Climate Change Alarmists in Hot Water

News media and politicians around the country continue to preach that climate change is the greatest threat to humanity. We are told that climate change, if left “untreated,” will cause floods, droughts, heat waves, stronger storms and a catastrophic rise in sea level. We are told that the earth is the hottest it has been in thousands of years and humans are to blame. But what if the science behind climate change was exaggerated? What if temperature records have been manipulated or cherry-picked? What if climate scientists are unsure about past temperature history? It appears that this is the case.

On November 17, 2009, an archive of materials consisting of more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents that included raw data and computer code was leaked from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The CRU is known as the leading research group on climate change and has considerable influence on the reports by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In turn, the IPCC is regarded as the authority on climate change science. The current federal administration has used and continues to use the highly political executive summary of the IPCC reports as a tool to push climate policies such as cap-and-trade, EPA regulation of carbon dioxide and an international climate treaty.

The emails and documents show that CRU researchers, and many others connected with CRU, purposefully hid and deleted data to avoid freedom of information requests, manipulated data to exaggerate global warming and worked to keep opposing views from being published in respected climate journals and IPCC reports. Dr. Phil Jones, director of the CRU, has confirmed that the emails and data are genuine.

Even alarmists are taking note of this scandal. As of December 1, Dr. Phil Jones has stepped down as the director of the Climate Research Unit. Michael Mann, a leading climate researcher who developed the controversial hockey stick graph, is being investigated by the University of Pennsylvania for any involvement in manipulating and/or deleting information and data. Even Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has announced that there will be an investigation on the release of the CRU emails and data.

Some of the most important findings in the string of emails and documents reveal that climate scientists manipulated data in order to downplay the medieval warming period and overemphasize the current warming trend. Temperature history is one of the most significant issues in the global warming debate. If current warming is not out of the norm and temperatures have been at least as high in the past, then alarmist fears are unwarranted and drastic action is inexcusable.

Since accurate temperature recording didn’t begin until satellite readings in 1979, attempts to depict the earth’s temperature history rely on a handful of proxy data and on methods such as dendroclimatology (the science of determining past climates from trees). Although this data is questionable and there probably will never be an accurate temperature history of the planet, some climate scientists have asserted that the current warming trend is unprecedented and due to human activity. Yet, the CRU emails reveal that climate scientists are unsure of the proxy data, unable to account for the lack of warming in the past ten years, and may have manipulated data to come to politically preferred conclusions. (Bold has been added for emphasis.)

An email from Dr. Phil Jones stated, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie [sic] from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.“

The “hide the decline” statement is referencing a statistical technique that replaces the tree ring data after 1960 with modern thermometer-based temperature readings which emphasize an increase in global temperatures. The tree ring data after 1960 revealed a significant cooling trend that did not match up with thermometer data and was replaced to “hide the decline.” However, if the tree ring data is not accurately reflecting temperatures after 1960, then it probably shouldn’t be used as a proxy for past temperature, either. This is a crucial point, since the majority of the IPCC claims rely on tree ring data.

An email from Michael Mann stated, “”¦it would be nice to try to “˜contain’ the putative “˜MWP’ [medieval warming period], even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back”¦.”

The existence of a medieval warming period certainly would shake the human caused global warming theory. If temperatures during this time period were as high as or higher than current temperatures without the growth of human emitted greenhouse gases, then alarmist fears are not justified.
Despite the proclaimed “consensus,” the CRU emails disclose major uncertainties with temperature history and modeling.

An email from a leading author of the IPCC, Edward Cook, stated, “I got a paper to review”¦that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc”¦.If published as is, this paper could really do some damage.

Another email reflects the uncertainty with the current global temperatures. Leading IPCC author Kevin Trenberth states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”¦Our observing system is inadequate.“

Despite damning evidence that rocks the alarmist climate change theory, the United States continues to move forward with regulating human emitted greenhouse gases. As cap-and-trade legislation is temporarily stalled in the Senate, the Environmental Protection Agency has decided to declare that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a danger to humanity, a precursor to regulating every aspect of American life.

Unfortunately, the global warming ideology is too embedded into environmental organizations, renewable energy companies and governments alike to be reversed by proof of climate research “modification.” As alarmists declare that the world will burn if we do not drastically alter our standard of living, information in the leaked emails and documents will continue to shed light on how climate scientists have steered the debate towards sensational stories of exaggerated doom in order to land lucrative research grants. Perhaps only the onset of an ice age will turn the tide on the global warming issue. Until then, hold onto your personal freedoms, as many would like to take them away under the speculative rationale that more government control over our daily lives will save the planet from destruction.


Todd Wynn is the climate change and energy policy analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 113 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • jim karlock

    *What Top U.N. Climate Scientists Say*
    Here are some email excerpts from the the world’s leading climate scientists who control much of the UN’s IPCC climate reports. (A note to Americans: many of these emails were written in Europe where the date format and spelling are a bit different.) Google the number in () to see the full text.)

    *Phil Jones – head of the Climate Research Unit*
    Draft Contributing Author to the Summary for Policy Makers, and Coordinating Lead Author of Ch3 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4)

    Jul 5 2005: *The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant* (1120593115.txt)
    ——-*Note* :in 2009, it is now 11 years of cooling.——-

  • Diamond Jim Franconni

    I have proof these guys were lying all the time. I have proof they are sham scientists. I have proof they lied to everyone and twisted the data to serve their purpose of perpetrating a fraud.
    I have solid evidence they are buffoons.

    I just destroyed that evidence, but you must believe me anyway.

  • jim karlock

    ————– *What Top U.N. Climate Scientists Say*
    Here are some email excerpts from the the world’s leading climate scientists who control much of the UN’s IPCC climate reports. (A note to Americans: many of these emails were written in Europe where the date format and spelling are a bit different.) Google the number in () to see the full text.)

    ———————- *Emails from Phil Jones – head of the Climate Research Unit*
    Draft Contributing Author to the Summary for Policy Makers, and Coordinating Lead Author of Ch3 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4)

    Jul 5 2005: *The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant* (1120593115.txt)
    ——-* Note* :in 2009, it is now 11 years of cooling.——-

    2/2/2005: The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, *I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.*
    (1107454306.txt)
    ——————-

    Thu May 29, 2008, Subject: *IPCC & FOI: Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?* Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. *Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?* I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. (1212073451.txt)
    ——————- * Note* :Destroying information subject to a FOI request is a crime. ————–

    September 12, 2007: *Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.* (1189722851.txt)
    ——————-

    Jul 8 16:30:16 2004: I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. *Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!*
    (1089318616.txt)
    ——————-

    16 Nov 1999: 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.*
    ( 942777075.txt)
    ——————- *Note: this is an extremely important admission* :the “decline” he
    ——————-is hiding is the temperature decline since 1961, in the tree ring data,
    ——————-while the actual temperature rose. The existence of this decline suggests
    ——————-that tree ring data can’t be trusted for any period, since it deviates
    ——————-from measured temperatures in one period (after 1961.) *This
    ——————-is crucial as much of the IPCC case rests on tree rings.*
    ——————————–

    11 Mar 2003: I will be emailing the journal to tell them *I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board,* but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch. (1047390562.txt)
    ——————-

    Dec 3, 2008: When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said *we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise* showing them what CA was all about. 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. (1228330629.txt)
    ——————-

    Dec 3, 2008: *About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.* (1228330629.txt)

    Nov 24, 2009 Guardian: *We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.*
    (https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea)
    ——————- *Note* :he emails that he has deleted loads of emails and a year later
    ——————-tells the newspaper he didn’t.

    ————————- *Emails from Kevin Trenberth*
    Draft Contributing Author for the Summary for Policy Makers, contributing author to Ch 1, a lead author for Ch 3, and contributing author to Ch 7 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4.)

    12 Oct 2009: … *we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record* .(…) and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. (…) The fact is that *we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. (. . .) Our observing system is inadequate.* (1255352257.txt)
    ——————-

    Oct 14, 2009: *We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system* makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! *It is a travesty!*
    (1255523796.txt)

    ———————— *Emails from Michael E. Mann*
    Creator of the famous “hockey stick” shaped temperature curve prominently featured in the UN’s third climate report (tar) used by Al Gore.

    04 Jun 2003: I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that *it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”* , even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back (1054736277.txt)
    ——————- * Note* :Elimination of the Medieval Warm Period
    ——————-(MWP) makes today’s temperatures look unusual.
    ——————-

    27/10/2009, 16:54: As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! *As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.*
    (1256735067.txt)
    ——————-

    15/11/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote: *The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there, but these guys always have “Climate Research” and “Energy and Environment”, and will go there if necessary.* (1132094873.txt)
    ——————-

    May 1999: *Trust that I’m certainly on board w/ you that we’re all working towards a common goal* . That is what is distressing about commentarys (yours from last year, and potentially, *without us having had approprimate input* , Keith and Tim’s now) that appear to “divide and conquer”. The skeptics happily took your commentary last year as reason to doubt our results! In fact, your piece was references in several commentaries (mostly on the WEB, not published) attacking our work. So THAT is what this is all about. *It is in the NAME of the common effort we’re all engaged in* , that I have voiced concerns about language and details in this latest commentary–so as to avoid precisely that scenario.

    Please understand the above to be a complete and honest statement about the source of my concerns. It really doesn’t have anything to do about who did what first, etc. *I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we’re doing here.* (926010576.txt)

    —————————- *Emails from Tom Wigley*
    Contributing Author to Ch 10 of of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change.

    06 Nov 2009: We probably need to say more about this. *Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming* — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
    (1257546975.txt)
    ——————-

    24 Apr 2003: *Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too * , otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc.(1051190249.txt)
    ——————-

    27 Sep 2009: * So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip* .

    *I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip* (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. (1254108338.txt)
    ——————-

    Oct 14, 2009: … *there have been a number of dishonest presentations* of model results by individual authors and *by IPCC* .(1255553034.txt)

    ————————- *Emails from Tim Osborn*
    Contributing author to chapters 6 & 8 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4

    05 Oct 1999: Subject: Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure: The data are attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although *we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal* (39154709.txt)
    ——————- Note: This appears to be another “hide the decline”

    ———————- *Emails from Benjamin D. Santer,*
    contributing author to Ch 1, 9 & 10 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change

    19/03/2009: *If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available – raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals* .
    (1237496573.txt)

    ———————— *Emails from Keith Briffa*
    Lead author for Ch 6 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4

    Apr 29, 2007: *I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same* .I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . (1177890796.txt)
    ——————-

    Sep 22, 1999: I know *there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more* in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. (938031546.txt)
    ——————- * Note* :There is that troublesome decline again, that needed to be hidden.
    ——————-

    Sep 22, 1999: *I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years…* (0938031546.txt)

    ————————– *Emails from David Parker*
    Lead author of ch 3 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4

    05/01/2005: There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, *so the impression of global warming will be muted.* (1105019698.txt)

    ———————- *Emails from Edward Cook*
    Contributing author to Ch 6 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4

    6/4/03: I got a paper to review (…) that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. (…) *If published as is, this paper could really do some damage* .(1054756929.txt)
    ——————- * Note:* Reviewers agree to be
    ——————-impartial and independent.

