Another look at the stolen emails

Sat, 2009-12-05 23:08Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Another look at the stolen emails

And a critique of the “febrile nitwits” who have been trumpeting their discovery:

 

Comments

Great video. Gradually these points will sink in.

Incidentally, the mass demonstrations in European capitals for an effective climate change policy that were on the news tonight show that the denialosphere hasn't had the impact it had hoped for.

At least two of those skeptics on the video are certifiably nuts and you can take comfort in that, but you're still fooling yourself. Skepticism is clearly growing among the general public and the trend was clear even before this email story broke.

The science must stand on its own.

In science the burden of proof is on the theory.

The theory must provide the proof.

If the theory makes a prediction, which it must to not simply be a hypothesis, and the prediction is wrong then the theory is discarded.

That is part of the scientific method.

The AGW theory predicts that CO2 causes global warming.

CO2 is higher now then it was in 1998.

Average global temperature has been declining since 1998

The prediction made by the theory is wrong therefore the AGW theory must be discarded.

QED.

It is called the scientific method. It only takes one wrong result to discard a theory.

'No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.' Albert Einstein

Please see also:

scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html

For a satirical look at the climategate computer programming:

Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.

www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103

Shorter Andrew30:

I don't want to discuss the e-mails, because tthe e-mails aren't important in deciding the issue of global warming. To show how unwilling I am to discuss the e-mails, here's a link to an article which discusses the e-mails.

-- bi, http://frankbi.wordpress.com/

Oops, that should have been a vote up, not down. Not that frankbi is easily discouraged. :)

VJ is working the rating system to perfection I see. One day he or she will accidentally give me a plus. I live for that day!

I use it partly to mark what posts I have read; and partly because it annoys you so much, RickJames.

The 'theory' did not claim that, as a result of the increase in CO2, the global temperature would increase each year. CO2 would do so all other factors remaining equal. But of course they don't. There is to begin with, the La Nina and El Nino cycles.

The last decade is still the hottest on record and the effects of global warming continue unabated: dwindling glaciers, rising sealevel, melting Arctic ice etc.

Yours is a simple point which you have now presented for the second time. What always amazes me is that people like you seem to think that the thousands of climate scientists would have totally overlooked it.

And from the real world rather than the denialosphere:

As it happened I saw on SBS World News (an Australian program) tonight an account of the plight of people in La Paz, Bolivia, who see their water supply threatened because the glacier that provides the water has been dwindling.

True the last decade has been warm and perhaps the warmest. It's like passing the summit of a mountain highway. You're starting to go down but you're still really at the top. Give it some time.

You mean 'give it some time' until the basic laws of physics have been recalled ?

no, I'm thinking that some minor orbital variation and solar output variation might be sending us gradually down the mountain for 10, 20, 50 years or more. Haven't been down this road before, I'll let you know when we get there.

So you would rather believe in such fanciful hypotheses about remote possibilities than in what thousands of climate scientists deem to be the most likely (more than 90 % says the IPCC) outcome - and that not on the basis of a quirk of their imagination but a mass of patiently collected data.

Nobody would care about the quirks of your imagination but the trouble is that you and people with a similar disposition help to obstruct reasonable precautions.

Interpreting tree rings, mud and ice cores is an interesting art. Thats what it is you know - art and interpretation. and collusion. Thats one thing the emails demonstrate. Working together with politically informed preconceived notions. Thousands of people following in the footsteps of James Hansen. Following him most of the way to political influence. Hansen of course is the truer believer and so he's left most of them a few steps behind as they settle for whatever Carbon-hagen delivers.

oh I know you don't believe any of that, but thats how it looks to me at the moment.

Your fanciful notions are not limited to climate science I see. You also seem to conceive of the social world as one big con game. Hence your approval of such an obvious con artist as Morano.

Morano is a pr guy, a salesman like the guys who run this blog. They just work the other side of the street is all.

If you don't think the "emails" aren't devastating ... you are a denier.

They are only devastating in the sense that public opinion about climate and about imminent climate disaster is going to fall to a new low.

More is coming to light about how and why the CRU emails were hacked – see this story from the UK’s Mail on Sunday (a right-wing conservative newspaper):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html

There is a bitter irony here. It looks as if all those good folks so eager to expose a grand conspiracy on the part of climate scientists have in fact been playing the part of (very willing, albeit unwitting) accomplices in one of the cleverest pieces of black propaganda of recent years. It seems increasingly probable that the whole exercise has been masterminded by the Russian security services - formerly known as the KGB - who have a proud track record in this respect.

Vladimir Putin, a former KGB man himself, must be delighted at the ease with which effective action to place curbs on the fossil fuel industry has been sabotaged.

