Is ‘Climategate’ Really the Game-Changer Skeptics Say It Is?

By
Monday, November 23, 2009 at 5:33 pm

On Friday, the news broke that hackers had obtained and released thousands of email exchanges between climate scientists at England’s University of East Anglia. Climate change skeptics pounced on the leak, dubbing it “Climategate” and proclaiming that the questionable communications between the scientists proved that global warming was based on cooked data.

“Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?” asked one headline. Another piece called the scandal “one of the greatest in modern science.” Today, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) called for an investigation.

So what exactly in these emails is causing such celebration among the deniers? The Daily Telegraph compiled “the most contentious quotes,” and while they’re certainly embarrassing for their authors, they don’t come close to undermining the very basis of climate science. Here are three of the six they list:

From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
“Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the [global warming-denying] idiots in the near future.”

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome [global warming-denying] editor.”

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these [global warming-denying] papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

These emails demonstrate a deep disdain for global warming skepticism that does not befit scientists in objective pursuit of the truth. But disdain is a far cry from intentional falsification, which is what they’re being accused of. These scientists could — and maybe should — suffer consequences for presenting their findings, and those of their colleagues, in a way that jibes with their broader agenda. But that this leak threatens to undermine next month’s climate negotiations in Copenhagen strikes me as more than a bit excessive.

Follow Aaron Wiener on Twitter


Comments

83 Comments

bondservant1958
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 6:03 pm

All us deniers have been saying all along is “SHOW US THE MATH!” well we have now seen the math….


Rmoen
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

The emails bring to light more about the already questionable climate change conclusions of the United Nations regarding. They make it clear the United States needs our own objective, transparent 'Climate Truth Commission' to think through global warming.

For twenty years I believed in man-made global warming theory, but the evidence has changed. During that period we've had ten years of warming then ten years of little or no warming. I blame my confusion on the United Nations for getting ahead of their facts. When they claimed CO2 drives global warming, they were more concerned about politics and funding than science. One only needs to look at their track record: UN forecasts do not fit what actually happened.

– Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com


bigphil25
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 6:33 pm

The email's are nothing, it is in the computer code that is the real nail, computer code with comments that shows that the data has been manipilated.


PrinceMarko
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 6:41 pm

Until they account for the fact that every planet in our solar system has risen in temperature and they can 100% rule out any other contributing factors in global warming, no one can definitely say it is man-made.

About the emails… when scientists start talking about ways to manipulate data, suppress information and isolate contradicting views… there is a problem and it of course calls into question their studies.


TruthIsTreason
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 6:44 pm

Of course it is the game changer. It exposes a very real conspiracy to defraud the public. It shows that the “settled science” was nothing more than fraud and coordinated manipulation. It reveals the IPCC climate “scientists” to be a cabal of criminal fraudsters.

These individuals need to be investigated, fired, sued and thrown out. Same goes for Al Gore.

But notice how the mainstream media is trying to downplay these emails. With so much of their climate change propaganda to lose – what would you expect?!


Is ‘Climategate’ Really the Game-Changer Skeptics Say It Is? - The Washington Independent.com | The Warming Zone
Pingback posted November 23, 2009 @ 6:50 pm

[...] Post By Google News Click Here For The Entire Article Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]


Tom
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 7:23 pm

Two things. Emails and computer code are simple text files that can be undetectably edited, so stolen ones prove absolutely nothing. All scientists “manipulate” data – it's called statistical analysis – they spend years learning how to do it! In the context of climate data, all original measurements are suspect, prone to site bias, instrument error, etc. These things have to be tested and, if necessary, corrected.


Dialla
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 8:13 pm

The point isn't that it undermines GW, or AGW

It undermines the certainty and the extreme predictions.

Some models predict very little rise in temperature while others predict utter destruction. Guess which one was from CRU?


TruthIsTreason
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 8:17 pm

The point is that it is fraudulent science that is the basis for the Copenhagen Treaty and the move to impose carbon taxes and carbon credits on the entire globe. That is the freaking point!


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 9:09 pm

Short answer-no, there is nothing there but fodder for parasites and crooks to build their paranoiac empires on. Global warming will still happen no matter how long the crazies hold their breath and throw tantrums. They will continue to mistake license for freedom, discarding all responsibility in favor of continuing to live a wasteful lifestyle. Like drunks, America's conservatives can no sooner give up their ideological fixations than a three time loser can give up the sauce. Stealing the emails is really just a fuel tank for the rationalization machine-I don't need to quit drinking, you're all liars! Ha!


cade_foster
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

Amongst other things, climate-gate has revealed:
- Hiding/fudging of data.
- Researchers worried about release/audit of computer model source code.
- The preference for ad hominem (i.e. personal attacks) on people having opposing scientific views rather than the willingness to investigate those views.
- High priority for lack of transparency.
- etc.

With the above, it is obvious IPCC et al have been scared of something.

That something is the TRUTH.
Remember, TRUTH and TRANSPARENCY go hand-in-hand.

When DECEPTION is promoted then TRANSPARENCY needs to be avoided and this resembles the stance of the IPCC et al.

Could it be that global warming was from all the hot air that Al Gore was spewing from his mouth ?


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

Oh, please, fire Al Gore. He is independently wealthy, a former vice president, and but for judicial fiat the President of the United States. You all are too dumb to look around behind you and see who is really pissing on your back and paying Rush, Beck, and the rest to tell you it's raining.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 9:19 pm

Baloney. The math has been there for thirty years or more. The denier industry makes money pretending the math doesn't exist because even the big oil and coal companies can see the effects of dumping trillions of tons of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Even crooks like Lomborg no longer deny it, only delusional teabaggers and frustrated weather men.


bondservant1958
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 9:25 pm

At least we want to openly debate the facts. Your rudeness is no different than the false UEA “Academics” stifling criticism


It's True
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 9:28 pm

Aaron:

These emails do undermine the rational being advanced for Global Warming. It is that simple.

I believe you are cherry-picking two emails, and then drawing a conclusion, “it's not that bad”

But what about the other emails – the one in which the scientist admits that the temperature data over the past 10 years does not support the warming

- the one in which they admit manipulating the data.

- the one in which they admit refusing to submit the underlying data behind their proofs – submissions which are professionally required – and apparently legally required under the freedom of information act

YOU have completely missed the mark here – and I would prefer to give you the the benefit of the doubt rather than accuse you of being outright misleading or knowingly lie.

.


gertsieger
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 9:29 pm

“But disdain is a far cry from intentional falsification, which is what they’re being accused of.”
AND RIGHTLY SO!!!

“And wh if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,”

How much are you paid for trying to mislead, or are you that naive?


gertsieger
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 9:34 pm

Well, but actually Gore & co think that YOU are the dumb one, obviously:

“”17. Use emotions and visuals

Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by
disseminating information doesn't always work, but emotions
and visuals usually do.”

- the rules of the game (Recommendations to the Climate Change Communications Working Group: Evidence base for the Climate Change Communications Strategy)”

CONGRATS!


It's True
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 9:40 pm

The temperatures over the past 10 years have been flat – it is pretty simple. These emails reveal that even the scientists at the center of the global warming protagonists AGREE that the temperature data says that.

This is over a decade in which MORE carbon dioxide has been pumped into the atmosphere than in any other decade ever.

THIS PROVES THAT THE CLIMATE MODELS ARE WRONG. AARON WEINER I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE IT SIMPLER FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND.

In addition, the emails show that there have been all sorts of OTHER problems with the advancement of the global warming thesis – specifically the scientists have been UNABLE OR UNWILLING to provide the underlying data which is normal in the due course of professional science.

This is a major red flag.

In addition, these scientists appear to be engaging in all sorts of intimidation of journal editors who are suppose to carry out their duties in peer-reviewed journals.

Another major red flag.

So, not only does the CURRENT data not support the thesis, the scientists have FAILED to go through the normal procedures to prove their original thesis with the old data.

As of last summer, someone in this group was claiming that the old data was mysteriously, accidently deleted from a computer system.

These scientists have NOT engaged in proper scientific debate or discourse – instead it is now PROVEN they chose to intimindate and hide data instead of debate.

YOU decide.

It is the responsiblity of these scientists to PROVE their own case, not start screaming that the “science is settled” when it never was.

Science is never settled in any event – but that is another issue.

These “scientists” from the University of East Anglia really should be arrested and tried for FRAUD.

.


gertsieger
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

If they're edited, the victims will surely point this out.


gertsieger
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 9:46 pm

could you please tell some examples? i'm looking trough the code right now, and have seen have seen nothing suspicious yet, excepts that they use you a rather slow sort function.


Paul_Clark
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

The author has inserted [global warming denier] into the emails which tweaks it slightly to make it seem more justifiable to put down such obviously “stupid” people as deniers. That's not in the telegraph version of them. Tricky.

If it turns out that this is not a game changer then it will be because this was never about science at all, and it isn't. It won't be a game changer because the IPCC is a tool made by the government to achieve its agenda. If that goes sour they'll make a new one to replace the one that got hacked. Oooh those nasty hackers: achieving what the FOI request to the CRU couldn't!

So it was never about the science. This is in evidence from the solutions they propose for Copenhagen. They wouldn't really reduce emissions but would achieve their goal for a one world govt, population reduction, tax and control of the populous.

To Tom who said “text files that can be undetectably edited”: it looks like a leak not a hack. See http://www.powerlineblog.com/ for more info.


It's True
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 10:05 pm

Aaron

Some of these emails are OUTRAGEOUS – In this one, the “scientists” are talking about manipulating the data to show what they want it to show – That is not science –

it is a crock

In science, you report your data honestly as it comes out.

That is as if you, as a reporter, did an interview, and if you didn't like the quotes you were given, you re-wrote the quotes and published your own quotes. That would not be reporting.

This is basically DOWNRIGHT FABRICATION OF THE PROOF TO SUPPORT GLOBAL WARMING.

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.


It's True
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 10:19 pm

Aaron

In the email copied below, there is

“I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately.”

He then goes onto to explain WHY he chose that number.

If that is not INTENTIONAL FALSIFICATION, I don't know what is.

I believe you should read more of the emails, expand your article to include the ones that are being talked about, and issue a correction to your article.

.


EdATor
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 10:38 pm

Look at the computer code. It is as plain as day in the coder's comments. This is a fraud and these people should be tried for crimes against humanity.

A whole generation of kids have been educated er brainwashed with this nonsense. This is hard proof that human-caused climate change is based on junk science.


EdATor
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 10:43 pm

These hackers are heroes for humanity and deserve a medal for exposing this crime against humanity. This is a glorious day. The NWO has been slapped up side the head and the unraveling process has begun.

Long live the Truth.


EdATor
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 10:46 pm

Not edited. A software developer breaks it down on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYxk7pnmMFw


EdATor
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 11:01 pm

Yes and part of the Scientific Process includes emails that tell colleagues to delete email and manipulate data.

<object width=”560″ height=”340″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/pBH7FrJVAe4&hl=en_US&fs=1&”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/pBH7FrJVAe4&hl=en_US&fs=1&” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”560″ height=”340″></embed></object>


gertsieger
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 11:02 pm

Well, the guy should propably get facts straight. there are not thousands and thousands of email, there are exactly 1073 emails. little weak for a software developer.


EdATor
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 11:05 pm

There are 1073 emails and 3483 documents.

This is a scam and US politicians are already calling for an investigation. These Hackers are heroes for humanity!


EdATor
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 11:06 pm

Yes the math exists but their math says 1+1=3. These scientists have been caught doing fraudulent activity and they will pay for their crimes.


EdATor
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 11:07 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBH7FrJVAe4


EdATor
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

http://www.thetelecrapurinal.com/news/2009/11/c…


gertsieger
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 11:47 pm

thank you, will look into it tomorrow.


Gene
Comment posted November 23, 2009 @ 11:51 pm

Now, now. Isn't it ironic that you are now a climategate denier? LOL


Ehsteve
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 12:37 am

You've got to be kidding me. You think that the energy companies are motivated by conscience?

The “big oil and coal companies” stand to receive enormous profits. You do nothing but spit leftist propaganda, full of all the standard buzzwords and talking points like “teabaggers”, “crazies”, and crooks.


JP
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 1:02 am

Ironic that your last name is synonymous with that of a nitrate filled tube of meat. You are a weiner. Don't be a contrarian and try to stir up shit. This global warming crap is a pseudo-science driven by lust for establishing World governance and the carbon taxation scam. You are just another spin doctor trying to disinform the public with this smart ass piece on climategate.

Seek the truth people. Look for the connections. There is a bigger, scarier picture here and the evil henchman is Gore.


bob1234556
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 1:25 am

those arent the quotes that damn AGW. try looking for the emails where they admit to intentionally falsifying data.


Omega
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 1:47 am

The reason this story isn't going anywhere is because the coverage of it has been so bad.

The associated press can assign 11 people to fact check Sarah Palin's book, which is definitely not serious news, yet they don't assign anyone to go through the information?

You can download the hacked files just about anywhere, or just spend more time searching the internet. The file titled “HARRY_READ_ME.txt” reveals that

1) Data was fabricated by CRU
OR
2) That CRU attempted to fabricate data
AND, it definitely means
3) That CRU has no idea where most of the data they have actually comes from.

Further, the items quoted in this article are by no means the “most contentious.” They deal with only ONE of many issues that comes out of the email controversy, which is that these scientists are actively trying to prevent any scientific research that does not support their theory of rapid anthropogenic global warming from reaching policy makers by way of the IPCC. In reality, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (see:http://www.petitionproject.org/). Their claim that their is such a consensus, and that their end goal of world salvation justifies their immoral and sleezy means clearly puts them in the same category as anyone else who tries to impose their will on the rest of humanity without debating the issues at hand or their possible solutions. Ironic that CRU is funded by tax dollars from a democracy, much like a large portion of the salary of Michael Mann.

The mainstream media is not doing enough to cover this event because of their vested political interest in global warming. Everyone, you should research this yourself so that you won't look like a jackass in twenty years when the next generation laughs at you for your generations scientific ineptitude in ever believing such bullshit, the same way we laugh at the giant cell phones of the 1980s.


Ted
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 2:38 am

GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM!!!! JUST LIKE SUBPRIME!!!


weirdscience
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 2:41 am

If people ( not scientists) have opposing views to the global warming assertion, are those views – worthy of merit and /or debate , or scientific, or scientifically based , or quite frankly , just a load of U kno wot…and actually are not deserving of a place in scientific theory and credibility?
A friend heard that global warming is global cooling because the mass of our SUN has reduced over time ( you gotta lrf*), and having heard that , he uses the argument against the assertions of scientists that WE have caused temperatures to rise.
And , so , a scientist (ehhhed) describes detractors as idiots <<<< so wot/ they probably are , and most of us do not even know what their particular idiotic theory pertains to.
These emails , this beat-up, this B-S GATE …is just a storm in a very shallow teacup.Keep it rational , logical, scientific , and if U need , look back at the B-S Al Gore threw at us , ad nauseum …EEWWWW…that iceberg just flipped , or ” That ice shelf just broke away”….well, derr* , it's natural forces at work.
So don't get sucked in …don't throw a mental, there is NO smoking gun …just private emails , re- PPL interacting ….were they discussing explosives , world domination , NO…get over it


weirdscience
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 2:41 am

If people ( not scientists) have opposing views to the global warming assertion, are those views – worthy of merit and /or debate , or scientific, or scientifically based , or quite frankly , just a load of U kno wot…and actually are not deserving of a place in scientific theory and credibility?
A friend heard that global warming is global cooling because the mass of our SUN has reduced over time ( you gotta lrf*), and having heard that , he uses the argument against the assertions of scientists that WE have caused temperatures to rise.
And , so , a scientist (ehhhed) describes detractors as idiots <<<< so wot/ they probably are , and most of us do not even know what their particular idiotic theory pertains to.
These emails , this beat-up, this B-S GATE …is just a storm in a very shallow teacup.Keep it rational , logical, scientific , and if U need , look back at the B-S Al Gore threw at us , ad nauseum …EEWWWW…that iceberg just flipped , or ” That ice shelf just broke away”….well, derr* , it's natural forces at work.
So don't get sucked in …don't throw a mental, there is NO smoking gun …just private emails , re- PPL interacting ….were they discussing explosives , world domination , NO…get over it


weirdscience
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 2:51 am

OOPS, I thought there might be props + cons here , but it looks like Heresy Central.
Global Warming compared to SUBPRIME ??? hmmmm….
Subprime was a disaster, repercussuions for decades to come …but it was a very real fraudulent and immoral and vicious gouge of the USA's wealth , and a finger in the eye of good people who were told they could buy a home with no collateral, assets , savings , or job , or prospects.
To compare this media beat-up re- some emails , and interchange between individuals, and SUBPRIME, because some emails supposedly prove fraud on behalf of some climate scientists , is to hoe a field backwards , without an implement.
Could the climate models be wrong …hell, I don't know , keep an open mind:)


Tuci78
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 11:05 am

Well, “weirdscience” doesn't understand science, does he?

What the CRU files reveal is that the participants in these exchanges concerted a scheme (for the nonce, we'll not call it a “conspiracy”) to suppress not only the voices of their fellow scientists (and there are many scientists who have expressed reasoned skepticism regarding the anthropogenic global warming [AGW] premises at the foundation of the “green” political fixation on economy-destroying government regulation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions) but to deny those fellow scientists access to the data upon which the participants in these CRU communications have predicated their computer models and the conclusions drawn therefrom.

One of the fundamental principles of scientific method is the attitude that the objective facts – the data collected – and the methodologies of collection and interpretation must be openly available for review and evaluation, both in the peer-review process prior to publication and forevermore after. If the work was sound, another person's assessment will (ceteris paribus) drive to the same conclusions.

Error-checking is nothing an honest and scrupulous scientist ever fears, or tries to evade.

The participants in the CRU exchanges are proven by the contents of those communications to be anything BUT “honest and scrupulous.”

To the contrary, these persons acknowledged in these exchanges – dating back ten years and more – that they have not only refused to consider or even DELETED data which would lead to conclusions other than those upon which they had beforehand decided to report (much as was done by Merck investigators with regard to safety information reporting in Phase III clinical trials of Vioxx more than a decade ago, and which led in 2004 to the withdrawal of the medication from the world market and lawsuits in which Merck is still engaged) but also that they have worked together to control the peer review process in referee'd scientific journals so as to prevent AGW skeptics from presenting countervailing examination of the subject.

Think about this last. The peer review process is the fundamental basis of scientific reliability.

And these people have been actively working to degrade that process in favor of their own dishonest, highly flawed, and scientifically insupportable positions.

This really is “not a smoking gun; it's a mushroom cloud.”

It is moral and intellectual bankruptcy on a scale never before seen in the sciences. It is fraud. And, yes, “politically incorrect” as the use of the word may be portrayed, it's evidence of a criminal conspiracy that extends into the realm of the dying “mainstream media” (particularly The New York Times) and civil government all over the world.

This “wierdscience” specimen is playing at damage control, but no matter how he struggles and squirms and snerks, the plain facts in this matter are neither deniable nor negligible.

The AGW premise is a hoax, deliberately perpetrated by people with the education and other qualifications of real scientists, trading upon those qualifications to impose a lie of breathtaking scope and astonishing malignancy upon both their professions and the peoples of the entire planet.


brotherbaldrick
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 11:11 am

Well the Washington Independant is being its usual biased self and only showing the least damaging of the emails. I urge all those interested in the truth to dig a little further that TWI hog wash! These emails and documents are now freely available on the net, and they make VERY interested reading, the word that springs to my mind after reading some of their contents is… BUSTED!!


Cantina
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 11:14 am

If doctoring your data doesn't count as “intentional falsification” I don't know what does…


Tuci78
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 12:30 pm

It's not just doctoring the data. Were that the case and nothing more, the scope of this fraudulence wouldn't be anything more than what's been seen every now and then throughout the sciences.

What makes the CRU communications so important, so different, is that in them you can find undeniable indications that the participants in these exchanges – people who essentially had strong control of the peer review process at effectively all of the reputable scientific journals pertinent to the study of climatology – had colluded to use the machinery of peer review to suppress truthful and methodologically valid investigation into the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

These people not only LIED repeatedly, systematically, and with malice aforethought, but they used their positions of responsibility and authority to suppress and attack colleagues who had dared to contravene the “received wisdom” – the politically correct line – on man-made global warming.

