Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable ( Global Warming Hoax exposed....)

anelegantchaos.org ^ | 20 November 2009 | anelegantchaos.org

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

On 20 November 2009, emails and other documents, apparently originating from with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

If real, these emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment. Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change.

As these emails are already in the public domain, I think it is important that people are able to look through them and judge for themselves. Until I am told otherwise I have no reason to think the text found on this site is true or false. It is here just as a curiosity!

You can either search using the keyword search box above, or use the links below to browse them 25 emails at a time.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Wikipedia even has an entry:

Hockey stick controversy

**************************************EXCERPT*******************************

he hockey stick controversy started in 2003 by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick^[1] as a dispute over the reconstructed estimates of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature changes over the past millennium,^[2] especially the particular reconstruction of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes,^[3] frequently referred to as the MBH98 reconstruction. The term hockey stick was coined by the head of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern.

*************************************snip******************************

The hockey stick graph as shown in the 2001 IPCC report. This chart shows the data from Mann et al. 1999. The colored lines are the reconstructed temperatures, and the gray shaded region represents estimated error bars.

Reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the last 1,000 years according to various older articles (bluish lines), newer articles (reddish lines), and instrumental record (black line).

**********************************

Nature of the dispute

A quasi-global instrumental temperature record exists from approximately 1850; but to construct a millennial-scale record proxies for temperature are required; issues arise over the faithfulness with which these proxies reflect actual temperature change, their geographical coverage, and the statistical methods used to combine them.

The political significance of the scientific controversy over the graph centers on its use as part of the evidence for anthropogenic global warming. The MBH98 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media.

This dispute centered on technical aspects of the methodology and data sets used in creating the MBH98 reconstruction, originally raised by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.^[1] Their criticisms were that Mann et al.'s reconstructed millennial temperature graph (the hockey stick) was an artifact of flawed calculations and serious data defects; in turn, MBH replied that these criticisms were spurious.

The dispute eventually led to an investigation at the behest of U.S. Congress by a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council (NRC) of the United States National Academy of Sciences to consider reconstructions of the last 2000 years in general; in addition, an investigation was performed at the behest of Congressman Joe Barton by a panel of three statisticians, chaired by Edward Wegman specifically addressing the MBH work. Both the NRC and Wegman teams issued reports in 2006.

The second graph on the right shows the data from MBH98 and from several other climate reconstructions, subsequent to the 1998 reconstruction. Two of the other temperature reconstructions included on the graph are by Mann and co-authors.

There is an ongoing debate about the details of the temperature record and the means of its reconstruction. The debate centers on several discussion points:

• How well can past temperatures be reconstructed from the data we have?
• Was the late 20th century the warmest period during the last 1,000 years?
• Was the Medieval Warm Period observed in the North Atlantic region part of a broader global or hemispheric warming?
• Are bristlecone and foxtail pine tree rings valid temperature proxies?
• Without using the bristlecone and foxtail proxies in the reconstruction, does a hockey stick even exist?

Discussion of the MBH reconstruction

The hockey stick controversy has to a large extent been focussed on Mann and on the MBH98 reconstruction on which he was the lead author. Scientific American magazine described him as the "Man behind the Hockey Stick," referring to this reconstruction of temperatures. The BBC described the "hockey stick" as a term coined for the chart of temperature variation over the last 1,000 years.^[4] The chart is relatively flat from the period A.D. 1000 to 1900, indicating that temperatures were relatively stable for this period of time. The flat part forms the stick's "shaft." After 1900, however, temperatures appear to shoot up, forming the hockey stick's "blade." The combination of the two in the chart suggests a recent sharp rise in temperature caused by human activities. The BBC further stated that "The high-profile publication of the data led to the "hockey stick" being used as a key piece of supporting evidence in the Third Assessment Report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001."^[4]

In 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published "Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series" in the (JCR-unlisted) journal Energy and Environment 14(6) 751-772, raising concerns about their ability to reproduce the results of MBH. The IPCC AR4 reports that "Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data." ^[5] In 2004 Mann, Bradley, and Hughes published a corrigendum to their 1998 article, correcting a number of mistakes in the online supplementary information that accompanied their article but leaving the actual results unchanged.

Hans von Storch and colleagues claimed that the method used by Mann et al. probably underestimates the temperature fluctuations in the past by a factor of two or more.^[6] However, this conclusion rests at least in part on the reasonableness of the global climate model (GCM) simulation used, which has been questioned;^[7][8] Wahl et al. assert errors in the reconstruction technique that von Storch used.^[9] Von Storch's claim implied that MBH98 was less accurate because if there was more variability than originally shown, then Mann's "hockey stick" would look less like a hockey stick and therefore be weaker argument for recent dramatic climate change.

