Skip to comments.A Few Juicy Climategate (2) Emails
Posted on 11/23/2011 2:12:49 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
They validate EVERYTHING the skeptics have been saying. Viva les sceptiques!
Climategate 2.0 is here! says Steve Milloy at JunkScience.com. Weve covered juicy ones in the posts listed below. More on the way. Read em all.
Heres a sample:
Department of Energy involved in hiding 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. Ive discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
The technical term for this sort of conversation would be conspiracy, says Milloy.
Milloy has done such a good job of compiling these that Ive simply copied his page. Since every one of the following links take you back to his website, I think thats fair.
I have not looked at the links but more fruitful than what I was doing!
“Ive discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
This is very damning. I hope some Republicans who have a spine will go after this cover up and deceit in our government.
“This is very damning. I hope some Republicans who have a spine will go after this cover up and deceit in our government”.......why couldn’t this be intertwined into a campaign message by a Presidential Candidate:
I’ve looked at some of the links and will open others later. My blood is boiling again. Fat Albert and his minions were nearly able to rip us off even more than they did. If not for these leaked emails and others, we would be purchasing carbon credits while they traded away on the Chicago Mercantile exchange, which would have had the same result as an MF Global, make a few rich (like Gore) and pick the pockets of everyone else. He shoud be stripped of his Noebel Prize, Michael Mann should be fired long ago from Penn State (how did that ‘circling of the wagons’ internal investigation work out for ya, Penn State?) and the scientific bodies that award these Nobel and other ‘prizes’ should be disgraced and referred to as laughingstck of the world. End any and all funding for these ‘projects’ intil their ranks have been purged..and that includes that freaking Nasa chief. He has brought shame to the once bright light of our Nation’s Space Agency and should be summarily dismissed. Grrrr, how I despise these people.
Some of the last load of emails came from DOE workers in Hanford, WA working on the reactor cleanup.
I’ve often wondered if the multi-billions poured into the cleanup was being used for alternative uses.
I remember when they were talking about creating this Department. The sneaked it in...
For more selections, go to the original batch of selections posted here. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/
The original files (173 MB) of all the e-mails released here: http://globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/FOIA2011.zip
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] whats included and what is left out.
Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and governmental opinion [...] climate change needs to be present in peoples daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and evolving phenomenon
We dont really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written [...] Well have to cut out some of his stuff.
the important thing is to make sure theyre loosing the PR battle. Thats what the site [Real Climate] is about.
Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions bad politics to one about the value of a stable climate much better politics. [...] the most valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible
<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media
But it will be very difficult to make the MWP [medieval warm period] go away in Greenland.
 What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? Theyll kill us probably [...]
would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?
[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest that temperatures havent increased at these levels.
I am not convinced that the truth is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships
Phil, thanks for your thoughts guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH [northern hemisphere] temps. Explaining the cooling with sulphates wont be quite as necessary.
It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says Londons UHI [urban heat island effect] has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer.
there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets we dont want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].
Jones: The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at all Californian sites.
what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.
Im sure you agreethe Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I dont want to be associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when were throwing out all post-1960 data cos the MXD [maximum latewood density] has a non temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.
I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse skeptics have extreme religious views.
<4394> Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]: [...] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the Earth [...] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We must pray that they pick up that message.
["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
[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
[IPCC AR5 models] So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
Basic problem is that all models are wrong not got enough middle and low level clouds.
Phil, Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.
[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! [...] Even though its 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!
Ive 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
[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. Ive discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
Thanx for the ping Ernest_at_the_Beach !
“I hope some Republicans who have a spine....”
Good luck with that one. It’s the spinelessness of the
Republican party that has let it get as far as it has.
“I hope some Republicans who have a spine...”
You can count them on one hand.
I believe most of this stuff was in the original hijacked files. Look at the dates. But that is ok. Perhaps there are those at FR that where not around the last big go two years back.
Actually visited John's old school web site a few times in the early years.
Excellent post. Thanks. Smoking guns.
Daly obviously didn't think much of Mann!
To the Editor
American Liberty Publishers
Minneapolis, MN 55418
Your website (http://www.amlibpub.com/top/contact_us.html) was recently brought to my attention. On this site, you make the following claims: "In the Second Assessment Report, Benjamin Santer, lead author of a crucial study, falsified a chart to make it appear to support global warminga conclusion not supported at all by the original data. But two climatologists, Knappenberger and Michaels, looked up the data and exposed the fraud. Santer said he adjusted the data to make it agree with political policy."
These claims have no factual basis whatsoever, and are demonstrably libelous. I did not falsify data. I did not commit fraud. I did not - nor have I ever - "adjusted" scientific data "to make it agree with political policy." Nor did I ever state that I had made data adjustments in order to conform to political policy. I request that you retract these claims immediately. They are completely fictitious, and are harmful to my scientific reputation. If you do not retract these claims immediately, I will transfer this matter to the attention of legal staff at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Dr. Benjamin Santer
U.S. Dept. of Energy Distinguished Scientist (2006)
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Award (2002)
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow (1998)
Oh that is a good one....wonder if Santer talked about it via e-mails to the Team!
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.