You must have always wondered how the billions of dollars are being spent in the climate research if the only outcome seem to be a few fraudulent graphs that every other crackpot is able to fabricate for free. Well, a 2008 e-mail offers a part of the answer: the keyword is Tahiti. Those people scream that a warmer weather would be dangerous but they enjoy Tahiti where the average temperature is 21-31 °C throughout the year.
First, I recommend you the newest Climategate search engine
which has mastered both the 2009 e-mails as well as the 2011 e-mails. For example, if you search for Tahiti, you get some beautiful conversations:
Caspar [Ammann], Just to be sure, Tahiti is not the only place they visit just for fun. A rather short e-mail from 2009 manages to enumerate some fun AGW-funded vacations in Turkey, Tuscany, Vienna, Hawaii, Toronto, and Finland. Another short e-mail from 2004 adds Italy, France, Hawaii once again, and Duke.
[...] We are both going to Tahiti first - got to get ones priorities right! I'm only going to Tahiti to make sure Henry [Diaz] is retiring ..........
Having been to Stykkisholmur, Iceland I only have to get to the Azores and Darwin. This sounds like trainspotting...
I'll only be in Vienna 2 days.
Recent GRL paper. Nature didn't want to publish, but then they ran a news story saying it was a very interesting paper.....
Mike [Mann], 
As I've booked the flights on frequent flyer miles, I'm wondering if I can convince myself (my grant) that I can justify the hotel....
I'll muse on that tonight..
Thanks for advertising the Vienna session.
[Michael Mann]: [...] looking forward to seeing you in Tahiti, we can enjoy some nice tropical drinks w/ umbrellas in them.
[...] where are you planning on staying by the way? I haven't decided yet. The cheap options sound way to spartan to me, but the nicer options are so expensive!
Hey Phil [Jones], 
Was good seeing you in Tahiti. Looking forward to next time.
I hope your trip back went well. I slept for about 13 hours at the LAX hotel! But was pretty well adjusted the next day.
talk to you later,
Hi Dave [Frank], 
Thanks for the paper as well. I heard about the extremely shocking goof in the instrumental records from Phil Jones in Tahiti. Frankly, I'm amazed that such a shoddy, amateurish mistake could have been made by the British Met Office. The skeptics will have a field day with this paper, honestly, as they should. Maybe the global change community is getting too smug.
Do they know that there was actually a natural little ice age, e.g. in America?
[Phil Jones 2000]: [Phil Jones] I've shown that the borehole data in Europe agree well with the long instrumental data in both the UK and Europe. The biggest differences/problems seem to come with the North American borehole data, which show the 16/17/18th data much cooler than the European/Asian/African data in the 16/17th century. I'm still reminded by the potential effects of land-use changes, principally in the eastern US, which could be making your North American series too cool. I realise you've taken great care with the selection, but this is a nagging doubt and will be picked up by the few skeptics trying to divide us all about the course of change over the last millennium.Who wants to beat a dog of inconvenient data, he will always find the stick. Also, which animal is the best example for these climate "scientists" when they see inconvenient data?
[Peter Thorne 2005]: Top is Phil's data which is to nearest whole percent (x100), next is IGBP as a fractional coverage and then last is the difference field as a fractional measure (Phil minus IGBP). There are some fairly large differences throughout. In the poles these are because of different classification procedures I should think. Differences beyong the 3rd d.p are probably rounding (obviously). The others look kinda scary so I'm advocating adopting an Ostrich position...If you have missed it, yes, it is the ostriches. ;-) Another question is whether meticulous scientific hard work or prophesies by divine authorities are what matters when we're predicting the atmospherical phenomena. Former IPCC boss John Houghton gave a clear answer:
As Simon intimated earlier in this thread in HadCRUT3 the merge is going to be based upon estimated error rather than fractional coverage.
Path of least resistance is install Phil's dataset back in which we've been using for a long time and run and just ignore any error messages, send UEA everything (complete rather than solely post-1990 merged hadcrut2 and hadcrut2v files) this month and then keep running it with a mask we know to be sub-optimal because the whole thing is going to be replaced on a timescale of months.
[Sir John Houghton 2004]:Just to be sure that the IPCC nutcases who want to replace science with medieval superstitions and who want to use them to redistribute wealth across the world don't have to be atheists. Sir John Houghton has promoted the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" as a method to save the Earth. This movie turned out to be really powerful because it has impressed even the viewers who haven't seen it, such as Mike Hulme:
The Day After Tomorrow explores such potential mass destruction. Set in the US, it begins with a debate among scientists about climate change. While they cant agree and the politicians dither, the climate changes (Hollywood style), unleashing devastating storms on the northern hemisphere, and plunging it into a deep freeze.
Despite its exaggeration in both scale and speed the film vividly demonstrates how we are at the mercy of the climate, and how our human actions will provoke faster change than at any time in the last 10,000 years.
The Gospel of Matthew records that religious and political leaders once came to Jesus asking for a sign. Jesus said that they were good at forecasting the weather but not at interpreting 'the signs of the times'. He challenged their power base with radical messages about what the kingdom of God is really about.
Today, we read the signs in the sky even more skilfully; and yet we are still no better at interpreting the signs of the times. The challenge to act is very clear. But we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the Earth and our fellow humans, especially the poor and disadvantaged.
