Judith Curry: Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later

As we approach the tenth anniversary of Climategate and are deluged with whitewashing and revisionist history, we will post a few articles, but cannot counter everything.

As far as we are concerned the tenth anniversary is on November 17th, the day I personally received the files.

The following post by Dr. Curry is one of the best historical retrospectives I’ve seen on the topic.~ctm

Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later

Posted on November 12, 2019 by curryja | 121 Comments

by Judith Curry

My reflections on Climategate 10 years later, and also reflections on my reflections of 5 years ago.

Last week, an email from Rob Bradley reminded me of my previous blog post The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later. That post was the last in a sequence of posts at Climate Etc. since 2010 on Climategate; for the entire group of posts, see  [link]  Rereading these was quite a blast from the past.

While I still mention Climategate in interviews, the general reaction I get is ‘yawn . . . old hat . . . so 2010 . . . nothingburger . . . the scientists were all exonerated . . . the science has proven to be robust.’ I hadn’t even thought of a ’10 years later’ post until Rob Bradley’s email.

Now I see that, at least in the UK, the 10 year anniversary looks to be rather a big deal. Already we are seeing some analyses published in the mainstream media:

Two starkly different perspectives. While I personally think Delingpole’s article is a superb analysis, it would not surprise me if the ‘establishment’ media in the UK is looking to rewrite history and cement the ‘exoneration,’ especially with this forthcoming one hour BBC special Climategate: Science of a Scandal, set to air November 14.

According to Cliscep  (not sure what the source of this information is), McKitrick and McIntyre were both interviewed for the BBC special, but apparently McKitrick was cut completely. Lets see how they edit McIntyre.


The mainstream media and the Climategater scientists themselves claim complete exoneration by the various ‘inquiries’. Were they exonerated?

There was no exoneration by any objective analysis of the various inquiries. Ross McKitrick lays all this out in his article Understanding the Climategate Inquiries

“The evidence points to some clear conclusions.

  1. The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
  2. Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes.
  3. The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.
  4. The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.
  5. The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.

Is the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound? Many people, starting with the members of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had hoped this question would be answered during the inquiry process, and there is a frequent refrain in the media that the investigations affirmed the science. But the reality is that none of the inquiries actually investigated the science. The one inquiry supposedly set up to address this, namely Lord Oxburgh’s, actually operated under a different remit altogether, despite multiple claims by the UEA that it was a science reappraisal panel.

Over the course of the five reviews, a few complaints were investigated and upheld, such as the problem of data secrecy at the CRU and the misleading nature of the “hide the decline” graph. And the IAC leveled enough serious criticisms about the IPCC process to substantiate concerns that the organization is unsound for the purpose of providing balanced, rigorous science assessments. But many other concerns were left unaddressed, or slipped through the cracks between the inquiries, or were set aside after taking CRU responses at face value.

Steve McIntyre’s Brief submitted for the defendants in one Mann’s lawsuits  addresses the key scientific aspects related to Michael Mann’s conduct and hockey stick research:

“Even before the release of the Climategate emails, numerous public concerns were raised about Mann’s conduct. Concerns about Mann’s research included:

  • Mann’s undisclosed use in a 1998 paper (“MBH98”) of an algorithm which mined data for hockey-stick shaped series. The algorithm was so powerful that it could produce hockey-stick shaped “reconstructions” from auto-correlated red noise. Mann’s failure to disclose the algorithm continued even in a 2004 corrigendum.
  • Mann’s failure to disclose adverse verification statistics in MBH98. Mann also did not archive results that would permit calculation of the adverse statistics. Climategate emails later revealed that Mann regarded this information as his “dirty laundry” and required an associate at the Climatic Research Unit (“CRU”) to withhold the information from potential critics.
  • Mann’s misleading claims about the “robustness” of his reconstruction to the presence/absence of tree ring chronologies, including failing to fully disclose calculations excluding questionable data from strip bark bristlecone pine trees.
  • Mann’s deletion of the late 20th century portion of the Briffa temperature reconstruction in Figure 2.21 in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) to conceal its sharp decline, in apparent response to concerns that showing the data would “dilute the message” and give “fodder to the skeptics.” Mann’s insistence in 2004 that “no researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction. But it was later revealed that in one figure for the cover of the 1999 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) annual report, the temperature record had not only been grafted onto the various reconstructions—and in the case of the Briffa reconstruction, had been substituted for the actual proxy
  • Mann’s undisclosed grafting of temperature data for “Mike’s Nature trick,” a manipulation of data which involved: (1) grafting the temperature record after 1980 onto the proxy reconstruction up to 1980; (2) “smoothing” the data; and (3) truncating the smooth back to 1980. ”

Exoneration? Not even close. However, is all this even relevant anymore? “the science has moved on . . . independently verified . . . 97% consensus . . . 8 warmest years occurred since Climategate’ . . . etc. etc.

So did all this ‘matter’, in the larger scheme of things? During the period 2001 to ~2012, the public debate on climate change rose and fell with the fortunes of the hockey stick: the IPCC TAR (2001) prominently featured the hockey stick, which made the public realize that something unusual was going on; the famous elevator version of the hockey stick in Al Gore’s 2006 documentary; in late 2009, Climategate contributed to derailing the UNFCCC COP15 outcome; and in 2010 was the clincher for the failure of the Waxman-Markey Bill (carbon cap and trade) in the U.S. Senate.

Since about 2014 or so, the public debate on climate change has become less ‘scientized’, with economics, social justice and raw politics taking center stage.

Did climate scientists learn anything from Climategate?

Looking forward, should Climategate matter? Only if scientists failed to learn the appropriate lessons.

At the time of Climategate, I wrote an essay entitled On the credibility of climate research. I raised four key issues: Lack of transparency, climate tribalism, the need for improved analysis and communication of uncertainty, and engagement with ‘skeptics’ and critics of our work.

At the time, I was rather astonished by the failure of climate science ‘leaders’ (apart from the climagaters defending themselves) to make public statements about this and show some leadership.

Interesting insights into the ‘leadership’ void at the time of Climategate are revealed by a tranche of emails obtained by the CEI [link] dated the first half of 2010, involving scientists involved in Climategate emails as well as others who are regarded as the keepers of the IPCC ‘flame’ – e.g. Michael Oppenheimer, Steve Schneider, Gabi Hegerl, Eric Steig, Kevin Trenberth.

It is very interesting to see what they were concerned about in the aftermath of Climategate. They were trying to understand why Climategate was newsworthy, and they were mostly concerned about protecting themselves from the same things that Climategate emails revealed: attacks on scientists’ reputation, ‘skeptics’ getting mentions in the mainstream media, public perceptions of scientists’ credibility, how to convince the public that AGW is ‘real’ with 3 slides in 10 minutes, top 10 list of denialist mistakes.

Steve Schneider perceptively states: “A mega heat wave this summer is worth 3 orders of magnitude more in the PR wars–too bad we have to wait for random events since evidence doesn’t seem to cut it anymore with the MSM.”

In my post Climategate essays, I pointed the way for climate science out of this morass. How was this received by climate scientists? Michael Lemonick’s follow up essay Why I Wrote About Judith Curry to his article Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on her Colleagues,  provides the following insights:

“Simply by giving Judith Curry’s views a respectful airing, I’ve already drawn accusations of being irresponsible — and it’s valid to raise the question of whether giving her any sort of platform is a bad idea.

I also argue, as you’ll see in Scientific American, that the vehement reaction of climate scientists, while perfectly understandable, might be akin to the violent reaction of the human immune system to some bacteria and viruses — a reaction that’s sometimes more damaging than the original microbe.”

Given the huge stakes and the serious structural issues surrounding the assessment of climate science and policy that had emerged from Climategate, these concerns of the climate scientists seem small-minded and naïve, not to mention counter-productive –  ‘circling the wagons’ even tighter made the situation even worse.

Clearly any leadership that might lead climate science out of this morass would have to come from outside the community of climate scientists and probity would need to come from outside of the field of climate science. Climate science subsequently became an important topic in the fields of science and technology studies, philosophy of science, social psychology, law, statistics, computer science and communications.

The broader institutions that support climate science have implemented some improvements post Climategate:

  • The UN IAC review of the IPCC has resulted in some improvements to the IPCC practices of reviewing, conflicts of interest, uncertainty assessment
  • Elite journals now require data to be made publicly available and also conflict of interest statements.

On the downside:

  • Politically correct and ‘woke’ universities have become hostile places for climate scientists that are not sufficiently ‘politically correct’
  • Professional societies have damaged their integrity by publishing policy statements advocating emissions reductions and marginalizing research that is not consistent with the ‘party line’
  • The gate-keeping by elite journals has gotten worse IMO, although the profusion of new journals makes it possible for anyone to get pretty much anything published somewhere.

The main long-term impact of Climategate on climate scientists seems to have been to put a halo around Michael Mann’s head over his ‘victim’ status, giving him full reign to attack in a Trumpian manner anyone who disagrees with him.

Cultural shifts

The social culture surrounding climate change has changed substantially in the past 10 years and even the past 5 years.

10 years ago, the climate blogs were highly influential – the big four were WUWT, Climate Progress, Real Climate and Climate Audit. Climate Progress (subsequently Think Progress) is now defunct – what the heck happened to Joe Romm? Climate Audit has a very low level of activity. Real Climate publishes post at a leisurely pace (about the same pace as Climate Etc.). Only WUWT has maintained its pace of publishing and its influence.

At this point, twitter has almost totally eclipsed the climate blogs; this has accelerated in the past 5 years. Also, there are now some not-for-profit organizations that have hired writers on the climate topic, notably Carbon Brief.

Further, a number of climate scientists and scientists in related fields now either have regular columns in the mainstream media (Roger Pielk Jr and Michael Schellenberger at Forbes are notable examples) or write frequent op-eds (e.g. Michael Mann).

Communication of climate science has become a big priority in climate science, although what is judged as desirable and worthy of professional recognition is more often propaganda than ‘science to inform.’

At the time of Climategate, public advocacy by climate scientists of climate policy was generally frowned upon, and only a few senior, well-established scientists dared to do this (e.g. Jim Hansen). At this point, climate scientist/activists are very large in number, and such activism seems to be a ticket to professional success.

With regards to the advocacy groups and think tanks on both sides, the conflicts a decade ago between the environmental advocacy groups (e.g. Greenpeace) and the libertarian groups (e.g. CEI, CATO) seems almost quaint at this point. With the exception of Heartland, GWPF and the newly formed CO2 Coalition, the libertarian groups no longer bother with climate science (even the long standing program at CATO with Pat Michaels no longer exists).

Instead, we have Extinction Rebellion and the Sunrise Movement on one hand, and the yellow jackets and related movements on the other hand. These are populist movements (although apparently with some big $$ backing, esp for Extinction Rebellion). The zombie stuff of the Extinction Rebellion makes me nostalgic for the relative rationality of Greenpeace versus CEI.

‘Skeptics’ these days are generally defined by ‘lukewarmerism’ (e.g. climate sensitivity on the low end of the IPCC range), a focus on historical and paleo data records, and a focus on natural climate variability. Skeptics frequently cite the IPCC reports. Skeptics generally support nuclear energy and natural gas, but are dubious of rapid expansion of wind and solar and biofuels.

Scientists on the ‘warm’ side of the spectrum think that IPCC is old hat and too conservative/cautious (see esp Naomi Oreskes’ new book); in short, insufficiently alarming.  The ‘alarmed’ scientists are focused on attributing extreme weather to AGW (heeding Steve Schneider’s ‘wisdom’), and also in generating implausible scenarios of huge amounts of sea level rise. As a result, consensus of the 97% is less frequently invoked.

Such alarmism by the climate scientists has spawned doomsterism, to the dismay of these same climate scientists – things are so bad that we are all doomed, so why should we bother.

There is also a growing dichotomy on both sides of this between the Boomers and the Millennials/GenZ. On the ‘skeptics’ side, there is a general paucity of younger scientists, with the center of mass being scientists in their 60’s and 70’s (and even older).

On the ‘alarmed’ side, there is a steady stream of younger scientists fueled by propaganda in K-12 and hiring practices and professional rewards in the universities. Some of the younger scientists think that the likes of Michael Mann are too conservative and insufficiently ‘woke’ and unconcerned about social justice objectives. This recent exchange on twitter was particularly illuminating:

Mann: “I share her (Klein’s) concern over each of these societal afflictions, but I wonder at the assertion that it’s not possible to address climate change without solving all that plagues us. My worry is this. Saddling a climate movement with a laundry list of other worthy social programmes risks alienating needed supporters (say, independents and moderate conservatives) who are apprehensive about a broader agenda of progressive social change. The pessimist in me also doubts that we’ll eliminate greed and intolerance within the next decade.”

This elicited the following responses:

Apparently this elicited a 15 hour tweet storm from Mann.  P.S.  I side with Mann in this particular dispute.

‘Cancel culture’ is also booming, but this is nothing new in the climate arena; the Climategaters plus Naomi Oreskes were pioneers in cancel culture as related to climate scientists or anyone else who doesn’t toe the party line (although the party line is now splitting between boomer alarmists and the Millennials). At the time of Climategate, the cancel efforts were conducted via the ‘back channels’ (e.g. emails); these days they are conducted in the open on twitter.  From Hayhoe to Mann on twitter in response to a recently published paper:

“I’m also concerned as I’ve been getting some dismissives citing this. Have you had a chat with Tom about it?”

Social justice has become a major driver in climate policy (e.g. the Green New Deal), increasingly overtaking climate policy in its objectives.

‘Boomer’ Mann has the more defensible position this one. Yes, any policies should avoid making the situation of disadvantaged individuals worse. But seeking to solve the myriad problems of social justice through climate/energy policy is a recipe for accomplishing nothing for either. So Mann and I are in agreement on this one (see spat above with Holthaus).

With all these changes, you’ll be relieved to hear that Climategate lives on in numerous lawsuits that Michael Mann has filed related to criticisms of his behavior related to the hockeystick. Most of these lawsuits continue to languish since they were filed about 8 years ago (although Mann did lose his lawsuit against Tim Ball). With these lawsuits, there is no denying that the impacts of Climategate are still playing out.

Whither the debate on climate change?

