Thank the Gods for Climategate

Guest post submitted by Steve Garcia

(feet2thefire http://feet2thefire.wordpress.com )

It has now been more than 20 months since the CRU emails were outed, by whatever or whomever. Some day we may actually know who did it, but for now we certainly do not. Depending on who it was, we can only speculate now as to what the immediate motives were. Was it an insider who had seen the nastiness and not wanted to let it go on any longer? Was it an insider who had a grudge against someone at CRU? Was the server hacked into, as is claimed publicly by all on The Team and their many AGW brothers in arms?

Though all that will be extremely interesting if and when it happens, the bigger picture will eventually be this: Who won? And how decisive was Climategate, anyway? Or is it too early to tell? At some point people will try to assess that question. Is now a viable time to do that assessing?

I assert that it may not be too early to tell. And I think our side won, big time. After all, the lay of the land is certainly different. Having been caught trying to rig the game and even lying and fudging the data – and do be aware that much of the public does see it that way – The Team and the IPCC are struggling to gain the ascendancy and monopoly they once had. And it truly does not look like they are winning the battle. But once a witness or ‘expert‘ is caught in a lie, can they ever get the people who witness it to believe them again?

See this article at Der Spiegel,  The Climategate Chronicle – How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised

.

It is noteworthy that the first line of text in the article is a caption in a GERMAN magazine that reads:

To what extent is climate change actually occurring?

Before Climategate, that caption would most likely have read

To what extent is climate change occurring?

To the warmers, it wasn’t IF climate change was happening, but how bad it was going to be.  One word – actually – is revealing, about how even German news sources are doubting what 21 months ago would have been traitorous heresy to doubt.

The momentum certainly appears to have shifted.

But has it?

To answer that, we have to go back to the autumn of 2009 and ask what the balance of power was at that time, to establish a baseline to measure from…

The balance of Power in early November 2009

For all intents and purposes, at that time The Team and the IPCC had a monopoly on telling the story of global warming. The Copenhagen Conference was just coming up in a couple of weeks, and the media blitz was about to get started.

Outside of Steve McIntyre’s ClimateAudit.org, WUWT, and a handful of other skeptical sites, little attention was paid to skeptical arguments. Almost no newspaper or news website – certainly no network news organizations – printed or broadcast any skeptical positions, except to denigrate them, or worse, to ridicule them as ostriches, anti-science wackos and warming “deniers” – the last one harkening back to Holocaust deniers, almost certainly intentionally.

Though Steve had poked holes that those in the know could cast doubt on Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick, which had gone over the heads of most of the world.

The warmers had browbeaten Roy Spencer and John Christy at UAH into changing their satellite adjustments (which I thought ended up being too big an adjustment).

At that time, those FOI requests referred to in the emails had been long since submitted. The stonewalling evident in the emails was well entrenched. The skeptics were trying to find enough information to attempt replication of The Team’s work but were having difficulty getting that information. Also, the public was almost entirely in the dark about there being any other possible side of the story, in spite of the work of Christy, Spencer, Richard Linzen, Willie Soon, and others, including many studies on the supposedly non-existent Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that showed those two events were actually global, as opposed to Mann’s assertion that they were only regional.

Very little – almost none – of the research that argued against the AGW argument was getting out to the public. It is also shown in the emails that many of those studies were having trouble making it into the peer-reviewed literature – and that at least some of that was because The Team was blackballing authors they didn’t like, and sandbagging certain papers when The Team was chosen to be the reviewers.

With the power to control what the public heard or read, there was a definite one-sided tilt to the playing field/battle ground. The consensus was being spread far and wide, almost totally monopolizing what the public heard. Skeptics were marginalized, often ridiculed – and most mendaciously – accused of being in the pockets of the big energy interests (to this day, the AGW supporters assert that this latter is true, in spite of the fact that Anthony, a retired meteorologist, and Steve McIntyre, a retired auditor, are by far the most effective skeptics and have never been shown to be on anyone’s payroll. That those two attend conferences sponsored by or attended by energy industry representatives does not mean any more than that the U.S. and Libya are both in the U.N.)

These ad hoc allegations were parroted in article after article in the news media. Whenever it was necessary to give skeptics any press at all, it was bad press, usually with this: almost as an adjective, typical being something like (paraphrased) “the industry shill Willie Soon.” Almost no entry about a skeptic was complete without such an inflammatory remark by science editors or writers. Yet no such attempt was made to ascertain the source of the funding for AGW proponents – who were paying their way to conferences to Switzerland or resorts in the mountains of Austria, for example. That would have been bad enough, except that Watts and McIntyre weren’t taking money at all. A double standard was in effect, that any money coming from a pro-AGW entity was seen as noble and pure, while funding from industry was evil. Time after time after time, this is what went out in our newspapers and on TV and radio news.

Solid Information and Unambiguous Claims (NOT)

When I first came to ClimateAudit, long before Climategate I saw all the graphs and formulas and technical discussions, and I had two reactions. One was, “How am I ever going to learn about all this and keep up with these people? I’ve never seen a site with so much math.” (That is in spite of being fairly mathematically adept.) The other reaction was, “Gawd! At least there is something here to sink my teeth into.”

Finding any solid technical information about global warming from its supporters was difficult, if not impossible. Every post or article on the pro-AGW sites was filled with claims and summaries, but I didn’t want that. I wanted to go as straight to the source as possible. When I asked on Liberal sites for references, I was always directed to RealClimate, where there was claim after claim, assertion after assertion, paraphrasing after paraphrasing. But I wanted to see what the papers themselves said (not that most of it wouldn’t have been over my head in the beginning). And all the papers that were referenced were behind paywalls, so I couldn’t get into the nitty-gritty like I wanted to.

No one else could, either. Not unless they wanted to pay $30 per paper. So, in essence, their underlying story of CO2 was essentially being hidden from the public. And they knew it. The public was given summaries and assertions and headlines, mostly overstating and exaggerating the case against CO2. And the headlines were atop articles written by a small group of science editors around the country/world who, it turns out, were philosophically in bed with the AGW/IPCC folks. Article after article printed their assertions as fact – and more.

One thing that confused me was that human activities other than CO2 were being ignored. I found out later the reason was that Phil Jones’ co-authored study of UHI turned out to be extremely erroneous).

One thing I saw so often it angered me was that a headline would make an assertion of something as if it was unambiguous, yet when I would read deep into articles for the exact words of the scientists, I almost always saw qualifiers like “we believe,” “most think that,” “up to,” and “it appears that.” Where the scientists themselves were equivocating, the headlines and opening words asserted certainty. Any reader scanning the article would not go deep enough to se the caveats. For allowing this misrepresentation, the scientists should not be let off the hook, because they let those headlines stand without pointing out to the editors their level of uncertainty.

Uncertainty About AGW

It took until Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc, in 2010, for the issue of uncertainty to be addressed seriously and publicly by anyone near the AGW center. That was more than 20 years on down the line. Climate science should be, at the least, embarrassed that it did not come from themselves. And sooner. Give Dr. Curry credit for addressing that long overdue issue.

But as I understand it, that blog would never have existed had she not read enough of the Climategate emails and files to begin to question the claims of AGW. Seeing “The Team’s” reaction to her move to a middle ground and give some credence to the arguments of the skeptical community, it is clear that it took some courage for her to do that. Again, give her credit, this time for her integrity.

So, one thing that came out of Climategate was Climate Etc., and the establishment of a serious middle ground. The terrain was shifted that much, at least. What had been accepted as “consensus” had shifted toward “non-settled science.”

What Constitutes a Win?

As a lone Liberal here at WUWT, it has been a lonely 11+ years for me. But I have been treated with as much respect as I need, and have only been ridiculed once – when someone pointed out that I had used too many All-Caps. I took it like a man. I have never apologized to any fellow Liberals, and have lost a girlfriend of five years, but have made small inroads into a few peoples’ minds about AGW. But most of them thought I was addled in the brain. That was before Climategate. While few of those I talked with had read anything of substance about Climategate, with the main stream media’s shift to a small level of doubt, at least some peoples’ minds have opened up to the possibility that humans are not sizably to blame for whatever warming has existed.

My aim was never to prove that AGW didn’t exist, even though I was always in the small group that distrusted the adjustments, and do not believe (till shown with solid, replicatable science) that there ever was warming beyond us coming out of the Little Ice Age. I think it is enough to show that the science is too unsettled.

In order for that to happen, I always believed that something had to happen to throw doubt on the science behind the CO2 claims. Yes, in fact, I DID hope for a Watergate-style Deep Throat to show up. But that hope seemed so far-fetched that I never voiced it out loud. (So any of you that laugh at my 20-20 hindsight, laugh away. I can’t prove it.) Early on after the release of the emails, though, I was out there talking about Deep Throat. Whoever did it, may the gods favor him or her for many a year.

Now, in a court of law, to show reasonable doubt is enough for an acquittal. An acquittal, for the defense, IS a win.

Is there enough reasonable doubt?

With the level of attention given to AGW these days, with the yawns that greet claims against CO2 anymore, with governments abandoning efforts at controlling CO2 emissions, with even Germans (the most green country in Europe, if not the world) asking “To what extent is climate change actually occurring?” it seems perfectly appropriate to wonder if we have gotten an acquittal for CO2, simply by continuing to cast doubt and keeping at it like bulldogs (thank you, Steve and Anthony, in particular).

  • If we got an acquittal for CO2, it is a win.  There always was a reasonable doubt.  The jury just had to wake up to it.  Anthony and Steve M presented the case long enough and true enough so that could happen.
  • If serious scientists are talking about the uncertainties in climate science, where they were not before, that is a win.
  • If the world now does not accept the claims without some skepticism, it is a win.
  • If previously stilled voices in the climate community now speak clearly and without being intimidated, it is a win.
  • If more and more skeptical or neutral research papers are seeing the light of day, it is a win.
  • If the news media has stopped calling us “deniers”, it is at least a partial win.
  • If they sometimes don’t mention the ad hoc assertions of “industry shill,” it is a partial win. It means some of the respect is coming this direction.
  • If the monopoly on climate change pronouncements is broken (and it is), then it is a win.

Perhaps at some point soon climate science will go back to being the sleepy ivory tower it always used to be. Hansen came along with his claims that we would be warming up (after the 1970s, ANY warming should have been seen as getting back to normal – and I assert that Hansen knew that – but he couldn’t pass up the opportunity to scream, The Sky is Falling!”). Before Mann and his legendary fundraising started an avalanche of money that the other climate scientists jumped on.

All in all, although we don’t want to jinx it, it might be just about the right time to wave the victory flag.  We are certainly in a far different world vis-a-vis global warming than 21 months ago.  The climatologists are, to a very large extent, being ignored.  Yes, there is an IPCC coming up, and perhaps we should wait until that is over.  But I will predict that no matter what hoohah comes out of it, it will not have 50% of the energy of the previous IPCCs, because governments just aren’t listening with baited breath anymore.  If there is any place where the mojo counted, it was with governments.  But it ain’t there any more.

Our victory lap is just around the corner.  Yes, some people on the street will believe that the climate is changing, but – and this is the important part – then they think, “So what?  We have other, more important things to worry about.”

Chicken Little is dead.  Sprinkle the seasoning on and put it on the barbie.

Thank the Gods for Climategate.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Alan

Great post. Thanks for the overview.
Some editing is needed. In particular, this sentence:
“Though Steve had poked holes that those in the know could see cast doubt on Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick, which had gone over the head of most of the world.”
… stands out as an incomplete thought.

dp

I love a good Who Dunnit! So my suggestion for who dunnit is an organization that stood to profit from cleaning up the mess. A near covert, off the radar kind of place that works between the weave, playing both sides. A group such as but not necessarily, Outside Organisation. It is a delicious story – use your shadowy talent to pry embarrassing information from within and then hire on to undo the damage.

Neil

Thank the Gods for Climategate
So say we all.

Richard A.

The fact that people like Paul Ehrlich are still taken seriously proves there is no victory in this fight. Take away CAGW and the professional worrying class will find some other disaster that’s just over the horizon and only avoidable by giving them massive amounts of regulatory power and money. When the first scientist successfully predicted a solar eclipse another ‘scientist’, probably of the climate variety, started demanding silver and gold to guarantee the moon would spit out the sun so life could go on, and he made sure failure to pay meant eternal darkness. The problem isn’t CAGW, it’s human nature, which for reasons unknown demands a certain portion of the population always believes some form of apocalyptic idiocy which can only be avoided if THEY, the believers, get to ‘run things’ for the rest of us.

Steve G.:
Thanks for sharing your perspective of our (skeptical) shared journey. I do worry a victory dance is a little premature, but that’s my superstitious side, worried about jinxing our success. On the other hand, honestly, there were very few periods in which I have ever experienced as much elation as after Climategate.
Like you, I expected something like what did happen to occur, or for the truth to be revealed somehow after the climate refused to cooperate with the conspiracy (for conspiracy it was, in the true sense, with a small number of people collaborating to fix the outcomes, aided by willing dupes and conniving politicians). That is because the scientific pronouncements did not stand on their own merits; there was a sense of urgency very similar to the railroading that George W. Bush et al. carried on prior to invading Iraq: we have only ‘x’ number of years to act or it will be too late, etc.

a jones

The only unusual thing about this particular fraud was it’s size, audacity and stupidity.
Conspiracies usually fall apart and one of this size it was bound to do so sooner or later.
Not that if had been later very serious damage might have been done by then.
But as always in these matters remember the old rhyme.
‘Treason doth never prosper. Whats the reason? for if it do none dare call it treason.’
They came close with this one and the echoes will take a long time to die away. But the damage they have done to their cause and their Green supporters is irreparable.
It took thirty years for Greenery to become a powerful political cult but it’s time has passed and it will be forgotten within a generation.
Kindest Regards

Interstellar Bill

Human history is mostly a series of bad choices, missed opportunities, and tragically bad outcomes. Every so often, however, there are good choices, siezed opportunities, and wildly good outcomes. The American Revolution was one example, the ClimateGate leaks another.

Aussie2011

Of relevance to this topic is the issue of the lack of accountability afforded to scientists in our society, particularly as it relates to the current “climate change” policies.
As a professional engineer I am held responsible, accountable and liable for my work. If I am subsequently shown to be wrong, I can be sued for huge amounts of money, lose my livelihood, and in the worst case, could go to jail.
On the other hand, I view with growing alarm the activities of “climate scientists”. The list of their errors and failed forecasts seems endless; their work seems, at best, to be wildly speculative.
Despite this abysmal track record, some of our hugely expensive public policies, such as here in Australia, the construction of desalination plants, the flooding in Brisbane, and “The Carbon Tax”, can be traced back to these speculations.
Given the immense impact of their work, why are “climate scientists” not held to the same accountability and liability standards as are engineers?
Perhaps if “climate scientists” were held responsible for their work and a few were to lose their livelihoods, then “climate science” would cease being an oxymoron. Similarly, consequent public policy would gain in credibility as it became based more on fact and less on interpretive ideology.

Darren Parker

the vested interests haven’t even started playing hardball yet.

Interesting, but IMHO, from where I’m standing, it’s premature to be celebrating anything.
Sadly, Chicken Little is alive and well in Federal Government in Australia – although due to a spectactular series of own goals, they have pretty much thrown themselves on the barbie and handed the marinade, baster and cooking instructions to the opposition and skeptics. However, it remains to be seen if the current bold skeptism can hold up under the never ending onslaught of ‘the sky is falling’ media sanctioned propaganda. 2 years until general election, its going to be interesting.

William

The Hockey Stick emails provide a record of the efforts to cherry pick data to hide the medieval warm period and the Little Ice age and efforts to destroy emails related to the cover up and efforts to block papers that challenge the foundation of the extreme AGW hypothesis.
My paleoclimatic text books have these graphs which are taking from published papers. The historical record supports the assertion that the medieval warm period and the little ice age occurred.
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Ice-Age-Climate-1300-1850/dp/0465022723
IPCC 1990 Figure 7c.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/lambh23.jpg
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/lambh24.gif
http://www.crispintickell.com/images/ccwa_fig2.jpg

Great read. The whistle blower is a hero.
Once Australia blows up its government on the carbon tax/cash grab, that will be the end of government support and the end of the AGW fairy tale.
Ding dong the witch is dead. The wicked witch is dead.

rbateman

A battle was won. Concensus Climate Change was forced out from behind Ivory Towers into the open.
They cannot go back to them. They must now either impose thier Carbon Tax and other revenue enhancements overtly, or give it up. Catchy slogans like ‘saving the planet’ and ‘trust us’ won’t cut it.

I’m not waving the victory flag until we’ve seen “The Team” dragged through the courts and sent to prison for the rest of their lives.
Not to mention the civil proceedings to secure compensatory and punitive damages.
Sorry, folks. I’m Sicilian. I want revenge.

A win will be when governments worldwide stop entertaining carbon taxes, ETS’ ect. and admit there is no problem. The IPCC will be shut down for good. We’re still a long way off, but without climategate, none of this would be possible. It was indeed a turning point.

The Warmers have permanently stained the reputation of science by intentionally ignoring it’s core tenets. A win on that score will be a long time coming, if ever.
More importantly, It will not be a win until the all the politicians and their minions who would use the Thermageddon hoax to subjugate us under the most micromanaging, statist control ever imagined are tarred, feathered and branded with a scarlet AGW on their foreheads.

Luther Wu

Tucci78 says:
July 21, 2011 at 8:12 pm
“Sorry, folks. I’m Sicilian. I want revenge.”
_________________
Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes.

DCC

I agree that the article needs editing to be readable. For example:
“One thing that confused me was that even human activities other than CO2 were being ignored. I found out later on the reason for that Phil Jones’ co-authored study of UHI that turned out to be extremely erroneous)”
makes no sense. Even the parentheses are unbalanced.

Dan Griswold (Not the Cato Fellow)

Yes, the tide has turned but, there is still much to do. There are lags in politics as well as climate. Summer gets hotter after the solstice. Some in govenment are still happily pushing the AGW bandwagon along (Australia’s labor party, US EPA). The great majority of people are barely aware of the debate. Some friends and coworkers still think of me as an addle pated climate fool. The decisive battle may have been won. It may take a decade of global cooling for the climate war to end.

Wayne Delbeke

Aussie2011 says:
July 21, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Of relevance to this topic is the issue of the lack of accountability afforded to scientists in our society, particularly as it relates to the current “climate change” policies.
As a professional engineer I am held responsible, accountable and liable for my work.
Indeed. Professional Engineers owe a duty of care to the PUBLIC. What about “Climate Scientists”? No wonder we distrust them. We are trained that way.
“The paramount value recognized by engineers is the safety and welfare of the public.”
References – many – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_ethics#Obligation_to_society
(I know, I know but references are ok)
Wayne Delbeke, P.Eng.

Rhoda Ramirez

The warmists aren’t even beginning to concede. Tonight on the Fox news blog one of the headlines is about a Danish (?) study that blames mass extinction on a ‘carbon’ methane burp caused by global warming heating up the oceans. They ain’t giving up – they’re not even CLOSE to giving up. Just more and more of this crap.

Jack

We have had some good fighters for the scientific method in Australia also. Jennifer Marohasy, David Evans, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer and sorry if I missed a few.
Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair and Miranda Devine and Piers Akerman were journalists and some I have missed for sure, that stood against the warmist orthodoxy. Even at the debate at the National Press Council, the journalists had not done even basic checking of the facts let alone economic checking. They were just left wing noddies.
Now they have egg on their face they will not change. Lack of character.

We haven’t won until the warmists finish spending all that tax money… And THAT day is, sadly, tragically, a LOOOoooOOong day off…

Paul Deacon

“It is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” Or something like that. All the best.

Keith Minto

Well written, Steve.
Andrew Montford’s ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ gives a detailed chronology of Steve McIntyre’s struggle with ‘The Team’ and then the IPCC, for data and source codes. It is a story that beggars belief about those that consider concealing public information to be an art form, and does not date.

But once a witness or ‘expert‘ is caught in a lie, can they ever get the people who witness it to believe them again?.

The same thoughts apply to a certain Australian political leader.

intrepid_wanders

Take heart dear Steve,
This site is not the libertarian mecca that the other sites may convey. Heck, Anthony is documented more liberal and environmental than your “liberal” friends:
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110713-36277.html
Walking the walk is where you can sort the “passions” that the faux liberals seem to have. Take Germany and the switching back to COAL in order to replace their nuclear fear, utter hypocrisy.
Even if you are liberal in thinking (I actually am and proud of it), it is not bad. Libertarian is just an extreme of conservationism that becomes liberal. At least it is thinking, but the faux liberals insist on changing the world in the shortest time. Faux liberals want ALL projects to proceed at the same time, but can not wait.
Anyhow, I have noted many liberals on this and many other anti-CAGW sites (though SimonH has been AWOL for a while) that can not stand the consensus of science. Consensus is not science.
You are in good company, being a thinker of the mind and not all heart.
Being agnostic/atheist myself, I find that the CAGW crowd violated almost all of Sun Tzu’s teachings (Art of War) and that is why things fell apart. My favorite is:
“So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.”. — They assume all liberals are on their side and they could not be more wrong. They also think that we are all lemmings, try again.
Nice post!

KenB

Liked that summation Steve, to me the tipping point if the is such a thing in climate speak will be when Governments allow or insist on at least one Inquiry that does its job properly. The CRU Inquiries are a rotting carcase that either needs revisiting for the good of climate science, or will it be some unfortunate future “follow the Mann” scientist that gets his or her future destroyed. To me Michael Mann and his fellow travellers should recant and withdraw “for the good of climate science”
I have spent years like you and asking the AGW side to explain why they think this or that peer reviewed paper does not challenge their view, or that a statement from one of many sceptical climate scientists didn’t make them stop and reconsider their trenchant position. The initial response was ridicule towards me personally, and any suggestion they could be wrong as the over whelming consensus of science meant forget it – move on – its dangerous, and you are in the way.
When pressed on the science and on sceptical papers, again no science, just abuse and denigration and more abuse, absolutely illogical and unscientific, and the more respected the source of the science, Singer? Lindzen? just shills I was told, paid by big oil, tobacco and worse, then the CRU emails shocked everyone and for a while the abuse abated, but then was replaced with threats, menaces, things could “happen” and that by asking questions, we were killing the future, our type should have been strangled at birth, we were baby killers. My car was splashed with blood and egged by cowards who struck in the night, all for expressing a confidence in the new scientific peer reviewed papers that inconveniently challenged their AGW belief.
These guys were past reasoning with, exhibiting a religious mania, that had no relationship with science – pure dogma, but amazingly claiming scientific truth justified their stance in the name of humanity and the future of the planet – absolute nutters!!
The worst thing though was they appeared to have the world media captive to their view and emboldened by the whitewash inquiries, we had no say and they would sweep us aside first at Copenhagen and when that failed Can Cun and to all intents and purposes and with the media connivance, they did partially get their way.
If it hadn’t been for Anthony, Climate audit and Climate Etc,and others, I am sure the lies would have rolled all over us. They hated Judith Curry for her courage in tackling the bullies at Real Climate who denied scientists the right to either reply or post alternative views, and, still deny the emerging science, to protect what they thought was their owned science of climate.
I think we have a long way to go, it will take a lot of courage and perseverance as they have entrenched themselves, so for that reason we need a tipping point to clean the blot they have created on Climate Science, once and for all.

huishi

If there is a “carbon tax”, does that mean we carbon based life forms may become illegal? What about polar bears? Don’t they breath out CO2 as well as being carbon based?
I have seen “progressives” start to call carbon dioxide by the name carbon monoxide. Only on Internet threads so far; but they recommended “realclimate.com” so I figure they have some connection.

Good overview Steve.
Thanks!

Lady Life Grows

Well, you know, it might indeed be gods to thank. There is the Gore Effect, you know. I would love to get hold of adequate data to figure out whether that effect is real, or just an amusing collection of coincidences, with skeptics ignoring all the times that the weather warmed up when the Goracle blew into town.

RockyRoad

A win is when Hansen admits that the climate models have to be tied like a pretzel to match CO2 with the temperature curves.
A win is when Mann’s Hokey Team (misspelled on porpoise) beat each other with real hickory sticks until nobody remains standing.
A win is when Phil Jones admits he had his data all along.
A win is when Monckton shows up for a debate but nobody else shows up.
A win is when Al Gore takes an honors class in climate science from Dr. Fred Singer and gets higher than a D-.
A win is when the UEA publishes the name of the brave soul that outted their heinous crimes and that person receives an honorary doctorate in ethics, writes a best-selling book and gets a lucrative movie contract.
A win is when the EPA finally realizes that C on the periodic table is an English abbreviation for carbon and not the cyrillic letter that stands for Socialist.

Thanks, Steve Garcial and you, Anthony, for having published it — HARRY_READ_ME is my hero!

Tucci78 says: July 21, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Sorry, folks. I’m Sicilian. I want revenge.
Did ya’ never hear of “Irish Alzheimers”? Sicilians, once in awhile, on occasion. may forget. The Irish? They forget everything but the grudges.

Oakden Wolf

Yes, thank God for Climategate because it means that so many of us don’t have to be concerned about something like this:
“A remarkable world record was set at Khassab (airport), Oman on June 27th when the minimum temperature for the day failed to fall below 107.1°F (41.7°C). This is the highest minimum temperature ever recorded in the world to date.”

