The Right Kind of People

UPDATE: Reader Stacey left a bomb in #9 of the thread below.


Long time readers here will recognize this theme, new readers can assume it from the URL I’ve been using. The concept of a complete consensus among humans only occurs when a structure bands them together on an opinion. In AGW science, we know for certain that we don’t really know much, therefore a consensus must come from unscientific pressures. I and many others have maintained that government funding has corrupted the science and systematically eliminated dissent at all levels. It is a self-filtering process (not a centrally controlled conspiracy) which ensures that climate scientists have a nearly singular mindset on global warming and a singular cause to crusade for. Scientists are naturally skeptics as the infighting on truly major issues in these emails shows. Discussions are often had in terms of good and bad people, causes and damage. How is it that a paper causes damage? Much of the malfeasance in these emails focuses on mitigation of damage to the ‘message’.

When publicly funded, leaders know that outward appearance is critical to the mission.  In something as big as global warming, the illusion of a perfect consensus must be maintained for the now massive environmental departments and organizations including the IPCC to succeed in their political goals. Probably the single largest message from both climategate releases is the open viewing of the effects this mechanism has on the science itself. Repression of conflicting evidence in exchange for more extreme results.

It is actually humorous reading these guys talk to each other about how skeptics are oil funded and politically motivated followed by the next proposal for 3million euros from the taxpayer. They never seem to notice that the blogs are unfunded or that their cohorts who disagree don’t take oil money and the few who have get values 1/100th of the UEA. There is even an email from Mike Hulme telling greenpeace that the UEA won’t support their extremist attacks on Exxon and a second ‘private’ email telling them that he does. In case you are unaware, Greenpeace has become an openly anti-capitalist group with a stated mission of reigning in capitalism for the purpose of reducing our standards of living. Hulme, and many of his friends, are absolutely political extremists who somehow never seem to notice that they all agree with each other on politics. If you happen to be one who doesn’t agree, well they know how to take care of that little problem.

This first email relates to a paper I haven’t read that very well may have problems, but it shows the filtering process in action. It is a long email but important. I have highlighted a few quotes which help bring my points above into light.

From email #3265

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:29:22 +0100
To: c.goodess@uea,phil Jones <>
From: Mike Hulme <>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Climate Research
Clare, Phil,
Since Clare and CRU are named in it, you may be interested in Chris de Freitas’ reply to
the publisher re. my letter to Otto Kinne.  I am not responding to this, but await a
reply from Kinne himself.

From: “Chris de Freitas”
To: Inter-Research Science Publisher <>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:45:56 +1200
Subject: Re: Climate Research
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Otto (and copied to Mike Hulme)

I have spent a considerable amount of my time on this matter and had
my integrity attacked in the process. I want to emphasize that the
people leading this attack are hardly impartial observers. Mike
himself refers to “politics” and political incitement involved. Both
     Hulme and Goodess are from the Climate Research Unit of UEA that is
     not particularly well known for impartial views on the climate change
     debate.  The CRU has a large stake in climate change research funding
     as I understand it pays the salaries of most of its staff.  I
understand too the journalist David Appell was leaked information to
fuel a public attack. I do not know the source
  Mike Hulme refers to the number of papers I have processed for CR
     that “have been authored by scientists who are well known for their
     opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering
     global climate.” How many can he say he has processed? I suspect the
answer is nil. Does this mean he is biased towards scientists “who
are well known for their support for the notion that humans are
significantly altering global climate?
Mike Hulme quite clearly has an axe or two to grind, and, it seems, a
political agenda. But attacks on me of this sort challenge my
professional integrity, not only as a CR editor, but also as an
academic and scientist. Mike Hulme should know that I have never
     accepted any research money for climate change research, none from
any “side” or lobby or interest group or government or industry. So I
have no pipers to pay.
This matter has gone too far. The critics show a lack of moral
imagination. And the Cramer affair is dragged up over an over again.
People quickly forget that Cramer (like Hulme and Goodess now) was
attacking Larry Kalkstein and me for approving manuscripts, in
     Hulme’s words,  “authored by scientists who are well known for their
     opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering
     global climate.”
I would like to remind those who continually drag up the Cramer
affair that Cramer himself was not unequivocal in his condemnation of
Balling et al’s manuscript (the one Cramer refereed and now says I
should have not had published – and what started all this off). In
fact, he did not even recommend that it be rejected. He stated in his
review: “My review of the manuscript is mainly with the conclusions
of the work. For technical assessment, I do not myself have
sufficient experience with time series analysis of the kind presented
by the authors.” He goes on to recommend: “revise and resubmit for
additional review”. This is exactly what I did; but I did not send it
back to him after resubmission for the very reason that he himself
confessed to ignorance about the analytical method used.
Am I to trundle all this out over and over again because of criticism
from a lobbyist scientists who are, paraphrasing Hulme, “well known
for their support for the notion that humans are significantly
altering global climate”.
The criticisms of Soon and Baliunas (2003) CR article raised by Mike
Hume in his 16 June 2003 email to you was not raised by the any of
the four referees I used (but is curiously similar to points raided
by David Appell!). Keep in mind that referees used were selected in
consultation with a paleoclimatologist. Five referees were selected
based on the guidance I received. All are reputable
paleoclimatologists, respected for their expertise in reconstruction
of past climates. None (none at all) were from what Hans and Clare
     have referred to as “the other side” or what Hulme refers to as
     people well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are
     significantly altering global climate.” One of the five referees
turned down the request to review explaining he was busy and would
not have the time. The remaining four referees sent their detailed
comments to me. None suggested the manuscript should be rejected. S&B
were asked to respond to referees comments and make extensive
alterations accordingly. This was done.
I am no paleoclimatolgist, far from it, but have collected opinions
from other paleoclimatologists on the S&B paper. I summarise them
here. What I take from the S&B paper is an attempt to assess climate
data lost from sight in the Mann proxies. For example, the raising on
lowering of glacier equilibrium lines was the origin of the Little
Ice Age as a concept and still seems to be a highly important proxy,
even if a little difficult to precisely quantify.
Using a much larger number of “proxy” indicators than Mann did, S&B
inquired whether there was a globally detectable 50-year period of
unusual cold in the LIA and a similarly warm era in the MWP. Further,
they asked if these indicators, in general, would indicate that any
similar period in the 20th century was warmer than any other era.
S&B did not purport to do independent interpretation of climate time
series, either through 50-year filters or otherwise. They merely
adopt the conclusions of the cited authors and make a scorecard. It
seems pretty evident to me that temperatures in the LIA were the
lowest since the LGM. There are lots of peer-reviewed paleo-articles
which assert the existence of LIA.
Frankly, I have difficulty understanding this particular quibble.
Some sort of averaging is necessary to establish the ‘slower’ trends,
and that sort of averaging is used by every single study – they
average to bring out the item of their interest. A million year
average would do little to enlighten, as would detailed daily
readings. The period must be chosen to eliminate as much of the
‘noise’ as possible without degrading the longer-term signals
As I read the S&B paper, it was a relatively arbitrary choice – and
why shouldn’t it be? It was only chosen to suppress spurious signals
and expose the slower drift that is inherent in nature. Anyone that
has seen curves of the last 2 million years must recognize that an
averaging of some sort has taken place. It is not often, however,
that the quibble is about the choice of numbers of years, or the
exact methodology – those are chosen simply to expose ‘supposedly’
useful data which is otherwise hidden from view.
Let me ask Mike this question. Can he give an example of any dataset
where the S&B characterization of the source author is incorrect? (I
am not vouching for them , merely asking.)
S&B say that they rely on the original characterizations, not that
they are making their own; I don’t see a problem a priori on relying
on characterizations of others or, in the present circumstances, of
presenting a literature review. While S&B is a literature review, so
is this section of IPCC TAR, except that the S&B review is more
The Mann et al multi-proxy reconstruction of past temperatures has
many problems and these have been well documented by S&B and others.
My reading of the IPCC TAR leads me to the conclusion that Mann et al
has been used as the basis for a number of assertions: 1. Over the
past millennium (at least for the NH) the temperature has not varied
significantly (except for the European/North Atlantic sector) and
hence the climate system has little internal variability. This
statement is supported by an analysis of model behaviour, which also
shows little internal variability in climate models. 2. Recent global
warming, as inferred from instrument records, is large and unusual in
the context of the Mann et al temperature reconstruction from multi-
proxies. 3. Because of the previous limited variability and the
recent warming that cannot be explained by known natural forcing
(volcanic activity and solar insolation changes) human activity is
the likely cause of the recent global change.
In this context, IPCC mounts a powerful case. But the case rests on
two main foundations; the past climate has shown little variability
and the climate models reflect the internal variability of the
climate system. If either or both are shown to be weak or fallacious
     then the IPCC case is weakened or fails.
S&B have examined the premise that the globally integrated
temperature has hardly varied over the past millennium prior to the
instrumental record. I agree it is not rocket science that they have
performed. They have looked at the evidence provided by researchers
to see if the trend of the temperature record of the European/North
Atlantic sector (which is not disputed by IPCC) is reflected in
individual records from other parts of the globe (Their three
questions). How objective is their assessment? From a purely
statistical viewpoint the work can be criticised. But if you took a
purely statistical approach you probably would not have sufficient
data to reach an unambiguous conclusion, or you could try statistical
fiddles to combine the data and end up with erroneous results under
the guise of statistical significance. S&B have looked at the data
and reached the conclusion that probably the temperature record from
other parts of the globe follows the same pattern as that of the
European/North Atlantic sector. Of the individual proxy records that
I have seen I would agree that this is the case. I certainly have not
found significant regions of the NH that were cold during the
medieval period and warm during the Little Ice Age period that are
necessary offsets of the European/North Atlantic sector necessary to
reach a hemispherically flat pattern as derived by Mann et al.
S&B have put forward sufficient evidence to challenge the Mann et al
analysis outcome and seriously weaken the IPCC assertions based on
Mann et al. Paleo reconstruction of temperatures and the global
pattern over the past millennium and longer remains a fertile field
for research. It suggests that the climate system is such that a
major temporal variation as is universally recognised for the
European/North Atlantic region would be reflected globally and S&B
have given support to this view.
     It is my belief that the S&B work is a sincere endeavour to find out
     whether MWP and LIA were worldwide phenomena. The historical evidence
     beyond tree ring widths is convincing in my opinion. The concept of
     “Little Ice Age” is certainly used practically by all Holocene paleo-
     climatologists, who work on oblivious to Mann’s “disproof” of its
Paleoclimatologists tell me that, for debating purposes, they are
more inclined to draw attention to the Holocene Optimum (about 6000
BP) as an undisputed example of climate about 1-2 deg C warmer than
at present, and to ponder the entry and exit from the Younger Dryas
as an example of abrupt climate change, than to get too excited about
the Medieval Warm Period, which seems a very attenuated version.
However, the Little Ice Age seems valid enough as a paleoclimatic
concept. North American geologists repeatedly assert that the 19th
century was the coldest century in North America since the LGM. To
that extent, showing temperature increase since then is not unlike a
mutual fund salesmen showing expected rate of return from a market
bottom – not precisely false, but rather in the realm of sleight-of-

