ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Riverwind]

where was Al Gore's video ever presented by the scientific community as evidence of CC or he as an expert on CC???

Where were the producers of swindle presented as experts on CC? The climate change community quietly supported Gore's film because it served their agenda. They attacked Swindle because it went against their agenda - not because it was less accurate than IT.

scientist have regularly debated each other for centuries that's how science progresses, oppose the consensus then publish and accept peer review, unsupported opinions don't cut it.

The problem is not that dissenting opinions are not unsupported. The problem is dissenting opinions that do not support the IPCC's political agenda are suppressed and the public is being bullied into accepting government policies that may not be necessary. Edited November 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Here is the opinion of the editor at Climate Research that was attacked in the emails:

Going through the files, which due to the sheer size I can do only in a sampling mode, the mails begin in the late 1990s and extend to about today. They are all mails to/from Phil Jones. There are a number of problematic statements, which will be discussed in the media and the blogosphere. I found the style of communication revealing, speaking about other people and their ideas, joining forces to "kill" papers, exchanges of "improving" presentations without explaining.

Also mails from/to Eduardo Zorita and myself are included; also we have been subject of frequent mentioning, usually not in a flattering manner. Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained about efforts to destroy "Climate Research"; that we in the heydays of the hockeystick debate shared our ECHO-G data with our adversaries; and that Mike Mann was successful to exclude me from a review-type meeting on historical reconstructions in Wengen (demonstrating again his problematic but powerful role of acting as a gatekeeper.)

I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or assessment activities like IPCC.

For an account of our role in the hockey-stick deconstruction, refer to our 2007-article on the nature blog. An account on the problem around "Climate Research" is provided on this web-page of mine from 2003.

These e-mails cannot brushed aside. The corruption is serious and must be dealt with before we can make any major policy changes based on the IPCC annoited science.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

Where were the producers of swindle presented as experts on CC? The climate change community quietly supported Gore's film because it served their agenda. They attacked Swindle because it went against their agenda - not because it was less accurate than IT.

The problem is not that dissenting opinions are not unsupported. The problem is dissenting opinions that do not support the IPCC's political agenda are suppressed and the public is being bullied into accepting government policies that may not be necessary.

an opinion is not evidence... peer reviewed papers are not suppressed...dissenting peer reviewed papers? you have to look long and hard to find any....

[Riverwind]

an opinion is not evidence... peer reviewed papers are not suppressed.

Tell that to Peilke Sr and Roy Spenser.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/comment-on-the-hacking-of-the-cru-website/

This is what the "team" has to say about Peike's papers:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

The evidence for corruption is irrefutable. The coming weeks will seperate the slime balls from the scientists with integrity. The slime balls will be the ones that insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that nothing is wrong.

[dlkenny]

It's been around for awhile. All of these people have been accused by the Alarmists of being in the pocket of "Big Oil". Perhaps now, people will start to listen. There's no harm in posting it again....it's been falling on deaf ears until now.

Yeah, I know it's been around for a while but I've heard Dr. Lindzen on various radio stations since then and thought it was worth re posting. I know that these guys have been accused of being in the pocket of "big oil" but come on, do you really think that the former leader of Greenpeace would work for big oil? Somehow I doubt it. There are much bigger problems associated with the use of fossil fuels for energy than just CO2 emissions, and they're not arguing that...they're simply exposing the lies being fed to us by the IPCC. The IPCC by the way is a Left wing group from the UN which is inherently political, not scientific, with an agenda of their own.

[wyly]

Tell that to Peilke Sr and Roy Spenser.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/comment-on-the-hacking-of-the-cru-website/

This is what the "team" has to say about Peike's papers:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

The evidence for corruption is irrefutable. The coming weeks will seperate the slime balls from the scientists with integrity. The slime balls will be the ones that insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that nothing is wrong.

IPCC rejecting a paper for it's report has nothing to do with peer reviewed papers being published...

as for you assuming Pielke refutes AGW you couldn't be more wrong...here's a couple of his quotes

the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.

