Climategate Part 2
Discussion
quoted off watts up
Mike Mann said in one email:
“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an
investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his
thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the
same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.
I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and
discrediting them.
Do you mind if I send this on to Gavin Schmidt (w/ a request to respect
the confidentiality with which you have provided it) for his additional
advice/thoughts? He usually has thoughtful insights wiith respect to
such matters….”
thats sailing very close to the edge i reckon ....
Mike Mann said in one email:
“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an
investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his
thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the
same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.
I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and
discrediting them.
Do you mind if I send this on to Gavin Schmidt (w/ a request to respect
the confidentiality with which you have provided it) for his additional
advice/thoughts? He usually has thoughtful insights wiith respect to
such matters….”
thats sailing very close to the edge i reckon ....
I was wondering if such a thread would be a good place to put interesting finds from the emails and doc's. I've tried searching for Richard Black and Roger Harriban, and whilst there were mails there was not a lot of interest.
I'm wondering if it would be useful if those that know could post some phrases and\or names we could search on and share our results here?
Just a thought.
I'm wondering if it would be useful if those that know could post some phrases and\or names we could search on and share our results here?
Just a thought.
04 Aug 2003
"Phil and David
If we break the high temperature record this week, we really should be prepared to capitalize on this press-wise.
How about we draft a short press release? This has been a classic global warming summer circulation-wise so we can dress the story up a bit.
I'm around Thursday-Friday this week but only briefly Wednesday. Either of you in Wednesday in case it breaks then?
Mick
________________________________________
Mick Kelly "
"Phil and David
If we break the high temperature record this week, we really should be prepared to capitalize on this press-wise.
How about we draft a short press release? This has been a classic global warming summer circulation-wise so we can dress the story up a bit.
I'm around Thursday-Friday this week but only briefly Wednesday. Either of you in Wednesday in case it breaks then?
Mick
________________________________________
Mick Kelly "
(cont'd from the science thread)
Yes of course that's a concern and probably impossible to avoid to some degree, especially when you've got a bunch of scientists charged with putting together reports for politicians and the world's governments on such a huge subject. It would be miraculous if all concerned were able to completely avoid being influenced by pressure from a variety of directions. Everyone should hold back some trust on account of that but it's a question of degrees and accepting nothing in the world is perfect. I disregard nothing but in several years of watching from my layman's perch I'm yet to see much to make me think the climate science enterprise is seriously out of kilter. YMMV.
Melvin Udall said:
The world of skepticism is being judged already, and is looked in in not too favorable terms. However, what has come from these emails is a quite revealing picture. Do you really have no opinion good or bad regarding these things? These are the people by which the climate debate is relying on, (on the whole), for their scientific credentials. Of those credentials are being put to one side in favour of an agenda, do you think that needs to be looked at, or do you prefer to disregard because you feel it is distasteful?
Presume you mean If those credentials...Yes of course that's a concern and probably impossible to avoid to some degree, especially when you've got a bunch of scientists charged with putting together reports for politicians and the world's governments on such a huge subject. It would be miraculous if all concerned were able to completely avoid being influenced by pressure from a variety of directions. Everyone should hold back some trust on account of that but it's a question of degrees and accepting nothing in the world is perfect. I disregard nothing but in several years of watching from my layman's perch I'm yet to see much to make me think the climate science enterprise is seriously out of kilter. YMMV.
nelly1 said:
Melvin Udall said:
Well, call me old fashioned, but the scientists should be advising with the facts, not pushing agendas.
Good game. Good game.
In how many other fields of science would some of these 'scientists' (an insult to the genuine scientists) like Mann, Jones et al have risen to prominence in? Judging by the quality and veracity of their research and analysis (remember Mann's total inability with statistics) some of them would be hard pressed to get jobs as lab technicians let alone heads of department in other fields.
One thing that really makes me laugh is Mann blaming 'Big Oil' again - did 'they' make him write these things in the first place?
Melvin Udall said:
Well, call me old fashioned, but the scientists should be advising with the facts, not pushing agendas.
If these are exposed as "Unscientific" then all their previous works must be called into question and finally Mcintyre & McKitrick will get the recognition they deserves!
I see the BBC are slating it already - I hope this is strong enough to stand up to the ridicule and derision it will inevitably receive in the press.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562
Dear Harold(Ambler),
You have come up with a whole list of motives for my actions, all of which are wrong.
I don't consider myself a public servant, and I doubt many working in the University
sector
in the UK would either. University workers in the UK are not what we call civil servants.
I will send you another paper
At 14:24 24/08/2009, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful response. Thank you especially for the
attachment.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Regarding the "scientists-only" policy. As a writer, I am puzzled by this. We in the
publishing profession do not ordinarily object to scientists writing articles and books
intended for a wide audience, even if it is clear that the individual is not a "born
writer" or even a comfortable one. Plenty of valuable mass-market books have been
written, nonetheless, by such authors, simply because the information that they were
conveying probably could not have come from any other source. Some scientists write like
angels, of course.
2. I do not share the view that the days when amateurs contributed meaningfully to the
development of science have come to an end. If you have studied the history of science,
particularly that of your own great country, then you already know that non-academic,
frequently self-taught individuals have changed the scientific debate permanently in a
given field because of their own (frequently scoffed-at) work. Your somewhat
condescending position toward "non-scientists" is in keeping with Royal Society snobbery
of the 19th century, and I would ask you to consider the possibility that, like those of
the society, your efforts to keep the barbarians at the gate will be shown in the end to
be a waste of time.
3. You write, "Our ftp site has had some data deleted from it. It is a site we use when
working with other scientists around the world. The datasets were not explained.
It seemed easier to stop people wasting their time trying to determine what it was."
I admit that this does not seem as straightforward as, again, one might expect from a
public servant. The decision to delete data was made during a white-hot dispute with a
little-liked and extremely dogged and intelligent statistician by the name of Steve
McIntyre. Whether or not you view Mr. McIntyre as the kind of figure whom the Royal
Society fought to keep on the margins of scientific inquiry (or farther out than that),
he is exactly such a figure.
If you wanted to "defeat" him in intellectual battle, as you naturally would, the best
way to do so is not to hide data and maintain that you are not hiding data.
The data should be restored to the website, ASAP. Mr. McIntyre should be allowed to
"audit" your methodology. If your intellectual position is truly superior to his, then
the "schooling" that you give to him in response will be of note to many.
Thank you for your consideration.
All the best, in all things,
Harold
On Aug 24, 2009, at 3:59 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
It seemed easier to stop people wasting their time trying to determine what it was.
Prof. Phil Jones
another little snippet..
You have come up with a whole list of motives for my actions, all of which are wrong.
I don't consider myself a public servant, and I doubt many working in the University
sector
in the UK would either. University workers in the UK are not what we call civil servants.
I will send you another paper
At 14:24 24/08/2009, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful response. Thank you especially for the
attachment.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Regarding the "scientists-only" policy. As a writer, I am puzzled by this. We in the
publishing profession do not ordinarily object to scientists writing articles and books
intended for a wide audience, even if it is clear that the individual is not a "born
writer" or even a comfortable one. Plenty of valuable mass-market books have been
written, nonetheless, by such authors, simply because the information that they were
conveying probably could not have come from any other source. Some scientists write like
angels, of course.
2. I do not share the view that the days when amateurs contributed meaningfully to the
development of science have come to an end. If you have studied the history of science,
particularly that of your own great country, then you already know that non-academic,
frequently self-taught individuals have changed the scientific debate permanently in a
given field because of their own (frequently scoffed-at) work. Your somewhat
condescending position toward "non-scientists" is in keeping with Royal Society snobbery
of the 19th century, and I would ask you to consider the possibility that, like those of
the society, your efforts to keep the barbarians at the gate will be shown in the end to
be a waste of time.
3. You write, "Our ftp site has had some data deleted from it. It is a site we use when
working with other scientists around the world. The datasets were not explained.
It seemed easier to stop people wasting their time trying to determine what it was."
I admit that this does not seem as straightforward as, again, one might expect from a
public servant. The decision to delete data was made during a white-hot dispute with a
little-liked and extremely dogged and intelligent statistician by the name of Steve
McIntyre. Whether or not you view Mr. McIntyre as the kind of figure whom the Royal
Society fought to keep on the margins of scientific inquiry (or farther out than that),
he is exactly such a figure.
If you wanted to "defeat" him in intellectual battle, as you naturally would, the best
way to do so is not to hide data and maintain that you are not hiding data.
The data should be restored to the website, ASAP. Mr. McIntyre should be allowed to
"audit" your methodology. If your intellectual position is truly superior to his, then
the "schooling" that you give to him in response will be of note to many.
Thank you for your consideration.
All the best, in all things,
Harold
On Aug 24, 2009, at 3:59 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
It seemed easier to stop people wasting their time trying to determine what it was.
Prof. Phil Jones
another little snippet..
Mark34bn said:
I see the BBC are slating it already - I hope this is strong enough to stand up to the ridicule and derision it will inevitably receive in the press.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562
And where does the BBC get their money from................http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/21/the-tyn...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff