142 Responses to “Climategate’s “Harry Read Me” File is a Must Read!”

  1. @Patvann: Thanks for tackling those questions. I learned something too!

    I’ve just been reading the congressional testimony of John Christy, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

    Christy works with Roy Spencer at U of A Hunstville. Spencer was a top dog in global temperatures at NASA:


    Christy’s testimony from Feb. 2009:


    Key point:

    The EPA is considering allowing California and other states to determine their own rules for CO2 emissions. I calculated, using IPCC climate models, that if the entire country adopted these rules, the impact would be a minuscule 0.01 °C by 2100. And, if the entire world did the same, the effect would be less than 0.04°C by 2100, an amount so tiny we cannot measure it with instruments, let alone notice it in anyway.

    Global Temperature Impact of 1000 Nuclear Power Plants by 2020

    The scale of CO2 emissions is simply enormous. Again using IPCC climate models, if 1000 new nuclear power plants could be operating by 2020 (about 10% of the world’s
    energy) this would affect the global temperature by only 0.07°C by 2050 and 0.15°C by 2100. We wouldn’t notice it, but this dent could just be detectable by our instruments. However, these values are very likely overstated as they are based on current models. Overstated warming in current climate models and surface data sets

    Current climate model projections assume that climate is very sensitive to CO2. We’ve
    found however, that during warming episodes, clouds step up their cooling effect. When model output is tested this way, not one model mimics this cooling effect – in fact the models’ clouds lead to further warming, not cooling as seen in nature. We hypothesize that poor cloud properties cause models to overstate warming rates. We’ve also found that current popular surface temperature datasets indicate more warming than is actually happening in the atmosphere because they are contaminated by surface development.

    And a good presentation here on the lack of any greenhouse signature which the Warmers had predicted would be the result of increasing CO2 levels:

    And of course let’s not forget the incredible body of work by Lord Monckton in the U.K:


  2. 127


    Hi all,

    Thanks for the tolerance:) The following actually supports your position.

    I did a search to see if I missed Zorita being discussed. If he has already been talked about please disregard the following information.

    Otherwise my question would be, why would a co-author risk his own a$$ if he felt they thought it could be explained away?

    I have downloaded and read some of the Copenhagen IPCC’s report, and have come to no real conclusions at this point with its authenticity in question. I do however find the following very insightful, Has this been discussed?

    One of his IPCC co-authors Eduardo Zorita has demanded that Mann should be banned from contributing to future reports because his scientific assessments are “not credible any more.” Zorita also calls for the barring of CRU’s director Phil Jones and another IPCC lead author, Stefan Rahmstorf.

    Zorita, who works in the paleoclimate department of the Institute of Coastal Research, has issued a statement on his website in which he complains that the “scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.”

    “These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.”

    Zorita was one of the contributing authors to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. He’s unlikely to be asked to contribute to the Fifth. Indeed, as he ruefully acknowledges, this brave admission could well be the death of his career:

    Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018173/climategate-sack-no-longer-credible-michael-mann-from-ipcc-urges-climatologist/

    More about Zorita: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/zorita-calls-for-barring-phil-jones-michael-mann-and-stefan-rahmstorf-from-further-ipcc-participation/

  3. 128




    The ONLY reason the UN’s claims the climate is so “sensitive” to CO2 is that every model used for future temp-increases, assumes that there is 2 times what there already is. That is why you will see the term “2xforcing” or something similar in all that they release about temp projections. They’ve all taken this as a “baseline” to supposedly cover the “unknown end percentage based on present rate of increases”.
    Howz THAT for a BS-line to explain an impossibility!

    But even then, CO2 temp-forcing works in a reverse-logarithmic fashion. Meaning that the FIRST 20ppm did most of what CO2 CAN do in regards to being a global-warming gas.
    The next 20ppm did half as much, the next 20 did half that, and so on. You can double it all you want, right up to the point of asphyxiation, and the planet won’t get but a couple of degrees warmer, because the planet will probably equalize using a re-balance of the amount of water vapor it keeps in the air, and heat in the oceans. (Caloric-load-balance/pressure-diffusion)

    Why is it when I put my science-hat on, I wanna punch a hippy?;-)

    *Sellllllllmaaaaaaa* *sigh*

  4. 129



    Actually Prag, it may be a career move for Zorita.

    In several of the e-mails, I can remember Phil being pissed off at him for “going off the ranch”. In this case, he spilled the beans about which version of programming model he used in a paper to a climate-journalist, and it was not supposed to be known that there was different versions. He did it innocently enough, and the journalist was an “insider” too, but Phil came across as one-thin-skinned dood. (In many occasions)

    I read another from Zorita turning down an offer to co-author a paper with Phil.

    They collaborated on a few papers together, and both fed papers to the UN, and to the same “approved” Journals, but I got the feeling Zorita didn’t like the level of dirty science the CRU (Phil and Mann) were doing. Not that he was above playing along for 6 years, as he could have said those same words long a go, but didn’t.

    He may be positioning himself…

    Prog, you asked:

    Otherwise my question would be, why would a co-author risk his own a$$ if he felt they thought it could be explained away?

    Could you expand on the question a bit more?

  5. 130


    @Pragmatic 52

    You don’t have to be a conservative or Republican to disagree with the agenda driven politicized pseudo-science of “Global Warming”/”Climate-change” fanaticism. many of us in the field recognize that it is a hoax because we also know something about how meteorology data is acquired and processed.

    I first knew such fanatics were full of it when they were projecting another Ice Age back in the seventies. Later, when all this Global Warming propaganda started being paraded out in the so called “news” I started looking into where they were supposedly getting their data. I ignored the meaningless temperature comparisons (“past” and present based on weather station’s placed in areas of urban growth, compared to supposed measurements of 100 years ago, far before the urban sprawl of today,)

    I looked more to the meteorology satellite data studies from the last 30 decades. Two “scientists” who at first denied “global warming” suddenly did a turnaround and claimed that the satellite data had errors in it and that their corrections of the errors lead them to support that global warming had taken place within the last 30 years. Intrigued, I started looking closer at their research. The “errors” these two announced, were of their “discovery” that the meteorological satellites involved were not in the orbits that they were thought to be, and that this “introduced an error in the thermal data.”

    Well, my military career just happened to be in the command/control/data retrieval systems of certain models of the particular spacecraft these two named. (DMSP AKA the Defense Meteorology Satellite Program’s “birds”). Their claim that these satellites were not where we thought they were, is both ridiculous and a baldfaced lie. First of all, to acquire communications with these sun-synchronize orbiting spacecraft, you have to know their orbital path. Only then can you make the calculations to align your antenna at the proper look angles to acquire and track each specific satellite. All perturbations, (even the most minor,) in the orbits are reported to all tracking systems as required. (There are many of these spacecraft and none are in the same orbit because you don’t want them impacting each other). Aside from the visual and thermal data, these particular spacecraft send down tertiary data, which includes their exact orbital path, altitude and point-in- time position. On top of this, the spacecraft command and control systems automatically perform error checking of each spacecraft’s reported orbital path, position and attitude a minimum of twice daily, as each satellite passes overhead.

    I’ll also make note that the majority of the meteorological satellites these two “scientists” named, have attitude and orbital correction motors installed, and their orbits can be “tweaked” by ground control operators. this most often happens with the geosynchronous orbiting birds in order to change where their sensors are aligned. At any rate, you can rest assured that those controlling these spacecraft know precisely where they are in their orbits, and where their sensors are pointed at all times.

    One last poke I will make at those two so called “scientists.” Their claim to the “orbital error” of the sun-synchronized spacecraft, (even if it were true,) can have introduced no error whatsoever in the thermal data collected, because the data is collected precisely of the portions of the Earth that the spacecraft is passing over. The only way that there could be thermal error is if the individual sensors themselves are malfunctioning, and this will easily be known and can usually be compensated for. If it’s sensor(s) fail out-right, you either switch to the back-up sensors, or failing that consider that bird’s data as unreliable, announce it as such, and you will generally stop using it.

  6. 132


    I find it very interesting that it is almost considered criminal in today’s political dialogue on any venue, to speak plainly about anything of substantial importance. It’s as if our society has deemed any arguement or candid answer to an “ulterior motive”based questions using less than 14 complete sentances as as insufficiant. I Wonder what would become of the “democratic” party if the republican party mandated that all of it’s party officials started asking and answering questions in 25 or less words. That is something that I admire about the “old guard” They still speak in plain english, even when they say things that are not necessarily right or true. At least they speak plainly, and it is so much easier to respect them because of that single observation. Wow.

  7. 134


    Hmmm, what have we here? People are calling on the Academy to take back Gore’s Oscar:


    and that was because of the hacked e-mails, wait til they see this:

    Dutch: Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro

    The Netherlands is afire today over a Dutch study concluding Mount Kilimanjaro’s snow melt — used as a symbol of AGW by Al Gore — is entirely natural.

    Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste — a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize — about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming.

    Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) — a governmental body — shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.



    And, for Patvann, the thirst for accurate knowledge about climate must be in the genes:

    Nederlander ontkracht ‘klimaatbewijs’ van Al Gore
    donderdag 3 december 2009 12:41

    De nagenoeg sneeuwloze Afrikaanse berg Kilimanjaro is ten onrechte het symbool van de ‘door de mens veroorzaakte’ klimaatverandering. Niet de mens, maar de natuur is verantwoordelijk voor de smeltende sneeuw, zo blijkt uit Nederlands onderzoek. Daar gaat een paradepaard van klimaatgoeroe Al Gore.

    Ex-vice-president van Amerika en Nobelprijs-winnaar Gore gebruikte de smeltende sneeuwmassa’s op de hoogste berg van Afrika (5.892 meter) jarenlang voor zijn klimaatpropaganda. De sneeuw verdwijnt er en dat komt door de mens en zijn uitstoot van broeikasgassen!



  8. Just for the record I thought I’d add this from Prof. Christy’s testimony before Congress:


    “GISS” A, B, and C are model projections of global surface temperature from James Hansen in Senate testimony in 1988. “A” and “B” are two “business-asusual” model projections of temperature which assume emissions similar to what has happened (though in actuality these estimates were a bit less than occurred). “C” is a model projection in which drastic CO2 cuts are assumed. “UAH” and “RSS” are two independent global satellite atmospheric temperature measurements (1979-2008) from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems adjusted to mimic surface temperature variations for an apples to apples comparison with the model projections (factor of 1.2, CCSP SAP 1.1, note all datasets are based on the 1979-1983 reference period). All model projections show high sensitivity to CO2 while the actual atmosphere does not. It is noteworthy that the model projection for drastic CO2 cuts still overshot the observations. This would be considered a failed hypothesis test for the models from 1988.

    Now we learn that Christopher Horner may have to sue to gain access to Hansen’s data as NASA has up to now not released the information which Horner made as a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

    Is there another shoe to drop in the climategate scandal? This one closer to home?

    P.S. @MindJedi: I have read RR’s autobiography. Not one of the best autobios, even though I think he was one of our best Presidents.

  9. 136


    BENDOR would bet his next paycheck that PRAGMATIC hasn’t even…

    …read the Copenhagen Treaty.

    Am I right?

    Finally, the Sun is parting the clouds on climate fraud. And not a moment too soon.

    The science fraud lunatics will slowly start to die way like this: Denial. Anger. Bargaining. Depression. and finally, Acceptance.

    I will be laughing quite joyfully the entire time.

  10. 140


    i have greatly enjoyed reading the posts here and appreciate the links and very informative replies. as i am neither a scientist, or have a college degree in anything, i can not list myself as a formidable mind, but i have always felt college was unnecessary when it comes to intelligence. I have read as much as i can on the topic, from journals and submitted papers, to the insane data feeds………what a bore lol and quite lacking in any substantial effort and honesty. i came to the conclusion many moons ago that something was wrong. after many years wondering why, we now have to look at motive………..and boy is it a doosy .

    how do we get the media to report honestly on anything anymore? will this change after 2010, when they become irrelevant, and their motives and left political bent is shown? or will the U.N and Obama and the other world leaders try to continue on their goals of world domination and wealth redistribution and global governance. what is your thoughts on copenhagen, and upcoming U.N. meetings in 2010 and 2011? where can i get more information on this? and though it doesnt have to be in layman’s terms it would be easier to wade through

  11. 141



    I personally believe the manstream media will never report just the facts. Sensationalism sells, and journalism is considered one of the Liberal Arts (at least in the US.) Journalism is a brutal business, with scads of unreliable sources and relentless pressure to be the first to get a story out. Mainstream media has become an outlet for eager young liberals to make a name for themselves by propagating and sensationalizing inuendo faster than the other journalists. Two or more unreliable sources are better than facts, especially when the issue elicits a visceral response. Besides, fact-checking wastes valuable time. If something feels right, who cares if facts evenfually moot a point? There’s always another sensational story that the American public simply must be told.

    I don’t believe for a moment that the media will admit to being irrelevant. It’s not part of their fabric to be self-analytical, much less self-critical and honest. If liberals lose control of Congress, I believe all we’re going to hear for the next two years is how the newly-elected members of Congress refuse Obama’s “sincere” calls for non-partisan politics. Most likely we’ll hear how the “tea-baggers” and. “neo-conservatives” conspired to block the Democratic Party’s social progress. Textbooks will blame these same groups for halting or even reversing the progress made by Obama, who will be proclaimed the best President the country could have had if only the radical right wingers hadn’t stood in his way.

    I would LOVE to be wrong about all of this!

    – sigh –

  12. 142


    The following is, in my opinion, a “must read” for climate change skeptics and non-skeptics alike. It is science, and is where the discussion should be focused:


    One can take numerous subsets of the data to predict global warming OR global cooling, so it seems reasonable to be suspicious of ANY computer model that shows only an anticipated overall rise or fall in global temperatures. Statistics gives insight into data trends, but statistics of subsets of data can be made easily to “justify” any agenda.

    This doesn’t absolve the human race of the need to be responsible with natural resources and nature in general, but it does suggest that the hype over man-made climate change has less to do with real science, and more to do with politics, corruption, willfully neglectful greed, and agenda-based propaganda.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *