Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • Jun 22 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
  • Jun 21 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« MSPs misled over Stern | Main | Climate change and literary studies »
Tuesday
Jul242012

More climate emails

In the wake of Rob Wilson's guest post about the adjustments to HADCRUT, somebody requested Rob's emails on the subject. Richard Betts has now, with the agreement of everyone involved in the correspondence, posted this all up on the discussion forum.

It's a better example of climate scientists' emails than other, better known, examples.

Please note that the thread on the discussion forum will be tightly moderated.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (12)

Read it. All looks a bit meta. And of course they all know the answer before looking at the data. Just as I do.

Jul 24, 2012 at 12:40 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

Who was that someone?

Jul 24, 2012 at 12:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterEddy

This article may be of interest:

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/National/article/24082/pressure-group-says-scottish-policy-has-been-based-on-exaggerated-claims-of-climate-change-consequences.html

Jul 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterScottish Sceptic

Sorry to contribute to thread derailment but the emails found by an FOI at Warwick Hughes are much more interesting (HT March).

The first (ie latest) email from Gergis is quite shocking. Claims 'our team discovered an error’. Also ‘When we went to recheck this on Tuesday 5 June, we discovered that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended’. Of course June 5 was the day that Jean S found the error and announced it at CA.

Also says that CA 'seeks to discredit climate researchers' and that in the revised version 'it is highly unlikely the core conclusions will change'.

Jul 24, 2012 at 3:28 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

"it is highly unlikely the core conclusions will change"

Especially if they were written first.

Jul 24, 2012 at 5:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Only the BIsh will know the reason for posting these emails but his warning over moderation means I can not respond. These were private emails, not meant for public inspection but they are being inspected and I dont like some of what I read.
I already commented on the following over on UNTHREADED:

As for temperature trends, in the same way that it does not really matter if the medieval period was warmer or cooler than today, it does not really matter if a particular seasonal time series shows an increase or flattening in temperatures. What MATTERS is that we need to understand the drivers of these changes.

I also noted this from Richard Betts:
Good to hear from you. Yes, there are definitely some people at Bishop Hill who simply do not want to sit down calmly and talks things over! However, there are also lots of other "lurkers" out there who actually do appreciate a voice of sanity,

and this from Ed Hawkins:
I do wish that some of these blogs had more tightly controlled comments without the personal attacks which [XXX] seems to have suffered from in his post. It would help so much if the interesting scientific questions which some have asked weren't diluted with so much rubbish which has to be waded through.

The discussion included questions as to whether recent flattening of temperature actually constituted "a trend" and whether current temperatures were "outside the model error windows" these are intellectual considerations or statistical considerations but they are not real world considerations.
How long does it take for rising CO2 to result in rising temperature (according to the settled science)?
I dont believe it is supposed to take 10 years?
If CO2 is rising and temperature is not rising then something is happening that does not fit the predictions and it calls into question the whole CAGW theory.

Jul 24, 2012 at 6:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

I understand that I am entrenched, that I have confirmation bias. Don't they consider that they might have the same thing? No, they know the answer. And I am afraid it really comes down to a lot of stroppy sceptics who will not be told what to believe by their scientific betters. Even when they make claims they can't back up, by which I mean that they know everything worth knowing about non-anthropogenic variations in climate. What, they don't say that outright? They kinda do, you know.

Jul 24, 2012 at 7:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterRhoda Klapp

Jul 24, 2012 at 3:28 PM | Paul Matthews

Thanks for that Warwick Hughes link, Yes that Gergis email is an interesting story I bet Steve McIntyre must be considering a post in response to that. Now why would she "go" and check her work at the most basic level and give the 5th June date of her discovery in her 13th June missive? ;)

Of all the people on the sceptic side I never cease to wonder at how it always mundane old Steve McIntyre who raises the most ire in response. ;)

Jul 24, 2012 at 8:05 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

TLITB

.... and why would she or a co-author even be re-checking the paper on exactly June 5 just to post data to NOAA?? Her cover story doesn't seem too plausible..... To post data sets to NOAA's site would you have any reason to review exactly the aspect of the paper that Jean S. had highlighted at CA on June 5?? I.e., wouldn't the data have already been prepared in final form in order to write and submit the paper?

It smells like spin, distraction, a dubious cover story to me....

Jul 24, 2012 at 8:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterSkiphil

Jul 24, 2012 at 8:15 PM | Skiphil

It is just possible she heard the word "detrended" and had a panic and checked at about the same time, but it doesn't come out well either way when you see the weight placed on the paper.

If just one of these guys acted like a mensch it would shock me. But no.

Jul 24, 2012 at 8:23 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

For fellow-lurkers:

Rob Wilson's guest post is at
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/6/5/large-scale-temperature-trends.html

Jul 25, 2012 at 4:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter D. Tillman

I do wish that some of these blogs had more tightly controlled comments without the personal attacks which [XXX] seems to have suffered from in his post. It would help so much if the interesting scientific questions which some have asked weren't diluted with so much rubbish which has to be waded through.

Personally I think it would help so much if visiting scientists also answered less interesting scientific questions that were posed in good faith. However they now have exactly what they asked for; a protected environment in which they can say whatever they like without being taken out of their comfort zone.
I was lucky enough to witness Steve McIntyre enter realclimate and argue with Tamino and Schmidt, dont remember anyone asking for protection. On that day realclimate peeps came over here and a good time was had by all.
I am not at all convinced that a totally sanitised debating chamber is of any use to anyone apart from those who are protected. In addition I do not remember any bad language being used against anyone who visited BH. (Bucket is getting close though hehe)

Jul 25, 2012 at 8:39 PM | Registered CommenterDung

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>