Look at the disgust at exposure of the truth on the faces of Waxman and Markey during Gingrich’s crisp destruction of the alarmist arguments.

And Steve Mcintyre on Climategate 2.0 on the Bolt Report:

Listen to Marc Morano rant on the Climategate emails on the Corebtt Report here.

--------------

Gavin Schmidt on ideal ways to communicate climate science

By Lubos Motl, the Reference Frame

The data must be as impenetrable as possible

One year ago, a pr*ck named Chris Mooney was inserted as a director into the American Geophysical Union and became responsible for science communication.

Apologies for the picture of the main hero (Gavin Schmidt above) of this blog entry. Because someone wants to learn something about him, other people have to suffer.

Last month, we learned about the first result of Mooney’s “work”: on behalf of the AGU, he chose the best climate communicator in the world. Who is it? Is it Michael Mann who likes to hide the decline? Heidi Cullen who works on the Nuremberg trials for skeptics? Phil Jones? John Cook who has already won lots of money in the Australian “spit on Archimedes” contest? Al Gore? One of the 3,000 folks across the third world whom Al Gore has trained to be almost as marvelous as Gore himself? Nope!

Chris Mooney decided that the $25,000 award would go to Gavin Schmidt, the main full-time spinner and part-time liar behind George Soros’ Real-Enough-To-Be-Pure-Imaginary Climate propagandist blog.

Icecap Note: More appropriate would have been the ‘major award’ leg lamp that Darren McGavin won in the classic “Christmas Story” movie from 1983.

When Andrew Revkin enthusiastically endorsed this outrageous choice five weeks ago, I was stunned and instantly removed him from my list of Facebook contacts. The Climategate 2011 e-mails show that I shouldn’t have been surprised at all. One may see several e-mails in which Revkin offers his services and considers what’s the best way to produce propaganda that would harm skeptics such as Christy and Singer. “Will you feel better if I will lick the left side or the right side of your r*ctum?” Revkin asked the members of the Hockey Team. Revkin offers his “tongue full of power” especially to Ben Santer who is just planning to beat the crap out of Pat Michaels.

However, the Climategate 2011 e-mails also show how the second best climate science communicator in the world after Kook John Cook (who just opened a new German server, Kooks-Klimafakten.de), namely Gavin Schmidt, envisions the best possible way to communicate climate science. How do you make it literally accessible to other climatologists, the scientific public, and the public in general? What Steve Milloy has found is pretty hilarious.

In the e-mail 3343.txt (di2.nu), Gavin Schmidt laments that the evil skeptics actually want to see the data used to deduce all the remarkable conclusions – instead of treating Phil Jones et al. as holy prophets. The text makes it clear that all of his comrades are convinced that it would be suicidal to show a single bit of information to anyone. However, Gavin Schmidt suddenly offers Michael Mann a remarkably audacious idea how to protect their pal Phil Jones which is the most accurate counterpart of “glasnosť” inside the Hockey Team that you may find:

Gavin:

Frankly, I would simply put the whole CRU database (in an as-impenetrable-as-possible form) up on the web site along with a brief history of it’s provenance (and the role of the NMSs) and be done with it.

So if you want to be the best climate science communicator in the world, you have to release the data in an as-impenetrable-as-possible form.

I don’t remember what was exactly released as a result of these exchanges but let me say that if a part of these discussions led to the publication of the HadCRUT3 data in 2011, I needed a few hours to convert the files to a Mathematica-friendly format and make the first calculations of the trends and their statistical properties as distributed over the stations. So the dataset could have been as impenetrable as possible but it wasn’t impenetrable enough. Michael Mann made a mistake of changing Schmidt’s adjective “as impenetrable as possible” to “raw data” which are unfortunately much more penetrable than anything that any of these Gentlemen ever published on science (none of which has made any sense so far).

All of this sounds very amusing to those of us who are trying hard to share the raw data and the results of our work in as transparent ways as possible because we are actually trying to find as accurate insights about the system rather then to “help a cause”. But in some sense, all of those other people promoting the idea of a dangerous global warming are even worse than Gavin Schmidt. They would never dare to say that something should be released. They know that every single bit of the actual empirical data hurts their “cause” and there’s always a risk that even if they release the data in an impenetrable form, a neutral user i.e. a skeptic may manage to penetrate them. And it’s always bad because the real data don’t show any reason for worries.

Phil Jones has described the main problem with the skeptics: they prefer to mostly look at observations and ignore papers on modeling because they believe by default models are wrong! Another basic problem, as Phil Jones realized elsewhere, is that all models are wrong, indeed. These two problems add up to a big problem and it’s created purely by the skeptics. If they weren’t thinking that the models are wrong, no one would care because the only other people who know that the models are wrong are all the other climatologists and they would never tell it to anyone.

Some of the most hardcore deniers even prefer to look at the thermometers instead of watching the Day After Tomorrow even though the latter shows the true nature of the global warming armageddon theory much more accurately than what any instrument will ever be able to do.

But we are not talking about cheating Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and Gavin Schmidt. The fraudulent tactics seem to cover pretty much anyone in climatology who is visually “on the same side” as these individuals. In an 2006 e-mail, Tom Wigley who is extremely far from being innocent himself writes the following to the provider of the trees to produce hockey sticks: “Are you hiding something [from Steve McIntyre et al.] - your apparent refusal to be forthcoming sure makes it look as though you are.” These people may be divided to the fraudsters who have already revealed themselves as crooks in the public, like Mann, and fraudsters who remain in the closet (but who are kind of known to be cheating by everyone including other alarmists), like Briffa.

By JAMES DELINGPOLE

Last week, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world’s top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet. Like the first “climategate” leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.

The scientists include men like Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, both of whose reports inform what President Obama has called “the gold standard” of international climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The new release of emails was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the original climategate leak and with the upcoming United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa. And it has already stirred strong emotions. To Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), for example, the leaker or leakers responsible are attempting to “sabotage the international climate talks” and should be identified and brought “to justice.”

One might sympathize with Mr. Markey’s outrage if, say, the emails were maliciously rewritten or invented. But at least one scientist involved—Mr. Mann—has confirmed that the emails are genuine, as were the first batch released two years ago. So any malfeasance revealed therein ought to be blamed on the scientists who wrote them, rather than on the whistleblower who exposed them.

Consider an email written by Mr. Mann in August 2007. “I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.” Doug Keenan is a skeptic and gadfly of the climate-change establishment. Steve McIntyre is the tenacious Canadian ex-mining engineer whose dogged research helped expose flaws in Mr. Mann’s “hockey stick” graph of global temperatures.

One can understand Mr. Mann’s irritation. His hockey stick, which purported to demonstrate the link between man-made carbon emissions and catastrophic global warming, was the central pillar of the IPCC’s 2001 Third Assessment Report, and it brought him near-legendary status in his community. Naturally he wanted to put Mr. McIntyre in his place.

The sensible way to do so is to prove Mr. McIntyre wrong using facts and evidence and improved data. Instead the email reveals Mr. Mann casting about for a way to smear him. If the case for man-made global warming is really as strong as the so-called consensus claims it is, why do the climategate emails show scientists attempting to stamp out dissenting points of view? Why must they manipulate data, such as Mr. Jones’s infamous effort (revealed in the first batch of climategate emails) to “hide the decline,” deliberately concealing an inconvenient divergence, post-1960, between real-world, observed temperature data and scientists’ preferred proxies derived from analyzing tree rings?

This is the real significance of the climategate emails. They show that major scientists who inform the IPCC can’t be trusted to stick to the science and avoid political activism. This, in turn, has very worrying implications for the major international policy decisions adopted on the basis of their research.

That brings us to the motives of the person calling himself “FOIA” who leaked the emails onto the Internet last week.

In his introductory notes, he writes: “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. . . . 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.”

For the service he has performed in pursuit of this larger end, FOIA deserves not opprobrium but gratitude.

Mr. Delingpole is a contributing editor of the Spectator and author of “Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors” (Publius Books, 2011).

--------------
Tom Nelson

ClimateGate scientists on Michael Mann and his work: “probable flaws” and “clearly deficient”, and “crap” and “way too defensive”, oh my!

2002 ClimateGate email

Hi Keith,

Of course, I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his letter. It would be too aggravating. The only way to deal with this whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something that you actually did in your Perspectives piece, even if it was not clearly stated because of editorial cuts. It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.

Ed [Cook]

I have just read this lettter - and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years , and ... (better say no more) Keith [Briffa]

ClimateGate FOIA grepper! - Email 5055

At every meeting I go to where Mike gives a talk, he always presents more on why his series is correct. Honestly, most people I talk to think that he is being way too defensive (as we all know too well). In any case, he is coming out with a new NH reconstruction. It will be interesting to see what it looks like. One problem is that he will be using the RegEM method, which provides no better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not know where his estimates are coming from. Cheers, Ed [Cook]

ClimateGate FOIA grepper! - Email 0562

Met Office/Hadley’s Simon Tett] 1) Didn’t see a justification for use of tree-rings and not using ice
cores—the obvious one is that ice cores are no good—see Jones et
al, 1998.

2) No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann et al did (I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because we think it is crap!)

Hat tip: M. Hulme

By Alan Caruba

At what point will it finally occur to the pea-brained legion of journalists, academics, alleged scientists, United Nations propagandists, and others still blathering about “global warming” and “climate change” that there is no global warming and that the climate has been changing for the past 4.5 billion years on planet Earth?

It would appear that no amount of the evidence of fraud is sufficient to convince them they have either participated or been taken in by the greatest hoax of the modern era.

Perhaps, though, the latest release of thousands of emails between the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change perpetrators may push them toward a rational conclusion and release the rest of humanity from the penalties and costs imposed by the global warming hoax.

It’s not that the IPCC is not relentless in this ugly business. A report released on November 18 by these reprehensible liars predicted “more extreme weather events.”

Well, duh! There isn’t a day that goes by without an extreme weather event occurring somewhere on the Earth. One might consider the weather at the northern and southern poles extreme. Or the heat of the Earth’s deserts? Then throw in the usual blizzards, floods, and droughts - and you have a non-stop variety of “extreme weather events” to which to point.

To put it another way, the whole hoax was working just fine until the Earth began to cool around 1998. So naturally the IPCC had to (1) change the terminology from global warming to climate change, (2) deny that its “scientists” were lying, and (3) continue the pathetic prediction scheme by pointing to “weather events.”

As reported in The Wall Street Journal, “The scientific link between climate change and extreme weather, however, isn’t uniformly clear, according to the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established in 1988 to assist policy makers with climate change.”

That’s right, this whole farce has been going on since 1988. At what point will the “enablers” of global warming accept defeat? Not soon if one considers that the IPCC is laying on another climate conference to be held in Durban, South Africa from November 28 to December 9. It will be the 17th opportunity for these deceivers to gather to wine and dine while taxpayers from the many nations they represent pick up the tab.

Here’s the kicker. “Christina Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said “the report also underscored the need for governments to take action to reduce emissions.”

What emissions? Carbon dioxide? A trace gas in the atmosphere (0.038%) that has no effect whatever on climate or weather?

Does anyone grasp how costly all the lies about “emissions” have been and continue to be? The Christmas tree to be erected at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. comes complete with the purchase of so-called “carbon offsets” to pay for its transport 4,200 miles across the country from California. Eighty million tons of “carbon credits” were purchased.

Bear in mind, that tree and all others depend on carbon dioxide in the same way humans and other creatures depend on oxygen! CO2 is vital to the growth of all vegetation on Earth. Without it, we all die.

But what is one Christmas tree compared to an entire nation, Australia, whose government just imposed a carbon-emissions tax on everything? The tax will drive existing heavy industry and other generators of CO2 from the nation that can afford to leave and make those who cannot less competitive with global manufacturers and other businesses. Some business will just shut their doors.

This kind of deception is global. The International Energy Agency announced in early November that “dangerous climate change will be essentially irreversible within little over five years.” The news report concluded saying “The IEA uses conclusions from research collated by the United Nations. Most climate scientists agree with the U.N. conclusions, although recent polls show a growing proportion of the public in many countries is skeptical of climate change.”

No, most climate scientists do not agree with the U.N. data because they know how flawed and frequently fraudulent it is. This kind of casual journalistic reference is a lie, along with all the rest of the global warming and/or climate change data from “official” sources like the IPCC and IEA, et al.

In early November the U.S. Department of Energy published “estimates” of global carbon dioxide emissions for the year 2010. Writing in Forbes, James Taylor of The Heartland Institute, took note that the Department concluded that “emissions rose by 6% from 2009 to 2010. This constitutes the largest rise yet recorded.” And then he added that “global temperatures have not risen during the past decade.’

There is no correlation. Never was.

Whether it is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the U.S. Departments of Energy, Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency, all depend on people being too ignorant or indifferent to grasp the truth that everything done in the name of global warming, climate change, or carbon dioxide emissions is a costly, evil deception.