The Political Climate – CO2 IS NOT GREEN

I left the following comment at  http://politicalclimate.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/co2-is-not-green

Jamie seems a nice boy, but he certainly is swallowing the AGW hype without exercising his own inquiring brain.

One thing that is very sad but true, he claims that even children “understand” the CO2 causes Global Warming. It is true that children do not understand but will believe these lies and only a minority will be able to climb out of their early childhood influence and figure things out for themselves.

It is possible Jamie is one of those children from a few years back.

I hope this interchange will at least help him in that respect.

“CO2 = Pollutant?

This is the biggest piece of MISINFORMATION we hear.

1. CO2 is an essential gas for life, should it fall below about 150 ppmv plants would stop growing and all life on earth would die out.

2. Humans are comfortable in a concentration of 1000 ppmv of CO2, plants grow very very well at this concentration. (Ask any greenhouse operator)

3. Although CO2 is blamed for the current warming of the planet (and that assertion is debatable) there is no empirical link between Anthropogenic CO2 and the many observations we are constantly deluged with every day. In fact the unproven hypothesis “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” is just that, unproven hypothesis, and the lack of a causal link is ignored by the alarmists of today.

4. The world has been warmer than the present, in historical times, and before there was any anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, this disproves the premise that there is causiality between CO2 and Global Warming.

5. There have been both Global Warming Scares and Global Cooling Scares since the beginning of the 20th Century.Whats different about this one.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

PS. This comment is also published under your title and url at https://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com  ”

Ok, Roger, I’m going to refute your points in the same order that you presented them. The first phrase of each paragraph explains the way in which you are wrong. The following paragraph explains how you are wrong in more detail. Try to keep up. Here we go:

1. Straw man argument. CO2 is indeed directly necessary for plant life and indirectly necessary to keep our planet habitable via the greenhouse effect. Nobody is talking about completely eliminating it from the atmosphere, that is both impossible and silly. We are talking about simply having too much of it. Ever heard of too much of a good thing? CO2 isn’t even a good thing. It can kill people as surely as any other toxin. Check out Lake Nyos – thousands of people dead on account of CO2. Water is necessary for life too; try breathing in the 100% water environment of your full bathtub.

2. Straw man argument. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 does not represent a direct threat to human habitation. It represents an indirect threat through its greenhouse impacts on climate. Not because it makes the ambient air temperature hotter than what humans can physically withstand, but because it triggers climatic changes that alter the planet in ways that would cause catastrophic damage to our current societal structure in ways such as, but not at all limited to, rising sea levels.

3. Unsubstantiated and false claim. The “assertion” that anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2 is blamed for the current warming is NOT debatable. It is clearly established. You called it an “unproven hypothesis.” This is the part in your argument where deniers like yourself normally also misuse another scientific term and call global warming “just a theory.” You know, same way gravity is “just a theory.” The graph below was compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2000 of the world’s leading climate scientists from 130 countries. Sorry the graph is too large, but the important part is showing.

These are what climate scientists in their professional capacities have determined are exerting heating or cooling impacts on our climate. Check out the greenhouse gases on the left. That’s right – the biggest factor. Show me some credentialed scientific work to the contrary. Just saying something is wrong doesn’t make it wrong. You claim on your blog to “only deal in referenced facts.” …um, walk the walk?

4. Improper inference. True, the world has been both warmer and colder than today, before anthropogenic effects took hold. That does not at all disprove the causality of anthropogenic warming. It doesn’t speak to that at all. An analogous argument would be “Today I hit my head and gave myself a black eye. Because I caused my own black eye today, last week when I had a black eye nobody could possibly have punched me in the face.”

5. This isn’t even logic. The Boy Who Cried Wolf is a children’s story, not a scientific principle. And it’s not even applicable. You may be interested to learn that global warming can actually cause an ice age. It has before. As luck would have it, I have written a post explaining this phenomenon. Also, plenty of other people have taken the time to refute this tired denier talking point, so I don’t have to.

PS. I have not published this exchange anywhere else. Your baseless denialism is not the slightest bit remarkable or new.

Affectionately,
-Jamie Friedland

Jamie,
Since you have immediately started calling me names which incidently illustrates some desperation on your part, I will deliberately and without desperation call YOU an alarmist.

Let me take your points one by one.

1)
CO2 is a pollutant because you can have too much of it.
Quite true you can have too much of it but you need more than 10,000 ppmv before it has any noticeable effect.

Now consider H2O, we can have too much of that too, as some swimmers who have ventured beyond their swimming ability in a lake or river have found to their cost. So under the same reasoning lets call for the limitation of water shall we. How about lakes and rivers must be no more than 100mm deep and be equiped with handrails in case anyone trips.
Absurd yes, but this is illustrating your reasoning.
Of course CO2 is no more a pollutant than water, the vapour of which, as you know, is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.  If the argument you put forth above was in your honours thesis I would give you a D minus.

2)
Ah yes. The “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis. This is the hypothesis upon which all alamists such as yourself rely on whether they are aware of it or not.
There are many observations that the climate appears to be warming, although some debate that. There are observations of increasing long wave radiation, melting glaciers and whatever. All very interesting but where is the empirically tested link to Anthropogenic CO2? Yes in a laboratory one can show that there is a greenhouse effect from CO2, but thats like testing a drug on a rat and then expecting the same drug to work on a human. For a drug to be proven effective for humans may take 10 or 20 years subsequent testing and development.
In the absence of any empirical testing thorough or otherwise we can therefore only describe the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis as an un proven theory.
I might add here that many alarmists such as yourself say “Well perhaps we should cut our anthropogenic CO2 emissions to 40% below 1990 levels – JUST IN CASE”
My answer to that is the cost is too high. You probably have never thought of the cost, but its a little greater than saving a bit of electricity by using eco bulbs in your house.
If the western world actually manages to cut emissions to the 57% from today’s levels, in spite of hopes for alternative technology, it is most likely you and your family, community and country will generally face extreme poverty and you may see people around you and your children starve.
This is why it is important to be very very sure of the as yet unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 Causes Global Warming” hypothesis before we ruin our economies.
Why dont you discuss this with an economics major at your university and see what he thinks?

3)  Well I have appeared to have covered 3 already. However I would point out that gravity and its effects are easily proven empirically.

4)Oh I am afraid that the fact that the world has been warmer than now, and cooled off and warmed again does disprove the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis. In order to show it is a different sort of warming this time, one would need to know intimately what caused the previous warmings and cooling and show that those factors are absent this time. Even that wouldn’t prove the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis, but it might remove one disproving factor.
 About the only thing we know about these previous warmings at the moment is that CO2 was not a factor, because 1 it appears to have been relatively low, 2 there was no anthropogenic CO2.
On your analogy of hitting yourself in the eye, I would give you another D minus.

5)
Well I agree the fact that there have been scares before does not prove anything scientific. It just shows that humans are easily scared and may possibly even enjoy the experience.

I know I haven’t offered any references to support these statements, but I do sincerely invite you to visit my blog where there are penty of links to scientific papers etc which not only support what I am talking about but are of great scientific interest in themselves.

Cheers

Roger

Roger, that is annoyance you sense, not desperation. And I am guilty of condescension, not name-calling. What names did I call you, “denier?” That is descriptive, not vitriolic. I personally don’t consider it the slightest bit flattering, but that is beside the point. If you’re overly sensitive to that then perhaps the charge hits close to home. Re: “alarmist,”…touche? You may call me whatever you like.

You say that you have references to support all your statements on your blog. I looked. You appear to cite papers there, but everything is a mess. You cannot expect me to research the support for all your claims; you’re the one making them, that’s your job. If you say you have all the information to backup your claims, marshall your facts and do so. That will be the theme of this response. If you don’t the time to support your claims, then don’t waste my time and please take your baseless rants elsewhere.

1. More baseless claims. I cannot “argue” with you if you are just making things up. According to whom is the threshold CO2 level for “noticeable” greenhouse warming 10,000 ppm? Back up your claims.

…or are you referring to the CO2 concentration necessary to have a direct negative impact on immediate human health? Because if you are, you have completely missed the point.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt (which is assuming you simply didn’t back up a claim), the climate record shows a remarkable correlation between temperature and atmospheric GHG levels going back hundreds of thousands of years. It is highly “noticeable.” So are the noticeably rising temperatures and their correspondence with the noticeably rising CO2 concentration on account of fossil fuel combustion that is occurring as we speak.

Click the picture if it cuts off.

Also, obviously water and CO2 are different. I am not arguing that water is a pollutant or that CO2 is a pollutant merely because it can exist in excess. I used water as an example to counter the fallacious argument that just because something is necessary for life means it cannot have negative effects – because you presented that very argument. That was your Point 1, remember? I refuted it.

2. Yet more baseless claims. SOURCES, SIR. I am conveying the established position of an entire scientific field. You are attempting to refute that science. You must do so with facts. You cannot expect us just to take your word for it.

3. You have addressed neither 2 nor 3. I presented empirical data from the IPCC. You merely responded that no data exist and started talking about rats.

4. Again, you have simply called me wrong and used your proclamation as proof of its own veracity. Not compelling or even a response. We know that natural forces such as solar variance can influence climate. We also know that artificial forces such as increased CO2 levels can influence climate. The two are not mutually exclusive.

We do not “know that CO2 was not a factor in previous warmings.” In fact, the opposite is true. See the graph above.

How we know this warming is different, you ask? Aside from a basic understanding of chemistry and the greenhouse effect, we are experiencing the hottest year on record DESPITE being at the deepest solar minimum in a century.

5. So you concede this point. Super.

 

 

Jamie,

You have either not understood my point or are simply refusing to consider it.
You are also too arrogant to read the links on my blog, (Thats the list on the right hand side),but I do understand you may find the truths there somewhat painful to your beliefs.

The graph you supply is entirely irrelevant to the point I am trying to explain to you because as I have already said, Correlation does not prove Causiality. I suggest after you finish your honours year that you take Stats 101, where the first thing you will be told  is  Correlation does not prove Causiality.

Your graph is interesting though because it clearly shows that temperature is consistantly leading CO2 probably by some hundreds of years,  which while it proves nothing, does disprove that CO2 is causing the warming. This suggests the premise that the CO2 is caused by the warming because CO2 is released from the oceans as well as biological activity as the temperature rose.

Good luck with the Stats 101.

Perhaps then you will stop thinking that observations constitute proof.

Cheers

 

PS.

 “More baseless claims. I cannot “argue” with you if you are just making things up. According to whom is the threshold CO2 level for “noticeable” greenhouse warming 10,000 ppm? Back up your claims.”

As there is no evidence that CO2 causes global warming, my comment was related to any actual harmful and beneficial effects
the increasing concentration of CO2 might have.

 I didnt bother to supply references because a quick google will give you, amongst many others, the following links.

“optimal commercial greenhouse carbon dioxide enrichment” http://www.hydrofarm.com/articles/co2_enrichment.php

“safe levels of carbon dioxide”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide.

PS IPCC publication contain very little if anything in the way of proof, and you may note that they are at pains to not actually use that word.
They simply rely on observations and correlations with climate modeling, the latter unfortunately invariable assume the validity of the unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming”, which is why so many eminent scientists in the world express their criticism with the IPCC publications.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Cheers

Roger

Ah. I see I was in fact mistaken in giving you the benefit of the doubt and you were actually still rambling about CO2’s direct toxicity to humans. CO2 is a CLIMATE pollutant, Roger. Similar to noise pollution or light pollution etc. but far more serious. An environmental pollutant. It’s direct toxicity to humans is not the point or even considered in its classification as a pollutant (which, as you will recall, is the point you originally set out to contest).

Yes, CO2 is only directly harmful to humans in concentrations high enough to displace oxygen. Woohoo. That is entirely irrelevant.

If I’d recognized and corrected you on this point in the beginning, I could have saved us the trouble of this back and forth. But we’re here now, and it would be rude for me to ignore you.

Yes, Roger, plants grow slightly better in higher concentrations of CO2. Only with deliberate tunnel vision can one then infer that higher atmospheric concentrations would be a net benefit to society. When one takes into account all the health/human impacts of climate change – rising sea levels, displaced populations, more extreme weather, both droughts and floods (I know, deniers have a hard time wrapping their head around this one), shifting ranges for disease-transmitting organisms…when you stop squinting and look at the whole picture, a warmer planet is decidedly undesirable.

“There is no evidence that CO2 causes global warming”? That is ridiculous. In your first point of your original comment, you yourself explained that CO2 was necessary for life on this planet. You were correct – without the greenhouse effect, this planet would be uninhabitable. The same basic chemical mechanism that makes this planet warm enough to support life also makes it heat up more when additional CO2 is added. You cannot refute this point. It is elementarily basic chemistry. You will not find a single credible expert who disputes the greenhouse effect. You may have intended to dispute just the effects of ANTHROPOGENIC, human-emitted CO2, and plenty of deniers do that, but that is just as dumb; it’s all the same gas. It’s like creationists admitting that an individual species can evolve (microevolution) but maintaining that macroevolutionary speciation (the process by which one species splits into another) is impossible.

“The IPCC publication [sic] contain very little if anything in the way of proof”. Thanks for the links for your tangential, irrelevant first point, but this is a sweeping and unsupported claim. IPCC assessments are summaries of the world’s climate science. They are full of “proof.” Your comment about them not using the word ‘proof’ betrays your general ignorance of science as a whole. There is no concrete certainty in science. That word is never used. That being said, confidence that an explanation explains the current data is accepted as tantamount to fact – unless, contradictory data emerge in the future. Scientists don’t deal in absolute truths; they just determine that a current theory fits the data better than any other. That is as true of anthropogenic climate change as it is of gravity.

As for your petitions of so-called criticism, I will deal with your final example as a fair proxy for all other projects like it. This “Oregon Petition” has been thoroughly debunked. It appears to have the support of numerous scientists, yes, but only a handful of those are climate professionals talking about THEIR FIELD. In reality, 0.1% of its signatories have a background in climatology.

The rest, the vast majority of those signatories on that “petition” who are actually real people and real degreed scientists (which is a much smaller subset of the total), are presenting baseless beliefs about a topic on which they have no expertise whatsoever. That’s about as useful as a dentist weighing in on astrophysics.

Please understand and then explain to your fellow deniers that TV meteorologists are not climate scientists. The former reports the weather. The latter studies climate. There is a significant difference. Weather is a snapshot in time. Climate is much broader, long-term trends. A skilled still photographer is not automatically an expert in videography. The qualifications, subject matter, and training for meteorology and climate science are very, very different.

 

 

Jamie  here is the point.

“…. IF we didn’t know that CO2 causes warming. But it unquestionably does. “

Once again you have made that sweeping statement, which does indeed underpin all Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming based studies, but correct me if I am wrong because I dont see any references as to the truth of that fact except for your sweeping statement.

Simply put we do NOT know this and I am waiting to see if you have any evidence.

Don’t be worried too much if you cant find any because this is the basic hole in the alarmist’s beliefs, but on the otherhand, I would welcome seeing some proof, because believe it or not, my mind is open on this subject.

“You will not find a single credible expert who disputes the greenhouse effect”
Well above I gave you some links which listed many tens of thousands of scientists who do not think anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming. Isnt that good enough for you? You see you don’t need to be a climate scientist to see the holes in the AGW logic, all you need is a reasonable brain.

” When one takes into account all the health/human impacts of climate change – rising sea levels, displaced populations, more extreme weather, both droughts and floods”

My gosh you have swallowed the propaganda badly, You will see on my blog, at least one account showing the Maldives has not had any sea level change, but the local government would not let it be released because that would cost them in relief funds.
History shows that humans do better when the climate warms as agriculture is more productive and there is more precipitation. If you think correlation is a proof, try correlating warm periods with the rise of civilisations, and the cold periods with population decline. Strangely enough extreme weather is historically associated with cold periods, Witness the disappearence of the settlements in Greenland for instance. 
What I am suggesting is that you stop drinking in this propoganda and use your head.

“Scientists don’t deal in absolute truths; they just determine that a current theory fits the data better than any other. That is as true of anthropogenic climate change as it is of gravity.”

Do we have to go through this again? Gravity is easily empirically tested, You select an object of a certain mass and you can check the gravitational pull by using a wonderful machine called a pair of scales.
Take the object off the scales and it shoots back to zero, put two f them on and see the scales read double etc. This is empirical proof. Now lets go and see who has done the same with the climate shall we?
I concede it is not an easy task.
Check out this video, nothing to do with climate change but everything to do with failing to properly prove a hypothesis in a life threatening stituation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxiBHNeTG7o&feature=related

Do not be too proud to watch the video.
Cheers

Roger

Wow. That must be your most blatant lie yet! You actually just claimed that your “mind is open on this subject.” That’s bold. You troll around the internet posting denier comments on climate change blog posts. That’s how we met. Then you repost and catalogue that denial on a website you have built to show off all your comments about how climate change isn’t real to other deniers. Open mind indeed.

This is my final response to you. I have countered all the assertions you raised in your original comment. You have abandoned all but one that you have just attempted to resurrect, but I have addressed it too. Now you have us on a tour of all the other tired denier talking points. Allowing this to continue any longer would be pointless; we are not going to convince each other of anything. I have presented that “proof” you claim to be seeking over and over again. You ignore it. You are clearly a lost cause.

For the last time:
You have again misunderstood. Read what I wrote. I said that no scientist will refute THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT: the warming caused by solar radiation trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases such as CO2. That is basic chemistry. It’s in every natural sciences textbook around the world at every level. It’s a fact that even children understand. There is zero controversy about the greenhouse effect.

It is also an undeniable and quantifiable fact that activities that humans are currently conducting, such as burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests, release larger quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

You cannot possibly argue against either of those facts. It’s impossible. Now, add them up: releasing more – of a gas that causes warming – causes more warming. 1+1=2. I cannot spell this out any more clearly. This is not propaganda or a belief. It just is.

That is the SCIENCE that “underpins” anthropogenic global warming. That is the evidence. I have repeated it again and again, but you refuse to understand.

We are done here. Go waste someone else’s time.

 

 

 

“…. IF we didn’t know that CO2 causes warming. But it unquestionably does. ”

All my questions have been to see if you can give a reasonable reply that shows definitive proof of the above statement.

Frankly you have failed, although I have asked the question a number of times.

The real truth is, if you cant answer that question reasonably, as the whole the AGW claims rest on that fact being true, YOU are the one helping to spread lies. You are the one who is endangering the well being of the people on this planet.

As you will probably refuse to publish this hard truth, I will publish it on http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com where my readers can observe your erroneous religious zealotry.

Cheers

Roger

 

 

the warming caused by solar radiation trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases such as CO2. That is basic chemistry. It’s in every natural sciences textbook around the world at every level. It’s a fact that even children understand. There is zero controversy about the greenhouse effect.”   ………” This is not propaganda or a belief. It just is.”

Jamie, I will not be commenting again.  Thankyou for your willingness to debate these issues. People such as Christine above simply spam comments they dont like or cannot answer.

However what is very definitely shown by your answers, in particular the phrases of yours which I have quoted above, is that you cannot find any proof for the “Anthropogenic CO2 cause Global Warming” hypothesis,(which is the foundation for all AGW thinking) but you have accepted it on faith.
Faith is all very well if you need to believe in something, but because what we are doing in regard to this AGW thinking is likely to effect the world to a catestrophic degree, it is  therefore irresponsible to do any thing except act on verifiable facts.

Cheers

Roger

3 Responses to “The Political Climate – CO2 IS NOT GREEN”

  1. Cowboy Says:

    IPCC empirical data?
    IPCC reports?
    Superman comic books?

    The heart of climategate

    Emails Damning To IPCC, CRU Head, Phil Jones

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/emails-that-damn-cru-head-jones

    Just a sample…
    ______________
    >>>>>>>>>Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick:

    At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

    Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !

    Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
    ___________
    >>>>>>>Jones admits he was warned by his own university against deleting data subjected to an FOI request from McIntyre – or anyone:

    From: Phil Jones

    To: santer1@XXXX

    Subject: Re: A quick question

    Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008

    Ben,

    Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.

    Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!

    >>>>>>>>>Makes you wonder very strongly what Jones is trying to hide, doesn’t it? Also makes you laugh all over again at his claim once that the data being sought had, sadly, been … um, lost.
    ___________________
    In1212063122.txtm, Jones urges another colleague, >>>>>>>>>Michael “Hockey Stick”, Mann, to join in the deleting – at least of emails about the IPCC’s controversial ARA report on man-made warming which Jones co-authored, and which claimed warming was “unequivocal” and “most likely” caused by humans:

    From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

    Mike,

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

    I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

    Cheers

    Phil:
    ____________________________
    >>>>>>>For years Jones has made clear his determination to keep crucial data from the eyes of sceptics:

    From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxx.edu
    Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
    Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
    Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”

    Mike, Ray and Malcolm,

    The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !

    Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !

    Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
    with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.

    The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !

    Cheers

    Phil

    PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.

    Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
    ____________________
    >>>>>>No to disclosure to non-friends!:

    From: Phil Jones
    To: santer, Tom Wigley
    Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
    Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
    Cc: mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler

    Ben,

    When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on –
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Ain’t peer review grand? You only get to be checked by the people you know will agree.

  2. Cowboy Says:

    Emails Damning To IPCC, CRU Head, Phil Jones

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/emails-that-damn-cru-head-jones

    Just a sample…
    ______________
    >>>>>>>>>Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick:

    At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

    Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !

    Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
    ___________
    >>>>>>>Jones admits he was warned by his own university against deleting data subjected to an FOI request from McIntyre – or anyone:

    From: Phil Jones

    To: santer1@XXXX

    Subject: Re: A quick question

    Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008

    Ben,

    Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.

    Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!

    >>>>>>>>>Makes you wonder very strongly what Jones is trying to hide, doesn’t it? Also makes you laugh all over again at his claim once that the data being sought had, sadly, been … um, lost.
    ___________________
    In1212063122.txtm, Jones urges another colleague, >>>>>>>>>Michael “Hockey Stick”, Mann, to join in the deleting – at least of emails about the IPCC’s controversial ARA report on man-made warming which Jones co-authored, and which claimed warming was “unequivocal” and “most likely” caused by humans:

    From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

    Mike,

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

    I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

    Cheers

    Phil:
    ____________________________
    >>>>>>>For years Jones has made clear his determination to keep crucial data from the eyes of sceptics:

    From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxx.edu
    Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
    Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
    Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”

    Mike, Ray and Malcolm,

    The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !

    Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !

    Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
    with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.

    The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !

    Cheers

    Phil

    PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.

    Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
    ____________________
    >>>>>>No to disclosure to non-friends!:

    From: Phil Jones
    To: santer, Tom Wigley
    Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
    Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
    Cc: mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler

    Ben,

    When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on –
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Ain’t peer review grand? You only get to be checked by the people you know will agree.

  3. Jamie Friedland Says:

    If anybody reading this is curious about the actual facts, they are available for free if you follow the link Roger was kind enough to post.

    I did not screen it as spam. It’s relevant. Entirely wrong, but relevant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: