Althouse: Climategate.

November 20, 2009

Climategate.

A storm is brewing.

99 comments:

mariner said...: It's not often that hackers challenge a left-wing meme.

This should be interesting.; 11/20/09, 1:08 PM
Dark Eden said...: This entire thing has felt like a scam for a long time. Nice to see some evidence of that make it through.; 11/20/09, 1:12 PM
traditionalguy said...: Uh oh. The world government guys will have to find another end of the world or else threat.But they are so creative that it shouldn't take them very long. I remember that even McCain was on the side of the Climate Change To Nowhere earmarkers. This is so sad. A lifetime career in deception going up in smoke and never to be seen again.; 11/20/09, 1:19 PM
miller said...: Seems like we want to be scared of the future, and will fake evidence to help keep us scared.

This is going to make Baby Gore cry.; 11/20/09, 1:23 PM
X said...: a vast conspiracy. all the climate scientists need to release all the emails and data now.; 11/20/09, 1:24 PM
Shanna said...: Finally, something fun to send to my cousins husband. Since our conversation a few weeks ago about global warming, I have been waiting for the perfect forward!; 11/20/09, 1:25 PM
Titus said...: Its 70 in Boston today.

Global Warming my rockhard ass that you can bounce quarters off of.

Gore sucks and is a liar.

thank you fellow republicans.; 11/20/09, 1:27 PM
PWS said...: Yep! Evil scientists are conspiring to start a one world government!

Ann is a facking idiot. Global Warming is real. Evolution is real. It's not a left-wing or a right-wing thing.

Ann-Stick to shit you know about, like being a batshit crazy, doughy wannabe contrarian.; 11/20/09, 1:32 PM
X said...: I can't wait to see AlGore frogmarching. Brought down by his own internet!; 11/20/09, 1:32 PM
Scott M said...: Well...isn't this just an interesting turn of events...

My eyes will be on the knee-jerk reaction over the next few cycles from the AGW side. If even a few notables jump ship, that will certainly signify a sea change.

(pun intended)

I'll watch on my commute today to see if there are any hummer drivers laughing hysterically.; 11/20/09, 1:40 PM
garage mahal said...: I can't wait to see AlGore frogmarching. Brought down by his own internet!

That's effing funny. I don't care who you are.; 11/20/09, 1:43 PM
Big Mike said...: @Titus, I'd assume that 70 was pretty warm for late November in Boston. It's below 60 here where I live in Viginia, and you might notice that we're a bit south of you.; 11/20/09, 1:43 PM
Scott M said...: A quick survey of the usual MSM web outlets only showed Fox reporting this as a front-page headline. Interesting to watch the rest of them and see if it trickles it. I'm hoping that this isn't just a tempest in a teapot sort of thing. Again, watch the principles involved over the next couple of days to see who says what.; 11/20/09, 1:47 PM
Henry said...: Other than Global Warming and Bond Investing, what industries are heavily dependent on untestable computer models?; 11/20/09, 1:47 PM
Wince said...: Does this mean we can use the term Qui Tam and Al Gore in the same sentence?

wv-"twarties" = ask your doctor about twarties, because you can't use Compound W "down there"; 11/20/09, 1:48 PM
rhhardin said...: You know it's a fraud without any hacking.

You just have to have worked around builders of scientific computer models.

They are the most uncurious people alive. Surprises are their enemy.

On the other hand, curiosity is the mark of the scientist.

Consider: the rise of alarms from computer models coincided with cheap computer availability.

Just as asteroid alarms coincide with the availablity of detectors of asteroids.

Alarms mean funding.

On the other side of the Baysean ledger is the odd coincidence that the earth has gotten along just fine without computer models until now.

It would be an incredible stroke of luck that the alarms are available just at the instant they are needed.

As opposed to there suddenly being an easily tapped source of funds because of them.

The alarms will go on as long as funding goes on, is the dynamic that I see.; 11/20/09, 1:51 PM
kent said...: Global Warming is real.

The Man who blithely insists that the earth's mantle boasts a temperature of "several million degrees" says so, dammit!; 11/20/09, 1:52 PM
Scott M said...: Here's something I will bet any amount of money we'll see or hear today regarding this story.

Calls to Al Gore's office went unanswered.; 11/20/09, 1:52 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: I yield to no one in my skepticism of human activity causing climate change, but I am even more skeptical of leaked documents on a Russian FTP server.

