Thoughts on ClimateGate

It appears that, at the very least, the leaded emails demonstrate that scientists at the UK’s major climate research center were acting not as scientists seeking the truth wherever it may lead, but rather as advocates for the idea of human-caused global warming.

I can only hope that the leak will prove some actual fraud, such as data disagreeing with global warming being intentionally destroyed in order to hide the truth.

I can only hope that the mainstream media will pick this up and take it seriously. So far, no mainstream U.S. newspapers have reported on this yet, it has only been in the British media. Perhaps places like the New York Times are so completely controlled by Gaianists that they no longer care about the truth, and it’s like expecting the Catholic Church to investigate evidence which shows that Mary had extra-marital sex nine months before Jesus was born.

* *

Commenter sabril writes:

Apparently, one of the e-mails talks about the problem that skeptical scientists are getting their work published in peer reviewed journals. The e-mail discusses what pressure can be put on the journal in question to get it to stop accepting skeptical articles.

Of course, this is consistent with what skeptics have suspected all along, i.e. that the warmists are attempting to suppress and silence dissent to create an illusion of "consensus."

* * *

Because this is a conservative story, it’s not surprising that Fox News is the first U.S. MSM to report on it.

* * *

Lubos Motl, who is a physicist blogger has a really good blog post about this leaked information.

Comments

[tdaxp]

Note that when Europeans say "global warming," they mean "Russia." The noble lie of global warming allows concerted action against Russia to be discussed, planned, and executed in the open.

[sabril]

Apparently, one of the e-mails talks about the problem that skeptical scientists are getting their work published in peer reviewed journals. The e-mail discusses what pressure can be put on the journal in question to get it to stop accepting skeptical articles.

Of course, this is consistent with what skeptics have suspected all along, i.e. that the warmists are attempting to supress and silence dissent to create an illusion of "consensus."

[Advocatus Diaboli]

This is where I agree with you. Hell just froze over!

[Francis]

-Note that when Europeans say "global warming," they mean "Russia." The noble lie of global warming allows concerted action against Russia to be discussed, planned, and executed in the open-

Nobody is going to do shit against that Russians. There may be talk, but that's it. The Krauts, Frogs, Limeys, etc... won't do a bad thing. In fact, they and the moron current US POTUS, will do shit they want, like removing missile defenses from Eastern Europe (and kowtowing to the Japs) The Russians believe in global cooling and they act on it. Like last year when they had natural gas delivery "problems" to Europe in the winter. Just mechanical and system errors, da? They just did it to show that they can do what they want and to keep the Europeans in line, make them behave nice and show that Russia can't be fucked with (they did the same to Hillary, but that's another story) and make themselves laugh. Global warming is a scam anyway and moron Gaia worshipping liberals have changed the saying to climate change. So fuck them.

[Patrick]

HalfSigma,

This isn't a "conservative" story, its a NON-story, or as Charles Johnson, a far more intellectually honest blogger than yourself has dubbed it, a non-troversy.

You sound like a raving lunatic when you talk about "The New York Times controlled by Gaianists" as if anybody but you uses this laughable neologism. Alex Jones would like to have his act back.

There is no fraud, there is no hoax, there is no 'Gaianism.' Please stop belittling yourself with this increasingly unhinged obsession.

If you've got some facts and logic to counter anthropogenic climate change, by all means, lets hear you lay it out. But all you're doing is embarrassing yourself by jumping on any asinine reactionary right-wing non-story which the media is allegedly suppressing.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"Note that when Europeans say "global warming," they mean "Russia."

No, they mean America because we have until recently been the biggest emmitters of CO2.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"There is no fraud, there is no hoax, there is no 'Gaianism.'

So where the heck is all that evidence for Global Warming?

[sabril]

It seems to me that if a leading climate researcher destroys information in order to obstruct a freedom of information request and instructs other leading climate researchers to do the same thing, it's a bona fide conspiracy, possibly a criminal conspiracy. And definitely newsworthy.

If a leading climate researcher who is in the pro-AGW camp privately expresses concerns that recent temperatures contradict what's predicted by their models, that's newsworthy.

And if pro-AGW climate researchers are conspiring to suppress publications by skeptical researchers, that's newsworthy.

JMHO.

[tommy]

"This isn't a "conservative" story, its a NON-story, or as Charles Johnson, a far more intellectually honest blogger than yourself has dubbed it, a non-troversy."

That is quite an insult given that Charles Johnson, liberal turned hawkish neocon turned liberal again, has become the gold standard of intellectual dishonesty in the blogosphere over the past several months.

