Another email example of AGW fraud

[polarbear]

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: 1996 global temperatures
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Phil
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December
monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.
I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:
David computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
heights up to 20 Dec.
We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov
We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
Nicholls??
We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also
FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.
We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.
For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.
Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

Cheers

Geoff

That email was addressed to Phil Jones who was part of the "we" in the fun they had pulling off a similar scam as mentioned in the first line.
The same Phil Jones who said:
Climatologist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims

Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia denies emails provide evidence of collusion by climatologists to fix data

 

[LaDexter]

At some point, one might think we'd figure it out = ALL FUDGE.

 

[polarbear]

At some point, one might think we'd figure it out = ALL FUDGE.

Yeah it`s quite likely that one might think so when you read their internal email:
Doc.#0846715553:

From: Keith Briffa <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]-burg.su
Subject: the Yamal data
Date: Wed Oct 30 1753 1996

Dear Rashit,
As always I seem to have been away bullshiting and politiking in
various meetings for weeks! I try to convince myself that this is of use to us as a dendrochronological community but I am not so sure how much that is really
true these days

 

[flacaltenn]

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: 1996 global temperatures
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Phil
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December
monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.
I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:
David computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
heights up to 20 Dec.
We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov
We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
Nicholls??
We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also
FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.
We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.
For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.
Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

Cheers

Geoff

That email was addressed to Phil Jones who was part of the "we" in the fun they had pulling off a similar scam as mentioned in the first line.
The same Phil Jones who said:
Climatologist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims

Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia denies emails provide evidence of collusion by climatologists to fix data

Yeah but --- CRU was investigated and this was determined to be "normal business".

Colluding to control the public discussion and information -- IN CONJUNCTION with the govt --- is the worst possible insult to science.

You ever see Phil Jones at work in his office? You might then understand how all that data gets lost. This was from a Nova special on ice core studies.

 

[LaDexter]

This was from a Nova special on ice core studies.

Well, despite his efforts to fudge/hide, we did get this from the British Court...


Official British Court Finds 11 Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Labels It As Political Propaganda

• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• • The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
  
  

Court certified truth - 90% of Earth ice growing, and no CO2 correlation with temperature in the ice cores

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Welcome back Polarbear!

 

[polarbear]

Welcome back Polarbear!

Thanks for the welcome back.
I just lost my wife to cancer and after 41 years of marriage and it hit me hard. At the same time I have to console my 3 great grandchildren who have been in our care since birth....it`s been heart renting, but for their sake I have to stay on my feet. This forum helps me to take a little reprieve from the grief which is impossible to put into words.
So I downloaded the entire wikileaks email hack and started to read it in order to distract myself.
What I noticed was that the bulk of them are almost desperate efforts by the M. Mann mob to chastise if not outright censor all dissent and fabricate data to minimize the medieval warming period the abbreviate as MWP.
I addition to this the AGW mafia godfather spends most of his time to devise schemes how to quash anything and anybody who has evidence that the MWP was warmer than he says it was.
Here is an example where he instructs his to use an apt mafia term "made" men how to discredit any historical evidence about the MWP. email doc # 0966015630
Chris and John (and Mike for info),
I'm basically reiterating Mike's email. There seem to be two lots of suggestions doing the rounds
The typical comments I've heard, generally relate to the MWP, and say
that crops and vines were grown further north than they are now (the
vines grown in York in Viking times etc). Similarly, statements about
frost fairs and freezing of the Baltic so armies could cross etc. Frost
fairs on the Thames in London occurred more readily because the tidal
limit was at the old London Bridge (the 5ft weir under it). The bridge
was rebuilt around the 1840s and the frost fairs stopped.
If statements continue to be based on historical accounts they will be easy to knock
down with all the usual phrases such as the need for contemporary
sources, reliable chroniclers and annalists, who witnessed the events
rather than through hearsay.
As you all know various people in CRU have considerable experience in dealing with this
type of data. Christian Pfister also has a lifetime of experience of this.

There is lots more but that`s for later postings.

 

[mamooth]

This nonsense was all debunked back in 2010. Sadly for deniers, recycling such old conspiracy theories is the best they can do now.

To save some time, check out this Reddit thread. A denier parrots the standard list of bogus accusations, and all of those accusations get shredded, in detail.

Summary of notable emails from the CRU hacking scandal • /r/science

 

[LaDexter]

It was not debunked. It was glossed over and covered up.

 

[polarbear]

This nonsense was all debunked back in 2010. Sadly for deniers, recycling such old conspiracy theories is the best they can do now.

To save some time, check out this Reddit thread. A denier parrots the standard list of bogus accusations, and all of those accusations get shredded, in detail.

Summary of notable emails from the CRU hacking scandal • /r/science

How are these emails "bogus accusations" and where exactly are these accusations getting "shredded in detail"?
Your as usual lame "conspiracy theory" defense does not change the content of these emails which reveal in great detail what a bunch of lying s.o.b.s. these so called scientist really are.
I bet you have never even read a single one of the emails on that list yourself and just go by what some idiot like the "skeptical science" blogger tells you.
How exactly does the public exposure of an email advising another "climatologist" how to cheat become a "bogus accusation".
You should apply for a job in the Clinton foundation, you would fit right in

 

[westwall]

Yes indeed. Welcome back and I am very sorry to hear of your loss. That's a tough road to follow.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This nonsense was all debunked back in 2010. Sadly for deniers, recycling such old conspiracy theories is the best they can do now.

To save some time, check out this Reddit thread. A denier parrots the standard list of bogus accusations, and all of those accusations get shredded, in detail.

Summary of notable emails from the CRU hacking scandal • /r/science

"Debunked! DEBUNKED!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Welcome back Polarbear!

Thanks for the welcome back.
I just lost my wife to cancer and after 41 years of marriage and it hit me hard. At the same time I have to console my 3 great grandchildren who have been in our care since birth....it`s been heart renting, but for their sake I have to stay on my feet. This forum helps me to take a little reprieve from the grief which is impossible to put into words.
So I downloaded the entire wikileaks email hack and started to read it in order to distract myself.
What I noticed was that the bulk of them are almost desperate efforts by the M. Mann mob to chastise if not outright censor all dissent and fabricate data to minimize the medieval warming period the abbreviate as MWP.
I addition to this the AGW mafia godfather spends most of his time to devise schemes how to quash anything and anybody who has evidence that the MWP was warmer than he says it was.
Here is an example where he instructs his to use an apt mafia term "made" men how to discredit any historical evidence about the MWP. email doc # 0966015630
Chris and John (and Mike for info),
I'm basically reiterating Mike's email. There seem to be two lots of suggestions doing the rounds
The typical comments I've heard, generally relate to the MWP, and say
that crops and vines were grown further north than they are now (the
vines grown in York in Viking times etc). Similarly, statements about
frost fairs and freezing of the Baltic so armies could cross etc. Frost
fairs on the Thames in London occurred more readily because the tidal
limit was at the old London Bridge (the 5ft weir under it). The bridge
was rebuilt around the 1840s and the frost fairs stopped.
If statements continue to be based on historical accounts they will be easy to knock
down with all the usual phrases such as the need for contemporary
sources, reliable chroniclers and annalists, who witnessed the events
rather than through hearsay.
As you all know various people in CRU have considerable experience in dealing with this
type of data. Christian Pfister also has a lifetime of experience of this.

There is lots more but that`s for later postings.

Sorry for your loss, Brother

 

[polarbear]

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: 1996 global temperatures
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Phil
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December
monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.
I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:
David computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
heights up to 20 Dec.
We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov
We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
Nicholls??
We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also
FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.
We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.
For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.
Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

Cheers

Geoff

That email was addressed to Phil Jones who was part of the "we" in the fun they had pulling off a similar scam as mentioned in the first line.
The same Phil Jones who said:
Climatologist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims

Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia denies emails provide evidence of collusion by climatologists to fix data

Yeah but --- CRU was investigated and this was determined to be "normal business".

Colluding to control the public discussion and information -- IN CONJUNCTION with the govt --- is the worst possible insult to science.

You ever see Phil Jones at work in his office? You might then understand how all that data gets lost. This was from a Nova special on ice core studies.

I found an email that clearly shows that he does not just loose data, but follows M.Mann`s advice not to share any data other with anyone who might not conform as ordered by the Don Corleone of "Climate science" M.E.Mann
See email # 107635909
HI Phil,
Personally, I wouldn't send him anything. I have no idea what he's up to, but you can be
sure it falls into the "no good" category........
blah blah blah
........ I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of
their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do
so at our own peril!
talk to you later,
mike
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: [email protected] Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137

 

[mamooth]

How are these emails "bogus accusations" and where exactly are these accusations getting "shredded in detail"?

In the chain of responses to the initial reddit denier propaganda post. Which, obviously, you refused to look at. What a surprise.

Your as usual lame "conspiracy theory" defense does not change the content of these emails which reveal in great detail what a bunch of lying s.o.b.s. these so called scientist really are.

No, they show no such thing. You're flinging mud at your moral and intellectual betters, to score points with your political cult.

I bet you have never even read a single one of the emails on that list yourself and just go by what some idiot like the "skeptical science" blogger tells you.

I _know_ you and every denier here refused to look at your bogus claims getting ripped apart. After all, your cult forbids you from looking at non-cult sources.

In contrast, I read all the emails in question. I had to, to understand the refutations. That's how I know with 100% certainty you're pushing a fraud. You can fool your fellow cultists, but not honest people.

How exactly does the public exposure of an email advising another "climatologist" how to cheat become a "bogus accusation".

Obviously, because no such thing happened.

You should apply for a job in the Clinton foundation, you would fit right in

When you ramble away from science into crazy political conspiracy theories, you confirm to everyone how you're merely a political cultist, pushing the propaganda of his political cult.

 

[westwall]

How are these emails "bogus accusations" and where exactly are these accusations getting "shredded in detail"?

In the chain of responses to the initial reddit denier propaganda post. Which, obviously, you refused to look at. What a surprise.

Your as usual lame "conspiracy theory" defense does not change the content of these emails which reveal in great detail what a bunch of lying s.o.b.s. these so called scientist really are.

No, they show no such thing. You're flinging mud at your moral and intellectual betters, to score points with your political cult.

I bet you have never even read a single one of the emails on that list yourself and just go by what some idiot like the "skeptical science" blogger tells you.

I _know_ you and every denier here refused to look at your bogus claims getting ripped apart. After all, your cult forbids you from looking at non-cult sources.

In contrast, I read all the emails in question. I had to, to understand the refutations. That's how I know with 100% certainty you're pushing a fraud. You can fool your fellow cultists, but not honest people.

How exactly does the public exposure of an email advising another "climatologist" how to cheat become a "bogus accusation".

Obviously, because no such thing happened.

You should apply for a job in the Clinton foundation, you would fit right in

When you ramble away from science into crazy political conspiracy theories, you confirm to everyone how you're merely a political cultist, pushing the propaganda of his political cult.

They absolutely DO show that. Your continued attempt to deflect from what is in fact unarguable, while amusing, is simply stupid. Without widespread data falsification, and obfuscation, you would have nothing.

 

[polarbear]

@ Westwall, thanks for the condolence. Its nice to see that people do care.
I took a look at the tail end of this email heap and found one where Trenberth wrote this to M.Mann and a host of other climatologists email doc 125550975
>> Tom.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We
>>> are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past
>>> two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.
>>> The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
>>> smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was
>>> about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
>>> This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was
>>> canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
>>> weather).
>>>

.........then farther down:
That email exchange was with Tom Wigley <[email protected]>
Who wrote this:
Kevin,I didn't mean to offend you. But what you said was "we can't account
for the lack of warming at the moment". Now you say "we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going". In my eyes these are two
different things -- the second relates to our level of understanding,
and I agree that this is still lacking.

Tom.

++++++++++++++++++
To which Trenberth replied:

> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin
Then M.Mann chimed in on that same email exchange after The BBC aired a segment about the subject:
>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.
>>>> its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat
>>>> at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was
>>>> formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
>>>> We may do something about this on RealClimate

So I wonder is it just me or does anyone else get the impression that Trenberth has some doubts about his much touted energy budget