Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit has written another essay on the poor way that CRU/UEA and NOAA have dealt with FOIA requests. To say “poor”, that means in some cases “not at all”. He makes this salient point:
…if the climate community wants to get the Climategate affair behind them, the best course of action for them is to voluntarily get any and all documents pertaining to the events on the public record, rather than contesting the production of each and every document. If a NOAA scientist is in possession of documents that have been destroyed by CRU scientists, NOAA should find out precisely what their employees have and voluntarily put it in the public domain.
Indeed. Eventually all of this will come out. You may as well get it out now and get it over with. Full essay here at ClimateAudit
Even after this time the information was made available there would be doubts as to the accuracy of what is produced. There is a history of using “Proper” “Adjustments” of historical references already by the “Team”!
“Fool Me Once”!!! That was years ago! But they keep trying.
Don’t forget to look into the background to Climategate and find out who has been controlling things behind the scenes.
For the UK view, do a search for Brandon Gough Common Purpose Climategate.
Dragging ones feet is a good trade for these guys as of now. They do not see anything happening to their reputations, except in the “unconvinced” column. Those votes were not to behad anyway. A large enough shit in opinion against them (I see no hope for that), barring more revelations.
I can’t think of any other “science” that works this way………
Now the new motto is communicating their message better.
It’s still the same old message.
If they are in possession of information/data and refuse to release it for peer review, then what they are practicing is not “science” nor should they be called “scientists.”
GPlant
I loled DeeBee, in time the mods will handle, and you’re right.
If any scientist has to hide any correspondence, papers or studies developed using public funds the only conclusion that can be drawn is that he or she already knows their work is incomplete and/or flawed, and will not pass scrutiny. If their work is sound, what possible fear could they have of exposure?
NOAA is crying the blues over proposed budget cuts that have them in the crosshairs, claiming that many will die if thier services are cut back.
Here is thier golden chance to prove thier worth. All it costs are a few pieces of paper some grinches in thier organization can’t seem to part with.
Climategate is no longer a major issue to most of the public. It’s primarily important to the skeptical side who keep bringing it up to cast doubt on the findings of mainstream climate science.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/22812
And that was last March.
From the Air Vent, never ever stops giving.
10.FOIA said
November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.
This will turn out to be, in every aspect the green campaign’s Watergate. The final chapters will be complete with letters of reprimand, sanctions, firings, and political fallout. It will touch and grind down all those political and private officials attached to this grand campaign, as the VOTING public becomes more and more aware: We have been duped. And on a grander more global scale than missing sections on a tape, and fingerprints on an office doorknob.
The political process, of legislating a “climate policy”, first needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, worldwide. The EPA needs to be thoroughly reamed out, replacing the biased environmentalist ideology there with a determined commitment to sound science and the public welfare. The new batch of Republican legislators will have failed if they don’t see the political fight through to an effective end. The IPCC needs to be killed, or made political poison for any politician to associate with it. The lead IPCC scientists need to be thrown out of their lead positions, and whether noisily in public or quietly behind closed doors, they need to be thrown out of science altogether, for incompetence bordering on, if not actually constituting, fraud.
But above all, the “laissez faire/science is settled” faith in the current climate “consensus” among scientists themselves needs to be replaced by a determination to find and nail down the physical truth, while humbly admitting what is not in fact known. All of the authoritative scientific institutions have been suborned to a false and incompetent consensus, and their leadership which allowed this to happen need to be thoroughly deposed or humbled. The goal is the much-lauded, but in truth wholly absent, self-correction of the fundamental science. Those who think there might be even a little “greenhouse effect”, and would seek “common ground” with the consensus, are not showing that determination, that freedom from dogma. Judith Curry is as incompetent, and as harmful to science in the long run, as is James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, etc., because there are already scientists like myself that know — not believe, but know — there is no greenhouse effect, and that definitive data exists so that all competent scientists should know it.
All argumentation now within the assumptions of the current consensus is just consuming valuable time, not because of runaway climate, but because of runaway dogma, especially the current scientific dogma. No one can breathe easily until the basic science has been corrected, and the miseducation of yet another generation of scientists and the public has been cut off and reversed.
Will we leave this problem to the next generation as well?
This is so similar to parents trying to tell kids that lying is bad. Kids lie in part because they’re afriad of getting punished for what truly happened. What they don’t realize is that by lying, they’ll get in trouble when the truth comes out (and it will) but get into more trouble for lying about it.
The force of public opinion is greater than the force of law (FOIA or other). Here’s the message we need to get out. There has only been 20 years of warming, 1978-1998, in the past 63 years- nothing unprecedented- just a continuation of the trend since the LIA. Scientific studies and arguments about climate forcings and sensitivity are important and should be the main thrust of climate science, but are not germane to whether or not we have CAGW. What matters is the data. The data is inconclusive because trends are only known in hindsight, but with 30 years of slight cooling, 20 years of significant warming, and 13 years of flat lining, there is no evidence that warming comes close to the projections of the CAGW models or is unprecedented. I think if we stress this simple message, the journalists will eventually get it, and the agenda driven scientists will be forced back to science as practiced in other fields which includes sharing data so that claims can be properly evaluated. “Climate change” fears are more difficult to counter and require the simple truths that climate extreme events have always happened (with examples) and do inspire fear as they always have. Climate is a composite, and we need to break it down into its components: global warming, sea level rise, catastrophic storms, etc. and show, as Pielke Jr. and others have, that there is nothing unprecedented or unexpected in the events sensationalized by the fear mongers. The above is an example of the KISS principle. It is data-based and avoids all the haranguing about theory and disputed claims.
The more I see of Steve McIntyre’s work the more I like him. If anyone can get these people looking at the real world it is him.
Please keep up the good work!!
The political process, of legislating a “climate policy”, needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, worldwide. And no one can breathe easily until the basic science has been corrected, and the miseducation of yet another generation of scientists and the public has been cut off and reversed.
Will we leave this problem to the next generation as well?
for oakden wolf – so what if Climategate is not a major issue to the public? “Climate change” in general is no longer a major issue for the public, that’s the reality.
Climategate remains a constant, bleeding wound for the warmists and it will continue to drag them down in every debate until it is properly dealt with. Till then, it stands as proof that the people who are pushing the “climate change” theory the hardest are to a man Cheats, Frauds, and Liars. And that will be pointed out every day for as long as this remains an issue in the public arena.
They will fight every step along the way – the process of being dragged into the sunlight. They are dependent on lies, and secrecy to maintain their fictions.
In a few years, when the perspective of history is clear, this episode will be used by teachers as the perfect example of science gone bad, of scientists who gave in to their inner demons and took a course of obfuscation, deceit and outright fraud.
Because they knew they were right before they conducted any science and they said so. When reality proved them wrong and they couldn’t face the embarrassment of public humiliation, their internal devils decided a cover-up was justified until they knew they could prove they were actually correct.
In simple English that is known as digging their holes deeper thinking they were digging their way out.
They will be laughing stocks.
DEBEE and HalfEmpty:
I hope the mods leave it alone, Sometimes slips are very accurate!
@Oakden Wolf
Long live skeptics in science!
March 13, 2011
Good bye, Kyoto
By S. Fred Singer
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, after surviving 15 years, mostly spent on life support. It reached its peak in Bali in 2007 at the annual UN gabfest, had a sudden unexpected collapse in Copenhagen in 2009, and has been in a coma since.
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/good_bye_kyoto.html
Sure all the delays smack of guilt. I know they won’t be open with this. The longer resistance to FOIA goes on the more it is confirmed to everyone what so many people had suspected about ‘global warming’. I just want to public to be made fully aware of all the delays. After that they will decide what to think of ‘global warming science’.
ClimateGate, the gift that keeps on giving.
🙂
You may as well get it out now and get it over with.
That would be nice. But it’s unlikely that they will willingly show the world what they are afraid the world will see in them. At some point one would think legal pressure from FOIAs would force them.
I love the smell of ClimateGate in the morning.
Considering their findings were to be used to make law and regulations that are intended to cause major changes in the way people live, and national security is not involved, there can be no excuse for not releasing all information and there is no excuse or reason for law makers not demanding all information, unless they don’t want it released.