Now again, this was spread on multiple sites before it could be contained. I took the link down the moment it became apparent what it was. In the meantime, it spread like CO2 spewing from an evil IC engine’s exhaust. Now that it’s everywhere, there are some incredible quotes and emails which should be and will be addressed. Below is one, allegedly from someone called Phil. Now I started this blog venting about the obvious politics of the IPCC and the control that scientists apparently had over skeptic publications. These emails have been incredibly revealing. We who are skeptical will hear no more criticism of our points that top quality skeptical papers cannot pass through review after these emails. There is widespread evidence here of active collusion to prevent papers which could be interpreted as skeptical from being published.
In the alleged email below, a world famous “scientist” (a very loose interpretation of his job) apparently colludes with a bunch of others to refute a publication which does not conform to the ‘consensus’. He takes it to the point where he intends to put pressure on the Journal to remove the editor that allowed publication. You instantly realize the power these people have over the outcome of science.
Dear All,
Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails this morning in response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and picked up Tom’s old address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling – worst word I can think of today without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I’ll have time to read more at the weekend as I’m coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed, Peck and Keith A. onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait, but I have so much else on at the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should consider what to do there. The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they get. They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998 wasn’t the warmest year globally, because it wasn’t the warmest everywhere. With their LIA being 1300-1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and late
20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes.
Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something – even if this is just to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will usethis paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged.
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.Cheers
Phil
Just what the hell does it matter that CRU has a person on the board, it’s science right?!!! Is the CRU guy a mole set to block any unwelcome publication? And is it a friggin coincidence that CRU has the highest warming of any of the primary temperature measures.
This is a scandal with proportions that reach past all of the imaginations of a skeptics mind. Now I’ve never claimed global warming to be false here at tAV, and this provides absolutely zero evidence either way. However, regardless as to whether the “scientists” or polyscienticians are right or wrong about global warming, the disservice they have done to humanity through this collusion and manipulation approaches criminal. It will be impossible to convince people that this globalization effort is about warming. These many emails demonstrate that climate science is absolutely not a natural consensus but a forced one with leftist governmental goals, manipulated from the IPCC on downward to give the impression of certainty of knowledge.
As I’ve said before, you can’t put 10 people in a room and get agreement on the color of the walls – unless you incarcerate them Jury style.
NoConsensus
the Air Vent 
Subject: Re: FOIA
Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
Tom,
I’ll look at what you’ve said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don’t know the other panel members. I’ve not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any
requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to
deal with them.
Cheers
Phil
Subject: Re: FW: retraction request
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:57 -0400
Thanks Phil,
We R now responding to a former TV weather forecaster who has got press, He has a web site
of 40 of the USHCN stations showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases.
We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out.
Regards, TOm
said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990)
paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to
submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers
to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press
in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in
the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested
JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.
In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization
at two sites in China.
Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
Cheers
Phil
I’m calling it the Zimmerman Telegram of Climate Change
I became a scientist 30 yrs ago, instead of a lawyer (I would have been pretty good at it) because I craved truth and science gave me the satisfaction of using the scientific method to improve my environment and that of others. I am happy to say I achieve those goals every day. But I am Gobsmacked, pissed off and just f’ing astonished at this outrage. I have previously given the “team” the benefit of the doubt that they were simply too busy “doing science” to worry about simple errors and un-intentional biases. But now……Sheesh. Unbelievable!!
Dear Phil,
I’ve known Rick Piltz for many years. He’s a good guy. I believe he used
to work with Mike MacCracken at the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
I’ll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can.
The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is
of crucial importance – it changed the way the world thinks about human
effects on climate. Your work mattered in the 1980s, and it matters now.
With best wishes,
Ben
========
I put my $5 on Pat in that fight.
Wow there are amazing emails in here! I’m sure the embarassment is extreme but in reality the conspiracy points will hold a lot less weight than before. It’s a bunch of guys who believe in warming so much they will shut out any dissent. They even discuss with each other about things like Mann’s work – which is crap.
In the emails, people seem to realize the potential for exposure to the public and take a good deal of care in not expressing their full opinions. It’s a pile of leftists with an agenda and an already determined conclusion who don’t believe they should have to reveal their data or methods in full openness.
We should just pay the friggin’ money and listen to their wisdom.
No surprises there.