I’ll lead off this section with a quote from Delingpole’s recent article:

“Right now, the struggle against this nonsense seems pretty hopeless. But we sceptics do have at least two things on our side – time and economics. Time is doing us a favour by showing that none of the alarmists’ doomsday predictions are coming to pass. Economics – from the blackouts in South Australia caused by excessive reliance on renewables (aka unreliables) to the current riots and demonstrations taking place from France and the Netherlands to Chile over their governments’ green policies – suggest that common sense will prevail in the end. Bloody hell, though – taking its time, isn’t it?”

I’ll extend Delingpole’s sentiments a bit further, to include these additional things that are on the side of an eventual rational outcome to this:

  • Energy engineering realities: for a superb overview, see Michael Kelly’s recent essay Energy Utopias and Engineering Realities
  • Growing concerns about energy reliability and security, e.g. the recent experience of California with massive power shutdowns and blackouts in Australia
  • The climate itself; even with huge 2016 (see this recent overview by Ross McKitrick), the temperatures are not keeping pace with the CMIP5 predictions
  • At some point, a spate of La Nina events, a shift to the cold phase of the AMO, increased volcanic activity, impacts of a solar minimum and another ‘hiatus’ are inevitable; sort of the reverse of what Steve Schneider was waiting for.
  • Most of the CMIP6 climate models have gone somewhat bonkers, with a majority having values of ECS that exceed 4.5C and do a poor job of simulating the temperatures since 1950; makes it difficult to take seriously their 21st century projections

Ideas that are genuinely irrational eventually burn themselves out as reality bites, but we have certainly seen such ideas, policies and politics persist for decades in the past 100 years. Perhaps the information age, the internet and social media will speed this one along.

What’s wrong with current climate/energy policy? This 2013 quote by Hans von Storch sums up it up:

“Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I’m driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can’t simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I’ll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.”

Common sense approaches to reducing vulnerability to extreme weather events, improving environmental quality, developing better energy technologies, improving agricultural and land use practices, better water management polices and engineering can lead the way to a more prosperous and secure future. Each of these solutions is ‘no regrets’ – make sense however the 21st century climate plays out.

For those that are concerned about social justice: the biggest social justice issue that I see for the 21st century is to provide reliable grid electricity to Africa.

In terms of climate scientists and their influence. The relative sensibility of Boomer scientists (even Michael Mann; although this recent article is slightly nuts) are being eclipsed by the zombie-dom of the Extinction Rebellion and ‘wokeness’.

Regarding Boomer wisdom, I was particularly struck by this recent interview of Barack Obama  about the ‘call-out’ and ‘cancel’ culture. This was greeted by numerous criticisms typified by this article in the New York Times Obama’s Very Boomer View of ‘Cancel Culture’  and the epithet ‘Yo Boomer.’ Michael Schermer of Skeptical Inquirer nails it with this tweet:

“I’m trying to understand Millennial/GenZ cancel culture & not just be an old Baby Boomer, but it seems to me that if you think @BarackObama is not woke enough to understand what injustice means I think you’ve gone off the rails of moral progress.”

“Gone off the rails of moral progress” – a perfect description of where this seems to be headed, at least in the short term.

Personal impact

My personal saga in the five years following Climategate was summarized in my essay ‘5 years later.’ Upon rereading, I was struck by these excerpts:

“In 2014, I no longer feel the major ostracism by my peers in the climate establishment; after all, many of the issues I’ve been raising that seemed so controversial have now become mainstream.  And the hiatus has helped open some minds.

The net effect of all this is that my ‘academic career advancement’ in terms of professional recognition, climbing the administrative ladder, etc. has been pretty much halted.  I’ve exchanged academic advancement that now seems to be of dubious advantage to me for a much more interesting and influential existence that that feels right in terms of my personal and scientific integrity.

Climategate was career changing for me; I’ll let history decide if this was for better or worse (if history even cares).”

In the end, Climategate ended my academic career prematurely (JC in transition). I realized how shallow the ‘academic game’ has become, and the games one needs to play to succeed. Throwing all that off has been personally and intellectually liberating for me.

I now have more time to read and think. Unfortunately I have less time to write blog posts since I am focusing my efforts on projects of relevance to the clients of my company Climate Forecast Applications Network. These projects are pretty wide ranging and pushing me in interesting new directions.

As for my ‘influence’ in the public debate on climate change, I never cared too much about this and probably care even less at this point. I have a unique perspective, and I appreciate any substantive opportunities that come my way to share this with the public and decision makers.

As Roger Pielke Jr tweeted:

“It wasn’t all fun, I’ll tell ya, but I’d do it all over again if it meant I get to now”

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Javert Chip
November 15, 2019 2:23 pm

One thing about Dr Curry: she’s got the intellectual & communications horsepower to make understandable & definitive statements.

Reply to  Javert Chip
November 15, 2019 5:49 pm

And courage, eh?

David Tallboys
November 15, 2019 2:32 pm

Thank you Judith Curry.

I’ve just been in an argument in a bar with an environmental ecology MBA student. He’s 25 I’m 65.

We might as well have been arguing whether the Sun goes round the Earth.

Oh well.

The good news is it won’t be as bad as he says; and then he’ll take the credit for saving the world.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Tallboys
November 15, 2019 5:01 pm

“I’ve just been in an argument in a bar with an environmental ecology MBA student. He’s 25 I’m 65.”

You have already experienced 25, but the student has not experienced 65 yet. The student should think about that.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  David Tallboys
November 15, 2019 5:50 pm

My teachers used the word “whippersnapper” years ago – a word that aptly describes the student who thought he could put you in your place. 🙂

Patrick MJD
Reply to  David Tallboys
November 15, 2019 6:07 pm

The issue with 25 year olds, especially males, is their reasoning brain hasn’t fully matured. It’s pointless having any reasonable discussion with them. Like most 25 year olds, they don’t know it because they think they know it all. A stint in the military services typically sorts that issue out rather quickly.

John Hutton
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 16, 2019 7:09 am

But, of course, you do now know it all, right?

I always enjoy the old chestnut where an older person claims they used to be leftist and, now that they are older and are conservative, they must have attained wisdom and be correct now. When you’re younger and arrogantly convinced you are right, that’s bad. When you’re older and arrogantly convinced you are right, that’s good.

Seems you can grow older and yet never gain self-awareness.

Reply to  John Hutton
November 16, 2019 8:09 am

When you grow older you will recognize the errors in your assumptions and comment.

As you grow older, you begin to realize how much that you once ‘understood’ is actually wrong, and how little you really do understand. You aren’t convinced you are right, because you know you probably aren’t. What you are sure of, is that the young are wrong, too, because they are making the same errors you did in your arrogant youth.

Virtually all of the science I was taught some fifty years ago, or so, has been shown to be wrong, or at least incomplete. There is every reason to believe that what is accepted science, today,will likewise be shown wrong or incomplete in the future.

This year, alone, I have read of coral reefs existing where they should not, based on our understanding; unexpected discovery on asteroids; inexplicable levels of oxygen on Mars; a newly discovered fossil of a bird that may rewrite the theory of avian evolution; clusters of brain cells existing in the human gut; DNA twisted in previously unknown shape; and many more. Science is rewritten daily.

