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.
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 <email@example.com>
To: “Michael E. Mann” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
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?