The Warmergate Scandal

[Oddball]

You're a day late and a dollar short.

But thanks for the added source, anyways.

 

[Sinatra]

You're a day late and a dollar short.

But thanks for the added source, anyways.

Just caught that - whoops!


As to the subject itself - WOW.

 

[Sinatra]

More stuff:

General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.

In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I'll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.

*Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

*Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact HERE. Wow!

* Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information (i.e. destroy contravening evidence) subject to FoI request.(1212063122)

* Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)

*Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)

*Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

*Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)

* Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)

* Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)

* Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

* Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)

* Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)

- Bishop Hill blog - Climate cuttings*33

And those are just a few of the highlights.

Nothing like destroying evidence, distorting statistics, collusion, destroying the careers of those who question you and evading FOIA requests to lend credibility to your "settled science", eh what?

This one isn't going away quietly, gang!

Exactly.

Where are those in here in the past who stated there was no "agenda" , no pressure to make the science conform to said agenda?

That list of academic destruction that Dude posted is what happens in academics folks - the pressure to conform is enormous. I have lived and breathed that world for a decade - and unless you have done so as well, you simply don't understand the workings of agenda-funding driven academics...

 

[Sinatra]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNu3iFBPglM[/ame]

 

[Oddball]

Exactly.

Where are those in here in the past who stated there was no "agenda" , no pressure to make the science conform to said agenda?

That list of academic destruction that Dude posted is what happens in academics folks - the pressure to conform is enormous. I have lived and breathed that world for a decade - and unless you have done so as well, you simply don't understand the workings of agenda-funding driven academics...

I have not yet begun to dig.

Haven't yet sifted through all the links from the page on the OP and still more damaging info comes in over the transom.

These crooks have to be stopped and their worldwide scam exposed for what it is.

 

[Sinatra]

Exactly.

Where are those in here in the past who stated there was no "agenda" , no pressure to make the science conform to said agenda?

That list of academic destruction that Dude posted is what happens in academics folks - the pressure to conform is enormous. I have lived and breathed that world for a decade - and unless you have done so as well, you simply don't understand the workings of agenda-funding driven academics...

I have not yet begun to dig.

Haven't yet sifted through all the links from the page on the OP and still more damaging info comes in over the transom.

These crooks have to be stopped and their worldwide scam exposed for what it is.

Agreed - if this material is found to be legit - and to this point it appears it is in fact just that, this is HUGE. This blows the lid off of the entire mess. It shows it to be an international agenda, where science was pressured to conform, thus making it policy-drive "science" and not science-driven policy as it should be.

The architects of this scam purposely misled, the money poured in, and figures such as Al Gore and others became wealthy over the repeated distribution of the lie of man-made global warming...

 

[Sinatra]

And kudos to the insider who leaked this information. This could not have come from an outside source but somebody within who had had enough of the lies and scientific deceptions. I have no doubt they could be killed for doing such as billions - if not trillions, of dollars are at stake via the global warming hoax ponzi-scheme...

 

[Sinatra]

New York Times picking up on it now...


The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=2

 

[Sinatra]

Andrew Bolt of Australia's Herald Sun has more:

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.


Warmist conspiracy exposed? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

 

[Oddball]

That's the link in the OP.

 

[Sinatra]

That's the link in the OP.

So much information - this story is breakin like a tsunami!!!

 

[Oddball]

New York Times picking up on it now...


The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=2

From the piece:

The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.

Good thing the NYT doesn't give editorial spin on any of this and just reports the facts!

 

[Polk]

yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?

Sure, because if some blogger claims it, it must be true.

 

[Polk]

PS, guys, this email doesn't tell you what you think it tells you...

 

[Polk]

New York Times picking up on it now...


The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=2

From the piece:

The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.

Good thing the NYT doesn't give editorial spin on any of this and just reports the facts!

What editorial spin is there in that? The vast majority of researchers in the field do accept the basic idea that humans are driving the increases in temperature.

 

[Chris]

New York Times picking up on it now...


The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=2

From the piece:

The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.

Good thing the NYT doesn't give editorial spin on any of this and just reports the facts!

What editorial spin is there in that? The vast majority of researchers in the field do accept the basic idea that humans are driving the increases in temperature.

Don't interupt their delusion, please, it's too entertaining.

 

[Oddball]

Speaking of delusion, your pet religion has just had a massive hole blown in it.

 

[Oddball]

PS, guys, this email doesn't tell you what you think it tells you...

 

[Polk]

PS, guys, this email doesn't tell you what you think it tells you...

What the email is saying to sex up the graph. You could consider that unethical, but that's not fabricating data. Furthermore, accepting your argument as valid (that they were where playing with the data), what decline was there to cover up? The email was written in 1999, which was the year after the hottest year on record.

 

[Sinatra]

A well written take from James Delingpole regarding what he has now dubbed "ClimateGate"...

___


But in the case of “Climate Change”, the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?

As Upton Sinclair once said:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”



Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science – Telegraph Blogs