In the calm, measured, carefully reasoned world of scientific inquiry, this episode is the equivalent of the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004. Despite the studied and deliberate refusal of the dying mainstream media to acknowledge it, this is sweeping through the community of the physical sciences and we have not yet begun to see its effects.

The careers of the CRU exchanges' participants are now bloated corpses scattered across beaches throughout the Western world. Global warming has now been shown decisively to be the very model of the “Big Lie,” and everything political predicated upon this carefully machined falsehood will be under vicious attack, as – indeed – it should always have been.

Say good-bye to “Cap-and-Trade” and the Kyoto Protocols and every other manifestation of this bloody and sordid mendacity.


Tuci78
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 12:36 pm

It’s not just doctoring the data. Were that the case and nothing more, the scope of this fraudulence wouldn’t be anything more than what’s been seen every now and then throughout the sciences.

What makes the CRU communications so important, so different, is that in them you can find undeniable indications that the participants in these exchanges – people who essentially had strong control of the peer review process at effectively all of the reputable scientific journals pertinent to the study of climatology – had colluded to use the machinery of peer review to suppress truthful and methodologically valid investigation into the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

These people not only LIED repeatedly, systematically, and with malice aforethought, but they used their positions of responsibility and authority to suppress and attack colleagues who had dared to contravene the “received wisdom” – the politically correct line – on man-made global warming.

In the calm, measured, carefully reasoned world of scientific inquiry, this episode is the equivalent of the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004. Despite the studied and deliberate refusal of the dying mainstream media to acknowledge it, this is sweeping through the community of the physical sciences and we have not yet begun to see its effects.

The careers of the CRU exchanges’ participants are now bloated corpses scattered across beaches throughout the Western world. Global warming has now been shown decisively to be the very model of the “Big Lie,” and everything political predicated upon this carefully machined falsehood will be under vicious attack, as – indeed – it should always have been.

Say good-bye to “Cap-and-Trade” and the Kyoto Protocols and every other manifestation of this bloody and sordid mendacity.


mat
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 1:37 pm

Of course this is the nail in the coffin. The work of these (now exposed to be hacks) scientists was the basis for the whole Global Warming idea. The only thing that was telling us that Global Warming was even happening was the cooked data from these scientists. Now what? Now……we start over and disregard their findings. The only thing man-made about Global Warming is Global Warming itself.


earp
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

As a scientist I am disgusted by this article and the vitriolic manner in which these scientists resisted the release of their data into the public domain.

This is independent of the debate about whether global warming is caused by humans or not. I could never imagine a biologist resisting the release of data used in a published article because they were afraid that a creationist might use it to further their cause; in fact, I believe refusal to do so would add more fodder to their critics argument.

Science is about discussion, criticism and counter criticism. If you are so sure you are right about something then why should you be afraid to be transparent about how you reached your conclusion.


earp
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

And yes, there are also emails, which you do not show here where what many would consider the falsification of results is discussed. Once people perform analysis of their code and data I believe there will be more evidence for this besides the e-mails


JasonGF
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

“These scientists could — and maybe should — suffer consequences for presenting their findings, and those of their colleagues, in a way that jibes with their broader agenda”

Science is not supposed to HAVE an agenda! Here are the three quotes on the site this clown decided to ignore.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
“I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.”

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
“The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't… Our observing system is inadequate”

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.”

Data manipulation, conspiracy, extortion… All there but ignored by this liberal clown. This fool also also changed the word “troublesome” to the ridiculous hyphentated phrase “global warming-denying”. Bad enough to do this to an editorial, but this “troublesome” paper was a scientific study!!

The manipulative tendencies of this guy are such that I bet he'll delete or bury this post.


Herrence Meritocracy
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

I find the comments here very amusing. Let's assume that several climate scientists at East Anglia did indeed push falsified data. Many of the commenters here think this somehow means the reams of climate research published by the IPCC and thousands of other scientists describing anthropogenic “global warming” is now irrelevant. Yet, interestingly enough, the fact that climate change skeptics/deniers have pushed “misleading and inaccurate information about climate change” and received financial benefit for doing so does not affect that position in the slightest. Hmm…


earp
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

Two wrongs don't make a right. The scientists involved in the IPCC should have held themselves to a higher standard, instead they chose to stoop to a lower level than many of those attempting to criticize their work.

By the way there are many many non-junk scientists who have been questioning the “hockey stick” figure. Just because you link to a few articles critical of the anti-AGW camp doesn't automatically validate the extremely questionably actions illuminated by these e-mails


Tuci78
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 3:57 pm

This goes far beyond the University of East Anglia and the CRU located there. The correspondence and other information recovered by this insider action (the likelihood of an external “hacker” having extracted this enormous archive of e-mail communications is effectively nil) shows that the rot had spread far beyond “several climate scientists in East Anglia” and was prevalent throughout not only the IPCC but also the dying mass media, government agencies, and once-respectable scientific publications all over the world.

Try to spin this how you will, the evidence provided in this information dump wreaks unmitigated havoc upon the “global warming” theocracy and all political and economic manifestations thereof, showing it to be founded upon and extended only with the aid of corruption on a scale and of a breadth that can only be characterized as astonishing.

The concept of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is DEAD. This is, beyond any doubt whatsoever, proof of its duplicity and of the sheer evil of those who have perverted their scientific credentials to support it.

How “amusing” do you find that unavoidable fact, Herrence?

Just laughing yourself into a coma, ain'tcha?


earp
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 4:02 pm

I wouldn't call AWG dead, I'd just say that we don't really know with any high amount of confidence (think p-values)


Herrence Meritocracy
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 4:07 pm

Right, but I count five (5) different people involved in these e-mails from the Telegraph article. The IPCC consists of “2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.” 5 out of 3750 is not a significant number by any means.

So, the hysteria needs be toned down. If I were to be bothered, I could compile a list of dozens or scores of climate change deniers/skeptics pushing junk or false data. One has to try and think of this objectively, and keep their conclusions proportionate to the reality of the situation, without hyperbole.


Tuci78
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

While climate change is not only possible but inevitable, the concept of ANTHROPOGENIC (man-made) global warming is most certainly dead.

Indeed, it was dead on arrival. The AGW fraudsters didn't so much put it on life support as they'd hung it up on wires in a macabre marionette show.

That human action in the release of carbon dioxide had been responsible for any sort of warming seen over the past century (when it had not; see physicist Jeffrey D. Kooistra's pre-ClimateGate article on the subject, with attention to how something as simple as a change in the character of the paint used on the Stevenson screens employed to shelter the standard thermometers in temperature measurement stations could – and almost certainly did – render the long-term recorded temperature increases of “global warming” invalid) has not been proven.

Indeed, it will never be proven. And that's because it isn't so.

It is effectively certain that the release of carbon dioxide through human industrial and agricultural activities has NEVER had any effect upon the earth's climate, and it never will. Except for local impacts (the reduction of airborne particulate matter and certain aerosols – smog – for example), there is no prospect of “green technology” or government action having any positive effects whatsoever.

Indeed, there are no negative effects on any global scale either to mitigate or to reverse. If global warming happens – and it is more likely that global COOLING is coming upon us – it will be as the result of insolation changes.

You know, that big radiant fusion process going on one astronomical unit away from us.

Human action is not causing the polar bears to drown (they're increasing in numbers), the ice shelves to recede (in Antarctica, they're increasing), the ocean levels to rise, or hurricanes to form with greater frequency or force.

Mr. Wiener and his co-religionists (or co-conspirators; take your pick) are lying to you now. They've been lying to you for decades. They'll continue lying to you until someone forcibly shuts them up.

AGW is dead. Good riddance to bad science, and worse politics.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

Who knew that English climate scientists were really the Illuminati, the Rothschilds, and the Komintern all at once?


Paul_Clark
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 5:08 pm

A consensus of 3750 scientists is another AGW myth.

You make out as though it's 5 out of 3750 equally important people. It's not a web of equal people all boucing ideas off each other and generally agreeing. The IPCC is a politicized bureaucracy with a highly defined hierarchy.

These 5 scientists (+ others) were in the core team the IPCC relied on. They controlled and has exclusive access to the data that everyone else relied on. Now we know the data has been massaged.

Most of the impressive “thousands of scientists” are just padding. Less than 20% know of climate science. Some authors are counted twice. See here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/the-ip…

It says: “..But did the 2879 individuals all support the IPCC’s principal findings? There’s really no proof that any more than about 2% explicitly did so.”

“Fifty-three authors and five reviewers are all that can be said to explicitly support the claim of a significant human influence on climate.”

Also: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968


Tuci78
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

Tsk. You forgot Trofim Lysenko.

These are not simply “English climate scientists” but supposedly respectable climate science specialists all over the world participating in these exchanges. These e-mails (and the data collected and conveyed therewith) leap the oceans and connect the whores at the University of East Anglia with prostitutes in the academic institutions and government agencies of these United States.

Indeed, with yet another representative of the Jayson Blair Institute of Politically Correct Fraudulence in the Mainstream Media, one Andrew Revkin of The New York Times.

Trying to lie about the extent of this cancer, Binki?

It's stage IV, widely metastatic and utterly fatal. It's the death sentence of the “Global Warming” conspiracy, and about bloody time.


weirdscience
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 6:15 pm

Tuci78 wrote>>>>This “wierdscience” specimen is playing at damage control, but no matter how he struggles and squirms and snerks, the plain facts in this matter are neither deniable nor negligible.
then he/she wrote>>>>How “amusing” do you find that unavoidable fact, Herrence?
Just laughing yourself into a coma, ain'tcha?

My regards to Herrence for taking the rational road .We must have touched a raw nerve with Tuci, because he has engaged in slurr + smear , not very objective , slightly objectionable, but overall amusing.He sed, she sed , that weirdo sed , that his hairdresser sed , that Climate change is weirdscience .Keep going , I am open to both sides of the Climate Change debate…but please don't tell me that the sun is shrinking.


hughjass
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 7:05 pm

“and while they’re certainly embarrassing for their authors, they don’t come close to undermining the very basis of climate science.”

Uh … I think you need to go back & read them closer.


moosekaka
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

I think you missed a few emails…


Tuci78
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

And has this “weirdscience” pustule any point pertinent to the subject under discussion, or is he just jerking off?

His typographical struggles seem to indicate that there's something sticky interfering with the function of his keyboard.

Well, hell. He wasn't posting anything proximally related to the subject at hand (unless what's in his hand and on his mind is nothing more than his own shriveled excuse for a pud) anyway.

The participants in this exchange who have training and experience in the sciences are genuinely “open to both sides of the Climate Change debate.” So much so that we understand how the participants in the CRU communications, culpable of having actively and maliciously suppressed discussants on the other side, are now recognizable as the perpetrators of actions rising to the level of criminality.

This reality neither “wierdscience” nor Herrence are prepared to address.

All that can be expected of these kinds of morally bankrupt yup-yup types is distractions focused upon the style in which their fraudulent co-religionists are being dissected, diagnosed, and condemned in public fora such as this one, and they will never offer one word of substantive, pertinent argument in the course of their continuous vomit of pure bilge.


weirdscience
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 8:46 pm

Tuci…I had never heard of a 'snerk', Urban dictionary asserts >>>>Its a cross between Sniggers and Smirks. Not a very friendly thing and is usually only used by people who don't agree with people very often. Let me see, as U have used it , r u the snerk , or am I????

“weirdscience” pustule <<<< from U , that would be complimentary
“open to both sides of the Climate Change debate.” <<<< U , open …hahahahahaha
So much so that we understand<<<< R U speaking for the entire scientific 'expert' community , or yourself , the greatest member of the community???

best not pair me with Herrence …he is a superior being to myself/ I think he outguns U*

fora<<<< YOUR TYPO SON

vomit of pure bilge.<<<<< excellent , but too metaphorical, not scientifically methodical…

I repeat , “slurr + smear , not very objective , slightly objectionable, but overall amusing”

I know U have background , I know U have vocab , but unfortunately , U r exactlee the same if not superior to those that U denigrate because of the grassy knoll e-mails that U claim prove the existence of a conspiracy , the same one that U believed in , pre- grassy knoll e-mails.
Tell me why U believe what U believe ….there's a good boy*


weirdscience
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

Tuci , if I ever receive a traffic ticket , I'm calling you to be my mouthpiece…Judge would throw the case , and both of us out of court, just to shut U up:)


Tuci78
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

Tsk. “Fora” is the plural of “forum.” Both words are directly derived from Latin, and though “forums” is in common usage (and is accepted by the slack-witted) it is incorrect.

And there's “weirdscience.” Slack-witted. He's on the World Wide Web and he didn't bother even to enter the term in a search engine. Apparently, if it can't be found on urbandictionary.com, this boob can't find it at all.

And yes, I'm speaking “for the entire 'expert' scientific community” when I observe that the connivance to rig the peer review process evinced by the CRU communications is a profoundly invidious assault upon the fundamental integrity of the scientific method.

These malevolent scum conspired to “stack the deck” in the review process against honest colleagues who had maintained properly skeptical attitudes toward dubious computer models and manifestly incomplete data, pressured the editors of scientific publications to suppress dissent, lied by both commission and omission in their papers and other utterances, and pursued for political purposes and pecuniary gain a concerted campaign to impose upon their own profession and the entire world a complex and complete fraud.

Nobody in the sciences can or would deny that the CRU correspondents (including Dr. Mann at Penn State) are now tainted beyond recall. Their professional integrity has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to be nonexistent. They have made themselves unpublishable, unemployable, and incapable henceforth of showing their faces in any scientific forum anywhere. Pity their graduate students, their assistants, and anyone else dependent upon them, because this thundering crash is going to stain those folks' reputations and hammer their careers as well.

That “weirdscience” should be incapable of either perceiving these facts or acknowledging them when shoved forcibly down his gaping maw have been clear from the beginning, and his worth as a participant in these exchanges is obvious.


chrisjay
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 9:40 pm

THIS is “Climategate”?
Weak!
I think Birfers have a stronger case LOL


weirdscience
Comment posted November 24, 2009 @ 11:11 pm

Tuci said >>>” I'm speaking “for the entire 'expert' scientific community”….well, one could not argue with your enthusiasm , however , I think delusional may be an apt term.
Ring a media group, phone a tv channel, shout out the window >>>” I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this climatechange argument , any more”

substitute conspiracy , fraud , for argument, and scream all the louder/ thanks for engaging me…now tell me son , what is it that U believe IN so strenuously ?


Tuci78
Comment posted November 25, 2009 @ 12:22 am

And – as usual – “weirdscience” offers no substantive contribution to the discussion, straying completely off-point in an effort to substitute personalities for reasoned consideration of the CRU communicators' grievous breaches of professional ethics and undeniable mendacity.

What is the agenda of this “weirdscience” meatpuppet, anyway? What about him makes him worth the air he breathes? And therefore to hell with him.


weirdscience
Comment posted November 25, 2009 @ 12:56 am

Tuci, I almost hear U appealing to your masses to go fetch a railway tie , a pot of bitumen , down pillows , and a rope/ oh, and don't forget the white sheets.
Why r U such an angree little man?
Do U really think that by being effusive in your bloodlust to tar & feather anyone U think agrees with climate change, is being logical or scientific , or that your arguments are being SUBSTANTIVE…(lil' man)U need to rethink, re-evaluate , redirect, and temper your vitriolic contempt as your posts so generously demonstrate.

Now , tell me again , what is it that U feel so strenuously about ?!


weirdscience
Comment posted November 25, 2009 @ 1:01 am

Tuci said >>>The participants in this exchange who have training and experience in the sciences are genuinely “open to both sides of the Climate Change debate.” <<<<

HEY BUDDY , THE WHOLE WERLD'S WATCHN'>>>> u*

also, U sed>>>>in an effort to substitute personalities for reasoned consideration <<<<<< reread your posts/ I think U'r posting from an asylum.


weirdscience
Comment posted November 25, 2009 @ 3:27 am

https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009…

Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research
Thje Professor says “

The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change.”

Additionally , “One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a “trick” of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month. The use of the word “trick” was not intended to imply any deception.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/…

From the Guardian , ….The climatologist at the centre of the leaked emails row said today that he “absolutely” stands by his research and that any suggestion that the emails provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate or hide data that do not support the theory of man-made climate change was “complete rubbish”.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, said that the past week had “the worst few days of my professional life”. He added that since the emails were leaked he had received >>>>>>personal threats which have now been passed on to the police to investigate.

In his first full interview since last week's theft, which saw hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between some of the leading climatologists over the past 13 years stolen from the university's servers, Jones defended himself against accusations by climate sceptics that the emails provide evidence of collusion by climatologists to fix data.

THIS ALL SEEMS FAIR & REASONABLE TO ME …WHICH WAS MY POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE …not the antics of some fanatics in here to lambaste good men for a THEFT in the first place , but , to misrepresent intent…and to use it for their perverse pleasure.

Is this man an enemy of the people ? I say NO


weirdscience
Comment posted November 25, 2009 @ 4:11 am

Tuci said >>>” I'm speaking “for the entire 'expert' scientific community”….well, one could not argue with your enthusiasm , however , I think delusional may be an apt term.
Ring a media group, phone a tv channel, shout out the window >>>” I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this climatechange argument , any more”

substitute conspiracy , fraud , for argument, and scream all the louder/ thanks for engaging me…now tell me son , what is it that U believe IN so strenuously ?


Tuci78
Comment posted November 25, 2009 @ 5:22 am

And – as usual – “weirdscience” offers no substantive contribution to the discussion, straying completely off-point in an effort to substitute personalities for reasoned consideration of the CRU communicators' grievous breaches of professional ethics and undeniable mendacity.

What is the agenda of this “weirdscience” meatpuppet, anyway? What about him makes him worth the air he breathes? And therefore to hell with him.


weirdscience
Comment posted November 25, 2009 @ 5:56 am

Tuci, I almost hear U appealing to your masses to go fetch a railway tie , a pot of bitumen , down pillows , and a rope/ oh, and don't forget the white sheets.
Why r U such an angree little man?
Do U really think that by being effusive in your bloodlust to tar & feather anyone U think agrees with climate change, is being logical or scientific , or that your arguments are being SUBSTANTIVE…(lil' man)U need to rethink, re-evaluate , redirect, and temper your vitriolic contempt as your posts so generously demonstrate.

Now , tell me again , what is it that U feel so strenuously about ?!


weirdscience
Comment posted November 25, 2009 @ 6:01 am

Tuci said >>>The participants in this exchange who have training and experience in the sciences are genuinely “open to both sides of the Climate Change debate.” <<<<

HEY BUDDY , THE WHOLE WERLD'S WATCHN'>>>> u*

also, U sed>>>>in an effort to substitute personalities for reasoned consideration <<<<<< reread your posts/ I think U'r posting from an asylum.


weirdscience
Comment posted November 25, 2009 @ 8:27 am

https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009…

Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research
Thje Professor says “

The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change.”

Additionally , “One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a “trick” of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month. The use of the word “trick” was not intended to imply any deception.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/…

From the Guardian , ….The climatologist at the centre of the leaked emails row said today that he “absolutely” stands by his research and that any suggestion that the emails provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate or hide data that do not support the theory of man-made climate change was “complete rubbish”.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, said that the past week had “the worst few days of my professional life”. He added that since the emails were leaked he had received >>>>>>personal threats which have now been passed on to the police to investigate.

In his first full interview since last week's theft, which saw hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between some of the leading climatologists over the past 13 years stolen from the university's servers, Jones defended himself against accusations by climate sceptics that the emails provide evidence of collusion by climatologists to fix data.

THIS ALL SEEMS FAIR & REASONABLE TO ME …WHICH WAS MY POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE …not the antics of some fanatics in here to lambaste good men for a THEFT in the first place , but , to misrepresent intent…and to use it for their perverse pleasure.

Is this man an enemy of the people ? I say NO


Drasties - Dutch on the World - World on the Dutch
Pingback posted November 26, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

[...] The Washington Independent–Is ‘Climategate’ Really the Game-Changer Skeptics Say It Is?: read on>> On Friday, the news broke that hackers had obtained and released thousands of [...]


Saying Goodbye to Stacks of Paper and Distractions
Pingback posted February 17, 2010 @ 6:19 pm

[...] [...]


plastic springs
Comment posted September 12, 2010 @ 8:46 pm

These are not simply “English climate scientists” but supposedly respectable climate science specialists all over the world participating in these exchanges. These e-mails (and the data collected and conveyed therewith) leap the oceans and connect the whores at the University of East Anglia with prostitutes in the academic institutions and government agencies of these United States.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.