Excellent post: cogent, introspective, candid, and intellectually honest.
Some progress has been made, but as a Californian, I do not see victory at hand whilst the California Air Resources Board is implementing a cap-and-trade programme here, nor as an American where the EPA has the power to declare CO2 a pollutant.
Even if the scientific community and the public came round on this issue and stood together in abnegation of CAGW, my fear is that the political and economic damage will last well into the future. It will be like trying to get rid of a “temporary” tax after its expiration date: next to impossible.

grayman

Good post and many thanks to people such as the Leakers or hackers(who cares) and Anthony, Mcintrye, Jo Nova and many more for their tireless efforts for the thinkers of this world!!
BUT, IMO there should be know victory dance or lap at least till the fat lady sings, and i do not see that happenning for a while. The warmist still have to many other things to harp on and about to dance now.

Steve, that was an excellent synopsis of what occurred. There are only a couple of things I would quibble about, but I’m a conservative…….
Outstanding job! We have won. They don’t know it, yet. The proof of uncertainty is clear to anyone who wishes to see. The proof of the manipulation of data and minds is clear to any who wish to see. The proof of intentional deception is clear for any who wish to see.
I look forward to the time when we can argue and discuss things such as economics and politics without the distraction of a common enemy.
We are almost done. Not quite yet. We have to carry the ball across the line We are weary of the discussion, but stubborn. Fatigue isn’t an issue for us, because intellectual curiosity is what we possess for leisure. In this view, they will never win the debate, because we pursue truth while they pursue an agenda. If they can never win, we can never lose……….. intellectually.
Again, well done.
James Sexton

Larry Hamlin

Excellent post Mr. Garcia. Perhaps you might wish to do another regarding the, as seen from todays perspective, huge ramifications of Bush taking the presidency in 2000 versus the victory going to the completely flawed climate view extremist Gore. It is hard to imagine the misery Gore as president would have created by pushing totally unnecessary climate legislation that would have crippled our economy for absolutely nothing. As difficult as things for real climate science have been given the politics of irrational climate fear alarmists funded with billions of dollars in grants from the government with the blind support of media advocacy it would have been for worse if Gore had been president. Yes indeed thank the gods of rational science for Climategate but also thank your lucky stars that Gore failed in his bid for the highest elected office in the land where he would have done unbelievable and disastrous damage to our country.

Bruce Cunningham

Good post. I just want to add however, that Dr Curry (of Ga tech!) had invited Steve M. to Tech to meet with other climate scientists long before climategate! She had also conversed with skeptics at CA and had been under considerable criticism for doing so! Along with Steve, Ross, Andrew M., Anthony, Jo Nova, Donna L. and others (along with the honest scientists Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Balinaus, Soon and others) history will see her as one of the ones that, perhaps, saved western civilization from the doomsayers.

pat

steve –
there are more (american) liberals on this site than perhaps you have noticed, and some like myself who have even voted Green, as has joanne nova.
thank the leaker for Climategate. whoever he/she is, it’s clear they knew what to leak.
there is no doubt the number of CAGW “believers” has plummeted as a result of Climategate.
indeed, it would be interesting to know how many of the left-over “beievers” have actually had the courage to read the emails or tried to understand HARRY-READ-ME.
thanks as well to Big Mac, Anthony, the Bish, Joanne Nova, Judith Curry et al for their tireless work towards maintaining the scientific method so that we don’t return to the dogmatic “scientific fundamentalism” that existed in the past.
there is a long way to go, but the sceptics are so accommodating, i am sure we will continue to join in the battle until the day when the ad homs stop and we can enjoy a nature documentary without fear the dreaded “carbon footprint” will be mentioned.
celebrate life. it’s all we have.

Anton

Oakden Wolf says:
July 21, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Yes, thank God for Climategate because it means that so many of us don’t have to be concerned about something like this:
“A remarkable world record was set at Khassab (airport), Oman on June 27th when the minimum temperature for the day failed to fall below 107.1°F (41.7°C). This is the highest minimum temperature ever recorded in the world to date.”
What a load. The highest minimum temperature ever recorded in the world to date? Did the fool who wrote this article have access to every temperature reading ever taken in the world to date? There will always be alleged record-breaking temperatures, high or low, happening somewhere in the world, but only a con artist would pretend to know the entire temperature record of Planet Earth.
And yes, Climategate does mean we do not have to be concerned about media scares like this, because it clearly demonstrates that professional climate alarmists will say and do anything that suits their agendas. As skeptics know, an airport can be one he worst places to take a local planetary temperature, often adding many degrees, but maybe the reporter never heard of jet exhaust.

William

The problem is the Liberal press do not understand the scientific and economic implications of the Hockey Stick cherry picking and the climate sensitivity issue. The propaganda tool of calling anyone who critically discusses this issues a “denier” has made it difficult for any “liberal” or “environmentalist” to read the critical information and think through this problem.
The IPCC are advocating spending trillions of dollars on a carbon monitoring bureaucracy, on a carbon tax bureaucracy, and on bureaucracy that will control the spending of trillions of dollars.
The AWG extreme leaches have tried to create a scenario where this is a right (Republicans) vs left (Democrats) issue. That is ridiculous. Fiscal conservative Democrats do not want trillions of tax dollars wasted on boondoggle.
From a public standpoint it does not matter if the perpetrates of the Climate Gate scandal are charged or fired. The issue is trillions of tax payer’s dollars that will be wasted and the consequences of a currency collapse.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy_pubs.html

Hugh Pepper

So long as climate issues are regarded as a PR problem, you win and the planet loses. Congratulations!

Luke Warm

It’s still too early to call the battle won. Here in Australia, we are just about to get a CO2 tax and the government has 2 years before the next election. I think the crazies here have pushed this CO2 tax even harder because they are hoping to influence Rio. I will start to call the victory if Rio fails as badly as Copenhagen, the CO2 tax in Australia is rescinded (or better the government falls trying to make it law) and other significant governments (e.g., UK & Germany) publically put some distance between themselves and CAGW amelioration. I think the victory would be complete when the anticipated global cooling becomes an obvious trend in, say, 10 years time.
I am really worried that with stupid governments like Australia’s going to Rio with a CO2 tax, something will get passed that commits the world to pointless, unaffordable CO2 emissions reductions. The CAGW lobby is making this their Alamo, it seems to me. I hope they get well and truly scalped but as I say I have some worries based on the crazy government policies here Down Under.
And thank you for opening my eyes.

Cam (Melbourne, Australia)

The media are grossly uneducated on basic scientific principles, let alone the detail, complex and largely still evolving area of science that is climatology. The media simply do not understand that climate is a multi-disciplinary science and involves atmospheric scientists, physicists, oceanographers, astrophysicists, solar scientists, earth scientists, geologists and so on and so on. Its much easier for the media to get a “shrill” to provide scientific “input”.
For example, lawyer John Connor is typically labelled by the media as a ‘climate expert’, whereas Ian Plimer, earth scientist with over 40 years experience is certainly not.
Interesting in the Australia media in particular, that so-called ‘climate experts’ are rarely scientists at all, and certainly not climate scientists. John Connor, Ross Garnaut and Godhelpus Clive Hamilton and other extremists are the climate experts in the media’s eyes, yet real scientists with real experience are not.
Much easier for the media to get the ‘salesperson’ in and label he or she as the expert, and leave the earth scientists for another day.

Steeptown

We in the UK haven’t won until the Climate Change Act 2008 is repealed. And the renewables scam is topped. And the BBC is cleansed. And the propaganda is ceased in schools and everywhere else. Abd, and… the list is seemingly endless.

Neil Jones

Won the battle, not the war. Even then the trick is to win the peace too.

Stevo lane

Pardon the analogy but i reckon we’ve only shof down a couple of Japs over Pearl Harbour. Still gotta fight Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima before we win.

Blade

Tucci78 [July 21, 2011 at 8:12 pm] says:
“Sorry, folks. I’m Sicilian. I want revenge.”

Robert E. Phelan [July 21, 2011 at 9:44 pm] says:
“Did ya’ never hear of “Irish Alzheimers”? Sicilians, once in awhile, on occasion. may forget. The Irish? They forget everything but the grudges.”

I’m with the two of you all the way. Must have gotten both some Sicilian and Irish genes along the way in the distant past. I am very angry about this AGW hoax and will leave for the imagination what I think about the AGW hoaxsters.

gnomish

and yet susan rice, us ambassador to the un, reproached the security council today for not issuing a strong statement that global warming was a global security issue.
she doesn’t ad lib; she follows most explicit instructions from her president.
they have no way given up – they are just going to try a different route.
so yes, climategate stopped them rushing in the front door. now watch the back door.