Bishop Hill Jones and the absence of snow
Nov 24, 2011 Climate: CRU Climate: WG2 An interesting exchange about David Viner's claim that children will not know what snow is in future. In the wake of his statement ITV did a show, and tried to get a dissenting view from UEA (of all places). There are hints of the CMEP agenda being pushed by Jones.
The first email is from the press office at UEA to CRU scientists:
Hello All,
Next Monday night the "Tonight with Trevor Macdonald" show will be about climate change. Dr David Viner is going to be featured on the show, presenting his view that recent extreme weather is due to global warming. I have received a call from David Reddings who is part of the show's team, asking if we have a climate expert who has a different view to Dr Viner - perhaps believing that recent weather has not been caused by global warming but is merely part of the 'natural variability' of the weather. Do we have someone at UEA?
Regards,
Melissa.
Melissa Murphy
Communications Assistant
Press & PR Office
Communications Division
University of East Anglia
The reply from Jones is interesting:
date: Mon Aug 23 15:52:14 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Tonight with Trevor Macdonald
to: "Murphy Melissa
Melissa,There shouldn't be someone else at UEA with different views - at least not a climatologist. It would also look odd if the two people interviewed with opposite views were from UEA. Maybe you should reply and say we can't find one, saying that most climate experts would take the same view as Dave. The programme could easily dredge someone up, but they wouldn't be an expert on the climate. This is the whole point of the debate recently. The people the media find to put the contrary view are not climate experts.
Phil
I'm also sure that in the wake of Climategate 1 lots of people were saying that Viner was a wildcard and nobody agreed with him. Perhaps readers could check this out.
Reader Comments (75)
Mann and an investigative reporter:
Another leak and a journalist named;
There is a growing list of journalists who have been acting as guard dogs and attack dogs for climate scientists. Some appear to have been paid directly or indirectly by climate scientists, other see it as doing their duty for a noble cause.
One of the worst aspects here is the confusion of weather and climate. The question was whether there was at UEA "a climate expert who has a different view to Dr Viner - perhaps believing that recent weather has not been caused by global warming but is merely part of the 'natural variability' of the weather".
Jones' response damns the lot of them (UEA, not just CRU) "There shouldn't be someone else at UEA with different views - at least not a climatologist."
So, there we have it: 'recent weather' is caused by 'global warming'. What's more, anyone who thinks that 'recent weather' can't be attributed to global warming is not worth taking seriously, and can't possibly be a 'climate expert'.
How many times have the alarmists cast it in our teeth that one can't confuse weather and climate? Fine. So why does Jones, who likes to think of himself as a 'climate expert' deliberately do so?
The answer that he gives is suffused with hubris. It would be impossible for an impartial scientist to work and prosper at CRU under a regime run by that man. It's clear that Jones is not only controlling the peer review process, but bullying everyone into his own despicable mould.
There is always this talk of vast organisations and money behind the 'Deniers', but the same names keep cropping up as the main concern of the Team: McIntyre, McKitterick, Lindzen, Svensmark, Anthony Watts etc.
Where's the money?
Where's the vast organisation?
Is it because the team and their allies all belong to vast organisations with deep pockets and almost unlimited access (Universities, NGOs, Media and Newspapers, Governments) that they cannot conceive of an opponent that is grass roots/crowd-sourced and has caught them with their pants down, despite all their vast resources?
Mac at 12:50, in that context, it is interesting to see Steve McIntyre linking approvingly to a blog post by David Appell, in which he comments on the newly released emails, and says, among other things:
Interesting to see people like Appell saying such things - I remember being very struck by the articles in which George Monbiot expressed his dismay after ClimateGate.
It seems to me as if the Kirby email is deserving of some serious exposure - his mocking of the impartial nature of the BBC and utter contempt for dissenters deserves to get wide circulation.
We couldn’t raise Phil Jones’s mum for comment on the phone, but a visitor to her house reported seeing a figure slumped on the sofa, nursing an empty sherry bottle. The TV was on, showing a re-run of The Man in the White Suit...
"there are still very, very good, scientifically proven reasons to think that humans are altering the climate"
If only they'd tell us what they are...
A connection between Michael Mann and David Appell, and a leaked e-mail.
They themselves are not averse to using a leak now and then to gain advantage: 0313 mentions getting hold of an EU research proposal early and 0480 they are discussing a research council note they have obtained.
I think these emails are leading to us to another reason why Michael Mann is trying to block the release of his own email correspondence. It may reveal other 'tricks', dirty tricks, attempts to smear and find dirt on critics with the aim to discredit them.
It is clear also that Mann kept other members of the Team informed about the progress of his own efforts to discredit critics in such an unsavoury manner. How did these actions of Mann influence their own behaviour in dealing with critics in using the media in this way?
We know that critics of the consensus not only found they were being attacked by other academics but they were also being subject to smear and ridicule in the media.
Michael Mann should have been working for News International, his talents would have not gone unrecognised there.
Do you think we should all chip in and hire a snoop to find out where Richard Betts has been hiding?
Not a peep from the good doctor since Climategate 2.0. I hope there is nothing serious going down.
Stuck-record said
"The contempt shown in the emails contempt for 'Deniers' is palpable and obvious, but the big surprise is the outrage directed at otherwise sympathetic scientists, politicians and media who either don't do exactly as they are told, are not precisely on-message enough, or attempt (God forbid) to think for themselves."
Here is another example of Phil Jones trying to lick off message Prof John Shepherd from Southampton University (who specialises in natural climate variation) into shape - 4620.txt
Shepherd bites back with
Phil, If those are the most serious problems you can see then I think we're in
good shape. I will incorporate your comments as best I can. However, I do
not guarantee to do precisely what you wish in every instance, and I rather
object to the peremptory and didactic tone of some of your observations
(particularly 3 & 4), with which I do not wholly agree, and where
alternative views are tenable. John
---
Shepherd was referring to thermohaline circulation influencing longterm climate variability. Jones wanted anthropogenic influences top of the list.
Go easy on Mr Betts. The man's done great on Bishop Hill in the last few months but there is bound to be a poisonous atmosphere in the aftermath of this kind of exposure. Though that is mainly the fault of insiders exposed in their hypocrisy and gaming of peer review, I'm not in Richard's shoes and wouldn't want to say how when he should make his views known publicly.
Grant Foster must have had Phil Jones and the UEA in mind when he named his blog.
Richard Betts is alive and well on Twitter, but quite sensibly is sticking to other topics. Keeping his head low until some clarity emerges is entirely understandable at this stage.
This is the very definition of serendipity - for me, schadenfreude for a trlol at the DT: Last week I posted on Booker's DT column about Viner and the 'no snow' claim. Within minutes, one of the trlols who constantly stalk Booker came back with a DEMAND that I retract my comment; didn't I know that 'THE REMARK WAS MADE BY A JOURNALIST!'. (the trlols do get quite worked up over there.
Well, GIYF. Within two minutes or less I had the exact quote from the Independent where the 'journalist' was actually QUOTING Viner. Didn't hear from the trlol again that day, but I lay money he will make the same claim again in the future. They do not give in or let truth get in the way of their goals.
(BTW: Trlols is not a sp or typo. I like it that way)
Marchesarosa.
I think this is where the most damage against the team will come from.
Forget the media, the government and the NGOs. They are too committed to AGW. It is too useful and they have drunk the Kool-Aid and shouted it from the rooftops, villifying any critics and skeptics too viciously to ever row back without loss of face or even criminal charges.
The backlash will come from the scientific community. The first tranche brought some very brave souls out of the woodwork who were clearly disgusted. This second tranche will slowly bring more.
Their opinion matters.
The governments will still press ahead with AGW schemes, but the public are already against them. The scientific community are the only thing giving them the fig-leaf of justification for their plans. As that starts to erode watch the rats run for cover.
But forget about the main players ever facing justice for the damage they have done. The BBC, NYT, NGOs, pols will simply turn the page and move on.
Talk about disdain and browbeating those who have the temerity to be 'off message'! Look at the disgusting dressing down Michael Mann gives to Dr Curtis Covey (atmospheric physicist with the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) who is giving honest answers to genuine questions. This is what Mann didn't like by Covey:
Re high-resolution paleodata, I never liked it that the 2001 IPCC report pictured Mann's
without showing alternates...It now seems clear from looking at all the different analyses (e.g. as summarized in last year's NRC review by North et al.) that Mann is an outlier...
Mann simply goes ballistic, and cannot control himself in a professional way: someone might not agree with him, so he has to be destroyed. Mann's lack of control and his anger are palpable. He calls Fred Singer a 'charlatan' three times in this email, and he sends this disgusting email all around the Team (who were not copied in before) so that they can all see that he is their greatest bully and attack dog. Mann is a nasty, nasty bully.
Here is a short bio on Curt Covey so that we can see he is no lightweight:
Dr. Curtis C. Covey received a Ph.D. in Geophysics and Space Physics from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1982. He joined LLNL in 1987, after a postdoctoral fellowship at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and an assistant professorship at the University of Miami. He has spent most of his time at LLNL working for the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, where he maintains the database for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). He has written or co-authored about 80 papers on climate modeling, climate change, and extraterrestrial atmospheres. He has served as an editor for the journal Global and Planetary Change, as a Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report, and as a member of the World Climate Research Programme Working Group on Coupled Modeling Climate Simulation Panel, which provided data for the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.
