will always be at odds with any freedom loving nation, since their entire agenda is making a one world communist government with either Clinton or Obama as the head.
Same thing Obama claimed he would do once he was in charge.
The strangest thing about this is how hard it is to slow down the engine and how loud the now careering passengers are crying for “full steam ahead...”
I feel like adopting a couple of polar bears and putting them in charge of a penquin sanctuary.
Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia and author of “Why We Disagree About Climate Change,” said the disclosures could offer a chance to finally bring the practices of climate researchers and the intergovernmental panel into the modern era, where transparency — enforced legally or illegally — is inevitable and appropriate.
“The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production,” he said in an e-mail message, “just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.”
Hulme's book was described in this American Thinker review as "the musings of a British socialist about how to use the global warming issue as a means of persuading "the masses" to give up their economic liberties." He is the leading proponent of "post-normal science," where, to put it simply, beliefs, rather than facts, matter. No wonder he critiicizes the IPCC for "knowledge production." Post-normal science doesn't depend on knowledge. For him, the IPCC has fulfilled its propaganda objectives, but the controversy about the validity of the CRU data upon which the AGW house of cards is built has dragged it too deeply into the real world to be useful going foward.
"Climate scientist" Mike Hulme believes "we need better politics, not better science."
Mr. Revkin is certainly very modest when it comes to making disclosures that might call into question his journalistic credibility.
The Times published this???
Open-mouthed in amazement.
>>>>Received: from smtp-nv-vip1.nytimes.com (HELO nytimes.com) >>>>([199.181.175.116]) >>>> by nsziron-1.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2007 08:39:43 -0800 >>>>Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20071130111858.03540590@nytimes.com> >>>>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 >>>>Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:38:52 -0500 >>>>To: santer1@llnl.gov, broccoli@envsci.rutgers.edu, mears@remss.com >>>>From: Andrew Revkin >>>>Subject: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this >>>> singer/christy/etc effort >>>>Mime-Version: 1.0 >>>>Content-Type: multipart/mixed; >>>> boundary="=====================_67524015==_" >>>>X-NYTOriginatingHost: [10.149.144.50] >>>> >>>>hi, >>>>for moment please do not distribute or discuss. >>>>trying to get a sense of whether singer / christy can get any traction >>>>with this at all. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>*_ ANDREW C. REVKIN >>>>_*The New York Times / Environment / Dot >>>>Earth Blog >>>>620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018-1405
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.
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
Andrew Revkin is a fraud and a shill.
Revkin should have started that article with his official letter of resignation.
Better yet, if the New York Times had any integrity left at all, it would have summarily fired this fraud.
the most important item on this page is WHERE this is published......no matter what it says in defense of all the global warming lies, the NY Times has mentioned the emails and that will open a pandor’s box for the media to play in, and we will benefit
For those who want to dig a little deeper into this guy's thinking I suggest the following post at WhatsUpWithThat.com where Hulme makes the apparently reasonable suggestion that it is time to retire the IPPC:
UEA Climate Scientist: “possible that…I.P.C.C. has run its course”
Browse down to the comments and read the ones by "Jim" that are punctuated by a series of "WOWs". Here are Jim's comments:
Jim (13:41:10) :
Are we going to trust Hume to lead the charge for change???
From Luboš Motl’s Blog:
“Hulme tells us that if the scientists are going to be listened to in the future, they must “recognize the social limits of their truth seeking” – WOW. ;-) They must thus “trade truth for influence” – WOW. He also says that the “climate change is too important to be left to scientists” – WOW – “least of all the normal ones” – WOW. Hulme promotes the idea that the climate science should become a “post-normal science” – WOW. He says that the “danger” of the “normal science” is that it assumes that the truth is found before the policies are created – WOW.
In the post-normal science that he recommends, science is ready to change “as it rubs against society” – WOW – and the disputes should focus on sociological issues such as funding, personal evaluations, and the format of presentations – WOW. In order to make progress with the climate change, we must “take science off center stage” – WOW. Hulme correctly says that an honest scientist can’t answer questions like “what level of CO2 is too much” because the answer depends on a value judgment which is not a part of science but the only reason why he says so is that he wants to urge scientists to become “post-normal scientists” who claim to be able to answer such questions – WOW.
If I summarize it, he wants to destroy the difference between science and politics completely. I just find it rather breathtaking. This is not a generic crank from Real Climate or Not Even Wrong. This is officially a director of an institute that pretends to be a scientific institute whom we have praised for certain things.”
Oops. Make that IPCC not IPPC.
I demand reparation for every penny spent towards this scam.
And long, long prison sentences. I don't want any of them to see the light of day ever again.
There’s enough evidence here for states to invoke nullification of any cap and tax federal legislation. I’ll go one step further. Any federal bureaucrat that tries to implement this needs to be arrested by the state and charged with terrorism.
The NYTimes motives for printing this should be very suspect
When will people understand that the Nobel Peace Prize is an award chosen by 5 loony left politicians from Norway,and its significance has been totally discredited by recent choices.
He is in the Hadley CRU emails, read Selected CRU Emails, Part II: Independence of the Press?
Cheers!
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.