BPSDB I’m going to go out on a short limb here, but frankly more and more it is sounding like the correct response to “Have you seen the emails?” is “Yeah, have you?”
I refer to the uproar about the hacked CRU site which I posted about a few hours ago.
For all the Sturm und Drang and Denier promises of “final coffin nails”, there doesn’t actually seem to be anything to the story. Sure, some impolitic and not nice things got said, and it’s embarrassing for some, but that seems to be about it.
We have all been waiting for the boot, or a shoe, or even a slipper to drop, and so far not even a sock … there’s nothing there. Nada, zilch, gar nichts, mei you. That’s it, there’s no story, go home … get a life.
But read on anyway.
I read the emails as someone who trained as a scientist, but has never had anything to do with climate as a research scientist. Thus I have a sense of the culture of the sciences, but without necessarily having any idea what specifics were being referred to with respect to particular papers and studies. Here is my take on it.
From what I have actually seen it is just “shop talk” taken out of context and nothing more. Very much as if a store clerk said they were going to go “hunt down some customers” and then someone else tried to claim that they were planning a murder. Have you ever said you were going to go “rustle up some grub?” you cattle thief you! Hope you didn’t put it in an email.
Let’s look at a bunch of the “damning” quotes along with climate change Denier Tony Hake’s commentary, and the emphasis he added. Caution, I get frankly rude about the willful convoluted misinterpretations that Hake attempts to impose. It’s dishonest, unethical, and lame.
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
Hake: From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):
1) Computer code is generally proprietary to the institution, NOT information/data;
2) Deniers are notorious for scarfing up drafts etc and releasing them with the claim that they are the final product. Not wanting to release code that is still in testing and potentially flawed (hint “test”) in case some moron doesn’t understand what “in testing” means (the name Hake comes to mind for some reason) is perfectly sensible.
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?
Hake: From Nick McKay (modifying data):
To “reinterpret” is NOT “modifying data”, it’s analysis (did Hake not even do 1st year college?) Repeating an analysis may be done for any number of reasons and is standard practice. As long as the final result accurately presents the results and describes what was done with them there is no issue whatsoever.
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
Hake: From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):
He is NOT acknowleding (sic) the urban effect. He is acknowledging the
fact that land warms twice as much as ocean, and since there are some morons who understand climate science so poorly they might claim it is an urban effect (the name Hake comes to mind for some reason), there is a need to explain it more fully.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Hake: From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):
1) “Nature trick” to me he is referring to a published technique, ie in the Journal Nature (hence capitalized) … or does Hake think they hide data and then publish the fact? Certainly “trick” is a common synonym for “(clever) technique” in the sciences, and everywhere else.
I do not know the literature well enough to suggest exactly which paper and what technique Jones may have been referring to, but maybe someone else does. Unless Hake is suggesting that maybe Jones meant using blades of grass and song birds for his Nature “trick.”
2) Hake wants us to believe that “hide the decline” refers to temperature … “last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards.” There was no decline in temperature from 1981 onwards, it was a period of steep warming. We know from other data sets! Why would Jones want to hide a non-existent decline?
3) Turns out the “adding in the real temps” refers to as opposed to the estimates. So what was Jones referring to? I don’t know, but there are many possible legitimate things such as various forms of statistical ‘noise.’
The answer is probably to be found when the full email exchange is reconstructed and/or the technique referred to is identified, but as read there is not necessarily anything nefarious here.
If a reconstructed exchange shows intent to falsify data, fine, but as it appears here it is no more telling than overhearing a co-worker say “I’m going to kill him” without knowing anything about the context. Could be a fussball match or a Tetris wager.
As expected: Mann said the “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,” Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.
And as also expected: The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Hake: From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):
Or an informal discussion of possible explanations for the data. And exactly who is Hake trying to fool suggesting that this is a secret discussion about trying to hide something that was “published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008”?
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
Hake: From Michael Mann (truth doesn’t matter):
What is unclear is who is Mann saying truth doesn’t matter to? I have made similar statements referring to Deniers like Inhofe, Morano, and Hake because thy lie constantly. Get us the rest of the email exchange and let’s see who Mann is referring to, and in what context.
Turns out the context (email 1256735067) is building a robust case for the data they are presenting. They have reason to believe that the putative accusers are not interested in truth, so they want as strong a case as possible … at least that is the most coherent reading to me.
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! … The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Hake: From Phil Jones (witholding of data):
As given it certainly doesn’t sound good, but what went in the “…”?
! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated ! Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series ! Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.
Ahhh, conversation indicating that other studies were confirming their findings … no wonder Hake didn’t want to include that.
But now I get confused as to what is to be deleted, and why it might be appropriate (or not)? raw data? incriminating messages? = VERY BAD
Trial runs? rejected analyses? inappropriate tests? = Normal practice.
So which was it? Does anyone know? What I do know is that Phil is obviously unconcerned enough to say “Leave it to you to delete as appropriate!” That does not sound like someone sweating about incriminating evidence. Sounds more like “Yeah, whatever. Do what you want.”
Jones does seem to have gotten quite reluctant to release data. I can understand why given the Denier habit of misinterpreting and misrepresenting it, whether through ignorance, incompetence, or malice. Even so, it probably would have been more helpful if he had done so.
Regardless, it is not clear to me that he was obliged to, so while he as clearly being not nice it is not necessarily indicative of anything beyond not wanting to be hassled by “those idiots.”
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org – A supposed neutral climate change website-Hake] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
Hake: From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide dissent):
My God Hake is so desperate it’s pathetic (and I love the inserted editorializing “A supposed neutral website” . No, it’s not neutral, it’s pro-science. They are quite clear about that.
1) Using a website to control message? control? why “control” Hake? Is that why you use a website? To control the message?
2) Holy shit, why didn’t the Deniers think of using the Web? Climatologists are the only ones who did this! and planning it was obviously conspiring! /s
3) Try reading it. They are not “hiding dissent”, they are talking about holding certain comments back until a response can be appended so that they are published together. Which is a hell of a lot more than most Denier sites do … they typically never post dissent, or just delete it.
4) And Mann controls the Web? Where is it written that all websites must post anything anyone posts? Personally I like a site to be clear what it’s policy is, but hey … at the end of the day it’s the owners site.
So how about we stop pretending that Mann doing exactly the same thing as every other person on the net is somehow suspicious?
If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.
Hake: From Phil Jones (witholding of data):
As per above, dumb, but strictly speaking not “wrong” as far as I know (still dumb though).
Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Hake: From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):
Yup, it’s definitely about destroying emails. Evidence of what? Where is the context? Was it actually evidence? collusion to mislead? porn? a drinking problem? evidence of what?
I’ll throw one out there. Time and again I have had conversations with different people about matters which they were under confidentiality agreements not to talk to someone like me about. In no case was it ever unethical, nor was the information used for any purpose but to help them with a situation.
It still could have gotten them fired though. I could see why they might send me an email like Jones’. I’ll bet many readers have been in a similar situation too. Does that prove the email is innocent? Hell no. It proves absolutely nothing, just like the quoted text.
I am going to stop now because I am bored of this exercise and Hake’s desperation. Anyone who wants to read the rest of Hake’s slanderous innuendo may do so here. There is also a link to download the edited archive if you want it.
Is there really nothing to this?
I think so. The edited bits we are getting can sound bad, but the actually say absolutely nothing. Stripped of context they could suggest all kinds of unethical behaiour … or nothing at all.
Nothing we have seen so far actually says anything at all, but the Deniers swear this topples climate science (as mentioned, it couldn’t no matter what they found).
Ok, admittedly this deeply incriminating picture was found:
Clearly someone is using an office server for personal files, undoubtedly a violation of CRU regulations. Also the rubber duckie may not be a creative commons licensed image.
So what are we being asked to believe?
1) Jones was so fiendishly clever that he went through all of the archives and meticulously removed everything that was definitely incriminating, while leaving all kinds of suggestive tidbits that would imply there was unethical, even illegal behaviour.
2) The 63 MB archive is just a teaser. The Deniers are holding back the real evidence for later. They have some damning stuff, but they don’t want to release it yet. Despite the fact that tens of thousands of people have downloaded it by now, they’re all holding the good stuff back.
3) There really is nothing here. Oh sure some nasty things got said, there’s evidence of being a little paranoid about releasing data, and it’s definitely embarrassing for some, but that seems to be about it. Actual incriminating anything? Nothing. And even though they have nothing except bluster, the Deniers went ahead with all kinds of histrionic accusations and slander.
Which of those three do you believe?
Open Msg to Phil Jones , get a team of lawyers! … You may be able to get very, very rich from the lawsuits you file because of this. And if you can sue a few of Deniers right off the face of the Earth, well that would be nice too. 🙂
“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.” Earth GaugeWe give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
IMAGE CREDITS:
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.
Greenfyre's 
[…] Greenfyre also sums it up very well: From what I have actually seen it just “shop talk” taken out of context and nothing more, very […]
Denialism was a tractable phenomenon when it was just corporate lobbyists muddying the waters but it has since spontaneously built itself up into an ideology that obviously many people go to for meaning in their lives. You’ll have as much luck using reason and facts on these people as others have had with fundamentalist Christians. If anything, you will merely succeed at polarizing them further against climate science.
—-
Very good post. I regret not having the time to go through all of the emails (you may have noticed my postings have been rather sparse as of late) but you have clearly shown that the emails are much ado about nothing.
If the deniers have something actually incriminating they haven’t shown it yet, so far we have a bunch or emails with no context.
I particularly like this “From what I have actually seen it just “shop talk” taken out of context and nothing more, very much as if a store clerk said they were going to go “hunt down some customers” and then someone else tried to claim that they were planning a murder.”
Without context we have nothing.
All that being said, if improper science is uncovered then it should be criticized and corrected. But the proper counter to bas science is good science not old emails.
—-
The decline of the holy denier empire.
One is reminded of the collapse of many regimes and the desperate acts in order to slow inevitable change.
I guess illegal acts of hacking are just the next step.
What’s next?
A hack into the data?
—-
In case you don’t know, there’s a documents folder as well as mail. I haven’t looked yet but I’d guess there’s data in there.
Greenfyre,
That’s pretty much as I see it.
Assuming you have the folder of emails in plain text (1,073 files), I’m curious what do you see as the creation date for the files.
—-
I’m fairly sure that this is the date on the files themselves, so whoever extracted them must’ve applied the date deliberately, as Frank suggested, otherwise it would be sometime since 12 Nov 2009, assuming the date in the last email is genuine.
I don’t know why your OS would give weird dates, except the obvious one of having the wrong system date, and it should have no bearing on files originating elsewhere anyway.
There are 1,073 messages. This is a very small number for a number of people (I haven’t counted how many yet) for over 13 years (Mar 96 to Nov 09), and we have no way of knowing for certain if the creation dates are the only alterations.
So, we have a very small number extracted from a number of mailboxes. It seems likely that these were picked as the ones most “damaging” (or easily misinterpreted), especially without context. And we don’t know if they’re genuine anyway. Whoever did this has done their worst, and as such it’s hard to be freaked out about it.
TrueSceptic and Greenfyre:
Regarding the file dates and times, I just found something interesting.
— bi
This is the ultimate hypocrisy: the entire AGW cult is coming to an end. The lies and fanaticism have been obvious from the outset. I remember innumerable claims made since the 1970s by the same kind of people who now support the AGW myth and ALL of their predictions turned out to be complete, utter NONSENSE.
Around 1995, an AGW apostle claimed that Switzerland would have no more snow in winter below 2000 m and that winter sports would be a thing of the past by 2005.
REALITY CHECK: the last 3 winters have been some of the harshest I remember since the 1960s. Last year, snow fell all over the country – even around lake Geneva, where this is rather rare – in early November and kept falling in large quantities until end of April. It’s been the best winter season in 30 years.
Now the LIES used by the AGW apostles have been revealed and what do they have to say? Nothing but miserable excuses!
One has to love the pathetic excuse regarding the attempt to delete incriminating email messages. Supposedly, there’s “no context” and it could be about “porn”.
That’s typical for AGW supporters: a total inability to look at FACTS! The context is clearly established in the incriminated email:
“Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”
AR4 is the context! That’s the demand for information based on the Freedom of Information Act. So this is about SUPPRESSING INCRIMINATING EMAIL IN AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION, which is CRIMINAL.
The other joke is the attempt to deny the obvious DECLINE in temperatures. There was no global increase in temperatures. There were many regions where temperatures declined and since 1998, there has been no global increase at all. Since 2003, there has been a MARKED DECLINE in global temperatures.
You guys are so dishonest, it’s disgusting. Not just intellectually dishonest, but dishonest as a general attitude towards life. You start with your ideological conclusions and try to fit everything around them.
You should all be prosecuted for trying to debase the principles of scientific research.
—-
I’m troubled by the ad hominem attacks from people referring to others as “deniers”- thereby dismissing them and their arguments by attacking them personally [1] instead of speaking to the issues they bring up. If their comments are so easily refuted, do it.
I have yet to see an unbiased treatment of these leaked emails from anyone in the pro-AGW camp, just posturing and contriving to make the world of AGW still make sense in the face of forthcoming facts. [2] Of course, I haven’t done exhaustive research yet on the pro-AGW camp responses, what I’m finding so far is disturbingly biased, and that’s sad.
—-
I have yet to see an unbiased treatment of these leaked emails from anyone in the pro-AGW camp
It’s right there at the top of the page.
No, it’s OK: we’ll wait while you read it.
I see the following things at the “top of the page”. Which one of these is “an unbiased treatment of these leaked emails”?
– “My heart is moved by all I cannot save”
– “Climate change Deniers hoax themselves … again.”
– I’m going to go out on a short limb here, but frankly more and more it is sounding like the correct response to “Have you seen the emails?” is “Yeah, have you?”
Or is it farther down the page than those? Please quote it if it’s not one of these.
frankly more and more it is sounding like …
Ah, I see you have not read it at all.
Safer that way for you, I guess.
So the unbiased treatment of this topic is the phrase “frankly more and more it is sounding like …”?
I don’t find that statement (or the sentence and paragraph it’s contained in) unbiased. Nor do I find this article unbiased either.
For me, part of why it comes across so biased is the ad hominem attacks throughout – that combined with the pro-AGW minimizing of each item in the post.
True, there is bias from the anti-AGW camp, and I understand and acknowledge the bias on both sides, but just pointing out bias on the other side isn’t being unbiased.
The passion of the personal stereotypical attacks sprinkled throughout the article speak volumes about the bias in the author.
Looks like I mistook your formatting for a statement when it was a quote.
My apologies.
But I am unimpressed with whining about bias. A large number of chronically dishonest people are pushing a bunch of known nonsense in a way that reveals their catastrophic ignorance of this issue at hand. In the blogsphere, this is occasion for humor at their expense. And there is no minimizing going on here: the fundamental error of the accusers lies in misconstruing the evidence in a comically stupid way.
Also, as with holocaust deniers, tobacco lawyers, and creationists, why shouldn’t we savage them? It’s the only compensation we get from having to put up with dishonest and stupid people.
Truly, if your sensibilities are that tender, you might try this takedown instead.
Let me know if it hurt your feelings.
Apology accepted, no big deal.
Again, I acknowledge and condemn the bias and ad hominem attacks coming from _both_ sides of the argument.
Ad hominem attacks discredit the people (and side of the argument) dishing it out, so I see it as a disservice to your cause.
I liked the takedown you linked to (except, of course, for the ad hominem attacks in it). I agree with taking down people’s statements, facts, arguments, and logical fallacies with good solid non-fallacious debate.
Ad hominem attacks and other comedic releases have their place, but they just don’t help the argument along at all. They distract from the topic at hand. They discredit the members of the argument on both sides.
I appreciate and respect a good clean solid takedown, not “denier” labels and other fallacious shortcuts. I also appreciate when someone can acknowledge fault on their own side of the argument.
rcronk,
For some reason your post had no reply button, so I’m replying here.
I’m glad you found the link useful.
Please reconsider, however, thinking that there are “two sides” to this episode. Your false equivalence not only elevates the dishonest and unworthy, it also lends you an unwholesome air of naivete, which also tends to discredit.
I’m asking those on both sides of this debate to do so without logical fallacy, that’s all.
I find it odd that you or the author of this post would choose to justify your resorting to logical fallacy by pointing at the “deniers” and saying that they’re arguments are fallacious too. Instead, why not stand up and bring good logical objective debate to the table regardless of what you think the other side is doing.
UPDATE: One incriminating file was found, as noted in the updated post:
Clearly someone is using an office server for personal files, undoubtedly a violation of CRU regulations. Also the rubber duckie may not be a creative commons licensed image.
To the millions of followers of climate blogs (or the thousands who read the literature) the emails have few surprises. So, ‘The Team’ don’t harbour friendly feelings to Steve McIntye; only to be expected So, ‘TheTeam’ co-ordinate the selection and presentation of data to present a consistent picture; we we would expect nothing less. So Trenberth is worried that models do not represent current temperatures; only important if you know he was 3 times IPCC lead author.
In the real world it’s a bit different. Journalists, even in the previously loyal BBC, are giving more space to sceptical points of view and these emails will add grist to their mill.
The Economist recently had an article about opinion on climate change; the tide is already moving the sceptics way. The US will have a major election next November 2010. The UK will have general election next Spring. Will Obama or British leaders throw away votes by pushing for climate action if it is not popular.
To pretend that the emails don’t matter, as seems to be the case here, will mean losing the case by default.
—-
Nice one Greenfyre.
What a pathetic attempt at a rebuttal. You must be living in a fairytale to think no incriminating information was brought forth in those emails. Your going to have to do better than that. Many people just woke up to your lies, so I suggest you bring your biggest guns to the fight.
—-
Julius,
The manufacturing of this nonstory is highly strategic and as you nicely summarize, we are in a decisive period for the American and international governments in relation to crucial action on climate change.
As you point out on your site, [1] it is unlikely that there will be a deal in Copenhagen re. targets for China (or India) until developed countries get more serious and use their considerable resources to change course.
Isn’t it remarkable that people could potentially perceive scientists discussing science at work as somehow lacking in credibility? Terrible.
Notwithstanding the attempt of both the denialosphere and self-appointed deniers to spin it, we can (as you suggest) already say in advance what this is really about: the denialosphere is desperate to find a way to try to discredit some scientists and therefore discredit the science, even though it defies logic, the evidence and reality.
(It is unlikely that the public will trust the opinion of deniers who have clearly gone to criminal lengths or support going to criminal lengths to lie, and misrepresent the science and the scientific community).
—-
[1] Link? he didn’t link it and I am curious.
[…] Climate change Deniers hoax themselves … again. […]
[…] Greenfyre’s overview […]
Martha
I am a bit mystified by your mention of my site. I am a co-author of a site which tries to avoid association with either warmist fanatics or deniers. It is at:
http://www.climatedata.info
…but there we say nothing about Copenhagen.
To many people what has been revealed will be considered as discrediting some key climate scientists and, ipso factom, their science.
—-
To many people what has been revealed will be considered as discrediting some key climate scientists and, ipso factom, their science.
Well, that’s the point, isn’t it: to exploit scientifically illiterate people?
re. curious about ‘Julius’:
http://www.climatedata.info/
http://www.climatedata.info/Questions/frequentlyasked.html
“Most of the media and government scientific community only want to hear one side of the story. Hence the need for vigilant self-appointed and self-motivated sceptics.”
-Julius St. Swithin (you know, probably as in July, More of Same) a.k.a. Ron Manley and Pat Reynolds, environmental consultants.
They say they are concerned to present the facts via select links to credible science and provide accurate and understandable summaries for concerned citizens and scientists alike.
John M. has mentioned their skeptical science work favourably on another thread on another site. However, just glancing at their completely outdated and extremely limited ‘summary’ (under Impacts) of polar bear research, and the complete absence of any reporting on the available current research on a number of the bear populations in the North by Canadian research biologists who would completely disagree with that ‘summary’, I question their ‘self-appointment’ (sorry, guys).
Perhaps they present ‘the facts’ and current knowledge more accurately on some other specific areas of climate change or climate change impact research.
I likely over-stated their actual view of the positive role required of developed countries at Copenhagen. 😉
Out of curiosity I checked my Sent Box for old messages to see what I could pull out of context in my own emails. It is rather scary what someone could do with innocuous emails, both my personal ones and my professional ones.
Anyone thinking the above snippets of emails actually show anything should conduct a similar exercise of their own. Reread some of your own emails, preferably old ones, and find the sections that are incriminating.
In my case, I could be accused of plotting to overthrow the institution president, misappropriating funds, advocating anarchy, doing and having done physical harm to some unknown person usually in some very inventive way, saying I’ll be massaging my data till I get the answer I like as well as later outright admitting I did just that. And you should see what I had to say about one of our anonymous reviewers….. 🙂 [1]
In all those cases though it was my sense of (warped) humour at play. When asked how I came up with my results my first smart-aleck response was “I cheated, and fudged some numbers to get a significant result”, or words to that effect. That was a running joke with a good friend–we joked about making up data, running off with grant money and living it up on a tropical island instead of doing grunt work in the high Arctic.
The rest of the email though makes it clear I didn’t do any of that, and in fact, was honest expressing some disappointment that one of my hypotheses wasn’t supported, but there was nothing that could be done now.
Some email snippets taken out of context are poor substitutes for evidence (pro libertate, btw, needs to look up the word “evidence” and “how to cite”).
What we need to see in those hacked emails is something like, “CO2 still rising, but temps are not moving so let’s inflate the GISTEMP numbers for the last 2 decades…” with a description of how to do that.
And even in that case, I’d want to know context before jumping all over the people involved. Science is brutal. You fudge your results and it doesn’t matter if you’re a colleague or a rival, you’re going to have the community censoring you. See Dr. Scott Reuben as just one example.
http://www.anesthesiologynews.com/index.asp?ses=ogst§ion_id=3&show=dept&article_id=12634
One thing that many people overlook is that when there is scientific fraud or cover-up in any field (medicine, physics, genetics, etc) it is the experts in that field who discover the fraud and then bring it to the attention of the public. When some alternative or denialist group starts ranting about, say, the evils of Big Bad Pharma and corrupt/brainwashed/bribed doctors, the only reason the denialist even knows about the fraud is because the very experts they accuse of being corrupt are the ones who brought it to light in the first place.
Science works on evidence, not on innuendo. Give us the evidence and we’ll follow it no matter where it leads. It is almost a compulsion, this need to know and understand. We’re scientists because we want/need to discover, we need to know the truth of things.
We’re not scientists because it is a way to deceive. If we wanted to deceive, we’d join a think-tank.
Anyway, sorry for the long comment…I’ll go away quietly now–I have a coup d’état to mount. [2]
—-
This site is almost funny. It would seem that the deniers are less in denial about the emails as the liberal believe me because I say so people are scampering to say ‘it does not exist, because I say so’.
The liberal believe me because I say so are a dying breed (thank god) in a world that is becoming smarter to counter the pushy arogant liberal agendas.
—-
Unlike you I do feel the science has been compromised. MBH 98 was comprehensively slated by Wegman and the emails suggest that, although at least one CRU researcher had reservations, others were trying to push data to the limits to recreate the ‘Hockey Stick’. They also reveal the real concern of some researchers to hide the “divergence” effect – lending credence to the deniers view that if the tree rings do not show global warming then it is not true. (Our own analysis of 26 N Hemisphere and 7S Hemisphere sets of data suggests that the divergence problem relates only to the NH and only to the late 20 th century warming; the early century warming from 1910 to 1945 is picked up in both hemispheres.)
http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/treerings_introduction.html
Couple that with their worries about the fact that during the early 20th century warming the temperature difference between land and sea remained more or less constant whereas during the late century warming land temperature increased markedly relative to the sea.
http://www.climatedata.info/Temperature/reconstructions.html amd see figure 10.
—-
I agree there is no smoking gun only a few smouldering embers which the deniers will try and fan into flames. Please excuse my mixed metaphors 😉
—-
I can’t think of anything specific but if I do I’ll get back to you.
Much of the heat manufactured over this email farrago is around the FOI release request of original data.
It probably wasn’t smart to resist its release (and less than smart to pretend its loss), so why not just blow the deniers out of the water by releasing it.
We can surely show AGW through the data (and if we can’t then I too would like to know why not)
“Data”? The CRU station data was already available online.
That was the joke.
Another example of how the conspiracy theorists are only revealing their own ignorance.
Science been compromised?
[Kevin Costner JFK modus]
trick … to hide the decline
trick … to hide the decline
trick … to hide the decline
trick … to hide the decline
[/Kevin Costner JFK modus]
—-
The cultural reference is to the film JFK’s “back … and to the left,” which described the contents of the Zapruder film that were inconsistent with the Warren Report.
But in this case, the use of “trick” only shows that they don’t know what it means, and “to hide the decline” shows that they don’t know about the divergence in the data …
… or that all this was made public eleven years ago. Yes, it sounds like a conspiracy, but only if you’re completely stupid.
“Much of the heat manufactured over this email farrago is around the FOI release request of original data. It probably wasn’t smart to resist its release (and less than smart to pretend its loss), so why not just blow the deniers out of the water by releasing it.”
John, what is easy to see is that some of the comments regarding FOI requests could be considered careless, especially if the writer knew the comments would be circulating around the denier blogosphere courtesy of a deliberate plan to fan the flames of paranoia around the denier-manufactured belief about conspiracy to withhold data.
“We can surely show AGW through the data”
Yes, the science is clear.
“(and if we can’t then I too would like to know why not)”
Why the concern trolling? Please consider moving on to thoughts about how to respond to the reality of the climate crisis.
“We can surely show AGW through the data”
“Yes, the science is clear.”
Then why, after so many requests, after so many years, hasn’t the data been released?
Apparently this Phil Jones character has data that undisputedly proves AGW. The man can literally save the earth if he discloses it. [1] However, according to these emails, he is more concerned about his “intellectual property rights”. Conveniently forgetting he is paid by public money. Paid royally, I might add, according to other emails. [2]
Now who exactly is the greedy b*****d here?
—-
[…] . denialosphere is raving about it. The e-mail server for a key climate research center was hacked and megabytes of material was […]
Yes, these scientists are now utterly discredited. I read the all these damning emails in full. There is no other way to interpret them . There is no question of “context”. They are just bad. These guys (the “Team” as they call themselves in the emails) will never practice science again. Unavoidable.
But we must not generalize these acts to the rest of the honest hardworking climate scientists. There is a huge body of work on climate that was done by the rest of the community.
Yes, we must all remember that these are just a few rotten apples.
But I am really bothered with the silence of the rest of the climate science community. I expected to see hundreds of blogs from the other IPCC scientists denouncing these obscene practices that were revealed in the email. [1]
The silence is deafening.
Where are you guys? Are you willing to accept these acts? Are these emails represent the norm of this field?
Speak up. You owe it to science. To the world.
—-
I expected to see hundreds of blogs from the other IPCC scientists denouncing these obscene practices that were revealed in the email.
The problem being that they’re not stupid.
Fabricating “obscene practices” requires obscenely stupid misreading of the emails. Fortunately for the deniers, obscenely stupid people are readily available from among their own numbers.
You are a fool. I.e. you have been fooled. Like a Nazi soldier facing trial, you cannot bring yourself to believe what you have got yourself involved with and are desperately trying to convince yourself that you were right all along.
—-
Thank you once more for showing that the CRU e-mails are a total non-scandal, and that the only ‘public opposition’ to CRU is in the form of the usual climate trolls, concern trolls, and sockpuppets.
— bi
I don’t think you comment on the destruction of data to prevent it going to persona non gtrata, not on influencing peer review to prevent anti-AGW results being publshed [1] nor on sugesting that a particular journal should br leant on. [2] These are matters you can’t just pretend didn’t happen and if they did well no harm donr, can you?
—-
Shorter Ian:
Why do you refuse to address the same old inactivist talking points that we keep bringing up? Why do you pretend that the army of obvious trolls, concern trolls, and sockpuppets don’t actually represent the public will?
— bi
Let me take a stab at summarizing this post:
“Move along please, there is nothing to see here. No incriminating evidence here. Why? Because I said so [1] — and those who see it — well, your’re just idiots.”
These emails aren’t going away. And “The Cause” has taken a mighty blow.
—-
[…] 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 […]
I note you ndon’t comment on Professor Jones’willingness to destroy data rather than give it to Mr McIntyre. NOr on his willingness to get a “troublesome” editor removed. Nor on his willingness to get his associates to join in a vendetta against a journal he does not like. Is these the scientific standards you encourage and support?
—-
What’s the angle here? So much bile and hate. What has you so twisted up in this that you are in constant pit bull attack mode? You need to take a step back and read your own words. You sound troubled (to put it gently). Is it a religion to you, and anything which erodes that mythology must be silenced or dismissed for personal reasons? I ask that because your approach is not that of a rational person.
I don’t expect an honest response. I doubt you will take a step back to re-evaluate. Is this how you treat your friends, family, or children when there’s a disagreement? Good luck with that. I feel sorry for those around you.
—-
Who is the denier now?
Take your rose tinted specs off. I have no argument with some good green policies. AGW is a waste of money, my money and your money, everyones money.
Well, you sound like you have some screws loose…a crackpot. If you want to be taken seriously (I doubt it matters to you), you must at least give the appearance of rationality. You sir, do not.
If you want to be taken seriously (I doubt it matters to you), you must at least give the appearance of rationality.
If that’s your standard it’s no wonder you’ve been so easily duped.
Very good article. Sadly, as the last few comments clearly show, a lot of people are just too stupid to actually look at the stolen emails and would rather take their talking-points from morons like Watts.
Haha. I really enjoy reading the musings of militant communists. It confirms what most of us know – you’re all intolerant nuts who think everyone should live according the their commie edicts. Yeah, thanks, but we’ll take a pass on that.
Live your lives as you wish. That’s the wonderful thing about freedom. Apparently it scares the dickens out of you people though. Better they be controlled as much as possible – for their own good of course!
Look how the tissue of lies is already breaking down around you. This story will not go away. It will only get worse once the released data is analyzed. I wouldn’t bet money that more emails and date won’t be released as soon as manbearpig makes a statement to show it all for the global communist scam it is.
Ok, now bloviate away. It’s what you people do best. Think how much wealth you could redistribute to yourself if you did something useful – like get a job or start a business. Laughable, yes. I know.
—-
Haha. I really enjoy reading the musings of militant communists.
You came all the way to the bottom of a chapter-and-verse refutation of this nonsense to post that?
I enjoy laughing at the empty regurgitation of impotent fools. If this were my blog, I would invite you to return often to break up the monotony of fisking denialist tripe.
Oh, and Fredrik. I have read many of the emails, looked at as much of the data as I could, and read many excerpts and analyses of them.
I have 3 science degrees, including a graduate degree in environmental science. I have 10 years experience doing primary scientific research on coral reefs, vegetation, and marine mammals, and I have been published in the literature, as well as in scientific books.
As much as I appreciate you calling me stupid, my guess is that I am probably quite a bit more qualified than you to assess the information released.
What are your qualifications since that’s an issue you raise?
—-
[…] Greenfyre’s overview of Climategate […]
@Pete
Then show us something substantive.
haha, like I need to prove anything to you marxists. Ooh, yes. Come over to my house. Let’s pour through college photo albums together. “Here’s some ‘Hint o’ Lenin Tea’ guys!’ It wouldn’t matter what I substantively proved to you. Your collective (har har) minds are made up. Good for you.
The funny part is that I think collectives are great on a small scale. But that’s where freedom of choice comes in. You people think the world would be utopia if only someone would let you Marxists run the world. Please.
If statism worked, why has it been tried and failed, and discredited over and over. It just hasn’t been done ‘right’ – right?
I trust my cat to run the world more than you self-proclaimed know it alls. At least he wouldn’t do anything.
The world, shy of a few pot smoking hippies, knows this is a scam by politicians (power), bankers (money), corrupt scientists (power/money), leftist journalists (ideology), and communists (insanity) to take over the world…or at least rob and control it. The jig is up. Time to put that Joan Baez LP back on the quadraphonic and come up with a new scheme.
I wish you luck!
—-
Facts are stubborn things:
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers/
—-
Facts are stubborn things
So you’ve heard that one somewhere or other, have you?
Ever thought of testing it?
There’s a music forum I used to frequent that, for perspective I sometime’s hop back to to see how the storms on the climate blogs are affecting the less interested.
On this front the answer seems to be: “not much” http://rateyourmusic.com/board_message?message_id=2361912
nice info & sharing…
And you call us deniers?
Joanne Nova nailed it on her blog. A scientist is a sceptic by definition.
An unsceptical scientist is not a scientist, but rather a sheep following the herd.
—-
An unsceptical scientist is not a scientist, but rather a sheep following the herd.
I am sceptical about your scientific prowess: sheep congregate in flocks.
Sir,
The burden of proof rests on those making the claim. Glaciers that have been retreating for 12 thousand years are not evidence. A swimming polar bear (ursus maritimus, ocean bear) is not evidence.
Temperature data gathered in parking lots and at the out flow of air conditioning condenser coils is not evidence.
Jason/TOPEX data showing no increase in global sea levels for the past few years is evidence.
Satellite data showing declining global temperatures for at least the last 8 years is evidence.
The list goes on and on. This is an argument you can’t win.
—-
What better citation could there be than to see it with ones own eyes? Virtually every person in the lower 48 states is a short drive from an official USHCN surface station where temperature data is collected.
They can all be found here: http://www.surfacestations.org/
Visit your local USHCN surface station and see for yourself if there is any warm bias, asphalt, AC units, etc. There may or may not be.
Then, visit the website of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, headed by Dr. James Hansen. The link to thier data is here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
View the historical data of your local site. Then, visit the historical data of rural and urban stations. Rural stations exhibit little or no warming, while urban stations nearly always show steady increases in temperature.
Urban heat island effect is the source of the warming. My citation is Dr. Hansen himself.
—-
Well, bummer.
I’d hoped we could have a civil discourse without the name-calling, threats and personal attacks. Sadly, you’ve again demonstrated for anyone reading, the shrill intollerance of the alarmists.
Fear is a powerful motivator. Perhaps we can at least agree on that.
—-
Brian Carter said:
Then why are you motivated to lies and distortions? You are motivated by selfish indulgence. Do you have no idea what is in store for future generations if we do as you deniers want?
It will not be nice, that is for sure.
You call me a liar because we disagree? The planet is doomed if we don’t revert to pre-industrial hardships to attone for our,.. sins?
Let’s say we do. Americans and other rich countries will be fine. But hundreds of millions of my human family will be plunged into unspeakable poverty and oppression. far worse than now.
They are the ones I’m fighting for, not Al Gore and his billionaire buddies.
James Hansen was exactly right! Cap and trade legislation will do nothing to reduce GHG emissions. Follow the green money trail and you will find corrupt scientists and politicians getting filthy rich.
Change is what climate does.
—-
Brian.
Google: Bluetongue Sweden
May I cite James Hansen, the preemminent advocate of the AGW claim?
There are numerous sources publishing Dr. Hansens’ well documented opposition to the Waxman-Markey bill. And again, I agree with him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/01/scentist-letter-hansen-barack-obama
Sir, again, I am not the one making a claim. The burden of proof rests on the one making the allegation. You ask me to prove a negative, and follow that with threats of censorship.
Thank you Chris for the reference to the Bluetongue outbreak in Sweden. I was unaware of this.
[…] further post here. But I prefer reading some common sense at Greenfyre’s post – “Climate change Deniers hoax themselves … again.” For all the Sturm und Drang and Denier promises of “final coffin nails”, there […]
[…] […]
Why were they trying to hide the decline in global temperatures since 1960
Is this taken out of context: (programming code with comments within the information hacked
Here’s the code with the comments left by the programmer:
————————————————-
function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
and later the same programming comment again in another routine:
;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
—————————————————-
AND THIS
—————————————————-
From documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro:
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
Note the wording here “avoid the decline” versus “hide the decline” in the famous email.
————————————————-
It is an anormous task to say that programming is taken out of context and even more so when it correlates to the message in the emails.
The divergence problem (aka the ‘decline’) hasn’t been hidden at all. In fact it has been widely discussed in the peer-reviewed literature.
Yes, selctive garbage in means garbage out.
Selective is the operative word.
—–
Steve, are you being deliberately stupid or do you come by it naturally?
They are not trying to hide the “decline in global temperatures since 1960”. Why do I know that? Well, if you had even read anything about the changes in climate you would know that temperatures have not fallen since 1960 but have risen dramatically. How stupid can you get.
They are talking about a particular series of tree ring cores which did not match the rise in local temperatures for that period.
This has now been resolved and can be read at:
“Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone
pine at the highest elevations and possible causes”.
Matthew W. Salzer, Malcolm K. Hughes, Andrew G. Bunn, and Kurt F. Kipfmueller
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/13/0903029106.full.pdf+html
Ian,
I enjoyed the PNAS paper. It’s well written and very intresting. A paper like this would pass a legitimate peer review process.
How are trees growing healthier and stronger, bad news?
Brian
Why do people like you mock real science?
You obviously didn’t understand the paper. The paper helps to solve and understand the divergence problem (no the divergence problem is not “why do idiots who migrate to the right politically also lower their intellectual capacity”, but that is definitely worthy of further study).
Ian,
I believe I understood the paper correctly, but I will review it again.
If you care to search in PNAS, there was a paper about 2 years ago about Phanerozoic CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 on this timescale is near an all time low.
Unfortunately I have to link to a Wikipedia site, but this data was published in PNAS originally.
Brian
To understand the data, please refer to the supporting documentation published with the article.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/13/0903029106/suppl/DCSupplemental
If you import the raw data into an Excel worksheet, you can duplicated the graph in figure 2. Please note a similar acceleration in growth happened between 2150 bce (before the common era) and 1750 bce.
Thereafter followed a 3300 year decline in ring width, recovering around 1600.
Further, half of the current “unprecedented growth” occured between 1850 and 1900, when human emmisions had yet to measurably increase.
The data does not warrant the superlatives used in the paper.
Brain,
I have read the Saltzer paper several times, and I do not think I understand it, I know I understand it.
Do you understand what non-standardized ring width data is? I thought not. Do you know what regional data is? I thought not. Do you know what the paper was trying to show? I’ll clue you in.
The main questions they were looking at were:
1) Is the recent growth unprecedented?
2) Is there a difference in growth between wholebark and stripbark individuals?
3) What is the source of the recent growth spurt?
To do this they used a bog simple analysis of ring widths involving no standardization based on the growth age of the trees in question. This was justified, and probably correctly in my view, by the observation that these trees are so old that for living samples age effects are minimal. However, they do note that sub-fossil and fossil samples are difficult to judge because you cannot get a pith offest (distance from the center of the tree) which adds uncertainty to the older growth estimates. Despite all of this, it is clear that growth is higher than at anytime in the last 3K years. So the answer to question #1 is yes.
The answer to question #2 is shown in figure 3 which compares ring widths (again raw, not standardized) for strip bard and whole bark samples. As you can see for both upper forest boundry sites and lower sites there is no substantial difference between the two growth habits. The answer to question #2 is thus no.
The balance of the paper is given to analyzing various hypotheses which have been raised to explain the recent growth: temperature, precipitation, CO2 fertilization and nitrogen deposition from nearby farming. CO2 fertilization was looked at by comparing lower sites with upper sites. If CO2 is the culprit, both should show similar changes in growth. This in not the case, so CO2 is eliminated as a culprit. N fertilization is the next suspect. A check on this is made by comparing White Mountains sites with the two Nevada sites, Mt. Washington and Pearl Peak. Since intensive farming occurred only in the Owens Valley if N deposition is the culprit, only the White Mountains sites should show the growth pattern. This is not the case, so N deposition can be eliminated.
This leaves temperature and precip. All of the upper sites show a strong correlation to temperature and much weaker correlations with precip. The opposite is true of the lower sites which show a strong negative correlation with temperature and weaker positive correlation with precip (except for MWK, which shows a strong correlation with precip). Thus temperature is confirmed as a major factor in the growth seen at the upper sites.
This appears to me to be an well designed experiment and it did pass a rigorous peer review process. It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science on of the premier general interest journals in the world. The is more impressive given that the position of the NAS, as expressed in their review of climate reconstructions of the last 2000 years in 2006 was that Pinus Longaeva was not a good temperature proxy and should not be used in reconstructions.
Prof. Greenfyre, did I get my summary correct?
One last point I would like to make. Your point about the Phanerozoic CO2 levels is a complete red herring. Levels of 500M years ago, when multicelluar (at least those forms that we can detect through fossils) was just emerging and all life was found in the oceans is not directly comparable to today. Ecosystems are completely different and the carbon cycle of the planet is vastly different. [1]
—-
Rattus,
As I disclosed earlier (deleted by a “moderator”), it’s been my job for 15 years ensuring the integrity of data collection. I know a little bit about it and DOE.
There are many commendable aspects of the study. We can certainly agree on that. Yes it was a very well designed experiment. That is the problem! It’s not a study, it’s an experiment designed to prove something. The conclusion was written first and the experiment designed around it.
Temperature is the culprit according to the conclusion. Please refer to the temperature graph, S5, in the supporting documentation. Temperatures were basically flat for the last century. How can temperature be to blame?
Follow the data and you can’t go wrong. Follow the hypothesis and it will lead you astray.
I suggest you look at figure S1.
A good paper on this appears to be this one by Daniel H. Rothman, who seems to be the go to guy on this subject.
Quite frankly, I didn’t think to provide a cite because this point is trivially true and should be obvious to anyone who is aware of the difference between the early Cambrian and the Cenozoic.
Of course, I think that the big difference is the rise of woody plants on the land which are capable of sequestering vast amounts of carbon. This is well covered in the Rothman article.
Perhaps I’m not reading it correctly, it’s been a long day, but is the paper attempting to extrapolate temperature from precipitation?
Regarding the paleoclimate CO2 proxy data, my point is that it suggests that CO2 is decoupled from global climate extremes. During geologic periods of relative cool and warmth, CO2 rises and falls independantly.
Also, since the permian 250 million years ago, CO2 has steadily declined as the biomass seems to have sequestered atmospheric CO2. At the KT boundary it began plumeting to its current level. Which raises the question, are we reaching dangerously low levels of CO2 during glaciations?
Below 200 ppm, photosynthesis is seriously impared.
[…] Climate change Deniers hoax themselves … again. Greenfyre’s […]
[…] also notes: The edited bits we are getting can sound bad, but the actually say absolutely nothing. Stripped […]
You have misstated what is being said is a hoax. It’s not global warming that is the hoax being claimed, but anthropogenic global warming that is the hoax.
—-
Deleting information and censorship are the responses of a person in denial.
Please feel free to edit this document any way you like. It’s your credibility on the line, not mine.
The owner of the blog admitted to having no issue with breaking confidentiality.
Obviously, said individual made a pathetic attempt to rationalise this behavior as acceptable; predictability.
Hence, it becomes clear that this individual is not worthy of trust. As well as the fact, this individual is woefully uninformed; breaching confidentiality, especially if it is contractual, is not only unethical, (ummm, take a business 101 class some time), it is unlawful. Deleting emails in those cases is destroying evidence, possible collusion and certainly complicity.
Denier and idiot who doesn’t understand a simple matter of ethics? Yes, and certainly not one to be listened to, in any matter.
Such flagrant disregard for ethics, means a reprobate mentality, which is only useful for misinformation.
The owner of this blog has zero credibility, by self admission.
LOL@intarwebs “writers” … lol.
—-
I can’t help but notice a strong tendency in the so-called denial camp to believe that most if not all climate scientists are “communists”. I wonder how many of them have even the faintest clue about what communism really stands for. They seem to be totally stuck in McCartyist paranoia, whci was a ludicrous misrepresentation of facts even in its own time.
What’s really sad is that in the current geopolitical mode it’s probably already too late to do anything about GW, as the children of these political morons will tragically experience in the next generation, together with the rest of the human race. Not to mention the countless other species with which we share this planet.
[…] Climate change Deniers hoax themselves … again. (Greenfyre) [emphasis added]: I’m going to go out on a short limb here, but frankly more and more it is sounding like the correct response to “Have you seen the emails?” is “Yeah, have you?“ […]
http://www.breadwithcircus.com/#120209
Found this podcast, its about how the “truth” movement is at the core of the denial strategy.
I have seen the emails, downloaded the whole file. I read them and they do seem incriminating.
These are not the smoking gun, but what is, is the fact that temps are dropping, and have been for the last 8 years. [1]
Maybe it is time that the pro GW crowd show substantial proof to back up their claims. I have not seen one simple shred of evidence on this post to support your position at all, yet you do what most groups that are in denail do, and that is try to brand someone else with lables to discredit them.
So stop calling names until you can show substantial proof. It is a sad day when the pot calls the kettle black. [2]
—-
“the fact that temps are dropping, and have been for the last 8 years.”
Aside from the fact that this is not true. It doesn’t matter. No one predicted monotonic warming.
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2332
I like the “pot calling the kettle black” remark. Now let’s see if the deniosphere takes on Monckton, calling a number of young people, including a jewish boy, “Hitler youth”. When Phil Jones in a private mail said that John Daly’s death was “in an odd way cheering news”, it was used as a way to show how ‘horrible’ the people at CRU are. And here he is, the hero of so many deniers, Lord Christopher Monckton, calling a jewish boy “Hitler youth”.
go to co2u.info
—-
$25,ooo.oo reward
for the scientific experiment (test) proving carbon base oxygen (co2) causes Global Warming.
My body is made of water with a carbon base and I breath dioxide.
Shorter Bruce Kershaw:
Here’s a $25,000 reward for a vague challenge which I can reinterpret at will.
— bi
The reason, I feel, why this all blew up so big is because the majority of criticisms against the current climate research are met with these kind of childish rebuttals. People just have serious concerns about how much they are being lied to because the only time they can get an explanation – it is either a jargon filled dismissal, or a mocking insult to their intelligence.
Perhaps your fueling the fire you hate so much.
Peace.
Moderator,
Unfortunately I have to agree with the deniers who are complaining of your bias, of your unwillingness to listen to the other side. The battle against the misinformed dissent of the climate change deniers will never be won if the leaders on our side continue to push this we-have-no-patience-for-you-morons rhetoric.
The urgency needed to adequately address climate change has created this mood of extreme impatience that is very damaging to the AGW position. The science may be convincing, but the fact is that the majority of Americans are still unconvinced. And until this majority is on board, climate change will always be a politically divisive issue (and a major source of division within Democratic leadership).
Given the paradoxical disparity between the “overwhelming proof” of AGW and the swelling ranks of climate change deniers, those on the Left (like our moderator) who adopt the Al Gore we-have-no-patience-for-climate-change-deniers attitude are seriously shooting themselves in the foot. The focus needs to be on educating the uneducated, not belittling them.
This is not to say that the moderator (or other AGW proponents) NEVER choose facts over rhetoric. But given the “paradoxical disparity” mentioned above, the Left should be concentrating its resources on an aggressive and comprehensive education campaign, not a shouting match. If the science is REALLY that convincing, let’s see it.
Not sure an education campaign will suffice. How often are fully debunked points (like cooling since 1998) repeated?
When I started my site I spent countless hours trying an education campaign for commenters . What did I get for my troubles? Denial. No interesting conversations, most didn’t even bother to acknowledge the points I raised, they either repeated themselves almost verbatim, or jumped from one talking point to another (many of which were contradictory).
And my experiences are not uncommon.
There are plenty of education campaigns out there (The IPCC summary reports are great for this, especially since the full reports allow people to dig for more details if they want), NOAA’s climate literacy program is also excellent, though more basic. And there are countless more.
But many people out there, simply don’t want to be educated, they have a point of view and will defend it at all costs. It is like two partisans arguing about which political party is better. Logic plays no part. Rationality is thrown out the window.
It is why I call these people deniers and not skeptics.
“Just about everyone knows they aren’t able to understand, or make a meaningful contribution to, general relativity or quantum mechanics or number theory… Somehow, however, people imagine that they understand climate science.”
-William M. Connolley
I agree.
If someone can show us where this has worked, ever, I’d like to see it. There have been a few brave and selfless souls who have patiently and politely tried to correct the nonsense at Watts, for instance, but all they’ve received for their trouble has been insults.
The only occasions where education has worked has been when genuine open-minded sceptics (not denialists) have gone to, say, RealClimate or OpenMind and asked questions because they really don’t know as much as they’d like about the subject. Denialists are not like that: they already “know” that climate science is a giant fraud. Some of them “know” that a lot of other science, thermodynamics being an obvious example, is also a fraud, if it in any way supports climate science. Educating these is an exercise in futility and IMO requires more than a little love of masochism. They didn’t get to their position using logic and knowledge so using those to change that position is doomed to failure from the start.
The emails can be interpreted anyway someone likes. The problem for me is the fact that in response to the leaked emails the university dumped years worth of data making their research impossible to interpret.
If you have been trained as a scientist then you know if you are looking for something (in lieu of being open minded) you will find what you are looking for (weather it is truth or not).
The fact that Europe already invested a substantial amount of their capital into carbon credits means they should have no part of the research because they are looking for a certain type of outcome (if proven wrong the bubble will burst on their economy). With that being said when you go on the IPCC’s website and see the cycle their reports take they are evaluated by Politian’s not once but twice. The scary thing about is that scientists are nowhere in the cycle of their reports. The IPCC pick and choose what publications they want to include in their reports.
The bottom line is that both sides of this issue are not being honest. The fact that our Politian’s are willing to take stance on either side without seeking the truth is disturbing.
Now, I will say that if you are in my position (not a scientist but trying to find answers) and you try to research on the computer you find that the websites that are pro-man made climate don’t provide much information or data and when they do they don’t cite the information very well. When you go onto a skeptic website they provide a lot of information and do a very good job citing their information.
Because, of course, seeking out websites is the single best way of doing independent scientific research, especially if you don’t have the scientific training necessary to understand what the data mean. It’s Blog Science!
If you truly “seek the truth”, I propose you read the peer-reviewed literature. (If you live near a postsecondary institution this should be easy since they’re probably subscribed to all the journals already and they have libraries.) If you distrust the entire scientific process to the point where you think that literature is on par with blogs (and it seems like you do, since you don’t seem aware that the entire incentive structure of science is built to weed out misinformation and corruption), I’d suggest reading more on the scientific method and philosophy or sociology of science. (Merton is probably a good place to start.)
If you seek the truth, stay far away from all those denier-websites. In that case you would not have made the false claim “that in response to the leaked emails the university dumped years worth of data making their research impossible to interpret”.
The facts are, of course, that no such dumping had occurred. What HAS happened is that raw data (but not the value added data) was removed in the 1980s (yes, that would be 20 years ago, quite the foresight that there would be a FOI act in the UK, and that it would be used to attack the HADCRU dataset). Fact is also that 95% of all raw data used in the HADCRU reconstruction is freely available through GHCN. Fact is also that the remaining 5% of raw data can be obtained from various meteorological organisations.
Also, get yourself better informed on the IPCC procedures. The scientific parts of the reports are reviewed twice: first by experts, and the second time by both experts and politicians. However, there is absolutely no requirement that the proposed changes are taken into account. The only thing which has to be accepted by the politicians is the Summary for Policy Makers. It’s thus easy: stay clear of the SPM, and read the actual scientific report.
Moreover, since the scientists are involved as the lead authors and review editors, scientists ARE in full control of what literature is taken into account and discussed. You will also be hard pressed to find literature that is NOT discussed somehow, and the arguments to dismiss some literature are scientifically solid.
Comment to your last statement I leave to Brian D, although I recommend realclimate, deltoid, and Tamino. LOADS of data and references to literature.
As a scientist, I’m aware of the shortcomings of the scientific literature, nonsense does get through the peer review process every now and then. Often that nonsense is ignored, sometimes it is rebutted).
However, I’m equally aware that the Internet is the place where the signal-to-noise ratio is skewed much more to the noise.
This reads like an organized religion which has come under attack!
Is AGW an organized religion? and, can I join?
You could try staying on topic, hard though it seems to be for some.
For me, what “put the nail in the coffin” of climate change being some sort of elaborate conspiracy, was when I took the time to think of just how massive and elaborate it would have to be.
There would need to be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who are in on it. Anyone from climatologists, meteorologists, many of their associates and assisstants, to amateur scientists, world leaders and their governments, and any mouthpieces for the cause. And if this conspiracy is as nefarious as the retards claim it is, then every single co-conspirator would need to be evil to some degree, and certainly not have enough of a conscience to come forward, because no one has.
Then there is the fact that all of these people in on this evil plot would be resting all their evil schemes on something that is easily disproven. Nearly every skeptic out there (if they put their mind to it) could go out and collect CO2 samples and compare them to pre-industrial age levels. If you find that there hasn’t been as steep an increase as the scientists claim, that’s all it would take to prove man-made global warming is a hoax. Don’t you think that a group of some of the smartest people in the world would have come up with something a little harder to disprove?
Then there’s the whole ice caps melting thing. How’d they fake that? I know I just said they’re some of the smartest people in the world, but they’re not THAT smart. Then again, many of the global warming denier morons think the US faked the moon landing, so maybe it’s not that much of a stretch for them. Most of them believe those retarded billboards that claim a baby’s heart is beating 18 days after conception, too. You can just ask your OBGYN to find out what a load of shit THAT is. This should give you an idea of the kind of geniuses we’re dealing with. “Our factories and manufacturing plants, pumping billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, seems to be having an effect on the world’s climate.” Climate change denier: “No way! That’s a myth!”…….”There was a talking snake in a perfect garden 6000 years ago when the Earth was created by a magic sky daddy. Also, there was this guy who took two of every animal on Earth and fit them all on a boat right before a flood covered the entire world.” Typical climate change denier’s response: “Duh, okay!”
So no, climate change, and the fact we caused much of it, is not a hoax. Scientists may be wrong on some of the details, but that’s how science works. When we get new data we can smooth out those details. But even if it was this massive conspiracy, it really wouldn’t matter, because all of the solutions to the problem that scientists are calling for are GOOD solutions. Cleaner, cheaper energy. Houses that use less energy thus lowering your electric bill. Cars that get better gas mileage, or don’t need gas at all. Weening ourselves off Middle Eastern oil, thus keeping oil money out of the hands of potential terrorists. (Now this is one I thought the left and the right could come together on, but the Big Oil Cartels have their dicks planted so firmly up the asses of the right-wingers that they can’t think about anything but a giant dick being up their ass, let alone make the logical connection between getting off oil and taking money away from terrorists.)
Well, okay. Maybe there is a conspiracy, afterall. One not nearly as elaborate, but certainly well funded. The Oil Cartels don’t like this climate change nonsense, as it calls for an end to the use of fossil fuels as a solution. So what if, out of a desire to protect their profit margins, they stuffed some politicians in their pockets, launched a massive anti-science campaign, and spent billions of dollars to spread anti-climate change propaganda, knowing that there’s a shitload of dumbasses out there who would fall for it? THERE’S YOUR CONSPIRACY, MORONS!!!!
I really don’t believe global warming is a big conspiracy, I mean there’s evidence there than you can physically go look at. How can you deny it when you can see it?
I’m tired of hearing “if global warming is real then why is it so cold right now” every winter. Seriously.
ok , ok , you have won me over . when the sea levels rise i want to be one step ahead , please advise as to when i should invest in a boat and a jetty on the front lawn of my home .
—-
[…] Greenfyre also sums it up very well: From what I have actually seen it just “shop talk” taken out of context and nothing more, very […]
[…] Greenfyre’s overview of Climategate Share this:Email This entry was posted in Blog and tagged climategate, conspiracy, denialism, gaggle of gates by Dan Moutal. Bookmark the permalink. […]
[…] UPDATE: Greenfyre also sums it up very well: […]
[…] Greenfyre’s overview of Climategate […]
[…] auch in der Bevölkerung ausgetragen wird, sieht man nicht zuletzt auch im Blog von „Greenfyre„, der sich auf seiner Webseite ganz dem Kampf gegen die „Denier“ (Leugner) widmet […]