Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

[sharper]

This is not a bad article. One good point was about the scientist who advised a 'trick' to 'hide the decrease in temperatures'. He admits it but says 'trick' can refer to 'a good way to do something'. But it's the 'hide the decrease' bit that he seems unable to explain away.

It's covered in the realclimate article
RealClimate: The CRU hack

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

I imagine there are now a lot of corrupt (brown-envelope) scientists sweating in case hackers get the idea to target other servers. The media can only down-play this so much. The sheer volume of documents should ensure it stays in the news on and off for a few weeks anyway.

Well so far all I'm saying is the same small number of quotes being repeated again and again. Unless someone finds new ones within the emails I don't know what else there is to report on.

[ibis]

It's covered in the realclimate article
RealClimate: The CRU hack

Well so far all I'm saying is the same small number of quotes being repeated again and again. Unless someone finds new ones within the emails I don't know what else there is to report on.

Remarkable, really - twenty years of off-the-record material stolen from an institution very deeply involved in climate science, and the best the denialists can find in it is a couple of minor semantic quibbles. You'd think they might draw the obvious conclusion, but that's not how their minds work.

[blindjustice]

Fear and Loathing in Global Warming

Here are some examples:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations. [This is from Michael Mann of the Hockey Stick]

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! … The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. [From the same Phil as above, the director of CRU]

If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean … It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip

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.

Wonder when we will get full clarification on all of this! This could be tampered with.

[ibis]

As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

You appreciate that's a reference to the m.o. of climate 'skeptics'?

[X-ray]

It's covered in the realclimate article
RealClimate: The CRU hack




Well so far all I'm saying is the same small number of quotes being repeated again and again. Unless someone finds new ones within the emails I don't know what else there is to report on.

It is perfectly possible to find other evidence in support of this theory and not throw the baby out with the bath water etc, but there is not way I could possibly take anyone seriously defending any research or work from these guys. They are clearly working towards desired results. That is not science, it is not even close. You do yourself damage by trying to brush these thing aside. These guys are clearly not playing straight.

[ibis]

It is perfectly possible to find other evidence in support of this theory and not throw the baby out with the bath water etc, but there is not way I could possibly take anyone seriously defending any research or work from these guys. They are clearly working towards desired results. That is not science, it is not even close. You do yourself damage by trying to brush these thing aside. These guys are clearly not playing straight.

Leaving aside the question of whether you were ever going to believe anything else, what I'll say to you is - read the material yourself. Don't just rely on what the bloggers are saying it says.

If you've done any scientific work, you'll recognise just how normal everything in the material is - there's no conspiracy, and no "working towards desired results". If anything there's a greater care being exercised in making sure published results are bullet-proof, (and don't give the denialist PR companies material to work with, which is less usual an issue). On the other hand, most people who've done some science aren't denialists.

[X-ray]

What is a denialist?

It is not even a word, look the science either adds up or it does not add up. If they are acting the arse with the data which they clearly are then anything they have said is in the bin. We need to be careful which research is listened to here, on one side you have huge existing business interests in oil and cars etc. On the other hand there in a new group who are desperately in favour of change.

There is no right or wrong side, there is only a right or wrong way of looking at it. These guys are wrong.

[sharper]

It is perfectly possible to find other evidence in support of this theory and not throw the baby out with the bath water etc, but there is not way I could possibly take anyone seriously defending any research or work from these guys. They are clearly working towards desired results. That is not science, it is not even close. You do yourself damage by trying to brush these thing aside. These guys are clearly not playing straight.

It's not that surprising to me that you want to focus on the scientists rather than the science since you generally like to focus on anything but the science.

The issue before me what in these emails changes my understanding of climate science? The answer to that question is nothing. I haven't seen a single mail to date which supports claims of conspiracies, fraud, secret funding by political activists or anything else.

Are these people nice? Perhaps not but then these emails could just as easily have been of scientists sharing racist jokes and laughing about them. You might just as easily say "Those guys sure do suck" but you cannot say "I will not accept any research performed by those guys".

[X-ray]

It's not that surprising to me that you want to focus on the scientists rather than the science since you generally like to focus on anything but the science.

The issue before me what in these emails changes my understanding of climate science? The answer to that question is nothing. I haven't seen a single mail to date which supports claims of conspiracies, fraud, secret funding by political activists or anything else.

Are these people nice? Perhaps not but then these emails could just as easily have been of scientists sharing racist jokes and laughing about them. You might just as easily say "Those guys sure do suck" but you cannot say "I will not accept any research performed by those guys".

If you believe that then you are the "denialist".

Any graph, paper or opinion on climate change from these guys is for the bin, it is as much use as a paper from shell.

The are clearly out to prove a point and defeat the other side rather than find where the science will take them. The results of experiments are clearly secondary to the desired result, if you defend this then the debate really is over.

[ibis]

It's not that surprising to me that you want to focus on the scientists rather than the science since you generally like to focus on anything but the science.

The issue before me what in these emails changes my understanding of climate science? The answer to that question is nothing. I haven't seen a single mail to date which supports claims of conspiracies, fraud, secret funding by political activists or anything else.

Are these people nice? Perhaps not but then these emails could just as easily have been of scientists sharing racist jokes and laughing about them. You might just as easily say "Those guys sure do suck" but you cannot say "I will not accept any research performed by those guys".

But that's what he wants to say! Have a little pity.