If the CRU had been illegally “hacked” by an outsider, there would have been a trail. The continued claims of an outside hacker just don’t hold up.
This is the most embarrassing element of ClimateGate to the defenders.
It was an inside job.
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by AGW-Skeptic
↧
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by Jim Cripwell
Holly Stick writes “No, a whistleblower would have come forward.”
I agree. IMHO. the emails were not hacked, nor was there a whistleblower. This was the scientists involved trying to hide the evidence from FOI.
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by GaryM
Just one word – “paragraphs.”
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by Punksta
i don’t agree that there is a large conspiracy here.
Nor do I. Only Holly does – she thinks there’s a conspiracy of honesty and rectitude, such that state-fed scientists don’t end up with a pro-state bias such as CAGW. Ludicrous.
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by andrew adams
I’m referring to the accusations of such things. You will just have to accept that others simply do not accept your interpretation and that there is not going to be any kind of collective admission of malpractice or denunciation of Jones and co. by the scientific community. You and the other skeptics will no doubt draw your own conclusions from this, those of us on the other side of the argument will decide for ourselves how much to care about that.
↧
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by Jeff Id
amen.
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by Latimer Alder
I’m with you on this one. No worldwide conspiracy.
Just a large bunch of second-raters who got way out of their intellectual and emotional depth when playing with their new toy ‘climatology’
In their rush to become ‘superstars’ within their own liitle ecosystem (*), they made a Faustian pact with the devil, and now they have to pay the price. And they bring down everybody else with them.
*’We have to get rid of the MWP’…and, as if by magic, a paper appeared that seemed to do that. Catapaulting its authors from obscurity into the firmament of kudos and status and Lead Authorship and Nobel Prizes. It took ten years to show that the paper was in fact complete bollocks. But by then the perps were (realtively) secure in their positions.
But ‘climatology’ had been damaged beyond repair IMO.
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by Bart R
Scientist?
Who am I to judge?
Writer on science topics well-known to be, what, ‘somewhat AGW-aligned?’, hard to call him a milquetoast exactly, or to expect no scientists heard of his remarks. Did you hear contradictions among many scientists of Monbiot’s statement?
Randy Olson’s account is a wildly inaccurate rewriting of history, and should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. It is factually wrong, that should be enough to invalidate it entirely without correction of the errors that are fundamental to its argument.
Is the argument wrong itself? Could it be made based on actual fact? Could be. Who cares? Entertaining arguments from error is dyskeptic.
One may even say, agnological or agnostemic.
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by Punksta
there is not going to be any kind of collective admission of malpractice or denunciation of Jones and co. by the scientific community.
Yes. And since the evidence is so obvious, it tells us they’re complicit. Which means everything they say must be regarded as being bent.
In legal terms, the climate establishment / ‘Consensus’ is an “ureliable witness”.
↧
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by Damien
Yeah thanks GaryM , you are just the sort of form over function rock thrower from deep cover I allude to. You obviously confuse educated progressive liberalism with enlightenment. Enjoy your word play while the rest of us build stuff and pay bills.
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by Latimer Alder
Perhaps we should just ignore any grant application about anything that includes ‘AGW’, ‘climate change’, climate disruption’ or any synonyms.
That should save billions a year..might have to pay out a bit more dole money – who would ever want to employ a redundant climatologist? – but it would overall be an excellent deal for the public.
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by Jeff Id
Each time I read some article commenting that the emails were just taken out of context, my first response is to consider them liars — a word I don’t use without consideration. Sometimes they are just stupid people, but there is simply no way to be familiar with the emails and not recognize the fraud which was exposed. It isn’t like the context of ‘hide the decline’ didn’t exist and it isn’t like there is any possibility of rational explanation for the behavior within the bounds of science.
The Air Vent practically became a climate blog because I couldn’t believe that Mann was simply pasting data on the end of proxies – well before climategate. When I first saw that the Shweingruber/Briffa series of ‘hide the decline’ was chopped off and replaced – the relevant quote from Mann08 became my favorite at tAV. I repeated it half a dozen times in my posts:
Because of the evidence for loss of temperature sensitivity after 1960 (1), MXD data were eliminated for the post-1960 interval. The RegEM algorithm of Schneider (9) was used to estimate missing values for proxy series terminating before the 1995 calibration interval endpoint, based on their mutual covariance with the other available proxy data over the full 1850–1995 calibration interval.
You might think that was disclosure but the DATA was not publicly available at this time. This is exactly the main climategate issue discussed pre-climategate and described with every word except fraud prior to climategate at the Air Vent.
I totally flipped out over this back then:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/the-hockey-stick-data-hoax/
20 percent of Mann08′s results were from the hide the decline data handled quite similarly to climategate! Looking back, there are some great quotes which directly mirror the sane worlds reaction to ‘hide the decline’.
Out of context —- bull!
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by Latimer Alder
But as a communicator you have a responsibility to make your message as easy to understand as possible.
In a busy blog like this, my inclination is to skip over dense unparagraphed text and move quickly on to the next post.
Paragraphs are not hard to do (the old typewriter return button does them OK for me), and makes your stuff more readable.
What’s not to like?
↧
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by Oliver K. Manuel
Deep Roots of the Climate Scandal
As shown in two recent reviews [1,2] the roots of the climate scandal began growing - out of sight - soon after former President Eisenhower warned on 17 Jan 1961 about the danger that public policy might one day become “captive of a scientific-technological elite.”:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
Experimental data from precise measurements of nuclear rest masses, the 1969 Apollo Mission to the Moon, the 1995 Galileo Probe of Jupiter, and numerous analysis of meteorites, planets, asteroids, and comets were hidden or ignored.
Roots of the scandal point to Washington, DC, where the US National Academy of Sciences reviews budgets and recommends funding to the US Congress for federal research agencies – NASA, DOE, EPA, NOAA, etc.
1. “”Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun,” Energy and Environment, vol. 20 (2009) pages 131-144
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
2. “Neutron Repulsion,” The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011), 19 pages
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
↧
Comment on Neverending Reflections on Climategate by ianash
Mad Mike Mangan…
must protect queen bee…must protect queen bee…must protect queen bee…
↧
Comment on Talking past each other? by Joshua
Well, this would explain why the convinced don’t want to debate the skeptics. I also find it interesting that the skeptics/deniers are often referred to as anti-science (e.g. Joe Romm and many others), while their motivation in the context of the public debate seems more strongly based on science than the convinced group.
“The convinced” don’t want to debate the skeptics? Rather a broad statement there – possibly reflective of bias?
“Their motivation….seems more strongly based on science …” Another broad statement – again possibly reflective of bias?
So most of the “skeptics” at this very site are more willing to debate and more scientifically oriented than the “convinced” at this site? Really?
The “skeptics” at WUWT are less political, more scientific, and more willing to debate than the “convinced” at Real Climate?
↧
Comment on Talking past each other? by Joshua
Use of the term “climate deniers”, ends any hope of objectivity, and raises questions about the authors grasp of the subject.
As opposed to the use of “elitists,” “warmists” “socialists,” “enviro-nazis,” of course.
↧
↧
Comment on Talking past each other? by Dallas
“(the validity of the scientific process, the risk related to the likelihood and impact of action or inaction, the economic implications of action or non-action, and the myriad ideological issues around personal freedom, the proper role and size of government, and others)” One right in the middle, pragmatic action, was missed which that I think is important. There is more responsible action that can be taken with only a minimal amount of compromise required. If a more complete agreement is not likely, you look to smaller compromises.
The divide of 35% to 75% highlights a major issue which is best described as the “Di-hydrogen Monoxide Syndrome”. You can’t reason your way around irrational beliefs or fears of the congregation, only the preacher can convince his flock, if they can be convinced.
↧
Comment on Climate Stabilization by ferd berple
“what happens in the U.S. affects policies elsewhere”
It does in some ways. The US has the world’s largest reserves of coal. If the EPA restricts the use of coal in US power plants, then this will drive the price of US coal even lower, making it more attractive in China and India. China and India will increase their imports of US coal to further reduce their costs of energy production. In effect the US citizens will be subsidizing the costs of energy production in China and India. The Chinese and Indians will be laughing all the way to the bank about the stupid Americans.
↧
Comment on Talking past each other? by jrwakefield
The True Believers will never change their views, and verbally violently (insults, accusations of lying, blanket derogatory claims, such as at http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/, and Desmogblog) defend the faith. No amount of evidence is able to make these people consider rethinking their position. From what I have seen this violent/bigoted behaviour exists only from the true believer side. It’s like questioning or challenging their faith is a personal attack against them. It’s a behaviour I have seen on the political far-left as well, which many of the True Believers co-occupy. Thus from this perspective, the AGW “debate” is not about the science, but a political worldview battle. That will never stop.
AGW has just given these people a rally point: “see humans are evil creatures after all destroying the planet.” Yet these people won’t take the logical first step, if we are all so destructive, by removing their own contribution to that destruction.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
