ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Pliny]

I believe it was actually Emanuel who had the salient point about the word "skeptic"... besides, Lindzen's a putz. In any case, the terminology is clear, the language applies... there is no contradiction in distinguishing scientific skepticism from AGW global warming skepticism. Scientific skepticism is the norm - is healthy... scientific advancement is predicated upon expanding knowledge and improving understanding. But that's not what AGW global warming skepticism/denial is about... that type of skepticism/denial ignores the prevailing consensus of the world-wide community of scientists, that type of skepticism/denial relies upon vigorous absolute criticism of any and all evidence to support AGW global warming, while, at the same time, eagerly, even blindly embracing any paper, any study, any argument, any editorial, any article, any minutia within 'blog science', that might presume to refute AGW global warming. The two types of skepticism are entirely distinct.

You see. I am skeptical. I am not a denier. I am for humanity being environmental responsible and developing clean energy technology and keeping the planet from being polluted and cleaning up after ourselves, because if we don't then we risk damaging the environment and although we adapt the environment to ourselves we are not entirely able to create whatever environment we want just yet. I think the environmental movement is about leaving everything undisturbed in the first place. Our very existence makes this an impossibility. It is an extremist viewpoint.

We may be causing global warming - I am skeptical- and the recent revelations regarding the individuals and their attitude of not being skeptical but entirely convinced the sky is falling and promoting political action makes them more politicians than scientists. If they presented the evidence and said there is a possibility that we are warming the planet then I would say they are scientists because they have some skepticism.

You yourself will agree that it is impossible to absolutely know truth. This is a skeptic. You, yourself are a true believer and no skeptic. You will undoubtedly take that as an insult but it is not intended to be. I, unlike you, have no problem with true believers in anything. You may believe whatever you like. However, like all religions, don't attempt to enforce beliefs upon me.

In 5 to 7 years when the polar icecaps disappear I will be less of a skeptic. Al Gore really does the science a disservice but fear and paranoia are great motivators. Al, being the spokesperson, gets a lot of people "believing" and abandoning any idea of skepticism. I admit it took you a lot more than Al Gore to convince you to abandon any skepticism.

So the whole point is that the movement is toward a political solution which I see as totally bogus. I am really skeptical of cap and trade being an effective means to combat global warming. I see it being an economic disaster, and if anything preventing first world economies from being able to afford to look after their own environment and third world economies getting dubious environmental benefit.

[Pliny]

This is an interesting and informative Socratic discussion between Christopher Monckton and a Norwegian Greenpeace member:

They are both polite and civilized and even charming.

Thanks August.

Waldo,

Is Lord Monckton spewing lies or can we check his facts?

Al Gore, Greenpeace, Environmentalists - they are all doing science a disservice. The common tie between all of them is they are political activists with a political agenda.

Like, wyly, they like plants more than people.

[Shady]

Has anyone checked out the source code of the CRU's computer models? It's laughable.

Video

[Michael Hardner]

Has anyone checked out the source code of the CRU's computer models? It's laughable.

Video

Let's see what the explanation is for that.`

[Shady]

Let's see what the explanation is for that.

Here's part of it.

"In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930."

Link

[Michael Hardner]

Here's part of it.

Link

I read through it, and he asks Jones for an explanation at the end:

Care to offer another explanation, Dr. Jones?

[waldo]

You see. I am skeptical. I am not a denier. I am for humanity being environmental responsible and developing clean energy technology and keeping the planet from being polluted and cleaning up after ourselves, because if we don't then we risk damaging the environment and although we adapt the environment to ourselves we are not entirely able to create whatever environment we want just yet. I think the environmental movement is about leaving everything undisturbed in the first place. Our very existence makes this an impossibility. It is an extremist viewpoint.

why frame the argument around your so-called extremism? ... unless you actually consider contemporary scientists a part of your so-called 'extremist' environmental movement. Separate from contemporary scientists, do you distinguish between activism and extremism?

We may be causing global warming - I am skeptical- and the recent revelations regarding the individuals and their attitude of not being skeptical but entirely convinced the sky is falling and promoting political action makes them more politicians than scientists. If they presented the evidence and said there is a possibility that we are warming the planet then I would say they are scientists because they have some skepticism.

you've obviously listened to the MIT debate... you heard 2 of the 3 scientists actually deeply embedded in climate science (Prinn & Emanuel), state they, themselves, were former 'skeptics'. That they, themselves, over the last decade... in consideration of the science, shifted from their previous skeptical position to accept the prevailing state of science understanding/knowledge. Prin, in his prior skeptic period, actually gave his skeptical position as testimony before the U.S. Congress... both of these deeply embedded scientists shifted their prior skeptical positions. You heard the third scientist, one of the most prolific skeptics of the day, indicate he now accepts that warming is occurring... a position radically different from his past anti-warming position. Lindzen's other failings speak for themselves - there are no shortages of critical review available to counter, point-by-point, Lindzen's expressed views... at the end of the day, Lindzen can't point to a single thing to support his views toward natural variance causing the warming - nothing! To hear Lindzen in the debate claim an ignorance of “the machine” is ludicrous

and yet... you are not unique within MLW in failing to articulate your skepticism. What's it based on? You’ll often hear/read someone say they accept global warming, yet they "believe" the position is either overstated in terms of CO2 or that it’s not CO2 – that the warming is due to natural variability. Based on what? Can they, can you, quantify your scepticism in terms of “CO2 overstatement”… or, alternatively, in terms of natural variance? Can you point to anything that can significantly refute the prevailing scientific consensus – the science? Can you point to anything that can provide accepted measure to quantify the degree of “CO2 overstatement”… what’s the degree of CO2 impact you accept, if at all? What’s the degree of measured CO2 impact that, for you, crosses the line between your measure of acceptance versus scepticism? Do you have a measuring bar? It would seem to me, a significant number of avowed sceptics simply avow scepticism in the absence of definitive absolute “proof”… they’ll base their position against the science, on a premise of the absence of definitive absolute “proof”. Is science measured in proof? Are scientific theories measured in proof?

You yourself will agree that it is impossible to absolutely know truth. This is a skeptic. You, yourself are a true believer and no skeptic. You will undoubtedly take that as an insult but it is not intended to be. I, unlike you, have no problem with true believers in anything. You may believe whatever you like. However, like all religions, don't attempt to enforce beliefs upon me.

interesting that you have difficulty accepting skeptic/denial labels, yet have no qualms in freely, with denigration, attaching “true believer” (or “alarmist”) designation. You simply can’t/won’t acknowledge that others have weighed the science and accept the overwhelming consensus that mankind is responsible for global warming. You simply can’t/won’t acknowledge that others who accept the theory of AGW climate change, do not do it blindly… that they continue to follow the science and continue to look for new and additional confirmations. You simply don’t like that these new/additional confirmations come at the expense of absolute and definitive refutations to the sceptical positions that continue to come forward.

In 5 to 7 years when the polar icecaps disappear I will be less of a skeptic. Al Gore really does the science a disservice but fear and paranoia are great motivators. Al, being the spokesperson, gets a lot of people "believing" and abandoning any idea of skepticism. I admit it took you a lot more than Al Gore to convince you to abandon any skepticism.

the current icecap melting doesn’t concern you… you’ll wait till it completely disappears? Allrightee! I’ve already expressed the distinctions around scepticism… scepticism within science versus scepticism towards consensus. Your scepticism is two-fold. You purport to subscribe to scientific scepticism while equally claiming scepticism toward the consensus view that mankind is causing global warming. If science is your ally to dispel the consensus… then what within that science qualifies your scepticism of the consensus? You must have something to substantiate your two-fold sceptical position… you must have something that can stand-up to the overwhelming scientific consensus? Something other than… scepticism for scepticism’s sake!

[waldo]

Waldo,

Is Lord Monckton spewing lies or can we check his facts?

yes, please... your advocacy for anything Monckton spews is most welcome. Would you care to more clearly and precisely advocate that view - just what "Monckton facts" are you speaking to?

[Shady]

the current icecap melting doesn’t concern you… you’ll wait till it completely disappears?

They aren't melting. In fact, the antarctic ice is growing. Besides, ice has melted in the past, and it wasn't due to "man-made" global warming.

[eyeball]

I read through it, and he asks Jones for an explanation at the end:

Isn't the explanation obvious or am I not reading enough into this?

Plotting programs such as data4alps.pro print this reminder to the user prior to rendering the chart:

IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.

Others, such as mxdgrid2ascii.pro, issue this warning:

NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).

Care to offer another explanation, Dr. Jones?

It looks to me like the proxy data was simply replaced with the more accurate data from actual observations and the source code that performed the 'trick' that bridged the two reflects a few peccadilloes of a human scientist who probably never imagined it would be parsed for its evil nuances and conspiratorial overtones.

[Shady]

I read through it, and he asks Jones for an explanation at the end:

Yeah, so? There were reasons for the Watergate break in too. It doesn't mean it's right. I'm not sure why you keeping defending abhorrent behavior from these so-called scientists.

There are definitely explanations for cameras being turned off, microphones being unplugged, and models being programmed incorrectly. These explanations have been staring you in the face for weeks now. But for some reason you refuse to take notice. I really don't understand it.

[waldo]

They aren't melting. In fact, the antarctic ice is growing. Besides, ice has melted in the past, and it wasn't due to "man-made" global warming.

excellent - Shady's on the case... although we've touched upon both of these aspects previously on MLW, citing actual scientific information/study, would you care to provide the support to your claims that:

Shady claim #1. the polar ice is not melting

Shady claim #2. antarctic ice is growing

[waldo]

hey shady, since you seem to like videos, chew on these 2 climate crock of the week ones concerning "Hackergate". I'm sure you'll enjoy them

=> Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack - Part 1

=> Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack - Part 2

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah, so? There were reasons for the Watergate break in too. It doesn't mean it's right. I'm not sure why you keeping defending abhorrent behavior from these so-called scientists.

There are definitely explanations for cameras being turned off, microphones being unplugged, and models being programmed incorrectly. These explanations have been staring you in the face for weeks now. But for some reason you refuse to take notice. I really don't understand it.

With Watergate, see, there was this investigation thing that happened. It's not a matter of defending anyone, but - as with Watergate - giving them a chance to explain themselves.

I don't understand why you're not willing to wait for an explanation before making your mind up.

[Shady]

who probably never imagined it would be parsed for its evil nuances and conspiratorial overtones.

Yeah, can you imagine people having problems and questions with language and practices such as "fudge factor?" I mean, it's nothing AIG didn't do, right?

excellent - Shady's on the case... although we've touched upon both of these aspects previously on MLW, citing actual scientific information/study, would you care to provide the support to your claims that:

Shady claim #1. the polar ice is not melting

Shady claim #2. antarctic ice is growing

Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered

"Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007."

Link

Arctic Ice to Last Decades Longer Than Thought?

This year's cooler-than-expected summer means the Arctic probably won't experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040, scientists say. Some models had previously predicted that the Arctic could be ice free in summer by as soon as 2013, due to rising temperatures from global warming.

Link

I tell ya, I'm shocked! Can you believe their model was off? Where have we heard that before?

Perhaps if they constructed models without "fudge factors" in them, they'd be a little more accurate!

And...

Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking

"Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap."

Link

Does growing sea ice in Antarctica bode well for the future?

"The area covered by Antarctica's sea ice has indeed expanded over the past two decades."

Link

Um, shouldn't you "experts" already know this?

[Shady]

I don't understand why you're not willing to wait for an explanation before making your mind up.

Because I don't care why they've been dishonest. It doesn't matter to me what their motives are for wanting to fudge the numbers. All that matters is that they have. Why does it matter what their explanation is anyways?

[Michael Hardner]

Because I don't care why they've been dishonest. It doesn't matter to me what their motives are for wanting to fudge the numbers. All that matters is that they have. Why does it matter what their explanation is anyways?

Maybe not to you but there may be a reasonable explanation.

[waldo]

certainly, hearing from 30 actual U.S. Scientists, in an Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Scientists on Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails, would seem apropos... yes?

As U.S. scientists with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural

ecosystems, our built environment and human well-being, we want to assure policy makers and

the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to

reduce heat-trapping emissions. In the last few weeks, opponents of taking action on climate

change have misrepresented both the content and the significance of stolen emails to obscure

public understanding of climate science and the scientific process.

We would like to set the record straight.

The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is

overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall

understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. The scientific

process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process.

The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is

evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process.

As the recent letter1 to Congress from 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations, including the

American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the

American Meteorological Society, states:

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is

occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse

gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are

based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are

inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed

science. … If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change,

emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.”

These “multiple independent lines of evidence” are drawn from numerous public and private

research centers all across the United States and beyond, including several independent

analyses of surface temperature data. Even without including analyses from the UK research

center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding

of human-caused global warming remains robust.

We urge you to take account of this as you make decisions on climate policy.