The IPCC AR4 reports that the extent of any such biases in specific reconstructions... is uncertain ... It is very unlikely, however, that any bias would be as large as the factor of two suggested.

Anders Moberg and his Swedish and Russian collaborators have also generated reconstructions with significantly more variability than the reconstructions of Mann et al.^[10][11]

After testing the work of Mann et al. (1998), McKitrick commented

"The Mann multiproxy data, when correctly handled, shows the 20th century climate to be unexceptional compared to earlier centuries. This result is fully in line with the borehole evidence. (As an aside, it also turns out to be in line with other studies that are sometimes trotted out in support of the hockey stick, but which, on close inspection, actually imply a MWP as well.)"^[12]

In turn, Mann (supported by Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa and Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit) has disputed the claims made by McIntyre and McKitrick,^[13][14] saying the

"...so-called 'correction' was nothing more than a botched application of the MBH98 procedure, where the authors (MM) removed 80% of the proxy data actually used by MBH98 during the 15th century period... Indeed, the bizarre resulting claim by MM of anomalous 15th century warmth (which falls within the heart of the "Little Ice Age") is at odds with not only the MBH98 reconstruction, but, in fact the roughly dozen other estimates now published that agree with MBH98 within estimated uncertainties...".^[15]

On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters that claimed various errors in the methodology of Mann et al. (1998). The paper claimed that the "Hockey Stick" shape was the result of an invalid principal component method.^[16] They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al., they were able to obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal component in 99 percent of cases even if trendless red noise was used as input.^[17] This paper was nominated as a journal highlight by the American Geophysical Union,^[18] which publishes GRL, and attracted international attention for its claims to expose flaws in the reconstructions of past climate.^[19] The IPCC AR4 says this paper may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small.

Mann has been personally involved in the debate over climate change. In testimony before the U.S. Senate in 2003, he stated:

"It is the consensus of the climate research community that the anomalous warmth of the late 20th century cannot be explained by natural factors, but instead indicates significant anthropogenic, that is human influences... More than a dozen independent research groups have now reconstructed the average temperature of the northern hemisphere in past centuries... The proxy reconstructions, taking into account these uncertainties, indicate that the warming of the northern hemisphere during the late 20th century... is unprecedented over at least the past millennium and it now appears based on peer-reviewed research, probably the past two millennia."

More recently, the National Academy of Sciences considered the matter. On June 22, 2006, the Academy released a pre-publication version of its report Report-Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,[27] supporting Mann's more general assertion regarding the last decades of the Twentieth Century, but showing less confidence in his assertions regarding individual decades or years, due to the greater uncertainty at that level of precision.

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes ...
    Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales." [28]

One point of contention relates to McIntyre's requests for Mann to provide him with the data, methods and source code McIntyre needed to "audit" MBH98.^[20] Mann provided some data and then stopped. After a long process - in which the National Science Foundation supported Mann - the code was made publicly available ^[21]. It happened because Congress investigated after an article in the Wall Street Journal ^[22] detailed criticisms raised by McIntyre.^[23] Congress was especially concerned about Mann’s reported refusal to provide data. In June 2005, Congress asked Mann to testify before a special subcommittee. The chairman of the committee (Joe Barton, a prominent global warming skeptic) wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data, including his source code, archives of all data for all of Mann's scientific publications, identities of his present and past scientific collaborators, and details of all funding for any of Mann's ongoing or prior research, including all of the supporting forms and agreements.^[22] The American Association for the Advancement of Science viewed this as "a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."^[24] When Mann complied, all of the data was available for McIntyre. Congress also requested that third party science panels review the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick. The Wegman Panel ^[25] and the National Academy of Sciences ^[26] both published reports. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) claim that 7 of their 10 findings in 2003 have been largely confirmed by these reviews.^[27] Nature reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph - But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used." ^[28]

National Research Council Report

At the request of the U.S. Congress, a special "Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years" was assembled by the National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. The Committee consisted of 12 scientists from different disciplines and was tasked with explaining the current scientific information on the temperature record for the past two millennia, and identifying the main areas of uncertainty, the principal methodologies used, any problems with these approaches, and how central the debate is to the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change.

