Home » Global Warming » Climategate

Climategate

Here’s more on “Climategate.” My favorite line: “And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW [anthropogentic global warming] can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.” Where have I heard that sort of thing before?

Here’s also a line I enjoyed from another piece in this vein: “It is not hard to think up ways to scare people into handing over more of their cash via taxes, insurance, inflation, etc. You just have to think of the right nightmare, publicize it, politicize it, turn it into curriculum, and sooner or later people will gladly hand you loads of moola with tears in their eyes.”

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

40 Responses to Climategate

  1. If it were a hoax, it was extremely elaborate and time consuming. Typing out 160MB of text isn’t a what I would expect of a prank. There would also have likely required many to be involved. Unless the 160MB includes more than text.

    Comparing to the emails in the universities servers should confirm it…if they can be recovered.

  2. This is correct. But I am not hearing anything about Climategate from the bankrupt communist mainstream media though.

  3. Follow the money [and power!]. I believe if you follow those, you will find that the owners [or influentials] of mainstream media are ultimately those that benefit most from global warming by either gaining money and/or power over the people.

    Here’s the question I think everyone should ask. How did global warming hysteria get so popular so fast? … Think about that with the idea of why we are spending $100Billion+ chasing shadows of international terrorists, when in fact more people have died in car crahses last year than all terrorists acts in the states combined for the life of our nation. How much money was spent on stopping car crashes last year in comparison? Great and noble acts are VERY very rare in government.

    I now hold the view that government feigns noble causes. Bush, for exmaple, was not pursuing a cause because he was noble…but rather because that is what his advisers – ultimately the international financiers, oil elite and military industrial complex wanted. I mean that literally. Conspiracy is very real in our world and we need to come to grips with that. The mafia is a vast conspiracy…is it kooky to expect that is the apex and end of elaborate conspiracies?

    Health Care reform is another example. This is just a way to socialise and destroy the Republic we have known as America. Not do what’s right for the people. What’s right for the people is let them live free in a true republic… not enslave them to ever growing governemnt institutions under the banner of “fairness”. Health Care is not a right, it’s a service…sorry..starting to get worked up. :D

  4. “You just have to think of the right nightmare, publicize it, politicize it, turn it into curriculum, and sooner or later people will gladly hand you loads of moola with tears in their eyes.”

    lol, nice. Reminds me of a similar situation.

    “But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.”

    John 12:4-6

    http://www.biblegateway.com/pa.....ersion=NIV

  5. Science is about evidence, not consensus.

    Obviously, scientists don’t want mere cranks wasting their time, but the holders of a current minority viewpoint should – in my view – be treated with the same respect as the Loyal Opposition in a parliamentary government.

    Schemes to get rid of people whose only offense is to dissent from a status quo, based on the results of their own research, harm science.

    Example: Maybe 85 percent of papers show that Vitamin N helps people get over colds, but 15 percent of papers do not.

    There is no value to science in demonizing the 15 percent whose research did not replicate the expected and desired results.

    Doubt is often the beginning of further knowledge.

    Same with climate change. It is a vast, confusing topic that will become very error prone if research that does not turn up the expected results and peer reviews that ask probing questions are eliminated from the system.

    So far as I can see, it is just not clear what is going on with climate right now, and I don’t think we need an Inquisition.

  6. My father is the most brilliant scientist I have ever had the privilege to know. He is also the most ethical and compassionate man I have ever known, although he is an atheist. In many ways, he modeled Christ for me.

    I remember only one time that I saw my father really angry with a colleague in the chemistry department, and that was when a professor was caught falsifying data in an attempt to get a research grant.

    Unfortunately, I fear that my father’s ethics have been lost in much of the science community.

    David Berlinski has cynically commented (I paraphrase) that the classic image of the scientist is that he would rather be consumed at the stake than to falsify data. David asserts that this is fine for a PBS Special, but has nothing to do with reality; scientists will falsify data whenever they think they can get away with it, if it serves their purpose.

    I wish that more scientists were as ethical as my father.

  7. This from one of the emails:

    “p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He’s not as predictable as we’d like”

    An interesting line from one of the guys apparently cooking the global warming data to another cooker. One thing I can say about the anti ID people here is that they are predictable. They don’t let truth or logic get in their way. They would probably do just fine in the global warming community.

  8. GilDodgen:

    My father is the most brilliant scientist I have ever had the privilege to know. He is also the most ethical and compassionate man I have ever known, although he is an atheist. In many ways, he modeled Christ for me.

    Modern science is not anti-religion. It is supplying increasingly obvious evidence on all fronts that design is screaming at us. One needs a really effective set of earplugs not to hear it and to remain an atheist.

  9. Gil, I can see why you’re proud of having such a compassionate and accomplished father. But it sounds as if he might also be a Darwinist.

  10. You notice there is one fundamental in climatology that never gets brought up in the global warming controversy, which is that the vegetation of the earth turns CO2 into oxygen. That is, there is never much discussion on how much more CO2 is processed by the vegetation and how much this marginalizes or neutralizes the effect of net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I find it hard to believe that they can really even get a god estimate of this given how much vegetation there is. I have noted before that I highly suspect that natural forces like gravitation limit how much CO2 can naturally accumulate within the atmosphere before falling back down to earth where it can be re- sequestered by plants, the ocean and soil. The vegetation turning CO2 into oxygen must also play a large role in the natural stabilization of the climate and make up of the atmosphere.

    If you watch Lord Monctons movie “Apocalypse No” which is a response to Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Lie” – Moncton points out that studies now show that “when Warming has occurred the amount of net radiation escaping from the Earth’s atmosphere has increased.” This is the opposite of what the anthropogenic global warming predicts- which is that a green house effect will “trap” radiation inside the Earth’s atmosphere “DECREASING the amount of radiation escaping out into outer space.”

    For his film you can see it here

    http://video.google.com/videop.....firefox-a#

    And here he is here talking about some other important related topics- such as the mega-millions that Al Gore and George Soros plan to swindle through government mandated carbon credits as well as other topics.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14w66PcXDVw

    and this one is one of his public talks about the threatening international policies…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXkkZxh_LKY

  11. And the point of all of this global warming stuff is just a conspiracy (partially conscious and direct and partially subconscious and indirect) by various groups to legislate themselves a living or in some cases a fortune. The bureaucrats will have work to do- the businesses will have mandatory customers, the politicians will have work, the government will have new revenues- but the average middle class person will be poorer. Just like with this health care bill which will require people uncoved by their job- like those who cannot find a job- to pay thousands of dollars a year for health insurance (of who knows what quality) regardless of whether they get sick or not.

    They had this kind of systematic bureaucracy in Russia and the whole economy eventually collapsed because of it. And this is what happens when the government takes control and forces people to do things- it eventually results in a depleted society- where the cost of productivity becomes too high and the incentive for hard- good quality work becomes too low- due to free social programs- the deterioration of those public benefits (like the health care and education facilities) and the overall growth of the government and correlating increase in red tape. And lets not forget inevitable inflation- as lack of productivity is matched with increase in usage of natural resources (oil and food). And global warming and universal health wont solve any of these real fundamental issues – but in fact will increase their size.

  12. Mostly I think it’s a play for political power by environmentalists. Do they believe what they are saying? Most do. It’s a common human failing to deceive yourself into thinking you are so important that you need and in fact deserve power. Another human tendency is that when you have already got money, you start lusting for political power. You can see this in any society historical that contained a rising middle class. The middle class finally gets money and then they start wanting political power. You can see this in Hollywood and business. There is no AARP for young people because young people aren’t monied yet. This is going on in the environmental movement as it gets older.

    Another thing is that many who have rejected religion have vaccuums of meaning and purpose in their lives that must be filled with something.

  13. tragic mishap:

    “Mostly I think it’s a play for political power by envirnomentalists.”

