Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? (LIFTOFF!!)
uk telegraph ^ | 11/20/2009 | James Delingpole

Posted on 11/20/2009 8:42:26 AM PST by milwguy

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: algore; climategate; globalwarming; gorebalism; hadleycru; obama
The British media is jumping on this now. Only a matter of hours before it jumps across the pond and the MSM here HAVE to run with it. I am surprised Fox has nothing yet. A couple more hours and will be on for the 6 pm news.
1 posted on 11/20/2009 8:42:27 AM PST by milwguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: milwguy
Read the documents and emails for yourself:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T

2 posted on 11/20/2009 8:45:33 AM PST by Reaganesque ("And thou shalt do it with all humility, trusting in me, reviling not against revilers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque

Already downloaded on a flash drive last night. Good reading!


3 posted on 11/20/2009 8:48:16 AM PST by milwguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: milwguy

This really is serious stuff. Of course, Michael Crichton, in a novel “State of Fear,” exposed how the pro-warming scientific community lied for years. To this date, it’s the only novel I’ve ever seen with a bibliography and source notes!!


4 posted on 11/20/2009 8:53:16 AM PST by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: milwguy
I wonder if any of those emails has Algore’s name on it.
5 posted on 11/20/2009 8:54:57 AM PST by highlander_UW (To anger a conservative tell him a lie. To anger a liberal tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque
Got 'em! Thanks!


6 posted on 11/20/2009 8:56:29 AM PST by Nervous Tick (Stop dissing drunken sailors! At least they spend their OWN money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: milwguy

This ought to ratchet-up the discussion, even in the MSM.


7 posted on 11/20/2009 9:00:22 AM PST by BilLies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: milwguy

Posted that article on my facebook page. HOW VERY INTERESTING!


8 posted on 11/20/2009 9:01:16 AM PST by Mama Shawna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
Al Gore Pictures, Images and Photos
9 posted on 11/20/2009 9:01:21 AM PST by SouthernmostFreeper (Three If By Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: milwguy
Every time a jet flies, a polar bear dies.

(So far, Al Gore has killed 2,482 polar bears.)

10 posted on 11/20/2009 9:04:18 AM PST by Free State Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: milwguy
"Warmist scientists"

First time I've heard the phrase. I like it.

11 posted on 11/20/2009 9:04:40 AM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: milwguy

I found this rather interesting. It’s under ‘Letter To Mike 13.10.06’ from the download:

_______________________________________________________

Mike, 13 October 2006

To be honest your message presents us with something of a problem. We initially envisaged that you would do precisely what you have done and produce these results that appear to confirm what we suspected: that the results of von Storch et al. do not carry over to the RegEM method, but instead overstate the likely underestimation of long-term amplitude (in addition there is their detrending error to consider). We are happy with this and very interested to see the specific results regarding the RegEM approach and would love to see more detail (sensitivity to noise choices, PC patterns involved, etc.). Certainly we would be happy to be co-authors on a paper that describes the results as you summarise them here. Our problem arises, however, from your suggestion of using these results as part of a response to comments by the German group. We would much rather not use the results in this way. This is because we believe this would destroy our (personally conceived perhaps) impartiality as viewed from outside. We believe the original von Storch et al/Burger set of papers do show potential for loss of long-timescale reconstruction skill, even though the effective magnitude was incorrectly presented in their original paper. Also, providing the data for (and being co-authors on) a paper that is part of an ongoing debate might reasonably be considered a breach of faith by our SOAP partners, especially as there might be parts of your response that we might not sanction wholly and which would then delay you in providing your response to Journal of Climate. Providing data, sharing analysis and helping to author a specific paper on testing the RegEM method within a range of pseudo-proxy environments (including ECHO-G), would be more consistent with our understanding of the argreement between the SOAP partners.

Personally, we would also love to see the results repeated for the HadCM3 runs using RegEM – and perhaps both also redone with the detrending step to demonstrate clearly, in multiple models, the impact of that step on the results. This is not to say that we would yet agree on detail of interpretation – but this discussion, we feel, would be better in the context of a specific, stand alone paper, i.e. independent of the details and precedence of your debate with Hans and Eduardo. I hope you will accept that we gave this offer much consideration and now await your opinion.
Best wishes,

Keith and Tim


12 posted on 11/20/2009 9:06:31 AM PST by RushIsMyTeddyBear (I don't have a 'Cousin Pookie'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SouthernmostFreeper

Ha ha! Consider it stolen! :-)


13 posted on 11/20/2009 9:06:37 AM PST by Nervous Tick (Stop dissing drunken sailors! At least they spend their OWN money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: milwguy
I would like nothing more than for this to be the nail in the AGW fraud, but I doubt it will be . Several reasons:

1.The American mass media will ignore this story, or (if forced to cover it because of other countries' freer presses) they'll downplay it, hint that the emails are fakes, etc.

2.Most Americans get their news from ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC/CNN/(God help us) Jon Stewart's Daily Show etc. If these ignore or downplay it, it didn't happen.

3.If FOX ignores, it changes nothing. If FOX covers it, it changes nothing, because the obamabots call it FAUX news and ASSume it slants everything rightward, while the mainstream media is perfectly fair, balanced, and neutral.

4.Too much money is at stake (I'm talking about such "cures" as cap and trade, carbon credits, carbon trading, etc, if they're implemented).This money would go to the scientists who play along, the governments that tax, the NGOs that are to administer the anti AGW bodies, and to Third World countries full of melanin enhanced people. The money would be taken overwhelmingly from the working and middle class of countries in which the majority of the population (for now) is melanin deficient. This last is reason enough for the PTB to adore the AGW Fraud : It would make those racistsexistxenophobichomophobicneanderthals suffer the most.

5.The AGW myth is the key to enslaving humanity: That is the real point of cap and trade, huge tax increases, the Tobin tax (on free travel) carbon credits, the need for "extra governmental agencies" to oversee the machinery against "climate change"...No way will the would be enslavers of mankind allow anything to take away their power, right when it's in their grasp.

6.True Believers have too much of their self esteem wrapped up in believing in AGW. Look online at the crap posted about it: Those who believe in it truly believe that their belief proves they are smarter, better educated, and more caring than those who are "deniers". This also bosters antiAmericanism among European true believers. They WANT AGW to be true so they can go on feeling superior-they would be devastated to allow this to be taken away. If they even hear about this (see points1-3), they'll call the e mails spoofs, etc.

(Aristotle described all non Greeks as "natural slaves", because they willingly gave their freedom up to absolute monarchs. He believed Greeks therefore had a right if not a duty to enslave all mankind(sort of how moslems arrogate that right today). But even Aristotle thought that the "barbarians" didn't want to be slaves, and would fight back-he never imagined there would be such a thing as Volunteer Slaves. And that is precisely what the AGW True Believers are : volunteer slaves who WANT to give up their money and their freedom to 'save the planet', because it would make them feel good about themselves. )

14 posted on 11/20/2009 9:06:48 AM PST by kaylar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SouthernmostFreeper; All


15 posted on 11/20/2009 9:07:36 AM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kaylar

You have some good points, but I’m more optimistic than you, for the simple fact that Global Warmism is *already* beginning to unravel. This just breaks a few more strands in a yarn that’s already tenuous.

By the way: press and government may ignore this more or less successfully, but it’s going to be tough for ACADEMICS to sweep it under the rug. Not impossible — but quite difficult. This sort of thing is embarrassment of nuclear proportions to academia. Continuing to embrace fraud when the cards are on the table in full public view is a career-killer.

Note that Ward Churchill was not brought down by his poisonous ideology, but by PLAGIARISM. And do you recall Michael Bellesiles, the darling of the anti-gun crowd, and his downfall due to academic dishonesty?

FRegards


16 posted on 11/20/2009 9:16:14 AM PST by Nervous Tick (Stop dissing drunken sailors! At least they spend their OWN money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: milwguy

Ha ha! This is sounding more credible all the time.

Let’s hope they have some emails from American climatologists that will implicate them, too. Because they’re all in this scam together.


17 posted on 11/20/2009 9:17:11 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: SouthernmostFreeper

Stop it! I’m crying! I’m hoarse! My keyboard is full of coffee!

