back to article Climategate 2.0: Fresh trove of embarrassing emails

There was always an element of tragedy in the first “Climategate” emails, as scientists were under pressure to tell a story that the physical evidence couldn’t support – and that the scientists were reluctant to acknowledge in public. The new email archive, already dubbed “Climategate 2.0”, is much larger than the first, and …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. GrumpyJoe
    Trollface

    When something sounds religious...

    you can tell it's gone off the rails - at this moment EVEN IF the evidence was ultimately correct I think I'd STILL have a knee-jerk reaction to ignore all the preachy, hand waving bullshit the 'holier than thou' group have at their disposal.

    It's Catholic guilt, but instead of GOD being mad at us and us being bad and sinful, it's GAIA that is sad with us being bad energy consuming wastrels. If only we listen to the eco-friendly and their preaching of a low-energy future where we can all EQUALLY share in the poverty and disease, all the while peddaling the bicycle with the dynamo attached to power the one surviving piece of medical equipment per village.

    Too ranty?

  2. Gary F

    No surprise really

    Just as I thought. Dishonesty and manipulation. I hope those scientists concerned lose all credibility and no one will trust them on any research project in the future.

    Climate change is perhaps the biggest scam of the last decade. I hope it stops as it's becoming even less believable as each month passes and the public are wising up to this.

    People should just be conscious of pollution, try to minimise it at every opportunity, minimise travel, recycle, etc, etc, but not be bullied or taxed based on a load of B.S. What we do know is pollution can have immediate and obvious effects on the environment (e.g. river pollution, smog, breathing issues) and there are also long term effects which we need to avoid but those shouldn't include climate change based on discredited and weak "evidience".

    I have for many years subscribed to the growing belief that the minor change in temperature in the last 100 years is nothing more than a fluctuation which is not out of kilter when looking back at far more significant changes through the last 500 years and further back.

    The idea that the Earth's temperature should remain constant is ridiculous. +/- 1 to 2 degrees in 100 years is nothing, it's perfectly natural and has happened many times before the industrial revolution.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      it's nice you have a growing belief

      ... now all you need to do is find some data, and see if you can make it match a plausible and physically reasonable model. Y'know, like a scientist might. After you've done that, then I might find your "growing belief" convincing.

      1. Aaron Em

        "find some data, and see if you can make it match a plausible and physically reasonable model"

        You mean the way CRU didn't?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        In the terminology of Russell ...

        AGW is the celestial teapot; The onus is not upon Gary F to prove that everything is normal.

        1. scarshapedstar
          Facepalm

          Wait a sec

          I think you're confusing your GW with your AGW.

          Explain something to me.

          How is it possible to argue these three things at once:

          1) Global mean temperature is not rising.

          2) Global mean temperature IS rising, but it's not our fault.

          3) Global mean temperature IS rising and it IS our fault but it's too late to fix it and/or it would cost too much.

          Because I see it done all the time. Without any apparent irony.

        2. swarmboy

          For what it's worth (nothing I suspect, since you are clearly ignorant of both science and philosophy), the argument you have made is the exact opposite of the celestial teapot. The argument is that the burden of proof lies with those making claims unsupported by evidence.

          Essentially, most of the worlds scientists are saying : look, here are some photos of the teapot. We are certain about its mass, colour, location, but we're not sure about it orbital trajectory. We've built a model which appears to predict its future location but only with about 70% accuracy, say. There's a chance, they say that it's orbit will bring it into collision with the earth, so on such-and-such day, it might (only might, mind you) be safest to stay indoors.

          And you, sir, from absolutely nowhere and a position of abject ignorance make the assertion (and it is just an assertion ) that the photos are fake, the measurements of mass are a lie and it's position is part of global conspiracy / fraud (to what possible end, I have yet to hear a coherent argument, but that kind of goes with the territory).

          If you're going to use the arguments of one of the greatest philosophers to have ever lived, at least, please, try not to get it 100% wrong.

      3. Keep Refrigerated
        FAIL

        "now all you need to do is find some data, and see if you can make it match a plausible and physically reasonable model."

        So basically, the same challenge that faced Phil Jones.

    2. Armando 123

      "Climate change is perhaps the biggest scam of the last decade."

      Except for Windows Longhorn. And the Prius.

    3. NomNomNom

      "I have for many years subscribed to the growing belief that the minor change in temperature in the last 100 years is nothing more than a fluctuation which is not out of kilter when looking back at far more significant changes through the last 500 years and further back."

      That's completely wrong. There's no evidence of larger more significant changes in the past 500 years. I don't think you understand the subject at all. I don't think you realize how unprecedented 2 degrees in 100 years would be.

      You say it's perfectly natural. Based on what? Are you one of the many people who have been misled by graphs of *greenland* temperature changes (an area of sizeable temperature swings and at many times opposite to changes in Antarctic) and think they actually depict global temperature changes? Global temperature changes are far more muted that individual regions. The difference between the little ice age and medieval warm period is calculated to be less than 1 degree C for example. And you talk about 2C warming in 100 years as if it represents something insignificant...

      1. Marshalltown
        Meh

        Calculations

        "...The difference between the little ice age and medieval warm period is calculated to be less than 1 degree C for example. ..."

        Calculated by whom, and was it calculated or the globe as a whole, or a specific region? There is enormous disagreement on the magnitudes of the MWP and of the LIA regionally and globally. Michael Mann is on record as insisting that the MWP had to be disposed of, since some of the existing estimates make it warmer than the present. Based upon existing, truly long term data - geological and paleoclimatological - there is no indication that the warming since the end of the LIA is unusual in either magnitude or rate over the span of the Holocene. The causes are also disputable since the early Holocene appears to have been apparently warmer than the present and with sea levels between 1 and 2 meters high than present mean sea level - conditions, mark you, that are considered dire by the IPCC. There is no means to realistically and scientifically show that anything happening now is anomalous. It might be, but coincidence is not unequivocal evidence of causality.

        1. NomNomNom

          "Calculated by whom, and was it calculated or the globe as a whole, or a specific region?"

          By anyone who has tried to calculate it.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/recon_lj_with_others.png

          Global and Northern Hemisphere.

          "There is enormous disagreement on the magnitudes of the MWP and of the LIA regionally and globally."

          There really isn't that much disagreement. Look at the reconstructions above. None of them show a MWP more than 1C warmer than the LIA. The key thing is that projections of 3C global warming definitely take us way beyond the MWP. So claims that it used to be so warm in the past that future potential warming will be fine are bogus.

          "Michael Mann is on record as insisting that the MWP had to be disposed of, since some of the existing estimates make it warmer than the present. "

          No he isn't.

          "The causes are also disputable since the early Holocene appears to have been apparently warmer than the present"

          The reason why is known. The Earth's orbit and tilt.

          "with sea levels between 1 and 2 meters high than present mean sea level - conditions, mark you, that are considered dire by the IPCC"

          There were no cities back then near sea level...

          1. Aaron Em

            Spoken like a true ignoramus

            "There were no cities back then near sea level..."

            Study your damn history, son. There've been cities near, at, or below sea level for as long as there've been cities, and there've been cities for about as long as there've been humans.

      2. Mark 65 Silver badge

        @NomNomNom

        "And you talk about 2C warming in 100 years as if it represents something insignificant..."

        And you haven't been here for the last several hundred million years so you don't know that it isn't a reasonable natural occurrence.

        The point is, for all this climate change carbon reduction malarkey to make a difference, it has to have been us that caused it. If it wasn't then we're fucked anyway so no point taxing yourself back into the stone age. If you want me to live the rest of my life under oppressive taxation and high energy costs you'd better prove that: 1) It's us causing it, and 2) Your solution makes a difference other than removing taxpayer wealth. Otherwise "no deal".

        Man made pollution of the water and land environment (think industrial waste and mining) is a different matter. That's provable and shitty.

      3. lapogus

        2C in 100 years? Bollocks. More like 1C: http://i45.tinypic.com/125rs3m.jpg

        Regardless, how much global average temperatures have risen is not the point. The key question is whether man-made CO2 emissions have had anything to do with it. Please identify the CO2 signal:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/offset:14/plot/gistemp/compress:12/offset:13.885/detrend:-0.02/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.42/detrend:-0.23/offset:14/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:14.1/detrend:-0.23/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/trend/offset:14/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:9

    4. scarshapedstar
      Thumb Down

      Okay...

      So how do these emails bring back all the missing glaciers and chunks of the Ross Ice Shelf?

    5. Wayland Sothcott 1 Bronze badge
      Facepalm

      Get this, the new Green Tax is to pay for Nuclear plants!

      1. James Micallef Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        makes sense

        While I'm not fully convinced that the current warming trend is mostly our fault, there are still other issues with carbon energy (particulate and other pollution, non-renewability, security of supply), so it anyway makes sense to tax carbon.... as long as we invest the resulting take in the ONLY proven energy-generating source we have that is (a) reliable and well-understood (b) mature (c) scalable to hundreds of GW without needing to occupy half a countries' land area (d) provably safer than any other power generation method.

