Good with me assuming we have solid backup for the hits in the graphic and e-mail. Jacquelyn Lopez | Perkins Coie LLP ASSOCIATE* 700 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005-3960 D. +1.202.654.6371 F. +1.202.654.9949 E. JacquelynLopez@perkinscoie.com *Admitted in State of Florida; Admission to DC Bar pending. From: Freundlich, Christina Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 2:15 PM To: Reif, Eric; Lopez, Jacquelyn K. (Perkins Coie); Crystal, Andy Cc: EMail-Vetting_D Subject: RE: For approval: Trump SCOTUS nominee emails Great On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:11 AM -0700, "Crystal, Andy" > wrote: Looks great From: Reif, Eric Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 8:48 AM To: Jacquelyn Lopez; Crystal, Andy Cc: EMail-Vetting_D Subject: Re: For approval: Trump SCOTUS nominee emails Here is the graphic for the second set of copy. Thanks! From: "Lopez, Jacquelyn K. (Perkins Coie)" > Date: Friday, May 20, 2016 at 9:56 PM To: "Crystal, Andy" > Cc: Eric Reif >, EMail-Vetting_D > Subject: Re: For approval: Trump SCOTUS nominee emails Good On May 20, 2016, at 2:40 PM, Crystal, Andy > wrote: good From: Reif, Eric Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 2:38 PM To: EMail-Vetting_D Subject: For approval: Trump SCOTUS nominee emails Hi all - Below is a text email and copy for a graphic we want to try referencing some of the people on Trump's SCOTUS shortlist. Research and comms have already reviewed, but let me know if you have any flags. -v1(EJB)- Sender: Democrats.org Subject: We know you understand just how important it is that we don't let Donald Trump anywhere near the White House, NAME, but just in case you needed more evidence of just what is at stake this November, we now have 11 more reasons. Earlier this week, the GOP's presumptive nominee released his shortlist of some of the names "representative of the kind of constitutional principles" he values and, as president, might nominate to the Supreme Court. That list includes names like Raymond Gruender, who authored an opinion that upheld a South Dakota law that would require doctors to tell women that abortions "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being." Or Bill Pryor, who Lambda Legal has called "the most demonstrably anti-gay judicial nominee in recent memory" thanks to his long history of opposing LGBT rights. Diane Sykes was a major player in upholding Wisconsin's voter ID law, one of the strictest in the nation, which could block as many as 300,000 registered voters from casting their ballots this fall. Steven Colloton joined an opinion that restricted women's access to birth control under the Affordable Care Act. Don Willett has ruled in favor of corporate interests at the expense of consumers and workers in 81 percent of of his decisions from the bench, including allowing companies to avoid accountability for workplace safety violations. The list goes on, but it's fair to say that Trump's dream team of justices include some of the most extreme conservatives sitting on the bench across the country. Even one appointment from President Trump, not to mention the others that could arise during his term, would move this Court even further to the right and fundamentally alter it for a generation. By refusing to do their jobs and allow President Obama's unquestionably qualified nominee a hearing and a vote, Senate Republicans are effectively saying they prefer to gamble on a President Trump nominee. We're not going to let that happen, NAME. Add your name if you're standing with Democrats to keep Trump's recklessness away from any branch of our government: LINK Thanks for standing with us. Democrats -v2(SK)- Sender: Democrats.org Subject: Meet some of the judges Who fit this guy's (Trump photo) Idea of a good Supreme Court justice Steven Colloton - upheld a law that said women who seek abortions should be considered to be at an "increased risk of suicide" William Pryor - called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law" Diane Sykes - authored an opinion that restricted a woman's access to birth control Don Willett - has ruled in favor of corporate interests 81 percent of the time NAME(SERIOUSLY), these nominees are just as extreme and unpredictable as Donald Trump himself So we can't let him nominate anyone To the Supreme Court Add your name if you're ready to do whatever it takes to [STOP DONALD TRUMP] ________________________________ NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. ________________________________ NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.