Johnson has flip-flopped on the turn of an election cycle on numerous issues--including AGW. But I do give him credit: he has remained a dogmatic and hysterical anti-racist and philosemite through it all.

[tommy]

Here is the "intellectually honest" poseur Johnson--ignoring a mountain of other emails involving questionable practices concerning FOI requests, "redefining" the acceptable peer-reviewed literature to discredit skeptics, etc.--explaining why no one should be bothered by any of this:

He quotes one of the emails:

"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."

He then says:

"'Trick,' of course, can also mean 'an effective technique,' but if you were desperately hunting for anything smear-worthy, I suppose the word would stand out."

Yes, it's just an "effective technique" to "hide the decline." What is wrong with that, Beck-loving smear-mongers? Nothing here to see. This is a "nontroversy!"

This is Patrick's idea of "intellectual honesty."

If you can't get enough of Johnson's high-caliber honesty, here is another example:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/292511.php

[Alex]

Patrick wrote:

"If you've got some facts and logic to counter anthropogenic climate change, by all means, lets hear you lay it out. But all you're doing is embarrassing yourself by jumping on any asinine reactionary right-wing non-story which the media is allegedly suppressing."

--

Wow. Have you seen the emails? You don't think that they damage the credibility of climate scientists to even a small degree? Check out these from the Examiner paper:

"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."

A major climate science group has been using to tricks to make global warming seem worse than it really is. Of course, it is possible that this group is the exception, but if that was the case than other climate scientists would call them out because they wouldn't want to ruin their own credibility.

"Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

Ousting scientists who disagree with the main position? This completely shatters what was left of the public's respect for the global warming

[tommy]

I really liked this one:

"The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/

[anotheranon]

"This isn't a "conservative" story, its a NON-story, or as Charles Johnson, a far more intellectually honest blogger than yourself has dubbed it, a non-troversy."

Patrick, you do know that Charles Johnson is a functioning retard, don't you? He has zero background in ANY science and he merely swipes his talking points from RealClimate because he's too stupid to formulate his own arguments for AGW.

[Tino]

"no fraud, there is no hoax, there is no 'Gaianism.'"

Strawmen-Feast.

The issue is that there is ideological bias. This is what the emails show. The people writing those emails are not disinterested scientists going wherever the data takes them: they like some facts and conclusions, and are doing their most to find strong results (which, by the way, is common in all academic activity: people have an incentive to exaggerate their results).

You claiming that there is no "hoax" have not disproved anything. Give us your best assessment: are the people who wrote these emails unbiased?

For the record I believe in man-made global warming.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"For the record I believe in man-made global warming.

Posted by: Tino | November 20, 2009 at 07:33 PM"

Why?

Russian hackers uncovered this cheap little conspiracy by Jones, Mann, Briffa, and the rest of the neo con - artists of climate fraud. Score one for the Moscow hackers!

This is a fascinating topic! Stay on it. It is like an iceberg. Most of it is yet to be uncovered beneath the surface.

[ca]

There is no evidence whatsoever of a global warming hoax contained in these emails. This is even dumber than the Yamal tree ring non-story.

[thecraken]

There may well be some ethical lapses on display in these communications, but most (of the random few I read) appear to be demonstrations of the way science works, especially in the case of a rapidly developing field with high stakes politically. Scientists become political and combative when there are major points of contention in their field. This is normal. Kuhn’s “The Stucture of Scientific Revolutions” lays this out in several examples. Why does this process nevertheless result in scientific progress? Probably because there are different scientific camps, each with their own biases, in competition with each other. As more knowledge accumulates, the camps shift in relative power, and, most importantly, as someone said, the older generation eventually dies off and the newer generation can fashion ideological commitments more in tune with current data. The question here, and the risk, is whether the unusual interest in climate change from the non-scientific world will corrupt this process by exerting excessive political and financial pressures.

[sabril]

"but most (of the random few I read) appear to be demonstrations of the way science works,"

In my opinion, your argument is what's known as the naturalistic fallacy. Just because it's done doesn't make it right.

Besides, we skeptics have suspected and argued for years that the warmist scientists have been suppressing dissent; obstructing freedom of information requests; and in general engaging in advocacy.

In response, the warmists have NOT said "yes we do that and that's how science works."

Instead, we skeptics are accused of paranoia. We are presented with the image of scientists as deities in white jackets who would never ever behave in these ways.

Ok, so now that we have been vindicated are the warmists going to concede to us on this point? Of course not. Instead they are busy digging up and transplanting the goalposts.

In response to these arguments

[Scrutineer]

HS: "Gainists"

I prefer "Gaiantologists." http://gaiantology.com/

---

Patrick: "there is no 'Gaianism.'"

Phil Jones, director of CRU: "If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences." - http://www.catallaxyfiles.com/blog/?p=7006

If his theory of AGW is true, then AGW will inflict catastrophic damage on civilization, but that's a small price to pay if it means Phil Jones is vindicated.

What a blinkered zealot.

[dearieme]

The corrupting "unusual interest in climate change from the non-scientific world" was, of course, whipped up by these lying liars, these conniving conspirators, at CRU and elsewhere.

[Gil]

Uh oh! So Global Warming should be thrown in the dustbin with Global Cooling? Is not the real problem now to stop all the climate treaties and government actions to limit peoples' energy consumption? On the other hand, this still doesn't solve the problem of Peak Oil.

[Turambar]

"The issue is that there is ideological bias. This is what the emails show. The people writing those emails are not disinterested scientists going wherever the data takes them: they like some facts and conclusions, and are doing their most to find strong results (which, by the way, is common in all academic activity: people have an incentive to exaggerate their results)."

It worse than that- even if you strain as Patrick does and claim that "trick" means above board algorithm, you still have the problem with the non-scientific mindset at work here.

It not just that these part are heavily bias in their research. Its also that try to choke off any rational review of their work. The purpose of peer review is not to have your friends replace a few semi-colons- it to challenge your argument to make sure of its soundness. The "climate-scientists" are trying to undo this with behind the scene politics and blacklisting:

" I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

[Stopped Clock]

I believe in anthropogenic global warming, and avoid debating the issue because it's complex and difficult to convince anyone of anything.

Nevertheless it makes me angry to see liberals using the issue as a target to blame totally unrelated problems all over the world for, such as in this story:

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/177346/climate-change-pushes-poor-women-to-prostitution-dangerous-work

[The Usual]

Stopped Clock,
when it comes to AGW or what they now call climate change, liberals are full of shit. Instead of using the phone or video conference Gore must fly all over the world all the time. And the woman who financed his fiction film:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pmeister/2009/06/03/global-warming-activist-laurie-david-fined-for-wetlands-violations-oh-never-mind/

And Tino believes in Santa too!

[sabril]

"avoid debating the issue because it's complex and difficult to convince anyone of anything."

It's complex in the same way that the race and intelligence debate is complex. i.e. not very complex but some people need to muddy the waters to further their agendas.

[tommy]

"Russian hackers uncovered this cheap little conspiracy by Jones, Mann, Briffa, and the rest of the neo con - artists of climate fraud. Score one for the Moscow hackers!"

The information was originally placed on a freely accessible Russian FTP server. That doesn't mean the hackers themselves were Russians. I haven't heard anything on the source of the attack.

[Alex]

I've been talking to my friends about this in the US, and no one seems to have heard anything about it. Has the Hadley CRU been able to get an injunction to stop the US press from disclosing the email contents (which are what make the story notable)?

In any case, once this gets out (which I very much hope that it does), I hope that the "scientific consensus" argument for man-made global warming becomes widely discredited.

[DT]

"If you've got some facts and logic to counter anthropogenic climate change, by all means, lets hear you lay it out."

You forget yourself. It is on proponents of AGW theory to scientifically prove the theory. It is not upon critics to prove anything. The null hypothesis is that recent climate changes are due to natural causes just as they have been since Earth began.

How do you prove a theory scientifically? By making predictions about the physical world. If the predictions come true, the theory is most likely sound. If not, the theory is falsified.

How do the AGW climate models measure by the standards of the scientific method? The current models are falsified. They predicted significant warming for this past decade, warming which simply did not materialize. There are numerous other specific predictions about warming and cooling at different locations and altitudes which have utterly failed and which, according to AGW theory itself, would indicate a natural source for the warming of the last 3 decades of the 20th century.

If it weren't for the political influence of the religion of Gaia and the opportunity of power offered by climate change legislation, AGW theory would at this point be just another discarded scientific hypothesis.

[sabril]

Great Post DT. I totally agree except that I would add one thing: The predictions made by a hypothesis must be interesting. It's not enough to predict that there either will be more rainfall or less rainfall. Nor is it sufficient to make 10 predictions and have only 1 or 2 come true.

To pass the test, the predictions must be sufficiently unusual, specific, and accurate that they are very unlikely to have been just lucky guesses or guesses which were cherry-picked after-the-fact.