JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The ranks are splitting, tossing incantations as they go

We always knew Climategate would the test the cohesion of the “team”. The reputations of good greens, good journalists, and decent politicians (there are a few) are on the line. They have to draw a line somewhere, and six months later, a few more cracks in the wall are showing.

Even people who think we need action against CO2 are not convinced by the whitewashes. And for many of them, it’s not the ClimateGate emails themselves which pushed them over the edge, but the blatantly surreal nature of the so-called inquiries that don’t ask the basic questions or invite the key people.

Phrases about how the science is still settled (even though the scientists themselves might cheat) are like a pass-code that allows commentators to say something pointed against the tribal witchdoctors without getting too many nasty spells cast on them by the disciples.

Of course, in order to attack any part of the great facade, it’s important to recite the incantation against bullies. Phrases about how the science is still settled (even though the scientists themselves might cheat) are like a pass-code that allows commentators to say something pointed against the tribal witchdoctors without getting too many nasty spells cast on them by the disciples. By using the incantation they mollify the bullies who would hurl abuse.

“Flawed scientists”

The Economist suggests there’s still a carbon-related crisis, but that if we ditch Pachauri, it will all be ok. Their essential incantation is right up in the subheader: ” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change needs reform. The case for climate action does not.”

Then having mentioned … “ClimateGate” they have to throw in another meaningless recitation: “Neither report does anything to weaken the case for acting to limit carbon emissions.” Well no. The reports wouldn’t say that would they? The reports were not supposed to audit and redo the entire IPCC declarations in a weekend, and they didn’t ever ask that question: Does carbon cause catastrophic warming? It’s more communication pollution as journalists, possibly unconsciously, cave in to the social pressure to reaffirm their attendance at the church.

“Climategate and the Big Green Lie”

The Atlantic senior editor Clive Crook, is rightly disappointed in the recent whitewashes. But, before he can say so comes his version of the incantation:

I think climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously. I think energy policy should be intelligently directed towards mitigating this risk. I am for a carbon tax.

Having recited the litany, he bravely speaks his mind, even using the dreaded c-word:

I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption.

Judging by the comments below his article, he probably did need to start his article with such a powerful chant. The attacks on his professional reputation fly thick and fast, though few seem to want to actually discuss the topics he raised — the inquiries, and the behaviour of scientists.

Having said that, I’m quite impressed with Crook, as he seems to be able to overcome his belief in CAGW and do a good job of analyzing Climategate and it’s inquiries. Except, of course, that he doesn’t seem to realize that the scientists who’ve disappointed him are the lead-authors, the proponents, the peer-reviewers and the advisers. They are the climate-science establishment, and if they were caught behaving badly, it’s not just them, but their conclusions that are also in disrepute.

In sum, the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute, and set back the prospects for a better energy policy. I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.

Sometime sooner or later Crook will realize that the whereabouts of the data was not accidentally hidden, even if the data itself may have been accidentally lost. Being caught hiding declines is bad for reputations, but the declines that were hidden are telling their own story. And the temperature sets that were lost have yet to tell theirs.

It’s not a case of restoring confidence. That’s jumping the gun. Before we can restore confidence, we need to have something to be confident in. Crook’s skipping the part where people investigate, punish wrongdoers, reanalyze, and report. But, he is at least, seeing through the whitewash.

I enjoyed reading the Atlantic article.

Thanks to Marc Morano at Climate Depot for the heads-up.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (1 vote cast)
The ranks are splitting, tossing incantations as they go, 9.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2wf4wtd

69 comments to The ranks are splitting, tossing incantations as they go

  • #
    PJB

    Belief that a shining sun means that you can go outside in shorts and a T-shirt means little when you are in the Antarctic in mid-winter.

    The litany of “consensus” chants regarding warming and CO2 have done their work and most individuals take it for granted that CO2 causes “catastrophic” warming and therefore must be controlled at any cost.

    Notwithstanding the calcified position of AGW proponents, it is the facts, and only the facts that will save the day. Not engaging in rhetoric and name-calling is the only way to proceed.

    As Sgt. Joe Friday so aptly advised: “Just the facts, ma’am!”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jennifer Parfenovics

    Joanne, you are entirely too kind and generous to this CCC CAGW cult member. I am so sick of these enviro green fascists. His surname , CROOK says it all. Just like Madame Gilllardtine we will all be paying up our carbon taxes because as she says, this is what Australia needs and wants. Of course she BELIEVES in climate change and the evils of CO 2 ! WHAT A LOAD OF CROCK. There seems to be no way of stopping these freaks destroying our liberty and our very country. It is so depressing. Some many fools have been invested in this nonsense for decades and they can’t back down.

