Here's the entire zip file: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY
- Publius On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Publius Maximus <[email protected]> wrote: > http://bit.ly/5kIrdH > > - - - > From: Phil Jones > To: ray bradley ,[email protected], [email protected] > Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 > Cc: [email protected],[email protected] > > Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, > Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or > first thing tomorrow. > I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps > to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from > 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual > land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land > N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 > for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with > data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. > Thanks for the comments, Ray. > > Cheers > Phil > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email [email protected] > NR4 7TJ > UK > > ... > > From: Jonathan Overpeck > To: “Michael E. Mann” > Subject: letter to Senate > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700 > Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , > Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley > > > > Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign > – at least not > without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is > unprecedented and > political, and that worries me. > > My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first. > > I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other > scientific org to do this - > e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) > on global climate > change. > > Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the > Senators, then we respond, > then… > > I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for > the AGU etc to do > it. > > What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine > a special-interest > org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but > is it something for > scientists to do as individuals? > > ... > - - - > > There can be little doubt that the attempt to invent data that > "proves" the hysteria around global warming -- now called "climate > change" to make the underlying bogus argument of CO2 being the leading > indicator sound irrefutable -- has been abetted by some in the > scientific community for entirely political reasons. > > Hence, many of us are not as "baffled" as the so-called experts are > about the recent, uh, "timout" global warming appears to have taken, > despite the dire predictions of software models: > > http://bit.ly/8j27hj > > - - - > Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as > to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last > 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others > explain it through ocean currents. > > At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The > Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in > December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change > Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average. > > Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the > moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since > the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global > warming could come to a standstill this year. > - - - > > Copenhagen is about political power structure realignment around > command-and-control models long since discredited by economists. That > climatologist have joined many so-called economists in playing > politics is a sad turn of events for everyone. > > There is no mystery here. The science feeding the predictive models is > politically motivated bunk. Garbage in, garbage out. > > - Publius > > "It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, > under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object > of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to > subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign > powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of > them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be > avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose > situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful > and vigilant performance of the trust." [Federalist Papers #59] > -- Publius "It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust." [Federalist Papers #59] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