The panel published its report in 2006.^[29] The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect. The report summarizes its main findings as follows:^[30]

*****************************snip**************************************

[Pan_Yan]

I found a fun one:

CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice

Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please ! I'm trying to redress the balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the kettle black - Christian doesn't make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian message so you don't get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get more advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal. PLEASE DELETE - just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm

Cheers
Phil

Dear Steve et al,
...
These reviewers did not request the data (all the proxy series) and the code. So, acceding to the request for this to do the review is setting a VERY dangerous precedent.
...
Mike may respond too strongly to MM, but don't we all decide not to work with or co-operate with people we do not get on with or do not like their views. Mike will say that MM are disingenuous, but I'm not sure how many of you realise how vicious the attack on him has been. I will give you an example.
...
Cheers
Phil

[azkathy]

I can’t wait to hear a statement from LORD MONCKTON on this!!

Also, the members of the House committee on Natural Resources when it was in Republican control and these “so called scientists” presented skewed science to them.

At some point all the collusion amid these scientists will reach the MSM or they will go down with the scientists.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks,...was saying....ignore the implied links in the Wikipedia posting I did just above...#200...and still trying to get into the Climate Audit Website...keeps timing out....

****************

And trying to understand the Yamil Tree Data ,.. site...and from post #175...where Dr. D.R. Keiller

Gets into some pithy eMails with Dear Professor Briffa

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Phil is a busy guy,...and doesn't want any disruptions to his nice little funded empire....

I stumbled into a website ...where the amount of funding for the CRU was laid out ....many millions of dollar equivalents....

Maybe after I get my head cleared out I can find it again.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well,...I changed my search argument and this shows up down the list:

Garbage In, "Warming" Out

Blog is

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Last week, NRO ran a fascinating Patrick J. Michaels article on how a major "global warming" advocate (I hesitate to use the word "scientist" in this case) has refused to release the raw temperature data that was used in compiling the UN's infamous IPCC reports on "climate change."

Phil Jones, the keeper of the data in question, after refusing for years to release the raw data, finally admitted that he and other researchers had massaged the data set years ago, and that the original recordings were irretrievably lost. Bear in mind, this manipulated and apparently super-secret data set of... temperatures... is what's being used by politicians to justify massive changes in the global economy.

Apparently Jones was not the only Global Warmening "scientist" who didn't really care to release raw data for peer review. The Register (UK) recently looked into an explosive "global warming" study based on tree rings in Siberia, and learned that the source data had been heavily manipulated to bring about a result only an activist could love:

[S]ince 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.

How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a secret - failing to fulfill procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious peer reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.

At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's mystery is no more.

From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.

How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a secret - failing to fulfill procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious peer reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.

At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open - and Yamal's mystery is no more.

From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.

The tampered-with Yamil data also played into alarmist conclusions in a paper co-authored by (wait for it)... Phil Jones. In the words of the late 20th Century philosopher Gomer Pyle, "Sur-prise, sur-prise, sur-prise."

Remember all that the next time you read about a conservative/Republican "war on science"... but don't expect to read about it in the New York Times.

Posted by Will Collier at Tuesday, September 29, 2009

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

And from NRO:

The Dog Ate Global Warming

September 23, 2009 4:00 AM

***********************************EXCERPT******************************

Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?

By Patrick J. Michaels

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Will be out till later....

[Pan_Yan]

From: Phil Jones
To: "Neville Nicholls"
Subject: RE: Misc
Date: Wed Jul 6 15:07:45 2005

Neville,
Mike's response could do with a little work, but as you say he's got the tone almost dead on. I hope I don't get a call from congress ! I'm hoping that no-one there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25 years. I'll send on one other email received for interest.
Cheers
Phil

Source

I wonder if anyone in congress wants to look into this funding?

[Pan_Yan]

Phil,

Why is there so much missing data for the South Pole? The period Jan 75 thru Dec 90 is all missing except Dec 81, July & Dec 85, Apr 87, Apr & Sept 88, Apr 89. Also, from and including Aug 2003 is missing.

Also -- more seriously but correctable. The S Pole is just represented by a single box at 87.5S (N Pole ditto I suspect). This screws up area averaging. It would be better to put the S Pole value in ALL boxes at 87.5S.

I have had to do this in my code -- but you really should fix the 'raw' gridded data. For area averages, the difference is between having the S Pole represent the whole region south of 85S, and having (as now) it represent one 72nd of this region. It is pretty obvious to me what is better.

This affects the impression of missing data too of course.

Tom.

If this says what it appears to say then it is exactly what the skeptics have been claiming all along. The data is being massaged to match a predetermined result, not in search of a true result.

source

[azkathy]

Oh YES!

“We the People” DEMAND a full accounting!!!

Heads are going to roll and GRANTS are going to disappear from these idiots for the rest of their careers!

[Marine_Uncle]

It is about time some of the key organizations responsible for the global warming hoax are starting to be exposed for what they are.

[Pan_Yan]

I'm not a British legal scholor but this looks like it could be slightly unethical, to say the least:

From: Phil Jones [p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley [wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Cc: mann [mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx], Gavin Schmidt [gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx], Karl Taylor [taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx], peter gleckler [gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school - the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I've got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian - who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on - at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn't know the number we're dealing with. We are in double figures.

One issue is that these requests aren't that widely known within the School. So I don't know who else at UEA may be getting them. CRU is moving up the ladder of requests at UEA though - we're way behind computing though. We're away of requests going to others in the UK - MOHC, Reading, DEFRA and Imperial College. So spelling out all the detail to the LLNL management should be the first thing you do. I hope that Dave is being supportive at PCMDI. The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers! If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn't yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all. This legislation is different from the FOI - it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor credit rating ! In response to FOI and EIR requests, we've put up some data - mainly paleo data. Each request generally leads to more - to explain what we've put up. Every time, so far, that hasn't led to anything being added - instead just statements saying read what is in the papers and what is on the web site! Tim Osborn sent one such response (via the FOI person) earlier this week. We've never sent programs, any codes and manuals.

In the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise results will be out in 2 weeks time. These are expensive to produce and take too much time, so from next year we'll be moving onto a metric based system. The metrics will be # and amounts of grants, papers and citations etc. I did flippantly suggest that the # of FOI requests you get should be another. When you look at CA, they only look papers from a handful of people. They will start on another coming out in The Holocene early next year. Gavin and Mike are on this with loads of others. I've told both exactly what will appear on CA once they get access to it!

Cheers
Phil

Emphysis added

[Pan_Yan]

Glad to see my tax money going to good use:

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: lbutler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: averaging
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:08:14 -0800
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, kevin trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear Lisa,

That's great news! I've confirmed with DOE that I can use up to $10,000
of my DOE Fellowship to provide financial support for Tom's Symposium. I
will check with Anjuli Bamzai at DOE to determine whether there are any
strings attached to this money. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to use
the DOE money for the Symposium dinner, and to defray some of the travel
expenses of international participants who can't come up with their own
travel money. I'll try to resolve this question in the next few days.

Best wishes to you and your family for a very Merry Christmas, and a
happy, healthy, and peaceful 2009!

Ben

[azkathy]

This is the gift that keeps on giving, to the people who didn’t believe in GLOBULL Warming!!!

Merry Christmas Phil and Company!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Just read down into the report from National Review ( see post #207 ) and I found this:

**********************************EXCERPT**************************

In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature.

It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Now let's see what might be in the E-Mails regarding....Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist....might be Fun to find something.....

*****************************************

Exact match results

You searched for Warwick Hughes

There were 2 results for the exact phrase Warwick Hughes, see below for more results.

Monday, 18 September 2000 20:23:04 : Filename: 969308584.txt

From: Phil Jones To: Subject: Re: TAR Date: Mon Sep 18 16:23:04 2000 Cc: ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Warwick, I did not think I would get a chance today to look at the web page. I see what boxes you are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot produce larger anomalies ...

Wednesday, 28 October 2009 21:32:24 : Filename: 1256765544.txt

From: "Graham F Haughton" To: "Phil Jones" Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:24 -0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I know, I feel for you being in that position. If its any consolation we've had it ...

[Pan_Yan]

On a personal note I wish I had these guys’ frequent flyer miles. Glad it’s not my money paying for all these trips. Wait a minute...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well,....Now we have CATA on the screen :

Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know

BOOK FORUM
Thursday, March 12, 2009
12:00 PM

Featuring coauthor Patrick J. Michaels, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute with comments by David Legates, Delaware State Climatologist and Director of the Delaware Environmental Observing System.

The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

*****************************

Video at the CATO link

*******************************************

There's a whole new world of global warming science today-but few ever hear about it. In recent years, an internally consistent body of scientific literature has emerged that argues cogently for global warming but against the gloom-and-doom, apocalyptic vision of climate change. Not that you would know. Consult the daily newspaper or evening newscast: dire predictions are nearly all we see or hear.

In their new book, Climate of Extremes, coauthors Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr. illuminate the other side of the story, the science we aren’t being told. This body of work details how the impact of global warming is far less severe than is generally believed and far from catastrophic. However, because it is not infused with horrific predictions and angst about the future, regardless of its quality it is largely repressed and ignored. This in-depth exploration illustrates the crucial unreported forecasts: that changes in hurricanes will be small, that global warming is likely to be modest, and that contrary to daily headlines, there is no apocalypse on the horizon.

Climate of Extremes is a book for all who are intent on exploring the evidence and the arguments in the climate change debate.

[Pan_Yan]

And the insights into the review process are interesting. Make sure you pick someone on the right side of the issue to review your work ...