    Clive Crook sums it up with his statement ” I am for a carbon tax ”
    Joanne, you are right this is a ritualistic incantation of the cult of Catastrophic Climate Change AKA Man Made Global Warming.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Jo

    I enjoyed reading Crook’s article as well. Twelve months ago,who would have thought a true believer would even consider what he wrote in The Atlantic. I’m with Marc Morano, the Climate Con is ending and Clive Crook in his own way is admitting that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    Crook’s own name sums up the whole fiasco nicely.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    The investigations are done by carefully selected card carrying members of The Mutual Adoration societies.
    They clearly spell out what questions are forbidden.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ColinD

    The proposed actions such as ETS and carbon trading seem little different to the actions of what are considered ancient superstitious societies that sacrificed humans to appease the weather gods. Humans will be and are being sacrificed to appease the climate gods- see the human cost of biofuels, of not allowing cheap coal-fired power, imposing costs on energy to the extent that people can’t warm or feed themselves properly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Jo , I agree many journalists/commentators have been positioning themselves more “on the fence” lately so they can change sides if necessary. I think many got caught out by the Russell Inquiry in particular as they thought it would NOT be a whitewash. ( eg Monbiot back tracked on his views on Climategate). Russell’s review in my opinion was worse than the others in terms of being a whitewash –he had more time to do a better report and could have talked to both sides. But apparently he did not even attend the interview with Jones. This was done by Boulton ( an ex co-worker of Jones at the UAE ! ). Boulton did not even ask Jones if he deleted any e-mails.

    Andrew Montford ( Bishop Hill Blog) has been asked to write a report on all three UK inquiries for the GWPF ( Lord Lawson’s org. ).

    It is a pity there was not a very rich independent person who could help fund a proper independent, transparent inquiry into the whole scam.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    I’m no longer even irritated, When I read a paper or in article that points out flaws in AWG.
    Only to get to the end, and read the disclaimer that says ‘but of course this doesn’t disprove AWG’.
    No one wants to provoke a direct attack from the bullies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Hail all this, but his argument winds up non sequitur, as the Climategate people advocate the same thing as Crook (nice handle!)

    The BASIS of Climategate is, the evidence has been falsified (by willful admission). Thus where does Crook base his advocacy of “doing things to mitigate climate change”?

    The only outcome Crook could hope for by his incantation is, “not for people employed by outfits whose mission is to find “global warming” to write any more bad email.”

    This is dismaying, not a bit of positive thinking from Atlantic Monthly


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Naysayers! Naysayers!

    If it weren’t for the naysayers, Gordon’s programme for a green economy might work!

    Spain wouldn’t have (nearly) self destructed if it weren’t for naysayers!

    Maybe K Rudd wouldn’t have stumbled flat on his face on his way out the door if it weren’t for naysayers!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The Economist suggests there’s still a carbon-related-crisis, but that if we ditch Pachauri it will all be ok. Their essential incantation is right up in the subheader: ” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change needs reform. The case for climate action does not.”

    I guess one good non sequitur is enough to make everything OK then! Oh if I’d only known that long ago. I could have saved the world! Or maybe not!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    They haven’t been terribly effective to date, Roy, but you never know


    Report this

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    re: Binny #8
    No one wants to provoke a direct attack from the bullies.

    I do. Everyday, I provoke, challenge and smite them in their own blogs. This thing you should do too.

    ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Yes but

    Golly gee – what finger wagging. They all need a ruddy good thrashing those climate scientists.
    Strangely we’ve been hearing about “tipping points” in the AGW camp for years. But funnily enough all the gang are still there.
    And publishing way unlike the faux sceptics. Cracks in walls, wheels falling off? Has the growing mountain of evidence stopped being published.
    It’s like putting your fingers in one of those IPCC Netherlands (or was it Holland) dikes – fix one little problem and the blighter springs a leak a few inches further down the wall. Toodle pip – have to go and read the latest in GRL. Every day the paper boy brings more ….

    BTW anyone noticed the green vote increasing in the polls. Bloody neo-marxists. Reds under the bed everywhere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    I wish I could be encouraged by all this but the ALP have now announced they’re going to put an interim price on carbon apparently without waiting for the ETS.

    July 15 (Bloomberg) — Australia’s federal Cabinet has agreed to a climate change policy, including a commitment to set an interim carbon price it will implement to reduce carbon emissions over the next two years, the Australian Financial Review reported without saying where it got the information.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Green vote increasing.

    Yeh, that’s the toxic green sludge falling out of the ALP’s backside. They’ll have a heyday then disappear into the political abyss a la the Oz Dims.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Yes But,

    anyone noticed the green vote increasing in the polls

    I seem to recall when the NZ green party got some seats in parliament a while back. Of the two MPs (which no one voted for, btw), one needed a tresspass order on parliament buildings to let her on the premises to be sworn in and the other turned up in his Hemp suit.

    Then a couple of weeks later they flew over to melbourne to get involved in the S11 protests.

    I know you’re laughing, but when something similar happens here in australia, I can guarantee you won’t be laughing. And if you think that somehow the australian greens will be better, then just take a look at their most promising example – clive “you’re a denier” hamilton.

    Anyone who votes for a green candidate honestly deserves to get them. Sure, if you have that little pride in your country, by all means go for it, there is no law against being a moron.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Bruce.

    They have keep saying that to keep the cult onside. Actions speak louder than words, note how that has been postponed till after this election and possibly even the next. These people read European news and can see what’s going on there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    BTW,

    Speaking of Morons, can anyone explain to me about this whole surplus thing the treasurer has announced (or was it just a vision) about a $3b surplus as a result of projected future resources prices, or whatever?

    Is this like budgeting on winning tatts lotto? Maybe Kevin Rudd has a job buying up tatts lotto tickets to plug the gigantic holes in swans arithmetic?

    Am I a moron, is he a moron or are the people who vote for these guys at the next election morons? I don’t know which is the case.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Yes But sums it up. Each time we thought we had a winner such as Climategate it was snowed. Just like a leaky dike.

    But don’t lose heart. Recall where we were this time last year. An ETS was a certainty.

    I notice that the warmers are claiming the cold winter in NH was a further example of global warming and was expected. Check out the debate with Marc Morano on ABC (US). It seems there is nothing that will stop these charlatans short of a full scale ice age. In the interim, a genuine independant enquiry might have traction however the warmers would claim bias. It really needs a royal commission here or a senate enquiry in the States.

    In the meantime keep writing to the editors and keep asking questions when specious claims are made.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Mark #19

    Yes, Julia Gillard announced the ETS would be delayed. But this is a new announcement, reported today, and note that is says “over the next two years”. I’d be surprised if the AFR have gotten this wrong, and its unlikely to be an unintended leak. It sounds like softening up to me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    The Atlantic article illustrates the CAGW argument is already well on its way to neutered. Even among the intelligentsia it is no longer fashionable to entertain Green fantasies of global economic mass suicide as a solution to AGW. The popular intellectual position is now that AGW is real and a worry and, of course, something must be done. But, already for many, AGW is just another worry in this world of worries and so must take its place in the great pantheon of our collective worries at the back of the line.

    The full extent of the damage that Climategate and the various IPCC scandals will wreak upon the CAGW myth have not yet fully unfolded. This is because the greatest effect of the scandals was not so much their content, but the light that they put on the sceptical science, which had been largely ignored up until Nov 2009. It will take a while for the curious public digest the implications of the full spectrum of the evidence.

    Meanwhile, the conduct of the inquiries is now a brand new climate scandal compounding and giving new meaning and life to the original climategates…a fate that could only be better than what an honest inquiry would have found if the true extent of the science corruption was indeed truly heinous. This is what the intelligentsia have yet to admit even to themselves.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    The ‘split in the ranks’ is caused by pure self-interest. Crook, in particular, is trying to get out in front of this unholy mess while he still can.

    In psychological terms, it’s called ‘negotiation’, which kicks in after the first two stages (denial, and rage) no longer suffice.

    When the whole CAGW enterprise falls in on itself like an industrial chimney being demolished, Crook wants to ensure that he is as far from ground zero as he can get.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Strangely we’ve been hearing about “tipping points” in the AGW camp for years.

    Indeed, for some 110 years or more and nowt of consequence has yet occurred.

    Strangely, the whole thing was put to rest in years 1915, 1925, 1940, 1945, 1960 et seq. by none other than the august, Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh.

    But then it became expedient as well as chi-chi to have the fable force-fit to reality, and guess what.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Somewhat O/T, but it is interesting how skeptics always get described as a well-organised campaign funded by Big Oil, yadda, yadda, yadda… which we all know to be garbage. Anywho, on a completely unrelated topic this is what well organised campaigns might look like:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/7585626/threats-over-horse-meat-sales/

    One butcher in Perth decides to buck the hypocrisy and serve Aussies horse meat and all of a sudden thousands of protests emerge simultaneously, from as far as Europe. Want to talk about hypocrisy? Europe is where we currently send a lot of horse meat for consumption.

    Seriously, what is the significant difference between a cow and a horse for cullinary purposes? The only difference that I can see is that activists have some romantic notion of the relationship between horse and man which can only come from reading too many seuqles of Black Beauty when they were kids.

    I am not rushing out to eat horse, but I have eaten roo, which was a tad sweat for my tastebuds. But it is OK for horse meat to go to Europe or end up in pet food, but not our dinner plate?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Brian @13,

    Are you seriously implying that they might become effective?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    No, I’m just joking away in my halfass manner as usual.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Well, it was just a matter of time before His silliness, the Troll of Trolls and Loser of Losers, Yes But, showed up at this thread. What’s a matter Luke, nobody to annoy at the last thread you were at? Well, I am not a climatologist but I can make an accurate forecast, yes but will waste everybody’s time with his foppish buffoonery. He will not address any real questions put to him. He will drivel on about mundane minutia that is irrelevant to the topic and he will evade any question that he was not prepared to deal with by his handlers. Allow me to cite an example. Jo wrote an interesting article a few days ago entitled, “The Unskeptical Guide to the Skeptics Handbook”. From post one, as is the case in his first post here, yes but, a mentally ill and sorry excuse for a debater and a troll to boot, dodged every tough question that was put to him. He moved the goal posts, segued like a politiciian and wasted everybody’s valuable time with his disingenuous diatribe.

    Here is an example.

    co2isnotevil:
    July 7th, 2010 at 9:57 am

    Yes but …
    I’ll ask you the same question I always ask a warmist. I’ve been waiting a long time for a warmist to come up with a coherent reason, but alas Mr. but, I fear none will be forthcoming. Brendon, feel free to chime in, you’ve had longer to ponder this.
    A surface temperature increase from 287K to 290K requires an increase in surface energy of about 16 W/m^2. The consensus is that doubling CO2 adds 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing (I can argue that this overestimates by about 2x), resulting in 16 W/m^2 at the surface after all feedbacks have been accounted for, requiring an incremental surface power gain of 4.3. Considering all incident solar energy, the incremental surface power gain relative to solar forcing is only about 1.1, considering only those watts of solar power that reach the surface, the incremental gain is about 1.6. Why is it that each incremental watt of CO2 forcing arriving at the surface is between 2.7 and 5.4 times as powerful at warming the surface as an incremental watt of solar forcing entering the system at the same place?

