Noted environmental writer George Monbiot, author of Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning, calls the leaked documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit a “major blow.” On his website and in The Guardian, he writes:
The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
The hack or unauthorized disclosure of these documents may have been illegal (unless protected by the UK’s whistleblower law). Yet the documents themselves also provide evidence of illegal activity by several climate researchers.
Monbiot is quick to note that the leaked documents do not disprove global warming nor discredit the wealth of evidence that human activity contributes to cliamte change. They do, however, suggest that some specific claims and data sets will need to be reanalyzed.
Climate researcher Judith Curry argues that the leaked documents raise two “broader issues”: “lack of transparency in climate data, and ‘tribalism’ in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process.” She’s right. Tyler Cowen’s comments are also worth a read.
Sharpshooter says:
1) Check the emails about refusal to abide by the FOIA laws.
2) Scientific research (of a non-security nature) is SUPPOSED to be public records.
3) A government that refuses to enforce its laws about FOIA is just as onerous as the Hadley/CRU bunch.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 9:23 amPolitical Observer says:
I would suggest that readers of this post take a look at another post on the What Up With This blog. The writer is positing a different threoy of how these documents came into the public domain. The essence of his analysis is that it was probably due more to stupidity and incompetence than any nefarious plot by outsiders (hackers) or an internal whistleblower.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 9:33 amWidmerpool says:
I agree that the leaked emails do not refute global warming–but they don’t have to. There is now credible evidence that proof of global warming, to some extent, perhaps a very small extent, has been fabricated. And, given the average person’s lack of appreciation of nuance and proportion (what is frequently discussed on this website under the cloak of “political ignorance”), any demogogue can now refute all of global warming by simply mentioning the magic words: “hide the decline.” It looks like there may be a self-inflicted mortal wound to the alternative energy movement. Buy exxon shares now.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 9:35 amBlue Neponset says:
I have found that people who don’t want to believe something will go to great lengths not to believe it. It is a shame that this hacked e-mail will give more ammunition to the anti-climate change crowd.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 9:43 amAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
This may be bad news for Big Wind (G.E. and Vestas). On the other hand, there may be too many jobs and too much political power tied up with the forced transition from low cost fossil fuel to high cost alternative energy like wind, solar, and bio.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 9:44 amBlue says:
My respect for Monbiot just went up about a thousand percent. He nails it–it is the utter lack of respect for the scientific method that is the most significant revelation in the e-mails. I think he is also right to point out that the behaviors amongst the cabal members do not disprove global warming. As a matter of logic, they cannot (e.g., Piltdown didn’t disprove evolution). What is needed now is to determine a few things:
1) What papers need to be withdrawn? Anything these people touched, either as authors or reviewers, needs to be reviewed again and its data reconfirmed from original sources.
2) What work is untainted?
3) What work was blocked from peer review using the unfair standards of the cabal?
4) What is left standing once all the dust settles.
This could all have been avoided, utterly all of it, had these “scientists” followed the ethics of their discipline.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 10:31 amBen P says:
I’ll go the other way on this. I think “alternative energy” has consistently been a non-starter.
It will continue to be a non-starter until we reach the point where private industry finds a profit incentive in producing “alternative energy” more cheaply than energy can be derived from fossil fuel sources.
Alternative energy will be come mainstream precisely when this occurs and not before.
There are those who may make a case for subsidizing alternative energy for non-economic reasons, and that case may or may not have its merits. But I think the plain fact is that even massive subsidies can only push the switch over point so far. At a certain point people have to get into it themselves.
Will it happen at some point? Absolutely. Fossil Fuels are finite. Is there some possible benefit to it happening earlier rather than later? (or alternatively laying the groundwork for it to happen more easily) Maybe.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 10:32 amPubliusFL says:
I have found that people who are asked to agree to major and expensive new policy proposals tend to expect to see substantial credible evidence supporting the proposals before they accept them. It may or may not be a good thing that these hacked e-mails undermine the credibility of at least some of the evidence advanced so far.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 10:33 amsureyoubet says:
Blue Neponset: I have found that people who want to believe something will go to great lengths to ignore or discredit anything that even slightly contradicts their belief.
It is true that the AGW crowd, in it’s zeal to suppress even the slightest questioning of the orthodoxy, has unnecessarily called into question even the supportable aspects of their findings. And not just because of these e-mails. Anytime “scientists” don’t want to release their data, their methodology, and seek to suppress, rather than demonstrate the errors of, their critics, you begin to suspect that they are less about science and more about pushing an agenda.
The fact is that there are serious difficult questions about the degree of humankind’s contribution to climate change, whether we really can have an impact of any significance, and whether we can do so without destroying the quality of life for most Americans and without destroying any hope of advancement for people living in emerging economies. Further, there is a serious question as to whether our efforts and treasure would be better spent on alleviating the impacts of whatever the climate and weather may bring rather than trying to alter the climate itself.
Let’s face it. We have passed the “deadlines” (after which there would be no turning back from certain death for the planet) many times. Yet each passing deadline only renews calls for the need to really get super serious this time about doing something. So apparently the last deadline wasn’t really a deadline at all? Or the models were really wrong? Apparently Al Gore never heard the Chicken Little story as a child.
These e-mails certainly shed more light on the lack of scientific curiosity and ethics among those pressing an AGW agenda, but they aren’t that big a deal. Anyone looking at what is going on could see this isn’t about science with or without these e-mails.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 10:35 amBen P says:
I also think it’s a bit misleading to quote Monbiot in such a manner.
That’s not exactly the point you’re making by quoting him.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 10:36 amJones' Cell Mate says:
I have found that people who don’t want to believe something will go to great lengths not to believe it.
Your comment makes this point better than you can possibly imagine.
To all those who have even a passing interest in legitimate scientific inquiry– if you aren’t familiar with the phrase “HARRY READ ME”- you should be.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 10:54 amleofromlansing says:
Talk about burying the lede.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 10:55 amlucia says:
Judy Curry, not Miller.
[OOPS! Brain leak. Fixed. Thanks! JHA]
Quote
November 24, 2009, 11:14 amMr L says:
Ben P: Except Monbiot’s wrong, more or less. As I recall, while there’s a lot of work on climate science there’s a few key papers that form the basis of most of the research; that’s why it was such a mess when McIntyre challenged Mann’s so-called ‘hockey stick.’ The ‘three or four scientists’ in question here are some of the giants of the field.
One thing that’s definitely toast is the automatic presumption of good faith and rigor that the AGW crowd had over the denialists. Incredibly stupid.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 11:14 amlucia says:
leofromlansing says:
Maybe you should talk to Monbiot and suggest he reorganize his article to put the points you consider to be the lede at the top instead of near the bottom of the article. Gently suggest that, as a rookie columnist, he must not be aware that his lede should be placed in the introduction and that reorganizing his content will prevent innocent readers like Prof. Adler from becoming confused and thinking Monbiot considers the text placed in the introduction (i.e. lede) to be “the lede”.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 11:27 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
I suspect that I am not alone in having a very negative response to finding out that I have been jerked around. Distill the data for me if the information is outside my area of expertise, sure, but hide the raw data from me or falsify it or help it to look better than it is because I’ll only be confused? Oh, hell no.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 11:29 amBen P says:
I’ll concede that point. Anything anyone involved with this scandal publishes in the future will be much more closely examined.
However, like I said in the previous post, I do think you’re understating the amount of literature out there on this topic. There have been thousands of articles on this topic in the past decade or so, and they really do encompass a pretty broad range of opinion.
This may destroy some people’s careers (probably more because of the internal politicking stuff than anything else) but I really just don’t see it having a huge effect outside the community of people who already consider Climate Change to be spurious.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 11:34 amAnon says:
No major blow. Monbiot is just quickly making the correct damage control decision — throw Phil Jones under the bus so that we can continue business as usual.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 11:40 amBen P says:
I’d go back to what I said somewhere earlier about the presentation of science being inherently a subjective thing.
Sure, we have “Science” in the abstract as this objective thing, kind of like we have “Law” in the abstract.
But when I’m writing a legal brief, I’m not endeavoring to present a fair and accurate view of the state of the law. I’m trying to present the law as being as favorable for my side as possible. There’s always a balancing act between advocating for a position and simply mis-representing what’s out there. If a case says X, I can’t say it says “Y” and maintain credibiliy. But if a Case says “Z” and I know the other side is going to say Z->X, I’m perfectly fine saying “Z” is not this situation, and no court has held “X.”
Of course there’s some difference between a lawyer and an academic, but I don’t think it’s that big. Like I said, the presentation of science is inherently a subjective thing. Nearly every kind of academic I know starts a paper with a thesis, and his goal in writing that paper is to argue the thesis. You don’t just list a bunch of facts and expect to get published.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 11:43 amAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
Reconfirned? The data were not confirmed in the first place.
The key word is opinion. Any paper that relies in part on the cherry picked/massaged data from this outfit is just about worthless.
.
.
.
Hide the Decline. The tee shirts are already available.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 11:50 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Ben P, suppose that you were in possession of the only set of court records in the world, and you said, “No court has ever held ‘X’ and no, you can’t look at the records”?
I’m seeing this as more like the peanut butter manufacturers who kept sending out samples and getting positive hits for salmonella, until they finally found a lab that gave them the results they wanted. They shipped out the product with that information, and people got sick.
Or the South Korean stem cell researcher who took several different photos of the same petri dish and published his paper claiming that they were individual dishes. His career was destroyed, and it should have been. It’s not that the petri dish he had didn’t show what he said it did, it’s that he inflated the results to look like his process had a higher success rate than it did. Then, of course, it came out that he had coerced women who worked under him to donate ova, a process that is not without risk due to the drugs they use to stimulate ovulation. All of that came out of his desire to push forward his theories and make a name for himself overriding considerations of truthfulness and ethical treatment of his staff.
Of course you start with a thesis, but you just can’t cross the line of helping the data to look better than it does. You show what you have, and try to explain the data points that don’t fit.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 11:55 amFub says:
The curious incident of the moonbat that didn’t bark in the nighttime?
Just a few
badnobly intentioned but misguided apples making a minor attempt to save humanity by preventing a little scientific data from being released under FOIA.Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 11:56 amPatHMV says:
Monbiot’s not accurate on the scope. As another commenter has noted, these are not just a few isolated scientists we’re talking about here, it’s the leaders of the field. They were fighting FOI disclosure of records by claiming, essentially, that they were acting on behalf of an arm of the United Nations, the IPCC.
Moreover, there is a lot of talk about ability to have editors of peer-reviewed journals removed for being insufficiently in the tank for their position. I think these e-mails taint most of the major climate change journals until proven otherwise. The ones specifically named in the e-mails as having been influenced will have to either demonstrate that the e-mailers were talking through their hat (taking credit for things they didn’t actually have anything to do with) or that they have taken steps to prevent this type of group-think from happening again, and reassert their independence from politics, even scientific politics.
To reassert their credibility, they will need to prove that their peer review process can’t be corrupted, that THEY, not the submitting scientists themselves, or a confederation of such scientists, are the ones finding peer reviewers. Frankly, they’ll need to identify some solid researchers who are clearly not in the global warming political tank, and have at least one of them as part of the peer review process for each global warming paper.
And Ben P., I disagree. I think this will have a far broader impact. There is, as always, a whole swathe of the political public who just don’t follow this sort of thing much. They are neither confirmed believers nor confirmed deniers of AGW. They are the people who are being asked to foot the bill for cap & trade and the like. The middle was leaning more or less in favor of AGW and the need to take some drastic measures to stop it, I think. But only because of the claim that every single serious climate scientist in the world agreed on the basics. That was never actually true, of course, but because of the efforts of Jones and his ilk to bully any opposition out of the peer reviewed journals, it was hard for opposing scientists to get the credibility that comes with publication in such a journal. Certainly the fear-mongers of the AGW crowd believed that keeping opposing science out of peer-reviewed journals was very important to their political aims... witness just how hard they fought to keep that from happening.
The journals, to regain their credibility in scientific circles, will have to open up their publications more. That will result in more contrary science being published, which will finally allow us to have real debate on this topic, rather than the “we’re right, so shut up!” crap that Jones et al. have spewed against us “deniers.”
Quote
November 24, 2009, 12:01 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Here is an example of data not turning out the way it was supposed to, and the paper not hiding that fact.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 12:08 pmrick.felt says:
I have found that people who don’t want to believe something will go to great lengths not to believe it. It is a shame that this hacked e-mail will give more ammunition to the anti-climate change crowd.
I have found that people who don’t want to believe that
Global WarmingClimate Change is mostly baloney go to great lengths not to believe it. It’s a shame that they keep spinning in the face of these emails.Quote
November 24, 2009, 12:18 pmAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
Re the data:
Hide the Decline
Quote
November 24, 2009, 1:11 pmMalvolio says:
Yes, they do.
Evidence is only evidence if it’s relatively reliable. You and I aren’t capable of measuring the Earth’s temperature or compiling historical data about it or any other task necessary to demonstrating human-caused climate change. Instead we have to trust climatology, and climatologists.
If the allegations being made are true, then we cannot trust climatologists. It’s no good saying, those are are bad apples. Bad apples spoil the barrel. I cannot (again, assuming the allegations are sustained) rely on some of them to tell the truth and I cannot rely on others even to restrain the first group.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 1:24 pmJohnny Appleseed says:
I’ve learned a lot from many VC comment threads but when it comes to posts on climate change I am continually surprised that the readers include such a large group of AGW skeptics.
Climate change is the defining issue of our generation; a threat to our way of life like nothing we’ve ever seen. It doesn’t merit this animosity or distrust.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 1:33 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Johnny, the fact that a concept potentially offers a threat to our way of life does not, in itself, validate that concept.
Climate change isn’t getting animosity here. Lying about climate change is getting animosity.
Maybe the fact that you are continually surprised, as you say, should prompt you to slow down and revisit your own convictions.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 1:38 pmAnon says:
“Climate change is the defining issue of our generation; a threat to our way of life like nothing we’ve ever seen. It doesn’t merit this animosity or distrust.”
OK, then let’s look at what we’re distrusting:
Phil Jones, to the Guardian on November 24, 2009:
“We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea
Phil Jones, from the emails:
“About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little so have very little – if anything at all.”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=940&filename=1228330629.txt
(hat tip to http://camirror.wordpress.com/)
Quote
November 24, 2009, 1:52 pmroad2serfdom says:
The opposite of skeptical is gullible. VC attracts relatively fewer of the latter.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 1:58 pmcirby says:
Ben P:
Actually, I think you’re overstating the amount of research on this particular subject. While there are a lot of papers and studies on “climate change,” there aren’t that many on the actual root causes of it. When you get right down to it, there are very few researchers studying the fundamental issues — and most of their “research” involves simulations. If you look at the “serious” climate scientists who have been driving the issue for the last twenty years, about half of them are right in the middle of the CRU debacle — and they’ve worked with pretty much all of the rest of the top folks (or at least have them in their email address books and cell speed dial lists).
Among the minor researchers who haven’t worked directly with these clowns, pretty much all of them just assume that the fundamental issues are accurate and final — and have based their work on papers that were not, by most standards, accurate.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 2:08 pmMark Buehner says:
Animosity aside– it certainly DOES merit a large supply of distrust precisely because it is being tauted as the defining issue of this generation. When somebody asks you for a trillion dollars and to cut your personal electricity usage in half, don’t you want extraordinary evidence before you pull the trigger?
Good science thrives amidst dissent. It is skepticism that sharpens arguments, makes people check and recheck assumptions. Considering how HUGE the implications of AGW are and the tremendous resources we are being asked to sacrifice, it is proper that the analysis should stand up to all manner of rigor we can throw at it. The fact that the top climate scientists from around the world (who actually wrote the UN IPCC studies) are spending their time avoiding error-checking and discrediting skeptics is more than worrisome.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 2:18 pmSenatorX says:
It’s not that Global Warming is a fraud it’s that we have just had the wrong people leading the cause. If only we had the right leaders...
Quote
November 24, 2009, 2:21 pmDavid Schwartz says:
The point is that at least for a significant fraction of the lead scientists of the AGW theory, a number of the most serious charges of misconduct of the skeptics are now undeniable. If CRU was the rule and not the exception, AGW is dead and (to the extent it’s correct) will need to be resurrected with all-new science. I strongly suspect CRU was the rule and not the exception.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 2:25 pmroad2serfdom says:
If you feel so “strongly” why don’t you submit your suspicions to a peer-reviewed journal I control so I can have them rejected? Cheers.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 2:44 pmEric S. says:
Only someone like Johnny Appleseed, who never wonders where he’s gonna sleep tonight, whether his home will get bombed, whether he’ll go to bed hungry, and whether he has access to clean water for drinking and washing his hands, would call AGW the issue of our generation. Good grief man.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 2:48 pmTodd says:
It merits it when the very issue at hand has been subject to unethical data manipulation, blacklisting and violations of sunshine laws.
The question is just how much of a ‘threat to our way of life’ is AGW? Is it more of a threat than massive government intervention in the lifeblood of the global economy? To answer, you need reliable data and computer models which accurately predict global mean temperatures.
Here now we have a leading center for this type of research staffed by principals who privately admit they have no explanation for the last decade of temperature stasis (or slight cooling) NONE of their models predicted. They have ADMITTED the scientific understanding just isn’t there.
This issue and the proposed solutions are too important to allow this kind of chicanery to persist. Those models are what are being used to ‘prove’ we are headed for disaster. The ongoing revelations from this document release show these models are seriously lacking documentation and intelligible data sets. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to mortgage our economic future on such flimsy evidence.
What’s more, the paleo– reconstructions of past temperatures is also critical to being able to accurately discern long term climate trends. Are we in a naturally occurring warming or cooling phase? If cooling, does it not benefit us to keep the mean temperature warm?
Is CO2 really a threat, when all organic life on earth is ultimately dependent upon it? It is literally plant fertilizer! Science has shown us plants sequester more carbon when atmospheric concentrations are raised — that is, they grow faster and denser and produce more carbon based biomass.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 2:50 pmBen P says:
This doesn’t even make sense.
It’s true that much of the work of a Climatologist depends on constructing models of the climate. But one simply cannot construct a model without dealing with the “root causes” of why the climate is changing, and with evidence for suggesting how their models are different from the models others have created, which can only be derived from various pieces of evidence.
All I’m really getting from this line of argument is “but those guys are really really important!!!!”
This just isn’t accurate. Even though the CRU records weren’t publically available they were released to multiple parties. Not only that, they’re not the only source of data out there by far.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 2:56 pmMark Buehner says:
The raw data is only part of the issue– without understanding the methodology you can never replicate the findings. This requires documentation of computer code etc, which was not shared with everyone. If you can stomach the _HARRY_READ_THIS file you’ll see some poor slobs desperate attempt to reconstruct FORTRANS code sloppily put together and badly notated. But within that mess you see all the sausage that went in to the analysis– when you have to combine data sets or toss out data this stuff is critical.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:07 pmBen P says:
A mark twain quote comes to mind.
I find it interesting that the people claiming that “AGW” is “dead” as a result of these emails, are the ones who were already convinced it was completely bunk. Whereas someone like Monbiot, who’s an expert on the topic and calls for Jones resignation and some reanalysis of the data being discussed openly states “But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.”
I’ll even concede he has the same credibility problem in that he argues the data isn’t changed by this. If the two claims are equal, Why should I trust your claim over his?
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:09 pmReasonable Persons says:
Unfortunately for the deniers, the science is settled. All reputable scientists understand that cutting CO2 output is critical to the survivial of the human race. I’d rather not have half the Eastern seabord under water.
If there were any doubt, today’s ABC News (Bill Blakemore reporting) states “Global Warming Report Finds Time Running Out”
This reasonable report says “There’s even less for humanity than recently thought”. And this is not just any assessment. This is according to a “new IN-DEPTH scientific assessment by 26 scientists.”
This article also has a picture of a glacier. Do you believe your own eyes or a conspiracy theorist?
So I think I will choose to believe ABC News and real scientists over Glenn Beck and a bunch of conspiracy theorists on the Interenet. You tin-foil hat wearing deniers are not taken seriously no matter what minor inconsistencies you discover.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:10 pmSam Hall says:
There is a lot more to this than just the emails. There is also programmer notes that show the CRU data holdings and computer code are such a mess they can’t even redo old studies.
Read here for a while:
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:14 pmRichard Aubrey says:
I don’t think this will [will be allowed to] affect the political debate over the issue.
The amount of potential graft in Cap and Trade is beyond comprehension. Nobody’s going to let that go just because it’s based on lies.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:16 pmBlue says:
Reasonable Person, from your article:
Perhaps you’re missing the point that the email exchanges make clear we can’t trust the peer review process as regards to global warming.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:18 pmBen P says:
Here’s your problem.
“This reasonable report” was designed to sell papers (or get web hits as the case may be).
Most of the literature on this is in terms of ranges and confidences. You’ll find media reports almost always pick the top range (the most catastrophic possible) and quote that as if it’s a certainty. That’s just an inexcusable breakdown in science reporting.
But then quoting a scientist saying that “Based on ...we can say there is a 95% confidence that there will be somewhere between .05 C and 4.8 C (+/- .05C)” isn’t exactly a sexy headline.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:21 pmTodd says:
I think it is a nail in the coffin of any kind of binding accord at Copenhagen this year.
I’d hope we make certain these problems are not replicated to any extent in the hundreds of lines of evidence you reference. What other series are out there? Have the authors been as recalcitrant as Jones etal in releasing their methods and raw data? How coherent is their code? What have the math geeks to say about their statistical formulas?
What’s more, it would be nice to see the AGW zealots have a discussion about the supposed danger increased CO2 levels represent, considering the points I raised earlier, rather than labeling everyone who disagrees with them as ‘deniers’.
I’d also like a serious discussion of the theories regarding solar activity, cosmic rays and cloud formations. From what I’ve read, it seems a valid counter point. (edit: correlating solar activity to climate change)
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:21 pmBen P says:
Do they make that point?
I think they make the point that three or four prominent client scientists have a real problem with Stephen McIntyre and a few other prominent skeptics, and don’t think their opinions ought to garner attention. I don’t think one can go from that to invalidating thousands of articles produced over the past ten years. Even if you invalidate just as a matter of coruse, all the articles the CRU scientists involved in this scandal have co-written, you’ve got a couple hundred at most.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:26 pmBlue says:
Not just all the articles they’ve co-written. Also all the articles they reviewed. And all the articles based on either of these categories.
Anything the cabal touched is now suspect. To say nothing of the HARRY_READ_ME file and the deep concerns it raises for the validity of the underlying datasets.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:32 pmTodd says:
One of the authors of the Copenhagen Diagnosis is none other than Michael Mann, featured prominently in the leaked emails. Do you suppose he’d participate in something with balanced views, or something where everyone is on Team AGW? Having read many of his emails, I can state with confidence his presences as an author bring discredit to the enterprise.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:34 pmJames T. Carrington says:
There are MANY good reasons to develop alternative energy that have nothing to do with sea temperatures and sad polar bears.
1.Energy security — less need to quibble about limited resources when energy can be generated from more diverse sources.
2.Less pollution. Smog is gross, and is obviously from burning dirty things. Maybe the gasoline doesn’t contribute to warming, but it sure makes the air dirty.
3.Shifting resources to energy development really can’t be a bad thing; the secondary effects of new ways to approach the problem of power will continue to drive advances in how human beings live. I would like to see fusion power be a viable reality in my lifetime.
I’m sure there are even better reasons than I’ve pointed out as to why focusing on alternative energy is not a bad thing, even if we don’t utilize all of the oil as much as the market will bear...
I miss my Monte Carlo w/ the 454 as a viable daily commuter vehicle, but I would like a Mr. Fusion very much as well...
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:36 pmShelbyC says:
I’m sure the vast majority of folks with strong opinions on global warming on either side had absolutely no knowlege of the science that these emails were about, so I don’t know why they would change anything.
And I just found out that the “A” in AGW stands for a fancy word for man-made. Huh. I get less ignorant every day.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:36 pmgeokstr says:
I have been following the AGW issue for at least two years, on lots of other sites, including technical ones (like McIntyre’s). I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about it. I also read pretty much every thread and the comments on this site concerning AGW for over a year now.
On the skeptics sites, they have been claiming for years that there is a lot of research that contradicts the alarmists, but that they can’t get it published, and a compliant media has ignored that. At the same time, the pro-AGW types have all been saying over and over and over again, loudly, ad nauseum, “Where’s the peer reviewed research to either damage the apocalyptic claims of the pros or that supports the skeptics’ claims?” I’m not going to bother going into the archives, but I recall that very charge also made over and over here by the pro-AGW commenters, as well, who seem strangely silent about it now (you know who you are).
So now lookee, lookee — what have we here in these released files?
I think that one of the most explosive and so far underemphasized revelations is the conspiracy (yes, that word is quite appropriate here) to prevent the peer-reviewed publication of research that doesn’t support the claim that the end is nigh, unless we give algore and his crowd power over the bulk of the world’s economy. Of course it would look like a consensus, since no one else was allowed to be heard. There was actually a highly-touted article in one of the science magazines that claimed that not one peer reviewed anti-AGW article was published over a period of “X” years, and that was offered as more “proof” that the skeptics are all shills for Exxon. Duh-uh.
And remember, this is only the corruption surrounding one data center out of how many? What else is there in those other databases that no one wants to show? McIntyre was stonewalled for many years for the raw data and programming for the climate models used by one of the godfathers of this whole AGW movement, who even called for the trials of energy company executives for “high crimes against humanity and nature” over it — James Hansen of NASA.
What programming McIntyre was finally able to get from Hansen turned out to be such an undocumented mish-mish of code that I’m not sure if he was ever able to make any sense out of it.
And how much money has aleady been spent by both governments and the private sector worldwide to restructure our energy infrastructure to in pretty much every area of our lives already? Hopefully, this will at least kill cap and tax for the near future, but the inmates are now in charge of the asylum.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:36 pmJones' Cell Mate says:
Reasonable Persons can be sarcastic too you know.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:39 pmBen P says:
I have to apologize for a formatting error. Where you see the quotations “But do those revelations...” I’m directly quoting Monbiot’s article linked the original post.
That said, I’m of the opinion that there was already somewhere between a tiny and a snowball’s chance of there being a binding accord at Copenhagen. Or at least, any kind of a binding accord that means anything. Negotiating any sort of an agreement on an international scale is like pulling teeth and you’ll never really get compliance unless it’s in everyone’s interest to comply. The WTO only barely works because most people educated on the topic understand retaliatory trade sanctions create bad results all around, and sometimes that’s not even enough to overcome political pressure to impose trade limits in contravention of the WTO.
Getting China and developing countries to agree to some sort of Greenhouse gas system and actually bind themselves was pretty much a pipe dream to begin with.
Even for our part, I think my posts make it obvious I don’t disbelieve the science. But I’m pretty realistic about the costs of attempting to fix it, and even our chances of actually fixing something if we do take action. There’s a significant difference between wide eyed environmentalists who tell you that there’s always an existential environmental crisis around the corner and science that is actually settled in this case.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:40 pmBen P says:
what about all the articles whose authors are connected to Kevin Bacon.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:43 pmTodd says:
geokstr,
Well said. All members of the AGW ‘tribe’ must fully open their books and let the sun shine in! Let us see the code, the raw data and the methods/tools used to gather it.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:46 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Yes, they can.
“This article also has a picture of a glacier. Do you believe your own eyes or a conspiracy theorist?” had me laughing my head off.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:50 pmGene Hoffman says:
Hahah. No.
For the well read skeptic there is no denying that CO2 has caused and will cause additional warming. However, what is not at all settled science is how much more warming CO2 can cause because C02’s direct effect is governed by a law of decreasing impact. Let’s assume .6C since the begining of the Industrial revolution. A doubling of temperature is a total change of 1.2C. Warming is real, but then again we’ve warmed before and warm climate tends to be economically productive climate — see the Midevil Warm Period (which these emails admit is a problem for the “orthodoxy.”)
You’re referring to catastrophic global warming which makes all sorts of unsettled claims about water vapor triggering a chain reaction of warming. The catastrophic thesis is not at all settled science. However, now the models all need to be reviewed as the 1.2C may be too high because Mann et. al. may have been fudging even the underlying warming numbers.
Malthusians just can’t understand that even ecology is non zero sum.
–Gene
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:52 pmMark in Texas says:
This being a legal blog, I have a legal question.
Given the fact that Eric Holder and his DoJ are never going to pursue this matter, are the participants in the frauds documented in the various emails subject to civil suits either in the US or the UK? They took taxpayer money to do research and then conspired to defraud the taxpayers. Do individual taxpayers have any standing? Do the individuals who’s research papers were kept out of peer review journals controlled by the cabal have a reasonable claim that they were damaged? Could companies who invested in carbon neutral technologies reasonably seek damages on the grounds that they were deceived by Phil Jones et al?
Quote
November 24, 2009, 3:53 pmflyovertard says:
“If you look at the “serious” climate scientists who have been driving the issue for the last twenty years, about half of them are right in the middle of the CRU debacle — and they’ve worked with pretty much all of the rest of the top folks (or at least have them in their email address books and cell speed dial lists).”
Look at the Wegman Report. It conducts a social networking analysis on a vast majority of peer-reviewed literature regarding historical and predictive climate change. Forty-two (42) distinct authors, including all of the climate gurus in the CRU scandal (Mann, Jones, Hansen, etc.), are the foundation of what can be called “modern climate science”. These folks have collaborated on papers, sit together on editorical and review boards, essentially controlling what can be called peer-reviewed literature. Being the experts they sit on advisor boards at Universities. Having a small foundation of experts is not suprising since Climate Science has not historically been a huge field (as opposed even to seismology for instance). Dissenting science can’t get past the gatekeepers.
The largest body of recent peer-reviewed climate science deals with issues such as “The impact of global warming on anti-social behavior of red-tailed adolescent foxes in northeast Saskatchewan”, or “Red-Lichen Spore Volumes in a Warming World”. Although probably worthy in their own right (????) — these studies shouldn’t make their authors experts in climate change. But alas, if their studies are tied to climate change — they are now considered experts in climate change.
So yes there is a large quantity of climate change science that has been published in recent years — but very little of it is real climate science.
But, But, But what about acidification of the ocean — reputable micropaleontologists would disagree with this scare. In fact changing acidity and microorganisms response to the change forms the basis of most micropaleontology (facies change mapping, etc.).
Maybe this scandal will bring some sanity not only into climate change debate, but to the peer-review process. The scientific method will always win in the long-run — however tortuous the path may be.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 4:05 pmlucia says:
Mark in Texas
INAL... I also think Phil Jones has been behaving very badly. But I should hope the law would not permit suits that stretch liability this far. That would be horrible from a policy point of view.
I think there is enough in those emails to motive investigations by political authorities. But the contents do not shed any doubt on the radiative physics, the enhanced green house effect, the evidence to support the notion that man has increased the level of green house gases, and the observation that temperature have increased over the century. So, the fundamental basis for AGW has not been shaken.
However, the credibility of some sources is tainted, and this does cast doubt on some of the more catastrophic claims and also suggest that the balance of publications and interpretations from official bodies may be skewed in the direction that over states warming. (How much we can’t say. )
JHA– Could you correct “Judith Miller” to “Judith Curry”?
Quote
November 24, 2009, 4:18 pmRPT says:
Disclaimer:
I Am Not A Scientist. I do not have a researched and nuanced opinion on this topic. But I do have a question.
The CRU critics here invoke various standards for data disclosure, independent verification of results, bad faith, and so on. I can understand why, as these emails are great impeachment material. However, does anyone know whether the anti-AGW (for lack of a better term) authorities, industrial and academic, are subject to the same standards; nothing withheld for trade secret or proprietary information or other reasons? If not, are they willing to open up their private correspondence for the same kind of review? This seems to be the new standard applied here to the AGW side. If the other side withhold their own private materials, doesn’t that adversely affect their credibility? Or does the debate now move on with one side (AGW) presumed to be d discredited, dishonest and in bad faith on all their arguments, and the other side (anti-AGW) presumed honest and credible, but without the same internal disclosures? Can someone explain this without snark?
2.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 4:47 pmMalvolio says:
You don’t? Why not?
If you buy a dozen sandwiches from a deli and you open one of the sandwiches to find it’s putrid and crawling with vermin, do you just throw that one away and eat all the other ones?
If you got to a casino and find you are playing with marked cards, do you just switch tables?
If one Ford Pinto bursts into flames, do you just assume that that one was a unique aberration and pile the family into your own not-currently-burning Pinto?
James Randi made an observation to the effect that whenever a “psychic” was caught blatantly cheating, the charlatan’s friends and supporters would invariable make excuses that their hero was “under pressure” and “just doing it that one time”, but that all the times he wasn’t caught, well, that was real paranormal ability.
Look, maybe Phil Jones and his minions are sui generis, and every other climatologist on this supposedly overheating planet is simon-pure, swayed only by fact, immune to both politics and passion. Maybe.
But maybe not, and for the time being — and until I see some evidence to the contrary — I’m going for “no”. I’ll believe climatologists when they can predict the weather.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 5:03 pmPatHMV says:
RPT... In the first place, the “anti-AGW” folks are not the ones being used to demand multi-trillion dollar interventions in the global economy. In the second place, the skeptics have mostly not been claiming that there is NOT global warming, but that it is unproven, and that the science is not “settled,” contrary to the many claims of the CRU-type folks.
For example, there’s a significant conceptual distinction between the AGW side’s claim that analysis of antarctic core samples proves that current temperatures are higher than ever before in man’s history, and a potential skeptic’s assertion that the core samples are simply not sufficient to make any claims about past temperature histories. One is asserting a positive fact. The other is merely doubting that assertion and asking for the proof to be fully documented.
Moreover, there is not a concentrated “think tank” or university center of AGW skepticism. It’s a scientist here, a scientist there. Big Tobacco had a research institute, funded jointly by the major companies, to try to debunk scientific evidence of the damage caused by smoking. That’s not the case here. There’s no “Big Oil” research center.
Finally, generally speaking, scientists should not have to suffer having all their e-mails made public simply because they are researching a controversial topic. Science, in the long run, works regardless of the motives of the scientists. I’m not aware of any AGW skeptic scientist who has refused to release their raw data. Certainly if they have done so, I would agree that their conclusions have no credibility until they agree to do so... because if you won’t release your raw data so others can test and attempt to replicate it, you aren’t really functioning as a scientist.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 5:12 pmPatHMV says:
Also, Ben, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the CRU people boast of having influenced the editors of the peer review journals to keep out “skeptical” work. They even boast of having influenced the removal of one such editor. That makes the entire climate change peer review process suspect.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 5:14 pmdavod says:
“However, does anyone know whether the anti-AGW (for lack of a better term) authorities, industrial and academic, are subject to the same standards; nothing withheld for trade secret or proprietary information or other reasons?”
The problem has been that the AGW researchers have been unable to get their material reviewed or even published.
I tend to agree with the poster who wrote that the graft and corruption within the new Global Warming system is so great that it will be hard to stop.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 5:24 pmtax a lax says:
I doubt it. The two most famous and far-reaching instances of similar junk science informing politics in modern times were Lysenko’s biological theories in the Soviet Union and the racial science popularized in the 1920s and 1930s. Neither theory was debunked due to pressure from the scientific method, but rather from external forces: Lysenko’s theories could not keep pace with the accomplishments in the West, and the racial science theories were discredited after the Allies won the war.
Here, by contrast, the global warming contingent controls, or soon will control, virtually the entire global scientific debate on the subject. And at some point in the next decade or so, it’s fairly clear that virtually every country will politically ratify the movement’s claim, for example by ratifying treaties and enacting large bureaucracies dependent on global warming theories.
Thus, unlike in the previous cases, I do not think there will ever be a way to self-correct or externally correct the fallacies of the climate change movement, because it will control the external and internal agenda. I highly doubt the scientific method will “win” here, as you predict — there’s no mechanism for it to do so.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 5:32 pmBen P says:
That’s a pretty impressive stack of logical disconnects you have there.
Sandwhiches are more akin to a sandwhich made in a different building by a different person, but who works for the same company. Would you toss it?
A casino would be apt if it were one scientist involved in this controversy and jumping to another scientist directly involved in this controversy. The reality of what you’re trying to argue is finding you’re playing poker with a marked deck and declaring that all casinos everywhere are cheaters because they’re in the gambling business.
A ford pinto and a first generation Honda civic are similar cars. Would you sell your Honda because the Pinto burned?
The psychic is exactly the same person. I think you’d be perfectly justified in Scrutinizing Phil Jones work in the future. What you’re tryin to argue is more akin to saying that because one pyschic was revealed to be a hoax, that all individuals who ever claimed any sort of ability in that regard are bad faith con-artists. (which would require it’s own evidence)
And what you’re essentially doing is a classical conspiracy theorist move. You’re presuming the conclusion and demanding evidence that all climate scientists “aren’t biased.”
As for weather and climate. Althought imperfect I like the actuary analogy. You have no clue when you are going to die. I have no clue when I am going to die. But I can say with a high degree of certainty that the average male in the United States will live to 75, and life insurance companies make it their business to make predictions of smaller subsets of the population with a relatively high degree of accuracy.
Your statement is akin to demanding that your life insurance company tell you when you are going to die. OR possibly arguing that no life insurance company could ever make a profit because they cannot predict when you will die.
Climatology is no different. In individual weather patterns random factors overwhelm our ability to make precise predictions. However, somewhat more accurate predictions can be made on a large scale.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 5:46 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Because the evidence now conclusively shows that the arguments defending his view were false (that the type of misconduct shown in these emails couldn’t possibly exist at this level). Of course the folks on the AGW side are going to argue that this was an exception and probably most of their evidence is untainted — at least by this misconduct by these folks.
But until we know, AGW is dead. It will have to be resurrected if it’s to live again.
Don’t confuse the overwhelming evidence from hundreds of sources that the global climate is changing for the underwhelming evidence from a dozen or so sources that humans are responsible for a significant fraction of a long-term, significant warming trend.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 5:53 pmBen P says:
I would say that it makes a certain subset of accusations suspect. Namely it weakens the argument that a skeptic’s lack of publication is dispositive on the quality of their arguments. But there’s also a double indicator here. The same result would be reached if the maneuvering was simply because their arguments were not of the proper quality. That’s why I say “weakens” rather than destroys.
I fail to see how the playing of politics in peer reviewed work directly impugns anything other than the ability of “peer review” to stand as a proxy for reliability. Individual articles (whether peer reviewed or not) stand on their individual merits.
Also, as I said before, I’m personally aware of similar “journal politicking” in several other academic departments. I think the emails are indicative of the peer review process as a whole as they are of it in any particular field. But one has to admit that there are in fact some articles that fail peer review because they are of poor quality, and not because of departmental politics.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 5:55 pmMark Buehner says:
I don’t believe it destroys the case for AGW, not at all. But it at least reveals the charge that there is a total consensus on AGW by all reputable scientists to be as creepy as we’ve always thought. These emails quite blatantly show that these figures have created an atmosphere where a scientists bona fides are defined by their adherence to the global warming party line.
When you define a reputable scientist or scientific journal as one which agrees with catastrophic global warming, its pretty inevitable that you won’t find a reputable scientist or journal that challenges catastrophic global warming.
That should have been a big red flag. In every other great scientific breakthrough or insight, there has always been a rear guard of skeptics (usually the older generations) that don’t go away until they essentially die off. When those inevitable voices never appeared or were stifled, we should have known something was culturally wrong with these research fields.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 6:06 pmBen P says:
Unless I’m just totally misunderstanding what you’re saying, there’s absolutely no sense there.
His view is that the science of global warming is sound, and his argument is that the misconduct of three or four scientists in no way impeaches the vast majority of the science of climate change.
I’d certainly agree with Monbiot (whatever that counts for) that data needs to be reviewed, but these emails are a far cry from “conclusively demonstrating that the arguments for climate change are false.”
Quote
November 24, 2009, 6:09 pmDavid Schwartz says:
How can he know that? Presumably, he would have been just as confident about the work of these three or four scientists prior to this release.
This is the argument of the people who denied that the type of misconduct revealed in these emails was possible. Now they’re arguing that it can’t possibly be widespread — and their rationale is no different from what it was before.
And let’s not move the goalposts. This isn’t about climate change, it’s about AGW.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 6:58 pmcirby says:
Ben P:
This would be a reasonable argument — if it weren’t for the problem of the emails found in the CRU archive which disagree with you. They weren’t keeping out “bad” papers — they were keeping out papers that disagreed with their conclusions, or that weren’t strong enough support for their theories. They even conspired to get an editor fired (and succeeded) because he was a skeptic (not because he wasn’t good, but because he was doing his job).
Quote
November 24, 2009, 7:01 pmMalvolio says:
At most, it’s one logical disconnect.
Yeah, yeah, I would. (Are you actually saying the opposite: if your first Acme-brand sandwich was rancid, you would buy and consume another Acme-brand sandwich without even checking? I assume you mean something more subtle, but I don’t know what.)
It’s a reasonable question to ask how broad a brush we (the non-climatologist community, as it were) should using in tarring those responsible. Should we
1. assume those scientists were only unethical specifically in those issues covered by the emails we have
2. assume those scientists were unreliable in all dealings
3. assume all scientists at that facility are unreliable
4. assume all scientists at that field of study are unreliable
5. assume all scientists are unreliable
(1) and (5) I think we can dismiss out of hand. (2) is tempting to many people, but I think it goes against the general collaborative nature of science: any single person can make a mistake, but institutional structures are supposed to correct those mistakes over time. If CRU doesn’t monitor and discipline these bad apples, what purpose does it serve? Is it just a free money-buffet for anyone who manages to elbow his way in?
But why am I going for (4) rather than (3)? Partly because I have my doubts about climatology in particular, outlined below, but mostly because of, again, the collaborative nature of science.
How many times have you heard the phrase “peer review”? How many times have skeptics been derided for ignoring the “consensus”? How many times have words like “settled” and “indisputable” been bandied about?
It has to work both ways. If the collection of Climatologydom can be brought to bear against AGW skeptics, then victories by the skeptics have to redound against the entire collective. Otherwise, science just becomes a refuge for bullies like Phil Jones.
I think that’s an excellent analogy in many ways. Yes, an actuary cannot say when I personally am going to die, but he can tell me that 0.1% of currently healthy 44-year-old American males will die in the next 12 months (I made that number up). If he does tell me that, I can wait a year and count the number of originally healthy 44-year-old American males did in fact go Tango Upsilon. If he’s off by much, he’s a Bad Actuary.
Indeed, any other subject that presumes to call itself a science offers tests of exactly that nature: it makes a prediction and then someone else can test that prediction. It’s called falsifiability, and it’s central to distinguishing science from crap.
But how to I falsify climatology? It can’t tell me the weather tomorrow. OK, that’s fine, I get it, climatology is aggregate, it’s statistical. It doesn’t do “tomorrow”.
Can it tell me the weather next year? The average temperature over the next five years? Anything I can actually check? No, no, and a big fat no.
What can it tell me? Uh, in 100 years, the average temperature will go up 1.3 degrees.
Are you KIDDING ME? They are making a prediction that will checkable, maybe, by my great-grandchildren and they expect me to take them seriously. How is this something adults are spending their time on?
And now I find out this: even at their very sketchy, virtually rigged game, they aren’t playing by their own rules. Nope. No way.
Unless something very meaningful happens, very soon, I’m downgrading climatologist down to the level of phrenologists and letting them work their way up from there.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 7:07 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Right. And as previously pointed out, tree ring data that do not currently correlate to temperature, magically did correlate a thousand years ago.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 7:16 pmMalvolio says:
It was pointed out by a guy that Phil Jones was trying to get fired. (Hans van Storch, founder of the Donald Duck Club, publisher of Der Hamburger Donaldist, and apparently, a principled climatologist — why is that only the last of those credentials sounds implausible nowadays?)
You want to prove physics works? Tour Hiroshima. You want prove EE works? Stick your finger in a light socket. You want to prove climatology works? Take two parallel universes, lower the Earth’s CO2 levels by 50% in one of them, wait 100 years, and observe the 1.3% difference in annual worldwide average temperature. Yeah, that’s the same.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 7:39 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Malvolio
You missed a sitting duck.
The predictions will be verified, or not, by the great grandchildren who will probably not be born on account of world-wide poverty and dislocation.
However, you can verify, or not, the predictions the models give us for...Ta Da.
LAST YEAR.
I’ve heard they can’t even do yesterday.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 7:46 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I remember being told, when Katrina hit, that we could only expect more and more of that as time went on. That was four years ago.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 8:10 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Laura: Predictions can always be discarded when they don’t come to pass. That’s what’s so great about them.
Quote
November 24, 2009, 8:13 pmSam Hall says:
It has gone viral!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
Quote
November 24, 2009, 8:25 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Laura, David.
I have a couple of relations who think the predictions for hurricanes for the last couple of years are valid.
Whatchagonnado?
Quote
November 24, 2009, 9:03 pmrpt says:
Can someone tell me whether this works both ways, or is only the pro-AGW side that is required to disclose?
Quote
November 25, 2009, 12:00 amTodd says:
Who is making the affirmative charge humans are the cause of warming and will cause a catastrophe?
It seems to me the burden of proof is on that side.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 1:32 amBrett Bellmore says:
Since what the opponents have are questions, they’re engaging in disclosure every time they file a FOIA request.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 6:54 amStones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e94v3 says:
[...] Well, I linked this yesterday and was told it was deceptive. Try try again. [...]
davod says:
“I don’t believe it destroys the case for AGW, not at all.”
Only if you disregard the e-mails stating manipulation of the data.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 12:09 pmMalvolio says:
There’s a certain “fake but accurate” vibe going on. Only a tiny fraction of the evidence has been discredited — because only a tiny fraction has been checked, of course.
What I don’t understand is all this “proprietary evidence”. Secret evidence is no evidence at all.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 1:21 pmTodd says:
Malvolio,
Great point. No climate science star chambers! Time to play that hippie classic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S7ZiC80Ilg
Quote
November 25, 2009, 1:27 pmSG says:
Can someone tell me whether this works both ways, or is only the pro-AGW side that is required to disclose?
To the extent that the anti-AGW side makes positive claims, it’s absolutely works both ways. To the extent anti-AGW side is poking holes in the positive claims of the pro-AGW side, there’s nothing they need to disclose — that only requires access to the pro-AGW side’s data.
That said, it would be certainly nice to know if they failed at invalidating some pro-AGW claim or other but strictly speaking, that’s not necessary.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 1:38 pmA. Criminal says:
Speaking as a criminal who understands my fellow criminals, both elected and appointed, I’m afraid you’re right.
1 — Gov’t interventions to maintain the climate in some artificial state will fail to do so. Which is probably good because:
2 — A warmer climate would be a better climate for most of the world, and what’s bad (maybe, maybe not) for polar bears is probably good for all the other bears. Why do many people seem to assume that the current climate is the ideal?
3 — Another ice-age would render great areas of the northern hemisphere uninhabitable, so any claimed move away from that is comforting, so keep those lies coming, you “scientists!”
Quote
November 25, 2009, 4:46 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Not to mention, any significant cooling would shorten growing seasons and possibly lead to high food prices or even shortages in some areas of the world. I personally think that is a concern that is not thought enough about. I hope we are not staring at global warming, while global cooling sneaks up behind us and whaps us in the back of the head with a two-by-four, b/c we’ve made no plans for it at all.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 6:34 pmDanram says:
I hate to break this to ya, guys, but AGW is dead in the water. The e-mails themselves are incriminating enough. (Any time a scientist or group of scientists refuses legitimate FOI requests to make their data available for independent review and analysis, major alarm bells should be going off.) But 95% of the 61MB that were put on that Russian server weren’t e-mails. They were programming files, data files, and comments from the scientists and statisticians working on them. And now that people outside of the East Anglia CRU are starting to delve into them in detail, what they are finding is a total mess. The raw data used as well as the programming code written to manipulate them are so corrupted and flawed as to be totally worthless. The upshot here is that nothing that’s ever come out of the CRU has even a shred of credibility left.
Thank God that some soul out there couldn’t bear the lies any longer and had the fortitude to make these files publicly available before the climate change lobby around the world was successful in using them to force a multi-trillion dollar reallocation of the world’s resources.
This has never been about science. This has always been about money, power and ideology. But now the jig is up and the emperor has no clothes! Hallelujah!!!
Quote
November 29, 2009, 11:43 am