The always sharp Jo Nova tips us to this:
Here’s a Spectacular Poster of ClimateGate covering 3 decades
You have to see this to believe it. Look up close and admire the detail while you despair at how long science has been going off the rails. To better appreciate the past and what was exposed by the CRU emails, the time-line chart consolidates and chronologically organizes the information uncovered and published about the CRU emails by many researchers along with some related contextual events. That the chart exists at all is yet another example of how skilled experts are flocking in to the skeptics position and dedicating hours of time pro bono because they are passionately motivated to fight against those who try to deceive us.
Click on the image to see it enlarged, but download the full PDF to see the detail.
Download The PDF (788k)
Mohib Ebrahim has created this amazing document. I’ve created a permanent Home page for this beautiful poster that will host the latest updates of this enormous Timeline as a PDF. There are also printable versions in A4, A3, A2, US letter and US tabloid for those of you (like me) who need printed versions to scribble on, and scrawl exclamation marks.
@berniel (15:18:24) :
Thanks for posting that Crichton speech (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html).
That is terrific speech, and probably deserves a position in the formidable time-line presented above. Crichton’s warning that we’ll continue to see things like this AGW hoax in the future is chilling, and perhaps his recommended solution is something that needs serious consideration. I think too, that serious consideration should be given to prison sentences and “drumming out of the Corps” (i.e. firings and inability ever again to get a grant from public monies) for some who have perpetrated this sorry saga. That would perhaps somewhat deter future examples.
When the final edited and corrected version is available, people might consider donating copies to the local high schools science department. It would be interesting to see if any faculty or administrations are brave enough to post it in a class room.
Some community colleges allow groups to post banners and such in their hallways and study areas. Use this as an “invitation” for students to attend a seminar on ethics in science. Include some historical information on other hoaxes like piltdown man, and you have an elective course at a free university.
Larry
[PLEASE STOP CARPET BOMBING WUWT WITH REQUESTS THAT PEOPLE VISIT A WEBSITE AND LEAVE COMMENTS – THIS MAKES THE 7TH COMMENT ON VARIOUS THREADS YOU’VE LEFT, ALL HAVE BEEN DELETED BUT FOR ONE- ALL FURTHER COMMENTS OF THIS TYPE WILL BE DELETED – Anthony]
It is not my intention to “carpet bomb.”
I spend all my free time trying to post at the MSM Op Ed. I get censored.
When the WaPo ran an Op Ed by Michael Mann, I broadcast it and the editorial got hundreds of useful comments full of sound facts.
Today I found the PBS site, and hoped we could do the same.
These opportunities do not come easily.
Where do you suggest I post the opportunities?
nice work of arranging facts and number timelinely
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/19/manns-wapo-editorial/
T Luxe:
As complete as this flow chart is, it is missing two key elements.
1. The history of events that led to the formation of the IPCC.
2. Willian Connolly’s manipulation of facts in Wikipedia.
3. There is also the incredible story of how mainstream media completely ignored the entire scandal while aggressively supporting the AGW hypothesis. This scientific fraud could not have happened if reporters had simply done their jobs all along.
Excellent points — but there’s so much on the chart it’s like a treasure hunt. Great thing about the PDF is you can search it!!
1) Some of the key events leading up to the IPCC (like the two Villach conferences) are mentioned but a reference to your document would be worth while for those who want the full story.
2) Connolly has a place of honour right at the top with his own box.
3) The media sleeping on the job is mentioned at the end of the intro article. Perhaps more could be said?
Here’s a link from NASA to the same global average temperature graph:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php
“The first reliable global measurements of temperature from NASA, published by Hansen and his colleagues in 1981, showed a modest warming from 1880 to 1980, with only a slight dip in temperatures from 1940 to 1970. (Graph adapted from Hansen et al. 1981.”
Why is it so different to hadcrut3 from 1880 to 1910 ?
Who is Mohib Ebrahim?
Any information would be appreciated.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
My thanks to Anon. I have downloaded all 28 pages and will now spend Xmas afternoon pasting them together instead of doing the usual jigsaw puzzle.
Here’s a little tidbit that should be added to the big picture. I found it while browsing through John Costella’s analysis at http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/.
From June 11, 2008: email 1213201481
Phil Jones to Mike Mann, on Mann’s nomination of Jones for a Fellowship of the American Geophysical Union:
“On [point] 1 [i.e. what Mann called ‘N’], this is what people call the H index. I’ve tried working this out and there is software for it on the [W]eb of [S]cience [website]. Problem is my surname. I get a number of 62 if I just use the software, but I have too many papers. I then waded through and deleted those in journals I’d never heard of and got 52. I think this got rid of some biologist from the 1970s/1980s, so go with 52.”
Mike Mann:
“OK—thanks, I’ll just go w[ith] the H=62. That is an impressive number and almost certainly higher than the vast majority of A[merican] G[eophysical] U[nion] Fellows.”
I mean it’s not like he’s making the number up is it?!
Excuse me if this link has been published before, but I just located it. It’s a blow-by-blow analysis of the Climategate e-mails. It exposes the lengths to which scientists will go to maintain their consensus. http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
The author, John Costello, would be twice as effective if he were half as accusatory, but you can mentally tone down his language as you read it.
Well the chronology is interesting and adds some worth to the poster but sadly most of the commentary boxes show such a premeditated bias as to be worthy of Mann, Jones et al.
There is absolutely no point in stooping to their level in an attempt to rebutt their poor science. One unfounded claim vs another does not advance the science. This is what tarnishes healthy sceptical science with the label “deniers”.
I have been a regular visitor to this site because of it’s objectivity. I hope this kind of material does not get prominence here in the future.
It’s a shame, the idea is very good and putting all the events in a historical framework is helpful.
The utterly biased comment boxes undermine the credibility of much of what is presented.
We could perhaps work out the source of the “leak” of the Climategate e-mails if it originates from the CRU. Firstly, determine the numbers of e-mails per team member in the CRU; then list the members of the team, and then see who is “missing” as a source of the e-mails, or who is the source of “minor” e-mails only. I suspect rather strongly from the style and selectivity of the e-mails posted on the web that the leak is internal rather than an external hack into the CRU e-mail server.
@P. Solar 09:44:36
Examples, please, of the biases you detect. One man’s biases are another man’s facts.
Little off topic but is this true? Has anyone else heard about this or confirmed it …
http://www.timothybirdnow.com/?p=2645
Ron De Haan
Global Warming alarmism is clearly in trouble.
Concrete criminal charges are filed against CRU and Michael Mann.
They also have acquired funding for a real long trial.
REPLY: Ron De Haan better backup with attribution where he got the “Concrete criminal charges are filed” line, becuase I see no evidence of it anywhere, and appears to be a fabrication. I see no evidence of truth here by De Haan – Anthony
I agree with Gregg E; the work that’s been put into this is very impressive, but it needs a solid proofread for grammar issues. I noticed several errors during my brief perusal of only part of the chart.
Seems like an update with corrections is in the works:
… Therefore, I welcome all feedback on improvements, glaring omissions, or factual errors, grammatical or other silly errors (like mixing up a source), and/or rewording that would make a point more accurate or less open to misinterpretation, etc. etc. Being a one-man show trying to keep some 35 pages of densely packed facts and text accurate (yes, that’s how much is actually on the chart, although two-thirds is probably quotations), I’m sure there are many typos and grammatical errors. I plan to do an update to fix mistakes, …
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/climategate-30-years-in-the-making/comment-page-4/#comment-21494
Hi Anthony,
Just a short note to thank you for featuring my ClimateGate timeline on your site a few weeks back. Since then, for the past 4 weeks, it’s been revised, edited and updated by a dedicated volunteer group. I wanted to advise you the latest version has just been published on JoNova’s site and I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to help spread the word and let everyone know.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/finally-the-new-revised-and-edited-climategate-timeline/
Thanks for your help and support.
Best regards,
Mohib