Here’s something rather astonishing.
The Institute of Physics, has made a statement about climate science.
IOP issued a no holds barred statement on Climategate to the UK Parliamentary Committee. Here’s the key passages:
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ’self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.
8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.
9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.
11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.
12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.
How independent are the other two international data sets?
13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.
Clearly a sleeping giant has awakened.
Andrew Bolt muses:
This submission in effect warns that this recent warming may not be unprecedented, after all, and those that claim it is may have been blinded by bias or simply fiddled their results and suppressed dissent.
I’ll repeat: Climategate reveals the greatest scientific scandal of our lifetime.
Oops! It should be “Parliamentary” in line one of the above.
Finally – FINALLY
“David L (11:20:08) :
Congratulations to the IOP. Their statement is completely on target. It’s great they focused on the scientific method and not on the science itself.”
Pull the rug under their feet and they fall. What science? Conjecture built upon conjecture. Hansen citing hansen.
Stephen Brown (11:13:47) :
And another Memorandum to the Committee from a post-graduate student of the UAE who, it appears, is non-too pleased with his erstwhile alma mater!
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0702.htm
Stephen, did you notice that the Student is a very Pro AGW person and is annoyed that Climategate has brought suspicion on AGW before Copenhagen was signed up.
Not absolute anger that the Uni and Hockey Team were cheating, just that they got caught.
Absolutely typical.
kadaka (11:13:08) :
davidmhoffer (09:50:52) :
(…) Along with the IOP, there are two more papers, once from the Royal Statistics Society and the other from the Royal Society of Chemists. (…)
Physics, chemistry, statistics…
What other scientific fields did these “climatologists” simultaneously declare their mastery of to claim their unquestionable authority?
————-
Reply:
AGWers hate geologists and for good reason, since scientific fraud by AGWers flies in the face of geology that considers the earth way before a thousand years or two. So on some disciplines, the “climatologists” have declared their mastery while completely ignoring others.
As a new science, “climatology” reminds me of an out-of-control adolescent that has yet to learn the valuable lessons in life. Well, they are about to.
AC, even so his Memorandum is absolutely shattering. The last bit where falsifying data as being SOP at UEA is stunning!
Interesting that this is still a UK based issue.
There are other science and engineering professional organizations in the world that could chime in, but don’t seem to want the tag of not accepting the AGW theory. What IPO has done is to separate the conclusion (AGW) from the process (scientific method). This approach opens a window.
It would be good if other scientific/engineering organizations could now step forward in defense of the scientific method (and let the AGW issue alone). The Scientific Method argument will ultimately trump the work to date that supports the AGW theory, because of its shoddy scientific basis.
Policyguy
Stephen Brown (11:13:47) :
Stephen, did you notice that the Student is a very Pro AGW person and is annoyed that Climategate has brought suspicion on AGW before Copenhagen was signed up.
Not absolute anger that the Uni and Hockey Team were cheating, just that they got caught.
Absolutely typical.
A true believer. 20 virgins in paradise for that man.
Doug in Dunedin (12:06:22)
Yes, I saw that. The disheartened zealot is one of the worst enemies to have, and the UEA has got a really good one in this Student. Imagine how you would feel if your tutor had ruined your chances of World Domination and a crack at 20 virgins!
@Doug in dunedin.
He can’t spell, either. Repeatedly uses it’s instead of its.
Kadaka;
Too bad “computer science” might not qualify, as the “releasing of all code and data” tends to be frowned on…>>
But I think it does, though they like the kind of professional organization that the chemists, physicists and statisticans have (to my knowledge) but they should be waving the red flag too. Any competent IT shop would have has that “misplaced data” and any deleted e-mails on a backup tape provided that the information was on the server for more than 24 hours. They either lack competance, or are being very quiet about what is in their backup tapes. Just as I’ve been asking for physicists in particular to step up to the plate, I wish more people from my industry would step up on this issue as well. If they truly don’t have copies of that data that some researchers can’t find, then I want to know how it is that a government run organization doing research that could affect the lives of billions of people lacks the basic data protections policies and procedures that should be in place. Merrel Lynch (I think it was) faced a court ordered judgment over $1 billion for not doing backup and recovery and documentation of same correctly. There are compliance ande data retention laws in both Canada and the US, and not following them is a criminal matter. I don’t know the law on that matter in the UK, but they are likely similar, and the IT community should be weighing in on this issue if not the science, just as the other professional organizations just have.
I believe that IOP speaks for professional engineers as well in the UK (uncertain on exactly who that relationship works but there is one). I hope we see something from geologists though, I think that the other major discipline that needs to speak with a single voice.
Stephen Brown (12:26:08) :
Doug in Dunedin (12:06:22)
“The resultant catastrophic effect of the UEA’s actions on future generations, cannot be exaggerated,…”
Really?
My faith in the Physics establishment, which was flagging, is beginning to revive!
But will the broader science “establishment” follow? As hinted earlier in a post on this blog on Prof. Phil Jones’ interview, a critical issue is the undermining of the scientific method. IOP hit this nail on the head:
[Emphasis added.]
There is also a broader issue. In my opinion, the problem is not just with a few climate “scientists” but with science institutions — journals, academies, associations — that have been slow to insist that the scientific method be observed, and in some cases may even have condoned, by their silence, such subversion (by not insisting that the data, codes and methodologies be freely and openly shared, even when they have been paid for through the public purse). Thus comments to the CCSP from me as well as others, i’m sure, asking that this be done for temperature data and trends that were being displayed in various documents it was producing, were to little or no avail.
The fundamental issue here is how and why was this possible? Is this an inevitable consequence of big science that needs large infusions of dollars, which must almost certainly have to come from the government? Was it enabled by the fact that the institutions — as well as the researchers that depend on them — need these dollars to survive? And since the moneys are coming from public funds, there is a constant need to show that the problems that they are working on are critical to humanity (so that moneys continue to flow “here” and not “elsewhere”? Does this inevitably lead to hyperbole, and a little cutting of corners?
Although I am a big believer in technology (read my stuff at goklany.org), as a long time bureaucrat, I believe Eisenhower had it right when he said:
[From http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html; emphasis added]
Eisenhower’s insight was enabled by the fact that he spent virtually all his working life in the US military — one of the premiere burueacracies (like all successful militaries have to be) — and later the US government (yet another successful bureaucracy, at least at that time).
Today’s solitary inventor is the scientifically savvy blogger. But thanks to the Internet, (s)he is no longer solitary. And the “solitary inventor” is now part of a vibrant organism propagating information, knowledge and intelligence, even as it attempts to separate the chaff from the wheat. It is this organism that is perhaps the antidote to the scientific-technological elite, which unfortunately seems to have compromised the scientific method and believes that subsidies make a technology successful, forgetting that if a technology isn’t affordable and cannot hold it’s own in the open and free market, it’s no more than a toy (no matter how expensive).
I am honored to be part of this phenomenon, and a tip of the hat to the “nodes” — Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, the Pielkes, Bishop Hill, Air Vent, Lucia, Tom Nelson, among many others — who have made this possible.
I was wondering about all the people in the educational “pipeline” when this story first came out in November. Imagine having put the time, effort and finance into a PhD in Climatology only to have your “science” turn out to be a proven hoax.
I wonder how this one will play out in the courts, different countries, different legal systems, quite the mess. Here in the USA I could imagine a collection of undergraduates, graduates and doctoral students all getting together and filing a class action lawsuit against a group of universities foremost of which being Pennsylvania State University. The best strategy to persue in my opinion from the standpoint of the universities would be to attempt to settle out of court. One way or another, there’ll be a lot of money change hands here in the next couple of years.
Rhoda R (12:00:14) :
AC, even so his Memorandum is absolutely shattering. The last bit where falsifying data as being SOP at UEA is stunning!
———-
Reply: You’re right Rhoda. In fact, it’s so egregious I had to post it here for everybody to read. His third item is:
3. From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations. Hence the CRU in distorting information was manifestly in compliance with the University’s policies and practices. There is an urgent need for a wider remit, namely to look into the institutional failings of the UEA itself.
In compliance, eh? Now if that’s the kind of logic UEA instills in their graduate students, I’m absolutely gobsmacked! No wonder the UEA is having serious problems!
(BTW, I love the term “gobsmacked”; I’m from the USA but I still love it!)
James Delingpole of the Telegraph has an interesting take on this:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027748/the-real-reason-for-agw-post-normal-science/
I think he has a point. Ravetz is in his own league – his PNS when practised by scientists gives them a “moral” justification for lining up at the feeding trough of the IPCC and the family do-good touchy-feely scientific trusts, and delivering rice-bowl science. Very scary stuff. We may be seeing a form of western-style Lysenckoism writ large in our supposedly free society.
I am not happy about this. Many modern young scientists received “Post-Normal Education” in primary and secondary school, where their parents had no idea of the educational progress of their children and school reporting ensured that there were no failures. Everyone a winner, baby.
With that background, they would be almost certain to embrace PNS, holus bolus. It’s hard to suppress a shudder.
I hope that the IOP statement will be widely publicised and that some politicians will make it a priority to turn the tide against AGW and all of it’s costly consequences.
As a footnote, there are imminent elections in the Netherlands. One political party has a terrifying campaign slogan: “Geen kind van school zonder diploma”.
Yep – you guess right. If they gain power, no child will leave school without a diploma. Wow – they will remove failure from the system (and with it, success). Post-normal education for the Netherlands.
A C Osborn (11:38:19) :
Stephen Brown (11:13:47) :
And another Memorandum to the Committee from a post-graduate student of the UAE who, it appears, is non-too pleased with his erstwhile alma mater!
————————–
So frustrating to see a post-doc not take the care to edit out the misplaced apostrophe in the possessive form of “it”: i.e. “Its”. “It’s” means “it is”! My biggest bugbear as a prof is having to incessantly make this comment while grading papers. This mistake occurs at WUWT in every thread, and even -horrors – after submitting one comment I saw I was also guilty. But that happens in the frenzy of blogging here. In a submission by a post-doc to a parliamentary commission one would expect better … but perhaps not from someone who is more concerned that Copenhagen was derailed by than by the actual miscreant activities of the CRU perpetrators.
The IOP statement is fabulous: it is a no-holds-barred, condensed indictment that covers most of the malpractice so laboriously unravelled by the excellent McIntyre, McKitrick, Watts, Id, Eschenbach, Mosher and other participants here and at Climate Audit, and other good sites.
I’m sure they reached their conclusions before Willis Eschenbach posted his essay on Thursday, but it’s as if they anticipated his thoughts. Great minds are converging on the one undeniable truth – scientific method has not been followed.
The last brick has been knocked out from the whole AGW foundation, and the only thing stopping the ediface from crashing down is the force of will of the army of fanatical alarmists, as together they chant their warming mantra in zen like oblivion to reality.
FTM (13:08:56) :
I was wondering about all the people in the educational “pipeline” when this story first came out in November. Imagine having put the time, effort and finance into a PhD in Climatology only to have your “science” turn out to be a proven hoax.
Yes and its even worse because even the children in primary education have had this stuff dunned into them almost from the cradle. I can’t begin to imagine the long tem effects of this. It is criminal.
Doug
TYPO:
Here’s the money quote:
Kudos to the IOP to be among the first large scientific associations to speak out about the questionable behaviour of the IPCC’s climate scientists. I sincerely hope this open’s the way for other professional science-based organizations to add their voices to the demand for accountability from the CRU and other research organizations linked to the IPCC.
It still astonishes me that ordinary people cling desperately to the theory of AGW even though they have no economic incentive to do so. In fact there is economic incentive NOT to hold to the AGW theory since carbon taxation schemes are detrimental to the average person. Perhaps people have an inborn psychological need to be fearful of something and since affluence has eradicated all the usual fears of survival, they conjure up a bogeyman.
What will Jeffrey Sachs have to say about this? That the IOP sides with “the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer”?
The really frightening thing is the EU first then the marxist democrats attempted to gain control of our internet, where would we be then? this retreat needs to become a rout, we are still teetering on the brink of sefrdom to Gore and Co. Speaking from Canada but all democracies will be the same, the leaders are worrying about budget deficits, here is a plan, stop giving the UN (and the EU) any funding, stop wages and pensions for all involved in this fraud, prosecute the big fish and confiscated their ill gotten gains, that will help.
Things are developing as I foresaw. Here’s what I wrote at the time, during Weeks 1 & 2 of Climategate, in exchanges with Brendan_H (primarily). (These aren’t all in chronological order.)
(However, I was a bit “off” in the specifics. I thought there would be more disaffected insiders like Georg Kaser coming forward. Instead, what primarily emerged were new “gate” scandals, in AR4. Nevertheless, I still think that the “tectonic shift” of insider opinion is occurring quietly and that it will be the “sea change” in the debate over warming that will make the difference, not these recent scandals. I.e., even if the recent “gates” blow over in a few months, as warmist forces hope, probably with good reason, the former consensus has been shattered and won’t be able to regroup well enough to effectively marginalize and intimidate cautionary and contrary voices in the scientific community and in the media. Warmist momentum and solidarity has been lost. Hence, appreciation of the wobbliness of its case will grow over the years.)
