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]

This is available for those wanting to see for themselves...the "stuff".... thanks to winoneforthegipper

Supplied at post #208 on this thread:

Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

[Islam=Murder]

This is BIGGER than Watergate.

It’s a global multi-trillion-dollar hoax perpetrated by governments upon billions of people. It’s HEGEMONY.

When Socialists “object” to the hacking, tell them:

“Maybe if hackers had exposed it early, the Watergate horror would never have happened!”

Then watch them stand there silent, like Communist stooges.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

This is BIGGER than Watergate.

It's a Global Swindle...absolutely!

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Fantastic.

Now I’ve got to get to work on this.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Send a note of thanks to winoneforthegipper for posting this link...

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

Thanks for posting this. I downloaded the torrent earlier....but this is much easier to read. :)

[Danae]

Beware this stuff, and download and save everything! What was done to get those emails out was likely illegal. Though the release does show that some of those scientists were deliberately fudging data and and covering up issues. Not to mention deleting materials subject to foia documents!!! Also illegal!!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I guess I would like to be on your ping list if you see some good stuff.

I am trying to follow a lot of stuff.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Alleged CRU Emails - 1252154659.txt

The below is one of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.

From: Darrell Kaufman To: Nick McKay , Caspar Ammann , David Schneider , Jonathan Overpeck , “Bette L. Otto-Bliesner” , Raymond Bradley , Miller Giff , Bo Vinther , Keith Briffa Subject: Arctic2k update? Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:44:19 -0700 Cc:

All:

I received my first hate mail this AM, which helped me to realize that I shouldn’t be

wasting time reading the blogs.

Regarding the “upside down man”, as Nick’s plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series

has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the

calibration. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the

density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of

the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have

used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact

that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that

directly with temperature.

This is new territory for me, but not acknowledging an error might come back to bite us. I

suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief update showing the corrected composite

(Nick’s graph) and post it to RealClimate. Do you all agree?

There’s other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre’s group:

(1) We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia. Apparently this is old ground, but do

we need to address why we chose the Yamal record over the Polar Urals? Apparently, there’s

also a record from the Indigirka River region, which might not have been published and

doesn’t seem to be included in Keith’s recent summary. If we overlooked any record that met

our criteria, I suggest that we explain why. Keith: are you back? Can Ray or Mike provide

some advise?

(2) The correction for Dye-3 was criticized because the approach/rationale had not been

reviewed independently on its own. Bo: has this procedure now been published anywhere?

(3) We didn’t publish any error analysis (e.g., leave-one-out ), but I recall that we did

do some of that prior to publication. Would it be worthwhile including this in our update?

The threshold-exceedence difference (O&B-style) does include a boot-strapped estimate of

errors. That might suffice, but is not the record we use for the temperature calibration.

(4) We selected records that showed 20th century warming. The only records that I know of

that go back 1000 years that we left out were from the Gulf of Alaska that are known to be

related strongly to precipitation, not temperature, and we stated this upfront. Do we want

to clarify that it would be inappropriate to use a record of precip to reconstruct

temperature? Or do we want to assume that precip should increase with temperature and add

those records in and show that the primary signals remain?

(5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the

10-year mean values (10-year means were up on the NOAA site the same AM as the paper was

published). The only “non-published” data are the annual series from the ice cores

(Agassiz, Dye-3, NGRIP, and Renland). We stated this in the footnote, but it does stretch

our assertion that all of the data are available publicly. Bo: How do you want to proceed?

Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre?

Please let me — better yet, the entire group — know whether you think we should post a

revision on RealScience, and whether we should include a reply to other criticism (1

through 5 above). I’m also thinking that I should write to Ojala and Tiljander directly to

apologize for inadvertently reversing their data.

Other thoughts or advise?

Darrell

On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Nick McKay wrote:

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.

I took a look at the original reference - the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray

density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had

higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong,

unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this

sound right to you?

This dataset is truncated at 1800, so it doesn’t enter the calibration, nor does it

affect the recent warming trend.

The attached plot (same as before) shows the effect of re-orienting the record on the

reconstruction. It doesn’t change any of our major or minor interpretations of course.

Nick

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Nick McKay <[1]nmckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:

Hi all,

I haven’t checked the original reference for it’s interpretation, but I checked the code

and we did use it in the orientation that he stated. He’s also right that flipping

doesn’t affect any of the conclusions. Actually, flipping it makes it fit in better with

the 1900-year trend.

I’ve attached a plot of the original, and another with Korttajarvi flipped.

Nick

[cid:2D818DBD-2A02-494E-B050-C1C5BACE9984@xxxxxxxxx.xxxdsltmp] Embedded Content: Effect of

flipping Korttajarvi.jpg: 00000001,0da94ca9,00000000,00000000

References

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi...seach for steve in these Emails....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

This reads like a confession from Students doing the drylab-ing a chemistry experiment ...and trying to get the data to come out right....

I think I have been there before...or maybe it was a physics experiment...

Maybe why I switched to pure Math.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Exact match results

You searched for Steve

There were 144 results for the exact phrase Steve, see below for more results.

[trzupr]

Long time lurker, first time poster (and bro to Hegewisch Dupa - although I’m not sure that gains me any legitamacy...) Really been enjoying following this today and wanted to make a contribution.

Found this in the pile of info. from CRU. Screenshots from a PR agency, explaining to the “unbiased” scientists at CRU exactly how to sell thier message:

http://www.threedonia.com/archives/16387

[Marie]

I could spend weeks with this site! Thank you!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The latest email from the search....

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

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1065

****************EXCERPT For Formatting reasons.*************************

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 here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars and elsewhere, always coming back to the same theme. Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, 'and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!'

Graham

-----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx] Sent: 28 October 2009 16:39 To: Graham F Haughton Subject: RE: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN



Dear Graham,

Thanks for the speedy reply. Just like you are, we are trying here to do bits of research mostly related to the current set of contracts we have. Trying to respond to blogs is just not part of the deadlines we have entered into with the Research Councils, the EU and DEFRA.

You are probably aware of this, but the journal Sonja edits is at the very bottom of almost all climate scientists lists of journals to read. It is the journal of choice of climate change skeptics and even here they don't seem to be bothering with journals at all recently.

I don't think there is anything more you can do. I have vented my frustration and have had a considered reply from you.



Cheers

Phil

[Uncle Miltie]

Morner, the world’s leading authority on sea level, has

been very clear in saying there is very little evidence to justify the IPCC’s sea-level

projections. The IPCC itself forecast up to 0.94m sea level rise in a century in its 1996

report; up to 0.88m in its 2001 report; and now 0.43m in its 2007 report. If one loosely

defines whatever t he IPCC says as the “consensus”, then not only does the “consensus” not

agree with itself: it is galloping in the direction of the formerly-derided sceptics.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=32&pp=25

[Uncle Miltie]

This illustrates one of the problems bedevilling the

climate-change question: too much of the data and processes on the basis of which we are

trying to draw conclusions are unreliable, incomplete or very poorly understood. This

should not deter scientists from trying to make increasingly intelligent guesses

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=32&pp=25

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well.... welcome ....help is always appreciated on one of the great websites of the WWW!

[Marie]

That was the first thing I opened up when I downloaded the file. To me, it reads very much like the Rules for Radicals.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well...ROFL....The first line:

These are our principles. If you don't like them, we have others...

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

It gets better........

Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]

<[1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf>

(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see

[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt

Kevin

..... I love it.

Best quote so far: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.”

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

They have a nice banner:

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Send a note of thanks to winoneforthegipper for posting this link... on the

Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

[Texas Fossil]

Yes, that is much easier to search.

Your e-mail addresses are redacted.

I also downloaded it with bittorrent.

Filed for posterity.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

increasingly intelligent guesses

Just DAMN!!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

but the data are surely wrong.

Scientists in search of their next research grant.

[musicman]

BFLR & BTTT !!!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

A new thread:

NY Times: Hacked E-mails Fuel Climate Change Skeptics

[Uncle Miltie]

Mike

your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole

process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often

wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these

kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not

always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you

well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed

and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding

the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we

were basically railroaded by Susan.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=32&pp=25

[Fred Nerks]

thanks Ernest.

Lucy, the e-mails are a hoot!

[Repeat Offender]

From: gjjenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: 1996 global temperatures Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT) Cc: llivingston@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djcarson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Phil

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:

1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov

2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa heights up to 20 Dec.

3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov

4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20 Dec

5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls??

6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also

7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is) cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this last year - can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)

8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.

9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.

10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.

Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

Cheers

Geoff

[TASMANIANRED]

Need to sue and make them repay all of the tax dollars involved.

[Uncle Miltie]

I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1045

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Now about the NY Times author of the article at linked at post #30:

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

Exact match results

You searched for REVKIN

There were 12 results for the exact phrase REVKIN, see below for more results.

*****************Looking at

Alleged CRU Emails - 1254259645.txt

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

From: Michael Mann To: Andrew Revkin Subject: Re: mcintyre's latest.... Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:25 -0400 Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx



HI Andy,



Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don't quote

anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically--thanks.



Re, your point at the end--you've taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential

for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But

legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in

particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition

for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate

scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside

of this system are not to be trusted.



mike



On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:



thanks heaps.

tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the

reviewed lit or shut up. i'm going to post that soon.

just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU ... a little unclear . ?

I'm copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions

made over at climateaudit.org.....

I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on

the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.

peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge

building happens, would you agree?



p.s. Tim Osborn ([1]t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) is probably the best person to contact for

further details, in Keith's absence,



mike



On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Michael Mann wrote:



Hi Andy,



I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and

is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I

have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.



It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some

of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of

these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method),

let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature

shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming

is anomalous in a long-term context.



So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key

conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don't think there is any problem

with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual

information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of

this, in Keith's absence.



if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in

question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his

comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic

warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't

submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will

be in the discredited contrarian home journal "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you

are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap

published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and

the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn

Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are

parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections

with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer

review.



Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right?



mike



I'm sure you're aware that you will dozens of bogus, manufactured distortions of the

science in the weeks leading up to the vote on cap & trade in the U.S. senate. This is

no



On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:



needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid

picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements

about Yamal data-set selectivity.

Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking

journal publication for his deconstruct?

--

Andrew C. Revkin

The New York Times / Environment

620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018

Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556

Fax: 509-357-0965

[2]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin



--



Michael E. Mann

Professor

Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075



503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663

The Pennsylvania State University email: [3]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

University Park, PA 16802-5013

website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html



"Dire Predictions" book site:



[5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html



--



Michael E. Mann

Professor

Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075

503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663

The Pennsylvania State University email: [6]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

University Park, PA 16802-5013

website: [7]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html



"Dire Predictions" book site:



[8]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

--



Andrew C. Revkin

The New York Times / Environment

620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018

Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556

Fax: 509-357-0965

[9]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin



--

Michael E. Mann

Professor

Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075

503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663

The Pennsylvania State University email: [10]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

University Park, PA 16802-5013

website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

"Dire Predictions" book site:

[12]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

References



Visible links

1. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

2. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin

3. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

4. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

5. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

6. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

7. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

8. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

9. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin

10. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

12. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html



Hidden links:

13. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

14. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

15. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

Return to the index page | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

typical email chain...somewhat garbled...

[editor-surveyor]

After reading through the emails, I have reached the conclusion the the leaker was Kevin Trenberth in Bolder.

He “gets it.” - He continually points out the descrepancies, and the others poo-poo him.

[winoneforthegipper]

Thanks EATB!

This email caught my eye, going to the heart of the AGW industry’s distain for accountability!

“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 here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars and elsewhere, always coming back to the same theme. Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I’ve signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, ‘and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!’

Graham”

Found here:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1065

[Uncle Miltie]

One thing I thought I might add is more about the other two

surface data sets. A key point may be that 1998 is not the

warmest year in the GISS record — do you trust GISS? I’ve

not looked at NOAA. Perhaps this still has 1998 as warmest?

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1042

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Searching FreeRepublic on Dire Predictions...

TFound this recent thread:

Mass Migrations And War: Dire Climate Scenario
AP Report ^ | February 21, 2009

***********************************EXCERPT INTRO*********************************

Posted on Sat 21 Feb 2009 04:43:03 PM PST by Steelfish

Mass migrations and war: Dire climate scenario

CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent – Feb 21, 3:00 pm ET

CAPE TOWN, South Africa – If we don't deal with climate change decisively, "what we're talking about then is extended world war," the eminent economist said.

His audience Saturday, small and elite, had been stranded here by bad weather and were talking climate. They couldn't do much about the one, but the other was squarely in their hands.

And so, Lord Nicholas Stern was telling them, was the potential for mass migrations setting off mass conflict.

"Somehow we have to explain to people just how worrying that is," the British economic thinker said.

Stern, author of a major British government report detailing the cost of climate change, was one of a select group of two dozen — environment ministers, climate negotiators and experts from 16 nations — scheduled to fly to Antarctica to learn firsthand how global warming might melt its ice into the sea, raising ocean levels worldwide.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ROFL....so much for calm scientific inquiry!

[fanfan]

Or do we want to assume that precip should increase with temperature and add

those records in and show that the primary signals remain?

THIS is Science?

Thanks for the pings Ernest.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

About forgot this ...link to 2001 article at REASON:

Dire Predictions?

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

Those who hate modern industrialized societies -- whether they are Islamic radicals or radical environmentalists -- threaten the hopes of the poor and imperil the natural world as well.

Ronald Bailey | October 2, 2001

"This was an act of anger, desperation and indignation" is the way Gar Smith, editor of Earth Island Journal, described the terrorist attack on America two days after it happened. He offered an "environmental analysis" of the event, tracing "every terrorist attack against the United States . . . back to one common factor: Oil." Mr. Smith's solution to terrorism was "to transform our economy into one that operates on clean, renewable energy."

Meanwhile, the Green Party USA suggested that we respond to the attacks by letting "U.S. corporations, so busy using up Earth's resources and beggaring Earth's life forms, protect themselves." It proposed an end to the American "manufacture and sale of most pesticides and industrial toxic chemicals."

That's one way of looking at Sept. 11 -- as if Osama bin Laden will leave us alone if we stop making plastic and start using ethanol. What is so odd about this, coming from environmentalists, is that prosperity is the reason why so many environmental trends are positive today, and prosperity owes a great deal to energy production, technology and markets.

You don't believe that environmental trends are positive? You are not alone: The media treat the environment as a subject of ceaseless decline, hastened by the indifference of ruthless capitalists and their toady politicians. But The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge, 515 pages, $27.95 paper), a superbly documented and readable book by a former member of Greenpeace, has a different story to tell.

The author, Bjorn Lomborg, is a professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark and a self-described "man of the Left." A few years ago he read an article about the economist Julian Simon in which Simon claimed that the state of humanity and the natural environment were both improving. Mr. Lomborg didn't believe it. He directed his students to find the "real" data that would debunk this "right-wing" American. What they found stunned him and inspired this book.

Mr. Lomborg begins with what he calls The Litany. "We all know it," he dryly notes: "Our resources are running out. The population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat. The air and water are becoming ever more polluted. . . . The world's ecosystem is breaking down." There is "just one problem," he continues. The Litany "does not seem to be backed up by the available evidence."

[editor-surveyor]

"THIS is Science?"

Yes, the 'science' of propaganda.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

THIS is Science?

Science in the quest for research grants....

[Josephat]

Would someone please search “Chicago Climate Exchange”. Obama was on the board of the Joyce foundation when it voted to put up the million dollars in seed money for the Chicago Climate Exchange. Now he is a position to see that they are generously rewarded.....with our dollars.

[Stentor]

You are welcome as long as you promise to be your own dupa.

[ForGod'sSake]

Pure gold self ~ping~

[Uncle Miltie]

From: Tom Wigley To: Phil Jones Subject: 1940s Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600 Cc: Ben Santer

Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1016