    ————————— *More CRU Emails – (not from IPCC authors)*
    From: Tom Crowley, Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005: *I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval warm period* – the attached plot has eight sites that go from 946-1960 (1118866416.txt)
    ——————- * Note* :A warmer medieval warm period
    ——————-might make today’s climate look normal.

    ————————— *Soliciting Money From Exxon-Mobile, Shell International*
    ————————— *and Siemens Corp*

    06/10/2009, From: Andrew Manning: *I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash* to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK – looking promising,… (1254832684.txt)
    ——————-

    11 Sep 2000, From: “Mick Kelly: Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
    *I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation* . (968691929.txt)
    ——————-

    24 May 2000, From: John Shepherd: *I gather you’re going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso !*
    I agree witrh Mike’s analysis : i.e. there’s room for some constructive dialogue…
    (. . .)
    19/05/00: Mike Hulme wrote: *I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso.* (959187643.txt)
    ——————- * Note:* Esso is a subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil.

    ——————– *Is Realclimate.org an Independent Information Source?*
    10 Dec 2004: Gavin Schmidt on behalf of the RealClimate.org team:
    – Gavin Schmidt – Mike Mann – Eric Steig – William Connolley – Stefan Rahmstorf – Ray Bradley – Amy Clement – Rasmus Benestad – William Connolley – Caspar Ammann (1102687002.txt)

    —————————————————————————————
    Note (number) in brackets is the time stamp of the email and can be googled for the entire email.
    Original emails available at: https://junkscience.com/FOIA/
    Searchable database is at: https://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php
    —————————————————————————————

    *Learn more at SustainableOregon.com*

    • jim karlock
    • jim karlock

      *Here is the story of how the CRU climate criminals manipulated one peer-reviewed journal* and misconduct by its reviewers. It starts thusly:

      The Climategate emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer-review process appear to have been compromised by a Team of “global warming” scientists, with the willing cooperation of the editor of the International Journal of Climatology, Glenn McGregor.

      The Team spent nearly a year preparing and publishing a paper that attempted to rebut a previously published paper in that journal by Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer. Our paper, reviewed and accepted in the traditional manner, had shown that the IPCC models that predicted significant “global warming” in fact largely disagreed with the observational data.

      Read the whole sad tale of subverting the peer review process that Al & David love so much:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/21/gaming-the-peer-review-system-ipcc-scientists-behaving-badly/

      • David Appell

        My first inclination, as a journalist, is not to a priori trust anything David Douglass has written. His work has often been found to be either faulty or biased, if not both, and he simply does not have a lot of science cred.

        He really is not an important or well-respected scientist. That matters, to first order.

        • jim karlock

          *David:* My first inclination, as a journalist, is not to a priori trust anything David Douglass has written.
          *JK:* Oh, really?

          Then why did the climate criminals at CRU expend so much effort on him?

          And why do you still tow the line spewed by those climate criminals at the CRU

          Maybe you need to refresh your memory on the offences committed by the CRU people that you seem to think is OK:

          >> Threats to delete data subject to FOI. (a crime if deleted)
          >> Requests for others to delete emails subject to FOI (probable crime)
          >> Hiding data supporting papers to prevent review of claims that the climate is a problem.
          >> Hiding flaws in the data (the famous trick)
          >> Attempts to replace editors of peer reviewed journals
          >> Falsification of data to be published in papers and IPCC reports. (Probable academic fraud)
          >> Prevention of the publication of opposing papers
          >> Request to forge a date on a paper to meet the IPCC deadline (Probable academic fraud)
          >> Falsifying research paid for by taxpayer funds. (Probable crime)
          >> Trying to suppress the Mediaeval Warm Period
          >> Admission that climate is cooling, while telling the world it is warming.
          >> Abuse of trust as a peer-reviewer.
          >> Biasing the IPCC report to emphasis warming
          AND: They solicited money from oil companies!

          thanks
          JK

  • John Fairplay

    The onset of a new ice age would be further proof of human-caused global warming, as would continued warming, slight warming, a modest moderation in temperatures or a slight cooling.

    See what I did there?

    • v person

      Yes John, you managed to express utter ignorance of how science works. Congratulations.

      • cc

        I suppose we should all acknowledge that deaner is an expert in the field of “utter ignorance”.

        • v person

          I missed you man.

      • Steve Plunk

        It seems that Mann et al have a ignorance of the scientific method and how it’s supposed to work. Good ol’ hockey stick Mann. What a fraud.

        • David Appell

          Steve Plunck wrote:
          > It seems that Mann et al have a ignorance of the scientific
          > method and how it’s supposed to work. Good ol’ hockey stick
          > Mann. What a fraud.

          What pathetic and comical arrogance. Here we have someone with absolutely no scientific accomplishments to his name, and who routinely makes the most elementary of scientific errors on these blogs, telling us how one of the most published and scientifically respected scientists in the climate field doesn’t know the scientific method.

          How exactly, Steve, do you justify (at least in your own mind) turning your ignorance into such arrogant statements?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            One hardly need to be a scientist to understand what the scientific method is. Above all is repeatability of experiment. You have an experiment that cant be repeated, or for which you refuse to release data so that it can be repeated? You have nothing.

            It’s interesting to me that you continually try and characterize the debate with this sort of rhetoric – Who dares question the man of letters? What arrogance to question ones betters? All well and good, but please don’t be surprised when one characterizes such attitudes as having more of a religious fervor than scientific inquiry.

            After all, throughout history, science has been one of the more politicized of professions. Our time is clearly no different. To question a scientist is the very essence of the scientific method. To try to shut down such questioning on the basis of status, standing or class is more the profile of the high priest or monarch

          • David Appell

            One hardly need to be a scientist to understand what the scientific method is. Above all is repeatability of experiment. You have an experiment that cant be repeated, or for which you refuse to release data so that it can be repeated? You have nothing.

            Jones refused to release some data. This was wrong. He resigned.

            But it’s not been noted that this data was always available elsewhere, esp in the GHCN. And the PAGES group has been establishing a paleoclimate data portal since last July. And by now there are several lists of such data — not that anybody seemed to care about it before this, or that anybody is now using it to do their own analysis.

            Are you, Rufus?

            > After all, throughout history, science has been one of the more politicized of professions.

            Baloney. ALL fields are politicized. Did you follow literary criticism in the ’70s-’80s, and its political machinations? History in the ’60s? Lesenkoyism? “Jewish physics” in Germany?

            > To question a scientist is the very essence of the scientific method.

            Certainly not. But to question them without knowing the basics of what you’re talking about is inexcusable. It’s a problem of lack of respect for knowledge and education that mainly seems to effect Americans (see today’s Boston Globe op-ed).

            > To try to shut down such questioning on the basis of status, standing or class
            > is more the profile of the high priest or monarch

            “Science is not a democracy” (Fermi.) You, Rupert, do not get the same vote about scientific results as does an expert in climate science, or a college professor, or a PhD, or a high-school science teacher. Your opinion is not based on sweat and toil and education and you don’t understand the complexities of the mathematics involved or the physical principles involved. In the debate about detailed science, you opinion is essentially nothing. Yes, as a citizen you get an equal vote on the policies that should be enacted to best serve society. But you don’t get a vote on the science until you have earned it. And you, Rupert, have clearly not even begun to earn such a thing.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >And by now there are several lists of such data — not that anybody seemed to care about it before this, or that anybody is now using it to do their own analysis.

            Jones refused to release data for quite a while. It was only until the emails came out that he resigned. More the method of political agenda than science. Hardly the scientific method.

            Look, you clearly believe science is to be shrouded in mysticism, to not be looked at unless someone is qualified. Lay people have not right to look at the machinations of those they fund with their taxes. That’s fine, however nutty. Most people prefer a more open society. If taxpayers are funding it they have every right to look at it.

            >or that anybody is now using it to do their own analysis. Are you, Rufus?

            I sure hope you don’t expect to get treated as much of a scientist with that sort of attitude. Guys who make fun of other people names when they don’t have much of an argument are hard to take seriously.

            I haven’t done the analysis because I am not qualified. Neither are you for that matter but that is besides the point.

            What was the question was whether or not a lay person is capable of judging if someone is using the scientific method. You said such was not possible. I contend that such is possible and a good indication that they are not using such a method is by how they act. Refusing to release data, denying you are doing so, and then resigning only when proof of such refusal becomes so overwhelming as to now make the truth inarguable is reason to suspect one is not using the scientific method at all.

            >ALL fields are politicized.

            No one ever said they weren’t. Science just happens to be one of the most heavily politicized.

            You don’t believe it? Then fine, let us never again see you question a study done by the oil industry. After all, if you are maintaining government money does not taint science to government ends, then it is very hard to then argue private industry money does not taint science to private industry ends.

            >Did you follow literary criticism in the ’70s-’80s, and its political machinations? History in the ’60s? Lesenkoyism?

            Your pointing out that other fields have been politicized controverts my contention that science is one of the more heavily politicized how?

            I hope this doesn’t pass for argument in your circles. It certainly would be laughed out of most.

            >”Jewish physics” in Germany?

            Uh, sure sounds like you are talking about politicization of science. And I sure hope you aren’t going to try and argue Nazi Germany didn’t politicize science above all else in its attempts to prove the inferiority of the Jewish people.

            > ( >> To question a scientist is the very essence of the scientific method.) Certainly not.

            Questioning someone else experiment is not the essence of the scientific method? Then what the hell is the purpose of repeatability of experiment if not to verify the results?

            Questioning and verifying others experiments is the cornerstone of the scientific method. You are seriously maintaining otherwise? If so, have you dropped this fiction that you have a PhD if you are going to persist in this sort of nonsense?

            > But to question them without knowing the basics of what you’re talking about is inexcusable.

            No its not. I don’t have to know a thing about chemistry to say to a PhD Chemist that he probably isn’t getting a Nobel prize any time soon if his cold fusion reactor cannot be replicated by anyone else.

            Your statement is founded in desire for elitism, not logic. In making such, you demonstrate yourself as a poor member of the former, and a poor practitioner of the latter.

            >It’s a problem of lack of respect for knowledge and education that mainly seems to effect Americans

            Who needs respect for their knowledge when these clowns are caught regularly falsifying data and making up numbers by lay people? Jones was caught, Hansen was caught twice. By a bunch of bloggers I might add, not the academy.

            >You, Rupert, do not get the same vote about scientific results as does an expert in climate science, or a college professor, or a PhD, or a high-school science teacher.

            And once again we see the attempt to denigrate because of lack of logical argument.

            Look, I know I don’t get a vote. That is the essence of the AGW movement,. to deny anyone a vote. AGW is not about Democracy, it is about totalitarianism. I have never maintained otherwise.

            No one gets a vote. Not you, not me, no one. AGW is about precisely the opposite about that. It is about imposition by fiat. The consideration of debate is what AGW adherents fear most. You have demonstrated that quite well here, and in other posts.

            To say no one gets a vote or that I don’t get a vote is hardly adding to anyone’s store of knowledge.

            > Your opinion is not based on sweat and toil and education

            Interesting, since I do have a science degree and seem to be able to express myself without juvenile attempts to make fun of peoples names. .

            My opinion seems to be based in some level of maturity. Your opinion seems to be based on making comparisons between peoples names because they begin with the same letter.

            >understand the complexities of the mathematics involved

            Sure I do. What you talkin Willis?

            Please, illuminate me with your brilliance, what level of math have I completed?

            I have never mentioned math, either in equation or statistical method once on this blog. In fact I have never once discussed math in any substantial manner on this blog, so I am astonished that you know the level of math I have completed as far as my education goes.

            Please tell me, to what level of math do you think I have familiarity and on what do you base this knowledge?

            >In the debate about detailed science, you opinion is essentially nothing.

            Fine with me as I almost never engage in debates about detailed science. Why you bring up this irrelevancy is beyond me and really speaks to little other than a chaotic thought process on your part.

            In fact, the only debate into detailed science I have ever entered into or discussed on this blog is to correct you, when you said gasoline releases more CO2 than the initial mass. A mistake you continue to make. I’m afraid an aspiring science writer with such loose use of the language who cannot correct such things is hard to take seriously.

            >But you don’t get a vote on the science until you have earned it.

            Wait a second, I thought you just said science was not a democracy? Now you are talking about some sort of science voting, which I guess takes place in the Capitol in Science Land. What the hell is this science voting you are now talking about when you just said there wasn’t science voting?

            OK – So if Science is not a democracy are you maintaining it is a representative Republic? A parliamentary system? Those are forms of Democracy. I’m not sure where you are going with this science voting thing but I’m getting worried we are at the deep end of the punch bowl here. Things are getting loopy.

            >And you, Rupert, have clearly not even begun to earn such a thing.

            Well, other than the fact that I have a science degree that I only was interested in obtaining because it was the hardest field of endeavor I could think of to study.

            Well, so much for that, but I am now really curious about this Science voting thing you are on about, so Id like to discuss it further if that’s ok with you?

            OK – I know I am going to regret it but can you go on a little more about this science voting thing? you seem outraged at me in a connection with some sort of ballot in this science vote, whatever that is. I’m mystified by that.

            Can you point to where I asked for a vote in whatever Land O’ Science you seem to have appointed yourself voter registrar for?

            And can you also show me your certification as Science Lands voter registrar. I find it very interesting that you, a guy who misses professional appointments because he cannot keep his car in running order has been appointed to such a position of responsibility.

          • jim karlock

            *David:* Steve Plunck wrote:
            > It seems that Mann et al have a ignorance of the scientific
            > method and how it’s supposed to work. Good ol’ hockey stick
            > Mann. What a fraud.

            What pathetic and comical arrogance. Here we have someone with absolutely no scientific accomplishments to his name, and who routinely makes the most elementary of scientific errors on these blogs,
            *JK:* Nice description (admission) of your own behavior, David.

            *David:* telling us how one of the most published and scientifically respected scientists in the climate field doesn’t know the scientific method.
            *JK:* Surely you are not still defending the fraud artist that created the hockey stick. That has been thoroughly debunked years ago by MM, the NAS, Wegman and now by Jones admitting Mann’s deception.

            *David:* How exactly, Steve, do you justify (at least in your own mind) turning your ignorance into such arrogant statements?
            *JK:* Yeah, David, how do YOU justify YOUR arrogant ignorance?

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            The NAS?

            Jim, did you even read the NAS report? Honestly, tell us.

            Because here’s what they say:

            “Despite these limitations, the committee finds that efforts to reconstruct temperature
            histories for broad geographic regions using multiproxy methods are an important
            contribution to climate research and that these large-scale surface temperature reconstructions
            contain meaningful climatic signals. The individual proxy series used to
            create these reconstructions generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental
            conditions, and in most cases there is a physical, chemical, or physiological
            reason why the proxy reflects local temperature variations. Our confidence in the
            results of these reconstructions becomes stronger when multiple independent lines of
            evidence point to the same general result, as in the case of the Little Ice Age cooling and
            the 20th century warming.

            The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century
            warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000
            years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that
            includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced
            changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and
            the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented
            during at least the last 2,000 years.”

            — “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years”
            Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, Summary, page 3
            ISBN: 0-309-66144-7, 160 pages (2006)
            https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html

          • Todd Wynn

            A congressional hearing was called for in response to the credibility of the Hockey Stick Graph which requested the National Academy of sciences to study the claims and counter claims. Two reports resulted from this hearing, the North Report and the Wegman Report.

            For the North Report, the committee found it “plausible” that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. However they also found that, “… less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.

            For the Wegman Report, the committee concluded the conjecture that the 1990s decade was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the analysis. The report also found numerous statistical and proxy data errors which led to a deflation of temperatures in the medieval period and inflated the temperature difference for the last century.

          • jim karlock

            #4.1.2.1.2.1 David Appell on 2009-12-23 13:16 (Reply)
            *David:* Jim, did you even read the NAS report? Honestly, tell us.
            Because here’s what they say:

            “Despite these limitations, the committee finds that …
            Blah-blah-blah.
            — “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years”
            Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, Summary, page 3
            ISBN: 0-309-66144-7, 160 pages (2006)
            https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html

            *JK:* You forgot to mention this part of that report:

            Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, *the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.*
            ………[Note that this claim is only “plausible”, not likely or probable or “supported by a wide variety of evidence”. In other words it is garbage.]

            The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. *Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”* because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.
            …….[Here is the often heard statement that we are the warmest in 1000 years. It is given “less confidence” than “plausable” (see above). Effectively, it is shown to be baseless.]

            BTW, did you catch the section where they say dome of the proxies Mann used were well known as inappropriate. (Just another element of Mann’s fraud.)

            *But the real analysis was done by Wegman in the companion report:*
            *Wegman Report, item 7, page 49:*
            (MBH is Mann’s hockey stick paper): Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis.
            *JK:* MBH98/99 are the papers that brought us the hockey stick.

            *Wegman Report, item 7, page 49:*
            The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.

            *Wegman Report, item 6, page 49:*
            Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the MM05 papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs.

            *Wegman Report, page 49:*
            1. In general we found the writing of MBH98 somewhat obscure and incomplete. The fact that MBH98 issued a further clarification in the form of a corrigendum published in Nature (Mann et al. 2004) suggests that these authors made errors and incomplete disclosures in the original version of the paper. This also suggests that the refereeing process was not as thorough as it could have been. . .

            *Wegman Report, page 49:*
            2. In general, we find the criticisms by MM03, MM05a and MM05b to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. . .

            *JK:* MM03, MM05a are the blogger’s papers that exposed the errors. See ClimateAudit.org

            *Wegman Report, page 49, item 3:* . . Because the temperature profile in the 1902-1995 is not similar, because of increasing trend, to the millennium temperature profile, it is not fully appropriate for the calibration and, in fact, leads to the misuse of the principal components analysis. However, the narrative in MBH98 on the surface sounds entirely reasonable on this calibration point, and could easily be missed by someone who is not extensively trained in statistical methodology. Dr. Mann has close ties to both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University. We note in passing that both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University have Departments of Statistics with excellent reputations9. Even though their work has a very significant statistical component, based on their literature citations, there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.

            *Wegman Report, page 49:*
            8. Although we have not addressed the Bristlecone Pines issue extensively in this report except as one element of the proxy data, there is one point worth
            mentioning. Graybill and Idso (1993) specifically sought to show that Bristlecone Pines were CO2 fertilized. Bondi et al. (1999) suggest [Bristlecones] “are not a reliable temperature proxy for the last 150 years. . .

            *Wegman Report, page 52:*
            Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.

    • David Appell

      > The onset of a new ice age would be further proof of human-caused global
      > warming, as would continued warming, slight warming, a modest moderation
      > in temperatures or a slight cooling.

      You have seriously simplified and misunderstood the science.

      In the first place, the possible changes in the Atlantic Meriodonal Current as a result of climate have been pretty much ruled out in the last few years and scientists are no longer giving this scenario much credence.

      But, yes, there can be regional differences. Does that honestly surprise you? Different places have different factors. Sorry if that’s not simple enough for you, but it’s the real world.

  • Diamond Jim Franconni

    It sure is cold out there for a warming.
    These people are complete basket cases.
    They are nut jobs.
    There is no warming whatsoever.
    The dolts!

    • David Appell

      > It sure is cold out there for a warming.

      Really? Nov 2009 was the warmest November in recorded history, as measured by both surface instruments and satellites.

      2009 is looking to be the 2nd warmest year in recorded history, after only 2007. Yes, warmer even than 1998.

      • Steve Plunk

        What happened to short term versus long term trends? It seems the climate change propagandists use anecdotal evidence when convenient and discount it when it contradicts. Pick one way or the other please.

        What I would like to know is how the propagandists excuse the subversion of the scientific process that is evidenced in the emails? The threat of withholding papers from journals that published counter claims? The threat to force removal of editors of journals? Even the threat of punching another scientist? Mann and his cronies are simply corrupt and should be thrown out of the climate community.

        • David Appell

          > What happened to short term versus long term trends? It seems the
          > climate change propagandists use anecdotal evidence when convenient
          > and discount it when it contradicts. Pick one way or the other please.

          Nothing has happened. It’s just that neither gets through to you people, so it’s clear need to be slammed over the head with ALL the data.

          This decade has, by far, been the warmest on record. BY FAR.

          But you people still claim we’re in a “cooling trend.” So it’s worth pointing out that right now temperatures are higher than even 1998, the purported start of your “cooling trend.”

          In other words, you’re wrong on both counts.

          Any other claims you want to make?

        • David Appell

          > The threat of withholding papers from journals that published counter claims?

          All climate scientists want to publish in the best journals they can. (Even the skeptics.) That means Science, Nature, PNAS, JGR-A, GRL, J Climate, etc.

          No one wants to publish in journals that will just publish anything, such as E&E and Clim Res, or, even worse, publish science that is clearly wrong.

          Would you want to publish in journals that publish incorrect science? Those journals don’t have a good reputation.

          > The threat to force removal of editors of journals?

          The only threat was to stop sending their papers there — a perfectly legitimate action.

          I don’t know of any editor, specifically, that anyone “removed.” Do you?

          On the other hand, I do know of a journal (Clim Research) who had a resignation of about a half-dozen editors after publishing a very bad paper.

          > Even the threat of punching another scientist?

          Scientists are… who would have ever guessed — human. They have emotions, and sometimes even anger. They express these emotions in emails they considered private.

          Send me all your private emails, Steve, and let me troll through them to see what I can find out about you. OK?

      • jim karlock

        *David Appell:* Really? Nov 2009 was the warmest November in recorded history, as measured by both surface instruments and satellites.

        2009 is looking to be the 2nd warmest year in recorded history, after only 2007. Yes, warmer even than 1998.
        *JK:* One month is weather David, not climate. (But December’s record will be interesting!)
        And if you believe https://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
        November is well below the 1998 peak according to both RSS & UAH.

        I hope you don’t mind if we dismiss anything from the CRU, their buddies at Hadley and Hansen’s GISS as tainted (at best) by the frauds revealed by the emails.

        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          > And if you believe https://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

          Do I believe the person who once took a lot of money from the tobacco industry to argue that smoking doesn’t cause disease?

          Of course not.

          Why do you, Jim?

          • jim karlock

            *David:* > And if you believe https://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
            Do I believe the person who once took a lot of money from the tobacco industry to argue that smoking doesn’t cause disease?

            Of course not.
            *JK:* Then why do you believe anything coming from the CRU (and by association, Hadley and the IPCC)? The CRU took (or solicited) money from (gasp!!) *oil companies* !

            By YOUR standards, David, they have NO CREDIBILITY because the took OIL MONEY.

            Of course hypocrisy has never been a problem for true believers like you.

            So why do you believe them?

            These emails from the CRU may aid your memory:
            06/10/2009, From: Andrew Manning: *I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash* to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK – looking promising,… (1254832684.txt)
            ——————-
            11 Sep 2000, From: “Mick Kelly: Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
            *I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation* . (968691929.txt)
            ——————-
            24 May 2000, From: John Shepherd: *I gather you’re going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso !*
            I agree witrh Mike’s analysis : i.e. there’s room for some constructive dialogue…
            (. . .)
            19/05/00: Mike Hulme wrote: *I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso.* (959187643.txt)

          • JK

            *Hey David Appell —- why don’t you answer this*

            *Here is oil company money, so by YOUR standard, the CRU/IPCC is not credible.*

            Thanks
            JK

        • David Appell

          > One month is weather David, not climate.

          Yes. But this year will be the 2nd warmest in recorded history, even ahead of the monster ENSO year 1998.

          This decade will be, by far, the warmest decade in all recorded history.

          The last 25 years have been the warmest in at least 1000 years.

          How many caveats do you want to apply? How far back do you need to go until you admit that something unusual is happening?

          • jim karlock

            Is that using real data or CRU fraudulent data?

            CRU head and IPCC lead author, Jones said it IS NOT WARMING:

            Jul 5 2005: *The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant* (1120593115.txt)
            ——-* Note* :in 2009, it is now 11 years of cooling.——-

          • David Appell

            That was four-years ago. There never was any “cooling” going on, just a lull (like we’ve seen at least three other times since 1975), and right now the last 10-years have been warmer than any 10-year period in recorded history. November was the warmest November ever. 2009 will be the 2nd warmest year in recorded history, by some records, after only 2007.

          • jim karlock

            Oh. really David?

            Then why did the head of the CRU & lead author of the UN IPCC reports say:

            *The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has…*

            Sure sounds like one of YOUR experts disagrees with you. And he appears to have a real PhD AND is a working climatologist. What better creds could he have (in your world view?) Therefore, in your world view, he is right and YOU are wrong because, in your world, claims of “credible” authorities are all that matter.

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            So you think that because some scientist said this, it’s true?

            That’s part of the problem with your lack of understanding of the science — all you have to go by is what people say. People say just about anything. That doesn’t make it true, even if there is a PhD after their name. Even good scientists make mistakes.

            Good science is not a matter of comparing this sentence to that one.

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell:* So you think that because some scientist said this, it’s true?
            *JK:* No, David. YOU DO. That is why is specified YOUR expert and qualified it to “in your world view” and “in your world, claims of “credible” authorities are all that matter. “
            Please learn to read.

            Time after time you argue from authority, rather than facts. Your classic was to dismiss one skeptic because he had written on a religious topic (aside from the global warming religion.)

            *David Appell:* That’s part of the problem with your lack of understanding of the science — all you have to go by is what people say.
            *JK:* Excellent description of YOURSELF as you have shown time after time.

            Thanks
            JK

  • Anonymous

    A must watch video displaying the earth’s historical temperature record as it relates to the IPCC’s phony hocket stick.

    v-dean, don’t bother you’re too screwed up to grasp it.

    everyone else, this video was not allowed at v-dean’s climate church “RealClimate”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE&feature=player_embedded

  • David Appell

    > However, if the tree ring data is not accurately reflecting temperatures after 1960,
    > then it probably shouldn’t be used as a proxy for past temperature, either.

    Not at all. There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of papers written on this “divergence problem.” It likely arises from modern air pollution. And, we can correlate past tree ring data with other proxy data from purer times — such as from bore holes, ice cores, corals, sentiments from lakes and oceans, etc.

    • Steve Plunk

      Don’t most studies rely on the tree ring data? The data with a proxy problem. And what about the head of the IPCC, Pachauri, having such blatant conflicts of interest just like Al Gore? Doesn’t that create a problem? You know even the appearance of a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. More corruption is what I see.

  • David Appell

    > The existence of a medieval warming period certainly would shake the
    > human caused global warming theory.

    Actually, it would not, because the factors influencing today’s climate are different from the factors influencing the medieval climate.

    Specifically, in medieval times there were not the significant increases in CO2, CH4, and other GHGs that exist today, or the large changes in land use. So it is like comparing apples to oranges.

    • Steve Plunk

      So what did influence the medieval warming period? Without knowing we are ignoring an important piece of the science of climate.

      Those land use changes have been a subject of controversy. Some scientist question whether or not adjustments for urban heat sinks have been appropriate. Huh, still more unsettled science.

      • David Appell

        > So what did influence the medieval warming period?

        In fact, paleoclimatologists believe that the MWP was not a global phenomenon at all, but one confined to the northern Atlantic and northern Europe. In other words, likely a statistical/spatial fluctuation with local causes, not globally climactic ones.

      • David Appell

        Steve Plunck wrote:
        > Those land use changes have been a subject of controversy. Some scientist question
        > whether or not adjustments for urban heat sinks have been appropriate. Huh, still
        > more unsettled science.

        Huh, another person who doens’t know what they are talking about.

        “Land use changes” and UHI effects are two different phenomenon. The former refers to the large amount of forest that is being cut down to provide the way for more agriculture, or even changes in agricultural techniques. Cutting down trees releases their carbon. Such actions are responsible for about 20% of GHG emissions/yr.

        That’s why the agreement at Copenhagen to limit deforestation were considered such a big deal.

        The UHI effect, on the other hand, is of much smaller scale, and also well-studied by scientists. It is taken into account in all their climate calculations (in an easy way, as detailed studies have shown that UHIs have very little impact on temperature trends).

        • jim karlock

          *David:* The UHI effect, on the other hand, is of much smaller scale, and also well-studied by scientists. It is taken into account in all their climate calculations (in an easy way, as detailed studies have shown that UHIs have very little impact on temperature trends).
          *JK:* Actually, they have been discontinuing the UHI adjustments, resulting in false warming in the data.

          BTW, last I heard the guy who did a major paper on UHI, relying on China stations, got caught cherry picking his stations. And when you include a proper set of stations, the UHI is very much a factor. (When are you going to quit believing the fraud artists at the CRU/IPCC?)

          PS: It’ll be interesting to see how the Russian accusation of the CRU cherry picking Russian data plays out. Then there are the accusations about CRU also fudging the New Zealand and Australia data. If these turn out to be true, that may put a take through the heart of the claims for recent warming.

          Thanks
          JK

  • Anonymous

    David, Shut up.

    It is you who doesn’t know what you are talking about and lie repeatedly.

    The tree ring data was manipulated, truncated and inappropriately joined with other data to show warming which has not occured in the raw data.

    Your perpetual attempt to misrepresent and perpetuate the fraud makes you essentially a criminal fraud yourself.

    Your BS UHI effect is truely some of your most egregious.

    David needs to be admonished and rejected as a peddler of fraud.

    Go away David. You aren’t discussing. You are propogandizing and participating in the cover up.

    Everyone else but vdean go here

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE&feature=player_embedded

    and here

    for the latest whoppers by the criminals David and v-dean defend.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/

  • Anonymous

    David and v-dean, head over to RealClimate.org and stay there. It’s where your fellow criminals hang out and falsify the climate discussion to look like you would want it. You can help there snowjob and then keep directing people to get their “truth” there.

    All others go to wattsupwiththat.com where millions every month go for honest, open and frank discussions on current climate stories and science.
    And unlike RC there is no censoring and rigging of comments to create the false impression of heavily lopsided substance in favor of the fraud.

    • David Appell

      > All others go to wattsupwiththat.com where millions every month
      > go for honest, open and frank discussions on current climate stories and science.

      Please. I have read the weathermen at WUWT. They clearly understand only a fraction of the climate science that the authors of RC do — in fact, it’s the authors of RC whose scientific knowledge and creativity is responsible for much of what we know about climate science today.

      Your opinion is not backed by knowledge or education, but only ideology. You don’t seem to have even one reason for believing WUWT’s presentation over RC’s. That’s the worst kind of argument — one of ideology.

      • jim karlock

        Hey David, RealClimate is owned by a PR company. The same on that brought the poisoned apple scare a few years ago. Made a lot of money for their client, just like now they are making a lot of money for Al Gore, his Wall Street buddies and now it seems the head of your idol, the IPCC.

        Several of the CRU climate criminals are involved in running realclimate. That you still consider it anything other than a propaganda machine speaks volumes about your abilities.

        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          > Several of the CRU climate criminals are involved in running realclimate. That you
          > still consider it anything other than a propaganda machine speaks volumes
          > about your abilities.

          For someone who did not even graduate from college, let alone high school (I’m not sure — did you?), you have a lot to say about advanced science. Jim, you just clearly don’t have the knowledge…. You don’t know 1% of what real scientists know, with their advanced degrees (all PhDs) and several years in PostDocs and now several years in well-respected positions. THey’ve traveled the world. They’ve written dozens of papers with everyone important. They write op-eds and give TV interviews. And we’re supposed to believe little non-BS Jim Karlock from Portland ORegon?

          You can huff away, Jim. When the history of recent climate science is written, your name will not appear.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >You can huff away

            Seems to me you are the on huffing. It takes an advanced science degree to note correspondance between people running organizations? What nonsense.

            Lets take a break shall we?

            Hare Hare

            Hare Rama

            Krishna Krishna

            Guru Vishnu

            My sweet Lord

            Now, take a deep breath, calm down, and realize its ok to be scared to death of lay people noticing when they have been had. They feel cheated, your faith is unshaken, and thats ok, There is nothing wrong with that.

            However trying to shut down debate by insinuating no one but you and those you agree with has any understanding of science is a losing game. Are you a legendary science writer? No. Is Mr. Jarlock a legendary science writer? No.

            All are insignifigant. Our time is short and of no consequence.

            All play the same game, existance to the end…… of the begining.

            Id suggest less coffee, more incense and possibly alternate nostrile breathing as preliminary excersizes.

            Namaste.

          • David Appell

            > It takes an advanced science degree to note correspondance
            > between people running organizations?

            People running organizations always correspond. So what?

            You do. I do. Whoever reads this does. It’s how the world turns.

            Everyone gossips. Everyone bitches.

            But we’re not talking about that, Rupert. We’re talking about the big picture, the science that appears in the big journals. The stuff you can’t read past the first paragraph. On that, no, you don’t have the education or training to get a say.

            Sorry, but that’s how science works. You have to earn your opinion.

            You have not.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >People running organizations always correspond. So what?

            You know, if you want to be a writer you might want to learn word usage.

            Correspondence has more than one meaning you dull witted fool.

            To use “correspondence” in a sentence:

            “There is amazing correspondence between the incidence of David’s pomposity and the amount he feels threatened by another’s argument”

            “David’s claims some knowledge of science, yet lack of facility with words does not correspond well to the qualities one would find in a good author”

            We all know your pomposity shall be ever present. However, do you have to be such a bore as well?

            > On that, no, you don’t have the education or training to get a say.

            Obviously I have enough education to correct you, now on word usage, in the past on basic science. I’m afraid this does not bode well for your science writing career.

            Namaste

            Free Tibet

          • jim karlock

            *David:* > Several of the CRU climate criminals are involved in running realclimate. That you
            > still consider it anything other than a propaganda machine speaks volumes
            > about your abilities.

            For someone who did not even graduate from college, let alone high school (I’m not sure — did you?), you have a lot to say about advanced science. Jim, you just clearly don’t have the knowledge…. You don’t know 1% of what real scientists know, with their advanced degrees (all PhDs) and several years in PostDocs and now several years in well-respected positions. THey’ve traveled the world. They’ve written dozens of papers with everyone important. They write op-eds and give TV interviews. And we’re supposed to believe little non-BS Jim Karlock from Portland ORegon?
            *JK:* Oh, David!

            You have finally admitted to running out of rational arguments (something you actually never had) by degenerating into personal attacks.

            As I said shortly after one of our first encounters: you are not fit to be a science writer. That was because you judge by the messenger rather than the message. Nothing in the years since has changed my mind. Especially you privately emailing me to “shut your f**king mouth” when I told the truth about Mann.

            *David:* You can huff away, Jim.
            *JK:* Looks like you are doing most of the huffing.

            *David:* When the history of recent climate science is written, your name will not appear.
            *JK:* So what? (Your will be on the list of “useful idiots”)

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > That was because you judge by the messenger rather than the message.

            No, Jim, it’s just that I have read too many absolute dumb statements from you to cease to take your other claims seriously (remember that hilarious Venus calculation of yours?). There is only so much time in the day, and you have lost the right to be a priori taken seriously. Now you are a priori dismissed.

          • jim karlock

            *David:* No, Jim, it’s just that I have read too many absolute dumb statements from you to cease to take your other claims seriously (remember that hilarious Venus calculation of yours?).
            *JK:* You mean the calculation I described as simple in response to your claim that CO2 causes Venus’ warming? You ignored things like Venus being closer to the sun and having 92 times Earth’s atmospheric pressure. Your comparison was just plain juvenile (like much of your stuff.)

            *David:* There is only so much time in the day, and you have lost the right to be a priori taken seriously. Now you are a priori dismissed.
            *JK:* Sore loser! (But I do hope that means YOU will quit infesting these blogs with your garbage.)

            Thanks
            JK

  • Anonymous

    Among other cold blooded lies such as Katrina being caused by AGW Liar David Appell lectured people to rely upon only peer reveiwed publications. He was countered many times with evidence of the peer review process being abused.

    Here is the latest.

    Gaming the peer review system: IPCC scientists behaving badly

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/21/gaming-the-peer-review-system-ipcc-scientists-behaving-badly/

    “In this article, reprinted from The American Thinker, two eminent Professors reveal just one of the many seamy stories that emerge from the Climategate emails. A prejudiced journal editor conspires with senior IPCC scientists to delay and discredit a paper by four distinguished scientists demonstrating that a central part of the IPCC’s scientific argument is erroneous.”

    And scroll down for other current stories on climate science and scandals.

    • David Appell

      > Among other cold blooded lies such as Katrina being caused by AGW Liar David Appell

      In fact, what I wrote (in the UK Guardian) was that not even a Katrina-level hurricane would change people’s opinion of AGW, not that Katrina was caused by AGW…..

      (Look it up.)

      • Anonymous

        *David Appell:* I have never said that Katrina was caused by AGW, and in fact, I have several times denied such an association. Put up or shut up.
        *JK:* OK explain this:

        “There is no crisis that will change our minds – not heat waves in France, not Katrina, not the disappearance of Arctic ice up north.”

        (From an article credited to David Appell at https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/12/environment-climate-change-poznan?commentpage=3)

        • David Appell

          Yes, that’s what I wrote. Viz. even crises on these orders will not cause people to change their minds about AGW, whether these problems were caused by AGW or not. And, let’s be truthful: an event X is not either “caused” or “not caused” by AGW. It is a superposition of all climate factors, one of which is anthropogenic forcings. So all modern climate events have some proportion of them due to AGW.

  • Anonymous

    Now that’s funny David. You already admitted your Katrina misrepresentation to Karlock.
    After denying several times you ever wrote it. Now you’re trying to spin that you didn’t say it? No you only said people should be convinced of AGW by Katrina. What a complete jerk.

    As usual David takes the low road and avoids addressing the substance and science.

    Instead he coughs up his sleaze talk about ideology and his people are smarter.

    I have zero ideology blocking my viewpoint and no agenda like the entire AGW movement does, David, including you of course, Mr. “social and climate justice” freak.
    Your continued fabrications are not working.

    You are now lying about keeping up to speed on the scientific work by those you disparage.
    You don’t follow WUWT or climate audit.org or icecap.us.

    The hosts at WUWT and CA and many of their contributors have done extensive work in exposing what you call superior science for the fraud it is.
    If you think Gavin Schmidt and Ray Ladbury and Eric Steig understand more about honest climate science then you are a bigger fool than you are a liar. Those three are among the most unethical on the upper mantle of the fraud. Gavin and Ladbury perpetrate their fraud while working for NASA- GISS and Eric Steig the UW.

    RC is responsible for much of the fraud you peddle today. It is run by and is the echo chamber for the same scoundrels in the CRU leak e-mails.
    Your opinion is backed by sleaze bags who don’t know honest science.
    The simple fact that they hide like you from honest climate debates says it all.

    The reasons WUWT is more reliable are many but primarily they are honest and use the reliable raw data versus the value added data at RC and the IPCC.
    You are a sleaze bag yourself by continually lying and avoiding responding to the substance and then trying to cause people to falsely believe it isn’t there. .
    It’s you and the government/academia cabal feeding off of the AGW movement that is lost ideology and like you, a total lack of integrity.
    The plethora of WUWT stories and discussions on the fraud you support are too many to always parade in front of you as if you care. None of them are ideological in any way. So once again you distort. You deliberately avoid them as they stack up while discouraging others from following what you choose to ignore.
    You’re the worst kind of activist, David. Just one step away from Tre Arrow.
    RealClimate has continued to manipulate the discussion there to make it look as if their positions cannot be refuted when all they are doing is blocking every substantive opposing post.
    RealClimate is sleaze bag central and you think it’s just swell.

    This is realclimate

    https://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html

  • David Appell

    > You don’t follow WUWT or climate audit.org or icecap.us.

    I read them, sometimes, when I can. But they are not real science. Their work is not peer-reviewed, and it clearly does not meet scholarly standards. The latter is the most important.

    Nor is their work ever discussed in department seminars or at national or international conferences.

    Their work simply does not rise in quality to that that appears in Science, Nature, PNAS, JGR-A, GRL, J Climate, and other journals.

    Sorry, but science is about standards. Icecap, ClimateAudit, and WUWT are blogs, not scientific papers.

    Without training in science, perhaps you don’t realize that. But real scientists, and real science journalists, do.

    Just as you would not trust any old medical information on any old web site, homeopathetic or whatever.

    Those sites are in the same class — amateurish.

    Sorry to burst your bubble.

    • jim

      You are again ignoring facts that don’t fit your lies:

      ClimateAudit.org (Steve McIntyre) has published in peer reviewed journals and their proving that the hockey stick was garbage was supported by two NAS reports and by the IPCC quietly de-emphasizing it in their last report.

      Thanks
      JK

      • David Appell

        > ClimateAudit.org (Steve McIntyre) has published in peer reviewed journals
        > and their proving that the hockey stick was garbage was supported by
        > two NAS reports and by the IPCC quietly de-emphasizing it in their last report.

        Jim, please listen once again: a peer-reviewed publication means little. There are lots of peer-reviewed papers published that are nonetheless wrong. It happens all the time, in all fields.

        “Peer review” does not mean that a paper is correct. It merely means that it is not obviously wrong.

        Science isn’t a matter of scoring runs, like a baseball game. It’s far more subtle than that. Someone like you will never accept that, because you’d rather not deal with the subtleties, and you want a simple binary-like system of keeping score.

        It doesn’t exist. In science you must think, in detail, about the issues — all of them.

  • Anonymous

    You’re an idiot.
    Icecap.us is a site for current climate stories/science collected from all over the place, there is no bloggin there. And obvioulsy there no science that talkes place there.

    WUWT and ClimateAudit are both blogs, just RealClimate.

    All three discuss science done elsewhere.

    Much more science is discussed at WUWT and CA than at RC, by along shot.
    RC is too busy spinning out propoganda.

    WUWT and CA have extensive contribution by many people of many science skills.

    The study and scrutinizing of IPCC scince and conclusions would not happen without them.

    But here again David is spinning out garbage and misrepresenting what is discussed.
    Telling people science doesn’t take place on the bog therefore it provides no science and has no credibilty?
    You’re not bursting any bubbles jackass.
    You’re fabricating and lying.

    • David Appell

      Anonymous wrote:
      > Icecap.us is a site for current climate stories/science collected from
      > all over the place, there is no bloggin there. And obvioulsy there no science
      > that talkes place there.

      You’re right — there is no science that takes place there. So why should I pay attention to it? I’m interested in the real, professional science going on, not what a few bloggers write before breakfast.

      You people seem to be under the delusion that anything written down, anywhere, even on the Web, is “science” and equally meaningful.

      It is not.

      This is again a sad commentary on the American education system.

      There are real, rigorous, scholarly, peer-reviewed scientific papers… and there are blog postings.

      They aren’t nearly in the same class.

      If you don’t know the difference, enroll in a Master’s or Doctorate program in a physical science and learn how a scientific paper is actually written….

    • David Appell

      Anonymous wrote:
      > WUWT and ClimateAudit are both blogs, just RealClimate.

      I have no idea what this grammatically incomplete sentence means.

      > All three discuss science done elsewhere.

      Hardly. RC often discusses the science created by its authors. I don’t see any science coming out of WU or CA.

  • Bob Clark

    For my money, I fret more about a dirty bomb or the U.S defaulting on its debt than the abstract, adaptable man made global warming issue; and this is only a few of the items of higher priority.

    It doesn’t help the alarmists when scientists like George Taylor and other skeptical scientists are fired, and or, shut out of grant monies by political hacks. The only consensus you have then is one of the yes men and women.

    • v person

      George Taylor was not fired Bob. A scientific consensus only exists when there is agreement on the facts. It has nothing to do with yes and no men or women. You are confusing science with politics or business.

      • Anonymous

        George was driven out.

        Phil Mote fired his assistant for telling the truth about the NW snowpack.

  • Dan

    Would somebody please tell me what the ideal temperature of the earth should be and why that particular temperature is best? I am of the opinion that, for the past several thousand years it’s been a bit cold. So this warming trend doesn’t bother me too much. I’m looking forward to longer growing seasons in these northern latitudes.

    • David Appell

      > I’m looking forward to longer growing seasons in these northern latitudes.

      Are you looking forward to all the NA wheat fields moving to Canada?
      To insect infestations that decimate forests?
      To lack of snowmelt that limits what you can sprinkle onto your garden?
      Do you care what effect your actions have on the ability of Africans to grow their food?
      To heat waves that cause all your garden plants to wilt and whither?

      There is far more to climate change than simply “longer growing seasons.”

      • jim karlock

        *David:*
        Are you looking forward to all the NA wheat fields moving to Canada?
        To insect infestations that decimate forests?
        To lack of snowmelt that limits what you can sprinkle onto your garden?
        Do you care what effect your actions have on the ability of Africans to grow their food?
        To heat waves that cause all your garden plants to wilt and whither?
        *JK:* God, David, you are starting to sound as crackpotted as Al Gore.

        You know all of those things are highly unlikely at any achievable degree of warming caused by CO2. You do know that its effect is logarithmic and basically saturated at the current level, don’t you?

        *David:* There is far more to climate change than simply “longer growing seasons.”
        *JK:* Right:
        > Less deaths, since more people die from cold weather than hot weather.
        > More food production, causing lower food prices, thus helping the poor make ends meet.
        > More natural diversity (you have noticed the extreme diversity of the tropics, haven’t you?)
        > More rainfall will cause glaciers to grow. (For instance the higher Himalayan glaciers never get above freezing and thus aren’t melting, contrary to your wishes. I assume you know how ice goes away without melting.)
        > Greener earth due to more plant food in the air and more rain.

        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          Jim Karlock wrote:
          > You do know that its effect is logarithmic and basically saturated
          > at the current level, don’t you?

          In fact, it is not — this argument is based on an old and simplistic model of the atmosphere.

          For modern, sophisticated thinking on this issue, in great scientific detail, see:

          A Saturated Gassy Argument
          June 26, 2007
          https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

  • Diamond Jim Franconni

    I see nothing wrong with scientists lying if that is what it takes to save the earth.

    • jim karlock

      RE: I see nothing wrong with scientists lying if that is what it takes to save the earth.

      That means you don’t object to people lying to you as long sa the person doing the lying thinks it is for a good cause.

      That means that you think it is OK for Joe, who needs to pay his rent – a good cause in Joe’s mind, to lie to YOUR bank about his identity (IE: impersonate you) to clean out YOUR bank account. Its for a good cause!

  • Dan

    Unless, of course, “saving the earth” is part of the lie.

    There is another conclusion about the climate that can be supported by what we know about CO2 and plant life from review of the data and replicable scientific experimentation:

    Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. There is a much more direct correlation between temperature fluctuations and solar activity. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.
    Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed https://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

    • David Appell

      This is simplistic science on about a 7th grade level.

      Fortunately, our climate policies are being made by people who moved beyond middle school.

  • Terry Parker

    Follow the Money – The climate research people are paid what to tell us. Then the people bankrolling the research can use fear to control the populous and make even more money from that control. As an example, the hypocritical hot air windbag Al Gore has made his fortune that way while at the same time, flits around the globe living a lifestyle that has a so-called carbon footprint many times larger than the average working class person.

    • David Appell

      > The climate research people are paid what to tell us.

      Sure, because we all know that scientists went into their field to get filthy rich and are all ready to drop their sense of skepticism as soon as someone flashes a little money in their face.

      You have proof of this assertion, I’m sure? Let’s see it.

  • Diamond Jim Franconni

    Exactly. Follow the money. These fools will do whatever it takes, including lying, stealing, cheating, destroying, etc. to make the phony claim about warming.
    They are disingenous idiots.

    • David Appell

      Sure, follow the money. Read “Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming” by James Hoggan. Or read Ross Gelspan’s first book, “The Heat is On.”

      Or read the current article “Climate Change Deniers Without Borders: How American oil money is pumping up climate change skeptics abroad—and how they could derail any progress made in Copenhagen.” Josh Harkinson, Mother Jones,
      https://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/climate-deniers-atlas-foundation

      • jim karlock

        *David:* Or read the current article “Climate Change Deniers Without Borders: How American oil money is pumping up climate change skeptics…
        *JK:* Or read about the OIL MONEY behind the IPCC via the CRU:

        06/10/2009, From: Andrew Manning: *I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash* to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK – looking promising,… (1254832684.txt)
        ——————-

        11 Sep 2000, From: “Mick Kelly: Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
        *I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation* . (968691929.txt)
        ——————-

        24 May 2000, From: John Shepherd: *I gather you’re going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso !*
        I agree witrh Mike’s analysis : i.e. there’s room for some constructive dialogue…
        (. . .)
        19/05/00: Mike Hulme wrote: *I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso.* (959187643.txt)
        ——————- * Note:* Esso is a subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil.

        Thanks
        JK

  • Anonymous

    You lost, get over it

  • Terry Parker

    Anybody remember when a former Oregon Climatologist objectively disagreed with Gov K and the progressive eco-zealots, Oregon’s incompetent Governor fired him. The majority of climate research people are paid to declare a preconceived agenda and conclusion – not to be objective. One way to do this is to cherry pick the data supplied.

    Here are a few tidbit facts. It has been proven with no human influence; the Earth was warmer than it is today prior to the first ice age. With no human influence or SUVs around, the melting of ice created the Columbia River Gorge. Much of Puget Sound was at one time covered with ice. Scientists have discovered the evidence of palm trees under one of the polar caps. Natural occurrences such as volcanoes contribute to global warming. It can be as much as ten degrees warmer in places where compact high density heat island development exists as compared to immediate surrounding low density areas.

    • David Appell

      The Earth’s past temperature matters little. The question is how will out climate change in light of the brand-new perturbations we are submitting it to.

      Never before has there been a massive transfer of carbon from underground to above ground.

      That’s the question. The past is only relevant up to a certain point. We are on new ground.

      • jim karlock

        *David:* The Earth’s past temperature matters little.
        *JK:* Spoken like a person completely ignorant of basic scientific method.

        *David:* The question is how will out climate change in light of the brand-new perturbations we are submitting it to.
        *JK:* NO, the question is: is anything unusual going on. That is why we need to know the “Earth’s past temperature” which you foolishly dismiss as “matters little”

        *David:* Never before has there been a massive transfer of carbon from underground to above ground.
        *JK:* Reference please. Otherwise it will look like yet another thing that you have made up.

        *David:* That’s the question. The past is only relevant up to a certain point. We are on new ground.
        *JK:* Reference please. Otherwise it will look like yet another thing that you have made up.

        • David Appell

          >> David: That’s the question. The past is only relevant up to a certain point. We
          >> are on new ground.
          > JK: Reference please

          See any fifth-grade primer in elementary science.

          • David Appell

            >> David: The Earth’s past temperature matters little.
            > JK: Spoken like a person completely ignorant of basic scientific method.

            On the contrary.

            The question before us is: what effects today’s climate?

            The obvious answer is: natural factors + manmade factors.

            Before about 1850, the latter term was zero. Hence we can learn much about climate but studying its past. But we can’t learn everything about it.

            In particular, since about 1850 the latter factor has increased in magnitude, substantially. Today it has easily been shown to be the largest perturbation on today’s climate, when natural factors are subtracted, ~1.5 W/m2.

  • John in Oregon

    David, I have to speak up in Rupert’s defense. Rupert is the name of a town near where I grew up. It is a proud town ready to defend its honor. Then there is Jerome on the south side of the river. And Burley at the head of the Snake. The source of water for southern Idaho.

    Point is David, when your discourse deteriorates to name calling it hardly signals that you have confidence in what you are saying. Now I guess you would get me on Buhl another town near where I grew up. What kind of name is that?

    David you said > *My first inclination, as a journalist, is not to a priori trust anything David Douglass has written. His work has often been found to be either faulty or biased, if not both, and he simply does not have a lot of science cred…. He really is not an important or well-respected scientist. That matters, to first order.*

    I have no doubt that accurately represents your opinion and as such should be considered opinion. However, in science, the opinion others hold of the researcher is irrelevant. A work stands or falls on its own merits and no other. You cannot dismiss the paper by the team of Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer (DCPS) simply because Douglass is “not important” or “well respected”. Would you similarly reject inoculation because Edward Jenner was just a country doctor? Wait, don’t answer that.

    Others have a different view than you. The Climategate e-mails released by Deep Cloud, the whistle blower, show that the IPCC team took the DCPS paper quite seriously.

    Rather than submitting a response on the DCPS paper which would have afforded the DCPS team an opportunity to reply the team of Ben Santer (Lawrence Livermore), Phil Jones (CRU), Tom Wigley (Bolder), Timothy Osborn (CRU), and Michael Mann (Penn State) chose to foreclose debate. In doing so the IPCC team took the following steps:

    *>* They retaliated against the International Journal of Climatology (IJC).

    *>* They colluded with Andrew Revkin, a reporter for the New York Times to obtain clandestine copies of the DCPS page proofs.

    The e-mails show the internal discussion was extensive. For example Phil Jones responds to Santer “I know editors have difficulty finding reviewers, but letting this one pass is awful”. From the context of the e-mail its clear it’s not the paper that’s awful, but rather the publication of competing research is awful.

    The next day Santer says, “Peter, I think you’ve done a nice job in capturing some of my concerns about the Douglass et al. paper… . I don’t think it’s a good strategy to submit a response to the Douglass et al. paper to the International Journal of Climatology (IJC). As Phil [Jones] pointed out, IJC has a large backlog, so it might take some time to get a response published. Furthermore, Douglass et al. probably would be given the final word.”

    So a plan was hatched by the IPCC team. They would not respond with a criticism of the DCPS paper because the peer-review process would allow the DCPS team an opportunity to respond. In furtherance of that goal the IPCC team took the following steps;

    *>* They conspired with an editor at IJC to delay publication of the DCPS paper.

    *>* Colluded with that same editor to fast track publish a critique masquerading as an original article.

    On 10 January 2008 “Osborn writing to Santer and Jones then discusses the “downside” of the normal comment-reply process in which DCPS would be given an “opportunity to have a response.” He explains that he has contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to “see what he can do.” According to Osborn, McGregor “promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick turn-around.”

    “He [McGregor] also intends to “correct the scientific record” and to identify in “advance reviewers who are both suitable and available”, perhaps including “someone on the email list you’ve been using.” Given the bias of Osborn and McGregor as expressed in the emails, one could wonder what it means to be a “suitable” reviewer of the Santer paper.”

    David the whole sordid mess is laid bare in those e-mails.

    Similar treatment was focused on Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas meta-analysis of dozens of “paleoclimate” studies that concluded that 20th-century temperatures could not confidently be considered to be warmer than those indicated at the beginning of the last millennium.

    In another incident Mann and Wigley also didn’t like a paper Patrick Michaels published in Climate Research which said human activity was warming surface temperatures. Mann called upon his colleagues to try and put Climate Research out of business.

    As a result of the Climategate keeping activities of the IPCC team many researchers have simply stopped trying to publish, tiring of summary rejections of good work by editors scared of the mob. Sallie Baliunas, for example, has disappeared from the scientific scene.

    “GRL is a very popular refereed journal. Mr. Wigley was concerned that one of the editors was “in the skeptics camp.” He emailed Michael Mann to say that “if we can find documentary evidence of this, [that the editor was skeptical] we could go through official . . . channels to get him ousted.””

    And the shame is that this problem is not limited to the field of climatology. I seem to recall a published paper propertied to be a student thesis. A paper at least partially ghost written by an Oregon School of Forestry Professor. The self same paper for which that Professor served to referee the paper to publication.

    A paper built upon purloined data from the research project and as yet incomplete findings of that Professors colleges. A paper which Brian Baird, who possesses some considerable scientific expertise, found to be deeply flawed if not an intentional misrepresentation.

    This isn’t just about the treatment of the Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer paper.

    Or Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas and others.

    Nor is it about the fraudulent activities of Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, Timothy Osborn, Michael Mann, and Glenn McGregor

    All that is bad enough. But there is something much worse, rotten and corrupt.

    Much more dangerous is when the “true believer” thinks his title as “scientist” affords him the authority to invoke political power to compel that believer he feels is warranted.

    Like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice the true believer soon finds his control of political power is illusory. Once unleashed the Politician soon bends the moment to his own ends.

    No better example can be found than the EPA.

    Some environmentalists sought to use the EPA as an end run around congressional legislative action. Others in the administration endeavored to use the EPA as a hammer to force congressional action. Both stood by as the EPA founded its endangerment finding on a flawed IPCC assessment report. None complained when in direct violation of US Supreme Court rulings the EPA suppressed its own internal findings questioning the IPCC assessment.

    Will those same groups feign surprise when a reluctant Democrat controlled congress steps to the side and allows the blame to fall on the bureaucrat? Such is the law of unconsidered consequences.

    • David Appell

      > You cannot dismiss the paper by the team of Douglass, Christy, Pearson
      > and Singer (DCPS) simply because Douglass is “not important” or “well respected”.

      A prior, I do not respect Douglass’s work because scientists who I know and trust have pointed out many flaws in his work. My own interactions with him via email on some of his work have been similar.

      “Science is not a democracy.” It is a meritocracy — the most brutal meritocracy in history.

    • David Appell

      > For example Phil Jones responds to Santer “I know editors have
      > difficulty finding reviewers, but letting this one pass is awful”. From the
      > context of the e-mail its clear it’s not the paper that’s awful, but rather the
      > publication of competing research is awful.

      Your conclusion is complete B.S. Jones is saying that the paper under discussion is wrong and that letting it enter the sphere of discussion without pointing out its flaws would be “awful.” That’s true of a lot of the inferior climate science that gets published.

    • David Appell

      > In another incident Mann and Wigley also didn’t like a paper Patrick Michaels
      > published in Climate Research which said human activity was warming surface
      > temperatures. Mann called upon his colleagues to try and put Climate Research
      > out of business.

      As well he should have — because Mann cares that quality science be published.

      Climate Research has published such inferior research in the past that a half-dozen editors resigned from its editorial board over the issue.

      Are you really not familiar with this sordid episode in skeptic history?

    • David Appell

      > Some environmentalists sought to use the EPA as an end run
      > around congressional legislative action.

      Again, pure fiction.

      It is the Supreme Court itself that, based on its judicial interpretation of legislation from the Congressional branch, determined that the Executive branch has the obligation to regulate CO2.

      And well it should — it’s a very dangerous gas that can seriously alter the direction of a planet’s atmosphere & oceans.

    • David Appell

      > Or Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas

      Have you read their work, John?

      Seriously, have you?

      In particular, have you read their most contentious paper, on the MWP, from 2003?

      Have you?

      Have you examined how they defined their terms?

      Have you?

      Do you see why scientists have a problem with those terms, how they define “wet” and “dry” periods?

      Have you?

      Can you tell us why scientists should not have objected to their definitions as overlapping, as essentially claiming that “1=2,” as one of their emails said?

      Come on — tell us.

  • Conscience of a Moonbat

    David Appell does not speak for all of us. Or any of us for that matter. He is trying to create a political career for himself by riding a high horse here and writing this drivel. Poor sap. Photo here:
    https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/12/12/1229093410321/david_appell_140x140.jpg

    • David Appell

      > He is trying to create a political career for himself by riding a high
      > horse here and writing this drivel.

      Sure. Please vote for me for governor, OK? Then, after I take over Oregon, vote for me for President, and then President of the UN. After that I will cage you all and strip you of all rights, and have complete and total power and enjoy all the wealth, women, and song of the world. Please don’t tell everyone else, OK — you’ll spoil my plans.

      I can’t imagine why you would think I speak for anybody but myself. I certainly don’t speak for “all of you” — nor would I want to.

      Speak for yourself.

  • Conscience of a Moonbat

    COMMENT_DELETED

    • Puzzled in Puddletown

      You should try thinking for yourself instead of latching onto someone else as a foil. Offer your own arguments, facts, observations. Or maybe you have tried that and are not any good at it?

      • Anonymous

        I believe everything David Appell writes. He is published. He is peer-reviewed. He is a dogged investigator. He is a scientist. Even his open-ended questions are correct. I accept that he thinks for me. You conservatards will regret dissing David Appell.

  • John in Oregon

    David Appell said > *I do not respect Douglass’s work because scientists who I know and trust have pointed out many flaws in his work. My own interactions with him via email on some of his work have been similar.*

    Lets see. The actual content of the paper is unimportant because you don’t respect one of the authors. In other words attack the messenger and not the message. Gotcha. Can you give me the current list of the work I should dismiss out of hand?

    I would assume that list would include Wolfgang Knorr, Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, and Alex Chepstow-Lusty.

    Since you tell us the MWP never happened in the southern hemisphere and never fueled the success of Machu Picchu we have to add paleo-biologists and archeologists to the list. So lets add Brian Bauer, Enrique Mayer, John Treacy and Ann Kendall to the list.

    Who else?

    > *Your conclusion is complete B.S. Jones is saying that the paper under discussion is wrong and that letting it enter the sphere of discussion without pointing out its flaws would be “awful.” That’s true of a lot of the inferior climate science that gets published.*

    Momentarily for the sake of discussion lets assume your statement is correct. If, as you argue, the DCPS work is of such laughably poor quality then a rebuttal would shoot it down easy. Like ducks in a barrel.

    But what were the actions of the pro IPCC team of Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, and Timothy Osborn? They hatched an elaborate conspiracy to muzzle any reply by Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer (DCPS). It seems the Santer, Jones, Wigley, and Osborn teams actions speak louder than your words.

    When I observed that Mann called upon his colleagues to try and put Climate Research out of business David said > *As well he should have — because Mann cares that quality science be published.*

    Really? Giggle. After the fraudulent hockey stick got shot down. Snicker. After the independent panel. After all that you still think “Mann cares that quality science”?

    Ha ha, ho ho, he he, they are coming to take David away to the funny farm where life is beautiful every day. (Napoleon V)

    I had commented about the environmentalists use of the EPA as an end run around congressional legislative action. David asserts > *Again, pure fiction… It is the Supreme Court itself that, based on its judicial interpretation of legislation from the Congressional branch, determined that the Executive branch has the obligation to regulate CO2.*

    Its interesting to read court decisions which side step the core question in favor of a peripheral issue which allows the court to push a hot potation off the plate. Such was the case here.

    The court pushed aside judicial interpretation of legislation choosing not to touch it with a 10 foot stick. The court sure as hell did not determine that the Executive branch has any obligation to regulate. Particularly when the court said the EPA must follow its own internal procedures.

    The court ruled that the EPA management did not have the authority to simply read the plain language of the Clean Air Act which lists those substances regulated and those not, CO2 being on the later list. The Court ruled that the EPA must use its established report and order process to make the decision. The assumption that the Court approved CO2 is not strictly true.

    However since we are discussing Court rulings would you comment on the SCOTUS ruling that the EPA must release ALL data in its possession for an endangerment process, including that questioning IPCC AGW. Data which was suppressed by the EPA management. That’s a violation.

    And even if one assumes such a wide ranging ruling by the SCOUTS, the lawsuit was still no less an end run around the legislative branch. There has been a lot of that going on lately.

    Then we come to this GEM. David asks > *Or Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas

    Have you read their work, John?

    Seriously, have you?

    Have you?*

    I have to ask. Why would I follow that distraction off into the weeds like wild hare? I won’t.,

    Sooo back to the real topic, ethical behavior. How do you justify the beheavior of Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, and Timothy Osborn and the rest of the IPCC core team?

    This has been going on for some time.

    “[T]he Second Assessment Report was hijacked by an AGW activist who re-wrote key conclusions and injected a level of alarmism that had not been present in the consensus document.

    ‘IPCC assessment reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policymakers (SPM), are noted for their selective use of information and their bias to support the political goal of control of fossil fuels in order to fight an alleged anthropogenic global warming (AGW)… Perhaps the most blatant example is IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR), completed in 1995 and published in 1996. Its SPM contains the memorable phrase *”the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”* This ambiguous phrase suggests a group of climate scientists, examining both human and natural influences on climate change, looking at published scientific research, and carefully weighing their decision. Nothing of the sort has ever happened.’

    ‘How then did the IPCC-SAR arrive at “balance of evidence”? It was the work of a then-relatively-junior scientist, Dr Benjamin D. Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), who has recently re-emerged as a major actor in ClimateGate. As a Convening Lead Author of a crucial IPCC chapter, Santer carefully removed any verbiage denying that human influences might be the major or almost exclusive cause of warming and substituted new language. There is no evidence that he ever consulted any of his fellow IPCC authors, nor do we know who instructed him to make these changes and later approved the text deletions and insertions that fundamentally transformed IPCC-SAR.’

    • Anonymous

      Who actually respects David Appell’s writing? He’s a typical ClimateGate denier. But over at amazon.com it seems that he’s been the editor of many G&L Hot Spot books — that’s another kind of man-made global warming — not that there’s anything wrong with that. No doubt he has a loyal following in that genre, but moonbat politics seems a little out of his field.

    • David Appell

      The “hockey stick” has not been repudiated. On the contrary: here is the essence of a National Academy of Sciences report on the topic:

      https://super-structure.newsvine.com/_news/2006/06/29/272830-academy-affirms-hockey-stick-graph

      “US National Academy of Science affirms hockey-stick graph but it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.”

      “We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North, the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global-warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a ‘little ice age’ around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.

      “The graph arose from the work of Michael Mann, a climatologist now at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, and two colleagues. In two papers published in 1998 and 1999, Mann’s team examined tree rings, ice cores and other ‘proxies’ of past climate, and used them to reconstruct the Northern Hemisphere’s temperature over the past millennium.

      “The academy essentially upholds Mann’s findings, although the panel concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed, he says, adding that he would not be embarrassed to have been involved in the work.”

  • John in Oregon

    > *The “hockey stick” has not been repudiated. On the contrary: here is the essence of a National Academy of Sciences report on the topic:*

    Yeah. Right.

    Feed in stock prices get a hockey stick

    Feed in random numbers get a hockey stick

    Feed in white noise get a hockey stick

    But lets look at what you, your self quoted. > *In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than _any other period in the past four centuries._ *

    Can we put that another way. Yes we can…., *In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period since the Little Ice Age.*

    Go David go

    Spin like a dradle

    • Conscience of a Moonbat

      Can’t sleep. These ClimateGate deniers and anti-conservative ‘bat crappers are Trojan Horse Trolls. Allowing David Appells and Redneck Jed Roadrunners to take conservatives off-topic is a waste of time. While we are arguing with idiots, they deflect attention from their H8ful collectivist-fascist agenda and the state grows bigger and stronger each day. That is what is happening

      This is why it is counterproductive to feed the trolls. Just keep pointing out the failures of the Left and their obvious H8tred for the American traditions we cherish. They must be punished repeatedly by fact, ridicule, and ballots.

    • David Appell

      John, I am not spinning — I am quoting a report written by scientists from the National Academy of Sciences.

      These people have far, far, far better credentials than either you or I. You clearly haven’t even tried to refute their reasoning — you have simply dismissed them outright. That’s the shallowest of intellectual arguments and, of course, completely unconvincing.

      And, quite cowardly as well. You are afraid to even try to approach the problem at their level.

  • I think it’s just difficult to believe that climate change could “end the world” as we know it (see https://tinyurl.com/3cxdouj & https://tinyurl.com/7yezx26 & https://tinyurl.com/82qjew7 ).  Reasonable estimates for temp. increase are about 3, maybe 4+ C, at the high end, by the end of this century, i.e., 90 years from now, which wouldn’t be good but it’s hardly the end of the world. Same with rising sea levels: reasonable predictions suggest a rise by the end of the century that will be more than manageable.
      
    More to the point, if you’re really worried about the end of the world, it can easily happen, and not in 90 years but in less than 90 minutes. In 30 minutes in fact.  

    20 years after the fall of the U.S.S.R. and the end of the cold war, 1000s of multi-megaton thermonuclear weapons remain on high alert. The chances of an accidental small or all out massive nuclear exchange are far from zero and we’ve had several very close calls w/in the last 50 years, the most serious in 1994 when Yeltsin actually had to open his nuclear football to enter launch release codes before they figured out that the missile their early warning radar was tracking was carrying a weather station into space. 

    Today, the U.S. & Russia have a combined strategic nuclear force of about 6000 multi-megaton thermonuclear weapons, 3000 on each side, not counting reserves after a first strike or retaliation. An attack with just two 1-megaton nuclear warheads would unleash explosive power equivalent to that caused by all the bombs used during World War II.  Today, each of these 6000 multi-megaton weapons on high alert are at least 1-2 megtons and hundreds are in the 5-10 megaton range  (designed to obliterate large cities, e.g., NYC, Chicago, etc., and kill 10 million people in quarter of a second).

    https://www.nucleardarkness.org works through the consequences of even a small exchange. Where as climate change predicts, at worst, a 2-3/4+ C rise in global temp. over the coming century, a small nuclear exchange would drop global temps of at least that w/in 24 hours. An out all exchange would drop temps by up to 10 C.  Basically, this will be a man made ice-age, and it would only take a few hours to create it, killing 100s of millions in the process and ending both civilization and history w/in the same time frame. Oh, and radioactive fallout would blanket much of the planet. 

    Steven Starr, senior scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, said research makes clear the environmental consequences of a U.S.-Russian nuclear war: “If these weapons are detonated in the large cities of either of their nations, they will cause such catastrophic damage to the global environment that the Earth will become virtually uninhabitable for most humans and many other complex forms of life.”  And it would only take 24 hours to create these conditions. 

    Climate change has nothing on accidental or deliberate nuclear war. 

    Why haven’t we had an accidental exchange? We’ve been lucky, many times, but if you keep doing something dangerous, sooner or later, your luck runs out.  We need to de-alert these massive weapon systems now. We need serious disarmament now.  For those of us old enough to remember the cold war days . . . climate change is a problem but hardly the end of the world . . . 

  • Πανδώρα Άγαδακις

    We have enough of an impact and we can do something about it. It won’t end the world, but food shortages/wars/population displacement could deal a very nasty blow to civilization. There is no data to support the random change model. https://www.mcgill.ca/channels/news/global-warming-just-giant-natural-fluctuation-235236
    And BTW, is Carlock dead yet??? I sooooooo want to dance on that man’s grave!

  • Pingback: cartier armband preis()

  • Pingback: des montres cartier pas cher()

  • Pingback: replica bangle cartier love()

  • Pingback: immagini gioielli tiffany()

  • Pingback: 【あす楽】フェンディ カメレオン バッグ()

  • Pingback: My Homepage()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)