Bishop Hill Climate cuttings 59
Nov 22, 2011 Last time round I tried to highlight some of what had been found. Here is the Climategate II version of the same thing.
1428 BBC person approaches Hulme at Tyndall to discuss reinventing economics coverage
1038 Discussion of appointing Harrabin as adviser to Tyndall.
2495 Humphrey/DEFRA: I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish.
1885 Phil Jones struggles with Excel and statistics. Bob Ward offers to help with a rebuttal to David Whitehouse (GWPF)
3755.txt "It is really important that you don't just copy or reproduce any bits because it is not my proposal and it would be a court case in theory if a similarity was noticed." "but for GODS SAKE please respect the sensitivity here and destroy the file immediately when finished and please do not tell ANYBODY I sent this. Cheers Keith"
<1788> Jones: There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist.
<5111> Pollack: But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.
<2733> Crowley: Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.
<2095> Steig: He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.
<0953> Jones: This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.
<4944> Haimberger: It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
<4165> Jones: what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording
<0999> Hulme: My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of God’s planet into research and action.
0810 Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause
4184: Jones: [to Hansen] Keep up the good work! [...] Even though it’s been a mild winter in the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!
5066: Hegerl: [IPCC AR5 models] So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
3755: “It is really important that you don’t just copy or reproduce any bits because it is not my proposal and it would be a court case in theory if a similarity was noticed.” “but for GODS SAKE please respect the sensitivity here and destroy the file immediately when finished and please do not tell ANYBODY I sent this. Cheers Keith”
0850: Barnett: [IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
3935: BBC's Roger Harrabin is on advisory board at Tyndall. This must have affected his independence re reporting of Climategate I.
2775: Jones (CRU) says choosing temperature records so as to show warming.
3373: Bradley says Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year 'reconstruction'.
4443: Jones says climate models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.
1680 Mann discussed finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre 's connections with fossil fuel interests. Keenan too. Says they have to discredit the sceptics.
3791: Osborn says hopes Jones didn't delete emails asked for by sceptic because "that would be
illegal" - wonders if the request merely prompted him "to do a spring clean of various other emails".
1794 "Bishop Hill" described as blog "that spreads misinformation about climate science"
4241: Wilson: "I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. [...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about." This shows that at least one mainstream climatologist knew the Hockey Stick was wrong and McIntyre was right.
4758: Osborn speaking of throwing out lots of tree ring data on the hide the decline series because it doesn't track temperature. Meanwhile they are criticising another clmiatologist for doing the same thing.
4369: Ed Cook say Mike (presumably Mann) is "defending something that increasingly can not be
defended". Presumably the Hockey Stick
5055: Cook criticising RegEm, a statistical method used in one of Mann's later papers.
1527 Wilson says McIntyre correct on verification statistics.
3757: Harrabin writes to UEA's Mike Hulme about a global broadcasting initiative.
4693 Crowley: I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
cost of damaged personal relationships
???? Jones (?) UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.
???? Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process
1577: Jones: [FOI, temperature data] Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
1682: What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]
5349: discussion of getting Lord May or Lord Oxburgh to deal with communication with industry. Kelly mentioned too.
<3655> Singer/WWF: we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and b) in order to get into the media the context between climate extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and energy
<1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]
3969: "I've pointed everyone to the press release, and have chatted with only one person, a guy from the BBC. He seemed very informed and clever. The only point I didn't like was that he kept trying to get me to say what I think the skeptics will think - I kept telling him I don't know, but he obviously wanted more. Anyway, I hope you don't mind that I suggested he could chat with you if needed. His name and email are: Richard Black,"
0058 Briffa tells physics prof to delete email since it might become subject to FOI.
3890 refers to "sneaking papers into AR4 after the deadline". Doesn't make sense to me.
Reader Comments (59)
Our Government is forcing a carbon tax onto Australians and against the wishes of the majority. At the same time, we read about the collapse of the EU carbon price, knowing our Govt has a price of $23 a tonne in store for us. And it's designed to keep rising. It's nothing more than an electricity tax and a tax on the wealth of western nations. Do you loan Nigel Farage out? If so, send him over to Australia. In Australia, we call it the UN wealth redistribution scheme. No wonder the non-developed countries are supporting the fraud. There's no checks and balances as to where the money goes either. Watch our Australian delegates line up for the Durban junket - I wonder what the conversation will be about?
A Climategate 2.0 Searchable Database is in the works at http://foia2011.org
3451
REDACTED,REDACTED
date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
to: ray bradley <REDACTED>,REDACTED, REDACTED
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=8693
Sometimes it's the little things ...
That's just the sort of casual remark that can give the game away. That's not a scientist talking; that's an activist. Jones is keen (desperate, even) for the return of a weather event and its known effects which will confirm what he "knows" to be true. He should not have that sort of vested interest in the outcome of this research. The scientific method is blind to everything except the science. As a scientist he shouldn't care if there is never another El Nino.Jones to Hansen, February 2008
Yesterday, I was mulling over a defence of Mike Hulme on the grounds that he was one of the few warmist scientists with credibility following the first Climategate.
He saw the light then, distanced himself from the Team effort, called for the end of the IPCC, and acknowledged the greater level of scrutiny within the discipline. He even converted from mitigation to adaptation in dealing with the 'looming climate catastrophe', which must mean something for Hulme-watchers.
Yesterday, I used to think Mike Hulme wasn't a believer anymore.
Today, as it turns out, I find out that in the past Mike Hulme thought himself on some sort of mission from God to save the planet Earth, and that was part of his job description also:
What a flabbergasting piece of evidence for Christian religious infiltration of climate science community and the CAGW movement!
And what an embarrassing moment for Mike Hulme!
I wonder whether he was eventually interviewed by BBC's Songs of Praise and whether he spoke as candidly on the show as in the email.
sHx
I'd be chary about translating Hulme's beliefs into "evidence for Christian religious infiltration of climate science community and the CAGW movement".
I was somewhat surprised when I read that email yesterday but wasn't inclined at that stage to pursue it.
I also have a Christian belief about the stewardship of God's planet but it leads me, if anything, to a diametrically opposed viewpoint from his. I doubt that the Almighty is going to call me to account for what I did or did not do the planet; on the other hand he is (as Christ has told us in Matthew xxv, 31 et seq) going to demand a reckoning of what I did or did not do to my fellow man!
Which is why I keep bashing on about supplying clean water to Africa at a fraction of the cost of reducing global warming by about 0.007 degrees or the inhumanity of forcing the old and the poor to choose between heating their homes and buying food.
If I thought there was any realistic prospect of humanity ever being able to control the climate, as opposed to influence it around the margins, I might think differently. As it is I will concern myself with the spiritual and physical wellbeing of other human beings first and leave the climate to change as it has always done.
0518 - A 2004 conversation between a Met Office person and a Defra person concerning the significance of McIntyre and McKitrick.
"How unusual is the last 50 years? I think it still likely to be the
warmest period on record (see b) BUT the rate of warming may not be
highly unusual.
I agree that one of the important claims in the TAR looks like not being
correct. This result could be spun to cast doubt on worries about
anthropogenic climate change as the evidence that the 20th century is
unusual becomes less clear cut. One could also take the view that
paleo-reconstruction uncertainty is so high that it is very hard to say
much about pre-industrial conditions...."
sHx
Mike J puts things pretty well. Remember that over 70% of people in this country (from memory) in the last census described themselves as 'Christian'. So you'd expect that a very large proportion of people in any field of work woud be so. 'Infiltration' becomes a rather difficult concept in that situation!
Why, precisely, did the Beeb need to 'background' the recorded interview with Michael Mann on 'Newsnight' with collapsing icebergs, other than to 'brainwash' the viewer..?