Video: Guardian Climategate Debate

Sceencaps of the video follow, link to the video below the “Continue reading” line. Last night in London, to a packed room, a panel of people convened to talk about Climategate.

Steve McIntyre (L) and Doug Keenan(R)  represented the skeptical side.

The Guardian’s EcoBlogger, George Monbiot, chaired, and sat next to Steve McIntyre.

People attending expected a furor, given such odd juxtapositions as we see below.

But the only sparks seemed to be Piers Corbin being threatened with ejection by Monbiot for some apparently out of line comments.

Link to video and audio here:

‘Climategate’ debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument

Advertisements

73 thoughts on “Video: Guardian Climategate Debate

  1. Bless those Canadians’ pea-pickin’ little hearts for sending a hockey stick graph to every Canadian household.
    =================

  2. I’m gonna send you folks a bill for all the time I spent clicking on those “video clips” that were just JPEGs. Damned sadistic web managers …

  3. Whenever someone tells the “debate is over” on AGW, ask them if they listened to the Guardian Debate of 2010 (it is 98min of low bitrate audio).
    This should have happened 10 years ago, the debate is now just beginning.

  4. McIntyre makes his points well, but is too soft. Keenan is appropriately tough, claiming that there is no climate science and that Jones does not have an elementary understanding of statistics, but does not follow through. Pearce is the most surprising because he is rather critical of the climategaters. Watson is an apologist for climate science. The UEA fellow, Davis, is an apologist for CRU. Monbiot is just there.
    Attempts to subvert the peer review process were overlooked entirely.
    The big problem with the discussion is the failure to distinguish between science and policy. That failure meant that the discussion was not focused and often strayed way off topic to policy issues. As expected, those who would defend climategaters breathed a sigh of relief whenever they could turn the discussion to policy.
    What is at issue in climategate is the integrity of climate science, especially as embodied in the hockey stick, and the integrity of the scientists. We need to learn whether climate scientists have lied intentionally, taken actions to cover-up their lies, destroyed data, attempted to take control of journals, and many other matters having to do with their personal moral behavior. The Penn State review says up front that they are unwilling that anyone question Mann’s integrity. The Muir Russell review failed to ask Jones if he carried through on his threat to delete emails. The Oxborough review is just as weak. Clearly, there has been no serious attempt to investigate the moral behavior of the climategaters,.
    As regards the science, we must learn what theories are held by climate scientists and what evidence there is for them. Only Keenan addressed this matter when he explained that his professional expertise in statistical time series analysis permitted him to conclude that there is no climate science, at least not at CRU. No one else has addressed this matter. The climategaters do historical work on proxies for CO2 concentration. Their only theories explain how this information is collected and how it is massaged. Of course, their statistical expertise is crucial, along with their honesty. In this Guardian debate, McIntyre brought up the crucial issue of “hiding the decline” and made the crucial points, but no one else touched it.
    Beyond climategate, the crucial theory that is needed at this time would explain cloud formation and similar phenomena in an atmosphere heated by CO2. As everyone knows, no such theory exists.
    I hope that Keenan, McIntyre, and Pearce publish their thoughts on the debate. It was not a whitewash but it was too brief and too shallow to be worthwhile.

  5. Man-made global warming scientists and pundits are like animals whom have learned not to bite the hands that feed them money.

  6. Fascinating that the Guardian censored varies parts of the audio including Keenan’s fraud allegations and then used the pathetic excuse of “legality”. Looks like Monboit and company wanted to keep the most damning speech under wraps,
    “Some parts of the debate have been edited out for legal reasons”
    I also like how Monboit (@12min) tried to force McIntyre to waste his five minutes answering his strawman argument about the CRU temp data, when the bulk of the emails deal with the Hockey Stick and the IPCC.
    Finally it was hilarious to listen to Watson say (@76min) that Mars has no greenhouse gases when it’s atmosphere is 95% Carbon Dioxide!
    What a joke.

  7. Doubt is all well and good, but what wasn’t touched by any of the skeptics is climate sensitivity. 3 degrees centigrade for a doubling of co2. That’s only for fast feedbacks. Include slow feedbacks over centuries and there is more co2 leaving the earth with higher positive feedback.

  8. Theo Goodwin says:
    Beyond climategate, the crucial theory that is needed at this time would explain cloud formation and similar phenomena in an atmosphere heated by CO2. As everyone knows, no such theory exists.
    ############################################################
    I haven’t been able to find the article in Science Daly. But there is a group studying Meteorology Data back 50 years of what cloud formation would be on the hotter days. Which is what would be expected with higher co2 levels. Data shows that cloud formation is reduced allowing more sunlight to heat the ocean for positive feedback. That is one study and we can wait for more science to come out to see what data comes forth.

  9. I don’t find many of the comments in the debate acceptable. For example, as soon as one starts the audio, in the very first minute, we learn that ClimateGate was blown out of proportion by parts of the climate “denier” community, and all this stuff. It only became a scandal because some P.R. people didn’t do a good job in November 2009: surely, the content doesn’t matter.
    There’s also a lot of friendly talk how the people may be forced to listen to criticism and similar nice – but completely unproblematic – words. But the important fact is that the current climate community is overwhelmingly corrupt and it can’t be fixed unless something like 80% of the people who are working in it today are fired together with the bad policies that got us into the current state.
    It’s just impossible to transform this discipline into a decent one while preserving all the people who have been dragged into the community by the very dishonest and purpose-driven activities that the panel may have tried to eliminate. It’s equally absurd as keeping all the communist leaders – at the global and local level – in their chairs after the fall of communism, expecting them to build democracy and the market economy. It just couldn’t work like that.
    So if there will be a solution to the problems, it simply can’t be unproblematic with many people. Debates trying to show that people from both sides can peacefully talk to each other can solve exactly nothing important here.

  10. what a joke – you invite McIntyre all the way from Canada then muzzle him at every opportunity. The guy is not an academic who is skilled in public speaking, he’s a slow methodical mathematician and his qualifications are in the fraudulent creation of the hockey stick – it’s a pity he wasn’t treated that way, I would have loved to have heard more.
    I really wasn’t interested in the boring rambling whitewashing by the CRU and IPCC academics Watson and Davies, I was interested in what Doug Keenan and Steve McIntyre had to say but they were muzzled by Monbiot’s dreadful moderating. Had I been there I would have rushed to the stage and smashed his stupid stop watch!

  11. Everything Monboit says smacks of hard left politics. I am certain he hurt the cause of global warming by being there. He is rude and heartless.
    Other than that he’s a great guy.

  12. Luboš Motl:
    July 15, 2010 at 9:54 pm
    One problem with this debate, and I think most people don’t even know it, is that Steve McIntyre is actually a global warming believer. He just does not like the exaggerations and bad science that has, he feels, distracted people away from the real science of global warming. Lindzen, Christy, or Monckton would have made a far better representative than Steve McIntyre.

  13. @Theo Goodwin says:
    July 15, 2010 at 8:20 pm
    Spot on!
    The section for this topic begins at about 60mins on the audio replay.

