the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Climategate pays again.

Posted by Jeff Id on February 2, 2010

I’m spending my time reading about exciting thermometer data and this happens.

Climategate intensifies: Jones and Wang apparently hid Chinese station data issues

Check it out.

It’s not my goal to point to one blog after another but my god things are moving fast.


18 Responses to “Climategate pays again.”

  1. Jeff C. said

    Amazing isn’t it? That was the beauty of climategate, although it didn’t get much press when it broke, it must have made a few in the MSM consider that those wing-nut, flat-earth denialists might be on to something after all. Now the dam has fully broken (in the UK at least), and the MSM reporters have realized they have access to a treasure trove of pre-written articles on the skeptic blogs.

  2. Jeff Id said

    #1, The self destruction of the institution is amazing. Did you ever expect to see it? It’s amazing in it’s slowness and inevitability. There’s no way the IPCC has any credibility after it’s soul was exposed, I wonder if the media will continue to try and resurrect them. It will be one email after another until they fry.

  3. hswiseman said

    It sux to be them right now. The whole thing is crazy. My sense is that Jones is smart, knowledgeable and completely capable of performing excellent science. If they just followed the data in an unbiased way, the preponderance of the evidence points to a warming trend and a reasonable suspicion of CO2 involvement. I don’t think anything is proven beyond a shadow, or can be given the wretched data sets, but a civil debate could have been conducted without harm to science or our mother earth. The Cru-crew may or may not be guilty of criminal offenses, but they are certainly devoid of the prerequisite to learning–humility.

  4. Peter of Sydney said

    If only they didn’t exaggerate so much, hid some of the data, lost some and lied so much, the global warming hoax would be in full force by now. Still, it’s not over by a long shot. No criminal action has been applied, and Western governments and much of the media are still acting as if nothing has changed. That’s why I believe the only way we can get the hoax resolved is to fight this in courts. There’s certainly enough evidence to prove conspiracy and scientific corruption.

  5. Phillip Bratby said

    It’s unravelling faster than a ball of wool in a basket of kittens. When the Guarniad and Fred Pearce change their tune, you know the end is nigh.

  6. In the terminology of Anne Miller (in the book first published as ‘The Myth of the Mousetrap’), the alarmists became FROZEN at an early stage in the debate. Even when presented with flaws in their arguments, they come up with all sorts of excuses about why it’s not worth paying it any attention… They are like rabbits frozen in the headlights of an approaching car. She goes on to explain that there are three concurrent requirements for someone in this position to become open to a new idea.
    The status-quo must be demonstrated as unworkable (done)
    They must care that this is a problem (so their ideologies must be seen to be at risk from the current position)
    They must feel psychologically safe in caring about the problem (and understand that skeptics are just as concerned about efficiency, biodiversity, food security and world peace)

    Having nailed their colours to the mast with the slightest bit of cherry picking (maybe accidental, but dubious in retrospect) it becomes psychologically harder and harder for those on the inside of the team to admit that there have been problems, and attention is instead focused onto defending their position – everyone behaves like this, it is just our natural state.

  7. Peter of Sydney said

    Phillip and Sean, both your posts are good. They add to my conviction that the only way we can smash the AGW hoax for good is in the courts. There’s just too much smoke and mirrors to tackle with the public arena thanks to the media and politicians, plus the gullibility of much of the public. We can have dozens more of the same kind of irregularities as in the past few weeks but it won’t alter the fact that the media is still ignoring much of it and the politicians are treating us like fools. I’m hoping Monckton knows this so I’m hoping he’s looking at doing something about it in the courts.

  8. Espen said

    I think the most shocking fact here is that Fred Pearce from The Guardian is reporting this (he’s been like a priest in the AGW community, and The Guardian has been his church). Only 3 hours (!) earlier, he published this. The mind boggles!

  9. P Gosselin said

    Jones can pack it up…
    The dominos keep falling!!
    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-so-all-these-climate-revelations-were-a-dastardly-foreign-plot-1886149.html

    h/t: Benny Peiser

  10. Buffy Minton said

    The fact that the Grauniad has run such a story is quite startling and, perhaps more importantly (given the circulation), The Sun (albeit the Scottish Sun) has run an opinion piece by one of its columnists, saying that Global Warming is a con. Watching the media recently, I feel that something is afoot. Maybe they have been told (by nulabour) to prepare the ground for some sort of climb down from their lofty tower (from where they view us “Flat earthers”)

  11. In 20 years of reporting on medical-research fraud, I’ve developed a guiding principle: The closer you look, the worse it gets.

    I believe that as this AGW “science” keeps unraveling, it isn’t going to be, “They almost had it right, but they fudged too much,” or “They were on to something important but they got too greedy,” or “Subtracting their lies, they did actually make a strong contribution.”

    I think it’s going to be a lot worse than that. Perhaps, “They pretended to know something about which we really know almost nothing.”

    I don’t think their graphs and models are merely going to be off by a few significant degrees. I believe their whole presumption of measuring planetary temperature trends is going to be revealed as some kind of foundational sand.

    For a medical comparison, it would be like this: “They were adding tons of information about the characteristics of the virus in question, and then they saw they had made some serious errors, and they backtracked and tried to shore up what they knew—but you know what? It turned out they weren’t really working with a virus at all. They were working with some genetic debris and they really wanted to call it a virus, so they did, but it wasn’t. It was pure dreck. And all the data they adduced were suppositional, and finally the whole business fell apart—and still they wouldn’t admit they were wrong…”

  12. Bad Andrew said

    When you make a deal with the devil, he wants payment sooner or later.

    I may or may not mean that metaphorically. 😉

    Andrew

  13. Kenneth Fritsch said

    It is critical, I think on reading Watts comments about UHI effects and temperature trends to remember that Jones and others are agruing that there is UHI, i.e., urban temperatures are higher than non urban ones, but that that differential has not changed since the 1950s or before.

    I think what they have done to attempt to show evidence for their conjecture is to look at urban versus non-urban longer term temperature trends. I would think it would be a much more fertile ground to analyze these papers and determine the validity of the methodologies applied, instead of debating what both parties agree upon: UHI exists. Also how well did the authors of these papers inspect the stations used in their investigations in determining any micro climate effects that might exist regardless of the sites location.

  14. RuhRoh said

    Re:13

    Yes, I’m unable to use the language of the abstract to win any points in a debate with an AGW believer.

    How does the actual paper handle the 1degree/century of urban effect?

    Is the UAE response indeed reliant upon that dreaded ‘homo’ data?
    RR

  15. Navy Bob said

    re: #11 Jon Rappaport – Excellent comparison Jon. From your journalistic experience, can you make a similar comparison to the news media’s shift from committed pro-AGW propaganda machine, to tentative questioner, to the final bursting of the dam and transformation into committed deniers themselves? I’m thinking of the media reaction to Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes: initially, total rejection and ridicule of Paula Jones, attacks on other women with similar claims, attacks on Linda Tripp – until the story finally got too juicy to resist, the dam broke and the world was flooded with blue dress and inappropriate cigar placement articles. It seems like big cracks are appearing in the concrete, and it won’t be long now.

  16. Navy Bob—

    Actually, I’ve never seen such a full-out collapse of a big medical lie in public view as is happening now with AGW. The closest thing to it has been the gathering wave of reports on toxic pharmaceuticals, which has been breaking in the mainstream over the last ten years or so.

    It’s very hard to imagine the AGW crowd ever really admitting to their full culpability or their false science–but we certainly could see the derailment of their political/economic agenda on a global scale.

    However, what is the EU carbon trading market now worth? A few trillion? More? To avoid the death of that market, they’ll do anything.

    The truth has to keep hitting home. Next up, it would be very nice to see some of warming figures on oceans discredited in the press. If you noticed, the latest scandal (China stations) Fred Pearce wrote about in the Guardian referred back to ocean warming as an “untouchable” pillar of the AGW warming assertion…

  17. Mohib said

    I’m no expert on these things, but when I was reviewing the “Wang Affair” Box in the just released version of the ClimateGate timeline (thanks Jeff for helping get the word out with your blog entry at https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/climate-timeline/), I was confused about an e-mail by Jones I found from 18.Jul.2007
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=809&filename=1184779319.txt

    Jones talks about his 1986 paper to Geoff Jenkins and says he removes stations with UHI: “David [Parker] is essentially right. In 1986 we rejected [for UHI] 38 (if my memory from 1986) is correct!”

    But in his 1990 paper (which was hauled out and cited in the IPCC reports, including 2007) he took the position with Wang that in general UHI is not a factor in temperatures.

    In other words, on the one hand in 1986 he knew UHI affects temperatures and was removing stations, but on the other hand in 1990 he concludes it’s a non-issue.

    Since I’m hardly an expert on these matters and in no position to make a judgment on this, I didn’t mention this on the timeline but I am really curious about this seemingly contradictory position by Jones; perhaps there is a stupidly simple explanation.

  18. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: jon rappoport (Feb 2 15:44),

    Sorry if this is too far OT and I don’t want to hijack the thread to discuss this, but the phrase “toxic pharmaceuticals” pushes several of my buttons. ALL pharmaceuticals are toxic. In fact, pretty much everything is toxic. It all depends on the dose and the individual. Too much acetamenophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol and other OTC pain relievers) will rot your liver. Too much isn’t all that far above the recommended dose either. Consumption of alcohol increases the toxicity (speaking of another toxic OTC drug). We all want safe, effective and inexpensive pharmaceuticals. In the real world, you can generally only have two of those conditions apply to any given drug. In fact it’s often been said that acetamenophen, aspirin and penicillin would not survive the current drug discovery and approval regime because of hepatotoxicity, intestinal bleeding and allergic reaction (anaphylactic shock) respectively.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: