Climate Cat out of the Bag? Potentially dynamite revelations

[PetrolTed]

Tangent Police said:

Am I right in thinking this is going to be very difficult thing to hide?

Depends if any journos can be bothered to pick it up. It'll require a bit of work and it's Friday lunchtime...

[ludo]

HereBeMonsters said:

ludo said:

I was involved once in a project once where half the people involved were Richards

Is this some new slang I'm not yet up to date with? I shall have to ask my 13 year old cousin for an insight...

no, they were all decent fellows!

[B Oeuf]

Tangent Police said:

Am I right in thinking this is going to be very difficult thing to hide?

The elephant in the room that was the lack of correlation between CO2 and tem rise has just been sat on by another elephant

[jshell]

B Oeuf said:

Tangent Police said:

Am I right in thinking this is going to be very difficult thing to hide?

The elephant in the room that was the lack of correlation between CO2 and tem rise has just been sat on by another elephant

[mybrainhurts]

PetrolTed said:

Tangent Police said:

Am I right in thinking this is going to be very difficult thing to hide?

Depends if any journos can be bothered to pick it up. It'll require a bit of work and it's Friday lunchtime...

I've asked the BBC to fill me in....

[mondeoman]

jshell said:

B Oeuf said:

Tangent Police said:

Am I right in thinking this is going to be very difficult thing to hide?

The elephant in the room that was the lack of correlation between CO2 and tem rise has just been sat on by another elephant

have an extra

[The Excession]

mybrainhurts said:

I've asked the BBC to fill me in....

Aren't you a bit old for those kind of shannigans?

[MX-Si]

This quote from Hilary Benn caught my eye this morning:

Stolen from the Daily Wail:

"Mr Benn, who is in Cockermouth, said it may have 'the wettest day ever recorded' in the county.

He said that even defences built after the floods of 2005 to withstand a 'one-in-100-years flood' could not cope with the volume of water.

'What we dealt with last night was probably more like one-in-a-1,000, so even the very best defences, if you have such quantities of rain in such a short space of time, can be over-topped,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme."

So, no mention of Global Warming causing the floods then? That's a bit 'off-message' for a Government Minister isn't it?

[B Oeuf]

mybrainhurts said:

PetrolTed said:

Tangent Police said:

Am I right in thinking this is going to be very difficult thing to hide?

Depends if any journos can be bothered to pick it up. It'll require a bit of work and it's Friday lunchtime...

I've asked the BBC to fill me in....

Daily Mail
[e-mail]
020 7938 6000
Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, Kensington, London W8 5TT

Daily Mirror
[e-mail]
020 7293 3000
1 Canada Square, London E14 5AP

Daily Express
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
0871 434 1010
Northern & Shell Building, 10 Lower Thames Street,
London, EC3R 6EN

Daily Star [e-mail]
08714 341010
The Northern & Shell Building,
Number 10 Lower Thames Street, London, EC3R 6EN

Daily Telegraph
[e-mail]
020 7538 5000
1 Canada Square, London, E14 5DT

Evening Standard
[e-mail]
020 7938 7147
Northcliffe House,
2 Derry Street, Kensington,
London, W8 5EE

Financial Times
[e-mail]
020 7873 3000
1 Southwark Bridge,
London, SE1 9HL

The Guardian
[e-mail]
020 7278 2332
119 Farringdon Road,
London, EC1R 3ER

The Independent
[e-mail]
020 7005 2000
1 Canada Square, London, E14 5DL

The Scotsman
[e-mail]
0131 620 8620
Barclay House, 108 Holyrood Rd,
Edinburgh, EH8 8AS

The Sun
[e-mail]
020 7481 9992
1 Virginia St,
London, E1W 2XP

The Times
[e-mail]
020 7782 5000
1 Pennington Street, London, E1 9XN

The Economist
[e-mail]
020 7830 7000
25 St. Jame’s Street,
London, SW1A 1HG

Independent on Sunday
[e-mail]
020 7293 2000
1 Canada Square, London, E14 5DL

Mail on Sunday
[e-mail]
020 7938 6000
Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, Kensington, London W8 5TT

New Statesman
[e-mail]
020 7730 3444
7th Floor Victoria Station House, 191 Victoria St., London, SW1E

The Observer
[e-mail]
020 7278 2332
119 Farringdon Road,
London, EC1R 3ER

Sunday Express
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
020 7928 8000
United Media Ludgate House, 245 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 9UX

Sunday Telegraph
[e-mail]
020 7538 5000
1 Canada Square, London E14 5AP

Sunday Times
[e-mail]
020 7782 5000
1 Pennington Street,
London, E1 9XN

The Spectator
[e-mail]
020 7242 0603
56 Doughty At, London, WC1N 2LL

Edited by B Oeuf on Friday 20th November 12:52

[Digga]

PetrolTed said:

Tangent Police said:

Am I right in thinking this is going to be very difficult thing to hide?

Depends if any journos can be bothered to pick it up. It'll require a bit of work and it's Friday lunchtime...

Given the animosity between Mr Murdoch/News Corp and the Brown Broadcasting Corporation, you;d have thought anyone from Sky or the Thunderer wanting to engratiate themselves with their "great massive head", would jump at this?

[chris watton]

'If' this turns out to be true, Blair has a lot to answer for, as it was he who not only told us we need to go to war with Iraq because of overwhelming evidence of WMD, AND, with the same false solemn tone, told us that MMGW was/is the biggest threat to mankind facing us, and we must change our ways, again - based on overwhelming evidence!

Boy crying wolf too many times I think!

[kerplunk]

The Excession said:

I know these are just soundbites from emails, but it gives some insight into what is going on:

allegedly 1255558867.txt said:

> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
> > runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the
> > match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
> > climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
> > harsh)
> > view, [b]there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
> > results by individual authors and by IPCC[/b]. This is why I still use
> > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
> > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
> > forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
> >
> > Tom.
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Michael Mann wrote:
> > > thanks Tom,
> > > I've taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
> > > together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
> > > prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
> > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009... It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom's point below. We're planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
> > > mike
> > > On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > At the risk of overload, [b]here are some notes of mine on the
> > > > recent
> > > > lack of warming.[/b] I look at this in two ways. The first is to
> > > > look at
> > > > the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
> > > > trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
> > > > is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
> > > > observed data.
> > > > Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
> > > > second
> > > > method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
> > > > These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
> > > > Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack
> > > > of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I
> > > > do not
> > > > agree with this.
> > > > Tom.

Scientists exchanging opinons about the science - shocking stuff.

I'm yet to see anything substantially indicative of some great conspiracy.

But there again you think the "Rules of the Game" pdf is scandalous in some way so your mileage may vary.

[mybrainhurts]

The Excession said:

mybrainhurts said:

I've asked the BBC to fill me in....

Aren't you a bit old for those kind of shannigans?

Yes, but I like it...

[CoopR]

IL_JDM said:

Another Google news: http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Exa...

On a side note, if we keep saying CRU hacked, will we be no1 on google?

I think the CRU was hacked.

Edited by IL_JDM on Friday 20th November 13:00

Better to go CRU Hacked and get real google love.

[mondeoman]

Has anyone thought about passing this to some of the big energy players - BP, Shell, Esso etc...?

Still nothign significant in the news about it though.

[mybrainhurts]

kerplunk said:

Can anybody lend me a straw to clutch..?

[JacksHereR]

I expect this is true, after the way the government treated David Nut on canabis (with 2000 years of usage in written history and with every scientific study in 50 years showing it was the best choice medicine let alone drug) the government has its agendas and loyalties to large corporations.

With Davit Nut as an example, these scientists maybe wanted the information out without themselves losing jobs.

[grumbledoak]

JacksHereR said:

With Davit Nut as an example, these scientists maybe wanted the information out without themselves losing jobs.

Unlikely, given both the content of the emails and their approach to FOI requests.

[Digga]

Guam said:

mybrainhurts said:

kerplunk said:

Can anybody lend me a straw to clutch..?

I've just checked Kerplunk's profile and looked at his/her posts.

Sandal wearing flat-earther AICMTP.

[ludo]

The Excession said:

I know these are just soundbites from emails, but it gives some insight into what is going on:

allegedly 1255558867.txt said:

> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
> > runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the
> > match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
> > climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
> > harsh)
> > view, [b]there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
> > results by individual authors and by IPCC[/b]. This is why I still use
> > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
> > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
> > forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
> >
> > Tom.
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Michael Mann wrote:
> > > thanks Tom,
> > > I've taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
> > > together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
> > > prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
> > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009... It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom's point below. We're planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
> > > mike
> > > On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > At the risk of overload, [b]here are some notes of mine on the
> > > > recent
> > > > lack of warming.[/b] I look at this in two ways. The first is to
> > > > look at
> > > > the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
> > > > trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
> > > > is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
> > > > observed data.
> > > > Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
> > > > second
> > > > method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
> > > > These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
> > > > Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack
> > > > of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I
> > > > do not
> > > > agree with this.
> > > > Tom.

ETA Why aren't my bold tags working around

there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC

&

here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming.

The second bit is discussing a the fact that the lack of current warming is due to ENSO and says nothing about the climate (see the realclimate page referenced which explains the bogus nature of Moncktons argument). The first part of the message seems a bit of a non-sequitur from the message to which it is replying. There is certainly nothing sinister whatsoever about the "note of mine on the recent lack of warming", just good science.