  14. Piers Corbin being threatened with ejection by Monbiot for some apparently out of line comments.
    I can be fairly certain that it was censorship by Monboit and not ‘out of line comments’ by Corbyn. Piers Corbyn is too smart for Monboit. But this was a Guardian event so no surprise there would be no real freedom of speech.

  15. Theo Goodwin says:
    July 15, 2010 at 8:20 pm
    Beyond climategate, the crucial theory that is needed at this time would explain cloud formation and similar phenomena in an atmosphere heated by CO2. As everyone knows, no such theory exists.
    Maybe I am not understanding you correctly, but isn’t that Lindzen’s Infrared Iris? Isn’t Spencer’s work with clouds in the tropics proof of it? Or should the Infrared Iris still be considered hypothesis?

  16. @about 90mins
    “two more questions…I see the women in the red dress there…”
    Reply:
    […]
    “In fact, this made me think that the microkernel approach was essentially a dishones approach aimed at receiving more dollars for research. I don’t necessarily think these researchers were knowingly dishonest. Perhaps they were simply stupid. Or deluded. I mean this in a very real sense. The dishonesty comes from the intense pressure in the research community at that time to perusue the microkernel topic. Ia a computer science research lab, you were studying microkernels or your weren’t studying kernels at all. So everyone was pressured into this dishonesty, even the people designing Windows NT. While the NT team knew the final result wouldn’t approach a microkernel, they knew they had to pay lip service to the idea.”
    “You could change a few words there and get Global Warming”.
    Referenced quote –
    Voices from the open source revolution
    The Linux Edge 103
    google books –
    http://tinyurl.com/2wmfru2

  17. Dear Jeff,
    look at the numbers . . according to spectrum calculations the radiation hitting the ground increased by 1.7W/m2 due to CO2 in the last 150years and this number will increase to 3.4W/m2 due to doubling. This means, that we already saw more than 50% of the warming due to CO2 until 2100 (including all feedbacks).
    There is no rise of a few degrees centigrades visible due to CO2.
    Cheers,
    LoN
    Jeff Green says:
    July 15, 2010 at 9:19 pm
    Doubt is all well and good, but what wasn’t touched by any of the skeptics is climate sensitivity. 3 degrees centigrade for a doubling of co2. That’s only for fast feedbacks. Include slow feedbacks over centuries and there is more co2 leaving the earth with higher positive feedback.

  18. Why does this remind me of the Blackadder goes forth episode where Blackadder is charged as the Flanders pigeon murderer for murdering General Melchett’s pigeon, and the court case was presided over by General Melchett? Only with Monbiot in the General’s role?

  19. Re Amino and Piers Corbyn
    It may not be clear from the audio, but Corbyn had been continually heckling and generally making a nuisance of himself for some time previously. In what was a generally well-behaved audience, he was showing himself to be a plonker and inhibiting rather than enhancing the discussion. His disturbances were annoying and diminished whatever point he might have been trying to make.
    I am no fan of Monbiot (barred from CiF for disagreeing with him), but in this case I think he handled it correctly. And Corbyn wasn’t actually thrown out. Just told to pipe down a bit or else he would be. The tactic worked and the discussion continued with Corbyn still there..but not shouting the odds so much.
    Re freedom of speech…it was a well-conducted discussion and I saw no censorship or restriction of comments. I imagine the piece where Keenan twice accused Jones of intellectual fraud has been omitted from the audio…The Guardian is sensitive about defamation suits right now….

  20. I am hardly surprised Doug Keenan was censored in that way. If there was a potential legal issue with the fraud claims, then hang him out to dry for the legal beagles to deal with. Monbiot could easily have said something along the lines of “well I’m sure their lawerys will be contacting you in the very near futre”, smug grin etc. Of course, that is precisely what they do not want, a real court case where scientific claims & methods can be placed well & truly in the glare of the spotlight for one & all to see! I suspect that the idea of censorship had been well planned beforehand, these guys are past masters at delivering the right conclusion at the right time!
    BTW Piers Corbyn’s forecasts seem to be coming true for most of the country, at least a week in advance compared to the Met Office’s daily forecasts.

  21. Piers Corbyn was kind trying to coat-rack the “Climategate” debate, in fairness. I like Piers and I want his science heard, because I don’t think it’s being properly heard right now, but the Guardian event was specifically about another topic and so it wasn’t Piers’ turn to rant.
    It’s always a pleasure to hear Steve McIntyre speak, but I think my hero of the evening was Doug Keenan. I’ve crossed paths with him several times before in threads and appreciated his thoughts but not fully understood his position in the debate before. His concern with climate science, it turns out, is my concern – the accountability of the scientists and the integrity and value of the science itself – so I felt like, for the first time in a while, I learned something new about the Climategate landscape in listening to the audio. So it’s a win. 🙂

  22. I was there, second row…
    George Monbiot was actually a very good chair overall.. (and I have been VERY, very critical of George Monbiot)
    You do really need to see hear the audio, to see how bad the UEA’s Trevor Davis was, especially how, the admission that PHil Jones was not seen by Muir Russell after the enquiry panel had formed, was dragged out of him…
    Audio LINK:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/audio/2010/jul/15/guardian-climategate-hacked-emails-debate
    I think it was The Time’s journalist, that asked for confirmation from Davis, whether Mcintyre account was correct, ie the head of the enquiry, had not the head of the department (Phil Jones) to be formally interviewed, after the panel had formed.
    George to his credit, did not allow Davis (UEA) to get away with anything, Davis’ stonewalling after Steve Mcintyres filleting of the enquiry, George pursued the question, with Davis, until after much note shuffling, not sures, mumbling, refering to notes, Davis eventually mumbled Phil Jones,- met Muir Russell in January, Steve Mcintyre said, ‘confirming’, BEFORE the panel had formed.
    Bob Watson’s admission, that he had only read a FEW emails was just laughable, given the debate…
    Fred Pearce did come across very well (Fred and even George came across as journalists) – and I would recommend his
    ‘The Climate Files’ -to complement
    ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ – A J Montford.
    Fred in my mind, still trusts some of the ‘climate sceintists ‘ science too much, but he is very critical of the IPCC, he called it a ‘tradegy’ not a ‘conspiracy’, and I would agree, and perhaps add a popular ‘CAGW mass delusion’
    Keenan was very concise and tough, maybe overstepped the mark, saying all climate science was rubbish (assuming he meant the man made kind)
    What may be lost because he said that, is he talked about the human ‘cost’ of it all, hundreds of millions of poor affected, because we ‘must’ do ‘something’ about AGW,even as the uncertainties get bigger for AR5.
    His other valid point, that struck a chord, was how there is no processes, for challenging academic fraud, incompetance, no way to hold anybody academic to account,(fraud/incompetance) Citing an example, (not climate science) that he was pursueing, where the university, said no method to do this.
    Keenan I think impressed the journalists, like Fred, George, Roger Harrabin (BBC), Times, WSJ, etc, with his conciseness, and interest in accountability of academia, no ‘waffle’.
    Former IPCC man Bob Watson, could only keep repeating, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 95% scientists agree, very superficial platitudes, that just did not work in a debate, where every one was knowledgable.
    Roger Harraibin asked him a question from the audience, and the response from Bob was very poor, totally not answering the question, whijh I heard at least one of the journalists present, saying Bob did not answer the question.
    Fiona Fox (Director Science and the Media -advises governments!!) asked a question, pretty much attacking the Guardian journalists, for being irresponsble for reporting about climategate. She was quite scarey, sounded VERY angry, (listen to the audio)
    Fred Pearces reply was perfect, comparing to how reporting MP’s expenses was referred as attacking democarcy initially, but long term better for democracy (cf climate science)
    Fiona Fox, sounded to be like a very strident ‘activist’, really need to here it for yourself..
    Personally, it was good to finally meet people, Fred Pearce was very easy to talk to, glad to meet Roger Harabin, if only so that I could introduce him to ‘Josh’ (cartoons by Josh) and a couple of others. I was in 2 minds whether to say hello, as I had perhaps ‘bothered’ him enough with emails, Roger has always been courteous to reply many times.
    The journalists present could not fail to see, what the Muir Russell enquiry was really about, following UEA’s and Bob Watsons poor performance here
    George Monbiot, WAS a very good chair… (in a potentially difficult debate)
    I had thought – oh huh, when he started of with the ‘Climate Change DENIAL community’, but it would be picky to highlight any detail.
    He fulfilled the role of chair correctly. (if only he’s stop denial stuff in his blog – that totally alienates me, annd many others,)
    George came across well, with a sense of humour saying:
    “He was the ideal chair, beacuse he had managed to alienate, everybody!”
    Unfortuanetly, Piers Corbyn, imho, came across as a loon.
    Getting angry, is not what it is about, I have read that several sceptical/advocates got together for drinks, swapped contact details and had interesting chats. Even Bob Watson and Doug Keenan. Not just an anonymous angry people anymore..
    Even Dough Keenanm who clearly was angry about Phil Jones’ behaviour, came across as sincere, with no obviouls agenda.. I think the majority of journalists saw where he was coming from… (and maybe will not listen to propaganda against him, he came across MUVH better than Davis,Watson, who ‘waffled’ and new very little.
    Let me repeat, Bob Watson said: “He had only read a few emails!”
    Prompting a response from the audience: ” Do you always go out without doing your homework!”
    And again, Steve Mcintyre, came across as a courteous canadian gent, whose portayal as some sort of sceptical/denying big oilf funded deniar, by the ‘alarmists’ just now looks ludicrous…. AND the Journalists could see this, VERY well attended by journalists…
    The Times correspondent, (2 seats away) said it was shocking that Muir Russell had not been part of the process interviewing Jones, etc, after the panel had formed.
    Trevor Davis, was atotal PR car crash for UEA and establishment procedures.

  23. Dear Amino Acids,
    thanks a lot for your amusing compliment but I wouldn’t agree, and not only because non-native speakers like mine would be in a visible disadvantage. 😉
    With all my respect to Steve McIntyre’s work, talents, and values, I do agree with you that he is essentially an AGW believer – or at most a completely undecided agnostic.
    Best wishes
    Lubos

  24. McIntyre was like a Spaniel and Keenan a Rottweiler
    I was pleasantly surprised both at Monbiot’s fair chairing and the number of well-informed sceptics in the crowd
    Michael Mann uses Sarah Palin as an adversary so he can ridicule scepticism
    He wouldn’t have been able to do that with a Guardian audience
    Monbiot will no longer be able to say ‘the science is settled’ – at last that lie is being nailed
    Keenan’s quote from Linus Torvalds about microkernels was apropos
    I used to work in research in the field of ‘artificial intelligence’
    When I discovered there ain’t no such animal, they told me to shut up
    We were getting millions from a daft EU scheme to ‘discover’ A.I.
    The process where funding goes to whatever sounds plausible to legislators and the electorate is well described in ‘Taken by Storm’: http://takenbystorm.info/

  25. Before anybody criticise me, I put a $100 into Climate audits Tip Jar, to help pay for Steve Mcintyres trip to LOndon… (so put up everybody, donate here, or climate audit)
    Some of the comments here, give the pro camp good reason to question the sceptics.
    The Guardian did not invite Steve as such (they all ready had Doug Keenan) it was the climate audit commentors, that invited him over by offering donations to pay for the trip… and the Guardian were pleased to have him, and surprised about the donations. Over 200, Steve Mcintyre told me on Wednesday in London.
    George Monbiot was actually a very good chair overall..
    And I have been VERY, very critical of George.
    You do really need to see listen to ALL of the audio, to see how bad the UEA’s Trevor Davis was, especially how, the admission that PHil Jones was not seen by Muir Russell after the enquiry panel had formed, was dragged out of him…
    I think the Time journalist, asked for confirmation from Davis, whether Mcintyre account was correct, ie the head of the enquiry, had not the head of the department (Phil Jones) to be formally interviewed, after the panel had formed.
    George to his credit, did not allow Davis (UEA) to get away with anything, stonewalling after Steve Mcintyres, filleting of the enquiry, George pursued the question, with Davis, until after much note shuffling, not sures, mumbling, refering to notes, Davis eventually mumbled Phil Jones,- met Muir Russell in January, Steve Mcintyre said, ‘confirming’, BEFORE the panel had formed.
    Bob Watson’s admission, that he had only read a FEW emails was just laughable, given the debate…
    Fred Pearce did come across very well (Fred and George came across as journalists)
    Keenan was very concise and tough, maybe overstepped the mark, saying all climate science was rubbish (assuming man made kind)
    What may be lost because he said that, is he talked about the human ‘cost’ of it all, hundreds of millions of poor affected, because we ‘must’ do ‘something’ about AGW,even as the uncertainties get bigger for AR5.
    His other valid point, that struck a chord, was how there is no processes, for challenging academic fraud, incompetance, no way to hold anybody academic to account,(fraud/incompetance) Citing an example, (not climate science) that he was pursueing, where the university, said no method to do this.
    Keenan I think impressed the journalists, like Fred George Roger Harrabin, The Times, etc with his conciseness, and interest in accountability of academia, no ‘waffle’.
    Former IPCC man Bob Watson, could only keep repeating, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 95% scientists agree, very superficial platitudes, that just did not work in a debate, where every one was knowledgable.
    Roger Harrabin (bbc) asked him a question from the audience, and the response from Bob was very poor, totally not answering the question, whijh I heard at least one of the journalists present, saying Bob did not answer the question.
    Fiona Fox asked a question, pretty much attacking the Guardian journalists, for being irresponsble for reporting about climategate.
    Fred Pearces reply was perfect, comparing to how reporting MP’s expenses was referred as attacking democarcy initially, but long term better fro democarcy (cf climate science)
    Fiona Fox,(director Science and Media ) sounded to be like a very strident ‘activist’, really need to hear it for yourself.. (which the other journalists, surely picked up on)
    Personally, it was good to finally meet people, Fred Pearce was very easy to talk to, glad to meet Roger Harabin, if only so that I could introduce him to ‘Josh’ and a couple of others. I was in 2 minds whether to say hello, as I had perhaps ‘bothered’ him enough with emails, Roger has been courteous to ‘engage’ many times.
    The journalists present could not fail to see, what the Muir Russell enquiry was really about, following UEA’s and Bob Watsons poor performance here
    George Monbiot, WAS a very good chair…
    I had thought – oh huh, when he started of with the ‘Climate Change DENIAL community’, but it would be picky to highlight any detail.
    He fulfilled the role of chair correctly. (if only he’s stop denial stuff in his blog – that totally alienates me, annd many others,)
    He came across well, with a sense of humour saying:
    “He was the ideal chair, beacuse he had managed to alienate, everybody!”
    It was a good debate, with sceptic and pro AGW people chatting, getting to no one another, even I believe Bob Watson and Doug Keenan going to keep in touch..
    Pires Corbyn came across very badly,

  26. Hey I did an MSc in Cybernetics, big AI dept as well……………. Totally nowhere, I shut up, got my MSC..
    Seriously, what is going on, I’ve just been lost in moderation by Real Climate, and 2 posts of mine at WATTS UP have not appeared.
    Both about the debate, I was there, even helped pay for Steve’s trip, I’ll fax/email a copy of my ticket, if anyone is unsure..
    Hopefully I’m just stuck in moderation somewhere, but other peoples comments are appearing?
    Can someone rescue my comments, please
    [Reply: your comment rescued from the spam folder and posted. ~dbs, mod.]

  27. Rod McLaughlin said McIntyre was like a Spaniel. As much as I admire McIntyre, I have to agree. Too often his delivery sounded hesitant and bland. Presentation is too important. He needs to work on it.
    By the way, an interesting coincidence (I think) just happened. While writing this, I queried Webword on a term (now replaced). This time it failed to operate normally and said, that before I could continue, I would need to answer a question. It asked whether I have taken more than one commercial flight this year. I naively answered in the affirmative. Another box came up and said that I have used more than my quota of CO2 and therefore could no longer use the free version of Webword. I swear that I read this just as I was listening to the applause at the end of the debate.
    I wonder if Al Gore and Prince Charles are permitted to use the free version.

  28. Luboš Motl
    Steve McIntyre is a polite person. So saying anything that looks like criticism of him makes me look bad, I know. But it’s not just him, but Pielke and also Patrick Michaels that believe in manmade global warming. I don’t think any of them believe in the James Hansen/IPCC/Al Gore/ Mann/Santer/etc., etc., disaster scenarios.
    I like Richard Lindzen’s approach: he doesn’t see anything unusual happening in the data. Everything is within the range of normal variability. So he isn’t alarmed about anything whatsoever, large or small.

  29. Barry Woods. Of course Monbiot and Pearce (Ant & Dec) came across well. They were in control, but it has to be realised that they were on the same side as McIntyre and Keenan. The real target was those ………..’s at UEA whose dissimulation had so riled them all.

  30. Is moderation here more rigid than the DT or Cif ? At least at Cif you usually know you’ve been ‘moderated’.

  31. I hope the moderator could please change my two instances of “Webword” to “Wordweb”. If so, publication of this isn’t required.
    Thanks,
    Sean

  32. Credit where it is due, I spoke to Fred Pearce afterwarsd, he is no doubt a sincere person in his beliefs,
    You do not engage and cange people minds by shouting at them, but by being reasonable. EVEN if it takes a VERY long time.
    If peopole shout back at you, when you are being ‘extremely’ reasonable, eventually the majority of people will ask, just who is the ‘extremist’ here.

  33. As a Canadian, I could appreciate Steve’s monotone….
    Generally, it was clear that the Steve and Doug presented facts and figures (including citations!) while the others mouthed platitudes for the most part and avoided the prickly issues.
    I would hope that a new “series” of these presentations could be run, but with each “episode” dealing with one specific issue or topic. In that way, the platitudes run out and the issues must be debated factually. The CAGW camp would be hard pressed to demonstrate causality and CO2 involvement so would likely avoid such a situation.
    Thanks to all those that helped Steve get across the pond to contribute. Had Doug been the only voice of reason, he might have been swamped seeing as he was less interested in the science and more interested in the process. Both areas require significant attention.

  34. If the process is broken, what does that say about the science which is based on that process? They still seem to think that they can just fix the process, slap a few hands, and all will be well. It’s a good start, but they have a long way to go.
    Fred Pearce said “climategate is not a conspiracy, it’s a tragedy”. That’s a false dichotomy, of course. Scientists behaved badly, in a number of ways, but I don’t think many call it a conspiracy. But, “tragedy”? This implies that it was something that “just happened”, that no one was at fault, really. Individual scientists do need to be held accountable for their actions.
    More than anything, Climategate, as well as the IPCC-gates are simply a symptom of a scientific process which is corrupt and rotted to its very core. Doing a patch-up job isn’t going to fix it.

  35. Sean McHugh.. you should have read the licence terms for Wordweb! LOL!

    WordWeb free version may be used indefinitely only by people who take at most two commercial flights (not more than one return flight) in any 12 month period. People who fly more than this need to purchase the Pro version if they wish to continue to use it after a 30-day trial period.
    Global greenhouse gas emissions are currently around 5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per year, and probably need to be reduced by at least 80% have a good chance of avoiding dangerous warming. Most computer users are responsible for far more emissions than is sustainable. For example two short-medium distance return flights can be equivalent to over 1 tonne of emissions1: more than an average person can safely emit over an entire year.
    If you do not qualify you must uninstall the program after the 30-day trial period or purchase WordWeb Pro. The licensing model is designed to allow relatively non-wealthy people to use the program free of charge, and to provide a small incentive for other people who fly a lot to cut down.
    Whenever a user no longer meets the above requirements, and they have installed the product for more than 30 days, they must uninstall the product or purchase WordWeb Pro.
    There is one exception to the above: not-for-profit educational establishments may make a network installation of WordWeb for the use of their students (regardless of whether their students individually meet the licensing requirement).

    Emphasis (and loud guffawing) mine.

  36. Barry Woods, you were there. Are you British? This gentlemanly attitude — which scorns an “activist” reporter and demands friendliness even when there is a stench suggesting a dangerous epidemic — is a real problem to this American and to someone who wants scientists to be practicing science.
    The Climategate matter is fundamentally not about policy, but about the science that backgrounds that policy. If it ain’t science — if the data are changed, if the interpretations are false due to rigged data, if scientists are prevented from publishing in peer reviewed journals because the review is rigged, if…, if…, if…, there ought to be a whole lot more “shouting.”
    Cut out the politeness cr*p and demand the truth. Engage in vigorous discussion, even if it includes anger, but make it about real data and real analyses. I’m with Lubos Motl and Theo Goodwin. There is no climate science. Fire the scientist-imposters — they are making a joke of all science. It doesn’t matter which position re AGW you take — make it about the science and silence the prevacators and those on the take.

  37. Barry Woods;
    I do believe that being there is so important.
    Your analysis of the event was excellent.
    Thanks.

  38. @pyromancer
    Like Barry, I was there. Shouting and screaming and generally acting like an oik would have been entirely counterproductive and would have been roundly condemned by 98% of those present. That sort of behaviour was entirely inappropriate for the meeting.
    Piers Corbyn may have had some good points to make, but his petulant and ill-mannered heckling meant that they fell on stony ground.
    If you have a meeting at Penn State with Mikey Mann, feel free to act like a spoilt kid. But not in London, please.

  39. I can’t watch the video. The sound of Monbiot’s voice as he pretends to care about the environment or planet makes me sick. If he wants an authoritarian government he should just say so instead of beating around the bush trying to get the public to accept it via backdoors.

  40. It seems every issue which comes to light about the science in MSM is prefixed with the caveat “though it doesn’t affect the overall science…”
    It doesn’t cut it any more. The failings in climate sciences, the lies and concealments, the clear and present intrusion of advocacy steering scientific endeavour, the science assessment panel that didn’t assess the science.. so many of these issues emanating from the core activities of those who purport to lead the science. Something here is fundamentally wrong. It’s not just circling wagons and siege mentality, it’s not just about getting defensive even though there’s nothing to hide. There’s SO MUCH to hide, still so many issues outstanding, so many urban myths surrounding matters of climate science that have circumvented critical examination and instead passed from folklore into scientific “law”.
    How can we possibly trust that the science is good, when there is so much evidence to suggest that the science is bad? DOES this all affect the core findings of research? It HAS to. It’s like admitting that Schiaparelli’s eyes were bad and his telescope was weak, but arguing that this doesn’t affect the science behind the canals of Mars. It’s ludicrous to suggest that we can place confidence in a science where uncertainties have been concealed by people in which we plainly cannot place confidence.
    It strikes me that there really is something rotten in the state of Denmark and I don’t want to be a Rosencrantz or a Guildenstern, I want out of this damned boat.

  41. Pyromancer
    I understand very well your impulse to shout. I’ve done it too. I too know the science has not yet started to be unravelled. However, now think of how most bridges have been built: each end built from whatever is safe to build on, at that end. So too with Climate Science. Come and shout to us here and just watch and appreciate the bridge being built from the other end. Transform your shouts into scientific conciseness. Teach yourself to hit the nail on the head in one – channel that shouting impulse into concentration on the key science points, and on honing the accuracy all the time – as Monckton has done, as Smokey continues to do.

  42. Bob Watson is a long time settled science man:
    “When asked in 1997 at Kyoto, as the new IPCC Chairman, about the growing number of climate scientists who challenged the conclusions of the UN that man-induced global warming was real and promised cataclysmic consequences, he responded by denigrating all dissenting scientists as pawns of the fossil fuel industry. “The science is settled” he said, and “we’re not going to reopen it here.”
    http://sovereignty.net/p/clim/kyotorpt.htm
    He is also Al Gore’s favourite scientist, having worked for him when he was Veep.
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8S7VQ280&show_article=1
    “We need an advocate such as Al Gore to help present the work of scientists across the world,” said Bob Watson, former chairman of the IPCC and a top federal climate science adviser to the Clinton-Gore Administration. (that was at the Nobel presentation)
    Gore was equally fulsome about Watson at Watson’s World Bank leaving party:
    http://info.worldbank.org/etools/BSPAN/PresentationView.asp?PID=2129&EID=963
    “Jack Gibbons, Watson’s former boss at the White House, read aloud a letter written to Watson by Al Gore. In this letter, Gore calls Watson his “hero of the planet,” commends him on his incredible career and contributions, and congratulates him on his new jobs. Gibbons also spoke about the challenges facing scientists whose scientific evidence is often viewed not as strict science but as efforts to steer policy.”
    The new jobs, taken up shortly after a visit by Gore to the UK to meet the political parties, were Director of Strategy at the UK’s premier social engineering institution, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and Chief Scientific Advisor to Defra, (UK environment ministry).
    Comments from Watson at his leaving party, included these gems:
    He stated that in five years he hopes the Bank has mainstreamed climate change as a consideration for any policy or lending operation.
    Among his major challenges he mentioned the issue of making sure that nationally and internationally, environmental policy is actually based on sound science.
    He frequently mentioned the difficulties of getting the message of climate change across in politics, and referenced David King’s recent conference on the issue of ensuring that scientists are allowed to speak the truth.
    Tyndall is an offshoot of CRU, as are many other “climate institutes”, usually with a CRU scientist as Director. This is how UK politicians get their info and probably why we have the most hare brained legislation of any country in the world, although the US is trying to catch up fast.

  43. Pyromancer
    PS I thought of a title: “A Living Room Full of Elephants” – the strange and curious circumstances by which Climate Science doesn’t just have one elephant in the living room, it has a whole herd of elephants. To name a few:
    CO2 greenhouse effect diminishes with rising CO2 level
    Water vapour effects more than cancelling out CO2 effects
    UHI effect
    Worsening station siting issues
    Station loss esp Arctic and Russia
    Latex substitution for whitewash on Stevenson screens
    Henry’s Law forgotten (temperature-dependent CO2 solubility)
    Sheer size of area and volume of oceans overlooked
    Effects of El Nino etc overlooked
    Extreme fluctuations natural in polar regions overlooked
    Correlation with solar cycles overlooked
    MWP worldwide overlooked
    Roman Warm Period and Holocene overlooked
    Ice core CO2 levels untrustworthy…
    …hey, there’s work for you! And I’ve only named some of the elephants from the pure science. Then there are the hidden, unrecognized knock-on effects of Maggie Thatcher’s redirection of research which I am extremely sure has had a highly cumulative effect like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice… to give just a taster of the rest…
    …who’d a thunk that so many elephants could have descended on that living room all at once! yet this seems to be what happened…

  44. I agree with Luboš Motl’s assessment (July 15, 2010 at 9:54 pm)
    …..But the important fact is that the current climate community is overwhelmingly corrupt and it can’t be fixed unless something like 80% of the people who are working in it today are fired together with the bad policies that got us into the current state.
    “It’s just impossible to transform this discipline into a decent one while preserving all the people who have been dragged into the community by the very dishonest and purpose-driven activities that the panel may have tried to eliminate. It’s equally absurd as keeping all the communist leaders – at the global and local level – in their chairs after the fall of communism, expecting them to build democracy and the market economy. It just couldn’t work like that.

    In the British parlance: Here Here (or is that Hear Hear?)

  45. Trevor Davies has been sent to the Russian front. Oh, sorry, it’s China.
    http://www.pollutiononline.com/article.mvc/UEA-launches-Climate-Change-Collaboration-0001?VNETCOOKIE=NO
    Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Transfer at UEA said: ‘It is a huge honour to enter this partnership with Fudan University. I see this collaboration as transformational for the Tyndall Centre, and Fudan sees it as potentially transformational for China”.
    Professor Davies will be the Director of Strategy for Tyndall Centre Fudan.