Signed: † = Member, National Academy of Sciences / ‡ = Member, National Academy of Engineering

David Archer, Ph.D.†				William C. Clark, Ph.D.†			Peter C. Frumhoff, Ph.D.†
Professor					Harvey Brooks Professor of International	Director of Science and Policy
Department of the Geophysical Sciences		Science, Public Policy, and Human		Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign
University of Chicago				Development					Union of Concerned Scientists
Chicago, IL					John F. Kennedy School of Government		Cambridge, MA
					Harvard University				
					Cambridge, MA				

Inez Fung, Ph.D. †				Donald Kennedy, Ph.D.†				Neal Lane, Ph.D.
Professor of Atmospheric Science		Editor-in-Chief, Science, 2000-2008		Professor
Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the		President Emeritus				Rice University
Environment					Bing Professor of Environmental Science		Former Director, National Science
University of California, Berkeley		and Policy					Foundation
Berkeley, CA					Biological Sciences				Former Director, White House Office of
					Stanford University				Science and Technology Policy
					Stanford, CA					Houston, TX

Michael MacCracken, Ph.D.			Pamela Matson, Ph.D.†				James J. McCarthy, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist for Climate Change		Professor					Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological
Programs					School of Earth Sciences			Oceanography
The Climate Institute				Stanford University				Harvard University
Washington, DC					Stanford, CA					Cambridge, MA

Jerry Melillo, Ph.D.				Edward L. Miles, Ph.D.†				Mario J. Molina, Ph.D.†
Senior Scientist and Director Emeritus		Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and		Scripps Institution of Oceanography
The Ecosystems Center				Public Affairs					University of California, San Diego
Marine Biological Laboratory			School of Marine Affairs			Nobel Laureate, Chemistry
Woods Hole, MA					Co-Director, Center for Science in the		San Diego, CA
					Earth System, JISAO				
					University of Washington				
					Seattle, WA				

Harold Mooney, Ph.D. †				Berrien Moore III, Ph.D.			Ellen Mosley-Thompson, Ph.D.†
Paul S. Achilles Professor of			Director Emeritus				Director, Byrd Polar Research Center
Environmental Biology				Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans,	Professor of Geography and University
Department of Biology				and Space					Distinguished Scholar
Stanford University				University of New Hampshire			The Ohio State University
Stanford, CA					Executive Director				Columbus, OH
					Climate Central				
					Princeton, NJ				

Gerald R. North, Ph.D.				Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D.			Jonathan T. Overpeck, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric		Albert G. Milbank Professor of			Co-Director, Institute of the
Sciences and Oceanography			Geosciences and International Affairs		Environment
Texas A&M University				Department of Geosciences and			Professor
College Station, TX				Woodrow Wilson School of Public and		Department of Geosciences
					International Affairs				Department of Atmospheric Sciences
					Princeton University				University of Arizona
					Princeton, NJ					Tucson, AZ

Ronald G. Prinn, Ph.D.				Alan Robock, Ph.D.				Benjamin D. Santer, Ph.D.
TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science		Distinguished Professor				Program for Climate Model Diagnosis
Director, Center for Global Change		Rutgers University				and Intercomparison
Science						President, Atmospheric Sciences			Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Co-Director, Joint Program on the		Section, American Geophysical Union		Livermore, CA
Science and Policy of Global Change		Chair-Elect, Atmospheric and				
Massachusetts Institute of Technology		Hydrospheric Sciences Section,				
Cambridge, MA					American Association for the				
					Advancement of Science				
					New Brunswick, NJ				

William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D.†			Daniel P. Schrag, Ph.D.				Drew Shindell, Ph.D.
President					Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology		Senior Scientist
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies		Professor of Environmental Science and		NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Millbrook, NY					Engineering 					Studies
					Director, Harvard University Center for		New York, NY
					the Environment				
					Cambridge, MA				

Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D.			Lonnie G. Thompson, Ph.D.†			Warren M. Washington, Ph.D.‡
Distinguished Professor Emeritus and		University Distinguished Professor		Senior Scientist
Research Professor				School of Earth Sciences			National Center for Atmospheric
Scripps Institution of Oceanography		Senior Research Scientist			Research
University of California, San Diego		Byrd Polar Research Center			Boulder, CO
La Jolla, CA					Columbus, Ohio				

Donald J. Wuebbles, Ph.D.			Carl Wunsch, Ph.D.†				
The Harry E. Preble Professor of		Cecil and Ida Green Professor of				
Atmospheric Sciences				Physical Oceanography				
Department of Atmospheric Sciences		Massachusetts Institute of Technology				
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign	Cambridge, MA
Urbana, IL				

[Shady]

Maybe not to you but there may be a reasonable explanation.

How does one reasonably explain dishonesty?

[Michael Hardner]

How does one reasonably explain dishonesty?

Clearly, you've already come to a conclusion with the part of the information you have heard, so there's no need to hear more.

[eyeball]

Yeah, can you imagine people having problems and questions with language and practices such as "fudge factor?"

Sure, especially if the people are in a bunker mentality mode and under constant assault of their character and credibility by sceptics. I can easily see how a little cynicism might inadvisedly find its way into the language they use to describe and utilize data amongst themselves.

I mean, it's nothing AIG didn't do, right?

No, I'd say this is substantially different but I have little doubt the email trail of experts at AIG would reveal a fair bit of cynicism there too. Cynicism cuts both ways and fudges people's judgement in the fairly predictable and well known ways of human nature.

[eyeball]

Because I don't care why they've been dishonest. It doesn't matter to me what their motives are for wanting to fudge the numbers. All that matters is that they have. Why does it matter what their explanation is anyways?

People who use data adjust, massage, manipulate and fiddle and fart with it all the time. All that seems to matter here is that someone used the word fudge to describe the action in the computer programs and language they share with other experts and co-workers in their organization.

It looks more and more like this whole thing hinges on the word fudge.

The appearance of dishonesty seems to be tied to some data that was deleted but as the MIT discussion revealed this might have to do with the fact that the missing data was of European origin. As the MIT discussion revealed a lot of European environmental data has proprietary restrictions on its availability to anyone without permission, including the public that often paid for it in the first place. This questionable ownership integrity could easily to lead the perception of questionable data integrity, especially to people who are deliberately fishing for it and wish to manipulate that perception into a misperception or even deception.

There is little or no reason to conclude the Anglia CRU's conclusions are any less valid than the vast majority of conclusions similar institutions around the planet have made.

Edited December 16, 2009 by eyeball

[Shady]

Sure, especially if the people are in a bunker mentality mode and under constant assault of their character and credibility by sceptics.

You're the skeptic. So is Michael H. You're both presented with clear evidence of malfeasance, yet you're skeptical, and refuse to believe it. Why? Because you don't want to believe it. Because it goes against your politics and ideology. So you sweep it aside, making excuse after excuse for every new drop of dishonesty that becomes available.

The original data's been deleted - probably taken out of context.

I'll delete our data if they find out about the freedom of information act - must be taken out of context.

Hide the decline - must be taken out of context.

Apply a trick - it's just a statistic and scientific term

Can't find the reason for the lack of warming - must be take out of context.

Warming models with programmed "fudge factors" - must be an explanation, we just need to wait and see what they tell us.

There's a credible study contradicting warming, please help me discredit it, and make sure it's not published - must be taken out of context.

Do you see how foolish you all look?

[Keepitsimple]

Here's an interesting youtube video that is an entry for the 2010 Grantham environment awards......I've often wanted to see the difference in temperatures between rural and urban climate stations.....to try to demonstrate the urban heat effect in a way that a layman could understand. It's simple and concise....draw your own conclusions:

[Michael Hardner]

You're the skeptic. So is Michael H. You're both presented with clear evidence of malfeasance, yet you're skeptical, and refuse to believe it. Why? Because you don't want to believe it. Because it goes against your politics and ideology. So you sweep it aside, making excuse after excuse for every new drop of dishonesty that becomes available.

Are you serious ? You can watch a video that goes through some comments in some code, and make up your mind that somebody risked their career to lie ?

Why are you afraid to hear the other side ? Open your mind a little.

The original data's been deleted - probably taken out of context.

I'll delete our data if they find out about the freedom of information act - must be taken out of context.

Hide the decline - must be taken out of context.

Apply a trick - it's just a statistic and scientific term

Can't find the reason for the lack of warming - must be take out of context.

Warming models with programmed "fudge factors" - must be an explanation, we just need to wait and see what they tell us.

There's a credible study contradicting warming, please help me discredit it, and make sure it's not published - must be taken out of context.

Do you see how foolish you all look?

The mathematical issues have explanations. If there are gaps there, it's likely just sloppiness. Think about it, if there were a true cover-up of the proportions necessary for a conspiracy you'd see a lot more damning comments than this.