2007 20:13:54 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <REDACTED>
subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.]
to: Stefan Rahmstorf <REDACTED>, Gavin Schmidt <REDACTED>, Caspar Ammann <REDACTED>, Ben Santer <REDACTED>, "Raymond S. Bradley" <REDACTED>, Malcolm Hughes <REDACTED>, Phil Jones <REDACTED>, James Hansen <REDACTED>
Curt, I can't believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why
you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What
ib earth are you thinking? You're not even remotely correct in your reading of the report,
first of all. The AR4 came to stronger conclusions that IPCC(2001) on the paleoclimate
conclusions, finding that the recent warmth is likely anomalous in the last 1300 years, not
just the last 1000 years. The AR4 SPM very much backed up the key findings of the TAR The
Jones et al reconstruction which you refer to actually looks very much like ours, and the
statement about more variability referred to the 3 reconstructions (Jones et al, Mann et
al, Briffa et a) shown in the TAR, not just Mann et al. The statement also does not commit
to whether or not those that show more variability are correct or not. Some of those that
do (for example, Moberg et al and Esper et al) show no similarity to each other. I find it
terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You
are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going
to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that
you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense
out in an email to these sorts charlatans you've done some irreversible damage. shame on
you for such irresponsible behavior! Mike Mann
--
Michael E. Mann Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology
Phone:REDACTED075 503
Walker Building
FAX:REDACTED663
The Pennsylvania State University
email:REDACTED University Park, PAREDACTED
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
Mac:
The best combine both characteristics, adding a lofty contempt for deniers into the bargain. These are the kind most treasured by the true climate scientist.
Look at the sensible stuff Michael Mann used to write before he saw his way to stardom by joining the Team:
Michael. E. Mann and Jeffrey Park: ‘Greenhouse warming and changes in the seasonal cycle of temperature: Model versus observations’
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.23, No.10 pp 1111-1114, May 1996
"Significant phase delays…are found in the simulations, opposite to the phase advances isolated in the observations…Much of the variability in the observational data is not predicted by the models…If observed changes in seasonality are consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect, the observed trends in the seasonal cycle should resemble the predicted response of present-generation climate models to enhanced greenhouse conditions…The trend in phase for the models, however, is opposite to that observed…The dominant response in both the CCM1 and GFDL models to increased CO2 is one of substantial phase delays and amplitude decreases at high latitude oceanic regions…In contrast, the phase of the annual cycle has advanced along the eastern margins of Greenland, where a long-term winter cooling trend is observed [Jones and Briffa, 1992]…the observed and model-predicted trends in the phase of the seasonal cycle show little similarity…It is possible that observed trends in phase…do not arise from greenhouse warming, but rather from natural variability…If, on the other hand, the observed variation in the seasonal cycle truly represents the “fingerprint” of greenhouse warming, the GFDL and CCM1 models do not appear capable of capturing the detailed responses of the seasonal cycle to greenhouse forcing. In particular, if the phase advances…are…causally related to greenhouse forcing, the predicted behaviour of the models in these regions [continental interiors] would appear to be flawed…Discrepancies between the observed and model-predicted trends must be resolved before a compelling connection can be drawn between 20th century changes in the annual cycle in temperature, and anthropogenic forcing of the climate.”
That would be completely off message for Michael Mann now. If he saw someone writing that sort of stuff today he would call them a charlatan and irresponsible.
I hope you're right, but I wish they'd get a bleedin' move on - it's been twenty odd years.
The old joke is that there are no scientific shifts until the professors die or retire.
This time may be different.
David Viner worked for CRU from September 1991 until March 2007, and we now know that he was completely 'on message' with his " 'recent weather' is due to global warming, and not natural variability" meme. This was the line that had to be held.
Viner parted company with the British Council this summer and now works (since September) as Principal Consultant at Red Kite Enterprise and Environment, which seems to be started and run by ex-Natural England employees (Viner worked for them for a little over a year after he left CRU).
By the way, in the grip of the coldest winter for yonks last December, the third cold winter in a row, and with abundant snow, Viner said he stood by his 2000 statement that “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”. He said ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything. This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event."
So that cold, snowy 'recent weather' he was having when he spoke was just natural variability. But the 'recent weather' in 2004 was evidence of global warming, and was definitely not natural variability - all UEA climate scientists/experts would agree, according to Phil Jones.
They are completely shambolic.
"most climate experts would take the same view"
followed by
"The programme could easily dredge someone up, but they wouldn't be an expert on the climate"
A contradiction there, at first he says there are climate experts who would take a different view, and then says they would not be experts. And the claim about having different views from a single institution is really telling, aren't universities meant to have academic freedom and explore different ideas freely? Though UEA is not a signer to the Magna Charta Universitatum.
Maybe the question is should have Jones tried to help by suggesting alternate expers the programme could use. What would a true scientist have done?