I am reluctant to post on issues related to climate change and global warming. Disagreement over that issue gets heated (pun not intended) almost immediately, and I always get the feeling that the disagreements are not really about the science but about something else.
This blog post isn’t really about the scientific issue. It’s about the scientists. Have a look at Ian Wishart’s blog here and then here. See also how the story is taking off around the world either here or here, or via a simple Google search. This is very big news for anyone interested in climate change / global warming.
The very short version of the story: The University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre had its computer system hacked, and large amounts of data was copied. Among that data are emails between scientists promoting man made global warming – dating back intot he mid 1990s until recently – discussing ways in which they can (and now have, as these emails are historical) deliberately distort their figures to overstate the evidence for “global warming” (their choice of terms).
Don’t take my summary as Gospel. Check those links. Search out more sources. This is genuine. If the scientific community takes science seriously, some careers are about to end and some views are about to be reconsidered (inasmuch as those views were fuelled by this manipulated “research”). Whether these guys are right or wrong, this sort of thing cannot ever be tolerated. I guess we’re about to see how seriously the climate change community is about science.
Are those research grants more precious than truth? Let’s watch and see. But be assured – people really are watching.
Similar Posts:
- Clarifying the libel policy
- Kid and his dad: 1, Global Warming: 0
- Misplaced fury over "unethical" critique of Global Warming
- Climategate – How the scientific community is responding
- Food miles or political mileage?
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Tags: global warming, science
My question of course is thus:
Does one unethical act or organisation call every other fact into question? If this was the case, and to allude to your “There are no real Scotsmen” post, wouldn’t the horrors visited on the human species by religion in the past call religion into question today?
Scientists are human. They make bad calls and screw up like the rest of us. I have followed your links on the matter and searched a little as well. Your links are all anti-global warming sites, and somewhat subjective in their viewpoint (to put it nicely).
There is so much pressure for global warming/climate change to be found to be nothing to do with humans, that any mistake, whether tiny, or like this HUGE is grabbed and run with as a matter of course.
Whether the scientists lied, did something unethical or whatever, doesn’t change the fact that the world is looking at an average 6°C rise in temperature by 2100.
How about we stop debating whose fault this is and just accept it’s happening and perhaps try to do something about it?
The irresponsible thing to do with a story like this is to line up with one’s ideological allies, cherry pick and spread the rumours. Particularly if it fits in with one’s own agenda of promoting a “conspiracy theory” approach to climate change research and honest scientific endeavour.
The responsible thing to do is put the whole thing in context, recoginise there is a battle going on over the scientific data at the moment. In particular their are ongoing attempts to discredit the data – often dishonestly presented.
Ian Wishart is not a reliable source of information in this area as any reading of his language and emotive phrases will show. He is also notorious for his cherry picking and quote mining. – as any objective reading of his recent book reveals.
There is of course more balanced reporting of this hacking – such as the Guardian article “Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists”
And what about this comment from Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit:
“The following email, which I can confirm is genuine, has caused a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct +is 0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.”
The first thing to point out is that this refers to one diagram – not a scientific paper – which was used in the World Meteorological Organisation’s statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 (WMO-no.913).
The diagram consisted of three curves showing 50-year average temperature variations for the last 1000 years. Each curve referred to a scientific paper and a key gives their details.
Climate records consist of actual temperature records from the mid-19th century and proxy data (tree rings, coral, ice cores, etc) which go back much further. The green curve on the diagram included proxy data up to 1960 but only actual temperatures from 1961 onwards. This is what is being discussed in the email.”
The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”
This situation is not as simple as you portray – it never is. Nor is it as damning as you suggest as any honest reading of the alleged emails will show.
As this “plays out” I am sure your ideas of “manipulated research” and “ending of careers” will be proven to be a premature knee-jerk reaction revealing a preconceived attitude towards honest scientific work.
Ken
I am not interested in poisoning the well. From what I have seen in those emails, it looks clear that:
1) The information in the results presented to the public was not correct.
2) Those responsible for the accurate presentation of said info knew that it was incorrect, and how it was incorrect.
3) Those people brought it about that the informationw as correct for the purpose of creating a certain impression.
Regardless of the anti climate change bogeymen who have distracted you, Ken, if those three things are true, as an initial but fairly impartial reading of the facts seems to show, then the situation is as serious as I have said.
The reality is that I don’t think any careers will end. I suspect these actions will be rationalised and downplayed – and your comments suggest to me just how this will be done.
Funny how when the church tries to explain its gaffs no explanation could ever be adequate, but when scientists mislead people intentionally in the name of climate concern, any explanation will do.
“Funny how when the church tries to explain its gaffs no explanation could ever be adequate, but when scientists mislead people intentionally in the name of climate concern, any explanation will do.”
Really? I have met many, christian and non christian who are happy to rationalise the excesses and mistakes of the church by any means possible – most recently being our friend Bishop Brian on TV One.
You’re right Glenn, misleading information was concocted and then protected, and this is bad, yes. But it’s not exactly new and not exactly specific to science … examine the way the “church” reacts to any moral issue …
1) The information in the results presented to the public was not correct.
2) Those responsible for the accurate presentation of said info knew that it was incorrect, and how it was incorrect.
3) Those people brought it about that the informationw[sic] as correct for the purpose of creating a certain impression.
This can be applied to anything of course, both inside the church and out – the public furor over “GE” is a good example.
Yes this will be rationalised and downplayed, yes that’s not right, but if you’re going to call for accountability in these things, call for it across the board – abortions, teaching creationism as science, tolerance, homosexuality, contraception … in all of these areas the christian church has (and in some cases still is) mislead the public, knowingly and for the purpose of creating a certain impression.
You say this post isn’t about the science, it’s about the scientists .. but as I said up there, scientists are human, with humanities lack of judgement and propensity for mistakes.
Science doesn’t, unlike religion, demand to be the one and only truth.
“Really? I have met many, christian and non christian who are happy to rationalise the excesses and mistakes of the church by any means possible – most recently being our friend Bishop Brian on TV One.”
ValHallen, I was talking about Ken and other vocal opponents of religion. What I was getting at is that they don’t seem to accept any excuse or explanation for a religious group doing something wrong, but when it comes to scientists who were acting in the name of a “holy cause” that theys upport, suddenly the threshold for what counts as a decent rationalisation becomes very low indeed.
And actually, science does demand, like religion, to be the one and only truth – in that it denies claims that are in conflict with what science deems correct. I don’t complain about this, of course. It’s quite appropriate.
Glenn – my mistake. I apologise, I misread you there.
Funny Glen – this seems to be about religion to your – rather than slandering honest scientific work. That’s what concerns me – I am not at all interested in religion here.
So I won’t fall into that trap.
But you have made specific charges and I ask you to back them up (I often find people making extreme charges like this don’t actually have evidence for them – so excuse my evidence-based approach).
You claim “1) The information in the results presented to the public was not correct.” Well the data getting to governments and the public comes from the review process of the IPCC. This uses published, peer reviewed material (not emails – FFS). The IPCC reviewing is itself peer reviewed – pretty thorough.
Where is your evidence that any of the data coming out of this process is knowingly incorrect.? Not mistaken – knowingly falsely presented?
“2) Those responsible for the accurate presentation of said info knew that it was incorrect, and how it was incorrect.” Evidence please? Now, it’s one thing to talk loosely in an email. That happens all the time. But where is your evidence that the information in the peer reviewed papers and the IPCC summaries was known to be incorrect but falsely presented as correct?
Your last point 3 is a bit meaningless. It implies that scientist publish their data to produce a “certain impression.” Strange, because these papers can be interpreted individually to support different opinions on anthropogenic global warmning.
The IPCC has had the task of reviewing them all and coming to an over-all conclusion. They have been quite tentative in their reports and only in the last report do they firm up their conclusion that current global warming is “most probably” caused by human activity.
I think you are pushing your own ideological, anti-science, agenda here by resorting to the common tactic of sneering accusation.
Kenn, about religion? No.
If you’re going to simply ask me to reproduce the contents of the now publicly available emails (much to the embarrassment of the authors!), I decline. If you’re going to simply switch into denial mode, that’s up to you, but I have no interest in simply copying and pasting that which I have linked to. Honest readers have access tot he information in full, and will see exactly what I’m talkimg about.
You are hilarious with your charge of “anti-science” every time any issue of science comes up where you disagree with someone. I haven’t even offered an opinion on the actual truth of the larger claims about climate change. You are being reactionary and riding that hobby horse, as usual. Fudging one’s data, not THAT is anti-science!
No evidence, then?
You don’t have anything more than I do. Just a different interpretation agenda.
No evidence. Sure. Let’s call the facts, available to all, no evidence (well, you can, Ken, I prefer not to).
But the very idea that I – who have not so much as taken a stance on climate change in this blog post – am being “anti-science” just because I believe, based on available facts that everyone can inspect, that bad science has been done here by manipulating data presented so as to give a different impression than the impression that the real data would, in the view of the scientist(s) involved, have produced. Anyone defending such actions is anti-science.
CRU director admits the leaked emails/files are genuine:
http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d20-CRU-director-admits-hacked-files-genuine
I bet the motive is funding. The motive is always funding.
My charge of you anti-science position has got nothing to do with your understanding of the climate science data or conclusions.
It is you claim in the heading of climate scientists caught lying and your connection with what scientists are communicating to the public.
This is not supported by my reading of the emails. Your claim is simply a sneering charge without proper evidence. Similar to your unsubstantiated cla that Galileo was wrong.
“This is not supported by my reading of the emails.”
Oh, I have no doubt of that!
People like Ken make big noise about the ‘wedge document’. See CSC official response: The “Wedge Document”: so what? http://www.discovery.org/a/2101)
But now, their fellow scientists have been caught lying (big time), skewing data, involving tax fraud, and this secret had been kept for years.
But here’s whats interesting:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/the-biggest-scandal-of-all-is-this.html
“the biggest scandal to erupt from CRUHACK is the death of peer-reviewed climate science.
We now all know – the entire industrialized world – that while global warming scientists and their supporters were publicly ridiculing skeptic’s arguments as “not peer reviewed” because – by implication – the arguments were not good enough, that in fact some of the top scientific advisors to the UN IPCC were conspiring (and that is the right word) to sabotage any attempt by other scientists to publish peer reviewed papers challenging global warming.”
Hey, Bob – you haven’t yet responded in our discussion oin Galileo (http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/galileo-part-2-yes-folks-he-was-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-5392). Given up?
For a more balanced media reporting and commenting on “climate Gate” have a look at my media links in my post Those “climategate” emails.
I guess dogmatism, and anti science prejudice must inevitably include conspiracy theories.
Hi Ken,
I may or may not come back to that discussion on my own term. What’s the hurry? I see you subtly conceded already on some points in that Galileo discussion.
What’s so dogmatic or anti-science about these leaked emails? It simply shows the attitude and sneakiness of the correspondence.
This is not about whether global warming science, or any other scientific topics. This is about dishonesty and tax/funding fraud of those climate scientists. Discarding data when it suits the agenda.
And the fact that you are excusing them now say a lot about you Ken.
Bob – those emails are just that – emails. Effectively domestic debris. Currently the scavengers of this debris have found only a couple of emails to rave on about. Very minor.
It’s the enemies of science, (noticeably locally 4 religious apologetics blogs) who are using this flimsy debris to smear the integrity of the science process. You have your own ideological reasons for this – and they aren’t honest.
Noticeably, even Glenn has not been prepared to present the email extracts here – let alone a sample of the many, many emails in this collection showing an honest scientific approach to data.
You should have a read of some of them.
Ken,
The Global Warming debate has nothing to do with defaming science, as this is also the nexus for those who want to refute this theory.
Go here
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
You will find 31,486 American scientists who disagree with this theory, which contains 9,029 with Ph.D’s.
What is the basis of these individuals’ disagreement?
It is the… SCIENCE!!!
Johnny, as Ken reminds you – check to see how many of those scientists are religious. That’s the really important thing. if they are religious, then clearly they are anti-science and not to be trusted.
Let us not try to sanitise that poisoned well, Johnny!
Johnny, you are diverting away fr the issue. The stolen emails are being selectively used to smear scientists workin on climate change. Glenn hasn’t even bothered to use the selective extracts to conclude that scientists are lying!
Science isn’t done by emails, petitions or gutter headlines. It’s a demanding and difficult process requiring validation against reality and severe and serious critique from colleagues.
Glenn you have a real need to drag religion into this, don’t you? I guess my identification of the religious motives of those who signed the ID petition still rankles with you.
Get over it.
Glenn, I am indeed sorry that I am defaming the good name of religious right-wing nut jobs, who would be Republican voting, if they only live in Union.
After all, how silly of me to question anything. I mean, we are just a non-thinking myth believing slot-machine, with a sign on us saying, “Fool Me!” Then it’s, Pull the lever… Down the hatch!
Just to affirm our ignorance, here is a link to a list of some of the “questionable” contents of the emails…
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
When a parent protects a child from harm, this parent is not against the child, in fact, it is love for the child that has motivated such action.
Ken, I can see that you are indeed passionate about science, then, in this instance, love it like a parent, by doing what is in its best interests, which is speaking out when it is being harmed!
“Science isn’t done by emails, petitions or gutter headlines.”
Gee, thanks for that. Here was silly young me thinking that these emails WERE the science that people are criticising!
That’s really how dense you take anyone who doesn’t share your view to be, isn’t it Ken?
Johnny – yes I am passionate about science. Research has been my career and I loved it. I am therefore willing to defend the integrity of sciece when it I’d smeared in this way.
And, no Glenn, emails are not science by any stretch of the imagination. My post makes clear that if this fiasco has been at all damaging to the scientifc credibility of the institutes involved in the public mind then there should be appropriate enquiries. I persanally can’t see any evidence in the emails I have read to support a claim of scientific fraud. But if evidence was found it should be jped on.
Meanwhile, have a read of the other emails stolen and you might appreciate that the selective extracts don’t represent the scientifuc process at all. Just people being human.
“Glenn, emails are not science by any stretch of the imagination.”
No kidding Ken. Who said otherwise?
Thanks Jonny for that link.
This one is interesting:
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]
Wow, sack any denier! Of course this is nothing by Ken’s standard … all in the name of science … we’ve heard that before
Have a think about it Bob. Just imagine somebody getting hold of your private emails, or Glenn’s private emails. Hell, just imagine them perusing the comments you and Glenn make here and elsewhere! Wouldn’t you be embarrassed about the inappropriate temper tantrums, the illogical arguments, the attacks on individuals, etc., getting into the public sphere.
Couldn’t someone with their own anti-Bob/anti-Glenn agenda selectively extract from those comments to support claims that you had your own agenda, that you were campaigning against people, that you conspired to suppress some information and misinterpret other information. That you refused to rationally respond to evidence and criticisms. Etc.
Of course, others would say the extracts just proved you were human.
Now, as I have said above. If these published extracts have caused any damage to the integrity of the institutes involved they should hold an enquiry. Determine to what extent these loose comments represented any real conspiracy to distort or withhold information. If any unethical acts are revealed the culprits should be dealt with appropriately. And in science fraud is considered a sacking offense.
As yet there is no evidence for this. What there is indicates that some climate change deniers are using the stolen emails as part of their campaign (on the eve of Stockholm – obviously).
Now, Glenn has denied any expertise in this area and an unwillingness to commit himself on the science involved (wisely). So his motive here is obviously an anti-science one rather than a climate change denial one. He wants to use anything (even something he doesn’t understand or has not looked into properly) to question the integrity of science – any science. (After all, look what he did with the Galileo affair).
A suspect your motives might be the same.
Have a look at the UK scientists comments in my post Those “climategate” emails and if you find them unacceptable – say so in the discussion there.
Ken you write
Ian Wishart is not a reliable source of information in this area as any reading of his language and emotive phrases will show.
Well the data getting to governments and the public comes from the review process of the IPCC. This uses published, peer reviewed material (not emails – FFS). The IPCC reviewing is itself peer reviewed – pretty thorough.
So when we are talking about a subject we should rely on peer reviewed papers published in leading journals on the topic and not emotional language of best selling authors.
I take then that from now on OpenParachute will stop promoting the work of Richard Dawkins.
I take it you will also stop dismissing the arguments of those who have multiple peer reviewed works as “jelly wrestling” because a blogger says so.
Your response to Glenn actually provides a good illustration of the very point he makes.
Ken, the way your mind works is truly stunning.
You believe that if a person isn’t commenting on the scientific facts, but rather the scientific integrity of a few people, he is “obviously” anti science.
Ken, I think that the issue is just that you’re not very good at arguing, so you resort to ridiculous attacks instead. I realise there’s no way to see that which isn’t insulting, but no smart person would ever use that type of reasoning, and yet you actually seem sincere. This is just idiocy, and this comment of yours isn’t the first time it has manifested itself. What’s even worse is that in the same post you suggested that other people might be embarrased if other people could read their illogical comments.
It certainly casts your other comments in an unfortunate light.
Ah Matt – your knee muscles are twitching again – and no-one even had to mention the name of that horrible demon Dawkins. You seem to see it everywhere. Talk about an unhealthy obsession.
Are you suggesting that Glenn has peer-reviewed publications on climate science?? Come on – give us some references.
And Glenn – just imagine someone stealing these comments and quoting you out of context.
“no smart person would ever use that type of reasoning, . . . This is just idiocy, and this comment of yours isn’t the first time it has manifested itself.”
Just imagine – they might actually start questioning your integrity.
The rest of us might just see it as you being emotional and unguarded – being human.
Ken… think before posting. Matt’s point was about double standards (you demanding of others when discussing a field that interests you what you do not offer yourself when discussing subject that they are interested in). Do you not even see that? Nobody said anything about me having peer reviewed pieces on climate change.
Chalk this stuff up to other people’s emotions if you need to, but the reality is that you’re just rambling and raving, grabbing at rhetorical straws. It looks like you don’t see the points being made at all.
P.S. You are very unlikely to be a psychologist. This is another case of you making assertions in fields that you know little or nothing about.
Whatever Matt was saying, and I agree he seemed confused, it seems to be quite irrelevant to your blog posts or the resulting discussion. He does seem to have an obsession about Dawkins though.
You agree with who? Nobody else said that Matt seemed confused. On the contrary, I indicated that I understood him just fine.
Ah, truthful representation.
“Have a think about it Bob. Just imagine somebody getting hold of your private emails, or Glenn’s private emails.”
Except that those CRU emails are not private emails. They are CRU/UEA emails.
The UEA’s FOI guidance to staff specifically states that all e-mails are potentially subject to release under FOI legislation. Staff are adviced to act acordingly.
And, Bob, a few of the staff are wishing they did now.
Still just imagine putting together some of the rediculous, extreme and emotional things said about science, Galileo and even me here.
Wouldn’t look too good would it?
George Monbiot, a fierce proponent of the global warming hypothesis, is calling for Phil Jones, who heads the CRU (from whence these documents were purloined), to resign.
He also wrote:
“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.”
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
“Still just imagine putting together some of the rediculous, extreme and emotional things said about science, Galileo and even me here.”
And you have done exactly that. And the said articles are still here, publicly accessible for anyone to read.
What’s funny is that Ken notes his own strong emotions when certain issues come up (as is evident from what he says), and then concludes that others must also be venting emotion in saying what they say.
That aside, Bob I think that the general public and the scientific community as well know full well that what Monbiot says here is true. Only someone in serious denial could imagine that this is just a minor glitch, or a case of people quoting things out of context. Someone explaining what they did do give people a certain impression cannot be turned inside out by an appeal to context. It is what it is.
Yes, I really enjoyed Monbiot’s atricle. It really bought home thecreality of thevsiuation and how silly the climate change deniers are with their intepretations.
O thought the satire was necessary – sometes ridicule is the best way to handle such people.
Well, I must get back to the programme on cults.
Ridicule is one sign that you don’t really have good argument.
Well, this has degenerated while I have been travelling. Although I did mis-read Glenn at the beginning of this comment thread, from reading the subsequent comments it seems that I have stumbled upon a long-running fight.
Also it seems to me that while one side tries and tries to get their points across, the other is looking for attacks on religion and belief that don’t really seem to be there – then dishing out scorn and ridicule for any slight, real or imagined, with the backing of their, obviously regular, supporters.
In other words, you’re trolling. Mostly seen in the 1 and 2 line posts dripping sarcasm and scorn, you’re looking for a knee-jerk response that will allow you to then ram your arguments and agenda home with the force of the righteous and just.
To present some reaction to the science side of the argument – my reason for returning once I got back to the internet – here’s a link:
http://futurismic.com/2009/11/23/those-hacked-climate-e-mails-good-scientists-poor-conspirators/
I have reporduced part of Monbiot’s article here – “Climategate – the smoking gun?”
Great satire.
What for Ken? Monbiot article is not that long and is available for everyone to read themselves. It does not need any spin from you.
Monbiot obviously still strongly believes in manmade global warming. So what? It is irrelevant to the topic.
The point is that he agreed that this is a scandal and he has called for the head of CRU to resign.
You’re just trying to move away from the actual issue.
Monbiot actually puts the “scandal” into context – in a way which is not flattering to the climate change deniers or the ideologically motivated who sneer at science.
*shrug* Nobody is sneering at science. As an observer of the global warming debate, it is absolutely obvious to me that the debate is about which point of view is better supported, not about whether or not science is a good thing.
So, Glenn, you will then write a post on the latest scandal reported by Hot Topic – NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientistc. The NZ Climate change deniers have been caught out lying, smearing NIWA and Dr Salinger.
Richard Treadgold, the original perpetrator of this latest attempted deception now admits he glossed over the truth (which he had been informed of years before by NIWA) but I don’t think we will see people like Ian Wishart back down or correct the press release – will we?
Now, this isn’t material taken from emials out of context. it is an actual report from Treadgod, repeated in full and circulated as a press release by Wishart. And it is a lie – easily proven by referring to Gareth’s material and the NIWA site.
So, Glenn, if you are honestly not sneering at science then I expect you to report in a post the facts of this latest deception. It’s important, significant, and shows the danger of ideologically motivated “research” without the normal checking of institutions, inter-institutional and publication peer-review. And it is the sort of proper research which determines what the real science is and which we should use to form a point of view (not look of support for a point of view).
Now, I will be posting on this deception, just as I did on the email scandal. I expect if you are honest in your assertions your will do the same. If you do so honestly I am very willing to withdraw my current assessment of your motives.
“So, Glenn, you will then write a post…”
That anyone could think that in order to not sneer at science then there is a post I must write, is a curiosity, but nothing more, and provides a window on some very strange thinking.
EDIT: I took a look at the link you provided. Oh my goodness Ken, are you serious? That any person could possible draw the comparison between this and what they call “climategate” is just crazy, and a sign of genuine desparation. The heart of the claim in this mini attempt at a backlash is not that anyone took data and intentionally manipulated it. What they are claiming – once all the false anger and rhetoric is stripped away, is that someone was careless. It’s an attempt to raise as much dust and noise as possible to make it look like “well they do it too!” As for the fact that you posted a partisan cynical blog on the hacked data and also a blog on this attempt to save some face, that hardly suggests that you’re pro science. As someone who has no horse in the race, this attempt to show that so called climate change deniers are just as corrupt as the folks at CRU is without much merit. It’s largely about PR and damage control, not science.
As for the dishonest attempt to explain all of Monbiot’s comments away as “satire,” it will not wash. Here is what Monbiot said:
Spin? Cherry picking? No.
You obviously do have the agenda I suspexted. The slander agianst NIWA is clear. These people are making slanderous chareges about the scientific staff inolved. and Dr Salinger in particular.
It is actually this that concerns me rather than conclusions about the anthropogenic contribution. We can always debate that by using the data. But these people have a firm comiitment to a concluion and desperately search for evidence to support it. In this they have no scruples, cherry picking and disttorting data as they did here.
But they have the cheek to accuse NIWA if distortion. They play the man rather than the ball.
And it is not aistake pm their part as the data had been expalinef to them in the past.
Still we now know where you are at, which “side” you make excuses for, align with.
No need for me to change my assessment.
Irony. On the one hand, your complaint is about me and my imaginary agenda. On the other hand, people should play the ball, not the man.
Yet another double standard.
“Monbiot actually puts the “scandal” into context”
I agree with you he put it in context. Here’s what he said:
“There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.”
The fact that monbiot still hold strongly the manmade global warming is out of context here.
That’s right Bob. The fact that Monbiot believes in man made global warming makes him a hostile witness, and his concession about what has taken place is simply being spun by Ken as “putting it in context.”
What Monbiot does is firstly to grant the point that the so called climate change sceptics are making about what has taken place, and then moving the goalpoast by suggesting that the only kind of letter that would be good enough to make him doubt what he believes about climate change is the ridiculously overt letter that he wrote in that article.
One concession followed by one silly comment is still one concession. Obviously it isn’t going to show that one view is false and another correct, but honestly should compel everyone to recognise this discovery what it is. People engaged in deception. They were found out. Let’s see the scientific community get up, brush itself off, admit what has happened, call for it to stop in future, and get on with doing science – instead of becoming spin doctors.
OK – you guys are discussing Monbiots comments without providing full access.
His article can be found her – Global warming rigged? Here’s the email I’d need to see
My brief commnent on it was here – “Climategate” – the smoking gun?
This was a central point of his article – the email which would convince him:
Monbiot concludes: “This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.”
Now other readers can make up their own minds (I know Bob and Glenn are intractable on this one)
“OK – you guys are discussing Monbiots comments without providing full access.”
Yet again, Ken, your passion is getting the better of your ability to observe. This claim, like others, is false. Check comment 36 from Bob.
I have therefore removed that very large block of copied and pasted text from your comment. Primary sources were linked to, and need not be reproduced in full here. You can do that if your own blog if you like. The reader can follow the link that was provided as soon as Monbiot was brought up, read the comments in question, and make up their own mind. Pretending to step in and make the discussion fair is just an act, Ken.
OK, I have now read fully throught the claims of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, claims against NIWA. I have also read NIWA’s response to those comments, and the NZCSC’s comments in reply.
Ken, what I have just read does not speak well of your honesty. Nobody lied in this press release, yet you were insistent that this was “a lie.” What a ridiculous beat up, trying desparately to show that the sceptics are just as dishonest as the people at CRU (and anyone as yet undiscovered, people who will possibly be more nervous now).
The NZCSC noted that data had been adjusted. They approached NIWA multiple times and sought an explanation. No reply was received. They therefore put out a press release, noting that data had been adjusted without an explanation given for that adjustment. Total lies so far = zero.
NIWA replied, giving an explanation, and perhaps out of embarrassment, claiming that NZCSC already knew the explanation.
Your claim, Ken, was that the person at NZCSC then admitted that he had glossed over the facts. That was a genuine lie. In fact The reply from NZCSC was this:
Time to admit the mistake, Ken. Or admit nothing, and prove that the error wasn’t accidental after all.
This is why I dislike the climate change issue. For some reason, people act like they have a great deal at stake personally, and an honest, unbiased comment is so hard to get. As a person without a horse in the race, I find it frustrating.
My last voent here. I have a policy of not commenting on blogs which arbritarroly delete or alter comments. You have done this with my last comment – obviously because it shows your own biss. You have Also previously deleted hotinks from my comments.
Your intgerity has been destroyed by these actions and there is therefore no point in my further participation here.
What an absolute joke, Ken. You (falsely) claimed that we were quoting someone without providing access to the source. You then copied and pasted the lengthy material from the source. I removed it and pointed out that there was already a link to that exact same material, and that you were therefore mistaken.
I draw the reader’s attention to my blog policy.
You then called this deletion arbitrary and acted like I was deleting your material. This is just silly, Ken. I’m sure it’s a pure coincidence that you decide to have a tantrum and storm out immediately after you are caught in a lie about the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (and to think you are making shots at other people’s credibility). Talk about credibility loss. I have a feeling I’ll get over your absence.
Ken,
We have what we call ‘link’ on the Internet that we can use to point to the full source.
Let’s face it. Your arguments failed too often in this blog, so you’re retreating, let’s call it what it is.
Bob, if you really wish to discuss things with me you can go to Climate change deniers live in glass buildings.
I don’t interfere with genuine discussion there by deleting or altering comments.
So no answer to being caught lying. Figures.
Hi Ken,
“I don’t interfere with genuine discussion there by deleting or altering comments.”
In my opinion, so does this blog!
Anyway, I just watched the exact spins of crugate on TV! Basically:
- Emails are just normal exchange between scientists
- Contains nothing that will affect Copenhagen
Too predictable of NZ media and government
Bob, based on what you’re saying I think (hope!) you meant “neither does this blog!”
Yeah that’s what I meant!
Those scientists dumped 150 years worth of raw data that was the base of their argument!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Australia voted down its global warming bill
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/4938