The Warmergate Scandal

[Oddball]

See: Irony.

 

[Old Rocks]

Many of our readers will no doubt be aware of the long-standing dispute between Steve McIntyre and members of the climate science community whose data McIntyre is keen to get hold of.

For those of you less familiar with the story, here’s some background. McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog, is best known for questioning the validity of the statistical analyses used to create the ‘hockey stick’ graph. The ‘hockey stick’ is the graph that illustrates the past 1000 years of climate based on palaeo proxy data and was published by Penn state climatologist Michael Mann and co-authors in Nature back in 1998.

McIntyre versus Jones: climate data row escalates

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it? - Phil Jones, developer of the UN's IPCC temperature history, 2005

Dangerous Deception?

The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

We've lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests

Yes, McIntyre, in spite of numerous studies that have confirmed the hockey stick graph is still making a ass of himself. Here is a new study from the November issue of the Scientific American. If this fellow can develop independent data, why can't McIntyre? Could it be because the people he is whoring his credentials too are not interested in real answers, only in creating doubt.

Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American

The “hockey stick” graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

The hockey stick came to life in 1998 thanks to the work of Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University, and his colleagues (and many other climate scientists who subsequently refined the graph). Reconstructing historical temperatures is difficult: investigators must combine information from tree rings, coral drilling, pinecones, ice cores and other natural records and then convert them to temperatures at specific times and places in the past. Such proxies for temperature can be sparse or incomplete, both geographically and through time. Mann’s method used the overlap, where it exists, of recent proxy data and instrument data (such as from thermometers) to estimate relations between them. It calculates earlier temperatures using a mathematical extrapolation technique [see “Behind the Hockey Stick,” by David Appell, Insights; Scientific American, March 2005].

 

[Oddball]

* Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)

- Bishop Hill blog - Climate cuttings*33

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. The Scientific American, Journal of Geophysical Research, ect. are all part of conspiracy to keep scientists from publishing their papers.

Time for you to don your tin hat and get back under the bed.

 

[Oddball]

Good God, are you fucking stupid.

*Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)

*Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

* Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

- Bishop Hill blog - Climate cuttings*33

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, we have research and no, you can't see it.

Trust us, you're responsible for the recent cooling trend in the Great Climatic Googly Moogly.

 

[Oddball]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hftsk4gWqI&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Midnight Marauder]

but this would be a global conspiracy that and would of required a real control of media and the free dissemination of information and everyone knows that could never happen...so we can rest assured that there is no such plan to implode the economy...or lead us into wars of conquest under false pretenses

It's not a conspiracy, it's group think. For the most part you have only a dozen or so bad actors, the rest are just lemmings, or are dismissed as heretics.

Lemming is what you are, old boy. Just mindlessly repeating talking points and never, never actually researching the data.

I've actually done more research and studied more data than you can ever know, being a close examiner of this shit since 1990 at least.

But, of course that doesn't matter to you. When the large majority is crying chicken little on AGW, those are the lemmings. Actual independent thinkers such as myself are going, 'hey, wait just a minute. There's more holes in this theory than a sieve."

For the better part of a decade I was one of the very few voices in the woods......

The irony of your post is almost too strong to be real. Are you purposely trying to make a mockery of yourself?

 

[eots]

but this would be a global conspiracy that and would of required a real control of media and the free dissemination of information and everyone knows that could never happen...so we can rest assured that there is no such plan to implode the economy...or lead us into wars of conquest under false pretenses

It's not a conspiracy, it's group think. For the most part you have only a dozen or so bad actors, the rest are just lemmings, or are dismissed as heretics.

no it is absolutely a conspiracy if they knowingly falsify and control the dissemination of information to further an agenda..most sophisticated conspiracies contain a few bad actors and a group of well meaning dupes and yes men

 

[asaratis]

lol...
This is quite amazing.

It's going to take a while before all of this comes out.

The AGW weenies must be freaking out right about now trying to come up with some good spin to force feel the LSM.

This will have repercusions for decades.

No offense, but you're peeing your pants with glee over a few perhaps unethical scientists and making it sound like their is a world wide conspiracy on climate science.

And you want us to believe you aren't partisan.

First of all, I'm not "peeing my pants with glee".

Secondly, these few "scientists" are in the inner circle of "peers" who review and validate each others' work and numbers. If you have a number of people, however relatively few, supplying faulty information to everyone else, who subsequently base their further efforts on those bogus numbers, you have a BIG problem brewing.

This is what happens when you get your "science" from echo chambers.

Similar to the flawed intelligence that drove us to Iraq.

Good God, are you fucking stupid.

*Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)

*Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

* Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

- Bishop Hill blog - Climate cuttings*33

He honestly can't answer that question. I can. Yes, he is fucking stupid.

 

[Annie]

How to Forge a Consensus - WSJ.com

OPINION EUROPE
NOVEMBER 26, 2009, 8:02 P.M. ET
How to Forge a Consensus
The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.

...

But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged....

...

As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted to several colleagues in an email from March 2003, when the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!"

The scare quotes around "peer-reviewed literature," by the way, are Mr. Mann's. He went on in the email to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, re-define what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views. It's easy to manufacture a scientific consensus when you get to decide what counts as science.

The response to this among the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science we've got. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature.

Even so, by rigging the rules, they've made it impossible to know how good it really is. And then, one is left to wonder why they felt the need to rig the game in the first place, if their science is as robust as they claim. If there's an innocent explanation for that, we'd love to hear it.

The last paragraph at the very least, should give all pause.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

but this would be a global conspiracy that and would of required a real control of media and the free dissemination of information and everyone knows that could never happen...so we can rest assured that there is no such plan to implode the economy...or lead us into wars of conquest under false pretenses

It's not a conspiracy, it's group think. For the most part you have only a dozen or so bad actors, the rest are just lemmings, or are dismissed as heretics.

no it is absolutely a conspiracy if they knowingly falsify and control the dissemination of information to further an agenda..most sophisticated conspiracies contain a few bad actors and a group of well meaning dupes and yes men

Conspiracies by definition have to be "small" so I think we are in agreement and I stand corrected. The well-meaning dupes and the yes men are the group think practitioners for the most part, with probably a good percentage of them willingly dishonest, such as we see with warmers here on USMB.

The warmers and the birthers, birds of essentially the same feather.

 

[Ame®icano]

Inhofe Radio Interview Monday, November 23, 2009

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH6_hmEgfCs"]Climategate[/ame]

November 15, 2005 Inhofe Senate Floor Speech

I am a U.S. Senator, and a former mayor and businessman. I am not a scientist. But I do understand politics. And the more I have delved into the issue, the more convinced I have become that science is being co-opted by those who care more about peddling fear of gloom and doom to further their own, broader agendas than they do about scientific integrity.

I am committed to shining a light on their activities. Global warming alarmists will undoubtedly continue to accuse me of attacking the science of global warming – that is part of their game. But nothing could be further from the truth. I support and defend credible, objective science by exposing the corrupting influences that would subvert it for political purposes. Good policy must be based on good science, and that requires science be free of bias, whatever its conclusions.

 

[Ame®icano]

Reminder...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py6yay2c0Oo"]You don't know me...[/ame]

 

[Jay Canuck]

a couple more pages down the line and what do we have? - nothing but the opinion of posters and media blowhards.

"I am a U.S. Senator, and a former mayor and businessman. I am not a scientist. But I do understand politics." - he sure does!..... LOL!

well that does it I'm convinced the whole thing is a conspiracy!

 

[Oddball]

Speaking of blowhards...

 

[Jay Canuck]

when are we going to hear from the scientists who are supposedly all part of this conspiracy? - it would be interesting to hear what was in it for them other than risking their reputations!

 

[concept]

when are we going to hear from the scientists who are supposedly all part of this conspiracy? - it would be interesting to hear what was in it for them other than risking their reputations!

lol yeah they will come clean any minute now.


Fuck are you ever a dupe.

 

[Jay Canuck]

it's a shame for you Dud that the majority of American public are convinced that there is such a thing as man-made climate change and the ones in the small minorty that are left over I would compare to the type of partisan hack that would vote for a G.Bush third term.

 

[Jay Canuck]

when are we going to hear from the scientists who are supposedly all part of this conspiracy? - it would be interesting to hear what was in it for them other than risking their reputations!

lol yeah they will come clean any minute now.


Fuck are you ever a dupe.

are you saying there is no proof of a mass conspiracy? - I hope not ....why that would expose you and the rest of the blowjobs on this thread as the bunch of frauds you are.