I’m suddenly not as hungry for lunch for some reason, however. :-)


19 posted on 11/20/2009 9:21:10 AM PST by Nervous Tick (Stop dissing drunken sailors! At least they spend their OWN money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: milwguy

What is amazing, the lack of public common sense, contrary empirical evidence, junk science and duplicitous behavior of scientists, political funding and public policy fraud…The question to be asked, if they have been lying about this, what else is based on circumstantial relevance. Then what will be done to the political class and the corruption which they have pursued over the years. I would prefer for some scientific society to sue Al Gore for conspiracy to commit fraud, second, every time someone sees these political terrorists and Al Gore in public make a scene calling him the liars and human debris which they represent.


20 posted on 11/20/2009 9:21:55 AM PST by ntmxx (I am not so sure about this misdirection!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SouthernmostFreeper

Holy Sh*t! Is That algore betraying our country and playing on our fears?


21 posted on 11/20/2009 9:23:58 AM PST by coon2000 (Give me Liberty or give me death!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: zot

Politically-driven science busted ping.


22 posted on 11/20/2009 9:26:45 AM PST by Interesting Times (For the truth about "swift boating" see ToSetTheRecordStraight.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: milwguy

Just a reminder: This Hoax is about power and money....not protecting the planet.

“”...there will be no peace in the tormented world, only a programmed and systematic series of wars and calamities- until the plotters have gained their objective: an exhausted world willing to submit to a planned Marxist economy and total and meek enslavement- in the name of peace.”

Taylor Caldwell 1976


24 posted on 11/20/2009 9:27:43 AM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: milwguy

bump


25 posted on 11/20/2009 9:32:47 AM PST by Vinnie (You're Nobody 'Til Somebody Jihads You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: milwguy

I have no problems with alternative energy. If someone wants to promote it, that’s fine. I frankly would love to be able to power our home with photovoltaic energy, and heat it with hot water provided by passive or active solar heating. Just don’t force it through government edict, using the false premise that the use of fossil fuels is going to kill the planet, or humanity.


26 posted on 11/20/2009 9:53:14 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

27 posted on 11/20/2009 9:53:48 AM PST by SouthernmostFreeper (Three If By Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
I hope you're right-If AGW does, die here's what may happen : AGW will be allowed to quietly fade from the news media, government leaders and officials will just quit talking about it, "summits" on it will become fewer and fewer....No one will ever come out and admit it's all BS , and the True Believers will keep on feeling holier than thou over their acceptance of the theory, but for all intents and purposes it'll fade away like phrenology. Let us hope so!

Yeah, I do remember MB : He's the rocket scientist who thought Americans killed wild game and fought off hostile indians with their bare hands, because wills hardly ever mentioned guns being bequeathed. This proves there *were* no guns in the American colonies, or in the early United States, prior to the civil war. Just as today's wills rarely mentioning microwaves, cell phones, computers, and MP3 players shows hardly anyone owns those, either.

28 posted on 11/20/2009 10:00:54 AM PST by kaylar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: milwguy
Calling AlGore, I see tar and feathers in your future.
29 posted on 11/20/2009 10:05:33 AM PST by mickey finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mickey finn
From: Keith Briffa To: Tim Osborn ,Clare Goodess , Phil Jones ,"Douglas Maraun" , "Janice Darch" Subject: Re: potential DfID funding for climate centre Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:33:01 +0100 have not been approached - but I think it really does sound like the sort of initiative CRU/ENV are looking for. I get the feeling this is the sort of potential contact ENV would wish to take over. Keith At 11:31 13/10/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: >Hi CRU Board, > >I just had an interesting chat with Jack Newnham >from the International Development Team at Price >Waterhouse Cooper. They get lots of DfID >(Douglas: DfID is the UK Government Department >for International Development) funding. > >They've heard that DfID are likely to call for >expressions of interest for a new centre >focussing on international climate >change. Their idea is to fund a centre that >would be the first point of call for advice and >for commissioning research related to climate >change and development or to climate change in countries where DfID operate. > >He was talking about £15 million per year for 5 >years! Not sure how much would be from DfID and >how much raised from other donors (and hence >uncertain), nor how much would be given up-front >versus how much spent later on specific research >projects organised via this centre. > >Nevertheless, sounds big enough to be worth getting involved in. > >He was clearly just testing the water with us, >so not sure that they definitely wish to involve >us. He may want to meet to talk through things, >if they decide to ask us to join their >proposal. He said he'd email me later -- I'll >forward this when it arrives. They're also >contacting the Tyndall Centre, and no doubt a number of other institutes. > >Has anyone else in CRU been approached? > >Presumably, if this call for tenders is actually >issued, this is likely to interest Tyndall >greatly. But CRU can offer a significant >contribution -- especially data and scenarios >developed for specific (developing) countries -- >and this should be seen as independent from >Tyndall rather than part of Tyndall >contribution. There's also Declan/DEV, so UEA as a whole has much to offer. > >Any thoughts on this? > >Tim > > > > >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >Climatic Research Unit >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > >e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >phone: +44 1603 592089 >fax: +44 1603 507784 >web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
30 posted on 11/20/2009 10:15:17 AM PST by milwguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: milwguy
Seems the climate 'scientists' were more interested in getting $ than actually doing science..........From: Keith Briffa To: Tim Osborn ,Clare Goodess , Phil Jones ,"Douglas Maraun" , "Janice Darch" Subject: Re: potential DfID funding for climate centre Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:33:01 +0100 have not been approached - but I think it really does sound like the sort of initiative CRU/ENV are looking for. I get the feeling this is the sort of potential contact ENV would wish to take over. Keith At 11:31 13/10/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: >Hi CRU Board, > >I just had an interesting chat with Jack Newnham >from the International Development Team at Price >Waterhouse Cooper. They get lots of DfID >(Douglas: DfID is the UK Government Department >for International Development) funding. > >They've heard that DfID are likely to call for >expressions of interest for a new centre >focussing on international climate >change. Their idea is to fund a centre that >would be the first point of call for advice and >for commissioning research related to climate >change and development or to climate change in countries where DfID operate. > >He was talking about £15 million per year for 5 >years! Not sure how much would be from DfID and >how much raised from other donors (and hence >uncertain), nor how much would be given up-front >versus how much spent later on specific research >projects organised via this centre. > >Nevertheless, sounds big enough to be worth getting involved in. > >He was clearly just testing the water with us, >so not sure that they definitely wish to involve >us. He may want to meet to talk through things, >if they decide to ask us to join their >proposal. He said he'd email me later -- I'll >forward this when it arrives. They're also >contacting the Tyndall Centre, and no doubt a number of other institutes. > >Has anyone else in CRU been approached? > >Presumably, if this call for tenders is actually >issued, this is likely to interest Tyndall >greatly. But CRU can offer a significant >contribution -- especially data and scenarios >developed for specific (developing) countries -- >and this should be seen as independent from >Tyndall rather than part of Tyndall >contribution. There's also Declan/DEV, so UEA as a whole has much to offer. > >Any thoughts on this? > >Tim > > > > >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >Climatic Research Unit >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > >e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >phone: +44 1603 592089 >fax: +44 1603 507784 >web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
31 posted on 11/20/2009 10:16:59 AM PST by milwguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kaylar

With Bellesiles, the key point is not that his premise was flawed, but that his methodology for proving it was fraudulent:

“Questions of scholarly misconduct eventually became so clamorous that Emory University both conducted an internal inquiry and appointed an Investigative Committee of outside scholars. Both committees found serious flaws in Bellesiles’s work, with the external committee questioning both its quality and veracity.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles

>> but for all intents and purposes [global warming will] fade away like phrenology. Let us hope so!

Amen!

FRegards


32 posted on 11/20/2009 10:18:10 AM PST by Nervous Tick (Stop dissing drunken sailors! At least they spend their OWN money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kaylar
Volunteer Slaves. And that is precisely what the AGW True Believers are : volunteer slaves who WANT to give up their money and their freedom to 'save the planet', because it would make them feel good about themselves. )

They will give up their money and freedoms only in exchange for you losing yours. Leftist envy is mostly about destroying what you have rather than obtaining it for themselves. Leftists are useful idiots for those that lust for power.

33 posted on 11/20/2009 10:19:07 AM PST by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: milwguy

makes some difference as most of the missing areas are in the SH, and currently the NH
is warmer than the SH with respect to 1961-90. Our rationale for doing what we do is that
it is better to estimate the missing areas of the SH (which we do by tacitly assuming they
are the average of the rest of the SH) from the rest of the SH as opposed to the rest of
the world.


34 posted on 11/20/2009 10:19:27 AM PST by milwguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SouthernmostFreeper

Bummer. Admin Mod took away your graphic of Algore “expressing himself”. Oh well, like the CRU data, I’m sure it’s somewhere out there on the Interwebz!


35 posted on 11/20/2009 10:20:09 AM PST by Nervous Tick (Stop dissing drunken sailors! At least they spend their OWN money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: milwguy
hil Jones To: santer1@llnl.gov Subject: Re: [Fwd: FOI Request] Date: Wed Nov 12 09:31:31 2008 Ben, Another point to discuss when you have your conference call - is why don't they ask Douglass for all his data. It is essentially the same. You can also think of all this positively - they think a few of us do really important work, so they concentrate on what they think are the cutting edge pieces of work. I have a big review on paleo coming out soon in The Holocene - with 20+ others. Won't be out till next year, but I can say for certain that it will feature strongly on CA. Not too much they can request via FOI, but they will think of something. This paper will explain where a Figure came from in the First IPCC Report - the infamous one that Chris Folland put together on the last 1000 yeas. CA will say they found this out - they had a thread on it 9 months ago according to Gavin. I have the submission date of the article and more detail though - to show we found out first. Cheers Phil At 03:57 12/11/2008, you wrote: Dear Tom, Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre's twin requests under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre's request (1), no "monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models" was "sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008". As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him yesterday, all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in the 2008 Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit. Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the very purpose of an audit. I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our calculation of synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data. Douglass et al. obtained "model average" trends in synthetic MSU temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that are virtually identical to our own. McIntyre's request (2) demands "any correspondence concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008". I do not know how you intend to respond this second request. You and three other NOAA co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John Lanzante) probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of our work on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December 2007, following online publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I have no idea why McIntyre's request for email correspondence has a "start date" of 2006, and thus predates publication of Douglass et al. My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre is pursuing a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away from research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed by further requests for computer programs, additional material and explanations, etc., etc. Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am unwilling to waste more of my time fulfilling the intrusive and frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr. McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect conclusions on the basis of that flawed test. I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming. I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my immediate superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in charge of our paper at IJoC). I'd be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I'm sorry that the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after today's events, I must assume that any email I write to you may be subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre's "ClimateAudit" website. With best personal wishes, Ben Thomas.R.Karl wrote: FYI --- Jolene can you set up a conference call with all the parties listed below including Ben. Thanks -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FOI Request Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:00 -0500 From: Steve McIntyre To: FOIA@noaa.gov CC: Thomas R Karl Nov. 10, 2008 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Public Reference Facility (OFA56) Attn: NOAA FOIA Officer 1315 East West Highway (SSMC3) Room 10730 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Re: Freedom of Information Act Request Dear NOAA FOIA Officer: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Santer et al, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, (Int J Climatology, 2008), of which NOAA employees J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl were co-authors, reported on a statistical analysis of the output of 47 runs of climate models that had been collated into monthly time series by Benjamin Santer and associates. I request that a copy of the following NOAA records be provided to me: (1) any monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008; (2) any correspondence concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008. The primary sources for NOAA records are J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl. In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining the applicability of any fees, you should know that I have 5 peer-reviewed publications on paleoclimate; that I was a reviewer for WG1; that I made a invited presentations in 2006 to the National Research Council Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two presentations to the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In addition, a previous FOI request was discussed by the NOAA Science Advisory Boards Data Archiving and Access Requirements Working Group (DAARWG). [1]http:// www. joss.ucar.edu/daarwg/may07/presentations/KarL_DAARWG_NOAAArchivepolify-v0514.pdf. I believe a fee waiver is appropriate since the purpose of the request is academic research, the information exists in digital format and the information should be easily located by the primary sources. I also include a telephone number (416-469-3034) at which I can be contacted between 9 and 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time, if necessary, to discuss any aspect of my request. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I ask that the FOI request be processed promptly as NOAA failed to send me a response to the FOI request referred to above, for which Dr Karl apologized as follows: due to a miscommunication between our office and our headquarters, the response was not submitted to you. I deeply apologize for this oversight, and we have taken measures to ensure this does not happen in the future.
36 posted on 11/20/2009 10:25:49 AM PST by milwguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LS
This really is serious stuff. Of course, Michael Crichton, in a novel “State of Fear,” exposed how the pro-warming scientific community lied for years. To this date, it’s the only novel I’ve ever seen with a bibliography and source notes!!

I loved it. It really did open my eyes and let me see how "science" has become politicized.

37 posted on 11/20/2009 10:33:56 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: milwguy

One quote from an email titled “Fishers” - “The elevation corrected south GRIP Holocene has a very strong
negative delta trend in it and I expect there should be some correction done to the north GRIP record too,, eventually I think they should all come out looking like our records from Northern Canada. Now at least ice core records have some low frequencies to correct... not like your bloody trees that can not remember one century to the next”

This email outlines blatant changing of data in order to make it fit with the result they want. They admit the data they collected trends against the results they want but to ‘preserve their funding’ they need to “correct the data”.


38 posted on 11/20/2009 10:51:02 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

Thanks for the busted warmist ping. But leftist politicans are still going to push for more power based on these lies.


39 posted on 11/20/2009 10:53:56 AM PST by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: milwguy

This is the best article on this scandal so far.


40 posted on 11/20/2009 11:15:29 AM PST by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: milwguy
At 16:06 on 30/09/2009 Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote the following to Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit:

Hi Phil,

lets not get into the topic of hate mail. I promise you I could fill your inbox w/ a very long list of vitriolic attacks, diatribes, and threats I've received.

Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign. We saw it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat Obama's health plan, we'll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap & trade bill that passed congress this summer. It isn't coincidental that the original McIntyre and McKitrick E&E paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S. senate was considering the McCain Lieberman climate bill in '05.

we're doing the best we can to expose this. I hope our Realclimate post goes some ways to exposing the campaign and pre-emptively deal w/ the continued onslaught we can expect over the next month...

Keep in mind that these are the same two who colluded to destroy emails requested under the FOIA.

Yet they see evil corporate forces trying to destroy every liberal social engineering scheme the left can pull together.

Its a neat little window into the minds of these freaks destroying our world.

41 posted on 11/20/2009 11:28:39 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: milwguy

Algore Fraud Bump!


42 posted on 11/20/2009 11:52:29 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: milwguy; Genesis defender; markomalley; scripter; proud_yank; grey_whiskers; FrPR; enough_idiocy; ..
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

Thursday, November 19, 2009

The Blue-Dress Moment May Have Arrived   [Chris Horner]

I am not able to fully digest this at present, catching up with the boys from days away and then up at O-Dark-Thirty for a flight to California for a talk, but check out what Anthony Watts among others have posted.

Now, none of us can attest to the validity of what has been posted on a Russian server (nor can we even be sure of how it was obtained, though it purports to be non-classified data held by a purely public agency subject to freedom of information/transparency laws). But I'm told it's almost 61 megabytes of files, and after a few days of scrutiny appears (to the kind of people who would know) to be legitimate. And very revealing, both the data and what are represented to be comments and admissions by leading lights on Team Alarmist.

If legit, this apparently devastating series of revelations will be very hard for the media to ignore. I didn't say impossible — they're fully vested partners in the global warming industry, because catastrophism sells. But so does scandal, and this appears to be the makings of a very big one. Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS research. Then reflect that the taxpayer spends more on climate-related research than on the entire suite of AIDS programs, far beyond drug research.


43 posted on 11/20/2009 12:50:44 PM PST by steelyourfaith (Limit all U.S. politicians to two terms: One in office and one in prison!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: musicman

Gospel of Gore...ROFL!!!!


44 posted on 11/20/2009 1:54:50 PM PST by gogeo (Lefties...making small minded pettiness seem...well, fashionable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson