Given the volume of posts here on the issue and elsewhere, I’ve decided to start a repository for reference purposes.
I’ve added a “Climategate” page on WUWT and put all relevant WUWT posts in it. But I need help in adding more. Here are the details:
- We need additional outside links. You can add these in comments to the Climategate page which is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ You can also see it on the menu bar below the masthead.
- I need a librarian volunteer to help with populating this page. My workload and that of the moderators is getting excessive. I can’t get regular work done as it is. The requirements for anyone who wishes to volunteer are full disclosure to me of who you are, along with email exchanges and a telephone interview. I don’t take the task of giving edit access to WUWT lightly. Its all work and no pay, but it has its rewards.
- I think we need a climategate logo – submissions welcome in comments, just post it up on tinypic or flickr or some web image sharing service and put the URL in comemnts. Please stay away from anything derogatory. Here’s your chance to make an interesting artful contribution.
Thank you for your consideration.
Anthony
@Me (02:50:31):
Humm, for some reason, that free webhost seems to be picking up a referrer and not displaying the logo unless you copy/paste. Weirdness.
This should work:
http://www.proveit.isgreat.org/logo.html
not really a Logo. I will cook one up later. This one just came to mind when I sat down and I followed …
http://i48.tinypic.com/b48935.jpg
Still not a logo and I know that I am a horrible person and will go to hell (not only for this mind you) http://i48.tinypic.com/15f26mt.jpg
My entry for the logo in the spirit of “I am not a Crook”
http://tinypic.com/r/nfl3x4/6
royfomr (18:22:13) :
“Just do your job MSM folks and let the truth come out. Anything else is just anti-human . . . ”
Hear, hear!
or modify DadVinci’s excellent logo to something like this (can’t see if anyone’s already done this)
[IMG]http://i47.tinypic.com/2dumb2q.jpg[/IMG]
http://tinypic.com/r/2dumb2q/6
Climategate is finally making headway in Australia. Listen to this report on the ABC Radio National “Counterpoint” interview with Aynsley Kellow
Professor and Head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania. Expert reviewer for the the United Nation’s IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change and Key Vulnerabilities.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2757619.htm
Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood this ClimateGate issue, but is it about a group of highly influential climate scientists that have worked in cahoots with each other to create a graphical representation of the global temperatures for the past thousand years that uses some pretty clever statistical techniques and computer algorithms to suppress the Medieval Warm Period, thaw out the Little Ice Age and grossly exaggerate 20th Century warming?
….(Quick pause to take a breath)…
When asked to explain how they created this graph, am I right to say that these same highly influential scientists have claimed to have lost the original data and will not release the algorithms in case someone criticises them?
I think it should be called FabriGate not ClimateGate!
I find it depressing to think that this is the state of Climate Science.
Still here’s a joke to cheer us up:
What is the difference between a Mann with a broken hockey stick and a constipated bird?
A Mann with a broken hockey stick swings but can’t hit and a constipated bird has wings but can’t ****!
Great site Anthony!
I’m a little fed up with the arrogance at Google. I left this message for them… not that it will do any good!
I thought your philosophy was that you would never use the “power” of Google to affect, intrude or alter the “will of the people”. It is obvious to me that you have decided, through your personal beliefs, to turn off the auto prompt for CLIMATEGATE to assist in making searches just a little more difficult for “we the people” because it disagrees with your opinions. So much for freedom of speech and expression at Google!
Kim de Lacy – Australia
kdelacy@gmail.com
http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php
This guy posted a “nothing to see here, move along” article but now says…
One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence. This is something that Henderson’s study raised, and it was also emphasised in the Wegman report on the Hockey Stick, and in other independent studies of the Hockey Stick controversy. Of course it is also an ongoing issue in Steve McIntyre’s campaign to get hold of data and methods. Nonetheless I had given it insufficient weight. Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.
I’m also surprised by the IPCC’s response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.) At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side “deniers”.
I came across this excellent analysis on an econ blog: http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10436.html
It deserves to be part of any reference.
MH (03:17:41) :
“To me DadVinci’s hockey stick looks a bit like a rifle or a gun. Maybe by adding some smoke it could be turned into a smoking gun or a hockey stick firing back.”
How about a hockey stick whose blade has bent around 180 degrees and has back-fired a “smoking gun” along its shaft (back at its wielder)? I think that packs a lot into a simple image that will immediately communicate a nicely laden message.
I see a theme emerging !
Here’s my initial idea. Will have another go tomorrow when I get near my computer with Photoshop.
http://www.kane-tv.com/wuwt/cg1.jpg
I would suggest a Unicorn as the Climategate logo … for a large portion of earths history everyone just “knew” they existed and plenty of con men made up artifacts to sell “proving” their existance …
I believe the CRU FOIA request process goes something like this …
1) First Request – ignore it
2) Second Request – insist data is available elsewhere
3) Third Request – insist data is “private”
4) Fourth Request – delete the data
5) Fifth Request – admit the data was “lost” due to space considerations (hard drives and DVD discs are expensive)
The Iconoclast (09:58:54) :
He’s now adopting the
MoonbatMonbiot strategy; admit those caught were wrong, but assert that there is a lot more “science” that supports AGW, so just clean up that mess and everything will be fine. They refuse to admit it’s dead.All
If any further proof where needed that the online media’s coverage of this knocks the combined output of the MSM into a cocked ten gallon hat, try this excellent summary from Andrew Orlowski of The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/
Here’s a graphic you can have if it suits. http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/pzx5U09Fh3NplUGipfvTww?feat=directlink
I stayed with classic B&W but color could be added easily.
I appreciate all that you are doing and can’t thank you enough for your informative site.
Rosemary: I like it, but it would be a bit better if it were the thumb that’s on the scale.
Made an image, that is free to use wherever you want, let’s go viral.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DTk1uyG8OXE/SxRoOkfmKoI/AAAAAAAAAV8/jiCY52rEJRY/S1600-R/climategate_lets_go_viral_image.jpg
Apparently the BBC’s weatherman had the emails a month before we did, but he sat on them. Probably didn’t want them to surface before Copenhagen. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html
And when someone brings up the old red-herring about skeptics being profusely funded by big oil, show them all the money thrown around at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/grants.htm And yes, it’s *THAT* Briffa and *THAT* Jones.
AUSSIES MAY BE ABLE TO AVERT DISASTER FOR THEMSELVES
http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSSYU00909820091130
Rosemary Meling (14:43:46) :
Of all the other clever, funny and well done logos, I think yours perhaps has all the right elements, without being too busy. You’ve got my vote.
Walter Dnes,
That second link was an eye opener. From perusing the entities [Eco-change, SCORCHIO, etc.] that are shoveling cash into these public employees’ pockets, the scientists are in effect working for two bosses: the grantor, and the taxpayers.
For example, Phil Jones pocketed around £50,000 for the following study [see if you can spot the agenda]:
So we have a situation where trusts, foundations, quangos and foreign governments all give these folks lots of money [over $22 million to Phil Jones alone] in order to buy a pre-ordained conclusion, which the grantor can point to as an authority because it has the college’s imprimatur and the name of a [formerly] respected scientist.
But where does that leave the taxpayers, who provide these scientists with their weekly paychecks? Certainly they are not getting the unbiased science from their public employees that they are paying for.
These grants are a corrupting influence. Grants of any kind should be given directly to the organization the scientist works for, not to the individual. But as we see, it is the individual who is named as the grantee.
Not many people, whether or not they are scientists, will give a paying grantor a conclusion the grantor doesn’t like. The message is clear: support our agenda — or our grant money will go to someone else who does.
Alan Caruba has a nice “logo” in his post on the topic.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Mpd1ozuoa64/SxLjRD39XBI/AAAAAAAABXM/0NpVsKJJ5rw/s1600/Cartoon+-+Climate+Science.png
There is a good discussion going on here:
http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/