• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Professor Judith Curry has written thoughtfully about Climategate and what it means today. A particularly delicious irony is Michael Mann now being attacked from the left (the revolution devours its own) and being defended, in this instance, by Curry.


Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later

Posted on November 12, 2019 by curryja | 45 comments
by Judith Curry
My reflections on Climategate 10 years later, and also reflections on my reflections of 5 years ago.
Continue reading →

. . . The mainstream media and the Climategater scientists themselves claim complete exoneration by the various ‘inquiries’. Were they exonerated?
There was no exoneration by any objective analysis of the various inquiries. Ross McKitrick lays all this out in his article Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
“The evidence points to some clear conclusions.

  1. The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
  2. Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes.
  3. The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.
  4. The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.
  5. The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.
Is the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound? Many people, starting with the members of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had hoped this question would be answered during the inquiry process, and there is a frequent refrain in the media that the investigations affirmed the science. But the reality is that none of the inquiries actually investigated the science. The one inquiry supposedly set up to address this, namely Lord Oxburgh’s, actually operated under a different remit altogether, despite multiple claims by the UEA that it was a science reappraisal panel. . . .

 
Jack Hays said:
Professor Judith Curry has written thoughtfully about Climategate and what it means today. A particularly delicious irony is Michael Mann now being attacked from the left (the revolution devours its own) and being defended, in this instance, by Curry.


Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later

[FONT=&]Posted on November 12, 2019 by curryja | 45 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
My reflections on Climategate 10 years later, and also reflections on my reflections of 5 years ago.
Continue reading →

. . . The mainstream media and the Climategater scientists themselves claim complete exoneration by the various ‘inquiries’. Were they exonerated?
There was no exoneration by any objective analysis of the various inquiries. Ross McKitrick lays all this out in his article Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
“The evidence points to some clear conclusions.

  1. The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
  2. Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes.
  3. The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.
  4. The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.
  5. The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.
Is the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound? Many people, starting with the members of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had hoped this question would be answered during the inquiry process, and there is a frequent refrain in the media that the investigations affirmed the science. But the reality is that none of the inquiries actually investigated the science. The one inquiry supposedly set up to address this, namely Lord Oxburgh’s, actually operated under a different remit altogether, despite multiple claims by the UEA that it was a science reappraisal panel. . . .

Click to expand...

#5 in Mckirick's conclusions is an excellent summation of the current state of climatology, and as such, that final statement demonstrates the damage these people have done to serious researchers in the field.
 
Jack Hays said:
Professor Judith Curry has written thoughtfully about Climategate and what it means today. A particularly delicious irony is Michael Mann now being attacked from the left (the revolution devours its own) and being defended, in this instance, by Curry.


Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later

[FONT=&]Posted on November 12, 2019 by curryja | 45 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
My reflections on Climategate 10 years later, and also reflections on my reflections of 5 years ago.
Continue reading →

. . . The mainstream media and the Climategater scientists themselves claim complete exoneration by the various ‘inquiries’. Were they exonerated?
There was no exoneration by any objective analysis of the various inquiries. Ross McKitrick lays all this out in his article Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
“The evidence points to some clear conclusions.

  1. The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
  2. Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes.
  3. The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.
  4. The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.
  5. The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.
Is the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound? Many people, starting with the members of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had hoped this question would be answered during the inquiry process, and there is a frequent refrain in the media that the investigations affirmed the science. But the reality is that none of the inquiries actually investigated the science. The one inquiry supposedly set up to address this, namely Lord Oxburgh’s, actually operated under a different remit altogether, despite multiple claims by the UEA that it was a science reappraisal panel. . . .

Click to expand...

Judith Curry is a clown! Just ask any alarmist...........right?

It's a shame that her critics can't stand a opposing view. Science was abandoned after the politicians found that there was money to be made.
 
Worth a repost.

[h=1]Climate Science Proves Scams Don’t Die of Exposure[/h]Posted on 14 Nov 19 by TONY THOMAS • 9 Comments
Do my hard-pressed editor a favor and click the link to the original here 14th November 2019 Tony Thomas It’s the tenth anniversary next week of the 2009 Climategate email dump that exposed top climate scientists’ chicanery and subversion of science – and did so in their own words and out of their own mouths, … Contin
 

Climategate And Post-Normal Science

Guest Post by Michael Kile, It was an important moment in the Climategate saga. Yet few remember Jerome Ravetz’s damning critique of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) posted on WUWT in early 2010. Ravetz is an eminent American philosopher of science and an Associate Fellow at Oxford University’s James Martin Institute…
Continue reading →

[FONT=&quot]MK: Could you describe in more detail why you now consider so much of climate science “unsound”?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]JR: In my latest essay, Climategate: the unravelling and its consequences, I distinguish between Climate Science, which is fully aware of complexity and uncertainty, and the ‘CAGW’ (Carbon-based anthropogenic global warming) science of the small group that fed directly into the IPCC. That is becoming increasingly exposed as unsound, thanks to the critics on the blogosphere. The ‘Nature trick’ is the most egregious case, but there are others. Some now assert that the temperature records have been systematically distorted in order to produce an apparent rise – the simple method was to progressively delete the stations from cooler places. And now Arctic ice is growing in extent; and it seems that its decrease was more due to patterns of winds than to warming air.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The deeper problem for CAGW science is to show that there has been a sudden significant unprecedented rise in temperatures, over a long enough period to count as ‘climate change’ and not just cyclical variability. Removing the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age was essential for that programme. The very varied, uncertain and scattered field data did not really add up. And the models were exposed in 2000 as giving any prediction you liked, depending on the assumptions and conventions. The propaganda has always displayed anything warmer as evidence for climate change, and anything cooler as a temporary shift in the weather. After a while that loses plausibility.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To have a political effect, the extended peers of science have traditionally needed to operate largely by means of activist pressure-groups using the media to create public alarm. In this case, since the global warmers had captured the moral high ground, criticism has remained scattered and ineffective, except on the blogosphere. The position of Green activists is especially difficult, even tragic; they have been extended peers who were co-opted into the ruling paradigm, which in retrospect can be seen as a decoy or diversion from the real, complex issues of sustainability, as shown by Mike Hulme. Now they must do some very serious re-thinking about their position and their role.” (J Ravetz, WUWT, February, 2010)[/FONT]

 
Jack Hays said:
Professor Judith Curry has written thoughtfully about Climategate and what it means today. A particularly delicious irony is Michael Mann now being attacked from the left (the revolution devours its own) and being defended, in this instance, by Curry.


Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later

[FONT=&]Posted on November 12, 2019 by curryja | 45 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
My reflections on Climategate 10 years later, and also reflections on my reflections of 5 years ago.
Continue reading →

. . . The mainstream media and the Climategater scientists themselves claim complete exoneration by the various ‘inquiries’. Were they exonerated?
There was no exoneration by any objective analysis of the various inquiries. Ross McKitrick lays all this out in his article Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
“The evidence points to some clear conclusions.

  1. The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
  2. Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes.
  3. The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.
  4. The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.
  5. The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.
Is the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound? Many people, starting with the members of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had hoped this question would be answered during the inquiry process, and there is a frequent refrain in the media that the investigations affirmed the science. But the reality is that none of the inquiries actually investigated the science. The one inquiry supposedly set up to address this, namely Lord Oxburgh’s, actually operated under a different remit altogether, despite multiple claims by the UEA that it was a science reappraisal panel. . . .

Click to expand...

ClimateGate? Ah...I get it.

Terms stupid people use for $200, Alex?
 
The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.
 
Jack Hays said:
The time is coming (soon, really) when you will be ashamed of that post.
Click to expand...

Notice how rapidly they they are trying to move you away from that expose of warmist criminals that were posted 10 years ago?

Here is a stupid deflection he tried on you:

You do know climate change is real, right?
Click to expand...

Did I miss a secret handshake?

:lamo
 
Sunsettommy said:
Notice how rapidly they they are trying to move you away from that expose of warmist criminals that were posted 10 years ago?

Here is a stupid deflection he tried on you:



Did I miss a secret handshake?

:lamo
Click to expand...

There is no climategate. Lol
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]It’s Officially the Tenth Anniversary of Climategate – and they’ve learned nothing[/h][FONT=&quot]By Charles Rotter and Anthony Watts From Charles: It was ten years ago today that I personally first viewed the instructions to download the Climategate files from the anonymous Russian server. That set in motion a series of events still affecting the outcome of worldwide energy and environmental policy today. The whitewashers at the BBC,…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University*cleared scientist Michael Mann*of wrongdoing.Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."A*UK Parliament reportconcluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.The*National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded*there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.The*National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
 
Here's an extensive (65,000 words) rundown of the the FOI email release:

THE CLIMATEGATE EMAILS
Edited and Annotated by
John Costella​

It will take me some time to read through it all.
 
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.Factcheck.org debunked claims*that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.Politifact.com rated claims*that the emails falsify climate science as "false."An*Associated Press review of the emails*found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
 
vegas giants said:
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.Factcheck.org debunked claims*that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.Politifact.com rated claims*that the emails falsify climate science as "false."An*Associated Press review of the emails*found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
Click to expand...

Answering questions no one asked. Denying accusations no one made.
The rot exposed by Climategate was a pattern of corrupt actions and malpractice among some climate scientists. No more, no less.
 
Jack Hays said:
Answering questions no one asked. Denying accusations no one made.
The rot exposed by Climategate was a pattern of corrupt actions and malpractice among some climate scientists. No more, no less.
Click to expand...

There was no climategate. It didnt happen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom