Yet another damning admission from a top alarmist.
From the Climategate 2.0 collection, Tom Wigley e-mails Keith Briffa and Simon Tett (UK Met Office) and pretty much condemns the possibility of quantifying climate sensitivity (presumably to human forcing):
Paleo data cannot inform us *directly* about how the climate sensitivity (as climate sensitivity is defined). Note the stressed word. The whole point here is that the text cannot afford to make statements that are manifestly incorrect. This is *not* mere pedantry. If you can tell me where or why the above statement is wrong, then please do so.
Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself. This is fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant claims.
Read the e-mail exchange:
cc: Simon Tett
date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:30:43 -0600 (MDT)
from: Tom Wigley
subject: Re: PRESCIENT: Draft plan — updated
to: Keith Briffa
Keith and Simon (and no-one else),
Paleo data cannot inform us *directly* about how the climate sensitivity
(as climate sensitivity is defined). Note the stressed word. The whole
point here is that the text cannot afford to make statements that are
manifestly incorrect. This is *not* mere pedantry. If you can tell me
where or why the above statement is wrong, then please do so.
Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done
using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one
could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself. This is
fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant
claims.
Tom
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Keith Briffa wrote:
> Dear all ,
> I should first say that I have communicating directly with Simon on a
> few points, but realize that it is better to send these comments to
> everyone. My only feeling now is that we are tinkering too much at the
> margins and have passed the point of diminishing returns for this effort
> some time ago. As long as the plan does not give a false impression of
> exclusion to some of the community , it is time to get it out. The open
> meeting will provide an opportunity for soliciting the full range of
> potential proposals. The SSC will then have to decide on the balance of
> priorities. The plan expresses the rationale of the Thematic Programme well
> enough now.
> In the area of pedantry, however, I do not like the inclusion of the
> statement
> saying that palaeo -data are not likely to be able to inform us directly about
> climate sensitivity . This is a moot point , and even if true , is not needed.
> However, I do feel we need to put a limit on discussion and issue this call
> now.
> At 04:22 PM 6/30/00 +0100, Simon Tett wrote:
> >Dear All,
> > I got some more faxed comments from Tom and have incorporated
> > them into
> >the draft. I attach it for you all to look at.
> >Tom made two comments which I think need to be drawn to your attention.
> >
> >1) The current draft has a tone that suggests that model development and
> >simulations would not be funded by PRESCIENT. I don’t think that was our
> >intention so I’ve added some text which I hope reduces that danger. Some
> >of that added text is ugly! (it was friday after all!) Please let me
> >know what you think!
> >
> >2) Tom also made a comment about paleo-estimates of climate sensitivity
> >– the current text reflects (I hope) his faxed comment. However, I
> >don’t think I agree with it! Comments please.
> >
> >3) The draft contains various comments which I’d appreciate responses on
> >as well.
> >
> >Simon
>
> —
> Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
> Phone: +44-1603-592090 Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
**********************************************************
Tom M.L. Wigley
Senior Scientist
ACACIA Program Director
National Center for Atmospheric Research
P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
USA
Phone: 303-497-2690
Fax: 303-497-2699
E-mail: wigley@ucar.edu
Web: http://www.acacia.ucar.edu
**********************************************************
Still, there are agenda-driven people who will DENY what is plainly in front of them. Despite that even their gods…er…gurus are wrong (and by their own words), they will defend them, saying it’s all a conspiracy to discredit the real threat of global warming…um, climate change….er, climate chaos. Really? Go sell crazy someplace else. We’re all full here.
It would seem Wigley didn’t trust Briffa much at all.
Ouch! This one had to hurt! Wigley asks Briffa if he’s hiding something.
email 1017.txt-
date: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:24:43 -0600 (MDT)
from: ???@ucar.edu
subject: [Fwd: CCNet: “COLLAPSE TO NEAR ZERO?” EUROPE’S CARBON CREDITS MAY
to: ???@uea.ac.uk
Keith,
See the last item. Why don’t you just give these people the raw data?
Are you hiding something — your apparent refusal to be forthcoming sure
makes it look as though you are.
Tom.
==========
The last item referred to above is this:
(10) AND FINALLY: SCIENCE SHENANGIGANS GO ON
Steve McIntyre, 9 May 2006
It’s the last item in a list of news items originally sent by Benny Peiser to a “cambridge-conference” email address and then forwarded by Tom Wigley at UCAR to Keith Briffa at UEA.
The item refers to this post at CA: http://climateaudit.org/2006/05/09/more-ob-confidential/