  46. Regarding cleaning up the science, I’ve argued previously that I don’t think environmental sciences (I think the problem spreads across the wider subject) can be salvaged in this generation, and I think it will need hand-holding and some stern academic “parenting” in the new generation too. And that’s only IF the subject itself can survive the rigour of appropriate academic and scientific standards.
    My suspicion is that the field is only really attractive, as an academic career specifically, to a very narrow band of individuals having a particular ideological mindset (one might describe them glibly and as “tree huggers”) and their interest in entering the field is specifically for the purpose of shaping science so that it specifically serves ideologically oriented policy decisions.
    What is needed, though, is an end to academic science being led by advocacy motivation. If that door leading to the perversion of science is closed, by applying regulatory control to assert much-needed rigour and scientific integrity, the field will no longer be attractive to the activists and may collapse.

  47. SimonH says:
    July 16, 2010 at 9:50 am
    My suspicion is that the field is only really attractive, as an academic career specifically, to a very narrow band of individuals having a particular ideological mindset (one might describe them glibly and as “tree huggers”) and their interest in entering the field is specifically for the purpose of shaping science so that it specifically serves ideologically oriented policy decisions.

    These people needn’t be bribed to act corruptly. It’s natural to them, an outgrowth of their advocacy- (“Do something for Gawdsake”) oriented template.

  48. Am I the only one that noticed that The 6-and-change minute Guardian video does not actually show McIntyre saying anything. In fact I think that, other than appearing in shots showing others speaking, there is no mention of Steve at all, in the video…

  49. Jeff Green writes:
    “I haven’t been able to find the article in Science Daly. But there is a group studying Meteorology Data back 50 years of what cloud formation would be on the hotter days. Which is what would be expected with higher co2 levels. Data shows that cloud formation is reduced allowing more sunlight to heat the ocean for positive feedback. That is one study and we can wait for more science to come out to see what data comes forth.”
    They are collecting data. Good for them. I wish they would be candid about that fact and not say they have confirmed hypotheses. The only person I know who has a tentative but real set of hypotheses about cloud formation is Svensmark.

  50. Amino Acids writes:
    “Maybe I am not understanding you correctly, but isn’t that Lindzen’s Infrared Iris? Isn’t Spencer’s work with clouds in the tropics proof of it? Or should the Infrared Iris still be considered hypothesis?”
    Good questions. The immediate answer is that they have no confirmed hypotheses. But I will check again. I am sure you will do the same. Thanks.

  51. SimonH says:
    “Piers Corbyn was kind trying to coat-rack the “Climategate” debate, in fairness. I like Piers and I want his science heard, because I don’t think it’s being properly heard right now, but the Guardian event was specifically about another topic and so it wasn’t Piers’ turn to rant.”
    Right on, Simon. The key to this debate is focus focus focus. The way you identify a climategater is by their unwillingness to focus on the topic at hand and by their obsessive need to talk about policy. I do not mean that Corbin is a climategater; others can lack focus too.

  52. The end to climate hysteria won’t come with a bang. Too many careers, too much money and too many egos have been invested in it for it to go away in a hurry.
    Some may have been disappointed by the Guardian debate but it’s a good stepping stone in the war to uncover the truth, whatever that is. We need journalists to stop seeing AGW as cut and dried. We need them to stop seeing sceptics as a bunch of raving right wing oil shills. What we need is better climate science and they’re in a far better position to demand it. Steve McIntyre is an excellent argument for all that, precisely because he is annoyingly even handed and precise 😉 He typifies what the journalists imagine scientists to be, staggeringly clever and honest to the point of pain.
    Demanding better science is the key to resolving global warming and it’s the one area that believers can’t argue with sceptics (though they do). If everyone is to be persuaded to act on CO2 then the science HAS to be better, because clearly it’s not doing the job right now.
    Let’s face it, if the CRU represent some of climate science’s finest, are we sure that they wouldn’t miss genuine evidence of climate trouble, even if that proof presented itself with a badge saying ‘hi, I’m categorical proof of CAGW’? I’m not and it’s a continual source of doubt of my scepticism. I suppose that makes me a climate change agnostic.
    What is encouraging is that the AGW positive press are beginning to doubt the quality of the scientists, not least because they can’t even investigate something as simple as Climategate without incompetence and bias. Often we judge others on their ability to perform tasks that we think we could handle and while the likes of Fred Pierce and George Monbiot might feel out of their depth examining the minutiae of climate science, I think we all know that they could have made a better job of investigating the CRU emails… and did.
    Thanks to all the sceptics who attended the debate. Keep up the pressure!

  53. Pyromancer76 writes:
    “Barry Woods, you were there. Are you British? This gentlemanly attitude — which scorns an “activist” reporter and demands friendliness even when there is a stench suggesting a dangerous epidemic — is a real problem to this American and to someone who wants scientists to be practicing science.”
    I am with you in spirit, Sir. Unfortunately for the Brits, they have not enjoyed robust free speech as we (used to) enjoy it in the USA. They don’t know better.

  54. Reed Coray says:
    July 16, 2010 at 9:19 am
    I agree with Luboš Motl’s assessment (July 15, 2010 at 9:54 PM)
    “…..But the important fact is that the current climate community is overwhelmingly corrupt and it can’t be fixed unless something like 80% of the people who are working in it today are fired together with the bad policies that got us into the current state.
    Their work may have a place. The various investigative committees have a qualifier:
    [… the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.]

    The above is true for the UEA/CRU investigations also.
    I accept that.
    I also recognize that their work can never leave academia. It is not ready for prime time.
    NASA GISS, NOAA, UEA/CRU, UK Met Office, BoM, CISRO, etc… or the IPCC itself, until work can stand scrutiny, be reproduced and be recognized as actual science all products regarding ‘climate science’ must remain within academia and not brought into the real world and considered in policy decisions.

  55. “Reputation preservation” so says Pro-Vice Chancellor of University of East Anglia Trevor Davis encapsulates the reason and expected outcome of the three inquiries to the leaked/hacked emails. Preserving the reputation of Phil Jones, the Climate Reseacher Unit at East Anglia, and above all, the reputation of the University are paramount to all other considerations. The response to Climategate by the email authors and the sponsoring institutions has been about preserving their reputation, nothing more and nothing less. The science be damned!, and so it is.
    A query from the audience to Steve McIntyre, “Where are all the joules that have caused climate warming come from?” was neatly ducked although addresses the fundamental issue: why does earth heat and cool over its lifetime? Of course the current answer is “we don’t know.” We acknowledge that greenhouse gases help keep earth’s global temperature within a fairly narrow range. However, the oceans seem to be playing a dominant role, the so called “ocean as a thermostat” conjecture.
    Back on topic as to the famous emails, nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing is going to tarnish the reputation of UEA even if it takes an act of Parliment, which seems to have gotten into the fray already, poorly I might add.

  56. Don’t Monbiot’s eyes sayit all…?
    REPLY: Since Christopher Monckton also has eye issues (Graves disease) and I admonish posters that taunt him for that reason, I’ll voice the same concern here. -Anthony

  57. Hey Pyromancer76 and Theo Goodwin,
    I would appreciate it if you could direct me to an example of where a US debate where both sides were shouting at each other produced some sort of beneficial result. Your comments are plain silly.
    I actually feel that in Australia, Britain and the US the debate has actually started to improve because the non-believers are mounting a rational and calm argument. A lot of Warmers would love us to shout and scream so they could call us loons. Ths debate will ultimately be won by those who are able to convince the voting tax payers of the reasonableness of the commonsense argument. Those people will be the calmer of the two sides.

  58. RiHo08 says:
    July 16, 2010 at 2:49 pm
    if you listen closely to the question “Where are all the joules that have caused climate warming come from?” Steve McIntyre said “I don’t know!”

  59. Randy,
    I did not mean to suggest that shouting is a good thing. Politeness is a wonderful thing. However, pulling your punches is a bad thing. McIntyre had great punches but did not put his force behind them. Of course, the “moderator” would not permit him time. Censoring is a bad thing. On the audio and video they censored Keenan. That is a bad thing. It is especially bad for me because I wanted to see him land his powerful punches. But the Brits have never known robust free speech and must be excused for their censorship.

  60. Well,
    I was certainly out of Monbiot’s “line” and I was not by any means the only one making audience rumblings against Monbiot’s frequent use of the pejorative term “Climate Change denier” (and some who had been muttering in fact left early but I was still there to be blamed) .
    Monbiot I think maybe sees he goes to far on this (I had a perfectly reasonable discussion with him afterwards) but his main distress was because I interjected when Bob Watson made some remarks of seriously strained credibility on Mars, Earth, Venus and CO2 (I think in response to my question). I make no apology for interjecting to defend the integrity of science.
    It is true that the meeting was not primarily about science but then the panel raised or alluded to science claims in many places.
    To see more on the missing science issues please visit Climate Realists reports:
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6006&linkbox=true&position=1

  61. Piers Corbyn
    I’ve seen the brutal way that Monbiot treated Ian Plimer. So for me to think he would be unfair to you is no stretch at all.
    Kindest regards, best wishes,
    Gene Nemetz

  62. That woman who claimed that we don’t challenge Newton’s Law of Gravity anymore shows the absolute ignorance of warmists toward real science, as well as what panjandrums they are. Einstein totally rewrote Newton, and even today one of the biggest areas of research in physics is working on developing a quantum theory of gravity (in fact, that woman’s own Government has dumped a few billion into the Large Hadron Collider in order to answer that very question). Anybody who knows anything about science knows this.

  63. Piers..
    see what Latimer Alder says about the mood – bishop hill person – he felt the mood of the audience was simil.
    Over a hundred hands were reaching to the sky to ask questions..
    The chair had NO need to ask you one, he Could have completely, legitimately ignored you. He knows who you are, You both DO NOT get on….
    So why do you think he picked YOU out.
    To be a fair chair, and allow a known sceptic to ask a question.
    Or, to allow someone, he knows will present themselves badly.
    And make the sceptic case look bad.. (fair/cynic?)
    George allowed the Time correspondent to pursue Trevor Davis on the Muir russell not meeting Phill Jones line of questioning, the Times journalist said this was SHOCKING (maybe not heard on the audio, I was 2 seats away. )
    My question did not get asked, was George ignoring me, far better the person in the blue shirt, that I thought was me, turned out to be that Times journalist.
    You came across to the majority as a heckler, whilst a subset of the sceptic tribe may think you did well, and how bad George was…
    The mood of the audience did not see that..
    It was pretty evenly sceptic /pro mix (lots from Bishopl Hill had come along) and a LOT of journalists, and it was largely GOOD natured. Doug Keenan said far more damaging things, but he was listened to, and his sincerity, conciseness and passion came across by the way he handled himself.
    The mood also picked up on how BADLY Fiona FOX, came across.. NOT as impartial disspassionate Director of the Science annd Media Centre (that advices government) but as a stident ANGRY AGW activist…
    There were very many journalists present, they may have pause to think – Fiona Fox is advicing government of climate science bias in the media, maybe she is a little biased herself.
    (see newwatch a while ago, where she said this
    Richard Black (BBC environment)
    “to have a sceptic in every interview is misleading the public about ‘climate science’” – Fiona Fox – Newswatch
    “People like Richard Black , fighting internally (at the BBC) to say we DON’T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story.” Fiona Fox – Newswatch
    So please Piers take it constructively, your message in that forum was lost(to the JOURNALISTS) by the way you handle yourself.. Doug Keenan and Steve Mcintyre came across well, some people may still think they are wrong, but they were listened too.
    Steve filleted the muir russell enquiry, the time looked for clarification, and Steve was prooved right!
    Piers frequently outperforms with his weather/climate predictions embarrasing the big boys (met office, etc) yet he allows the establishment to easily dismiss him..
    Think carefully, WHY did George pick you Piers to ask a question…….
    (from a hundred other hands)
    A good chair or a cynical way to let a sceptic look bad?
    I thought he was a good chair , so one the other or both.
    As some who ALSO comes across badly, I find it an effort to contain myself sometimes, but I am ‘becoming’ selfaware enough to do this…
    I introduced Rogar Harrabin (BBC) (who I’m sure thought I was some sort of ‘loon’ as well, when I started emailing him, some time ago) to ‘Josh’ and together to Doug Keenan.. The journalists seemed very interested to speak to Doug Keenan, I would have thought twice about introducing anybody to Piers.

  64. Clearly, in the UK, lessons about what constitutes sound science are being learned. Even the CGW alarmist George Monbiot makes concessions to skeptical critics. This is progress.
    But in the US, with the utter lack of airing climategate’s critical issues, little is being learned by elites and the chattering classes. But climate scientists do not necessarily share the same boat. A perfect case in point comes from a discussion on climategate between the New York Times environmental science reporter Andrew Revkin and NPRs Ira Flato on “Talk of the Nation,” versus climate scientist Richard Muller.

    “…Climategate will never be over. They’re [skeptics] going to keep – that reverberating echo chamber of the blogosphere will keep asserting that this episode fundamentally eroded understanding, you know, the idea that we have a clear picture of a human warming climate. And that’s all -that’s not going to change, just because there are people who are immune to evidence.”

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128568245
    Let me introduce these journalists to the old saw that the ‘shoe is on the other foot’ – if only they notice.
    On the one hand there are Warming Believers immune to the evidence too – some who have state-funded microphones and national audiences to promulgate their ignorance of the evidence and bigotry against substantive scientific criticism. On the other hand, there are notable climate research scientists formerly convinced of man-made global warming who find climategate disturbing, posing a real challenge to doing sound science. Some appear to be agnostics now. Some deeply disagree with Revkin.
    For example, UC-Berkeley physicist and climate scientist Richard Muller, who served to untangle another unsound-science controversy, the famous NAS Hockey Stick panel in 2006. Muller, a MacArthur ‘genius’ Fellow now with Lawrence Livermore Labs, had this to say about climategate scandal to me in a recent email:

    “I found the climategate emails to be extremely disturbing.  They do throw doubt on all the work published by the Hadley CRU team, and those who worked with them.  I am equally disturbed by their blatant manipulations of the peer-review system.
    “Also disturbing are the revelations of the various investigations into the procedures of the IPCC.  I had not previously been aware of their extensive use of grey literature, or the apparent fact that authors of sections had the right to overrule referee demands.
    “I am now engaged in a scientific re-evaluation of the thermometer data.  This is a major project, and we plan to derive a new estimate for temperature change in the past 100 years.  I have no idea what the answer will be, because so much of the past work is now tainted.  But our work will be transparent and public and we will encourage others to check and duplicate our work.” (Personal communication, June 18, 2010.)

    Clearly, the last paragraph indicates that climate scientists have seen their credibility impugned, and their data and results scientifically damaged. Climategate has taught them lessons about their conduct and standards of sound evidence they would not have learned without the scandal. Thus, scientists must change in order to convince others about the science.
    Interestingly, neither Flato nor Revkin have learned how practicing climate scientists are reacting to climategate with reforms aimed to meet their critics challenges.
    Instead they persist in the True Belief that there’s nothing wrong with climate science as practiced before the scandal.
    But, if so, why would Prof. Muller be “extremely alarmed?” So eager to set new standards of transparency, methodological sharing, and invite independent replication? Obviously, the problems skeptics have long claimed have left their mark upon climate scientists after climategate. How could Revkin and Flato miss this?
    But even worse, Revkin gets his climate science facts wrong.

    “Jim: My question is, has the hockey, the so-called hockey stick graph, has that been discredited?
    “Mr. REVKIN: Well, let me tell you what it is, for those listeners who don’t know. In the late ’90s, Michael Mann at Penn – who now is at Penn State and some other researchers, pulled together some of these threads from tree rings and other things and came up with an estimate, over the last thousand years, of temperature, and found that the last 50 years was really outstanding. It stood out as the – a period of warming unparalleled in a thousand years.
    “The original paper was riddled with caveats, all these could, would, might, to be sure, kind of phrases. And it – but then it quickly got spun, including by the IPCC in 2001. In the illustration they derived from it, they removed the gray bands that showed you the error, the possible up and down error. And as you go farther back in time, the range of possible error in these estimates is much, much higher. So that was where the problem was. The National Academy of Sciences did a study that assessed this. And largely, there were some problems that they raised with the way it had been done. But since then also, the main thrust of that work has been repeatedly replicated by other groups of scientists.
    “So the idea that we’re in a period of unusual warming in the last 50 years has not been erased.”

    Revkin concedes that the Hockey Stick’s temperature reconstruction problems were in the absence of error bars – that’s all. (It wasn’t about ‘error bars’ but the inherent uncertainty within the data sets used.) The 2006 NAS panel raised issues with its methods, which were resolved by other independent temperature reconstructions.
    Except that these successive independent “replications” of the Hockey Stick temperature graph simply recycled the same cherry picked data by a scientist named Briffa using data from Siberia, as Steve McIntyre demonstrated last fall. (A story summarized by Andrew Montford here (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html) and in his book “The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science,” which Matt Ridley proclaims “one of the best science books in years.”
    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/the-case-against-the-hockey-stick/) But apparently science news not “fit to print” travels slowly to the New York Times.
    Next, Revkin claims that the most important Hockey Stick thesis that later twentieth century warmth is unprecedented withstood the NAS panel’s scrutiny. But not according to Professor Muller, one of the panel’s referees.
    “In the end, there was nothing new left in Mann’s papers that the National Academy supported….” (295, “Physics for Future Presidents,” by Richard A. Muller, 2008) The “unprecedented warming” claim was overturned by the panel, restoring the Medieval Optimum to its prior place as warmer than our time, as he explained last July at UC-Berkely economic historian Brad DeLong’s blog.
    To Muller, the “Hockey Stick” controversy is a lesson in the lure of confirmation bias – believing what one wants to find, despite the evidence – one that Revkin still has not learned.
    Finally, Revkin’s notion that merely a frustrated wish among scientists for action led to “oversimplification” of certain science is not a lesson one gleans from the London debate on climategate, hosted by the Guardian on Wednesday.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jul/15/climategate-public-debate
    On the contrary, there was a good-deal of agreement about the changes climate science needs to make, despite three Parliamentary investigations that never once interviewed the critics smeared or sabotaged in climategate’s emails.
    From Professor Muller’s perspective, who is the unlearned, marginalized crank now? And they still dare to call themselves “journalists?” Obviously, neither Revkin nor Flato have learned the same lessons scientists on the research frontier of global warming like Muller have.

  65. Hey, Randy, shouting is not a good thing. Politeness, for politeness sake, is not a good thing. Reasonable debate is. When one cannot have a reasonable debate, when science is being denied, trampled on, or perversely twisted, does one keep a stiff upper lip and remain “polite”? I think not. I would like to see a verbal punch. I believe in reasonable anger that is articulate. You are accusing me and others of opting for “emotional”, “irrational” shouting. Let’s hear it for a standard of reasonableness that demands a discussion of science, not politeness for prevarications.

  66. Orson,
    Thanks so much for your wonderfully informative and helpful post. I will look around for Muller’s work. If you want to provide more guidance in that direction, I would appreciate it.

  67. US halts funds for climate unit – pg3 – Sunday Times – 18th July 2010.
    The Times website has gone behind a paywall…..so,
    “The Americal Government has suspended its funding of the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit (CRU), citing the scientific doubts raised by last Novembers’s leak of hundreds of stolen emails.
    The US Department of Energy (DoE) was one of the unit’s main sources of funding for its work asembling a database of global temperatures…
    it continues…
    “The DoE peer review panel will now sift through the (Muir Russell) report and decide if American taxpayers should continue to fund the unit.”
    ——————————————
    Perhaps someone in the USA could advice the DoE of the many and varied criticisms of the Muir Russell review. Not least that it was a total whitewash, documented at Climate Audit.
    As outlined by Steve Mcintyre at the Guardian debate on climategate in London on Wednesday the 14th July 2010, that Muir Russell had only met with Phil Jones (head of unit) before the panel had been formed and the inquiry started. The Times correspondent asked Trevor Davis (UEA) to confirm whether this wa sthe case, and Trevor Davis, eventually said Phil Jones met Muir Russell in january.. The panel convened in February..
    Lots of detail about the Muir Russell review failings at, Climate Audit..
    Another criticism being, Muir Russell had not EVEN contacted Steve Mcintyre, or a number of the other critics, let alone interviewed any of the critics of CRU discussed many times in the emails, whose complaints about data openess led to Illegal (in face of FOI request) deleteions of emails relating to IPCC AR4…
    These included senior AMERICAN scientists, so presumably funding for the AMERICAN scientist should be looked at by the DoE’s peer review panel as well.
    Perhaps the DoE should request all correspondence from the American scientists that were communicating and working with CRU scientists, as both sets of scientists were co-authors and worked closely in the same ‘climate’ field and both very involved in the IPCC process.
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/muir-russell-skipped-jones-interviews/
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/10/bob-denton-on-muir-russell/
    and more articles about Muir Russell at Climate Audit

Comments are closed.