    To me, this is only half of the equation. The other half comes from businesses. Al Gore, for example, stands to become fabously wealthy if these climat-control bills pass. He’s positioned himself for this. As has General Electric, parent company of NBC. If they’re positioned, this means they’ve made massive investments in order to be so ‘positioned’. And if the bills don’t pass? They get zero return on the millions/billions they’ve invested. Are we to believe that they aren’t inclined to ‘talk up’ Global Warming? (Oops! I forgot. It’s “Climate Change”!!—as in, “Change You Can Believe In”)

  14. Here’s a telling quote from global warming skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer at http://www.drroyspencer.com :

    Hopefully, the scientist is more interested in discovering how nature really works, rather than twisting the data to support some other agenda. It took me years to develop the discipline to question every research result I got. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and very difficult to be right.

    Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress. I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming. Can the IPCC scientists admit the same thing?

    Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works. The ‘data spin’ is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

    If only all scientists were as honest as Dr. Spencer.

  15. Dr Spencer’s appeal is one that we should all heed. The scientific questions can only – and should only be decided by the data. What action we, as a species, must be contingent on that data. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, that action will be political in the first instance.

    What sets off alarms for me, however, is when I begin reading claims of conspiracy theories.

    Are people really suggesting that there is a vast world-wide conspiracy of climatologists scheming to seize control of the planet? That sounds more like the plot of the next James Bond movie: I am imagining a sinister meteorologist mastermind sitting in a secret headquarters somewhere, stroking a white Persian cat on his lap, plotting global devastation so as to increase the value of his Halliburton shares.

    If there is really a substantial difference of opinion within the scientific community then we all we can say is that the issue is not yet resolved.

    In a broad sense, it doesn’t matter, though. Globally, human society is generating huge quantities of all manner of waste products, much of which we are simply dumping into the environment. This is a stupid, selfish and short-sighted policy. Neither the resources we are squandering nor the the environment’s carrying capacity for our waste are limitless. We would be well-advised to start cleaning up our own mess sooner rather than later before we drown in it.

  16. PaV @ 12

    I find another figure interesting. His family’s name mixed in with many conspiracy theories and that has made great fortunes from the banking and other industries. His present day crusade is against global warming. I’m spekaing of David Mayer de Rothschild. My questions is – assuming he has had an upbringin that has developed him intellectually – and having resources to disprove what we already know is trash science, then why is he so fervent about it? He is like Al Gore on the world stage.

    Incentives?

    Follow the money and power.

  17. PaV @12:

    I don’t doubt that for one instant. But the movement did not start with Al Gore or GE. Like Freeman Dyson said, Al Gore is an opportunist. The movement started with environmentalists who had finally found something from their point of view that would matter to the rest of the world and make them important. It validated their world view, therefore it had to be true.

    ID needs to be careful to avoid that sort of thing.

  18. Seversky @14:

    I agree. But I would argue that this process should be presides over by truth rather than lies.

  19. Denyse writes

    So far as I can see, it is just not clear what is going on with climate right now, and I don’t think we need an Inquisition.

    I agree. However, before we commit billions of tax payer revenue to “fight” the problem we at least need an honest inquiry into a)whether or not the “problem” is actual and b) if it is actual, whether or not what we’re spending the money on will actual do a thing to solve it. Those questions, it seems to me, are all but ignored in the main stream media and other public discussions. While I tend to lean on the side that the problem may, in fact , not be actual, even if I’m wrong, I am certain that none of what the billions will be spent on will do a thing to alleviate it. Before asking taxpayers to foot the bill, they deserve an honest scientific assessment. So far, that seems to not be forthcoming.

  20. From that article posted by tribune:

    “They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.”

    Reminds of this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  21. Followup article by the same author

  22. Despite the freshly-attempted fumble recovery by Phil Jones, some of the source code has been leaked and analyzed by Steve Mcintyre to verify that they were indeed adding in fake data to hide the true climate trend. The explanation, along with programmer’s notes from recovered source code can be found here:

    Jones fumbles, AGW skeptics recover the ball

    And also a more in depth look at this development:

  23. Whups sorry, here’s the second link:

    Infilled data is examined

  24. And here’s a simple graph that gives a before-after comparison of the processed data vs. the unprocessed data post-1960 specified in the MXD code:

    http://noconsensus.files.wordp.....-after.jpg

    And the source of the this chart:

    Click!

  25. sorry it’s late, here’s a working link to the graph ^_^

    http://noconsensus.files.wordp.....-after.jpg

  26. As a matter of interest, does anyone know any AGW sceptical scientists who support ID?

  27. Seversky @ 16

    What sets off alarms for me, however, is when I begin reading claims of conspiracy theories.

    Are people really suggesting that there is a vast world-wide conspiracy of climatologists scheming to seize control of the planet? That sounds more like the plot of the next James Bond movie: I am imagining a sinister meteorologist mastermind sitting in a secret headquarters somewhere, stroking a white Persian cat on his lap, plotting global devastation so as to increase the value of his Halliburton shares.

    Most people are conditioned to think conspircies are kooky. Why?

    Why does the term conspiracy seem so “james bondish”? And what’s wrong with a large conspiracy hyptohesis? Is it that far fetched?

    Anyway, I don’t think anyone is suggesting it is a vast conspiracy of climatologists. From this fraud finding, it at the least suggests conspiracy among key climatologists…and open among themsevles with intents to hide information.

    But the conspiracy need not be a vast slew of climatologist, but key players…AND… political entities. Al Gore for example…and many other politcal figures that see how they may benefit from this. The evidence of conspiracy – even by negligence – is that they are so hell bent on seeing this thing through to legislation. IF they are genuine, then they would look closer at the skeptics claims. Afterall, most on this board are skeptical of AGW…heck, I bet even the majority of Panda’s Thumb posters are skeptics of AGW. Given that, and that leaders should be as careful, why do you think these same politicians and leaders are on large ignoring the skeptics??????????? and pushing for Kyoto Talks Copenhagen talks…etc… ad naseum? Why didn’t Al Gore debate skeptics in Congress recently when the chance was there? Why didn’t he properly answer the questions of the rogue environmentalist journalist that had legitimate questions recently? Instead, Gore suggests the journalsit is not smart by suggesting poalr bears are in danger – even though the journalist made the best reply (ie. polar bear numbers are increasing!).

    Conspiracy at a large level – even if done significantly as willful neglegence? I feel it’s 99.9% certainly such a conspiracy.

  28. I’m tempted to agree that the way they are withholding information is suspicious, it indicates that they are trying to hide something from other researchers. Interestingly data from instruments like the Hubble space telescope are routinely withheld for up to a year, plenty of time for the scientists to cover up anything inconsistent with the dominant ideology, it is a shame people aren’t interested in what the cosmologists are trying to hide!

    If scientists are going to spend all that time and money collecting data then they really ought to make the data available to the public and to other researchers as soon as it is collected.

  29. There are a number of factors that explain all this.

    Some consider humanity to be the scourge of the earth. For these people radical environmentalism is an ersatz religion, complete with the notion of humanity’s original sin against the earth goddess, the need for repentance in the form of self-inflicted deprivation, and a cataclysmic end-of-the-world eschatology as punishment for our impenitence. For these people, challenging the religious orthodoxy makes one a heretic and therefore evil.

    In addition, there is a huge financial incentive to confirm the “consensus.” AGW research is a multi-billion-dollar industry. Anyone whose research suggests that there is no problem — or that even if there were, there is nothing we can do about it without the complete destruction of every economy in the world — will never get another research grant.

    Finally, there is peer pressure. Very few are willing to sacrifice their careers or to be excoriated as stupid and evil by their peers.

  30. Yeah this PROVES that the peer review processes are easily conspiratorial. Whether it is going on in private emails or just kind of subliminally (maybe with winks and nods) or even subconsciously- the fix is in and the bias is often extreme.

    SO if this is what they are doing to skeptics and real scientists in the global warming community imagine what they are doing to ID advocates in the Darwinist controlled peer review community!

  31. You all can sign this petition against the UN Copenhagen Anthropogenic Green House Warming treaty here

    http://www.webcommentary.com/

    SO far they got 40 some thousand but need a lot more.

  32. Seversky at 16 and JGuy at 9:

    I am not a believer in conspiracy theories except for occasional situations like 9-11 – when almost all the conspirators became part of the atmosphere, blowin’ in the wind.

    So, I presume, not available for interview?

    In my view, most of this “climate scam” trouble is caused by consensus, not conspiracy – what everyone knows that ain’t so, but some make good out of fronting it, and they need to protect their business. It’s a sweet deal if they are tenured profs.

    But that does NOT make them right.

    That is why consensus is the enemy of real science. It enables soft corruption because it targets responsible dissent.

    Once upon a time (well, it was 2004 in Montreal, actually), I was at a science journalists’ conference.

    Dane Bjorn Lomborg, an early climate change skeptic, was speaking at a workshop. I didn’t have any particular opinion, except that I sure hadn’t noticed that my own heat bubble (Toronto) was getting any warmer.

    I have given away two air conditioners in the last decade, because I never need them. A fan will do.

    So I went to see what Lomborg had to say.

    Lomborg made a lot of sense to me.
    His focus was economic – not surprising, as he is an economist: We face a world of human need, he said, and a key question is, what effect will our policies really have on our brothers and sisters around the world?

    Anecdote: I had parked myself in the front row. Lomborg did not realize that his co-discussant would mount a direct attack on his research.*

    He had brought no paper with him. He saw me taking notes and asked me for some. I ripped off a bunch of sheets and gave them to him. I asked if he needed a pen, but he had one.

    Anyway, he was able to respond more easily to the attack once he could take notes.

    (*an attack also on George W. Bush’s first term in office, pending a new election – which I considered in very poor taste, as the conference took place in Canada and was international. I honestly did NOT care who that guy thought should be president, just as he did not care who I thought should be Prime Minister of Canada.

    If we cannot dispense with stuff like this, maybe we should just not hold international meetings any more.

    No, wait! What we really need is better quality discussants!)

  33. I don’t think too much joy should be taken at the release of these emails. There are other secret email lists that, if they were likewise hacked, would do irreparable harm on issues closer to the heart of this blog. “Do unto others”–well, you know the rest.

  34. Flavius @ 36

    huh?

  35. More info on ClimateGate from Michelle Malking and Obama Czar – John Holdren’s involvement.

    John Holdren – Obama Czar

  36. Flavius,

    lol…

    the far left is way ahead of the game. Most hackers are left of center. They’ve been hacking things like this for a long time.

    In fact, I suspect it was hackers on the left that did this. It just so happens they were on a different team on the left this time.

    But, I’m all for it Flavious, Oh, lets do let the emails come out from Obama, SEIU, ACORN, Workers Party, Obama’s puppet master and convicted criminal George Soros, Open Society, DailyKos, MoveOn.org, and all the other corrupt scum in this nation, like criminal Rezko and Jarrett, etc. That were involved with land deals and failed publich housing projects in Chicago.

    Yes, lets look inside the war machine of the far left kooks that produce, finance, strategize and support the John Holdrens of the world. Paging Mr. Al Gore, paging Al Gore.

  37. Thanks, datcg, but I’m afraid those aren’t the groups I was talking about. My point is that if the private emails of the moderators of this blog were ever exposed to the public en masse, it would cause irreparable damage to their side of the issues. With that in mind, I don’t think they should be quite so quick to push the juicy quotes of others.

    In other words, be careful, my friends, what you want exposed to the light of day. You may be the one whom some hacker exposes on the morrow.

Leave a Reply