Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (335941)	11/26/2009 2:09:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794032

More information comes out, as dissident climatologists read the leaked emails and compare notes with their own records. Here is a post from Dr. Roger Pielke Sr documenting strong arm tactics to suppress dissent. The subject he is addressing is an important one: the robustness of the temperature record. CRU was responsible for maintaining one of the three global temperature record databases. This was what Harry was working on. We can see from his notes and the files that the CRU database is a complete mess, which throws doubt on the other two databases which agree with it. We're not even talking about the CO2 forcing models here; we're talking about the data. If it can be shown that the data is garbage, then it doesn't matter what the models are. Climategate: Pielke Senior on the NCDC CCSP report – “strong arm tactics” 26 11 2009 From Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. osdpd.noaa.gov E-mail Documentation Of The Successful Attempt By Thomas Karl Director Of the U.S. National Climate Data Center To Suppress Biases and Uncertainties In the Assessment Surface Temperature Trends The release of the e-mails from Phil Jones further confirmed the attempts to suppress viewpoints of climate change issues, which conflict with the IPCC viewpoint. In the example I present below, the issue is the robustness of the surface temperature trend record. The three main groups that compile and analyze this information are NCDC (directed by Tom Karl), GISS (directed by Jim Hansen) and CRU (directed by Phil Jones). In 2005, as I document in Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”. 88 pp including appendices, strong arm tactics of the Editor of this report (Tom Karl, Director of the US National Data Climate Center) were used to remove information in the CCSP report which raised questions about the robustness of his (and Jim Hansen’s GISS and Phil Jones’s CRU) surface temperature data. Phil Jones was a National Research Council panel member in a review of an interim draft of the CCSP report. In my Public Comment, I provided e-mail documentation of how these questions were excluded. At the time, my Public Comment did not receive much attention. However, in light of the exposure of the inappropriate attempts to prevent the presentation of alternative viewpoints of climate science as seen in the Phil Jones e-mails, I am posting below text from several relevant e-mails (the complete emails are in the Public Comment). Since Tom Karl was evaluating his own group’s surface temperature analysis, his conflict of interest is very clear. rest at wattsupwiththat.com