We’ve all pretty much had it up to our keesters with the brusque and dismissive treatment that commenters who don’t agree with the RC world view get over there. This is why many of us have simply given up trying, there’s no point in attempting to have a relevant and open discussion there anymore.
It should be foremost on the minds of many that the RealClimate.org webserver domain is funded by Fenton Communications, an eco media group. Further, our tax dollars pay the salaries of people like Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS who has been (according to several post and comment times noted) using his taxpayer paid time at work to participate in that blog.
One of the missions of RC (Actually most of the mission, as it was setup as a response to the McIntyre and McKitrick paper in E&E, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 14 NUMBER 6, November 1st 2003) is to counter skeptical arguments. One of the ways they do this in to provide a list of people they disagree with, with links to rebuttals.
Long before RC went online, we have this 10/31/2003 email from Michael Mann, excerpt:
Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader case against MM. So I look forward to peoples attempts to revise the first part in particular.
Steve McIntyre started ClimateAudit on 10/26/2004. Here is his very first blog post.
RealClimate.org was registered November 19th, 2004 – see the WHOIS screencap.
Today, while searching for something else, I found myself looking at this list. It reads like a who’s who of climate skeptics, but for one telling and glaring omission…
Here’s the list at RCWiki done as a screencap below and to a PDF file , so that Gavin or Mike or some other team member can’t fix it fast and then claim I “simply didn’t see it”.
Steve McIntyre is missing. Ross McKitrick is missing.
Why?
Because Gavin and Mike and the other Team members know that M&M is right, and they don’t want to draw any attention to it themselves, particularly now. They don’t want RC to have a discussion on the faulty dendro and dubious statistical issues that are fairly presented in peer review by M&M, even though there has been a concerted effort by Team members and associates to stifle publication of dissenting views.
RC and in particular Mann, don’t want to focus on the data, statistical failures, or process, but instead on the “stolen emails” and how they “don’t change the conclusion”. It’s spin cycle science.
A way RC might try to spin this omission would be to say that they don’t consider the argument of M&M valid or prominent, but that won’t fly because they have dismissals listed there of arguments many lesser known skeptics, who have not published a peer reviewed paper, such as Lucy Skywalker. That’s nothing against you Lucy, just an example.
Inarguably, McIntyre and McKitrick are now the two most well known skeptics on the planet, and they are about to become even more well known with a Fox News special tonight.
Yet RC’s world view of Climategate and M&M’s vindication in the emails revealed is to say “it doesn’t matter”, it doesn’t change the conclusions of climate science.” Yeah right, just keep singing that tune.
What Climategate shows more than anything is that the climate science process has been corrupted by a few people with influence, and RC is the centerpiece for showcasing the Team consensus of that corruption.
UPDATE: I made chronology typo in the original posting, fixed within minutes thanks to many commenters who pointed it out. – Anthony
WE ARE THE VOLUNTEER POLICE OF THE CURRICULUM!
Loved one phrase used on the WAPO comments by a sceptic, calling Mann et al “Crimatologists”!
“evanmjones (15:37:57) :
By the way, I don’t believe for one minute that the raw data compares with the cooked version.”
I’m sure you’re right and that’s an issue in itself, but I was just amused that over at RealClimate they would waste their time trying to prove that a choice of stations with a ‘good’ history was a choice of stations that required little adjustments.
Then again – maybe I’m not that surprised after all.
To link this, a previous article, and climategate all together:
William Connelley part of “internal peer review process at RC”
From 1139504822.txt:
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: paper in this Friday’s Science
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:07:02 -0500
Reply-to: mann@psu.edu
Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
Guys,
A final revised version attached. I’m expecting the embargo to lift at
midnight east coast U.S., but let me know if you hear otherwise. I will
make sure the science website has posted the paper before posting myself…
mike
Tim Osborn wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> thanks for putting this together, Mike. It is a nice summary plus
> drawing out of the important strands etc. I especially like “might be
> likened in shape to a certain implement used in a popular North
> American winter sport” – Keith thinks you must mean a “ski”?
>
> The only negative thing I have to say is that you get in a couple of
> “digs” at the sceptics which might unnecessarily rankle readers. e.g.
> *astronomers* Soon and Baliunas; *unbridled* cherry picking. Still,
> it’s your name that’s attached to this piece, so it’s up to you to dig
> if you want.
>
> Cheers and thanks again
>
> Tim
>
> At 13:42 09/02/2006, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> Maybe Science can still fix (at least, the online version?). I
>> wouldn’t lose sleep over this though. As typos go, its relatively minor.
>>
>> I must confess that I scavanged a figure off your page proofs. As the
>> piece won’t go online until after the article goes up on Science’s
>> website, shouldn’t matter what the source was though…
>>
>> I’ve attached the piece in word format. Hyperlinks are still there,
>> but not clickable in word format. I’ve already given it a good
>> go-over w/ Gavin, Stefan, and William Connelley (our internal “peer
>> review” process at RC), so I think its in pretty good shape. Let me
>> know if any comments…
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Mike
Whoohoo the RC supporters are now collectively branding skeptics as supporters of “Anti-Science”. Oh the irony!
Fenton might be clever but I don’t believe that even he will reverse the groundswell of public anger over the bad science, media manipulations and scientific journal bullying undertaken by the CRU and their cohorts.
“Yet RC’s world view of Climategate and M&M’s vindication in the emails revealed is to say “it doesn’t matter”, it doesn’t change the conclusions of climate science.” Yeah right, just keep singing that tune.”
Cop-15 was the culmination of a 20 plus year effort to
push forward an agenda, whatever it was. Their failure
to provide the cove will not go unnoticed. If I were them,
I’d be looking for a nice place to hide.
Oh Come On Now!
RC is back up, never been there before, and what are the lead stories?
Example 1:
Jim Hansen’s opinion
Filed under:
* Climate Science
— eric @ur momisugly 18 December 2009
Several people have written saying that it would be useful to have an expert opinion on the state of the surface temperature data from someone other than RealClimate members.
Here you go:
TemperatureOfScience.pdf
You don’t get more expert than Jim Hansen.
Example 2:
More independent views: Myles Allen and Ben Santer
Filed under:
* Climate Science
— eric @ur momisugly 18 December 2009
Three more commentaries by experts not associated with RealClimate.
Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Ben Santer again
Myles Allen, University of Oxford
It’s worth noting that Allen has published commentary that is critical of RealClimate.
Hansen is neck deep in this fraudulent mess, I just read this American Thinker piece of how Santer is also in it, and they are being passed off as non-RC thus “independent” people?
And who is Myles Allen? I can already tell I shouldn’t expect much of an “independent” viewpoint from him.
(My apologies if this is somehow a double post as first time didn’t seem to take, “next stage” URL was “#comment-268316” but that’s not working right.)
Because Gavin and Mike and the other Team members know that M&M is right, and they don’t want to draw any attention to it themselves, particularly now.
Firstly, the wiki is a supplement to the RealClimate site, and as is the nature of wikis, edited by readers rather than the site’s proprietors.
Secondly, the null hypothesis seems to be that RC have conceded that their disagreement over the M&M criticisms have no merit and are attempting to avoid coverage of this fact.
Yet, these posts remain available to all readers
False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick”
On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick
Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy
The missing piece at the Wegman hearing
etc ….
And, just recently, in the wake of the Yamal business (what happened there, btw?)
You can’t generally get away with imprecise suggestions that something might matter for the bigger picture without actually showing that it does. It does matter whether something ‘matters’, otherwise you might as well be correcting spelling mistakes for all the impact it will have.
So go on Steve, surprise us
Hardly consistent with the picture of a cowed ‘Team’ conceding that McIntyre has won any kind of argument is it? Hypothesis is falsified.
Jimbo (14:26:57) :
Your list needs an addition or two. One of them is none of the Doomers act like they think there really is a problem themselves. They all keep right on burning fossil fuels as fast or faster than anyone else. Every layperson can see that. (See you in Kyoto, Bali, Copenhagen, etc.)
Mann is now at Pennstate. I’ll bet my next lunch he hasn’t spent two hours learning to live like the nearby Amish.
If they want me to believe something is a crisis, the first step needs to be acting like they actually believe it.
Really OT, almost
ScienceDaily
“Jabba the Cat (13:53:38) :
Fascinating documentary from Ch4 17 years ago questioning the validity of the Global Warming scare.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010&hl=en#
”
Thanks for that link! Just watched the entire thing, i didn’t even remember that the scaremongering has been going on for so long! Different faces, same story. They already mention the MWP… probably the MWP was well known before Fenton’s Team tried to make mankind forget about it…
And BTW, why not call the Team “Team Fenton” from now on ? 😉
Kitefreak (11:45:59) :
And here’s Al Gore – from Saturday – spouting lie after fatuous lie on a ‘news program’, which tries to appear like a debate…
I know it’s hard to watch Al Gore for eight minutes, but, if you want to, here’s the link:
Warning: once he gets into his stride it’s a real torrent of lies and Bad Science – it may make you angry…
I find his views on nuclear power very interesting. He is not opposed to it, he claims, but he then lists all the reasons not to have it, including not allowing those who ‘we do not think should have it’ access to nuclear weapns technology.
I am not confident that that is a powerful argument, because a power plant only provides the material (and I understand there are plants that do not?), not the technology. I also think it is more likely he does not like it because he does not have any investment in it. Whereas solar he does, and supports, yet the technology is so expensive it is far more costly than nuclear (as I understand it – that understanding may be limited, I accept).
Inarguably, McIntyre and McKitrick are now the two most well known skeptics on the planet, and they are about to become even more well known with a Fox News special tonight.
I would suggest the Christopher Monckton and Chris Horner of CEI have done a very good job of explaining the skeptic position – especially on TV.
John in NZ (13:03:52) :
“Can someone please tell me what the Fox News Special about Climate change is called. I want to record it but cannot find it. I should be at 3pm Monday NZ time but my TV planner says that is a Hannity time slot.”
I believe it’s titled “Global Warming or a Lot of Hot Air?”
Hannity is normally what would be there in that time slot, however this is a special and Hannity won’t be on and your planner hasn’t updated with the change.
John in NZ (13:03:52) :
“Can someone please tell me what the Fox News Special about Climate change is called. I want to record it but cannot find it. I should be at 3pm Monday NZ time but my TV planner says that is a Hannity time slot.”
Well, I find it interesting that Marc Morano is not mentioned anywhere. Or is he just an accumulator who will debate?
To me this Wiki looks like the ideal fallback position for William Conolly to work from now he has “stood aside” from Wikipedia. As for the list of sceptics, we can speculate on its logic till the cows come home, a bit pointless really.
Kitefreak (11:45:59) :
“And here’s Al Gore – from Saturday – spouting lie after fatuous lie on a ‘news program’, which tries to appear like a debate…”
What a pathetic piece of journalism. I wonder if Al wrote the script they had. John Roberts supposedly had spent “days” reviewing climategate and while Al described why “deniers” were off base because the the peer review process weeds out incorrect science, Roberts had no follow-up on the corruption of peer review process by the Motley CRU. Interestingly, Gore never used the words “peer review”.
The green tears at the Guardian are encapsulated by the next paragraph.
My response which will not see the light of day there hopefully will shine here.
“John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: “The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport.”
Stacey says:-
The crimes are the salaries green peace directors pay themselves.
Global warming is man made up, move on take the paid beggars of greenpeace off the streets of London on £4 per hour whilst the Directors get £100 per hour.
Capitalism is alive and kicking in the green corridors of the sanctimonious hypocrites?
Trick or Cheat.
Comment is free if you agree but of course this will be posted elsewhere. Where freedom of expression prevails.
It’s Controlfreakism.
Judging from all the comments at WaPo, there is a great deal of anger with Mann et al, or at least dismissive disgust. I think the fraud resonates far more powerfully than an uptick in a manipulated graph.
I think Shakespeare put it best when Hamlet said:
To cheat, or not to cheat, – that is the question: –
Whether ‘tis easier in science to create
The graphs and charts by manipulation,
and make fake warming from all too flat data,
So by amending trend it? – To lie, to cheat, –
What’s more, and by a cheat to say we use
A trick, aye, and the thousand clever tweaks
Our code is there for, – toward a conclusion
Devoutly to be wish’d. To lie, to cheat; –
To cheat, perchance to scheme: – ay, there’s the rub;
For from those peaking temps what schemes may come,
When we have shuffled all this data just
To serve a cause: Raise the prospect
That makes calamity of a long life,
For who would bear the higher temps in time,
The oppressive heat, the planet’s undoing?
Harangues our global gov: “this end – delay!”
Doth not the British Met office daily warn
This gradient cannot be sustained?
So what man would speak bare truths
When he himself might the planet save
With a bare fibbing? Who would these taxes bear,
To grunt and sweat under onerous rates,
But that the dread of planetary death,
The predicted future, for whose doom
No taxpayer yearns, – will foot the bill,
And makes us rather feed the till this day
Than wait for the costs that we know naught of?
Thus the science does make patsies of us all;
And thus the native dose of common sense
Is shouted o’er with the pretense of science;
And many countries of great wealth and fortune
Will then collapse, their currencies awry,
And lose the name of nations. But e-mails
Our plot hath exposed! Now, in editorials
Be all our sins considered.
Well, maybe Hamlet didn’t exactly phrase it that way, but I adjusted the text to account for errors in the original folios, applying standard statistical techniques well-established in peer-reviewed Shakespeare journals.
Slightly off topic, but I just noticed something in Tim O’s email, cited by Mr Mann in the link, that I think is quite telling. You know the business in which Mann et all keep saying that they needn’t give data out to those examining their results because it’s all in the public domain, and Steve M would reply that it was impossible to determine which trees (etc.) were actually used in the calculations?
Tim admits as much, and the language he uses would seem to indicate that this was an intentional device to prevent duplication:
Typical Ray at RC
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unforced-variations/
79.Howard S. @ur momisugly70
Bwaaahaaahaaahaaa. Oh thanks, Howard. I needed a laugh. WUWT performs a very useful service for RC. It serves as an asylum and echo chamber and keeps the loonier elements from polluting otherwise worthwhile discussions. But I have zero interest in “engaging” with the inmates there.
Comment by Ray Ladbury — 20 December 2009 @ur momisugly 6:34 PM
@ur momisugly AdderW (16:13:19)
Found the original press release. So the Mackenzie Delta region was never tree-cored before for a temperature analysis? How many other places have never been done?
The article sort of explains why they choose these slow-growing tiny trees, but given all the factors that can result in such stunted growth I have trouble seeing how temperature alone gets credited for the differences. Can’t they go core some gigantic ancient redwoods?
The most troubling bit though is this:
Isotope signals, on the other hand, are often very similar between trees. This means researchers can gather accurate data from three or four trees instead of the 20 they might need for tree ring width analysis.
Wasn’t that part of Briffa’s problem, using only 3 or so trees? Besides, if isotope signals are so good they overcome the usual problems with rings, then those redwoods should be ideal. See article, they are using these tiny trees only because they are old and still standing. Well, so are the redwoods. Heck, I believe they have a few old large trees down in the Amazonian rain forest. Get them sampled as well. Let’s get lots of tree ring datasets, we need more and better data!