THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Anyone who remembers (and it would be extraordinary if anyone did) my first post on this thread (here – 22 December 2007 at 19:55), will understand why I find this article (How Our Response to Y2K Reveals What We’ll Do About Global Warming) particularly interesting. Its conclusion:
And that post was nearly two years ago! I’m really getting old.
Here we have an E-mail discussing the best way to exploit taxpayer funding to reimburse expenses. Now I get why they traveled to exotic locations so extensively…..someone else was paying for it.
Warmist conspiracy exposed?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657
Which way to the trough (1252672219.txt 11 Sep 09)?
More “harmless” banter amongst these upstanding scientists.
Sorry Tonyb,
I found the above E-mail on in an Australian newspaper before I realized you had posted it on your site.
Re-evaluating the impact of this……there is tons of damning information here but it’ll be overlooked/excused by the most ardent global warming zealots. The good news is that the citizenry that are marginal on the topic will move a little further into the skeptic camp. This is a successful airstrike in the war upon disinformation put forth by the global warming propagandists, not the event that will cause their surrender and admitted collusion to provide corrupt data.
There is so much information, I could see this being discussed for weeks……and while the average Joe citizen probably is apathetic, people that are genuinely interested in following the topic (see weirdo’s like us) will help keep it alive.
Within the scientific community, the “scientists” that are involved in this morass will be ostracized as lepers……this is career ending evidence for these guys.
This looks a useful way of finding interesting emails
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/21/cru-emails-search-engine-now-online/#more-12978
Tonyb
I recommend Bishop Hill’s review of the CRU emails – (here).
PlaneStupid’s falling polar bear ad is worse then the bedtime story.
TonyB and Brute
Those CRU e-mails are something else!
I’ve just gone through many of the ones covering the MWP, and one thing stands out to me.
These guys are all PARANOID.
They appear to be on the constant lookout for any scientific report that might go against the party line and then conspire and jointly author papers in order to get “contrarian” reports debunked as soon as they are published.
Despite the fact that it was comprehensively discredited as BAD SCIENCE, they keep trying to resuscitate the “hockey stick”. To do this they fight against any report, which indicates that there was a global MWP slightly warmer than today, alternately using the two main arguments (a) it existed, but wasn’t global, and (b) it existed but wasn’t as warm as today.
Any study, which shows natural cyclical trends in our climate, is seen as a major threat and needs to be neutralized.
This is supposed to be “science”?
Politics (and a few billions of dollars) makes strange bedfellows. These guys no longer deserve the title of “scientist”. They are just paid party hacks and stooges for the IPCC.
Max
Robin (8382)
Yep. This ad is PLAIN STUPID.
Max
Reading through these E-mails it struck me that Michael Crichton’s book contains more facts than the data published by the CRU.
Robin, I, of course, remember your post referenced in your more recent 8376! Hard to believe it’s been 2 years! Thanks again, TonyN!
The CRU email hack story is truly fascinating. If these are indeed legitimate, then the big story, which will likely not be picked up by the MSM because of its inconvenience, is the (so far) obvious conspiracy of those involved to as Robin so elequently put it, ‘fit the data to the theory’. As so many here in this thread have postulated, (if these alleged emails are indeed found to be legitimate) there is a clear agenda of those politically aligned with the Green movement to hide, manipulate, and ‘fudge’ the data to support their politics.
As a side note, this fall in southern California has seemly been colder than past years I can remember.
Perhaps the BBC has gone into defensive mode, concerning the published CRU Emails etc?
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/11/cru-update.html
Extract according to Richard Black:
However, I rather like the simple logic of this comparative comment thereto from one Martin;
Funny the BBC didn’t have a problem publishing or embarassing Tory MPs expenses for duck houses and moat cleaning did they? That data was also ‘stolen’
Climategate
People will remember that I have been researching the long temperature records-(pre 1850/1880)
This is something that Phil Jones got a very hefty grant from the EU to research in 2002 (7 long sets) His results are only available by paying a substantial amount-most of the best information is behind a pay wall.
Hence I started my Little ice age thermometers project-linked here (click on the link to my site mentioned here, then on a red dot to access it.) This partly reconstructs the oroginal stations Phil Jones worked from that he refused to divulge.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-%e2%80%93-history-and-reliability/
It is obvious that the warm periods this article demonstrates came as a surprise to all concerned at the time (Moberg missed it completely)-but not to historians.
The first few exchanges from this link are particularly pertinent and appear to demonstrate how data has been hidden or even deleted should it prove inconvenient. There is very much more further down.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt
“Phil Jones to Michael Mann
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs (Mcintyre and Mcitrick) have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.”
A nunmber of things become apparent on reading these emails;
*Firstly they are genuine-Phil Jones has admitted this
*Secondly how self obsessed with their theories this tight group of very interlinked scientists are
*How extremely expiremental the ‘science’ is and how data is adjusted to fit the model
*How they try to demean papers they don’t like (Soon and Balliunas)
*How they try to prevent articles being published by calling in favours from editors of journals or ensuring material is ‘pal’ reviewed.(wegman was right)
*How bullying some of the individuals concerned are-and how much those individuals are disliked.