Luke tells the same story and stresses the importance of seeking the kingdom of God above all else. Two contrasting parables in the same chapter (12) - of the rich fool, whose goal was to increase his wealth, and the faithful steward, who carefully managed his master's household in his absence should challenge us in the affluent West. Jesus concluded, 'From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, more will be asked.
500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We must pray that they pick up that message.
[Mike Hulme 2004]: Laura,Mike Hulme has offered a similar insider's review of the Emperor's new clothes, too. Many scientists have presented their similarly careful and insightful observations from their interactions with the movie, The Day After Tomorrow, just like Mike Hulme, so the reaction of the scientific community could have been easily summarized like this:
Very difficult call given I haven't seen it. How about ........
"We need to distinguish between good film-making, good science and good politics. The Day After Tomorrow is a great film which, while taking its starting point from science, ends up telling a dramatic and entertaining science-fiction story. The point is well made, however, that political decisions by governments and personal lifestyle decisions by all of us, can and do alter the sustainability of life on this planet. The climatic extremes portrayed in the film must not be taken literally as a scenario; but we would be foolish to ignore the key message that the future of the Earth is in our hands."
I think it is also important for me to know how this quote will be used, and whether it will be edited.
[Christine Gommengineer]: The film has been broadly welcomed by scientists as a way to raise awareness about the importance of climate change issues.By the way, why did Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth conspire to get a Nobel prize for the IPCC (instead of a prize for Gore only which was the original plan)?
I am in DC at NRC mtg. Poor reporting here too, even in Boulder. MOst just mentioned Gore, not IPCC. Be nice to get a nice certificate. Wonder where the $ will go? Kevin [Trenberth]You may be pretty sure that hundreds of the world's worst assh*les have printed their "copy" of the 2007 Nobel peace prize. Earlier in 2007, Mike Mann and Phil Jones worked on some help from the highest places. Al Gore demanded $50,000 for a talk at the European Geosciences Union (EGU), a would-be scientific organization on our continent:
[Phil Jones]: Just sent an email to Martin and also Renate suggesting that when Patchy collects the prize in Oslo, IPCC gets it scanned and sent to all of us on AR4. We can then print it off, frame it and put it on a wall! They won't get it for ages. It might be worth a few more of us suggesting something like this. I know its for more than just AR4, but for all the Assessments, but they will only have these recent email lists.
Secondly, next time you see Chris Landsea, maybe you can tell him he opted out the prize!
[Phil Jones]: The EGU tried to get Gore to come. He asked for 50K dollars to talk ! Do you know if the AGU paid for Gore?When you steal your first billion of dollars, Mike Mann, Al Gore may start to talk to you like to a peer and not just a tiny stinking fish. By the way, in this superimportant $50,000 talk, Al Gore revealed that CO2 is going to lead to a "complete collapse of the human civilization." If that's a complete civilization, maybe he should have demanded millions for such a talk.
[Mike Mann]: I'm pretty sure Gore spoke pro bono at AGU, perhaps as a favor to Tim Kileen (I think they know each other). We have tried to get Al Gore to come here to PSU, but no luck. Lonnie got him out to Ohio State a couple years back, but that was early on before the movie had yet appeared, etc.
How do these small fish communicate to their holy prophet? An answer from 2009 is that via the Grey Lady:
[Rob Allan 2009]: The main thrust would be building off the CORRAL Cook BBC et al launching but introducing a US flair. As discussed before, I believe a good (populist) angle would be to have the story include the Franklin voyages/ACRE video along with Cook etc. Bringing it current and mainstream, would involve highlighting Ed's Globe Student Initiative (very timely with the October data collection). [...]Did those departments agree that there was no medieval warm period?
Perhaps GLOBEs connections to Gore can be brought in as
Rick, in this sort of same vein, did anything come of the
possibility of getting an 'in' to Al Gore that you mentioned a while
back? Could we 'use' the NY Times Editorial to get an 'in' to Al
Gore or whoever so as to explain that so far they've seen only the
'tip of the iceberg' in what we are doing?
[Ed Cook 2001]: We simply do not have the precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. This being said, I do find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event to be grossly premature and probably wrong. Kind of like Mark Twain's commment that accounts of his death were greatly exaggerated. If, as some people believe, a degree of symmetry in climate exists between the hemispheres, which would appear to arise from the tropics, then the existence of a Medieval Warm Period in the extra-tropics of the NH and SH argues for its existence in the tropics as well. Only time and an enlarged suite of proxies that extend into the tropics will tell if this is true.Tom Wigley also reveals what he would say about the climate reconstructions if he were honest i.e. if he were a "greenhouse denier":
[Tom Wigley 2005]: I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other reconstructions. Although these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers' side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all.However, did it matter that the scientists don't have any evidence for the AGW-is-relevant claims? Well, not much. Someone's impressions were much more important, as Phil Jones explained:
[Phil Jones 2008]: Most governments around the world have signed up to Kyoto, and it is likely that the US will engage much more readily in many processes after Jan 20, 2009. The UK has a climate change bill which seeks to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, and to produce national risk assessments every 5 years. To almost all in government circles (including the US from Jan 20, 2009), the science is done and dusted. The reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, i.e. the counter argument is rarely made.Note that the important quality criterion is that the reporting has to be one-sided.
Tom Nelson has found dozens of other fascinating exchanges. Maybe you should look: not all those 5,300 are boring. ;-)