Spencer on elitism in the IPCC climate machine

ClimateGate and the Elitist Roots of Global Warming Alarmism

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Image from Wikipedia

The hundreds of e-mails being made public after someone hacked into Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system offer a revealing peek inside the IPCC machine. It will take some time before we know whether any illegal activity has been uncovered (e.g. hiding or destruction of data to avoid Freedom of Information Act inquiries).

Some commentators even think this is the beginning of the end for the IPCC. I doubt it.

The scientists at the center of this row are defending themselves. Phil Jones has claimed that some of the more alarming statements in his e-mails have been taken out of context. The semi-official response from RealClimate.org, a website whose roots can be traced to George Soros (which I’m sure is irrelevant), claims the whole episode is much ado about nothing.

At a minimum, some of these e-mails reveal an undercurrent of elitism that many of us have always claimed existed in the IPCC. These scientists look upon us skeptics with scorn. It is well known that the IPCC machine is made up of bureaucrats and scientists who think they know how the world should be run. The language contained in a draft of the latest climate treaty (meant to replace the Kyoto treaty) involves global governance and the most authoritarian means by which people’s energy use will be restricted and monitored by the government.

Even if this language does not survive in the treaty’s final form, it illustrates the kind of people we are dealing with. The IPCC folks jet around the world to all kinds of exotic locations for their UN-organized meetings where they eat the finest food. Their gigantic carbon footprints stomp around the planet as they deride poor Brazilian farmers who convert jungle into farmland simply to survive.

Even mainstream journalists, who are usually on board with the latest environmental craze, have commented on this blatant display of hypocrisy. It seems like those participating – possibly the best example being Al Gore — are not even aware of how it looks to the rest of us.

The elitist attitudes exist elsewhere, too. While the skeptics’ blogs allow those who disagree to post opinions as long as they remain civil about it, RealClimate.org routinely ignores or deletes posts that might cast doubt on their tidy worldview. The same thing happens at Wikipedia, where a gatekeeper deletes newly posted content that departs from the IPCC party line.

A few of the CRU e-mails suggest that manipulation of climate data in order to reduce the signature of natural climate variations, and to exaggerate the supposed evidence for manmade climate change, is OK with these folks. Apparently, the ends justify the means.

The defense posted at RealClimate.org actually reinforces my point. Do the IPCC scientists assume that this is how all climate scientists behave? If it really was how the rest of us behave, why would our eyebrows be raised up to our hairlines as we read the e-mails?

If all of this sounds incompatible with the process of scientific investigation, it shouldn’t. One of the biggest misconceptions the public has about science is that research is a straightforward process of making measurements, and then seeing whether the data support hypothesis A or B. The truth is that the interpretation of data is seldom that simple.

There are all kinds of subjective decisions that must be made along the way, and the scientist must remain vigilant that he or she is not making those decisions based upon preconceived notions. Data are almost always dirty, with errors of various kinds. Which data will be ignored? Which data will be emphasized? How will the data be processed to tease out the signal we think we see?

Hopefully, the scientist is more interested in discovering how nature really works, rather than twisting the data to support some other agenda. It took me years to develop the discipline to question every research result I got. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and very difficult to be right.

Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress. I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming. Can the IPCC scientists admit the same thing?

Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works. The ‘data spin’ is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Spartacus

Nice exercise of realism from R. Spencer. For years to come, the IPCC machine will darken climate science because politics jumped to the badwagon. No matter how much compromising information will come out, people will always be driven by opinionmakers that, mostly, are in the wrong side of science. In my point of view, all we have to trust is that nature will teach all us a lesson…

John Egan

Lysenkoism is alive and well.
And not just Lysenko.
The “Downwind People” were assured that above ground nuclear tests were perfectly safe. Sabin’s live virus oral polio vaccine required Soviet intervention to get it accepted since most American scientific opinion favored Salk. And now climate science.
Science has been and can be highly malleable.
And that is the inherent danger.

RIP IPCC

I think all climate scientists should be compelled to study ethics as part of their university studies.
Also papers shouldn’t be allowed to be published unless all data is made available.

oakgeo

RIP IPCC (22:02:51) :
As part of most professional accreditations an applicant must pass an ethics exam. In my field, geology, I have known several individuals who consider it a joke. Learning the ethics of professional behaviour does not guarantee ethical behaviour.

LarryF

Dr. Spencer,
Earlier today, I was inclined to be cautious about the Climategate revelations. Now I share your assessment.
However elitism is the common denominator of political fanaticism in general; it’s not unique to Climate Alarmists. It’s best summed up in Jack Nicholson’s famous line from A Few Good Men:
“You can’t handle the truth!”
Truth from those in power is necessary for democratic institutions to function properly. The irony: True Believers can talk a good game of democracy, but they’re not capable of living it.

Keith Minto

We take emailing for granted now, but as I did much of my research in the pre-email days, I can see that instant interconnectedness is working against solitary research.
On one hand the email communication system provides an ability to share and enhance ideas, on the other the pattern displayed in the released emails indicate a considerable degree of coercion as those higher in the pecking order make sure that the script is being followed. Telephone and mail correspondence would be just too slow to achieve to same the same outcome as email.
.
So, this communication technology has helped to create this beehive mentality with its queens,workers and drones.

par5

The word sceptic comes from the latin root which means: 1) to analyze 2) to think through thoughtfully.
“Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress.”
You bet it is.

crosspatch

The entire culture around “global warming” is warped. I only today discovered that there was such a thing as:
The “Environmental Psychology Research Group” at the University of Surrey which I discovered in this document while digging into those responsible for creating this document, a copy of which was found in Jones’ files in the documents directory.
It is all apparently about how to convince the population to “buy in” to more government control of their lives using “global warming” as the hook.
If you look at it in the abstract, it isn’t about whether or not there really is any “global warming”. The science doesn’t really matter. As long as they can get people to “believe in it”, that is enough. It is hearts that matters, not minds as is evident from the quote found in document at the first link:

Motivating messages need to hit an emotional cord. People are busy. They resist change. In order to get their attention and support for change, you have to connect with people by plugging into their belief systems. Not trying to rewire it …It is not necessary to be inaccurate or to dumb down issues, but it’s essential to engage people’s passion … you need to reach people emotionally first and then educate them. Hearts first, and then minds’.

So once you have someone “believing in” the notion that the climate is headed for disaster, that it is our collective fault, and only “the government” or the UN can save us from disaster, then they will shut out the message of “skeptics” and actually react against “skeptics”.
The second document is about propgandizing “global warming”. That is the document that was found in Jones’ files. It is produced by Futerra which seems to be an environmental version of Fenton Communications (Current Fenton staffers have worked with Futerra and vice versa).
This is bigger than just science. Imagine if global policy were to be founded based on my research and imagine that I had the power to influence the direction of research results by influencing what gets published and what doesn’t get published. Imagine I have access to a group of people who work in concert to manage the message presented to people and we have a website and we coordinate what is posted and whose comments and what content we will allow. That would make me a very powerful person, indeed. Now imagine what would happen if it were all exposed.
This is the problem with SteveM’s approach. Nobody is interested in the science, really. He can disprove every single paper they produce and it will never see the light of day in academia because they would never allow him to be published. They will never admit he is right, they will dismiss his work because it isn’t published while working to make sure it never gets published.
Global warming IS political. It is being used as a lever to emotionally influence people in order to close their minds to any debate on the subject and allow them to willingly allow the government to control them. And it is one side of the aisle that stands to advance their agenda though this avenue. It goes like this:
1. There is a disaster looming.
2. It is our fault.
3. It can be corrected.
4. Only government can correct it. It is the fault of the private sector.
5. The steps needed to correct it are in line with our party agenda.
6. Elect our party and allow us to correct it.
Our kids are being taught that this is FACT in our schools. What McIntyre says isn’t going to matter soon. We will have a whole new generation of voters who have been taught since kindergarten that the “science is settled” and that “skeptics” are lunatics.
Look in that “documents” directory. It is to me more interesting than the emails as it shows the larger picture.

rbateman

The IPCC and Agenda elitism stems from a belief that they are unassailable, untouchable and they act like it. The emails speak loudly.

John F. Hultquist

Context —“ blatant display of hypocrisy. It seems like those participating – possibly the best example being Al Gore — are not even aware of how it looks to the rest of us.”
I can understand how Gore’s ideas developed out of touch with the rest of us because he was born into the privileged life of a US senator’s family and colleagues. I don’t understand how the others ended up this way. Many of the people in this generation (thinking of my friends, family, and college classmates) were first-to-graduate of the family, and then only with some stress on the family for going that route.
It doesn’t take much show of an elitist attitude to raise my ire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anthony,
I had to look twice at the pavement roller before my weary eyes (too much reading about the big data dump) and brain made the connection. Then I followed the link backwards to see what you started with. You should get an award for this. Nice.

Geoff C

OT:
Nature has a brief article on the ‘hacking’ episode, and their focus is more on the theft than the content.

Queenslander!

Still a complete stone wall of silence here in Australia- no mention of the hacking at all from the ABC, whose elitism knows no limits. Perhaps the news gatekeepers are thinking, “Maybe if we ignore this it will just go away…”
Time will tell, and maybe at last the unsceptics’ time has come… or gone.

Denny

Anthony,
Thanks for posting Steve McIntyre’s new site. With all the monies spent less than a year ago doesn’t mean that it would take the hits that CA did the last couple of days took. I saw your graph on a earlier post here…I had to laugh! See, it’s “all” in the statistics! 🙂 The amount of hits had to be through the “Roof”!

Hank Henry

I was bumping heads with a gov’t official once. An attorney told me that to a man, the people who end up working in gov’t positions are guys who went to college – not to get an education but because they wanted to get something to lord over others. In the environmental realm you have the added factor that they do it all with a gleam in their eye.

Glenn

Gavin: “I hope that we’ve over-estimated climate sensitivity, that we’ve underestimated ocean uptake of CO2, that we’ve overestimated GHG growth rates, and that money grows on trees. Yet the science indicates that none of those things are likely to be true. That’s the difference between science and wishful thinking.”
I’m assuming that Gavin would not consider the possibility that climate sensitivity has been over-estimated anymore than he would consider the possibility that money grows on trees. That’s the difference between science and belief.

Don Penim

I just went over to Real Climate to see the comments about the E-mail leaks and how Gavin was responding to them… Here is an emotional one:
#703. I’m the daughter of scientist you all sharply criticized, discredited, and claimed his theories were washed up a few years back on this site, and I just want you to know your pain at the moment is my pleasure.
[Response: Sorry if we caused you any problem, but whether a scientific idea is valid or not is not a reflection on the quality of the person who proposed it. I would advise you to take scientific criticism less personally. – gavin]

King of Cool

I agree with everything that Dr Spencer has so succinctly stated.
The problem is that the duck season has ceased UFN. Don’t expect any of the MSM to come onside.
Unless the world weather noticeably disproves AGW in the next decade I am afraid the battle is going to be a long and drawn out one conducted in the forum battlefields of cyberspace such as this one.
All I can say is keep plugging away, keep it professional, keep it objective and have faith. If truth is on your side history will ultimately show you to be the real leaders in scientific understanding of our universe.

Wise words, Roy.

joshua corning

Pretty lame post.
Oh no they are eletists!!
Oh no they fly in jets!!
And eat good food!!
Oh My!!!
Anyway I could care less about their attitude. What I do care about is their ethics. You see these people are members of science organizations. Organizations that have ethics rules guiding how they behave. They are also faculty of Universities. Universities also have ethics rules. They are employed by government agencies. Again which have ethics rules.
Rather then pulling the “They are Elitists!” ploy why don’t you go after the fact that they conspired to run a dirty tricks campaign to block publication of critical science in the peer review literature?
I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board…
What do others think?
mike
At 08:49 AM 3/11/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

You are a scientist Dr. Spencer, why don’t you file an ethics complaint rather then whine to us about elites?

Shurley Knot

I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming.
LOL.

Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works.

Name names! Of course you never do, on the advice of your lawyer, no doubt.

geronimo

Don’t expect too much to come from this, at least in the short term. Sceptics already assumed something like this was going on as indeed it is. But politicians who have been banging on about having 50 days to save the world are not going to back off, it would make them look foolish. Outside the politicians we have what is little more than a religion with followers who won’t want to hear this, and will interprate the e-mails and documents in a benign manner because they want to believe humans are bringing about the destruction of the planet. My belief is that these documents will only be put into context when the politicians have finally grasped that, unbelievable as it may seem, there are a bunch of scientists who are prepared to manipulate data to give the impression that humans are destroying the planet. Their motive? I haven’t got a clue, and doubt if anyone else has. It could be the acquisition of money to fund their research, it could be blind fanatical environmentalism or it could be they’re enjoying their day in the sun. But to any reasonable person the extent of punishment, not just they, but all their colleagues in the climate science community will receive from the politicians once the penny has finally dropped, would discourage us from taking part in such outrageous behaviour. And it is this that will make the acceptance of these data difficult to swallow, the apparent lack of motive, and the fact that it is unbelievable that they haven’t taken the consequences of their actions into account.

It seems to me the e-mails also reveal:
(1) Members of The Team really do see themselves as a team. For example, there is an e-mail from one guy (Phil Jones?) where he talks about a friendly e-mail he received from Steve McIntyre. He suggests that Steve is being nice to him in an effort to undermine group solidarity.
(2) Members of The Team regularly engage in results-oriented reasoning. i.e. they start with the conclusion they want to reach and then work backwards. For example, there is an e-mail from one Team member (Gavin?) where he asks for help rebutting the latest “nonsense” from McIntyre while at the same time admitting that he does not understand McIntyre’s argument. Well, if he does not understand the argument then he should not automatically reject it.

Gene Nemetz

A few of the CRU e-mails suggest that manipulation of climate data in order to reduce the signature of natural climate variations, and to exaggerate the supposed evidence for manmade climate change, is OK with these folks. Apparently, the ends justify the means.
It’s just ‘robust’ discussion between scientists that’s been taken out of context.

Shurley Knot (22:59:22) :

Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works.

Name names! Of course you never do, on the advice of your lawyer, no doubt.

Shurley U. Jest!
.
.

Hopefully, we won’t be hearting about consensus in the scientific community any more after this played out. I mean not even in the MSM.
And Gavins efforts of damage control and playing this down at RC are pityful, and as you say essentially confirming their attitude and the gravity of the implied malfeasance.

Pieter F

“The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom,
but to set a limit to infinite error.”
— Bertolt Brecht, Life of Galileo

Shurley Knot (22:59:22) :Name names! Of course you never do, on the advice of your lawyer, no doubt.
Very funny, coming from an anonymous coward!

crosspatch

“You are a scientist Dr. Spencer, why don’t you file an ethics complaint rather then whine to us about elites?”
When the “scientists” involved threaten to change the “nature of peer-review” in order to keep certain people from being published, that would be indication enough to consider abandoning that process.

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil

(from 1089318616.txt)

Kazinski

Do you think the announcement in August that the raw CRU data was “lost” is what triggered the email disclosures. It seems to me that that could be the trigger.
I also wonder why nobody has linked Jones email in 2005 that he would “delete the files” rather than provide CRU data to MM, with the fact that he now 4 years claims the raw data was lost and all that remains is the “value added” data?
That is the big scandal and he is eventually going to have to explain how the data was lost in context with his earlier threats to delete it before he would release it.

Richard

Shurley Knot – surely you AGW fabricators have landed yourselves with a knotty problem.
A few of them:
Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.
Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.
Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results.
Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.
Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase. (oh really)
Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.
Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.
Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.
Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too.
Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’.
Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.
Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant). Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.
Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.
The list is far from complete.
But among the most outrageous of all since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants. The major amounts came from HEFCE (6.6 million pounds) and NERC (2.7 million pounds).
13.7 million pounds to foist a fraud on us? Surely Not!!

Richard

“CRU Emails #6: follow the money
Posted by Devil’s Kitchen at 11/20/2009 09:56:00 PM
Now that the general hilarity engendered by the email has simmered down a little, people are starting to look at the (vast numbers of) documents—many of which are very revealing.
Your humble Devil has constantly pointed out that climate scientists may not be in a conspiracy to deceive mankind—but they do need money for research. A lot of money.
And creating a massive scare and then doing some research on it is a very good way to get that money.
Yes, yes, Devil: but how much money?
Well, Phil Jones—one of the main players in the CRU conversations—has collected… well… a lot.
since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants. The major amounts came from HEFCE (6.6 million pounds) and NERC (2.7 million pounds). Later, we will get some idea whether he has used the money to do proper science and whether the truth and objectivity was kept as the key principle, beating a possibility to double the amount. 😉
What is my reaction to these financial amounts? These numbers are difficult for me to comprehend so I just borrow a reaction from Jeff Id: Big Oil My Ass. 🙂

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/cru-emails-6-follow-money.html

Leon Brozyna

Spot on, Dr. Spencer.
Science is logically rational to a high degree; the scientists, however, are another matter. When entering the domain of climate research, check your logical rationality at the door (at least if you want to play with the big boys).
Passion has its place in science — in support of logical rationality. When that passion is directed first in support of a preconceived belief, what you have is not science, but a quasi-religion.

Gene Nemetz

Don Penim (22:52:34) :
I used to be impressed with scientists. But after two years of looking in to global warming for myself I found that I needed to lower my expectations of scientists to understand Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Mark Surreze, et al.

APE

I copied this comment from Pistolus from CA it seems pertinent to our conversation here
APE
Pistolus:
November 20th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Kevin Trenberth explains how to respond to skeptics:
“but the response should try to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do.”
Science at work.

Richard

The sheer vastness of the documents require compilation and analysis to expose the revealing bits.
This is being done by very ably by “His Ecclesiastical Eminence” Bishop hill here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
and also being mirrored on a clearer site here:
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/some-cru-email-summaries-4.html

Louis Hissink

I suspect it will be business as usual. In economics, for example, economists of the Austrian School show that you can’t do modelling to reach predictions because the basic unit of economics, a quantity of money, isn’t a physical measurement but an arbitrary valuation of a buyer and seller. Despite this flaw, governments continue using econometrics and modeling for policy purposes. It’s the social sciences using formulae of the physical sciences to make economics “scientific”.
Same with climate science – and the GCM’s. Weather is a chaotic non-linear system and it cannot be modelled either but that has not stopped them from trying.
This whole development could be traced back to the early 1970”s when political correctness started infesting the universities and other public institutions – as well as most of government.
The team’s approach to any auditing or checking of their science by the great unwashed is quite revealing – Bernard Goldberg described in his two books about mainstream media arrogance and bias, and it applies to the academics as well, especially those with a progressive political approach. I think they actually believe we sceptics are red-necked, wingnut wacko’s while they are “normal”.
I also realise that the AGW supporters in Australia, basically the ALP and its socialist fellow travellers, regard themselves as the natural elites to hold political power and that whenever a conservative government gets elected, then that itself is regarded as an aberration and and error made by the voters. They do not see any conservative political stance as legitimate.
This is why it’s futile challenging the science – it’s pseudoscience and as intractable to deal with as mainstream astrophysics is. These people don’t seem to understand the idea that no scientific theory can be proven, but can be falsified. Note the continuing efforts at proving AGW theory rather than ghoing back to the drawing board once it’s been falsified. AGW is basically progressive science, or politically motivated science.
That’s why I suspect this information leak will pass and they will get back to business once all the hubbub has died.

Shurley Knot


Shurley Knot – surely you AGW fabricators have landed yourselves with a knotty problem.
A few of them:

Sorry, there’s no there there. See Phil Clarke’s comment @ 15:58:30 here. Y’all need to exercise a little more skepticism and a little less fantasy!

jamesglendinning

RE: crosspatch (22:32:47)
Scarey stuff…

Mick

IMHO there are two science; physics and mats.
Chemistry, astronomy, metallurgy, biology or climate science is a “branch” of the two. Not to undermine the importance of these of course!
Now, physicists astronomers etc. get away with lots of public money for research.
But here is the difference, they not try to change our life with socialistic law.
Just study the universe and try to understand it. Yep, better bigger colliders/telescopes would be nice, but the PRIVET taxpayers have to pay the bill with productivity and wealth generation.
The astronomers could use similar fear tactics to scare the “sajze” out of the citizens with asteroids to get more money for research. They want more money surely, but not try to change the social structure and not try to make a new religion for the gullible.
So way are the AGW climate scientists are not happy with this arrangement when it works for other faculties?
We, do need to know what we capable to know. Every human born with the
desire to know what is behind the next hill. Climate science, meteorology is important just like any other unknown to know.
Sorry for then rant (and the less than perfect English) folks.

Glenn

Shurley Knot (00:26:47) :
Shurley Knot – surely you AGW fabricators have landed yourselves with a knotty problem.
A few of them:
Sorry, there’s no there there. See Phil Clarke’s comment @ 15:58:30 here. Y’all need to exercise a little more skepticism and a little less fantasy!”
With Phil Clarke, take your own advice and a cold shower.

Knut Witberg

Knut Witberg said
November 22, 2009 at 4:36 am
Read comment nr 8 in this blog: crosspatch (22:32:47): An excellent summary of the situation.
The worst is what you cannot see
It is important to emphasize that the worst damage is not what you can see – the FOI refusals, the successful efforts to get skeptical researchers sacked – it’s what you can’t see.
All the researchers lower in the hierarchy who witness that a skeptic gets fired, who get promoted, who’s got the big money to spend on research – they realize pretty qickly what they should think and do to get a career going – and even more so what NOT to say.
Sacking, ridicule, denial of space in publications and so on is reported from many countries, not only Great Britten and USA.
The parallel to the situation in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union is obvious – and be clear on this: many believers in communism and nazism believed that they were doing the right thing – just as many AGW proponents are about the climate today. There was no lack of “good faith”. It is the system that is to blame.
What does “consensus” mean in a situation like this?
What we soon will see is the Empire strikes back. Many researchers, who has conformed and lived well in this political system, will protest. They will in essence say: “No, I didn’t agree because of cowardnes, I believe in AGW!” But the main strategy will be denial and – silence.
Even worse is the situation in the political circles. So many has committed themselves to the belief in AGW. It is pretty difficult to come forward now and publicly express uncertainty or doubt, not to mention a change in their conviction.
And all the big shots in poor countries that already could smell the money soon coming to line their pockets. They will do all they can to maintain the current situation, to deny any need for change in the IPCC, academic hierarchies, allocation of funds etc and they will blame “capitalists”, “imperialists”, “reactionaries”, “liars”, etc.
The repair of the system will take years – if it can be repaired. But we must try. In the end – this is about protecting our democracy.

Gene Nemetz

Geoff C (22:41:06) :
Nature has a brief article on the ‘hacking’ episode, and their focus is more on the theft than the content.
Funny thing is it may not be criminal theft. It just might be a violation of office policy.

Gene Nemetz

Shurley Knot (00:26:47) :
Sorry, there’s no there there. See Phil Clarke’s comment @ 15:58:30

I see trolls have been talking amongst themselves.

CodeTech

I suppose any tactics used by people you agree with are just fine, right?
By definition, then, anything, including self defense, is unacceptable from those you disagree with.
Mods, just out of curiosity, how much more rope are you going to give the new troll?

Paul Vaughan

“[…] the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works.”
Well-said.
They do not appreciate nature as much as their designs for it.


Shurley Knot (00:26:47) :

Shurley Knot – surely you AGW fabricators have landed yourselves with a knotty problem.
A few of them:
1) Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.
2) Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results.
3) Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.

Sorry, there’s no there there. See Phil Clarke’s comment @ 15:58:30 here. Y’all need to exercise a little more skepticism and a little less fantasy!

Sorry, that’s a deflection, not even a defense; there is no contest as to the ‘in print’ existance of the three items. This also falls under the category “No entitlement to your own facts”.
.
.

Roger Knights

“That is the big scandal and he is eventually going to have to explain how the data was lost in context with his earlier threats to delete it before he would release it.”
If someone is creating a talking points list for the media, put that one at the top!

Keith Minto

Queenslander! (22:43:04) :
Still a complete stone wall of silence here in Australia- no mention of the hacking at all from the ABC, whose elitism knows no limits. Perhaps the news gatekeepers are thinking, “Maybe if we ignore this it will just go away…”
Time will tell, and maybe at last the unsceptics’ time has come… or gone.
…. Except for Andrew Bolt, nothing, zilch. Just watched the main evening news services and just a mention from Labor (left) that the Liberals (right) have until tomorrow to make up their minds about the Carbon Pollution thingy.
Have a look at the Fairfax press tomorrow morning (Sydney Morning Herald), I will be surprised if Paul Sheehan does not have something to say.

Roger Knights

“The team’s approach to any auditing or checking of their science by the great unwashed is quite revealing – Bernard Goldberg described in his two books about mainstream media arrogance and bias, and it applies to the academics as well, especially those with a progressive political approach. I think they actually believe we sceptics are red-necked, wingnut wacko’s while they are “normal”.
“I also realise that the AGW supporters in Australia, basically the ALP and its socialist fellow travellers, regard themselves as the natural elites”

I think a large part of the MSM’s complicity in this farce, and the complicity of progressive fellow travelers, is that it is a way of distancing themselves from the unwashed and enhancing their self-regard as beings above lowly selfish considerations.

J. Peden

Please let’s not all pile on poor Shurley Knot’s work here – Shurley’s got to eat and pay the bills just like everyone else.