....or the cutting and pasting unverifiable theories for fun and profit

Documenting climatology's fascination with regurgitation. Here is a popular example to get you started: Luterbacher and Jones borrow their text from the Mann.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Manngling Models

Michael E. Mann has released a TED talk on the web in recent days. You can watch it here: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxPSU-Michael-Mann-A-Look-Int

The talk dates from 13 November 2011 (according to this page: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/lectures/index.php)

Mann includes an interesting comparison between Hansen's models made in 1988 and actual temperatures. Here is the graphic which Mann shows:



Another comparison can be viewed here: http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/

This comparison shows poor agreement between the predictions and the actual temperatures.

Why the discrepancy?

It turns out that:

1) Mann truncated actual temperatures at 2005 (strange given the fact that the talk was recorded in late 2011)

2) Mann says that the 'medium model' was 'pretty much spot on'. Actually the 'low model' was as close to observation as the 'medium model' - and including years after 2005 shows that the 'low' model is in better agreement with observation.

3) Mann misrepresented the 'high', 'medium' and 'low' models. These were actually assuming increased, constant, or reduced CO2 output. We have not reduced CO2 output since 1988 (quite the opposite) so the appropriate model for comparison would be what Mann called the 'high model'.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Clare Goodess from Compliance to Avoidance in a Matter of Months

In Feb 2005 Clare Goodess announced to the CRU that they would be complying with the Freedom of Information Act:

http://climategate2011.blogspot.com/2011/12/0502txt.html

cc: cruatXYZxyz.ac.uk
date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:39:31 +0000
from: Clare Goodess
subject: Freedom of Information Act
to: cru.internalatXYZxyz.ac.uk

Dear all

All CRU staff should have received important emails from Alan Preece on 14
and 29 January concerning the Freedom of Information Act which came into
full force on 1 January 2005 - together with a leaflet. (If you are a
member of staff and haven't received these, please let me know).

It is important that we all comply with this act. If anybody in CRU (staff
or student) receives a request which refers to the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA), please forward it immediately to the Faculty of Science FOIA
contact - Mike McGarvie (x 3229, m.mcgarvieatXYZxyz.ac.uk) and copy it to Phil
and myself. If you are unsure about the request or it is unusual, please
copy to Phil and myself and we'll decide if we need to consult Mike McGarvie.


Best wishes, Clare


Dr Clare Goodess
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
UK


But by September 2005, Clare had decided that FOIs are complicated and 'politically sensitive'...

http://climategate2011.blogspot.com/2011/12/3968txt.html


Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 11:31 AM
To: McGarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) k364
Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (CRU) f055
Subject: RE: Re: Freedom of Information Act

Michael

The whole situation is quite complicated and politically sensitive.

Would it be possible for Tim and Dave to meet to discuss this. I
think this would be the most efficient way of handling things.

Clare

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Fred Pearce, Journalist

Wondering how the BBC-shills compared with reputable journalists, I made a collection of the Climategate 2.0 references to Fred Pearce. (See below) What one sees is that Pearce, although of a generally warmist inclination, is looking for a story, and looking for corroboration for the facts that he picks up. In short he is shown to be a journalist, not an activist. (In stark contrast to Roger Harrabin, for example). Here are the links:

5152.txt
0654.txt
5266.txt
2887.txt
1414.txt
0927.txt
3973.txt
1736.txt
2576.txt
4664.txt
5047.txt
3991.txt
2630.txt

This message, 3991.txt, is odd as Mike Hulme has apparently been complaining to Pearce about data not being released by other scientists, and Pearce is asking for additional information. As usual, Pearce is behaving like a typical journalist looking for a story. Hulme on the other hand is probably just seeding some rumours.

...It is unclear whether Hulme decided to submit and FOI to obtain the data he wanted from whichever group he was bad mouthing. I suppose badmouthing them was better than harassing them, right?