RK: Give it time. The Team has made many enemies in their field. (For instance, that guy Karlen from Scandanavia who got brushed off by T____.) They have been waiting for an opportune moment to strike back and be heard. Now they have it. As some of them speak up, others will be encouraged to come forward. And the strength of their condemnation of the IPCC and the Team will rise, and lots more dirty linen will be aired. It’ll develop along the lines of Watergate, with the public getting hooked on their weekly scandal, and the defenders in the bunker getting more and more implausible and desperate.
As that happens, the media will be more inclined to pay attention to dissenters. There will be articles exploring, with the aid of graphics, the links (remember that word?) between the Team, the IPCC, and the various gatekeepers in the field. There may even be articles exploring topics like, “What is climate science all about anyway?”
A tectonic shift is underway. The media’s current silence is an indication that they are re-assessing the situation, and that their treatment in the future will be less outrageous. Even if you don’t grant them any sense of fairness at all, which is silly, you should realize that they have to be concerned about not alienating the skeptical portion of their readership too badly, now that noticeable segments of it are sounding off in their online comments sections. Previously, they were only getting badgered by the enviros, whenever they failed to toe the line. Now, the forces on the contrarians side are coalescing, mainly thanks to internet sites like this, and making their impact felt.
On the contrary, there has been ample discouragement for people to spill their beans, and the encouragement offered hasn’t been much. An op-ed in a right-wing newspaper, or a some-expenses paid trip to an NIPCC conference, or an online petition to sign? These merely brought down abuse and shunning. Some encouragement!
That’s probably why that Scandinavian Karlen, who was brushed off by CRU, didn’t make a public stink about it. My inference is that there are more like him out there with stories to tell, and that they will come forward now that people are willing to give credence to what they have to say. In addition, critics who have already spoken out but been generally ignored and/or scoffed at will have gained credibility in light of what has been revealed, and hence will be de-marginalized by being interviewed on TV, etc. Here’s what I prophesied:
RK: “The Team has made many enemies in their field. … They [those enemies] have been waiting for an opportune moment to strike back and be heard. Now they have it. As some of them speak up, others will be encouraged to come forward. And the strength of their condemnation of the IPCC and the Team will rise, and lots more dirty linen will be aired. It’ll develop along the lines of Watergate, with the public getting hooked on their weekly scandal, …”
I wouldn’t be too sure. Additional e-mails involving the team will be subpoenaed by Inhofe’s committee. There’s likely to be embarrassing material in them that will titillate the public, and whet their blood-lust for more.
Spoken like another Ron Zigler or Rabbi Korff (remember him?)! I hope you get interviewed as a CRUgate-defender on TV: there’s a need for someone to fill those roles, to heighten the absurdity of it all.
Unlike you, Monbiot has recognized that there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing, collusion, and butt-covering among The Team, that the public is going to see it that way, and therefore that a timely abandonment of them and their indefensible activity is the only way for warmism to salvage some credibility from this train wreck. The truth of his insight should be obvious, but if you and your brethren would rather be oblivious, I’m fine with that. Don’t give up the [glug ….]!
Sure. But now some of them are beginning to think, “Maybe we were wrong to dismiss the pre-existing narrative. That’s what we did with Watergate. We ignored McGovern’s pre-election charges that the break-in had been orchestrated from above because it sounded partisan, outrageously unlikely, and would have brought down obloquy on us if we had entertained the possibility publicly. Mutatis mutandis …”
Now that there’s been some “hard” confirmation of outsiders’ charges of smug, thuggish groupthink that has been “leaning” on the peer review process, climate critics no longer can be dismissed as cranks. They are going to be given a respectful hearing, at least in a fair number of venues.
Similarly, scientific societies are going to have to take a serious second look at this controversy, instead of just rubber-stamping the “correct” opinion. Every time one of them distances itself from the consensus, it’ll be newsworthy. Every time a warmist becomes a turncoat, or even merely criticizes an outrageous defense of the Team (like the absurd defenses of Nixon that were offered), it’ll be newsworthy.
The dam is cracking, the increased waterflow will widen the cracks, the media will like the ratings the drama is getting, more blood will get into the water, the feeding frenzy will intensify, more countries will put a hold on their anti-carbon legislation, more prestigious scientific statesmen and popularizers will weigh in on the side of caution or contrarianism, more hapless/ludicrous defenses of the consensus will be made, and the whole world will grab some popcorn and watch with glee.
Over the next few years, the warmists will be in retreat and on the defensive, despite occasional blips. The warm has turned. All the sanctimonious viciousness and hypocrisy (“we’re doing real science”) of the enviro-nuts to date will make them wonderful targets for popular scorn and down-peg-pulling.
“Dr Phil Jones says this has been the worst week of his professional career.”
So far.
The Team stands accused of that and more. Look at some of the bills of particulars that others here have posted, and several newspaper columnists too. Argue with them. I’m convinced.
I wasn’t among those who made such claims. I’m not inclined to such over-optimism. I can tell that this is different–I can smell blood. A brick has been removed from the wall that protected the team, and it will be much easier to pry out further bricks as a result. Now there is justification for congressional hearings examining the machinations of the IPCC and its failure to behave fairly. For instance, NASA scientist Vincent Gray has complained that he submitted over 1100 comments to the IPCC, all of which were ignored. The IPCC might soon have to justify those refusals. No doubt there are dozens of other scientists whose skeptical contributions were ignored, or whose drafts were high-handedly revised. The IPCC will have to justify those as well. It won’t come out looking good. Thereafter, its endorsement of alarmist findings won’t carry nearly as much weight among the innocent public and opinion-leaders as heretofore.
This is like the moment Nixon’s taping system was revealed. Until Buttersworth revealed that to the committee, it looked as though Nixon would be able to wiggle out of the affair. After that, the pursuit went into high gear. I was watching at the time and realized instantly, “Now they’ve got him. He can run, but he can’t hide.” I have a similar feeling about this business. Until now the Team was Teflon: accusations slid off them, because of their presumptive objectivity and high-mindedness. Now they are under a cloud of suspicion, subject to subpoena and testimony under oath; they won’t be able to keep their misdeeds concealed from all but their victims. They’re on the run.
As Monbiat has said, persons like you who don’t/won’t realize the dreadfulness of this situation for your side are living in a fool’s paradise.
On the contrary, I’ve made several posts in the past few days stating that I think the effect of the Team’s fiddling with the measured temperature data is likely minor, and that the overall shape of the blade of the hockey stick won’t be changed much. (I’ve also said repeatedly that there are likely innocent explanations for much of the awkward material in the e-mails.) So I don’t think that AGW has been disproved.
I see what’s happened as the first step in a lengthy process of objectively and scientifically reexamining the data and reasoning behind warmism, after the Team and the IPCC and peer review have had their halos removed. Their prestige, plus their power and willingness to enforce groupthink by any means necessary, will no longer be factors. Doubters will feel safe to speak out.
That’s naive. Academic and social “politics” already taints their judgment. Until now climate science has been politicized, in the sense that the Team’s paradigm was “enforced” by their mafia tactics and by madly warmist funding agencies, journal editors, and journalists. In such an environment, “Reason comes running / Eager to ratify.”
Once de-politicalization occurs and marginalized voices can be heard and harkened to without penalty, and non-warmist research can get funded, opinions among climate scientists are likely to shift substantially.
Of course, for many it will be too awkward to change, because they are so complicit in the shiftiness of warmism’s history. They will hang tough, like the tiny crew of post-Watergate Nixon loyalists.
PS: I should have said above that the main outcome of Climategate, IMO, is that the Team is no longer trustworthy in the public eye, and that a cloud of suspicion has fallen over peer review, the IPCC, and the consensus, which seems to have been engineered or manufactured. This is where the real damage has occurred, on an intangible level. Therefore, a re-do of the case for CAWG, under neutral scientific auspices, is needed. Plus more transparency, etc.
Not necessarily. Give Climategate awhile to sink in, and for additional dirty laundry to come to light, and for additional scientists to weigh in against the consensus. The pendulum of alarmism has reached its apogee and is poised to swing the other way. Copenhagen is a dead man walking.
There is no chance now that the US will pass any major carbon tax without a lot of hearings and scientific investigations first that produce findings supporting alarmism–and that is impossible, if neutral scientists oversee the process, similar to the Wegman investigation.
And if the US won’t get on board, neither will China and India. So the only money lost will be in Europe, similar to what happened post-Kyoto.