His email exposes not only how he has been attacked but the general weakness of our understanding of extreme warming – which is the real reason for the vehement attacks. In another email (#3052), the correct reaction to this paper was discussed extensively by the ‘in crowd’.– my bold again.

date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:21:50 +1200
subject: Another course of Action – Recent climate sceptic research and the
to:,,,, Phil Jones,,,

Dear All

For information, De Freitas has finally put all his arguments
together in a paper published in the Canadian Bulletin of Petroleum
Geology, 2002 (on holiday at the moment, and the reference is at

I have had thoughts also on a further course of action. The present
Vice Chancellor of the University of Auckland, Professor John Hood
(comes from an engineering background) is very concerned that
Auckland should be seen as New Zealand’s premier research
university, and one with an excellent reputation internationally. He
is concerned to the extent that he is monitoring the performance of
ALL his senior staff, from Associate Professor upwards, including
interviews with them. My suggestion is that a band of you review
editors write directly to Professor Hood with your concerns. In it
you should point out that you are all globally recognized top
climate scientist. It is best that such a letter come from outside
NZ and is signed by more than one person. His address is:

Professor John Hood
Vice Chancellor
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, New Zealand

Let me know what you think! See suggested text below.



Some suggested text below:


We write to you as the editorial board(review editors??) of the
leading international journal Climate Research for climate scientists
We are very concerned at the poor standards and personal biases
shown by a member of your staff. …..

When we originally appointed … to the editorial board we were
under the impression that they would carry out their duties in an
objective manner as is expected of scientists world wide. We
were also given to understand that this person has been honoured
with science communicator of the year award, several times by
your … organisation.

Instead we have discovered that this person has been using his
position to promote ‘fringe’ views of various groups with which
they are associated around the world. It perhaps would have been
less disturbing if the ‘science’ that was being passed through
the system was sound. However, a recent incident has alerted us
to the fact that poorly constructed and uncritical work has been
allowed to enter the pages of the journal. A recent example has
caused outrage amongst leading climate scientists around the
world and has resulted in the journal dismissing (??).. from the
editorial board.

We bring this to your attention since we consider it brings the
name of your university and New Zealand into some disrepute. We
leave it to your discretion what use you make of this

The journal itself cannot be considered completely blameless in
this situation and we clearly need to tighten some of our
editorial processes; however, up until now we have relied on the
honour and professionalism of our editors. Sadly this incident
has damaged our faith in some of our fellow scientists.
Regrettably it will reflect on your institution as this person is
a relatively senior staff member.


> At 16:19 17/04/03 +1000, wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >
> >I just want to throw in some thoughts re appropriate responses to all
> >this – probably obvious to some of you, but clearly different from
> >some views expressed. This is not solely a reply to Phil Jones, as I
> >have read lots of other emails today including all those interesting
> >ones from Michael Mann.
> >
> >1. I completely understand the frustration by some at having to
> >consider a reply to these nonsense papers, and I agree that such
> >replies will not get cited much and may in fact draw attention to
> >papers which deserve to be ignored.
> >
> >2. However, ignoring them can be interpreted as not having an answer,
> >and whether we ignore them or not, there are people and lobby groups
> >which will push these papers as ‘refereed science’ which WILL be
> >persuasive to many small or large decision-makers who are NOT
> >competent to make their own scientific judgements, and some of whom
> >wish the enhanced GH effect would turn out to be a myth. In our
> >Australian backwater for example, such papers WILL/ARE being copied
> >to business executives and politicians to bolster anti-FCCC
> >decisions, and these people do matter. There has to be a well-argued
> >and authoritative response, at least for private circulation, and as
> >a basis for advice to these decision-makers.
> >
> >3. I see several possible courses of action that would be useful. (a)
> >Prepare a background briefing document for wide private circulation,
> >which refutes the claims and lists competent authorities who might be
> >consulted for advice on this issue. (b) Ensure that such misleading
> >papers do not continue to appear in the offending journals by getting
> >proper scientific standards applied to refereeing and editing.
> >Whether that is done publicly or privately may not matter so much, as
> >long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the journals, but
> >that might leave them even freer to promulgate misinformation. To my
> >mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed and
> >proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers
> >might work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading
> >authors. (c) A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices
> >might work and embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are
> >capable of being embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter
> >for Science or Nature. Offending editors could be labelled as “rogue
> >editors”, in line with current international practice? Or is that
> >defamatory? (d) Legal action might be useful for authors who consider
> >themselves libelled, and there could be financial support for such
> >actions (Jim Salinger might have contacts here). However, we would
> >need to be very careful to be moderate and reasonable in our reponses
> >to avoid counter legal actions.
> >
> >4. I thoroughly agree that just entering in to a public slanging
> >match with the offending authors (or editors for that matter) on a
> >one-to-one basis is not the way to go. We need some more concerted
> >action.
> >
> >5. One other thought is that it may be worthwhile for some authors to
> >do a serious further study to bring out some statistical tests for
> >the likelihood of numerous proxy records showing unprecedented
> >synchronous warming in the last 30+ years. This could be, somewhat
> >along the lines of the tests used in the studies of observed changes
> >in biological and physical systems in the TAR WGII report(SPM figure
> >1 and related text in Chapter 19, and recent papers by Parmesan and
> >Yohe (2003) and Root et al. (2003) in Nature 421, 37-42 and 57-60).
> >Someone may already have this in hand. I am sure the evidence is even
> >stronger than for the critters. That is of course what has already
> >been done in fingerprinting the actual temperature record.
> >
> >Anyway, I am not one of the authors, and too busy (for a retired
> >person), so I hope you can collectively get something going which I
> >can support.
> >
> >Best regards to all,
> >
> >Barrie.
> >
> >Dr. A. Barrie Pittock
> >Post-Retirement Fellow, Climate Impact Group
> >CSIRO Atmospheric Research, PMB 1, Aspendale 3195, Australia
> >Tel: +613 9239 4527, Fax: +61 3 9239 4688, email:
> > WWW:
> >
> >
> >Please Note: Use above address. The old >> is no longer supported.
> >
> >Currently I am working on a couple of books and other writing re
> >climate change and science issues. Please refer any matters re the
> >Climate Impact Group to Dr. Peter Whetton, Group Leader, at
> >, tel.:
> >+61 3 9239 4535. Normally I am in the lab Tuesdays and Thursdays.
> >
> >”Far better and approximate answer to the right question which is
> >often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question which can
> >always be made precise.” J. W. Tukey
> >
> >
> >—–Original Message—–
> >From: Phil Jones []
> >Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2003 6:23 PM
> >To: Mike Hulme;
> >Cc:;;
> >;;;
> >;;;
> >;;;
> > Subject: Re: Recent climate sceptic research
> >and the journal Climate Research
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear All,
> > There have been a number of emails on these two papers. They
> > are bad.
> >I’ll be seeing
> > Hans von Storch next week and I’ll be telling him in person what a
> >disservice he’s doing
> > to the science and the status of Climate Research.
> > I’ve already told Hans I want nothing more to do with the
> > journal. Tom
> >Crowley may be
> > writing something – find out also next week, but at the EGS last
> > week Ray
> >Bradley, Mike
> > Mann, Malcolm Hughes and others decided it would be best to do
> > nothing.
> >Papers
> > that respond to work like this never get cited – a point I’m
> > trying to
> >get across to Hans.
> > We all have better papers to write than waste our time responding
> > to
> >drivel like this.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ———————————————————————-
> ——

Dr Jim Salinger, CRSNZ
P O Box 109 695
Newmarket, Auckland
New Zealand
Tel + 64 9 375 2053 Fax + 64 9 375 2051

Now even if the paper was bad, you can see the extremeness of the team response to it.   I can tell readers from my own experience in publication that even papers with ‘less’ global warming message are forcefully resisted by some.  I have also been privy to other paper’s reviews which suffer the forceful gatekeeping as is implied above.  If the authors truly did make an honest attempt at publishing as DeFreitas wrote, and it truly was accepted by four reviewers, even if it had a mistake, can you imagine the difficulty they will now have in promotions or acceptance of future work in their field?   I wonder if the huge climate funds will still find their way to them or if their proposals will fall on deaf ears?

There are literally mountains of similar emails.  So many that I can’t even begin to discuss them. Of course, feel free to copy your own on-topic ones below.  If you select the right data as paleoclimate does by standard practice, you get the predicted result.

If you select the right people…..

74 thoughts on “The Right Kind of People

  1. This is what the team doesn’t show you at RC:

    Well, this is top of the pops qua peer review, isn’t it:

    Increase of extreme events in a warming world
    Stefan Rahmstorf1 and Dim Coumou
    + Author Affiliations

    Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 601203, 14412 Potsdam, Germany
    Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved September 27, 2011

    in response to Gavin:

    [Response: This is a pretty transparent attempt to divert a conversation onto a paper that has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation, but is simply one you think poor. Well tough. The issue here is the egregiously bad scientific standards in S&B i.e.
    1) Defining a problem so loosely that nothing robust could ever be concluded,
    2) concluding what they wanted regardless of the fact that it did not logically follow from the analysis.
    This is compounded by egregious mis-interpretations of other people’s work, republishing essentially the same paper in E&E, disgraceful over-selling of their results etc. This only got through review in the shape it did because the editor wanted it to. That this happened with numerous papers that de Frietas handled (including ones by Michaels, and Soon) speaks to a systematic pattern, not just a single aberration. Many people had concerns prior to this incident (Wolfgang Cramer has resigned over a previous incident, Hulme and von Storch and Clare Goodess all expressed themselves clearly). Note too that HvS didn’t resign because of the paper itself, but because the journal was not (in his eyes)
    learning from the debacle in ways that would prevent future problems. – gavin]

  2. I thought this was going to be about Jones’ statement that the FOI folks at UEA were more amenable to his desire to obstruct once he explained to them what kind of people were making the requests.

  3. Thought this would be about Jones’ statement about how the FOI people at UEA were more amenable to obstruction once he explained what kind of people were making the requests.

  4. Dear Jeff ID

    The following email trail shows the Teams response after having complained about Dr deFreitas they are written to by Otto Kinne who has investigated their complaint and states he is satisfied with the handling of a paper submitted to CR.

    They conspire to bring down a commercial organisation because it publishes things they don’t like?

    Mann and Hume seem thick as theives and one wonders are they the controlling minds on both sides of the atlantic.

    I drew Dr deFreitas’s attention to the following and he did respond you may find him responsive to you.

    Sorry how the emails are presented.



    date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 21:27:32 -0400
    from: “Michael E. Mann”
    subject: Re: Fwd: Climate Research
    to: Mike Hulme ,,

    Thanks Mike
    It seems to me that this “Kinne” character’s words are disingenuous, and he probably
    supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we have to go above him.
    I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in this eventuality,
    terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels–reviewing, editing, and
    submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute,
    At 01:00 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Mike Hulme wrote:

    Phil, Tom, Mike,
    So, this would seem to be the end of the matter as far as Climate Research is concerned.

    Editors and Review Editors
    Dear colleagues,
    In my 20.06. email to you I stated, among other things, that I would ask CR editor
    Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the reviewers’ evaluations for the 2 Soon et
    al. papers.
    I have received and studied the material requested.
    1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented detailed, critical
    and helpful evaluations
    2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions.
    3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly.
    Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.
    Best wishes,
    Otto Kinne
    Director, Inter-Research

    Inter-Research, Science Publisher
    Ecology Institute
    Nordbuente 23,
    D-21385 Oldendorf/Luhe,
    Tel: (+49) (4132) 7127 Email:
    Fax: (+49) (4132) 8883 [1]
    Inter-Research – Publisher of Scientific Journals and Book Series:
    – Marine Ecology Progress Series (MEPS)
    – Aquatic Microbial Ecology (AME)
    – Diseases of Aquatic Organisms (DA0)
    – Climate Research (CR)
    – Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP)
    – Excellence in Ecology
    – Top Books
    – EEIU Brochures


  5. Jeff Id at 1:39 pm

    “There is a ton of this stuff”

    Maybe megatons – if Climategate 1.0 was dynamite, 2.0 seems nuclear. I probably don’t have the imagination to think what 3.0 will be, if and when it blows.

    BTW thanks Jeff for the good an unpaid work in addition to your normal work load. I see WUWT is also covering the de Freitas affair, and Steve M has promised to do a post on it.

    Talking about unpaid work, I don’t see any tip jar.

  6. #11, I thought about a tip jar when we were paying paper submission fees but really I don’t think it is worth people seeing this as though it is for money. People have asked me to put one in several times in the past but it doesn’t matter. Google pays a very little bit for the couple of ads you see.

  7. “North American geologists repeatedly assert that the 19th
    century was the coldest century in North America since the LGM. To
    that extent, showing temperature increase since then is not unlike a
    mutual fund salesmen showing expected rate of return from a market
    bottom – not precisely false, but rather in the realm of sleight-of-

    I think this quote deserves some extra attention.

  8. Jeff ID:

    #11, I thought about a tip jar when we were paying paper submission fees but really I don’t think it is worth people seeing this as though it is for money

    I suggest you contact Michael Mann, who seems to know of a “well-funded, highly organized disinformation effort” that could leave you rolling in $$$.

    (Or just rolling your eyes. YMMV.)

  9. Jeff,

    It’s getting harder and harder to treat your opinions seriously. This time as far as logic is concerned it’s “garbage in, garbage out” right from the beginning:

    a) “The concept of a complete consensus among humans only occurs when a structure bands them together on an opinion”: that’s simply not true. You can get numerous examples of unanimity among people without any institutional support: go out with a poll and ask people if a dropped stone falls to the ground, or whether we should punish crimes or let the criminal walk. The qualified “complete consensus” is a straw-man: nobody claims “complete” consensus with respect to the AGW, research points to a mere “ninety something percent” consensus level among actively publishing scientists,

    b) “In AGW science, we know for certain that we don’t really know much”: again, simply not true. Some points are beyond dispute, some are pretty certain, some less so — not that it’s somehow unusual in science. Be aware that if you press the point that “we don’t know anything”, then any categorical opinion of yours is worth nothing, as the whole possible debate gets reduced to “your word against mine”,

    c) “a consensus must come from unscientific pressures”: a splendid example of the type of garbage that you get when you start from false premises. No, Jeff. The consensus concerning the AGW comes from applying the scientific method to empirical observations, using the one and a half century of research that supports the theory.

    As far as the rest of your claims are concerned, again they’re not substantiated with anything else than “because I say so”:

    d) “government funding has corrupted the science”: in what way? Globally? That’s a conspiracy theory of epic proportions, Jeff. Do you seriously want anyone to believe that there’s not a climate science department on the planet that sticked to their guns against government pressure and/or corruption? And what pressure/corruption exactly? For 8 years before Obama the US government actively fought climate change research, up to and including censorship e.g. at NASA. Politically incorrect opinions were withheld, and the government followed the lead of the oil industry, e.g. ousting Watson from the IPCC upon the request of Exxon Mobile.

    Then there’s the money trail — here: you can find links to the info on, for example, how much Michael Mann gets paid, on salary. The stories of “billions in funding” are hardly based in reality. In fact, for most of the time since 1998 using the plural has not been justified, since the funding hardly ever rose above two billion dollars — which includes NASA budget for satellites and other hardware, by the way, and these can cost hundreds of millions yearly. And you have yet to show that the grant process, globally and uniformly, has any bias at all. This cannot be just accepted as an axiom. There are many governments in the world that, if given a choice, would rather “order” results that disprove the AGW, not confirm it.

    By the way, please note the section title: “you can’t make a bundle pushing the consensus”. That’s the point that’s been regularly put totally upside-down: if climate scientists were to prove beyond any doubt that AGW is true, and instantly convince everybody, they’d radically undercut their funding — the money would immediately be redirected to renewable energy research, carbon storage techniques, geo-engineering efforts etc. etc. If you want the grant money to keep flowing in, you need to produce doubt, not certainty.

    e) “the illusion of a perfect consensus must be maintained”: again, the “perfect” consensus is a straw-man, while the real, “ninety something percent” consensus is well attested:

    Click to access 012009_Doran_final.pdf

    Click to access 1686.pdf

    f) “It is actually humorous reading these guys talk to each other about how skeptics are oil funded followed by the next proposal for 3million euros from the taxpayer”: three million for what exactly, Jeff? Pocket money for Phil Jones, research projects, UEA sustenance? To put this in balance, where would you locate the million dollars received by Willie Soon from American Petroleum Institute, Koch Foundation, Exxon Mobile, Texaco, and Southern Company? In the light of your indignation at the supposed corruption of the scientific debate above, how does the following letter from Soon score on your moral thermometer?

    “Clearly they [the AR4 chapters] may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all … But, as A-team, we may for once give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters, especially WG1—judging from our true expertise in the basic climate sciences …

    Even if we can tackle ONE single chapter down the road but forcefully and effectively … we will really accomplish A LOT!

    In all cases, I hope we can start discussing among ourselves to see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report or to re-direct attention back to science …”

    The above was written in 2003. Four years before AR4 was published. This isn’t even a question of a particular paper ot two being considered — rightly or wrongly — as sub-standard, below par, an abuse of scientific process, e.g. drawing conclusions not based on presented evidence, displaying an unjustified bias etc. At that time Soon had no way to know what papers would be discussed in the forecoming report, how they would be presented, what conclusions would be drawn on their basis. And nevertheless he was plannig — together with the “A-Team”, that most probably included PR staff members of oil industry — to preventively attack and shoot down a chapter of the report regardless of its content and value, while at the same time collecting money from the industry.

    Are you sure your moral compass is making you look for corruption where you should be looking, Jeff?

  10. Grzegorz Staniak:

    Pocket money for Phil Jones, research projects, UEA sustenance? To put this in balance, where would you locate the million dollars received by Willie Soon from American Petroleum Institute, Koch Foundation, Exxon Mobile, Texaco, and Southern Company? In the light of your indignation at the supposed corruption of the scientific debate above, how does the following letter from Soon score on your moral thermometer

    How about the 100 million received by Stanford from Exxon-Mobile for their Global Climate and Energy Project?

    Let me guess. it’s Ok for alarmists to receive money, but immoral for skeptics to get a dime.

  11. Here’s a GAO report that suggests US contributions to global climate change research is on the order of $5 billion/year (as of 2004).

    Even if Soon were getting $1 million per year (he’s not in reality), that would still be what… 0.02% of what the advocates receive (because let’s be honest, the fix is in… only advocates and a few “moderates” will receive any money from peer-reviewed funding sources).

  12. a) “The concept of a complete consensus among humans only occurs when a structure bands them together on an opinion”:

    I just said structure, not an institution. F=ma for instance is not a very controversial thing – until you get to relativistic speed. Nobody declares ‘consensus’ though do they.

    b) You are just wrong.

    c) Follows according to the previous two.

    d) In the ways I’ve indicated

    e) You give three links from the groups which are comprised of the “good guys”. These support my statements well enough – thx.

    f) I don’t believe there was a million dollars for Soon but there was 3 of ’em for the other guys in one link alone. Why would you suggest such a thing with no evidence?

    Agenda much?

  13. Grzegorz Staniak #15:

    You are free to substantiate or retract the assertions you made two days ago on another thread (#46, #59). Or, you can continue to ignore the issues you raised.

    But that makes it harder and harder to treat your opinions seriously.

  14. ““a consensus must come from unscientific pressures”: a splendid example of the type of garbage that you get when you start from false premises. No, Jeff. The consensus concerning the AGW comes from applying the scientific method to empirical observations, using the one and a half century of research that supports the theory”

    Here is where the consensus means a lot more for advocacy than science. The consensus on AGW revolves primarily around the physics of GHG and warming and that physics is not disputed by thinking skeptics. That consensus would include much of all camps on the issue of AGW. Where differences arise with the more skeptical camps is in the uncertainty issues of feedback effects and models capabilities to predict future warming (given an GHG emission scenario) and the detrimental effects that might arise from warming – amongst many other issues, like temperature reconstructions. These issues are no doubt not well agreed to in the consensus groups either.

    We therefore have a situation were the more agressive members of the consensus would like to be able to refer to a consensus generally for advocacy purposes and not get into too much detail on what that consensus includes. Obviously consensus making and showing it around does not have a reasonable place in science and thus those who insist upon it are more interested in the advocacy and policy uses it might have. I would strongly suggest that the consensus, as used in common parlance, is more about the politics of the consensus member than any general knowledge that they might possess about the science in all of the specific areas of science that must include..

  15. Kenneth,

    Well said.

    Grzegorz hasn’t been able to parse that the readers here don’t to my knowledge disagree with the concept of AGW. Most of us probably don’t even have a fixed opinion on climate sensitivity. I know that I don’t. Where we disagree with the consensus though is on that very issue, we can’t figure it out so when someone else says they can and presents a bunch of poorly understood rationale, we simply can’t agree.

    My opinion of climate science is that the F=ma type understanding doesn’t exist for much beyond the basic premise that CO2 captures heat.

    I do believe the models are running hot to observations and that expected key features in the atmosphere from the hypothesis are missing in observations.

    Like medicine, there is so much to learn. We’re just a bunch of monkeys barely out of the trees.

  16. Amac,

    You are right. Strange how he won’t respond to questions. He has yet to address the questions asked of him in the last the last thread before he disappeared. So I will ask again:

    Most of those who comment here are practicing scientists and engineers, and are capable of making a reasoned technical evaluation of arguments related to climate science. Are you a practicing scientist or engineer, and if so, what is your field? No moral compass is needed to evaluate the quality of climate science, but some suitable training helps a lot. What is yours?

  17. Steve,

    I warned him about the crowd. When people come here they don’t realize the talent in the threads. The guy who calls himself layman just ripped a nice analysis out that is not accessible to many and totally readable to others. This crowd makes it hard to stop blogging.

  18. Jeff,
    In spite of Grzegorz’s empty rants, the fact of the matter is: those involved in trying to ‘punish’ de Freitas acted like a bunch of despicable cowards. They should be ashamed of themselves.

  19. Steve,

    I’ve been sent an email from Steve M tonight because of this post. While I read a dozen emails connected to this, he’s got hundreds. My time is too limited now as I am working extensive hours. You will absolutely not even believe what is coming.

  20. Steve,

    Nothing much more than what is on that link:

    Grzegorz Staniak

    Systems Administrator at LubMan UMCS sp. z o. o.

    Lublin Area, Poland | Computer Networking

    System Administrator at LubMan UMCS sp. z o. o.

    System Administrator at Żagiel S.A.

    Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski

  21. DK,

    A little searching shows that UMCS is a polish university, see: and links.

    So, Grzegorz is a computer systems administrator at a Polish university. Hummm… I guess that makes him an authority on rigorous technical evaluation of climate science. Sure hope he’s not doing that important work on the university’s dime though. There are also a smattering of web references to his connection with a progressive “social change” organization. Humm… that does seem about right. Left wing politics substituting for substance. Where have I seen this before? Oh wait… in the UEA emails!

  22. ClimateGate 2.0 will have the same impact on funding etc. ClimateGate 1.0 had.


    Why? Well the whole “Climate” thing is not about science. It is about money. This bubble is still inflating.

  23. Kim #31,
    Not sure which Steve you are talking about… but I was in Saudi Arabia a couple of weeks ago, so your statement certainly applies to me.

  24. > So, Grzegorz is a computer systems administrator at a Polish university.

    That means he has some maths under his belt, and an understanding of the capabilities and limitations of computer modeling. A strong background; should be more than sufficient to learn about the issues he’s interested in, and to develop well-founded opinions that he’s prepared to back up. More impressive credentials aren’t necessary; this is where the quality of thought and understanding of the key material become most important.

    Fred Moolten is one of the ‘regulars’ at Judy Curry’s blog; his comments are thoughtful and well-sourced. I often disagree with his (generally pro-Mainstream) conclusions, but it’s a pleasure to read what he writes. AFAIK, he works days as a musician.

  25. #16 Carrick

    Here’s a press release concerning the USD 100 mln from Exxon Mobile:
    and here’s a description of the project:

    As you can see, Exxon so far — after a decade — has actually spent only a half of the initially announced amount, and not on climate research, but green energy technologies research. You could view this as a cheap way of outsourcing their R&D department, if you were so inclined.

    #17 Carrick

    Well, as soon as I opened the GOA report, I found this:

    Technology funding increased from $845 million to $2.87 billion[…]
    Science funding increased from $1.31 billion to $1.98 billion[…]
    International assistance funding increased from $201 million to $252 million[…]
    Tax expenditures were not fully reported by OMB for any year[…]

    Can you explain why you implied that the net spending was related to “climate change research”? Science funding is reported to be just under 2 billion, as I said earlier. Haven’t you read the report? Did you think I would not open it?

    And can you substantiate your conspiracy theories with anything more than “let’s be honest”? Do you really think that you could filter research as you describe it on a global scale and keep it secret? Go talk to actual climate scientists about it. You might get a response like this one, though:

    #19 JeffId

    a) That’s a fine distinction, but irrelevant in the context. It’s obvious that you don’t need any “structure” to see a real-life consensus on a variety of problems, simpler ones among the general public, but quite complex if you talk to specialists. And you know, people (scientists) do declare consensus on quite obvious points when they are attacked by masses of ideologically motivated ignorami, waving their lists of “500 scientists who are against the consensus” — think e.g. theory of evolution:

    b) Aha. As usual, “because I say so”. Which exactly of the AGW theory components can you effectively cast doubt upon? The physical properties of greenhouse gases? The carbon cycle? The amount of human GHG emissions? The radiative forcing effected by them? You’re aware that we don’t even need temperature series to see the enhanced GH effect in action, right? We can (and do) measure levels of radiation escaping to space in the CO2 absorption bands and returning to the surface in the CO2 emission bands. What is it exactly that makes up the theory that you can summarize as “we don’t really know much”?

    c) You’re still concluding nonsense from false premises. Heck, even if the premises were true, it would still be a non sequitur if I ever saw one.

    d) You haven’t indicated anything yet. Global “filter” on climate science fed by government money is something that you still need to show, not just declare.

    e) OMG Jeff I can’t believe you haven’t noticed what you’re doing here: discarding research results without even pretending to engage or critique them, just because they’re coming from the wrong people. I’m beginning to wonder how much of the corruption that you see in the emails is simple projections.

    f) You know, Jeff, the FOIa is a sword that cuts both ways:
    No matter how you twist it, FOIA responses from the Smithsonian are not “no evidence”. Also, Soon acknowledged receiving the grants.

  26. #21 Kenneth Fritsch

    You’re not telling the news. But “the real debate concerns climate sensitivity” in no way allows you to say “we know for certain that we don’t really know much”.

    Also, “the more aggresive members of the consensus” means about 97% of publishing specialists and just about every professional body and research/educational institution in the world. You’ve got it exactly upside-down: it’s the politicians who had to be convinced and constantly have to be reminded of the reality of the situation. The consensus view is simply an articulation of the state of scientific knowledge, in the face of massive, ideologically motivated attacks on science comparable to the ones the evolutionists have to deal with.

    #23, #32 Steve Fitzpatrick

    I’m a linguist by education, I work as a network/system administrator. Does that make my arguments by definition inferior and unworthy of an answer? I’d say if you’re a competent specialist, you should be able to tear them apart in a few sentences, without resorting to argumentum ad personam.

  27. Grzegorz Staniak, here’s what your link actually says:

    With the support and participation of four international companies—ExxonMobil, General Electric, Schlumberger, and Toyota—GCEP is a unique collaboration of the world’s energy experts from research institutions and private industry. The Project’s sponsors will invest a total of $225 million over a decade or more as GCEP explores energy technologies that are efficient, environmentally benign, and cost-effective when deployed on a large scale.

    Did I miss a point there?

    You could view this as a cheap way of outsourcing their R&D department, if you were so inclined

    Or anything. It doesn’t matter. Your point was originally (I think) how well funded skeptics are by the fossil fuel industry. The reality is they are very poorly funded, with most of the bitching coming about from the fact they receive any funding at all.

    Can you explain why you implied that the net spending was related to “climate change research”? Science funding is reported to be just under 2 billion, as I said earlier. Haven’t you read the report? Did you think I would not open it?

    Are you really asking what my expectations of you are? Um, you probably don’t want the answer.

    In the mean time, you are confusing “research” with “basic research”. “Technology” refers to “applied research” (if you go to Table 2 you will see how the breakout of that is).

    Even if you want to restrict it to basic research, assume Soon gets $1 million per year, that’s still just 0.05% of what “the other side” receives.

    And can you substantiate your conspiracy theories with anything more than “let’s be honest”? Do you really think that you could filter research as you describe it on a global scale and keep it secret? Go talk to actual climate scientists about it. You might get a response like this one, though

    Who said anything’s kept secret?

    It’s a well known problem with peer-reviewed funding sources in general on almost any topic… the consensus view gets funded, nepotistic relations get fed at the expense of new researchers entering the field (whatever field that may be), etc. Researchers at certain universities receive favorable treatment, if there are any crumbs left researchers at “other universities” get the crumbs.

    Let me ask you a question… have you ever written a grant proposal ? (I have, and (received funding)

    And another question… have you ever sat on a review board in the US and seen how the process really work? (I have.)

  28. Grzegorz,

    “No matter how you twist it, FOIA responses from the Smithsonian are not “no evidence”. Also, Soon acknowledged receiving the grants.”

    I absolutely stand corrected. Thanks for the link. Next time you could save me the trouble by providing some data and you could save your own emotional status at the same time.

    I don’t like your blanket BS in your b. You don’t have a clue what my opinions are so you throw crap like a zoo monkey. There are a number of key areas where CS falls short. For instance, historic variability or perhaps ocean heat content, acidification, carbon sequesterization, the hot spot etc….. These are some of the keys to the real puzzle and I won’t let myself fall into the trap of ‘knowing’ the unknowable unlike yourself.

  29. Grzegorz,

    Which exactly of the AGW theory components can you effectively cast doubt upon? The physical properties of greenhouse gases? The carbon cycle? The amount of human GHG emissions? The radiative forcing effected by them?

    If you actually read what Jeff and others here have said in the past, those are not any of the technical issues that are contested; those all amount to nothing more than straw-men. The issues are things like: much lower measured than modeled ocean heat uptake, largely arbitrary (and quite large) aerosol off-sets which are used to “tune” each climate model to approximately match past temperatures, large discrepancies between diagnosed sensitivity by different models, discrepancies between historical temperature variability and modeled variability, poor representation of pseudo-cyclical processes (like ENSO) by models, and many others. The truth is that the available climate data is reasonably consistent with a wide range of climate sensitivities; Earth’s actually sensitivity to forcing matters quite a lot, but it is very far from known what that sensitivity actually is. Current human GHG forcing is about 3 watts per square meter, while warming since the pre-industrial period is somewhere near 0.8 degree. The burden of proof lies with anyone who suggests that those two numbers are (by themselves) consistent with high climate sensitivity. A solid technical argument and robust measurements (of things like ocean heat content and atmospheric aerosol effects), are needed to make those two numbers consistent with high sensitivity.

    If you want to discuss the real points of technical contention, that would be fine, but please stop it with the straw-man arguments. It would be constructive if you could also get past the childish comments like “ideologically motivated ignorami”. Your use of such phrases is a very poor reflection on your maturity, and in fact might more accurately describe your own motivations than the motivations of those who comment here. You can carry on all you want about where Willy Soon receives funding, but that makes zero contribution to a reasoned discussion of the technical issues. Unless you are suggesting that Jeff or others here are compromised by receiving funding from questionable sources, then I suggest that you try to limit yourself to substantive arguments. I do not believe you are up to it; political rants are much easier.

  30. Grzegorz,

    I forgot one item: I raised the issue of your background because that was where you started the last thread, with appeals to the authority of “climate scientists”. If you want to drop that as a subject of discussion, that is fine with me, but you were the one who raised the issue, and by that measure you have a lot less ‘authority’ than most of the people who comment here. Lots of people here are more than competent to judge the quality of climate science, and to back it up their judgement with meaningful technical argument (or by scientific publication, as Jeff did in rebutting the Seig et al Antarctic warming paper).

  31. #38 Carrick

    Yes, you’ve missed a point. USD 225 mln was supposed to be the total amount of donation, of which Exxon was supposed to provide 100 mln, of which it provided about a half so far.

    Also, you’re just glossing over the fact that the whole donation had little to do with climate reserch, if anything.

    And no, I’m not confusing anything. The GAO report clearly sets the categories of “Science” and “Technology”, not “basic research” and “applied research”. Table 2 doesn’t contain anything related to “applied research” — the categories mentioned there are:

    Department of Energy:
    * Energy Conservation
    * Energy Supply – Fossil Energy Research and Development (R&D)
    * Energy Supply – Renewable Energy
    * Science (Fusion, Sequestration, and Hydrogen)
    * Energy Supply – Nuclear

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
    * Exploration, Science, and Aeronautics

    Environmental Protection Agency:
    * Environmental Programs and Management

    None of these have anything to do with climate research, let alone climate change research, with a possible exception of “NASA — Science (227 mln)”. Just check your sources before you reference them.

    You’re still using the propaganda language: “the other side”. There’s no “other side”. Soon got a million per decade, not year, by the way, but it’s not about amounts of money — it’s about conflicts of interests. He lied about his affiliations with climate/CO2 policy advocats when he testified before a congressional committee. He’d accepted money from Southern Company and then wrote an article attacking EPA’s proposed regulations of mercury emissions from coal power plants, in the process transforming himself from an astrophysicist into “a natural scientist at Harvard, […] an expert on mercury and public health issues” — who’s neither from Harvard, nor had published anything on public health or mercury. You really think this doesn’t stink?

    As far as the “well-known problem” is concerned, please refer me to sources. I’m not really interested in anecdotal evidence.

  32. I did it! I went to Real Climate again (but I didn’t “say” anything so “nothing” got dumped into incoming trash, as usual).

    Another asked about the deFreitas matter. This is the exchange, including Gavin’s response:

    Oh, dear. I have just seen the response de Freitas made to this issue. It was quite simple: his director’s comment on the accusations against him. They assessed how he had dealt with the reviews.


    Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.”

    You’d better get yourselves some legal representation.

    [Response: Look at the date of that comment – 3 July 2003. Then look at the dates of everything else, including the resignations. They all happened afterwards – because the Kinne statement was not accepted at face value – and rightly so. Indeed, email 1719, reports that one reviewer definitely recommended rejection of S&B, and never saw the manuscript again to assess the appropriateness of the rewrite. And since the final paper was clearly flawed (conclusions not following from the analysis among other problems), no-one involved was reassured by Kinne’s statements. Especially not Hans von Storch (email 2106), and it was the refusal of Kinne to consider the draft editorial and new practices, that in the end led to his resignation at the end of July (email 3013). This is a story about scientists standing up for standards, however you would like to twist it. – gavin]

    Can you believe? Standards? …Lady in Red

  33. #39 JeffId

    Perhaps I’d have a chance to have a clue about your opinions if you actually stated them — or at least provided links, like in the last response — instead of dismissing questions with “you’re wrong”.

    And sorry, but your opening paragraphs above are still just sloppy reasoning: it’s not true that you can’t have a consensus without “structural support” (think theory of evolution), it’s not true that we really don’t know anything certain in relation to the AGW theory, and it simply doesn’t follow that any consensus on AGW must be political. On the contrary, the consensus is an acknowledgment of the current state of knowledge in the area, subscribed to independently by a lot of people/institutions who are not in any way politically connected or organized.

  34. To see the development of the response paper to Soon & Baliunas slated for EOS

    #0031 has almost all of the below emails enclosed


  35. Made me laugh too Lady in Red:

    Real Climate 28 Nov 2011 @ 6:52 PM

    “This is a story about scientists standing up or standards…” – gavin

    Standards as for Mann, Jones, Steig, Dessler, Rahmstorf, etc.?

  36. Development of Team response paper to S&B 03 (cont)

    From another email thread
    #0682 (includes all of 1232, 2191)

    In another email thread (Figure1 discussion)

    on another email thread – Briffa to Mann
    #2895 (this is a puzzler!)

    “This is, we believe, important because the original phrasing is a large hostage to fortune, given that it seems to criticise (completely rubbish might be a better phrase) all work based on proxies that do not actually resolve the “climate trends of the last few decades” . As you know, many proxies used by you , us, and others, do not extend over this period of rapid warming and some that do (eg our MXD data) do not display an appropriate rapid response. What you have written could coneivably [sic] be twisted to imply that we (you) are criticising [sic] our (your) own work. ”

    Development of the reponse to S&B03 response
    #4902 (includes 2622) 10/5/2003

  37. Apologies for O/T

    I don’t know if this is a useful tool for anyone:
    I’ve extracted date/time, to, from, cc and subject from the email headers of FOIA2009 & FOIA2011 and made a spreadsheet.
    It’s especially useful if you want chronological ordering of the emails. The times are all corrected to GMT so the chronological order should be correct. There are about 15 files which didn’t parse correctly due to having massive CC lists or, in the case of Greenpeace, their server had dated their mail as been sent in the year 2094 (surely the Earth will have reached a tipping point by then).
    I wrote the program to do this in MS C#…..but I’m about as capable as Phil Jones with Excell (though I actually used Open Office), so feel free to improve on my efforts…

  38. #47

    Grzegorz Staniak

    “Perhaps I’d have a chance to have a clue about your opinions if you actually stated them — or at least provided links, like in the last response — instead of dismissing questions with “you’re wrong”.”


    You started at this blog by accusing me and others multiple times on our beliefs and then get mad that we don’t act as your personal librarians. Why don’t you start by asking our various understandings and then critique them later? You still get what you apparently want that way and it saves you from looking like an idiot.

  39. You still get what you apparently want that way and it saves you from looking like an idiot.

    There’s a little problem with the tense in that statement. Something about a horse and a barn door springs to mind… 🙂

  40. Those that think there is some legitimate reason for “big oil” are ignorant of basic concepts of economics as well as simple reality.


  41. I find it interesting that Grzegorz equates consensus on the theory of evolution to that on AGW. It got me thinking – just how much of an equivalence is there between these two?

    Many questions on evolution are unanswered. Different evolutionary biologists will give different answers if you ask them questions like “to what extent is sympatric speciation possible?”, “which is more important a driver of evolution, predation or competition?”, or “Are top-down or bottom-up community processes more important in natural selection?”

    It is true that there is a “nugget” that all evolutionary biologists concur on – that evolution by natural selection has changed life-forms on earth over millions of years, and that all life shares a common ancestor.

    The equivalent “nugget” for AGW is that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation and heats the atmosphere. No skeptic worthy of the name disputes this. The questions about the extent of warming consequent on increasing CO2 levels and to what extent “catastrophe” will occur if these are left unchecked are firmly controlled by consensus view, but without justification, as far as I can see.

  42. Jeff, in fact the email you start with, 3265, where de Freitas explains carefully what happened and the team flap aimlessly in response, was in the original climategate dossier.
    Similarly the email Stacey refers to in #9, 5321, where Kinne confirms that the refereeing process was handled correctly, and Mike, Tom and Phil have nothing to say in response except accuse him of being ‘disingenuous’ and of being a ‘deFreitas clone’ was also there in round one.
    Click on my name to see the original versions and other related emails.

    But it is good to see that this time around it is getting more publicity, and there are more emails in round 2.

  43. “This first email relates to a paper I haven’t read that very well may have problems…”

    I recommend that those who haven’t read the paper do so. There’s a link on my page. It is basically just a big literature review of proxy studies. The main point is in column 3 in their tables, which indicates whether or not the proxies indicate that the 20th century is the warmest (being proper scientists rather than activists out to mislead, S&B do not mix proxies with measured temperatures). In most cases the answer is no.

    It’s also instructive to look at the response by The Team. All they needed to do was to find some papers that S&B had misrepresented in their column 3. But they fail to do that and just regurgitate the results of their own papers.

  44. I came across this study posted with the link on Delingpole’s blog, and it does seem to have very uncomfortable parallels with UEA CRU etc., personalities. So apologies in advance for the off-topic, but it doesn’t seem to be as wildly off topic as it first appears.

    “The Influence of Corporate Psychopaths on Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Commitment to Employees”

    Click to access fulltext.pdf

    From the conclusion:

    “They are interested in running corporations for the power, money, and prestige that they crave and are self-interested to the exclusion of others and are indifferent to the fate of the organizations they work for or of their fellow employees (Babiak and Hare, 2006, Boddy, 2005a, Clarke, 2005, Cleckley, 1988). They would thus logically be expected to be a barrier to CSR and to organizational commitment to employees, and this current research supports this conclusion. It is not a surprising finding in this research, therefore, that altruistic behavior such as doing business in a socially responsible manner is perceived to be much lower when Corporate Psychopaths are present in management roles. Commentators on corporate governance have said that it often comes down to individual moral responsibility to ensure that sustainability and responsibility occur (Dawson, 2004). The problem with this is that Corporate Psychopaths are totally amoral.”

    Either way, it’s a sobering read.

  45. Please stop referring to these people as ‘climate scientists’. They’re ‘climate modellers’, many of whom are lacking a credible track-record in anticipating the change of their own opinion, never mind the climate. It is no coincidence that some of their number are the same individuals that prophesised the Dawn of the New Ice Age some thirty five years ago…

  46. The exchange shows 2 things. The lack of ethics and science the “team” has. And that some people still have a dedication to science and ethics. They just are not on the “team”.

