Search
Close this search box.
Facebook Twitter Youtube

Search Results for: muller trashing

Climate Depot Round Up on Richard Muller: Scientists trashing Muller’s work…Muller stands accused of being ‘front man for geoengineering org.’ — Muller Responds to Climate Depot’

April 4, 2011

  [Climate Depot, serving the public interest, continues it’s coverage of Richard Muller of Berkeley’s BEST temperature project] Scientists Trashing Muller’s work: Peter Thorne of NCDC: ‘The Berkeley team had been ‘seriously compromised’ by publicizing its work before publishing any vetted papers’ Muller calculating his scientific claims?! ‘He basically destroys the reputation & research of most of [AGW’s] most notable super stars & yet he believes the science they promote is sound — amazing!‘ [email protected] Muller’s alleged ‘skeptical’ climate quotes manufactured?! ‘On one hand he says that virtually all the science flowing from IPCC and various proponent organizations is shoddy, yet he believes that the science that underpins it which is product of those same individuals and organizations is accurate’ Richard Muller Stands Accused: ‘He is the front man for a geoengineering organization…which claims theirs is the only means of controlling the earth’s temperature’: ‘So they employ Dr. Muller to rubbish all the carbon control proposals — which he ably does’ Background on Muller’s BEST project: ‘Who is Novim and why are they messing with the Earth’s Temperature update?’ — Muller’s Berkley Earth Surface Group is part of the Novim Group…they are very much into Geo-Engineering: ‘Novim’s Exec Dir. Ditmore: ‘We’re running out of time’ — ‘The Berkley Earth Surface Group is not without an agenda’ Muller’s scientific work failing the grade?: ‘Even [warmist Kevin] Trenberth isn’t too sure about it’: Trenberth is ‘highly skeptical of the hype and claims’ surrounding Muller’s effort and claims the team does ‘not the expertise required in certain areas, and purely statistical approaches are naive’ Scientist Ridicules the Muller Con: ‘I forecast Muller will continue to play role of neutral observer, & will continue to shock us with revelations that climate change is ‘worse than he expected’ Salon.com accuses Climate Depot of a ‘character assassination’ of Richard Muller — Salon: Based on attack on Muller ‘currently splashed all over the prominent skeptic site, Marc Morano’s Climate Depot, Richard Muller has a long way to go before he makes any new friends in the skeptic community’ NYT’s Andrew Revkin joins Climate Depot in posting email addresses! Revkin: ‘In Marc’s tradition of providing email addresses of his subjects, here’s his: [email protected]’ Muller responds to Climate Depot via NYT’s Revkin: ‘Muller, reacting after receiving an attack e-mail from Marc Morano of Climate Depot’ — Muller: ‘In the olden days, people would have checked with me before accusing me of wrongdoing. The pressure to be the first to blog is apparently winning’ Climate Depot Response to Muller: ‘On the contrary, remarkable restraint occurred in holding off exposing your views and the BEST Project’ — On 3-23-11, Climate Depot wrote in group email: ‘This whole [Muller] project has to be a set up to screw skeptics. Who disputes warming has taken place? Why have we allowed Muller to set up a straw man argument to take cheap shots at skeptics? It appears Muller is incapable of running this project. He has allowed leaks, media distortions, allowed Romm to publicly hijack project and Muller remains silent’ Richard Muller Demonstrates That UHI (Urban Heat Island) Contaminates The Temperature Record: ‘Satellite data is measured at 14,000 feet, and would exaggerate the warming if it was due to ‘global warming.’ However, we see the exact opposite. The only plausible explanation is that the surface record is biased by UHI effects, because thermometers are located where humans live, build roads, remove snow, heat their homes, build buildings, etc.’ Hiding The Decline In Illinois: Berkeley’s Muller says the surface temperature record is golden but ‘USHCN has created a rise by subtracting from older temps and adding to newer temps’ Climatologist Pielke Sr.: ‘Is There A Sampling Bias In The BEST Analysis Reported By Richard Muller?’: Muller’s ‘sampling is still biased if a preponderance of his data sources comes from a subset of actual landscape types. The sampling will necessarily be skewed towards those sites…unresolved issues, including a likely systematic warm bias, remains in the analysis of long term surface temperature trends’ Muller claims ‘that existing work by NOAA, NASSA & Had CRU is excellent. So why set up a new study to compete with them?’ – ‘Left unsaid in all this is the group behind BEST, Novim’ [email protected] Revealing quote from warmist at heart Muller: ‘I you believe we can get a favor from God by praying, I suggest you pray that cloud cover will kick in because if my evaluation is right when I show you what the problem is and if the global warming models are right, and I think they are very likely right, then we are going to have global warming’ More background on Richard Muller’s BEST project: Richard Muller’s Temperature Project Aptly Termed The ‘Berkeley Scam’ — [email protected] — Muller’s team ‘are completely unbiased and open minded, though they have already determined (ahead of their neutral study) that global warming is the most serious problem in the world’ Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. Slams Richard Muller’s ‘contradictory statements’ — [email protected] — ‘All Muller’s study has accomplished so far is to confirm that NCDC, GISS and CRU honestly used the raw observed data as the starting point for their analyses. This is not a surprising result…The uncertainties and systematic biases remain unexplored so far by Richard Muller…Muller and his colleagues have not yet examined these concerns, yet chose to report on his very preliminary results at a House Hearing’ He can’t get basic temperature data correct?! ‘Muller’s graph appears to be incorrect’ — Richard Muller Claims 1C Warming Since 1977 — ‘But HadCRUT shows about half of that’ From BEST To WORST In D.C. Minute: Berkeley Scientist’s Promise of Transparency Becomes Vaporware Muller Exposed: ‘I was disheartened by the testimony of Richard Muller…he has totally destroyed any credibility he might have had with me’ — [email protected] — Muller is ‘a man driven by a very serious agenda, a man who doesn’t check his work and who pays insufficient attention to facts in testimony’ ‘GOP asked Richard Muller the wrong questions. Warming is miniscule, and the little warming we have seen isn’t primarily due to CO2’ What Richard Muller Isn’t Saying: ‘Most of the warming in his graph occurred after PDO shift in 1977’ — ‘The rate of warming is below low end of projections. In other words, a don’t care’ Meteorologist D’Aleo: Berkeley’s Muller goes to Washington and another misleading statement by NOAA CCSP author Thorne Prof. Richard A. Muller’s testimony: ‘According to IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to ‘most’ of the 0.7 degree rise since then’ — ‘I believe that some of the most worrisome (temperature) biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought’ Other Scientists Testifying at Congressional Hearing: Warmist Prof. Kerry A. Emanuel warns of future wars over global warming! ‘Uncertainties are reflected in climate projections, which at present range from benign to catastrophic’ — Emanuel: ‘I am appalled at the energetic campaign of disinformation being waged in the climate arena…the U.S. helped the world confront such global problems as fascism and communism. As a citizen, I hope that my country will once again rise to the challenge and assume leadership in this arena too’ Skeptical Testimony: UN IPCC’s Dr. John Christy: ‘UN IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temp record of the past 1000 years’ — Christy: ‘UN IPCC Lead Author’s (L.A.’s) have virtually total control over the material and behave in ways that can prevent full disclosure of the information that contradicts their own pet findings and which has serious implications for policy in the sections they author…I saw a process in which L.A.s were transformed from serving as Brokers of science to Gatekeepers of a preferred point of view’   Skeptical Testimony: Forecasting Expert Prof. J. Scott Armstrong audited IPCC’s temperature forecasting procedures and found they ‘violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles’ — The warmists ‘argument for predictive validity is based on their claim that nearly all scientists agree with forecasts…errors for IPCC model long-term forecasts were 12.6 times larger than ‘no change’ model…’We have identified 26 historical alarmist movements. None of forecasts for alarm proved correct. In the 25 alarms that called for gov’t intervention, gov’t imposed regulations in 23. None of 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them’  

Warmists’ trash alleged ‘converted skeptic’ Muller as ‘absurdly naive…rubbish’ — ‘Way over simplistic & not at all convincing’ — Mann says Muller all about ‘self-aggrandizement’

July 29, 2012

  Richard Muller’s email: [email protected] He’s back! Berkeley’s Richard Muller Climate Con Continues: Muller pens NYT OPED: Claims to be ‘Converted Skeptic’ – Declares global warming ‘due to the human emission of ghgs’ Muller says we caused 0.7 warming seen in pink circle on right, even though it is completely in the noise of measurement error – & an order of magnitude smaller than natural variability’ Muller claims his ‘statistical methods’ prove man-made warming –‘How definite is the attribution to humans? The CO2 curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried’ [email protected] Climate Depot Response: ‘Did your ‘statistical methods’ rule out the hundreds of factors that make up global temps? Did you rule out the Sun, volcanoes, tilt of Earth’s axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, albedo, atmospheric dust, Atmospheric circulation, cosmic rays, carbon soot, forests & land use, etc.? Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, not just CO2, so please spare us your attempt at fingerprint modeling.’ Michael Mann rips Muller’s latest media blitz: ‘It seems, in the end–quite sadly–that this is all really about Richard Muller’s self-aggrandizement :(‘ Warmist William Connolley on Muller: Study is ‘purely a matter of pulling together a temperature record. They’ve done none of the attribution work you’d expect, in order to talk about attribution’ — Connolley: ‘And what they say…appears absurdly naive’ Analysis: Muller’s ‘Results Nothing New’: Warmist William Connolley finds new BEST results ‘rubbish’ (by which he means data analysis is nothing new, & the attribution claims not very scientific) — Stoat calls Muller a ‘prima donna,’ and quotes Ken Caldiera: ‘…I do not see the results of Muller et al as being scientifically important. However, their result may be politically important’ Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘Spot on W. M. Connolley. Muller is still rubbish’ Pielke Jr. asks: ‘Bigger issue is how NYT let itself be conned into running [Muller’s] op-ed’ Flashback: Self-loathing Muller in 2003: ‘Scientists regard with disdain those who play their conclusions to the press’ — Muller: ‘In most fields of science, researchers who express the most self-doubt and who understate their conclusions are the ones that are most respected’ Muller hope’s his analysis ‘will help settle the scientific debate’ Roger Pielke Jr. responds: ‘I want what he’s smoking’ Former Muller Co-Author Dr. Judith Curry: The method used to attribute human emissions to the warming was ‘way over simplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion’ NYT’s Revkin accuses Muller of ‘P.T. Barnum showmanship…this could backfire’ Lord Monckton on Muller: ‘If he had had a Classical training, he would have been made familiar with dozen logical fallacies first codified by Aristotle 2300 years ago’ — Monckton: ‘Natural variability, therefore, is sufficient to explain all of the warming since 1750. No other explanation is necessary. Accordingly, it is not legitimate to claim, as the Berkeley team claim, that in the absence of any other explanation the warming must be attributed to CO2. That claim is an instance of the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fundamental logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. It is not sound science’ Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson on Muller like claims: ‘The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models’ — ‘They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models’ Meteorologist Joe Bastardi isses debate challenge: ‘Attn Richard Muller. Set up a debate where I can show you the actual weather and physical reasons for why your conclusion is nonsense’ Earth to Richard Muller: We know that your incessant ‘I was skeptical until recently’ schtick is complete BS’ — Muller in 2003: ‘Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate’ The Truth about Richard Muller: ‘I was never a skeptic’ declared Richard Muller in 2011 — ‘No wonder Muller endorsed ‘The Earth is the Great Ship Titanic’, Steven Chu as ‘perfect’ for U.S. Energy Secretary and Al Gore’s hypocritical alarmism’ Flashback: Scientists trashing Muller’s work…Muller stands accused of being ‘front man for geoengineering org.’ — Muller’s Temp Project called ‘The Berkeley Scam’ — Muller makes ”contradictory statements’ — His ‘Transparency Becomes Vaporware’ Flashback: Befuddled Warmist Richard Muller Declares Skeptics Should Convert to Believers Because His Study Shows the Earth Has Warmed Since the 1950s! — Climate Depot Responds — ‘Warming now equals human causation?! Muller should be ashamed of himself for promoting media spin like this’ — ‘Muller’s study is already being met with massive scientific blowback from his colleagues’ Muller in 2008: ‘The bottom line is that there is a consensus — the IPCC — and the president needs to know what the IPCC says’ — ‘2nd, they say that most of warming of last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide’ Climate Depot Response: ‘So Prof. Muller, if you believed this in 2008, what has changed in 2012? How can you pretend to be ‘converted skeptic?!’    

Befuddled Warmist Richard Muller Declares Skeptics Should Convert to Believers Because His Study Shows the Earth Has Warmed Since the 1950s! — Climate Depot Responds

October 20, 2011

  Climate Depot Editorial [For updates on Richard Muller, check out the new Climate Depot Muller page here.] Berkeley University Professor Richard A. Muller is a very confused man. Muller is claiming in a October 21, 2011 OPED that skeptics of man-made global warming fears no longer have any basis to doubt “global warming” because his new study confirms that the Earth has warmed since the 1950s! Muller seems to imply that the terms “global warming” and man-made global warming are interchangeable and any warming is somehow “proof” of human causation. Muller is being described by many in the media — including NYT’s Andrew Revkin – as being a climate “skeptic.” But clearly, Muller must not have gotten the memo, as he is lustily referring to skeptics as “deniers” in his media blitz. See: Richard Muller: ‘The deniers pay no attention to science’ Muller’s WSJ OPED is designed to confuse the public with perhaps some of the most banal and straw man arguments yet put forth by a global warming activist. Muller ([email protected]) in his OPED and in his spin to the media, is implying that warming somehow equals human causation. But the climate debate has not centered on whether the Earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850 or since the 1950s. The climate debate is about how much humans may or may not be contributing to the warming trend. (and the science and data is solidly favoring skeptics.) [Note: The highpoint of global temperatures is still 1998 and any claims of 2005 or 2010 being the “hottest on record” are laughable and ‘purely political.” See Climate Depot’s analysis: 2010 tied for ‘hottest’ year?! Relax, it is ‘purely a political statement’ — Even NASA’s Hansen admits it is ‘not particularly important’ — Prof. mocks ‘hottest decade’ claim as ‘a joke’ — ‘Claims based on year-to-year temp data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree’] Muller’s study is already being met with massive scientific blowback from his colleagues. See: 1) Climatologist Dr. Pielke Sr. On Muller’s study: ‘Unless, Muller pulls from a significantly different set of raw data, it is no surprise that his [temp] trends are the same’ 2) Meteorologist Watts: The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review… making a ‘pre-peer review’ media blitz despite errors 3) Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl Rips Muller’s Temperature Study: ‘It is not true that the Berkeley group has found relevant evidence for the core questions in the AGW debate’ 4) Scientist reveals Muller’s impact: ‘Richard Muller Gives Permission To Be Climate Skeptic, Shows Why’ 5) Meteorologist D’Aleo: ‘Muller’s results are predictable, since he appears to have worked with much of the same raw data all 3 global data centers used or started with’ 6) Scientist Mocks Muller’s claims: ‘The Doubt Is Over – Temperatures Rising Almost As Fast As James Hansen’s Zero Emissions Scenario’ — Muller’s headline [in WSJ] is exactly wrong. [Muller should instead declare he has made] ‘The Case Against For Global-Warming Skepticism’ Climate Depot since at least March of 2011 had been publicly warning that Muller’s entire BEST project was a predetermined con set up to take down a straw man argument. See: On 3-23-11, Climate Depot wrote in group email to fellow skeptics: ‘This whole [Muller] project has to be a set up to screw skeptics. Who disputes warming has taken place? Why have we allowed Muller to set up a straw man argument to take cheap shots at skeptics? It appears Muller is incapable of running this project. He has allowed leaks, media distortions, allowed [warmist activist Joe] Romm to publicly hijack project and Muller remains silent’ – [Note: For Climate Depot’s comprehensive report on Muller in April 2011, see here.] So it was not a surprise Muller’s October 21 headline in the Wall Street Journal read: ‘The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism There were good reasons for doubt, until now.’ According to Muller, global warming skeptics based their entire skepticism on a belief that the Earth was not warming. Muller even lamely tries to beef up his skeptical credentials in this paragraph: “The number of named hurricanes has been on the rise for years, but that’s in part a result of better detection technologies (satellites and buoys) that find storms in remote regions. The number of hurricanes hitting the U.S., even more intense Category 4 and 5 storms, has been gradually decreasing since 1850. The number of detected tornadoes has been increasing, possibly because radar technology has improved, but the number that touchdown and cause damage has been decreasing. Meanwhile, the short-term variability in U.S. surface temperatures has been decreasing since 1800, suggesting a more stable climate.” Ok. Muller makes some good points. [Note: Climate Depot has a much more detailed analysis of how ‘Recent scientific data and developments reveal that Mother Nature is playing a cruel joke on the promoters of man-made climate fears. The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim — from A-Z — the scientific case for man-made climate fears has collapsed’ ] But the next few lines in Muller’s WSJ OPED appear to be victim to some sort of logical or perhaps editing error. Muller writes: “Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer. Over the last two years, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (BEST) has looked deeply at all the issues raised above.” Huh? Muller’s study “looked deeply at all the issues raised above”? This statement is in error. Did Muller’s study look at hurricane data and come to conclusions? No. Did Muller’s study look at tornado data and draw conclusions. No. Then why does Muller claim his study included these factors? It appears that either Muller may have goofed in the editing process of this OPED or he is using sleight of hand, falsely implying that his study covered a plethora of climate change issues. Muller then proceeds to explain how his BEST study found that – indeed — the Earth has warmed! Now that Muller has revealed this news to the general public and to high-profile climate skeptics, we are all supposed to convert from ‘deniers’ to believers in man-made global warming fears. Muller insults the intelligence of Wall Street Journal readers and anyone who can follow logical thought with his convoluted attempt at convincing people that “global warming is real.” Muller finally admits BEST did not study AGW Muller saves the best for last: “When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups…Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.” Whoa. Muller waits until the end his OPED to finally admit that his study did not even look at what caused temperature trends. By saying the loaded phrase “global warming is real” — which the media, politicians and most people would interpret as actually meaning “man-made global warming” is real – Muller is in engaging in nothing short of propaganda. Muller is seems to enjoy implying that his study addresses the core question of whether and how much humans may contribute to global average temperatures. Muller is unable to conceal his zeal to influence the media coverage of his study to imply that finding a warming trend equals human are responsible and thus he believes a total defeat for skeptics. Muller clearly is relishing the pre-planned manipulation of this study through pre-publication media blitzes and his timed commentary in the Wall Street Journal. The media is hyping Muller’s study and twisting science into new contortions. Say What?! Wash. Post: ‘Muller’s team appears to have confirmed the basic tenets of climate science’ Climate Depot Response: Of my, what a con this whole project was. The media thinks showing that we have warmed since the 1950s is the crux of the AGW debate?! Warming now equals human causation?! Muller should be ashamed of himself for promoting media spin like this. Below is a small sampling of scientific reaction to Muller’s BEST study thus far: Climatologist Dr. Pielke Sr. On Muller’s study: ‘Unless, Muller pulls from a significantly different set of raw data, it is no surprise that his [temp] trends are the same’ Pielke Sr. on NCDC, GISS & CRU: ‘The raw surface temperature data from which those 3 analyses of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same…The new Muller et al study has a very major unanswered question — as to the degree of independence of their raw data from NCDC,CRU & GISS. I have asked it on [Judith Curry’s] weblog since she is a co-author of these studies [and Muller never replied to my request to answer this question]’ Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl Rips Muller’s Temperature Study: ‘It is not true that the Berkeley group has found relevant evidence for the core questions in the AGW debate’ ‘Some people including Marc Morano were predicting that this outcome was the very point of the project…all the people in the ‘BEST’ project were just puppets used in a bigger, pre-planned propaganda game…the newest events seem to confirm the predictions by Morano that the Berkeley project was pre-engineered to get misinterpreted exactly in the way that the Guardian shows today: ‘a skeptic shows that skeptics were wrong’…Muller is not a real skeptic’ Confused warmist Muller: You shouldn’t be a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming; by the way, we didn’t assess the anthropogenic component of global warming Muller: ‘How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that’ Skeptical Scientist Matt Briggs: ‘Somebody has to remind Muller that skeptics aren’t skeptical of that some warming (and some cooling) has occurred. We are skeptics about our ability to explain this warming (and cooling), and to predict skillfully future warming (and cooling)’ Scientist reveals Muller’s impact: ‘Richard Muller Gives Permission To Be Climate Skeptic, Shows Why’ — He even ‘admits that it has not been growing stormier’ — Scientist Dr. Briggs: ‘Muller concedes what many skeptics have claimed for years: that our temp record is poor, especially over oceans, that it is limited, filled with errors & biases, & when used as a basis for judgment, leads to over-certainty…If you look at say 1945 & compare it to 2010, you find warming of a certain size. But if you begin at 1940, just 5 years earlier, you find much less warming. Temp increases (or decreases) are always relative’ Scientist Mocks Muller’s claims: ‘The Doubt Is Over – Temperatures Rising Almost As Fast As James Hansen’s Zero Emissions Scenario’ — ‘Temperatures are lower than that [Hansen’s] scenario, which would imply that increasing CO2 has essentially no effect on the global temperature. Richard Muller believes that Hansen’s temperature record is accurate, which would mean that Muller’s headline [in WSJ] is exactly wrong. [Muller should instead declare he has made] ‘The Case Against For Global-Warming Skepticism’ Meteorologist D’Aleo: ‘Muller’s results are predictable, since he appears to have worked with much of the same raw data all 3 global data centers used or started with’ The long pause in warming confirmed: ‘Global warming real? Not recently, folks. The black curve in graph confirms what experts have known for years, that warming stopped in mid-1990s’ Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘Muller is just being dishonest if he allows the journalists to misinterpret the results of his work in this way’ Physicist Motl mocks Muller for ‘hoping [his research] will win over those people who are properly skeptical’ Response: ‘Muller does suggest that it’s not only the journalists but it’s himself who has had and still has an agenda…My views on the core climate change issues can’t be ‘won’ by your research because the research has nothing to do with them’ NYT’s Andrew Revkin claims Muller is a ‘skeptic’ because he criticized Michael Mann: Physicist Rebuts Revkin’s Claim: ‘Muller is no skeptic’ Physicist: Just because Muller ‘realized that Michael Mann has made things that can’t be tolerated in science is nice and it may make you a heretic among some hardcore believers but it’s not enough for you to be a genuine climate skeptic’ — ‘Richard Muller’s ultimate goal and the basic features of the not-quite-honest methods to achieve it are analogous to those of Michael Mann’ Muller & his Berkeley team’s analysis: Global temp correlates more closely with the state of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index – a measure of sea surface temps in the N. Atlantic’ ‘The team suggests it is worth investigating whether the long-term AMO cycles, which are thought to last 65-70 years, may play a part in the temperature rise, fall and rise again seen during the 20th Century’ Muller: ‘Had we found no global warming, then that would have ruled out AGW’ Oh no, not Richard Muller’s confused world again! The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review… making a ‘pre-peer review’ media blitz despite errors Climate Con: ‘In 1850, [thermometers] covered less than 1/3 of planet – yet HadCRUT reports temperatures within 0.01 degrees’ ‘The surface record is of very limited value, as the coverage is limited and erratic. Why did Richard Muller not point any of these things out in his Congressional testimony?’ Climate Depot has been on to the antics of Muller for very long time. April 4, 2011 report: Climate Depot Round Up on Richard Muller: Scientists trashing Muller’s work…Muller stands accused of being ‘front man for geoengineering org.’ — Muller Responds to Climate Depot’ – Muller’s Temp Project called ‘The Berkeley Scam’ — Muller makes ”contradictory statements’ — His ‘Transparency Becomes Vaporware’ Below are excerpts from Climate Depot April 2011 report on Muller: Richard Muller’s Temperature Project Aptly Termed The ‘Berkeley Scam’ — [email protected] — Muller’s team ‘are completely unbiased and open minded, though they have already determined (ahead of their neutral study) that global warming is the most serious problem in the world’ Muller responds to Climate Depot via NYT’s Revkin: ‘Muller, reacting after receiving an attack e-mail from Marc Morano of Climate Depot’ — Muller: ‘In the olden days, people would have checked with me before accusing me of wrongdoing. The pressure to be the first to blog is apparently winning’ Climate Depot Response to Muller: ‘On the contrary, remarkable restraint occurred in holding off exposing your views and the BEST Project’ — On 3-23-11, Climate Depot wrote in group email: ‘This whole [Muller] project has to be a set up to screw skeptics. Who disputes warming has taken place? Why have we allowed Muller to set up a straw man argument to take cheap shots at skeptics? It appears Muller is incapable of running this project. He has allowed leaks, media distortions, allowed Romm to publicly hijack project and Muller remains silent’ Scientist Ridicules the Muller Con: ‘I forecast Muller will continue to play role of neutral observer, & will continue to shock us with revelations that climate change is ‘worse than he expected’ Background on Muller’s BEST project: ‘Who is Novim and why are they messing with the Earth’s Temperature update?’ — Muller’s Berkley Earth Surface Group is part of the Novim Group…they are very much into Geo-Engineering: ‘Novim’s Exec Dir. Ditmore: ‘We’re running out of time’ — ‘The Berkley Earth Surface Group is not without an agenda’ Muller calculating his scientific claims?! ‘He basically destroys the reputation & research of most of [AGW’s] most notable super stars & yet he believes the science they promote is sound — amazing!‘ [email protected] Muller’s alleged ‘skeptical’ climate quotes manufactured?! ‘On one hand he says that virtually all the science flowing from IPCC and various proponent organizations is shoddy, yet he believes that the science that underpins it which is product of those same individuals and organizations is accurate’ Muller responds to Climate Depot via NYT’s Revkin: ‘Muller, reacting after receiving an attack e-mail from Marc Morano of Climate Depot’ — Muller: ‘In the olden days, people would have checked with me before accusing me of wrongdoing. The pressure to be the first to blog is apparently winning’ Climate Depot Response to Muller: ‘On the contrary, remarkable restraint occurred in holding off exposing your views and the BEST Project’ — On 3-23-11, Climate Depot wrote in group email: ‘This whole [Muller] project has to be a set up to screw skeptics. Who disputes warming has taken place? Why have we allowed Muller to set up a straw man argument to take cheap shots at skeptics? It appears Muller is incapable of running this project. He has allowed leaks, media distortions, allowed Romm to publicly hijack project and Muller remains silent’  

Watch & Read: 7th anniversary of Climategate – The UN Top Scientists Exposed – See Morano debating in 2009 & 2010 –

November 22, 2016

Flashback summary of Climategate from 2010 SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “‘I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming — As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.” UK Daily Mail: Dec. 13, 2009: ‘Hide the Decline’ – On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated – but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines. ‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. ‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’ Since Warmergate-broke, some of the CRU’s supporters have claimed that Jones and his colleagues made a ‘full disclosure’ of what they did to Briffa’s data in order to produce the hockey stick. But as McIntyre points out, ‘contrary to claims by various climate scientists, the IPCC Third Assessment Report did not disclose the deletion of the post-1960 values’. On the final diagram, the cut off was simply concealed by the other lines. By 2007, when the IPCC produced its fourth report, McIntyre had become aware of the manipulation of the Briffa data and Briffa himself, as shown at the start of this article, continued to have serious qualms. November 20, 2009: Rush Limbaugh Praises Climate Depot for ClimateGate Reporting: ‘It’s a great place to keep up on the global warming debate’ – ‘Morano’s probably single-handedly, in a civilian sense, the guy (other than me, of course) doing a better job of ringing the bells alarming people of what’s going on here’ The Wall Comes Tumbling Down: Climate Depot’s Morano Statement: ‘We are witnessing the Berlin Wall moment in the global warming regime’ – Morano: ‘The statist cabal that has ruled the climate debate since the UN IPCC’s inception in 1988 is now tumbling down before our eyes. The so-called ‘gold-standard’ of scientific review turns out to be counterfeit. Global warming is now undergoing the fastest ever collapse of any modern political movement’ Flashback: Read all about it! Climate Depot’s Round up of Reactions to Muir Russell’s ‘Sham’ Climategate Report — Report ‘contains many gaffes and errors’ Flashback: Penn State Exonerated Michael Mann? Not. ‘None of the important questions are ever answered…They asked Mann to assemble and send them the evidence against himself’ Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later’ – Curry: ‘Scientists that are skeptical of AGW or critical of the IPCC, they seem to be better off post-Climategate’ Climategate’s ‘Hide the Decline’: Sciencemag # 3: ‘Briffa and Osborn (Science 1999) had not just deleted the post=1960 decline, but had deleted the pre-1550 portion as well’ – ‘The deletions contributing to an unwarranted rhetorical impression of consistency between the reconstructions, an impression that was capitalized upon in the commentary in the running text of Briffa and Osborn 1999’ Warmist trashes fellow Warmists: Climategate’s ‘hide the decline’ explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller — ‘They are not allowed to do this in science. It isn’t up to our standards’ – Watch Now: Muller: ‘As a scientist, I now have a list of scientists who’s papers I will not read anymore’ Muller also disses Hansen! ‘So we have NASA’s Jim Hansen who predicts things ahead of time — what he is going to find’ Flashback 2010: ‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’ UK Scientist: ‘Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens…whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed’ ‘We should end this anti-scientific nonsense now’ — UN’s ‘Copenhagen jamboree is a scandal and it must be stopped’ WarmerGate Fallout: ‘I am sick to my stomach’: ‘As a long time AGW supporter I must say I found the emails very disturbing’ – ‘I feel ashamed for the behavior of our leading scientists – I feel betrayed…at ideology overriding science. Science being bent out of shape to support a hypothesis…We need to acknowledge that wrong was done. We need to replace the tainted leadership’ Watch Now: ‘Hide the Decline’ Global Warming Video Creator Says Mann Backlash Effort to ‘Cleanup’ ClimateGate Indiscretion Report: Networks Hide the Decline in Credibility of Climate Science: ABC, CBS and NBC ignore ClimateGate scandal Climategate Professor to Skeptic Marc Morano on Live BBC TV: ‘What an Assh*le’ – During the live debate, Morano challenged Professor Watson for being in “denial” over the importance of Climategate and noted that “you have to feel sorry for Professor Watson.” “[Watson’s] colleague, [Professor] Mike Hulme at the University of East Anglia is saying this is authoritarian science, he is suggesting the [UN] IPCC should be disbanded based on what Climategate reveals,” Morano said. “[UK environmentalist] George Monbiot is saying many of his friend in the environmental and the climate fear promoting business — as Professor Watson is part of — are in denial. You have to feel sorry for Professor Watson in many ways here,” Morano explained. A clearly agitated Watson blurted out “Will you shut up just a second!?” Morano summed up his views on what ClimateGate reveals during the debate. “It exposes the manufactured consensus. Your fellow colleagues are saying this,” Morano said to Watson. Morano also noted that President “Obama is probably attending [the UN Conference] because they are circling the wagons because of the magnitude of this scandal.” (See: ‘Welcome to the delayers’: Obama’s ‘half-hearted climate efforts’ welcomed by skeptics – Nov.17, 2009) “You have UN scientists turning on UN scientists. This is the upper echelon of the UN and it has been exposed as the best science that politics and activism can manufacture. Prof. Watson’s whole argument is ‘trust me, take my word for it,’” Morano added. A-Hole Debate Goes Viral! CBS News: Tempers Flare In BBC Climate Change Flap Update: Morano: ‘Prof. Watson seemed unable to fathom that a civilian would question his self-serving defense of global warming establishment’ ‘Scientist (Appropriately) Calls Raving Denier an A-Hole ‘ — ‘disgraceful performance by climate change denial shill Morano’ Morano ‘both won the debate and deserved the scientist’s epithet’ DC Examiner: ‘Morano just chuckles. Some guys have all the fun’ Hot Air: ‘Theatrical eye-rolling and a perfunctory dropping of the A-bomb’ Charleston Daily Mail A-Hole Debate: ‘They cannot argue the facts because, well, they made theirs up. And so they call people names’ Newsbusters: ‘Isn’t it fascinating to see how quickly folks that complain about character assassination jump to using it themselves when they’re losing a debate?’ UK Telegraph on BBC ‘assh*le’ debate: ‘Delightful Newsnight footage of a very frustrated Professor Watson’ Know Your Boreholes From Your A**holes, Dr. Watson; Peer-Reviewed Studies You Should Have Read Analysis: Understanding Climategate’s ‘hide the decline’ ‘Dracula’s in charge of the blood bank’ — Oops: Chief Climategate investigator failed to disclose environmental directorship Rare ABC News TV Debate: Climate Depot Vs. Center For Am. Progress — ‘UN IPCC was a political organization masquerading as a science group. It’s been exposed’ – Weiss: Blizzards are ‘consistent with what scientists had predicted’ — Morano Response: ‘It’s consistent with climate astrology, basically it’s a horoscope…You should be embarrassed’ Dec. 12, 2009: Watch Morano debates Climategate with UK professor at UN climate summit in Copenhagen COPENHAGEN – A contentious live global warming debate took place in Copenhagen on UK’s Sky News TV on December 12 between Professor Mark Maslin of the University College London and Climate Depot’s Executive Editor Marc Morano. During the debate, Professor Maslin erroneously asserted there are “5000 leading climate scientists” with the UN IPCC to support the claims of man-made climate fears. “None of the science has been actually changed. If you look at the [UN] IPCC report, 5000 leading climate scientists put together all the leading science together,” Maslin stated. [Professor’s Maslin’s email is: [email protected] ] Climate Depot’s Morano countered: “Your idea that [there are] 5000 UN scientists – you need to apologize and retract that immediately. The biggest number you can come up with if you include [UN bureaucrats] and delegates is 2800.” Professor Maslin, of the Department of Geography, interjected “Oh, absolute rubbish.” [Editor’s Note: Maslinalso recently debated MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen and Maslin claimed in this video clip that “There are very few (skeptics) and none are actually credible.”] A frustrated Maslin also claimed that “every single intelligent person” listens to UN scientists and accepts that man-made global warming is a serious problem. “I have been having this debate for the last 20 years, the key is that every single intelligent person, every key politician in the world, listens to the key scientists, they actually look at the data,” Maslin said. [Editor’s Note: Perhaps Professor Maslin is guilty of this: MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears — but educated people are very vulnerable’ – July 6, 2009] Morano responded: Matt [anchor of Sky News TV], check out the claim of 5000 UN scientists — that is a bald face — error. The professor needs to retract it. There is no 5000 [UN IPCC climate scientists]. And interestingly a few days ago [Professor Maslin] said 4000 [UN scientists]. Why not just say 100,000? You gave it away sir when you said ‘key scientists’. It is a small cadre,only 52 UN scientists signed (a reference to the only 52 scientists who authored the media hyped 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers). Peer-reviewed studies are showing the [man-made climate] scare is ending. [Editor’s Note: UN IPCC Chair Pachauri Only Claims HUNDREDS of UN IPCC Scientists?: ‘The body of evidence is the result of the careful and painstaking work of hundreds of scientists worldwide’ – December 8, 2009 Reality Check: Only 60 UN experts ‘explicitly supported the claim made by the IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet’ Numbers racket: ‘Remove the duplications and the total number of UN authors plus reviewers drops from 3,750 to 2,890’ – Nov. 16, 2009 – National Post Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Claims 2500 scientists Don’t Miss this Report about UN IPCC Scientists Attacking IPCC’s Credibility and Ethics Via Tom Nelson blog: ClimateGate–see “outed” emails here ClimateGate search engines are located here and here. Here: All in one place, all ClimateGate I and II files, along with source code files, HARRY_READ_ME files, email attachments, documents, etc A list of my ClimateGate postings: Email 1103, Sept 1999, Michael Mann on the use of questionable data: “I’m happy to do it and let the reviewers tell us if they see any problem” Email 1101, Oct 2008, UEA’s press office writes to Reuters, claiming that UEA has “Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans…Major blow for climate sceptics presumably” Email 5134, Dec. 2008, Phil Jones: “…Problem is much of this is down to wacky data. I’m beginning to think that the modelling has lost the real-world agreement between variables” Email 1342, June 2008, Phil Jones on his own keen mental powers: “I get people coming up to me now saying we met in 199? and have no recall of our meeting – sometime no recall of even going to the meeting where I was supposed to have met them!” Email 5114, April 2007, Phil Jones: “Even GHCN and NCAR can’t say where they got their data” Email 2409, June 1999, Phil Jones actually suggests that he knows the average 11th or 12th century temperature of the entire Earth with an accuracy of one or two tenths of a degree Centigrade Email 3408, Jan 2008, Phil Jones: “I’d like the world to warm up quicker, but if it did, I know that the sensitivity is much higher and humanity would be in a real mess!” Email 600, Sept 2007: Watts expose makes NOAA want to change entire USA method Email 1616, Ian Harris, Mar. 2008: “I don’t really think the published papers reflect the actualité of how the dataset was produced…They contain elements of truth but there are glaring inaccuracies” Email 1025, Oct 2009: Two trees here, five trees there, make for trillions of dollars everywhere… Email 4291, May 2009, Trying for pre-emptive legalese shield against FOI requests Email 494, April 1999, warmist Ray Bradley: “As for thinking that it is “Better that nothing appear, than something unnacceptable to us” …..as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant” Email 3470, warmist Philip Mote, Sept 1999: “The trends in intense Atlantic hurricanes are indeed downward…there seems to be a tendency for models to suggest decreasing trends in [tropical cyclones], though this too is inconclusive” Email 3711, Mar. 2007, Phil Jones: “There is only one view worth listening to – and that is what IPCC says on the subject…We have done without mass flying until recently. It seems as though we could do without it now. This is hypocracy on my behalf…” Email 3826, Feb 2001: In an email copied to a long list of believers and realists, the late John Daly writes “What is at issue is the uncritical zeal with which the industry siezed on the [tree-ometer] theory before its scientific value had been properly tested” Email 2507, Mar 2007: “The AAAS Board released a strong statement on 18 February saying, “We are already experiencing global climate change–and the pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years.”” Email 2511, Feb 2008, Phil Jones brags that much of the IPCC’s “Physical Science Basis” is based on his work; he also admits that the IPCC’s Nobel Peace Prize was a “political gesture” Email 2566, June 2002, UEA’s Mike Hulme to Doug Parr of Greenpeace: “In regard to climate change, one can argue that the problem is not the conduct of science but the conduct of the public. Many of us actually lead the public in terms of radicalism” Email 2568, Nov. 2004, Hayley Fowler to Phil Jones on temperatures in Pakistan and northern India: “In summer months both max and min temps are falling, but min more than max” Email 2585, Nov 2006, more unsettling stuff for tree-ometer believers: An important, “arbitrary” adjustment and anomalous growth in *1850* blamed on CO2?! Email 2590, Sept 2005, Rosanne D’Arrigo after McIntyre asked to see the data from her paper that was referenced by the IPCC: “they should fire him as a reviewer of IPCC” Email 2660, June 2007, bummer from Rita Yu: Less CO2 emissions allegedly means *more* droughts Email 2216, Sept 2003: Malcolm Hughes reports that some guy “may well be able to find the raw data for the 27 long western conifers chronologies used to calculate the PCs in MBH 99, etc.” Email 2361, Feb 2007, NOAA’s Tom Peterson talks about ways to cool 1998 and 1880 Email 2378, Oct. 2009, Desmogblog warmist Richard Littlemore to WSJ-Europe’s Anne Jolis, copying Revkin: “The very fate of the world” may be in the hands of Steve McIntyre Email 2395, Feb 2004, Phil Jones: “For some inane reason I put my name forward to do the chapter on atmospheric obs. for [IPCC] AR4. Hope I don’t get picked.” Email 2406, April 2005, Phil Jones: “Every now and then I go to the BAS web site of Gareth Marshall and pick up and manually add in back Antarctic data…I don’t keep any sort of record of any of this…The Antarctic stuff is important as coverage is poor down there” Email 2429, April 2005, Phil Jones admits that he may not be able to find the code that McIntyre wants, and “it is likely to be hundreds of lines of uncommented fortran !”. There’s also a “variance correction” that McIntyre doesn’t know about Email 2455, Aug 2006, warmist Keith Briffa admits that he drives “30 miles and more a day” and spends “far too much of my life flying around the world to discuss and research the problem of climate change” Email 2486, Jan 2004, Phil Jones: “I’ve never requested data/codes to do a review and I don’t think others should either…I have a feel for whether something is wrong – call it intuition” Email 1529. April 2005, Phil Jones to David Appell: “MBH is in this premier league. MM is Sunday morning soccer played by amateurs” Email 1541, Nov. 2009, Phil Jones: “What is important to global average temperatures is the marine data. I think skeptics realize this, but it is much harder for them to do any work in this area” Email 1546, April 2002, Ed Cook writes “Omitting a period because the proxy and instrumental data disagree is not a good thing to do”, then admits that he does that too Email 1550, Feb. 2009, reviewer Bob Prichard tells Phil Jones that you’re supposed to study the data first, *then* see what conclusions can be drawn Email 1558, Nov 2003, UEA’s Nick Brooks: “I¹m always wary of claims…that we are entering a period of unprecedented warmth…research suggests tropical sea-surface temperatures some 5-6 degrees higher [in the Holocene] than present…such claims may come back to haunt us” Email 1872, Sept 2004: Is Phil Jones really suggesting that to estimate temperature at one location, he might use data from “over 5 deg of lat and 10 deg of long away” Email 1914, Oct 2000, warmist Tom Crowley on “the solar crowd”: “basically I think most of them act like nuts…And I am someone who thinks longterm solar variability influences climate!” Email 1917, Oct 2009: IPCC’s Phil Jones writes to IPCC’s Jean Palutikof for advice on a “figurehead” to be used in a “multi-institutional bid for a seriously large amount of [climate scam] money” Email 1983, Mar 2006: Warmist Richard Alley admits that he has “serious doubts about tree-rings as paleothermometers” Email 1256, Jan 2007, more insanity from UEA warmists: To show “governments that climate change should be on the top agenda of world politics”, all UEA employees were encouraged to not use electricity for five entire minutes Email 618, June 2009, “Takehiko” to Phil Jones: “I want to discuss several climatic topics concerning unusual warm periods in 1850s and 1860s just after the end of LIA. Recently in Japan, old instrumental temerature records were found during this period near Tokyo, in which several unusually hot summers were detected.” Email 1105, Nov 2007, Phil Jones: “there are lots of climate meetings – seems as though you could go to one almost every week” Email 1345, July 2004, Philippe Huybrechts: “The most robust feature of all these runs is that the rate of glacier retreat for the second half of the 20th century is always the same, irrespective of the starting point of the climate forcing, and irrespective of whether the 20th century climate was cooling, warming, or stable.” Email 707, May 2001, Tom Wigley: “I personally do NOT want anyone else developing software that overlaps MAGICC/SCENGEN” Email 717, Sept 1998, Michael Mann disses climate modelers: “there are a few individuals in the modeling community who could benefit from slowing down on the stone throwing from their fragile glass tower” Email 719, Aug 2003, UEA’s Andrew Watson: “[IPCC] preferred estimates of the size of the land and ocean [carbon] sinks were out of date before they were published, and quite substantially wrong” Email 752, Aug 2009, Willis Eschenbach to UEA: “”My dog ate the confidentiality agreements” doesn’t cut it in the scientific world, where billions of dollars hang on your data” Email 798, Aug 1999, Ed Cook disses “pathetically poor” paper by key climate hoax modeler Tom Wigley Email 1408, Dec. 2006, UEA’s Clare Goodess reports to Briffa/Osborn/Jones on her eavesdropping session next to McIntyre and Wilson Email 1432, Jan. 