From Climategate.tv – see video report below.
This week marks the one year anniversary of the release of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that we now know as Climategate.
Sitting here now, one year later, it’s becoming difficult to remember the importance of that release of information, or even what information was actually released. Many were only introduced to the scandal through commentary in the blogosphere and many more came to know about it only weeks later, after the establishment media had a chance to assess the damage and fine tune the spin that would help allay their audience’s concern that something important had just happened. Very few have actually bothered to read the emails and documents for themselves.
Few have browsed the “Harry Read Me” file, the electronic notes of a harried programmer trying to make sense of the CRU’s databases. They have never read for themselves how temperatures in the database were “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” or the “hundreds if not thousands of dummy stations” which somehow ended up in the database, or how the exasperated programmer resorts to expletives before admitting he made up key data on weather stations because it was impossible to tell what data was coming from what sources.
Few have read the 2005 email from Climategate ringleader and CRU head Phil Jones to John Christy where he states “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” Or where he concludes: “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
Or the email where he broke the law by asking Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame to delete a series of emails related to a Freedom of Information request he had just received.
Or the email where he wrote: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”
Or the other emails where these men of science say they will re-define the peer review process itself in order to keep differing view points out of the scientific literature, or where they discuss ousting a suspected skeptic out of his editorial position in a key scientific journal, or where they fret about how to hide the divergence in temperature proxy records from observed temperatures, or where they openly discuss the complete lack of warming over the last decade or any of the thousands of other emails and documents exposing a laundry list of gross scientific and academic abuses.
Of course, the alarmists continue to argue—as they have ever since they first began to acknowledge the scandal—that climategate is insignificant. Without addressing any of the issues or specific emails, they simply point to the “independent investigations” that they say have vindicated the climategate scientists.
…
Regardless of what one thinks of the veracity or independence of these so-called investigations into the climategate scandal itself, what has followed has been a catastrophic meltdown of the supposedly united front of scientific opinion that manmade CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming.
In late November of 2009, just days after the initial release of the climategate emails, the University of East Anglia was in the hotseat again. The CRU was forced to admit they had thrown away most of the raw data that their global temperature calculations were based upon, meaning their work was not reproducible by any outside scientists.
Complete transcript to the video here
The place where all the emails can be searched and read: http://eastangliaemails.com/
@John whitman
I can;t stand her books. She can’t write a character to save her life, and realistic dialogue has escaped her too. But when well adapted for TV/film, her plots are very watchable. And David Suchet portrays Poirot extremely well. So I watch these quite frequently.
Overall though , I prefer Andy Dalziel and John Rebus as my detective heroes. A little more complex characters than the vain Poirot. And Morse, partly because I was at Oxford a long time ago and still go back quite frequently. Any of those would have unmasked the whistleblower within a couple of hours.
For a change try the late Josephine Tey or Sarah Caudwell. The first could write superbly well and tells a good stiry, and the latter is just plain amusing..in an intellectually donnish way. We miss them both.
“The justification is worse than the crime.”
R. De Haan says
” THEY WILL NEVER GIVE UP ”
They will not give up even when the ice sheets start rolling in.
Somewhere here or there this morning I have read again about how Greenland
and the Antarctic are melting “Faster than we thought” and sea level is rising precipitously.
IS this true ? I can find no evidence supporting this claim but it continues to be repeated. In looking at photos from around the world and comparing them with older photos I see no sea level rise at all ( maybe in Venice). Where is it all going ?
For me it was the “Harry Readme” file (link in the main post) which rang so true. The poor folks who have to do the donkey work on a project like that are the ones who really know what goes on – it seems many of those running the project simply didn’t bother about data or model quality.
Onion says:
November 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm
So exactly what was so important about that data and code for Harry to spend months getting it under control? While I confess to not being quite sure what Harry was working with, I figured if that had such horrible data and metadata issues, any other global dataset would likely be as bad. If I were a cynic, I’d the data isn’t relevant to the record because it’s so bad it can’t be believed.
A couple things of context. The files Harry worked on “CRU TS2.1/3.0” started in and ended in directories like
The only reference to /cruts/ in the Emails is only a couple months before Climategate and refers to CRU TS version 3.0. (Email addresses and some non-HTML display codes edited out) :
If you’re going to make a cryptic claim, please back it up with something that can be discussed and please include references. Otherwise you look like an anonymous troll trying to spread confusion instead of understanding.
Derecho64 says: November 20, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Can anyone tell me how the science has been impacted by the emails? Have the major indicators been altered, or changed sign?
CO2 remains a greenhouse gas. Its concentration continues to rise. Satellite data confirm it continues to absorb energy in the spectra range it always has. 2010 is another very hot year. Glaciers continue to lose mass etc. The “major indicators” have not altered or changed sign (unless you include public perception in the list).
Angry Green Researcher refuses to explain anomalies.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6669&linkbox=true&position=4
Jimash says:
November 21, 2010 at 9:14 am
“I see no sea level rise at all ( maybe in Venice).”
The land under Venice is sinking a.o. due to fresh water retraction.
At some point Climategate is going to be ancient news and you guys will have to come up with something new.
I don’t know, I’m going with the NAS which reiterated the basics of AGW post Climategate. Common sense tells you that tree rings are a small part of the evidence for AGW yet there is this irrational fixation with it.
“”””” Cliff says:
November 21, 2010 at 5:20 pm
At some point Climategate is going to be ancient news and you guys will have to come up with something new.
I don’t know, I’m going with the NAS which reiterated the basics of AGW post Climategate. Common sense tells you that tree rings are a small part of the evidence for AGW yet there is this irrational fixation with it. “””””
“”””” I don’t know, I’m going with the NAS which reiterated the basics of AGW post Climategate. “””””
“”””” At some point > AGW Cliff < will have to come up with something new. """""
Way to go Cliff; Can you see anything that is interesting, with your head down in the sand like that ?
Well last week we got to hear some head honcho of the NAS tell us about his whizzbang high speed bomb design computer that can calculate rubbish faster than anybody else; and it isn't even smart enough to figure out that clouds are NOT a postitive feedback; but ARE a negative feedback.
That's a third grade science question on "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader". To whit:- "When a cloud passes in front of the sun; does it get hotter in the shadow zone; or does it get colder ? "
Well somehow ” > AGW < will be old news " got dropped out of that.
But as YOU said Cliff "I don't know. " So maybe it's time for you to try and learn. Ignorance is not a disease; we are all born with it; but stupidity has to be taught, and there are many willing to teach it.
“”””” Ammonite says:
November 21, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Derecho64 says: November 20, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Can anyone tell me how the science has been impacted by the emails? Have the major indicators been altered, or changed sign?
CO2 remains a greenhouse gas. Its concentration continues to rise. Satellite data confirm it continues to absorb energy in the spectra range it always has. 2010 is another very hot year. Glaciers continue to lose mass etc. The “major indicators” have not altered or changed sign (unless you include public perception in the list). “””””
And the NAS still admits that they don’t model clouds properly; so yes that hasn’t changed.
The NAS also probably believes that if you cut all four legs off a frog, and tell it to jump; it will not jump, because that makes them stone deaf !
George E Smith said:
I am sure that the NAS knows that that only works with cockroaches!
[But must one cut off four legs ( Or six?) to deafen a cockroach? 8<) Robt]
Just a thought, but perhaps the Climategate whistle blower has kept quiet so that he can release the next round of emails just before the next global meeting in Cancun. The first set appeared just before Copenhagen, and what a huge effect that had. There’s nothing better to derail a conference than to precede it with controversy and cede it with doubt.
One should also not forget some of the real conspirators the warmists have on their side, and that’s the mainstream media such as the BBC and Guardian. The BBC are desperate to see the AGW side win through because a huge amount of their pension fund is tied up in green/renewable energy etc. projects and funds, and to have the AGW bandwagon collapse will cause a huge hole in it. I can imagine that’s why there was such a top-down effort to drive the green agenda in all their reporting. The Biblical phrase does come to mind however of “you reap what you sow”.
Ric Werme says: (November 28, 2010 at 9:19 am) in the thread “Despite hellish summer, Russia says “nyet” to AGW” — to Mike Restin’s comment: (November 27, 2010 at 9:37 pm) I still don’t understand why the “harryreadme.txt” file is being ignored.
Ric responds with: Well, you’re certainly wrong to bring this up given the title of this post has nothing to do with Climategate.
Must disagree, Ric. This thread is now old. The question Mike, and I, bring up in the new thread is of something which puzzles us.
Some things need bringing to the fore again, and this is one of them.
Roger Carr says:
> The question Mike, and I, bring up in the new thread is of something which puzzles us.
Well, it puzzled him on the 16th too, he could have have posted something here when
this thread was new.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/16/the-jones-rehabilitation/#comment-530619
Guess I could have, too, Ric… maybe should have; so I am guilty on that count. “Harry” and his ways still appear critical to me, if only as an example of the confusion (being gentle) which seems to have seeped right through the East Anglia CRU and others who espouse AGW through tainted models.
“Harry” said he was winging it, so if his results did not skew the record that has to be either luck, or that what he was doing was not all that vital, anyway.
I just feel there is an important story there, and because I do not have the skill to write it, then I would like to read it.