        That's Nuclear

  3. DrXym Silver badge

    Embarrassing?

    I'd be more embarrassed for people whose judgement is so skewed that they would favour selectively cherry picked / quote mined private emails as evidence of a conspiracy vs overwhelming scientific evidence that demonstrates climate change is real and manmade.

    There is absolutely nothing about the leaked emails, either batch 1 or batch 2 which supports the notion that there is a conspiracy. Nothing.

    1. ChilliKwok
      FAIL

      No conspiracy?

      > There is absolutely nothing about the leaked emails

      > which supports the notion that there is a conspiracy.

      Yeah, nothing except page after page of evidence of peer review corruption, illegal deletion of contradictory evidence, pledges of allegiance to "The cause", expressions of public certainly about MMGW while concealing private doubts, high level discussions with BBC journalists and NGOs on how best to scaremonger, how to smear sceptics, keep them out of the scientific literature etc. All by supposedly unbiased 'top climate experts' and IPCC lead authors.

      Yeah - absolutely nothing to see here.... Move along.

      1. Marshalltown

        What's Clear

        Is that various climatologists caved to the sophomoric demands of politicians and policy formulators to express certainty when in fact they lacked it. To protect funding streams they caved.

      2. DrXym Silver badge

        @ChilliKwok

        Now you're spouting nonsense. The leaked emails show nothing except the technical / shop talk, intellectual sparring and occasional bitchiness as might be expected amongst scientists chatting privately amongst themselves. Out of that, some people such as yourself have imagined some vast conspiracy, liberally quotemining and cherry picking from the emails to construct this facade, one which doesn't bear the slightest scrutiny. A reasonable reading of the email in context shows nothing extraordinary which would explain why 4 or 5 enquiries have completely exonerated the scientists of any wrongdoing.

        As usual this is just the sort of typical smoke and mirror tactics that denialists of all shades (creationists, 911 truthers, antivaxxers etc.) employ. They have no evidence of their own to support their own preconceptions so they go into attack mode. They nitpick on minor inconsistences, pseudoscience, cherry pick, quotemine, attach ulterior motives to the authors of such works, throw ad hominems around. All hoping in the confusion that their evidence lite other theory wins by default. It doesn't.

        1. ChilliKwok
          Meh

          @DrXym

          DrXym - your reply reminds me of Alec Baldwin in this famous scene from Team America:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp3bhU-XP-8

          Just a couple of emails to prove my point:

          Scientific corruption:

          <5111> Pollack: "it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland"

          <4944> Haimberger: "It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots [opposite to MMGW model predictions]... it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts."

          Smear tactics:

          <1680> Mann: "I have been talking with folks in the states about finding an

          investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his

          thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the

          same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy."

          Media bribes:

          <2496> Hulme : "This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme [run by BBC's Roger Harrabin] to starve this type of reporting at source."

          1. NomNomNom

            No they don't prove your point. They lack context so you are having to assume and read things into them that aren't there to make your point. They are also

            If there was true corruption why are there only a dozen or so emails out of thousands that are having single sentences taken out of them without context?

            Take this one for example that you think *proves* your case:

            "it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland".

            Anyone who knows a thing about this subject that the MWP signal in Greenland is huge. So he cannot possibly be being serious. He's probably being sarcastic and making the point that the MWP signal exists at least in Greenland. So no this isn't proof as you claim, there is reasonable doubt. Now if you had included the full email in all it's context rather than snipping all the context out maybe you could make a case. As it stands you can't. All you prove is that climategate is about skeptics taking sentences out of context and at face value.

            Or this one:

            "This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme [run by BBC's Roger Harrabin] to starve this type of reporting at source.""

            What type of reporting is he talking about? Bad reporting. So.... think about it. Why would a scientific organization be interested in getting journalists to report science well? You say "media bribes". Again another example of your so-called proof being absolutely rubbish.

            Notice that the quote starts with "This is the reason why". So what is the reason? Why remove the preceding part of the email that gives the reason? That's an inexcusable deletion of relevant context.

            What do you have to hide by removing that text?

            1. ChilliKwok
              Meh

              Nom - if you want the full context just checkout the rest of the emails using the number I provided at www.Foia2011.org In each case the apparent skullduggery in the quote is confirmed by the rest of the email.

              Why are Pollack and his colleagues trying to "make the medieval warm period go away"? It's because it totally destroys the case for alarm over the mild warming last century.

              As regards Tyndall sponsoring the BBC journalist propaganda group CMEP - BBC environmental reporters Harrabin and Black have & continue to be at the forefront of attempts to silence and downplay the corruption exposed by the climategate emails. They have also been complicit in silencing any criticism of MMGW "science" and economically suicidal climate change policies. And now we have evidence in these emails of inappropriate cozy relationships between BBC editors and activist scientists.

              1. NomNomNom

                They aren't "trying to make the medieval warm period go away". It's YOU who needs to read that email. Evidentially you haven't.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Well then that's because you've totally misunderstood what is being claimed.

      The claim is that there is a systematic issue related to politics and human nature going on here driven by ego, greed and ignorance. It's not likely anything as planned as a conspiracy is going on here. Just plain old human nature.

  4. Turtle

    I'll tell you "what if".

    “'What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?' muses one scientist. 'They’ll kill us probably.'”

    And you'd deserve it, too. Literally.

    1. NomNomNom

      So how do you explain that the IPCC report only says that it is very likely that humans have caused most of the warming in recent decades? It doesn't claim 100% certainty. Neither do the scientists. Very likely in the IPCC iirc (and I probably don't) is defined as 90% certainty.

      So it's fine to speculate that maybe the consensus is wrong and the warming is due to some unknown cause.

      What scientists get annoyed at is when contrarians (sometimes fossil fuel funded) try to trick the public into thinking that such speculation carries more weight - as if the liklihood of human involvement is tiny - as if there is no threat or issue with climate change.

      The whole climategate thing is full of skeptics deploying strawmen of like this to pretend scientists are saying things in private that contradict what they say in the public.

    2. Saigua
      Terminator

      if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal...

      If it appears to be mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation, but it empirically floods you into Atlantean Lore (for a few decades), you neither need to nor can (with or without title to your senseless rage) kill the IPCC and faction. In their polar forest soils improvement grotto and favela mines. By rooting their e-mail server.

      This isn't good for FOIA, though.

  5. FunkyEric
    Thumb Up

    See he told you so.

    Well this will please my dad, he always said it was a load of rubbish.

  6. thenewnumber2

    The Pretense of Knowledge will set you free!!!

    I love the second to last paragraph. It seems macroeconomics isn't the only "science" relying on Voodoo usage of complex technical models that don't suit the task. Hayek's essay "The pretense of knowledge" comes to mind and applies equally to this mess as well: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html

  7. Escape Velocity

    Politicians like to skew data? Sacre bleu cheese

    So, without any information from politicians as to why they might want to over-scare with twisted scientific data, how should the common person react given historical knowledge of similar episodes in politics like the eugenics nightmare?

  8. ricoyote

    Intellectual obfuscation

    Hello,

    Trying to caste doubt on climate change is really a political tool, not a scientific debate. It's obvious that the industrial revolution and 7 Bil. plus people have a dramatic effect on the environment. Trying to make some scientists look like they're skewing the figures is a political ploy for the industry to keep using fossil fuels and nuclear power. Pollution is obvious and human caused, too. Sure, we have cyclical planetary changes, but you can't rule out the impact of how humans are wrecking things on the Earth.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "and nuclear power"

      Nuclear is, for the amount of energy it produces, one of the safest and greenest options we have.

      1. Wayland Sothcott 1 Bronze badge

        I am sure nature will do well in Fucashima when all the people move away.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      :p

      "It's obvious that the industrial revolution and 7 Bil. plus people have a dramatic effect on the environment"

      "Sure, we have cyclical planetary changes, but you can't rule out the impact of how humans are wrecking things on the Earth."

      How the hell did this drivel get upvoted? If someone had the gall to state the obverse on this forum, the frothy-mouthed demands for 'evidence' would bring down teh internets.

    3. Wayland Sothcott 1 Bronze badge
      Mushroom

      Read todays newspapers, green tax is to lower the carbon footprint by funding new nuclear power stations and wind farms. Why would the nuclear industry be cliamte skeptics the way you suggest?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Obvious to maybe in one paragrpah

      It's so "obvious" you can't even show us it isn't natural variability, and since there has been no warming since 1998 - thirteen years now and counting - that is not surprising.

      You start out trying to convince everyone else but by the end of you can't even convince yourself.

      Keep it up!

  9. Another Ben

    All models are wrong

    You seem to have accidentally misquoted Phil Jones. "All models are wrong" is an acknowledged fact about empirical science, and perhaps an allusion to George Box: "all models are wrong, but some are useful". "All our models are wrong" carries a rather different message.

    Move along please, no intellectual corruption to be seen here...

  10. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  11. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  12. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Angel

    Ha ha ha!

    Andrew Orlowski in "science is unsure business" discovery shocker.

    Really now.

    In other news, Neutrinos apparently manage to exceed the speed of light.

    1. Northern Fop
      Stop

      Not quite

      I believe they're from 2009 (or at least some of them are), as was the first batch. But they haven't been released before.

      Saying 're-released' is a pretty feeble attempt to discredit them as 'nothing new to see here' which is certainly not the case. At the risk of hyperbole, it's like claiming the Rosetta Stone "just an old stone re-released" when it was dug up in 1799.

    2. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: All models are wrong

      Nice try. But Jones explains WHY the models are wrong.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AO - of course he can explain why the models are wrong.

        since all models are wrong, and he knows the models, he knows where the improvements need to be made, where the most serious approximations are; and has a presumably good grasp of how useful they are likely to be. So what was your point, exactly?

        1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: @AO - of course he can explain why the models are wrong.

          Using computers models as evidence is a general problem. Failing to model clouds (as Jones says) is a more specific problem. Tuning the models for 20th climate is another, and very naughty.

          There's three to crack on with.

      2. NomNomNom

        So why didn't you provide that context? I don't see any context for any of the quotes.

  13. Tom 7 Silver badge

    Says it all really:

    Mann called the new batch of emails "truly pathetic" and said they reflect desperation among climate deniers, who have failed to pick holes in the science.

  14. Grease Monkey

    Scientific Method

    Back when I was at school I was taught that the scientific method was thus.

    1. Postulate.

    2. Collect data through observation or experimentation. As much data as possible.

    3. Examine data.

    4. Compare data with postulate.

    5. Either:

    a) Accept postulate. End.

    b) Reject postulate. End.

    c) Modify postulate. Goto 2. (Most common)

    It seems that the scientists are being asked to use another method. 1 to 4 are pretty much the same as above, but 5 has changed.

    5. Reject any data that doesn't agree with postulate at all. Modify data sets which are close to postulate so that they agree with postulate. Accept data which agrees with postulate.

    6. Accept postulate. End.

    To the credit of some of the scientists they are clearly not happy about this. However it is not to their credit that they failed to blow the whistle.

    The only thing I can say to defend the scientists is that this now seems to be common practice in science and statistics whenever politicians get involved.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      you confuse two postulates

      when discussing your (5). The (a) specific scientific postulates (e.g. must model the cloud feedbacks better) and the more general one (b) that is implied by quite a lot of empirical and model-based evidence: that increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is a bad thing, because it seems almost certain to cause a global warming that would have significant effects on human society & economic systems.

  15. H'arj Imladd
    Flame

    Let the new wave of whitewashing begin...

    Nothing to see here... boys will be boys.... this is the academic way.... there is a concensus.... evil oil funded sceptics....

    Sorry chaps, the AGW scam is well and truly up. Give it a couple of years for our Prime Ministers father in law to get out of the tax funded trough and even the Gov'mint will let this one die.

    Needs popcorn and beer to watch this one unfold - which poses a moral question:

    Is it OK to laugh at Richard Black being comprehensively flamed under his own BBC article ? hehehehe

    1. iamzippy
      Thumb Up

      RB: Foot In Mouth

      Richard Black: “ People should listen to scientists, not politicians or journalists."

      FFS, it's OK to guffaw at anything RB posts at the Beeb.

      Do us a favour and give us a link to that flamefest plz? I could use a laugh.

      1. BoldMan

        Try this one:

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15846886

        Personally I'm in the middle of writing a complaint to the BBC Trust over Richard Black's biased reporting, I would suggest we all should do the same!

  16. Luna Tick

    Whatever

    At this juncture all I can say "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn".

    I don't trust the politicians 'cause they're not to be trusted; I no longer trust the scientists because they're either owned by someone, have an agenda or they're not scientists at all; and I obviously don't trust the media because all they're concerned about is sensationalism and clever headlines which have little to do with the facts of the content.

    So, whatever. Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change; eat me. The Rock's been here for billions of years and we're here for a considerable (for species) chunk of time. I have maybe 40 years left on this planet and the future generations will cope, thrive or suffer just like those before them (yes I walked to school barefoot in the snow, uphill, both ways). Ice caps are melting, great it may open new opportunities for humanity. Massive death toll? Just as awesome, the damn place is seriously overcrowded anyways.

    People were migrating from continent to continent in search of better life, I would have hoped that by now we could hop the planets in search of the same. And maybe by the time the Earth collapses we will. So, whatever. Climate Chane? Change is good.

  17. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      That's what gets me about this "Save The Planet" crap. The planet was here before humanity arrived, it will be here after humanity has gone. "Saving" it just means the selfish "we like it the way we've got it now, so let's stop it from changing any more". Why is that any more scientifically acceptable than saying "hey, it's changing, lets see what happens next".

      There are sound reasons not to squander finite resources like oil, for which there are better uses than just burning it off, but "saving the planet" isn't one of them.

    2. Mark 65 Silver badge

      I'm taking global warming very seriously - I've just had two new split system air conditioners fitted to my house. No way I'm sweating my arse off indoors in summer.

      Agree with yours and respondents points about the save the planet bullshit. The concept flies in the face of the will of nature. If we screw the planet up we'll be taking ourselves out of the equation so something else can prosper.

  18. Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face
    Big Brother

    The Beeb has some great coverage of this:

    "...A similar release in 2009 triggered the "ClimateGate" affair and accusations of fraud that inquiries later dismissed...."

    "...Three inquiries in the UK in 2010 found that the CRU team had not acted fraudulently or tried to manipulate data, as they were accused of doing...."

    "...CRU has also released all of the data it held from weather stations around the world - even some that the original owners of such data wanted kept private...."

    "...In partnership with the UK Met Office, CRU maintains one of the three most important global temperature records that have been used to demonstrate the reality of 20th Century warming...."

    That must be the impartiality I'm smelling.

    Seeing as these emails were public property, and illegally witheld and deleted to avoid FOI requests, I think it's more apt to describe them as being "liberated" rather than "stolen".

    1. PyLETS
      Flame

      emails probably not public property

      While agreeing that the evidence for any conspiracy is either very thin or conspicously absent, I don't agree that the emails scientists are likely to have exchanged with each other and students relevant to the project they were working on was public property.

      If these emails had any similarity to my academic correspondence, I would imagine most of these would have been trivia relevant to bureacratic procedures, health and safety, local information announcements and social matters irrelevant to public interest in the research. A proportion would have been genuinely confidential exchanges relevant to teaching and student pastoral support needs and project supervision, where public disclosure could result in DPA offences because fee paying students have a genuine and reasonable expectation of confidentiality of communications with teachers.

      A proportion would have been incorrectly foldered and difficult to identify easily from their subject headings. Having to respond to a FOI request by searching through all of tens of thousand messages any number of times for any number of conspiracy-theory chasing journalists would be likely to waste considerable time and would contribute nothing towards managed work, research or teaching priorities for which salaries are paid or work allocation time provided.

      Much, much easier to delete as much as possible in advance of FOI requests and then there's less dross to have to waste time searching for. I get rid of nearly all of my emails once 2-3 months old. Makes it much quicker to find the information I actually need.

  19. Happy Hippy

    FFS look at the data - the climate is changing at a rate never recorded before.

    Go ahead, shoot the messengers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You made my point for me...

      ... when you said 'never recorded before'. The climate was around before we could 'record' it.

      I think the one thing to take from all of this is that no-one has a fucking clue what's going on with the Climate and both sides are just using conjector and finger pointing as evidence.

      If it is us that's causing, then we're screwed as it's too late in the day to reverse it. If it's a natural blip that occurs, then we're screwed and we'll just have to ride it out.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Not sure that's true. I seem to remember reading recently that global temps. had been pretty flat for the last ten years.

  20. John Ruddy

    Its terrible!

    What if we were to create a better world, solve fuel poverty, provide sustainable energy, improve the environment, reduce pollution and it was ALL for nothing??

    1. Ron 6
      Flame

      What if?

      What if 90% of the human population died off and the remainder was living in caves or skin tents? Isn't that what the greens want?

      How do you "improve the environment"? Where I live we have streams contaminated with lead and mercury. Naturally.

      What is "sustainable energy"? Not rare earth magnets in windmills or solar cells using corrosive chemicals.

      What is "pollution"? CO2? N2? Organic waste that a different life form thrives on?

    2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: It's terrible

      Too true, but what people are so agitated about is the prospect of a worse world, greater fuel poverty, no energy, leading to a worse environment and more pollution as an increasingly desparate human population grabs desparately for the diminishing resources that we're still allowed to consume.

      The technology already exists to create the world you describe. The political will does not ... yet. Using a bogeyman is a terribly high-risk way of trying to generate that political will, because if your bluff is called, no-one will ever listen to you again.

      Therefore, you should be 100% certain that not only is this warming definitely going to be disastrous, but that your plan is definitely going to be successful. If you don't have that certainty, you'd be better off admitting this now.

  21. Thought About IT
    FAIL

    If you don't like the message, kill the messenger

    Did I miss something, or have all those screaming for the release of the data from the CRU gone very quiet since they did just that? A cynic might think that they came to the same conclusions as the CRU (and as BEST did), so decided to have another go at discrediting the scientists. Nothing to do with another upcoming climate change conference, I'm sure.

  22. melior

    98% of climate scientists = conspiracy o noez

    Also too, stop plate tectonics!

    1. Mark 65 Silver badge

      And how would they be funded oh wise one?

    2. Feralmonkey
      FAIL

      "98% of climate scientists = conspiracy o noez #"

      First off the claim is 97% and if you look at that 97% they sent out over 10,000 surveys they got back just over 3000 and they still couldn't get the number they wanted so they started pruning the numbers it eventually got down to 75 out of 77 and that is where they got the 97% of climate scientists garbage if you believe that number I have some wonderful swampland in the dead center of the Sahara to sell you and just for you I will give you a 97% discount on it.

  23. Josh 15
    Thumb Up

    Keep it up, El Reg

    All the usual craven apologists are out and about busily putting out fires, suggesting there's 'nothing new' in these emails and that we're all taking it 'out of context'. Pathetic. Thank you, Andrew, for reporting these latest revelations on El Reg - you guys are truly one of the few news outlets actually bothering, so cowardly are mainstream journalists on this issue. I know many bloggers are also on the case, including a sizeable scientific community currently trawling through the leaked emails with forensic precision.

    We can only hope that the upcoming two-week climate jolly in Durban (taxpayer-funded, of course) will have been (further) damaged by the detail in these emails. I'm not too optimistic, though, since it was clear from the official whitewashes that followed the last tranche that the Establishment AGW zealots will close ranks and refuse to entertain any possible notion of mistake or even room for doubt.

    I look forward to El Reg's coverage of COP17. Please be at least one outpost of rational, fair-minded critical analysis. I've abandoned all hope of getting anything like sensible coverage from the likes of the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.

    1. Audrey S. Thackeray

      Be honest

      Do you really want "rational, fair-minded critical analysis" or do you just want someone to say what you've already decided is true?

      It's very human to say the former when we mean the latter, I know I often do.

  24. brain_flakes
    Facepalm

    Already been looked at

    Multiple investigations by UEA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, several independent panels, Mann's home institution Pennsylvania State University and even prominent former climate skeptic Richard Muller found no evidence of any misleading or wrong-doing by the climate gate team.

    But then I guess that's what you'd expect from a massive global conspiracy to send civilisation back tot he stone-age by preventing fossil fuel usage, right?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Like I said above, there was probably no conspiracy to find.

      What we do know, however, is that politicians are crooked, and these climate "scientists" are actually charlatans in disguise that have absolutely no shred of credibility remaining. Well waddyaknow? Ursine defecation in woods, etc etc

      Whatever real defensible science that actually exists has been lost in the noise.

    2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      At least some of those committees made a point of excluding the contentious issues from their remit. That is, they refused to look. So they didn't find anything.

      In the circumstances, I did feel at the time that this was a bit of a stab in the back for Dr Jones and his friends. There you are, accused of career-ending mal-practice and a great big committee is tasked with dealing with the case and in the full glare of the media announce that "Actually, we didn't want to go into that.". Damned with faint praise hardly begins to describe it.

    3. ChilliKwok
      Meh

      Investigation by UEA? So they were investigating themselves? And what did they conclude? Was it "Nothing to see here.... move along" ? Quelle suprise.

      HOC 'review'? Half a day of gentle discussion by a panel stacked with pro CO2 taxing government yes men. But despite the obfuscation the Information Commissioner did say there was clear evidence of illegal data deletion and FOI obstruction - although the 6-month time limit prevented prosecution.

      'Several independent panels'? What - like the 5-page Oxburgh report. With Lord Oxburgh of Persil up to his neck in subsidy-farming wind/solar/CCS directorships? He was even mentioned in the climategate2 emails as a "good person to sell the "product" [MMGW alarmism] to industry and government".

      The Penn State inquiry? You mean the kiddie fiddler cover-up crew? Some of the key people that cleared Mann have now been sacked in disgrace. http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/12/wendell-courtneys-last-day/

      > Muller found no evidence of any misleading or wrong-doing by the climategate team

      That's not what he said here: "They deceived the public and they deceived other scientists".

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

      Absolutely nothing to see here people. Move along.

      1. Keep Refrigerated
        Thumb Up

        Glad someone mentioned the Penn State kiddy-fiddling fiasco. Its been compared to the catholic church cover-up scandal... very interesting how all these institutes move to protect their own. How they operate almost like a religion.

    4. Marshalltown
      Linux

      Please

      Use the <sarc> and </sarc. notations, otherwise someone will be confused.

    5. david 12 Bronze badge

      Evidence of wrong-doing

      The emails are, clearly, documentation of wrong-doing.

      Wrong-doing leads to wrong science.

      Multiple investigations, including a white-wash from the home university, and an empty enquiry by the Commons, as well as some realistic investigations, found no evidence of wrong science.

      Conversely, the investigations didn't (can't) prove that the science is correct, so you just have to trust the scientists, who have been shown to be untrustworthy.

      This remains a problem.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The greens calling us "climate deniers" (nazi reference) are themselves in denial about aerial spraying, and haarp like technology. That is my number one reason I know the IPCC, the UN and the greens are full of bs.

      The second is Agenda 21.

      The third is these treaties they keep trying to get signed which ignore a country's sovereignty.

      The fourth is how they are infiltrating and brainwashing local government with globalist agenda. We have no burn days and yet we get fukushima fallout. This is just more tyranny at a time when people MIGHT need to burn to stay warm. We have water meters now and they are smaller feed pipe from 3/4" to 1/2" who cares if your sprinklers were DESIGNED for 1/2" , who cares if your whole neighborhood is torn up for months and months! Next up smart meters and RFI/EMI interference and possible health issues. Send the meter reader jobs to /dev/null

      The fifth is where the Carbon Tax money goes. To the banksters? I think not.

      You want us to use less stuff, then get us off this smart grid nonsense, and sell us cheap solar panels. Quit giving money to banksters. If your sea level is rising maybe you should build a friggin sea wall instead of giving money to banksters who want a global bank and global government!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Hmm

        I suspect someone in this thread is actually from the "greenie" side and is pretending to be from the "denialist" side to discredit it.

        (/me buys more shares in aluminium foil manufacturers.)

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Screw mother nature she had her chance

  26. btrower

    You do not have to be a charlatan to work in 'climate science', but it helps.

    The people who say stuff like 'overwhelming evidence', 'settled science', 'scientific consensus' are either dishonest purveyors of 'climate change' hysteria or they are immune to evidence. All their arguments are empty hand-waving. If they had *hard*, *scientifically sound* evidence, they would present it. Instead, they keep trotting out these tired phrases that surely can only be convincing to the faithful.

    It should be painfully obvious to anyone with a shred of technical knowledge that people who promote global warming alarmism do not want you to look at the evidence. They want you to believe it exists and take their word for what it means. I don't trust them. At the very least, you should 'trust but verify'. Take a look at their shoddy work yourself. If you understand science OR logic OR ethics you will be appalled at what you find.

    If you read through enough of the Climategate Emails, you will see that the climate scare mongers have so little faith in their own work that they feel it necessary to 'game' peer review. Some went so far as to break the law to prevent anyone skeptical from reviewing their work.

    The notion that 'climate scientists' have been vindicated by investigations is ridiculous, BTW. Phil Jones managed to weasel out of criminal prosecution because he was not caught in time to be charged. He was *not* vindicated by anything resembling an honest investigation and neither were any of the rest of them. Michael Mann's investigators, for instance covered for someone they *knew* was a known pedophile. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

    It is instructive to read the reviews of 'The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert' at Amazon. As of this writing, there are 88 five-star reviews, 10 four-star reviews, one-three star review and 15 one-star reviews. If you read the 15 one star reviews, you will see the typical level of scholarly review that you see with 'climate scientists'.

    None of the one-star reviewers read the book.

    Yep, they are reviewing a book they did not read. This is misleading. It is dishonest and it would appear that the people doing it can't even see how it is wrong. Are they ethically impaired?

    Nearly all the one-star reviewers make an 'ad hominem' argument against a straw man argument that is not even the subject of the book. This is how warmists deal with evidence that conflicts with their point of view. They do not even look at it. They cannot reasonably argue the point of the book, because they do not even know what that point is. One of the main points that these non-readers of the book try to make is that you should not read it either.

    This nicely sums up the alarmist strategy when it comes to their (incorrect) notion of 'science': Seek confirming evidence; ignore conflicting evidence; smear those who attempt to present conflicting evidence to others. Rinse (whitewash) and repeat.

    If you are a working scientist, I suggest you take a look into this whole mess and voice your concerns. Your organizations (I was a member of the AAAS too) have let you down by piling on the 'climate' gravy train. Because of that, you are being tarred with the same brush as the climateers. The 'hockey team' and their fellow travelers are saying that their faulty logic, ridiculous data collection methods, political activism, blindness to conflicts of interest, egregious political skullduggery and fundamental dishonesty are the norm in science. They were not the norm in any science I was involved in.

    1. NomNomNom

      "All their arguments are empty hand-waving. If they had *hard*, *scientifically sound* evidence, they would present it."

      They do. Read the IPCC reports for example.

      Where you are no doubt confused is that like most "skeptics" you imagine there is a single simpistic "Is AGW true" issue here where in fact there are multiple issues.

      Is the climate changing? yes and there is 'overwhelming evidence'.

      Are humans contributing to climate change? Yes again with overwhelming evidence.

      Are humans going to drive significant climate change with continued emissions? Very likely, yes based on overwhelming evidence and with a "consensus of experts" who have been convinced by this evidence. Do we know for sure what will happen? No. Are models perfect. No. Are models wrong? Yes. In many ways.

      "What?" I hear you say - How can the models be wrong and yet the evidence for human driving of climate be overwhelming? Because that is not simply based on models, plus the models are not wrong enough to preclude that. They are wrong enough to prevent details of what will happen being known.

      "If you read through enough of the Climategate Emails, you will see that the climate scare mongers have so little faith in their own work that they feel it necessary to 'game' peer review."

      Not true. Try to actually read the emails, not just the out of context quotes skeptics take from them. The scientists didn't game peer review - they complained about papers they thought are rubbish >>including cases where they thought *skeptics* had subverted peer review<<. Yes that's right, if you want to take the emails at face value of what the scientists actually thought.

      "Some went so far as to break the law to prevent anyone skeptical from reviewing their work."

      There was a lot of animosity between certain people, largely due to accusations of fraud being made. That impaired judgement when it came to giving those people data.

      Has no relevance to the science however. Their work has been reviewed and vindicated. BEST replicated Phil Jone's temperature record work for example and in fact found more warming. Clearly then the idea that Jones has gamed the data to make it show more warming is completely false.

      FOI violations do not affect the actual science. In fact the whole focus on FOI laws rather suggests desperation on the skeptics part.

  27. DJ
    Coat

    The simple version

    Is the planet warming? I don't know and I'm skeptical of those who say it is and those who say it isn't.

    Are we (humans) affecting the climate of the planet? See above.

    Does it make sense to reduce the amount of pollution we are generating?

    That would be a "yes". Duh.

    Silver bullet? Unlikely, but worth swatting for.

    In the mean time, maybe just turn it down a little bit?

    Simple enough for a non-scientist, like me, to understand.

    And simple usually works. Funny that.

    and now... back to the ultimate waste of time debate!

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Megaphone

    Never argue about religion, politics...

    ... or climate change.

    What irks me the most about the massive bandwagon jumping by politicians (especially Gore), is that the more immediate problem - one of massive scale pollution and de-forestation - has taken a back-seat.

    I'm not a scientist, I don't have any facts to present that either demonstrate man-made climate change is going to give us a doomsday scenario, or whether it's just a large blip in weather patterns.

    What I do know, reading between the lines of countless articles, is that dramatic and relatively fast climate change appears to be a reality of life on planet earth.

    The crux of the man-made climate change seems to be one of the "tipping of natural balances" - leading to a feedback loop of sorts. For example, sea ice melts due to higher temperatures, the water absorbs more heat, the sea ice melts more rapidly.

    But recent climate events have shown that the ice in both the north and south has regained it's extent during recent winters, or, at least, is nowhere near as dramatic as once feared.

    Then there's the clear evidence that civilisation flourished due to a warming period that still persists to this day.

    It seems highly likely that dramatic climatic change in the relatively recent past could be linked to volcanic activity, or even asteroid impacts.

    We just don't know - and scientists will readily admit that much of what we know about climate change is speculation. We throw our most powerful computers at predicting weather patterns - and still we cannot accurately predict the long-term forecast.

    How then could we possibly predict to what extent global warming will take?

    We can't. It's speculation, computer models of possibilities in a system so incredibly complex, it defies our understanding.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trouble with the Warmist Cabal is that

    we have absolute proof that they have publically previously lied to us. OK half truths perhaps.

    But they ask us to take their words on trust and spend billions.

    Trust is like virginity. Once you lose it then you don't get it back.

  30. swarmboy

    a sigh and a yawn

    for the love of god, why does the otherwise excellent orlowski (whose articles on media, music, the rise of the freetard, etc are almost uniformly great) ally himself to this particular form of idiocy?

    here are some facts :

    1) carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (it causes warming) - you can prove this yourself in a high school science lab

    2) carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased enormously since the world began industrialising

    3) almost all of the increase in carbon dioxide is anthropogenic (mainly from burning fossil fuels and deforestation)

    4) the earth is getting warmer

    5) the effects of this are unknown.

    there are two issues (and they apply to other gasses such as methane, btw):

    firstly, whether 1,2, and 3 are causing 4. the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it is. every other possible explanation from sunspots and solar activity to cyclical changes has been comprehensively debunked. again, and again, and again.

    the problem, of course, is that in order to "prove" that 1,2,3 are causing 4 you need to do an experiment, which brings us to point 5.

    since the main question - what will the effects be - being asked relates to the future, you can't actually do an experiment, so you have to build models. the scientists who build these models are the first to admit that these are, at best, a poor representation of reality, and that is why they build in massive margins of error.

    you build a model based on the science, see if it fits the data, see (most importantly) if it has any predictive power and if not, you tweak the model. not perfect, but the best we have.

    as for intellectual honesty / corruption, the climate change sceptics are among the least intellectually honest groups you are likely to find - up there with young earth creationists and 9/11 truthers. they are allied with the worst kind of right wing nut-jobs, ayn-rand-reading crazies and tea party whackos. oh and people like lord monckton who has apparently invented a medicine that can cure all known diseases. he's also emphatically not any kind of scientist. you will find that this is almost uniformly the case among sceptics (a word it almost hurts me to use - there is nothing sceptical about their position - it is pure received wisdom)

    and seriously, criticism of peer review again? what do you suggest that's better? the peer review process is far from perfect but it's a fuck sight better than the echo-chamber/circle-jerk of the blogosphere where half-arsed, long-ago debunked bollocks gets recycled as though it were even worth debunking again.

    furthermore the assertion that the previous "climate gate" was not investigated is a bare-faced lie. as orlowski knows, three seperate independent inquiries were held and none found any significant wrongdoing, and none - not a single one - found that it altered the scientific position.

    since climate gate - this latest batch of emails are from the same period - the evidence for anthropgenic climate change has strengthened. the world is getting hotter much, much faster than the models predicted.

    whether it will make the blindest bit of difference to you and i or our lifestyle or our choices remains to be seen, and even the bravest scientist would never claim to know for certain, and that is exactly the point. they do not claim to. they give probabilities based on the best evidence we have. they sometimes us "will" or "is" as scientific shorthand, and because it's pretty fucking boring having to explain everything, yet again, to scientifically illiterate lunatics who don't want to believe it, from first principles.

    most of the scientists, in this case, are operating under what is called the precautionary principle - you weigh possible action against the possible consequences. in this case, extreme uncertainty about the climate (and therefore availability of food, water, habitable land, etc), and consider whether it's worth maintaining the status quo or attempting to do something about the situation.

    science, on the whole, is the opposite of arrogance. its very reason for being is to prove itself and its practitioners wrong. almost every advance in human life has come through the application of science, and most of the bad shit that has happened has been because of dogmatic, willful ignorance of the evidence in the face of received opinion.

    the climate sceptics are the ones who cherry pick evidence, claim expertise in areas they are barely qualified to comment upon. when some real, genuine science by an actual scientist without an axe to grind or a paymaster to please , comes along to show a glaring error in the current scientific consensus, other scientists will want - indeed, will stake their careers - on being on the right side of the truth.

    now, go ahead and believe whatever the fuck you want to believe. just don't claim it's science.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Trollface

      @swarmboy

      Do not feed.

    2. Goat Jam
      FAIL

      @swarmboy

      You created an account here just so you could post a three page screed that essentially says "No, I'm not, you are, neener neener neener"

      1. swarmboy

        Pretty much, yep. Normally I stay away from stuff like this, but once in a while my anger exceeds my boredom and I feel the need to speak, how can I put this? not so much truth to power as facts to fuckwits.

    3. 42
      WTF?

      Yawn-why bother with denialists at al man

      I didnt even bother to read the article one knows exactly the kind of stuff AO will write. No longer even bother debating the denialists any moreeither, they behave just like creationists and anti vaccine, in that they are not experts and try and discredit the real experts because the facts dont agree with their world view. Then when their laughable claims are debunked they just move the goal posts to another bit of shameless rubbish.

    4. Feralmonkey

      @swarmboy

      number 1 wrong it does not cause warming it does slow down cooling a bit or this rock would be lifeless.

      number 2 the increase has been steady since well before industrialization.

      number 3 mankind's annual output of CO2 is less than 3% of the total amount released into the atmosphere.

      number 4 yes the planet is getting a little bit (roughly 1 degree c over the last 140 years) warmer and that is the result of coming out of a widely known phenomenon called the little ice age.

      number 5 see number 4.

      1. swarmboy

        1 - semantics. It prevents heat from escaping. Same thing.

        2 - incorrect. It has fluctuated dramatically, and It has massively accelerated since industrialisation.

        3 - state your source for this completely nonsensical figure.

        4 - again, incorrect. The models correct for cyclical fluctuations and other predictable factors.

        5 - believe what you want to believe. I'm not the one disagreeing with virtually every scientist in the world

        Also, co2 is not the only issue.

        1. Feralmonkey
          FAIL

          number 2 this since we started looking at it on 1959 and the trend has been the same since the early 1800's http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full

          number 3 from a real scientists web page http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/

          in addition there is this scroll down about halfway on the page it shows the total number (I was low by .225% curse me) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

          number 4 models are trash and my statement wasn't about models so you need to clarify this or hush.

          and finally number 5 I am not disagreeing with virtually every scientist in the world a bunch of overbearing narcissists that call themselves "climate scientists" yes but there are several scientific disciplines (geologists for one) where the majority of those scientists say the "climate scientists" are wrong. then there are over 31,000 scientists who have signed their names and placed their credentials to paper who say that co2 has at best minimal influence on real temperature.

          1. NomNomNom

            "number 2 this since we started looking at it on 1959 and the trend has been the same since the early 1800's http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full"

            No it hasn't. Even your link shows an accelerating curve. Why do you think it's called the Keeling Curve and not the Keeling Line?

            "number 3 from a real scientists web page"

            But he's a climate scientist. I thought you ignored them?

            Also you aren't factoring in that Nature absorbs more CO2 than it emits plus some of our emitted CO2. CO2 is rising about 2ppm per year and humans are emitting the equivalent of about 4ppm per year. CO2 is rising due to human emissions.

            "yes the planet is getting a little bit (roughly 1 degree c over the last 140 years) warmer and that is the result of coming out of a widely known phenomenon called the little ice age."

            Rubbish. We were out of the little ice age decades ago.

            "then there are over 31,000 scientists who have signed their names and placed their credentials to paper who say that co2 has at best minimal influence on real temperature."

            31,000 people with BScs in some subject or other but without expertise in climate. Out of millions such people who haven't signed.

        2. Feralmonkey
          FAIL

          P.S. co 2 is the only issue those who would tax the very air we breath care about and the only issue that your beloved "climate scientists" hang anything on they know they can't make a legitimate argument about any thing else so the play with and tweak models till they get the output they want and rush to the nearest microphone.

    5. James Micallef Silver badge
      Facepalm

      you had me along until this....

      "you build a model based on the science, see if it fits the data, see (most importantly) if it has any predictive power and if not, you tweak the model. not perfect, but the best we have"

      the scientists themselves acknowledge that the models are, at best, approximate, and yet what we hear from the IPCC, governments, Greenpeace etc is EXTREMELY specific over-the-top forecasts of doom. Quite possibly the scientists themselves have these extreme events as upper-bound possibilities in their models that are then seized on in the media, while the more likely, boring, 'slight-change' scenarios predicted by the models are minimised as not news-worthy enough

  31. Faux Science Slayer
    Holmes

    Faux Science Slayer

    Question: Where do you go when the whole world knows you are a dishonest, incompetent

    shill for the greatest FRAUD ever created in the history of the planet ? ? ?

    Answer: To JAIL for eternity due to Crimes Against Humanity !

    And this includes the monarch/monopolists who dreamed of this Carbon Commodity nightmare. But this is just the first of the 'big science' frauds to fall. Read "Green Prince of Darkness" on the true molecular erosion process that is the 'photovoltaic' rip-off. Then read "Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste" on the true Abiogenic origin of Earth's renewable petroleum and the 'peak' oil lie. Then "The Cure for Cosmology's Peptic Ulcer" for the non-expanding universe truth. Faux Science could never succeed without a unhealthy dose of Faux History. Read "I'll Take Some E Pluribus...but Hold the Unum" for the truth about the theft of patents by Edison, Westinghouse and Tesla. YOU HAVE BEEN SO LIED TO...FOR SO LONG !

    1. 42
      FAIL

      Well for

      A start one doesnt bother listening to the kind of paraqnoid delusions you wrote about!

    2. swarmboy

      thanks for making my point for me. anyone who could take these books seriously, and even not laugh out fucking loud when they hear "non expanding universe truth" needs medicating, not humouring. i can prove to you that the universe is expanding with 12 year olds' physics and a fucking etch-a-sketch

    3. Youngdog

      You are Joseph A. Olsen...

      ...and I claim my £5

      Have you ever read the novel What a Carve Up! by Jonathan Coe? I have a feeling it would be right up your street.

  32. OziWan
    FAIL

    Register stop giving airtime to views like this

    There are so many good factual reports that can demonstrate beyond any doubt that the anthropological effect on our planets CO2 levels are real. This will effect us all in the long run.

    The body of evidence out there is overwhelming yet some still insist on comforting themselves with the opinions of the ill-informed and the politically motivated.

    I have said it in the past but I say it again. There are also people out there claiming to be 'experts' that will make very convincing arguments that black people are more stupid than white people, that the world is flat, that God created the world in 7 days, and that jews in some way deserved the holocaust. the list is endless.

    Just because there are crackpots in the world does not mean that we have to give them any airtime.

    1. Grease Monkey

      "There are so many good factual reports that can demonstrate beyond any doubt that the anthropological effect on our planets CO2 levels are real. This will effect us all in the long run."

      You are missing the point by a country mile. What these emails show is that many of the reports are being fudged (to put it politely). If there is evidence that a significant amount of the data available is falsified then any reasonable person would have concerns that all of it me be falsified.

      You actually argue against yourself when you say that there are good factual reports. *If* that were true why would data have to be messed about with the prove the point? Why would anybody be asking the scientists to falsify the data if they already had "good" data?

      But the worst thing about your post is that you are, in calling for the Register not to report these concerns, advocating censorship. You are treating anthropologial global warming as and article of faith and are, therefore, no different than all those religious zealots who advocate that the teaching of evolution be banned in schools.

      It is important that *all* the data is open to scrutiny and these emails are every bit as significant as the actual recorded climate data. Indeed they form part of that data since they suggest that the data reported may not be the same as the data recorded. What you are suggesting is that it's OK to feed the public doctored data that supports anthropologial global warming since you believe it to be true so nobody else should be allowed an opinion. Way to take the world back a few centuries.

  33. Steve Brooks

    Maybe we just take the example of the scientists in Italy who were asked to predict the possibility of an earthquake, an inherently unpredictable event, as expected they couldn't predict it, and are now in court because they didn't predict correctly. In hindset maybe they should have said "yes an earthquake is imminent" even though they thought the opposite. Then, if the earthquake never happened they would have received some abuse from polticians who spent money safeguarding against it, but if did happen they would be heroes. No, they said what they thought, made a "guess" and ended up in court under manslaughter charges.

    Climate scientist could say no, but what if they were wrong, in 20 years they could be all languishing in prison, eating bread and water and slowly being submerged by rising water, waiting trial for not "predicting" correctly and sacrificing the lives of millions of people, right now all they get is abuse from people with no qualifications or power. Put someone in a lose/lose situation they do whats best for themselves.

    This comment says nothing about what I personally believe, it says a lot about what the general public expect from scientists, what they expect is for the scientitsts to say what they want them to say, when they say something different its obviously a conspiracy. Once you politicise scientific research its always the scientists that lose no matter what they do.

    1. James Micallef Silver badge
      Facepalm

      erm.... the 'justice' system in Italy is considerably below banana republic standards.

      Typical criminal legal case in Italy:

      Case for the prosecution, expected verdict and required sentence are leaked to and pre-published by the newspapers. The courts spend about 5 years going round in circles before confirming pre-published verdict and sentence. The appeals court then spend another 5 years going round in circles before ruling the exact opposite. The high court reaches a completely different verdict from either of both lower courts but rules it can't do anything because of the statute of limitations.

  34. Wilco 1
    Thumb Down

    Yawn, yawn, yawn

    When you can't disprove the science, attack the scientists instead... After all the claims in the previous round have been thoroughly debunked, the deniers stumbled back up for another round. No doubt even fewer people will listen this time. Next time nobody will notice.

    What I would like to see is those deniers actually doing some climate science rather than blabbering about global conspiracies and new world orders, making false claims and wild accusations.

    Oh right. The BEST study did exactly that, and confirmed the CRU temperature reconstructions are correct. So either all the sceptics are part of the conspiracy, or there isn't any.

  35. Hud Dunlap
    Trollface

    What about the B.E.S.T study?

    http://berkeleyearth.org/

    A study designed to prove that these guys really weren't lying.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Isn't attempting to micromanage global temperature a bit pointless? I mean what's the ultimate aim.. reverse what's been done? Surely money would be better spent in increasing our ability to adapt to climate change.

    1. Saigua
      Go

      Adapt or...mind the carbon and live on land.

      That's excellent adapting more, and I feel that some carbon-based life is up to it, but side-effects of doing things right (reducing filth, farming (well...buying from a local vertical farm) in concert with a like for natural abundance and adaptability) permit society, and mean a human die-off less harsh; plus transhumanism suffers less salt damage. With luck, buildings that can weather 100 years well will remain possible. Efreet cities and orbital arcologies' workup would need workup cycles shortened from 9000 to 9 years out; no model rockets, 11th grade is for sentient foil air bearings and a Masters' Defence for replicating your department's level of work in half their volume of night sky.

      Carbon from industrial sources is on par with...farming! For every ruiner tribe faking sewage treatment with pipes seaward, cooking alone and dieseling to work, there are farmers using land cleared in the last 50,000 years, hard put to emulate uncleared land productivity.

  37. Microphage

    biased opinion is never analysis

    "There was always an element of tragedy in the first “Climategate” emails, as scientists were under pressure to tell a story that the physical evidence couldn’t support", AO

    "Climategate scientists cleared of manipulating data on global warming"

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/08/muir-russell-climategate-climate-science

    "We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence"

    http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf

    1. ChilliKwok
      Meh

      "Independent" Inquiries

      You can find detailed articles on the many failings of the Muir Russell inquiry by googling "climate audit Muir Russell"

      Not least among them was that Russell was funded and paid for by UEA (£340,000) - so was in no way independent of the organisation he was supposed to be investigating.

      And contrary to claims the Russell panel was independent, most of the report writing was done by Geoffrey Boulton, alarmist IPCC contributor, ex-UEA employee and colleague of Phil "Hide the Decline" Jones. Boulton's name even appears 14 times in the latest batch of emails!

      No suprise the inquiry they failed to interview sceptics and published blatant lies about illegal data deletion: http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/22/blatant-misrepresentation-by-muir-russell-panel/

  38. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  39. Fading Silver badge
    FAIL

    Not enough thumbs to go round......

    Can all those commentards that have failed to read the emails and discuss the contents please down-vote themselves as I haven't enough thumbs to go round.

    The contents of the emails will not prove/disprove CAGW in themselves but do reveal a rather unpleasent and underhand side of some of the leading "scientists" involved (as did climategate 1.0) As such would any of the CAGW believers care to comment on the behaviour outlined in the emails?

    1. Some Beggar

      Nope.

      It's pure diversion. The contrarians have no argument against the science so they're desperately scratching around for ways to attack the scientists. I would be willing to bet a pint and a cigar that this second tranche of emails will have no more effect on scientific progress or scientific consensus than the first.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Up

        Fixed it for you

        "...political progress or political consensus..."

        No charge.

  40. Wayland Sothcott 1 Bronze badge
    Boffin

    5148

    "... .

    Hi Phil,

    Gavin and I have been discussing, we think it will be important for us to do something

    on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its likely that naysayers are

    going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere.

    Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature's embargo

    (i.e., we wouldn't post any article until the paper goes public) and we don't expect to

    in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure

    that the right message is emphasized.

    thanks in advance for any help!

    mike

    ..."

    Pretty cozy bunch of climate friends all working together for the greater good. Except they don't want us to know that they are so cooperative with each other. Some might call that a conspiracy.

    Icon - Lab goggles

  41. Ami
    Facepalm

    How Sad

    How Sad to see human beings having such a hard time dismissing BS they believed like a religion up until now.

    There will be no super HOT earth in the future, and yes glaciers not only will grow back, but will even become "scarily big".

    Ice ages do happen every 10.000 years and we are long due now, so stop believing in Global Warming BS and prepare something to warm-up your ar**se in the coming super cold.

    1. Some Beggar

      You seem terribly certain of all this.

      I assume you have a bundle of research to back up this assertion?

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Go fuck yourselves

    There is nothing "embarrassing" in those emails, nor was there anything of substance in the original set of emails. Every single competent person who looked at the emails concluded that there was nothing wrong in them. Even a KOCH-FUNDED study validated the work of the climate scientists in question.

    This is anti-science bullshit, plain and simple. And since the Register is participating in this farce, I'll be closing my accounts here.

    1. Fading Silver badge
      Coat

      3 posts in 3 years

      You'll be sorely missed. As to "nothing embarrassing"? I'd suggest you read them again - or as I suspect read them for the first time.

    2. pigeonworrier
      Coat

      excuse me Denis

      you forgot your coat. This must be it with the Daily Mail in the pocket. Close the door on the way out will you. It's cold out you know...

    3. James Micallef Silver badge
      Coat

      I'll get your coat. don't let the door hit you on the way out.

  43. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    During the night, when its cold, I’ll be covering myself with air containing 0.038% CO2 so as to keep myself warm. This atmospheric blanket is guaranteed to keep me warm all night long. /sarc off

  44. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    real science states

    The earth has been warming since the last ice age at more or a less a constant rate. Hasn’t sped up recently, in fact, as all four major temperature records show, it has slowed to a crawl and may even be entering a cooling cycle. In the meantime, the global cyclone energy index has been falling for three decades. Did I mention that weather related deaths world wide have shown a steep decline (except for those due to cold)? How about them crop yields we’ve been seeing, all up, and up a lot in the last few decades. By the way, since any warming is more pronounced in cold areas than in warm areas, and weather is driven by the differential in temperatures between areas, that would suggest that the temperature differentials would be smaller, leading to less extreme weather and a more stable climate.

  45. Bob J.

    It's becoming conspiratorial to suspect conspiracy, too well orchestrated.

    I had no idea that not only a substantial number of your readers but also your contributors are climate-change deniers. I thought that The Register was skeptical of blogosphere conspiracy theories. Now I see that I was largely wrong, that an article of such little cleverness, citing STOLEN emails now two years old or older -- emails that are repetitive of past emails that were equally insignificant -- can achieve top billing in your newsletter and draw a crowd of cretinous repeaters of almost the exact same speaking points, not even acknowledging (as would be the honest thing to do) that the "release" comes just the week before the next round of global climate-change policy talks. Karl Rove, George W's brain, always said that the best way to defeat an opponent is by going after their greatest strength and hammering on it until it becomes a weakness. A corollary is not to let the same thing happen to you. Unfortunately, the climate deniers greatest strength was to be skeptics, but not they have become laughing stocks. The more they argue that some snippy scientists at West Anglia signal universal conspiracy, the loonier they sound and their explanations, too.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      @Bob J

      Leaving aside your prose style (paragraphs are quite useful) I'll make the following points.

      1) The CRU *could* have released all of this information but practiced secrecy and deception. the fact that they have released the underlying data means people can see for *themselves* what the trends are, or rather what chain of filtering/running through software with undocumented parameters/deleting outliers were used to produce the final "product".

      2) The "Skeptics" could be AGW advocates greatest supporters *if* they were convinced. As more evidence emerges that results were tweaked, the peer review process subverted and a very cozy relationship between the advocates of AGW and the editors of certain journals all the advocates have managed to do is show they *have* mislead the general public, both at the behest and with the assistance of some parts of both governments and the civil service.

      When bluntly put as "You (the people) are in danger, give us *billions* to help you (but we can't really explain why )" don't you think people should be skeptical?

      The release of this archive could well have some political objective.

      Which (given what's *in* it) is likely to be achieved. Which perhaps advocates of AGW might have considered.

      Truth is a very deadly weapon.

  46. Phil Hare 2

    Open letter

    Dear all,

    I don't know if Climate Change is anthropomorphic or not. I know that the climate is changing, because frankly if it always stayed the same then I think that that, taking in to account the myriad of influences on our environment, would be pretty bloody weird.

    The reason I don't know if Climate Change is anthropomorphic or not is because I don't have an understanding of the evidence; I am not a scientist. However, I have in the past made attempts to find out what the evidence is, and asked questions about it, and every single time I hit the same wall: people want to debate my scepticism, rather than help me to understand.

    I was brought up to be sceptical of everything; to believe the evidence of the world around me, and to use the words of my peers only as an indicator for further study (at least, when the matter in question is of a serious nature).

    I realise that there has to come a point where a decision has to be made, and I try and cram in as much understanding as I can before I make it. But please, do not preach to me. Do not expect me to take your word for granted, any more than I would expect you to take mine. Climate Change may be anthropomorphic, and it may be that only through collaboration we can maintain the balance of this rock we live on. That collaboration has to start now, with those who may know more about this subject than myself or my peers - we who live lives in different fields, with different understanding - choosing not to belittle us for our scepticism, or scoff at our ignorance, but to point us towards the real, physical evidence. Evidence born of measurement, of observation of the physical world, and evidence not just that the climate is changing, but that I, and others like me, are responsible. If I ask questions, it is through a desire for greater understanding, not to challenge your beliefs. If you cannot answer those questions, then perhaps we need to look more closely at the evidence, together.

    What I may or may not believe is happening in the world around me does not change what actually does happen. That goes for you too. That, in this instance, is the only fact we can all be certain of.

    Sincerely,

    Phil Hare

  47. Stephen 10

    To quote Mann:

    "Our efforts to communicate the science are opposed by a well-funded, highly organized disinformation effort that aims to confuse the public about the nature of our scientific understanding. In recent years, the disinformation campaign has demonstrated a willingness to attack individual, climate scientists as a means of achieving a broader end: discrediting climate science itself. These attacks are rarely fought in legitimate scientific circles such as the peer-reviewed scientific literature or other scholarly venues, but rather through rhetorical efforts delivered by nonscientists, using ideologically aligned media outlets, special interest groups, and politicians.

    Scientists are massively out-funded and outmanned in this battle, and will lose if leading scientific institutions and organizations remain on the sidelines."

    So where do you sit in this picture Andrew?

  48. David Robinson 2

    Put up or shut up?

    We have had a great deal of useless chat here but has anyone done anything about it? How many of you have taken air samples to check what is happening?

    Well, I have and over the last few years I have found no change in Co2 whatsoever. at 311 ppm., this just north of Londo and bringing London Co2 on the prevailing winds. However, I have not taken samples from the top of an extinct volcano seeping Co2 and surrounded by volcanos of increasing action. This is where all the samples for the AGW figures have been taken. It is no surprise then that when we look at the famous "related trends" between Co2 and temperature increase that we find that the increase of Co2 mirrors the increase in volcanic activity in Hawaii rather than any increase (lately decrease) in earths temperature.

    Not long back it was reported (in the small print on inner pages and once only) that far from Co2 hanging around and increasing for hundreds of years it doesn't even hang about for hundreds of weeks! Between 2 or three months and just over a year to be more precise. No surprise there then but quite understandable since Co2 is one of the heaviest molecules in the atmosphere.

    It is quite surprising how much scientific work is ignored if it doesn't match up to the AGWs.

    Dave.

  49. David Robinson 2

    Sorry, I am David Robinson 1&2 due to probable cock-ups on my part

  50. btrower

    IPCC reports are only evidence of malfeasance

    Re: "They do. Read the IPCC reports for example.

    The IPCC reports are not evidence. They are documents, and political ones at that.

    Re: Where you are no doubt confused is that like most "skeptics" you imagine there is a single simpistic "Is AGW true" issue here where in fact there are multiple issues.

    The skeptics are not the confused ones here. Steve McIntyre was not confused about Michael Mann's hockey stick. It was incorrect and he proved it. Michael Mann is mathematically illiterate and Phil Jones can't even use a spreadsheet for heaven's sake.

    I am not really concerned about AGW at all. I neither know nor care what is happening there. What concerns me is the following *set* of questions:

    1) Is the climate changing so that it will cause catastrophe.

    2) If so, can we can do something to mitigate this.

    3) If so, should we? [Accommodation might be better.]

    Alarmists are obliged to *prove* all three to the point we are willing to bet Trillions of dollars and waste lives changing things. None of the three have even been convincingly demonstrated, let alone proven. In my opinion, all three are flat out false.

    Kevin Trenberth's astoundingly clueless notion that we should reverse the null-hypothesis aside, it is not up to skeptics to prove anything at all. It is up to alarmists to make their case and a partial case will not do. The fact that alarmists don't understand this is discouraging.

    Re: Is the climate changing? yes and there is 'overwhelming evidence'.

    Stipulated Arguendo, that it is changing. However, the change is *tiny*, gradual and unlikely to cause any harm.

    Re: Are humans contributing to climate change? Yes again with overwhelming evidence.

    This notion of overwhelming evidence is simply false. It does not matter how forcefully this is said or how deeply it is felt as a conviction. That does not make it so. If you have good evidence, let's see it. You do not need 'overwhelming' evidence to convince me. You just need a single complete and cogent argument and sufficient hard evidence to back it up. You do not have that. If you did, you would present it, rather than waiving your hands and piling on empty rhetoric.

    Even if we were contributing in some measurable way, it would be largely irrelevant. That we might be involved is neither necessary nor sufficient to support an argument for spending money to mitigate.

    Re: Are humans going to drive significant climate change with continued emissions? Very likely, yes based on overwhelming evidence and with a "consensus of experts" who have been convinced by this evidence.

    Don't keep saying you have 'overwhelming evidence'. Put up or shut up. Gavin Schmidt attempted to put up the chain of evidence at RealClimate. It was laughable.

    For the sake of your own dignity, stop referring to the intellectually and morally bankrupt notion of 'consensus'. One of the most irritating things about 'Climate Science' is that it turns everything on its head. Arguing from consensus is the business of scoundrels. It has no place in science.

    Re: Do we know for sure what will happen? No. Are models perfect. No. Are models wrong? Yes. In many ways.

    No argument there. You might want to mull that over some more before you insist we plunk down a Trillion dollars.

    Re: "What?" I hear you say - How can the models be wrong and yet the evidence for human driving of climate be overwhelming? Because that is not simply based on models, plus the models are not wrong enough to preclude that. They are wrong enough to prevent details of what will happen being known.

    What can anyone say to arguments like these? I think I understand what you are trying to say here, but it is too incoherent to address.

    Re: Not true. Try to actually read the emails, not just the out of context quotes skeptics take from them. The scientists didn't game peer review - they complained about papers they thought are rubbish >>including cases where they thought *skeptics* had subverted peer review<<. Yes that's right, if you want to take the emails at face value of what the scientists actually thought.

    I have no trouble reading and I did read them. The 'out of context' notion is an absolute howler. As the context expands, they make the authors look *worse*, not better. They are downright gruesome, much more so in context.

    Re: There was a lot of animosity between certain people, largely due to accusations of fraud being made. That impaired judgment when it came to giving those people data.

    If you review things such as the (described as 'ugly') attempt to get Chris de Freitas fired, you might change your mind. He did his job reviewing, supervising editing and publishing a paper in climate science. The paper in question presented evidence re-instating the MWP and LIA; things that were improperly erased by the (quite thoroughly debunked) 'hockey stick'. The 'hockey team' starts on the offensive.

    Re: Has no relevance to the science however.

    True. However, it does greatly weaken their arguments as to the merits of, and necessity for, the current regime of 'peer review' in 'Climate Science'. Besides, this is not really a dispute about science.

    Re: Their work has been reviewed and vindicated. BEST replicated Phil Jone's temperature record work for example and in fact found more warming. Clearly then the idea that Jones has gamed the data to make it show more warming is completely false.

    The 'hockey team' *say* that BEST vindicates them, but like most of their 'talking points' it is simply dishonest. Do yourself a favor. If you care about the truth, stop listening to the 'hockey team' and look at the evidence yourself.

    Apologists keep saying that multiple 'independent' investigations have vindicated the climateers and their science. The 'investigations' have not really addressed the science as such. To the extent they did, most did not even look at the arguments of critics. Investigations described as 'independent' were very much *not* independent. The UEA investigated itself. UEA vindicated itself, but if you read closely the reports at the U.K. government site you will see that they say "There is prima facie evidence that UEA has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000". The government declined to investigate this, but only because it had gone past the six month statute of limitations to prosecute. Penn State's 'investigation' of itself did not include contacting any critics like McIntyre.

    Re: FOI violations do not affect the actual science. In fact the whole focus on FOI laws rather suggests desperation on the skeptic's part.

    FOIA violations were used to defeat the scientific enterprise. Science depends upon replication and the 'hockey team' used FOIA violations to prevent examination and replication of their work. Their willingness to break the law to conceal their data indicates that there may be a problem with the quality of that data. This latest body of Emails contains the 'back and forth' between Phil Jones and UEA that directly demonstrates he violated FOIA to hide the fact that he had actually *lost* (to be charitable) the data being requested. If anyone is desperate, I expect it would be the 'hockey team', especially Phil Jones. He broke the law. He avoided prosecution only because of statutes of limitations, but he may well be unable to dodge civil suits.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019