Nu har det visat sig att IPCC:s mest framstående klimatforskare systematiskt motarbetat peer review-processen och undanhållit information för att producera den rätta ”hockeyklubban” i temperaturmätningarna. Då vore det väl på sin plats att fredspriskommittén ber om ursäkt för sitt snedsteg och fråntar Gore och IPCC Nobelpriset? Här är några fler intressanta exempel ur mängden från korrespondensen på University of East Anglia för alla som bara läser svenska tidningar och inte får se dem:
From: Michael Mann Date: 27/10/2009, 16:54
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
From: Tom Crowley, Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:13:28 -0400
I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval warm period – the attached plot has eight sites that go from 946-1960
From: Gary Funkhouser, Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
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. (…) 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.
From: Phil Jones, 2/2/2005 09:41 AM
The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
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.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please ! I’m trying to redress the balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the kettle black – Christian doesn’t make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian message so you don’t get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get more advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal. PLEASE DELETE – just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm
From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to:
AD 1000
AD 1400
AD 1600
(…) But basically, you’ll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case–its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can’t seem to dig them up. (…) p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of ”dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…
From: Phil Jones, Date:Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM
You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn’t changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.
From: Tom Wigley, Date: 1/20/2005 04:30 PM
If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Fri Aug 13 13:38:32 2004
I’d rather you didn’t. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie’s email that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR. Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.
From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the ”peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering ”Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…
From: Edward Cook, Date: 6/4/03 09:50 AM -0400
I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. (…) If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (…) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting – to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please
From: Tom Wigley, Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600
Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009
I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS.
From: Benjamin D. Santer, Date: 19/03/2009 16:48
If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available – raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
From: Phil Jones, Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Via ecotretas (tack Osynlige mannen).
Sett ur ett forskningsperspektiv framstår allt det här givetvis som djupt oetiskt, men i svensk media är det nästan tyst, med mindre undantag från Aftonbladet och CS. I andra länder med en friare press debatteras det desto mer.
Nu bör Nobelkommittén ser över sin smutstvätt och drar tillbaka priset från Al Gore och IPCC. Jag kan tänka mig att under ceremoniella omständigheter dela ut ett alternativt pris som jag kallar DN-priset. Det består av en pamflett från A-kassan och en isbjörnssafari i nordostpassagen.
Alarmistmaffian förlitar sig blint på att nästan ingen kommer att läsa e-posten. Alltså hävdar man lugnt att den inte innehåller något uppseendeväckande. Och förmodligen får de rätt. Skillnaden mellan oss och de som bodde i Sovjet, är att sovjetmedborgarna var medvetna om att massmedia ljuger.
Ja, tyvärr är det nog så. Nu har iofs nyheten kablats ut ganska brett i omvärlden och svenska journalister kan ju inte dra nattmössan över huvudet och låtsas som det regnar när det startas granskningar och polisutredningar. Men de har gjort ett bra jobb så här långt så det kanske går.. tragiskt
[…] Håller helt med om att det är dags att frånta IPCC Nobelpriset. […]
Tjena! En liten notis a’la SCI: och konspiration? 😉 Det står här ovan ”3 Responses to “Frånta IPCC Nobelpriset”” men finns bara två synliga kommentarer…
.
Inte för att jag har någon anledning att tro att du inte är helt öppen mot andra åsikter, men i alla fall (precautionary principle..?) tänkte jag att man kan uttrycka en förhoppning om att du inte tar bort kritiska kommentarer. (Är man inte helt öppen företrädande den sida som försvarar klimatrealism — den sida som företräder ett klimathot har i rätt stor utsträckning inte varit öppen, där Real Climate — trots den cred de haft genom att den bloggen drivits av personer i IPCC:s topp — är ett typexempel på detta. (Jag har ett halvdussin skärmdumpar på mycket seriösa kommentarer som när de inte för-modererats — vilket var ovanligt — de inom minuter raderats, jämte dussintals seriösa kommentarer stoppade i förmoderering, och otaliga andra svenska och engelska klimatsajter stoppar realistiska kommentarer. Denna parentes om bl a RealClimate är kanske bra info för några, och Climategate-mail visar ju RealClimates strategi).
Toppenblogg förresten!! Behövs folk som har tid att sprida info om och blottlägga detta.
Hej Magnus, tack för besöket, komplimangen och den intressanta kommentaren! Anledningen att det står 3 responses men bara syns två kommentarer är att den tredje är en pingback från en blogg som skrivit om den här (se nedan, ”en elak jävel”) 🙂 Jag tänker absolut inte plocka bort kommentarer för att jag inte håller med om innehållet. Tvärtom hoppas jag på konstruktiv debatt. Något annat vore ju rena IPCC-fasonerna (läs:Gestapo) ! Enda anledningen till att en kommentar kan hamna i moderationskö är om den fastnar i spamfiltret (t.ex. massa länkar). Vore väldigt intressant att se skärmdumparna förresten.