TWO years after Climategate – the scandal caused by the leaking of over one thousand emails detailing correspondence between leading climate scientists exposing conspiracy and collusion including how to stack review committees, exaggerate warming trends, and avoid the disclosure of sensitive information – another batch of emails have been leaked, again from the University of East Anglia and again from the infamous Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Kevin Trenberth and the hapless Keith Briffa.
According to bloggers and columnists who’ve been up earlier than me and who have already start reading the file: what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism.
The new leaked file of emails, dubbed FOIA 2011, is apparently introduced with comment from the Whistleblower:
“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day. Every day nearly 16,000 children die from hunger and related causes. One dollar can save a life — the opposite must also be true. Poverty is a death sentence. Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels. Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.”
James Delingpole, breaking new for the UK Telegraph, concurs:
“If you’re going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you’re going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you’re going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
Download the emails here:
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Great post.
The disgusting aspect of this is that the AGW meme is destructive of rational thinking that many believers will continue to choose to cling to this tawdry faith.
Agree hunter.
It will be interesting to see if Luke will continue to support the whole AGW scam despite the unfolding reverlations. It seems to be his raison d etre on this blog.
He seems to have been quite of late since Debbie knocked the oomph out of his bumph.
Pikey.
Why aren’t the sanctimonious planet savers and river savers being hammered for their misguided misanthropy?
Even if the world were ending by AGW the last bunch you would want saving you would be these hypocrites.
But as Mick Mann says, it’s “the cause” that counts.
Yeah, right!
That 100 billion dollar cause that, when handed to climate scientists, makes them see things a little differently.
Not that they really had to change. It fitted their ideology perfectly
What an impressive bunch to have leading the charge into the world’s energy future.
So up-front, honest and FOIA abiding.
Tim Briffa to Phil Jones:
I assume that you didn’t
delete any emails that David Holland has requested (because that would be
illegal) but that instead his request merely prompted you to do a spring
clean of various other emails that hadn’t been requested, as part of your
regular routine of deleting old emails. If that is what you meant, then
it might be a good idea to clarify your previous email to Dave Palmer, to
avoid it being misunderstood.
The way things seem to be going, I think it best if we discuss all FOI,
EIR, Data Protection requests in person wherever possible, rather than via
email. It’s such a shame that the skeptics’ vexatious use of this
legislation may prevent us from using such an efficient modern technology
as email, but it seems that if we want to have confidential discussions
then we may need to avoid it.
I shall delete this email and those related to it as part of my regular
routine of deleting old emails!
Cheers
Tim
Sorry, that should be Tim Osbourne.
And our own wonderfully scientific CSIRO did not think that the hockey team were alarmist enough:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_2_the_csiro_link/
It all went horribly wrong when it became politicized and was more about winning votes.
Have these emails been authenticated yet? The timing of their release seems rather ‘politically motivated ‘ as well.
It seems we are dealing with a politically based idealogy.
It’s a shame that it seems they have to twist the truth to protect the political agenda and the ‘consensus’ (so called).
That is not what good science and good research is about.
They are clinging to the theory even in the face of overwhelming evidence in the emerging real data.
They’re also running out of excuses to cling to those failing theories….bloody global climate is just flatly refusing to co operate with their modelling!
How many times can we have noises and wiggles and wobbles and bumps and weather events (as opposed to climate :-)….) before we have to accept that the science IS NOT SETTLED???
AGW is a failing theory…..time for a reality check…..if reality does not match the theory….THEN THE THEORY IS WRONG…..not the real time data.
That also implies the political agenda is probably ill advised and doomed to waste money and resources for no result….unless the goal is to have more taxes and more layers of bureaucracy? That’s the only result that I can see.
Political consensus does not foster good science or good research. It can’t. The goals are diametrically opposed.
and we continue to employ 900 personnel in the Department Of Climate Change, many on salaries higher than the PM.
Time to wrap it all up and spend the money on the real global problems as outlined by the person who released these emails.
“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”
“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”
“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.
“Poverty is a death sentence.”
“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.
FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you’re going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you’re going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you’re going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has cost the continent’s consumers $287 billion for “almost zero impact” on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU’s carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year. ”
In case you havent seen this story yet…it adds more fuel to the fire. The science is irrelevant, the politics is the problem……
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/europes-287bn-carbon-waste-ubs-report/story-fn59niix-1226203068972
You guys can’t wait; can you?
Let’s see exactly who has an axe to grind.
“Yet another Climategate? – November 22, 2011”
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/11/yet_another_climategate.html
gav,
If you promoters of “the cause” had done your housework after the first Climategate this wouldn’t be a problem.
Gavin,
From your link:
The title of the uploaded file — FOIA.zip – suggests that the emails released today have been taken from CRU servers by the same person, or group of persons, who were responsible for the 2009 leak.
As then, the release comes just weeks before a United Nations climate summit. The two-week meeting in Durban, South Africa, starts on 28 November.
The university said in a statement that it had no evidence of a recent breach of its systems. The statement continues: “If genuine, (the sheer volume of material makes it impossible to confirm at present that they are all genuine) these emails have the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks.”
It all sounds political and very far removed from science to me.
Everyone is worried about the effect of these leaked emails on the international climate talks, rather than any defense of the actual science.
It appears to me that the ‘consensus science’ is rapidly becoming indefensible.
As I said before:
Political consensus does not foster good science or good research. It can’t. The goals are diametrically opposed.
I would prefer to see good research and good science over ‘political consensus’ any day.
gav,
Read it and weep:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/al-gores-global-warming-claims-on-kilimanjaro-glacier-finally-dead-and-buried-in-the-climategate-2-0-emails-even-phil-jones-and-lonnie-thompson-dont-believe-it/
one of the emails references Judith Curry who wasn’t around in the climate society back in 2009. So some of these must be new.
Well that pretty well sinks the credibilty of climate scicence everywhere, and Luke Dukey and his hukster mates no longer have any feathers to fly with.
Shonkademia has a few questions to answer to the Auditer General and ANO…and the funding of sciecne in this country might get the urgent review that every one has been calling for.
Perhaps also the highly suss Peer Review process might get a shake up.
Since it’s not featured on msm, I say you have a yarn after class about as valid as a teenage chat on facebook or worse, there is a snoop who enjoys stairing up by public elevators.
You only notice what you want to see when not on the ride. SL is sloping upwards. glaciers are in retreat etc. All too easy
Tim Osborn to Phil Jones…
I shall delete this email and those related to it as part of my regular
routine of deleting old emails!
Cheers
Tim
‘Since it’s not featured on msm…’
Just been around the usual traps and the sceptics think the msm will ignore the story. They may be right, the intrenchment of this unholy alliance of politics and science cannot be cracked if the Third Estate refuses to bat.
How boring. What do you learn – these guys hate sceptics guts. This is new?
Another remark reads: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably.”
As it turns out, comrade Luke, its just a fluctuation.
Luke,
We learned that they lie:
They know they have crap science, but it is more important to them to keep gullible fools like you on board than to tell the truth.
They conspired to drop papers from the IPCC that were good, in favor of publishing bullshit they knew was bad.
They admit that their critics have valid points- amongst themselves- and then slander and defame those critics in public.
You know, the standard sort of tactic your gang engages in daily whilst you all suck up all the tax payer funds available.
gavin,
How pitiful that that the best you can come up with is that the MSM is ignoring climategate, therefor it is nothing to worry about.
You sound like a Bishop with a pedophile priest problem, grateful that his coverup is still holding together.
Hunter; I meet on a regular basis just a handful of back-woodsy folk who must feed on selected anti AGW rhetoric in a cluster so I could easily be part of their cult because I listen. However I know lots of other people who are quite busy in the process of extending our knowledge via data systems etc in a practical way.
But I hold firm after years of experience trouble shooting measurement and communication systems on my own. SL is up, ocean acidification is up, weather system energy is up and so on. I read between the lines out of habit!
Try this- http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/ then find this expression “the modern decline of coral reef ecosystems” written quite recently.
Or any one of these articles including “business as usual”
http://www.accuweather.com/global-warming.asp
From today’s Oz behind a paywall.
‘BRITISH and Australian scientists in 2003 discussed making the Great Barrier Reef a “global icon” for public concern over climate change — in part to help the employment prospects of one British researcher.’
Gavin, unless you think sceptics are fraudulently creating these emails, it is surely irrelevant if they hit the MSM or not? The facts speak for themselves.
If you can see that i suspect a blind dog couldnt help you either.
Have you learnt nothing from this blog in the many years you have visited?
Sorry should of course read “If you cant see that i suspect a blind dog couldnt help you either.
What rubbish hunter – your 11:33 a big pussy rant from some anonymous goober who will have 0.0 influence on anything – all you have is a disconnected OLD set of email fragments. And you learn that scientists are human, have concerns, maybe express disssent, think colleagues may have it wrong.
GEE THAT NEVER HAPPENS ! WORLD FIRST….
Puillease – do yourself a favour and instead of slumming it in the usual dens of ill repute try some perspective http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/stolen_cru_emails_the_rejects.php
Good morning. I can take some solace in the realisation that the extreme, generalised, unconsidered views often expressed here relating to a single event in isolation are, comparably, in the extreme minority. No sense getting upset then.
‘The timing suggests that the people behind the theft and release have a financial interest in preventing mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. It is most unlikely that there is anything incriminating in these emails — if there was, it would have been released two years ago.’ quote from your site Luke……
the only people making money of this crap are those on the AGW gravy train. no subsidies or cudos to those “heretics” that point out the fraud lies and deceit so clearly attached to CAGW and teh IPCC and their evidence.
Yes i am biased, but come deltoid from that opening paragraph hasnt even read any and yet he knows!
we know the hockey stick was fraud
we know they openly comment on the doubt associated with their “theory”, but then they attack those peopl ethat point out these weakneses.
I am dumbstruck that anybody could have much faith in this clearly politically and financially driven agenda.
Further Luke you write “And you learn that scientists are human, have concerns, maybe express disssent, think colleagues may have it wrong.”
then why do they state the science is settled?
Why is the time for debate over?
Why do they attack those who query the theory as heretics or deniers?
Why do we get told 99% of scientists believe the science is settled?
because they make money out of it and know that there future relies on it and as a result their bullshit meters are turned off and their own bias gets in the way of reality.
AGW is a government funded subsidy that lowers living standards and causes far more harm than it does good. 287 BILLION DOLLARS thrown down the drain in Europe for no real reduction in co2. The whole thing is a scam based on the original likely truth that co2 is a greenhouse gas that will cause around 1c increase in temp for a doubling of emissions. The rest is clearly shonky/ undecided and highly unethical and immoral and far from socially responsible.
gav,
Read it and weep some more:
Nineteenth and twentieth century sea-level changes in Tasmania and New Zealand
W. Roland Gehrelsa, , , S. Louise Callardb, Patrick T. Mossc, William A. Marshalla, Maarten Blaauwd, John Huntere, J. Andrew Miltonf, Mark H. Garnettg
Abstract
Positive deviations from linear sea-level trends represent important climate signals if they are persistent and geographically widespread. This paper documents rapid sea-level rise reconstructed from sedimentary records obtained from salt marshes in the Southwest Pacific region (Tasmania and New Zealand). A new late Holocene relative sea-level record from eastern Tasmania was dated by AMS14C (conventional, high precision and bomb-spike), 137Cs, 210Pb, stable Pb isotopic ratios, trace metals, pollen and charcoal analyses. Palaeosea-level positions were determined by foraminiferal analyses. Relative sea level in Tasmania was within half a metre of present sea level for much of the last 6000 yr. Between 1900 and 1950 relative sea level rose at an average rate of 4.2 ± 0.1 mm/yr. During the latter half of the 20th century the reconstructed rate of relative sea-level rise was 0.7 ± 0.6 mm/yr. Our study is consistent with a similar pattern of relative sea-level change recently reconstructed for southern New Zealand. The change in the rate of sea-level rise in the SW Pacific during the early 20th century was larger than in the North Atlantic and could suggest that northern hemisphere land-based ice was the most significant melt source for global sea-level rise.
Over at Bishop Hill blog, Summertown, posting after reading extensively in the climategate 2.0 files, observes:
“I had always thought that dodgy science would be the undoing of the global warming frenzy, but now I wonder whether it will be ridicule which kills it”
These guys are not only bad scientists: They are clownish and foolish.
Think of Luke even drunker than when he usually posts.
That is the default mode for Jones, Mann, Briffa, etc.
The team has had a great run- at massive expensive and distraction- but now it is coming to an end.
The climatocrat emperors have no clothes.
gavin,
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are making false claims.
Are you lying? Only if you are deliberately passing on crap.
The fact is slr is not doing anything it has not been doing since before CO2.
OA is not happening.
And worldwide Accumulated Cyclone Energy is down and staying down.
Additionally, storm and extreme weather damage adjusted for incresed values of vulnerable property is not changing.
The only question left is why are you passing on incorrect and misleading info? Ignorance or deception?
Your actions suggest an answer, but perhaps you would like to tell us.
I note that Marc is also talking in terms of his perceptions of minority/majority and nothing whatsoever about the obvious pitfalls and cracks that are appearing in this ‘consensus science’.
That’s political Marc….and nothing but political…..no one seems to be inetersted in defending the Science…why is that do you think?
Same goes for you Gavin and your msm comments.
At least Luke has the sense to acknowledge that people make mistakes.
The sad part is we have a political agenda that insists on covering up the mistakes.
Good science and good research has gone completely missing.
That’s a real shame because we need the good science and the good research, else we will learn nothing new at all.
While it is being driven by politics instead of a real committment to understand climate and weather, expect to see more of this mindless ‘consensus science’ crap.
These idiots would prefer to spend $Millions covering their backsides and their political position rather than a few $thousand recognising the errors and working on updating and correcting them.
Luke put up a Deltoid link and looking through the comments I noticed Berbalang.
‘What exactly, in your expert opinions, is “the cause”?
‘I bring it up because it is obviously of some importance to Mr. Mann who used the expression on three different occasions. So what is it? What is its aim or aims? It can’t be scientific because science doesn’t have ‘aims’. What are its tenets?
‘If, as the expression implies, it is a sort of political/social/religious movement, what does one have to do to join?’
SD; that article you seized from Bolt is nothing new –
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFM.C23B0615G
Hunter; your last comment shows nothing going down
Toby; my grand kids reckon I can fix anything and thats why I’m here with you today
gavin,
Yes, happily, nothing is going down: The world is not ending in climate crisis, and faux intellectuals are still gullible for the latest apocalyptic crap.
Greenland was warmer in the past:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
Greenland has not warmed in 90 years:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/greenland-hype-meltdown/#more-21825
The Greenland ice-sheet is not collapsing:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OllierPaine-NoIceSheetCollapse-AIGNewsAug.2009.pdf
Delingpole has noticed how stirred up his trolls are. Same here!
Please settle down, history has shown the Puritans happily moved on, less a few charismatic leaders. Might I suggest animal cruelty, a cosey group of rent-seekers have prepared the grounds there. Greens happily morph to angry housebound pussy strokers and will happily demand tax-payer funding and get angry about an old bloke with an alcohol problem and a few too many dogs.
Avoid the paedophile thing as the funds here are being spread a little thin.
The aboriginal guilt industry? Nuh too remote and could get a punch in the nose from an angry “Auntie” who knows sanctimonious do-gooders bring nothing but grief to their community.
Frackking is good!, but you will be competing with fellow clergy and you know how they hate fellow comrades, remember Trotsky.
Yeh stick with animal thing, they actually have a chief scientist now, so hey ho off you go again!
“Yeh stick with animal thing, they actually have a chief scientist now, so hey ho off you go again!”
I’ll have some of what you’re having Jon.
Gav..pretty clever blind dog you have then!
cohenite; say what you like but the retreating ice is subject to much study now.
There are plenty of recent references to Greenland’s ice sheet going backwards including this one and one or two saying there is only limited history beyond a few decades.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/11/18/swansea-university-researchers-look-at-greenland-s-disappearing-ice-sheet-91466-29796327/
Well waddya know gav, more model predictions and foolish assumptions based on doom science.
But based on actual measurement it’s suddenly getting decidedly chilly up Greenland way:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
And btw, that link on SLR shows how SLR has reduced in recent decades.
And at my old place it has been falling for the last 48 years.
SD; can I suggest you hav’nt had a good look around SL/ice science yet?
Try this site
http://ess.uci.edu/news/rignot20110818
Gee gav, more known unknowns. Who’d a thought? Quelle science!
It’s called the uncertainty monster. Ya know, like Hydra.
You cut a head off and 2 more take its place.
That’s climate science. Read the Climategate 2.0 emails. Even the “hockey team” understand that bit though they’ll never say so in public for ideological [and financial] reasons.
But what’s really happening with SLR?
It’s decelerating.
Try looking out the window!
Some more reading around Climategate 2 –
”
Mime data
Posted by Jeff Id on November 24, 2011
Reader Buffy Minton has done some cool work to extract file attachments with the emails. This was never done for the original climategate files to my knowledge.”
More and site at http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/mime-data/
and an interesting read at
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/some-thoughts-and-some-questions-about-the-climategate-2-0-release/
The entire CAGW fraud is falling around Luke and Gavs ears but they still keep up their delusional wanderings.
Coher’s info on Greenland above is accurate and by now well accepted, SL is decelerating, OHC is zilch, SST no problems, extreme weather events not accelerating, even the private emails of the alarmist scientists prove they know it’s BS, like the problem with clouds and the sun etc.
Kilamanjaro BS by Gore is even shown to be wrong by these same scientists and they are running a mile from Mann’s hockey stick.
BTW Bolt will interview one of my heros Steve McIntyre on his TV show on Sunday to talk about the climategate 2 emails.
Good column by Lawrence Solomon ( as usual) on the green insurance fraud, just more cost on all of our premiums, what a disgrace.
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/4372-lawrence-solomon-green-insurance-fraud.html
Neville,
There should be a 2 tier system.
Luke and all the haemorrhaging CAGWers should pay a premium premium.
Cohenite
“I’ll have some of what you’re having Jon.”
Mate I don’t need anything. I have come through the pain of having to fill out Environmental Impact Statements for idiots who didn’t have the decency to turn up with calibrated measuring instruments, I had enjoyed John Daly’s prose (it is a magical world out there, too bad our children will miss this from our education / indoctrination system) and then sat back to watch the fun when Steve McIntyre asked for data. It has been funnier than I thought, imagine if he had asked for Prof Phil Jone’s, Mann’s or Pauchari’s expense dockets.
Watching Jen’s trolls here is like watching a bee swarm into a steiner school!
gav,
Here’s a bit of ice science for you.
Wadda ya reckon caused this serious bit of warming?
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=Dove%20Lake%2C%20TAS&q=Dove%20Lake&form=hphot1&mkt=en-au&cp=-41.66041439693953~145.961051940918&lvl=12&sty=b&encType=1
SD; after sliding over various images from your link and enjoying the the snow free ride I offer this expert view from an old acquaintance with some delight.
http://eprints.utas.edu.au/11400/
For a simple short history-“Australia: The Land Where Time Began”
http://austhrutime.com/pleistocene_ice_age.htm
or http://www.vnc.qld.edu.au/enviro/flinders/f-p-tmf.htm
more on the rocks,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Tasmania
“SD; after sliding over various images from your link and enjoying the the snow free ride I offer this expert view from an old acquaintance with some delight.”
gav, enough of the palaver already, what caused that serious warming?
Not to mention the 120m SLR.
C’mon boy, you can do it. Can I give you a hint?
It starts with “natural……………..”
Geezzz Spangled you’re too hard on Gav. You must know that CC only started after Gore and Hansen etc said it started and has definitely only been anthropogenic.
Natural CC is not something Luke or Gav want to know about because it doesn’t fit the narritive.
Neville,
Yep! The penny hasn’t got far to fall but it just won’t drop.
Guys; we are far from being defeated on AGW with your latest links or arguments. In fact SD has raised the issue of climate sensitivity again with that snow free landscape around Cradle Mountain.
What exactly was the temp at the height of our last age? Kiernan & Co have established human habitation just south of the Tasmanian Central Highlands goes back thousands of years and at say 30,000 BP that group lived similarly to those in Spain about the same time. Without coal or oil at their fingertips they must have survived with a bit of wood and a campfire overnight every night.
Vegetation changes follow climate changes; yes? I say sea levels fluctuate wildly with minor temperature variation based on Bass Strait observations and vegetation is a likely clue to temperature outside the cave.
All exist in a fragile relationship with our atmosphere over time and that’s the variable you are not dealing with any time.
Now get stuck into this and associated references before quoting “nature” again
http://www.forestrytas.com.au/assets/0000/0410/tf_2_issue_2_article_2.pdf
I should add, work by John Church and others associated with UT is part of what goes at the IPCC as evidence of CC and so is not likely to be ignored after your CGate 2.
SD; the whole thing comes back to measured rates of change now v perceived change of old, natural or not.
gav, you incredibly foolish boy!
So your answer to the uncertainty monster of recent climate and paleoclomate change is to go back beyond the PETM to gondwanaland when all the continents and oceans were in a different place???
When Hydra had a million heads instead of 20?
You’re reducing sensible discussion to waffle.
Why can’t you answer the simple question why, since the last ice age, the world warmed, the ice melted and the sea levels rose?
“SD; the whole thing comes back to measured rates of change now v perceived change of old, natural or not.”
gav, and how about those rates of change:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
BTW, today is king tide day, the highest tide of the year in SEQ.
Gold Coast Seaway 8.48 am 1.79m
And guess what?
It is around 150mm LOWER than it was about half a century ago!
That’s CAGW for you. It pays to look out the window.
Interesting that natural climate change proved sceptics were correct and Jones of the BOM was wrong. Also Will Steffen admitted the error as well. Three cheers for natural CC and the truth.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_2_how_the_bureaus_david_jones_showed_sceptics/
txt 0601
0diggsdigg
Share
cc: “Shoni Dawkins”
date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:03 +100 ???
from: “David Jones”
subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
to: “Phil Jones”
Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week.
Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also
easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single
station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the
Australian data is in pretty good order anyway.
Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need
meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out
of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of
collapse – across NSW farmer have received a 0% allocation of water for the coming summer
and in Victoria they currently have 5% allocations – numbers that will just about see the
death of our fruit, citrus, vine and dairy industries if we don’t get good spring rain).
The odd things is that even when we see average rainfall our runoffs are far below average,
which seems to be a direct result of warmer temperatures. Recent polls show that
Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism.
Regards,
David
???@bom.gov.au
Another “trick”
txt 4387
date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:58:49 +10 ???
from: ???@gwdg.de
subject: Kelly-paper
to: Keith Briffa
Keith, I now found the time to read the paper more carefully,
together with the figures. I think except of my basic critics (no
regard of replication) the results are astonishing good. The trick to
substract pdsi-values and to calculate significance in comparison to
the previous year does pretty nice hide the information how many of
the negative signature years in the 20th century had really been dry
years – at least in 1956 the opposite is true. However astonishing
interesting results, especially for me the 3-4 years ring widt
suppressions following cold winters which you explain by climatic
reasons and which I see as medium term reaction on damage in cold
winters. So – from my side no hints for changes in the hurry (this
week I am overbusy with an everyday course in Dendrochronology for
students) but the hope that we will one day find the time to repeat
the study a bit more carefully. Cheers Hubert
Dr. Hanns Hubert Leuschner
Univ. Goettingen
-Labor f. Dendrochronologie u. Dendroklimatologie-
Von-Siebold-Str. 3a
D-37075 Goettingen
Phone: +4 ???-551-3912153
Gav, you might have some competition here (read the CV)
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
November 26, 2011 at 7:28 pm
I swear by Gropthar’s Hammer that I got this email from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) after this thread started.
Colleagues,
The next Enterprise Chapter meeting is the last week of November and features a “hard core” scientist presenting his original analyses and findings concerning global warming. He has just published a book on these issues, now available through Amazon.
Note the meeting location is at Microcosm, Inc., in Hawthorne — see below left for location link.
If you wish to attend, please click on LINK Interested in Meeting below left and send e-mail with your name.
NEXT PRESENTATION
No CO2 Required
Sun, Wind and Water Need No Help from CO2 to Set the Earth’s Climate
The global warming ‘debate’ has become detached from its foundations in physical science and degenerated into an argument over belief in empirical pseudoscience. The observed increase of 100 parts per million in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration since the start of the industrial revolution has had no effect on the Earth’s climate. This follows from an analysis of the time dependence of the climate energy transfer. The local surface temperature is always changing on both a daily and a seasonal time frame in response to changes in the total surface energy flux balance and local weather patterns.
The Earth has been warming gradually since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 18th century. There has been no increase in ‘extreme’ climate events. Sea level and polar ice extent are behaving normally. Hurricanes are near an all time low. The dynamic nature of the greenhouse effect has been conveniently ignored by many climate ‘scientists’. Their models assume a fictional average climate equilibrium state that can be perturbed using a technique known as radiative forcing. The result has been scientific fraud on an unprecedented scale.
Over a trillion dollars has been wasted on research to save the planet from a non-existent problem. The peer review process in climate science has collapsed and been replaced by flagrant cronyism. The large scale climate models have been fraudulently ‘hard wired’ to create global warming. Once this is understood, then the whole pseudoscientific façade of forcings and feedbacks and climate sensitivity factors collapses. A doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration can have no effect on climate. Sun, wind and water need no help from CO2 to set the Earth’s climate.
Speaker Bio
Dr. Roy Clark is President and Founder of Ventura Photonics. His over 30 years experience includes optical and spectroscopic sensors, combustion and laser diagnostics, and non imaging optics for illumination and solar concentrators, emphasizing product and process development for adverse environments. He holds 8 US patents. Past positions were with various aerospace and technology companies in S. California.
With publication of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Roy began to study climate change. He could not find a quantitative explanation of carbon dioxide induced global warming. Through original analysis, he discovered that it is impossible for the resulting 1.7 W.m-2 increase in the downward infra red flux from a 100 ppm increase in carbon dioxide concentration to cause any climate change. He has now published a new book that summarizes this research: The Dynamic Greenhouse Effect and the Climate Averaging Paradox.”
From comments at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/26/pheesiks-we-dont-need-no-steekin-pheesiks/#more-52001
By contrast, R B Alley
SD. Ian;When I do get round to following your links it seems they all have a common source in a tiny circle of non reviewed blog commentators. I’m sticking to my view you can’t find causes for climate change via one or other paleo theme.
By contrast, R B Alley on “abrupt” climate change provides one of the best outlines re the complexity of the science. Recall too; I say the “instrument” record is only about half a century long.
BTW SD’s high water mark is likewise outside ms because it and all SD’s sightings then and now remain unqualified. Frequency please!
“BTW SD’s high water mark is likewise outside ms because it and all SD’s sightings then and now remain unqualified. Frequency please!”
gavin,
I don’t know if you either don’t pay attention, dont understand or both.
I give you this info every summer king tide [once a year] and it is based on my obs over roughly the last half century and I invite you to make similar obs which are quite possible if you are interested. It does not have the accuracy of a state-of-the-art tide gauge but if you do this for a long enough time and you live by the sea you can use your sea wall, the front steps or the floor of the house for your gauge and your data will be most informative.
You will find that by working things out this way you actually get to indulge in true science whereas parroting some crap fed to you by a govt dept extracted from a dodgy satellite system can be giving you the complete reverse of what is really happening.
Y’know? Like the difference between reality and virtual reality?
“I’m sticking to my view you can’t find causes for climate change via one or other paleo theme.”
And I always thought that you were an avid fan of the hockey stick.
SD; your fifty data points in fifty years is hardly a case for SL fall. In fact it’s hardly a rebuff for my beach-less coastlines as seen from the air any where anytime around high tide. But we can both get back to real climate science today via our ABC and the latest on our Great Southern Ocean.
You may wish to follow Steve Rintoul’s address today at the Adelaide “Sprigg Lectures” and so contrast the old with the new –
http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/whatson/events/sprigg
For those who think the argument is 50/50; see this-
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/04/06/the-7pm-project-and-a-dose-of-climate-misinfotainment/
Still don’t get it eh, gav? I showed you a photo of a king tide peak being 30cms lower than it was 48 years ago but naturally you have to accept my word what the level was 48 y/ago.
I’m simply telling you what I am seeing and what I continue to see year after year as compared to what I am being told.
That same evidence that John Daly and Morner saw.
That slight difference between reality and virtual reality.
gav, you’re a joke; linking to crikey and stupid graham readfern.
SD; if I can accept your handfull of sightings convinced you SL has fallen over 50 years then you must accept that my high tide marks on dunes etc show otherwise. That leaves us only with the question of each others science.
Now consider this. We met a guy several weeks back who has lived on the edge all his life who said the sea has not changed in 60 years that he can recall. This spot on the South Coast is just inside the bar and I reckon the water at high tide laps the top of his boat house slab on a bad day. BTW this estuary beach and boat house features in my recolections too.
Back to science-“New research shows the Southern Ocean is storing more heat than any other ocean in the world”
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/11/29/3379289.htm
Off topic but a long time interest as a dificult area for quick science-
A seminar at UQ today”The range of chemicals our children are currently being exposed to is unprecedented in human history. Many of these chemicals are neurotoxicants and/or have endocrine-disrupting properties”
http://www.uq.edu.au/events/event_view.php?event_id=7842
ABC link to Dr David Carpenter
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/environmental-chemicals-and-health/3702424
“SD; if I can accept your handfull of sightings convinced you SL has fallen over 50 years then you must accept that my high tide marks on dunes etc show otherwise.”
gav, if I thought dunes remained stable for any length of time, maybe.
But fair crack of the whip!
RU serious?
And those bisaed ABC links? If they ever acknowledged the other side of the argument I might consider them. How have satellites been telling us the SO is warming?
I wonder how Rintoul equates those assumptions of that Antarctica ice melting and ocean warming with these actual measurements:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
The ABC is pushing flannery’s latest report saying there will be more disease and death caused by climate change with greater weather extremes etc. No mention of the IPCC latest report suggesting much more caution in trying to link humans and warming together and there being no evidence to suggest there has ben an increase in extreme weather events.
The Age as a privately funded organisation has the right to push just one side of the argument. The ABC does not because it is using my/ our money so it must be balanced.