Episode 7 of Red Pilled America: Why did Trump say a lot of global warming was a hoax? We follow the biggest science heist in history to find the answer.
It’s is about the Climategate Gang of Four. Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Steven Mosher, and yours truly.
Patrick Courrielche has done a brilliant job of tying the story together.~ctm
Be warned, some of you may change your mind about Mr Mosher.
The URL you attempted to access has been identified as a security risk to our environment.
Also, wuwt told me this was a duplicate submission the first time I submitted it.
Great podcast. I didn’t know that the whistle blower hacked into Real Climate and posted the info there.
I think this part is understated and missing the bigger picture: “So climate scientists started a blog called Real Climate to debunk their detractors.”
Real Climate is\was a propaganda site, set up and run by Gavin Schmidt. Jim Hansen, Gavin’s boss at GISS (which is part NASA), admits this in one of the Climategate emails.
Excellent and hard-hitting story-telling, of the best kind: it’s all true.
It reads like a movie script. To be played by unknown actors since the current crop in HW have all butter on their face.
“Why did Trump say a lot of global warming was a hoax? ”
Because he’s a malignant ignoramus who both falls for and spreads misinformation?
What part do you find to be misinformation about this? Everything in podcast is true. Did you even listen to it?
Examples please.
It’s obvious you don’t like him. What did he do, threaten your welfare payment?
Surely you josh? Try “because it is”.
I have been reading again Emerson’s lecture at Amory Hall concerning reformers of another era: “The reason why any one refuses his assent to your opinion, or his aid to your benevolent design, is in you; he refuses to accept you as a bringer of truth, because, though you think you have it, he feels that you have it not. You have not given him the authentic sign.”
I miss Jeff Id’s commentary, too.
I also admired Mosher’s title for his book, “The CRUtape Letters.” An apt description of the whole Climate Scientist industry.
Just looked it up. Now that IS a clever title. Hats off to you for that, Steven.
Did Mr. Mann ever release the code and the data used to produce the original hockey stick?
No. He claims he has a copyright on it.
Great story, I hope it goes viral, interesting timeline.
A nice synopsis of the story so many of us followed on these pages. Thank you Anthony, Steve, Steven and Charles for having the fortitude, not to mention cajones, to set this thing free. And a special thank you to Mr. FOIA as well. Your efforts gave rise to a small army of skeptics who continue to call out bad science where we find it.
When a cause converges far more on socialistic solutions and government involvement than on the problem itself, the you know you are dealing with a Progressive excuse that is composed of more lies than truth.
>>
It’s is about the Climategate Gang of Four.
<<
Typo alert: there’s a redundant verb in that sentence. Either it should read: “It’s about . . .” or “It is about . . . .”
>>
. . . some of you may change your mind about Mr Mosher.
<<
Probably not. However, I wasn’t aware of how much a role Mr. Mosher played in the Climategate emails.
Jim
“However, I wasn’t aware of how much a role Mr. Mosher played in the Climategate emails.”
It went straight to his head, and is still inflating.
I have just listened to your podcast, thank for all your time and effort in this chaps. Just think our society getting bombed back to the Stone Age because a temperature gauge is getting artificially heated by the Fire Chief’s truck.
I work with a lot of Marine Biologists who seem to spout this AGW stuff verbatim, depressing to say the least.
To Mr. FOIA if you’re reading,
Thank you! You will never be forgotten. I would be proud to shake your hand and buy you a beer.
I liked this part of the transcript:
“Charles Rotter: Holy sh*t is what was going through my mind. It was a real treasure trove showing what was essentially just activist science operating. Not objective, not reasonable. I’m not gonna call it completely fraudulent or a hoax, but it was like activist scientists, as we’re now experiencing with activist journalism. Yes, people are still telling facts, but they’re telling it from such a skewed perspective, you might as well call it lies. It was the cause. They were actually saying, ‘If this guy says this it’s not going to be helpful to the cause.’ That’s not scientific inquiry.”
The Cause.
CAGW scaremongering is definitely a religion. The Cause takes precedence over The Science for these guys.
Thanks Mr. FOIA. You are a true hero. Tell us who you are one of these days, when the climate is a little more benign. 🙂
My opinion of Mosher has now changed but only by .04% , what I can’t understand is that when you know one group is lying to you and you have evidence of it why pick up their cause and defend them it has me baffled .
Unless there is a monetary return .
I too am baffled by Stephen Mosher. He seems to want to defend the undefendable. If you were one of the very few lawyers who refuse to take a case when you know your client is guilty and you just stumbled across the whole subject of climate science and the 2 sets of climategate emails and read everyone of them like Mosher has, could you in all good conscience defend those climate scientists in court? I can forgive Stephen Mosher for 1000 outbursts and ad hominem attacks by sloshing them off as “heat of the moment” outbursts, but I can’t forgive him for his defence of CAGW (knowing what he knows about what has happened in the last 30 years). If Mosher was stupid I could forgive him for this, but he is extremely intelligent. The only thing I can think of why Mosher insists on that defence is that religion holds an unbrakeable stranglehold on one’s logic. If Stephen Mosher doesn’t believe in CAGW, then he is doing a good job of hiding that fact. The only reason this matters is we skeptics waste a lot of time replying to people like Mosher to point out where their religion is letting them down. People like Nick Stokes provide a service to skeptics sometimes by keeping skeptics honest. However Mosher knows the insides of this whole sordid affair.
I do have a prediction though. He seems to be very good friends with Richard Muller of Berkeley. When Muller retires I believe he will come over to the skeptic camp. Muller is a very intelligent man who will have nothing to do with Michael Mann and has said so publicly. Once Muller has nothing to lose, he will see the light and truth. After that Mosher will change his tune also.
Here is a challenge to Mosher:
My bottom line is that if all the ARCTIC ice melts completely , then I will go over to the alarmist side.
Stephen Mosher : What is your bottom line? It obviously wasn’t the climategate emails. I won’t be too disappointed if you don’t answer this because the alarmists always refuse to give their bottom lines.
Steve Mosher is a true skeptic. He followed McIntyre’s investigations into climate reconstructions from proxy data (the hockey stick) and concluded most of that work was unreliable and that the major players who did the work weren’t behaving like responsible scientists. Steve’s book on Climategate (The CRUtape Letters) is worth reading.
Some of those same scientists were responsible for creating the major temperature indices used by the IPCC and they were hiding that data. When Steve joined BEST, he may have expected to find that warming had also been exaggerated. However, BEST found more warming, not less. And they found the same amount of warming using only stations from rural areas (without UHI).
A true skeptic cares more about the process by which an answer has been obtained, than the answer itself. Was the work done correctly? Did they consider all of the sources of error and caveats? Was all the data made available for others to check? If so, one should change their view. That may “deserting a cause”, but not if your cause is the pursuit of truth.
IMO (and I’d guess Steve’s), too many commenters here have deserted the cause of reliable, transparent science that he joined at ClimateAudit (and I observed) more than a decade ago. Now opposition to the consensus is highly politicized or polluted with bad science. If you listen carefully, the heroes of this story – McIntyre, Watts, Mosher and probably Charles – were likely left-of-center politically and driven away by bad science and bad behavior. In other words, their motives weren’t those of many WUWT readers today.
Like Mosher, I first encountered Steve McIntyre’s name at RealClimate. When David Archer tried to convince me Gore’s AIT hadn’t done anything seriously wrong when confusing correlation with causation (CO2 and temperature in ice cores), I also decided it would be worth checking out what the hated McIntyre had to say. It was thrilling to relive that period through this interview.
However, Steve doesn’t waste his time writing long comments like this one, because he knows no one will listen. Confirmation bias makes it nearly impossible our minds to accept new information that is inconsistent with our deeply-held beliefs. This is true for both for skeptics and supporters of the consensus. Only those dedicated to the process of science (read the section on integrity in Feynman’s Cargo Cult Science) have a real chance of learning something that contradicts their current beliefs.
Anyone who is a true skeptic should admire Steve for following the scientific method and adjusting his views based on the results of his personal scientific journey.
Well said. Let’s take the politics out of this – completely out of control – and focus on the core scientific principles but … unlikely to happen in this politicised world we live in.
“Steve doesn’t waste his time writing long comments”
Right. What would be in them worth reading? Seriously.
Andrew
Unfortunately Steve M has exhibited a condescending arrogance that turns many off. Even our polite host, Anything W had chastised him many times.
There are also very legitimate criticisms of BEST.
What are you scared of? We have had 1C warming in 168 years. That is because the earth is still coming out of the LIA. No one knows what causes this. We have had only a 94ppm increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in last 60 years. This despite increases of CO2 emissions worldwide of more than 4x increase since 1960. The UAH long ago corrected their satellite drift problems. Their trend is still 1.3C per century and that is because they started in 1979, a period of cooling. Argo floats show that the oceans are not heating up. The Danish meterological insitute run by the Danish government shows that there is more ice in the Arctic on this date than there was 4 years ago. I live in Ottawa Canada and tonite December 8, 2018 which is not the coldest part of winter , the temperature as I type this is -16C. That is 16 degrees below freezing. Most of Canada is freezing our asses off like here in Ottawa. greenland is losing only 1/1000 th of its ice per year and there is no ice mass loss acceleration. Antarctica in 8 of the 11 temperature stations( representing 95 % of have shown no warming for the 60 years that they have been measured. The only 3 that do show warming are on the Antarctica peninsula close to Chile and supposedly that is because of a volcanic ridge underneath.
As for Best data, there was an article in WUWT that examined it and concluded that the BEST temperature data was made up to agree with the average of the computer models.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…
I remember the Climategate affair but did not know about the “CRUtape Letters book”. I see that it is still available as a Nook Book, so I bought a copy and will have some interesting reading tonight. Thanks to Steve Mosher, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts and CTM for giving us this glimpse into a dark corner of Climate Science.
Be warned, some of you may change your mind about Mr Mosher.
=====================
Nope
Why would anyone even care what he has to say at this point? I didn’t care what he thought at the beginning, and still don’t, he’s got nothing to do with anything that matters.
Well it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, it’s changed nothing.
I used to troll the internet for years before this happened with a few papers I had composed with variations of answers(with legit links) prewritten for comment sections. I’d already researched everything from polar bears to sun cycles, experiments in a closed system, Albedo, atmospheric chemistry and nuclei in cloud formation AND limitations of computer modeling and spatial statistics GIS, etc.
I found out about Climate Audit BLOG from trolling Real Climate( got banned) and got the opportunity to read Steve McIntyre working through the hockey shtick with some very smart commenters. Waaaaaaaay smarter then me! And found WUWT.
Climategate broke( and the https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/23/the-harry-read_me-file )
… I thought this scam would come to an end…..soooo many times.
It won’t, sorry don’t mean to be a bummer, but it won’t.
Now I’m going shopping for a yellow vest! :p
“Honest liberty June 19, 2018 at 8:14 am
Alan, would you be willing to collaborate on a short expose I want to build off this information? I plan on submitting it to James Corbett initially. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. If you would kindly reach out to me via WordPress, I’ll give you my personal email and we could embark upon getting this some exposure.
This is of critical import, as you know, especially because if the globe cools we ought to see a return to more frequent severe weather, as I understand it. They can then claim it was co2 instead of natural variability. We must go on the attack and get this exposed before it gets mainstream, so we can point the faithful back to this prophetic example.”
I just read the above comment now. I don’t know how to reach out to anybody by using WordPress. I don’t have a blog. The only talent I have is logical thinking.
I messaged him for you Alan. If it’s the right wordpress? hehe
Thanks
He’s messaged me back and is very interested, not to sure how to pass along a e-mail address without making it public. Maybe a mod or admin can send your e-mail add to him?
Cheers
Lance
“The biggest science heist in history” – wow that is some title …
which of course is completely unfounded. There are fellow travellers like myself who are determined to push back against what can be deemed sceptic ‘misinformation’. Roland Vincent is one such colleague from WordPress. He is a vegan and has been around the block so can teach a sceptic a thing or two. Check out his blog and support him – he is a radical thinker: https://armoryoftherevolution.wordpress.com/2018/12/06/greenhouse-gas-emissions-accelerate-like-a-speeding-freight-train-in-2018/
Ivan, you continually amaze with your delusions which perhaps provide some amusement here, as well as insight into the klimate koolade-crazed “mind” of the True Believers, but you are no “fellow traveller”. More of a leech, wart, or carbuncle.
Seems like the leeches, warts and carbuncles are in the majority then – and long may it continue.
Certainly the leeches, warts and carbuncles like to think so, or that in science, the “majority rules”. All part of their dysfunction.
The idea you have, and that is common here – is that the majority are either wrong, it’s a scam, or there is no majority for the consensus side.
Maybe that’s a function of coming here and thinking that like minds on the Interweb constituting your bubble (confirmation bias) is a majority. Whereas advocates of the science largely keep quiet and get on with things (well because that’s science), denizens pour loving kisses on the few deluded naysayers worthy of any climate credentials ( that does not include Monckton).
Hint.
The balance of probability overwhelming supports the proposition that a consensus be correct, especially in the field of AGW where the science has been known of for ~ 120 yrs.
To think otherwise is a psychopathy.
And to say the words you have above is evidence of it.
You see “true believers” gives it away. Science isn’t belief – it’s about evidence.
It is your “belief” in there being no evidence, that constitutes a “true believer”.
That you will never parse that is of course, part of the psychopathy.
And that you feel the need to pour vitriol on the one of the few who come on here to defend that shows that you have nothing but hand-waving and “belief” in your naysaying.
But if you say so my friend.
Science doesn’t care what you think or what this Blog thinks.
Pissing into the wind even though here is none down a rabbit-hole.
The balance of probability overwhelming supports the proposition that a consensus be correct, especially in the field of AGW where the science has been known of for ~ 120 yrs.
To think otherwise is a psychopathy.
Agreed. I just can’t get over the fact that these moron doctors aren’t still bloodletting. And this after 3000 years of consensus science and practice!
Well done Anthony Banton. Well done.
Anthony Banton
You said, “… especially in the field of AGW where the science has been known of for ~ 120 yrs.”
That statement makes it obvious that you don’t understand the problem. While a fact about the IR absorption of CO2 has been known, it is not the totality of atmospheric science. What is critical is how all the dynamic elements of the system interact, not just how one part behaves. It is obvious that there are numerous feedback loops, which are almost certainly negative in sum or else after 4.5 billion years the system would have runaway.
Re changing minds about Mr Mosher.
I only ever had issue with his drive by snipes type of posting, and fallacious arguments.
Otherwise I am sure he is a fine fellow, at least, I have no reason to believe he is not.
Certainly Steven is not in the same category as people like Holthaus, Gill, Hayhoe, Schmidt and even Zeke (Zeke has told demonstrable lies)
The topic has been a popular political football since at least Al Gore’s 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
– not true. It started a long time before this.
I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States…while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.
– not true. 198 countries have committed to reducing their CO2 emissions. Trump likes to make the US the ‘scapegoat’, but this is just to support his political populism lapped up by his base.
Sceptics question the magnitude of climate change:
Well, lets add up all the millions of cars, trucks, aircraft, ships, power plants, factories, farmed animals etc. on this planet and then try to work out where all the CO2 emissions go and what impact they are causing on the planet’s atmosphere and oceans.
Whose analysis is based on emotion? Mann’s? – I don’t think so.
Why such emotional terms – Mosher says the climate scientists “were railing” against him
So one climate measuring thermometer that has exhaust fumes blowing into means tht all climate measuring thermometers are incorrect?
All this information about the CRU is commonly available information so why is it being rehashed here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
The results:
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations. However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with “more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data – right down to the computer codes they use – to allow their findings to be properly verified”. Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.
Anthony Watts:
“I believe that carbon dioxide does have an effect on the temperature of the Earth. The only real scientific question is: How much? And that question has been in flux and unanswered for over thirty years. It hasn’t been nailed down. How much temperature increase do we get for a doubling of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere? And the estimates range in science anywhere from a half a degree to eight degrees. There’s no actual number where everyone can say, ‘This is it. This is the right number.’ They’ve not nailed that down in thirty some years of climate science. And with something that’s that uncertain, how do you plan for the future? How do you say we’re in a crisis or not? And that is the big question. And so yes I believe carbon dioxide has some effect. How much, is still the question.”
The climate scientists attending this event are providing the answer to this question: https://cop24.gov.pl/news/
Will Trump review its results? The guy apparently doesn’t like to read …
“So one climate measuring thermometer that has exhaust fumes blowing into means tht all climate measuring thermometers are incorrect?”
Indeed Ivan:
And conversely one satellite sensor (AMSU onboard NOAA15) is correct when only processed by UAH (was RSS before going to V4).
It’s hypocrisy writ large.
Double standards.
Done “because we trust Christy and Spencer”
Ivan Kinsman , I just don’t care.
I suspect he doesn’t either Lance, and neither do I that you don’t, as I know that is the stance of the naysayers on here.
As I said above …. it’s part of the psychopathy.
Huh? A naysayer and a psychopath? You forgot about Nazi you condescending no nothing .
I don’t give a sheet about what you think you know. I…. DON’T…. CARE. Get it?
“you condescending no nothing .”
FYI: A “Psychopathy” is not as synonym for a “psychopath”.
“… from psych (soul or mind) and pathy (suffering or disease)…”
It is an all embracing term to describe a condition of the mind.
Did you say “no nothing?
I think you did.
Bless.
Ivan,
Right you are. It started just as the impending ice age scare was petering out.
A fresh bogie-man was required.
Countries like Vanuatu looking for reparations for fantasized damages. And where the biggest emitter, China, continues to increase emissions.
Still haven’t narrowed down the sensitivity to CO2 doubling in 28 years (since FAR 1990) despite billions spent.
Mann’s emotion is clearly displayed in the climategate emails. Dispassionate scientist, I don’t think so.
Mosher was/is understating the vituperation that was/is directed at those questioning the anointed ones.
There was many more than just “one” corrupted station. And then homogenization is applied perhaps sullying the good station records. And then there are vast tracts of earth with no temperature records where temperatures are divined from locations more than a thousand kilometres away. But they can accurately measure the earth’s temperature to .01C.
Because the climategate release was a seminal event. It showed noble cause corruption at perhaps its ugliest. It lifted the veil from our eyes. Scientists are no less venal than your average Joe.
Firstly, the “committees” did not review the science in any serious manner. You did not name those particular committees but the ones dissected in detail by Climate Audit were overt whitewashes.
The IPCC 2018 report has not narrowed the sensitivity to CO2 doubling from the previous reports. You think that someone has had a revelation since then?
Maybe Trump knows shite when he hears it.
I always had a lot of respect for Mr. Mosher coming here and making his case. Also have a lot of respect for Mr. Watts and the Mods. for letting everyone have their say! Thnx guys and gals on both sides! I hope I can read WUWT for many, many years. Regards from the Swiss mountains, Fred
It’s fun to talk about personalities, but somehow Climate Science is still a steaming pile of dung.
Andrew