Climategate Corruption

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by Flying Binghy, Apr 2, 2010.

  1. .


    "In financial circles, we talk about a hocky stick curve when some investor presents you with a nice steep curve in the hope of palming something off on you" via Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit.




    "Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I'm not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do. You've got to have standards" via James Lovelock of Gaia fame commenting on climategate.


    JoNova has been following the issue - "The UK Parliamentary Committee was always going to be a whitewash. They put no skeptics on the committee; they interviewed no skeptics; they didn’t ask Steven McIntyre to speak. They tried to put people on the committee like Phillip Campbell, who had already pronounced it was a done deal and ClimateGate was a non-event, but were forced to settle for people who were more covertly sympathetic: “impartial” people like committee chairman Phil Willis, who had already made up his mind in January and announced it in the Telegraph..." Cont - https://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/uk-parliamentary-report-busts-all-climate-scientists/





    .
     
  2. Have a chat with some famous AGW sceptics -

    "Mark Gillar who writes the Hootville Gazette has taken the initiative and arranged a set of radio interviews with the who’s who of skeptics like Lord Monckton, Patrick Michaels, Ann McElhinney, Marc Morano, Chris Horner, Steve Milloy, Joseph D’Aleo, and yours truly. The first one starts tomorrow morning (US time). You can email or phone in questions. Some details are below, but most are on the Global Cooling Radio site, and of course, details may change in the future, so check in at his site" ... https://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/global-cooling-radio-listen-and-talk-to-your-favourite-skeptics/




    .
     
  3. Heres a bit of a potted history of the 'gates' -

    "...Last December in Copenhagen at the United Nations climate summit, officials and global-warming alarmists seemed confident of their imminent triumph. “There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it will yield a success,” proclaimed UN global-warming chief Yvo de Boer just weeks before the conference...." cont. - https://www.thenewamerican.com/inde...11-global-warming-alarmism-dying-a-slow-death






    .
     
  4. Them Bad, bad deniers.... Why, one only needs to read the fully peer reviewed IPCC report to see....

    Before Climategate, expressing skepticism about catastrophic global warming typically got the hefty IPCC report thrown in your face along with the mantra that "2,500 of the world's top scientists all agree" about climate change. Now the IPCC is being disavowed.... https://www.aei.org/article/101757
     
  5. Via the Oz ABC -

    The issue of the ClimateGate emails leaked or hacked from the East Anglia CRU is not that complicated. The emails are damning because anyone who reads them understands that they show petty, unprofessional, and probably criminal behaviour. We know the guys who wrote them are not people we'd want to buy cars from. They are hiding information. We don't need a committee to state the obvious.... continues; https://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2868937.htm




    .
     
  6. "The ‘hockey stick’ that became emblematic of the threat posed by climate change exaggerated the rise in temperature because it was created using ‘inappropriate’ methods, according to the head of the Royal Statistical Society" - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/15/hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated-mcintyre-gets-props/





    ------------------------
    “The increasing shrillness of the message about global warming has about it a certain messianic flavour usually associated with religious faith rather than empirical or scientific knowledge”

    Quote via the book, “The Climate Caper” by Garth Paltridge. Atmospheric physicist and a former Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research
     
  7. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Considering that this is a permaculture forum, where 99% of those who post are genuinely interested in furthering the ethics and principles of permaculture, I trust that by making this first and final response that I will not too greatly offend those same people.

    Thanks for your time and patience, Marko.

    The most striking feature of Climategate is how readily people assumed dark, sinister conspiracies from isolated email quotes without trying to understand the actual science being discussed. This is apparent in the "hide the decline" quote which many took (and continue to take) to mean a nefarious hiding of a decline in temperature. What it actually refered to was a decline in tree-ring growth that has been openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995. Similarly, Trenberth's "travesty that we can't account for the lack of warming" was an issue openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature (Trenberth 2009). The issue of Trenberth's missing heat is now further discussed in a new Science perspective by Trenberth and John Fasullo, "Tracking Earth's Energy".

    Source: Cook, John (2010) Tracking the energy from global warming
     
  8. purplepear

    purplepear Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,457
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Farm manager/ educator
    Location:
    Hunter Valley New South Wales
    Home Page:
    Climate:
    warm temperate - some frost - changing every year
    I think it would not be such a shame if this all was some great hoax and we went and created a better world for no good reason.
     
  9. Hmmm.....

    The massive shutdown of air traffic over Europe relied on computer models:

    German airlines Lufthansa and Air Berlin said the decision to close much of Europe’s airspace was not based on proper testing. They said that their aircraft showed no signs of damage after flying without passengers.

    ”The decision to close the airspace was made exclusively as a result of data from a computer simulation at the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre in London,” Air Berlin chief executive Joachim Hunold said.

    “Not one single weather balloon has been sent up to measure how much volcanic ash is in the air.”

    And whose volcanic ash models were relied upon? Why, those of the Met Office, which uses models to predict catastropic man-made warming, too


    https://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun...ents/alarmist_models_shut_europes_air_travel/





    .
     
  10. springtide

    springtide Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Would it be possible to put a calibrated hivol air sampler through the smoke/ash plume compensate for the changes in air density, retrieve it and weigh the papers at the other end? or would they just use some sort of spectrophotometry at a safe distance? - I read they are about to send up a plane to get some accurate measurements... but i wouldn't like to be on it.
     
  11. Via The Rational Optimist....

    The Burden of Proof

    I have just one comment on the Climategate reports and that is this.

    People who ask the world to spend $45 trillion on a project are surely under an obligation to show their raw data and their workings. If instead, they

    publish only `adjusted data' rather than raw data,

    refuse reasonable requests for computer code,

    break freedom of information laws,

    use `tricks' to `hide' inconvenient data,

    base an argument on one tree,

    use inappropriate statistical techniques,

    break their own rules on sources,

    and urge each other to delete rather than release correspondence,

    then I don't think they should go to jail or be called frauds.

    But I do think their request should be politely turned down.

    https://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/burden-proof-0





    .
     
  12. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One asumes that the 'report' mentioned in the previous thread, is non other than the third such report to be released in relation to this topic:

    The Climatic Research Unit Email Controversy

    The three reports (and excerpts of concluding remarks/executive statement) follow:

    The House of Commons - The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

    Conclusions

    22. The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. (Paragraph 136)

    23. In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones's alleged attempt to "hide the decline"—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity". It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid. (Paragraph 137)

    24. A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet's decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable. (Paragraph 138 )


    Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit

    Conclusions

    1. We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work
    of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely
    that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if
    slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of
    public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures
    were rather informal.

    2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that
    depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close
    collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual
    benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a
    much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of
    temperature specialists.

    3. It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were
    important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of
    environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted
    a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by
    government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of
    processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and
    seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in
    government.

    4. A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of
    Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the
    CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties
    should stay with those who collected it.

    Addendum to report, 19 April 2010

    For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is
    important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to
    imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately
    misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings.
    Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and
    the need to use the best possible methods.


    The Independent Climate Change Email Review

    1.3 Findings

    13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards
    of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific
    allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their
    rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

    14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of
    advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of
    behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

    15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display
    the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the
    part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to
    the credibility of UK climate science.
     
  13. .

    ecodharmamark presents the fantasy .... And now for the reality check...

    Interesting comments here -

    Via New Scientist; "...the failure to investigate whether emails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws, makes it harder to accept Russell's conclusion that the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists concerned "are not in doubt"..."

    And so much more - https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ut-candour-we-cant-trust-climate-science.html




    .
     
  14. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Always a conspiracy, hey FB, always a conspiracy... now where did I put my tinfoil hat... :D
     
  15. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The above correspondent would have us believe that the findings of three separate inquiries pale in significance when compared to the views of just one individual, Anthony Watts, "...a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun".

    Perhaps then we should have a 'look-see' at the credentials of this particular individual:

    Watts holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university) with a status of "retired".

    Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified", but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists, and Watts posesses [sic] neither certification.


    Source: Source Watch - Anthony Watts

    Perhaps Mr Watts should stick to the weekly weather forecast (at least then he will have an average chance of getting it right), and leave the gathering of climate science data up to those that have the qualifications to do so, Real Climate scientists.
     
  16. Oh, dear.................. i'll post some more when ah stops laughing... :D...:rofl:





    .
     
  17. Climategate and the Big Green Lie

    " By way of preamble, let me remind you where I stand on climate change. I think climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously. I think energy policy should be intelligently directed towards mitigating this risk. I am for a carbon tax. I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption. The scandal attracted enormous attention in the US, and support for a new energy policy has fallen. In sum, the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute, and set back the prospects for a better energy policy...."

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709




    .
     

Share This Page

-->