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
John – Everyone knows though that a reply ending with -A refers to one Mr. Anthony Watts. (by signing A to replys, that is not hiding behind anything. He is the owner of this blog and anyone who has ever been on a blog knows that the reply comes from the blog owner or a moderator)
Anyone who uses anonymity to protect oneself against what the alarmist may think of you is not speaking honestly in more than one way.
How many scientists have put their names on the line and been accused of egregious actions without any evidence whatsoever? Yet they still stand strong against the tide.
@ur momisugly My friend, Ms. Skywalker – RE: Dr. Theon and Dr. Hansen,
Actually Lucy, when one looks into Theon’s claims one sees that Theon retired many years (15 to be exact) before Hansen became a not-so-household name, that Theon was an administrator and did not oversee Hansen’s work directly, and he only came out under the political aegis of Inhofe – a politician who should be as closely scrutinized as anyone. These should all be red flags. These are not “venial” sins within the context of what we are discussing.
This is one of the most interesting things about the skeptics – why someone like me can post with some confidence that the deniosphere is not here simply to correct global warming, but is heavily involved in a smear campaign. Hansen is still happily employed by NASA, his papers are there on the webpage for anyone to read for free, and his reputation is intact among scientific circles (yes folks, sorry, outside the blogosphere his rep is intact). Yet here, good people like yourself are trumpeting the unsubstantiated comments of a long-retired administrator who did not actually oversee the subject, who is an outlier among the people involved, and who is involved with a politico-ideologue.
Why would you believe Theon?
@ur momisugly Brad
“Tis better to keep your mouth closed (and your pen down) and merely let people think you a fool, rather than opening your mouth (and using your pen) and removing all doubt.”
Perhaps you too should look closely at the pseudo-Confucius – there may be a reason you are unconvincing to people.
But thanks!
Zilla,
“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.”
Blimey, do I really have an “absolute mania”? 🙂
If you’d like to know something about a sceptic:
I have a degree in mathematics from Oxford University. I spent many years in computing. I got bored, and decided I wanted a greener life. I now work as a gardener in a world famous garden in the Cotswolds in the UK.
I have examined the claims made by sceptics and by warmists. And to me it’s clear – there simply is no evidence that CO2 is about to fry us all to a crisp.
I haven’t been misled by the blogosphere or the media or amateurs. I have examined the evidence myself.
The thing that really amazes me about this subject, is how bad the science is. When science is done that poorly, it really isn’t worth anything, because it’s not finding the truth. It is merely advancing an agenda.
“Peer review” is no more than defending the faith, whatever the faith might be. While it is relatively new to science, it has been used to defend any number of faiths in history. And certainly has been used for the same purpose as scientific peer review is used now. To quash dissent of any kind.
Anthropogenic global warming has long since become just another faith as are any number of other faiths prevalent in the fields of science and engineering.
As a professional civil engineer, I fought a good many faith dragons in my career, but no matter how many faith dragons I defeated, there seemed to be an endless army of them.
Brad aka 1personofdifference says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:07 am
——————–
Brad aka 1personofdifference,
Yes, thanks.
John
I used to be called something trite now I am just me.
Let me say that I am a civil engineer and some of the stuff on here goes whooshing over my head and that, at times , makes me go off and learn a bit more. Some of it I find I can understand and follow the logic and the result is I find myself agreeing because of that ,not because it fits any preconceptions. Because of my cognitive experience here I assume the more exotic stuff is correct too but sometimes the comments prove otherwise and I like that because it means folk out there are thinking about this stuff in a sensible fashion and the proponent will accept an opposing view.
Now, on the political blogs I frequent, I often encounter characters like Zilla ( our troll-de-jour) who simply try to deflect attention from things they like being dismantled and diminished. They use the tactic of raising red herrings to sap energy and time, the attack the messenger and they use hyperbole on an industrial scale. People here at WUWT see the weakness underlying the troll and tear it apart but they always reinvent themselves and return.
This is the difficulty with CAGW, it really is a religion or political philosophy and the adherents truly believe that they are doing the right thing, the holy thing, the required thing in using every weapon they have to deflect the critical attack. Over at RC you see it in spades and it finds it’s way into the MSM because there are plenty of acolytes there and they too think they are doing the “right” thing. They won’t give up and they won’t give in because it is a “noble” calling in their eyes. Communism has been defeated by any standard of measurement but there are still plenty of Communists out there who think that “if only we could fix the image we could bring it back”.
Cooling, warming, wetter, dryer , all will be blamed on mankind. The “Black Death” was blamed on mans wickedness this CAGW thing is no different and it will always be around. The trick is for all of us to nip it in the bud when it starts by using logic, science and observation of the real world. Many of us left these warmistas alone for way too long while they got into their self reinforcing spiral of the hatred of ( the other ) mankind.
This one almost got away from us. Whoever let those emails out into the sunlight did a huge service to mankind and I hope he/she/they get the recognition they deserve in time. For now keep that “boot on the neck” of these forces of darkness whenever you encounter them. Here in my own third world country I have been surprised how many folk , once made aware of CAGW, listen to the debate and then dismiss the whole farce.
It’s good to be alive boys.
On the anonymity issue – I would dearly love to put my name to my postings. My problem is not a fear of the loss of funding for revealing my position, or for my status at my university – my position is well known where I work – but rather that I might lose some professional friendships that I treasure both personally and for the fruitfulness they have for my current research. The problem lies on one level in a common connection with Naomi Oreskes; on another level is the generally leftist academic dogmatic belief in global warming, tied to political correctness, that has become a substitute for traditional religion, particularly in science-related disciplines. Historian colleagues within my department regard me either as being a bit of a whacko on this topic or more recently in some cases, as being right. But my views are quite hidden from the far-flung members of my sub-disciplinary professional circle. I too long for the day when I can come out of the climate closet and sign my name to any posting, even the ones that I later cringe over for revealing mathematical or other naivete.
These whitewashes are par for the course now, I’m afraid.
We can gain much strength from the knowledge that we are many and well informed (as a result of the current freedom of the internet and sites like this this excellent blog), but we sceptics must be aware that the odds – of being able to effect the course of future history – are vastly stacked against us.
The Carbon Tax agenda is well underway (my electricity bill in Scotland is already paying into it, as I understand it).
Politicians, the UN, the banks, the oil companies, the media organisations (as we well know), they’re all behind it. They put their money behind it anyway. Sorry, I forgot the governments, they are really, totally behind it (and it’s not even their money they’re spending – it’s ours, the taxpayers!) After all, the politicians are bought and paid for by the corporate interests which really pull the effing strings of this grotesque puppet show.
So, while we people who are interested in the subject may be well informed, the vast majority of the western populace derive their opinions on world events through information presented by the mainstream media. Indeed they only become of world events through the MSM.
So they will read that the furore has died down, many investigations were carried out and no wrongdoing was detected, business as usual, nothing to see here, move on.
And we will all move on to Cancun and beyond.
It’s my opinion that what is happening in climate ‘science’ and the media ‘management’ of climate change, is JUST ONE EXAMPLE of how public opinion is being manipulated to facilitate some kind of ‘transition’ to a new state.
Whether that new state is a green economy, or a state of perpetual war (much like we already have, if you think about it), or, whatever.
All I’m saying is, these people (and there ARE people) behind this will not stop. And they have massive, overarching, overiding control. Of everything that matters to public opinion. They studied the work of Edward Bernais (Sigmund Freud’s nephew – father of PR) very well.
It’s all about PR.
@ur momisugly Mr. Evans, congratulations – Oxford is an excellent university of longstanding reputation, one of the best in the world.
And I do not know if you have an absolute mania, my friend, but RoyFOMR’s 7/5 comment above certainly had the ring of the maniac about him – at least to my tender ears (eyes). By himself, Mr. FOMR would not be indicative of anything, but he does seem to represent a sub-set of the skeptic camp rather unlike yourself in tone of comment and attitude.
I am glad you have examined the evidence for yourself. Again congrats. But as a mathematician-cum-gardener, despite your academic pedigree, do you really possess the training and depth of knowledge to adequately examine the evidence? Wouldn’t someone who works in climate science professionally be a better commentator on the subject?
John Whitman says:
July 6, 2010 at 8:42 am
I guess I am one you are going to just ignore. But John, you are in reality as anonymous as anyone else commenting here.
Your id has 12 characters and other have more or less. Only the moderators know the true ‘identity’ and is protected by them, and thanks to them (over and over again)! You seemed to leave out “identity theives”/”stalkers”/”phishes” and all of the bad elements one has to protect themselves of on the internet today.
So am I also to ignore your comments since I cannot see you face and know exactly who you are?
Most here are intelligent and can tell over time what type of entity they are reading and commenting to. Yes, some fit into those categories you mentioned, some just like and enjoy science and want to advance it’s well being after seeing what has happened to it over the last few decades.
I would more suggest you just learn the proper persons at this blog by reading and deciphering their words, surely you will get the gist. Their words are a better indication of who you comment to than any ‘n’ number of characters in an avatar will ever be.
BTW: I have a dear friend, John Whitman, (I say dear though he put me through hell for a week back in the 70’s 🙂 ) who you could very well be. But here we must maintain security, it’s just one of the necessities to many who don’t have the resources to otherwise protect themselves and family (a network administrator would be great and then I would happily put my proper id up for all in this world to see).
Or, are you are just consoled by the thought that maybe the name by which they use to sign in are actually who you think they are? Even the name in their email doesn’t prove “identity”. I for one don’t understand your willingness to ignore by an id, I ignore by their words and the thoughts they portray (though I always try to give everyone a chance for a slip of tongue every now and then).
@zilla
I am sure that James Evans is as pleased as all the other Oxford graduates (like me) on this thread, to know that you have at least heard of our alma mater.
But it is already a fairly well known institution, only around since the thirteenth century and the place of education for many of national and international distinction in a variety of fields. I guess for those of a non-academic bent, this may matter less, but there can be few countries where Inspector Morse has not been shown on TV.
However, I think that the institution – and our own self-esteem – would still somehow manage to survive without your patronising and arrogant remarks. Greater men than you (Oliver Cromwell for example) have tried to bring it down, and it has somehow managed to carry on.
Let us do an experiment . You stop making the patronising remarks and after 50 years we’ll see which is still thriving..Oxford University or yourself. Deal?
Zilla,
“do you really possess the training and depth of knowledge to adequately examine the evidence? Wouldn’t someone who works in climate science professionally be a better commentator on the subject?”
It seems to me that this is in effect an appeal to authority. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)
Unfortunately, the “Climategate” emails made it abundantly clear to me that many people who work “in climate science professionally” have values of honesty and decency far below those that I hold. I think many of the people involved in climate science are a disgrace. And it’s quite shameful that their authority is still appealed to.
Zilla says: July 6, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Mr. Evans, congratulations – Oxford is an excellent university of longstanding reputation, one of the best in the world. — Etc.
Zilla. I see that you are persisting in saying nothing. I bet you are the most splendid company at dinner.
Doug
Zilla says:
“…as a mathematician-cum-gardener, despite your academic pedigree, do you really possess the training and depth of knowledge to adequately examine the evidence?”
I’ll play: what’s your expertise?
As you commented: “Wouldn’t someone who works in climate science professionally be a better commentator on the subject?”
Yes, and I direct you to Prof Richard Lindzen, head of MIT’s atmospheric sciences department. You will not find anyone more highly qualified. And at 70, Dr Lindzen is well beyond the temptations of fame and fortune. He is at the pinnacle of his career at what is arguably the most prestigious engineering school on the planet.
Since you’re so consumed with faith in Authority, then Dr Lindzen’s analysis should cause you to do a complete 180° about face, and accept the null hypothesis of natural climate variability as being sufficient to explain all observations; and therefore you must accept that climate alarmism is nothing but a political transfer of wealth scam.
Otherwise, continue trolling, understanding that we’re on to you.
Zilla says:
“…as a mathematician-cum-gardener, despite your academic pedigree, do you really possess the training and depth of knowledge to adequately examine the evidence?”
______________________________________________________________________
Smokey says:
I’ll play: what’s your expertise?
…Since you’re so consumed with faith in Authority, then Dr Lindzen’s analysis should cause you to do a complete 180° about face, and accept the null hypothesis of natural climate variability as being sufficient to explain all observations; and therefore you must accept that climate alarmism is nothing but a political transfer of wealth scam.
Otherwise, continue trolling, understanding that we’re on to you.
_______________________________________________________
Darn it Smokey, Now you’ve gone and spoiled all our fun. Zilla will go away and refuse to play with us any more…
Zilla
By your own argument you disqualify yourself from discerning who can and cannot adequately examine the evidence. James Evans says he’s examined the evidence for himself, and I recognize the validity of his remarks because… I have examined the evidence for myself. It’s neither training nor depth of knowledge that is needed: it is intelligence, an open mind, understanding Scientific Method, caring about truth wherever it lies, and persistent digging. ANYONE who has/does all this can figure out the real Climate Science. But you have to do your homework and examine the evidence, for both sides of the argument, for yourself.
Thus it looks like you have still not looked at Theon direct but are simply repeating the arguments of his detractors (who are certainly doing ad hom) despite my counsel that you need to hear both sides. And if you think I’m into ad hom because I mentioned him, no, I’ve done more than my fair share of science which includes examining Hansen’s science (which I used to believe) but I mentioned Theon and no more because you presented Hansen as a scientist who appears to be totally respected. I mentioned only Theon so as not to overload you. Hansen has shouted for yonks “I’m being gagged!” but in fact the opposite is the truth. He has been embarrassingly free to speak out. His predictions have been failing consistently – the trick is to keep your attention on his future predictions, not look at his failed past predictions, nor calculate the actual figures involved so as to see the ridiculously long actual time scales involved in melting icecaps. And you have to look closely at the temperature record which actually suggests fluctuations with no overall increase if you allow properly for Urban Heat Island effect and station siting issues affecting a century of thermometer records.
Hansen is moreover not a climate scientist himself, he is an astrophysicist. His knowledge of the climate of Mars and Venus appears to be what set him off on the wrong foot re. Earth. Fear that we could become like one of these, seems to have blinded him to the Earth’s homeostatic mechanisms (water and water vapour mainly) that appear to have worked for millions of years to moderate extremes and nullify CO2 effects. The Earth has been hotter with comfort, and cooler with more CO2, in past ages – two powerful reasons that geologists generally look askance at the notion of catastrophic manmade global warming, and are more aware of the balance-keeping water cycles.
Look, I’m still concerned about truly green issues: the overuse of nonrenewable resources, the limitations of nuclear energy, overpopulation. But one thing we absolutely cannot afford, if we are to cope well with all these, is bad science. And that is exactly what Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is. What is frightening is how bad the science has become, how quickly many basic scientific factors have been ignored, forgotten, sidelined, hyped, and suppressed, and how far the whole scientific community of supposed experts is either in collusion with, or in ignorance of, all this. Appeal to authority is, sadly, no longer trustworthy. This is why each contributor here who really understands and supports WUWT has had to do their own scientific homework. At length. Click my name. The very opposite of “denial”.
I’m too tired to argue further. I see you starting to bounce back to CAGW parrot-lines that I know only too well, that protect you from the challenge of my words. You’re not doing original science research or thoughtful reconsideration here, neither do you seem to recognize those who do; to readers here that means you are trolling.
@zilla
‘I am glad you have examined the evidence for yourself. Again congrats. But as a mathematician-cum-gardener, despite your academic pedigree, do you really possess the training and depth of knowledge to adequately examine the evidence? Wouldn’t someone who works in climate science professionally be a better commentator on the subject?’
An interesting perspective. In much the same way that the best training for a fraud detective is to become a convicted fraudster themselves? Poachers turned gamekeepers?
So what, pray, would be your ideal training for a climate scientist (there doesn’t seem to be a formal qualification), and what skills and knowledge must such a person acquire along the way to demonstrate their capability?
[do not spam multiple threads. one post on tips and notes please. ~ ctm]
Good heavens, Mr. Alder –
“Greater men than you (Oliver Cromwell for example) have tried to bring [Oxford] down, and it has somehow managed to carry on.”
I cannot imagine how anyone thinks that, from the vantage of this blog, anyone is trying to bring Oxford down. Particularly my earnest comments above. Defensive much?
@ur momisugly Smokey and Gail,
“On to me”?
On to what exactly? Bit dramatic, don’t you think?
I am an honest layperson interested in the science and have no real intention of going anywhere as long as Mr. Watts publishes our conversation.
I am very well aware of Dr. Lindzen. And sure, he is an expert and I am willing to listen to him and defer to his ideas…at least to a point. There is evidence here and there that Dr. Lindzen cherry-picks his data, of course, and there are charges of bias against him. And, perhaps more importantly, he is an outlier. I think it is something like 97% of climate scientists who agree with the tenets of AGW theory (it’s on the web somewhere – several places I think) – why should you or I take his word over the consensus of the rest of the climate science community?
I am also aware of the Pielkes and the scientists at UW-Madison; and I am aware of Singer and a few others working for the CATO institute and so on…
And I am aware of the charges generally leveled (that climate scientists are busy hunting fame and grant money, etc.) yet I fail to find much hard evidence of this – and could we not say the same of Dr. Lindzen’s career?
As for the qualifications – these should be self evident: I would most likely listen to a researcher or academic who has a MS or PhD in climate physics, meteorology, or some physical science directly related to weather and the atmosphere, who publish professional peer-reviewed articles on climate science in reputable journals, who work for a university or a non-profit or governmental agency –
You know, the kind of people that skeptics love to charge with being “authorities” (also known as “experts in the field”) as in “appeal to authority,” probably because the skeptic camp has only a few outliers with questionable reputations and ethics – like, perhaps, Lindzen.
@ur momisugly Ms. Skywalker,
“It’s neither training nor depth of knowledge that is needed: it is intelligence, an open mind, understanding Scientific Method, caring about truth wherever it lies, and persistent digging. ANYONE who has/does all this can figure out the real Climate Science. ”
So, if this is true, there’s no difference between, say, a trained brain surgeon and yourself? With enough intelligence, open mindedness, etc etc you could become a doctor? Or perhaps design an atomic bomb? Maybe you could design a sky-scraper – or do we need an actual, trained architect for that?
How do you know you know enough?
Could your assertions pass peer-review?
Forgive me, Ms. Skywalker, (I am sure you are a very fine scientist in your own right and a very smart person) but I will defer to those who actually have the training in climate science.
@Zilla
“such as the illegal CRU hacker “
Please furnish your evidence for this – that the CRU emails and files were hacked by an outsider, or forever hold your peace. So far, all I have seen in support of this claim is bald assertion.
It is trivially easy to demonstrate that an external hacking incident was extremely unlikely.
Zilla says:
Wouldn’t someone who works in climate science professionally be a better commentator on the subject?
By that logic, sociologists would be experts on society — but they aren’the, because they’re professionally deformed to overweight “socialization” as the root cause of things. Ditto economists and psychologists, mutatis mutandis. Common sense has been bred out of them, and elaborate artifice inculcated in its place. On top of that, the topics they study are too complex and tricky to really get a handle on, and their success rate is poor.
In addition to the complexity problem, climatology has a data collection problem (tedious, expensive, and plagued by wobbly record keeping and massaging), a data analysis problem (as pointed out by Freeman Dyson, it has little understanding of clouds, landforms, etc.), an immaturity problem, and a poor predictive track record.
In addition, climatology has selected for people who, like ecologists, are prone to see man’s “meddling” as a sure recipe for disaster, and its training and mores, like those of sociologists, etc., have reinforced the perspective that “it’s all man’s fault” (ideally, Western man’s). A clique, or “school,” has in effect seized the commanding heights of the profession and established the proper (alarmist) “line” to toe. Therefore, its consensus is “correct” only in a political sense.
Where are the climatologists’ castles?
Only in the air.
the would-be emperor has shown himself to be untrustworthy: a blundering blinkered blagueur. That’s all we need to know:
First, climatologists have only a fragmentary picture of what they’re dealing with. The publication yesterday of the Max Planck Institute’s findings, which flatly refute one of the pillars of alarmism (positive feedback), illustrate not only how little is really known in the field, but how much has been PRESUMED by its acolytes—often on flimsy grounds (a lab-flask experiment that doesn’t realistically model the atmospheric environment) and usually in an alarmist direction.
Secopnd, climatologists have refused to acknowledge that they’re dealing with a chaotic system that can generate its own trends internally, without “forcings.” Third, they have behaved, collectively (at the ICPP level, at the Climategate level, and at every level) in a manner consistent with the (biased and unscrupulous) partisans of advocacy research.
We don’t need no stinking weathermen.