2007, Phil Jones again admits: “we don’t still have the original data” Email 1492, Aug. 2008, Phil Jones on various FOI officers’ (and the Information Commissioner’s) strategy to not share IPCC-related information Email 1499, May 2000, Mick Kelly, UEA: “CA are lookign for someone to say more extreme events likely in future due to global warming at lanuch of new campaign…they are getting desparate” Email 847, May 2003, warmist Tom Wigley is far too impressed by his own climate model: “One of the nice results is that we can use MAGICC to back out the signal from the noise…MAGICC can simulate both volcanic responses (on a monthly to century time scale) and solar responses (annual to century) with extremely high fidelity” Email 914, March 2000, Phil Jones: “As all our (Mike, Tom and CRU) all show that the first few centuries of the millennium were cooler than the 20th century, we will come in for some flak from the skeptics saying we’re wrong because everyone knows it was warmer in the Medieval period.” Email 1573, Feb 2004: UEA data fudgers get their ninth successive 3 year grant from the US Department of Energy Email 1577, July 2009, Phil Jones admits that CRU doesn’t have the original, unadjusted data; he also writes “I’m the only one who knows where the files are here” Email 1614, Oct 1998: Mike Hulme to an EDF researcher who wanted to blame CO2 for Southern Africa drought: “Avoid this one – and indeed avoid pretty much all climate indicators related to precipitation. The large natural variability of precip. makes it very hard for a human-induced climate change trend to be picked up” Email 1619, Nov 2003, Michael Mann offers a cover story in an attempt to explain why “the full data set could not be made available until a few years after the ’98 study” Email 1621, Dec 2008, lots of interesting statements by Phil Jones: “The SOI, PDO and others are natural modes of variability – that the atmosphere likes…we’ve no idea why the oscillation change” Email 1636, June 2002: “Fairly thrilling” climate hoax game in development; it’ll allegedly help the UN and the World Bank to gain insights; warmist Stephen Schneider is the principal climate advisor Email 1661, Mar 2006, Ed Cook: We know that trees don’t function as thermometers for the period where we have thermometer data, but let’s just assume that they worked as thermometers for all periods before that Email 1849, Dec 2003, Michael “Robust Debate” Mann again: “I would STRONGLY encourage you not to bother responding to any of their emails under any circumstancdes” Email 1023, April 2008, UEA’s Tim Osborn has a good question about exactly how CRU data is fudged: “Is this algorithm written down anywhere?” Email 1028, April 2008, Phil Jones: “It seems we just need the La Nina to finally wind down and the oceans to warm up a little” Email 1038, Dec 2001, UEA’s Mike Hulme proposes adding Roger Harrabin (BBC) and Bill Hare (Greenpeace) to the Tyndall [Climate Hoax] Centre’s advisory board Email 1045, May 1999, Michael Mann already more of an activist than a scientist?: “…I do presentations on capitol hill for USGCRP…Mostly, though, I’ve been trying to help Mike McCracken and company behind the scenes” Email 2038, Nov 2009, Tom Wigley casually and completely contradicts Phil Jones’ explanation for early 20th century warming: Wigley minimizes the sun, doesn’t mention volcanoes, and points at NADW; Jones stresses the Sun and volcanoes, doesn’t mention NADW Email 2969, Aug 2006, Keith Briffa: “The TAR was, in my opinion, wrong to say anything about the precedence (or lack thereof) of the warmth of the individual year 1998” Email 2013, March 2006, Richard Alley: “It looked to me like [D’Arrigo] had pretty well killed the hockey stick in public forum…this looks to me to be a really big deal” Email 1653, July 2004: Steve McIntyre schools Phil Jones on replication and checking Email 71, Mar 2006, Richard Alley: “all the people [at the NRC “hockey stick” committee?] I heard were asked the same thing: Do we know the temperature of a millennium ago within 0.5 C? All gave some qualified version of “no”.” Email 91, Aug 2007, with Wei-Chyung Wang facing fraud allegations, Michael Mann writes: “There are some folks I could put We-Chyung in touch with who could certainly help him out with w/ the legal issues, if he’s interested. As you might imagine, I have some experience and numerous contacts now in this area ;)” Email 102, Aug 2003, CRU’s Mick Kelly confuses weather with climate, wants to “capitalize on this press-wise” if a high temperature record is broken Email 112, Feb 2007: Michael Mann lashes out at Curtis Covey, who dared to write things like “…the science is not yet settled” in an email to unbelievers Singer and Monckton Email 137, Sept 2006, warmist Jerry North asks Mann et al to share their data with McIntyre: “McIntyre does have a point in that most of our research has been supported by US Taxpayers…as scientists we all owe it to each other to share information to the maximum extent possible.” Email 143, June 2007, your tax dollars at work: $1200 airfare, then $543 per day each to send warmists to Bermuda in high season for proposed climate hoax meeting Email 155, Sept 2008, Met Office’s Kate Willett on surprising relative humidity data: “the Marine data showed very significant negative trends” Email 297, August 2004, Phil Jones and Michael Mann: This peer review process looks completely corrupt, with warmist Jones rejecting a paper by realists McKitrick and Michaels, and Mann somehow in the loop, wanting to use this “to help bolster the case against MM??” Email 21, Sept. 2009, Phil Jones: “I’ve saved emails at CRU and then deleted them from the server. Now I’m at home I just have some hard copies” Email 38, Feb 2007, Manola Brunet to Phil Jones: “How it is possible that “intelligent” people dedicate their time and energies to audit scientific work and not to work in a more positive way for making real scientific analysis and contributing to push science and knowledge ahead.” Email 1800, Mar 2005, precious question by Phil Jones: “Is the pre-20th century really that important when it comes to [detection and attribution]?” Email 1811, July 2003, AGU’s Public Information Manager brags about unleashing the AGU “publicity machine” to push Mann et al’s climate hoax propaganda Email 1817, May 2005, Phil Jones on what the IPCC actually did: They didn’t tell us what was in the peer-reviewed literature, they gave us their own [warmist] opinions on which parts of the peer-reviewed literature were correct Email 1819, Nov 2003, warmist Tom Wigley to Mann et al on possible responses to McIntyre and McKitrick’s request for data: “The second is to tell them to go to hell” Email 4578, July 2005, Phil Jones: “it is possible to get a trend of nearer 0.75 if the trend starts around 1920 (especially if the cold year of 1917 is at the start)” Email 2349, Nov 2003, Energy and Environment editor Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen writes a great letter to Mann, Briffa, Pachauri, etc Email 4582, Feb 2009, Phil Jones on global average surface temperature: “The work that estimated the 14 number (it was 14.02 for the globe) made lots of assumptions over the sea ice areas and the Antarctic. I always thought this was accurate to about +/- 0.5 deg C” Email 4631, Jan 2001, UEA’s Mike Hulme recommends a now-defunct “The Carbon Trader” climate scam website Email 4653, March 2002, Geoff Jenkins of the Met Office: “…we can only use “will” when we have complete confidence in the direction, ie Temperatures will rise” Email 4847, Aug 1999, Sari Kovats et al: Increasing CO2 emissions would “will cause a net decrease in temperature-related mortality in many cities” Email 4868, Sept ’05: IPCC reviewer McIntyre asks to see the data underlying a paper; warmists complain this is a “major abuse of his position” Email 4881, June 2007, Phil Jones: “The final end product looks just like my hope – summers were 0.5 deg C too warm…” Email 4887, Dec 2007, Phil Jones: The global temperature record “can be quite well approximated from a solar series (preferably a recent one by Lean), a volcano series and anthropogenic sources (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols)” Email 4919, Aug 2000, Phil Jones denies the divergence problem: “there is no way Singer can say the proxy data doesn’t record the last 20 years of warming, as we don’t have enough of the proxy series after about 1980. “ Email 3008, Oct 1999, Timothy Carter to Mike Hulme: Japanese model shows Arctic Ocean to get up to 26 degrees C. hotter Email 3178, Sept 2000, UEA’s Trevor Davies: Met Office considering move to UEA’s town (Norwich); “An objective of the Met Office is to “diversify into environmental services”” Email 325, Oct 2003, Ammann to Michael Mann: “…the first half of the 20th century warmed up naturally”; this conflicts with current information on a DOE website Email 412, Mar. 2001, Tom Crowley to several Hockey Team members: “It therefore seems that the conveyor is indeed oscillating but the time scale of the larger scale CLIMATE shifts may be more regulated by solar, with volcanism adding some stochastic contribution” Email 1609, Jan 2007, Jonathan Gregory to Phil Jones on ‘not particularly unusual’ sea level rise: “Personally, I suspect that the network is too sparse, so that the variability is to some extent measurement noise. It is so large we have no physical explanation for it…” Email 176, Jan 2008, more settled science: Phil Jones seems alarmed at the “solar constant” being changed “from 1366.5 to 1361!!” Email 235, Oct 2007: Phil Jones calls a warmer climate “better”; warm weather leads to good harvests, cold weather leads to famine; “people are not affected much by climate or climate change. What effects them is the Weather!” Email 237, Mar 2006, Briffa and Osborn: We don’t really know how warm it was 1000 years ago, and this allegedly isn’t a big deal Email 239, Oct 2003, John Holdren defends Michael Mann’s alarmism by stressing Mann’s careful weasel wording Email 295, Feb 2008, Phil Jones: “…the long-term change from the 19th century to the present is only about 1 deg C. This 1 deg C is small compared to weather variability” Email 4423, April 2009, warmists struggle to explain what happened with the weather in 1997-1998: “if not instrumental, then maybe an abrupt climate change bogie man came out of the closet to cause 0.5 offset after that time – any ideas? “ Email 4418, Feb 1997, maybe CO2 doesn’t cause malaria: “I dug up the malaria data (Italy and The Netherlands) between 1820-1930 which do show evidence of this 20 year cycle, with exacerbations in 1821, 1839, 1860, 1879, 1902, 1920. “ Email 4417, Feb 2005, Warmist Peter Thorne to Phil Jones: “I don’t think we should be scared of admitting that we just don’t know, if indeed we just don’t know (which I believe is a fair reflection of the state of the science)” Email 4413, Oct 2009: Environmental plant physiologist writes to Briffa: “As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole scientific basis of dendroclimatology” Email 4405, Mar. 2001: Phil Jones calls changes in ice caps/glaciers “our best piece of evidence” Email 4403, Jan. 2005, Keith Briffa: “the glacier evidence is problematic for interpreting precise and quantitative indications of the extent of regional or Hemispheric Warmth (and even cold) – issues of translating tongue position or volume into specific temperature and precipitation forcing” Email 4400, Feb 2006, Keith Briffa: “do not let Susan (or Mike) push you (us) beyond where we know is right.” Email 309, Jan 2008, Phil Jones on London UHI: “1.5 is the average UHI, but it can be up to nearly 5 but as low as 0 on some days” Email 342, April 2009, Phil Jones: “Climate scientists are 100% confident that they can detect an anthropogenic signal in surface temperature data” Email 362, Aug 1999, Barrie Pittock: “The great danger of doing things the way we are, in our rush to prepare these IPCC reports, is that we are not submitting this stuff to peer review before using it” Email 384, July 2004, Michael Mann to Pielke Sr.: “I would think it obvious that peer-review alone is *not* a sufficient to establish what is “good science”” Email 385, July 2005, Phil Jones: “The warming from 1915 to about 1940 is generally believed to be due to a slight increase in solar output and a reduction in volcanism.” Email 451, Jan. 2009, Stephen Schneider: “We are witnessing the “contrarian battle of the bulge” now, and expect that all weapons will be used” Email 611, May 2008: Former navigator informs Phil Jones how critical sea surface temperatures were gathered: “…peering at the thermometer with a weak torch in the middle of a gale, spilling most of the water, making up readings, copying what others had written before (as it was dark, blowing a hooley and you couldn’t be bothered to go onto the bridge wing)” Email 541, Sept 2006: Fair-and-balanced Andy Revkin writes to a long list of warmist scientists: “i’m just trying to be sure that folks like all of you take an extra couple seconds to use Inhofe against himself” Email 1414, March 2007: Kevin Trenberth on the political process of changing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers in a 2007 meeting at which journalists were barred: “It was hardly a closed meeting or process” Email 1409, Sept 2009: Tim Osborn asks Phil Jones why New Zealand pre-1930 temperatures are “now very different, being much cooler (by > 0.5 degC for a 25-year low-pass mean)” Email 1395, Oct 2000: Bad weather in various places around the world; this allegedly wouldn’t have happened if we didn’t drive cars Email 1359, June 2004, Phil Jones on getting out of jury duty: “I just said I had meetings to go to (which was true once), the second I said the new students were coming in late September. The fact that I have little to do with U/Gs didn’t seem to matter” Email 1335, Nov 2005, Michael “Robust Debate” Mann on the prospect of attending a workshop also attended by a guy who disagrees with him: “If Zorita is in, I am out!’ Email 1336, Phil Jones, Mar 2006: “I can say for certain (100% – not any probable word that IPCC would use) is that the surface temperature data are correct.” Email 1317, Oct. 2000, on CRU: “Five lead authors for the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are drawn from the unit…The work of Jones and co-workers with [CRU’s temperature] record can justifiably be claimed to have been central to the acceptance that humans are having a significant impact on climate” Email 1304, Dec 2002, warmist Tom Wigley on a critical climate hoax model: “SCENGEN is also owned by me. All of the conceptual and intellectual input has been mine” Email 2530, June 2003, Phil Jones: “note that I’ve changed the way we smooth the series to preserve the late 20th century trend, like we did in the Eos piece” Email 1145, May 2005, Jonathan Overpeck to Briffa/Jansen: “We’re hoping you guys can generate something compelling enough for the TS and SPM – something that will replace the hockey-stick with something even more compelling” Email 1104, March 2005: Heinz Wanner says he was highly critical of the hockey stick as an official IPCC reviewer in 2001, but “My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times” Email 1162, June 2007: Eugene Wahl says the Ammann-Wahl paper can be freely shared among warmists before it comes out in hardcopy, but it should be kept away from McIntyre Email 1150, Dec 2004, Chris Landsea to Pachauri: “Dr. Trenberth in representing the IPCC has successfully promulgated into the media his own opinion that the 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR” Email 1075, May 2004: Phil Jones wants to use his IPCC involvement to get a pay raise Email 1057, June 2009, “Tom”: “[Hansen] warms the trend in 42 percent of the urban stations indicating that nearly half have an urban cold bias” Email 1046, Nov 2009, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley don’t know what caused the early 20th century warming, but a “possible explanation” is changes in ocean circulation Email 1028, April 2008, Phil Jones on adjusting SST data for the mid-20th century: “Explaining the cooling with sulphates won’t be quite as necessary” Email 1996, Jan 2008, Tim Osborn reveals that Tom Karl’s IPCC review editor letter was one sentence long Email 1897, Dec 2008: After Phil Jones admits deleting material, UEA’s FOI officer David Palmer writes: “Phil, you must be very careful about deleting material, more particularly when you delete it” Email 1887, Nov 2001, Geoff Jenkins of the Met Office: “…The increase in heavy rain days is much less (<50%) than it was in 98 (200%)…I am concerned we have enough time to explain these differences, and their implications for confidence in UKCIP02, properly” Email 1885, Phil Jones, Dec 2007: “I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here” Email 1837, Feb 2005, Phil Jones: “The coldest two centuries were the 17th and 19th for the last 2000 years” Email 1823, Sept 2008, Håkan Grudd to Briffa: “[Climate realist Craig Loehle] puts in print some worries I have had since first starting off with the tree rings: The non-linear growth response, which we all know is there but which we do not really account for in making reconstructions” Email 1791, Sept 2009: UEA insiders circle the wagons as their own student paper starts asking them tough questions Email 1710, April 2006, UEA’s Tim Osborn: “I’m not sure that we can tell Science that we do *not* want to issue a correction to our paper and at the same time tell McIntyre that he cannot make public the fact that we used CRUTEM2v rather than HadCRUT2 as I stated in the online supplement” Email 1706, March 2004: Phil Jones is unhappy about a paper that says “Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend” Email 1705, April 2002, what “settled” science looks like: After Michael Mann writes “There are some substantial scientific differences here, lets let them play out the way they are supposed to, objectively, and in the peer reviewed literature”, Raymond Bradley writes to Briffa “excuse me while I VOMIT!!” Email 1544, Oct 2000, Phil Jones: “…warmer conditions than today during many summers from 1750 to 1850…Central England also shows little change in summer since the 18th century. Autumns for CET in the 1730s were clearly warmer than today. All somewhat perplexing” Email 1505, October 2000: IPCC meeting held at Environmental Defense Email 2368, Dec 2008, Phil Jones proves that he was lying when he later claimed “We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU” Email 2252, July 2005, Phil Jones: “I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25 years” Email 2234, Nov 2009, Phil Jones: “Warming since 1975 to 2008 is slightly more than 1915-44.” Email 2223, April 2004, UEA’s Mike Hulme shows his belief in the climate hoax: “I do indeed support the campaign to boycott Esso (ExxonMobil). I do not purchase petrol from this company, and have not done so for more than 2 years now” Email 2196, Dec 2004, Jonathan Overpeck: “note that G. Pant (and others? – it was just a talk, not a pub – would be nice to have a pub) has shown that the two major deserts in India are also getting wetter” Email 2157, Oct 2004, Phil Jones channels Lord Monckton: “I just cannot accept that any model will ever be as good as reality..models still have a long way to go before they can be considered as alternatives to real observed data” Email 2151, Jan 2005, Tom Wigley suggests religious cleansing: “If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted” Email 2047, Aug 2009, Jonathan Jones to David Palmer, UEA: “I begin by noting that it is wholly perverse to claim simultaneously that the data is “already available” and that the data is “confidential”” Email 2947, June 2004, Phil Jones: “some data we’ve received have probably had adjustments applied but we don’t know when or by how much, then there are adjustments we’ve applied in the mid-1980s (which we know about), then there are your adjustments” Email 2903, Feb 2009, Phil Jones on problems with Antarctic temperature data: “The problem is that some sites get buried, but still seem to transmit” Email 2783, Oct 2007, warmists squabble over which 25 of them will get free, completely unnecessary fossil-fueled trips to Oslo; Trenberth wants his name entered multiple times in a “random” drawing Email 2743, Sept 2009, Michael “Robust Debate” Mann: “So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.” Email 2740, Oct 2009, Phil Jones: “even if we get everyone agreeing in Copenhagen to massive emissions reductions (say 80% reduction in 1990 emissions by 2050) it will not make much difference to the sea level rise” Email 2720, Oct 2003: Warmist Keith Briffa admits(?) “we do not understand the role of specific forcings (natural and anthropogenic) that influenced medieval and current climates” Email 2699, Oct 2007, Phil Jones on the alleged lack of solar influence on climate: “There is really only one paper where a solar influence on climate on decadal and longer timescales that has been shown to be possible” Email 2581, Feb. 2007, Phil Jones on McIntyre et al: “am not sending the data. I am already tried and convicted, so there is no point in sending them anything. I will not bother replying as well. I might as well act as expected. They will run out of steam in a week or two and move onto something else” Another way to search ClimateGate emails Email 2560, April 1999, Ray Bradley on his hockey stick co-author Michael Mann: “One day, (perhaps) Mike will grow up” Email 2526, June 2008, Phil Jones: “John had conveniently lost many emails, but he did reply with a few. Keith and Tim have moved all their emails from all the named people off their PCs and they are all on a memory stick” Email 2519, Oct 2003, Michael Mann on McIntyre and McKitrick: “If *others* want to say that their actions represent scientific fraud, intellectual dishonesty, etc. (as I think we all suspect they do), lets let *them* make these charges for us! Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader case against MM” Email 2504, June 2002: MIke Hulme suggests that Prince Charles might want to invest in an insane plan to convert a coastguard tower into “a centre for awareness of climate change…[which] has a lifetime of up to fifty years before it falls into the sea due to erosion of the coastline” Email 3880, Mar 2000: Michael Mann agrees to let the CRU folks print T-shirts/polo shirts with Mann’s hockey stick on the back Email 3868, Aug 2009, Phil Jones: “European instrumental temperatures in summer ae going to be revised downwards (by about 0.4 deg C for periods before 1850)” Email 3867, Feb 2007, Phil Jones: “…the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will eventually cause Greenland to melt” Email 3795, May 2004: In conjunction with the release of The Day After Tomorrow, an announcement: “The UK is taking the lead in rapid climate change research. A £20 Million Rapid Climate Change programme (known as RAPID for short) is being funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)” Email 3794, Nov. 2003, truly odd stuff from Tom Wigley: “My thinking is that the only way to truly squash M&M is to have an independent third party come along and say … I used exactly the same data and method as MBH and got exactly the same results, and, furthermore, I endorse the method…I still don’t think that hard-earned data needs to be made freely available” Email 3792, Jan 2008, Phil Jones seems remarkably relaxed about the details of how the Earth’s temperature is measured: “I don’t care if they are a little bit inaccurate in their locations…Maybe if we did know where they are to a greater accuracy, we could check by Google Earth whether instruments were there !!” Email 3723, Mar. 2004, warmist “Mike” (Schlesinger?) on why CO2 emissions might be bad: “in US, more crop production means more tax money used to provide subsidies–it costs us money.” Email 3716, June 2004, Sarah Raper on magical climate models: “You can make the 20th century [glacier] melt bigger/smaller by moving the ELA (1961-1990) up and down” Email 3651, Mar. 2005, Olga Solomina: “During a good half of the Holocene the glaciers were SMALLER than now…What is unusual about the modern retreat is the RATE, though we do not know much about the rate of the former retreat “ Email 3647, Sept 2006, postcard from the global warming hoax glory days: “Bloody hell!! this must be the 6th or 7th request for a speaker that CRU or I have had in the last few of days!!…because we are the World’s Leading Climate Change Institute we get absolutely inundated with requests and find it extremely difficult to do everything” Email 3640, Dec 2006: Any chance that politics or special interests influenced the IPCC Summary for Policymakers?: Nearly 1,000 comments “received from governments and NGOs” Email 3628, April 2008, Phil Jones on UHI in NY: “Also on warmest days it is warmer outside the city. This is probably unique to NY” Email 3608, Aug 2006, UEA’s Laura Middleton on pitching the climate hoax: “Many people among the general public are not used to reading any kind of text and graphs and don’t understand them…we need to pitch it to the average (not the most intelligent) 12 year old, and one with a short attention span at that!” Email 3605, October 2007, Phil Jones on a “Past Millennia Climate Variability” paper: “Taking on putting this paper together has been a real nightmare. I still can’t seem to get any response from Keith, Tim and Caspar – and I know two of them are in rooms less than 5m from me!” Email 3593, Dec 2007, Phil Jones on James Hansen’s magic red global warming hoax crayon: “Their extrapolation also makes Antarctica much warmer than it probably was” Email 3563, April 2009, Phil Jones on his belief that UHI isn’t an issue: “I could use the St. James’s Park record in the global T calculations. It wouldn’t make any difference anyway” Email 3557, May 2009, Tom Wigley on IFR (design for a nuclear reactor): “through the lies and misdirections of Clinton, Gore and Kerry, we may have lost the opportunity to solve the problem cheaply. History nay well judge these guys as much worse than Bush Jr.” Email 3548, May 2008, Phil Jones on FOI: “It might surprise you all to know that we have a full time person here at UEA for this!” Email 3541, July 2009: Dave Palmer, UEA FOIA expert, jokes(?) about leveraging UEA’s FOI problems into a free trip for himself to a Bali IPCC climate hoax meeting Email 3539, July 2008, Phil Jones on individuals and organizations using IPCC involvement to gain cash and/or glory Email 3538, Dec 2007, Phil Jones to a guy who wrote about solar influences on climate: “I’m not going to comment on your text, because your report is awful…You’ve not understood any of what was said on the Real Climate Audit web site. “ Email 3537, Jan 2005, Phil Jones on RealClimate: “The web page is interesting, but whatever you do don’t delve too deeply. It will just eat into your time and in the end be completely useless…it is only for those with time on their hands” Email 3498, March 2005, IPCC lead author Phil Jones writes some unintelligible, yet eyebrow-raising stuff about the allegedly gold-standard IPCC process Email 3497, Aug 2009, Phil Jones on McIntyre’s requests for data: “it soon became clear that it was a concerted action to waste my time” Email 3467, Oct 2007, UEA paper admits “most [polar bear] populations are currently stable or growing” Email 3461, May 2001, Ed Cook: “I do think that there still exists a signficant uncertainty as to the relative contributions of natural and greenhouse forcing to warming during the past 20-30 years at least.” Email 3357, Nov 1999, Tim Osborn: “there is a fairly strong temperature signal in the tree-ring density series, but that a non-temperature trend is also apparent post-1950 that gets bigger and deteriorates the temperature relationship…you also have to make the assumption that this non-temperature signal is something anthropogenic and didn’t occur in the past” Email 3343, April 2007: Award-winning climate hoax communicator Gavin Schmidt suggests putting up the data “in an as-impenetrable-as-possible form”; Michael Mann agrees, saying that will “blunt the line of attack that has the greatest traction” Email 3338, May 2008: Did climate junk scientist Phil Jones’ group get $1.5 million from the US Department of Energy? Email 3333, Nov 2003, Ian “Harry” Harris of UEA struggles to download Mann’s data; writes “If Steve McIntyre’s having the same difficulties, no wonder he’s pissed off!” Email 3315, June 2008, Phil Jones, clouds schmouds: “I think the time series of rainday counts may be a better homogeneous proxy for cloudiness. Cloud observations will be a waste of time!” Email 3287, January 2005, Phil Jones: “The recent warm period in the Arctic is, however, not yet as long as that in the early-to-mid 20th century.” Email 3285, May 2006, Rob Wilson on why trees allegedly stopped working as thermometers last century: “I think we all agree that it is most likely anthropogenically driven to a certain extent” Email 3284, Phil Jones on FOI, Sept 2009: “There is the issue of wasting our time, which is the main one. The other issue is that Met Services putting conditions for the use of the data was common in the mid-1980s and 1990s. We were just quite adept at getting around the conditions.’ Email 3283, Feb 2001: UEA’s Trevor Davies likes an insane plan to spend some of the anticipated UK 50 million pounds per year in carbon tax loot: pick 20 UEA staff households and reduce their CO2 emissions by 60% “because this is the value which will start to make a difference in climate terms” Email 3282, July 2006, Olga Solomina to Keith Briffa: “I am getting more and more concern about our statement that the Early Holocene was cool in the tropics – this paper shows that it was, actually, warm – ice core evidences+glaciers were smaller than now in the tropical Andes” Email 3265, June 2003: Climate realist Chris de Freitas: “North American geologists repeatedly assert that the 19th century was the coldest century in North America since the LGM. To that extent, showing temperature increase since then is not unlike a mutual fund salesmen showing expected rate of return from a market bottom – not precisely false, but rather in the realm of sleight-of- hand” Email 3235, March 2004, Phil Jones: “Chris [Vincent] seems much more honest than Trevor [Davies]” Email 3235, Mar 2004, more stellar paleo work by Phil Jones. Given that he was born in 1952, he calculates that he must have been 28 in 1970 Email 3219, Nov 2002: Warmist Ed Cook suggests that Rod Savidge (Professor, Tree Physiology/Biochemistry) isn’t qualified to criticize dendrochronology; David Lawrence claims that “Tree-ring science is an exact science” Email 3207, June 2005, Jonathan Overpeck on how to handle that inconvenient Medieval Warm Period Email 3203, June 2008: Steve McIntyre asks for a PDF of a paper which is cited by another paper with is cited by the IPCC; Michael Mann suggests that “CRU should charge him a fee for the service” Email 3195, Mar 2005: Who needs thermometers when you can allegedly estimate temperatures by measuring the lengths of glaciers? Email 3193, July 2007, Keith Briffa: “There is much to be done on the area of exploring how models simulate the climate variability…Issues such as the climate sensitivity of models versus the real world and the roles of specific forcings and their influence on the future, represent important foci for continued study” Email 3192, Oct 2008, Warmist Phil Jones in Iceland: Since it was cold and snowy outside, and he had nothing better to do, he takes a look at Climate Audit Email 3167, July 2005, more IPCC-style consensus: IPCC folks “worry very much” about showing two different figures in the same chapter that conflict with each other Email 3118, Aug 2008: Tom Crowley complains that a researcher at an institute receiving “tons of federal money” is refusing to share “what the original investigator thinks is the best long term (back to about 900 AD*) reconstruction?” Email 3115: Michael Mann again on refusing to communicate with the “idiots” and “losers” who dare to question Mann’s work Email 3114, April 2007, Phil Jones again with a massive red flag: He suggests that only skeptics want to see raw station data; and that the entire believer community was content to work with mysteriously-massaged data Email 3107: UEA has evidently written a two-page climate hoax brochure for WWF. Now WWF wants a “stronger sentence…that the rate and magnitude of change may be so great that many ecosystems and species of wildlife may not be able to adapt”, maybe in the first paragraph Email 3099, July 2001, Keith Briffa, HIHOL report: “there is a growing number of striking coincidences between climate changes and the occurrence of abrupt changes in solar activity such as grand minima” Email 3089, Feb 1999, Phil Jones: “there is no evidence that there will be any increase in tropical storms. In the area with the best data – the tropical Atlantic, there has been a reduction in both the numbers and the severity of Atlantic Hurricanes over the last 50 years” Email 3078, Sept 1998, Keith Briffa: “I am currently involved with writing a bid on behalf of the earth science community to try to extract 8 million pounds for a 5 year project from NERC to support Palaeo/Modelling validatin work” Email 3062, Feb 2008, Phil Jones: “We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written that sounds as though it could have been written by a coral person 25 years ago. We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff. What we want is good honest stuff, warts and all” Email 3061, July 1999, Neil Leary, IPCC WG II: Use of non-peer reviewed sources: “Basically,your expertise substitutes for the peer review process for material that has not been peer reviewed.” Michael Mann vs Michael Mann: Did I say that the hockey stick might qualify to be the “truth” as portrayed in the IPCC Policy Makers Summary? I meant it was an “obscure graph” that unnamed other people have made “appear more definitive than it was ever intended” Email 3046, July 2000, Michael Mann: “Our method, as you know, doesn’t include any “splicing of two different datasets”-this is a myth perptuated by Singer and his band of hired guns” Email 3045, Michael Mann to Andy Revkin, Feb 2005: “The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you’ll find this reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our field you discuss this with” Email 3034, Oct 2004, Phil Jones on “adjusting” temperature data for many of the problems of site changes and observational practice changes that have occurred over the years: “for a lot of countries we have to do this work ourselves. This is sub-optimal as we don’t have all the necessary metadata (data about data), but we do the best we can” Email 3016, Oct 2008, Phil Jones: We earn money the old-fashioned way: We write government proposals for it Email 3010, July 2008: Keith Briffa rejects a paper on the problems caused by larch budmoth for climate reconstruction, but admits “no fundamental objections have been raised regarding the science” Email 277, May 2003, Mike Hulme: “the argument about rising damages over the last 20-30 years…says more about the insurance industry than it does about climate change…it is very difficult to pull out the climate signal from such data and even harder to pull out the anthropogenic climate signal” Email 4997, Phil Jones on NAO, 2004: “Also putting this in a box doesn’t mean we know what is causing it. My view is that we will never know. Is the influence stronger now because of anthro effects – who knows.” Email 4993, May 2003, Michael Mann rants against unbelievers Soon/Baliunas/C. Idso/S. Idso; claims to know their motivations; somehow also knows that “NYT, Scientific American, and a few other journalists are working on exposes of Baliunas and co., and those should appear soon” Email 4991, Oct 2007: Arthur D Edelstein writes to Phil Jones, asks for the complete HadCRUT3 dataset and source code, consistent with AGU policies; Jones plans to ignore the request Email 4990, Mar 2006, Richard Alley to Michael Mann: “she was not convincing that trees were thermometers when it was warm a millennium ago but are not thermometers when it is warm now” Email 4986, Aug/Sept 2009, Phil Jones: “They are mostly people who correspond on the Climate Audit blog site. They all seem to have infinite time as they are all retired.” Email 4984, June 2008: John Finn presents Phil Jones with some inconvenient data that “doesnt seem to square with the aerosol cooling theory” Email 497, May 2008: Keith Briffa’s “Private Clients” advisor suggests that Briffa make a significant investment in a fossil fuel company Email 4975, convenient urbanization: Phil Jones ignores it when it hurts “the cause”, uses it when it helps the cause Email 4973, Sept 2007: Phil Jones needs his US Department of Energy grant renewed, so he can pay for his flights and pay his staff? Email 4965, July 2005, Kevin Trenberth: “…to say that the warming in the first part of the 20th century was partly due to solar, the cooling from 1940 to 1970 to increased aerosol, and the warming after 1970 to the increasing GHGs” Email 4951, April 2003: Briffa wants M. Kelly to review a couple of papers for him including one “(on solar influence on climate ) which I think will be a rejection but I need hard justification” Email 4950, May 2002: Details about the Tyndall Centre’s climate change hoax show for children Email 4936, Michael Mann in January 2007 claims that Caspar Ammann has “independently investigated the claims of our critics and shown them to be either incorrect, inconsequential, or both.” Email 4933, Eric Kreileman to Mike Hulme: “…we discovered very strange behavior of the climate module. At higher C02 concentrations the climate sensitivity tents to be much less than expected” Email 4911, Michael Mann, July 2007: “What McIntyre and his ilk are trying to do is to make doing science as unpleasant as possible for us. I suppose they think that discouraging the scientists is the best way to prevent the science from moving forward” Email 4907, Aug 2005: Michael Mann comes out against unprofessional email exchanges, and “inflammatory and ad hominem public commentary. There is no room for that on any side of the debate.” Email 4887, Dec 2007, Phil Jones: “There are too many journals…and all have difficulty finding qualified reviewers” Email 4878, July 2009, Dave Palmer, UEA FOIA expert: “In reality, we don’t have any IPR in the raw data so we have no ‘rights’ to it…” Email 4854, Oct 2003, Phil Jones: “It is rather odd that the email said [M&M] had rerun his (Mann’s) exact analysis and got quite different results. I know I couldn’t do this, as when Keith, Tim and me wanted to do some comparisons with MBH98 a few years ago a few of the series could not be made available.” Email 4853, Keith Briffa, Nov 2006: “dropped the inference of direct, positive association with temperature, because we added in sites that Mike in particular had used because of their inverse sensitivity – ie they were really more precipitation sensitive” Email 4817, Simon Shackley to Mike Hulme: “dear [Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research] colleagues…looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from this largesse?” Email 4815, Jan. 2006: Eystein Jansen: “The timing of these matters are being followed closely by McIntyre…and we cannot afford to being caught doing anything that is not within the regulations” Email 4785, Nov. 2009, Tom Wigley on Richard Lindzen: “he is a very clever person with a top reputation outside of the global warming area” Email 4780, April 2009: Eystein Jansen and Jonathan Overpeck feel the need to “make the case that paleo-science continues to be highly relevant for IPCC” Email 4778, May 2009, Phil Jones to Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of AR5 WG1: “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” Email 4768, Oct 2003, Michael Mann’s psychological projection: He rants about the alleged “extremely dishonest”, “really scandalous” things that McIntyre and McKitrick allegedly did Email 4766, Phil Jones to the Met Office, May 2009: “We would look stupid if you released the data now” Email 4763, June 2008: Michael Mann wants to highlight “how critical [Phil Jones’] efforts have been to developments in areas such as [Detection and Attribution]” Email 4758, UEA’s Tim Osborn, Oct 2000: “how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD 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! “ Email 4754, Andy Lotter, Feb 2005: “What about CO2 reconstructions for the Holocene that do not derive from ice-cores?