Scientists behaving badly – part II

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

 

About these ads

74 thoughts on “Scientists behaving badly – part II

  1. 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!!!

  2. 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.

    And even more so now. No objective observer can dismiss this just because “the consensus” tells us to.

  3. 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.

  4. I have one quote from that article that echoes what I have always worried about:

    … between their boorish behavior, attempts to conceal data and block FOIA requests, and dismissal of dissent, the climate science community has abdicated its credibility and done great damage to large-scale scientific inquiry

    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.

  5. 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,

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. I had only just read on GWPF site before feeding the kids, so was pleased to see this most excellent article posted.
    Well done.

  10. 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 ‘

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. @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.

  17. richard verney says:
    December 4, 2011 at 2:45 am

    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.

    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….

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. There’s an important paragraph in the full article at GWPF:

    … decisions at the highest levels of what specific figures and conclusions were to appear in the short “summary for policy makers” … ​required changing what appeared in individual chapters, a case of the conclusions driving the findings in the detailed chapters instead of the other way around. This has been a frequent complaint of scientists participating in the IPCC process since the beginning, and the new emails show that even scientists within the “consensus” recognize the problem. Comments such as one from Jonathan Overpeck, writing in 2004 about how to summarize some ocean data in a half-page, reinforce the impression that politics drives the process: “The trick [sic] may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

    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.

  21. 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)

    Mike
    …. Just heard my dad is now pretty much bedridden and officially declared blind (diabetes etc) and have to fit in a visit to him and mum (who I have not seen for ages) and spend at least a few days with the kids so there is no way I can work more on this till later – as I said – really appreciate your input , have a great Christmas and for f..ks sake keep the right priorities to the fore as the years progress
    cheers
    Keith

    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.

  22. 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 think?
    I still find it hard to believe that people actually fall for it………………

  23. Reading the quotes in the above linked article from gavin and MM made it tough to keep my morning coffee down.
    These people really and truly are religious zealots. They will never admit they have done anything even remotely wrong. Every breath they take is for “the cause”, period.
    When you argue with a crook, sooner or later you can get them to admit wrong doing. These people aren’t crooks. They truly don’t believe they’ve done anything wrong, and they are victims of some sort of vindictive vendetta against them and their beliefs.

    That’s one of the reasons this war is still going on…

  24. charles nelson says:
    December 4, 2011 at 12:50 am

    “The war is not over yet” Only too true, Charles. I caught an interview on UK Channel 4 news on Friday (can’t find a link) with Professor Bob Watson of UEA claiming that we could expect 5K of warming. I’ve not seen anyone seriously claim that level of warming for a long time. The man was adamant that Britain should “take the lead” in cutting CO2 despite the futility of such action in the face of continuing growth in emissions from China and other “developing nations”. The man should climb down from his grant-funded ivory tower and consult some real world climate and economical statistics.

  25. with regards to “science ftw”‘s comment… the difference between a delusional person and a psychotic is that when the deluded person almost drowns after thinking they can walk on water, they usually, at least momentarily, come to their senses. The psychotic, even after just being revived from nearly drowning, runs back out into the deep end. Its clear you and your ilk have crossed in the psychosis. Furthermore, using your own criteria, its obvious you have no credentials in ethics or morals, so anything you say must be discounted.

  26. Louis Hissink says, on December 4, 2011 at 2:57 am
    … As described in the lead article for AIG News 87 (available on http://www.aig.org.au)

    Is this document available to non-members?

    Is there a direct link?

  27. Congradulations, nobody has responded to “Science FTWs” attempt to hijack the thread. Such mendacious assertions (refuted with facts hundreds of times at on topic threads) are indeed becoming an example of the hopelessly brainwashed who, long after the doomsday ailiens fail to land on the prophetic date to end mankinds pathetic existence, still sit faithfully on the oceans edge, ever waiting to be inundated with universal disaster.

    The proclaimed progress of truth against the consensous from Ghandhi is of course “”First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.” CAGW fanatics are progressing backwards to the point that soon they may just be ignored, although I hope the economic devastation wrought by their “post normal science” is not forgotten.

  28. “…I hope the economic devastation wrought by their “post normal science” is not forgotten.”
    Quoting myself.

    The statist attempts to be “Blackbeards” ruling the world, may have prevented the only chance to rescue the world from real disaster. The doomsdayers may have created a self fulfilling prophecy as economic destruction is the surest path to wars.

  29. markus says:
    December 4, 2011 at 12:51 am
    The headlines misleads in that it could have more clearly said SOME CLIMATE SCIENTISTS BEHAVING BADLY.

