Archive for the ‘CRU scandal – climategate’ Category

Vicky Pope, "head of climate change advice at the Met Office": "What we have here is a failure to communicate"

01/30/2010

“What has changed over the past few months? Certainly not the science.  … [T]he “climategate” e-mails … do not call into question the robustness of the surface temperature record produced by UEA. There are two other independent [NOT!] data sets that show clearly that global-average temperature has increased over the past century and this warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s.  …

What has not been called into question is the basic science.

The key finding that “warming is unequivocal and very likely due to man’s activities” remains robust.  …

The big difference then, is not in the physics of climate change but the public’s perception of what climate research is all about.

That means it is a communications problem and the blame for that has to lie at least in part with the scientists and in part with the way that science is reported.”  “Research is robust but communication is weak

Michaels: "Put the IPCC out of its misery"

01/30/2010

“Another day, another IPCC-gate.  …

The attachment of “gate” to this scandal is more than appropriate.  In its original 1973-4  incarnation, little bits of information, snippets of foul play, and deletions of records dripped out one-by-one over a year.  Ultimately the person responsible, President Richard Nixon, had to resign.

We’re seeing the same with climategate and the IPCC.  Wouldn’t if just save everyone a lot of time and trouble if Rajenda Pauchari resigned and the United Nations disbanded the IPCC.  Neither its head nor its body have any remaining credibility, so why not put it out of its misery?”  “Kill the IPCC

Jones out permanently?

01/28/2010

“The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen [leaked] e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.

The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.

The stolen [leaked] e-mails , revealed on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, showed how the university’s Climatic Research Unit attempted to thwart requests for scientific data and other information, and suggest that senior figures at the university were involved in decisions to refuse the requests. It is not known who stole the e-mails.

Professor Phil Jones, the unit’s director, stood down while an inquiry took place. The ICO’s decision could make it difficult for him to resume his post.”  “Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data

NAMIC goes rogue

01/14/2010

“The unauthorized release in November 2009 of thousands of e-mails containing correspondence among scientists affiliated with the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) makes clear that insurers, regulators, and anyone else with a serious interest in climate change cannot afford the luxury of simply assuming that the “reports and studies” to which the [NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners) Climate Change and Global Warming] Task Force white paper alludes present an accurate and unbiased picture of what is known about climate change.

The CRU e-mails show that a close-knit group of the world’s most influential climate scientists actively colluded to subvert the peer-review process (and thereby prevent the publication of research by scientists who disagreed with the group’s conclusions about global warming); manufactured pre-determined conclusions through the use of contrived analytic techniques; and discussed destroying data to avoid government freedom-of-information requests.

Viewed collectively, the CRU e-mails reveal a scientific community in which a group of scientists promoting what has become, through their efforts, the dominant climate-change paradigm are at war with other scientists derisively labeled as “skeptics,” “deniers,” and “contrarians.” The insularity and non-collegiality of these climate scientists had previously been noted in a 2006 report to Congress prepared by a committee of statisticians led by Dr. Eugene Wegman of George Mason University. The Wegman Report examined the body of research behind the widely-publicized “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show a dramatic and unprecedented increase in average global temperature during the twentieth century. After thoroughly discrediting the hockey stick graph, the report observed that “authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.” The report further noted “the isolation of the paleoclimate community,” concluding that “even though they rely heavily on statistical methods, they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.” When members of paleoclimate community were asked to explain and defend their work, “the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done.”

In short, because serious questions have been raised about the integrity of contemporary climate science, NAMIC [National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies] believes it would be exceedingly risky for any insurance company to make important business decisions based on an uncritical acceptance of the dominant scientific paradigm on climate change. Put differently, we believe there is considerable risk involved in an approach to assessing “climate risk” that assumes the validity of any particular theory or set of beliefs about anthropogenic global warming.

Companies that share our perspective should be encouraged to do so in their responses to the Climate Risk Disclosure Survey. We fear, however, that the wording of the survey questions, together with the public pronouncements of some regulators, will inhibit the expression of what might be viewed as unwelcome “contrarian” responses. This fear was reinforced by the overall tone and substance of the Task Force-sponsored Climate Risk Summit that took place in San Francisco on December 9, 2009. Rather than thoughtfully assess the implications that the CRU e-mail scandal holds for insurers and the Climate Risk Disclosure Survey process, all but one speaker ignored the matter entirely. That speaker, in facilely dismissing the e-mail scandal as a plot hatched by malevolent “contrarians,” personified the doctrinaire partisanship and intolerance toward dissent that is so clearly displayed in the CRU e-mails.”  Letter from NAMIC to NAIC

Stimulating Michael Mann — your tax dollars at work

01/14/2010

“In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.

“It’s outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.”  “Economic Stimulus Funds Went to Climategate Scientist

Denial of FOIA request caused tipping point at UEA?

01/12/2010

“The last email exchange within the Climategate files is November 12, 2009. Within the tight circle of climate skeptics, the significance of this date is telling. It is coincidentally the day before a crucial piece of information was denied to the peer-to-peer reviewers.

On November 13, 2009, a letter was sent by the Director of Information Services at the University of East Anglia to Steve McIntyre refusing his request for temperature data under the UK’s version of the Freedom of Information Act. The timing of the denial, which was a day after the last email in the Climategate files, and the fact that the files were titled FOIA.zip and FOI2009.zip, which are both abbreviated references to this Act, provides a striking indication to the impetus of the leak. This denial may have been just enough to incite someone from within the guarded establishment to give others a peak behind the green curtain.

If the connection holds, it shows a fascinating circularity of how a denial of  transparency actually led to a forced transparency – consequently displaying how a professional culture changes regardless of its resistance to change.”  “Peer-to-peer review (part III):  How ‘Climategate’ marks the maturing of a new science movement

Another journo who hasn't read or doesn't understand the leaked CRU files — Washington Post

01/01/2010

“The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific consensus on global warming.” “On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

Another journo who hasn’t read or doesn’t understand the leaked CRU files — Washington Post

01/01/2010

“The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific consensus on global warming.” “On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

"Honey, this isn't what it looks like"

12/29/2009

“OK, so you’re a climatologist and some whistler blower published your emails on the internet for all to see. What can you do? Well, you might take a cue from a lying, cheating scumbag whose wife walked in on him and his mistress while they were…(cough)…emitting lots and lots of carbon dioxide.

Here’s what the bastard might say to his wife as she pulls a .44 magnum from her purse:

“Honey, this isn’t what it looks like…”

Of course, you can’t use those exact words, but you can massage them a bit like you do temperature data to achieve the objective of covering your ass:

“Those emails aren’t what they seem; they were taken out of context…”

Now the wife isn’t stupid. She saw with her own two eyes what the lying, cheating scumbag husband of hers did to his mistress…and the bed sheets. Unfortunately for you, some of the public aren’t stupid either–they can read the emails.

The cheating husband will be in for a world of hurt, since the wife is aiming the gun at his privates. Your career could suffer a similar fate if you don’t come up with a better line of BS. Here is what the bastard husband might come up with:

“OK, Honey, you win! It IS what it looks like–but…but…but I only cheated on you this one time. Throughout the rest of our marriage I have been faithful to you.”

Here again, you can’t use those exact words, but you can tweak them like you do the climate data to get the result you want:

“OK…OK…so I manipulated the data–but…but…but all the other data out there in the greater climatology world is perfectly valid–and it shows that we are all going to die if the world doesn’t do what I say…(keep sending grant money, etc.) “

Unfortunately for the lying, cheating husband, he is now a soprano. But you need not worry because some members of the public are gullible–they won’t check the other data because you said it’s OK, or better yet, your friends at the drive-by media say it’s OK–so it must be OK. Right?” “Sex, Lies and Climate-gate

"Honey, this isn’t what it looks like"

12/29/2009

“OK, so you’re a climatologist and some whistler blower published your emails on the internet for all to see. What can you do? Well, you might take a cue from a lying, cheating scumbag whose wife walked in on him and his mistress while they were…(cough)…emitting lots and lots of carbon dioxide.

Here’s what the bastard might say to his wife as she pulls a .44 magnum from her purse:

“Honey, this isn’t what it looks like…”

Of course, you can’t use those exact words, but you can massage them a bit like you do temperature data to achieve the objective of covering your ass:

“Those emails aren’t what they seem; they were taken out of context…”

Now the wife isn’t stupid. She saw with her own two eyes what the lying, cheating scumbag husband of hers did to his mistress…and the bed sheets. Unfortunately for you, some of the public aren’t stupid either–they can read the emails.

The cheating husband will be in for a world of hurt, since the wife is aiming the gun at his privates. Your career could suffer a similar fate if you don’t come up with a better line of BS. Here is what the bastard husband might come up with:

“OK, Honey, you win! It IS what it looks like–but…but…but I only cheated on you this one time. Throughout the rest of our marriage I have been faithful to you.”

Here again, you can’t use those exact words, but you can tweak them like you do the climate data to get the result you want:

“OK…OK…so I manipulated the data–but…but…but all the other data out there in the greater climatology world is perfectly valid–and it shows that we are all going to die if the world doesn’t do what I say…(keep sending grant money, etc.) “

Unfortunately for the lying, cheating husband, he is now a soprano. But you need not worry because some members of the public are gullible–they won’t check the other data because you said it’s OK, or better yet, your friends at the drive-by media say it’s OK–so it must be OK. Right?” “Sex, Lies and Climate-gate