[Keepitsimple]

Yeah, I know it's been around for a while but I've heard Dr. Lindzen on various radio stations since then and thought it was worth re posting. I know that these guys have been accused of being in the pocket of "big oil" but come on, do you really think that the former leader of Greenpeace would work for big oil? Somehow I doubt it. There are much bigger problems associated with the use of fossil fuels for energy than just CO2 emissions, and they're not arguing that...they're simply exposing the lies being fed to us by the IPCC. The IPCC by the way is a Left wing group from the UN which is inherently political, not scientific, with an agenda of their own.

I'm on your side....I was just making the comment to reinforce how much influence the Alarmists/IPCC have had with their accusations of Big Oil funding....when in fact, AGW research is funded many times over by "green alternative" companies and the Carbon Footprint industry.

[wyly]

I'm on your side....I was just making the comment to reinforce how much influence the Alarmists/IPCC have had with their accusations of Big Oil funding....when in fact, AGW research is funded many times over by "green alternative" companies and the Carbon Footprint industry.

AGW research was underway decades before there was an green environmental industry...Lindzen is a paid agnotologist

[Riverwind]

IPCC rejecting a paper for it's report has nothing to do with peer reviewed papers being published.

Other sceptical scientists have complained of papers being rejected out of hand and the emails demonstrate that the alarmists rigged the process by pressuring journals to reject sceptical papers. It is really pointless to deny what was going on at this point.

as for you assuming Pielke refutes AGW you couldn't be more wrong...here's a couple of his quotes

You need to learn that there are many views on climate and the only people who try to reduce it to a binary question are alarmists seeking to bully people.

Peilke, like most sceptics, agrees that CO2 causes warming but that its effect is being exagerrated. He has also said that CO2 controls for the sake of CO2 controls are mistake and are not justified given the science and that is why he is considered an enemy by the alarmists scientists.

[wyly]

Other sceptical scientists have complained of papers being rejected out of hand and the emails demonstrate that the alarmists rigged the process by pressuring journals to reject sceptical papers. It is really pointless to deny what was going on at this point.

You need to learn that there are many views on climate and the only people who try to reduce it to a binary question are alarmists seeking to bully people.

Peilke, like most sceptics, agrees that CO2 causes warming but that its effect is being exagerrated. He has also said that CO2 controls for the sake of CO2 controls are mistake and are not justified given the science and that is why he is considered an enemy by the alarmists scientists.

1000 MDs tell you that drinking cyanide will kill you instantly but one MD says the others are over reacting it'll actually take 15 seconds to kill you....so you being the uber logical person think those other 1000MDs are alarmists, then you drink the cyanide because you think there will be a cure found in that 15 seconds ... so logical...

[noahbody]

1000 MDs tell you that drinking cyanide will kill you instantly but one MD says the others are over reacting it'll actually take 15 seconds to kill you....so you being the uber logical person think those other 1000MDs are alarmists, then you drink the cyanide because you think there will be a cure found in that 15 seconds ... so logical...

That's the stupidest post I've ever read.

[Riverwind]

1000 MDs tell you that drinking cyanide will kill you instantly but one MD says the others are over reacting it'll actually take 15 seconds to kill you.....so you being the uber logical person think those other 1000MDs are alarmists, then you drink the cyanide because you think there will be a cure found in that 15 seconds ... so logical...

The planet has warmed 0.7 degC in the last 100 years are there is ZERO evidence that this warming has been a bad thing for humans. In fact, it has probably been a good thing. The planet can warm another 1-2 degC without any significant ill effects.

In fact, one of the revelations in the emails is the data used create the IPCC predictions was 'juiced' to make the future look as scary as possible.

The question:

> -why are we using a 1% annual increase in GHG forcing (corresponding to the

> 1.2% increase) as a criteria for GCM simulations to then be used for the

> national assessment? Is it because of the possible confusion you refer to

> below? If so, that criteria needs to be revised.

...

> That gives a concentration of real CO2 in 2100 that is > 1050 ppm. THAT'S

> 50% higher than projected by IS92a, and even 17 % higher than the worst

> emission case devised in IS92f.

...

> Whatever the consideration of self-consistency and physics are when you make

> this decision, I do not think we should carry out the national assessment by

> using "unrealistic" CO2 numbers. I thought the numbers that come out of our

> exercises (from the impact side of things) were supposed to serve as some

The answer:

I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working

with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are

scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines..

You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense

realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios

provided by the synthesis team.

So if you like silly analogies it is like having 1000MDs saying that eating 25kgs of carrots a day will kill you and one 1MD who says there is nothing wrong with eating 1kg of carrots a day and you are better off worrying about the 1kg of ice cream that you are eating.

Anyone with any common sense would take the 1MD more seriously since that MD is talking about the real world.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

issues?..deliberate tampering with scientific data, insinuating claims for scientists they did not make...FRAUD!!!

Wyly.....aren't you at least a little bit concerned about the content of these emails?

[Riverwind]

Here is another scientist who does not think this a non-story to be swept under the rug:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/beware-saviors-by-demetris-koutsoyiannis/

This brings me to the last point I wish to make: secrecy versus transparency. One interesting lesson from this story is that secrecy is corruptible—and corruptive. The CRU people and their collaborators who wrote all these documents felt, no doubt, safe behind their secrecy. They must have felt that this secrecy was their best weapon: to censor differing opinions, to develop “trick” procedures, to “balance” the needs of IPCC, and even to “redefine” peer review.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Here is another scientist who does not think this a non-story to be swept under the rug:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/beware-saviors-by-demetris-koutsoyiannis/

Well go ahead and make the most of it that you can then.

[waldo]

The planet has warmed 0.7 degC in the last 100 years are there is ZERO evidence that this warming has been a bad thing for humans. In fact, it has probably been a good thing. The planet can warm another 1-2 degC without any significant ill effects.

Your continued trolling remains… consistent… even if your expressed views run the gamut of… inconsistency. Why have you previously acknowledged an AGW problem exists, while offering a remedy/resolution, if you now speak to it as being “a good thing”?

Care to share the basis of your scientific prowess in stating, unequivocally, that another 1-2 degC warming increase will be “no problem”… care to state how long it will take to warm that additional 1-2 degC, particularly if nothing is done today… particularly given it’s such a “good thing”.

In fact, one of the revelations in the emails is the data used create the IPCC predictions was 'juiced' to make the future look as scary as possible.

Bullshit! Do you even understand the distinction between predictions and projections? You’ve taken pains to paint the IPCC as a politicizing arm and here you (purposely) misread email exchange between members of a group that, if nothing else, reinforces that an “appropriate level” for CO2ppm is/should be, ultimately, a political-policy decision.

The hacked email exchange you present is nothing more than an exchange between group members, reference to the earlier IS92a long-term emission scenarios, and a reinforcement on how the latest SRES scenarios should be used within modelling (re: establishing baseline and capturing the range of uncertainties associated with driving forces and emissions). That range is provided by and reflects upon the overall and respective “realism” across the numbers drawn from/upon the SRES scenarios… if one presumed to assign probability to the respective SRES scenarios for predictive intent, then the question of absolute realism and extended prediction therein becomes relevant. That is not the case or intent of the SRES scenarios and is reinforced with the exchange you label as “The answer”.

Not that it really needed reinforcement, but it becomes clearer and clearer that you really know little of the actual workings/method within the IPCC… notwithstanding your authoritative posturing in making negative assessments about the IPCC. It’s evident you know nothing of the openness and transparency in how the SRES scenarios were arrived at… or how they should be used.

IPCC – Emissions Scenarios – Summary for Policymakers

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed long-term emissions scenarios in 1990 and 1992. These scenarios have been widely used in the analysis of possible climate change, its impacts, and options to mitigate climate change. In 1995, the IPCC 1992 scenarios were evaluated. The evaluation recommended that significant changes (since 1992) in the understanding of driving forces of emissions and methodologies should be addressed. These changes in understanding relate to, e.g., the carbon intensity of energy supply, the income gap between developed and developing countries, and to sulfur emissions. This led to a decision by the IPCC Plenary in 1996 to develop a new set of scenarios. The new set of scenarios is presented in this Report.

Future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the product of very complex dynamic systems, determined by driving forces such as demographic development, socio-economic development, and technological change. Their future evolution is highly uncertain. Scenarios are alternative images of how the future might unfold and are an appropriate tool with which to analyse how driving forces may influence future emission outcomes and to assess the associated uncertainties. They assist in climate change analysis, including climate modeling and the assessment of impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. The possibility that any single emissions path will occur as described in scenarios is highly uncertain.