If you are wise, what you learn as you grow older is that you don’t really know anything, never have, and never will. And neither has anyone else. That is what drives people from being a liberal to being a conservative. You realize that the great ideas you have as to how everyone should live, and everything should work are wrong, despite how noble, or are simply impossible to achieve. Your cinclusion will be, that as far as is practical in society, everyone should be free to live as they think is correct; no one has the right answer, and there may not be one (as shown by the uncertainty principle).

Best of luck in the future. You have a lot of learning ahead of you.

Reply to  jtom
November 16, 2019 10:59 am

Well said jtom.
My own bottom-line realization at this final stanza of my life is the absolute accuracy of the truism about the insignificance of humans in the scheme of natural forces.

Garland Lowe
Reply to  jtom
November 16, 2019 2:34 pm

Amen, from your keyboard to John’s eyes and hopefully grey matter.

George H Steele
Reply to  jtom
November 16, 2019 4:54 pm

From my perspective of 76 1/2 trips around old Sol I have learned that the more certain a person (e.g. Greta) is, the less likely they are to be correct. With the notable exception of mathematicians with their proofs.
All the scare stories in the headlines over the years about climate have been wrong so far. Given the very high prior probability (using Bayes Theorem) of a headline being wrong, it takes a strong case to override that prior. In short “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” — Sagan

Reply to  jtom
November 20, 2019 7:16 am

Well put jtom. Only one observation. Those who want to dictate how the rest of us must live are not real liberals (by definition, such attitude is the opposite of what true liberalism is) but the word “liberal” got hijacked a long time ago.
Instead of identifying them as “liberals” they should be identified as “regressive” as it’s a more accurate description of their attitudes and the results they are attempting and likely to achieve.

William Powers
Reply to  John Hutton
November 16, 2019 11:13 am

Not all old people become self aware enough to admit their youthful ignorance John. Sometimes external brainwashing adheres to the individual so effectively it becomes irreversible. Just look at Bernie Sanders. Now there is walking ignorance completely convinced that past failure is an indicator of future success.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  William Powers
November 17, 2019 10:21 am

+++ :<)

John Hutton
Reply to  John Hutton
November 17, 2019 6:37 am

And yet, I’ve never seen or heard a bunch of people as here, so sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong. You haven’t noticed?

Bill Powers
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 16, 2019 11:06 am

I amazed myself at 25 with how brilliant I was. Name it I had an answer for it. I was shocked at 65 with just how ignorant that cocksure 25 year old actually was.

Jan E Christoffersen
Reply to  Bill Powers
November 16, 2019 6:24 pm


Teens are even more cocksure. Greta knows all ……

Jim Carson
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 19, 2019 11:18 am


But Einstein published four major papers, including Special Relativity, when he was 26.

HD Hoese
November 15, 2019 2:41 pm

This is what we are dealing with from the current President of Sigma Xi.
Note the three pushback comments. I have already complained to them about the organization’s advocacy and posted some of it here. They live in a different world, not a scientific one. From the president’s link which I suspect has some statistical problems (“The online questionnaire measured demographic subgroups upfront to ensure a significant sample size for statistical validity.” )–“…..professionals are seeking a culture of authenticity, flexibility, and purpose….“Professionals today increasingly want their work to be a reflection of their personal identity — and organizations need to take that to heart.””

American Scientist (published by Sigma Xi, National Research Honor Society of which I am an emeritus member) has an article just out from an artist with her work (including a polar bear) who is depressed about the state of the environmental world, first realizing it about the ‘well known’ bad stuff about meat.

Reply to  HD Hoese
November 15, 2019 4:44 pm

Diversity (i.e. color judgment) is a sociopolitical construct, a progressive form of bigotry (i.e. sanctimonious hypocrisy), and a means, method, and quasi-religious bent to justify denying individual dignity and practice selective inclusion (e.g. color quotas, affirmative discrimination) of individuals and classes (i.e. majority correlations and alignments), not limited to race, sex, etc. It is a doctrine of the Chamber and the Pro-Choice quasi-religion (“ethics”), and is notoriously exclusive. That said, Pro-Choice in its worst realization is a wicked solution to an albeit hard problem: the secular pursuit of wealth, pleasure, leisure, narcissistic indulge, taxable commodities, democratic leverage, and burden relief in the early stages of human evolution.

Reply to  HD Hoese
November 16, 2019 6:19 am

Personal identity? What the hell is that?

It’s evil to oppress those around you with personal thoughts. Speech is the ancient tool of oppression. All women (a social construct) believe the same things, similar to the way the various minorities, like white males, do.

Your job will be in jeopardy if you expect to continue to have and speak your own opinions. Degrees of oppression instruct us in our obligation to direct hate and subjugation properly.

Utopia can’t be far off now.

Reply to  DocSiders
November 16, 2019 8:25 am

Remember when ‘assimilation’ was taught to be they key to America’s strength? We all joined together into one, big, happy family (or would have if we had allowed some groups to assimilate sooner). Society embraced different aspects of each others cultures.

Now the emphases is on diversity; ensuring different SEGREGATED groups, where society is FORBIDDEN to adopt any part of a groups culture. This only ensures and promotes divisiveness (my group is better than your group). Now we have constant strife between cultures.

The university I graduated from just initiated a diversity council to ensure that no group appropriated another’s culture in any way, shape, or form. I canceled my association with the university to avoid embarrassing them; I may wear my sombrero to a Cinco de Mayo celebration as I have in the past.

I hope we will swing back to embracing assimilation in the public arena.

Reply to  jtom
November 16, 2019 11:11 am

Remember too that in the corporate and bureaucratic worlds, organizations are always de-centralizing or centralizing their operations.

The cycles may vary in frequencies of timings, but the certainty that having just completed a centralization or de-centralization exercise, that organization will begin the steps of doing the opposite of they’ve just done. Bet on it.

And at the beginning, they won’t even recognize what they’re about to embark upon. Because there’s a “new vision” of the future for them.

Sound familiar?

November 15, 2019 2:42 pm

JC has been a class act through the whole tumultuous decade. I am always interested in her take on things. Hope she continues to post regularly at Climate Etc.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Paul Stevens
November 15, 2019 9:17 pm

“JC has been a class act ….”

A good characterization. Her vociferous opponents have been crass acts.

November 15, 2019 2:45 pm

As usual, you are powerful and precise, Judy.

In addition, I would say that the Internet of Everything is moving at hyper speed and therefore rapidly converging the world into a more humane place for the 1/3 of people living in some form of poverty.

“Technology and demography can’t be stopped.” Anonymous Heins

Ed Zuiderwijk
November 15, 2019 2:46 pm

The BBC 4 Science of a Scandal broadcast was indeed as could be expected a biased travesty of a docu. They all made an appearance, Jones, Mann, Trenbreth and a few more, with comments to comical effect by George Monbiot, that factotum of the Guardian newspaper. Only McIntyre wss given some time, not a single ‘denier’ eventhough there ought to be oodles of them around given the large quantities of dosh bestowed on them by fossil fuel interests. And of course it was a hacker who did it, instead of the still unknown whistleblower who really was the source. That, naturally, can never be admitted since it would make it crystal clear that the ‘consensus’ does not exist, if you have dissenters in your own institute. Mann tried again the idea that contributors to IPCC reports really ought to be considered as NP winners as well, no mention of anything the NP committee hss said about that. And he was allowed to ventilate his nonsense about the hide the decline trick. There was one awkward moment when a staff member tearfully talked about him and his family being threatened, twice over in fact which by then I considered an Oscar winning performance. No mention of any police action taken, which would be what one could have expected.

Capell Aris
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 16, 2019 12:46 am

The whole atmosphere of the programme was ‘nothing to see here, move on’. The conclusion of the BBC’s ‘analysis’ was that climate scientists should communicate better, and make their data available (surprisingly, not helped by the input of Schmidtt).
I was quite pleased to see this though. It reminded us just how bad the revelations were and shows how the same atmosphere of deceit is alive and kicking.
The scandal was passed off as a simple manipulation of graphs and lack of communication because of contractual restrictions on commercial data.
My take would have been that the two paper by MBH were the godsend that climate science needed at the time – they killed off the MWP. Inconveniently, But then Soon and Baliunas countered that claim. What climategate revealed was an ugly scramble to support MBH and descredit/block publication of inconvenient papers.
If nothing else, we still, sensibly, have the MWP.

November 15, 2019 2:56 pm

To quote Judith:
” I have a unique perspective, and I appreciate any substantive opportunities that come my way to share this with the public and decision makers.”
I usually feel the same way, with the trans break on, and the engine bouncing off the rev limiter.
Just say go.

Mickey Reno
November 15, 2019 3:30 pm

After Climategate broke, Dr. Curry wrote her famous and wonderful essay on how the Hockey Team should actually pay attention and answer the critics, the McIntyres and McKittricks of the world. She told her colleagues that their own science would benefit from a bit more self-skepticism. They didn’t listen to her, of course, but I’ve been a big fan ever since.

November 15, 2019 3:31 pm

The claim of “exoneration” appears to be a scandal itself.

November 15, 2019 3:32 pm

“the biggest social justice issue that I see for the 21st century is to provide reliable grid electricity to Africa.” We will see real progress when Africa itself says, “we need to develop ourselves a reliable electrical grid”.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  BallBounces
November 15, 2019 4:08 pm

They need outside financing and technical support. The elites in the West are determined to deny that and only give them welfare payments (Climate Aid Fund). And China will deliver it with Sino-Imperialism and debt traps.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
November 16, 2019 8:34 am

Isn’t it bigotry to believe Africans can not get out of third-world status, themselves, just like first-world countries did? Financing and technical support would quicken the transition, and that would benefit everyone, but you can not hold those things to be necessary unless you believe Africans are less capable than most if the rest of the world..

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  jtom
November 16, 2019 9:07 am

That depends on how long you want them to take.
And also the fact that their mineral resources and Nigerian oil are mined and then exported as raw materials. In the West our raw materials were used in our manufacturing sectors to grow the middle class from the very start of the Industrial Revolution.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  jtom
November 25, 2019 5:50 am

They have a tough handicap. The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is only about 70. It’s extremely challenging (I’m going to go out on a limb and say “impossible”) to develop an industrial infrastructure, and a parliamentary democracy enforced by the rule of law, on your own, when half your population is barely smart enough to tie their own shoelaces… and most of the other half is just smart enough to be criminally violent. (Apparently the violent criminal behaviour vs. IQ curve peaks at an IQ of around 80.)

Terence Gore
Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
November 25, 2019 8:15 am

There are many people who test out on IQ lower than me who live much more functional lives than I do I am not sure I have a good idea of what IQ is. My sense is that we are well adapted to responding to the stimuli in our environment and disregarding what is not necessary in that environment.

In a recent article by Fred Reed http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-do-uq-a-sojourn-among-the-true-believers/

“In this piece by John Derbyshire, a mathematician by training and longtime enthusiast of all things IQical, I find his assertion that the Nepalese have a mean IQ of 60. (He is quoting other I Qists thought to know of these matters.)

Now, a couple of points: First, I have spent time in Nepal and saw nothing to suggest anything even approaching this level of retardation. Second, an average of 60 means that half the population have an IQ of less than that, the distribution being almost symmetrical, and a substantial number below 45. These people would not be able to dress themselves or find their way home at night. I encountered no naked Nepalis wandering about homelessly.

Third, if the above grass hut (picture of sophisticated Nepalese Temple in article) in Nepal was built by people with a mean IQ of sixty, then the Australian aborigines, at sixty-four, could build something at least as elaborate and perhaps a bit more so.

Does anyone really believe this stuff?”

I find it’s pretty easy to get lost in the weeds when discussing things that are not directly related to climate . change.

David Chappell
Reply to  BallBounces
November 15, 2019 8:11 pm

Well, that seems to have been given a big kick backwards by the African Development Bank blocking funding to coal-fired generation. Incidentally the president of the AfDB is an agricultural economist seemingly with a strong green tinge.

Reply to  BallBounces
November 16, 2019 1:18 am

I have this last year spent considerable time dealing personally with development issues in Africa. I am a physician and have worked in Africa (Tanzania) this year and have just finished an intensive 3-month diploma course in tropical medicine at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (first and foremost of such schools) focused on developing modern medicine at the public health and individual patient level throughout the developing world, but especially in Africa.

I can assure you that Africans are acutely aware of the need to develop a reliable, modern electrical power grid. They are willing to burn coal to get it, knowing that any climate effect is nothing compared to the current rates of death and misery in their world. The Europeans on the LSTM faculty, though brilliant well-meaning people, have largely adopted the Extinction Rebellion point of view. They are comfortable with what I call “cultural imperialism”—quite willing to impose climate crisis limits on the use of coal, etc., on the developing world, because they so fully have accepted that the horrors of catastrophic climate change due to CO2 will soon be upon us. It is sad to see.

The Africans, face to face with the deprivations in their lives, are realistic….just as the Chinese, Indians, and other developing countries’ leaders continue to put the realistic needs of immediate development over the theoretic long term demands of the CAGW theories. Yet the Africans are so dependent on western money, medicines, and expertise (a dependency they are aware of and hate) that they give lip service to the climate change movement—because they must.

So cut the Africans a little break. It is the decaying order of European civilisation that has embraced climate crisis culture without reserve….indeed with a sort of enthusiasm, because it gives meaning and energy to their otherwise pessimistic, nihilistic lives. It is perfect that an angry, mentally marginal teen-aged girl from Sweden has become their Joan of Arc.

And a last comment: I see the collapse of reasonableness in the climate change movement into the hysteria of Greta and Extinction Rebellion as a good sign: this fever is running its course and now is in crisis. Soon (maybe a decade, maybe less) the fever will break and recovery will begin. Another decade of at most mild warming, perhaps a pause, or perhaps a few cooler years, will put to rest the fears of all but the most irrational of the alarmists….and they will stand out as the kooks they are, as the rest of humanity gets on with life.

Steve (Paris)
Reply to  kwinterkorn
November 16, 2019 2:49 am

I think this should be made into a separate post. May I humbly express my huge respect for you ‘kwinterkorn’

Reply to  kwinterkorn
November 16, 2019 6:42 am

This insanity will only break if the propaganda machine of the Western Civilization deconstructionist (MSM) is broken.

Counter propaganda on the side of the millions of victims of the excessive costs of CO2 mitigation will eventually prevail. A decade long cooling trend would also be helpful. There is hope.

For now we are left defending an imperfect President Trump from removal and getting him reelected. He appears to be the only legitimate power standing in the breach for the next 5 years. The anti-west machine will not cease in its attacks. They are “all in”. (And we need to keep him out of Dallas.)

Reply to  kwinterkorn
November 16, 2019 8:47 am

This may be an opportune time to get meetings with President Trump and his advisors.

He has just started a campaign to break the Democrats’ hold on the African-American vote. At the same time, the African Development Bank is refusing to finance coal-burning electrical power plants. A Trump-backed U.S. initiative to aid in the construction of new coal-burning plants would help you with your grid, help him politically in the AA-community, and he would be sticking his thumb in the eyes of climate change disrupters.

I don’t know how he could resist that.

Marcus Allen
Reply to  kwinterkorn
November 16, 2019 9:24 am

Thank you, kwinterkorn, for your brilliant and incisive comment.

The refusal to encourage the provision of reliable, cheap and easy accessible electrical power is tantamount to genocide.

The fact that Africans are fully aware of the what they are being denied is encouraging and a hopefully sign that reality will soon make an overdue appearance.

Jack Roth
Reply to  kwinterkorn
November 25, 2019 9:31 pm

Truly well stated, thank you. Please post more often

Reply to  BallBounces
November 16, 2019 4:49 am

I see that the African Development Bank is refusing to fund a coal powered electricity generation plant for Kenya.
I wonder what they would fund, nuclear, solar panels, windmills?

Mark Luhman
Reply to  StephenP
November 16, 2019 9:52 am

“I wonder what they would fund, nuclear, solar panels, windmills?” here is what they will fun Windmills a 15 century technology that was deserted in the early 20 century because it was unreliable and inefficient. Solar panels a power source that only good for mid day when you don’t need lights! If you hook batteries to then batteries won’t last the night and make the power many times more expensive, considering solar panels barely break even on producing enough power to pay for their construction batteries make it a loose loose. Nuclear power the only truly economically power source no way, God forgive we give the “savages”(that what they think of Africans, not me) something that will work.

November 15, 2019 3:51 pm

Just watched Climategate: Science of Scandal on BBC iPlayer

It’s about a bunch of honest scientists at the CRU who had their emails hacked in 2009 just before COP15 in Copenhagen. The said emails were cherry-picked to suggest that those scientists involved at the CRU were trying to suppress and massage data, data that especially showed that the world wasn’t warming after all.

How dare they!

This hacker who was never caught (probably never existed) allowed sceptics and deniers to attack the credibility of The Church of Global Warming and attempt to trash the reputations of honest scientists.

The balance of the programme by the BBC can be readily accessed by those who contributed their thoughts to the Climategate incident in 2009.


In support of the CRU:

Michael Mann (I’m just a climate science guy)
Gavin Schmidt (I like to wave my arms and look incredulous guy)
Fred Pearce (I’m a calm give you the facts guy)
Phil Jones (I’ve been on the naughty step and i didn’t like it guy)
Bob Ward (I’m the really concerned about their reputations guy)
George Monbiot (How can people be so stupid to swallow all this CRU conspiracy guy)
Tim Osborn (I’m the clear thinking future of the CRU guy)
Steve Mosher (isn’t he some sort of star on WUWT guy???)

Against the flow:

Steve McIntyre and his dog.

Monbiot had a different view of Climategate in 2009.

“Pretending the climate email leak isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away”


Climategate: The gift that keeps on giving.

Watch it guys. It would bring a tear to a glass eye.

Kevin kilty
November 15, 2019 4:00 pm

Barack Obama and Michael Mann deserve no better than they are getting. They each sowed the wind and perhaps soon reap a whirlwind. The most telling part of this retrospective is Dr. Curry thinking at five years that much positive had come out of CG, but finding by ten years out what it had actually wrought was zero, and the increasing stridency of climate science ended her academic career. Life is funny that way.

A colleague and I were talking about changes to academia, and teaching undergraduates, in the past ten years. The crazy folks increasingly run universities and colleges. Millennials are so self-absorbed (looking at one’s social media and texts every twenty seconds is self-absorption) that we figure to have just about no influence on them at all long term. Finally, what I believe was a major force in making the modern (western) world, skepticism, the freedom to reject authority and subject claims to objective test, seems to have run its course.

Magical thinking, superstition and authoritarianism appear to be making a comeback.


the profusion of new journals makes it possible for anyone to get pretty much anything published somewhere.

, so there is hope for something I’ve been at for six years. It will upset a lot of folks.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Kevin kilty
November 15, 2019 9:53 pm

Michael Mann and Barack Obama both deserve to wear pin stripes and enjoy the ‘comforts’ of Club Fed for decade or so in my opinion.
Sadly though, incarcerating them would just make them folk heroes to the Ignorati and their followers.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 16, 2019 2:42 pm

Being Michael Mann may be its own punishment. Barack Obama is the bigger fraud — no one is a better example of “didn’t build that.”

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
November 17, 2019 8:02 am

True Kevin, he was correct about that concerning himself — he didn’t build his presidency, it was built for him by the media & the DNC.

November 15, 2019 4:05 pm

the legacy of Climategate? nothing has changed:

6 Nov: BBC: Climate change: ‘Clear and unequivocal’ emergency, say scientists
By Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent
A global group of around 11,000 scientists have endorsed research that says the world is facing a climate emergency…
The researchers say they have a moral obligation to warn of the scale of the threat…
All the details of who’s signed the endorsement have been published online…
“We are encouraged by a recent global surge of concern – governments adopting new policies; schoolchildren striking; lawsuits proceeding; and grassroots citizen movements demanding change.”…

7 Nov: Australian: Scientists’ petition on climate crisis blocked over fake signatories
by Graham Lloyd
Dozens of signatories including Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter headmaster Albus Dumbledore from Hogwarts have been ­removed from an Alliance of World Scientists declaration of a “climate emergency”.
Access to the 11,000 name-petition that accompanied a statement of concern published in BioScience on Tuesday was blocked on Thursday…
Despite the suspension of the petition and removal of names, Oregon State said the “weight of support” from the world’s scientific community for the declaration remained undiminished…

Youtube: 5min21sec: Sky News: New ‘big global warming scare’ is simply a ‘con’

Patrick MJD
Reply to  pat
November 15, 2019 6:15 pm

“pat November 15, 2019 at 4:05 pm

A global group of around 11,000 scientists have endorsed research that says the world is facing a climate emergency…”

The media are still touting this rubbish. When you look in to it, it’s just a website, there is no “institute of scientists”, the offices are registered in Hawaii, there is no campus. It was just a website that when you clicked “Like” your name was added to the list. Hence where the “scientist” Mickey Mouse, and all the other bogus names, came from.

Reply to  pat
November 16, 2019 7:31 am


I was going to retire to California, but now it might be Australia.. This is the first time i have seen a news media channel tell the truth about the climate scam! We need more news media channels like Sky news AU…

November 15, 2019 4:12 pm

Millennials have had a tough time. Too much debt, not enough income, can’t buy a house or start a family, stuck paying for boomer retirement. They’re angry, and looking to blame, although it’s more sad than threatening.

Gen Z’s are puzzling. They are too young to have suffered, but are in a desperate search for meaning. They latch into causes with violent intensity. It’s frankly a bit scary.

John Boland
Reply to  Adam
November 15, 2019 8:42 pm

Have faith…
Gen-Z will save us from the Millennials.
Each generation rebels against the previous one.

November 15, 2019 4:33 pm

The Obamacity of it all.

Social justice (i.e. relativistic) anywhere is injustice everywhere.
Progress is monotonic [unqualified] change.
Abortion… cancel culture progressed and liberalized (i.e. diverged) since the early 20th century.
Today, everything is substantially more politically correct, especially politically congruent (i.e. sociopolitical constructs) or selective exclusively as political profit and leverage changes with democratic demands.
Within the last 12 trimesters of witch hunts and warlock trials, we have gained insight into the faith, religion, and ideological disposition of hunters and judges. So, some positive developments.

Science is, with cause, a near-domain philosophy and practice. Yet we persist to infer the past, present, and future with liberal license of assertions/assumptions and regular injections of brown (and black) matter to force the scientific domain to conform with people’s secular hope, dreams, beliefs, and incentives. Mortal gods and goddesses have enjoyed a new level of normalization. Oh, well. Baby steps, I suppose.

November 15, 2019 4:48 pm

The over arching philosophical and historical perspective may be useful Judith, but the nitty gritty facts speak louder to me,
Like corals being found where they were not supposed to be
like average temperatures changing when the base data remains the same

November 15, 2019 4:49 pm

Demands that one must adhere to the party line, 100% or risk being declared apostate, are just more evidence that even the insiders have no faith in their ability to win a fair debate.
This is equally true of alarmists and sky dragons.

Chuck Blandford
November 15, 2019 5:27 pm

Growth-Change-Decline. What is it and how does it work?

michael hart
November 15, 2019 5:30 pm

Ten years on, I find the most depressing thing to be the ongoing failure of journalism.

Perhaps it is because social-media is still relatively new, but it is scandalous the way the climategate crew get to portray themselves as perpetual victims while most journalists continue to not ask even the most basic of questions that would reveal their true nature.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  michael hart
November 15, 2019 8:53 pm

Totally agree. The recent claim reported in the media “11,000 world scientists…climate blah blah blah…”, when looked in to, proven to be total garbage, is *STILL* being reported as 11,000 genuine scientists.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 16, 2019 9:16 am

Just google “11,000 world scientists” in last 24 hours to see this.
And do that again tomorrow, and tomorrow
At least I captured the full name list before in was changed

Reply to  michael hart
November 16, 2019 9:00 am

I think there is an unwarranted belief that journalism has ever been ‘successful’, especially wrt science. Over just my lifetime, we should have been wiped out many times over according to their reporting. AIDS, nuclear winter, ice age, Y2k, swine flu, alar, starvation, lack of water, terrorists, and on, and on.

They only interpret science in ways that will sell newspapers. “If You Don’t Read the Newspaper You Are Uninformed, If You Do Read the Newspaper You Are Misinformed,” is a very old quip.

Reply to  jtom
November 16, 2019 6:07 pm

“Successful” depends on what you think the journalists are trying to achieve. I think it’s a bit naive to presume that the aim of journalists, and more importantly the publications that they write for, is to deliver the truth to the public.

In reality it is often the opposite. Journalists are used to obscure the truth and put forward false narratives in support of the aims of their publishers (and their backers).

My take on it is that at the present time “journalists” are reasonably successful at what they are aiming to do. If they weren’t doing what their employers want they would soon find that they would need to ‘learn to code’.

November 15, 2019 5:49 pm

They got away with it and as a result got better at getting away with it.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
November 15, 2019 7:10 pm

Ah, momentum. That said, their advocacy and activism are first-order forcings of inertial progress, more, not less.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
November 16, 2019 7:28 am

Exactly. The real criminality are what has happened post Climategate mostly under Obama’s watch. The brazen data manipulation. The rewriting of the historical record. The pause busting. The crack down on academic freedom. The corruption of academia. The collusion between policy makers, academia, and the main stream media. The green energy scams. The trillions stolen. The energy poverty on the poor, elderly and the 3rd world. The brain washing of a generation of young people. The oppression on the middle classes. The marginalization of critics including Dr. Curry.

Terence Gore
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
November 16, 2019 5:33 pm

and us old dawgs can’t learn something… let me think

I’m sure it will come to me. Anyway I am seeing the Boomer versus Millennial meme quite often with the climate debate framed in that context.

Hope you are doing well.

Rick C PE
November 15, 2019 5:58 pm

Thank for the retrospective and well thought out commentary. I recently took some time and re-read the Harry Read Me file. Still an astounding document created contemporaneously with the early HadCRUT series. I have little doubt that Harry was the likely source of the leak.

From the post:

“Most of the CMIP6 climate models have gone somewhat bonkers, with a majority having values of ECS that exceed 4.5C and do a poor job of simulating the temperatures since 1950; makes it difficult to take seriously their 21st century projections.”

Is it possible that this is due to tuning the GCM parameterization to conform to the adjusted historical temperature data that shows more warming with every revision? Perhaps the modelers are trying to make the models match up with bogus historical data which inevitably leads to even worse future projection problems. What a tangled web.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rick C PE
November 16, 2019 4:06 am

“Perhaps the modelers are trying to make the models match up with bogus historical data which inevitably leads to even worse future projection problems.”

That’s exactly what they are doing. First, the surface temperature record is bastardized and turned into the “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart, and then the computer modelers try to make their models reproduce this bastardized temperature history.

They ought to try matching their models to the U.S. surface temperature record of 1999,: The *real* global temperature profile, where the 1930’s show to be just as warm as today..

November 15, 2019 6:10 pm

“P.S. I side with Mann in this particular dispute…” (i.e., social change as not a worthy scientific goal)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Tom Abbott
November 15, 2019 6:25 pm

Why the 1940’s “blip”?

comment image

Michael Carter
November 15, 2019 6:59 pm

I rank Curry and Richard Lindzen as the most compelling of all skeptics. They both appear to have a natural grasp of the key issues based on common sense, which is not always present within the academic and scientific elite. Their language is carefully formulated to avoid straying outside the scientific method’s parameters i.e. the uncertainties. Intelligence is not necessarily endowed with wisdom. These two have both.

John Robertson
November 15, 2019 7:26 pm

The legacy of Climate Gate is that it helped clarify the game.
“Climate Change”(TM) is purely political.
And carefully undefined.
Science is unwelcome in the subjects to be discussed.

What has become clear since the exposure of the Climate Research Cabals hapless hypocrisy,is that our governments are the enemy.
Climategate and especially the “Investigations” showed us all the true face of Calamitous Climate,our bureaucrats feel every right to lie to us to provide cover for a naked power grab.

The big lie has become the official state religion,to question the incompetence of our over priced “helpers” is heresy.
In Can-Ahh-Duh it is hate speech.

Climate gate showed me ,we are at war with our entitled parasites.
An attack from behind,with malice.
We however are still at the shock stage,like a man being mugged in a meadow.

Gradually this dishonesty will collapse civic society, because those people we hired to run our institutions cannot be trusted.
Civilization ,as we know it, depends on ones “word” being worth something.
The trust in our institutions, functioning as designed,is all that enables us to agree to remain law abiding.

And ten years later,where are we?
President Trump has stated what most of us know,with respect to the UN IPCC.
No money from the USA means it is over.
Nevermind the Koolade drinkers in Eastern Canada, this idiocy will be the end of Canada as we knew it.
So the fallout of the CRU emails,gifted to us by a whistleblower, is not yet over.
When the corrupt activity is centred inside our bureaus, 10 years is not enough time for it to unwind .
As the number one bureaucratic activity is C.Y.A.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  John Robertson
November 15, 2019 9:49 pm



I see it as an attack on the middle class in US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Europe.
Germans have already surrendered. Have the Brits and Aussies? Not my area.
Here in US, the Californians, some Oregonians, and WA staters have surrendered to the Socialists.
In Canada, maybe the BC and Atlantic coasters?

The climate scam is a direct attack on the middle-class and its affluence in all those countries.
– the Green Slime wants their money for their wind and solar scams.
– the Socialists want their votes for more power.
– the Marxists want their servitude for ultimate power.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Robertson
November 16, 2019 4:15 am

““Climate Change”(TM) is purely political.
And carefully undefined.”

Yes, it’s political and the alarmists don’t want you pinning them down on any details. They want to make claims without making the effort to show evidence for their claims. Anybody can make unsubstantiated claims. That’s easy to do.

Unsubstantiated claims should not be the basis for public policy.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 16, 2019 7:03 am

The public’s trust in our institutions is nearly gone.

My trust is gone…only conservatives are ever investigated, charged, prosecuted, and incarcerated. The propaganda machine is nearly all powerful.

It is the instincts (not fully formed) of millions of Americans and Brits that brought us Trump and Brexit. Populism born from the loss of our institutions.

There is a backlash. I pray that the backlash grows. Everything is riding on it.

Robert of Texas
November 15, 2019 9:25 pm

When they say “exonerated” what they mean is “we got away with it so there…nahhhh!”.

When people try to tie science to social justice causes, it’s because a) they do not understand science and b) their cause is more important than yours (in their own humble opinion). Disagree, and you are a racist, sexist, various-phobic pig.

People of science need to ignore this rhetoric and continue to actually solve real physical problems. Science CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be trying to address social justice, as that is just the current opinion of the most aggressive segment of a society, and is likely to change over time anyway. The Nazi Party is a good example of an overly aggressive segment of society that firmly believed science should serve their cause, and no other cause or belief system was as important as theirs.

Joel O'Bryan
November 15, 2019 9:41 pm

Veryt, very, very long article.

Bottom line.. the tree ring divergence problem was covered up and buried in a “hide the decline.”
The climate gate keepers threaten climate journal editors.
Today we should know unequivocably that any tree ring used as thermometers is total junk science.

The Climate Scam rolls on 10 years later. Propaganda fueled with GreenSlime cash today happens because even in 2009 no one could see the emerging US Shale/tight oil Fracking energy dominance coming at them like a loaded freight train at full speed.

Mike Dubrasich
November 15, 2019 9:59 pm

Ten years ago I thought that Climategate was the final nail in the coffin of AGW alarmism. The overwhelming quantity of refutation of alarmist fake science plus the pathetic machinations of the Climategaters had to be a TKO.

Boy, was I wrong. The alarmists are stronger, bolder, and more powerful than ever. As far as I can tell, every branch and bureau of government and every academic discipline (scientific or not) has joined the insanity.

One might point the finger at the youth, but every age group has capitulated. Skeptics are a tiny minority at best of every demographic.

Dr. Curry’s hoped for “common sense approaches” are nowhere to be found. Senseless, corrupt, guaranteed failure approaches abound instead. Common sense is uncommon, indeed rare these days.

I would like to be optimistic. We have made some economic progress despite the incredible waste of resources on the chimera of AGW. Some enclaves of culture and society are succeeding. The stock market is at a record high. The lights still work at my house.

But so many institutions of civilization are rotting in plain sight that it is difficult to maintain hope. Ignorance is a powerful force. It appears to be winning.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
November 17, 2019 1:27 am

Consider this:

You can’t kill the undead with a bullet because … it’s dead already. No heartbeat. Don’t waste your time.

You see you can’t kill some “scientific theory” by pointing the lack of scientific evidence, the bias in data collection or the total lack of robust measurement because… Because it was never a scientific endeavor, of course.

There was no attempt at science so you might as well write to the authors of that film where the Moon fractures and the pieces fall on to the Earth that there are rocks on the Moon and they never fall on the Earth and if an event would fracture the Moon, a fractured Moon would continue orbiting the Earth.

They. Don’t. Care.

It isn’t relevant. You are a business (discover the reality of nature) and they are in another one.

November 16, 2019 2:38 am

“but one little archer of exquisite skill”



Mike D
Reply to  Pointman
November 16, 2019 9:33 am

Pointman, thank you. I needed that. Keeping the faith…

November 16, 2019 1:19 pm

Excellent post Judith. I cant believe its been ten years!
Clicked the link to your business website and perused it. Fascinating, might make an interesting post in itself.

If you have already forgive me, I’m the new guy.

November 16, 2019 4:57 pm

The Climate gate inquiry in UK really was the Establishment investigating the Establishment, you can guess the outcome of that. It confirms the old corporate joke ” Blame the innocent & promote the guilty”.

November 18, 2019 3:04 pm

Regards Mann and XR-proponents disagreeing: Sit back and let the enemy destroy itself?

EIB will no more invest in fossil biofuels. They will invest €ur 1 Trillion or €1,000 Billion in renewables. Germany has recently said they will reduce fossil biofuels with 55% to 2030 or whatever and use just shy of €ur 60 Billion to get there.

Meanwhile, wind is not allowed closer than 1 km from residential buildings. If you believe that was a good idea, think of it this way:

Residential buildings will not be allowed closer to wind turbines than 1 km… That will make huge swats of the land invaluable for residential purposes. Millions of acres, actually.


November 18, 2019 8:41 pm

Thank you for the article which refreshed my memory about e-mail hacking from East Anglia.
I was there at Revkin’s Dot Earth when the reciever of dumped e-mails posted a comment disclosing part of them. Naturally, every one started talking about who did it.

Here is my comment on who did it for what purpose although I hesitated to name the imagined culpit;
I was waiting for such a comment as yours since Andrew’s first CRU report of November 20.
You say, “This not about “warmers” versus “deniers”. I agree with you 100% for this but not for “about truth and integrity versus agenda and collusion.”
I take this data hacking or release as a subset of the strategy for near-term national security which is also good for the planet for future generations. (end quote)

The incident happend just before COP15 at Copenhagen to discuss the numeric targe for emisison reduction after Kyoto protocol. It is rather easy from the strategic stand point to guess the most likely pundit.
In fact, some one broke into my computer, perhaps for warning.

Does anyone know who did it?

%d bloggers like this: