More emails released

[LakeEffectKing]

Some embarrassing exchanges for sure! Have at them!

http://noconsensus.w...limategate-2-0/

Just a few random ones:

<4241> Wilson:

I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I

could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.

[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is

precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

.

.

<4184> Jones:

[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! [...] Even though it’s been a mild winter in

the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the

La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!

.

.

” Jones:

[FOI, temperature data]

Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we

get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US

Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original

station data.”

.

.

Steig:

He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he

thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the

supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.

[WxMidwest]

ROFL, just saw the heading.... some of these are worse then "Hide the decline"...

[PhillipS]

I find it rather sad and pathetic that the denialists and pseudo-skeptics have resorted (again) to hacking emails to try to persuade the unconvinced. Why can't they instead use data and analyses? Are they just intellectually lazy, or is the evidence for the mainstream theories on AGW so strong and the evidence against so weak that hacked emails are the best they can do?

Anybody who latches on to the first batch of hacked emails, or to this latest batch, can't claim to be an honest skeptic because they have absolutely no bearing on the fundamental science.

We don't know if they are real or fiction.

If they are real, we don't know if they are complete or edited for 'juiciness'.

If they are complete, we don't have the context of the full email threads to understand what the authors original intent was.

Right or wrong, people often express things in private emails that they would express very differently in, say, an interview. It is very easy to pick through emails, or blog postings, and use verbiage out of context to fabricate an appearance with no connection to reality.

So if you are one if the folks who read the allegedly hacked emails and ROFL - perhaps you should ask yourself why you're rejoicing. There's a good chance that the emails don't amount to anything - which means they're a sign of desperation in the denialist camp. And even if they are evidence that some climate scientists are wrong - that's not evidence of any sort that skeptics are right.

[LakeEffectKing]

I find it rather sad and pathetic that the denialists and pseudo-skeptics have resorted (again) to hacking emails to try to persuade the unconvinced. Why can't they instead use data and analyses? Are they just intellectually lazy, or is the evidence for the mainstream theories on AGW so strong and the evidence against so weak that hacked emails are the best they can do?

Anybody who latches on to the first batch of hacked emails, or to this latest batch, can't claim to be an honest skeptic because they have absolutely no bearing on the fundamental science.

We don't know if they are real or fiction.

If they are real, we don't know if they are complete or edited for 'juiciness'.

If they are complete, we don't have the context of the full email threads to understand what the authors original intent was.

Right or wrong, people often express things in private emails that they would express very differently in, say, an interview. It is very easy to pick through emails, or blog postings, and use verbiage out of context to fabricate an appearance with no connection to reality.

So if you are one if the folks who read the allegedly hacked emails and ROFL - perhaps you should ask yourself why you're rejoicing. There's a good chance that the emails don't amount to anything - which means they're a sign of desperation in the denialist camp. And even if they are evidence that some climate scientists are wrong - that's not evidence of any sort that skeptics are right.

Mike Mann says they're real.....

Here's another zinger:

Barnett:

[iPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer

[LakeEffectKing]

I find it rather sad and pathetic that the denialists and pseudo-skeptics have resorted (again) to hacking emails to try to persuade the unconvinced. Why can't they instead use data and analyses? Are they just intellectually lazy, or is the evidence for the mainstream theories on AGW so strong and the evidence against so weak that hacked emails are the best they can do?

Anybody who latches on to the first batch of hacked emails, or to this latest batch, can't claim to be an honest skeptic because they have absolutely no bearing on the fundamental science.

We don't know if they are real or fiction.

If they are real, we don't know if they are complete or edited for 'juiciness'.

If they are complete, we don't have the context of the full email threads to understand what the authors original intent was.

Right or wrong, people often express things in private emails that they would express very differently in, say, an interview. It is very easy to pick through emails, or blog postings, and use verbiage out of context to fabricate an appearance with no connection to reality.

So if you are one if the folks who read the allegedly hacked emails and ROFL - perhaps you should ask yourself why you're rejoicing. There's a good chance that the emails don't amount to anything - which means they're a sign of desperation in the denialist camp. And even if they are evidence that some climate scientists are wrong - that's not evidence of any sort that skeptics are right.