A set of scenarios was developed to represent the range of driving forces and emissions in the scenario literature so as to reflect current understanding and knowledge about underlying uncertainties. They exclude only outlying “surprise” or “disaster” scenarios in the literature.

Any scenario necessarily includes subjective elements and is open to various interpretations. Preferences for the scenarios presented here vary among users. No judgment is offered in this Report as to the preference for any of the scenarios and they are not assigned probabilities of occurrence, neither must they be interpreted as policy recommendations.

fwiw... I trust I'll have time later this week to address some of the/your other specious claims and continued prattling!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Look folks the problem here is the division within the scientific community. It is causing all kinds of provinces and some global effort should be made to FIX this problem. The scientists need to be onboard as the expert witnesses so we can take their position as an accepted fact. Untill that time we will argue till the cows come home.

[Pliny]

I read an interesting article today:

Here is a snippet:

"While the official mainstream climate science may well be correct, its ignorance regarding economics, political philosophy, and law is huge. The most important entities for a human being are other human beings (for the good and for the bad), and not the environment. Humans can be especially damaging when organized politically and inspired by collectivism.

The possible damages of climate change should be compared to the possible damages of governmental bureaucratic intervention and political oppression. Maybe the whole global-warming scare is an excuse to increase the extension of political power or a distraction from other serious problems. Social institutions matter most, and they are very wrong now: a huge improvement is possible, and freedom is the answer."

And here is the link:

The Ethics of Freedom and Climate Change

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I read an interesting article today:

Here is a snippet:

"While the official mainstream climate science may well be correct, its ignorance regarding economics, political philosophy, and law is huge. The most important entities for a human being are other human beings (for the good and for the bad), and not the environment. Humans can be especially damaging when organized politically and inspired by collectivism.

The possible damages of climate change should be compared to the possible damages of governmental bureaucratic intervention and political oppression. Maybe the whole global-warming scare is an excuse to increase the extension of political power or a distraction from other serious problems. Social institutions matter most, and they are very wrong now: a huge improvement is possible, and freedom is the answer."

And here is the link:

The Ethics of Freedom and Climate Change

Very interesting read!

[Argus]

That's the stupidest post I've ever read.

I think you're making an invalid assumption. You should look at more of his posts. I think he's posted even stupider ones.

[Argus]

The hacked email exchange you present is nothing more than an exchange between group members, reference to the earlier IS92a long-term emission scenarios, and a reinforcement on how the latest SRES scenarios should be used within modelling

From: Phil Jones, Feb 2, 2005

"The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

From: Phil Jones, May 29, 2008

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment -minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

[Jerry J. Fortin]

From: Phil Jones, Feb 2, 2005

"The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

From: Phil Jones, May 29, 2008

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment -minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

You suggest criminal conspiracy?

[Pliny]

Do you even understand the distinction between predictions and projections?

Let me guess - a prediction has no scientific basis and a projection is based on facts.

When you are talking about something like anthropogenic climate change you are talking about claiming certain assumptive facts and making a projection from them. An assumptive fact is that climate change is indeed "anthropogenic".

I don't think I heard why the projections of scientific models have not predicted correctly the forecasts for the last ten years.

Either way a projection and a prediction are both forecasts of or in the future and subject to variables that may be assumptive, unforeseen or even ignored. In the case of a prediction the forecast could be entirely intuitive.

Waldo, you wouldn't have any financial interest in wind generators or something like that would you? Did you write a book about climate change and are concerned about arguments that may mitigate the public's fears and adversely affect sales? You seem very passionate about it for some reason. Is it just an interest of yours? You are beyond even admitting any possibility of unethical behavior as regards the premise of climate change. I suppose you could have agreed with Al Gore and the debate is over but it obviously isn't, and the revelations of the rather unscientific behavior of certain prominent proponents of the "theory" has turned back the page.

[Oleg Bach]

So in essence the scientists are playing politics, is that really news worthy?

An old disbarred Jewish lawyer with a deep back ground in socialism once said to me of most people entangled within the system - "They will do anything and say anything for a pay cheaqe. What makes us all think that scientists are not materialists and survivalists?

[wyly]

That's the stupidest post I've ever read.

and to think I dumbed it down to an analogy that you and argus could understand...I guess there's no hope I can't simplify the situation any more than that...

Edited November 24, 2009 by wyly