Despite regular attempts by head in the sand AGW cheerleaders to make it go away, Climategate continues to affect the path of climate science. This endorsement of the Climategate effect comes from a most unlikely source, The Guardian’s Fred Pearce, who also writes for The New Scientist. Most telling about all of the investigations so far is that they have not interviewed any of the primary investigators that question the methods and data, such as Steve McIntyre.
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?
To summarize: it’s a whitewash in the purest sense of the word. I don’t expect career team player Sir Muir Russell’s report to be any different. He’s too much of an familial insider to have the courage to ask the plaintiff to get involved, and he didn’t. But Steve McIntyre is going anyway. Hopefully they’ll have the courage to hear what he has to say and not lock him out in the hallway. – Anthony
‘Climategate’ was ‘a game-changer’ in science reporting, say climatologists
After the hacked emails scandal scientists became ‘more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties’
Sir Muir Russell’s findings will be published on Wednesday. Photograph: University of Glasgow
Excerpts from the Guardian article:
Science has been changed forever by the so-called “climategate” saga, leading researchers have said ahead of publication of an inquiry into the affair – and mostly it has been changed for the better.
This Wednesday sees the publication of the Muir Russell report into the conduct of scientists from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose emails caused a furore in November after they were hacked into and published online.
Critics say the emails reveal evasion of freedom of information law, secret deals done during the writing of reports for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a cover-up of uncertainties in key research findings and the misuse of scientific peer review to silence critics.
But whatever Sir Muir Russell, the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, concludes on these charges, senior climate scientists say their world has been dramatically changed by the affair.
“The release of the emails was a turning point, a game-changer,” said Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia. “The community has been brought up short by the row over their science. Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, for instance.”
And there will be other changes, said Hulme. The emails made him reflect how “astonishing” it was that it had been left to individual researchers to police access to the archive of global temperature data collected over the past 160 years. “The primary data should have been properly curated as an archive open to all.” He believes that will now happen.
…
“Trust has been damaged,” said Hans von Storch of the KGSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. “People now find it conceivable that scientists cheat and manipulate, and understand that scientists need societal supervision as any other societal institution.”
The climate scientist most associated with efforts to reconciling warring factions, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the idea of IPCC scientists as “self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel Prize, is now in tatters”. The outside world now sees that “the science of climate is more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe”.
…
Roger Pielke Jr of the University of Colorado agreed that “the climate science community, or at least its most visible and activist wing, appeared to want to go back to waging an all-out war on its perceived political opponents”.
He added: “Such a strategy will simply exacerbate the pathological politicisation of the climate science community.” In reality, he said, “There is no going back to the pre-November 2009 era.”
…
But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. “This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult.”
Full story at the Guardian h/t to Tallbloke and WUWT reader Pat
My Grandmother used to tell me things like: “Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”. And risking that, why is it that we ask questions (good questions that presumably have answers) of a certain group of IPCC supporters, and all we get is disdain and ridicule? I’m sure that some must have something better than that. We are discussing science, after all.
RoyFOMR says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 5, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Zilla says:
July 5, 2010 at 3:52 pm
“you ever asked yourself the question “Why do they now disbelieve us?”
if not, why not?”
If there is disbelief directed at climate science it is almost entirely the distortions of the blogosphere and the news media – mostly done by amateurs who do not work in the field such as Jo Nova and by politically motivated non-scientists such as Lord Monkton. And by people, like yourself, who seem to have an absolute mania against climate science and, instead of recognizing it in yourself, project it onto others.
Distortions don’t come from questions my dear Zilla. They grow through answers. If I’ve been distorted in my thinking about the certainty of climate science is, umm, because of the answers I got from sites like RC!
In a nutshell, these guys protested too much. They don’t need to do that, I thought, the Science is certain isn’t it?
I had no agenda then, I was merely curious and leanded in the direction that they indicated. But the reality is, that now, I find them offensively patronizing, universally dismissive of adverserial viewpoints and thus worthy of suspicion.
If, because I’m now leery of those whom you claim to be honourable and trusty gatekeepers of scientific probity, you can shower me me with less than congratulationary compliments may I offer the defence that shame me once- shame on me- but shame me twice- shame on you.
The common factor does appear to be shame.
Zilla, getting enough attention yet?
If you want to talk about science, there are thousands of posts on Anthony’s blog to do that.
This particular blog is about ClimateGate, which obviously has nothing to do with science. It does have to do with the character of the scientists that was exposed and the fact that it is back in the news again.
If you just entertaining yourself because school is out, have at it, you’re just proving a point…
…not particularly the one you think
‘REPLY: And yet, unlike you, all these people, including me, have the courage to put their name to their words. Anonymous comments aren’t worth anything. – Anthony Watts’
Courage is putting your true name to your word when you know there’s people out there that want to do bloody murder on you, like people who testify against the mob or Chinese “dissidents” or Burmese, et cetera. Those people are courageous.
To put your name to your words when there is no actual real threat to you, is not courage, that’s exercising basic right in a country which respects those rights. In those same countries being anonymous is also a right.
If anonymous comments weren’t worth anything, what, do you think, would this site be worth without all them anonymous hits so to speak? Hah, not much in commercial worth eh. And why donate to an obvious dead site? Think realclimate.org and then think again what comments are really worth.
What’s the saying again, it’s the anonymous that pays your bill.
Zilla
I’ve just read through all you dialogue in this thread.
Really you have nothing to say.
Doug
Although my name is not really Al Gored, and thus this comment is not worth reading, I’ll make it anyway.
The reason I have become a habitual visitor to this site is very simple.
First, it presents many articles on a variety of climate-related topics that are clearly written, well illustrated and very interesting.
Second, each article is followed by many equally interesting and informative comments, which actively critique and add to the articles.
Third, when an article is posted, those comments provide diverse and usually very effective peer review and when errors are discovered and rationally argued, they are fully accepted and corrected, or followed up on with future articles.
That is how science is supposed to work. Present ideas, review them, and progress onward. No defensive screaming ‘denier’ (outside of some commenters) or that ‘the debate is over.’
Reading this blog has been an adventure in learning for me. And the most important thing that I have learned here is that the global climate is a much more complex system than some imagine and that scientific research into it is still just taking baby steps towards fully understanding it. That was always my gut feeling but every day that is confirmed here. There are still unknown unknowns as Rummie would say.
The bottom line then, for me, is that anybody who is screaming that the debate is over is displaying an anti-science mentality that is closer to a religious fundamentalism in their false certainty.
One other thing. This blog is also liberally sprinkled with a good sense of humor, which makes it fun to read. Still laugh when I recall the photo of the MacDonald’s guy asking ‘Would you like a death spiral with that?’ Etc.
So, thanks Anthony and contributors and commenters for making this blog a great experience. And, as admitted in this article, you really are making a difference!
What is amusing is that Guardian commenter “missingmass” is trying to claim that Judith Curry is a “denialist” and that none of the skeptics charges have been proven. Whoever this guy is, he’s obviously the real denialist.
1DandyTroll says:
July 5, 2010 at 5:03 pm
So, you start out with “bloody murder”, and end with a rant about donations.
The message I’m supposed to take away, is what?
Al Gored says:
July 5, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Although my name is not really Al Gored, and thus this comment is not worth reading, I’ll make it anyway.
The reason I have become a habitual visitor to this site is very simple.
First, it presents many articles on a variety of climate-related topics that are clearly written, well illustrated and very interesting.
First, and last, Mr non Al Gore, you’ve provided posts that, at best, made one think, and, at worst, made one chortle. Neither point leads me to think that your utterances have been without merit!
Keep it up mate!
You’re either a good bloke or blokette whose opinion is very much appreciated by me. Don’t give a da*n about the detractors!
KBO!
Folks like Zilla are examples of the naivety that leads to support for unscientific groups like the IPCC. They “believe” and there is little that will change that belief. Well, maybe a large glacier over NYC might do it, and then maybe not.
They simply do not understand uncertainty and how that propagates through complex systems.
There is a reason all the trolls and all the bored keepers of agw blogs come here. (They may sometimes be the same.)
They want to spoil the good reason why we don’t go there, i.e., them. They won’t cease to be pests because that’s what they are.
Atlas isn’t going to find that shrugging does not answer the matter. He will have to SWAT – very very hard.
Several comments on this thread, started by Katabasis, discussed the overall lack of rigor in many fields of science. I would expand this to include all of academia. Politics hasn’t corrupted academic science, its the other around. This is not new and it is not restricted to climate science or even science. Such disciplines as language, law, history, etc. are just as corrupt. Universities have been the home of various cults for at least a few hundred years. It is a wonder that science and other knowledge has actually advanced in recent decades or centuries, but it has advanced, I believe.
Therefore, I am not going to worry about these problems. I am thankful for people like Anthony and Steve and would encourage Katabasis to stay in his field, knowing that if he “plays along” for awhile, he may someday have the opportunity to advance knowledge. Certainly, all of us who are not cult material have had to write papers or give test answers they knew were wrong in order to get that degree, or that position, not matter what field of academics they study.
My caution to fellow skeptics is to stay skeptical. Maybe there is climate change happening due to human influence or even to CO2. Maybe not. What we know now is that we don’t know. Just because the most influential names in ” climate science” have basically manipulated large parts of their research to come up with preordained conclusions doesn’t mean that they are entirely wrong. Of course they may be entirely wrong, but we just don’t know. Not knowing is different than knowing the opposite.
I personally have an order of magnitude more respect for non-anonymous commenters. With anonymous, the exchange feels somewhat more like a game than serious talk
John
u.k.(us) says:
July 5, 2010 at 5:40 pm
1DandyTroll says:
July 5, 2010 at 5:03 pm
‘So, you start out with “bloody murder”, and end with a rant about donations.
The message I’m supposed to take away, is what?’
No I started with
“Courage is putting your true name to your word when you know there’s people out there that want to do bloody murder on you, ”
But I do understand how that was too hard for you to grasp, I mean, all them words, in one sentence, my God!
Did you get the message at all?
Richard M says:
July 5, 2010 at 5:41 pm
“Folks like Zilla are examples of the naivety that leads to support for unscientific groups like the IPCC. They “believe” and there is little that will change that belief. Well, maybe a large glacier over NYC might do it, and then maybe not. They simply do not understand uncertainty and how that propagates through complex systems.”
I walked in Zillas shoes once Richard and like him I believed the orthodoxy. Not all of are privileged to experience the Damascus moment, I hope that he may see through the blind orthodoxy of consensus one day.
Hopefully, he’ll get really angry, when he finds out just how much sincere environmentalism was subverted by hypocritical greedists!!
“REPLY: No, this is an impossible task. The New Scientist is beyond redemption. The only tool left is subscription cancellation. – A”
Well said. Some of us already cancelled our subscription a number of years ago. That Mag had already lost its way even then!
Donald Clark says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Not knowing is different than knowing the opposite.
Absolutely. However, the “opposite” is not currently trying to force feed their agenda to much of the world. So, it kind of forces me to appear to be taking the “opposite” side even though I agree completely with your sentiments.
If there hadn’t been the 100% assurance and insufferable sanctimony a.) Climategate wouldn’t have mattered and B.) there probably wouldn’t even have been a climategate in the first place.
As Groucho put it, “Love flies out the window when money comes inuendo.”
But we all knew AGW was going to die hard. Too many people too far out on too many limbs to just say oopsie. They put all their credibility chips on red and just spun the wheel.
RoyFOMR says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:14 pm
I walked in Zillas shoes once Richard and like him I believed the orthodoxy. Not all of are privileged to experience the Damascus moment, I hope that he may see through the blind orthodoxy of consensus one day.
I wouldn’t say I walked in his shoes, but I accepted the orthodoxy myself. I just never really looked closely. When I did, I saw how much is still unknown and how much was manipulated to make it look like the certainty existed. However, I don’t expect people who rant like Zilla to ever look at this subject objectively.
Everything I have seen, including Watts’ site, hopes to embarrass, denigrate and deny governmental agencies and scientists.
Then you haven’t been looking very closely. There’s been repeated hands across the water. (Which would account for all the teethmarks on Anthony’s fingers.)
And I’m sorry folks, Climategate is a wash-out. It’s over.
Yes, but not the way you want it.
And the only people who thought it was a big deal…well, they’re mostly here and sites like this one.
That and around 60% (or more) of the public.
the emails which showed conclusively nothing.
I suggest you read them and come to your own conclusions.
The one that bothered me the most (and has not to my knowledge been mentioned by anyone else) is the one that suggests setting up a star chamber for peer review that would, in essence, act as gatekeeper for the primary journals.
Think of the children.
Seriously. A generation of kids has been exposed to the CAGW theory with little or nothing at all to counter-balance this apocalyptic and guilt inspiring meme. (The Science is settled!). Whether CAGW is true, partly true or false, this is no way to raise bright (questioning–deciding for themselves) optimistic children who are inspired to contribute. It is an excellent way to develop a populace that despairs and is resigned to whatever the authorities demand. I would like to put forward the hypothesis that this quasi-religious indoctrination is at least partially responsible for the behavior of some commenters who seem immune to reason and argument.
On anonymity: I’m in academia, and there are many in my circles who would consider me an apostate and shun me if my skeptical views were discovered. It’s a shame, and hopefully with efforts by those here (great work Anthony!) it will be safe to come out of the closet soon. But for the moment, I’m surrounded by the blighters!
Hulme’s last comment, and those I’m seeing everywhere- are indicative that the rigid trance of warming cult members has been shattered. They were faced with a stark reality they couldn’t ignore. It wasn’t possible to just continue chanting, and demand someone Release the Chakra. They had to stop and actually justify their actions. We need to keep it up until the trance is snapped.
Rationalize away, Anthony, if you want to play the censo…I mean, moderator – your site, your rules. For my own part I am willing to discuss and respond and I plan on taking a good long look at your site anyway. Justify the cyber muzzle if it makes you feel righteous.
C’ya.
REPLY: Heh, Just as you justify not reading relevant articles pointed out that refute your point if it makes you feel righteous. You made a claim that was outrageous, I pointed you to a case that refutes it, you refuse to read it and now play the victim all while risking nothing. Typical Mad City tactic. -A
There are no rules in love and war.
Tell that to Tojo and Don Juan.
Peter Taylor says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Anthony – I also despair at New Scientist – I buy it every week to find out what their world is saying – and I find it disturbing. For example, this week they review Fred Pearce’s book – a whole page is given, by a journalist, who hardly touches on Pearce’s arguments – it is all a defence of the official line and criticism of Pearce for even suggesting that ‘denialists’ might have a point.
That review was written by Chris ‘Kiss-off’* Mooney. It is available online, too. I stopped reading it the moment he referred to Pearce’s work as the first book-length treatment of the Climategate controversy. That honour belongs to Mosher and Fuller. Mooney was either too ignorant or too arrogant to mention it. In either case, he misled his readers. I’ll return to Mooney shortly. First, let me comment about Mike Hulme and Judith Curry’s roles.
Once the Climategate scandal broke out, Hulme and Curry suddenly became the only sound of reason from the warmist camp that was hitherto dominated by shrill voices. They were, along with several others, such as Hans von Storch, the only high profile climatologists who could see the danger the scandal posed to their personal reputation and to the integrity of their scientific discipline. They distanced themselves clearly and without any qualification from the cabal that represented the ‘best’ in Climatology. Not only they never offered any expression of solidarity with Jones, Mann, et al, they produced some of the most vitriolic criticism of their own discipline as well. Remember, it was Judith Curry that first accused her collegues of ‘tribalism’ and ‘circling the wagons’, and it was Mike Hulme who first broached the idea that the IPCC process may well have run its course.
What was so vitriolic in what they said, you may ask. Well, they said things that they would have never dared to say prior to the scandal in fear of being tarred and pilloried by the rest of the Climatological community. In Mike Hulme’s ever-so-diplomatic language, for example, the criticism was directed at his fellow scientists in the CRU, and this is no small fall-out. What is curious is that apart from several ‘fresh’ voices in Hulme, Curry and von Storch, and the usual shrill ones in Gavin Schmidt, Mike Roddy, et al, the climatological community remained largely silent. They still defended their discipline and the much-vaunted scientific consensus on CAGW, but few, except for CAGW cult members of the media, came out to defend individual scientists Mann, Jones, and that thug -Roddy? Romm?- who wanted to beat the crap out of people.
For some time after the Climategate, I held on to the views above, plus I had the feeling that Mann might well be cast out by his own scientific community. The Climategate emails already showed that Mann was a bully, a domineering figure who would readily criticise the scientific ability of even his closest collaborators. What was a revelation to us, I surmised, might well be a known fact already within the climate science circles: Mann might be a respected scientist, but he was a despised character. Except that I had no evidence for this.
Well, thanks to Chris Kiss-off Mooney, in January the evidence came straight from the horse’s mouth:
I can only guess it was Chris Kiss-off Mooney’s loving devotion that caught Mann in that moment of candour, saying something that every blog and media outlet missed to report and elaborate on, including Mooney himself. Apart from his co-bloggers at Real Climate -and possibly his employer the Penn State Uni-, “I haven’t had all that many other scientists helping in that effort.” Considering his prominence and influence in the field, such a confession of loneliness could mean only one thing: Micheal Mann has been abandoned, cast out, thrown to the wolves by the greater climatological community.
I believe few other scientists offered solidarity because Mann has become a liability. So have Jones, Briffa, Schmidt, and that thug -Roddy? Romm?- who wanted to beat the crap out of people. Quite frankly, if I were a climate scientist, even of the most pro-CAGW type, I too would want to stay away from these individuals lest my reputation and my science might be tarnished by association. And this is precisely what Judith Curry and Mike Hulme have been doing since the Climategate scandal broke out; protecting the interests of their scientific discipline and, at least in Hulme’s case, personal reputation.
Quite frankly, I don’t think the skeptic camp should dismiss out of hand the overtures of Hulme and Curry for some sanity and dialogue between the sides in Climate debate. I was delighted to see them mentioned again in Fred Pearce’s Guardian article readily admitting that Climategate had become a game changer.
* Anyone who follows regularly Chris Kiss-off Mooney and his co-blogger, Sheril Kiss-em Kirshenbaum, on “The Intersection” will note the obsession the duo has with the act of kissing. There is a science behind kissing, you see, and our lips are telling us something!