By Steven Hayward, The Weekly Standard (via The GWPF)
No amount of context can possibly exonerate the CRU gang from some of the damning expressions and contrivances that appear repeatedly in the new emails. More so than the 2009 batch, these emails make clear the close collaboration between the leading IPCC scientists and environmental advocacy groups, government agencies, and partisan journalists.
The conventional wisdom about blockbuster movie sequels is that the second acts are seldom as good as the originals. The exceptions, like The Godfather: Part II or The Empire Strikes Back, succeed because they build a bigger backstory and add dimensions to the original characters. The sudden release last week of another 5,000 emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University—ground zero of “Climategate I” in 2009—immediately raised the question of whether this would be one of those rare exceptions or Revenge of the Nerds II.
Before anyone had time to get very far into this vast archive, the climate campaigners were ready with their critical review: Nothing worth seeing here. Out of context! Cherry picking! “This is just trivia, it’s a diversion,” climate researcher Joel Smith told Politico. On the other side, Anthony Watts, proprietor of the invaluable WattsUpWithThat.com skeptic website, had the kind of memorable line fit for a movie poster. With a hat tip to the famous Seinfeld episode, Watts wrote: “They’re real, and they’re spectacular!” An extended review of this massive new cache will take months and could easily require a book-length treatment. But reading even a few dozen of the newly leaked emails makes clear that Watts and other longtime critics of the climate cabal are going to be vindicated.
Climategate I, the release of a few thousand emails and documents from the CRU in November 2009, revealed that the united-front clubbiness of the leading climate scientists was just a display for public consumption. The science of climate change was not “settled.” There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming; in their private emails, the scientists expressed serious doubts and disagreements on some major issues. In particular, the email exchanges showed that they were far from agreement about a key part of the global warming narrative—the famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to demonstrate that the last 30 years were the warmest of the last millennium and which made the “medieval warm period,” an especially problematic phenomenon for the climate campaign, simply go away. (See my “Scientists Behaving Badly,” The Weekly Standard, December 14, 2009.) Leading scientists in the inner circle expressed significant doubts and uncertainty about the hockey stick and several other global warming claims about which we are repeatedly told there exists an ironclad consensus among scientists. (Many of the new emails make this point even more powerfully.) On the merits, the 2009 emails showed that the case for certainty about climate change was grossly overstated.
More damning than the substantive disagreement was the attitude the CRU circle displayed toward dissenters, skeptics, and science journals that did not strictly adhere to the party line. Dissenting articles were blocked from publication or review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), requests for raw data were rebuffed, and Freedom of Information Act requests were stonewalled. National science panels were stacked, and qualified dissenters such as NASA prize-winner John Christy were tolerated as “token skeptics.” The CRU circle was in high dudgeon over the small handful of skeptics who insisted on looking over their shoulder, revealing the climate science community to be thin-skinned and in-secure about its enterprise—a sign that something is likely amiss. Even if there was no unequivocal “smoking gun” of fraud or wrongdoing, the glimpse deep inside the climate science community was devastating. As I wrote at the time (“In Denial,” March 15, 2010), Climategate did for the global warming controversy what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war 40 years ago: It changed the narrative decisively.
Read the rest here at the GWPF
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Comparison with Pentagon Papers is spot on.
Although the MSM is not exactly singing to your tune…it should be noted that skeptics how have free reign in comment pages from UK Independent and Guardian newspapers. The once hallowed halls of Warmism have been defiled by the uncouth triumphant Deniers.
Here and there are pockets of resistance…eventually these will melt away.
In my guise of ‘evil troll’ I have prowled these sites for the last year or so whacking down anything I decide can legitimately be described as ‘global warming drivel’. There were a few diehards who bit back at me and put up a spirited defence…but this latest batch of emails has silenced them almost completely…they were never stupid these people, just committed to the losing side of the argument…and now they are in no doubt. Do they feel betrayed, angry, defeated?
My answer is, who cares!
As I blaze unchallenged through the clear blue sky above the smoking ruins of their once unassailable bastions. I hear news from battle fields in other parts of the world, the Canadian Government has blitzed the Durban Conference into cowering confustion with it’s clear message ‘Get Stuffed.’!
But surely the coupe de grace is the point blank refusal of The United States to contribute to a new UNFCCC which I think stands for united nations fraudlent climate change caper…? Or something like that.
The war is not over. There are still ‘establishments’ in place that adhere to the Warmist Faith, they still use the rhetoric of zero carbon, lower emissions, and they still have legislative power…look at the crazy situation in Australia where the Labour Party has committed electoral suicide with its Carbon Tax…but the tide has turned against them. Let’s all look at the Canadian example, a clear sighted politician has seen that he can put clear blue water between himself and his rivals…how?
By telling the truth about Global Warming…
Politicians telling the truth, now that’s not something you see every day!!!
And even more so now. No objective observer can dismiss this just because “the consensus” tells us to.
The headlines misleads in that it could have more clearly said SOME CLIMATE SCIENTISTS BEHAVING BADLY.
I count beans and have had to explain a bit of logic to some real knobish scientists, but not many asked me to be dishonest.
Miranda Devine writes: http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php
The inducement from ideological organisations, by funding biased research, has made a goose out of the climatological profession and it is a dangerous disease imperiling the scientific method.
I have one quote from that article that echoes what I have always worried about:
I think Judith Curry has said much the same thing.
I refuse to accept that the behaviour of the Hockey Team reflects how collaborative scientific inquiry is made in other arenas.
But at the same time, the silence of the scientific associations that should be encouraging proper scientific ethics, has been deafening.
Charles Nelson:
The Australian Labor Party is just that…L-A-B-O-R…not the English spelling. Having made that correction, the ALP HAS succeeded in being the complete loser (so far) from this rubbish,
Here’s a good bit:
The new batch of emails, over 5,300 in all (compared with about 1,000 in the 2009 release), contains a number of fresh embarrassments and huge red flags for the same lovable bunch of insider scientists. It stars the same cast, starting with the Godfather of the CRU, Phil “hide the decline” Jones, and featuring Michael “hockey stick” Mann once again in his supporting role as the Fredo of climate science, blustering along despite the misgivings and doubts of many of his peers. Beyond the purely human element, the new cache offers ample confirmation of the rank politicization of climate science and rampant cronyism that ought to trouble even firm believers in catastrophic climate change.
Slightly O/T but I thought that some would like to see how our political elte behave at The Durban COP 17 jamboree, whoops I mean convention.
What a waste of our tax dollars, but I gues that if nothing is going to be achieved they might as well have a sing song and dance.
John A
Indeed the silence from the scientific associations has been deafening, partly from the enormous amount eggs required to cover their faces, that have not been budgeted for. However AGW or Climate change was first and foremost a political movement. AGW was never observed in the first place requiring a theory for it, so it was never a scientifically based enterprise. I suspect that the scientific associations kept out of it in fear of political retribution, and those which did join the advocacy could be shown to have been hijacked by the academic activists.
As described in the lead article for AIG News 87 (available on http://www.aig.org.au), the AGW phenomenon is that of pseudoscience, not falsification or conspiracy or other malevolent activities. It’s the inability to confirm hypotheses by physical experiments that leads some sciences to get off track – and when scientific verities become dependent on mathematical proofs, or argument from authority (the consensus mode) that absurdities such as AGW occur. An ignorance of what earlier scientists published (e.g. Fourier) on greenhouse theory also played a part – and that comes as no surprise when you realise that climate science is simply a spinoff from the geography schools.
AGW is a systemic failure of institutionalised science; there are simply too many “scientists” most who might be better defined as technician, in the system. The other contributing factor is the dominance of the mathematicians – a discipline in which proving a theorem is paramount in its logical foundation, but that is the opposite of the scientific method – which requires falsification of an hypothesis. It is the intellectual protocol of mathematical proof that has allowed AGW to develop in the direction it did, mainly because in maths we work to prove something true, and that work is fundamentally in the intellectual domain, not the physical.
so I think that the silence might have a more subtle basis than simply politics – it might be due to the realisation that a lot of science might be discovered to be pseudoscientific, rather than scientific.
I had only just read on GWPF site before feeding the kids, so was pleased to see this most excellent article posted.
Well done.
What has not been commented upon, as far as I know, is the fact that, while we are told that there is a third batch of emails, they are encrypted and it is not intended to release them.
What is, therefore the point of mentioning them? The reality, I believe is that these emails are the communications between CRU and the politicians responsible for the promotion of this appalling scam. There has been a hint of this in the email referring to a ‘Humphrey’ in the Energy department who talked about a ‘strong message’ from the government.
If I am right and these emails are released it would lead to a political catastrophe for the ‘Cause ‘
Scientists behaving badly – part II
By Steven Hayward, The Weekly Standard (via The GWPF)
==========================
Oh how I would like to see this plastered on the front page of every newspaper printed! I know, I know, it’s early in the morning and I’m dreaming.
How about another headline: “News media and journalists behaving badly — continued”.
That would be like asking the MSM to stop acting like the so called ‘climate scientists’.
This could go a lot of ways.
“………..(fill in the blank)…………….. behaving badly”
Universities behaving badly.
Academics behaving badly.
Scientific Journals behaving badly.
Scientific Associations behaving badly.
Environmental organizations behaving badly — continued (no surprise there).
Financial organizations behaving badly.
Government agencies behaving badly.
Politicians behaving badly.
The list could go on and on and on just for the global warming related scam.
Markus:
The headline is correct. Since no one individual or organization in the “climate science” establishment has had the guts to try publicly to set the record straight, then they all deservedly get painted with the same brush. The damage done by these charlatans to human lives and national economies is immense. There are no words harsh enough for them, all of them.
Yet more nitpicking and propaganda which is of course the only option for morons who lack the scientific credentials to put up legitimate scientific argument. Meanwhile coral reefs are bleaching, trophic cascades are failing, permafrost continues to melt at unprecedented rates and average temperatures continue to rise. You cannot argue with real data so you resort to politicising and propaganda mongering. It is one of the saddest traits of human nature along with wilful ignorance. You people make me sick.
2 Dec: UK Register: Antarctic ice formed at CO2 levels much higher than today’s
Not going to melt any time soon, says boffin
By Lewis Page
The new research is published in premier boffinry mag Science, here.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/02/antarctic_ice_sheet_carbon_levels/
I really appreciate this article by GWPF (an organisation I was unaware of) – it puts things together for someone like me; a non-scientist who only has a limited time and ability to come to grips with what climategate 2 means.
A big development for me has been the megaphone calling out of Phil Jones by Willis, who he labels the “serial liar”. This, and the notable lack of a reply or defence from Jones, seems to me a big development.
If this debate were being judged by a court the jury would be told that all Jones’ evidence was untrustworthy. To me, a lay person and maybe a member of the jury, this is one of the most compelling moments of truth to come out of Climategate 2. Jones’ lack of a response should be widely reported.
Time to defund the IPCC and stop wasting money on this ill conceived activity. I hope that COP-17 is their last hurrah or that at least they pay for the next one with their own money.
Can we really be surprised when for most of them, their livelihood depends on research grant money, which in turn depends on alarmism.
FOI requests show most of the team at the CRU would be out of a job if there were no grants.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/71-of-cru-salaries-paid-by-grants/
@John A, @Louis Hissink
re: the scientific associations
Richard Lindzen (2008) describes the process by which scientific societies have been increasingly politicized. A concerted effort has been made for many years to push forward members and then board members/officers who have highly politicized and left-wing/activist views. It only takes a small number of “activist” types ala James Hansen, Paul Ehrlich, John Holden to begin to corrupt an organization when others are focused upon their own research and don’t want to get embroiled in “political” battles over every statement and declaration.
richard verney says:
December 4, 2011 at 2:45 am
very interesting. Looks like they are signing their own death warrrant with tose sorts of antics.
What I love is all those very expensive gadgets recording all that. All those very expensive gadgets built on a century of cheap energy.
Ah well, at least I can be certain that the ‘Gillard tax’ will ensure no more ‘Labor’ party in Australia for a while, just like there’ll be none in New South Wales for a time. I never thought I’d wish Johnny Howard back, but I’m afraid I do….
re: Lindzen (2008) on the politicization of scientific bodies (after giving some specific examples he discusses the process more generally):
“…One could go on at some length with such examples, but a more common form of infiltration consists in simply getting a couple of seats on the council of an organization (or on the advisory panels of government agencies). This is sufficient to veto any statements or decisions that they are opposed to. Eventually, this enables the production of statements supporting their position – if only as a quid pro quo for permitting other business to get done. Sometimes, as in the production of the 1993 report of the NAS, Policy Implications of Global Warming, the environmental activists, having largely gotten their way in the preparation of the report where they were strongly represented as ‘stake holders,’ decided, nonetheless, to issue a minority statement suggesting that the NAS report had not gone ‘far enough.’ The influence of the environmental movement has effectively made support for global warming, not only a core element of political correctness, but also a requirement for the numerous prizes and awards given to scientists. That said, when it comes to professional societies, there is often no need at all for overt infiltration since issues like global warming have become a part of both political correctness and (in the US) partisan politics, and there will usually be council members who are committed in this manner.”
“The situation with America’s National Academy of Science is somewhat more complicated. The Academy is divided into many disciplinary sections whose primary task is the nomination of candidates for membership in the Academy8. Typically, support by more than 85% of the membership of any section is needed for nomination. However, once a candidate is elected, the candidate is free to affiliate with any section. The vetting procedure is generally rigorous, but for over 20 years, there was a Temporary Nominating Group for the Global Environment to provide a back door for the election of candidates who were environmental activists, bypassing the conventional vetting procedure. Members, so elected, proceeded to join existing sections where they hold a veto power over the election of any scientists unsympathetic to their position. Moreover, they are almost immediately appointed to positions on the executive council, and other influential bodies within the Academy. One of the members elected via the Temporary Nominating Group, Ralph Cicerone, is now president of the National Academy. Prior to that, he was on the nominating committee for the presidency. It should be added that there is generally only a single candidate for president. Others elected to the NAS via this route include Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, Steven Schneider, John Holdren and Susan Solomon.”
Richard Lindzen (2008): “Climate Science: Is It Currently Designed to Answer Questions?”
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
The hubris is unbelievable…ran across this little tidbit on some website that purports to cover the “news”.
http://www.livescience.com/17257-scientists-cope-personal-climate-debate.html
JimB
Louis Hissink says : …so I think that the silence might have a more subtle basis than simply politics – it might be due to the realisation that a lot of science might be discovered to be pseudoscientific, rather than scientific
You’re a real tease! any comment on this would very likely derail the thread.
Nevertheless, i’ve no doubt you’re spot-on.
There’s an important paragraph in the full article at GWPF:
Two things.
First, this reminds me of this (Trenberth) and this (Santer)
Second, I would like to hear again from Dr David Deming if he is still on this planet. I remember it was Deming who told the world that a (Team member) had told him “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” and it became clear that Overpeck was thought to be the individual in question, despite his denial. Yet Overpeck’s words quoted here from email #4755 really lend support to the notion that it was Overpeck. And, heck, if not him, it was at least a “Team” point of view. But there’s more. I remember seeing at ICECAP a story about Deming being dismissed / moved on from his University position, in a way that I was sure had to do with Deming’s inconvenient integrity – so I did not forget.
This is damning evidence. But I’ll do another post to give some evidence for compassion and mitigation.
Here’s a quote from email 1103828684 to remember compassion, mitigation, humanity, humility in suggesting the way forward now for real people who believed passionately in their work (as we see, working hard and overtime, as we can see, right up to Christmas)
Even if I’m not sure about Briffa’s idea of “the right priorities” I will put those words alongside those of Alan Kendall who said Briffa encouraged Kendall to give the opposition’s (skeptical) point of view in his teaching.