Bad News for Deniers: Grown-ups Weigh in on Email Leftovers

November 23, 2011

The Journalistic first-stringers are starting to react, and climate denialists don’t like it – note the title of the snippet from BBC above, posted on youtube, apparently by a disgruntled climate-conspiracy crank – “AlJaBeeba Does Climategate 2”.
Hmmm, I’m guessing the anti-muslim slur is a clue, once again, as to the intellectual strata we are dealing with…..

24 hours in, one thing that’s different from round one, 2 years ago, is that scientists, bloggers and journalists on the side of reason have become organized and ready to respond to these guerilla attacks, and within hours of the first release, there was a major, organized push-back on the web, with top level scientists weighing in and putting out-of-context material in perspective.
It appears that the rapidly-jelling mainstream perspective will indeed be guided by the maxim “Fool me once…”

OK, now I can go pick up my turkey.


The new e-mails appeared remarkably similar to the ones released two years ago just ahead of a similar conference in Copenhagen. They involved the same scientists and many of the same issues, and some of them carried a similar tone: catty remarks by the scientists, often about papers written by others in the field.

A string of investigations following the 2009 release all came to the conclusion that scientists had not manipulated data to support their findings, though some of the reports did criticize them on minor points, such as failing to share their data or to respond properly to freedom of information requests.

Michael E. Mann, a Pennsylvania State University scientist who wrote or received some of the e-mails, said they showed the opposite of any conspiracy, demonstrating instead that climate science is a vigorous enterprise where scientists were free to argue over conclusions. “Scientists rely on the ability to have frank, sometimes even contentious discussions with each other,” Dr. Mann said in an interview Tuesday. “Science requires that.”

In one of the e-mails, Raymond S. Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, criticized a paper that Dr. Mann wrote with the climate scientist Phil Jones, which used tree rings and similar markers to find that today’s climatic warming had no precedent in recent natural history. Dr. Bradley, who has often collaborated with Dr. Mann, wrote that the 2003 paper “was truly pathetic and should never have been published.”

Dr. Bradley confirmed in an interview that the e-mail was his, but said his comment had no bearing on whether global warming was really happening. “I did not like that paper at all, and I stand by that, and I am sure that I told Mike that” at the time, he said. But he added that a disagreement over a single paper had little to do with the overall validity of climate science. “There is no doubt we have a big problem with human-induced warming,” Dr. Bradley said. “Mike’s paper has no bearing on the fundamental physics of the problem that we are facing.”

Some of the other e-mails involved comments about problems with the computer programs used to forecast future climate, known as climate models. For instance, a cryptic e-mail apparently sent by Dr. Jones, a researcher at East Anglia, said, “Basic problem is that all models are wrong — not got enough middle and low level clouds.”

Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA, said he found such exchanges unremarkable. He noted that difficulties in modeling were widely acknowledged and disclosed in the literature. Indeed, such problems are often discussed at scientific meetings in front of hundreds of people.

Of the new release of e-mails, Dr. Schmidt said, “It smacks of desperation.”

Washington Post – Capital Weather Gang:

The “new” emails (not new in that they are from 2009 and earlier) – while trumpeted by some climate skeptics as “spectacular” and draining life from the manmade global warming movement – mean little substantively from a scientific standpoint, just like the set that preceded them.

The climate skeptic blogosphere has been quick to cherry pick certain snippets from the emails they claim show dissension within the climate science ranks, perhaps to demonstrate scientists may express more doubt about their confidence in the science in private than they do in public.

Time – “Climategate 2.0: A Weak Sequel” –

Otherwise the new batch of emails seem to add little to what was raised two years ago. Climate scientists—especially when you quote selectively from emails they think are not for public viewing—can be hypersensitive to criticism and clannish. Within the climate science world, there are clearly differences of opinions on aspects of climate science, on the certainty of models and on the confidence we can have in any sweeping assessment of global warming. Those differences come out in the emails, sometimes very bluntly—but that to me isn’t evidence of some kind of international conspiracy, but rather the not always pretty process of science and collective decision-making happening in real time.

Here’s an example: in the Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin quotes one of  the hacked emails:

An official from the U.K. Met Office [Peter Thorne], a scientific organization which analyzes the climate, writes to the Climate Research Unit’s then-director Phil Jones at one point: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary […]”

Later, the official adds, “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

That might sound bad, although again, this appears to be part of a back-and-forth. But as Jocelyn Fong of the liberal press watchdog group Media Matters writes, these emails were sent in February 2005 and were discussing a first draft of what would become part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment. The final version of the chapter the two scientists were quarreling about seemed to reflect Thorne’s concerns, and cited his research several times. Isn’t that what this process supposed to be about?

Politico -“Scientists Scoff at Stolen Emails”:

Climate skeptics see gold in the latest batch of stolen emails from a British university server, purportedly showing that scientists colluded and propped up their data to demonstrate that greenhouse gases are changing the planet.

But just as a similar 2009 document dump mattered little in unraveling the scientific consensus on global warming, the 5,300 new emails and other files that surfaced on a Russian computer server Tuesday inspired little worry among researchers that the fact of human-caused climate change is in danger of being undermined.

108 Responses to “Bad News for Deniers: Grown-ups Weigh in on Email Leftovers”

  1. daveburton Says:

    Here the actual grown-ups report on the newly release emails. They are very damning. If Phil Jones keeps his job at UEA after the criminal behavior revealed in these emails, it will be proof positive that the UEA high muckamucks believe they are above the law.

    • Martin_Lack Says:

      “The inquiries made erroneous findings on facts known to thousands” — Steve McIntyre (first and foremost, a Canadian mining consultant).

      I see a number of problems with this statement (quoted by, arising mainly out of the words used in it… The validity of the words ‘erroneous’, ‘findings’, ‘facts’, and ‘known’ are all deeply suspect and/or capable of falsification. Furthermore, for every 1000 people who think the use of these words is appropriate, there are almost certainly somewhere between 3 and 33 thousand who would disagree. This is because, thankfully, the response to the almost daily arrival of new evidence of increasing climatic instability (by between approximately 75% and 97% of people – depending on the expertise of those asked) is the right one.

      Your alternative hypothesis (and that is being polite about it) requires that every time any institution (such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists or the International Energy Agency) comes out in support of the consensus view, they must be added to the list of those duped by the establishment (or part of the “scam“)… And so the “scam” grows until everyone on the entire planet apart from a small number of “sceptics” accepts that the simplest most logical explanation for what they can see going on around them is that the planet (so far mainly the oceans) is warming up as a result of human activity.

      I would be willing to bet that the only people that go to jail over this latest criminal act are more than likely to speak Russian.

      • Martin_Lack Says:

        Please don’t bother to try an pick me up on the question of whether the oceans are warming faster than the land – the point I am making is that the reason the warming of the planet is only now becoming obvious is the inertia in the climate system. Apart from saying that, I will defer to my Australian mate Donald, who has found an summarised someone who is possibly better with words than I am – Professor John Sweeney in a letter to the Irish Times newspaper

      • daveburton Says:

        “Steve McIntyre (first and foremost, a Canadian mining consultant)…”

        You mean mathematician, statistician, polymath.

        “…the almost daily arrival of new evidence of increasing climatic instability…”

        <sarcasm> I guess that’s why each IPCC Assessment Report projects less sea level rise than the one before it, and why Science just reported on a study showing that the extreme temperature predictions that are routinely bandied about here (and elsewhere in the Climate Movement blogsphere) are implausible:

        New study in Science shows climate sensitivity overestimated

        • dave! He did say “ALMOST DAILY” 😎

        • Martin_Lack Says:

          That paper only looks at the last 25,000 years of Earth history. If there is no increased climate sensitivity to excessive (rapid or prolonged) forcings, it would be very hard to explain either “snowball Earth” or the “runaway greenhouse”… Aren’t you sick of eating cherries yet?

          There are many more papers that have been published that indicate the IPCC has massively under-stated the problem (because of the unfortunate moderating effect of its exhaustive (internal peer- and external non-) peer review process. This is why things are going pear-shaped faster than even IPCC AR4 (2007) predicted.

          • daveburton Says:

            Martin, crack open your window and peek outside: there is no “snowball Earth” or “runaway greenhouse” on this planet, and never has been. If there were, it would be evidence for high sensitivity & large positive feedbacks, but there isn’t.

            It is hilarious that you think the IPCC is too conservative! All the IPCC scandals have been about exaggeration of the severity of global warming and its effects:

            Climategate II
            “Hockey stick”
            Melting Himalayan glaciers goof
            Extreme weather events error
            African crop yield error
            WWF sourcing scandal

            Are you hungry already, the day after Thanksgiving, Martin? Why the seemingly random references to cherries and pears?

    • greenman3610 Says:

      which grown up was it? Steve Doocy? or Sara Palin?

  2. “Always follow the money, the “man-made” global warming farce has always been about greed and corruption, nothing more.” is the most liked comment on Fox article. The Left Wing’s 911 Truther conspiracy is a more plausible trinket for reality shoppers.

    Back in the real world, non-fictitious corruption is much more mundane than thousands of scientists orchestrating a vast conspiracy to publish false science (based upon knowledge that a HS physics class can understand) for nefarious political purposes.

  3. Btw Martin – in the “Nothing” issue of New Scientist at page 11 there’s a graph clearly showing between the Precambrian and today few few periods were cooler than today.

  4. Martin_Lack Says:

    Both Dave and Maurizio have here revealed their ignorance and/or inability to contextualise information that may be unfamiliar to them:

    Dave – Snowball Earth lasted for millions of years and it’s coming to an end in the late Precambrian made the development of complex life possible.

    Maurizio – The fact that the Earth has rarely been warmer than it is today is not good news and when CO2 levels were as high as they are today Antarctica was barely glaciated (which is not good news either).

    Given my qualifications and experience (only ever two clicks of a mouse away), you both display a complete absence of common sense in seeking to use geology to score points against me.

  5. Admit it Martin you’re an Exxon stooge trying to make AGWers look silly!

    I wrote that according to NS Earth has SELDOM been COOLER. You understood the exact opposite, “RARELY WARMER”. No, the planet has been WARMER THAN TODAY MOST OF THE TIME SINCE BEFORE THE CAMBRIAN ERA.

    Perhaps New Scientist is too complex a reading for you. Apologies if that’s the case. I shan’t look at the institutions certifying your qualifications, to avoid the urge of denouncing their obviously pretty low standards.

    • Martin_Lack Says:

      I admit it was a silly mistake but, in fact, what I said works equally well either way: The fact that, between 600 and 1 million years BP (i.e. before present), the Earth has rarely been cooler than it is now is not a good reason to be complacent about where it is now heading… As I have repeatedly told you, the most important thing about the Earth’s climate is how stable it has been for the last 7,000 years (i.e. conditions that made agriculture, urbanisation, civilisation and modernity possible).

      Far from it being environmentalists that want to take us back to the dark ages, the willful refusal of big business to accept the long-term consequences of unsustainable development (including burning fossil fuels) is almost guaranteeing that this is where we will end up.

  6. Donald Says:

    If I may throw in my 20 cents worth … 🙂

    I am a CO2 denier, I don’t believe the gas is acting to warm up our atmosphere the way some says it is, perhaps a little…. but

    only a fool can say the world is not warming up

    If you know your science then you should have no trouble, both peer reviewing my figures and verifying them.

    Something is warming up our world, the numbers don’t lie, no hockey sticks, no charts, no nothing … just numbers. it took me over a year to verify them.

    • daveburton Says:

      Hi Donald,

      There are a couple of problems with that table. For one thing, it starts in the depths of the Little Ice Age, so of course it shows warming.

      But here’s a more fundamental problem. One of the columns in that table is atmospheric CO2 concentrations, e.g., 270.15 ppm in 1751. Do you know what’s wrong with that?

      Hint: numbers are sort of like guns. Numbers don’t lie, people do.

      Oddly enough, NASA’s climate alarmists are the keepers of U.S. ground station temperature data. They’ve not done a very good job of it. They keep revising the figures, even for years in the distant past. But even NASA consistently shows that the six warmest years on record in the 48 contiguous United States were:

      #1: 1934
      #2: 1998
      #3: 1921
      #4: 2006
      #5: 1931
      #6: 1999

      (I chose the “six warmest,” instead of five or ten, because it happens that these six years are the warmest on record in all the versions of the NASA temperature table which I could find, though the order of the six varies according to which version of the table you use. The order shown there is the order which they showed after they corrected an error in their temperature adjustments which Steve McIntyre identified despite their refusal to give him access to the raw data.)

      So: If 5 of the 6 warmest years on record in the 48 contiguous United States were over a decade ago, and 3 of the 6 warmest years on record were over 75 years ago, what makes you so certain that the world is warming up?

      Sure, it is warmer now than it was in the 1960s and 1970s, and it is much warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age. But it’s not warmer now than it was a decade ago, and it’s debatable whether it is warmer now than it was in the late 1990s (there’s been no measurable warming since the Clinton Administration), and it’s probably not warmer now than it was during the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period.

      So it is certainly at least arguable whether “something is warming up our world.”

      • daveburton Says:

        Yikes, I completely scrambled two sentences into one hopeless mishmash. Sorry about that!

        “But it’s not warmer now than it was a decade ago, and it’s debatable whether it is warmer now than it was in the late 1990s (there’s been no measurable warming since the Clinton Administration),”

        should have been

        “But it’s not warmer now than it was a decade ago (there’s been no measurable warming since the Clinton Administration), and it’s debatable whether it is warmer now than it was in the 1930s,”

        I sure wish there was an “edit” button!

        • Donald Says:

          Not to worry about your “word scrambling”; things happen.

          It is easy enough to tell that we have been warming.

          The first fact is that the world average temperature is … 15 degrees not 14 as some say; this fact has been known for decades and may be found in many almanacs and or atlas books.

          Since the average is 15 then there should be an obvious minimum and maximum temperatures to go with such an average.

          Looking at world temperatures then one can see that during the last few decades the temperature has increased “towards the average, never from the average towards the minimum ….

          from the minimum to the average without even once dropping towards the minimum again … always up towards the average.

          Easy … the world is warming up.

          As for the 271ppm in 1751 ….. that is my fault … I neglected to explain that these numbers are “conservative estimates” they are as accurate as any measurement but they are not “exact”

          I hope you guys understand what “conservative estimates” mean …quite a thing in mathematics 🙂

          all the numbers are real, easy enough to gather if one understands science and research and verification procedures.

          Now ….

          You ask me if I understand what is wrong with the figure yet you do not offer the right value … why not? I’m old enough and wise enough to take criticism, even a punch to the jaw if necessary, please give me the value you think might be correct and I shall investigate it further 🙂

          Now … what is wrong with it? it is a figure easily found through archeological digs and other such solid sciences, no ice cores or tree rings anywhere .

          As you say, numbers don’t lie but I must also remind all of you that climate scientists are not the only ones interested in CO2 measurements and the top of volcanoes are not the only place to measure it.

          Archaeologists have been measuring the stuff for quite some time now.

          Not that I care, I tend to think of the theory of transfer of energy (heat) more than a CO2 problem.

    • Donald, You’re not a typical “CO2 denier”. Your blog links to a report describing the latest most accurate Earth energy flow measurement (0.85 W/m^2) with links to explanatory pages. Without aerosols (smog, smoke, etc.), the flux would be approximately 1.6 W/m^2. If there were no “smokestacks” (broadly speaking) and accumulated heat hadn’t already increased the surface temperature by about 1.4 degrees, total GHG forcing would be about 2.9 W/m^2, 1.6 W/m^2 of which is attributable to CO2.

      • Donald Says:

        Charles – I will admit that I know very little about CO2, being an engineer and a computer programmer I am good at collecting evidence, putting it all together and feeding it to those who wish to have it … nothing more.

        I do know one thing for sure, everybody says that CO2 is warming up the planet and if we double production … etc … etc .. BUT….

        …..We have in fact tripled our output and the temperature climb ratio has remained steady … no huge upward trend to accompany the CO2 ratio being tripled ,, just a slow, steady climb

        I believe the world is warming up because my field is electronics and the transfer of energy theorem tells me that heat “must” flow from the hottest areas to the colder areas of our planet .. not all of it escapes our planet, in fact very little.

        So whatever heat stays … regardless of how much it is … warms up our planet. it is obvious and undeniable. Laws of physics and all that.

        And heat flows in a steady manner … exactly the same manner as the world temperature climb shows; you can prove the ratio to yourself by looking into thermodynamics and .

        I hope I am wrong, and I wouldn’t mind being proven wrong, but I doubt if that will happen. already many are beginning to think my way.

        But none of the above makes any difference … nothing will change for the time being; I’m not trying to advertise or nothing but my last blog kind of tells it like it is.

        We’re all gonna die 🙂

        • Donald, “We’re all gonna die” True that, but I want to keep my mind busy doing something useful in the meantime. Until I had enough 80 hour work weeks, I also designed computer systems and was an engineer after studying physics in college. I started studying climate science in 2008 when it surprisingly (to me) became a contentious political topic. Although it takes effort, the basics are not that difficult and if you pick one or two areas, you can keep up with the science.

          The physics of CO2 in the atmosphere has been studied for 187 years, with a big accuracy jump in the early 1950s. In that sense, it is an extremely mature well understood specialty. CO2 absorbs and reemits energy in frequency bands within the infrared spectrum. CO2 spectral analysis is precise. As the CO2 concentration (390 ppm) increases so does the probability of outgoing radiation absorption at every height– therefore shortening the radiation’s (photon) average mean free path – which pushes the mean exiting radiating level up to higher and colder elevations – which reduces the amount of energy in the outgoing radiation and increasing the energy flow from the atmosphere to the surface. Most of the excess energy is stored in the ocean. Water’s large heat capacity and the ocean’s size explain the lag. The Earth radiates heat as a function of the surface temperature. Deeper water doesn’t radiate heat. (The usual jargon for the lag between temperature anomaly and heat anomaly is that temperature increases are “in the pipe line”.)

        • I just read your gloomy blog post. Being about 3 decades behind on the renewable energy transition project is a reason for pessimism, but hope springs eternal. In the 1960s, the world had a few hundred multi-million dollar machines that are put to shame by every $100 pocket device flying off assembly lines.

          Even in the US, more than half of new electrical generation capacity last year was renewable. Even in the US, research labs are working on decreasing costs, liquid fuels, energy storage and smart grids. Even in the US, states are encouraging alternative energy which companies are deploying.

          Once we get past our little “conservative” bump in the political road, we’ll get it right. Even in the US we noticed that you’re putting a meager Aussie price on carbon – and we’re not.

          • Donald Says:

            Yes, I agree, once we get past the politics of things the rest should be smooth sailing … having said that .. we first need to get past politicians and we all know how hard that is.

        • Martin_Lack Says:

          Charles – It is truly delightful to find someone who may be able to help Donald understand why we can be confident that CO2 is the primary cause of the warming we are now seeing. That is to say, you are clearly able to talk the same language as Donald, whereas I did not seem to get very far talking about energy imbalances and palaeoclimatic data… As Donald will no doubt confirm, he has remained resolutely sceptical in the face of my protestation that “I am certain you are wrong but I do not have the expertise to tell you why you’re wrong” 🙂

          • Donald Says:

            I believe in Global Warming and therefore believe we need to make changes to our way of life, burning fossil fuels has to stop. while you all think only CO2 I tend to think of the Heat generated by the actual burning which just happens to be thousands of times greater than what CO2 can ever help to trap, then there is the huge amounts of “hot” steam climbing up into our atmosphere and all the other noxious gasses that are produced at the same time. It is all about Heat to me.

            After all, no burning of fossil fuels … no CO2 … so why blame an effect/result (CO2) when the actual cause is the Heat of burning fossil fuels?

            Also when it comes to atmospheric gasses, it has been proven since 1907 that the winds (whichever) do not allow gasses in the atmosphere to form in “layers” therefore there can be no CO2 blanket effect to help warm up our atmosphere.

            Now I don’t know where this “blanket effect” comes from but it is a total fallacy, the winds simply do not allow such effects … but

            there is such a blanket effect when it comes to “Transfer of Heat”

            There is another reason I deny Co2 stuff with Martin …

            I just love stirring the guy, there are times when I get him going so bad that if he could, he would pop out of my monitor and choke me to death, he don’t watch himself he’ll end up popping a vein or something. 🙂

          • Donald,

            We hit the nested reply limit.

            Worldwide energy production, from all sources, averages about 1.5 x 10^13 Watts. Incremental GHG forcing is about 1.4 x 10^15 Watts.

            As you say, CO2 is well mixed. However, in order to calculate atmospheric physics the atmosphere is parameterized in sections defined by vertical “layers” and an x-y grid. As computers become more powerful the height of these abstract “layers” is reduced to increase homogeneity within each layer. Similarly, the EM spectrum is divided into smaller and smaller wavebands. Remember Calculus?

            I take it you and Martin have been co-authoring a chapter in the novel for the ages.

  7. Martin_Lack Says:

    Dave, I will answer your questions, if you answer mine

  8. Martin_Lack Says:

    Donald, You claim to have got me very angry with your deliberate provocations in the past. However, I would dispute this. In general, I have been frustrated by my inability to get you to accept that the Occam’s Razor principle (i.e. that the simplest explanation for something is almost certainly the right one). This principle applies to climate change because adopting the contrarian position requires the invocation of a conspiracy theory of almost unprecedented complexity and/or claims of superior wisdom of almost a theological nature).

    However, Occam’s Razor principle can also be applied to any conspiracy theory. This is why I recently appealed to Dave Burton to accept that Moon Landings were real even though he had never said they were faked (yet another comment he chose to pretend he did not understand). It is also why we once got into a massive debate about the assassination of JFK. In this respect, I would encourage to watch the new 1-hour “JFK: The Lost Bullet” documentary broadcast on the National Geographic Channel: Amongst other things, the programme reveals how eye witness testimony and digitally-remastered film footage proves beyond all reasonable doubt that JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone and fired all three shots heard on the day.

    Your apparent ability to continue to deny this does not help your credibility when seeking to propose that the vast majority of climate scientists are at very least mistaken…

    • Donald Says:

      I do not deny … I merely “dispute” unclear facts which others accept as gospel, knowledge does not come from acceptance, it comes from questioning facts and rising standards which others set far too low.

      Truth of the matter is that in my christian beliefs I have never met anybody who is as brain-washed as a climate warming believer, belief is one thing, but it is in one’s own knowledge that one finds power

      it would be easier to gain an appointment with God than it would be for any of you to provide me with proper facts about AGW

      And I am not picking on any of you but I wonder if any of you realize that every single one of you is parroting 30 year old stuff without so much as once providing me with any of “your own work”

      There is no science in discussion alone, one must do one’s research.

      I bet anything that if Mann or Hansen turned up tomorrow and said “Hey, look we were wrong, the world is cooling; here is a well written book on the subject” you would all turn around and say … “well, if you say so then it must be truth” because just like Jesus is the hero of religion, they are your heroes of climate warming.

      Not all books are right, it is up to students to do their own homework and prove the truth to themselves.

      Show me your homework, stop parroting other people’s work

      At the end of the day, this debate has been going on for more than 30 years, it is in fact over 40 years old and STILL … you have nothing to show for it, not one foot forward .. no advance whatsoever, no solutions .. only the same old argument.

      It took me 12 months to get all my numbers together, on my own … how long have you guys been arguing about this and what else have you done about it except debate other people’s work?

      move forward people, stop debating, look for solutions or move to one side and let the future walk right past you. 😦

      • Martin_Lack Says:

        Excellent work, Donald. Just as I hoped, you have dug yourself a nice hole – 6ft long 2ft wide and 6ft deep. Have you really no conception of just how ludicrous that “every single one of you is parroting 30 year old stuff” statement is?

        The basic science behind climate change may have first been postulated over 150 years ago, and we may have been distracted by global dimming for 30 years in the second half of last century, but, within almost every year of the last 30 years, new evidence has come to light that has enabled us to refine that understanding. Furthermore, in the 4 years since the last IPCC assessment report, our knowledge has improved so dramatically that we can now say with confidence that the need for drastic action is even more urgent than was stated in 2007.

        Given your reference to faith in God, maybe I should ask Peter to embed this <a href=";Jesus he knows me 1991 Genesis video here too? However, God is not going to help us sort out the mess we have now got ourselves in. Arguably, he tried that 2000 years ago – and most people appear to have ignored him.

      • greenman3610 Says:

        “one must do one’s research”

        the cemetery is full of people who “did their own research” on the health effects of tobacco, and the causative factors of AIDS.

        and the internet is full of ‘christians” whose “research” tells them the earth is 5000 years old.

        I guess we are welcoming a new flavor of troll, another step forward in keeping this blog a target rich environment.
        post away, Donald. keep it clean.

        • Actually, cemeteries are full of people who truly believed they were fighting a good cause.

          ps funny isn’t it…one could extract quote upon quote from Climategate 2.0, post it here and see Martin (and Peter) agitate with denier-this, denier-that, troll-here, troll-there…

          pps Charles – if it takes 20 years of study to do one’s own research on climate change, and you haven’t studied it for 20 years, please do shut up. I can easily read RealClimate and the likes, thank you very much.

          • greenman3610 Says:

            maurizio –
            you may continue to post here only so long as I deem it amusing…
            you are not welcome to insult posters here. That’s my job.

            As for reading RealClimate, or anything this side of glennbeck dot com,
            I think it would do you a world of good, let us know when you get around to it.

          • Nice rhetorical try Peter but…you must’ve been very good at hiding that “amusement” of yours…

            For example still no word about your jumping of the gun on “acceleratING sea level rise”? Have you tried to convince, who knows, Hansen to finally speak out in agreement with you?

            ‘course not…tsk tsk!!

            ps Mann & Jones (2003) was a step backwards ( in time and understanding ). Both were too personally invested in things. Mann of course was on very dodgy ground with his long-term decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale in 1998. Etc etc.

          • greenman3610 Says:

            when you present something besides attempts at cleverness, I’ll provide you with what the experts are saying, which is what I always do.
            And you can keep us apprised of what’s current on Fox & Friends.

          • Martin_Lack Says:

            Two questions, Maurizio:

            1. Why would you want to post anything from any email here when it has been so conclusively proven that any attempt to make quotes from them look sinister requires a prior assumption that scientists are conspiring to lie to us and would, by definition, be to take any such quote out-of-context?

            2. Sorry to be so bloody predictable but, having wrongly accused Dave, would you care to answer the question I actually put to you not him, namely: “Just where was my statement of historical facts and explanation for the last 20 years of inaction in error“…?

            P.S. It’s a very old joke that my father used to love re-telling but, Next to Lord’s Cricket Ground in London is a lovely old 17th Century Church. However… “Nobody living in St John’s Wood has ever been buried there… They all waited until they were dead first!

        • Martin_Lack Says:

          Peter, I can’t help but respond to yet another attack upon those who choose to believe, unnecessarily in my view, that the book of Genesis contains scientific facts. I know it is very tempting comparison to make — because both climate change scepticism and young earth creationism are late 20th Century inventions of the human mind — but you should try and remember that not all Christians are YEC’s…

          • greenman3610 Says:

            totally get that.
            but the fact is, we’ve got presidential candidates whose view of science is so skewed that you have to wonder if they actually believe the Genesis view.
            It’s an issue of national security – and could profoundly affect future generations.

            Sermon on the Mount? I’m all about it.
            Talking snake? not so much.

          • Martin_Lack Says:

            Nice one. As a former hydrogeologist, one of my favourite “miracles” was the one where Moses struck the rock and brought forth a spring of pure water… It’s darn obvious, surely, that God just told him where to dig? 🙂

      • Donald, I hardly anticipated such a contemptuous reply to honest attempts to clarify your misconceptions.

        If you (and other “skeptics”) understood and accepted scientists’ research we wouldn’t be having this debate, and I wouldn’t be spending much of my golden years studying climate science. Getting to point where one can do one’s own research requires about 20 years of dedicated study. True, none of us are going to be handed a satellite to “do our own research”, else we would be debating other scientists – but that doesn’t mean that – with effort – we can’t understand their research. Trying to explain what they know to someone who shamelessly admits that it would be easier to get on God’s calendar than to absorb AGW facts is depressingly hopeless.

        “It took me 12 months to get all my numbers together, on my own …”
        What are all of your numbers?

        “ how long have you guys been arguing about this and what else have you done about it except debate other people’s work? move forward people, stop debating, look for solutions or move to one side and let the future walk right past you.”
        Working with and investing in alternative energy companies, and donating to university research groups. So, what have you been doing to win the future?

      • Martin_Lack Says:

        Do let us know if you change your mind on JFK’s assassination too…

  9. Donald Says:

    All these years I thought I was a scientist myself, but never mind…., personally I preferred to make the machines all these other scientists develop/design, then I fixed them and even improved them if possible.

    Wave machines, motors, pumps and so on, you know, the very things this world needs … I’ve even worked on cold Fussion (useless) with professor Ellis, the rotary engine with Sarich (many years ago and after he built it) and have develop three different types of magnetic engines and hold various patents and copyrights on various energy saving devices and machines…

    I’m not saying you can’t talk about the subject, what I am saying is that the time for talking so much about it is over .. we need to act or our grandchildren will die.

    What are all those numbers? They are not mine; they all come from the IPCC, NASA and a few other places … they are the numbers and values you guys have been asking about for years and the very proof you rely on to say that Global Warming is due to CO2 … which they clearly prove it isn’t. Have a good look at them, compare them with what is out there.

    I am happy that you guys understand Climate Warming (probably more than I do) but AGW and CO2 and other caused factors are the “result” of a problem, and the aim should be to fix the problem as soon as possible, not talk about it for 30-40 years.

    That is why I place myself in the position of “Devil’s advocate” and create arguments and new types of debates designed to make all scientists see that they talk too much and do too little and (at the moment) get paid far above their worth.

    PS: I retired this year and never been a skeptic, I believe the world is warming.

    • “I am happy that you guys understand Climate Warming (probably more than I do) but AGW and CO2 and other caused factors are the “result” of a problem, and the aim should be to fix the problem as soon as possible, not talk about it for 30-40 years”

      We agree that we should be working on the problem’s root cause – with one significant difference about how the burning of fossil fuels heats the planet. Returning to your previous assertion –

      “After all, no burning of fossil fuels … no CO2 … so why blame an effect/result (CO2) when the actual cause is the Heat of burning fossil fuels? Also when it comes to atmospheric gasses, it has been proven since 1907 that the winds (whichever) do not allow gasses in the atmosphere to form in “layers” therefore there can be no CO2 blanket effect to help warm up our atmosphere.”

      Which is demonstrably incorrect. 1) Layers are a *mathematical* abstraction – used to calculate GHG forcing. 2) The amount of heat released from combustion is *tiny* compared to the measured accumulation of heat in the oceans and the calculated and measured change in the energy flux at the top of the atmosphere. That can only be explained by radiative forcing.

      I agree with the Maurizio’s suggestion (other than “shut up”). For more details than can be tapped out in a blog comment – from people who have devoted their lives to the subject – read RealClimate and study textbooks. “Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by Goody” is one of many options.


      • Martin_Lack Says:

        Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change, by Steve Vanderheiden, is also well worth reading.

      • Donald Says:

        A good reply, thank you … just one small correction …

        “The Earth’s atmosphere contains several different layers that can be defined according to air temperature.”

        No layer of our planet’s atmosphere can be defined according to the presence of gasses … in this respect there are “no layers” as the mixing of the gasses at any altitude is exactly the same, the only differences being density, pressure and temperature.

        No amount of mathematics therefore can predict that one “layer” is different to others when it comes to the presence of gasses alone.

        But just to make a distinction here … the only gas that may be found to present in high concentrations (layers) is Ozone although sometimes due to volcanic activity CO2 may be found in concentrations at low levels of our atmosphere prior to dispersal by the winds.

        I don’t know who “invented” this math on the atmosphere’s gas “layers” but I’m sure it would make Newton turn in his grave.

  10. […] resolved. Not very effectve as a ‘Durban wrecker’ frankly. A good SU blog covered it this way: Meanwhile at Durban You can follow the daily events at COP 17 in various ways. The official […]

Leave a Reply to Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: