By Steven Hayward, The Weekly Standard (via The GWPF)
No amount of context can possibly exonerate the CRU gang from some of the damning expressions and contrivances that appear repeatedly in the new emails. More so than the 2009 batch, these emails make clear the close collaboration between the leading IPCC scientists and environmental advocacy groups, government agencies, and partisan journalists.
The conventional wisdom about blockbuster movie sequels is that the second acts are seldom as good as the originals. The exceptions, like The Godfather: Part II or The Empire Strikes Back, succeed because they build a bigger backstory and add dimensions to the original characters. The sudden release last week of another 5,000 emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University—ground zero of “Climategate I” in 2009—immediately raised the question of whether this would be one of those rare exceptions or Revenge of the Nerds II.
Before anyone had time to get very far into this vast archive, the climate campaigners were ready with their critical review: Nothing worth seeing here. Out of context! Cherry picking! “This is just trivia, it’s a diversion,” climate researcher Joel Smith told Politico. On the other side, Anthony Watts, proprietor of the invaluable WattsUpWithThat.com skeptic website, had the kind of memorable line fit for a movie poster. With a hat tip to the famous Seinfeld episode, Watts wrote: “They’re real, and they’re spectacular!” An extended review of this massive new cache will take months and could easily require a book-length treatment. But reading even a few dozen of the newly leaked emails makes clear that Watts and other longtime critics of the climate cabal are going to be vindicated.
Climategate I, the release of a few thousand emails and documents from the CRU in November 2009, revealed that the united-front clubbiness of the leading climate scientists was just a display for public consumption. The science of climate change was not “settled.” There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming; in their private emails, the scientists expressed serious doubts and disagreements on some major issues. In particular, the email exchanges showed that they were far from agreement about a key part of the global warming narrative—the famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to demonstrate that the last 30 years were the warmest of the last millennium and which made the “medieval warm period,” an especially problematic phenomenon for the climate campaign, simply go away. (See my “Scientists Behaving Badly,” The Weekly Standard, December 14, 2009.) Leading scientists in the inner circle expressed significant doubts and uncertainty about the hockey stick and several other global warming claims about which we are repeatedly told there exists an ironclad consensus among scientists. (Many of the new emails make this point even more powerfully.) On the merits, the 2009 emails showed that the case for certainty about climate change was grossly overstated.
More damning than the substantive disagreement was the attitude the CRU circle displayed toward dissenters, skeptics, and science journals that did not strictly adhere to the party line. Dissenting articles were blocked from publication or review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), requests for raw data were rebuffed, and Freedom of Information Act requests were stonewalled. National science panels were stacked, and qualified dissenters such as NASA prize-winner John Christy were tolerated as “token skeptics.” The CRU circle was in high dudgeon over the small handful of skeptics who insisted on looking over their shoulder, revealing the climate science community to be thin-skinned and in-secure about its enterprise—a sign that something is likely amiss. Even if there was no unequivocal “smoking gun” of fraud or wrongdoing, the glimpse deep inside the climate science community was devastating. As I wrote at the time (“In Denial,” March 15, 2010), Climategate did for the global warming controversy what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war 40 years ago: It changed the narrative decisively.
Read the rest here at the GWPF
so I think that the silence might have a more subtle basis than simply politics – it might be due to the realisation that a lot of science might be discovered to be pseudoscientific, rather than scientific
==============================
You think?
I still find it hard to believe that people actually fall for it………………
Reading the quotes in the above linked article from gavin and MM made it tough to keep my morning coffee down.
These people really and truly are religious zealots. They will never admit they have done anything even remotely wrong. Every breath they take is for “the cause”, period.
When you argue with a crook, sooner or later you can get them to admit wrong doing. These people aren’t crooks. They truly don’t believe they’ve done anything wrong, and they are victims of some sort of vindictive vendetta against them and their beliefs.
That’s one of the reasons this war is still going on…
charles nelson says:
December 4, 2011 at 12:50 am
“The war is not over yet” Only too true, Charles. I caught an interview on UK Channel 4 news on Friday (can’t find a link) with Professor Bob Watson of UEA claiming that we could expect 5K of warming. I’ve not seen anyone seriously claim that level of warming for a long time. The man was adamant that Britain should “take the lead” in cutting CO2 despite the futility of such action in the face of continuing growth in emissions from China and other “developing nations”. The man should climb down from his grant-funded ivory tower and consult some real world climate and economical statistics.
with regards to “science ftw”‘s comment… the difference between a delusional person and a psychotic is that when the deluded person almost drowns after thinking they can walk on water, they usually, at least momentarily, come to their senses. The psychotic, even after just being revived from nearly drowning, runs back out into the deep end. Its clear you and your ilk have crossed in the psychosis. Furthermore, using your own criteria, its obvious you have no credentials in ethics or morals, so anything you say must be discounted.
Louis Hissink says, on December 4, 2011 at 2:57 am
… As described in the lead article for AIG News 87 (available on http://www.aig.org.au)
Is this document available to non-members?
Is there a direct link?
Congradulations, nobody has responded to “Science FTWs” attempt to hijack the thread. Such mendacious assertions (refuted with facts hundreds of times at on topic threads) are indeed becoming an example of the hopelessly brainwashed who, long after the doomsday ailiens fail to land on the prophetic date to end mankinds pathetic existence, still sit faithfully on the oceans edge, ever waiting to be inundated with universal disaster.
The proclaimed progress of truth against the consensous from Ghandhi is of course “”First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.” CAGW fanatics are progressing backwards to the point that soon they may just be ignored, although I hope the economic devastation wrought by their “post normal science” is not forgotten.
“…I hope the economic devastation wrought by their “post normal science” is not forgotten.”
Quoting myself.
The statist attempts to be “Blackbeards” ruling the world, may have prevented the only chance to rescue the world from real disaster. The doomsdayers may have created a self fulfilling prophecy as economic destruction is the surest path to wars.
John A says:
I refuse to accept that the behaviour of the Hockey Team reflects how collaborative scientific inquiry is made in other arenas.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203764804577059841672541590.html
It seems that may not be true. I wonder how many global warming studies hold up under this type of examination. Has there been this type of examination?
markus says:
December 4, 2011 at 12:51 am
The headlines misleads in that it could have more clearly said SOME CLIMATE SCIENTISTS BEHAVING BADLY.
===========================================================================Then how about this as a headline also “Some climate scientists believe in catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming?” It is far more accurate than “huge consensus on global warming.”
It is not just a small group of climate scientists, nor even just climate scientists–it is every scientist, and every lay follower/believer of science, who thinks the current consensus theories are established facts, and dismisses the very idea they could be wrong, and that someone outside of celebrated academia (the “academic elite”) could prove them wrong. The sad fact is, they ARE wrong. The climate science mess is just the current most public symptom of the far deeper problem of dogma driving science, where new knowledge is ignored in the interests of personal and institutional hubris. (The memory of Bill Murray as “Ghostbuster” Peter Vinckman, telling a library official, “Back off–I’m a scientist”, comes to mind; and that statement, of an olympian ego that brooks no argument, captures the essence of the dogmatic believers in the greenhouse effect, that underwrites their belief in man-caused global warming). We cannot save science by discrediting one field of science alone; we have to deal with the systemic arrogance and incompetence of institutions across the board, which have all been suborned to the falsehood that current dogmas are unquestioned and unquestionable facts–and have inculcated just such false, essentially religious, belief into whole generations of students, worldwide.
science ftw says TRUTH (by adjusting his screed)
Yet more WARMISTA nitpicking and propaganda which is of course the only option for HOCKEY-STICK morons who lack the scientific credentials to put up legitimate scientific argument (CAN WE SPELL ‘RAILROAD ENGINEER’?). Meanwhile coral reefs are NOT bleaching, trophic cascades are NOT failing, permafrost continues to NOT melt at unprecedented rates and average temperatures continue to FALL. You cannot argue with real data OF SEA-LEVEL FALL so you resort to politicising and propaganda mongering. It is one of the saddest traits of human nature along with wilful ignorance. You WARMISTA people make me sick.
The average global temperature’s been flat for about a decade. It’s on a plateau, and is as likely to drop from here as to rise. There are too many threads on the topic here to count. Check out the nearly invisible “Categories” drop-down list in the sidebar.
As for Coral (not in the Categories sidebar, unfortunately), check out these WUWT threads:
The Reef Abides
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/the-reef-abides/
Corals can’t handle the
heatcoldhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/26/corals-cant-handle-the-heat-cold/
Barrier reef panic? – not so much
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/15/barrier-reef-panic-not-so-much/
Coral bleaching on the GBR – no evidence of net decline
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/01/coral-bleaching-on-the-gbr-no-evidence-of-net-decline/
Not as bad as they thought: Coral can recover from climate change damage
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/not-as-bad-as-we-thought-coral-can-recover-from-climate-change-damage/
As for Permafrost (not in the Categories sidebar, unfortunately):
Might Arctic Warming Lead to Catastrophic Methane Releases?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/30/might-arctic-warming-lead-to-catastrophic-methane-releases/
Methane, The Panic Du Jour
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/07/methane-the-panic-du-jour/
That worrisome “Methane Beast” apparently is still not awake.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/10/that-worrisome-methane-beast-apparently-is-still-not-awake/
You forgot to fulminate about frogs, as you might have a few years back:
What frog science can teach us about global warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/13/what-frogs-can-teach-us-about-global-warming/
Global Warming not to blame for toad extinction
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/06/global-warming-not-blamed-for-toad-extinction/
Climategate I, the release of a few thousand emails and documents from the CRU in November 2009, revealed that the united-front clubbiness of the leading climate scientists was just a display for public consumption.
Yes, but what do the leading climate scientists say about how “likely” is it that “There is a consensus,” anyway?
science ftw says:
December 4, 2011 at 3:51 am
Yet more nitpicking and propaganda which is of course the only option for morons who lack the scientific credentials to put up legitimate scientific argument.
Using your own “standard”, Mr. science, we need to know what your credentials are. Otherwise you fail your own standard to judge, or to even say what the standard for judging Climate Science is.
Meanwhile, all the rest of us have to do is to stick with the standards of real science, according to which Climate Science has failed.
charles nelson says:
December 4, 2011 at 12:50 am
Although the MSM is not exactly singing to your tune…it should be noted that skeptics how have free reign in comment pages from UK Independent and Guardian newspapers. The once hallowed halls of Warmism have been defiled by the uncouth triumphant Deniers……………
——————————————————————————————————————
You mean: ……..THE UNCOUTH TRUTH !!
Harry Dale Huffman says:
December 4, 2011 at 8:35 am
It is not just a small group of climate scientists, nor even just climate scientists–it is every scientist, and every lay follower/believer of science, who thinks the current consensus theories are established facts, and dismisses the very idea they could be wrong, and that someone outside of celebrated academia (the “academic elite”) could prove them wrong. The sad fact is, they ARE wrong. The climate science mess is just the current most public symptom of the far deeper problem of dogma driving science, where new knowledge is ignored in the interests of personal and institutional hubris. (The memory of Bill Murray as “Ghostbuster” Peter Vinckman, telling a library official, “Back off–I’m a scientist”….)
____________________________________
Oh yes anybody with a BS degree working with those with Phd’s can tell you horror stories about hubris.
yes…………..the IPCC and it’s ilk will always fall prey to the ..’Uncouth Triumphant Truth’!!
For those of us who wern’t around to be embroiled in the Vietnam anything, what is the Vietnam papers? (in a nut-shell).
Pentagon Papers were some truly-stolen Vietnam-War documents,
which were trumpeted by the traitorous left to make us abandon our ally to the Commies.
The ClimateGate II e-mails are as truly damning
as Dan-The-Liar Rather tried to make the Pentagon Papers out to be.
David A;
Congradulations, nobody has responded to “Science FTWs” attempt to hijack the thread.>>>
Since your post plenty of people have responded, and I think that is a good thing. I’ve seen a lot of comments of late alone the line of “don’t feed the trolls” and that’s the wrong approach. There is plenty of value in responding to trolls, but the idea isn’t so much to “feed” them as to butt them off the bridge.
1. By responding to and discrediting the troll, the troll may in fact learn something.
2. Not every reader of WUWT is a regular. Some are casual observers who may well be on their very first foray into the AGW debate to learn the facts for themselves. Let’s not let what amounts to the “swing vote” leave the site thinking a troll said something that nobody responded to. It leaves the casual reader thinking that perhaps the troll has a point, for if the troll was wrong, why did nobody say so?
3. In this case, I’m not sure Science FTW is even as person. His/her remarks are pretty much standard drive by troll remarks. A list of accusations with no supporting data, links, logic, nothing. Just a bunch of “the sky is falling” statements followed by the “you guys make me sick” remark. For every comment such as that made on WUWT, how many are made outside this forum? How often is the casual commenter, who doesn’t follow this debate on a daily (heck! hourly!) basis like some of us confronted with such a nonsense statement? If s/he read (for example) Roger Knights’s excellent response (above), the casual commenter knows that the troll is in fact a troll, and if confronted with one in the “real world”, it takes naught but a couple of mouse clicks to show someone how totaly and completely wrong their world view is.
Don’t take drive by comments by trolls as an annoying attempt to hijack a thread. Take it as a golden opportunity to show the silent majority just how easy it is to butt a troll off a bridge.
@Interstellar Bill: Don’t forget: The papers were already in the public domain and therefore they weren’t “truely-stolen”. I think that is how Elsworth ultimately got off, but could be wrong.
I read that not a single American senator or house member is in attendance at Durban. This in contrast to the entourage of congressmen accompanying Pelosi to Copenhagen – not to mention the carbon-capper-in-chief.
“The Cause” was a loser for taxpayers from the beginning; the well-timed FOIA releases just made sure politicians would have some skin in the game. It’s hard to force stupid legislation down the throats of an informed public in a Democracy. Pelosi, Boxer and Markey still have some explaining to do.
With the release of the CG2 mails I am now wondering if FOIA has managed to “liberate” a series of post “Climate Gate 1” mails.
I reckon if FOIA has managed to access to post CG1 mails, the release of those would be explosive to say the least and not just for the Hokey Team but also for sections of the media and some politicos who might be shown to be up to their necks in very, very deep poo indeed!
The hubris of the Hokey Team and the belief in their own invincibility along with lack of sophisticated technological skills exemplified in the CG1 Harry-read-me files is / was [ ? ] such that they may not even have been able to protect their subsequent to CG1 mail system at a level that was inaccessible to a patient, skilled and dedicated hacker.
Who is Fredo? Is Mann being cast as “Frodo”, of Tolkein series, the “faithful ring-bearer”? Perhaps a better allusion is to the “Frito Bandito”?
Harry Dale Huffman says:
December 4, 2011 at 8:35 am
(The memory of Bill Murray as “Ghostbuster” Peter Vinckman, telling a library official, “Back off–I’m a scientist”, comes to mind; and that statement, of an olympian ego that brooks no argument, captures the essence of the dogmatic believers in the greenhouse effect, [http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html], that underwrites their belief in man-caused global warming).
I tried unsuccessfully to post on your page about this:
“From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K.
This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15ºC = 288K. HOWEVER
Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun’s radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.”
================================================
Regarding the pressure comparison, the Earth with its atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen but without the Water Cycle, would be 67°C. So without the Water Cycle dynamically cooling the Earth by 52°C to bring it down to 15°C, the temps of Venus with atmosphere and Earth with atmosphere comparable, there is little difference in temps.
Very little need to add further comment, but at the end of the day the REAL issue is that the climate community did not react and state in public that such behavior is wrong.
The climate community did the EXACT wrong thing by whitewashing the first batch of emails and turning a blind eye to this.
Heck we impeached Nixon for less! And looking at Enron or even recent financial scandals at least they tossed Madoff under a bus and a few token people went to jail.
The behaviors here are MUCH worse than even the original batch of emails and like a sucker punch when they were not looking, their MISTAKE was the climate community whitewashing the first batch without THINKING if there was more to come!
Like an ugly novel, this second chapter outcome was not considered!
The lack of reaction and whitewashing of the first batch of emails is now coming back to haunt the climate community.
It really is worse than we thought!
And even WORSE than the emails is the LACK of reaction among the climate community. There can be NO WORSE condemnation when looking at the CURRENT reaction of the climate community.
The idea that there is nothing to see and move along is the problem here!
Such blindness and no reaction is in fact an endorsement of such behaviors!
Such behaviors are not acceptable regardless of anyone position on any of this science.
The blind eye of the community and attempting to spin this into nothing to see and move along will be their very undoing.
For the climate community to turn a blind eye and endorse such behaviors is the MOST appalling part of this whole climate gate fiasco.