Jeff, slowly but surely I grasp what has happen (Hadley CRU hacked), and that The Air Vent got it, and you realized the wealth of this material. Therefore you deserve congratulation, as FOIA does. I wrote a letter to him at the posting – Open Letter On Climate Legislation (# 21) , which I would like also to place here:
TO: FOIA (# 10)
RE: The Air Vent: Open Letter On Climate Legislation (# 10)
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/
You did it. You made many people very, very happy with your visit here and the given link. Luckily Jeff Id discovered it immediately: “This is the biggest news ever broken here. hunter said November 20, 2009 at 12:01 am , „Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
God bless you.“ And at : http://www.examiner.com Terry Hurlbut (Nov19; 9:42 PM) said: „Commentary on all the blogs involved has been brisk, except, oddly enough, at The Air Vent, where only seven comments have been received.“
Allow me to assume you did it intentionally with regard to the subject OPEN LETTER. That would at least make me very happy, as it would be a clear indication that there are other persons out (at minimum one), which would agree with me that a science is nuisance if it is not able and willing to define in a reasonable scientific manner what it is talking about. That the talking about a definition on CLIMATE should not be taken lightly, is indicated in my previous comment. # 20 https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/
If a nonsense term is used by science it is not only misleading the simple people, but also shows that they do not understand what they are talking about. That is the real tragic of all the talking about the CO2 greenhouse gases since the James Hansen’s AGW claim before the US Senate in 1988. They stare in the air, without knowing where they are going to. OK. Currently, presumably only you, (few other ?) and I know. That should change, and your kind appearance here may have been a help, hopefully, for which you deserves my highest appreciation, and sincere thanks.
Gratefully yours
Arnd Bernaerts
#8, thanks for the kind words, however I deserve only the credit of having a blog. This was dropped on your thread by an unknown individual who has faced great personal risk. I took the link down within seconds of reading it – really in seconds. It was still too late. My hope is that they are personally bankrupt because these climate guys will hunt them down mercilessly and if they have no money it will hurt less.
In the meantime the person has revealed MANY important facts about the nature of climate science. Oddly enough, despite the collusion and forced consensus it’s not as bad as it could of been and I find that comforting. My views of the individuals are actually better than they were.
That being said, the boys ain’t clean and it will be a huge embarassment for a long time to come.
At least your open letter got several thousand views!! The Air Vent had what would have been a record day in the first 3 hours of today.
Oh yeah. Steve Mosher was the first to understand what the post contained.
If i may say so I think P Jones admitted that they were genuine in the context that he did not have a clue that so much was out there and that it would discredited the skeptics/deniers that they had done this… I also believe that it must have been an insider who saw the light and opted to go with the winning side.. even if this had not happened the climate would have not cooperated.
“it must have been an insider” – very possibly – “who saw the light”: could be – or who was denied a promotion, or was about to be sacked, or whose girl friend started sleeping with someone else, or just about any other reason that happens among humans.
I quite like the respect offered to Steve M (amongst others) in 1233249393.txt from someone called P Jones and another called B Santer
Hello Jeff,
We are dealing with a conspiracy here which is really huge.
It starts with the involved scientists and it ends up with our current world leaders.
And those world leaders have a single objective: World Government.
Even the new President of the EU expressed his commitment to Global Governance in his speech yesterday. We have heard it from Al Gore, an numerous other politicians and it’s in the concept of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty.
In my opinion this conspiracy is directed at our current States and a threat to our economies, our our jobs, our assets, our future, our civil rights and our freedom.
At this moment in time only the US Senate stands between our current States and the World Government.
If this conspiracy is succeeds, our countries and the world as we know it will cease to exist.
From that moment on we will be enslaved in our own country.
We had no voice in the election of the European President.
The people of Europe originally voted in favor of a free European market.
Some countries organized a referendum (France, The Netherlands) but the people said no.
We did not get a second chance. Our Politicians have stolen our rights and now European Commissars make our laws. Just imagine, ten minutes after they appointed a President he talks about a World Government.
You ar right with your statement that the data file is “Gold”.
We have to use it to involve the US Senate and stop EPA.
This is the only way to stop this madness.
That’s funny, their attitude towards Steve indicates that they think he was a real problem. Someone that takes a lot of time and energy to refute, repress and explain away. I was under the impression from RC that he was a non-entity, that didn’t know what he was doing and wasn’t worth bothering with.
One thing is readily apparent, these guys burn a lot of jet fuel.
This e-mail is explaining the inconsistancies within the scientific report. The journal is refered to as bad, because the methods used are bad.
Move along, nothing to see here…
#20, It’s just evidence of the mechanisms of consensus. Mike mann’s stuff got through review pretty easily. I think the reviews were included somewhere, yet his paper is nothing but garbage. The point is to demonstrate one small example of the method by which consensus occurs.