Elizabeth May: An Informed Look at the East Anglia Emails

Thu, 2009-12-03 10:06Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Elizabeth May: An Informed Look at the East Anglia Emails

How dare the world’s media fall into the trap set by contrarian propagandists without reading the whole set?

Canadian Green party leader Elizabeth May has done, here what most journalists have not: she read ALL the leaked emails and comments on the basis of primary sources.

Her conclusion? We’ve been had.

Read her whole analysis below:

And now to discuss those hacked emails

Strange, isn’t it that media are not wondering about who hacked into the computers and who paid them?   Or why Dr. Andrew Weaver’s office in Victoria has been broken into twice.  My guess is that all the computers of all the climate research centres of the world have been repeatedly attacked, but defences held everywhere but East Anglia.

The scientists at East Anglia, plus colleagues around the world, are being hung out to dry as though they did something wrong.   I did not want to spring to their defence until I read all their emails.  Yes, all 3,000 or whatever of them…. Starting from 1996, these good and decent scientists write to each other on email as colleagues and often as co-authors of work in paleoclimatology.  Tough stuff using proxy records to figure out what the temperature was in as many data points as you can find on the planet, going back as far as you can.  (Dendochronology chat: Tree rings telling you more about summer temperatures than annual, and mostly from the boreal region). They wrote each other sharing ideas for handling the records from tree rings.  They struggled with how to re-calibrate surface sea temperature records.  This was a neat thread. Turns out those navies around the world kept records of the temperature of the sea water before using it in the steam room engines.  The temperature records shifted when they stopped using wooden buckets and moved to canvas buckets.  Tough work evening out the temperatures so they are comparable.   Or the sorting out of the famous Winter Ice Fairs on the Thames. Lord Lawson and his ilk love this anecdotal stuff.  Little Ice Age.  Turns out there were weirs on the Thames that kept sections fairly shallow. Once the weirs were removed the river never froze solid again. 

These stolen emails are also opening up the personal lives of private and serious scientists.  Illnesses, family troubles. Cheery notes of “need to get this surgery over and then I will get busy with my review,”  “getting married, did I mention, will work on this next data set a soon as I am back from my honeymoon…” or their Christmas emails… sent up to Christmas Eve and back to work before Boxing Day was over.  Wives with cancer, at hospital, revising papers, while awaiting birth of first grandchild.  These guys work without a break. They never once suggest “cooking the books” or fudging the science.

How dare the world’s media fall into the trap set by contrarian propagandists without reading the whole set?

Yes, it was a trap.  An elaborate sting operation….  At first the emails talk about requests for data, and they mention to each other that so and so wants the data, I just referred them to all the data we have placed in the public domain.  Sometimes they write that they sent more on request, but something seems strange as they do not think the people wanting the data are actually proper scientists. The emails are the story of serious science up against blogs.  Here is one of the emails as they begin to realize they cannot win…

 from December 2, 2008:

Message from Gavin Schmidt at NASA To Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore Labs, copied to Phil Jones at East Anglia and others:


“Ben,
there are two very different things going on here. One is technical and related to the actual science and the actual statistics, the second is political, and is much more concerned with how incidents like this can be portrayed.  The second is the issue here…..

Thus any increase in publicity on this – whether in the pages of Nature or elsewhere – is much more likely to bring further negative fallout despite your desire to clear the air.  Whatever you say, it will still be presented as you hiding data.

The contrarians have found that there is actually no limit to what you can ask people for (raw data, intermediate steps, additional calculations, sensitivity calculations, all the code, a workable version of the code on any platform, etc) and like Somali pirates they have found that once someone has paid up, they can always shake them down again.”


He goes on to suggest that the university and directors of programmes just point out where the data can be found in the public domain and urge them to try their own calculations (if they have the competence.) He suggests they point out how it can be done by getting a grad student to work up the data from public sources that the contrarians keep demanding…  

The enormous volume of emails give a picture of thoroughly decent scientists increasingly finding themselves in a nightmare. One refers to the atmosphere moving to something akin to that created by Joseph R. McCarthy.  Their professional reputations are suddenly at risk..  They write each other in disbelief, protesting “I have never been political. I am an honest scientist.”  They are threatened, and “sting” operation FOI requests are set up to ensnare them and keep them from doing their work.

 

And now the worst of the worst are gleefully eviscerating my new friends (yup, that’s how you feel after reading these guys’ emails for the last dozen years, like putting on the kettle and hoping they drop round for tea.)

 

Worst of the worst? Patrick Michaels of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.  He was once at the University of Virginia and considered a decent scientist.  He is famous for giving testimony attacking Dr. James Hansen to the U.S. Senate showing how wrong Hansen’s projections were. Only he had redrawn Hansen’s graph to make it wrong!  (He admitted this when I cross- examined him on CBC Sunday Morning’s programme “Kyoto on Trial” in 2002).  And all the media cheerfully quote Michaels doing his impersonation of serious scientist deeply troubled by emails that suggest the East Anglia group had little use for him.  


More hacked emails will apparently be released soon.  The one scientist I think has some explaining to do is Dr. Wang at State University of NY at Albany who has told colleagues for years he has the hard data from Chinese meteorological stations, but never seems to be able to produce it.  It is a very small piece of data in the scheme of things, but Wang should either produce the data or explain where he got the numbers. 

Certainly nothing in these emails suggests any problem with fundamental science.  Dr. Phil Jones who headed up the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia has just stepped aside during the investigation.  My money is on a full exoneration for him. 

Meanwhile, the walking propaganda machines for the fossil fuel industry will continue their Disinformation Pyramid Scheme.  Only responding to each lie with a well-referenced fact, duking it out with these guys on blog sites and newspaper letters to the editor will help keep the truth in mind. 

In the meantime, if you want to get to know some wonderful scientists, their life is on display on a Russian server.

 

 

Previous Comments

From what I’ve read so far, honest people doing honest work.

This is an ongoing study in how framing a few things people say can lead to such distorted images of what they are doing.

Mark, I completely agree.

It’s just a relief that we’re beginning to see some sensible posts on this subject.

Thank you, Elizabeth May!

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/02/in-the-beginning-friends-of-science-talisman-energy-and-the-de-freitas-brothers/

In the beginning: Friends of Science, Talisman Energy and the de Freitas brothers

For the first time, we can confirm both financial and logistical support from an Albertan oil company, Talisman Energy, along with circumstantial evidence of the early involvement of a second, Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil’s Canadian subsidiary). We’ll also look at the key roles played by the de Freitas brothers, geologist Tim and climate skeptic Chris. And the story leads right to the heart of a key controversy reignited by the stolen CRU emails, namely the ongoing perversion of the scientific peer review system by “skeptic” scientists.

It turns out the Climate Research journal editor at the centre of controversy about shoddy science, Chris de Freitas, was also the original “scientific advisor” and inspiration to Friends of Science, and he also had close ties to Talisman Energy. http://www.deepclimate.org

… but to what end?

Climate “skeptics” are going to be using the stolen material (Watergate break-ins, anyone?) for quite some time to come. And yet any civilized person should be quite furious at the attacks made upon the scientists who have devoted their lives to the study of climate change – and perhaps even more importantly – the attack upon the science and our future.

I do hope that she will consider writing a book. Something that will make for a great reference – and something that might stoke an outrage among other reporters so that they will be far less likely to fall for this sort of thing the next time around – or among the better of them offer nothing more than a sincerely apologetic defense of climatologists – without questioning the motives of those behind the attacks.

Oh, and incidentally I have a copy of “Climate Cover-Up.” Bad timing – end of the school quarter – but I am finding it quite difficult to put down.

You know you are in trouble when you are relying on the opinion of Crazy May. Could anyone pick a worse political reference than her?

Visitors will note that Cam is a useful example of an AGW denialist who is full of ignorance and spite. He is clearly not interested in understanding the science; he concentrates on smearing the climate scientists and anyone who supports the scientists.

Denialist, not so much, realist yes indeed. To choose a politician who has pinned the entire existence of herself and her party on the AGW theory for an analysis of climategate is funny. mmm I wonder what Micheal Mann thinks about this whole climategate thing, he’s a neutral observer right?

On top of that May exemplifies what is known in Canadian politics as the Lunatic fringe. I’m sure that Desmog can get someone better than her to greenwash the corruption revealed in Climategate. Here is a tip talk to Christina Stewart, she might give you the quotes your looking for and she still has political credibility. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=230f64f7-2c7f-4d26-8335-58c40e91bd15&k=44493

“Lunatic fringe”, uh? Well I am observing the scene from Australia but from what I have seen of your posts thus far it seemed to me that that was your favorite dwelling place.

But you apparently believe that you somehow represent the golden mean.

Though we have our own loonies here the fact that you can have this illusion tends to confirm Monbiot’s view that Canada has now become the world center for climate change denialism and obstructionism.

Australlia is coming on board too, you can’t give credit just to Canada. It is understandable as well, it is in Australlia’s and Canada’s economic interests to steer clear on any costly climate change deals. The future of Australlia’s economy depends on cheap energy from clean coal. Canada’s economic future rests on clean, secure oilsands developement.
If you are in europe with no access to fossil fuels, you really need the rest of the world to self impose a carbon tax to keep competitive. Without some carbon tax scheme europes manufacturing sector is dead. High wages, low productivity and high energy costs are Europe’s competitive disadvantage.

You guys are lucky to have Tony Abott at the helm.

Abbott is leader of the opposition, Cam. He has also admitted global warming is happening. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6701086/Australias-new-opposition-leader-Mad-Monk-Abbott.html

Wow, you must wait for openings to point out the obvious. Where did I say that Abbott was the PM? Who cares if he believes in Global warming or not? I believe in Global warming too, what I don’t believe is that its a problem. Whats important is he wants to kill freedom costing, job killing carbon taxes.

She has an interesting story as a transplanted American kid becoming a lifelong environmentalist saving the Canadian environment or something. She’s an anti-nuke lefty and a big time bug spray hater(save the pine beetles!) so she lines up pretty well with the climate change scare of modern socialism.

I find her pretty interesting. Not likely to ever form government or make it to major opposition status but she’s making herself heard anyway - so good for her. Losing that 30 pounds didn’t hurt either.

…….this panty raid by nervous deniers changes nothing – yet. The usual characters are back in the streets but the only “proof” I’ve seen or heard is the same urban legends and warmed-over fraud from long-discredited sources. Judging from the outpouring of hate and overt death threats being posted at some web sites I’d say the deniers are noticing the panties came up empty too.

So be careful what you ask for. Like May, others are going to read the e-mails and reach the same conclusions. In fact, the real sting operation may be to come as the world digests the full horror of what the research contains. Then there will be another wave of hate and death threats from deniers wanting to know why science didn’t warn them.

BTW snow is falling here in Texas. And somewhere deniers are crowing, “Where’s your global warming now?” Well, first of all, it is the beginning of the meteorological winter here. And it has always snowed in Texas. Only two or three years ago a foot of it fell on the central Texas coast. What’s unusual is that snow has become so unusual in much of Texas. It used to snow a lot where I grew up in NW Texas. Among the many snow pictures my parents took is one of us kids standing in five feet of snow and minus-13 tempts. The same storm dumped nearly seven feet on a little town just to the west. The long-term average snowfall where I lived has since dropped to under ten inches a year. Even in dry winters we used to get at least one snow of ten inches or larger plus a handful of smaller ones. As a reporter I covered one of the last of the significant snowstorms seen out there (about two feet) in the late 70’s.

Is that your global warming?

It’s similar in the Calgary area. In the 1960s we had much more snow and the spring melt each year would last for days or weeks. Nowadays there is rarely enough snow for a spring melt, though we did have a small one last spring. I’m not sure when it changed, it could have been in the 1970s.

the trouble with 30 - 40 year cycles is that the weather is always different than it was when everyone was a kid. What was it like when your Dad and wen his dad was a kid. different I bet.

Elizabeth May has a long record as a committed and dedicated advocate — for social justice, for the environment, for human rights, and for economic pragmatic solutions. She is an environmentalist, writer, activist and lawyer active in the environmental movement since 1970.

She first became known in the Canadian media in the mid-1970s through her leadership as a volunteer in the grassroots movement against aerial insecticide spraying proposed for forests near her home on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. The effort prevented aerial insecticide spraying from ever occurring in Nova Scotia. Years later, she and a local group of residents went to court to prevent herbicide spraying. Winning a temporary injunction in 1982 held off the spray programme, but after two years, the case was eventually lost. In the course of the litigation, her family sacrificed their home and seventy acres of land in an adverse court ruling to Scott Paper. However, by the time the judge ruled the chemicals were safe, 2,4,5-T’s export from the U.S, had been banned. The forests of Nova Scotia were spared being the last areas in Canada to be sprayed with Agent Orange.

Her volunteer work also included successful campaigns to prevent approval of uranium mining in Nova Scotia, and extensive work on energy policy issues, primarily opposing nuclear energy.

For many years, she worked in her family’s business (a restaurant and gift shop on the Cabot Trail). Elizabeth is a graduate of Dalhousie Law School and was admitted to the Bar in both Nova Scotia and Ontario. She has held the position of Associate General Council for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, representing consumer, poverty and environment groups in her work in 1985-86. She has worked extensively with indigenous peoples internationally, particularly in the Amazon, as well as with Canadian First Nations. She was the first executive director (volunteer, 1989-1992) of Cultural Survival (Canada) and worked for the Algonquin of Barriere Lake from 1991-1992.

In 1986, Elizabeth became Senior Policy Advisor to then federal Environment Minister, Tom McMillan. She was instrumental in the creation of several national parks, including South Moresby. She was involved in negotiating the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer and new legislation and pollution control measures. In 1988, she resigned on principle when the Minister granted permits for the Rafferty-Alameda Dams in Saskatchewan as part of a political trade-off, with no environmental assessment. The permits were later quashed by a Federal Court decision that the permits were granted illegally.

Elizabeth has also taught courses at Queens University School of Policy Studies, as well as teaching for a year at Dalhousie University to develop the programme established in her name a the Elizabeth May Chair in Women’s Health and Environment. She holds three honourary doctorates(Mount Saint Vincent University, Mount Allison, and the University of New Brunswick.)

Elizabeth is the author of seven books, Budworm Battles (1982), Paradise Won: The Struggle to Save South Moresby (1990), At the Cutting Edge: The Crisis in Canada’s Forests (Key Porter Books, 1998, as well as a major new edition in 2004), co-authored with Maude Barlow, Frederick Street; Life and Death on Canada’s Love Canal (Harper Collins, 2000), How to Save the World in Your Spare Time (Key Porter Books, 2006), Global Warming for Dummies (co-authored with Zoe Caron, John Wiley and Sons, 2008) and most recently Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy, (MacLelland and Stewart, 2009). Frederick Street focused on the Sydney Tar Ponds, and the health threats to children in the community – the issue that led her to go on a seventeen-day hunger strike in May 2001 in front of Parliament Hill.

She has served on numerous boards of environmental groups and advisory bodies to universities and governments in Canada, including the Earth Charter Commission, co-chaired by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev. Elizabeth is the recipient of many awards including the Outstanding Achievement Award from the Sierra Club in 1989, the International Conservation Award from the Friends of Nature, the United Nations Global 500 Award in 1990 and named one of the world’s leading women environmentalists by the United Nations in 2006. In 1996, she was presented with the award for Outstanding Leadership in Environmental Education by the Ontario Society for Environmental Education. She is also the recipient of the 2002 Harkin Award from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS). In 2006, Elizabeth was presented with the prestigious Couchiching award for excellence in public policy.

In June 2006, Elizabeth stepped down as Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada, a post she had held since 1989, to run for the leadership of the Green Party of Canada. She was successful in her bid, was elected the Green Party’s ninth leader at their national convention in August 2006.

Elizabeth was named an Officer of the Order of Canada in 2005. She is a mother and grandmother.

Thank you to Elizabeth May for reading all the emails and setting the record straight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am3-HpSnE9Y

i think it was the nazis behind global warming scam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdbHW9Nlds

Asking for May’s opinion on AGW would be like asking for Stalin’s opinion on communisim. Really now. Could anyone claim astonshment from reading her assertions? Did she read the one about the involvment of SHELL OIL? HUH? They solicited Shell Oil to act as a strategic partner and that took place on July 5 2000 between Mick Kelly and Mike Hulme. Look it up May under FOI2009-mail. Did you really read them all? If so, how could you have missed that blatant Michael Moore Missle? Oil and enviromentalist climatologists in bed together? Sounds like a left wing nightmare, yet here we are with the reality.

Now call a spade a spade if you can and I shall always keep that letter handy to swat away the Michael Moore/E May clones who just can’t seem to understand the associations of the real world and the california walt disney fantasy planet that he and half this world live in including May.

With the diminishing hopes of the climate cabal led by Al Gore starting to fade, with it will also follow the hangers on and coat tail riders like the AGW opportunist Elizabeth May. She most probably could not identify as well as any reasonably educated automotive technician actual toxic threats to the environment which may come out of the tail pipe of a car. Can YOU? It still seems that environmentalists are more activist than realist and like terrorism the world is getting tired of their extremism. We tire of their wanton accusations baring little truth and even less compassion but never lacking for religious dogmatic conviction and zeal no matter the truth. Notice I said truth, not REAL truth like the media. Truth by definition is exclusive and stands alone, real or otherwise. The mass media, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, CTV and CBC are the true authors of this climate debacle and should suffer the consequences of their actions. I hope somebody somewhere sues these bums, they have it coming!

Ms May, with all due respect this is pure nonsence. If you read the entire set how come you missed the emails of threats to those at ClimateAudit? How come you missed the one where they cannot account for the current cooling? Or how about the MANY where they conspire to black ball journals that keep publishing skeptical papers, get certain editors removed, and changing the peer reviewed process? Or how to change the data mixing unrelated data, that hides the decline the treering data showed after 1961? How come you did not comment on these?

Also, how about commenting on the source code, how they instroduced fudge actors to alter data to make temps look to rise, or how about the many times artifical alterations were done when the data did not fit what they expected, or how about the continued comments by the programmer that the data was “garbage” and gave up trying to fix it?

No, we can’t have you making any comments about that now can we, because those are the very items we skeptics claim is why the entire AGW premise is based on flawed data.

If I have to I can cite every single file these are in so you can reread them and see what you obviously missed.

JR Wakefield hasn’t posted here for over a year, at least not under that name. Why now? Are the denialists trying to pretend their numbers are growing?

I’ve been here many times lurking and seeing what you guys are up to. Know thy enemy :-)

I have and never will post under any but my own name. You will see many postings by me in the Globe and Mail on this stuff under my name.

This deserved a posting.

The scandal behind these emails is not the idle chitchat that May focused on. But the damning coments which I have eluded to and has been posted in many other places.

So either Ms. May cannot comprehend what she read in the 1000 emails (not 3000), or she deliberately avoided those parts. Either one shows she is totally unrealistic.

Oh, and yes our numbers are growing big time. One only has to look at comments in the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star to see that. We outnumber at least 5:1 if not more. In THe UK the British Museum of Natural History ran an poll as to who supported or did not support AGW. 1000 people supported AGW, 6000 did not.

Recent polls in the US show support amongst the public for AGW dropping fast from 75% just a fre years ago, to less than 45% before these emails became public.

What we need, and there is a petition on line, is a public or Royal Inquiry on AGW, where ALL stakeholders get to have their evidence presented. EVERYONE, not like the kangaroo court like hearings the Liberals had a few years back.

Get Ms. May back here to answer why she ignored the important parts which is the underpinning of this entire scandal.

FYI.
He has posted over at TheOilDrum.com for at least a year and it is usually these same kinds of posts critical of climate change science.

Actually I havnt posted there in a year. They banned me from posting because I asked uncomfortable questions about AGW.

How about just getting the number of e-mails she read correctly documented in her article say within +-500 or 1000?

I am ever mindful of the concept that when a crime is uncovered by an insider one usually calls that person a whistleblower. I have not heard Senator Boxer use that term but she might want to change her tune lest she become very embarrassed very soon. In this instance it appears that this case will certainly be changing from Hackergate back to Climategate.
As it turns out, the source of the information in the e-mails and the data files at CRU is an employee at CRU Hadley. This individual is now in contact with Steve McIntyre over at ClimateAudit. The mole has even shared a highly sensitive data file that McIntyre requested under British FOIA laws but was denied. The data file contains all of the station data from around the world (unaltered) that McIntyre tried to get for quite some time.
To show how quickly this issue is disintegrating in the UK, the Met (the UK’s equivalent to the U.S. National Weather Service) is opening up all of their data and investigating the last 160 years of world temps de novo. This will take until sometime in 2012. That’s quite a while. In the mean time I am watching the sea ice data in the Arctic blow right past the last few years. The sea ice returneth despite what you may have seen or heard on TV or radio. The data speaks for itself.
By the way, I do believe in climate change but as to the cause, I am leaning towards a mix of 90% nature and 10% mankind. Such a ratio is beyond the sensitivity of current science to detect.

but do you have absolutely any idea what you are talking about?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Arctic sea ice extent, slightly above the 2007 regrowth, but dipped below it only a month ago.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
Arctic sea ice area, slightly below where it was this time last year.

Both well below the 1979-2000 mean.

How is that blowing right past the last few years?

Is any of this beyond normal variation of 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 years? Back any reply with evidence.

Still making autocratic demands I see, still trying to put words into other peoples mouths, and still demanding the existence of a time machine.

Tell me does that also mean that you will still be ignoring requests that you provide evidence for your arguments?

Regarding normal variation, you will first need to provide me with proof that independent variables such as solar output and orbital parameters are equivalent to current conditions. Then you will need to use your time machine to get satellite data for Arctic ice area and extent during your chosen time periods. When you’ve done that, I’ll have a look at the normal variation. I eagerly await your data.

As for normal variation during the satellite era, is two standard deviations enough for you? http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure2.png

Making such statements shows you do not understand how science works. I asked a question to qualify the statements made that the climate today is changing because of our CO2.

The burdon of proof, the one who must provide the evidence, is the one giving the positive position. “We are causing climate change.” Not the person asking for that evidence.

The onus is on you to provide the evidence that AGW is beyond normal variation.

Nope, not if you want to seriously, professionally, and ethically call the science settled. I have worked on many investigations where if you believed the data at two standard deviations and did no further investigation you would be laughed at. You would also be wrong. Two standard deviations is 1 in 20 and given the data being presented on CO2 causing global warming,it is not even close! Getting to three, let alone six standard deviations will start to get some attention. Unfortunately we are all stuck with a teasingly short 30 year snippet of precise data on arctic ice. That should tell you something. What was it in the year 1000 or say 1350?

The short history of precise Arctic ice data is a copper standard in a gold standard world.

Whenever you see a graph with data deletions like the one you linked to, ask yourself why! Notice that your graph is missing 2008.

The minimum arctic ice extent has increased over the previous summer in each of the last three years including this past summer. In fact, the minimum in 2009 has recovered to 2005 levels.

Please look at this graph:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

These are the facts despite all of the talk about this decade being so hot. Such arctic ice extent recovery is inconsistent with climate modeling by the elite global warming experts. These experts are now reduced to talking about how thick the ice is or is not. They cite satellite data to back them up all the while ignoring the recovery of the minimum ice extent increasing (something they crowed about not too long ago. As we now know it is much wiser to trust data based on someone drilling a hole through the ice and directly measuring the thickness of the ice versus trusting a satellite in space. It is not unlike trusting a thermometer over a tree ring (especially Bristlecone Pines).

Your point is well taken on the slowing of the arctic ice recovery in November, but looking at a small piece of the graph even as we see rapid recovery in the past several days ignores the overall trend this year. The last several days show that in fact 2009 is on its way to passing 2005, 2006, and 2007 in overall ice extent. Only time will tell, but the recovery we are seeing shows the resilience of the Arctic Ocean and that it can cool rapidly and confound those who suggests that the Arctic will become ice free and presumably stay that way soon.

I like your last point about uncertainty. The one thing we can be sure of is that there will be surprises ahead.

Ok, I looked at the graph. And I see the 2009 minimum very slightly below the 2005 minimum and a couple of weeks earlier. Close enough to say the ice extents are the same. Yet it still hasn’t exceeded the 2005 minimum which was the last minimum before the 2007 outlier. It has merely returned to the trendline, which in any case is descending. This graph is more readable.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png

Only when that decline is reversed will you be able to say the ice is recovering. As for your disparaging take on ice thickness, it should be obvious that the volume of ice is an important metric for the health of Arctic ice, with the surface area : volume ratio being fundamental to the behaviour of both melt and regrowth.

As for the models, I’ll admit I am interested. Show me the models that predict, with confidence, annual ice minimums.

“Only when that decline is reversed will you be able to say the ice is recovering.”

How reversed then? Does it have to return to 1979 levels? I am curious as to what your standard is in this regard. I just want to make sure the bar does not change. Also over what period of time?

Where in this article is there anything about a Senator Boxer?

Can we have a system to hide low rated comments soon?

My comments regarding Senator Boxer pertain to this quote:

“Strange, isn’t it that media are not wondering about who hacked into the computers and who paid them?”

This is a conclusion much as Senator Boxer has concluded a hacker did this and thus wanted to change the name to Hackergate. The truth is the more likely explanation is that this was an inside job. In that case hacker is not really the right word but whistleblower sure is. Were FOIA laws broken at CRU?

The author says she read “Yes all 3,000 [e-mails] or whatever of them…” Actually there are just about 1,000 e-mails and 2,000 data files. If I read all of the e-mails I could tell you the actual number! The data files? I predict that they will get more interesting as time goes on.

Anyway, I digress, why don’t we stipulate that you can call this thing Hackergate or whatever you want and I will call it Climategate, in the end we may never know “who done it”, but my bet is that it was someone on the inside; someone fed up with the way things were being run at CRU. I think the person is a hero and you think otherwise. The bottom line is climate research is now much more likely to be done out in the open with proper scientific discourse, not behind an acadmeic ivory tower where people scheme to withhold legally releasable information.

As for trying to kill my comments–that is just killing the messenger–much as Senator Boxer and the author seem to be encouraging so I suppose you are in the right company.

Good Day!

Without the threat of hiding comments it’s as if the negative rating is a badge of honour. It’s the classic internet equation:
“Soap box + anonymity = asshole”

Threaten to take away the soapbox, and the asshole will be tamed.

The only thing the negative ratings generally indicate is the ratio of each side of an argument on a particular blog. If you want to listen to an echo chamber just say so.

…we still have to give up our reliance on fossil fuels. Everyone can agree on that can’t we? Can’t everyone agree that renewable power is the most responsible method for powering our machinery in the future?

The telecom industry alone used 1.8 billion litres of diesel fuel in India this past year. It is the second largest market after China and growing at 10 million (yes 10 million) subscribers per month, mostly from poorer, remote areas which will rely on diesel fuel generators to power their telecom infrastructure. What happens when the next billion subscribers come on board across the world? Most will come from poorer, remote areas. Just imagine the mount of diesel fuel you’re dealing with that could be used for more vital purposes such as operating tractors or irrigation pumps to grow more food.

That’s just one industry in one country. Let’s focus on the future we are leaving for our children and invest in renewable energy. It makes sense. It’s common sense that no one can deny.

I agree with you. The question is how do we transition to something better? I live in the USA and we have a lot of natural gas and coal. The pressure to use coal in our country is very large because of all of the jobs dependent on coal. Natural gas is much cleaner and yet the resistance to use it as a transition fuel is significant. We must develop a plan that transitions the dirty coal jobs to cleaner fuel jobs. Natural gas and nuclear power can help during the transition but the process will take around 40-50 years from what I have read. nevertheless, I see no clear plan from anyone in my government to get from here to there. No rally call, just a lot of talk. It is frustrating, because no matter what is causing the global warming, we should not keep polluting our planet with fossil fuels.

I think we will need fossil fuels to continue in use for air travel, some heavy duty transport, and as you point out farming equipment for feeding an ever growing human population. Fossil fuel use for these purposes makes sense and they represent very minor usage quantities in the grand scheme of things.

Just two points to consider on this topic. One, there is not now and never has been a shortage of oil, just a shortage of refining capacity. In spite of demand growing through the roof, reserves continue to increase also. So what’s the problem? If we can agree that producing the product is a dirty business, then let’s find ways to clean it up. But the fact is, oil is the cheapest, safest and best product to use for our power needs, unless we can find a way to put atomic power to use immediately - the solar and wind guys are just wasting time and money (excepot their own, of course).
Two, if you believe we are running out of oil, then why not just do it? Let’s just use it until it runs out and then we’ll be forced to come up with something else in order to survive. What’s the problem with that? And as for Miss May, she has a remarkable capacity for self-delusion. Let’s all be friends, let’s sit around and drink tea or do our laundry. Why let a stream of dangerous lies propogated by her friends in the CC business bother us? Why not just let them all get rich at our expense? And one more point regarding her complaint about the media and the oil companies. The CC guys have no greater friend than the Liberal media, and if I was in the oil business, I would love to count the CCers among my friends - every time they try to throw a scare into the public, I bump up my price just a little more. Every time they protest a new refinery, my price goes up again - gotta love those guys.

Using the oil as we do now until it runs out, which it will do, would be the stupid, no-planning way to go. It woulod be better to husband the oil and use it only for important things, rather than wasting it on transportation when we can use other types of energy which are less polluting.

This is one of the best commentaries I’ve read about the ‘SwiftHack’ smear operation. I’ll be making good use of it when arguing down the Deniers and liars.

Thank you, Elizabeth.

Really, Elizabeth May.

You must be a speed reader.

For you to have performed a detailed analysis of the emails in so short a time is quite a feat. Outside of the popularized references about ‘hiding the decline’, etc, there are a number of glaring references to an insufficient fit to “their” models.

That, my friend, is inductive method. Build a theory, and try to cram the numbers in to fit. That, I’m afraid, is bogus science. So, spare us the folk tales about how sweet “your friends” are. This isn’t about family and friends and weekends and lundry. This is bout some seriously flawed science being used to influence the direction of global economics and “green elitism”

And, what the heck is a “contrarian propgandist’? Seriously, get a real job.

Elizabeth Jobs has been created keeping in view of the IT-professionals. This site will help you “Professionals” to quickly and efficiently locate many opportunities that exist. It’s user friendly tool to help you match your own Specifications, Qualifications and Requirements.