Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 100

Thread: The Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later

  1. #1
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    84,043
    Blog Entries
    3

    The Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later

    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. . . .

    "Above all, not too much zeal." --Prince Talleyrand

  2. #2
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,432

    Re: The Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    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. . . .

    #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.

  3. #3
    Sage
    RetiredUSN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Norfolk Virginia area.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,715

    Re: The Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    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. . . .

    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.
    “It’s easier to run for office than to run the office.”
    Tip O'Niell

  4. #4
    Professor
    Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    USA - Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,570

    Re: The Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later

    I needed something outside of myself to believe in and I found in nature a kind of
    God an organization and a beauty that for me supplied inspiration. . Harrison Ford

  5. #5
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    84,043
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: The Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later

    Worth a repost.

    Climate Science Proves Scams Don’t Die of Exposure

    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
    "Above all, not too much zeal." --Prince Talleyrand

  6. #6
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    84,043
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: The Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later


    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 →

    MK: Could you describe in more detail why you now consider so much of climate science “unsound”?
    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.
    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.
    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)

    "Above all, not too much zeal." --Prince Talleyrand

  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    46,955

  8. #8
    Ass in a Hat


    calamity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    111,815

    Re: The Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    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. . . .

    ClimateGate? Ah...I get it.

    Terms stupid people use for $200, Alex?
    "Donald Trump is Jesus to followers of Jesus who reject the actual teachings of Jesus."

    Found on twitter

  9. #9
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    84,043
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: The Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    ClimateGate? Ah...I get it.

    Terms stupid people use for $200, Alex?
    The time is coming (soon, really) when you will be ashamed of that post.
    "Above all, not too much zeal." --Prince Talleyrand

  10. #10
    Ass in a Hat


    calamity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    111,815

    Re: The Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    The time is coming (soon, really) when you will be ashamed of that post.
    You do know climate change is real, right?
    "Donald Trump is Jesus to followers of Jesus who reject the actual teachings of Jesus."

    Found on twitter

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •