Friday, November 25, 2011

Following the publication this week of 5000 emails hacked climate, we look at what was going on in these exchanges

new series of e-mails climate science hacked leaked online

"Observations show no increase in temperatures in the tropical troposphere unless he accepts a single study and the development and release many more. This is very dangerous. "

. Peter Thorne, Research, Met Office Hadley Centre, Phil Jones, UAE, February 4, 2005 (1939 email)


Thorne repeatedly criticized the project at a time of a report of the Scientific Programme on Climate Change United States (CCSP, now the research program on global change) of oversimplification, or reject the uncertainty of the temperature rises into the atmosphere. This speaks ill of the authors, but also demonstrates that there are climate scientists, which are essential to ignore the contradictory evidence and are not afraid to say what they think. As requested by Thorne, the final report, said: "The new evidence in this report - model for model consistency of amplification results, the uncertainty in the evolution of temperatures in the troposphere, and independent physical evidence support substantial tropospheric warming (such as the increased height of the tropopause) -... favor the second explanation, however, large uncertainties exist in the observation that the time it is unclear whether the models are still significant errors Solving this problem requires the reduction of uncertainties "

"Getting people to know and trust us [in the team of the IPCC report] is vital."

. Phil Jones, UEA, Kevin Trenberth, NCAR, September 15 May 2004 (714 e-mail)

In an email earlier in the thread, Jones refers to two scientists who do not "trust". He does not say why, but he says he does not agree with them. Trenberth him and discuss a variety of names as potential contributors from various countries, and are ready to expand the network.

"Mike, the picture you sent is very misleading ... there was a series of dishonest presentations of model results to individual authors and IPCC. "

. Tom Wigley University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, USA, Michael Mann, Penn State University, USA, and others, October 14, 2009 (2884 email)

Wigley refers to a picture on the blog Real Climate climate scientist Gavin Schmidt by. Wednesday, Schmidt said, again on the blog, saying he "did not agree (and disagree) with Wigley," and said at the time of its implementation. The general argument is dishonest presentations of uncomfortable, but often they are scientifically difficult judgments, and claim to come out.

"The trick will be to decide on the main message and use that guide what is included and what excluded."

Jonathan Overpeck

. University of Arizona, Ricardo Villalba, IANIGLA-CONICET, Argentina, December 16, 2004 (4755 email)

Villalba Overpeck is to advise on how to change something down a summary of a half-page, in what context his advice seems less conspiratorial. In particular, it will immediately and said, "For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful to assess the recent climate change and the future On the other hand, we must have solid evidence - not conclusive .."

"I'm in the strange position of being very skeptical about the quality of all current reconstructions, however, it sounds like a fanatic pro by greenhouse"

. Keith Briffa

, UEA, to Edward Cook (Cook, no doubt, Edward R at the Earth Institute, Columbia University), January 20, 2005 (email 2009)

Briffa told the Guardian: "I'm trying to strengthen ask my co-author to present a highly critical review of the draft that I thought had been taken into account the uncertainty in the .. when there is evidence of the project and even came to the conclusion that the 20th century was unusually warm "This explanation is based on the wireless e-mail in which he wrote:" Really happy for critical remarks here "No. According to The idea that scientists are only interested in the opinions that agree with them.

Waspishly, Briffa suggests yet another climatologist Kevin Trenberth, is "extremely defensive and combative, when ever they are criticized mainly because the figures he is smarter than the others and virtually foolproof. "It has Trenberth

"We are choosing to show periods of warming."

. Phil Jones, UEA, Kevin Trenberth, NCAR, and others, December 21, 2004 (2775 email)

the surface, this was one of the most damaging pieces. However, Jones said at a news conference in London on Wednesday he was referring to the combination of colors and scales graphics showing the temperature record from 1901 to 2005 - the last century - and from 1970 to 2005 - the period during which satellite. "Show one of the periods of warming. They have not been pre-selected to show warming," he added.

Stott prepares for a meeting with environmentalist David Bellamy, who has publicly called global warming "nonsense", and is being careful not to exaggerate the evidence in the case of current research shows it is wrong. In the event that the IPCC report in 2007, still suggests that it was the warmest decade, despite previous research further.

"I really do not want shit and all that convinced that Michael has written aa ..."

Find best price for : --Macdonald----Trevor----Overpeck----Bremen----Schultz----David----Briffa----Villalba----Schmidt----Real----Michael----Jones----Global----climate--


Blog Archive