“The growth of the technical skeptical blogosphere (pioneered by Steve McIntyre) has challenged traditional notions of expertise, i.e. credentials and sanctity of journal publications, through Climate Audit’s blogospheric deconstruction of many publications, particularly related to paleo proxies. “–Judith Curry.
By Robert Bradley Jr. — November 22, 2022
“There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.” – Andrew Dessler, “Climate E-Mails Cloud the Debate,” December 10, 2009.
It has been 12 years since the intellectual scandal erupted called Climategate. Each anniversary inspires recollections and regurgitation of salient quotations. These quotations speak for themselves; attempts of climate alarmists to parse the words and meaning distracts from what was said in real-time private conversations.
And the scandal got worse after the fact when, according to Paul Stephens, “virtually the entire climate science community tried to pretend that nothing was wrong.” Whitewash exonerations by the educational institutions involved and scientific organizations– was a blow to scholarship and standards as well. The standard of fair, objective, transparent research was sacrificed to a politically correct narrative about the qualitative connection between CO2 forcing and temperature (see Wiki).
Fred Pearce’s The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming (2010) was a rare mainstream-of-sorts look at the scandal. Michael Mann is the bad actor, despite his I-am-the-victim take in his account, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars (2012). [1]
Background:
On November 19, 2009, a whistle-blower or hacker downloaded more than 1,000 documents and e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University (United Kingdom). Posted on a Russian server, these documents were soon accessed by websites around the world to trigger the exposé.
These e-mails were part of confidential communications between top climate scientists in the UK, the United States, and other nations over a 15-year period. The scientists involved had developed surface temperature data sets and promoted the “Hockey Stick” global temperature curve, as well as having wrtten/edited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) physical-science assessment reports.
Branded “Climategate” by British columnist James Delingpole, the emails provided insight into practices that range from bad professionalism to fraudulent science. Bias, data manipulation, dodging freedom of information requests, and efforts to subvert the peer-review process were uncovered.
Some of the more salient quotations follow.
Man-Made Warming Controversy
“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.”
—Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.
“Keith’s [Briffa] series…differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s [Jones] does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series).”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.
“…it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP’ [Medieval Warm Period]…”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, June 4, 2003
“By the way, when is Tom C [Crowley] going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Aug. 3, 2004.
“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 30, 2008
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
—Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Oct. 12, 2009.
Manipulating Temperature Data
“I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa] to hide the decline.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Nov. 16, 1999.
“Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were….”
—Dr. Tim Osborn, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Dec. 20, 2006.
“If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip….”
—Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, disclosed Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008.
“We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
—Climatic Research Unit web site, the world’s leading provider of global temperature data, admitting that it can’t produce the original thermometer data, 2011.
Data Suppression; Freedom of Information (FOI) Avoidance
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, email to Warwick Hughes, 2004.
“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Feb. 21, 2005.
“Mike [Mann], can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Trenberth] re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his e-mail address…. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 29, 2008.
“You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the upcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report] would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember it.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, on avoiding Freedom of Information requirements, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 12, 2009.
Subverting the Peer-Review Process
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
—Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, July 8, 2004.
Appendix: Implications
Climate scientist Judith Curry reassessed her thinking about the state of climate science in response to the scandal. “Climategate was a turning point,” she remembered, where “pronouncements from the IPCC were no longer sufficient.” Curry explained:
Institutionally, Climategate triggered the formation of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which has become quite influential in UK climate policy and to some extent internationally.
She added:
The skeptical climate blogosphere has thrived and expanded, largely triggered by Climategate (Climate Etc. was triggered largely by Climategate). Whereas the ‘warm’ blogosphere for the most part has waned (notably RealClimate), with the exception of Skeptical Science. It seems that most of the ‘action’ on the warm side has switched to twitter, whereas skeptics prefer the blogosphere.
The growth of the technical skeptical blogosphere (pioneered by Steve McIntyre) has challenged traditional notions of expertise, i.e. credentials and sanctity of journal publications, through Climate Audit’s blogospheric deconstruction of many publications, particularly related to paleo proxies. While the technical skeptical blogosphere seems to have provided the motive for the Climategate ‘hack’, the technical skeptical blogosphere has thrived, and many of these sites are followed by the media and decision makers of various stripes.
