Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Hacked AGW Scientists Emails Paint Ugly Picture

Recs

28

November 22, 2009 – Comments (21)

With the recent revalation that a prominent British CRU email database has been hacked, and the acknowledgment from leading British climatologist Phil Jones verifying this claim, I thought we could go over the information gathered and see what is amiss.

Here's what I see so far. I'm not surprised, but I'm disappointed.

-- Manipulated data

-- Suppresion of information

-- Strategies for propaganda efforts

-- Tips for getting research funding

-- Repeated attempts to discredit, ostracize, and deny funding to any AGW skeptic

-- Coercion of media outlets, particularly science journals

-- Bragging of getting favorable scientists into the peer review process

Before we move on, let me state that there has been no verification of each individual email released. However, the entire database is available on Pirate Bay and at various locations, with a very cool searchable database at www.anelegantchaos.org. There are over a thousand emails, according to reports, and I don't know of anyone that has sifted through them all just yet, but we are getting there. I am going to be searching it as well and will post many additional follow ups in the comments section as the days go by.

With a nod the Bishop Hill, here is a summary of what has been found so far. It's certainly possible that the hackers mixed in fakes with the real emails, but I suppose if that were true, the climatologists implicated would be coming out in force to refute.them. So far... silence. This is only the beginning folks. Only the beginning. As I said, here is a small sample. Plenty more to come:

The numbers in parantheses are the email number. Links are really screwing up for me today, so you will have to copy and paste the email number and search it in the databases.

David in Qatar

======================================================================

From: Phil Jones

To: “Michael E. Mann”

Subject: IPCC & FOI

Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t

have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk

==================================================================

Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen from using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)

Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709)

Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)

Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to Freedom of Information request.(1212063122)

Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)

Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)

Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)

Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)

Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)

Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)

Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)

Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)

Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant.) Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)

Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)

Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)

Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)

Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of Freedom of Information law in UK. Phil Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)

Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)

Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)

Santer complaining about Freedom of Information requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realized the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)

Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)

Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)

Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)

Jones calls Pielke Sr a prat.(1233249393)

Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)

Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)

Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)

Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)

Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)

Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)

Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist Freedom of Information. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)

Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)

Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)

Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)

Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)

Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)

Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)

Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)

David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)

Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)

Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)

Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under Freedom of Information he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.

"You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this." (1210367056)

"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, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC." (1255553034)

Jones to Mann, Ammann and Bradley:

"You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this." (1210367056 & 1210341221)

Mick Kelly writes asking how to explain recent lack of warming in a public talk. Phil Jones says blame it on La Nina. Kelly says he may also just chop the last few years off the graphic he's preparing. (1225026120)

Michael Mann deliberately using a false H-index when nominating Phil Jones for the AGU. (1213201481)

To be continued......

21 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 22, 2009 at 10:01 AM, mawnck (< 20) wrote:

Denninger has a much better analysis, as opposed to a cherry-picked out-of-context list of alleged indiscretions.

He reaches a similar conclusion (although he also notes that many emails are missing from the sequence, and that "Some of the guys working on this stuff appear to be genuinely trying to clean up other people's trash."). He reaches that conclusion in a manner deserving of some notice and respect. Unlike the above.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1651-Global-Warming-SCAM-A-Further-Look.html

And emails or not, you are siding against most of the scientists in the world. Is that really the side you want to be on? The Japanese convinced themselves the scientists were BS-ing about the A-bomb too.

Report this comment
#2) On November 22, 2009 at 10:08 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Like I said, many more to come.  

mawnck,

That's nice about Denninger. I plan to go through every email myself.  

David in Qatar

Link

From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:xxx xxxx xxxx

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central
and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send
it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk  something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation  even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle  the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I'd be
optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time
collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.

Yeah, I doubt I'll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I'd like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably
someday though.

Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
phone: (5xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: (5xxx xxxx xxxx
e-mail: gary@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Report this comment
#3) On November 22, 2009 at 10:50 AM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

mawnck 

And emails or not, you are siding against most of the scientists in the world. Is that really the side you want to be on? The Japanese convinced themselves the scientists were BS-ing about the A-bomb too.  Thanks for the hyperlink!  

I read Denniger somewhat differently than you did.  He spent quite a bit of his blog on missing data and how data appeared to be manipulated to produce "desired" (intentional/unintentional) results.  If the MOST scientists (from your statement above) are drawing conclusions from this data what does that say about their conclusions? 

I think this firestorm can be stopped quickly with the scientists and Universities proclaiming that these "hacked" emails are a hoax. 

Report this comment
#4) On November 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM, devoish (96.47) wrote:

From your Ashton Lundbey post#36) On May 09, 2009 at 12:55 AM, whereaminow (95.34) wrote:

This story is falling apart and it has now become obvious that the mother is full of it.  Not only did she fabricate the involvement of the Patriot Act, but apparently she was aware that her son had been making bomb threats over the Internet.  I don't know how she he expected that none of this would eventually come to light, but shame on her for lying.

I hope you'll accept my apologies for bringing this story to your attention. I'll learn from it.

David in Qatar

 Perhaps we should learn to wait to hear from some of the scientists whose e-mails have been hacked before jumping to accusations.

Sometimes a "trick" is not a deception. Sometimes a "trick" is just an easy way to determine if your framing is square by measuring the distance between opposite corners.

 

Report this comment
#5) On November 22, 2009 at 11:37 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

dbjella,

"I think this firestorm can be stopped quickly with the scientists and Universities proclaiming that these "hacked" emails are a hoax."

Doug, so far, it looks legit. It's being widely reported and Prof. Phil Jones confirms the hacking at least.  As far as the context, that's in the eye of the beholder.  

We'll see how this plays out.  I'm going through them myself like I said, and most are just normal chat, but some are pretty bad, especially from Phil Jones and Michael Mann. They seem to be the ringleaders of this movement and quite opposed to anything that would stand in their way.  For what it's worth.

David in Qatar

 

Report this comment
#6) On November 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

devoish,

Agreed.  However, it's being reported by all news sources so I'm just going to go with that for now.  It's on the Washington Post, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, etc etc.  If it's a hoax, it sure won't be on my cred.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#7) On November 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

devoish,

I agree about "tricks" too, and maybe there is a defense for "juggling the chronologies" and other stuff I will post here soon.

If this is legit, the worst part about it from my perspective is the effort by Jones, et. al. to subvert Freedom of Information (foi) requests.  There's no scientific argument to do that.  If you go to the database, you can search through every email with the word "foi" in it and it's very alarming.

There's just no excuse for that, whether AGW is very solid or still in an evolving stage.  Let's take the point of view that AGW is rock solid and I should definitely believe in it.  How does it help me to do so when Jones is trying to keep some of their data and research out of public view, and circumventing the law while he's doing it?  Sure doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy.

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#8) On November 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM, DaretothREdux (36.80) wrote:

David,

It doesn't matter if one of these e-mails says:

I really hope we can keep this AGW hoax under wraps, so we can eventually bring communism to the entire world.

Because no matter what they say many people will never listen, and too many others have too much on the line to keep the hoax going.

Dare

Report this comment
#9) On November 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM, kdakota630 (29.64) wrote:

Here's a link to the story if anyone wants to have a look.

Report this comment
#10) On November 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM, devoish (96.47) wrote:

kdakota630,

The first paragraph of that link is definitely not what i am getting from reading the e-mails.

One thing I am getting from the first set of e-mails from 1996 is a renewed respect for the dedication of the scientists to question their own results and try to answer those questions. That and the incredible amount of effort that has gone into collecting and intrepreting data and the dissapointment when more data would have been useful.

David, In light of some of our other exchanges, I appreciate your taking #4 in the way I intended it. Precautionary, not insulting.

A lot of this seems to be normal discussion of data. I certainly would like to see e-mails that were hacked, but not disclosed.

I doubt the usefulness of these e-mails except as political fodder. Nothing I have read so far suggests that these scientists doubt global warming, or that it is man made, especially more recent ones. Most of the doubt seems to be how to respond to the issue, and the bad science being used by deniers.

When I followed the "skeptic" search, I found e-mails that chose to include conflicting data, not exclude it, and also to ask the author of the conflicting data why he thought it was different.

When I searched "bush" I found a half dozen e-mails concerned he was a sell out to the petroleum industry, and that his appointments would be industry shills. The earliest of the group, 2001 'bush as denier" is interesting as compared to the latest, 'bush and blair say reduce co2'.

Report this comment
#11) On November 22, 2009 at 1:01 PM, kdakota630 (29.64) wrote:

whereaminow

Since you have an appreciation for The Simpsons and some of their memorable quotes, here's a good one from The Seven-Beer Snitch which I think is both accurate and relevant to your blog:

Homer [regarding global warming]: I've got an inside tip that it's all a bunch of crap.

Report this comment
#12) On November 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

devoish,

I got the same read as you, in a way. (And of course, I still want Bush brought up on treason charges, so I want no beef with those emails.)

There are some pretty rotten stuff here on both ends.

The AGW team labels anyone who disagrees as a prat, lousy scientist, etc, cheers when they die (wtf), fantasizes about beating the crap out of skeptics, and spends all kinds of time figuring out how to discredit other journals and ruin the reputations among their peers. Nothing scientific about that.

On the flip side, the skeptics continually pester them with requests that the AGW's feel takes them away from their work.

Either way, there is clearly a ton of bad blood in the scientific community.

There is even an email where an AGW scientist laments that there is no warming, and they can't even do anything about it.

And while Mann and Jones lambast everyone else as bad scientists they refuse to acknowledge AGW mistakes, like the Hockey Stick fiasco, as if they are the only real scientists in the room.

I've also read a few on pleasing the politicians and various progressive organizations that need to push agendas.  That's not very scientific, while in another email those same scientists will criticize the skeptics for having organizations they need to please.

If I can say one thing about these emails, it would be this:

If either of these guys (AGW or skeptics) is in charge of saving us from doomsday (hot air or hot mess), we are all f*cked.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#13) On November 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

kdakota630,

haha!  And with that, I gotta get some sleep.  See you all tomorrow.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#14) On November 22, 2009 at 1:36 PM, RainierMan (74.30) wrote:

If we used the logic that any time a bogus claim is made, the entire related issue is bogus, everything would be bogus. 

The emails in question on this issue raise serious concerns. However, they do not in and of themselves prove there is no global warming problem. I'm not willing to leave the issue in the hands of those with a predefined political or financial interest in the issue decide it's time to rule that there is no global warming. They don't have any more credibility than a scientist who is trying to hide data the do not fit his theory. One bad scientist in a discipline does not make them all bad.

 

 

 

Report this comment
#15) On November 22, 2009 at 3:34 PM, dwot (40.93) wrote:

I live in the North, and no where is global warming more apparent then in the north.  More and more southern species are going further north each year.  The polar ice caps are melting.  Roughly every 10 year enough ice is melting that it shortens the feeding season for polar bears by a week.  Polar bear studies show that the amount of fat on the females has declined a considerably and it is affecting the birth rate and survial of the cubs.  And then there is the gas coming up through the ice, or rather because the ice is gone.  Locals complain the bubbles coming off the lakes is way up.

 

Report this comment
#16) On November 22, 2009 at 3:41 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@whereaminow,
"If this is legit, the worst part about it from my perspective is the effort by Jones, et. al. to subvert Freedom of Information (foi) requests."
That's the only worthwhile thing to discuss but we have no evidence that material subject to foi requests was withheld or deleted.
The rest of this (illegally obtained) material says nothing about:
- data fudging.
- collusion between scientists.
- corruption of the peer-review process.
- different interpretations of the evidence on ACC/AGW.
- conspiracy theories.
What this really shows is:
- scientists are human beings with virtues and defects.
- scientists have personal opinions.
- data exchanges, suggestions on presentation of data, etc are common practices in the scientific enterprise.
- climate scientists are tired of having to work under the pressure of denialists and dealing with their strawmen, half-truths, outright lies, insane requests, long-debunked talking points and constant smears.
- denialists have to resort to illegal means to make noise and delay action because evidence refutes their claims.

Report this comment
#17) On November 22, 2009 at 4:08 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@dwot,
"I live in the North, and no where is global warming more apparent then in the north.  More and more southern species are going further north each year.  The polar ice caps are melting.  Roughly every 10 year enough ice is melting that it shortens the feeding season for polar bears by a week.  Polar bear studies show that the amount of fat on the females has declined a considerably and it is affecting the birth rate and survial of the cubs.  And then there is the gas coming up through the ice, or rather because the ice is gone.  Locals complain the bubbles coming off the lakes is way up."
Apparently, wildlife, the cryosphere and methane stored in Arctic lakes didn't receive the memo which says that:
- Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a cabal of liberal/socialists/communists/ecofascists pseudoscientists who pretend to create a New World Order, destroy capitalism, freedom, Western civilization and America, tax everyone to death and push us back to the Stone Age while Al Gore and his cronies reap billions.
- Global warming is an artifact of the instrumental record.
Logically I should conclude that birds, glaciers and gases are part of the worldwide conspiracy to push AGW down our collective throats.

Report this comment
#18) On November 22, 2009 at 4:15 PM, ryanalexanderson (< 20) wrote:

...and I'm a scientist currently living in Antarctica, where the peninsula is warming at the fastest rate on earth. This spike in the last 50 years is pretty hard to blame on sun spots or other "alternate, natural" theories are out there.

However, the main point I'd like to make is the idea of a global scientist-based conspiracy. This idea is absolutely hilarious. Really? Things do inded go in"trends" in the scientific community, but the notion that they've all tacitly colluded in the same manner to get funding is comical. Scientists argue. About everything.

And, I might add, the easiest way for a scientist to get a grant these days would be to walk into Exxon and say, "Hi! I have a theory to disprove global warming. Can you give a brother a grant?"

And yes, some scientists falsify data; many tweak things for grants. Politics are found in every industry, particularly publicly funded ones. The presence of such activities should not be presented as proof of a bias in any particular direction. Except perhaps in the direction of large corporations with deep pockets. 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going out for a cigarette, which I'm told is perfectly safe for my health.

Report this comment
#19) On November 22, 2009 at 5:06 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@ryanalexanderson,
"I'm a scientist currently living in Antarctica"
Welcome to a denialist-infested site. What do you do there?

"where the (Antarctic) peninsula is warming at the fastest rate on earth. This spike in the last 50 years is pretty hard to blame on sun spots or other "alternate, natural" theories are out there."
It's all natural man. 388 ppmv of CO2 can't melt km3 of ice. Stop your silly research funded by my taxes. I believe in "scientists" on the payroll of corporations who don't publish in peer-reviewed journals. They wouldn't lie to me.

"However, the main point I'd like to make is the idea of a global scientist-based conspiracy. This idea is absolutely hilarious. Really? Things do inded go in"trends" in the scientific community, but the notion that they've all tacitly colluded in the same manner to get funding is comical. Scientists argue. About everything."
But but "skeptics" say that the fact that scientists have the same position on AGW is enough evidence of a conspiracy to keep the grant money flowing. At the same time, if scientists express disagreements over minutia and cutting edge research this means that claims about a consensus are bogus. The funny logic of denialists never ceases to amaze me.

"some scientists falsify data"
And those scientists usually get exposed and lose their credibility which means an end to their career.

"Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going out for a cigarette, which I'm told is perfectly safe for my health."
Classy ;) [1, 2]

Report this comment
#20) On November 23, 2009 at 5:04 AM, SnapDave (62.16) wrote:

MichaelinWA

 I'm not willing to leave the issue in the hands of those with a predefined political or financial interest in the issue decide it's time to rule that there is no global warming.

 That's funny because I've felt that way about people who decided years ago that man is causing global warming and helped destroy western industry so goods could be produced in China and Mexico where much more CO2 and other, real pollutants are emitted/dumped.   If nothing else the unintended consequences should make one pause.  It's natural for any idealoge, even one who happens to be a scientist, to fudge facts a little to prove a point he already 'knows' to be true.  But, I'm wasting my time here.  I'll just be labeled another 'denier' of the green religion.  

Report this comment
#21) On November 23, 2009 at 11:11 AM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

David,

After reading the NYT article on this email breech, I continued reading your blog. Sometimes your satire is on point and hard to sift from the hard news.

Some people will look at this and make the claim that there is no sinister conspiracy on global warming. But there does not need to be, My observation on people and movements tends towards the leadership momentum and group think. The Fathers of the Revolution were a small group of men who like-minded were leaders and drove the nation - through impassioned speech and debate to the revolution and the founding of this great nation. It did not take many men to do so - just the "driving wedge" to move opinion toward their desired goal.

Likewise consider other authoritarian regimes, and you will find a very small group of people leading a willing many. Coup D'etats and revolutions alike. Nazi Germany rose out of a beer hall. Communism from revolutionaries plotting in back rooms. Gandhi brought down British rule ... it does not take everyone to be "in" on a movement to make it happen!

In the psychology of "business small decision making" the same principles apply - whereby one strong leader can move a group to consensus through debate and impassioned appeal. The conclusion may be best or may not - but it is driven by the few leaders in the room.

As a colleague messaged me the other day "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" is how he described my meeting etiquette. That I do it with a smile, and others follow more willingly is the softer side of the Machiavellian me.

As it is with AGW scientific leaders. Whether they believe in their science, their cause, or both - I can't tell from their email ramblings. What is fairly clear to deduce is that they are driving their community toward a particular outcome - come hell and high water!

Well, if it gets that warm, the seas are supposed to rise aren't they?

Known as metaphysician nzsvz9

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement