From his web page: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
by Eduardo Zorita, Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, specialist in Paleoclimatology, Review Editor of Climate Research and IPCC co-author.
Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ‘soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.
To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later.
I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.
These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.
I thank explicitely Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it destills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.
Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a lawyer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the ‘hockey stick graph’ or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.
The difficult and hopeless postion these people have, Jones et al, is the only way for them to salvage their careers is to expand their deceit even futher in hopes of somehow reversing the damage done by their prior offenses.
Gavin Schmidt’s conduct represents that futile attempt.
” I am not a layer” ? (1st line,last para.) must mean lawyer unless he is broody.
One very brave man. I wish him luck with keeping his job and getting funding.
Jones, Mann and company have caused a tremendous amount of damage.
As this seeps out into the general population, (and it is), people will second guess anything coming from the IPCC or this topic well into the future.
Keith Minto (18:53:37) : ” I am not a layer” ? (1st line,last para.) must mean lawyer unless he is broody.
I consider he has every right to be broody, too.
I am looking forward to the chickens…
Well, more specifically, their judgment, sense of ethics, and competence isn’t credible any more. Their removal is a good first step, but I doubt it will change the quality of IPCC assessments.
He’s downplaying it a bit, but he is saying it…….. “…a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.”
Journalists now need to follow wherever this mess leads…. It would be good just to get most of these partisan news outlets to even admit there is a mess with the climate science. That would be a good first start.
LBJ lied, John F. Kerry lied and lies still, Bill Clinton lied and lies more, Al Gore lies big time, will lie more, B. Obama lied to get in office and will lie about man made global warming soon and will often.
What do they all have in common other than they are world classless liars.
use “D” as your clue, sort of a hockey stick graph….data set.
There is a point in time when the “agenda” becomes so important that nothing else matters. For a Gavin Schmidt truth is not important, only “getting people to believe” matters. If enough people “believe” which allows a goal of the agenda to be attained, then that is a win, if not it is a loss.
That is the only thing these people care about.
So-called “post normal” science is an exhibition in subjective reality.
Ok, maybe something will happen…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8383713.stm
I think it’s going to be a lot harder for “Them” to punish dissenters now, it’s too hard to cover up now.
Also, remember when the press used to preen about heroic investigators revealing the dastardly secrets of state and store? Do you think they ever really believed that, or was it always about political enemies?
I’ll give Zorita credit for appreciating the “credibility” issue. However, I thought his “I’m just a small cog in this big machine” was a pretty thin evasion of responsibility for having participated all this time without understanding the game.
I repeat:
“I’m being enormously entertained watching the “emergency exits” at the Grand Global Warming Theater. I see little rat noses tentatively poking out all over the place. Meanwhile, Michael Mann takes to the stage with his magic act once again in a desperate effort to stem the panic.”
CH
Keith Minto (18:53:37) : ” I am not a layer” ? (1st line,last para.) must mean lawyer unless he is broody.
I think he is a fryer. But now out of the frying pan and into the fire.
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]
“James F. Evans:
For a Gavin Schmidt truth is not important, only “getting people to believe” matters.”
For a Gavin Schmidt, truth is not important, only ‘survival’ matters.
Fixed it.
JimB
your post made the tears flow…
Eduardo Zorita: “My voice is not very important.”
Yes it is! With enough honest scientists speaking up, this scam can’t be ignored. Here’s another one speaking out, saying there is “proof of fraud”: click
Climate scientists are starting to realise that the AGW hoax will unravel soon, and when it does – there will be a reckoning, there WILL be consequences, which will involve jail sentances and/or huge fines for the most serious frauds that have been committed. The public will demand it., and MOST importantly – the politicians and media will need scapegoats to cover up their own participation in the crime of the century.
I suspect the silent majority of scientists who sat on the fence, are about to jump to one side in a very vocal way. Those that dont, are fools who will pay the price for the dishonesty of the likes of Jones, Mann et al
Apologize in advance for a somewhat off-topic post: I am engaged in a “debate” with someone on a left-oriented site. I am trying to summarize what climategate is about and how it undermines the credibility of global warming true believers. Have I stated the case effectively?
The data that was “hidden” was part of the proxy data that was supposed to reconstruct climate history for the time period before there were thermometric measurements. This data was obtained from tree rings, ice cores, sediments among other sources. There was a period of overlap between the the proxy data and thermometric data. This was used to calibrate the proxy data as the thermometer data is more reliable. However, there were periods where they records diverged. The thermometer data showed temperature increased while the proxy data showed a decrease. The problems then are:
How reliable is the proxy data? Do factors besides temperature affect tree rings, for example?
Was climate variability in the past greater than published proxy data suggest? Perhaps our recent warming is not as extreme as we have been led to believe. Note that recent comparisons indicate that proxy data may understate temperature which would mean that the past was warmer than we currently understand.