Today, the Internet is the primary check on the excesses of the politicized UN/IPCC process. Cancel and ignore as they might, the blogosphere is driving the climate-science debate in real time against the Malthusian establishment.
————–
[1] “Words and phrases had been cherry picked from the thousands of e-mail messages, removed from their original context, and strung together in ways designed to malign me, my colleagues, and climate research itself,” Mann states on the opening page.
###
WUWT readers unfamiliar with the Climategate saga can view our historical archived posts on the subject here.
Their whole argument is just Unicorn Flatus with a liberal sprinkling of Proxy Dust
funny!
I agree. The only consequence of Climategate was that some people, like Judith Curry, changed their views. It is surprising that the scandal didn’t have any negative consequence for those involved.
Usually, loss of public credibility is the consequence that most shysters fear most.
Mann, for example, has spent the last 12 years trying convince anyone who will listen that he’s a noble victim of baddies.
Self-inflated ego is such a burden to carry through life.
There are people that are using “the cause” as a lever to power, influence and wealth. Here’s a few quotes.
— “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations.
— “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
— “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation.
— “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
— “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
— “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.
— “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.
Let’s not forget that while Steve McIntyre was running technical rings round them, innocent recipients like TallBloke also got visits from the UK police to take his computers away.
“Words and phrases had been cherry picked from the thousands of e-mail messages, removed from their original context”
Yes, indeed. A classic is the fourth quote here, from Mann:
“…it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP’ [Medieval Warm Period]…”
Sounds ominous, right? Well, let’s look at the context:
“Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH [Northern Hemisphere] records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back—I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back”
He’s simply saying that going back 2000 years would be a time interval that contains the MWP (1K isn’t enough). Needs more work, but that is exactly what they later did and published.
“”“I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!…In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperatures in which the MWP simply vanished…””” —Dr. David Deming, testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dec. 6, 2006
Deming never produced the email or said who the “major researcher” was, so the claim is totally untestable.
Hey, I agree with Nick.
In the field of climate science, we should discard all untestable claims!
But, but.. they’d have nothing left..
Nick Stokes November 22, 2022 2:43 pm
Deming was testifying under oath to the US Congress. If you’re going to call him a liar, how about you have the balls to do so to his face?
w.
Willis,
I am asking the questions any proper sceptic should be thinking about. Why can’t we see the email? Read the exact words, as you often recommend. See the context. Why can’t we be told who the actual “researcher” was? Why can’t we hear his side of the matter?
No!
You are insulting others without cause or evidence.
“Deming was testifying under oath to the US Congress.”
I thought that was obvious, Nick is real giveaway.
Is it all down to Nick, now? Griff and all the other narrative-promoters seem to have disappeared post- registration.
Wait for the next “Pause” post. Then we will see how many of the alarmist narrative-promoters are still around.
You have to register on 99% of commenting platforms, ie the Guardian, so their reticence seems odd. Climate change anxiety induced paranoia seems likely.
-1
Bullseye.
I wish that we could see who is voting on these posts. Other sites have provided that ability.
Nick,
You’ve hit the nail on the head
All claims that are untestable should be immediately disregarded.
What’s left for the catastrophic climate change hypothesis?
Net zero, I would say
Please read Mark Steyn’s A Disgrace to the Profession which collects the views of 100 world class scientists who do not accept Mann’s MWP obliteration.
Nick complaining about untestable claims.
Now that is rich.
As in rich with irony.
It’s actually a pathetic attempt to rewrite history while aligning with the unprofessional, irresponsible and often incompetent climate pariahs pretending to perform science.
Mr Stokes,
In what context would it be acceptable to change the data to “contain” the MWP? In what context would it be acceptable to redefine the literature to affect a peer review and suppress the publication of a technical paper? The authors never denied writing the E-Mails. It just shows a deplorable lack of personal and professional integrity.
“In what context would it be acceptable to change the data”
There is nothing about changing the data. His proposal is very clear. Extend the period of reconstruction to 2000 years, which would then contain the MWP (1000 years does not). What is wrong with that?
“redefine the literature to affect a peer review”
This is Phil Jones, not Mann, and he is not affecting a peer review or suppressing a paper. The paper is already published. Jones is refusing to reference it in something he is writing. He’s allowed to do that.
At that time, BEFORE 2000, a 1000 years of data WOULD contain the majority of the MWP.
The use of the 1000 years would be a great cherry pick for “deniers” because it would start during the MWP giving a higher starting point for temperatures, thus could NOT serve the alarmists well.
Lets try 2000. Or better yet start during the LIA and go to the present, the BEST cherry pick because it starts with LOW temps and “coincides” with the industrial revolution, perfect!
Going back 2500 years would include the Roman warm period which was warmer than the Medieval warm period. It would include the ~536 AD dramatic cooling that nearly erased humanity through starvation, and the little ice age.
Extending the same proxies to the present day would also show (compared with the instrumental record) that assorted tree rings are an unreliable guide to temperature.
Now what? We could leave out the tree species that are the most unreliable (bristlecone pines) and see what we get: yeah that is what McIntyre and McKitrick did. Low, and behold, the MWP.
The simple explanation is Phil and the Team were trying to hide the fact that it used to be warmer than it is now. Recent warming is no more explicable by CO2 than by comets. The absorption bands are mostly saturated.
The rest is noise.
Even if that particular email could be argued to be inconclusive Nick, what do you have to say about the many, may other examples of the perfidy being plied by these jokers?
That’s like with NTZ’s lisst of 500 papers that refute AGW in some way. You show a few are not like that at all, but they say – but there are so many others…
No, Nick. Up to your usual Stokes-shift tricks again.
It’s the “putative” MWP, meaning he thinks it is proposed but that he may not believe in it.
There’s a shift. It isn’t “contains” but “putative”. Or something.
Mann is writing in 2003. Maybe he doesn’t think the MWP has been established as a NH-wide happening. I know folks here just really believe in the MWP, but it’s not improper to want to see it established.
It would be a shimmy worthy of Messi or Maradona to deny that they openly discussed the problem of how to get rid of the MWP, indicating that it was already well established.
It wasn’t well established. They are discussing how to find out about it, by reconstructing NH temperature over a period that contains the MWP, which hadn’t been done before. That is the right scientific approach.
Nick the Monty Python Black knight loses yet another limb of credibility. No matter, he continues on his valiant belief that he is fine and ready for battle. Ready to defend the already defeated.
‘Let no one cross this scientific bridge leading to the land of truth’.
Mann up Nick, be thankful you are not the full Mick….
Serious question Nick.
Do you actually believe the work done by Michael E Mann (The Hockey Stick) is scientifically sound?
Remember Tom Wigley’s email –
“I have just read the M&M stuff criticizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work – an opinion I have held for some time”
Yes, one scientist did not think much of another scientist’s paper. That can happen.
Nick, you misspelled “many scientists” …
w.
IPCC FAR, 1990, “the consensus” within climate science at the time, page 202 :
That is not “well established”. It is a handwritten sketch with no source given, and not even numbers on the axis.
Nick, per the text of the FAR, it was certainly supposed to represent the best scientific knowledge of the time.
The ticks on the side are °C of anomaly.
As to the source of the drawing, see here for a full discussion.
w.
Willis,
No, it is presented as a “schematic diagram”.
But anyway, even if it were the best scientific knowledge of the time, it isn’t the last word. Mann described it as putative. He didn’t say it was wrong. He wanted to do an extended reconstruction to find out. And he later did just that.
This is why for about a decade Nick has been known as “Racehorse” Stokes. He never, ever admits that he’s wrong.
He was wrong about the units on the side, they’re shown by the ticks on the graph, so numbers aren’t necessary. He was in mystery about the provenance of the graph. And despite being a “schematic diagram”, it most certainly was presented as the agreed-upon science of the time.
Why “Racehorse”? In honor of Racehorse Haynes, the legendary Texas lawyer who once described defending a guilty man as follows:
Nick’s style in a nutshell … no matter how wrong he is, he doesn’t have a dog.
w.
I said there were no numbers on the axis. There are none.
I said no source was given. None was.
Nick Stokes November 24, 2022 2:09 pm
Gosh, that means you’re right! Actually, it means you’re righter than right!!
It also means that you’re too stupid to notice that there are 1° tickmarks, that it’s measuring anomalies, and you’re too damn lazy to go find the source for the document.
But hey, at least you’re 110% right.
Not only that, but as I pointed out above, you don’t have a dog …
w.
MBH-99 isn’t either …
… just like Marcott “not robust after 1890” et al (2013) isn’t …
… and the latest PAGES2K reconstruction (2017 ?) isn’t …
… and Kaufman et al (2020) isn’t …
You are coming across as assuming that you (second-person singular) get to decide what “the last word” on the subject is.
Neither you nor I (nor Willis, nor anybody else …) can come in on their high horse and just loftily assume that particular mantle.
The NASA Apollo team motto :
“In God we trust. Everybody else has to bring data.”
Of course MBH99 isn’t the last word. That is why many other groups of scientists (and Mann) have been trying to replicate it.
And succeeding.
Nick Stokes November 24, 2022 2:05 pm
“Succeeding”? You’re hilarious. Get real. The only way they can “succeed” is to use the same bogus proxies Mann used. See my post “Kill It With Fire” for details of one such. Please let us know if you find one single mistake in that post, no one else has.
Nick, you really need to start picking better hills to die on. The hockeystick has been well and thoroughly falsified, over and over.
w.
Here is the AR4 (2007) comparison of MBH99 with a number of later reconstructions. A couple deviate on the low side, but most agree with MBH99 in the top band. Incidentally, none get a warmer MWP than MBH99.
So … not one comment on my post totally demolishing one of the Mann-alikes?
I give up. Talking with you is like talking with a poorly constructed Turing Test automaton. You refuse to even consider any contrary evidence, but you evidently lack either the brains or the albondigas to tell us why they’re wrong.
So instead you point at something totally different and say “Oooh, shiny, look over there!”
Pass. Hard pass. I’m already aware you don’t have a dog, and I don’t care.
My post still stands. Here’s the link again. Come back when you have the courage to stand up on your hind legs and tell me where I’m wrong.
w.
PS—If you want to be taken seriously when talking about multiproxy studies, read every one of the posts linked on this page. I have read them all, as have most serious critics of said studies.
Until then, you’re just embarrassing yourself with your puerile hockeystick worship, and it’s painful to watch.
Your penance due to falsehoods must be many years long, by now.
Regarding the following:
“By the way, when is Tom C [Crowley] going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.”
Is science supposed to have causes? Well, maybe when its trying to cure a disease but what is the cause referring to here?
Nick, please read my description of the entire goatrope, including a large number of quotes from the emails, and tell me which ones have been “cherry picked” …
Phil Jones flat-out lied to my face, and then subverted the entire FOIA process by corrupting the people at the UEA to ignore any FOIA requests coming from anyone who ever posted at Climate Audit.
Mann advised his co-conspirators to delete emails that showed their corruption.
For unknown reasons, you are defending some of the most underhanded, corrupt, unethical climate “scientists” on the planet … not a good look on you. You lie down with the dogs, you get up with fleas …
w.
some of the most underhanded, corrupt, unethical climate “scientists” on the planet
So true. So sad. So frustrating for genuine scientists.
Willis,
In addition to your excellent “description of the entire goatrope”,see-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/
The original email referred to by David Deeming may be denied but there is no answer by Nick or anyone else to the very similar emailed identified here.
Brilliant
So by defending this particular email, can we assume you accept all the other emails quoted above are accurate?
Why did he use the words “contain the MWP” rather than “include the MWP”?
What sinister intent do you ascribe to that word choice?
The meaning is quite clear from Mann’s and Jones’ stated intention of erasing the MWP.
“Include” is unambiguous” whereas “contain” has other meanings, such “repress”, “prevent from expanding” etc.
Then why “contain” rather than contain? Consider possible definitions of the word (courtesy of thefreedictionary.com):
1.
a. To have within; hold: a bin that contains rice.
b. To be capable of holding: These barrels contain 50 gallons.
2. To have as a component or constituent part; include: Does the soup contain meat? The poem contains many famous lines.
3.
a. To hold or keep within limits; restrain: I could hardly contain my curiosity.
b. To halt the spread or development of; check: Science sought an effective method of containing the disease.
4. To check the expansion or influence of (a hostile power or ideology) by containment.
Writers don’t put quotes around a word without reason. One reason for doing so is to signify to the reader not to interpret the word by its most common meaning.
“One reason for doing so…”
Another reason is that he is literally quoting Overpeck.
Nick, I see what you are tying to do. But why did he put contain in quotations? It’s pretty clear to me that Mann wanted to contain, in the sense of “control or restrain” the putative (reputed, alleged) MWP—which period actually was and is a well accepted phenomenon. In other words, he didn’t like it because it didn’t fit the narrative of “the cause” and he wanted it gone.
Mann then went on to do what he on to do what he said he wanted to do. He published a highly flawed paper with a graph of past temperatures that did in fact “contain” the MWP, and that used a trick to hide the recent decline in tree ring proxies, which decline called into question the validity of the proxies that made up the graph.
If that doesn’t make you doubt the intentions of Mann, nothing will. At the start of the Climate Gate investigation, Mann even told a newspaper that his graph was so uncertain that he didn’t even know why the IPCC had used it. He was trying to dodge blame, but of course he knew why they used it. They used it for the same reason he created it; it reinforced the narrative and aided the cause.
“But why did he put contain in quotations?”
These are emails written between a group of scientists, subsequently stolen. They don’t put a lot of thought into the nuances of quotes etc. I think here the reason is that it is literally a quote. Overpeck used the word originally, and Mann is quoting him.
“Stolen”? More like whistle blown.
Whoever leaked the emails deserves an award
It won’t be forgotten in a hurry
Seems like just yesterday that the liars weren’t so open about it. Now they don’t seem to care.
It’s becoming more and more apparent that the Climate Apocalypse true believers are either ignorant or evil! They will continue to push their insanity right to the end; hoping to have their beliefs confirmed, while taking Western Civilization and human freedom and prosperity down with them! It is hard to imagine a more nihilistic and destructive endeavor!
I agree wholeheartedly Scissor. These science criminals have done the world a disservice and should be punished, not just their reputations but also their hip pocket. But this will only happen when the whole AGW scam blow over and people are looking for scapegoats to blame for this mass delusion and costly mitigation schemes. Hopefully, we won’t have too long to wait as the energy costs pile up and political will weakens to push the NZ50 nonsense. Sadly, here in Australia we are going down the wrong path at pace, so much for the ‘Lucky’ country!
Billions of people are poorer, hundreds of thousands have died, thanks to the efforts of these people.
I really hope someday circumstances are such that we can find out who our benefactor is.
This person was and is a hero in my book.
Around the turn of the century it became obvious the MSM in Democratic countries stopped reporting and started treating news like editorial fodder. Considering how supportive the media is/was of AGW it’s no surprise they ignored Climategate. Now very few trust the media.
Yes, if the politically biased Media of today doesn’t make a big deal out of something, then it’s not a big deal for many people.
Unfortunately, too many people see the biased Media as the Voice of Authority for Society, and take them at their reality-distorting word.
Here in the US, the media has been practically celebrating their ability to drag Biden across the finish line by suppressing any story that would make him look bad. Especially the Hunter Biden laptop story.
There are yet more important revelations, not even hidden from the public. You just need to understand. We have one huge mismatch in the “where” of the warming. It is happening strictly in the NH.
“Climate science” somehow tries to argue how heat from the south moves north, to explain why the south refuses to warm. In reality of course it naturally flows from warm to cold, so the source of the warming must be even more north bound.
Aerosols, as indicated by the arrows, make it only worse. They are supposed to cool massively, and do so in the mid NH latitudes. Obviously that will not make sense either. You can not have most warming where aerosols are supposed to offset 1/3 of global(!) GHG warming.
We are left with one big question. What mysterious force is heating the mid NH latitudes? The IPCC gives a very straight answer.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=40
I sent this out on my social media; hopefully Instagram doesn’t ban it. But at the time of this I had just turned 6 so I have no recollection of this whatsoever and neither do my friends. This is now looked at is if it’s been made up. I’m hopeful that I’ll at least be able to give them a different perspective if not more.
To better understand what’s been happening to your generation Walter, you should also encourage all your friends to read “1984” by George Orwell.
And “Animal Farm”. There’s even an old animated version of it out there.
Walter, check out these books on the subject of Alarmist Climate Change. They will tell you all you need to know about how CO2 has been unfairly demonized by unscrupulous scientists and politicians for selfish gains.
A Disgrace to the Profession by Mark Steyn
Climategate by Brian Susskin
The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford
Climategate: The CRUTape Letters by Steven Mosher and Thomas W. Fuller
The Delinquent Teenager by Donna Laframboise
There is no evidence CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential to life on Earth. There is no evidence CO2 is the control knob for Earth’s atmospheric temperatures. All of this is pure speculation. And they are still speculating 50 years later. They haven’t found any evidence in over 50 years.
Human-caused Climate Change is the biggest science scandal in human history. Read the books and you will see why I say that.
And it is more truly a political and crony capitalist scandal, the transfer of massive amounts of wealth from the poorest of society to the most well connected through unreliable generation and EV subsidies “justified” via awarding massive amounts of “scientific” research grants to those supporting a subject that is, by the claims of CAGW supported, already proven.
If we had a legitimately skeptical mainstream media, you’d think that the Climategate dump would have caused them pause. And yet they almost totally ignored it, thus confirming the worst of what many suspected at the time: That “global warming” (rebranded as “climate change” was actually a political movement instead of science, and that the mainstream media was willingly complicit in it.
President Eisenhower warned us about this and the “military industrial complex” in his farewell speech.
In particular, he noted, “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
If we had a legitimately skeptical mainstream media, …
____________________________________________
There’s a reason that someone on these WUWT pages
came up with the term:
The Mainstream Misleadia
Very descriptive.
It would be nice if someone who has access could fix the myriad broken links at Climate Audit. I’d say about 50% are dead.
The truth is that links go bye-bye all the time. Note near the top of this post:
Branded “Climategate” by British columnist James Delingpole,
The link “Branded” doesn’t work for me.
The time required to “fix” broken links must go up exponentially with time.
Years ago, I was at a university library looking for an article. I got the hard-bound collection for the year I wanted. Paged to the article and found someone had neatly cut those few pages out with a razor. A fix would not be impossible, just unreasonable.
All this is sad. I am glad I was reading Climate Audit as Steve posted. His Ohio State Paper was one of the first things I found when I got a DSL connection.
Yes they do, but most of the links have been dead for many years. One person could take care of them, with a little time.
Yes. Climate Audit content should be recovered and enshrined for all time as an example of how to “do it right.” (And an example of how one man with some supporters can separate the wheat from the chaff (truth from falsehood).
For those interested, I was the one who made the first Freedom Of Information Act request to Phil Jones, unwittingly setting off the train of events that led to ClimateGate.
My recounting of my insider’s view of the whole sordid story is here.
Let me add in passing that I was suspended from Twitter, and I have no idea why. As far as I knew I was coloring between the lines.
So let me politely ask people who are on Twitter to send a cordial tweet to “@elonmusk”, asking him to reinstate me. My Twitter handle is “@WEschenbach”.
Much appreciated,
w.
To most twitter employees, a conservative telling the truth about most things is far outside the lines and frightens them.
Truth is actionable and brings future rewards.
Lies are not actionable and they never bring future rewards.
Lies without truth to correct them, appear as truth to the ignorant and gullible.
A single image of the Northern Hemisphere captures the essence of Global Warming. This is the January temperature in color code – any location blue to maroon is below 0C.
The blue region in January is the place and time of most global warming with steadily rising surface temperature since the commencement of GHCN data in 1948. Rising at 3.7C per century. It was -18C at the start of the record and is now -15C.
The cause of this dramatic increase can be summed up in the phrase – the ice cometh.
If the CO2 demonisers were not so myopic they would appreciate they are witnessing the most dramatic climate change in recorded history. You would need to have records going back 100kyr to have recorded what is occurring again.
Thanks for reminding us what low-life quacks these guys are….
Apart from showing the contrived and coordinated nature of Climate Crisis advocates, irrespective of what the actual data revealed. It also gave us a new anti science word ‘Mannipulated’ data.
Don’t forget Mann’s disgraceful campaign to sack non-compliant editors.
“Climategate” was the most overt, despicable, and, sadly, successful, political attack on science in history. This collection of out of context snippets of the stolen emails being manipulated to mislead the public is just a furtherance of the shameful behavior the skeptical blogosphere has engaged in on this topic.
WUWT is really getting under your skin, isn’t it? Good! We’re sick of your lies.
Here are side-by-side graphs. One is the U.S. temperature chart (Hansen 1999) and the other is a bogus, bastardized global Hockey Stick chart.
What you see is evidence that the Climategate conspirators conspired to artificially cool the past using their computers, to make it appear that the temperatures have been getting hotter and hotter and hotter in a steady increase since the end of the Little Ice Age. And they attribute this temperatue increase to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere because of humans using oil, gas and coal.
But as you can see from the graph, the United States does not follow that “hotter and hotter” temperature profile. Instead, the temperatures warm for a few decades and then they cool for a few decades and then the pattern repeats, with a swing of about 2C between high and low points. And the 1930’s show to be as warm or warmer than the temperatures today (1998 is as warm as 2016, and 1934 is warmer than both).
The Climategate temperature mannipulators have erased the past in order to sell the Human-caused Climate Change Hoax.
The way to recognize a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart is to look and see if the Early Twentieth Century shows to be as warm as the present day. If it does not, then you are looking at a bogus, bastadized Hockey Stick chart.
Unmodified regional, written temperature records from all around the world show the Early Twentieth Century was just as warm as today. The Bogus, Bastadized Hockey Stick is the Outliar showing the Early Twentieth Century as being much cooler than today. And it’s all a Big Lie meant to sell the Human-caused Climate Change hoax.
If it is no warmer today than in the Early Twentieth Century, while CO2 accumlations have increased during this time, and the temperatures cooled from the 1940’s to the 1970’s while CO2 increased so it appears that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The Hockey Stick Lie is the only “evidence” the Alarmists have to show and it’s all made up out of whole cloth in their computers. The Real World tells a different story than the Hockey Stick Lie. In the Real World CO2 is not a problem.
Physical proof of the warming in the early 20thC is the fact that the coal port at Spitsbergen (Svalbard) was open, that is not icebound, for 3 months of the year before 1920 but over 7 months of the year by the late 1930’s.
“Here are side-by-side graphs. One is the U.S. temperature chart (Hansen 1999) and the other is a bogus, bastardized global Hockey Stick chart.“
One is the continental US, the other is global. They aren’t the same place.
Nick THINK!!!
You have completely misunderstood his comment.
No. He shows two graphs, one of the US showing little warming in late 20th century. And the other shows global, showing warming, and he says the latter graph is proved wrong.
But it isn’t, of course. All it could prove is that the two places behaved differently.
What I said was the temperature chart of the United States, along with all the unmodified, regional charts from around the world, that also show the same temperature profile as the U.S. chart, is what puts the lie to the Bogus Hockey Stick chart profile.
The written record shows the Early Twentieth Century warming, all over the world, everywhere the temperature was recorded. So the U.S. temperature chart profile IS the global temperature profile. That’s what I’m saying.
Here’s 600 regional, unmodified temperature charts from around the world that show the Early Twentieth Century Warming
https://notrickszone.com/600-non-warming-graphs-1/
See if any of them have a Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter” temperature profile. None of them do.
So how do the data manniplators get a “hotter and hotter” temperature profile from the regional data. The only way they can is to alter the data in their computers.
The Hockey Stick chart temperature profile is definitely the OutLiar of the bunch.
The Charlatans trying to sell the Human-caused Climate Change Hoax couldn’t sell it if temperatures were just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as they are today, so the Charlatans rolled out their computers and changed the temperature profile to a “hotter and hotter and hotter” profile that shows we are now living in the warmest times in human history. And it’s all a data-mannipulated BIG LIE!
And of course, Nick and all the other knowledgeable Alarmists are perfectly aware that the Hockey Stick profile does not match the written temperature record reality, but they pretend the Hockey Stick is the only reality. It’s a Fraud, Nick. And you know it.
We all know why Climategate never gained traction. If we are really determined to foster Scientific Transparency and prove that Climate Doom is not an issue, which would return freedom and humanity to the forefront, we must push the truth out to the public world wide. I don’t understand why no one considers suing Al Gore for lying to kids and the public for personal gain.
Check out Wikipedia for Phil Jones or climate controversy. What a white wash. Jones never really lost his job nor Mann. Quite a corrupt little bunch.
“Quite a corrupt little bunch.”
Yes, they are. And now they are killing people because of their climate change lies.
“Branded “Climategate” by British columnist James Delingpole, …”
Some might beg to differ about the source of the branding *cough*
I’ll bite. Who did brand it?
Apologies for the delayed response. That would have been myself, in the following comment: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#comment-206920
This was later acknowledged by Mr Delingpole. I wrote the comment at the time as a sarcastic jibe, given the media’s propensity to call every scandal something-gate.
What an exciting time it was. I was home from work wit a cold. Suddenly the climategate files were on my computer screen and I devoured them. I could not get enough. What heady times those were.