BPSDB Yup, looks like it was yet another Denier dirigible … sure looked big, but once again it turns out that it’s just full of air. See this post for the basic story, and Climate change Deniers hoax themselves …again for the analysis.
ClimateGate: Hacked Emails Reveal Global Warming Deniers Are Crazed Conspiracy Theorists
Evidently due to this e-mail conspiracy, Arctic sea ice is at historically low levels, Australia is on fire, the northern United Kingdom is underwater, and the world’s glaciers are disappearing. Oh yeah, and it’s the hottest decade in history.
Climategate? Not likely.
“So, do these emails and documents represent proof of a “conspiracy” and “scandal”? At this point it seems highly unlikely, and the more that people look at the illegally-obtained emails and documents, the less likely it will become. Here’s why.”
Viaduct? Vy not?
But the purportedly damning quote is obviously being misused.
“I don’t think anybody is hiding any evidence or tricking any audience. The word “trick” is to be understood as a programmer would understand “hack”; a clever shortcut. And the word “hide” is almost surely meant as “filter” meaning “the thing we want to do with this data is hard because there is another signal there hiding the one we are looking for, but we can subtract it out for the purpose at hand”. It would seem to be about the minutiae of data processing, not about hiding data for publication or subverting a published result.”
And the Russian server hosting e-mails cracked from the Climatic Research Unit was…?
“So I thought to myself, “which Russian server was it, and which obscure blog was it exactly?” After chasing down web links for a while, I landed up on Andrew Bolt’s blog entry [cached] which gave a link to a Russian-sounding web page:
http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
. (The link is broken however, and changing the protocol fromhttp://
toftp://
gives a “Connection refused” error.) Then again, I’m not sure Bolt’s blog counts as an “obscure” blog, so perhaps Schiermeier was referring to some other web site(s).Meanwhile, the climate inactivists’ conspiracy-laden interpretations of the e-mails clearly pale in comparison to the things that inactivists have said in public.”
Leading British climate centre hacked
“One of Britain’s leading climate-research centres has had more than 1,000 files stolen from its computers and republished on the Internet. The cyber-attack is apparently aimed at damaging the reputations of prominent climate scientists.
The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Norwich confirmed today that e-mails and documents dating from 1991 to 2009 were illegally copied and subsequently published on an anonymous Russian server.”
Nature (H/T Climate Feedback)
CRU Hacked
“...secret lives of climate scientists spilled! And they really are as boring as you thought!
The story so far: Russian hackers have recently broken into the computers at University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) and posted files containing private emails between any number of well-known climate researchers. The usual suspects are claiming that the emails show massive malfeasance! the scientific fraud of the millennium! a Marxist conspiracy! and so on and so forth.”
The CRU hack
“As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution).
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.”
CRU Emails
“I’m withholding judgment until all of the facts come to light, but so far the “evidence” of conspiracy, wrongdoing, data fudging, etc. is pretty thin gruel. So far the claims seemed to based upon (willful?) equivocation on word meaning, excising of context, and so on. [UPDATE: See RC for more on that.] It’s also apparent that even if the worst possible spin on the allegations ended up being true, the net impact on the state of climate science would be small- certainly relative to the scope that is being claimed.”
That CRU data hack
“Love it or hate it, it’s going to be a pretty big story. I was mildly amused to see that Wattatwat doesn’t even know the difference between the Hadley Centre and CRU – the answer is about 300 miles, according to Google. And also, it seems that only one of them has an adequate firewall…”
Here’s what we know so far:
“CRU’s emails were hacked, the 2000s will easily be the hottest decade on record, and the planet keeps warming thanks to us!”
ClimateGate reveals nefarious conspiracy? NOT!
“What do we see in these emails? There seem to be some strong anger at those who work hard to distort information in their work and distort science when speaking to non-scientific communities. There is (passionate) frustration with self-proclaimed ’skeptics’ collaborating to create ‘peer reviewed’ journal space where non-scientifically sound work can be published. There is discussion of how to do analysis and how to account for confusing anomalies. There is plenty of material to cherry pick from and scream about in efforts to foster confusion about and disdain for actual science.”
The hacked climate science email scandal that wasn’t
“Much is being made by those who really, really believe that there’s a global conspiracy among climatologists of the emails and other documents stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. According to such bloggers, thousands of “embarrassing” pieces of correspondence between some of the leading climate researchers in the world now lay bare the scheme to mislead humanity about the nature of climate change.
I downloaded the 62 MB file and took a quick look at a random selection of what are mostly dull little missives bereft of the context required to understand them in any meaningful way. Just as you’d expect from bits and piece of correspondence never intended for public consumption. Next.”
Sigh
I’m with The Way Things Break and Climate Progress on this one:
- as yet we don’t really know what the full story is here, and we sure can’t accept the Denialosphere’s version;
- regardless of 1., climate change is a crisis of epic proportions.
From what I can gather there does seem to have been at least some very questionable behaviour, but even if the worst case scenario is true, the significance for the actual science is trivial.
Insomuch as the Denialosphere and the Earthsuckers will do all they can to convince the public that this discredits all climate science (not even possible, and hence not true), the potential political consequences are substantial.
As if Copenhagen wasn’t already a mess ….
UPDATE: 16:30
What’s to be done?
1) As fast as possible, identify exactly what science is compromised (if any), how, and to what extent. It would be particularly important to spell out the implications (if any), because if we don’t someone else will;
2) Full disclosure on anything else that may pop up. Better CRU tells the media in context than the Denialosphere cherry picks the worst possible interpretation;
3) Everybody soul search. Is there any more like this around? If so, don’t “burn the tapes”, but rather make the appropriate corrections (if any) to the science so that it is squeaky clean.
I find it hard to believe that there actually is much in the way of scientific consequences given what intense scrutiny it has been under for so long, but even so.
4) Try to keep people grounded in reality. No matter what may or may not have been done to a piece of paper at CRU, this is still real:
as is this:
and this:
unless Inhofe wants to claim that the CRU staff has been concealing giant heaters in Australia while also hauling away the ice off of Everest, etc.
5) Do NOT express interest in the hacker. Even if it eventually turns out to have been Morano & Watts, under the express orders of Inhofe and paid by the US Chamber of Commerce, the fact remains that any dwelling on the hacker will be seen as an attempt to distract with a red herring, as indeed it would be.
IF there was wrong doing at CRU, then how it came to light may be a legal question, but it is not a moral, ethical or scientific one. If there are any problems with the science (still unclear whether there is any at all), then that must be corrected, and it must be our primary interest.
Implications
This is going to be politically costly no matter what. No matter how trivial the actual ‘in context’ revelations turn out to be, the public will remember the initial Denier spin. People like Inhofe and Morano will make sure that the most fraudulent version is constantly put forward as the “true, unspun” version.
It will definitely influence the undecideds of the general public. I suspect more than a few lay supporters will feel profoundly betrayed as well. This will be seen as a significant breach by the entire scientific community, and even misinterpreted as somehow discrediting the basic science itself.
Scientists are held to a very different standard than the Denialosphere. That every piece of the Denier Canon is propaganda bought and paid for is always immediately forgotten. This will be brought up with every climate story from now on …
… until the next killer heat wave.
“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.” Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Russian hackers don’t work for free.
—-
The no doubt third hand info I saw said the hackers claimed to be presenting a random selection (whatever _that_ means) from the total — not the whole thing.
One could wonder what “random” “selection” means. The press reports seem to claim that everything taken was published.
Someone could, I guess, do something like take all the email timestamps and see if they look anything like a random sample out of the time span covered.
One might wonder if explanations could have been removed leaving only the worst looking stuff.
—-
More I read about this, the more I think its the same old bull from MC and Co. I see very little in the way of questionable behavior.
I had to go back again and look at James blog entry. He really did say “Watatwat”.
I think it may be time to compile a list of all the variations on Whats Up With That.
Paul
WattsUpWithMyBrain. WattsUpMyButt. WattsATwat. WattsATwit.
One I haven’t seen yet is WattsAF***Wit. 🙂
[…] this article: This is not good, the CRU computer hack « Greenfyre's Share and […]
The identity of the Russian server?
This is going to be a hot topic for ages. The text is perfect fuel for those who will deliberately use improper context and even apply invalid meaning to select phrases, sentences or entire emails. Misleading factoid heaven.
However there are some valid references from the documents that will need to be answered carefully, fully and as quickly as possible. I predict that some heads will roll over this.
I would be very interested to know if there was anyone at all in the denialosphere that refuses to read/use the documents on ethical grounds.
This may be enough to cause the inaction that deniers so crave. In which case we get to take part in the great greenhouse gas experiment.
From a comment on Island of Doubt:
The emails in the zip are all plain text with an identical creation date-time of 1 Jan 2009 00:00. Rather odd considering that there are emails in there with dates as recent as 12 Nov 2009. Anyone know how this can be?
Well, obviously someone doctored the last-modified times on the files. Perhaps leaving the last-modified times intact will reveal the cracker’s identity, so he had to tweak them. Or something.
— bi
But why would anyone alter them to an earlier date?
Huang Feng,
Do you really think “heads will role”? You think the material in the hack is that damaging?
ROLL, doh!
Heads …. probably won’t roll I guess. I got swept up in the fervour.
The deleting of emails is a concern that requires explanation and could work out poorly for those involved … if any evidence can be found.
The welcoming of the death of a noisy antagonist to your work is unfortunate, the outcome of that would be dependent upon the sensitivities of the management and the family of the deceased.
The trick and hide comment is a non-issue.
Everything else I have seen is dross, unfortunately. I keep reading the denier blogs to see if they come up with something juicy; waste of time.
To making the hacking of my institution more interesting I will send my co-workers an email about disposing of bodies, how to get research funding from the Mafia, and how to generate large legitimate looking data sets is SAS.
Why was this data released in such a way? As it is we’re never going to know if the e-mails are genuine or not, simply because someone could, if they wanted to, modify the original files so that they look different from the hacked files. If, however, instead of releasing the files the hacker had got the authorities to seize the original files, there would not have been any way to modify them. Hence there would be no doubt about their authenticity.
FWIW, my opinion is that this is a last ditch attempt to muddy the waters before Copenhagen.
@Turboblocke Excellent points! Greenfyre’s and Frankbi’s blog posts are almost alone in asking critical questions about the “hacker” and the credibility of the stolen/leaked documents.
Here’s my blog post pointing out the obvious stupidity of believing hacked/stolen/leaked documents on face value: http://newschoolsecurity.com/2009/11/hackers-treated-as-credible-sources-of-information-doh/
—-
Deleting emails in the face of a Freedom of information request is a felony….Phil Jones
So Ray reads a single e-mail without context and concludes that there’s a huge cover-up conspiracy.
— bi
It’s not a felony in the UK. In fact as MCI announced that he was going to made a FOI request many times before actually doing so, it’s possible that this e-mail pre-dates the actual official request, in which case nothing illegal, even in the US, occurred.
I know we shouldn’t speculate about the identity of the hacker but… apparently (s)he uses the name FOIA, which is an american term for what we Brits call FIA.
—-
This will be costly. Very costly.
When I read the mails with a layman lenses I can see how damning they are.
Phil Jones “Hiding the decline” quote will remain with us for posterity.
I think we cannot just put our head in the sand and hope it will all blow over. It will not.
Our leading climatologists, as wonderful as they really are, are completely discredited at this point. As long as they head the campaign, we will always suffer for these indiscretions.