  47. Jeff,
    You are quite correct this is an iterated system–it is also self organizing. Selection bias iterated for 40 years can produce an emerged solution with the appearance of conspiracy. Perhaps only when we see this as a self organizing adaptive system will we be able to craft the necessary system controls.
    Changing people or other simple modifications will not and cannot stop this highly buffered system -nor can any science- the system will simply adapt. Climate Change replaced Acid Rain and the Nitrogen Cascade is organizing to replace climate change. Very little other than the name of the molecule will have changed in this next iteration.

  48. Perhaps only when we see this as a self organizing adaptive system will we be able to craft the necessary system controls.

    There are no controls possible IMO. Any controls devised will hobble the honest and do hardly anything to deter the psychopaths (they will find workarounds) and what is this CSR agenda and who determines what is socially responsible? Turning food into car fuel for instance. Or wasting money on windmills. Or subsidizing the electrical costs of the well off (solar electric). Back around the turn of the century I was discussing solar thermal with one of its proponents. He told me it wasn’t cost effective without subsidy.

    The whole field of AE is like that. So maybe it is actually the psychopaths who are more socially responsible. Or maybe the psychopaths have gravitated to AE. It is where the money is. And you can look good (CSR) while robbing people blind. If I was that kind of psychopath I’d be all in.

  49. Like Mr Staniak I am not a scientist and, also like him, I apply my own analysis based on my personal version of common sense.

    Unlike Mr Staniak I am not prepared to give great weight to an argument because 90-odd% of published writers in a field make that argument. I prefer to look at the argument and ask myself whether it has a sound base and inherent credibility. Part of that exercise involves looking at how criticisms of the argument are dealt with by those who originally put it forward. I would expect a reasoned response, anything else casts doubt on the strength of the original argument because nonsense can always be countered by explaining why it is nonsense, whereas an unwelcome valid criticism cannot.

    The approach of Professors Mann and Jones and their colleagues, as shown unequivocally in both Climategate 1 and 2, is (to my mind) consistent only with them giving greater weight to factors other than the strength of their argument. After all, why should an objective scientist (or analyst in any other field) who is confident in the strength of his analysis seek the removal of the editor of a journal simply because he has given space to an article putting forward a different analysis? It makes no sense.

    Only three explanations are possible. One is that the scientist is not objective because he is following another agenda in addition to his scientific work. The second is that he is not confident in his own analysis and wishes to shut-down disagreement because he fears he cannot answer the substance of the points made against him. The third possibility is that the scientist in question is just a bully – he is confident of his position, he feels he can answer criticism but is too arrogant to (as he sees it) waste his time doing so. Threads of all three explanations appear in the recently disclosed emails.

  50. “It is actually humorous reading these guys talk to each other about how skeptics are oil funded and politically motivated followed by the next proposal for 3million euros from the taxpayer. They never seem to notice that the blogs are unfunded or that their cohorts who disagree don’t take oil money and the few who have get values 1/100th of the UEA.”

    I concur, the hypocrisy here is ridiculous. Below is a summary of the fossil fuel industry’s involvement in “climate science”…

    —— Forwarded message follows ——-
    To: ???
    From: “Bill Hare, CNE” ???@diala.gl3
    Subject: [can-talk] IPCC Chairman: Pachauri in, Watson out
    Date sent: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:05:25 +020 ???
    Send reply to: ???@diala.gl3
    Organization: Greenpeace

    [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

    Dear Can colleagues

    This note covers the outcome of the IPCC Plenary concluded on Saturday in Geneva in relation to the Chairmanship position. Many other decisions were taken and these will be covered in a subsequent note this afternoon or tomorrow.

    As many of you would have seen from press reports over the weekend the IPCC has voted Dr Pachauri of India into the position of Chairman of IPCC. Dr Robert Watson was outvoted in a secret ballot on Friday afternoon – Pachauri 76; Watson – 49; and Goldem berg – 7. As far as we can determine based on the expressed or inferred voting intentions, the vast majority of African countries voted heavily for Pachauri as did all the OPECs, several LatinAmerican countries (Venezuela, Peru and Chile), Japan and some other Asian countries (India plus others). Voting for Watson were all of Europe except Russia, China, Canada, NZ and probably Australia plus a collection of Asian countries and a few small island states present. For those present it was certainly the ugliest and most vile IPCC meeting ever.

    Pachauri in the end refused any role for Watson, a gesture of indecency not seen before in the IPCC and entirely against the spirit of the IPCC since it began and all that it has stood for in all of the times past. The fossil fuel industry was crawling all over the process it seems from beginning to end: and the beginning it seems was a long time before the plenary itself and has involved a few senior UN officials acting in extraordinary a partisan ways.

    Speaking personally, whatever view one takes of Pachauri the manner of his victory and the forces so blatantly and we strongly suspect immorally, behind the campaign to get him elected, are very likely to haunt his tenure of the IPCC and probably the IPCC itself. In terms of body language at the meeting Pachauri spent an inordinate amount of time in consultation with Don Pealrman and others associated with that camp and were overheard on numerous occasions plotting and scheming on how to use rules of procedure to bring on a vote and to keep Watson out should Pachauri win. He was too engaged with such discussions to talk with NGOs on Saturday.

    Objectively there were clear concerns from a group of developing countries over Watson and his behaviour in the past as well as the concern for this to be the turn of developing countries. The latter position of course was spearheaded by the USA in its pre Plenary diplomacy throughout

    Africa and Asia, it seems. In this context proposals for a Co-Chair arrangement were dismissed as tantamount to suggesting that developing country scientists were inferior to developed country scientists. Inaddition to the election of Pachauri as Chair the Working Group co-chairs were apppointed and overall there is a very strong and credible line up. Drs Solomon (USA) and Qin (China) were appointed to WGI on Science, Drs Canziani (Argentina) and Parry (UK) to WGII on Impacts and Drs Davidson and Metz (NL) for WGIII (as befor e).

    It is anticipated by most that Pachauri will not pay as much attention to the details of the IPCC as Watson or Bolin before him and hence the strength of the WG Chairs will be very important. In relation to Pachauri himself it is apparent that many concerns were expressed as to an apparent conflict of interest between his position as IPCC Chair and position on the board of the Indian government’s oil company. I feel he will need to resolve this soon.

    Some in industry are saying that Pachauri’s election means that the IPCC and governments are distancing themselves from the IPCC TAR and from Watson. This is wrong but is obviously a pre-determined message and the possibility of running such a message is likely one of the reasons that many big US industries supported Pachauri and the reason why he got such high profile support from the OPECs. Already one government has had to ask him to come and address this issue soon because their business associations are spinning the election this way . As to the NGO approach, we have to work to make sure that damage to the IPCC is limited as a consequence of this affair whilst ensuring that its integrity is maintained over time. My gut feeling is that industrial and political forces supporting Pachauri and upon whom he so visibly relied (in addition to his own government) will not rest and nor will they be interested in free lunches. We need to tell Pachauri that he should be at least as accessible to NGOs as his predecessors were, and not just to big industries.

    I will limit my remarks here.


    Bill Hare
    Visiting Scientist

    Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\EM letter general1.doc”

    Professor Trevor D. Davies
    Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich NR4 7TJ
    United Kingdom


    From: “Mick Kelly”
    To: ???
    Subject: Shell
    Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +010 ???
    Reply-to: ???
    Cc: ???, t.o’???

    Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc, etc. By email? In person?

    I hear that Shell’s name came up at the TC meeting. I’m ccing this to Tim who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me! I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team but this approach will do equally for the new foundation as it’s only one step or so off Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s within the remit.

    Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
    University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
    United Kingdom
    Tel: 44??? Fax: 44???
    Email: ???

    From: “Mick Kelly”
    To: ???, ???
    Subject: Shell International
    Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:05:29 +010 ???
    Reply-to: ???

    Mike and Tim
    Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
    Sorry about the delay.
    I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation including the foundation as they seem to have good access to the top levels.

    Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
    University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
    United Kingdom
    Tel: 44??? Fax: 44???
    Email: ???
    Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\shell.doc”


    From: John Shepherd <???
    To: Mike Hulme <???
    Subject: Re: BGS, Esso, & CV for Tyndall bid
    Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:37:30 +000 ???


    BGS are now on board, so please leave them in the text : I have drafted a letter for David Falvey to sign and sent it. I hope we shall get it back in time…

    The Esso (Exxon-Mobil) situation is still promising, but they’re having to get clearance from HQ in the USA (my best contact retired (with cancer) just a few weeks ago, so we’ve had to work around the new CE, to whom all this is news…). They know the deadline and will do their best for us.

    Finally, my short informal CV is attached, as requested.

    Hope the drafting is coming together well.

    Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\JGS_CV_informal.doc”

    From: John Shepherd <???
    To: ???
    Subject: Re: ESSO
    Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:00:43 +010 ???
    Cc: Mike Hulme <???

    I gather you’re going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree witrh Mike’s analysis : i.e. there’s room for some constructive dialogue…

    See you on the 1014 from Ipswich (0940 from Norwich), for a kick-off at 12 noon ??


    At 14:07 19/05/00 +010 ???, Mike Hulme wrote:

    It will be Trevor on the 19th for ESSO – too tricky for my schedule. I will pass the Esso booklet onto Trevor.

    Esso have selectively quoted to (over)-emphasise the uncertainties re. climate change, but at least they have moved beyond denial and recognise that potential unknown long-term risks may require tangible short-term actions. Seems to be some room for negotiation over what research needs doing. I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso. Uncertainty and risk analysis and C sequestration may be the sort of things that appeal.

    See you Wednesday,


    At 16:23 10/05/00 +010 ???, you wrote:
    Despite my efforts Esso have gone firm on 19th (to fit the schedule of their man from the USA). Can you decide between you who should come (I suggest one is enough) : it’ll be lunchtime somewhere in London. I shall be travelling from Ipswich (it’s my week for the Aldeburgh Festival) so we could possibly meet on the train there ??

    Copies of the Esso booklet arrived yesterday and are now on their way to you… I read it last night and wrote “misleading” and “wrong” in the margins in quite a few places !


    At 10:04 05/05/00 +010 ???, you wrote:

    I can make a London lunch on either 19 or 20, but with a strong preference for 20th. Trevor could also make both days if necessary. By then we will have got further with the Tyndall contract so it would useful to talk with Esso (do you have a copy of the Exxonmobil booklet referred to?).

    Let me know how this proceeds,


    Enron (It’s interesting that there’s no follow up emails to the chain below, but then again Enron went bankrupt less than 3 months later…)

    date: Mon Sep 17 10:17:17 2001
    from: Keith Briffa
    subject: RE: Climate Research at The University of East Anglia
    to: “Jean Palutikof”

    I am interested but happy for you and Phil to meet with him/them . If a visit to CRU is requested , I would be happy to take part in a general discussion.

    At 10:11 AM 9/17/01 +010 ???, you wrote:

    Does anyone have a strong desire to meet him? Otherwise, I guess Phil and I can handle it.

    Phil – do you want me to reply?

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Hamilton, Tony [[1]mailto:???]
    Sent: 14 September 2001 19:31
    To: ???; ???; ???;
    ???; ???
    Subject: Climate Research at The University of East Anglia
    Dear Sirs/Madam,
    I am a senior specialist in statistical forecasting and meteorology with the research group at Enron Europe Ltd., based at Grosvenor Place, London. As you will know energy demand and supply is heavily dependant on climate, weather and weather forecasts. Also, increasingly, global energy demand and supply depends on climate and weather around the whole northern hemisphere.
    Our devoted weather research and synoptic forecasting team based in our Houston office, and myself here in London, are extremely interested in the potential for collaborative University-University and University-Industry applied research projects, particularly between joint US/European research institutes and ourselves. We are interested in all aspects of Meteorology from new ideas in theoretical atmospheric physics through more practical aspects such as short-range deterministic forecasting, medium-range ensemble forecasting and long-range seasonal/climatic forecasting and analysis. My colleagues from Houston (who are currently planning visits to research institutes on the US side in the near future) will be in London in early November and I would very much like to set up an introductory meeting with the heads of the research groups at The Climatic Research Unit to introduce ourselves to you and discuss possible areas of mutual research interest.
    If this is something that you would be interesting in setting up, or if you can direct me to a more suitable group or individuals at The University of East Anglia, please let me know and we can hopefully arrange a date for sometime in early November. I am currently in Houston, but hope to be able to return to London early next week depending on the current tragic situation here in the US. I can be contacted by email in the meantime.
    Look forward to the opportunity of meeting with you in the near future.
    In confidence,
    Tony Hamilton
    Dr. Tony Hamilton
    Senior Specialist, Meteorology and Forecasting
    Weather Research
    Enron Europe Ltd.
    Enron House

    Professor Keith Briffa,
    Climatic Research Unit
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

    Phone: +4 ???-1603-593909
    Fax: +4 ???-1603-507784

    British Petroleum (BP)

    date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:45:57 +010 ???
    from: “Measures, Jane”
    subject: FW: Briefing paper
    to: ‘Mike Hulme’


    Just between meetings and have picked up some quick feedback from Simon on our BP HSE team. Pleased to see how positive they are and what do you think of the suggestion?


    Jane Measures
    Britannic House
    Tel. +44 ???
    Fax. +44 ???
    E mail ???@BP.COM

    From: Worthington, Simon
    Sent: 24 June 1998 09:08
    To: Measures, Jane
    Cc: Thomas, Charles; Grezo, Charlotte AB
    Subject: RE: Briefing paper


    This is really good – balanced clear and concise, covering a wide area well.

    When completed I would like to get it in to a format to go out to our climate change list as a briefing paper and to all HSE managers – would this be OK with Mike of course we would quote him as the author.

    Simon Worthington
    Environmental Policy Adviser
    Group Health, Safety and Environment
    The British Petroleum Company p.l.c.
    Britannic House, 1 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7BA
    Tel. +44 ???Fax. +44 ???

    From: Measures, Jane
    Sent: 24 June 1998 08:42
    To: isobel; Russell; Thomas, Charles; Waumsley, Lorraine;
    Worthington, Simon
    Subject: FW: Briefing paper

    Jane Measures
    Britannic House
    Tel. +44 ???
    Fax. +44 ???
    E mail ???@BP.COM

    From: Mike Hulme[SMTP:???]
    Sent: 23 June 1998 22:51
    To: Measures, Jane
    Subject: Re: Briefing paper

    <<File: bp.briefing.doc

    Attached is a nearly complete briefing paper on the science of climate change. Two topics remain to be completed. It is incredibly hard to condense such a wide-ranging and complex topic into such a format. I hope this is what you had in mind.

    I will have a go later today at drafting one of these topics in terms of information sources.

    Your feedback would be welcome before I progress much further.


    At 11:40 16/06/98 +010 ???, you wrote:

    Can you give me a ring please as I’m getting no response from your
    telephone number.

    Many thanks

    Jane Measures
    Britannic House
    Tel. +44 ???
    Fax. +44 ???
    E mail ???@BP.COM

    <strong Industrial and Commercial Contacts</strong

    From: Mike Hulme <???
    To: ???
    Subject: Re: industrial and commercial contacts
    Date: Mon Jan 10 17:01:32 2000


    I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:

    – Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
    – Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International

    – Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
    – ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.

    And then Simon Gerrard here in our Risk Unit suggested the following personal contacts:

    – ??, someone senior at AMEC Engineering in Yarmouth (involved with North Sea industry and wind energy)
    – Richard Powell, Director of the East of England Development Board

    You can add these to your list and I can ensure that Tim and Simon feed the right material through once finalised.

    I will phone tomorrow re. the texts.



    At 20:30 07/01/00 BST, you wrote:
    dear colleagues

    re: List of Industrial and Commercial Contacts to Elicit Support
    from for the Tyndall Centre

    This is the list so far. Our contact person is given in brackets afterwards. There is some discussion on whether we should restict ourselves to board level contacts – hence Dlugolecki is not board level but highly knowledgeable about climate change. I think people such as that, who are well known for their climate change interests, are worth writing to for support. There may be less value in writing to lesser known personnel at a non-board level.
    SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom contact the same as Nick Jenkin’s below? Also, do you have a BP Amoco contact? The name I’ve come up with is Paul Rutter, chief engineer, but he is not a personal contact]

    We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector. Does anyone know any investment bankers?

    Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can finalise the list.

    I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person in brackets).

    Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
    Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
    Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John

    Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
    [Mike Hulme]
    Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
    Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
    Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
    Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
    Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]

    Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
    Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
    Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
    [Nick Jenkins]
    Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
    Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]

    With kind regards

    Simon Shackley

    So the “the fossil fuel industry was crawling all over the [IPCC Chair selection] process” and the UEA was in bed with every oil company they could get in contact with, but those of us who are skeptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative are supposedly in the pocket of big oil? The hypocrisy, it burns, unleaded of course…

    – Cross-posted at WUWT

  51. What makes something you don’t understand and haven’t realized you don’t understand seem much simpler and more obvious to you than to the people who do understand it? Our friend, Staniak, exhibits symptoms of this condition.

  52. Re: FatBigot (Nov 29 23:55),

    Unlike Mr Staniak I am not prepared to give great weight to an argument because 90-odd% of published writers in a field make that argument.

    Yeah; up until an accepted paradigm or theory or hypothesis is disproven, 90%+ always support it. By definition, kinda. As Albert E. was fond of pointing out. Richard F., also.

  53. Pingback: Greenhouse
  54. Pingback: energielabels

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 )

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