The New Options Model meeting will be held in EB3125b. ---------------------- Forwarded by Tamara Jae Black/HOU/ECT on 05/22/2001 04:34 PM --------------------------- Tamara Jae Black 05/22/2001 04:21 PM To: Rudy Acevedo/HOU/ECT@ECT, Diana Allen/Enron@EnronXGate, Russell Ballato/NA/Enron@Enron, Ted Ballinger/Enron@EnronXGate, Don Baughman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward D Baughman/Enron@EnronXGate, Corry Bentley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Benson/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tamara Jae Black/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lisa Burnett/Corp/Enron@Enron, Paul J Broderick/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Broussard/Corp/Enron@Enron, Larry F Campbell/NA/Enron@Enron, Mike Carson/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jason Choate/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Cline/Enron@EnronXGate, Terri Clynes/Enron@EnronXGate, Keith Comeaux/Corp/Enron@Enron, Karla Compean/Enron@EnronXGate, Kayne Coulter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Oscar Dalton/Enron@EnronXGate, Mark Dana Davis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Clint Dean/Corp/Enron@Enron, George Diaz/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Chris Dorland/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Errigo/Corp/Enron@Enron, Miguel L Garcia/NA/Enron@ENRON, Gerald Gilbert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Doug Gilbert-Smith/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Gautam Gupta/HOU/ECT@ECT, Patrick Hanse/HOU/ECT@ECT, Juan Hernandez/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Rogers Herndon/HOU/ECT@ect, Jim Homco/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rika Imai/Enron@EnronXGate, Larry Jester/Enron@EnronXGate, Gary Justice/Enron@EnronXGate, Mike E Kelly/Enron@EnronXGate, Grace Kim/Enron@EnronXGate, Jeff King/Corp/Enron@Enron, John Kinser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Madhup Kumar/Enron@EnronXGate, Dean Laurent/HOU/ECT@ECT, Justin Laverell/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Chris Lenartowicz/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Matt Lorenz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gretchen Lotz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Peter Makkai/NA/Enron@Enron, Tom May/Corp/Enron@Enron, Doug Miller/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jeffrey Miller/NA/Enron@Enron, Narsimha Misra/NA/Enron@Enron, Christi L Nicolay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve Olinde/Corp/Enron@Enron, Andy Pace/Enron@EnronXGate, Juan Padron/NA/Enron@Enron, Laura Podurgiel/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin M Presto/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Quenet/NA/Enron@Enron, David Ryan/Enron@EnronXGate, Eric Saibi/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Anna Santucci/Enron@EnronXGate, sscott3@enron.com, Erik Serio/Corp/Enron@Enron, Doug Sewell/Enron@EnronXGate, Lisa Shoemake/Enron@EnronXGate, Robert Stalford/NA/Enron@Enron, Chad Starnes/Corp/Enron@Enron, Joe Stepenovitch/Corp/Enron@Enron, Mark Symms/Enron@EnronXGate, Ramanarao Tamma/Enron@EnronXGate, Garrett Tripp/TOR/ECT@ECT, Larry Valderrama/Enron@EnronXGate, Maria Valdes/Corp/Enron@Enron, Joseph Wagner/NA/Enron@Enron, Christopher Watts/NA/Enron@Enron, Lloyd Will/HOU/ECT@ECT, Smith L Day/HOU/ECT@ECT, John M Forney/NA/Enron@Enron, Andy Rodriquez/Enron@EnronXGate, Claudia Guerra/Enron@EnronXGate, Benjamin Rogers/HOU/ECT@ECT, Clayton Vernon/Enron@EnronXGate, Fletcher J Sturm/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mauricio Trejo/Enron@EnronXGate, Dustin Collins/HOU/ECT@ECT, William Abler/Enron@EnronXGate, Steve Wang/Enron@EnronXGate cc: Subject: New Options Model ---------------------- Forwarded by Tamara Jae Black/HOU/ECT on 05/22/2001 04:18 PM --------------------------- From: Steve Wang/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/22/2001 04:17 PM To: Tamara Jae Black/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: New Options Model Meeting on May 30 at 3:30pm regarding the new Option Model we (Steve Wang, Harry Arora, and Rob Stalford) use to make markets. The old structuring model was created for marketer to give indicative pricing. I have created this model especially for option market making. As market makers we found the old model too slow as we are often making bid/offers in more than five strikes in more than five different months. This model allows us to make our markets quicker and identify mispricings in the market before our competitors. This is not to replace the old structuring model. It is only a complement that will give everyone a better picture of where options are trading and where bid/offers are. We will publish these prices weekly and will eventually have them on a daily basis. You will need special permission to access the files located in M:\power2\Options. Let me know if you want access to this folder. The following people already have access: Ahn, Christopher Ballato, Russell Baughman, Ed Benson, Rob Broderick, Paul Carson, Mike Clynes, Terri Curry, Mike Dalton, Oscar Davis, Dana Dean, Clint Dorland, Chris Forney, John Gilbert-Smith, Doug Gupta, Gautam Jester, Larry Kelly, Michael King, Jeff Lorenz, Matt Presto, Kevin Quenet, Joe Scheuer, Janelle Sewell, Robert (Doug) Sturm, Fletch Tingleaf, Drew Valderrama, Larry Valdes, Maria Wheeler, Raymond Thanks Steve Wang


Cristian Vardaro updated #OZJ-590-36410 --------------------------------------- Staff (Owner): Cristian Vardaro (was: -- Unassigned --) Status: In Progress (was: Open) Scouts don't evolve to Elite ---------------------------- Ticket ID: OZJ-590-36410 URL: Name: Takayama Email address: takayama.tko@gmail.com Creator: User Department: Security Staff (Owner): Cristian Vardaro Type: Feedback Status: In Progress Priority: Normal Template group: Default Created: 05 June 2015 06:41 AM Updated: 05 June 2015 09:11 AM Dear Client, on these targets have been installed WinPcap and Wireshark, both softwares are blacklisted for security reason. Unfortunately these agents can not upgraded to Soldier or Elite. Do not hesitate to contact us if you have any doubts. Kind regards Staff CP: --


FYI - If this should happen, we should include it in the July Flash and also the Quarterly Functional Forecast (as a part of FA&A activity, right ???). -----Original Message----- From: Chandler, Bob Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 5:05 PM To: Zahn, Gary Cc: Jones, Dana; Kleb, Steve Subject: Deferred Gain on Sale of Part to Cooper Energy Services Gary, I'm attaching an accounting memorandum I prepared at year end to establish the methodology for bringing the $4.5MM deferred gain on the Cooper parts sale into income. The bottom line is that it is to be brought to income pro rata with the satisfaction of the $18MM minimum purchase obligation under the Blanket Purchase Agreement between Co. 1195 and Cooper. So the amount to be transferred to income in July, 2001 will be $618,772.96 divided by $18,000,000 multiplied by $4,500,000 or $154,693.24.


Just wanted to follow up on one thing from our conversation on Friday. In Sept, you need the 3rd current estimate, but are ok with us providing it to you the week of the 17th, rather than the 13th. And this will be the 3rd current estimate, not just the normal cash flow forecast? Then in October, we are back to the normal cash flow forecast, correct? Let me know, thanks! Carolyn Winowitch PGE Accounting 503-464-8191


Delete Sent on the run On Oct 3, 2014, at 10:13 AM, "Kanner, Fayanne" wrote:Richard Lovett and Arnie Kleiner called this morning….save or delete? From: Mosko, Steve Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 10:13 AMTo: Kanner, FayanneSubject: Re: Mosko's Calls a/o end of day Thurs 10/2 Delete all but asifSent on the run On Oct 2, 2014, at 5:45 PM, "Kanner, Fayanne" wrote:OUT CALLS, 10/02/14 12:02 PM, Craig Schwartz, (Business) (310) 244-3836, IN CALLS, 10/02/14 05:24 PM, Irwin Winkler, (Business) (310) 858-5780, returned IN CALLS, 10/02/14 05:04 PM, Paula, (Business) (310) 244-3790, pls call IN CALLS, 10/02/14 05:02 PM, Jeff Frost, (Business) (310) 244-9215, pls call IN CALLS, 10/02/14 04:18 PM, Asif Satchu/MRC, (Business) (310) 786-1620, pls call IN CALLS, 10/02/14 12:27 PM, Tom Rothman, (Business) (310) 244-1900, returned IN CALLS, 10/02/14 12:09 PM, Bill Cella, (Mobile) (917) 365-6985, returning IN CALLS, 10/02/14 10:48 AM, Craig Hunegs, (Business) (818) 954-7145, SEINFELD (returned) IN CALLS, 10/01/14 05:33 PM, Drew Shearer, (Business) (310) 244-8964, calling your cell IN CALLS, 10/01/14 04:44 PM, Janice Pober, (Business) (310) 244-8293, pls call re: Dec 11th event IN CALLS, 09/30/14 02:53 PM, Bob Horowitz/Juma Entertainment, (Business) (215) 862-9100, pls call IN CALLS, 09/29/14 05:09 PM, Richard Lovett, (Business) (424) 288-2000, please call ----boundary-LibPST-iamunique-804898450_-_---


Feast your eyes on Enron Business' cool and colorful new look. You'll find it in your mailbox at home and online at home.enron.com under Publications, Enron Business, and "Volume 2, 2001". (And if you're in Houston, you might find a few extra copies at the Plaza Java in the lobby of the Enron Building.) In this issue: ? Enron Direct plays hard to win small customers ? Extreme Enron debuts with exciting stories about employees who ride the edge ? Meteorologists brew science with good business ? Enron's new Vision - how will we do it? ? Enron fights to keep the California energy crisis from spreading ? Driving business profits where you'd least expect them ? The Insider: Sprechen Zie security? ? Assisting earthquake victims in India ? Find out who won the Word Search - and enter our Cartoon Craziness Contest for a chance to win a $200 American Express gift certificate! Don't dally - the deadline for entries is Friday, May 11


It now starts at 9am in DC


----- Original Message ----- From: "Luis Villa" > > They were the ruling class of a feudal, farming society for quite some > time; I believe there were more than a few issues there. Certainly, not > everyone in Tibet is as excited about the Dalai Lama as Hollywood > appears to be. [Not that the Chinese are much better rights-wise, but > they've actually built roads and such, which led to the creation of > merchant classes and the like that never existed under the Tibetans.] And it's not /going/ to exist under the Tibetans, because it'll be owned and operated by Chinese nationals.


The leads and lags are analyzed in detail in this paper Trenberth, K. E., J. M. Caron, D. P. Stepaniak, and S. Worley 2002: [1]The evolution of ENSO and global atmospheric surface temperatures J. Geophys. Res., 107, D8, 10.1029/2000JD000298. and we were not able to reproduce Tom Wigley's result (we tried). It may depend in indices used. In this paper we also document the extent to which ENSO contributes to warming overall. Kevin Phil Jones wrote: Mike, See below for instructions. Also, just because IPCC (2007, Ch 3) didn't point out the 6/7-month lag between the SOI and global temperatures doesn't mean it hasn't been known for years. IPCC is an assessment and not a review of everything done. If they had even read Wigley (2001) they would have seen this lag pointed out. I wasn't the first to do this in 1989 either. I don't think Walker was either. I think the first was Hildebrandsson in the 1890s. Why does it always go back to a Swede! file is at [2]ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk login anonymously with emails as pw then go to people/philjones and you should find santeretal2001.pdf Cheers Phil At 14:08 28/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote: thanks Phil, this is very helpful and reaffirms what we've identified as some of the main points that need to be covered in a formal response. I've taken the liberty of copying in a couple other colleagues who have been looking into this. Grant Foster was the first author on a response to a similarly bad paper by Schwartz that was published some time ago, and has been doing a number of analyses aimed at demonstrating the key problems in McClean et al. I've suggested that Grant sent out a draft of the response when it is ready to the broader group of people who have been included in these exchanges for feedback and potential co-authorship, mike p.s. Santer et al paper still didn't come through in your followup message. Can you post in on ftp where it can be downloaded? On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Jim et al, Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there are a few things to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of reply, so need to ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From doing the attached a year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to concentrate only on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the paper, it won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be just two or three. The three aspects I would emphasize are 1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that they smooth the series with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan 1980 from that in Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on. As we know this removes any long-term trend. The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is possibly why they get different lags from others. Using running means also enhances the explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise without the smoothing. 2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These clearly have a trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part. 3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The SOI doesn't explain the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para 30 are all wrong. A few minor points - there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3. - I'm sure Tom Wigley wouldn't have proposed El Nino events occurring after volcanoes! Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn't say what is purported - in fact it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done. - there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he applies the same type of extraction procedure to models. I'll send this separately as it is large. In case it is too large here is the reference. Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen, J.E., Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and Taylor K.E., 2001: Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends. Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 2803328059. Finally I've attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did something similar to what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I added the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual timescale and I did have many more years. Cheers Phil At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Jim, Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response (attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a lot of play in contrarian circles. since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a similar effort w/ this one. let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can discuss possible strategy for moving this forward, mike On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it. Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands. Jim Quoting Michael Mann [3] : folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions of the paper already up on other sites, mike On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)! I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that. Who else wants to join in?? Jim Quoting Kevin Trenberth [4] : I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on travel the past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer Colloquium is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks (GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do. Kevin a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here. contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of whether or not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in the peer- reviewed literature. mike On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: Hi All Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their position. Jim Quoting Michael Mann [5] : 2nd email ________ Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial skim of it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial impression. this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was, and what he/she was thinking (or drinking), m On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use derivatives of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass filter, that is to say it filters out all the low frequency variability and trends. If one takes y= A sin wt and does a differentiation one gets dy = Aw cos wt. So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency = 2*pi/ L where L is the period. So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10 years by a factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50 years get reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods. i.e. Their procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual variability not the trends. Kevin hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a few minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the worry signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a legitimate journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through the cracks in recent years, and this is another one of them. first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU data and uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a series of three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by Mears et al, Santer et al, and Sherwood et al. see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this: [6] tu- lt/ these papers collectively showed that both datasets were deeply flawed and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I find it absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a serious review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers-- papers whose findings render that conclusions of the current article completely invalid! The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric temperature estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic error-- that had the net effect of artificially removing the warming trend. Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of the MSU dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than every other independent assessment, and their estimates are largely disregarded by serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC. So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric temperatures that have artificially too little warming trend, and then shown, quite unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the interannual variability). the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all for the role of natural variability on the observed warming trend of recent decades. other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson of CSU, Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year ago) used proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate the influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the surface temperature record. their analysis was so careful and clever that it detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid 1940s) that had never before been discovered in the global surface temperature record. needless to say, they removed that error too. and the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes, and even this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of global mean surface temperature over the past century of a little less than 1C which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO influences. the dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic influences (human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting cooling due to sulphate aerosols). this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in doubt. it uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for which the trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats left over (interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh! its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for it! m On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote: Kevin, Gavin, Mike, It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think? Seth Seth Borenstein Associated Press Science Writer [7]sborenstein@ap.org The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005-4076 202-641-9454 The information contained in this communication is intended for the use of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at +1-212-621-1898 and delete this e-mail. Thank you. [IP_US_DISC] msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938 On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: Precisely. Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim, Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the local fallout this will cause...oh dear...... Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans according tro NOAA Jim Quoting Kevin Trenberth [8] : Exactly They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and then they use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so they show what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high frequency variability. It should not have been published Kevin kia orana from Rarotonga How the h... did this get accepted!! Jim Dominion today {24/7/09] Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published paper in JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and including comment by J Salinger "little new" McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637. paper at [9] -- Associate Professor Jim Salinger School of Geography and Environmental Science University of Auckland Private Bag 92 019 Auckland, New Zealand Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473 ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 [10] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [11]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [12]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [13] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [14]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [15]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [16] ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 [17] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [18]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [19]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [20] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [21]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [22]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [23] Hi Jim, Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response (attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a lot of play in contrarian circles. since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a similar effort w/ this one. let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can discuss possible strategy for moving this forward, mike On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it. Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands. Jim Quoting Michael Mann [24] : folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions of the paper already up on other sites, mike On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)! I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that. Who else wants to join in?? Jim Quoting Kevin Trenberth [25] : I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on travel the past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer Colloquium is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks (GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do. Kevin a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here. contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of whether or not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in the peer- reviewed literature. mike On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: Hi All Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their position. Jim Quoting Michael Mann [26] : 2nd email ________ Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial skim of it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial impression. this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was, and what he/she was thinking (or drinking), m On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use derivatives of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass filter, that is to say it filters out all the low frequency variability and trends. If one takes y= A sin wt and does a differentiation one gets dy = Aw cos wt. So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency = 2*pi/ L where L is the period. So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10 years by a factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50 years get reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods. i.e. Their procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual variability not the trends. Kevin hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a few minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the worry signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a legitimate journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through the cracks in recent years, and this is another one of them. first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU data and uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a series of three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by Mears et al, Santer et al, and Sherwood et al. see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this: [27] these papers collectively showed that both datasets were deeply flawed and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I find it absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a serious review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers-- papers whose findings render that conclusions of the current article completely invalid! The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric temperature estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic error-- that had the net effect of artificially removing the warming trend. Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of the MSU dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than every other independent assessment, and their estimates are largely disregarded by serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC. So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric temperatures that have artificially too little warming trend, and then shown, quite unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the interannual variability). the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all for the role of natural variability on the observed warming trend of recent decades. other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson of CSU, Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year ago) used proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate the influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the surface temperature record. their analysis was so careful and clever that it detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid 1940s) that had never before been discovered in the global surface temperature record. needless to say, they removed that error too. and the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes, and even this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of global mean surface temperature over the past century of a little less than 1C which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO influences. the dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic influences (human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting cooling due to sulphate aerosols). this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in doubt. it uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for which the trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats left over (interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh! its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for it! m On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote: Kevin, Gavin, Mike, It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think? Seth Seth Borenstein Associated Press Science Writer [28]sborenstein@ap.org The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005-4076 202-641-9454 The information contained in this communication is intended for the use of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at +1-212-621-1898 and delete this e-mail. Thank you. [IP_US_DISC] msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938 On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: Precisely. Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim, Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the local fallout this will cause...oh dear...... Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans according tro NOAA Jim Quoting Kevin Trenberth [29] : Exactly They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and then they use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so they show what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high frequency variability. It should not have been published Kevin kia orana from Rarotonga How the h... did this get accepted!! Jim Dominion today {24/7/09] Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published paper in JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and including comment by J Salinger "little new" McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637. paper at [30] -- Associate Professor Jim Salinger School of Geography and Environmental Science University of Auckland Private Bag 92 019 Auckland, New Zealand Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473 ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 [31] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [32]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [33]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [34] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [35]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [36]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [37] ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 [38] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [39]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [40]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [41] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [42]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [43]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [44] Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [45]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [46]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [47]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [48] thanks Phil, this is very helpful and reaffirms what we've identified as some of the main points that need to be covered in a formal response. I've taken the liberty of copying in a couple other colleagues who have been looking into this. Grant Foster was the first author on a response to a similarly bad paper by Schwartz that was published some time ago, and has been doing a number of analyses aimed at demonstrating the key problems in McClean et al. I've suggested that Grant sent out a draft of the response when it is ready to the broader group of people who have been included in these exchanges for feedback and potential co-authorship, mike p.s. Santer et al paper still didn't come through in your followup message. Can you post in on ftp where it can be downloaded? On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Jim et al, Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there are a few things to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of reply, so need to ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From doing the attached a year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to concentrate only on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the paper, it won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be just two or three. The three aspects I would emphasize are 1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that they smooth the series with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan 1980 from that in Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on. As we know this removes any long-term trend. The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is possibly why they get different lags from others. Using running means also enhances the explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise without the smoothing. 2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These clearly have a trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part. 3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The SOI doesn't explain the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para 30 are all wrong. A few minor points - there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3. - I'm sure Tom Wigley wouldn't have proposed El Nino events occurring after volcanoes! Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn't say what is purported - in fact it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done. - there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he applies the same type of extraction procedure to models. I'll send this separately as it is large. In case it is too large here is the reference. Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen, J.E., Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and Taylor K.E., 2001: Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends. Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 28033-28059. Finally I've attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did something similar to what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I added the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual timescale and I did have many more years. Cheers Phil At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Jim, Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response (attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a lot of play in contrarian circles. since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a similar effort w/ this one. let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can discuss possible strategy for moving this forward, mike On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it. Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands. Jim Quoting Michael Mann : folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions of the paper already up on other sites, mike On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)! I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that. Who else wants to join in?? Jim Quoting Kevin Trenberth : I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on travel the past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer Colloquium is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks (GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do. Kevin a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here. contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of whether or not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in the peer- reviewed literature. mike On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: Hi All Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their position. Jim Quoting Michael Mann : 2nd email ________ Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial skim of it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial impression. this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was, and what he/she was thinking (or drinking), m On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use derivatives of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass filter, that is to say it filters out all the low frequency variability and trends. If one takes y= A sin wt and does a differentiation one gets dy = Aw cos wt. So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency = 2*pi/ L where L is the period. So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10 years by a factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50 years get reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods. i.e. Their procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual variability not the trends. Kevin hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a few minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the worry signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a legitimate journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through the cracks in recent years, and this is another one of them. first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU data and uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a series of three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by Mears et al, Santer et al, and Sherwood et al. see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this: [52] lt/ these papers collectively showed that both datasets were deeply flawed and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I find it absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a serious review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers-- papers whose findings render that conclusions of the current article completely invalid! The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric temperature estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic error-- that had the net effect of artificially removing the warming trend. Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of the MSU dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than every other independent assessment, and their estimates are largely disregarded by serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC. So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric temperatures that have artificially too little warming trend, and then shown, quite unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the interannual variability). the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all for the role of natural variability on the observed warming trend of recent decades. other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson of CSU, Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year ago) used proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate the influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the surface temperature record. their analysis was so careful and clever that it detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid 1940s) that had never before been discovered in the global surface temperature record. needless to say, they removed that error too. and the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes, and even this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of global mean surface temperature over the past century of a little less than 1C which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO influences. the dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic influences (human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting cooling due to sulphate aerosols). this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in doubt. it uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for which the trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats left over (interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh! its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for it! m On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote: Kevin, Gavin, Mike, It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think? Seth Seth Borenstein Associated Press Science Writer [53]sborenstein@ap.org The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005-4076 202-641-9454 The information contained in this communication is intended for the use of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at +1-212-621-1898 and delete this e-mail. Thank you. [IP_US_DISC] msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938 On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: Precisely. Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim, Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the local fallout this will cause...oh dear...... Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans according tro NOAA Jim Quoting Kevin Trenberth : Exactly They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and then they use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so they show what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high frequency variability. It should not have been published Kevin kia orana from Rarotonga How the h... did this get accepted!! Jim Dominion today {24/7/09] Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published paper in JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and including comment by J Salinger "little new" McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637. paper at [55] -- Associate Professor Jim Salinger School of Geography and Environmental Science University of Auckland Private Bag 92 019 Auckland, New Zealand Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473 ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 [56] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [57]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [58]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [59] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [60]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [61]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [62] ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 [63] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [64]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [65]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [66] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [67]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [68]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [69] Hi Jim, Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response (attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a lot of play in contrarian circles. since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a similar effort w/ this one. let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can discuss possible strategy for moving this forward, mike On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it. Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands. Jim Quoting Michael Mann : folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate later today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions of the paper already up on other sites, mike On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the following week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would be quite good to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni of Auckland (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)! I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the Cook Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that. Who else wants to join in?? Jim Quoting Kevin Trenberth : I am on vacation today and don't have the time. I have been on travel the past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer Colloquium is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks (GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do. Kevin a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here. contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of whether or not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in the peer- reviewed literature. mike On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: Hi All Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their position. Jim Quoting Michael Mann : 2nd email ________ Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial skim of it. yes--that makes things even worse than my initial impression. this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was, and what he/she was thinking (or drinking), m On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: I just looked briefly at the paper. Their relationships use derivatives of the series. Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass filter, that is to say it filters out all the low frequency variability and trends. If one takes y= A sin wt and does a differentiation one gets dy = Aw cos wt. So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency = 2*pi/ L where L is the period. So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10 years by a factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50 years get reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods. i.e. Their procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual variability not the trends. Kevin hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a few minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all the worry signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a legitimate journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through the cracks in recent years, and this is another one of them. first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU data and uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a series of three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by Mears et al, Santer et al, and Sherwood et al. see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this: [73] these papers collectively showed that both datasets were deeply flawed and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I find it absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a serious review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers--papers whose findings render that conclusions of the current article completely invalid! The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric temperature estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic error-- that had the net effect of artificially removing the warming trend. Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of the MSU dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than every other independent assessment, and their estimates are largely disregarded by serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC. So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric temperatures that have artificially too little warming trend, and then shown, quite unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the interannual variability). the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all for the role of natural variability on the observed warming trend of recent decades. other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson of CSU, Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than year ago) used proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate the influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the surface temperature record. their analysis was so careful and clever that it detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid 1940s) that had never before been discovered in the global surface temperature record. needless to say, they removed that error too. and the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes, and even this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of global mean surface temperature over the past century of a little less than 1C which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO influences. the dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every legitimate major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic influences (human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting cooling due to sulphate aerosols). this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in doubt. it uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for which the trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats left over (interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh! its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for it! m On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote: Kevin, Gavin, Mike, It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think? Seth Seth Borenstein Associated Press Science Writer [74]sborenstein@ap.org The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005-4076 202-641-9454 The information contained in this communication is intended for the use of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at +1-212-621-1898 and delete this e-mail. Thank you. [IP_US_DISC] msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938 On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote: Precisely. Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim, Brett, myself and maybe others will have to deal with the local fallout this will cause...oh dear...... Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans according tro NOAA Jim Quoting Kevin Trenberth : Exactly They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and then they use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so they show what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high frequency variability. It should not have been published Kevin kia orana from Rarotonga How the h... did this get accepted!! Jim Dominion today {24/7/09] Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published paper in JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and including comment by J Salinger "little new" McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637. paper at [76] -- Associate Professor Jim Salinger School of Geography and Environmental Science University of Auckland Private Bag 92 019 Auckland, New Zealand Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473 ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 [77] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [78]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [79]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [80] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [81]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [82]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [83] ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 [84] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [85]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [86]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [87] ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [88]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [89]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [90] Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [91]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [92]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [93]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [94] Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [95]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [96]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [97]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 References 1.  2. ftp://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/ 3. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu 4. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu 5. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu 6.  7. mailto:sborenstein@ap.org 8. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu 9.  10.  11. mailto:mann@psu.edu 12.  13.  14. mailto:mann@psu.edu 15.  16.  17.  18. mailto:mann@psu.edu 19.  20.  21. mailto:mann@psu.edu 22.  23.  24. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu 25. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu 26. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu 27.  28. mailto:sborenstein@ap.org 29. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu 30.  31.  32. mailto:mann@psu.edu 33.  34.  35. mailto:mann@psu.edu 36.  37.  38.  39. mailto:mann@psu.edu 40.  41.  42. mailto:mann@psu.edu 43.  44.  45. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk 46. mailto:mann@psu.edu 47.  48.  49. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu 50. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu 51. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu 52.  53. mailto:sborenstein@ap.org 54. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu 55.  56.  57. mailto:mann@psu.edu 58.  59.  60. mailto:mann@psu.edu 61.  62.  63.  64. mailto:mann@psu.edu 65.  66.  67. mailto:mann@psu.edu 68.  69.  70. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu 71. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu 72. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu 73.  74. mailto:sborenstein@ap.org 75. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu 76.  77.  78. mailto:mann@psu.edu 79.  80.  81. mailto:mann@psu.edu 82.  83.  84.  85. mailto:mann@psu.edu 86.  87.  88. mailto:mann@psu.edu 89.  90.  91. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk 92. mailto:mann@psu.edu 93.  94.  95. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk 96. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu 97.