I really appreciate what Phil, Ken, Gavin and Michael have done for all of us and for the plant. But at this point they are dragging the cause backward. As long as we stand by their side we will be just as discredited as they are.
Practically, I think it is a mistake to try to defend them and try to explain it away. Only us, the hardcore, will buy the explanations (and we don’t really need explanation anyway). But the rest of the public will never forget and never forgive.
It is very sad, but I think it is best for all of us and for the cause, to let these people go and continue with a fresh untainted scientific leadership.
—-
Having read over a large part of the zipped files, I think they are genuine.
However, they also show how political these scientists are
Here is one example:
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: James Annan
Subject: Re: FW: 2009JD012960 (Editor – Steve Ghan):Decision Letter
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:55:24 -0600
Cc: Jim Salinger , Grant Foster , Mike Mann , Gavin Schmidt ,
Hi James
Thanks for doing this and let’s keep it moving as fast as possible. Yes the formatting in places is disconcerting and the line numbering is a bit on and off.
I have suggestions for changing two words.
Line 13 “severely” to “greatly”
Line 79 “more dramatic” to “greater”
As they stand, words like those used carry a lot of extra subjective
tone that implies “bad” or has a commentary that is not desirable as per Rev 3. I wonder if you should not be a bit more specific in responding to Rev 3 and say what other words were changed in the abstract at least? If it were “word” I would send in a version of the abstract with tracking on. It might make the difference between having the editor approve it and sending it back to Rev 3.
Best regards
Kevin
James Annan wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I had a reply from Grant, and have made some changes to the paper –
> very little of substance, but I’ve lightly edited the wording
> throughout. I also added refs to Newell and Weare, and Angell (not
> A+Korshover), which seem relevant. Despite this, I’ve managed to cut a
> few lines off in total. I have also drafted replies to the reviewers
> (with their comments appended for reference).
>
> We do have a 2 week extension agreed, to 11 Nov. However it doesn’t
> really seem like there is much more that needs doing. More suggestions
> are welcome, however, and before resubmitting, *I need an explicit OK
> from each author*.
>
> James
—
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,
Boulder, CO 80307
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305
Since when did a scientist worry about the way a word was interpreted? That is a political issue – nothing to do with science!
Anyway – we will get some further answers in the next few weeks …!
—-
f0ul has obviously never written a scientific paper, submitted it for publication, asked colleagues for input or dealt with reviewers comments.
Enough said.
[…] original here: This is not good, the CRU computer hack « Greenfyre's Tags: aimed-at-damaging, and-republished, centres-has, had-more, […]
The maildump:
I hope they burn for this
http://thepiratebay.org/search/CRU/0/99/600
—-
I published several engineering papers while I was still in academia, and I worried about every single word. Could I make the language more accurate, or stronger, was there a better phrasing that I could use to make my point. Hell’s bells, I occasionally agonized over whether my punctuation was right, for fear of bad grammar distracting my readers from my content.
Engineers (and scientists too, I imagine) are, as a rule, anal retentive about details. And that applies to published papers and conference presentations as much as it does to data.
—-
I thought I couldn’t be surprised by the ignorati, but the crazed,angry reactions to evidence of perfectly functional collegial behavior are disturbing.
This just emphasises further-if it ever needed such-the way inexperience and caution are overruled by suspicion and fear in the wingnut pathology. I despair for them;they are helpless,and defiantly so,at the hands of their cult leaders.
—-
I’m shocked: working scientists can be emotional and competitive, they like some people and not others, they look for social stimulation while they work, their work conditions include the use of technology, they all agree that the overwhelming evidence of climate change is real, they use science-speak to discuss this with one another, and looky-here their email contact reveals all this.
Naturally the real story is the folks who went to so much trouble to ‘reveal’ all this, in the manner they did. [1]
I wouldn’t overlook the potential for this to backfire. Technology offers greater connection with others but is increasingly recognized as a powerful tool of social control, too. This incident highlights the concern that all electronic communication is potentially public. Employers now often choose to use office technology for what can only be described as surveillance of employees.
So the public might find it refreshing that a corollary of this nonstory is that a bunch of scientists have been found to be speaking honestly with one another about science, while at work.
—–
[…] Greenfyre has another great summary (His reply is at the bottom of the comment): From what I have actually seen it just “shop talk” […]
Ian Forrester has already succinctly responded to F0ul’s inane comment, but perhaps F0ul might like to revisit what he said and point out exactly what it is that he believes should not be a part of the scientific correspondence process, and just how the conversation should have gone.
I am most interested in this because I have used almost identical wording in drafts of papers, and made similar edits of these same words for pretty much the same reasons, and I was simply describing the effect of an environmental parameter on the growth and development of an endangered species.
There were ‘political’ implications for my work, but my editing was not motivated by partisan ‘political’ thought. It was simply an endeavour to use the most scientifically appropriate wording for what was a politically-changed subject.
Scientific experimentation and analyses should be conducted without prejudice or bias, but the reporting of science is not and cannot be separated from the political implications of the work. Scientists are acutely aware of this, and do their best, as I did and as Phil Jones and his correspondents clearly did, to separate the facts from the inevitable political manipulation by non-scientists.
The sad fact of life though, is that some things that sciences says will not be appreciated by ideologues in government or in society. Scientists do their best to report in the most appropriate and the most neutral way possible for any given context, but no matter how hard we try to do so, there will always be someone with non-science based ideology who would have it otherwise.
Anthropogenic global warming is certainly not exempt from this, and the UEA hack and the subsequent misinterpretation and misrepresentation (at the least) illustrates just how much the Denialist ideologues are dragging their politics into the issue.
No matter how much they bleat however, glaciers will continue to melt, oceans will continue to warm, species and ecosystems will continue to migrate or to lose resilience or to become extinct, and one day – when it is too late to undertake any further effective action – even the Denialists will accept that they screwed up, and that humanity’s reluctance to act has cost the biosphere (and humans) dearly.
Greenfyre,
Is this really such a big deal? Sure, the deniosphere will make as much of it as it can, but how much actual problematic material is there in the emails and documents?
Of course, there are some trumpeting how this is the end of the great AGW Scam, but how many times have we heard that from the reality-challenged?
—-
The e-mails themselves aren’t a big deal, but the very fact that there are nefarious crackers out there doing these things, and they’re still on the loose, is very worrying indeed.
I wish the police all the best in tracking down the perpetrators and their paymasters (if any).
— bi
I doubt that there was any money in this. There are enough people out there who would do it just to cause trouble and gain satisfaction from it.
—-
It is imperative that all prospective climate science graduates read these emails so as to know what tracks not to leave for snoops to find.
We have been able to control the narrative quite well up until now, but if we get sloppy like Phil and Keith, we can all get into trouble.
Grants are at stake here, careers are at stake, the freedom of science from the filthy masses is at stake.
Everyone, read the emails. Force your students to read them. We have to be more careful!
Nice one Ian. Good DD material, I think
Hey, Ian Foster… These “filthy masses” you so calously reject are the very people who pay for these dastardly scientists’ salaries… and you, too, if you’re on academia’s dole or employed by a government agency/research center.
May I remind you that the ethics of a scientist is far above that of grants and careers; that if science takes a subservient role to grants and careers then the taker is no longer a scientist.
What is imperative is that prospective climate science graduates (and why just them? because they’re supposed to worship at the base of Climate Ideology?) reject the following deeds in their “profession” as the Hadley CRU crew did: [1]
1) Manipulation of data,
2) Suppression of evidence,
3) Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of such things as the Medieval Warm Period.
It isn’t enough that “prospective climate science graduates” continue along the same path as the pseudo-scientists at the Hadley CRU–no, what is absolutely necessary that they act like scientists detached from some false or political agenda.
But where it gets really galling is the Hadley blokes to evade taxes and suppress peer-reviewed articles that have a different view from their pet ideology.
That smacks of professional cowardice and blatant censorship.
Or don’t you understand what a real scientist is supposed to do? [2]
—-
Galen, Ian’s comment was droll indeed….but your remarks raise a crucial issue about attitudes towards science and scientists.
Many people seem to have decided,consciously or not, to hold the view that to practice science is a privilege extended by the community,that science is noble and ennobling,and that scientists should be held to higher ethical and standards than other trades and guilds. Or people who make baseless accusations on the net.
With this attitude comes a presumption that scientists cannot either personally and/or institutionally reconcile careerism and political activity with scientific activities.
Well,bullshit,Galen.
There also seems to be a psycho-social imperative that,as technology and science have helped deliver (some of) us from some of the physical dangers of life,scientists have the responsibility of playing only this role,and the duty of insulating us from bad news. They also have to fix problems pronto,and do it discretely without complaint,because after all they got us into this mess with their intractable curiosity!
As well,it seems that in private communication,scientists have a duty to provide glossary and context for any one who happens to illegally stumble upon their emails.
.
Just when you think that all the slimy creatures have climbed out from under their rocks another one oozes out.
Join the club, Galen Haugh, you are indeed one of these slimy creatures.
Just to show everyone how ignorant of what is going on and showing that you never, never, ever check your sources for your pile of steaming nonsense, there is no such thing as the “Hadley CRU” organization. They are two separate entities, one at the University of East Anglia in Norwich and one in Exeter many, many miles apart. I bet you don’t even know which is which.
You deniers are such ignorant fools.
It is true that the Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit are separate organisations but confusion is understandable as they do jointly publish datasets using the abbreviation HADCRU.
I would also argue that ignorance of this does not in itself invalidate any claims about the CRU files; it is simply irrelevant.
—-
If grants pay for the science, then why do you need a FOI to access the data? [1]
GW is a scam! Period, and now it is exposed. [2]
—-
As a liberal I am ashamed not only with the scientists actions, but also with the response of the left.
I always believed in the high road. I believed that being a liberal means we are morally above Bush’s power hungry mob. That the Karl Rove’s of the world – to whom the end justify any mean are a right wing phenomenon.
The closing of the ranks by my fellow liberals in defense by of these despicable acts and their perpetrators is staggering.
These scientists are our own Karl Roves: Distort the truth, foreclose the opposition, control access to data and media, covertly undermine the descents, stonewall any scrutiny, break the law. Our own guys are doing every bit of the things we detested for so long.
And what are we doing? We excuse them. “Taken out of context”, “They are just human”. “Where is the smoking gun?”
Guys – we must be better than that. Maintain our moral ground. Don’t excuse these actions. Expel the offenders from our ranks.
We are better than this.
—-
Because I read the emails myself. I spent hours going over them. They really do speak for themselves.
There are just too many disturbing emails in there. Not just one or two. I cannot find any reasonable explanation for them (and I did read RC).
I know right from wrong. And this was very wrong.
It is sickening. I am so disappointed.
DaveC:
Go away, concern troll sockpuppet.
— bi
[…] as per typical, has multiple discussions worth the read. About “Mike’s Nature Trick …” Every profession evolves it’s own way of […]
[…] TrueSceptic reports over at Greenfyre’s blog that the e-mails in the .zip archive all have a modification time of 1 Jan 2009 00:00. Why the attacker felt compelled to doctor the file modification times is anyone’s guess. […]
[…] CRU research computer hacked, many emails copied, claims are made that they reveal broad scientific fraud; Emails released, much sound and fury told by idiots, claims seem to be all innuendo and speculation; More and more nothing as people search for something, anything of substance in the emails. […]
I stumbled upon this site by accident.
You guys are awesome, thinking that there is no Acorn scandal and using that as an example of why you shouldn’t believe Climategate isn’t a huge scandal of epic proportions.
Have you been living under a rock?
And now one of your own, posts a rational, thought based assesment of these damning emails and you turn on him and call him a troll.
Classic.
The emails are a sideshow, the real meat is in the code and the data.
People are now going over all this material and it doesn’t look good, in fact, the code clearly shows data manipulation designed to “hide the decline” and other crazy things.
The climate debate has been changed forever and you better get used to it.
And BTW, I don’t 100% discount AGW, it could be a problem, then again, it might not be.
The scientists themselves allude to this fact in the emails where they discuss how poorly they understand S02 and how it might account for the recent cooling.
Again, this is all in the emails and indicates that the science is no where near being settled.
OK chainpin, since you are claiming to know everything, can you give us a brief description of the “decline” that you claim has been hidden?
You don’t have to give us pages and pages of your obviously “knowledgeable” expertise in this area. A couple of sentences or paragraphs should suffice.
Go on do it. I’m not going to hold my breath till you respond since I don’t think you are capable of giving an accurate and honest response.
Well said chainpin, most these comments appear to be from people who, like the scientists in the emails, really want to believe global warming is man made, despite the evidence to the contrary rising in the morning and setting in the evening. No one is denying pollution and over consumption isn’t an issue, but settling on a science half way before understanding it fully is naive.
Oh, and the fact that the scientists have commented on the context of the emails proves their validity, so you REAL science deniers no longer need to chew on that particular bit of gristle.
All it looks like to me is that some people are in a real hurry to get their hands on your carbon tax.
hmm, every one of you ‘true believers’ rabidly attacks with direct insults anyone who even politely questions your stance. not conducive to a friendly discussion is it?
please read this link:
Click to access NewRules:NewGame.pdf
its from a very green company so its not ‘denialist spam’ (what open minds you all have)
it is detailed government guidelines on how to communicate climate change. its use of language is orwellian to say the least.
i’d like to know if any of you, after reading it, wonder exactly who has been brainwashed.
thanks
—-
22. Label people
If someone undertakes a climate-friendly behaviour (whether they intended to or not), you should say “thanks, you’re clearly someone who cares about the climate”. Next time you want something, say “if you care about the climate you should…”. They’ll be more likely to pay attention, because they’ve started wearing a mental badge that says ‘I care about the climate’.
taken from that document.
labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a denier or unscientific or paranoid or ignorant is the flipside of that rule. i see it a lot. do you not agree that the tactics outlined in that document in fact prohibit a free discussion of this subject?
please stop calling people who don’t agree with you names.
‘denier’ counts as calling someone names. for the sake of civility, is it possible for you refer to people as skeptics? or are you not able to break rule 22?
—-
—-
24. Catch me when I’m open to change
There are times of big changes in our lives: getting married, moving house, starting a new job, having a baby or retiring. People are far more open to change in these ‘transition zones’, because their habits are all in flux. Less significant times of personal change work as well. Try communicating on payday, in spring and autumn, during our summer holidays. Change people when they’re already changing.
thats pretty insidious advice don’t you think? and if the science is all settled and the truth is your weapon, why such underhand tactics?
16. Beware ‘totem’ behaviours
People often pick a small, insignificant behaviour to undertake or change to show others that they care, with no intention of changing anything else. (See Rule 19 below for ways to use this to your advantage.)
19. Salesman tricks
A. Foot in the door:
Get someone to do something small and then introduce another larger action once the small one is completed. The move upwards won’t just happen on its own: communications are needed to link each rung of
the ladder.
B. Haggling:
Ask for a big or difficult behaviour, then let people agree to something smaller ‘for now’… but bigger than they would have accepted if offered
it first!
C. Reciprocity:
Give something (even if it’s small) and people feel beholden to do as you ask.
does any rule in that document encourage an open debate? it is the UK government guideline on communicating this issue to the ‘masses’. it is a brainwashing manual.
“Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish”
this is all the evidence i need to know that:
1) you are not impartial and you don’t have a scientific education.
2) you are immensely closeminded and unwilling even to entertain an honest discussion.
can i ask if your qualifications are in media/pr or in science, mr fyre? if you aren’t a trained scientist: who are you judge anything ‘scientific gibberish’?
good evening
—–
your reply to my first comment took place before you could have read the document i posted. you used it as an opportunity go ‘nah nah nah’ and insult me adn anyone who might share my views. fine. i’m a big boy and am unlikely to cry just yet. your second response took a little longer and can be summed up as: its your fault i call you a denier because you are hahaha! not a valid argument i’m afraid.
a mind like a corkscrew.
good evening
and you ignore any statement made by whoever you are talking to and MAKE YOUR OWN STATEMENT. could you answer any of the questions i have asked in a civil and polite tone without insulting anyone (myself included *sob*)? just a yes or no would be nice.
good evening
You gentlemen need to wise up.
You’re in deep, deep ordure.
When even George “The Moonbat” Monbiot confesses “I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them”.
“But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign”
You haven’t got a better friend in the Mainstream Media than George, and if he’s calling for resignations you had better take notice.
You’re in trouble, and you are most definitely not going to get out of it by shooting messengers.
Oh, and by the way, it couldn’t have come at a worse time, what with Hadley, NASA GISS, Max Planck Institute and various other august organisations publicly debating why the climate hasn’t been cooperating for round about a decade now.
Time for a bit of introspection, I think.
You’ll thank climate change deniers one day, you’ll see.
If Copenhagen succeeds we’ll be living in an orwellian nightmare, and as if the EU won’t be enough.
What we all need to do now is find new technologies to create more CO2 into the atmosphere, to help plant life and trees and then we will start seeing an abundant and healthy earth again.
The problem is how could we separate clean CO2 from pollution? We don’t want to create pollution on purpose, that’s obvious.
You’ll probably mock my idea at first, but if it proven that heat drives CO2 [1] not the other way round, and it’s safe to increase it, then we might be onto a winner, and better still climate change deniers and climate change advocates could work together for once.
I think the answer is not in having more trees, that’s not going to happen, but to improve the quality of the trees and plantation already in existence.
—-
scott, mockery is not the emotion I feel when I read posts like yours. It is utter despair that some one from a supposedly civilized and educated country should be so scientifically illiterate as you.
Ah well at least I tried to offer a solution, nevermind
By the way plants do breathe CO2 don’t they? Or am I being scientifically illiterate again? Well that’s what I was taught at school anyway.
—-
Anyway it’s a bloody freezing night (and that’s no joke) so I’m off to bed.
[…] Meanwhile, the climate inactivists’ conspiracy-laden interpretations of the e-mails clearly pale in comparison to the things that inactivists have said in public. Greenfyre has more. […]
More I read about this, the more I think its the same old bull from MC and Co. I see very little in the way of questionable behavior.
And that which is being misconstrued as being “questionable” is clearly a result of McI & co’s vexatious and harrowing behaviour.
well, it’s now February, 2010, 4 months later.
The result of this leak has been a major shift in the way that the general public see the work of these crooks – and this is good. [1]
At the end of the day, the truth always wins, and I feel that we will quickly see the politicians forget the concept of climate change as being a danger and maybe just go down the we need clean power route. [2]
Its been proved that the Glaciers of the Himalayas are not melting, that Africa is not over heating or that the temperature is in fact rising at all! [3]
Hope all you warmists are suitably embarrassed! [4]
—-
[…] Meanwhile, the climate inactivists’ conspiracy-laden interpretations of the e-mails clearly pale in comparison to the things that inactivists have said in public. Greenfyre has more. […]