    And yes buts reply?

    Yes but:
    July 10th, 2010 at 5:42 am

    co2isnotevil – I have noticed your interesting question. I am not ignoring you.

    That was at post 347. There are, as of now, 569 posts! So Yes but, are you going to answer CO2isnotevil’s question?

    You won’t because you can’t. i am all for a spirited debate but you are a waste of time. You do not search for the truth and you are so self deluded as to beggar the imagination. Quit wasting everybody’s time you pompous ass and get some help from a competent mental health professional. My advice to anybody who visits this site is to give his posts a thumb down and ignore him. True, it will not cure his mental illness but it will save many a poster from wasting his valuable time and it will save Jo some money on wasted bandwidth. Hopefully, he will go away.

    Luke, do not bother responding to this post other than to address CO2isnotevil’s question. I will have nothing else to do with you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    the Troll of Trolls and Loser of Losers, Yes But, showed up at this thread.

    What’s he doing here, anyway? He advertised how “bored” he was days ago.

    He appears to have a particular vendetta aimed at George W, apparently for adding something more edifying than slime to Deltoid’s habitual disgrace. Imagine that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    The biggest threat to scientists and the “Peer-review” system is computers and automation of temperature stations.

    Good question is how many of these scientists get paid doing the same research?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Odd thing is, the more the Grand Exalted Pooh-bah Plenipotentiary of trolls posts here or anywhere, the more support it loses.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    13 July: roger pielke jr: Here we go again
    I see that four climate scientists, including the incoming head of IPCC WGII, Chris Field, have written up an op-ed for Politico calling for political action on climate change. That they are calling for political action is not problematic, but the following statement in the op-ed is a problem:
    “Climate change caused by humans is already affecting our lives and livelihoods — with extreme storms, unusual floods and droughts, intense heat waves, rising seas and many changes in biological systems — as climate scientists have projected.”
    I have sent Chris Field an email as follows:
    ….”I am unaware of research that shows either detection or attribution of human-caused changes in extreme storms or floods, much less detection or attribution of such changes “affecting lives and livelihoods”. Can you point me to the scientific basis for such claims?”.
    I’ll report back how he replies. Suffice it to say that it would not be good form for leader of the IPCC to be making political arguments using scientifically unsupportable statements…
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/07/here-we-go-again.html

    perhaps our own Tim Thwaites needs to respond to Roger as well. Tragically I turned from ABC Radio National which was reporting UN biodiversity story to ABC local only to have Tim tell Tony Delroy hurricanes are increasing and more powerful because of climate change, using the following study reported in the CAGW-all-the-time New Scientist, which states:

    (one of the authors)Corral says that the results hint that, as temperatures rise to levels humans have not experienced before, there will be more of the most powerful hurricanes. But he says it is difficult to say for sure…
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19157-law-of-hurricane-power-discovered.html

    for some unknown reason, Delroy responded that Floridians would be concerned!

    Tim also informed ABC listeners that NZ scientists had published the genome of a bacterium that produces methane in livestock, so they could vaccinate cattle, sheep and goats to reduce their greenhouse emissions. Tim said the scientists weren’t sure if there could be any unforseen side effects, but said NZ “literally” had to do this!

    where are u, maurice newman?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Reed Coray

    wes george wrote:
    July 15th, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Meanwhile, the conduct of the inquiries is now a brand new climate scandal compounding and giving new meaning and life to the original climategates[emphasis added] a fate that could only be better than what an honest inquiry would have found if the true extent of the science corruption was indeed truly heinous. This is what the intelligentsia have yet to admit even to themselves.

    I suggest the inquiries to date be given the name invest-i-GATE. Not only does the name fit superficial investigations, it is appropriate for any fraudulent carbon trading that may have taken place.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    didn’t watch, but not at all surprised to find this on Lateline website. if u removed all CAGW content from the ABC, there’d be little left.

    14 July: ABC Lateline: A zero-carbon future is possible: Turnbull
    TONY JONES, PRESENTER: As both sides of politics in Australia prepare for the next election, former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull is hopeful a price will be put on carbon.
    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2953913.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    I guess that Jo really thinks that many (most?) climate scientists are being deliberately dishonest.

    I don’t find that easy to believe. If it is true, then it is a huge scandal. If its false, then all the apologies in the world won’t be enough.

    I never bothered to read the climate gate emails carefully, but perhaps someone here would be good enough to re-cap the basic facts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    BTW, can someone please give Jo some money so that the web site doesn’t keep vanishing off the face of the earth?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    John. Summary. A climate scientist used the word trick, and they trash talked some skeptics, and they toyed with some FOI requests. And have been cleared by three separate studies. And some guy wrote a book that makes the emails look really bad, but that book does not seem to stack up to reality.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Thanks MattB @38, but I really want the meaty stuff. They must have done something really badly wrong (like drug companies hiding the data which showed that their drugs cause heart attacks), or there wouldn’t be all this fuss. But I don’t want exaggerations, just the facts (with apologies).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    You probably shouldn’t buy the book then. Although it will undoubtedly be better than the movie;) I really can’t help you find the meaty stuff – I only know of some slightly embarrassing emails and a heap of peeved scientists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Yes but

    Off topic – Eddy yes I did respond, not to CO2-esy’s satisfaction of course, but in any case the issue was kicked for six at Deltoid. Do try to keep up.

    On topic: So how do you guys think climategate has revealed that systematic corruption is occurring.
    What is you new understanding of our climate as a result of climategate. What’s changed? Except that establishment climate scientists hate faux sceptics guts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Yes but

    Lawrie – yes I agree a Royal Commission would be excellent. Bring it on.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John Brookes: Don’t be so goddamn lazy. It’s easy enough to do an internet search for and you can read the whole sorry saga including the whitewashes afterwards.

    A sorry tale of a bunch of second and third rate so called scientists desperately trying to be relevant by pulling alarmist conclusions out of crap “data” while trying to trash the reputations of anyone who dared disagree with them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Reed Corey @ 34

    “I suggest the inquiries to date be given the name invest-i-GATE. Not only does the name fit superficial investigations, it is appropriate for any fraudulent carbon trading that may have taken place.”

    Trying to get your name in the history books, like Bulldust has by coining “Climategate.” ;-) Good on ya.

    Eddie @ 29

    “Well, it was just a matter of time before His silliness, the Troll of Trolls and Loser of Losers, Yes But, showed up at this thread. What’s a matter Luke, nobody to annoy at the last thread you were at?”

    Lukeeeey, (also known as “Wes George’s boyfriend” because of his witless habit of rhetorically bending over for me ) won’t last long on this blog not only because his fragile ego can’t handle the like or dislike vote option, but Jo seems to have little patience for endlessly digressive ad hom attack which is all Lukeeey ever had going for him at Jennifer’s blog. Personally, I am totally hot for all the lukeeey I can get….;-)

    MattB @ planet #9 #9 #9

    “A climate scientist used the word trick, and they trash talked some skeptics, and they toyed with some FOI requests. And have been cleared by three separate studies. And some guy wrote a book that makes the emails look really bad, but that book does not seem to stack up to reality.”

    Really now, Matt. Perhaps you just beamed down from the starship after a long warp speed voyage. Maybe you should read the articles mentioned at the top of thread to update your “consensus” file. Wouldn’t want to be all lonesome out there in denial land, just you and Luke…whatever you do, don’t bend over. ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    John Brookes:

    Here is a good site containing the emails, which is searchable for terms like FOI, Briffa, or whatever you care to search:

    http://eastangliaemails.com/

    Here’s a list of threads at WUWT dealing with the incident:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

    The list of questions regarding ClimateGate (coined by yours truly :) ) is long and varied. It ranges from initial questions such as “Are they real?” and “were they hacked or leaked?” through to detailed commentaries on issues relating to FOI requests, peer review, the “trick” and “hide the decline” terms, and representation of data to name but a few.

    It is impossible to encapsulate the entire issue into a short post. You really have to dive in and start reading about it.

    You won’t see much about it at AGW sites like Real Climate, because they (like MattB here) wish to pretened it was a tempest in a teacup and taken out of context. You have to read the emails and some commentary from both sides and judge for yourself.

    One thing I know absolutely is that there is no way I would communicate like that in professional emails. I would certainly not be writing that I was happy that someone who’s views I disliked is dead.

    One of my personal favourites is how Gavin Schmidt wrote that he knew a paper was rubbish (presumably because of the person who wrote it), and later in the same email asked his colleagues to explain the scientific arguments presented in the paper because it was beyond him. But, darn it, he knew the author must be wrong!

    A lot of it would be funny, if it weren’t so sad. It also received underwhelming coverage in the media, even The Australian, for which I regularly lambasted them. I don’t call it a cover up so much as lack of incentive to report on something that was considered “politically incorrect.” After all, every party wanted some sort of ETS at the time, no?

    Herein lies the crux of the issue… you don’t need to imagine a dramatic conspiracy of scientists, vested interests in business and politicians to get everyone aligned. All you need is incentives (big bucks) that gets everyone aligned, much like iron filings doe when a large magnetic force somes to play. That isn’t a conspiracy, just a meeting of the minds…

    Think about it:

    Politicians – want more power & taxes to achieve their ends. *check*
    Academics – want funding from governments to achieve tenure. *check*
    Investment banks – want new markets to play. *check*
    Renewables companies – want government funds to push their overpriced energy technologies. *check*
    Media – scary disaster scenarios sell, climate change is normal does not. *check*

    You see? All these groups are aligned… no added conspiracy required. Which leaves the unaligned skeptics saying “what about the science?” They get drowned out by all the groups above.

    Are the AGW scientists evil? Nah… they are just chasing the easy money and generating the results that were desired. They are just human after all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Given that every single scandal in the world gets reported as *something*-gate, how can you keep a straight face and claim credit Bulldust. Next you’ll claim credit for being the first to put two hollywood starlets’ names together when they are dating and claim it as ground breaking original thought;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    What did the people involved with the Climategate emails do?

    They fabricated a history of the climate, they laughed about doing that, they trashed anybody suspected of exposing (or capable of exposing) what they did.

    Upon being exposed, they bewailed their “victimization” and publicly anguished over their “inability to sleep anymore” and their “thoughts of suicide” (Phil Jones).

    They blamed their own words and deeds on “professional deniers” and “criminals” (Michael Mann)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Brian,

    “What did the people involved with the Climategate emails do?”

    Don’t forget they conspired to subvert the peer review process to keep research that did not support the AGW hypothesis out of the literature and then claimed the skeptics had little in the way of peer reviewed research to support their claims!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Oh, and after Phil Jones admonished his colleagues to destroy email documents related to a Freedom of Information request, it was discovered he had some how lost original temperature datasets because, well, he’s kind of disorganized and overworked.

    Uh-huh. Nothing to see here, folks. Science as usual. Move along.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @CO2isnotevil

    Great job over at the unskeptcal guide to the skeptical handbook thread. I noticed when you had the androgynous troll cornered regarding your post at 127 the best he could do was pay a false compliment and then tell you

    “However this is really specialist stuff – what goes on on a K/T diagram is a simplification of radiation code in a GCM.”

    Translation: I am a troll in way over my head and I can’t intelligently answer your question despite my every effort to obfuscate and then segue. He then moved the goalpost again with

    “The only way to test your mettle is to publish.”

    That was followed later by

    “Well who’s George – his publication record in climate is what exactly? pffft ! I heard it on the Internet.”

    Trolls are such sore losers!

    It amazes me how anybody that can put so much stock in peer reviewed literature can believe in CAGW, considering that 40% of the IPCC report is not peer reviewed. Then again, to believe so is typical of a cultist that relies on an appeal to authority to bolster his faith.

    I admire your persistence and stamina CO2isnotevil. You may have set a new record for greased pig wrestling! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB:
    July 15th, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Given that every single scandal in the world gets reported as *something*-gate, how can you keep a straight face and claim credit Bulldust.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/07/bulldust-australian-hero

    Oh, and a note of acknowledgment to WUWT regular “bulldust” who coined the phrase “Climategate” right here on WUWT (Bulldust coined the phrase at 3:52PM PST Nov 19th) just hours after we broke the story. It was great to meet you in Perth

    So, Matt, when you get your foot out of your mouth (again) are you going to apologize to Bulldust?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    John Brookes: #37
    July 15th, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    BTW, can someone please give Jo some money so that the web site doesn’t keep vanishing off the face of the earth?

    C’mon John, you don’t need any encouragement from me, there is a pay pal link at top left. Tip some in


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB:
    July 15th, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Next you’ll claim credit for being the first to put two hollywood starlets’ names together when they are dating and claim it as ground breaking original thought;

    Hmmmm…. maybe we can do the same kind of combination with posters who are pro CAGW? How about ButtMatt? ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/14/report-from-the-climategate-guardian-debate/

    I can hardly wait to watch the video of the Guardian’s Climategate debate. ButtMatt, perhaps we should get a slab of beer and watch it together?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy I’m not at all questioning that it appears that Bulldust did in fact say it 1st. All I’m saying is that *scandal*-gate is not exactly groundbreaking in originality. If there had been 1000 monkeys in a room with typewriters probably 850 of them would have come up with it;) I mean in recent times in Australia we’ve had ute-gate, oh look wikipedia can help me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix


    Report this

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    Re: Bulldust # 45

    http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
    Excellent one site review of the climate gate emails by John Costella.
    He walks you through in chronologic order, filling in the background details and context as he goes.
    Also he codes the players by colored script; Phil Jones is red, Mike Mann is brown, Tom Wrigley is blue … ect.

    Cuts down on the confusion of rummaging. Plus it’s a hell of a good read.

    RIP John Daly. We stand on the shoulder of giants.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    John Brookes:@39
    July 15th, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    Thanks MattB @38, but I really want the meaty stuff. They must have done something really badly wrong (like drug companies hiding the data which showed that their drugs cause heart attacks), or there wouldn’t be all this fuss. But I don’t want exaggerations, just the facts (with apologies).

    John after checking out bulldust’s links at 45, try this link for an in-depth look at climategate.

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    Want to see a one punch knock out?

    Check comment #1 on skeptical science global warming on Mars page.

    Cross, meet mister canvas.
    ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    John,It looks like papertiger & I have linked to the same insightful review of the UEA emails @ 56 & 57, the same horse, just in different stables.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Mann’s legal problems are from getting a grant and using it for other research that was NOT intended for as he found the path he was following was not showing him the results he wanted.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    John Brookes,

    See post 43. And if you don’t want to read for yourself then you can jolly well remain ignorant. And from the looks of things you’ll still be ignorant even if you read every last word. So maybe instead you should consider acting your age when you go out in public.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    Re: Bob Malloy: #57

    Thanks BOB. It’s good to have it saved to my computer.
    ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    I think Jo may have identified a trend here. Note that the doubts sown by Climategate, etc. do not have to be explicitly signaled as the perturbation loosing the paradigm shift.

    Here’s an analysis based entirely upon the unquestioned assumptions of the IPCC “consensus” which finds the case for radical action on climate change is unwarranted. It never mentions Climategate and implicitly rejects the skeptical position. Apparently, data supporting a moderate reaction to AGW was there all along!

    “…assume that we could have a perfectly implemented global carbon tax. If we introduced a tax high enough to keep atmospheric carbon concentration to no more than 420 ppm (assuming we could get the whole world to go along), we would expect, using the Nordhaus analysis as a reference point, to spend about $14 trillion more than the benefits that we would achieve in the expected case. To put that in context, that is on the order of the annual GDP of the United States of America. That’s a heck of an insurance premium for an event so low-probability that it is literally outside of a probability distribution. Gore has a more aggressive proposal that if implemented through an optimal carbon tax (again, assuming we can get the whole word to go along) would cost more like $20 trillion in excess of benefits in the expected case. ”

    …. massive carbon tax or a cap-and-trade rationing system would likely cost more than the damages it would prevent. Either would be an impractical, panicky reaction that would be both more expensive and less effective than targeted technology development in the event that we ever have to confront the actual danger: the very small but real chance of much worse than expected damages from greenhouse gases.”

    The article is both fascinatingly naive yet well informed. I especially had a good laugh at the bits where he imagines the IPCC knows what the world GDP will be “roughly” down to the last couple percentage points 100 years from now. With economic forecasting powers so exact, Chairman Pachauri must be getting rich trading future options. Read the whole thing.

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/critics/75757/why-the-decision-tackle-climate-change-isn’t-simple-al-gore-says?page=0,0


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DirkH

    I would opt for “The Science is stratified”. “Settled” is so 2009.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Wes George:

    At #63 you say:

    I think Jo may have identified a trend here. Note that the doubts sown by Climategate, etc. do not have to be explicitly signaled as the perturbation loosing the paradigm shift.

    Here’s an analysis based entirely upon the unquestioned assumptions of the IPCC “consensus” which finds the case for radical action on climate change is unwarranted. It never mentions Climategate and implicitly rejects the skeptical position. Apparently, data supporting a moderate reaction to AGW was there all along!

    A post I made on another thread seems pertinent to your observation. It is #598 at
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/

    To save you needing to find it, I copy it below.

    Richard

    ————————–

    Mark:

    At #587 you say:

    Yes but, you are entitled to your opinion, I’m entitled to mine. The differene (sic) is, yours will put this country down the dunny. You know, like Spain.

    I think you have stated the most important point in this thread.

    The CAGW scare is dead. It continues to run around like a headless chicken, but – like the chicken – it is dead while still moving with an appearance of life. And the movement will be obvious in Mexico later this year.

    However, like the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s, the smell of the corpse of CAGW will continue to pollute energy and economic policies for decades to come.

    The ‘acid rain’ scare’ is dead, too. Nobody announced its death (and nobody will announce the death of CAGW) but few remember the ‘acid rain’ scare unless reminded of it.

    And the ‘acid rain’ scare should act as a warning because it is very similar to the CAGW scare.

    It was based on dubious ‘science’ that anyone could see was flawed.
    It was denied by empirical evidence.
    It was promoted for political and economic reasons.
    ‘Greens’ adopted it and promoted it as a method to attack industrial civilisation.
    It was the major environmental concern in its day.
    It was quietly forgotten when its political use had been fulfilled.

    But the stench of its corpse pollutes the political scene to this day.

    The UK Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) of the European Union (EU) is one good example of the stench from the corpse of the ‘acid rain’ scare. The LCPD was established in response to the ‘acid rain’ scare, and it sets limits to emissions of oxides of sulphur and nitrogen (SOx and NOx) permitted from power stations. The civil servants who were put in place to operate the LCPD need to justify the continuing existence of their jobs, so they keep reducing the emission limits. There are no valid scientific reasons – and no valid reasons of any other kind – for these reductions. But the latest reductions will force closure of all except two of the UK’s coal fired power stations in 2014.

    The power stations could continue to operate if they were fitted with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD). Some have sufficient land available for them to fit FGD but others do not. More importantly, FGD adds about 20% to the capital cost and about 10% to the running cost of a power station.

    A power station has to recover its capital cost over the entire ~30 years of its scheduled life. This recovery of capital cost becomes difficult when the capital cost is increased by ~20% and the power station’s running cost is increased by ~10%. The recovery of capital cost becomes impossible when the FGD is retro-fitted to a power station that is 5-years old so only has about ~25 years of its scheduled life remaining. Hence, closing the power station (with large resulting losses) costs less than fitting FGD to keep it running.

    So, as a result of the ‘acid rain’ scare, in 2014 the UK will be forced to choose between leaving the EU or having its lights go out.

    The CAGW scare is dead but it has yet to lie down and be forgotten. There will be a temptation to forget the CAGW scare as it fades away. But – as the effects of the ‘acid rain’ scare demonstrate – this temptation needs to be resisted.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    There may be some who doubt my observation in #65 that CAGW is a ‘headless chicken’ (i.e. it is dead but is still providing an appearance of life).

    If Climategate and the failure at Copenhagen are not sufficient evidence of my observation, then this report copied from
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25506
    may convince.

    United States Halts Gravy Train for British Global Warming Unit

    By John O’Sullivan Sunday, July 18, 2010

    British newspaper, The Sunday Times reveals that the U.S. government has announced it will stop funding U.K. university at the center of the Climategate scandal.

    The Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia (CRU), the hub of the climate controversy over leaked emails discrediting research into man-made global warming, has been dealt a heavy blow from a key funding source: the U.S. Department of Energy.

    Under the header, ‘US halts funds for climate unit’ (July 18, 2010) The Sunday Times report reads, “The American Government has suspended its funding of the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit (CRU), citing the scientific doubts raised by last November’s leak of hundreds of stolen emails.” (Hat Tip: Barry Woods).

    The CRU has been the primary source of information for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that world governments had looked to for the science to substantiate their cap-and-trade green tax policies.

    Setback Comes After Official Reviews Give all Clear
    The news is a particular blow for the UEA. The university had been upbeat in the wake of three British official inquiries which all cleared the much-maligned CRU of any wrongdoing. However, critics slated each of the inquiries for alleged whitewashing.

    The article continues, “The US Department of Energy (DoE) was one of the unit’s main sources of funding for its work assembling a database of global temperatures…”

    The announcement will gravely undermine confidence in climate scientists hoping for further research funds from the world’s largest funding source, the U.S. federal government.

    Scandal Caused Adverse Public Reaction
    Ben Stewart, head of media at Greenpeace, conceded the Climategate scandal influenced public opinion; “It’s pretty hard to say what the impact has been but it would be hopelessly naive to say it has not had an effect.”

    Public concerns will not be assuaged by recent revelations that Lord Oxburgh’s committee failed to address the actual science.

    Official Inquiries Dismissed as ‘Whitewashes’
    Despite independent scientists finding evidence supportive of misconducta Parliamentary hearing and the Oxburgh Inquiry affirmed that researchers at the CRU were “subjective” and cherry-picked data, but had done no wrong.

    Although Lord Oxburgh did conclude that climate researchers were “poor data handlers” and would benefit by consulting outside statistical experts.

    Dr. John P. Costella, an independent Australian scientist who studied the leaked emails, took a harsher line referring to what he found as proof of “shocking misconduct and fraud.”

    Dr. Costella concluded that the “climate science” community was a fa√ßade and that “their vitriolic rebuffs of sensible arguments of mathematics, statistics, and indeed scientific common sense were not the product of scientific rigor at all, but merely self-protection at any cost.”

    Government Investigators Ignore Key Witness
    As reported on the Climate Audit blog run by McIntyre, Muir Russell review made no attempt to contact the Canadian who originally filed the Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests that CRU unlawfully denied over a three-year period.

    Canadian climate analyst, Steve McIntyre had made a compelling impression on attendees at The Guardian debate on Climategate in London on Wednesday July 14, 2010.

    By contrast Phil Jones still looks a broken man despite his immediate reinstatement to his postupon his recent exoneration. Jones escaped criminal prosecution only a technicality according to the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) the agency charged with investigation the FOIA abuses in the scandal.

    Accusations of Official ‘One-sidedness’
    But the official British line appears to have cut no ice with the Americans. As The Sunday Times adds, “The DoE peer review panel will now sift through the (Muir Russell) report and decide if American taxpayers should continue to fund the unit.”

    The review carried out by Sir Muir Russell, also condemned as a whitewash, was notable for the total absence of any evidence from the principle opposing witness, statistical expert, McIntyre.

    The Sunday Times correspondent asked Trevor Davis (head of UEA) to confirm whether Phil Jones (head of CRU) attended a private meeting with Muir Russell in January before the investigating panel was convened in February. Davis confirmed Jones had met Sir Muir Russell privately in January.

    Climate Scientists Accused of Cherry-picking Data
    Skeptics of the man-made global warming theory point out that police found no evidence of any theft. They argue that the 1,000+ emails and 62MB of data that flooded the blogosphere on November 19, 2009 were not stolen but leaked onto the Internet by a whistleblower within university research department.

    Dr. John P. Costella believes there is sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that a conspiracy existed between an inner clique of climatologists seeking to exaggerate the global historic temperature record.

    It is alleged politicized researchers created the illusion that late 20th century global warming was potentially catastrophic and attributable to human emissions of carbon dioxide.

    Repercussions for American Climate Researchers?
    With British climate research in a financial pickle attention will turn next to those U.S. institutions also implicated in climate data shenanigans.

    Currently NASA is facing a legal battle for also refusing to honor FOIA requests for the past three years. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has filed a legal challenge against the discredited space agency for also withholding crucial climate data requested by skeptical climate analysts.

    While in addition, alleged key U.S. ‘climate conspirator,’ Michael E. Mann is currently in court being pursued for grant fraud by Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Richard –have you seen this one on the Oxborough ‘inquiry”

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/7/18/more-on-oxburghs-eleven.html

    They can’t even do a good job of a whitewash !!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Ross:

    At #67 you suggest:

    They can’t even do a good job of a whitewash !!!

    Ah! But they do not need to.

    The wheels are coming loose on the AGW bandwagon.

    Those with any wit can see they need to get off the bandwagon before it grinds to a complete halt.

    In the meantime, all that is needed is a screen to cover the wobbly wheels.

    And the screen only has to be sufficient for it to last until the wheels have fallen off the AGW bandwagon.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gail C.

    John Brookes said:

    I never bothered to read the climate gate emails carefully, but perhaps someone here would be good enough to re-cap the basic facts.

    Try reading this: http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/

    You might also want to read this analysis, done many years ago, on how to get a peer reviewed paper published.

    Studies shows poor papers are more likely to be published in peer reviewed journals.

    Plain Prose: It’s Seldom Seen in Journals: Written by Dick Pothier: From the Philadelphia Inquirer, March 23, 1982. http://www.ponyspot.com/papers/pothier.html

    ”If you want to publish an article in some scientific or medical journal, here is some unusual advice from Scott Armstrong, a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School: Choose an unimportant topic. Agree with existing beliefs. Use convoluted methods. Withhold some of your data. And write the whole thing in stilted, obtuse prose….”

    The article ends with:

    ”Other studies, Armstrong said, indicate that obscure writing helps those who have little to say. And having little to say may also be an advantage, especially if the author withholds some significant data. “This will allow the researcher to continue publishing slightly different versions of the same research,” which Armstrong says is a common practice”


    Report this

    00