Posted by Jeff Id on March 15, 2010
Reader MMLJ left a comment about this article on the last thread. I doubt this post will generate much disagreement here but John Quiggen’s blog has attempted to place the blame for climategate on Steve McIntyre while simultaneously claiming nothing was done wrong. I would have commented there but he closed his comment section for some reason. Of course his arguments are silly, but it shows just how far people are willing to go to cover up the corruption and save their global warming baby. Click his title below for a link to the whole article —
Looking over the evidence that is now available, I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person, along with the actual hacker or leaker, who bears primary moral responsibility for the crime.
It is always the left who is so ready to blame others people for their actions. It’s like in the US when someone steals your car or gun and uses it in a crime, there is a push to blame the owner of the car or gun – especially when the criminal gets away. News flash John, Steve can no more control these outside people than you can turn back time and make Climategate go away.
<b>I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing(sic) the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]</b>
(unsurprisingly, his supporters ignored the request to stick to new countries, and sent multiples of the same request)
Again, the point is that skeptics were being lied to about confidentiality and everyone knew it. Our only chance to get the data actually used was to narrow down countries that were alleged to not allow their thermometer data to be used, request the rest, and get that “top secret” temperature information another way.
I did not participate in the FOI’s but note SteveM wasn’t able to keep the readers from making requests for everything or doubling up on the same countries. Again, just how can one person control another’s actions so completely? Sure he made the requests, after every other FOI had been illegally blocked but what else can you do?
25 July 2009: The next day McIntyre announced that he had got a mass of CRU data, essentially all that sought in the harassment campaign, from “a mole”. Note that this may be true or may be misdirection to protect external hackers. In any case, it is clear that his harassment campaign was going hand in hand with attempts to gain unauthorised access to CRU computers, and did not stop when its supposed goal was realised.
Now this was completely bogus, in retrospect, I’m guessing SteveM may not have wanted to run the ‘mole’ thread but the ‘mole’ was a public FTP server where a copy of the ‘top-secret’ temperature data had been accidentally placed. Why would John assume Steve was attempting to gain unauthorized access? Well we know the answer to that but one thing CA has found many times is that the public servers of the data are often changed quietly to cover problems and quite often, unusual information is revealed. In this case an old copy of the complete ultra-confidential temperature dataset for CRU. The ‘mole’ post was a complete tease to the guys at CRU, who were simultaneously claiming they could not release the up-to-date temp data. John is way over the top again, a common trait these days on the advocate side of blogland.
Over the next few months, CRU started preparing a response to McIntyre which resulted in the creation of a file called FOIA.zip.
They had only a very short window to respond by law, legally, as I understand it, it could not have been done over months. Currently, the standard amongst IT guys in blogland is that the compilation was done by someone with IT skills.
John then repeats this sophistic goop:
Having received the stolen emails, McIntyre played a prominent role in disseminating dishonest and misleading claims about their contents, focusing on the phrases “trick” and “hide the decline” which were used to suggest a conspiracy to commit scientific fraud. In fact, as the U Penn investigation found, these claims were baseless. “Trick” referred to a clever way of combining data, and the “decline” was not a decline in global temperatures but a well-known problematic feature of tree ring data.
U Penn’s ruling was also a demonstration of the corruption and confirmation bias in government climate science. As primary beneficiaries of Mann’s work in the form of grants, it would have been very expensive for U Penn to slam Michael for his systematic participation in the distortions of peer review, elimination and exaggeration of data. The investigation was the same thing as asking a bank robbers partner if the robber with the bag of money in his hand had done anything wrong. Guh nope, nothing to see here.
For about the millionth time, trick referred to ‘chopping’ off tree data and replacing it with temperature data such that the rest of the ancient historic data could be claimed to be temperature – all cooler than today. The modern stuff, which is used in paleoclimatology to confirm that trees are temp, looked as much like temperature as I look like Jennifer Anniston. The obvious conclusion in comparing plots is, I am not Jennifer Anniston and this set of tree data is NOT temperature. That is, unless you use a ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline’, or in my case photoshop, in which case non-informed people would rightfully assume that they are actually looking at a temperature plot. Of course then to finish the trick, the key is to inform nobody else of the trick — which they did.
BTW, I’ve seen no major media cover Mick Kelly’s discussion of the elimination of graph endpoints for presentations to ‘actually hide the decline’ in temperature data. Ironically, the trick is very similar to the Jones trick. Climategate emails are not about one event, but a culture and number of events.
What made the hide the decline event so powerful was that the public can get it – in a single sound byte. In my opinion, there were worse things going on with peer review, FOI, IPCC reports, and other data. It doesn’t matter though, the advocates will continue to focus on the use of the word trick, they will continue saying lie after lie, using things like the U Penn investigation and the UK investigation, which has already been caught stacking the deck with key personnel, to support their false arguments.
Some in the public will buy it, many of the scientists will try to buy it, they already are. But those scientists in the field who defend the actions of this group are charlatans and tricksters, they are false in every way and will be marked in the eyes of other scientists in other fields. Spreading disinformation is their hidden objective, each to drive their intended outcome. When you claim to be honest, yet cannot present data which goes against your conclusions, you are an advocate of disinformation.
I’m shocked by the silence of the climate community. I’m absolutely stunned that we don’t see a full scale rejection of everything these people did. Instead we get Gerry North and Gavin Schmidt making up sophistry to twist corruption into something it’s not, why aren’t his peers slamming him and the RC group? Close friends not destroying each other isn’t unreasonable, but not everyone is a close personal friend. Is climate science so empty of character that people will not speak out on the truth? Is there so much fear of the power of these individuals or the loss of money that they cannot speak out? Are they just believers in a higher calling?
Those who support what these people did are the people science can never believe, those who do not openly reject what they did had better be Phil Jone’s wife or they are advocates for a hidden cause. The current silence in the climate community has reinforced my suspicion is that many of them are equally dirty from their own work and contain their own laundry list of hide the declines.
For example, after PNAS investigation of the hockey sticks, if North isn’t guilty of something I’d be shocked.