    ===========================================================================Then how about this as a headline also “Some climate scientists believe in catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming?” It is far more accurate than “huge consensus on global warming.”

  30. It is not just a small group of climate scientists, nor even just climate scientists–it is every scientist, and every lay follower/believer of science, who thinks the current consensus theories are established facts, and dismisses the very idea they could be wrong, and that someone outside of celebrated academia (the “academic elite”) could prove them wrong. The sad fact is, they ARE wrong. The climate science mess is just the current most public symptom of the far deeper problem of dogma driving science, where new knowledge is ignored in the interests of personal and institutional hubris. (The memory of Bill Murray as “Ghostbuster” Peter Vinckman, telling a library official, “Back off–I’m a scientist”, comes to mind; and that statement, of an olympian ego that brooks no argument, captures the essence of the dogmatic believers in the greenhouse effect, that underwrites their belief in man-caused global warming). We cannot save science by discrediting one field of science alone; we have to deal with the systemic arrogance and incompetence of institutions across the board, which have all been suborned to the falsehood that current dogmas are unquestioned and unquestionable facts–and have inculcated just such false, essentially religious, belief into whole generations of students, worldwide.

  31. science ftw says TRUTH (by adjusting his screed)

    Yet more WARMISTA nitpicking and propaganda which is of course the only option for HOCKEY-STICK morons who lack the scientific credentials to put up legitimate scientific argument (CAN WE SPELL ‘RAILROAD ENGINEER’?). Meanwhile coral reefs are NOT bleaching, trophic cascades are NOT failing, permafrost continues to NOT melt at unprecedented rates and average temperatures continue to FALL. You cannot argue with real data OF SEA-LEVEL FALL so you resort to politicising and propaganda mongering. It is one of the saddest traits of human nature along with wilful ignorance. You WARMISTA people make me sick.

  32. science ftw says:
    December 4, 2011 at 3:51 am
    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 …

    The average global temperature’s been flat for about a decade. It’s on a plateau, and is as likely to drop from here as to rise. There are too many threads on the topic here to count. Check out the nearly invisible “Categories” drop-down list in the sidebar.

    As for Coral (not in the Categories sidebar, unfortunately), check out these WUWT threads:

    The Reef Abides

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/the-reef-abides/

    Corals can’t handle the heat cold

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/26/corals-cant-handle-the-heat-cold/

    Barrier reef panic? – not so much

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/15/barrier-reef-panic-not-so-much/

    Coral bleaching on the GBR – no evidence of net decline

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/01/coral-bleaching-on-the-gbr-no-evidence-of-net-decline/

    Not as bad as they thought: Coral can recover from climate change damage

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/not-as-bad-as-we-thought-coral-can-recover-from-climate-change-damage/

    As for Permafrost (not in the Categories sidebar, unfortunately):
    Might Arctic Warming Lead to Catastrophic Methane Releases?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/30/might-arctic-warming-lead-to-catastrophic-methane-releases/

    Methane, The Panic Du Jour

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/07/methane-the-panic-du-jour/

    That worrisome “Methane Beast” apparently is still not awake.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/10/that-worrisome-methane-beast-apparently-is-still-not-awake/

    You forgot to fulminate about frogs, as you might have a few years back:

    What frog science can teach us about global warming

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/13/what-frogs-can-teach-us-about-global-warming/

    Global Warming not to blame for toad extinction

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/06/global-warming-not-blamed-for-toad-extinction/

  33. 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.

    Yes, but what do the leading climate scientists say about how “likely” is it that “There is a consensus,” anyway?

  34. science ftw says:
    December 4, 2011 at 3:51 am

    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.

    Using your own “standard”, Mr. science, we need to know what your credentials are. Otherwise you fail your own standard to judge, or to even say what the standard for judging Climate Science is.

    Meanwhile, all the rest of us have to do is to stick with the standards of real science, according to which Climate Science has failed.

  35. charles nelson says:
    December 4, 2011 at 12:50 am
    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……………
    ——————————————————————————————————————
    You mean: ……..THE UNCOUTH TRUTH !!

  36. Harry Dale Huffman says:
    December 4, 2011 at 8:35 am

    It is not just a small group of climate scientists, nor even just climate scientists–it is every scientist, and every lay follower/believer of science, who thinks the current consensus theories are established facts, and dismisses the very idea they could be wrong, and that someone outside of celebrated academia (the “academic elite”) could prove them wrong. The sad fact is, they ARE wrong. The climate science mess is just the current most public symptom of the far deeper problem of dogma driving science, where new knowledge is ignored in the interests of personal and institutional hubris. (The memory of Bill Murray as “Ghostbuster” Peter Vinckman, telling a library official, “Back off–I’m a scientist”….)
    ____________________________________

    Oh yes anybody with a BS degree working with those with Phd’s can tell you horror stories about hubris.

  37. yes…………..the IPCC and it’s ilk will always fall prey to the ..’Uncouth Triumphant Truth’!!
    For those of us who wern’t around to be embroiled in the Vietnam anything, what is the Vietnam papers? (in a nut-shell).

  38. Pentagon Papers were some truly-stolen Vietnam-War documents,
    which were trumpeted by the traitorous left to make us abandon our ally to the Commies.
    The ClimateGate II e-mails are as truly damning
    as Dan-The-Liar Rather tried to make the Pentagon Papers out to be.

  39. David A;
    Congradulations, nobody has responded to “Science FTWs” attempt to hijack the thread.>>>

    Since your post plenty of people have responded, and I think that is a good thing. I’ve seen a lot of comments of late alone the line of “don’t feed the trolls” and that’s the wrong approach. There is plenty of value in responding to trolls, but the idea isn’t so much to “feed” them as to butt them off the bridge.

    1. By responding to and discrediting the troll, the troll may in fact learn something.
    2. Not every reader of WUWT is a regular. Some are casual observers who may well be on their very first foray into the AGW debate to learn the facts for themselves. Let’s not let what amounts to the “swing vote” leave the site thinking a troll said something that nobody responded to. It leaves the casual reader thinking that perhaps the troll has a point, for if the troll was wrong, why did nobody say so?
    3. In this case, I’m not sure Science FTW is even as person. His/her remarks are pretty much standard drive by troll remarks. A list of accusations with no supporting data, links, logic, nothing. Just a bunch of “the sky is falling” statements followed by the “you guys make me sick” remark. For every comment such as that made on WUWT, how many are made outside this forum? How often is the casual commenter, who doesn’t follow this debate on a daily (heck! hourly!) basis like some of us confronted with such a nonsense statement? If s/he read (for example) Roger Knights’s excellent response (above), the casual commenter knows that the troll is in fact a troll, and if confronted with one in the “real world”, it takes naught but a couple of mouse clicks to show someone how totaly and completely wrong their world view is.

    Don’t take drive by comments by trolls as an annoying attempt to hijack a thread. Take it as a golden opportunity to show the silent majority just how easy it is to butt a troll off a bridge.

  40. @Interstellar Bill: Don’t forget: The papers were already in the public domain and therefore they weren’t “truely-stolen”. I think that is how Elsworth ultimately got off, but could be wrong.

  41. richard verney says:
    December 4, 2011 at 2:45 am

    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.

    I read that not a single American senator or house member is in attendance at Durban. This in contrast to the entourage of congressmen accompanying Pelosi to Copenhagen – not to mention the carbon-capper-in-chief.

    “The Cause” was a loser for taxpayers from the beginning; the well-timed FOIA releases just made sure politicians would have some skin in the game. It’s hard to force stupid legislation down the throats of an informed public in a Democracy. Pelosi, Boxer and Markey still have some explaining to do.

  42. With the release of the CG2 mails I am now wondering if FOIA has managed to “liberate” a series of post “Climate Gate 1″ mails.
    I reckon if FOIA has managed to access to post CG1 mails, the release of those would be explosive to say the least and not just for the Hokey Team but also for sections of the media and some politicos who might be shown to be up to their necks in very, very deep poo indeed!

    The hubris of the Hokey Team and the belief in their own invincibility along with lack of sophisticated technological skills exemplified in the CG1 Harry-read-me files is / was [ ? ] such that they may not even have been able to protect their subsequent to CG1 mail system at a level that was inaccessible to a patient, skilled and dedicated hacker.

  43. It stars the same cast… 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.

    Who is Fredo? Is Mann being cast as “Frodo”, of Tolkein series, the “faithful ring-bearer”? Perhaps a better allusion is to the “Frito Bandito”?

  44. Harry Dale Huffman says:
    December 4, 2011 at 8:35 am
    (The memory of Bill Murray as “Ghostbuster” Peter Vinckman, telling a library official, “Back off–I’m a scientist”, comes to mind; and that statement, of an olympian ego that brooks no argument, captures the essence of the dogmatic believers in the greenhouse effect, [http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html], that underwrites their belief in man-caused global warming).

    I tried unsuccessfully to post on your page about this:

    “From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K.

    This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15ºC = 288K. HOWEVER

    Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun’s radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.”

    ================================================

    Regarding the pressure comparison, the Earth with its atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen but without the Water Cycle, would be 67°C. So without the Water Cycle dynamically cooling the Earth by 52°C to bring it down to 15°C, the temps of Venus with atmosphere and Earth with atmosphere comparable, there is little difference in temps.

  45. Very little need to add further comment, but at the end of the day the REAL issue is that the climate community did not react and state in public that such behavior is wrong.

    The climate community did the EXACT wrong thing by whitewashing the first batch of emails and turning a blind eye to this.

    Heck we impeached Nixon for less! And looking at Enron or even recent financial scandals at least they tossed Madoff under a bus and a few token people went to jail.

    The behaviors here are MUCH worse than even the original batch of emails and like a sucker punch when they were not looking, their MISTAKE was the climate community whitewashing the first batch without THINKING if there was more to come!

    Like an ugly novel, this second chapter outcome was not considered!

    The lack of reaction and whitewashing of the first batch of emails is now coming back to haunt the climate community.

    It really is worse than we thought!

    And even WORSE than the emails is the LACK of reaction among the climate community. There can be NO WORSE condemnation when looking at the CURRENT reaction of the climate community.

    The idea that there is nothing to see and move along is the problem here!

    Such blindness and no reaction is in fact an endorsement of such behaviors!

    Such behaviors are not acceptable regardless of anyone position on any of this science.

    The blind eye of the community and attempting to spin this into nothing to see and move along will be their very undoing.

    For the climate community to turn a blind eye and endorse such behaviors is the MOST appalling part of this whole climate gate fiasco.

  46. The AGW scientists appear to be so far up their own backsides, that the ineptness of their own abilities is obscured.

    However ,they may still be right, that is still to be detrmined.

  47. science ftw says on December 4, 2011 at 3:51 am

    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.

    The above reads like a bad press release; wait, it *is* a press release … oh never mind in that case …

    .

  48. davidmhoffer says:
    December 4, 2011 at 11:08 am

    David A;
    Congradulations, nobody has responded to “Science FTWs” attempt to hijack the thread.>>>

    Since your post plenty of people have responded, and I think that is a good thing. I’ve seen a lot of comments of late alone the line of “don’t feed the trolls” and that’s the wrong approach
    ===========================================================================

    @davidmhoffer
    As a recent arrival and sporadic web citizen may I applaud your remarks. I can’t tell anyone here when it may or may not be worth any investment of your own time and attention to respond to “troll” comments, but there are loads of people like me (more or less) who are trying to get up to speed on these issues, especially since the CG2 emails were released.

    It is a good “educational” opportunity to the extent that serious people here are willing to fill it. I appreciate all thoughtful and informative posts that I read….. of course I don’t want any thread to get filled up with “troll” diversionary tactics, but to the extent that WUWT posters are willing to provide corrective information and analyses it is most appreciated by less “experienced” visitors like me…..

  49. albertkallal says:
    December 4, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    Very little need to add further comment, but at the end of the day the REAL issue is that the climate community did not react and state in public that such behavior is wrong.

    Yes! Everyone is focused on individual emails, but the climate community and the public MUST focus on the forest. The behavior is WRONG and renders their work USELESS. That is the opposite of what the public is hearing and the shame of Climate Scientists and the science community at large (for allowing it to continue).

    This anomaly was not created out of vacuum, but of purpose… and intent. GK

  50. btw, David A. no offense but this is a pet peeve of my high school drama teacher for both pronunciation and spelling:

    it is “congraTulations” with a ‘t’ both in spelling and pronunciation, although it’s become so common to pronounce it as though there were a ‘d’ that perhaps the spelling will have to be changed

  51. Skiphil says:
    December 4, 2011 at 1:10 pm
    btw, David A. no offense but this is a pet peeve of my high school drama teacher for both pronunciation and spelling:
    it is “congraTulations” with a ‘t’ both in spelling and pronunciation, although it’s become so common to pronounce it as though there were a ‘d’ that perhaps the spelling will have to be changed>>>

    I can only imagine the ire the pronunciation of “wednesday” must have raised….