While it's a reason to investigate, I wouldn't trust it.; 11/20/09, 1:53 PM
Triangle Man said...: Interesting assertion here that emails to/from U.S. public universities are subject to FOIA. I doubt this is true.; 11/20/09, 1:55 PM
traditionalguy said...: PWS...You need to catch up. The Evil Scientists now call Global warming Climate Change after it stopped warming ten years ago. But they are convinced that the globe getting colder is a sign of a future globe getting warmer...you know like the stock market. They are right about that. As soon as the sun spots crank back up so that our cloud formations lessen, then the globe will warm up again. Now do us all a favor and quit breathing out CO2 which certainly must help to start and to stop sun spots. Or maybe the CO2 is only a harmless sign of people using their own earth without getting your permission first by paying "protection money " to the World Mob and Godfather Gore.; 11/20/09, 1:59 PM
TMink said...: I think I read that the scientists had admitted to the emails being genuine.

They said they could not remember exactly what they meant about hiding the data by manipulating the graphs. But they did show open admiration for another "scinetist's" previous facility with misleading graphs and were enthusiastic about using it themselves.

Trey; 11/20/09, 2:00 PM
TMink said...: Wow PWS, you sure are persuasive when you get all butch and abusive like that.

Trey; 11/20/09, 2:01 PM
Big Mike said...: Not surprising. This extract below is from Richard Feynman's famous 1974 commencement address at Cal Tech:

"That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—-a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid-—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—-to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition."

Now lay this against what we've seen with Anthropogenic Global Warming. Have the people pushing this put down all the facts that disagree with their theory? Have they reported other things that could explain their results (e.g., that most of the observed warming trends can be explained by variation in solar output and, most critically that we've come a long way in cleaning up our air -- it is no longer as polluted by NOx or SO2 as in the years following WWII).

Note that this is separate and apart from the issue of whether it makes sense to develop the capabilities to exploit alternate energy sources. The sun will shine whether we have solar cells deployed or not. The wind will blow whether we have wind turbines deployed or not. Uranium atoms will decay whether we use nuclear generating plants or not. We should be doing all that. What we should not be doing, is developing alternate energy sources because of junk science. No, make that junque science, to mark how elaborate the hoax has been.; 11/20/09, 2:01 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: You know, I've been waiting for the crusade against carbonated beverages. I'm pretty sure they'll come for my Big K. It's just too inane and yet too prevalent for them to resist.; 11/20/09, 2:01 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Comrade X- that was fing funny!; 11/20/09, 2:05 PM
TWM said...: Much like the Obama folks clinging to their crashing leader, global warming fanatics (mostly the same people) will cling to this fake threat forever, no matter what evidence is presented. Nothing will change their minds.

However, Cap and Trade is dead and hopefully soon Al Gore will retire to his farm and never be heard from again.; 11/20/09, 2:05 PM
John Stodder said...: Let's assume these hacked materials are not forgeries (which they certainly could be). Let's assume that, at some point, a non-Fox mainstream media outlet -- USA Today would be a likely candidate -- reports this story and their reporting confirms the fudged data and other alleged activities.

What do the politicos do?

Does Obama vary his approach at all? Does cap and trade get shelved? What do the European leaders, so impatient for us to take action, do?

Think like a political novelist, a Tom Clancy/Herman Wouk/David Baldacci kind of guy. How does this play out on the low road?; 11/20/09, 2:06 PM
John Stodder said...: Big Mike, your quote from Feynman has perfectly encapsulated my unease with AGW. It's not that I don't believe it; I actually do. It's not that I don't want to see alt-fuels eventually replace oil and coal; I very much do, at some point soon when the economics are more favorable.

I just feel like, on this issue, too many scientists are not acting like scientists. Even the phrase "scientific consensus" seems anti-science to me. A scientist propounding a theory is supposed to expect his peers to try to falsify it. He or she greets the attempt with open arms, and shares data to help facilitate it. But not with this issue. Why?

I've assumed they've acted this anomalous way because they're genuinely alarmed and don't want to confuse people about something they are legitimately worried about. But this alleged incident raises other possibilities that are extremely disturbing.

wv: philated = a sexual practiced engaged in by avid stamp collectors.; 11/20/09, 2:13 PM
Unknown said...: When somebody noticed several years ago that fluctuations in the temperature of the sun coincided with fluctuations of the earth's temperature, you would have thought that would have ended it.

Oh, well, Albert Gore, the Living Redwood, didn't even know there was a President Polk, but not a President Knox.

WV "umigmen" What the sergeant tells the squad when they must mig.; 11/20/09, 2:14 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Cap and trade may get shelved anyway. If Obama wants a Democratic Congress after January 2011, he'll start worrying about jobs.

Anyway, once people tire of Global Warming they'll just find something else. When I was younger it was overpopulation. Since WW2 it was nuclear war (with the nuclear winter upgrade in the 80s.)

There will always be SOMETHING, some two axis malthusian graph that shows we are doomed. We are always being told that if we don't change our ways, we'll pay. It's really very religious, more about virtue than actual results. That's why we have busybodies telling us what light bulbs to buy while preventing nuclear power plant construction.

Just remember that when the next doom theory crops up.; 11/20/09, 2:15 PM
hdhouse said...: don't let science get in the way of partisan bloggers i always say.

no wonder the US is so far behind in the sciences.....if this is the level of scientific expertise on this blog we are in deep trouble.; 11/20/09, 2:17 PM
Charlie Martin said...: What is perhaps most amusing — so far, at least — is posters imputing a belief in creationism on the basis of a one-word link to a Memorandum page.; 11/20/09, 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Time to short your Carbon Offset Credits!! Call your broker now!!; 11/20/09, 2:21 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Not really. Most people don't need scientific expertise to do their jobs.

And people who do have it don't know anything more outside of their specialty.

Democracy means a lot of non-experts making decisions. The funny thing is that it works as well as it does.; 11/20/09, 2:21 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: A scientist propounding a theory is supposed to expect his peers to try to falsify it. He or she greets the attempt with open arms, and shares data to help facilitate it. But not with this issue. Why?

Why?

Let Joel Grey and Liza Minnelli tell you why.; 11/20/09, 2:23 PM
Scott M said...: @John Lynch

Anyway, once people tire of Global Warming they'll just find something else. When I was younger it was overpopulation. Since WW2 it was nuclear war (with the nuclear winter upgrade in the 80s.)

I get where you're going here, but let's not make the mistake of lumping the shadow of nuclear war that we grew up under (I'm 39).

That was a very real threat that actually almost happened by accident a couple of times. We all knew that the whole world could literally end within 30 minutes. That is nothing like the AGW farce and the sycophants praying at Gore's alter.; 11/20/09, 2:26 PM
hdhouse said...: Dust Bunny Queen said...
A scientist propounding a theory is supposed to expect his peers to try to falsify it. .. But not with this issue. Why?"

The keyword is "peers". That's why ministers aren't brain surgeons and docs save lives not souls.

PEER. Ya betcha.; 11/20/09, 2:27 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Global warming - fake but accurate.; 11/20/09, 2:37 PM
Big Mike said...: There will always be SOMETHING, some two axis malthusian graph that shows we are doomed. We are always being told that if we don't change our ways, we'll pay. It's really very religious, more about virtue than actual results.

Let's not forget Y2K. Airplanes were going to fall out of the sky!; 11/20/09, 2:44 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: For my final spiel, I'd like to highlight the damage to environmentalism this obsession with an atmospheric gas has caused.

1. A lack of attention to real, actual pollutants. There's still plenty of chemicals being dumped into the water and air. I don't like the brown cloud over my town from coal powered power plants in New Mexico. Solid particulates are actually dangerous and coal smoke causes acid rain. I can see the results of this. I don't like it. There is some overlap between CO2 and other pollution, but if we want to deal with reality we should focus on actual environmental threats.

2. The distortion of environmentalism away from actual results and toward abstract rhetoric. It's now about wasting money on "green" products and industries (and being seen to do so) rather than actually improving the environment. Toyota made a masterful marketing choice when they made the Prius look different than their other cars.

3. Meanwhile, the emphasis on CO2 makes measuring environmental improvement virtually impossible. Is there more or less wilderness because of CO2 regulations? Can't tell (more CO2 might be good for trees). Like "jobs created or saved" there's no way to measure how successful any CO2 regulation will be. If it gets warmer, then it would have gotten still warmer without the regs. If it gets colder, then the regs worked. There's no way to disprove it.

4. Once AGW is proven to be bunk, environmentalists will have a hard time getting their credibility back. Or maybe not.; 11/20/09, 2:56 PM
Paddy O said...: Excellent comment, John Lynch.; 11/20/09, 3:00 PM
John said...: Real climate.org is admitting that the e-mails are legit. So, we can end all talk of some Russian hacking forgery.

The e-mails that I have seen show a two big things.

1. The AGW promoting scientists are guilty of the worst scientific group think imaginable. It is one thing to throw away experimental data that is outside of the norm and what the models predict. It is another thing to only consider data that fits the models and endlessly torture the data to make sure that it fits the model. Their entire purpose in life seems to be to prove the skeptics wrong, even if that meant ignoring or supressing data.