Finally, the climate simulation models are not closed in the sense that they require real world historical data for tuning. Even if the simulation models are based on rigorous physics, if they are tuned to a faulty climate record they cannot be expected to produce a credible result. And it turns out that much of the data set in question was used in part for this purpose.
I get very suspicious when government experts tell me that there is a crisis and we must act right now. It happened with Iraq, with the banking system bailout and its happening with Iran and climate change.
After finding a few rotten apples at the top of a barrel, it is a poor farmer who convinces himself that there are no more further down.
Eduardo, you were a cute child, but to seemingly blame the change on HvS – I don’t think that’s fair. And it costs € 826 to receive 4 volumes of Climate Research during 2010. I think I’ll ask for a stimulus grant so you can double the print run and we’ll send copies to interested students. That would be good for you and them.
Seriously, the entire IPCC process ought to be shut down. Getting rid of a few science-trained folks with questionable ethics allows the process to seem cleansed and it can then go on its merry way. Better to get rid of the IPCC and clean up the science “tricks and/or fraud” also.
Just posted on RealClimate:
Climate science hasn’t been unfairly restricting access. The authors of RealClimate demonstrably have been unfairly restricting access to raw data as their own email conversations make perfectly clear. Don’t confuse “climate science” the discipline with “RealClimate” the indiscipline.
Oh and for the record, it’s not too long since Michael Mann was protesting to Congress that the data and methodology used to produce MBH98 was his private property and no-one (including Congress) had any right to see it.
Who to believe? RealClimate or our own lying eyes?
Deleting lots of emails that were the subject of FOI requests is a criminal offense in the UK as well as the US. Plotting to unseat editors and conspiring against journals who publish work that criticises the work of RealClimate authors as well as gaming the peer review process are all gratuitous breach of scientific ethics which may well get a number of them fired.
Its no use claiming that the emails and documents were unfairly obtained – so were the Pentagon Papers and those were Top Secret.
It’s time for RealClimate to come clean. For there’s more at stake than the academic careers of a few key individuals indulging in sordid unethical behavior.
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:
Fncspecials@foxnews.com
The recipient’s mailbox is full and can’t accept messages now. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please try resending this message later, or contact the recipient directly.
I have tried to sent the story about the Google/Wikipedia cencoring to Foxnews, but i think other people are trying to sent news also 😀
The following story is about a french scientist who also reconstructed mean tempratures for europ and america. No warming since the 40’s. Read also the second comment about a scientist that was threatened with his job. The scientist are comming out of hiding!
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx
Roger Carr (18:59:13) :
Keith Minto (18:53:37) : ” I am not a layer” ? (1st line,last para.) must mean lawyer unless he is broody.
I consider he has every right to be broody, too.
I am looking forward to the chickens…
I think the Chickens aren’t going to be roosting at Zorita’s Phil Jones might consider nesting boxes and a little egg scratch for his office decor,however..
He is just saying it is far worse than it looks. The careful reader will be rewarded with light.
“The CRU-files… depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years.”
“editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”
“Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture.”
I find most disturbing the stories of Ph D candidacies and papers being politically tampered with. That is the heartbreaker for me. I strongly suspect this goes on across all of the disciplines.
Everything about all 21 of the AGCMs relies on semi-accurate sensitivies to solar and volcanic from the paleo record.
1. The elimination of MWP and LIA was necessary so that solar forcing could be minimized, thereby allowing almost all the warming in the last 75 years to be blamed on GHGs.
2. The slope of long-term (ie. 10-year running average global temperature) was maximized with the sloppy gridding code and UHI effects and hiding the declines (documented in the leaked source code) ensured that the GHG forcing coefficient in all 21 of the AGCMs is maximized. (Maximizes result at year 2100 based on GHG increases.)
3. Because the tuning of the AGCMs, using backcasting, fit the record for the most part (and by design), it was assumed that the models had almost everything in them.
4. When better numbers for black carbon, land use, ocean and atmospheric multidecadal cycles, etc. came out, it appeared that the HADCRUT needed revisions to refit the backcast.
Is this why the Hockey stick was so important? After all, the paleo reconstruction it is the first step in predicing the future with AGCM.
This inquiry set up at East Anglia will be a white wash. There needs to be an independent inquiry that does include scientist but chaired by some one objective and apart from science, like a judge, or two or three judges! And this in conjunction with charges!
I complement Zorita for having the guts to come forward & call it the way he sees it. Hopefully it inspires others to do the same. Hopefully the politicians have the guts to listen to them (although I an not holding my breath)
He says:
“I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.”
Harmless??
Machination, conspiracies, and collusion are not at all harmless.
The whole idea AGW is fraught with politics that will effectively enslave western civilization. Harmless my a$$! This was written by a man who has no knowledge of the real world.