  52. skiphil;
    @davidmhoffer
    As a recent arrival and sporadic web citizen may I applaud your remarks. I can’t tell anyone here when it may or may not be worth any investment of your own time and attention to respond to “troll” comments, but there are loads of people like me (more or less) who are trying to get up to speed on these issues, especially since the CG2 emails were released. >>>

    Well welcome to the forum then!
    I’ll ask you in advance to have some patience from time to time. There’s come claims made from time to time that have been debunked so many times in so many ways on this forum that some people get frustrated going over known ground… again and again and again. Ask questions though, challenge opinions you don’t think seem quite right, and you’ll be shocked at how much there is to learn here, and from who. That’s not to say you will get a polite answer to every question, this forum can get pretty serious rough and tumble, but what you won’t get is your questions edited and then ridiculed out of context by the moderators. There’s only one thing worse on this forum than spouting warmist dogma that is wrong, and that is posting skeptic dogma that is wrong, and when skeptics go afte each other onthe ffine points of science…then what you are getting is REAL science.

  53. davidmhoffer says:

    Don’t take drive by comments by trolls as an annoying attempt to hijack a thread. Take it as a golden opportunity to show the silent majority just how easy it is to butt a troll off a bridge.

    Yes, and the trolls actually give the best case Climate Science has for its “hypotheses” by even using important elements of its own “method”, that is, no case and only a strong-arming “perception is reality” propaganda method. Which can be easily shown, then contrasted with more facts, reason, and real science.

    We don’t like to see what Climate Science, enc., is doing, but it is very clear what they are doing.

  54. I’m not so sure the drama teacher could make a solid case for “congratEEOOlate,” let alone, “congratOOlate.” First we would need to know whether the word made its way into English by way of French, or directly from scholastic Latin. At any rate, the former pronunciation leads automatically to a fricative ‘t,’ like a dental ‘ch’ sound, so that “congraCHUlate” has probably been around since the word’s introduction. Then the ‘ch’ sound becomes voiced, yielding, “congraJUlate,” which is easily pronounced by those of us with no Broadway diction credentials or training in Classical Latin. The point being, the teacher may be advancing an anciently unattested English pronunciation based on the Latin spelling.

    As for “failing trophic cascades” we must ask which are the more likely causes, over fishing, exotic species mixing by way of bilge water, or a change in sea temperature of a fraction of a degree, tantamount to shifting species a few dozens of miles poleward. Just more irrational, pseudoscientific gibberish, worthy of any troll. –AGF

  55. Bill Parsons, “Fredo” is Fredo Corleone, the brother of Michael Corleone. In “The Godfather : Part II”, Michael had Fredo killed after Fredo unsuccessfully conspired to have him, Michael, killed.

  56. “Heck we impeached Nixon for less! ”

    Actually, we never got around to it, because his people could count the votes, and he resigned before the House of Representatives could actually bring articles of impeachment to a vote. Only two US Presidents have been impeached by the HOuse: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, neither of whom was convicted by the Senate (and thereby removed from office) although Johnson held on by the barest of margins.

  57. Jay Davis says:
    December 4, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Bill Parsons, “Fredo” is Fredo Corleone, the brother of Michael Corleone.

    Oh. Apologies to Mr. Hayward. I enjoyed your article, by the way.
    (Note to self: when you think you’re being funny, take a few deep breaths.)

  58. Skiphil says:
    December 4, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    btw, David A. no offense but this is a pet peeve of my high school drama teacher for both pronunciation and spelling:

    it is “congraTulations” with a ‘t’ both in spelling and pronunciation, although it’s become so common to pronounce it as though there were a ‘d’ that perhaps the spelling will have to be changed

    Uck. By that standard, how ’bout a “j”? That’s even more common.

  59. “”””” markus says:

    December 4, 2011 at 12:51 am

    The headlines misleads in that it could have more clearly said SOME CLIMATE SCIENTISTS BEHAVING BADLY.

    Not true markus. You would have a valid complaint if; and only if, the headline had said :
    ” ALL” climate scientists behaving badly.
    “SOME” is quite superfluous.

  60. “”””” richard verney says:

    December 4, 2011 at 2:45 am

    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 “””””

    You are forgiven for posting that ridiculous flick Richard. I caught a “news” bulletin on the T&V from the Communist Red Chinese all news all the time in English station, and some silly woman was spouting off about what they were going to do in Durban; as if anybody was going to pay attention to her.

    I’d swear on my last month’s pay stub, that it was that dame in the blue on the right.
    I didn’t see anyone in the flick than has a clue about dancing; or choreography. I’m sure they are as knowledgeable about climate science.

  61. “”””” science ftw says:

    December 4, 2011 at 3:51 am

    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.

    Well ftw, I would gladly apologise for your sickness, but then it is hard to apologise to something that doesn’t have the guts to put its own name to its complaint.

    Meanwhile the typical mid summer (northern) extreme daily temperature range on earth stays solidly between about -90deg C and + 60 deg C, and due to an impeccable argument by Galileo Galilei, every Temperature between the extremes is present somewhere on earth simultaneously; in fact there are an infinite number of places on earth that have any one of those Temperatures.

    So now which particular Temperature is it that is causing the coral reefs to bleach; I mean of course only those ones that have not ever bleached before ?

    I’d like to see that data of yours that shows that average Temperatures continue to rise. Why we have cast in concrete many examples of Temperatures that were reported years ago, by such august bodies as GISS, and this site has published many instances, in which some of those Temperatures actually went down; years after they were first observed to have gone up.
    The result is that an appearance of recent Temperature rise, is more honestly characterized as a post publication diminution of the earlier reported Temperatures.

    You can’t blame any of that shenanigans on “you people”. Maybe it is the behavior of the recorded history revisionists that is making you sick.

  62. @ Skyfil and davidmhoffer

    In general I agree with both of you. Science ftw made a comment very early in the thread, completely off topic and insulting to the general reader here as well and so over the top it was almost a parody of alarmism. In my view it should have been blocked in moderation as off topic. Once posted I agree with your expression of the need to respond. To a degree here we are preaching to the quire, but it is a growing quire. I hope the educated posters here will also post at their local newspapers when they print a CAGW article.

    With regard to gramatical errors, yikes, please ignore them in my posts or the thread really will be hijacked. Do not let discernment of the placement of a comma, account for a climate understanding coma. (-;

  63. davidmhoffer says:
    December 4, 2011 at 1:54 pm
    Skiphil says:
    December 4, 2011 at 1:10 pm
    btw, David A. no offense but this is a pet peeve of my high school drama teacher for both pronunciation and spelling:
    it is “congraTulations” with a ‘t’ both in spelling and pronunciation, although it’s become so common to pronounce it as though there were a ‘d’ that perhaps the spelling will have to be changed>>>

    I can only imagine the ire the pronunciation of “wednesday” must have raised….

    And rightly so. The day of the week is named for Odin, chief of the gods in Norse myhology. It was also spelled and pronounced as “Wodin”. Thence to “Wodin’s day”, and then the the second syllable was likely shortend and then dropped, causing the “n” and “d” to swap places and our current pronunciation as if it was spelled “Wendsday”.

  64. The treatment of trolls here is something I respect. Trolls get a free pass the first time and the community responds to them. I usually learn something from those instances, as I have in this thread. I don’t see much in the way of follow-up trolling …and I like that too. I presume that is due to 2 things:
    – Moderators are breaking that cycle of dreariness early on.
    – Trolls don’t have a real case to make and, after having lit the bag on fire and rung the doorbell, they run off giggling into their anonymity.
    Too many comment sections are ruined by the drop-in-and-poopsters.
    This looks to be a nice, safe place to track and participate in an important debate.

    This whole caper looks to me like someone who is close to one or a few of the main characters is the whistleblower. His teasing releases are designed to put the most amount of pressure on people he genuinely cares for while inflicing the least amount of damage. Warning shots landing ever closer to the bow. The whitewashing of CG1 and the lack of any resignations from the leading cast has resulted in this release and the information that some many thousands more e-mails await. Perhaps a coverup attempt exposed? A conspiracy to delete e-mails?
    This is soap opera stuff.
    The MSM should be eating this up. I wonder what could get their interest???
    Hmmm, has Michael Mann ever been to Aruba?

  65. Having carefully followed the sequence of events, I now feel confident in predicting the outcome of Climategate II:

    The Nobel Committee will reaffirm its support of The Consensus and The Cause, by awarding IPCC a second Nobel Peace Prize.

  66. I believe global warming is a complete hoax . I also believe that warming may open farmland in China ,Russia and Canada and feed the world.

  67. Norris Allen says:
    December 5, 2011 at 5:59 pm
    I believe global warming is a complete hoax . I also believe that warming may open farmland in China ,Russia and Canada and feed the world.>>>

    You know, that’s a great point! All the jokes about people getting suckered into buying swamp land in Florida, one would think a get rich quick, buy tundra in Canada would have emerged by now….

  68. noaaprog;
    Don’t bother even then. It would take many years to reassemble competent writing and editing staff, all of whom have fled or been evicted.

Comments are closed.