2. They actively conspired to ensure that skeptical papers did not get into peer reviewed literature. It is a pretty good scam. Just prevent anyone who disagrees with from publishing in a peer reviewed journal and then claim that their views are not vaild because they are not published in peer reviewed journals.

3. They also admit that they can't explain why the earth stopped warming in the last 10 years and how they need to find a strategy to minimize that fact and keep the skeptics from using it. clearly, some great science was going on.; 11/20/09, 3:08 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: A scientist propounding a theory is supposed to expect his peers to try to falsify it. .. But not with this issue. Why?"

hdhouse: "The keyword is "peers". That's why ministers aren't brain surgeons and docs save lives not souls.
"

Ok. Let me type real slow.

GRANTS. There is plenty of incentive to lie your head off and not allow peer review if it means you or your institution or the company you are shilling for will get some nice tasty grants for nodding your head like a bobble doll in agreement with the Global Warming schtick.

Grants = Money.; 11/20/09, 3:09 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: If AGW is caused by the pursuit of money which in the case of AGW means the pursuit of govt grant money, does that mean we can cut the deficit by showing AGW is a fraud?; 11/20/09, 3:12 PM
Henry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/20/09, 3:15 PM
cenghan said...: PWS...You need to catch up. The Evil Scientists now call Global warming Climate Change after it stopped warming ten years ago. But they are convinced that the globe getting colder is a sign of a future globe getting warmer...you know like the stock market. They are right about that. As soon as the sun spots crank back up so that our cloud formations lessen, then the globe will warm up again. Now do us all a favor and quit breathing out CO2 which certainly must help to start and to stop sun spots. Or maybe the CO2 is only a harmless sign of people using their own film izle film izle film izle film izle çizgi film izle anime izle erotik film izle erotik film izle online film izle
film izle earth without getting your permission first by paying "protection money " to the World Mob and Godfather Gore.; 11/20/09, 3:16 PM
garage mahal said...: Once AGW is proven to be bunk, environmentalists will have a hard time getting their credibility back. Or maybe not.

Then....why can't it proven to be bunk? You have all the emails yes?; 11/20/09, 3:17 PM
Henry said...: Not long ago my dad sent me a link to a talk he attended by Dr. Irving Langmuir titled "Pathological Science." He was pleased to find it online 50 years after hearing it. Here it is:

Introduction (links at the bottom go to the rest of the talk)

Langmuir discusses six examples of pathological science, from "Davis-Barnes Effect" to "Flying Saucers".

Importantly, Langmuir states "The characteristics of this Davis-Barnes experiment and the N-rays and the mitogenetic rays, they have things in common. These are cases where there is no dishonesty involved but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. These are examples of pathological science. These are things that attracted a great deal of attention. Usually hundreds of papers have been published upon them. Sometimes they have lasted for fifteen or twenty years and then they gradually die away."

Despite the CRU gamesmanship (if it is as reported) I think most anthropogenic global warming theorists are honest. That doesn't mean they are right.

Here's Langmuir's list of the symptoms of pathological science:

1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

3. Claims of great accuracy.

4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience.

5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.

6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.

Any of these seem familiar?; 11/20/09, 3:18 PM
Penny said...: "It's now about wasting money on "green" products and industries (and being seen to do so)"

It's not only about the grant money. It was also about building up our economy, as the quoted comment captured.

This is going to hurt, but then the truth always does hurt.; 11/20/09, 3:19 PM
Henry said...: John Lynch -- excellent, excellent points. One key example -- Al Gore attributing the melting of the snows of Kilimanjaro to global warming. Most likely culprit? Deforestation around the mountain's base.; 11/20/09, 3:23 PM
Shanna said...: Global Warming is real.

So is the Medieval Warm Period.

I so hope this is true because it’s fun, but I’ll wait for some verification.

The keyword is "peers".

It certainly helps prove your theory if you define “peer” as anyone who agrees with you.; 11/20/09, 3:25 PM
John said...: These e-mails are the equivilent of finding in 1926 that Schroadinger and Heissenberg where writing back and forth trying to find ways to supress data that didn't fit with quantum mechanics and ensure that Enstein could never get a skeptical paper published.

They really are a big deal. Further, the guys who wrote these e-mails go out and do a lot of testifying before government committees and the like. They won't be able to do that anymore without being cross examined with these emails. Their credibility and reputations are shot. This is a big deal. The Left and the MSM will try to ignore it and pretend it didn't happen. But there is no denying the damage that has been done.; 11/20/09, 3:27 PM
Penny said...: As to John Stodder's question, "What do the politicos do?"

They need to immediately declare that this work was just a small percentage of the available data, and as such has no bearing on the "overwhelming evidence".

There is way too much riding on this cockamamie story to back out now.; 11/20/09, 3:27 PM
Anonymous said...: EDH you were reading my mind. Not just Qui Tam, but RICO!; 11/20/09, 3:30 PM
chickelit said...: The President's man at the top also has some serious 'splain' to do.; 11/20/09, 3:34 PM
The Drill SGT said...: t-man said...
EDH you were reading my mind. Not just Qui Tam, but RICO!

SEC, I'm thinking securities fraud and wire fraud. Investor lawsuits. It's illegal to pimp stocks if you have inside information and you are an insider.

Gore is on the boards of a bunch of these Carbon Scams. If he had access to information and pimp'd the stocks contrary to the known facts, he can have a problem; 11/20/09, 3:41 PM
John said...: Also, the emails are sampled from a 10 year period. The implications are:

Prolonged, systematic efforts to make the data conform to the model instead of making the model conform to the data.

Prolonged, concerted efforts to squash dissenting opinions from the publich sphere.

Systematic efforts to prevent the release of data request per legal FOI requests.

There is no way that this can be covered up. This is going to be in the news for a decade or more.; 11/20/09, 3:46 PM
chickelit said...: A silver lining for me is that I can now jump to item 1(b) on this list and forget the other items for now. Item 1(b) alone will be a formidable task, but there are encouraging signs that dissident voices will be heard.

Item 1(a) may still be worthwhile considering, perhaps after the next administration takes office (show trials?).

I presume that item (3) is irrelevant because Copenhagen will fail.; 11/20/09, 3:48 PM
Alex said...: garage - the burden of proof is on YOU guys to prove AGW is real, not on us to disprove your theory.; 11/20/09, 3:48 PM
Alex said...: Ann is a facking idiot. Global Warming is real. Evolution is real. It's not a left-wing or a right-wing thing.

Wow, if this is the apotheosis of the left, I have nothing to fear.; 11/20/09, 3:49 PM
chickelit said...: Global Warming is real

Yes Virginia!; 11/20/09, 3:53 PM
pst314 said...: "There is plenty of incentive to lie your head off...if it means you or your institution or the company you are shilling for will get some nice tasty grants"

Yes indeed: Back when I began my physics major in the 1970's, my professors were quite open about how you should lie, spin, and twist the facts in order to get grant money.; 11/20/09, 3:53 PM
AC245 said...: Most of the people who'd made even a cursory look at this topic already knew that misrepresentation, fakery, and data manipulation were the order of the day for the hardcore AGW believers. It's nice that they were stupid and arrogant enough to document so much of their deceit and that the documentation has now been released for the public to see.

This event will highlight who the fact-resistant, die-hard, true believers are (it's safe to put PWS in that category).

Contending that these frauds have any honesty, integrity or scientific credibility even after the release of these emails and other data is akin to contending that the Rosenbergs were innocent patriotic Americans even after the release of the Venona cables.; 11/20/09, 3:59 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Thomas Kuhn should be required reading.

I don't think scientists who believe AGW explains the data the best are evil, bad people. Science is all about human beings, and people of good faith disagree all the time.

For a lighter take,

It's a fake.; 11/20/09, 4:07 PM
John said...: Here is an ice email showing how the "consensus" was manufactured.

From: Joseph Alcamo
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart@rivm.nl
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions –

Distribution for Endorsements —
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500
signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.

Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!

Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.

Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.

Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.

Best wishes,

Joe Alcamo

—————————————————-
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany

Phone: +49 561 804 3898
Fax: +49 561 804 3176; 11/20/09, 4:13 PM
John said...: These people are craven.; 11/20/09, 4:13 PM
John said...: This is funny

From: Michael Mann
To: Andrew Revkin
Subject: Re: mcintyre's latest….
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:25 -0400
Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

HI Andy,

Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don't quote
anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically–thanks.

Re, your point at the end–you've taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential
for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But
legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in
particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition
for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate
scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside
of this system are not to be trusted.

mike

especially considering the same guy wrote this:

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?
mike; 11/20/09, 4:22 PM
Big Mike said...: One key example -- Al Gore attributing the melting of the snows of Kilimanjaro to global warming.

Is Mr. Gore aware that Mt. Kilimanjaro is (1) a volcano and (2) only 3 degrees south of the equator? Although it is inactive, the magma chamber is only 400 meters below the peak and geothermal energy is vented through fumaroles.; 11/20/09, 4:28 PM
David said...: This may make a number of true believing scientists look foolish, venal or worse, but it's hardly the end of the AGW issue. Nor should it be. The crime against science has been to make a point of view something sacred--a sacred consensus. However, the fact that dishonest people have tried to slant the data and marginalize the skeptics does not mean that they are wrong. The entire issue is too complex, and the data is too ambiguous, for a conclusive answer one way or another.

It's good to have dishonest exposed but that does mean that we should conclude that AGW is not a serious problem. It should and will remain a important focus.; 11/20/09, 4:35 PM
John Stodder said...: For my final spiel, I'd like to highlight the damage to environmentalism this obsession with an atmospheric gas has caused.

Amen. Sometimes I refer to myself as a 1980s' environmentalist. Let's return the focus back to the public health and habitat restoration foci of environmental law and policy. These things remain vital, complicated and costly matters to wrestle with. Why the green movement felt it necessary to go all sci-fi on us will be a subject for many historians. Saving the earth is nice, if the earth needs saving. But I think saving the people who live around LA/LB harbors from breathing toxic air contaminants is more important work. Getting us off coal and oil because their extraction is ruinous is a great reason to push hard for conversion to cleaner sources. But when you throw apocalypse into the mix, you end up with the kinds of "you're an envirofascist...you're a denier" food-fights of the past 20 years.; 11/20/09, 4:47 PM
Paul said...: Nice to have this perfidy come to light, but is anyone surprised?

The warmist's insistence that the "science" is settled and their fascist tactics in suppressing dissent and debate was a dead giveaway that they were foisting a falsehood on the public. The fact that they are leftists also points to totalitarian, amoral tendencies and an obsession with power and control.

AGW as a means to frighten the population into accepting a loss of freedom and a lower standard of living is Cloward-Piven in action.

That, along with health care "reform" and accruing an impossible debt load is the left's strategy to cause the system to collapse.

And while Obama and his bots whine endlessly that they are overwhelmed trying to clean up Bush's mess, the next Republican administration will be the ones with the real mess to clean up.; 11/20/09, 5:04 PM
Paul said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/20/09, 5:05 PM
Big Mike said...: @David, go back and read my post at 2:01. The issue is simple -- the climate scientists are not behaving like real scientists.

If we could have an honest debate about climate then we'd ask questions like (1) how serious is CO2 as a greenhouse gas (answer: not nearly as serious as H2O or methane), (2) is climate change spread evenly across the globe (answer: no, it seems to be mostly in the upper latitudes of the northern hemisphere), (3) can we actually freeze the global climate in place (answer: you must be sh*tting me).; 11/20/09, 5:08 PM
Big Mike said...: @John Stodder, there is a body of research, which has had to keep itself clandestine or at least below the radar, that thinks our successes in cleaning up the atmosphere are partially responsible for global warming -- the NOx and SO2 we used to pump into the air were having the same cooling effect as a major volcano. Not that any Democrat would allow that research to be funded!; 11/20/09, 5:12 PM
knox said...: The media is so behind Global Warming (caused by humans) it's hard to say what it would take to reveal the scam. "If a tree falls" and all that...

rhhardin said "Alarms mean funding."

This is pretty much all you need to know.; 11/20/09, 5:14 PM
Brian said...: David said:

"It's good to have dishonest exposed but that does mean that we should conclude that AGW is not a serious problem. It should and will remain a important focus"

Sure. But in context. Like the authors of "Freakonomics" who didn't deny AGW but instead looked at it on cost/benefit basis and devoted space in their book to explore options like geo-engineering. Or the lower costs of simply dealing with a warming earth vs. an all out war on CO2.

Of course, they were immediately criticized, in particular with the way they interpreted a prominent climate scientist's research (he knew this, but simply chalked it up to their perogative to view his data that way). Didn't fit the "Day After Tomorrow" narrative.

I thought it was only the evil Rethuglikkkans that got science wrong.; 11/20/09, 5:32 PM
MC said...: On evading FOI requests:

“Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !”

Or deleting emails subject to an FOI request:

“From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil”; 11/20/09, 5:34 PM
Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...: The go-to source on this one is ClimateDepot-{dot}-org.

Most of us geologists and astronomers have been skeptical about this for something like fifteen years -- we know too much about paleoclimate (GSMOW, anyone?) and fluctuations in solar energy.

It does not surprise me a bit that the soft-science folks would be cheating to make a point. However, if even half of this stuff is true it will be a scandal of the first order, nearly destroying scientific credibility for ordinary folks.

The next scandal to look at is how cancer researchers don't really want any big advances towards a cure.; 11/20/09, 5:37 PM
William said...: There are many intelligent, seemingly accurate observations here about the glitches and distortions involved in Global Warming theories. I can't comment on who's right about this, but the fact that I'm reading these objections for the first time here and not in some mass media outlet says something about how Global Warming is being reported on.; 11/20/09, 6:05 PM
Cedarford said...: John Lynch said...
For my final spiel, I'd like to highlight the damage to environmentalism this obsession with an atmospheric gas has caused.

John, your spiels are good, but I would add to them that the overpopulation problem you dismiss only had a brief respite through the productivity gains of the Green Revolution in the 60s, which have no "miracle high tech!!" analogy before or since, since Victorian England began public health and sanitation measures in the Empire.

We now, long before CO2 is even a threat by Greenie standards, have the problem of 1.2 billion people in 1900 growing to 12.7 billion in 2050.

230 million which are already into their last 10 years of mined, fossil water.
Only 8 nations remain with enough arable land and less people to be grain exporters.
Mass species extinctions are expected, and oil, strategic minerals, and regional wars to eliminate surplus people are predicted to be coming long before "poor polar bears" suffer. And wars between nations where too high a breeding rate & many people translates out into 60%youth jobless rates (Egypt, Yemen, Ivory Coast, Pakistan).; 11/20/09, 6:33 PM
chuckR said...: re: suppression of opinions and investigations contradicting AGW settled 'science'

A NASA researcher, Ferenc Miskolczi, found that one of the governing equations for predicting atmospheric heat transfer used the original generic initial conditions, dating to Eddington, who wrote it decades ago. When Miskolczi modified the constants, which originally assumed a semi-infinite Earth atmosphere thickness, to reflect the real thickness of Earth's atmosphere, he got more realistic climate results for both Earth and, suitably modified, for Mars. He also asserted that the equation as previously used broke the energy balance. Translation - it created energy out of nothing. And that extra energy heated the computer Earth.

He didn't last at GFSC long after those assertions. I haven't done any serious looking, but if he's a crank, it should have been easy to refute his assertions that 1) the equation was misapplied, and that, 2) as misapplied, it violated the laws of thermodynamics. The guy wound up publishing in an obscure Hungarian Meteorology Journal, peer reviewed though. Be interesting to see what happens to his work now.; 11/20/09, 6:49 PM
mariner said...: Penny @ 3:27:
They need to immediately declare that this work was just a small percentage of the available data, and as such has no bearing on the "overwhelming evidence".

David @ 4:35:
This may make a number of true believing scientists look foolish, venal or worse, but it's hardly the end of the AGW issue. Nor should it be. The crime against science has been to make a point of view something sacred--a sacred consensus. However, the fact that dishonest people have tried to slant the data and marginalize the skeptics does not mean that they are wrong. The entire issue is too complex, and the data is too ambiguous, for a conclusive answer one way or another.

That's pretty close to immediate.

QED; 11/20/09, 7:39 PM
jimspice said...: Ann, this is what puts you firmly on the right, despite your voting record. At least provide a link to the opposing side: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

As for anyone that says anything about the past ten years actually cooling, you are dorks. Bart Hall especially. For this I won't provide links as they are so readily available and apparent and ignored by people just like y'all.; 11/20/09, 10:39 PM
kentuckyliz said...: Why would European universities be subject to an American law? (FOIA)

Even in America, wouldn't there be a crapload of exclusions for IP, FERPA, HIPAA, and counselor/client confidentiality?

Leaving only meeting announcements subject to open meetings laws.; 11/20/09, 11:07 PM
OldManRick said...: @jimspice

Very funny - you reference a site that was described in the hacked emails as set up to provide only the AGW side of the story.

As to cooling in the past ten years, read A Cherry-Picker's Guide to Temperature Trends

at http://masterresource.org/?p=5240

By all significant measurements the earth has been cooling if you analyze the last eight years with a simple linear regression. As the guide points out you have to balance the last ten years cooling with the hotter years of the 90s to get a linear upward. If you were to run a polynomial fit or say a Kalman Filter (a bastardized use but maybe appropriate for a system with so many unknowns) you would see the trends are down in the last ten years.

Enjoy your AGW religion, according to some I've read the second coming of the Dalton Minimum is near and it won't be your resurrection.; 11/20/09, 11:31 PM
quilbill said...: The Feynman quote by Big Mike up top was a good one.

Unfortunately, the AGWers are only going to become more defensive and secretive because of this.; 11/20/09, 11:38 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: @David, go back and read my post at 2:01. The issue is simple -- the climate scientists are not behaving like real scientists.

I would add a couple (though maybe not to climatologists).

4) What are the costs of doing nothing (including offsetting any lost land to the ocean by increased farmland in the northern parts of Eurasia and North America)?
5) Are there cheaper ways to control or offset Global Warming?
6) What is the optimal temperature or climate of the Earth?

I am sure we can come up with other questions that also need to be asked before we commit to trillions of dollars of supposed remediation.; 11/20/09, 11:45 PM
Kirk Parker said...: kentuckyliz,

The UK apparently has their own version of FOIA now.; 11/21/09, 12:27 AM
Anonymous said...: It's amusing to laugh at how incredibly stupid you are all.

Not to mention gullible.

Will Fox News apologize for falling for this bogus story? Dan Rather was forced to resign. Fox News' reporting on this issue is just as negligent as what Rather did.

And the e-mail information (which actually contains nothing unusual) was stolen. Love how Republicans are now openly in favor of criminal acts.; 11/21/09, 12:31 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Will Fox News apologize for falling for this bogus story? Dan Rather was forced to resign. Fox News' reporting on this issue is just as negligent as what Rather did.

Need a links to the "Dan Rathering" of the "hoax". I am still seeing the "AGW scientists have faked data" side, and haven't seen the proof that the information on the Russian servers is fake (but accurate).; 11/21/09, 12:40 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: The reason that the pro-AGW people need to move fast on this is that the longer that these emails, etc. remain unchallenged as far as their legitimacy, the more people find out about them, the less people are going to accept the proponents claim to consensus the next time the subject comes up.

Right now, it appears that the entire AGW movement is based on fraudulent science. And what is great there is that there appear to be emails for almost any occasion. For example, next time someone brings up consensus, esp. as indicated by peer reviewed articles, all the opponents need to do is drag out the email telling about deligimizing publications that have the effrontery to publish anything that is not puarty line AGW. And when the argument is made about how great the models are, the opponents can drag out the emails about faking the data to cover up the recent cooling trend, and the climate anomalies of 100 years ago.

Worse, there may be Cap and Trade legislation coming up in Congress. Any politician who votes for it may be vulnerable now for being a dupe and not very knowledgeable.; 11/21/09, 1:23 AM
kent said...: this bogus story?

Doubtless your naked failure to provide accompanying links for any verifiable citations, re: this being a "bogus story," was simply a lamentable (and readily remedied) lapse on your part, and you'll be coughing up said supporting evidence any nano-second now.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnow.

OnetwothreeGO.; 11/21/09, 2:29 AM
kent said...: "A 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160 megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents has been confirmed as genuine by the head of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones."

Speaking of how "amusing it is to laugh" at all the "stupid" and "gullible" individuals out there, re: this story, I mean.

Well... one of us is laughing right now, at any rate.; 11/21/09, 4:10 AM
AllenS said...: From the miniseries

Conversations With A Climatologist
by
AllenS

Year 1960

Teacher: "Al, you were supposed to turn in your homework assignment today, where is it?"

Al Gore: "Can't do it, the dog ate it."

Year 2009

Skeptical Public: "Al, where is your data pertaining to the warming of the earth? It was supposed to be presented today."

Al Gore: "Can't do it, hacker ate it."

Fin; 11/21/09, 5:56 AM
Paul said...: "And the e-mail information (which actually contains nothing unusual) was stolen. Love how Republicans are now openly in favor of criminal acts."

Says the troll whose political allies lauded Daniel Ellsberg as a hero.; 11/21/09, 6:09 AM
Bart DePalma said...: Go to Climate Depot for several links to a couple dozen emails and a searchable database of the emails where these scam artists posing as scientists openly discuss their fraud gaming the data, the computer model assumptions and the final results released to the public, while engaging in a literal conspiracy to hide all of the above from independent scrutiny. Of particular concern to these scam artists is their inability to explain away the last decade of global cooling while manmade CO2 emissions rose exponentially as China and India industrialized and discovered the automobile.

This scandal begs the question of how far this fraud extends. The Chamber of Commerce would be well advised to bring suit challenging the “science” relied upon by EPA in making their finding that mandmade CO2 is causing atmospheric warming and conduct extensive discovery of the data, models, findings and communications of global warming proponents in the government and in the university system. Let’s see just how far this fraud goes. They need to engage computer forensics experts because I can see incriminating emails being deleted across the globe as we post.; 11/21/09, 10:18 AM
hd kalitesinde dizi said...: It's not often that hackers challenge a left-wing meme. hd film izle thank you; 8/27/11, 2:38 PM
Unknown said...: film izle
dizi izle
bölüm izle
son bölüm izle
erotik film izle; 2/22/12, 2:13 PM