*The astonishing overarching arrogance
This is a truly shocking indictment of what passes for science within the climate world. They should be thoroughy ashamed of themselves and no amount of spin can disguise what they have been doing over many years.
No wonder they don’t like history as it disproves much of what they say. Why use a complex proxy when you have a thermometer available?
It also explains why PeterM never engages on the historical precedent.
Lets see how this plays in the Sunday papers today. There was a mention on page 2 of a popular daily on Saturday but nothing at all on the BBC or other channels (that I saw or heard)
tonyb
BobFJ #8387
The BBC’s excuse is disingenuous. Though University sources refuse to vouch for the genuineness of the mails, and Phil Jones said in an interview over the famous “Nature trick / hide the decline” mail that he couldn’t remember what he wrote ten years ago, RealClimate has analysed and defended the same mail with no such qualms. If RealClimate can quote and analyse mails, so can anyone else.
The Guardian seeems to use the same criteria in censoring comments to the Bob Ward article. (congratulations to Alex for getting a comment through). In this article, Ward, a PR man for Stern’s LSE outfit, says: “they [the e-mails ] only show that climate researchers are human, and that they speak badly in private about ‘sceptics’ who accuse them of fraud”.
The “only” makes the sentence a lie, since the e-mails show much else. Comments are currently closed, but may open up again.
Add to Robin’s recommendation at #8381 the admirable articles at
http://www.powerlineblog.com/
Nothing in the Sunday papers? A second scandal, more serious in that it touches questions of free speech and democracy. Here’s hoping for a chorus of deep throats from newspaper offices and Government departments. (In the comments to McIntyre mirrored at Air Vent, it is strongly hinted that this was a whistleblower, not a hacker, which changes the game.
Climategate
Having read several of the CRU emails (and especially the superb Bishop Hill blog), I’ve come to an interim view about their significance (and BTW, Brute, I’m increasingly inclined to believe you “leaked” theory, rather than the “hacked” assumption of the MSM – if so, all credit to the leaker). First, however, I think it’s still important to be cautious about their authenticity: for example, they could be basically genuine with key parts “salted”.
Anyway, here’s my interim view:
1. So far at least, they provide no direct evidence of deliberate, overt, malicious or fraudulent deception regarding the science itself (despite the suggestion of testing data against theory rather than theory against the data – see my 8340).
2. Rather they show evidence of bias, political activism, arrogance, intolerance of dissent and personal interest – illustrated for example by the apparent attempts to frustrate the FOIA process, to avoid outside scrutiny, to influence, even control, peer review and to ensure the world is getting the “correct” message. A personal reflection: I know well from my Y2K advocacy days how good, even addictive, it feels to be “doing a public good” especially when senior politicians are actively on your side.
3. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that these all too human attitudes are very likely to have infected the way they handle the science: e.g. by bias in the observation and interpretation of data and the slanting of assumptions on which climate models are based – both, of course, seriously affecting the results.
PS to JZ: I suppose I’m less surprised that you remember that early posting of mine – but then you are the old timer here.
Well the silence is deafening in the media. The story has even dropped off my google news page.
Between the “data hack” stories and the over the top skeptic “hoax” stories, there’s a real chance that this scoop will fail to have the impact that it deserves. I cannot believe my eyes at what is being written on some posts e.g. http://www.examiner.com/x-12720-DC-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d21-Email-hackers-tried-to-create-mock-climate-blog where the selfadmittedly cautious/naive author says “Many of the e-mails that appear incriminating on the surface did not seem so when explained more fully to reporters by the scientists.”
Can I re-activate a comment from earlier? I’ve found nothing in the e-mails to warrant the word “hoax” or “scam” in the strict sense that these guys have evidence that it’s not happening and are covering it up wholesale. They clearly believe in AGW and so, to them, the ‘ends justify the means’.
The narrative complexity of this issue is reflected by the number of warmer blogs going to town on the semantics of the word ‘trick’ whilst at the same time ignoring the semantics of the words ‘hide the decline’.
TonyB – it’s a good list, but IMHO we need to separate out the real issues from normal science:
*Secondly how self obsessed with their theories this tight group of very interlinked scientists are
*How they try to demean papers they don’t like
*How bullying some of the individuals concerned are-and how much those individuals are disliked.
*The astonishing overarching arrogance
Whilst you might not like the above, this is practically a definition of academia. (and not just recent). Calling ‘foul’ on this will only cause eyes to roll. Similarly those going to town on the budgets or even the sick John Daly jibe just dilute the real conclusion.
IMHO these are the key points that you raise:
*How extremely [expiremental] (better “interpretational/ subjective”) the ’science’ is and how data is adjusted to fit the model
i.e. interpretation is all, it’s not basic physics as many claim. Their hubris reflects their bias.
*How they try to prevent articles being published by calling in favours from editors of journals or ensuring material is ‘pal’ reviewed.(wegman was right)
i.e. they are perverting the (already weak) peer-review process within their field
Other key points:
– their complicity in distorting the IPCC process – excluding one or acceding another in time for the next report.
– the political/activist parts: links with NGOs – the letter drafting for example.
That’s my two-penneth. I’ve ignored the tax issue that some have referred to, only ‘cos in the end that’s how they got Al Capone. But the worst that could come from this is for Phil Jones to be sacked as a ‘renegade’. There is a systemic problem here which is likely to be missed if we go off on all tangents.
BTW the only place I’ve seen any attempt to classify the ‘bad’ quotes is:
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html
But even this blurs the issues I raise here. Sadly I don’t have any more time until next weekend to go into the detail.
I missed out the whole FoIA stuff which itself could precipitate this to its rightful status.
This is a timely document from just before ‘Climategate’:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_science_corrupted.pdf
As some of you may recall I am in the middle of correspondence with my MP. I updated him yesterday and will continue to every couple of days or so until I get a sensible answer. We can not have the media jumping all over expenses or any other leak and ignoring this one.
It suggests we have some form of Government interference. I’m sure you all recall how this Government behaved over the leaking of the embarrassing home office material.
It was also this Govt that made a big thing of saying it would protect whistle blowers. There is so much here for the press to get their teeth into it hard to believe that its silent on the matter without some pressure being brought to bear.
Also the leaked material will have a bearing on the complaints about the recent CO2 advertisements.
While I don’t believe that these E-mails will end the debate regarding this topic, I do believe that amongst the scientific community and many politicians, they will have a significant negative impact.
Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
NOVEMBER 21, 2009, 3:39 P.M. ET
Brute 8395
Brute I think most people share you view. But some of the leaked material is stupefying. I just don’t know where to begin. Certainly our Politician’s will be in a very difficult position, and are going to find it harder and harder not to listen.
The reaction of our press is currently mystifying me. Do we think they are checking out the legalities or are they coming under pressure to back off?
Robin
I did some checking on the UK Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 2005. After reading through the “hacked” emails, it appears that some records were destroyed by individual scientists. Then there is the temperature record data that Hadley “lost”.
My question: Have there been any legal violations here? If so, are these likely to be prosecuted? Will the fact that the files disclosing possible violations were obtained illegally make them inadmissible as evidence?
Here is what I have been able to download on FOIA:
FOIA is an “act to make provision for the disclosure of information held by public authorities or by persons providing services for them” (ex. private companies or individuals performing government contract work).
The FOIA came into force on January 1st 2005. It is fully retroactive and apples to all information of any age, not just that created after January 2005. The FOIA is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice.
The Act gives the public a general right of access to information held by public authorities.
It gives individuals the right to ask any public body for all the information they have on any chosen subject. And unless there’s a good reason, (i.e. public interest against disclosure of the relevant information) they have to provide the information within a month
FOIA creates a general right of access, on request, to information held by public authorities (Schedule 1 of the act sets out a long list of the authorities covered by the act). However, there are numerous exemptions. Some of these are absolute; some are qualified, which means the public authority has to decide whether the public interest in disclosing the relevant information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. An applicant for information who considers that a request has been wrongly rejected may apply to the Information Commissioner, who has the power to order disclosure.
The duty to communicate and the public interest test:
Under section 1(1)(b) of the FOIA, in response to a request, an authority must communicate information it holds. There is no need to comply with that provision where “the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information” (section 2(2)(b).
Destruction of data and penalty for violation:
Any public officials found guilty of destroying any emails or records they know to be requested by a member of the public will be charged with a criminal offense.
Public officials could face fines of up to £5,000 for “altering, erasing, or defacing” records requested.
The issue of retaining the right information and controlling the destruction of the rest under the Data Protection Act of 1998 also became of heightened importance under FOIA. If asked, institutions will need to be able to justify why information was destroyed and to demonstrate that it was done so as part of a controlled business process and not on an ad hoc basis or on the whim of an individual member of staff.
Will this become a legal case, or is it only a minor embarrassment for the individuals involved?
Max
Robin
BTW I have asked GS over at RC basically the same question.
He responded to my earlier post on “whistle-blowers”
So I asked him:
Max
Peter Geany,
Others here will most likely disagree with me, but the simple truth is that the science does not matter to the “Press”……they support the agenda/movement….science be damned.
Therefore, they will not report or publicize anything that will paint either these scientists, or the “science” that they produce, in a bad light.
I’ve have my opinions as to why……probably best to leave that to another post.
Suffice it to say, short of Al Gore or any of these scientists publicly stating that they’ve “made the whole thing up” (which these E-mails essentially do) probably wouldn’t deter the media or their sycophantic global warming apostles from “keeping the faith” and continuing to following their apocalyptic, global warming doctrine……they support the proposed “solutions” to man made global warming (for others, not themselves).
Rational scientist and rational citizens (voters/businessmen) may not be so easily led.
Peter Geany: you say, “some of the leaked material is stupefying“. I disagree: I’m not at all surprised at what’s been revealed. The only surprise is that it was.