… I am not sure whether the ice-core lobby will be happy to deal with them as they tend to show somewhat different results.” Email 4753, Phil Jones, Oct 2004: “We have a mix of abilities in the LAs, but Brian, David P, Dave Easterling and Albert Klein Tank of KNMI are solid. The Iranian, Argentinian, Romanian, Kenyan don’t seem up to too much, but this is life in the IPCC – remember Ebby !” Email 4752, Phil Jones, July 2009: “The way you describe IPCC is a good way of putting it – a loose confederation of academics. It might not be perceived this way by govts or thr public, but the phrase you use is the reality.” Email 4750, Phil Jones: On climate fluctuations, “what matters is the 5-year plus timescale” Email 4749, July 2003, Michael Mann to WSJ reporter: Back when dinosaurs were wandering around near the poles, it was “almost” certainly warmer; this was allegedly “due to the influence of plate motion on the production of co2 by geological sources (e.g. volcanic outgassing)” Email 4713, Phil Jones, April 2009: Solar “constant” is now 1361, most models have 1366-1370; “Not that keen on tipping points!”; “there has been a dramatic decline in [relative humidity] in the past 3 years (this is very, very new!)” Email 4712, Tom Wigley, June 2003: “…The word ‘quality’ here has been chosen carefully — as something that is deliberately a bit ambiguous. The point here is to have something that we can fall back on if anyone criticizes *any* specific input series” Email 4709, Phil Jones, Nov 2007, urbanization shmurbanization?: “There are no corrections/adjustments for urbanization applied…There are several papers in th IPCC WG1 Ch3 that show that urbanization isn’t an issue” Email 4693, April 2002, a classic from Tom Crowley to Mann et al: “somehow I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships” Email 4690, Phil Jones, 2008: “For temperature, weather and natural variability (partly from ENSO) is large on timescales from monthly up to about 3-4 years, so dominates over human influences. The latter dominate over decadal and longer timescales” Email 4685, Missing Heat-Gate: Mike Hulme writes: “the global T increase to date has been patchy, except for the last 30 years and this extra heat will not have penetrated far into the oceans yet” Email 4660, Phil Jones, 2008: “…what we do now will have hardly any effect on temperature increases until 2040” Email 4657, Oct 2000, It’s a small world after all: Editor of Journal of Climate, Michael Mann, gets Phil Jones to review a paper by Tom Wigley and Ben Santer Email 4608, Phil Jones, 2005: “I wasn’t able to stop some comments being put in by Lindzen, but Tom has a paper as does Myles which are enough to ignore his and the Douglass papers” Email 4584, July 2003: Phil Camill asks Keith Briffa about a “…possible climatic forcing by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation” paper with no editorial response or reviews for 14 months Email 4559, Phil Jones, Aug 2003: “The Science Editor-in-Chief’s response…should be rammed down Singer’s throat…” Email 4478, October 2008, UEA’s David Palmer on requests for data: “quite frankly, I am surprised that not more requests of this nature have been made” Email 4465, June 2002, Keith Briffa: It has always been clear the competition for funding “was destined to be very fierce. The points you make about social relevance (which translates into political pressure) of the proposals is crucial…” Email 4047, May 2001, Mike Hulme: “The earlier part of the morning will ‘sell’ environmental science in the broader context, before we sell the particular challenge of climate change.” Email 4055, June 2005: Warmist Ray Bradley: “We got the $$ from a Congressional earmark…We hope to get another one next year, so as to give us an additional couple of years cushion.” Email 4074, January 2001: Bob Watson of the World Bank talks about how he’s going to write the IPCC Summary for Policymakers Email 4086, July 2000: Learn about “Palaeo-climatic Research and Earth System Modelling for Enhanced ClImatic and ENvironmental PredicTion (PRESCIENT)” Email 4093, Mar. 2005, keeping out the riff-raff: Madhav Khandekar applies for RMS fellowship; Phil Jones says “I’d be wary of accepting him” because of Khandekar’s association with “greenhouse skeptics” Email 4158, Oct 2003: To counter McIntyre/McKitrick, Michael Mann says “we’re preparing for a mass emailing tomorrow”; MacCracken writes “I do hope you send the note to high in US Admin” Email 4160, Warmist Richard Somerville: “We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.” Email 4180, July 2000, on who should be on the Tyndall Centre Climate Change Hoax advisory board: “Certainly we need advice but we also want cash”; how about these wind power guys? Email 4225, Aug 2001: Warmists Rob Swart and Tom Wigley agree that cutting CO2 emissions would not make any distinguishable difference to the climate until “well into the second half of the century” Email 4243, Oct 1998: Storyline involving “a global underclass develops.. crime, drug dependence, homelessness and suicide rates increase…religous cults spring up everywhere….etc..” considered too alarmist for IPCC SRES report Email 4297, Phil Jones, Jan 2008: “…show that years like 2005 and others in the period 2002-2007 are after extraction warmer than 1998.” Email 4312, April 2008, Stefan Rahmstorf to Andy Revkin: “So if I had to bet money at equal odds on warming or cooling, I’d still bet on warming, although with less confidence than previously. “ Email 4314, Oct 2004: UK warmist Phil Jones off to Seattle for a US DoE meeting; also mentions his new DoE grant Email 4321, Sept 2003: Mike Hulme sees that Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas have been asked to provide the annual progress reports for global warming for the PiPG journal, resigns as Editorial Advisor Email 4326, October 2009: UEA’s Head of Communications asks Phil Jones if UEA should say “Computer storage facilities have improved dramatically since the 1970s and early 1980s. Storage space at that time was limited and expensive and we were not in a position to keep all the raw data we received” Email 4327: Interesting rant from warmist Stephen Schneider on the alleged stupidity of the little people Email 4331: Ben “Beat the Crap out of Pat Michaels” Santer to McIntyre: “I see no reason why I should do your work for you…Please do not communicate with me in the future” Email 4337, June 2009: Railway engineer and global warming activist Pachauri sends out his “Chairman’s vision paper” for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Email 4352, Feb. 2007, Phil Jones writes to a US Department of Energy contact: “…when do you reckon you might be able to issue a new contract? I hope you are all pleased with the IPCC outcome.” Email 4356, Aug 2001: Warmist MIke Hulme admits that there can never be a consensus within the scientific community on the “non-dangerous” level for atmospheric CO2: “This question is not appropriately answered by science – it has to be answered by society!” Email 4378, May 2009: Warmist Thomas Stocker suggests that FOI should apply to polluters, but not to warmists?: “to take this convention and turn it around appears to me like a perversion” Email 4386, May 2009: Internal controversy on potentially ditching a “Weather Generator” that may be “virtually worthless: “[The Government wants] the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish” Email 4392, April 2009, Declan Conway, UEA: Still more cash for climate junk science?: “a large Defra call for a climate impact/risk assessment for the UK in 1-2 months – something like 1-2 million pounds” Email 4393, April 2003: Who’s who list of warmists is copied on an email thread on how to counter Baliunas/Soon; “a noted group from the detection and attribution effort” is listed as ClimateGaters “Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes” Don’t miss email 2624, Jan 2008, UEA’s Tim Osborn writes about deliberately holding back a climate realist paper, while fast-tracking an alarmist paper Email 4937, June 2003, Ed Cook to Keith Briffa: “This is not terribly kosher, but I am sending you the paper I am reviewing that attempts to destroy dendroclimatology as presently done, and my present review of it.” Email 4346, July 2001, Rachel Quinn, Royal Society: “The sort of things we could be doing now to cut back on GHG radically are, in fact, extremely good for the economy and society as well as the environment.” Email 4342, Keith Briffa, 2002, on paleo work: “These things will have many millions thrown at them” Email 5318, Phil Jones on hurricanes, July 2005: “Maybe one or two years of record numbers/severity will be enough to convince more Americans” Email 5294, Oct 2003: Hockey team in uproar over upcoming paper that destroys the hockey stick Email 5290, 2001, Ian “Harry” Harris on climate models: “”the sulphate runs are shit” is [Dave’s] no-doubt confidential opinion ;-)” Email 5283, Phil Jones, 2008: “As an aside the bias adjustments in the SST data are far more important than anything up with the land. All you have to do a moderately reasonable job with land and you’ll be fine” More pal review: Email 5271: Phil Jones is evidently “not conflicted” to review a proposal by hockey team member Ray Bradley, although he admittedly knows Ray “very well”, and he’s been a co-author with him Email 5260, 2005: Trenberth and Jones use terms like “concerned” and “alarmed” about data that doesn’t fit the warmist narrative: Trenberth: “The lack of reproducibility here is very disturbing” Email 5259, 2006: “trumpet LAURA’S successful £16,000 application to Defra’s communicating climate change fund for an exhibition stand…will show the influential role of UEA in international climate change research” Email 5239, Feb 2004, Adrian Simmons to Phil Jones on the “almost certainly erroneous cooling trends seen in the daily mean analyses for Australia and much of tropical South America” for 1958 to 2001 Email 5199, Oct 2009: “there is some cynicism out there about what this £40million can really achieve above and beyond all the other climate change initiatives ongoing…What will all this research and disemmination achieve?” Email 5179, May 2008, on sea surface temperatures: Given all the potential errors, number fudging, and changes in measurement method, is it prudent to spend $45 trillion and change our lifestyles based on small reported fluctuations in these numbers? Check out email 5177 (1999): Here’s the actual code that allegedly told us how much the planet will allegedly overheat Email 5149, Phil Jones, Sept 2004: “I reckon that you would have to go back to about 3500BC to find a warmer period” Email 5120, 1997, the week before Kyoto: Phil Jones and Mike Hulme become “TV Stars!!” with “nicely timed” announcement that “1997 is on course to be the warmest year on record”; “Mike you looked very much like the Pope making very authoritive pronouncements!” Email 5068, Adri Buishand to Phil Jones, July 2008: “The trend differences are sometimes more than 1 degree per decade” Email 5053, Phil Jones, Sept. 2007: “Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with” Email 5036, Sept 2003, Keith Briffa: “would prefer no involvement of Mann and Phil – and can you tell me what reconstruction [hockey team member Ray] Bradley did ever ?” Some ClimateGate emails about cash for junk science: “10-12 million Euro looks like a reasonable guess for possible budget” Email 5007, June 2007: Reviewer of a Briffa et al paper writes “I value the findind that the strenght of climate-tree growth relationships has not declined during the 20th century” Email 4133, April 2005, David Rind, NASA GISS: “what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got” Email 4132, Phil Jones, 2003: “As for the title, why don’t we go for ‘Climate during the past two millennia’, still with the empahsis on the last one..The first millennia will be semi quantitative and would just be smoothed versions – simple averages of what we can get” Email 4131, Phil Jones, April 2007: “These requests are harrassment despite what you say – just look at their website!…We make the gridded data available. This is enough for normal climatologists.” Email 4107, Phil Jones, 2008: “[McIntyre] seems at last to have realized that the SST is potentially the weakest part of the global T record” Email 4092, 1998, Trevor Davies, CRU: “[Goldman-Sachs] is the sort of company that we might be looking for a ‘strategic alliance’ with” Email 4027, Nov. 2009: Warmist Tom Wigley admits that Naomi Oreskes’ famous paper on the alleged consensus is “useless” Yipes: In ClimateGate email 4022, Briffa talks about “avoiding the high early decades”; “deliberately omitting the data between 1900-1920”, and conceivably uisng instrumental data in the recent period Don’t miss this Nov 1999 UEA email (5309) : “All climate change signal detection and attribution studies to date have assumed a model-based estimate of natural climate variability. This is a major and relatively untested assumption to make, and is potentially a major source of criticism” Email 5307, April 2008, UEA’s Ian “Harry” Harris: “We do have ‘station files’ – these give the number of stations theoretically contributing to each cell. Where it’s a zero, and it’s also a land cell, you’ll get (full) relaxation to the climatology” Settled science?: In email 5298, Overpeck asks hopefully if Keith Briffa happens to have some “figure illustrating a new compelling reason to have faith in the recons for the last 1000 years” Email 5295, May 2009: UEA’s Stephen Dorling asks Phil Jones about “the recent finding that humidity was declining in the measurement record” Email 5279, UEA’s Tim Osborn, 2004: “Mann is now making an assumption about the real world climate. If we knew the amount of long-term variability that the real climate showed, then we wouldn’t be needing to reconstruct it in the first place!” Email 5251, 1999: Revealing email on how IPCC writing was actually done by “a small set” of people; “We could solicit input on certain topics, but I think we know the field well enough to make that an unnecessary burden on others” Email 5250, Phil Jones, 2009, on why he evidently thought that sharing climate data was optional: “I also don’t see why I should help people, I don’t want to work with and who spend most of their time critisising me” Email 5241, Phil Jones, Oct. 2007: Lack of raw data “isn’t an issue for almost all climate scientists around the world. They are happy with the products we put together…We’ve always not made the raw data available” Email 5234, June 1999: Critical climate model shows that “Glacier, Greenland and Antartic melting (for 5.5xCO2) are all lower than for 4.5xCO2” Email 5221, Phil Jones: “There has been little trend in winters over [Northern Europe] during the 20th century because winters were mild in the first 40 years of the century…Since 1951 winters in C and E Siberia have warmed, but they were milder in the first part of the century as in parts of Europe” Dec. 2004, email 5212, Phil Jones on IPCC lead authors for his chapter: “we are working with about 50% good people who can write reasonable assessments and 50% who probably can’t” Email 5197, Sept 2009, Phil Jones: The Met Office is “wanting to do as little as possible as they have just lost all the MoD money for climate science, which was £4M per year.” Email 5188, March 2009: Phil Jones invited to review a paper with an abstract that includes “mankind activity contributes to the recent global warming by much less than 15%” May 2008, email 5179, David Thompson, CSU: “I was also uncomfortable with the Hadley Centre propaganda. I think it would have been a lightning rod for the critics” Phil Jones, 2005: “I wouldn’t tell anybody about the FOI Act in Britain” Email 5089, Ed Cook: “in certain ways the [Medieval Warm] period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times” Email 5076, Phil Jones: “As you know, ENSO variability is an order of magnitude warmer on the interannual timescale than the greenhouse warming, so dominates on timescales less than 5 years” 2009 ClimateGate email, Phil Jones: “don’t worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we’ll be changing the SSTs there for 1945-60” Email 5030, Pal Review in action: Ed Cook writes to Briffa: “The review is in. It was very strong in support of what you want to do: Alpha5. I can’t wait to sip an Adnams with you” 2008 ClimateGate email: Has anyone “even started thinking about” “how the US government will distinguish “impacts of climate change” from “vulnerability to natural climate variability” in allocating resources for adaptation assistance?” Email 4199, a ClimateGate twofer from Phil Jones: “the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried”; “The land data are robust as they result from all the countries doing different things” In case you missed it: “Smoking gun” email from BBC’s Jonathan Renouf to Keith Briffa: “Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past” Email 4401: “We need to specifically move on from the concept that “15 trees are enough.”” Wow: In email 3423 (year 2001), UEA warmist Mike Hulme said that the evidence was NOT sufficiently strong to start reducing emissions Email 2748: Phil Jones sees McIntyre closing in on Mann Email 3874: Mann sends email trashing McKitrick and McIntyre to his “Friends and Colleagues” at the New York Times, Environmental Defense Fund, EPA, and Senator Lieberman’s office among others Self-promotion of Mann to Warmist PR Machine Climate Depot’s full list of postings on Climategate 2.0 Environmental Defense Fund aids Mann in rebutting McKitrick / McIntyre BBC apologizes to Phil Jones for going with a story Jones disapproved of Another peek inside the settled science sausage factory: Tom Wigley on when the glaciers and small ice caps will melt: “the next step would be to try to get some realism here, but I really have no idea what would be realistic” Unsettled science: Warmist Tom Wigley doesn’t like a Sarah Raper slideshow subtitled “Is the climate sensitivity dead”? In case you missed it, on CRU’s source code: “In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to “correction.”” In case you missed it: All in one place, all ClimateGate I and II files, along with source code files, HARRY_READ_ME files, email attachments, documents, etc Email 4141, a glimpse into the climate science Mad Hatter Tea Party: “I think the notion of telling the public to prepare for both global warming and an ice age at the same creates a real public relations problem for us” Why did trees allegedly stop functioning as thermometers last century? Let me count the explanations (three in this ClimateGate email alone) Email 1267: In 2007, Revkin coaxes Phil Jones to share his views that we must act now 2009 ClimateGate email from Anthony Footitt of UEA: “I do hope all these emails are just staying within UEA because it really makes us (UEA as a whole) look like a bunch of amateurs” Michael Mann on keeping up with the scientific literature: “I don’t read E&E, gives me indigestion” Teamwork: Tight little group of warmists write letters to support Michael Mann’s drive to make Phil Jones an AGU fellow Phil Jones, 2007: “I’m working on a paper on urbanization. I can show China is hardly affected” Warmist Mike Hulme agrees that “the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment…There are not that many “facts” about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal” Sept 2009: Phil Jones: “GHCN doesn’t have this sort of information. They don’t keep a track either of where each bit of data, or each station, comes from!”; UEA’s Dave Palmer: “I fear we could end up with a headline blazing ‘CRU has no idea where it’s data comes from!” I scratched your back, you scratch mine: After helping Phil Jones become an AGU fellow, Mike Mann asks Jones if he’s interested in “returning the favor” Don’t miss this devastating criticism of the IPCC from a guy who contributed to all five IPCC Assessment Reports: “I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions)…I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes” Ed Cook: “It certainly looks pretty spooky to me with strong “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” signals in it” Dendrochronologists get spanked by guy with expertise in tree physiology and wood anatomy Phil Jones admits hiding behind technicality to avoid given data to McIntyre Climatologist considers faking sick rather than debating How hockey team member Keith Briffa asked for a fair-and-balanced review: “Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting” A tip from Michael Mann on how to handle scientific debate: Set up your email server so that it automatically rejects email from people who disagree with you More settled science: Keith Briffa, 2006: “Between you and I , I believe there may be problems with the analysis of the Bristlecone data. We can talk by phone about this” 2007: Phil Jones says it’s important “not to cling to outdated concepts of the past such as the MWP and LIA” [Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age] Warmist Ed Cook seemed to doubt that trees can ever really function as reliable thermometers? Email 3017: Warmist Phil Jones attempts to explain why 2008 was cooler than 1998 ClimateGate email: Warmist Tom Wigley proposes fudging temperature data by .15 degrees C Email 4419: Ed Cook to Briffa: “there is no evidence for a decline or loss of temperature response in your data in the post-1950s (I assume that you didn’t apply a bodge here). This fully contradicts their claims” Warmist Mike MacCracken on the prospect of getting rid of some 1940s warmth?: This could result in “not having to search out all sorts of exotic feedbacks to show how a small solar change could have a disproportionately large effect” For Michael Mann, oh, what a tangled web: In a 2003 ClimateGate email, he claims that “the proxy reconstructions show the post-1980 warming” Email 3499: Michael Mann provides some code, cautions “don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people”; admits something “a bit odd” that “increases the amplitude of the reconstruction everywhere by the factor 1.29” Phil Jones again mentions his “gut feeling” a couple of times, also says “What the temperature was or wasn’t over the millennium doesn’t influence politicians” and “No natural archives ensure an accurate reconstruction” 2005 email from dendro guy Rob Wilson: “between you and me, I don’t think our new NH recon really adds anything new expect perhaps the fact that we should not put too much confidence in these recons prior to 1100 or so…I think the whole methodology is up in the air as well” Email 3757: Roger Harrabin and Joe Smith write to UEA warmist Mike Hulme, ask: “What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc?” Warmist Ben Santer on McIntyre: “He has no interest in rational scientific debate. His intent is purely destructive”; he suggests that McIntyre’s blogging is “the 21st century equivalent of a public hanging” 2004 email: Phil Jones on why he thought the last 20 years was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period: “This is all gut feeling, no science”; warmist Tom Wigley also calls the hockey stick “a very sloppy piece of work” Phil Jones “…this assumes we fully understand the climate system, and I don’t think we do – in the sense that if we do something, we know what the effect will be” Warmist Barrie Pittock chastises warmist Mike Hulme for not being alarmist enough in providing material for a WWF leaflet 1998 ClimateGate email: Briffa fears a “backlash” as modellers “undertake simple assessments of the palaeo-series and conclude that they are all of very little use” Email 3272: From the ultimate insiders, very serious misgivings about the data at the very center of the greatest scientific fraud in human history; Mann says that Folland “definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own (Mann et al) series” Email 3906: “greed loses you the prize”; UEA internally discusses increasing daily consulting rates for Jones (£750) and others by another 25%; does the money go to the school. or do the individuals pocket it? In case you missed it: Hockey stick co-author: “it may be that Mann et al simply don’t have the long-term trend right”; “I hedge my bets on whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been “warm”, to the irritation of my co-authors!” In case you missed it: Hockey stick co-author claims that after 1850, critical trees lost their alleged ability to record temperature In case you missed it: Phil Jones evidently admits that “The original data for sites for which we made appropriate adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s” is lost 2007 email to Phil Jones: “I’ve just come accross something interesting in my data – it looks like the land T and dewpoint T data is recorded only to whole numbers prior to 1982 too” Email 1102: Bianca Jagger launches Green Party climate campaign; UEA prof claims that “The climate of the future is what we make it” Email 939: Monbiot, Lynas, and Gelbspan allegedly approved of a letter claiming that by 2050, because of CO2, “more than the total amount the world produces that year could be destroyed and life as we know it could collapse” Email 4826: Two UEA professors (?) identify themselves as Norwich Green Party members, compare Lindzen to a flat-earther, warn about “severe regional cooling to Britain, whilst the tropics would start to fry” UEA’s Pallister on a chance to see “4 local politicians facing a grilling about Science”; two of the four politicians were also UEA “scientists”, and a third, a “climate change campaigner”, had worked at UEA for 32 years? Email 124: UEA’s Rob Tinch asks a cannabis activist how much cash to request for a renewable energy company to sponsor “our” climate change page Email 4953: Rob Tinch of UEA sends an email to [email protected] appealing for help (and offering to coordinate transport) regarding a Green Party global warming hoax leafletting campaign Email 2334: Check out these ideas to mark the opening of the Tyndall Global Warming Hoax Centre Warmist Overpeck writes to Jones/Trenberth/Mann/Solomon/Santer about the “get rid of the warm medieval period” email; he’s worried that Deming may be “taking the quote out of context” Email 679: Michael Mann says that he knows Henry Waxman’s staffers well; Phil Jones declines an offer to be interviewed for “The Great Global Warming Swindle” Email 4194: Tyndall Centre salivating over the prospect of getting a piece of £27m in Carbon Trust climate hoax money Email 2426: CRU draft mission statement ClimateGate email 5252: UEA chancellor sounds excited about UEA partnering with the “Carbon Trust” to gain money and publicity Email 986: US Department of Energy asks some questions relating to DOE funding for Phil Jones 2008 email from Phil Jones: Is he suggesting here that it is the “job” of the skeptics to find errors in climate science? Phil Jones: “For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there” Warmist Ray Bradley: “I am as guilty as the rest–I made up something from a corner of my brain on p.33 of my paleoclimatology book!” In case you missed it: Phil Jones on Kilimanjaro glaciers: “Lonnie [Thompson] thinks they are disappearing because of sublimation” 1998 ClimateGate email: “The problem of different Markers having different 1990 emissions values (and the fact that 1990s C emissions diverge from those observed) is more serious” Email 5286, von Storch: “We should explain why we don’t think the information robust yet. Climate research has become a postnormal science, with the intrusion of political demands and significant influence by activists driven by ideological (well meant) concerns.” Email 4927: Michael Mann and Phil Jones conspiring to get a Nature paper in advance? Warmist Ed Cook: “This all reinforces my determination to leave this NH/global temperature reconstruction junk behind me once I get this paper submitted. It’s not worth the aggravation” Email 3288: Mike Salmon: CRU temperature data page “now has the final year removed if incomplete. Batten hatches and prepare for Skeptix!”; Phil Jones: “Good. I doubt if any of them will notice” Uh oh: Phil Jones on major IPCC model: “We can’t just blindly take HadCM3 as a future scenario. We need some justification” Email 3556: From the inside, another glimpse at “consensus” (and the alleged lack of natural variation before 1850) Phil Jones on NRC/NAS report on the IPCC and global warming: “I also hope that Europeans don’t read it” Consensus?: Keith Briffa on some alarmist work by James Hansen: “At very quick glance I am dubious” Great quote by UEA warmist Mike Hulme: “I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies – including some of those I am involved in” Michael Mann’s hockey stick co-author Hughes: “all existing reconstructions of hemisphere-scale temperatures 1000 years ago (or even for all the first half of the second millennium AD) should be viewed as very preliminary” Email 856, Phil Jones: “FOI is causing us a lot of problems in CRU….It would be good if UEA went along with any other Universities who might be lobbying to remove academic research activities from FOI” 2003: Michael Mann on questions from McIntyre and McKitrick: A “highly organized industry PR firm…is behind this effort” Year 2000: Communications director at Sustainability Northwest tells UEA’s Mike Hulme that Hulme needs to hire someone with “an awareness of the more mercurial side of PR which is face-to-face, lobbying, influencing etc” Revealing ClimateGate email 4060: Warmist Ed Cook argues that a “double-blind” approach shouldn’t be used in the proxy reconstruction game Quiet, apolitical scientists at work: Met Office and UEA on “final version of the PR ready for pushing out”; attributing a Met Office quote to Phil Jones, etc 2004 ClimateGate email: Antarctic meteorologist lists a litany of problems in collecting Antarctic temperature data, including sites that “suffer from snow accumulation” and “one of the coldest spots” not being considered 2006: British Council to fully fund 14 young climate hoax researchers’ travel to DC and expenses for “intensive, hands-on media training” DeSmogBlog climate hoax promoter Richard Littlemore to Michael Mann, 2007: “I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science)” Check out this 1998 email from UEA’s Mike Hulme on using climate propaganda to mobilize opinion and maybe get WWF funding 2009: An email called “Australia’s Skeptic Problem” makes its way to Phil Jones; why does Jones’ own graph show temperatures for the last 15 years stayed the same or fallen when CO2 levels have risen? In case you missed it: In 1999, UEA’s David Viner forwards an email to cru.all; the email contains sentences like: “What do you think would be the most effective way to radicalise the UN agenda and protect the climate from our current economic and political systems?” Settled science?: In a 2006 email, Met Office’s Simon Tett admits to being “a bit nervous” about this key claim: “The rate and scale of 20th century warming has probably been unprecedented for at least the last 1,000 years” 1997: UEA warmist Mike Hulme muses on how to use junk climate science to gain political power 2000: Warmist Phil Jones goes to “solar variability and climate” conference in Tenerife; finds that “Many in the solar terrestrial physics community seem totally convinced that solar output changes can explain most of the observed changes we are seeing”; laments that THEY are “so set in their ways” 2003: Michael Mann on what “the community” should do to punish a journal that dared to print dissenting views on the climate hoax 2001: Before excusing himself to shovel snow, Michael Mann writes: “My own perception is that the climate community, modelers as well as observationalists, simply don’t take seriously anymore the idea that the history of climate change over the past 1000 years is part of an internal oscillation” In case you missed it, damning ClimateGate emails from Tim Osborne: They didn’t commit fraud, they just “applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data” Warmist Jonathan Overpeck: It would be nice to give “paleoclimate studies more of an unified feel, as if it were a real discipline rather than a bunch of people doing their own time-period thing” The contextual collection of ClimateGate 2.0 quotes | Watts Up With That? January ’07: Warmist Steven Schneider credits Katrina and the “Gore movie” for a building “social tipping phemenona [sic]” 2007: UEA’s Alan Bond takes UEA scientists to task for not behaving as if they actually believe in the global warming hoax 2005: Warmist Jonathan Overpeck on “not wanting to run afoul of the skeptics and their growing and powerful disinformation and harassment machine in the US”: “I apologize if I’m getting too paranoid” Someone get this man a thesaurus: As his global warming scam crumbled in Sept ’09, overwrought warmist Michael Mann used the word “attack” three times in one hysterical sentence Warmist Richard Alley on whether recent temperatures have emerged from the band of natural variability over the last millennium or two: “Despite assurances from Ed and Keith, I must admit that I still don’t get it” Another ClimateGate email exposes the sort of things warmists say when they think we’re not listening: “I am not very convinced by it myself, but it’s the best I can think of” Tom Wigley on smearing Soon and Baliunas: “Perhaps we could start referring to them as astrologers (excusable as … ‘oops, just a typo’) “ Mann claim: “Phil and I weighted the records we used with respect to their decadal correlations with the instrumental gridpoint surface temperature data”; we “weighted them objectively” Journalist Anne Jolis asks Mann if he has “rejected and otherwise sought to suppress work that contradicted your work”; Mann says that the question “betrays a deep naivety about how the peer review process in science works” and buys into “rather offensive conspiracy theories” Mann: “We actually eliminate records with negative correlations”; Briffa: “I too have expressed my concern to Phil (and Ray) over the logic that you leave all series you want in but just weight them according to some (sometimes low) correlation” Mann: “it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP””; Jones: “I would hope that AGU/EOS ‘publicity machine’ will shout the message from rooftops everywhere” 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 2003 ClimateGate email exchange: Steven Schneider says he has a “dangerous moron for a President”; UEA’s Neil Adger says “So let’s make a difference in what we can do to promote justice and equity” Ed Cook: “[the MBH camp has] “a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP”; on being honest and open about evaluating evidence “I have my doubts about the MBH camp”; “They tend to work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways” 2000 ClimateGate email: “there will doubtless be an undercurrent of suspicion that WG II authors are not qualified to make such judgements on climatological matters”; “we could finesse the problem of consistency by NOT including a table at all in the SPM, but rather use some appropriate (weasel?) wording” 1997: Briffa points out issues with trying to use trees as thermometers; he also says “There are people in this field whose motives or at least methods I have always regarded with suspicion” 2002 review of Brooks/Hulme climate model paper: “It also shows many years in which rainfall approaches zero in the rainy season”; “The model results are extensively “massaged””; “I have no confidence in any of the conclusions draw from this simulation” Briffa, 1999: Many problems afflict all paleodata; “solar variabilty is a potential forcing factor”; “We should all resist the attempts of those who try to push us into the pro or anti greenhouse camps” 2003: Hockey Team captain Michael Mann email to the climate hoax inner circle: There is allegedly “not one single scientifically defensible element at all” to the Shaviv/Veizer paper, but he wants someone else to explain why he thinks that 2009: Ben “Beat the crap out of Pat Michaels” Santer refers to Steve McIntyre as “Mr. Mc “I’m not entirely there in the head”” Phil Jones, 1996: Piers Corbyn is the British equivalent of Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/Dick Lindzen Ed Cook says that Trenberth “is extremely defensive and combative when ever criticized about anything because he figures that he is smarter than everyone else and virtually infallible” UEA’s Tim Osborn: “it is becoming increasingly obvious that solar variations are important” Damning quote from warmist Fred Pearce in 1996: “in the past five years, climate researchers have growing increasingly aware of how little they really know about the natural variability from which they must pick out the “signal” of human influence.” 2008: Jones says that Susan Solomon got “tough” with McIntyre and “threatened to remove him from the reviewer’s list”; Jones also reveals that he and Briffa “work on the sedimentary sequence approach to filing!” How “robust debate” evidently works in climate science: Insider presents hypothesis; soon-to-be-outsider tries to disprove hypothesis; insider suggests that outsider be fired 2003: IPCC head Pachauri writes to UEA’s Mike Hulme about teaming up to produce a series of yearbooks on climate change 2007: UN chief suggests that CO2 might cause sea levels to rise six meters in 10 years Year 2000: Mike Hulme of UEA talks with TERI about bidding for the UK Climate Change Centre The trouble with Harry: Was the fate of the world’s economies resting on fudged data, “a bloody mess” of computer code, and a programmer with dubious competency and a Green Party affiliation? Wigley writes to Hulme and Jones: “must get rid of von Storch too” More settled science: Olga Solomina raises questions Bummer: NOAA Branch Chief, 2009, on Antarctica: “The graph shows three things, none helpful for your [warmist] purposes, I believe” Phil Jones, 2008: “Why can’t people just accept that the IPCC is right!!” Stanford’s David Ritson: “the climate field is losing and has lost a great deal of credibility over the years as to whether it is serious science…In the MBH instance virtually all the simple internal consistency checks. one should expect to find, are missing” Let them eat homogenized data: UEA’s Communication Manager looks down his nose at the idea of noble CRU scientists debating with unwashed amateurs 2005: IPCC reviewer Peter Thorne writes a comment that strikes at the very heart of the worst scientific fraud in history; Phil Jones complains; Met Office’s Chris Folland apologizes Oct 2009, warmist Richard Littlemore: We shouldn’t leave the “very fate of the world” in the hands of Steve McIntyre Phil Jones, 2008: “Solar forcing hasn’t changed in the last 50 years…We are warming – and at a faster rate than ever before” Jean Palutikof [from the IPCC and Met Office] on climate realists, to Phil Jones: “The problem is they are like rottweilers – they never give up” 2004: Tom Wigley goes to a meeting in Japan, finds that prominent EU warmist Schellnhuber is “a bit of a laughing stock among these people” Briffa, 2000: “southern Greenland and the oceans to the east of it have clearly cooled…If you just plug in all areas with at least 25 years coverage , very large areas of the map cool” 1997: UEA’s Ben Matthews sends out an email saying that “Global warming is the most serious threat ever faced by humanity. It is potentially more dangerous than World War 2 or the cold war” Chris de Freitas: “the [IPCC] case rests on two main foundations; the past climate has shown little variability and the climate models reflect the internal variability of the climate system. If either or both are shown to be weak or fallacious then the IPCC case is weakened or fails” Yipes: As climate hoax insiders struggle to defend the hockey stick, Briffa writes “Much of the detail in Mikes response though is not sensible (sorry Mike)”; Ray Bradley suggests that an “independent group” such as CRU weigh in on Mann’s side “an indication that the climate community knew full well about ‘the decline’ in 1997” Uh-oh: “…dendro has a real problem”; “I fear that the tree-ring reconstructions really are in bad shape”; “I acknowledge the weakness in the data prior to about 1200”; Cook and Briffa are allegedly the only two people in the world “who can discuss in a totally objective way the hockystick…” Overpeck: “ANOTHER THING THAT IS A REAL ISSUE IS SHOWING SOME OF THE TREE-RING DATA FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 1950. BASED ON THE LITERATURE, WE KNOW THESE ARE BIASED – RIGHT?” Briffa gives Mann a positive? reference, but includes phrases like “not sufficiently aware of the characteristics of some of the data with which he worked”; “overconfidence in his work which bordered on seeming arrogance” MacCracken: “I have for quite a number of years asked people to put their finger over the WWII period and then look at the global record…Basically, now, it will seem much more evident that human activities started earlier” Phil Jones, 2004: “Most places in Greenland do show some cooling. Most places in the Arctic show little warming in summer as temperatures are constrained to be near zero, when there is snow and ice around,” 2007, Phil Jones: “I’d thought I’d also welcome you to the Hockey Team (but you’re all reserves)” Phil Jones, 2008: “With 243 stations needing adjustments, and 728 used, I presume the other 485 were considered to be OK without adjustment” Phil Jones: For the 1940-1960 period “if the SSTs were adjusted they would look much better” 2009, Tom Wigley to Phil Jones: “Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess…the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith” Planet-healer Michael Mann to Jones and Briffa et al in 1999, the year after he got his PhD: “I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we’re doing here.” Phil Jones to Mann: “both of us think that you’re on very dodgy ground…What the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic forcing are two very different things” ClimateGate email: Modeler told “You are in fact out of line to assume that these [scenarios] are in some sense realistic”? Priceless ClimateGate email 682: Tom Wigley tells Michael Mann that his son did a tree ring science fair project (using trees behind NCAR) that invalidated the centerpiece of Mann’s work 1996, four years after Gore said the science was settled: Big problems with climate models Tom Wigley on critical 1990 graph: “what crap. I thought Chris had made it up [from “garbage”]…now it has come back to haunt us” Warmist Ben Santer: Email-deleter Phil Jones is not a secretive, “data destroying” character; in fact, Jones and Wigley “deserve medals as big as soup plates” Uh-oh: Phil Jones, 2003: “When Keith, Tim and me wanted to do some comparisons with MBH98 a few years ago a few of the series could not be made available” 2004: Warmist Phil Jones on alarmist Pentagon report: “[it] makes the skeptics seem reasonable!…The climate scenario is ludicrous”; Tom Wigley: The Day After Tomorrow was “crap”, but “better than the Pentagon report” 2008: Colorado State warmist David Thompson learns about “some guy called McIntyre”; then says “The blog stuff is wacky; I’m hoping it will die down pretty soon. I’ve never really bothered to read those things before…maybe I should have” ClimateGate scientists on Michael Mann and his work: “probable flaws” and “clearly deficient”, and “crap” and “way too defensive”, oh my! Phil Jones, 2009: “Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020” Oh, fudge: ClimateGate email–“Tuning may be a way to fudge the physics” 2009 ClimateGate email: Warmist MacCracken suggests that Phil Jones start working on a “backup” in case Jones’ prediction of warming is wrong 1996: Interesting Briffa/Barnett quotes on natural variability Email 2974: Why was journalist Roger Harrabin evidently at a Tyndall Advisory Board meeting, and why was he asking for something more pro-active? Wow: One of my favorite all-time ClimateGate quotes is from Gavin Schmidt in 3343: “Frankly, I would simply put the whole CRU database (in an as-impenetrable-as-possible form) up on the web site” Phil Jones, 2009: “European instrumental temperatures in summer are going to be revised downwards (by about 0.4 deg C for periods before 1850)” Warmist Trenberth: “past experience suggests that the weather signal is dominant at any instant and ENSO related variability far overwhelms any greenhouse signal in any year” Email 4795: “true believer” Robert Watson out as IPCC head Phil Jones to Revkin, 2007: “The [climate hoax] message isn’t going to change. It’s about time they started doing something as opposed to talking about it.” 2007, Revkin to Santer et al: “sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this singer/christy/etc effort “ 2006, Briffa on the hockey stick: “I would not have chosen in the original TAR Summary to highlight this one curve – but we should not forget that the considerable uncertainty associated with it was shown” Warmist Briffa: “it seems we got the balance between realism and hype about right” Fair-and-balanced Revkin: He’s not cherrypicking, he’s just asking Phil Jones for the “best example of trend TO CHOOSE that hints at greenhouse forcing being at play in recent warming” Phil Jones says critical 2-degree C limit was “plucked out of thin air” Revkin and Phil Jones, sitting in a tree: Revkin volunteers for alarmist damage control Revkin wished for Gore win in 2000. Leaked Emails Raise Questions About NYT’s ClimateGate Coverage « Commentary Magazine Revkin, 2007: “the only discourse now is among folks who believe human-forced climate change is a huge problem…the ‘hotter’ voices are doing their job well. i’m doing mine.” 2004: Guy from Scottish EPA suggests that DEFRA fund a program to send skeptics to UEA to be persuaded “how well researched and serious the issue is”? Focusing on the right things: In October 2009, as the CRU scandal erupted, UEA points out a typo in the word “allegedly”; says “opposition always want to dive into the detail…The detail gives them scope for ‘interpretation’ and devilment.” Oct ’09: A month before ClimateGate 1.0 broke, Jones writes: “No CRU work is flawed…Climate scientists know it [criticisms?] is all rubbish…Maybe when it all dies down later in the year, UEA/ENV/CRU need to consider what we have learned from the alleged scandal” Susan Solomon: “I am worried that they will challenge the vagueness of ‘extreme weather’” 2005 email from warmist Overpeck to warmist Briffa: “am worried about the late 20th century “coolness” in the proxy recon that’s not in the instrumental” 1997 UEA email “The Drowning Village: (about global climate change negotiations” 2009 Phil Jones email: “…I spoke to Susan. We agreed that the only way IPCC can work is the collegiate way it did with AR4…these people read much more into the IPCC procedures” 2002 Briffa email mentions Mann’s “diminishing support” and the “questionable nature of much of Mann’s verbiage”; says “Mike could be a lot more open about the real uncertainty of his early temperature estimates” Michael “robust debate” Mann: “I never acknowledge emails from people I don’t know, about topics that are in any way sensitive. this is a perfect example of something that goes right to the trash bin” John Christy: “This gets to the issue that the “consensus” reports now are just the consensus of those who agree with the consensus. The government-selected authors have become gatekeepers rather than honest brokers of information” 1997 ClimateGate email: IPCC’s Rob Swart asks WWF for help in getting scientists to endorse the climate hoax von Storch: “The concealment of dissent and uncertainty in favor of a politically good cause takes its toll on credibility, for the public is more intelligent than is usually assumed” 2007 email: “That the [SST] data are so unreliable between the 30s and 60s means we don’t know for sure what happened in terms of global-mean temperatures during that period. In fact, if you blank out the data from the 30s to the 60s, you can actually imagine the globe warming weakly but continuously during that period” Rob Wilson, 2009: “The palaeo-world has become a much more complex place in the last 10 years…any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have” Briffa: “My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me “ 2007, Phil Jones to Ed Cook: “Ed, No worries. There are no data over the high Himalaya for most of the period before 1950. The high-res grids relax to the climatology” Hooray!: UEA celebrates their inclusion in a “list of the top 20 most influential environmental organisations over the last 30 years, alongside such august bodies as the RCEP, the IPCC, the Met Office and Greenpeace” Questions for UEA’s Mike Hulme: What was Greenpeace’s “Sceptics Project” for journalists and campaigners, and what were the details of your consultancy fee? 9/11/2001, UEA email regarding the appointment of a research director: “Like Brian I would be less nervous if it were someone from the “fraternity”, too, but it would all depend on who it was” UEA’s Saffron O’Neill: Not part of a team of warmists trying to foist off political propaganda, just an honest, straight-shooting person planning to “operationalise the polar bear icon” Phil Jones, 2005: “the world will not get colder. There won’t be any sort of ice age for the next 50K years” Phil Jones, 1996: “We’ll need to put together a statement carefully to explain why it’s so cold this year !” 2000 Email: “organized and deeply committed environmental activism has long been an important part of the UNFCCC process through major groups such as NRDC, EDF/ED, WWF and Greenpeace” Phil Jones, 2009 on FOI issues with climate hoax data: “IPCC have got lawyers involved from their sponsoring UN organizations (UNEP and WMO)” 2007 Mann email to Phil Jones: “I have a top lawyer already representing me…Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit…The threat of a lawsuit alone my prevent them from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence” 2005:Mann already lawyered up 2003, Mann: “NSF policy in no way legally requires funded scientists to provided their data (let alone computer codes!) for public access” 2007, Phil Jones: “I do now wish I’d never sent them the data after their FOIA request!” Phil Jones, 2004: “there was some press activity related to this skeptic below, but [I] managed to talk the BBC out of doing anything” Phil Jones on not responding to FOI requests: “Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive” 2004 email from Richard Somerville: “We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long” 2009: Chummy emails between Mann and Revkin about Steve McIntyre “shutting up” unless he can find a way to get Mann’s gatekeeping friends to publish his analysis 2003 Emails: MacCracken suggests that warmists were “trying to keep the scientific literature too pure”; Mann: “While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers….didn’t see the light of the day at J. Climate, it was inevitable that such papers might slip through the cracks at e.g. GRL” Priceless quote from Hadley Centre’s Peter Cox: “We knew that we would not get to the scientific issues if we went down every rabbit hole of skepticism.” Malcolm Hughes on creeping skepticism in 2003 among colleagues and grad students; “they respond better to the heavily referenced articles by Idso or Soon than to ‘ex cathedra’ statements” ClimateGate email: “Stupid, politicized action” and “silly oversellings” by the IPCC; Met Office guy admits “the paleo community cannot do stats!” Michael “robust debate” Mann on the opportunity to robustly debate Steve McIntyre: “Phil, I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud…I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things can come of that” 1997 email to UEA’s Mike Hulme: “doing good things for the cause”; “no one is going to check”; “forget the screening”; “delegates we want to influence”; “Greenpeace…and other NGOs can further spread the word” Warmist Revkin: “My sense is that Wally B’s notion that the ‘angry beast’ is a creature of colder eras but not of warmer times has some support” Phrases about data inside the IPCC sausage factory: “fairly large differences throughout”; “look kinda scary”; “I’m advocating adopting an Ostrich position”; “path of least resistance”; “just ignore any error messages”; “keep running it with a mask we know to be sub-optimal” Email 4394: Prominent IPCC junk scientist John Houghton invokes Jesus, God, and a Hollywood movie in an apparent attempt to convince us that we need transfers of wealth to prevent CO2-induced bad weather Warmist Mike Hulme admits he hasn’t seen “The Day After Tomorrow”, then calls it “a great film” Walking the walk: Warmist Mann to Warmist Jones: “looking forward to seeing you in Tahiti, we can enjoy some nice tropical drinks w/ umbrellas in them” Email 1995: Various junk scientists casually mention hoax-related travel to Turkey, Tuscany, Vienna, Hawaii, Toronto, and Finland Email 4492: In one email, various junk scientists mention climate hoax meetings in Italy, Hawaii, France, and at Duke Phil Jones in 2007 mentions “research malpractice allegations against some climate people in the US and Europe”; “I reckon only a few in the climate field know the full extent of what is going on behind the scenes in climate science” Email 5215: Phil Jones wants a Nobel Peace Prize certificate to hang on his wall; Trenberth wonders where the cash will go Phil Jones: Non-profit EGU asks Al Gore to speak about saving human civilization from complete CO2-induced collapse; Gore asks for $50,000 cash Met Office project manager: “Could we ‘use’ the NY Times Editorial to get an ‘in’ to Al Gore” 2001, Mike Hulme on Al Gore and Kyoto: Vanity over pragmatism Email 1447, on idiotic global warming hoax film “The Day After Tomorrow”: “The film has been broadly welcomed by scientists as a way to raise awareness about the importance of climate change issues.” Warmist Mike Hulme: “Sexing-up evidence is so easy to do, isn’t it?” Origin of the term “hockey stick” explained; also Ed Cook: “I do find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event to be grossly premature and probably wrong” Phil Jones: “I won’t be looking at Climate Fraudit…The Nature person knows the [Nature?] blog will be highjacked by the deniers” 2005, Tom Wigley on paleo reconstructions: “the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all.” Phil Jones, 2008: ‘To almost all in government circles (including the US from Jan 20, 2009), the science is done and dusted. The reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided’…Mainstream climate science does not engage with [skeptics]” How “consensus” is built: Maybe four warmists can fly to Switzerland and have an “honest” discussion over a few beers to sort out the real issues “of which there are many” Amusing letter circulates at CRU, protesting UK coverage of warm weather as good news: ‘The newspapers were similarly awash with bikinis, cheering holidaymakers and news of record grape harvests” Phil Jones on inconvenient data: “I realise you’ve taken great care with the selection, but this is a nagging doubt and will be picked up by the few skeptics trying to divide us all” 1997: Warmists Mike Hulme et al want warmist Tom Wigley to endorse a climate hoax letter; Tom uses words like “very disturbed”, “reprehensible”, “dishonesty” and “egregious” in his reply Poor warmists: In 2007, they were trying to figure out what to do about a critical 1990 IPCC graph that looks nothing like the hockey stick 2002 ClimateGate email to Keith Briffa: Another trick, more hiding, and for me, more doubt that we should spend $45 trillion and change our lifestyles based on the notion that trees are reliable thermometers Warmist Trenberth: “we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter” 20 Juicy ClimateGate 2.0 emails Phil Jones: “I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. “ Michael Mann, 2006: “we certainly don’t know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well, and nobody has ever claimed we do” That was quick: Michael Mann on the just-released 5,000 ClimateGate 2.0 emails: “they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all” ClimateGate 2.0

For more results click below

Click here

Stay in the Know

Sign up to get updates.

Facebook-f Twitter Youtube

Copyright 2024 © All rights Reserved.