....because the Earth isn't going to go up in flames as we were led to believe! You should be too, if you weren't so P'sst off that those you preach to have been lying to you! Go read the emails! They are hillarious! Settled Science my A$$!!

I am sad for Science though.

[LakeEffectKing]

<1104> Wanner/NCCR:

In my [iPCC-TAR] review [...] I critcized [...] the Mann hockeytick [...]

My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the

internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these

early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in

Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to

SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.

no backup. check.

no context. check.

tons of glaring ellipses, as above. check.

froth away!

LOL, this MUST be quite a "stinger" for you to show up!! LOL! BTW, we'll help you with the context as we go along.

Jones:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

Man....they seem confident in their science!!!!

[WeatherRusty]

A PR campaign is all they have to offer, they can not fight the science head on. Digging up dirt is their game, and they play with knives.

[LakeEffectKing]

they are confident in their science--trust me on that.

what I don't understand is why those who disagree resort to out of context email snippets instead of doing the research to prove their own points.

then again, the Watts contingent has its sights squarely aimed on low information targets.

Well, Trix, when skeptics have been accused of "this and that", and a pile of "oops" falls in their lap.....sorry, there is going to be a reaction....but don't worry, our circle jerk will be over soon......

Oh, here's a NO REDACTED, CLEARLY IN CONTEXT email.....a certain scientist looking to dig up dirt (in no scientific way) on others.

1680.txt

date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400

from: “Michael E. Mann”

subject: Re: Something not to pass on

to: Phil Jones

Phil,

I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of

context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly

publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you

provide. s They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there

is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should

consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.

I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an

investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his

thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the

same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and

discrediting them.

Do you mind if I send this on to Gavin Schmidt (w/ a request to respect

the confidentiality with which you have provided it) for his additional

advice/thoughts? He usually has thoughtful insights wiith respect to

such matters,

mike

[ORH_wxman]

A PR campaign is all they have to offer, they can not fight the science head on. Digging up dirt is their game, and they play with knives.

The emails clearly show an unscientific conversation about the science itself. Its pretty pathetic.

The battle cry of a lot of these people is "they don't believe in AGW!!!!" which is kind of fake since most skeptics do believe in it but just question the magnitude of it.

If the emails were on the other shoe about scientists trying to question their findings, it would be nothing but absolute hysteria and laughing at them.

[LakeEffectKing]

A PR campaign is all they have to offer, they can not fight the science head on. Digging up dirt is their game, and they play with knives.

Can't fight with science, when it's apparent that skeptics aren't dealing with science from the team....LOL! They hooked you good Rusty.

[Tropopause_Fold]

this is so disturbing...regardless of where you fall on the issue.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I have no degree in atmospheric science.

since this has no relevance on the science myself and others practice here everyday. What does this matter? Outside of the name Hansen Ihaveno ideawho these guys are.

LEK- You are a smart guy. I dont understabd why you have spent more time with these types of posts instead of realscience

[WeatherRusty]

Well, Trix, when skeptics have been accused of "this and that", and a pile of "oops" falls in their lap.....sorry, there is going to be a reaction....but don't worry, our circle jerk will be over soon......

Oh, here's a NO REDACTED, CLEARLY IN CONTEXT email.....a certain scientist looking to dig up dirt (in no scientific way) on others.

1680.txt

date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400

from: “Michael E. Mann”

subject: Re: Something not to pass on

to: Phil Jones

Phil,

I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of

context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly

publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you

provide. s They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there

is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should

consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.

I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an

investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his

thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the

same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and

discrediting them.

Do you mind if I send this on to Gavin Schmidt (w/ a request to respect

the confidentiality with which you have provided it) for his additional

advice/thoughts? He usually has thoughtful insights wiith respect to

such matters,

mike

Those involved in a disinformation campaign are by definition 'dirty'. That includes McIntyre.

[LakeEffectKing]

I have no degree in atmospheric science.

since this has no relevance on the science myself and others practice here everyday. What does this matter? Outside of the name Hansen Ihaveno ideawho these guys are.

LEK- You are a smart guy. I dont understabd why you have spent more time with these types of posts instead of realscience

Because I am trying to help you see that much of what you have been led to believe, has been a lie. Have you read the emails? They shoot an arrow right through the heart of objective science.....

Case in point, How does ANY science (with the inherent differing opinions as it moves forward on ANY topic) progress with this horses#$t:

2563, from Barrie Pitock

“> Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the

>offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied to

>refereeing and editing. Whether that is done publicly or privately may not

>matter so much, as long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the

>journals, but that might leave them even freer to promulgate misinformation.

>To my mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed and

>proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might

>work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors.

>© A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and

>embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are capable of being

>embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter for Science or Nature.

>Offending editors could be labelled as “rogue editors”, in line with current

>international practice? Or is that defamatory?”

[LakeEffectKing]

I'm puzzled by your implicit assumption that the oil and gas industry aren't underwriting a lot of the opposition. it's certainly striking when you go to the scientific meetings they underwrite (GSA, for example), versus the ones they don't.

again, why can't those who disagree present science as their rebuttal?

Because, most skeptics believe that the AGW hypothesis put forward (CAGW ...) is not testable.....so NO science will verify nor falsify a poorly constructed hypothesis. Sorry, as smart as the Team may be....the climate system is harder (than they lead you to believe) to decode than they think, no matter what side you're on.

[kylemacr]

This is absolutely ridiculous. You can disagree with global warming, fine, but do so using real science. Don't try to find e-mails that were taken out of context in an attempt to disprove science. The best tool for disproving science is... science, not sensationalism.

[PhillipS]

Science doesn't advance through hacked emails. In fact, it is safe to say that no theory has ever been falsified by hacked emails. They simply have no place in the scientific method.

But hacked emails are an important tool in Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) campaigns. FUD campaigns use them in the hope that if they sling enough mud that some of it will stick. Sadly,as we saw in the first climategate circus, this approach can be effective. Remember, the climate science denialist FUD campaign isn't trying to disprove mainstream AGW theories, after all the fossil fuel industries' own scientists understand that the underlying science is sound, they win if they just delay and or weaken any approaches to reducing GHG emissions. Their only goal is to protect their astounding profits. And given that they've succeeded inkilling and hamstringing effective action for more than two decades since Mann testified to Congress in 1988, I suppose that they are winning.

I feel that it is important to keep in mind that hacking emails is illegal, at least in every country I'm aware of. Hacking is an ugly act, one which nobody wants to have happen to themselves. So the hackers are criminals, and everyone who has abetted their actions is tainted to a greater or lesser degree by their criminal actions. I confess I don't understand how that could make an honest skeptic feel good.

The failure of the skeptics and the denialists to put forth robust data and analyses to support thier position demonstrates their intellectual bankruptcy. Committing and rejoicing in criminal actions such as hacking demonstrates their moral bankruptcy. As I said in my earlier post - it's sad and pathetic.

[ORH_wxman]

This is absolutely ridiculous. You can disagree with global warming, fine, but do so using real science. Don't try to find e-mails that were taken out of context in an attempt to disprove science. The best tool for disproving science is... science, not sensationalism.

Its not "disproving" the science...its showing their lack of scientific conduct and use of the scientific method. For leading authors of climate science to do this is a pretty bad mark on their credibility. Trying to suppress opposing papers is not the way science advances. I do not think most reasonable people said this disproves the actual science.

[LakeEffectKing]

the fact they have declared it non-testable doesn't make it true. fake science can easily be debunked with real science.

Ok....so when McIntyre rebutted the hockey stick via SCIENCE, why was there such a "non-scientific" opposition to it ?? (ie searching to dig up dirt) when in reality, they were CYA'ing what they already knew:

<4241> Wilson:

I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I

could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.

[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is

precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

[LakeEffectKing]

Its not "disproving" the science...its showing their lack of scientific conduct and use of the scientific method. For leading authors of climate science to do this is a pretty bad mark on their credibility. Trying to suppress opposing papers is not the way science advances. I do not think most reasonable people said this disproves the actual science.

