the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

The Denial Parade

Posted by Jeff Id on December 3, 2009

Again this link was received by email and am not sure if they want credit.

First it was ALL of Real Climate, then North, then Santer, comes Kevin Trenberth. All saying the same things (nothing to see, out of context) while not providing the correct context for the emails. For those of us too mentally impaired to understand ‘hide the decline’ it would be nice to have an explanation. They lie to us saying nothing happened while even FOIA law was obviously broken– ‘everything was honest’ despite the hiding of data. I’m tired of bashing on these guys but as their free of charge self appointed lawyer, the best thing for them to do would be to shut the heck up. (we’re tired!!) In the meantime, I’m working on sea ice posts, paper reviews and other fun stuff and don’t mind letting these left-wing professors bent on repressing industry, sink their own boat.

Kevin Trenberth: Standing up for the IPCC Process

Trenberth says, rightly, that he is proud of the openness and accountability shown by scientists such as him and Phil Jones from the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit. We could only cheer the day that the same transparency was shown by, say, the Competitive Enterprise Institute or the Cato Institute – two parties that are being inordinately enthusiastic about these stolen emails.

More specifically, in WG I, there were 11 chapters and the report was 996 pages plus supplementary material online. There were 140 lead authors, hundreds of contributors, and 2 or 3 Review editors for each chapter (26). There were also over 700 reviewers. For Chapter 3, the Coordinating Lead Authors were Kevin E. Trenberth and Philip D. Jones. There were 10 other Lead Authors, and 66 Contributing Authors. The published chapter ran to 101 pp plus online supplementary material, 47 figures (126 panels), 8 Tables, and 863 references, making it the longest chapter in the report. In the expert scientific review there were 2231 comments and another 1270 comments in governmental review, for a total of 3501 comments. Every comment and the writer were entered into a huge spread sheet along with the response and actions taken in terms of changing the text.

The role of the IPCC is to provide policy relevant but not policy prescriptive scientific advice to policy makers and the general public. IPCC scientists with all kinds of value systems, ethnic backgrounds, and from different countries, gather together to produce the best consensus science possible, and with appropriate statements about confidence and uncertainty. The strength of the IPCC report is not just the solid scientific credentials but also the open process by which it is created.

And a little context from the very first post on Climate Gate at tAV.

From: Phil Jones <>
To: “Michael E. Mann” <>
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

If it’s MM 04?? they are discussing, my opinion is that the paper was correct as were the other MM papers. As many of the regulars here know, when you have a background WRT the issues in these emails, they read differently. Kevin, is one of the two lead authors who somehow Phil Jones (the other lead author) knew would support him in making sure MM had as little an effect on IPCC as possible.

Sure they’ll claim ‘out of context’ but there is simply too much here. The worst thing they can do is continue the charade of innocence in the face of so much fact..

It reads like denialists to me……….

What is that next phase?

9 Responses to “The Denial Parade”

  1. Mark T said

    CEI and Cato are private organizations. The IPCC is not. What exactly is that moron thinking making such a comparison?


  2. Jeff C. said

    Earlier today Trenberth was quoted as saying that the skeptics had no right to see Jones life’s work, and that they should do their own temperature records if they doubted his. This guy is either willfully disingenuous or dumb as a stump (a little tree ring humor). This is not some theoretical argument regarding how many angels can sit on the head of a pin; we want to see Jones’ methods because his results are being used to justify restructuring the world’s economy. I’m already paying through my nose to the U.S., the State of California, and the County of Los Angeles. I have no desire to add a few more causes to the list. If this really is a life or death situation, prove it by showing your methods. If you aren’t willing to do that, I’m assuming you’re lying or you’re incompetent. Either way you don’t get the money.

    I’m starting to thing these guys may actually be stupid, at least when it comes to common sense. They have all been talking to the press way to much in a flailing attempt at spin control. Mann has already turned on Jones to some extent regarding the FOI subversion, I’m sure Jones has goods on Mann he could spill if he gets pissed. If they were smart they would shut their traps and consult an attorney. I don’t think they get understand the magnitude of what has happened.

  3. Gary said

    They keep yapping because they know if you repeat an untruth enough people will believe it so you can get away with it. Or they have no sense of right and wrong. Or they’re a lot more clueless than they seem. Or they believe *they* have been wronged. Or it’s a matter of stubbornness. Take your pick. They really have no choice other than holding their position because abandoning it has no up-side for careers or prestige.

  4. timetochooseagain said

    I don’t see sourcewatch being very open about the fact that it is nothing more than left wing crap.

    Well, I guess these people take pride in not having to be entirely honest because, hey, they aren’t entirely dishonest either!

  5. Joshua Corning said

    What is that next phase?


    It will be interesting when they move from plasma to Bose-Einstein condensates

  6. conversefive said

    Neither CEI nor Cato Institue are funded by billions of dollars in taxpayer money from around the world. What an idiotic comparison.

  7. boballab said

    Actually in that same article where the Trenberth statedd they need to redo all the work he said something even more stupid (Yes I know its hard to imagine but he did). Ah found it here is Trenberth trying to “expalin” away his email about falling temps.

    In one e-mail, he writes, “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” Some climate-change deniers have heralded that line as proof that global warming is a hoax, but it refers, Trenberth says, to a problem with the observational instruments used to measure temperatures. “Our instruments couldn’t account for cooling in 2008,” Trenberth says. “So we need to figure out what’s wrong with our system of measurement. But that doesn’t undermine the fact that global warming is real.”

    Read more:,28804,1929071_1929070_1943516,00.html#ixzz0Yi7O0lJY

    Thats right folks since the Black box couldn’t account for cooling in 2008 the Thermometers around the planet were all wrong not the black boxs. It’s the same excuse Briffa uses for tree rings. When they agree with AGW the Tree is a good thermometer and when it stops agreeing we ignore it, but Trenberth is going a step further. He just showed, inadvertantly, that Data that doesn’t agree with the pre determined data is wrong, it has to be not the theory.

  8. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I’m starting to thing these guys may actually be stupid, at least when it comes to common sense.

    Even those of us with a science or engineering background who have known people with excellent science/engineering reputations, but otherwise we thought were not very good thinkers and whom we would generously call naïve, sometimes do not want to make that jump that says if they are not being disingenuous or dishonest then….

    Remember the Nixon tapes (perhaps many of you younger people do not) and how they must have changed the image of many of the politician as rather thoughtful and deliberative persons. As a libertarian, I think the playing of those tapes did much to dispel some myths about politicians that had persisted for many years – not that voters do not continue to yearn and search for a Messiah.

  9. Harold Vance said

    I think that this quote from Trenberth pretty much sums up his usefulness to science:


    So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do.

Leave a Reply

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