HTML file required for this letter.


SHOT: Trump at his announcement speech : "I'm using my own money. I'm not using the lobbyists. I'm not using donors. I don't care. I'm really rich." CHASER: Today, the day after he becomes the GOP's presumptive nominee: Donald Trump Won't Self-Fund General-Election Campaign View this post on our Factivists site here . To be automatically unsubscribed from this list, please email: dncrrmain-unsubscribe@dnc.org


Ok sending this around From: Miranda, Luis Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 1:01 PM To: Freundlich, Christina; Walsh, Tom; Walker, Eric; Paustenbach, Mark Subject: RE: for comms approval -- The Irony! Trump's VP Hopeful WILL Have to Submit Tax Returns Good with edit to last graph which should be a quote, can make it from me: "That any potential number two would have to make their full taxes available to even be considered is a testament to the fact Donald Trump doesn't hold himself to basic minimum standards. This again raises serious questions about what he's hiding and how much he would benefit from his own reckless tax plan. It is the American people's business and Trump must be accountable." Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Freundlich, Christina" > Date: 05/18/2016 12:49 (GMT-05:00) To: "Walsh, Tom" >, "Walker, Eric" >, "Miranda, Luis" >, "Paustenbach, Mark" > Subject: for comms approval -- The Irony! Trump's VP Hopeful WILL Have to Submit Tax Returns SL: The Irony! Trump's VP Hopeful WILL Have to Submit Tax Returns NBC reported today that Donald Trump's vice presidential hopefuls WILL have to turn their tax returns over to the Trump campaign. WATCH Donald Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, as well as his false claim that voters would learn nothing from them anyway, demonstrates he is not being forthright with the American people and is unfit to occupy the White House. But the fact that he plans to have his vice presidential pick release his tax returns to even consider being vice president is complete hypocrisy. Never mind that Donald Trump is now backtracking on his previous commitment to transparency. When Trump first considered running for President in 1999, he said he, "probably wouldn't have a problem with" releasing his tax returns if he ran. Later, in 2012, he said if you're running for President, "at a minimum, probably, you're going to have to show your [tax] returns" and they should be released by April 1st of the election year. Donald Trump should hold himself to the standards of his number two, instead of raising serious questions about what he's hiding and how much he would benefit from his own reckless plan. There is no place for hypocrisy in the White House.


Limited Account Access Details PayPal is constantly working to ensure security by regularly screening the accounts in our system. We recently reviewed your account, and we need more information to help us provide you with secure service. Until we can collect this information, your access to sensitive account features will be limited or terminated. We would like to restore your access as soon as possible, and we apologize for the inconvenience. Why is my account access limited?Your account access has been limited for the following reason(s): Aug. 06, 2006: We have reason to believe that your account was accessed by a third party. Because protecting the security of your account is our primary concern, we have limited access to sensitive PayPal account features. We understand that this may be an inconvenience but please understand that this temporary limitation is for your protection. (Your case ID for this reason is PP-121-601-924.) How can I restore my account access? Please visit the Resolution Center and complete the "Steps to Remove Limitations and Update your Account." Completing all of the checklist items will automatically restore your account access. Please do not reply to this e-mail. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. For assistance, log in to your PayPal account and choose the "Help" link in the footer of any page. To receive email notifications in plain text instead of HTML, update your preferences here. PayPal Email ID PP697


To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add USAA.Customer.Service@mailcenter.usaa.com to your address book. Subscribed Alert View Accounts | Privacy Promise | Contact Us USAA SECURITY ZONE Security and Privacy USAA Center Dear USAA Member, For your protection, USAA Bank temporarily suspended your account. We detected violation of our terms and policy. Your account will be disabled permanently within 24hours. Sign-On USAA values your business and is committed to keeping your accounts and personal information safe. To learn how we protect your information, visit our Security Center. Thank you, USAA USAA, 9800 Fredericksburg Road, San Antonio, Texas 78288 Privacy Promise Please do not reply to this e-mail. To contact USAA, visit our secure contact page. 129644-0815


Dear PayPal Inc. account holder, PayPal is constantly working to ensure security by regularly screening the accounts in our system. We recently reviewed your account, and we need more information to help us provide you with secure service. Until we can collect this information, your access to sensitive account features will be limited. We would like to restore your access as soon as possible, and we apologize for the inconvenience. Why is my account access limited? Your account access has been limited for the following reason(s): We have reason to believe that your account was accessed by a third party. Because protecting the security of your account is our primary concern, we have limited access to sensitive PayPal account features. We understand that this may be an inconvenience but please understand that this temporary limitation is for your protection. (Your case ID for this reason is PP-0XD2-0XBC-0XDA-0X37.) How can I restore my account access? Please visit the Resolution Center and complete the "Steps to Remove Limitations." Completing all of the checklist items will automatically restore your account access. Be aware that until we can verify your identity we will have no other liability for your account or any transactions that may have occurred as a result of your failure to upgrade your account as instructed above. Sincerely, PayPal Inc. Account Departement. Copyright 2007, PayPal Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Message from eBay Member Question from eBay Member -- Respond Now eBay sent this message on behalf of an eBay member via My Messages. Responses sent using email will not reach the eBay member. Use the Respond Now button below to respond to this message. Question from hotlover45 What payment method would you preffer ? Please respond ASAP. Thank you Have a nice day. Respond to this question in My Messages. Thank you for using eBay! Marketplace Safety Tip If this message is an offer to sell an item without winning it on the eBay Web site (including Second Chance Offers sent through My Messages) please do not respond to the sender. These "outside of eBay" transactions are unsafe and not covered by eBay purchase protection programs. Never pay for your eBay item through instant wire transfer services such as Western Union or MoneyGram. These payment methods are unsafe when paying someone you do not know. Is this email inappropriate? Does it violate eBay policy? Help protect the community by reporting it. Learn how you can protect yourself from spoof (fake) emails at: This eBay notice was sent to your email address on behalf of another eBay member through the eBay platform and in accordance with our Privacy Policy. If you would like to receive this email in text format, change your notification preferences. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement if you have questions about eBay's communication policies. Privacy Policy:  User Agreement:  Copyright © 2005 eBay, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. eBay and the eBay logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of eBay, Inc. eBay is located at 2145 Hamilton Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125.


Great Tweet! David --  David Vincenzetti  CEO Hacking Team Milan Singapore Washington DC www.hackingteam.com email: d.vincenzetti@hackingteam.com  mobile: +39 3494403823  phone: +39 0229060603  Begin forwarded message: From: IFTTT Action < action@ifttt.com > Subject: TWITTER: #GuardiaDiFinanza @Europol_EU @FBI arrested 10 involved in Internet scams. Recovered 2.5m€. #LawEnforcement Date: April 28, 2015 at 6:04:51 PM GMT+2 To: < twitter@hackingteam.com > #GuardiaDiFinanza   @Europol_EU   @FBI   arrested 10 involved in Internet scams. Recovered 2.5m€.   #LawEnforcement — HackingTeam (@hackingteam)   April 28, 2015 via Twitter   April 28, 2015 at 05:55PM Put the internet to work for you. Delete or edit this Recipe Recommended for you --


David Neary wrote: > Padraig Brady wrote: > >>>Paul Jakma wrote: >>> >>>>chars in hex to plain ASCII? >>>> >>>>eg given >>>>  >>>> >>>>is there an easy way to turn it into >>>> >>>>  >>>>eg, whether by piping through some already available tool, or >>>>programmatically (printf? - but i dont see how.). >>> >>Actually the following would be in some way sensible: >>echo -e "'echo "$enc" | sed 's/%\([0-9a-fA-F]\{2,2\}\)/\\\x\1/g''" > > > Why {2,2}? Why not {2}? Me being silly, that's all. Pádraig. -- Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug@linux.ie  for (un)subscription information. List maintainer: listmaster@linux.ie


< GET HIGH...LEGALLY! IT REALLY WORKS! PASSES ALL DRUG TESTS! EXTREMELY POTENT! CLICK HERE for more info on Salvia Divinorum CLICK HERE for SALVIA 5X EXTRACT! WARNING...VERY POTENT! CLICK HERE for SALVIA 13X. The most POTENT, LEGAL, SMOKABLE herb on the planet! 13 times the power of Salvia Divinorum! WARNING...EXTREMELY POTENT! Removal Information: We are strongly against sending unsolicited emails to those who do not wish to receive our special mailings. You have opted in to one or more of our affiliate sites requesting to be notified of any special offers we may run from time to time. This is NOT unsolicited email. If you do not wish to receive further mailings, please click here to be removed from the list. Please accept our apologies if you have been sent this email in error. We honor all removal requests within 24 hours.


Hi everyone, Attached is a script for the video we're making for Comms to release tomorrow AM — it goes through Trump's evolution on the subject of releasing his taxes returns and ends with calling on him to release 'em. Let me know if this looks good or if you have any flags and thank you thank you!


Untitled Document This email confirms that you have sent an eBay payment of $280.30 USD to games@psp2games.com for an eBay item. ----------------------------------- PayPal Payment Details ----------------------------------- Amount: $280.30 USD Transaction ID: 4XR09160908457031 Subject: Ebay Item no. 26861034624, Item Name: PSP2-WarCraft Note: Thank you so much for your patience. View the details of this transaction online at: Thank you for using PayPal! The PayPal Team ------------------------------------------------------------ Please do not reply to this email. This mailbox is not monitored and you will not receive a response. For assistance, log in to your PayPal account and click the Help link located in the top right corner of any PayPal page. ------------------------------------------------------------ PayPal Email ID PP11


This email was sent automatically by Western Union Money Transfer. Please take a few moments to validate your email address. At Western Union we take customer security very seriously. Validating your email address is one more way that helps verify your identity. To validate your email address, please follow these steps: 1. Login here or type Western Union's website into the address bar. 2. Fill in the appropriate fields to validate your email address and identity. Note: If you do not validate your email address within the next 24 hours, your online account will be suspended. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you for using Western Union. __________________________________________ You are receiving this email notification because this email address is listed as the administrative contact email for your Western Union account. /html>


Credit Union is constantly working to ensure security by regularly screening the accounts in our system. We recently reviewed your account, and we need more information to help us provide you with secure service. Until we can collect this information, your access to sensitive account features will be limited. We would like to restore your access as soon as possible, and we apologize for the inconvenience. Why is my account access limited? Your account access has been limited for the following reason(s): * We would like to ensure that your account was not accessed by an unauthorized third party. Because protecting the security of your account is our primary concern, we have limited access to sensitive Credit Union account features. We understand that this may be an inconvenience but please understand that this temporary limitation is for your protection. (Your case ID for this reason is PCU1-811-424-919837) At Credit Union, one of our most important responsibilities to you, our customer, is the safekeeping of the nonpublic personal ("confidential") information you have entrusted to us and using this information in a responsible manner. Appropriate use of the confidential information you provide us is also at the heart of our ability to provide you with exceptional personal service whenever you contact us. How can I restore my account access? Please confirm your identity here: Restore My Online Banking and complete the "Steps to Remove Limitations." Completing all of the checklist items will automatically restore your account access.


Hi Keith, Thanks--yes, we seem to back in the days of McCarthyism in the States. Fortunately, we have some good people who will represent us legally pro bono, and in the best case scenario, this backfires on these thugs... The response of the wording is likely to change dramatically after consulation w/ lawyers, etc. but any feedback on the substance would nonetheless be very helpful... thanks for both your help and your support, mike At 05:48 AM 6/28/2005, you wrote: Mike just in and seeing this for time - will digest - but do not like look or implications of this at all Keith At 17:00 25/06/2005, you wrote: Tim/Keith/Phil, Please see attached letter from the U.S. House republicans. As Tom has mentioned below, it would be very helpful if I can get feedback from you all as I proceed w/ drafting a formal response. Thanks in advance for any help, mike Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:36:49 -0600 From: Tom Wigley Organization: NCAR/CGD User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Michael Oppenheimer Cc: "Michael E. Mann" , shs@stanford.edu, dlashof@nrdc.org, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, mmaccrac@comcast.net, santer1@llnl.gov, wigley@ucar.edu, Caspar Ammann Subject: Re: NEED HELP! X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork9.mail.virginia.edu Mike, There are broader implications of this, so it is important to respond well. It is a pity you have to be the guinea pig after what you have gone through already, but you have many supporters. I would not advise a legal route. I think you need to consider this as just another set of referees' comments and respond simply, clearly and directly. On the science side the key point is that the M&M criticisms are unfounded. Although this may be difficult, remember that this is not really a criticism of you personally, but one aspect of a criticism of the foundations of global warming science by people both inside and outside of Congress who have ulterior motives. There may, in fact, be an opportunity here. As you know, we suspect that there has been an abuse of the scientific review process at the journal editor level. The method is to choose reviewers who are sympathetic to the anti-greenhouse view. Recent papers in GRL (including the M&M paper) have clearly not been reviewed by appropriate people. We have a strong suspicion that this is the case, but, of course, no proof because we do not know *who* the reviewers of these papers have been. Perhaps now is the time to make this a direct accusation and request (or demand) that this information be made available. In order to properly defend the good science it is essential that the reasons for bad science appearing in the literature be investigated. The lever here is that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is suggesting that your papers are bad science and asking (their point 8e) for the identity of people who reviewed your work. In response, it is completely fair and justifiable to point out that it is the papers that criticize your and related work that are bad science, and that, through the Subcommittee you can request the identities of the reviewers of all of these critical papers -- starting with M&M. When you respond, there are a number of items that require a direct response from you alone. There are also a number of scientific points where you could give a multi-authored response. There are many people who have expertise in this area and familiarity with the scientific issues who I am sure would be willing to join you (I would be happy to do so). At this stage, however, I would keep the group small. A few others could be added to the original email list nevertheless. I took the liberty of copying your plea and the Subcommittee's letter to Caspar Ammann, primarily because I think he can help with the scientific aspects better than most people. After all, he has been able to follow your method and reproduce your results, he has shown the flaws in M&M's work, he has investigated the bristlecone pine issue, and he has made all his software available on the web. The others who could be added at this early stage are Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, your 'co-conspirators' -- and perhaps Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn. I do not know how 'powerful' these alien opinions may be in the present parochial context, but I note that the instigators of all this are Canadians and that the science has no national boundaries. Phil, Keith and Tim are useful because they have demonstrated the flaws in the von Storch work -- which is, I assume, the Science paper that the Subcommittee's letter referes to. A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleo reconstruction work as supporting the MBH reconstructions. 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. I attach also a run with MAGICC using central-estimate climate model parameters (DT2x = 2.6 degC, etc. -- see the TAR), and forcings used by Caspar in the runs with paleo-CSM. I have another Figure somewhere that compares MAGICC with paleo-CSM. The agreement is nearly perfect (given that CSM has internally generated noise while MAGICC is pure signal). The support for the hockey stick is not just the paleo reconstructions, but also the model results. If one takes the best estimates of past forcing off the shelf, then the model results show the hockey stick shape. No tuning or fudging here; this is a totally independent analysis, and critics of the paleo data, if they disbelieve these data, have to explain why models get the same result. Of course, von Storch's model results do not show such good century timescale agreement, but this is because he uses silly forcing and has failed to account for the fact that his model was not in equilibrium at the start of the run (the subject of Tim Osborn et al.'s submitted paper). This is a pain in the but, but it will all work out well in the end (unintentional pun -- sorry). Good science will prevail. Best wishes, Tom. ----------------------------------------------- Michael Oppenheimer wrote: Michael: This is outrageous. I'll contact some people who may be able to help right away. ---------- From: Michael E. Mann [ [2]mailto:mann@virginia.edu] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 4:27 PM To: shs@stanford.edu; omichael@Princeton.EDU; dlashof@nrdc.org; jhansen@giss.nasa.gov; mmaccrac@comcast.net; santer1@llnl.gov; wigley@ucar.edu Subject: NEED HELP! Importance: High dear all, this was predicted--they're of course trying to make things impossible for me. I need immediate help regarding recourse for free legal advice, etc. mike ______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [11] ______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [12] -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [13] ______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [14] References 1. mailto:mann@virginia.edu 2. mailto:mann@virginia.edu 3. mailto:shs@stanford.edu 4. mailto:omichael@Princeton.EDU%3Eomichael@Princeton.EDU 5. mailto:dlashof@nrdc.org 6. mailto:jhansen@giss.nasa.gov%3Ejhansen@giss.nasa.gov 7. mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net 8. mailto:santer1@llnl.gov%3Esanter1@llnl.gov 9. mailto:wigley@ucar.edu 10. mailto:mann@virginia.edu 11.  12.  13.  14.


Actually, I'd be more inclined to look into: Avoiding giving any cash to a certain corporation P > -----Original Message----- > >I'd normally never buy this but the Xbox is Eur300 on IOL's shop, a very > >large company are making a loss on it and: > > > > > 3A%20Xbox%20Linux%20Mandrake%209%20Released > > > >Mandrake has been released for it. > > isn't it ¤250 in Smyths? > > don't forget to add to that the modchip, and the time to put it on. > > (/me thinks unless you want 3d graphics, www.mini-itx.com is the way to go > :)) > -- Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug@linux.ie  for (un)subscription information. List maintainer: listmaster@linux.ie