Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
True enough...but I personally haven't seen anything in them that leads me to believe these eggheads were involved in a hoax...let alone that the majority of scientists were.Nothing theoretical about 250Gs of e-mails and documents, little sister.
Maybe the MSM isn't as gullible as you are...though I have read articles on CNN and Reuters and many other "main" stream sites about this.Nothing theoretical about 250Gs of e-mails and documents, little sister.
Indeed. The admission these were 'true' should make it a front page story. That it's not, Ravi should be praising the MSM.
That's only because you haven't looked and are relying upon others to do your research and thinking for you.True enough...but I personally haven't seen anything in them that leads me to believe these eggheads were involved in a hoax...let alone that the majority of scientists were.Nothing theoretical about 250Gs of e-mails and documents, little sister.
That's the conspiracy...thinking what was in those emails disproves global warming.
No, you are now officially conspiracy theorists.
That's only because you haven't looked and are relying upon others to do your research and thinking for you.True enough...but I personally haven't seen anything in them that leads me to believe these eggheads were involved in a hoax...let alone that the majority of scientists were.Nothing theoretical about 250Gs of e-mails and documents, little sister.
That's the conspiracy...thinking what was in those emails disproves global warming.
Nothing new under the sun there.
From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as Im sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean but wed still have to explain the land blip. Ive chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blipshigher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with why the blip.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NHjust as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)but not really enough.
So why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so Id appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
True enough...but I personally haven't seen anything in them that leads me to believe these eggheads were involved in a hoax...let alone that the majority of scientists were.Nothing theoretical about 250Gs of e-mails and documents, little sister.
That's the conspiracy...thinking what was in those emails disproves global warming.
Have fun with your ad homs...I'll enjoy laughing at your partisanship.That's only because you haven't looked and are relying upon others to do your research and thinking for you.True enough...but I personally haven't seen anything in them that leads me to believe these eggheads were involved in a hoax...let alone that the majority of scientists were.Nothing theoretical about 250Gs of e-mails and documents, little sister.
That's the conspiracy...thinking what was in those emails disproves global warming.
Nothing new under the sun there.
True enough...but I personally haven't seen anything in them that leads me to believe these eggheads were involved in a hoax...let alone that the majority of scientists were.Nothing theoretical about 250Gs of e-mails and documents, little sister.
That's the conspiracy...thinking what was in those emails disproves global warming.
Are you really saying this after reading? Maybe before reading?
EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem says Kyoto "is not a simple environmental issue, where you can say scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about the economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious," she declaimed. And French President Jacques Chirac has termed the Kyoto Protocol "the first component of authentic global governance."
Ad hom nothing. Anyone who doesn't see something terribly amiss here either isn't looking or is in denial.Have fun with your ad homs...I'll enjoy laughing at your partisanship.That's only because you haven't looked and are relying upon others to do your research and thinking for you.True enough...but I personally haven't seen anything in them that leads me to believe these eggheads were involved in a hoax...let alone that the majority of scientists were.
That's the conspiracy...thinking what was in those emails disproves global warming.
Nothing new under the sun there.
The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.
The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.
Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.
"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical." ...
Most climate scientists today argue that the earth's temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views. ...
In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call "disinformation" using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.
The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with. ...
In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was "tempted to beat" up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn't be reached for comment Sunday. ...
In a dramatic shift, the Chamber of Commerce announced Monday that it is throwing its support behind climate change legislation making its way through the U.S. Senate.
Didn't stop them when they published the Pentagon Papers.The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they wont be posted here.
I believe the zip file is readily available from many sources...
Hard to slow information once it's been released on Algore's interwebs... (lol - how ironic, huh?)
They're unzipped and ready for perusal HEREI believe the zip file is readily available from many sources...
Hard to slow information once it's been released on Algore's interwebs... (lol - how ironic, huh?)
