Climategate, a year of comedy.
Posted by Jeff Id on November 12, 2010
It has been almost a year now since the UEA emails known as climategate were revealed. What has followed has been a year of hilarity as one scandal after another followed. Just think about how funny it was when Pachuri (head of the IPCC) published his sex book, Mann publishing one self exonerating editorial after another all to try and prevent Cuccinelli from getting the other 12,000 emails publicly released. Just how did the IPCC accidentally transpose the time when the Himalayan glaciers would vanish from 2350 to 2035 and fail to change it when notified (don’t worry the glaciers will be there in 2350 and in 2035 becaus these guys don’t really know). “Scientific”Applause for Chavez’s hitleresque anti-capitalist rant in Copenhagen! hahaha. I’ve been laughing almost daily as these guys trip over themselves trying to make the case for global CO2 governance. The politicians are starting to realize that the whole topic is poison for their careers and if nothing else, climategate has had the fortunate effect of at least slowing the implementation of stupidity.
Green energy which costs you more to ‘create’ jobs. How insane a world, and how funny when the politicians realize they can’t push that lie on the public. Nobody in America believes that anymore, well at least not as many.
Climategate taught different people different lessons though. Instead of journals opening up and allowing the reasonable moderate AGW science to be published, they tightened their unofficial policies forcing the non-anointed to go through endless reviews before rejection. Countless hours are spent by those who would publish moderate work in the face of extremist AGW claims. But it is funny!! Apparently climate science believes humans can control not only the planetary temperature but the laws of physics as well! A year of laughter is what it was, ships that pump moisture into the air to make clouds and ‘cool the planet’, the US military asked about what effort’s they are making to insure that the WAR is emitting less CO2. I even recently had a conversation with a scientist about the CO2 emission of photovoltaic cells!!!
While I am pleased with the Air Vent’s role in expanding climate discussion beyond the sheltered walls of government and university hallways, we need to remember that some individual/s took a great risk to release those emails. They get the credit for an event which changed the political future of the world but it is a lonely credit as nobody can know who they are. The lesser role of climate blogs was to provide both the indirect impetus for action and a necessary outlet for the emails to be presented to the public in raw form and then put into context. I hope those involved in the actual release are wise enough to continue not discussing their own roles in the release as I’m sure plenty of people are still hunting them down, waiting for a clue to surface. After a year, the discussion as to what the emails meant continues, so much so that even the word climategate has become widely known.
Other cliamte comedy brought about this year includes the silly copygate scandal at Deep Climate. Now Deep is off the deep end fairly often so it isn’t without precedent. On April 15th last year, well prior to climategate I made the point that cliamate scientists were manipulating the filters of graphs to make the endpoints look worse than they were. He went so nuts that he accused me of libel. Hilariously enough, it later turned out to be the same scientists from CRU that we were talking about. Now he’s trying to discredit Wegman’s math by stating he didn’t reference copied material in his congressoinal report. Of course it’s even better when you find out the book Wegman copied and cited was actually copied from another uncited book itself.
As climategate continues to influence policy and stories about global warming doom, the media has failed to understand that we technical non-experts had figured out the game long before climategate spelled it out to the public. Here’s an email from Mick Kelly UEA scientologist on better ways to present temperature trends. It pretty clearly addresses the claims I made to Deep, a year earlier.
From: Mick Kelly
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300
Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.
Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years.
Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.
Gawd it’s silly that they fear a cooling result enough to clip the end of ‘measured data’ as though ‘measured data’ can somehow create problems in the search for scientific truth. Politics first but of course that is just one of many examples we’ve all read and covered. The point is – we already knew about it guys. We even already knew about ‘Hide the decline’!! It was covered here well prior to climategate. Way back in September of 2008, shortly after the inception of tAV, I posted this post which contained the plot below.
As always, Steve McIntyre gets the vast majority of the credit for this 2008 post on Briffa, as I would never have imagined that climate data was handled like this. The influence of his simple confirmation of papers has been felt throughout the climate science industry and nobody can say that climategate would have happened without Steve’s influence. The first release of the documents, (which failed) was to hack into RC’s server and leave the link at CA. Then it was sent out to the other blogs where it got noticed here.
The world payed little attention outside of blogland when I pointed out that over 95 percent of the series used for Mann’s 2008 hockey stick blade had fake infilled data. That was then….. Now we are post climategate and the shenanigans of the pro’s have to some extent been exposed by the poor quality media coverage and backed up by detail in blogland. Since that time the tone of the discussion between those skeptical of extremist global warming and those who would promise you a merciless doom if you don’t change your ways has changed.
But if you ask them, they’ve done nothing wrong. Nope nothing to see here guys, it’s all good. Just check out these embarassing posts by the always honest Real Climate blogger/scientists.
The parliamentary inquiry at SurReal Cimate:
On the Oxburgh report:
The Oxburgh report on the science done at the CRU has now been published and….. as in the first inquiry, they find no scientific misconduct, no impropriety and no tailoring of the results to a preconceived agenda, though they do suggest more statisticians should have been involved. They have also some choice words to describe the critics.
The main issue is that they conclude that the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists is not in doubt. For anyone who knows Phil Jones and his colleagues this comes as no surprise, and we are very pleased to have this proclaimed so vigorously. Secondly, they conclude that none of the emails cast doubt on the integrity and conclusions of the IPCC, again, something we have been saying since the beginning
There is of course the Penn State report which Real Climate shouted proudly:
The last part of the Penn State inquiry has now reported unanimously that Mike Mann did not engage in any activity that violated scientific norms. Quoting from the report conclusions,
Astounding that they could write these things without deep guilt but it just good stuff when they can claim straight faced that chopping off data they don’t like is somehow OK. Try that one in your science classes kids, lessee if the professor considers your rigor and honesty above question!! Gawd it’s funny to see grown men caught red handed with their mits in the cookie jar of fraud, claiming vindication and seeing them be supported by the media, government and industrial institutions. All these reviews taught us was that the corruption of reality extends much farther than a few people.
Again — we already knew that.
But the lies will continue as Mann publises one politically laced self-exonerating editorial after another. Like a pile of four year olds, climate scientists haven’t learned anything from climategate other than the obvious — don’t get caught!!
I have news for everyone though, climategate was the tip of the iceberg and climategate II is coming soon. I don’t have any information different from anyone else on where, when or whom, what I have is a brain smart enough to openly analyze the evidence and the evidence says that climate science is far more corrupted than we have seen yet. We aren’t done with this trip. Cuccinelli’s suit against Mann to reveal the 12,000 emails he’s written are a perfect example. Everyone paying attention knows that Mann is 100% in for AGW at any cost. He would sell his grandma for a hockey stick (think tiljander), and he’s not alone!! That just makes it more entertaining. Those emails are probably so full of corrupt commentary that it would make cliamtegate look like a kid spilling his milk. Of course without the emails, there is no proof so it’s just one man’s opinion.
Damn these guys make it fun.
The truth is out where even the rock dumb extremist AGWer’s can figure it out now though, Mann’s Nature trick to hide the decline pretty well cleared it all up. This post should serve as a warning/reminder to you all in the media and in the less informed public, we ‘skeptics’ of AGW extremism are well enough versed in climate science to know fully that there is a lot more than you saw from Climategate and ‘hide the decline’ going on behind the scenes, and it is even worse than you think.
So now as the anniversary of climategate approaches, so does hunting season and I’m off to another trip where I won’t be around to play and you guys know what happens when I go hunting!
Lessee if someone else takes the time and risk to prove to us what we already know.