If he had any integrity and if he detected machination, conspiracies, or collusion, he could have worked for better peer review, brought it the public’s attention, or otherwise spoken up. Or, he could have resigned, or recused himself from the IPCC AR4 report.
I think this guy is part of the problem.
Arnold: “I have tried to sent the story about the Google/Wikipedia cencoring to Foxnews, but i think other people are trying to sent news also :D”
I’m not so sure Google are censoring anything. Number of hits for “Climategate” now at 10,700,000 and probably still rising!
While I agree with the idea of barring Jones, Mann, et. l. from the IPCC, it’s not clear to me that’s sufficient to restore credibility to climate science. Barr these people and the current “second stringers” like Michael Oppenheimer from Princeton will just take their place, parroting the same stuff. This is already going on, see this article: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_13875236
The problem runs deeper than just the questionable morals of a few scientists and lots of sloppy computer code.
The review process itself stands on pretty shaky ground, both in terms of it’s credibility and in terms of its ability to produce good science even when done correctly. It seems to me that peer-review is a poor substitute for openness, where data and scientific code are shared with the world, not locked away in a government data center.
There’s also the question of why an agency like CRU would have a mission statement covering 1) Gathering of data, 2) Dissemination of data, and 3) Input into the creation of policy. When a single group controls all that there is too much room for conflict of interest to arise. An example of this is CRU’s Mick Kelly offering Shell Oil the ability to “drive the research agenda” in return for funding. All CRU would need to do for the funding is come up with policy that would benefit Shell.
Anyway, I’ve put together a video of “Who’s Who” in ClimateGate. I hope folks like it.
ClimateGate Who's WhoUploaded by magicjava. – Discover more science and tech videos.
REPLY: If you make a YouTube version it will get wide distribution -A
The blackballing habits of the warmers isn’t confined to the opinions/positions of other scientists, but to their family members and relatives. Eight years ago I had posted my opinions on an email list about AGW and mentioned some of my cousins work in Antarctica. A week later, my cousin was desperately requesting I get my emails removed from the list archives as he had come under pressure from warmists who had influence over whether he would get his doctorate, I am not sure which Team member it may have been. Out of sympathy for my cousin, I did attempt to do so, but was unable to get them removed entirely from mirrored archives.
Personally I’ve never been so outraged over a free speech issue in my life, and it was this event that convinced me that the warmists were corrupt and their position had to be fraudulent if they had to engage in such tactics.
So, Gavin, Mike, Keith, Jim, Phil, and company, congratulations. You created a skeptic out of this person with your heavy handed tactics.
I used to believe in the warmist position. I was Al Gore’s poster boy for reinventing government and energy conservation with my energy conserving exit sign retrofit kit (front page of the Washington Post in 1993). My invention has reduced carbon emissions by millions of tons by now, reducing exit sign wattages from 40w to 1/3w and eliminating the need to replace bulbs for 30 years.
Then I started investigating, learning, finding out what was really going on. When the above events transpired, I was a fence sitter, playing devils advocate on that email list in a discussion with a dyed in the wool warming religionist. So I reached the ‘tipping point’ thanks to these heavy handed tactics, which beyond outraging me, caused stress among my family members and impacted my cousins career. I can’t tell you folks how happy I am to finally see these peoples misdeeds come public.
Thats 2 now Zorita and Dr. Hans von Storch, both calling for the same thing. Will there be more? I sincerely hope so.
He hit the mark here:
“These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.”
Eduardo,
These words: These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax are so contorted that they indicate an intense awareness of political, dare I say “peer review”, pressure.
I congratulate you for your post. If science, rather than politics, wins the “debate” you will be rewarded; not so the other way.
The game is still in play, so you are courageous.
Kevin B.
Unfortunately, the Climategate emails are not a smoking gun as far as data is concerned. Though it does give some tantalizing hints of how they have manipulated the datasets to arrive at a predetermined result. It does NOT actually do so. The source code for a program used to perform calculations is quite interesting however even there since there is no actual raw data to perform a transformation on ( at least none that I have seen ) it is difficult to tell exactly what will occur with it.
What is really damning about these emails is the collusion and strong arm tactics that the climate scientists seem to be engaged in. The circling of the wagons, so to speak, that these few major players engaged in.
What really needs to happen at this point is a release of RAW data, as well as the source code that they ( the climate ‘scientists’) used to transform the data. The reason this is important, or perhaps the reason this is so important, was just seen recently in New Zealand where someone actually figured out how skewed the raw vs ‘adjusted’ data was.
Again this is my take on the data as it has come to light. Now please be aware that this does not in any way shape or form invalidate the hypothesis that CO2 will cause massive warming via feedback effects… But it does PROVE that there is no consensus or if there was it MAY be founded on bad data.
We as skeptics are not saying that AGW is impossible. Rather as skeptics we have simply been pointing out three things for the most part. First the data that they are gather might be flawed ( Thanks Anthony for the Surface Station Project ) Second that there may be a myriad of reasons for warming beyond the CO2 link. Third, That even with warming we do not know that it would be bad, I mean come on CO2 is basically plant food, more CO2 and warmer temperatures the more growth of plant life can take place.
Anyway, sorry to say but Climategate is important but not necessarily for proving the data has been falsified or overtly ( except for exclusion purposes which MAY be justifiable ) purposes. Probably screws up your debate, but again we are interested in understanding the issue of Global Warming, not being right about it. To be honest I think that is what makes us skeptics rather then dogmatic zealots. Which in the end is a good thing.
New AGW/email article: click
And another: click
The word is getting out.
Hercules may have overcome the Hydra of Lerna, however, the hydra-headed monstrosity of AGW won’t be quite as easy to fell. Just think of the number of post-modern scientists eager to feed at the public money trough. Lop off some of the monster’s many heads named Mann, Hansen, Jones, et al and others will take their place, promising to do a better job. There won’t, however, be a fundamental change in their science, just different camouflage with the same fundamental beliefs.
Scientists may start to gain credibility if they speak from a position where anthropogenic forces are but one of many elements impacting the climate.
The art of lying as a skill is one of the most difficult to master, but as a talent, it is the most onerous to shed.
A carriage across the pond has cost many a frog to the advantage of the silver-tongued scorpion.
Pity, if you must, the exhausted, emaciated dung beetle.
I’m waiting for the comment that says the IPCC is robust to the inclusion/exclusion of Jones, Mann, Rahmstorf, et al. 😉
I can’t see that removing individuals from the process will help. To re-phrase something I posted on the Pielke Sr. thread earlier.
The problem is that the work is being assessed by the very people that have produced it. In no other area that matters would we allow this to happen.
Can you imagine a legal system where the defence lawyer is also the prosecution lawyer (and judge). The best that could be said about the current set-up is that it is advertising. I create a product with one hat on then extol it’s virtues with my other hat on. No wonder things have gone wrong.
Wegman was on the money from day one. A self re-enforcing clique.
JimB (19:22:45) :
I associate with your fix 🙂
Was going to let this one lie for a bit, since likely I’ve used my ”comment quota”. But since both Arnold and then Scouse Pete commented; i.e.:
===========================
Scouse Pete (19:54:02) :
Arnold: “I have tried to sent the story about the Google/Wikipedia cencoring to Foxnews, . . . . . . .
I’m not so sure Google are censoring anything. Number of hits for “Climategate” now at 10,700,000 and probably still rising!
===========================
Yes; Google is ”back again” on climategate now, BUT:
There was something very odd for some hours today:
After getting to 8660K hits on ”climategate” at 17:15 US PST yesterday, for many attempts during a good part of today the EXACT same string only returned 2800K hits. But now same string returns 10,900K Google hits. . . . Almost like some data was temporarily ”deliberately hidden” (sorry; couldn’t resist).
Meanwhile, ”global warming” only returns 9510K Google hits.
Like I said in prior post:
When ”climategate” hits pass ”global warming” hits:
Raise your glasses, one and all. . . . .
At this rate ”climategate” will pass ”climage change” (21,000K) on Google in about one more week.
Can anyone say ”tipping point” ?? . . . .
Kevin B. (19:28:36) :
I get very suspicious when government experts tell me that there is a crisis and we must act right now. It happened with Iraq, with the banking system bailout and its happening with Iran and climate change.
I get suspicious when a govenment says there is a crisis ond only a tax can fix it.
Scouse Pete (19:54:02) :
[i]I’m not so sure Google are censoring anything. Number of hits for “Climategate” now at 10,700,000 and probably still rising![/i]
I don’t know if Google is censoring the pages returned like the do in China for Tienanmen Square queries. But I know for a FACT that Google has self-consciously and deliberately CENSORED the word “climategate” from their autocomplete suggestion list. It was there yesterday. It is gone today.
In regards to the CRU-files matter I am reminded of the scene in the movie “The Hunt For Red October” when a Soviet submarine commander orders torpedoes launched with safety features disabled because he was in a rush and he was certain of the outcome. When the torpedoes come back around and are about to blow up his own sub his subordinate shouts out to him, “You arrogant bastard, you’ve killed us all.”
Well Phil Jones et al you arrogant bastards, you’ve killed (our scientific reputations) us all.
The only reason the Climate Bunch got this far is that too many of those inside the process kept silent. The time to distance onself was before the leak, not after it. As a free scientist, he could have merely left the organization and found work elsewhere.
The smart ones got out a while back.
Climate Change @19:08:34:
Ok, maybe something will happen…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8383713.stm
I will be watching this very carefully. I’ve already seen suggestions of fancy-pantsy lordy-lordies who are totally in support of AGW being suggested as heading this enquiry.
And, what are it’s terms? Is it to enquire into the LEAK, or the facts pointed to by the LEAK?
I suspect a political subtefuge which will not only exonerate the e-mailers and castigate the purported “hacker’s theft”, but also issue a resounding endorsement of the IPCC and HADCRU.
Words from President Eisenhower on the CRU Scandal
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
I like this presantation very much. Really gives a non-climate guy like me a good overview.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/Phoenix%20Climate%20Presentation.pdf
========================
Methow Ken (20:51:57) :
Yes; Google is ”back again” on climategate now, BUT:
There was something very odd for some hours today:
After getting to 8660K hits on ”climategate” at 17:15 US PST yesterday, for many attempts during a good part of today the EXACT same string only returned 2800K hits. But now same string returns 10,900K Google hits. . . . Almost like some data was temporarily ”deliberately hidden” (sorry; couldn’t resist).
Meanwhile, ”global warming” only returns 9510K Google hits.
Like I said in prior post:
When ”climategate” hits pass ”global warming” hits:
Raise your glasses, one and all. . . . .
At this rate ”climategate” will pass ”climage change” (21,000K) on Google in about one more week.
Can anyone say ”tipping point” ?? . . . .
========================
I’ve seen the same wild variations in result counts. I’ve been watching the exponential growth from the beginning. It was going 1000, 2000, 10,000, 100,000, 1 million … pretty much doubling about every 12 hours or so. Then it would suddenly drop by a factor of ten, and then go back up. I don’t know if this means anything. I suspect it reflects some “artificial adjustment” by Google. And there are also ridiculously low results for the Google News section.
More on topic – the specific keyword “climategate” and it’s associated two word pair “climate gate” have both been CENSORED by Google from their autocomplete suggestion list. This is extremely significant because every person typing in “climate” would be confronted with “climategate” as the first suggestion. That’s how it was working yesterday. Clearly, this is not something Google/Gore was willing to allow. Remember, Al Goe is a SENIOR ADVISOR to Google! It’s in his official bio:
http://www.algore.com/about.html
PS: Could someone post the formatting codes, e.g. for bold, indent, etc? I’ve looked around and could not find any info. I thought tags in square brackets might work, but no … maybe standard html? Test
“post normal” science raises memories of an outbreak of “post normal” history here in Australia a couple of years back.
That epidemic was successfully contained by a blogger “mate” Anthony has.
Take it away, Mr Watts…
“Harmless??
Machination, conspiracies, and collusion are not at all harmless.”
The author is German, I think, so he didn’t choose the mot juste. What he meant, I think, was “understated.” IOW, he was saying that the reality of the cliques misbehavior is worse than what the CRUtape letters indicate.
“Lop off some of the monster’s many heads named Mann, Hansen, Jones, et al and others will take their place, …”
Or maybe a few lopped-off heads will “encourage” les autres to watch their step. We can only hope.
That’s too little, too late, Mr. Zorita.
Camels, straws, backs, rats, sinking ships, CYA, you know the drill….
Greek Chorus:
They’re turning on each other… Yes, it’s a tragedy, but they’ve done it to themselves…and you just gotta admit, there are comedic elements to all of this.
So…popcorn, Milkduds and an extra large coke, please. This show oughta be pretty good!
Scouse Pete (19:54:02) :
Arnold: “I have tried to sent the story about the Google/Wikipedia cencoring to Foxnews, but i think other people are trying to sent news also :D”
I’m not so sure Google are censoring anything. Number of hits for “Climategate” now at 10,700,000 and probably still rising!
Im not talking about the links after the search sorry. But about searchhelper. Normaly if you start type climategate, climate emails, CRU hack. Would be number one result to come back. Now if you start typing it is not showing at all. It looks like one out of two thing.
1. The removed the number of searches for these subjects.
2. There is a overflow in the functions because of the massive amount of searches (not likely).
And wikipedia is removing and altering pages from people trying to makes pages on the subject.
Interesting that he feels Briffa and Osborn were resisting the peer pressure. Perhaps as a climate scientist, he can differentiate better than us admittedly lay folk. If that is the case, we might review Briffa and Osborn’s actions, emails, and work with that in mind.
We cannot deny that venal though the others’ actions might be, the whole lot of them are true believers.
Arnold (21:52:36) :
[blockquote]
Im not talking about the links after the search sorry. But about searchhelper. Normaly if you start type climategate, climate emails, CRU hack. Would be number one result to come back. Now if you start typing it is not showing at all. It looks like one out of two thing.
1. The removed the number of searches for these subjects.
2. There is a overflow in the functions because of the massive amount of searches (not likely).[/blockquote]
#2 is eliminated by counter-example, e.g. “climate change” returns over 33 million pages.
#1 is supported by the fact that Google has code designed to censor certain words from their autocomplete function, as documented in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
#1 is also supported by the fact that climategate was included in the autocomplete suggestion list until today.
There evidence points to only one conclusion:
GOOGLE IS CENSORING CLIMATEGATE!
IPCC simply needs to be completely defunded and removed from the discussion. It was instituted as a political, not scientific establishment with the express intent of investigating it’s predetermined result which is that there is global warming, that it is human caused, and the only remedy is to give the United Nations authority over the energy production of every country. There is no compelling reason that it should continue and every compelling reason it should be defunct. It has politicized science and will continue to do so. Even if we can open the debate, the fact that there is a predetermined course of action which ends with U.N. control of the economies through carbon taxes makes it a mockery to even attempt to clean up the IPCC.
Richard McGough and Arnold both came back on the ”GoogleGate” off-shoot of ClimateGate; i.e.:
Not only does Google auto-complete not show ”ClimateGate” as the 1st choice, it doesn’t show it AT ALL.
This had not changed, so I did not repeat in my last.
But Richard and Arnold are absolutely right:
The fact that Google does not present ”ClimateGate” ANYWHERE in the auto-complete list after you type climate, just screams ”AGW agenda”.
OTOH:
Go to bing.com
Enter ”climate”
”climate change” comes up as 1st auto-fill; then ”climategate”.
+ BING finds 50,800K hits for climategate (why the 5:1 dif between Bing and Google is a search algorithm subject for another day).
Attaboy MSN and Microsoft.
Maybe it’s time to as much as possible say hasta la vista to Google.
So let’s recap: you’ll take Zorita’s observations that the political nature of climate change research is a cause for concern (“machinations, conspiracies, collusions” etc.) requiring the overhaul (or is that the overthrowing) of the IPCC…
BUT
you still think that climate change is a scam or a hoax? Or maybe you didn’t read what he actually wrote?
“These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax.”
Bing.com autocomplete has climategate!
And it returns 50,800,000 pages!
That’s 50 MILLION! It’s five times Google which also has CENSORED “climategate” from its autocomplete suggestion list.
I say it’s time to push BING.COM in a big way. We need to reward MS for not being part of the climategate coverup. I don’t normally “like” MS that much because they have such a monopoly, but this is enough to make me switch permanently.
Maybe we should al start making press-release over the world that google is censoring this. That would be a nice incentive for papers to start writing. Am i not right ?
My initial reaction was: climategate will not become a big story in the major media because the most damaging stuff in the e-mails should have been known by the press … stiff like…
· foot-dragging on requests for data … that is bad science even if freedom of information laws did not apply
· attempting to lock out opposing views … charges made by Dr. Lindzen of MIT and Dr. Happer of Princeton years ago and repeated by many
· bad (or manipulated data) … a focus of this site
· Government-funded science risks being driven by political objectives (not facts) of researchers and the fed can identify a common goal … predicted by Eisenhower in his farewell speech
But now I think the climategate will, eventually, get major coverage by the mainstream media (not just WSJ and the right wing of the mainstream) because the e-mails make this a 1st person story and:
1. Some major media AGW proponents have already called for the resignation of Phil Jones and others. Avoiding FOI requests is something reporters don’t like even if they like the idea of AGW.
2. Some scientists within the IPCC community (Zorita) have called for barring biased proponents of AWG (Phil Jones, Michael Mann, etc.) from the IPCC process.
3. Not just e-mail but also software (the model itself) has become public and there is no way for the IPCC to spin the code or comments in the software.
4. Climategate is being treated as a joke http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/ Once that happens, it is impossible to ignore the charges by creating diversions.
5. To date it was a good career move for both reporters and researchers to support AWG. Looking forward it may be smarter to back down from an uncritical AGW position.
6. Government inquires (both in the US and the UK) appear certain.
Zeke the Sneak (19:36:30) :
He is just saying it is far worse than it looks. The careful reader will be rewarded with light.
“The CRU-files… depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years.”
…..
I find most disturbing the stories of Ph D candidacies and papers being politically tampered with. That is the heartbreaker for me. I strongly suspect this goes on across all of the disciplines.
It depends on what “political” means.
Scientists are people and have the same herd behavior as all people when in groups. A group will have a “policy” and “politics” once it reaches a number over 7 ( arbitrarily chosen, as it is the number after which we have to start counting)
The smallest group I have worked with consisted of 5 people. There seniority was enough to assure a group policy. The largest consists of over 1000 and most of my publications consist with an author group of from 50 to 300.
Yes, there was scientific politics, that sometimes was incorrect. Seniors with a lot of weight, Nobel prizes for example, affected how graduate students treated the data and whether anomalies were pointed out or not. It is human nature to wear different glasses and believe in the view seen from them.
I remind particle physicists of the time of “alternating neutral currents” as an example. Now you see them, now you don’t, with fierce advocates on both sides.
BUT the process is self correcting if all involved are seriously committed to exploring the the truth in the data. Glasses will finally synchronize with the data and new policies will arise. It is a self correcting process.
The unfortunate situation with climate science arises from, in my opinion, two things:
1)Experiments cannot be run, and there was a enthusiastic assumption that models could replace experiments.
2)The results attracted the larger body of politicians and buck seekers, before the process could self correct.
Unfortunately for the world and the scientists involved in this climategate.
“editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”
“Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture.”
Re: my comment to RealClimate. Need I say that it was blocked?
Arnold (19:35:23) :
The following story is about a french scientist who also reconstructed mean tempratures for europ and america. No warming since the 40’s. Read also the second comment about a scientist that was threatened with his job. The scientist are comming out of hiding!
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx
Courtillot was attacked and smeared in the most vile fashion by Raymond ‘raypierre’ Pierrehumbert, a realclimatescientist. There was even an orchestrated surface mail campaign against Courtillot circulated to all the universities and journals.
Shameful, and probably illegal deformation of character.
Good post, Gary Crough. (I wish there were some way of highlighting best-posts).
“GOOGLE IS CENSORING CLIMATEGATE!”
“Soft-pedaling” would be a more accurate term.
Dennis Wingo (21:29:34) : Words from President Eisenhower … equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Keeps going through my mind, too, Dennis.
Must look on eBay for an old I Like Ike button…
Richard McGough (21:32:38) : …This is extremely significant because every person typing in “climate” would be confronted with “climategate” as the first suggestion.
It could also be very annoying, Richard. It seems to me quite reasonable that Google would make this move to unlink the pairing in the interests of all searching climate as surely many will be looking for this subject alone without gates or fences.
Perhaps the old never put down to conspiracy…. adage applies here.
Based on this article in particular it looks like even the wall of the BBC has been breached by climategate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8383713.stm
Assuming the enquiry’s not a complete whitewash there’s going to be a reexamination of the data, methods and researchers and not before time.
Maybe this time we’ll get answers to questions such as why Tiljander is used at all, never mnd upside down, why Graybill and not Ababneh and so on.
Perhaps we’ll even find out how (and maybe even why) this leak / hack happened.
However, given the speed with which British enquiries run I wouldn’t expect any findings for quite some time.
Might also be worth noting, as can be seen from this article, that for at least one BBC reporter and headline writer the tone has changed from the emails being “hacked” to “stolen” or “leaked”.
Also, when reading through their science and environment correspondent’s blogs it’s apparent that the initial tone of moral outrage and indignation (journalists being outraged by the release of suppressed information should appall everyone anyway) has dissipated somewhat and been replaced by some actual investigation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377465.stm
Let’s keep an eye out for more subtle changes in tone and substance as maybe, just maybe, those in the science community previously too afraid or unsure to speak out might just now have the opportunity and confidence to start putting the record straight.
If the tone of the emails which have been released so far is anything to go by there might be a lot of pent up frustration amongst certain members of the community and we might even get to see scores being settled.
Let’s applaud Eduardo’s comments, obviously made at great risk to his future funding opportunities.
Let’s also note that he is involved in material that is part of what was released from CRU.
If my name appeared associated with the CRU posts, I would want to distinguish myself from the general thrust too.
In my opinion, it was very smart for him to make this post to Anthony to cover tracks and absolve differences. One would think that others who are mentioned in the email traffic might do the same thing. I have no idea of the sincerity of these comments, but I hope more do so to actually open a dialogue.
The current authoritatively controlled discussion through IPCC is non sensical. It discourages the voicing of contrary views and disenables true scientific discussion about the data and how to use and interpret it. The IPCC won’t let people see the base data it wants to rely upon.
So, lets go back to basics: We are in an ice age. Over the last 2.5 million years we have experienced about twenty periods of glaciation and a similar number of interglacial periods. The periods of glaciation last about 100,000 years and the interglacial periods last 15 -20,000 years. Both are stable states of climate. One (glaciation) lasts 10 times longer than the other. We are at the end of the current interglacial period (15,000-20,000 from the last glacial maximum).
We don’t know what triggers the entrance to glaciation, or to the warmth of the interglacial. But they occur with documented accuracy. As long as there is a continent on either pole, we will continue to be drawn into periods of glaciation and interglacial periods.
The CRU emails and data computer files etc. deal with the last 1000 years. How convenient and silly. Our situation is not defined by a 1000 year window. Let’s wake up.
Roger Carr (23:34:33) : to Richard McGough (21:32:38) : Perhaps the old never put down to conspiracy…. adage applies here.
Wrong. Bad line and not applicable here. I meant that we should consider it is unlikely a conspiracy, but more a move for maximum spread in searching.
“As long as there is a continent on either pole, we will continue to be drawn into periods of glaciation and interglacial periods.”
Why?
Mike H. (01:56:48) :
“As long as there is a continent on either pole, we will continue to be drawn into periods of glaciation and interglacial periods.”
Why?
Mike, I am going to post up (with Anthony’s permission) the next part(s) of a series on the PaleoClimate next week. There will be a few other parts after that as well.
That question and lots of others will be answered.
Interesting to see several AGW proponents repositioning themselves outside of the team as voices of reason yet still believing in man made warming. There will be important positions to fill in the near future i.e. head of HCRU amongst many others. The leaders may change but will the methods?
Roger Carr (23:34:33) :
It could also be very annoying, Richard. It seems to me quite reasonable that Google would make this move to unlink the pairing in the interests of all searching climate as surely many will be looking for this subject alone without gates or fences.
Perhaps the old never put down to conspiracy…. adage applies here.
Good point Roger. I got a little hot under the collar and now after a good nights sleep I see that understatements are generally best.
Wrong. Bad line and not applicable here. I meant that we should consider it is unlikely a conspiracy, but more a move for maximum spread in searching.
I agree that we should never jump to conclude a “conspiracy” but in this case it is not much of a jump since Google has censorship code in place. With just a few keystrokes they can eliminate keywords from their autocomplete suggestion list and they have a strong motivation to do it so it seems more likely than merely looking to maximize a search spread.
Thanks for your comments.
I just switched my configuration so bing is my preferred search engine. I have been uncomfortable with some of Google’s positions for some time, and I see no reason to support their advertisement revenue stream by using them, if they are going to actively manipulate search results to serve a political agenda, instead of being an honest broker of information.
Larry
Ref: Dennis Wingo (21:29:34) post:Words from President Eisenhower on the CRU Scandal
The point Dennis (and Eisenhower) makes is bigger than GW. It has to do with the corruption of science via government. And vice versa The specific case is: perhaps government funds GW science as long as GW provides info supporting the expansion of government. And perhaps many GW researchers understand that and accommodate the government agenda in return for funding.
For some reason this bigger issue never gets traction.
Mike H. and Bill Illis,
My statement in my earlier post, represents my understanding of our current state. I am not an expert in paleoclimatology. My background is engineering, law and public policy. Research in climate and related fields, both current and paleo, is a hobby I adopted a half dozen years ago. I’m glad Bill is finalizing his post related to this topic. We will all learn together. Its time to revisit these issues of paleoclimate changes that we can expect to repeat. My personal concern is that we (or our children) will physically revisit these issues before we are ready to deal with them. Especially since we are focusing, as a globe, on the opposite.
So Bill, we look forward to your posting.
Thank you
In January 2008 Eli Rabett answered to Morano (see , http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/01/list-for-morano-like-john-hersey-eli.html).
He compiled a list of what Rabett named as “true scientists” (versus the Morano’ list)-Mr. Zorita was in that list as a true scientist. I wonder if after Zorita statement about Jones, Mann, etc, the “true scientist” Zorita will be downgraded by Rabett to “mccarthy” Zorita. Curiously Von Storch, a close colleague from Zorita, was not in the Rabett list.
best
REPLY: Anything from that boorish troll is worthless. Science of repute is not conducted by people that hide behind cute names. – Anthony
A new asset class is being created. One that can be traded like gold or coal.
The one glaring lie in the whole account is that they were unable to respond to FOI requests because to do so would have slowed down their research efforts.
That is a first class flat out lie. They could have had a team of “under” scientists who could keep up with the research findings and attend to FOI requests without delaying research.
They have told a stupid, pointless, thoughtless lie. There must be a reason to do so and lies are told to cover and patch up previous lies.
This AGW research is just a cover for a big slug of snake oil. If those in Copenhagen vote for a worldwide cap and trade or sequestration of carbon we are all in deep doo doo because the barons and politicians who stand to benefit hugely will take that money from us. These “movers and shakers” will reward their good scientists and media friends and themselves of course, all at our expense.
There is absolutely no way of knowing if CO2 is the root of all our evils but we are being railroaded into something very costly and with no known efficacy. The research hasn’t been done as the emails blatantly show.
What will stop Copenhagen doing the wrong thing?
Regarding the ethics of reading the CRU emails, I liken the situation to the discovery of smoke emerging from the roof of a public building from whence the alarm is heard. It is far more important and urgent to avert the impending disaster than it is to question who tripped the alarm and why.
The UN conspirators will close ranks and protect the Jones-Wigley-Mann gang from any negative publicity: click
Academic and scientific integrity requires that any paper that was based in whole or part on the work of these conspirators be withdrawn pending full review.