+1000

[kylemacr]

Its not "disproving" the science...its showing their lack of scientific conduct and use of the scientific method. For leading authors of climate science to do this is a pretty bad mark on their credibility. Trying to suppress opposing papers is not the way science advances. I do not think most reasonable people said this disproves the actual science.

Taking e-mails out of context does not prove a lack of scientific misconduct. If anyone thinks that the scientists fudged results or "tweaked" a model to work, then they can simply do the experiment themselves and see if the results match those published. That's the beauty of science. All this finger pointing though is absolutely useless. If you have beef with science - try it for yourself. Finger pointing never ends, because it's drivin by ideology, not fact. If you want a productive discussion of AGW, use science, not finger pointing.

[LakeEffectKing]

Those involved in a disinformation campaign are by definition 'dirty'. That includes McIntyre.

The same McIntyre that found the hockeystick illusion??? You can marginalize as many people as you want....as I've said before, it only hurts "The Cause!" LOL

[LakeEffectKing]

who has been suppressed?

How many supposedly dead people have been buried alive?

[LakeEffectKing]

Taking e-mails out of context does not prove a lack of scientific misconduct. If anyone thinks that the scientists fudged results or "tweaked" a model to work, then they can simply do the experiment themselves and see if the results match those published. That's the beauty of science. All this finger pointing though is absolutely useless. If you have beef with science - try it for yourself. Finger pointing never ends, because it's drivin by ideology, not fact. If you want a productive discussion of AGW, use science, not finger pointing.

Easier said than done....if you are not part of the team.....and there is evidence that the team doesn't want THEIR method of science to be tested. If it is, then there is a chance that someone might be "temped to punch 'them' ....very tempted."

[skierinvermont]

The emails clearly show an unscientific conversation about the science itself. Its pretty pathetic.

The battle cry of a lot of these people is "they don't believe in AGW!!!!" which is kind of fake since most skeptics do believe in it but just question the magnitude of it.

If the emails were on the other shoe about scientists trying to question their findings, it would be nothing but absolute hysteria and laughing at them.

Which emails indicate anything of the sort?

Frankly I am not surprised or bothered by any of these emails. I would be more surprised if emails of this sort did not exist. In a fantasy ideal world maybe scientists would be the emotionless calculators they are often portrayed as, but in the real world they are not. Who honestly is surprised that Jones roots for an El nino? I'm not in the least bit surprised or worried by such an admission. Every El Nino brings us one step closer to disproving with statistical significance the denialist mantra of no warming since 1998. I think actually the 2010 El Nino put us solidly over the top and there now is a statistically significant warming trend since 1998.

[kylemacr]

Easier said than done....if you are not part of the team.....and there is evidence that the team doesn't want THEIR method of science to be tested. If it is, then there is a chance that someone might be "temped to punch 'them' ....very tempted."

You can still read the paper, download the data, perform the same analysis on the data, and come to a result. I don't understand how not being part of the team matters?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Please make a list of the science that is supposedly complete BS that I have been led to believe?

keep in mind that I have no idea how to get to the IPCC webpage or any of there predictions or what not.

Almost all of the points that I argue here are real time things I learn along the way that I do my best to fact check.

also please make a list of papers or proven sciences that have been suppressed and not allowed to be published that are backed with real facts and experimentation? If this is such a large practice there must be a good deal of them now out there with legitimacy.

[LakeEffectKing]

can you answer that simple question I asked? who has been suppressed?

I did.....over your head I guess.

[LakeEffectKing]

but the method is in the published paper. so I'm not sure what your issue is.

I'm not sure of what you are saying?

[skierinvermont]

The same McIntyre that found the hockeystick illusion??? You can marginalize as many people as you want....as I've said before, it only hurts "The Cause!" LOL

illusion? It's funny to me deniers still believe the hockeystick is fake even though it has been corroborated literally 100s of times within the last 5 years in peer-reviewed journals and there has never been a serious rebuttal of its findings punlished or otherwise.

There have been some changes as much more data has become available which show slightly more variation prior to 1900.. but the essential point remains the same. Temperatures over the last 1-2k years have the essential appearance of a hockeystick.