SHARE
TWEET

Kingsley

a guest Nov 22nd, 2009 384 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. Here is a report I've conducted on several of the main denialist quotes.
  2. Final Conclusions:
  3. Very few, if any, of the quotes I've analyzed have any kind of meaning at all, and are simply taken
  4. completely out of context by the denialists. However, the main thing Hockey Team themselves have to
  5. address as the FOIA issues brought up.
  6. Denialists make the same 3 basic mistakes over and over:
  7. A. They do not understand that the presentation and interpretations of scientific data are subjective; there
  8. is nothing wrong with changing an interpretation of the data, as long as it is still accurate.
  9. B. They have no sense of humor.
  10. C. They use quote mines sometimes so blatant that they must realize they are being purposefully misleading.
  11.  
  12. So, let's start.
  13. *Also, I better get a thank you for this*
  14.  
  15. 1. On "John Daly dead"
  16.  
  17. Mike,
  18. In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper just found
  19. another email is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
  20. to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
  21.  
  22. Cheers
  23. Phil
  24.  
  25.  Report:
  26. Phil was clearly joking. Even if he was partially serious, what does this have to do with the integrity of his research? What a pathetic attack.
  27.  
  28.  
  29. *********************************************
  30. 2. On "Diagram for WMO Statement", or "Mike's Nature trick".
  31. From: Phil Jones
  32. To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
  33. Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
  34. Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
  35. Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
  36.  
  37.  
  38.  
  39. Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
  40. Once Tims got a diagram here well send that either later today or
  41. first thing tomorrow.
  42. Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps
  43. to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
  44. 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline. Mikes series got the annual
  45. land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
  46. N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
  47. for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
  48. data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
  49. Thanks for the comments, Ray.
  50.  
  51. Cheers
  52. Phil
  53.  
  54. Report:
  55.  This is completely and totally explanable; the quote is taken completely out of context by the denialists. As explained by climateprogress:
  56. No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded gotcha phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline. The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the trick is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term trick to refer to a a good way to deal with a problem, rather than something that is secret, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the decline, it is well known that Keith Briffas maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the divergence problemsee e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while hiding is probably a poor choice of words (since it is hidden in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
  57.  
  58.  
  59. *********************************************
  60. 3. On "letter to the Senate", or "Private doubts about Climate Change
  61.  
  62. Hi all Im not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign at least not
  63. without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and
  64. political, and that worries me.
  65.  
  66. My vote would be that we dont do this without a careful discussion first.
  67.  
  68. I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this -
  69. e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever its called) on global climate
  70. change.
  71.  
  72. Think about the next step someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,
  73. then
  74.  
  75. Im not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do
  76. it.
  77.  
  78. What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest
  79. org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
  80. scientists to do as individuals?
  81.  
  82. Just seems strange, and for that reason Id advise against doing anything with out real
  83. thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.
  84.  
  85. Cheers, Peck
  86.  
  87. Report:
  88.  This is simply a scientist speaking his opinion about a political petition; he simply doesn't want to sign it because it is too political, and it may require a more indepth discussion. That is all. It is absolutely bizarre that the denialists are citing this quote as if it is relevant to their claims.
  89.  
  90.  
  91. *********************************************
  92. 4.On "The Rules of the Game"
  93.  
  94.      Despite being called "Propaganda" and other such names by denialists, this is simply a pamphlet retrieved from the servers that gives scientists some tips on how to talk to the public about climate change. The pamphlet is on communication, something that traditionally, at least, scientists have been notoriously poor at. The fact that denialists have spoken out against this is obviously explained: They do not want the scientists communicating to the public; they'd rather have a monopoly on the media sources that the public listens to.(While, of course, the scientists have a monopoly on the only sources which matter: Scientific journals.)
  95.  
  96.  
  97. *********************************************
  98. 5. On "Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up"
  99. The idiot at the tabloid The Telegraph, James Delingpole, took the following quote completely out of context:
  100.    The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
  101.    travesty that we can't.  The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
  102.    shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.  Our observing
  103.    system is inadequate.
  104.  
  105. Report:
  106. The entire quote from Kevin shows just how out-of-context Delingpole's example was:
  107.  The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
  108.    travesty that we can't.  The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
  109.    shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.  Our observing
  110.    system is inadequate.
  111.    That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO.  People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
  112.    monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO.  Most of what they are seeing is the
  113.    change in ENSO not real PDO.  It surely isn't decadal.  The PDO is already reversing with
  114.    the switch to El Nino.  The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
  115.    Sept 2007.   see
  116.    [2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
  117.    urrent.ppt
  118.  
  119. In other words, Kevin explains himself fairly well.
  120. Even more damning is the fact that Kevin cites an article by himself a few lines beforehand. From that article:
  121. While a long-term trend is for global warming, short-term periods of cooling can occur and have physical causes associated with natural variability.
  122. The article by Kevin was written to, in fact, explain what he posts above.
  123. (this can be found here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf)
  124. Thus, Kevin is completely and totally secure in his acceptance of global warming; he is making a note about the recent, short term, effectively irrelevant decrease in temperature according to some data sources.
  125. Two notes:
  126. A. The evidence indicates beyond any doubt that the world has, in fact, warmed since 1998.
  127. B. Kevin is entitled to his opinion. It is absolutely bizarre that denialists are criticizing scientists to being open to the evidence at hand, and it says a lot about the pathetic, radical psyche of the denialist.
  128.  
  129.  
  130. ***********************************************
  131. 6. On "Violence and Pat Michaels"
  132. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, Ill be tempted to beat
  133. the crap out of him. Very tempted.
  134.  
  135. Report:
  136.      It is blatantly clear that Ben is not being serious. He is sending a personal email to a personal friend, and has every right to keep a light tone of humor in anger. It is obvious that legitimate anger is being expressed, but perfectly clear it is done so in a humorous way. Anyone interpreting this differently is making a blatant fool of themself.
  137.  
  138.  
  139. *************************************************
  140. 7. On "Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)"
  141.  
  142.     Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K backI 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 dont yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.
  143.  
  144. Report:
  145.      This is, of course, absolutely bizarre. The "MWP" is not an "inconvenient truth", and has very little to do with the scientific theory behind global warming. Additionally, of course, the denialist claim is a complete lie: The 2k timeline WILL contain the MWP in broad daylight! It will show ALL of the data for the past 2,000 years, which would include the MWP, but also properly show its irrelevance to the recent modern warming.
  146.     It takes someone as insane as the denialist Delingpole, from whom this absurd idea steams, to somehow twist this to suggest that data is being concealed or withheld.
  147.  
  148.  
  149. ***************************************************
  150. 8. On "Squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process"
  151.     This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to thattake over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial boardWhat do others think?I will be emailing the journal to tell them Im having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. Ive had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !
  152.  
  153. Report:
  154.      This is completely bizarre. Phil is simply suggesting that the group boycott/protest Climate Research due to the poor quality of the paper being discussed which was published within the journal. It is completely within his legitimate right to do so.
  155.  
  156. ****************************************************************
  157. 9. On "Withholding information", or "The Matlab Code"
  158.     Dear Phil and Gabi,
  159. Ive attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but dont pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
  160.  
  161. Report:
  162.     The code was used by Mann in a freely available peer review research paper, and the supplemental data was also supplied. Mann has released matlab code publicly in a more recent paper on a similar topic. To assume that there is something genuinely suspicious here is absurd.
  163. Sources:
  164. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/mannjones03-preprint.pdf
  165. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/Mann/research/research.html
  166. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/
  167.  
  168.  
  169. *********************************************************************
  170. 10. On "Reinterpreting the Record", or "Modifying data"
  171.  
  172.     The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I dont remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?
  173.  
  174.  
  175. Report:
  176.      Scientists interpret and reinterpret results all of the time; this is the point of science. It has absolutely nothing to do with the data. It is clear that the local kook at the Examiner, Tony Hake, understands little about science at all, which, of course, isn't a surprise.
  177.  
  178.  
  179. *********************************************************************
  180. 11. On "acknowleding"* the Urban Effect
  181. From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):
  182.  
  183.     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.
  184.  
  185.     *Nice spelling, Hake. Not only are you completely uneducated in the scientific field at hand, but you aren't that good at grammar either, are you?
  186.  
  187. Report:
  188.     It takes, quite simply, a denialist on the level of inanity of Hake to draw such bizarre conclusions from this quote. Wigley is simply suggesting that they should prepare for the denialists to run around screaming: "LOL URBAN EFFECT!1111". Of course, numerous studies into the effect of urban heat island effect and microsite influences find they have negligible effect on long term trends, particularly when averaged over large regions. Apparently Hake is unaware of this, or, just possibly, he's being a purposefully misleading scum bag.
  189. Source:
  190. http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm
  191.  
  192.  
  193. ***********************************************************************
  194. 12. On "Not about the Truth"
  195. Note created November 20, 2009 Last edited November 20, 2009 by linux7master@gmail.com
  196. 11/20/09
  197. Perhaps we'll do a simple update to  the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t?  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.
  198.  
  199. Report:
  200.     Wait a second. What's Hake's idea here? That Mann is an evil, sadistic maniac who is knowingly lying to the public and is here conversing with his evil henchmen about their latest plan to fool the public?
  201.     It is not quite clear from the wording what Mann is referring to; the wording is vague. Most likely, he is talking about the denialist psyche: the rest of the E-mail thread is talking about a reply to the denialist McIntyre.
  202.     Ironically, Hake's proved Mann's point here. For Hake, this, of course, has nothing to do with truth: He doesn't even come close to understanding the science at hand, and certainly doesn't try to learn. It has everything to do with smearing a few scientists who have reached conclusions he disagrees with without even understanding.
  203.  
  204.  
  205. ***********************************************************************
  206. 13. On Real Climate
  207.     Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that youre free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and well be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments youd like us to include.
  208.  
  209. Report:
  210.      Hake makes the error in assuming that Real Climate is neutral. It certainly is not: Real Climate is biased very much so towards science, rationality, and applied reason. In other words, it is biased against Hake's insane psyche. Does he even have a point here?
  211.  
  212.  
  213. *************************************************************************
  214. 14. On "Deleting it as appropriate"
  215. Hake's quote:
  216. The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ...  The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
  217. And the real quote:
  218. Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking similar
  219.     to MBH.
  220.         The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
  221.        Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
  222.  
  223.  
  224. Report:
  225.      Ah, a classic, obvious, blatant quote mine from the pathetic scum bag who is Tony Hake. When we look at the whole quote, it becomes obvious that Phil is talking about a comment on his blog, and not some mysterious, evil data.
  226.  
  227.  
  228. *****************************************************************************
  229. 15. On a "Freedom of Information Act"
  230. PS Im getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Dont any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !  
  231.  
  232. Report:
  233.      What. Hake is actually serious.
  234.     Here, ladies and gentlemen, we see the climax of Hake's stupidity.
  235.     Phil is joking. All of the CRU station data is available online.
  236.     Hake is unbelievably stupid.
  237. Source:
  238. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
  239.  
  240.  
  241.  
  242. *********************************************************************************
  243. 16. On the '1940s blip"
  244.  
  245.     Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as Im sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean but wed still have to explain the land blip. Ive 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. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with why the blip. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) but not really enough. So why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so Id appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.
  246.  
  247. Report:
  248.      The 1940s warming blip is a legitimate error in the historical data that needs to be fixed. It has been explained and corrected on the blog, Real Climate.
  249. Source:
  250. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/
  251.  
  252.  
  253.  
  254. *************************************************************************************
  255. 17. On "Refusing to send McIntyre data"
  256.  
  257.     We should be able to  conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre;  without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues.  In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I  am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research.  As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to  him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide  McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about  these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.  I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.
  258.  
  259. Report:
  260.      Karl refuses to send McIntyre data, because, as he explains in the next sentence,  " all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to  him.". Not to mention that McIntyre has consistently harassed him about data which he is hardly qualified to comment on.
  261.  
  262.  
  263. *************************************************************************************
  264. 19. On "Bad Behavior"
  265.     Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
  266.  
  267. Report:
  268.  And here is the full context:
  269. >> > This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
  270. >> > I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful
  271. >> > dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have
  272. >> > on glaciers -- it was well received by the referees, and so is in
  273. >> > the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was
  274. >> > trying to keep it from being published. Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that
  275. >> > Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find
  276. >> > documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
  277.  
  278.      It is clear that Mike is suggesting that the discussed poor quality of GRL may be due to bias on the part of Saiers, and shining light on this bias might fix the problem.
RAW Paste Data
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand
 
Top