Revkin’s mission in journalism seems to be to convince the unwashed masses.
From the Climategate 2.0 collection, New York Times “reporter” Andy Revkin asks the alarmist community for the most persuasive data that will convince stupid Americans of the human influence on climate change:
Our Week in Review folks want to (on short notice) pull together a graphic and short story by me explaining what aspects of recent (post 1950) warming speak most clearly of
probable human greenhouse influence (attribution)…
The goal is to allow anyone confused out there to grasp what aspects of ongoing changes most speak of a greenhouse (human) influence.
The full e-mail exchange is below.
date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:32:18 -0000
from: “Tett, Simon”
subject: RE: best example of trend to choose that hints at greenhouse
to: “Andy Revkin” , ,
, “Stott, Peter” ,
apologies for not responding earlier (and I suspect rather too late).
I think a good case is that models forced with human and natural forcings do a
good job of reproducing a range of things (mainly temp related).
So surface temp, long-time-scale ocean heat content changes, NH sea-ice (SH is
observed) while models forced with natural only forcings do a poor job. SO I’d show
simple plot with obs, model with natural only, model with natural + human.
Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications.
Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit)
Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB
Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615
Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Global climate data sets are available from http://www.hadobs.org
From: Andy Revkin [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 1:31 AM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Stott, Peter; Tett, Simon;
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: best example of trend to choose that hints at greenhouse forcing being at play
Our Week in Review folks want to (on short notice) pull together a graphic and short
by me explaining what aspects of recent (post 1950) warming speak most clearly of
human greenhouse influence (attribution).
I can think of warmer winters, warmer nights, warming in oceans, changes in height of
tropopause, cooling of stratosphere, modeling exercises with/without co2 buildup… all
pointing to greenhouse forcing as culprit.
I’ll be stressing that it’s a ‘balance of evidence’ argument, but if we wanted to create a
graph of the long-term global mean temp rise AND one or two of the trends that are
relevant, which would be most illustrative? (or is this even doable in a way average folk
a) what am i forgetting from the list above?
b) what have i listed that does NOT make the case?
c) would be great to know of any data you can provide that would help them build an
or box to illustrate this.
The goal is to allow anyone confused out there to grasp what aspects of ongoing
most speak of a greenhouse (human) influence.
feel free to forward this to others who can help (promptly : – ) .
thanks for any prompt ideas or info.
the ccs in email addresses above are the two graphix editors, bill marsh and amy
their phone is 212 556 1839.
ANDREW C. REVKIN
The New York Times / Environment
229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036
phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org / fax: 509-357-0965
Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming
Amazon book: The Burning Season www.islandpress.org/burning
Acoustic-roots band: www.myspace.com/unclewade