Given that the Daily Mail's coverage of the climate science is crud, I'm somewhat less inclined to believe in their theory of a Russian conspiracy. But still, if it's true, it'll surely be bitter irony.

-- bi, http://frankbi.wordpress.com/

First point, we don't even know whether these emails were, in fact, stolen. The UK Police are investigating. It is equally plausable that a "whistleblower", sickened by the lies and corruption within the Shell-funded CRU, packaged it all up and released the material. If so, they deserve a medal for services to science and Humanity.

Second point, CRU have confirmed they are genuine.

Third point, these emails have shown, without a scintilla of doubt, that this squalid bunch of crimimals has systematically evaded lawful FOIA requests, corrupted the peer-review process, massaged data presented to the public and covered up "unhelpful" data in their reports.

Fourth point, their own computer code shows fraudulent inbuilt "fudge-factors" to depress past temperatures and inflate current ones.

Fifth point, Even that bastion of Global warming propanganda, the UK Met Office, admits that they will have to review CRU's data.

It doesn't matter how much the ecoMENTALists and "The end of the Earth is nigh" nutters try and spin this one. It won't work this time.

First point: a whistleblower is highly unlikely, as such a person would not attempt to hack into RealClimate to post the mails there, and then post a link at ClimateAudit to the (attempted) hacked post at RealClimate.
Third point, these e-mails have shown, without a scintilla of doubt, that a squalid bunch of criminals will distort anything and everything they read, just to run away from personal responsibility. FOIA requests may be lawful, so is declining those FOIA requests. The peer review process is corrupted by so-called 'skeptics' like Chris de Freitas, something that has been swept under the rug by fellow 'skeptics'. Data fudging and outright lies have been observed in a long list of papers by 'skeptics', provingly, and yet those papers are still cited by 'skeptics' as evidence against AGW. One organisation even deliberately fudged the CRU data to show a very large apparent cooling.
Fourth point: the CRU computer code, used to make temperature reconstructions using proxies, documents accurately what is also described in the paper(!!!!!).

What will be shown, after several investigations, is that people like you are not even wrong. You will be shown willfully ignorant of science, and several organisations will be shown as deliberately manipulating the general population to prevent any action to be taken.

RC claimed it was all just posted from the site, and they removed it. It was also sent to the BBC three weeks before that and they sat on it doing nothing.

Third point, show references to back up all these claims.

Fourth point: nope. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/05/the-smoking-code-part-2/

"What will be shown, after several investigations, is that people like you are not even wrong. You will be shown willfully ignorant of science, and several organisations will be shown as deliberately manipulating the general population to prevent any action to be taken."

Or it will all be shown to have been a fraud as we have been saying for decades. Wishful thinking on your part is not evidence. Now we wait. Will you abandon AGW if this turns out to be the case? Will Desmogblog be dismantled? Or will you all hang on to the new cult of AGW?

Wow, you have no sense of reality. You manage, with much grunting and effort, to break a twig off a tree and then you imagine the whole tree will fall down? Not gonna happen.

This email excitement is just a twig, but maybe the whole tree is bug infested and ready to fall anyway. Lets hope so. You don't WANT cataclysmic global warming just so you can say I told you so, do you?

RC claimed they had an attempted hack, trying to upload the file. The BBC received no such file, Paul Hudson received the e-mails that were referring to his little piece of nonsense.

Third point is so easy, even a ten-year old could find this out:
1. FOI requests can be declined:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/qa+how+to+make+a+foi+request/3076477 (I use this low-tech document, since you seem to have trouble finding out the simple facts yourself)
2. Chris de Freitas and the Climate Research affair is another well-known story:
http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm
3. the Soon & Baliunas paper responsible for making claim 2 is a good example of data fudging by 'skeptics'. A recent paper by McLean, De Freitas(him again), and Carter also comes pretty close to an outright lie, claiming they can explain a trend after removing the trend. But let's put that in the box "scientific stupidity". E&E is filled with nonsense and outright manipulations.

Regarding the fourth point: what the peep? It is notably admitted there that there is no proof this "artificial correction" was used in any of the papers! Anyway, you can start here and enjoy yourself (do read the paper itself). http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html
And it still has nothing to do with the global temperature reconstructions using stations.

So far, the science behind AGW has not been refuted at all. You'll have to do better than to attack temperature reconstructions (of limited importance) and one out of many global temperature reconstructions. Note that all of those give essentially the same result: it's warming, warming, warming in the last 50 years, and right smack in the middle of Jim Hansen's predictions of the later 1980s. Oh wait, that brings me back to 'skeptics' fudging data: Pat Michaels testifying in congress, comparing Hansen's *highest* estimate (and only the highest) with the actual temperature record. How about that for deliberate manipulation? But Pat's a climate 'skeptic', and hence apparently above the law...

What would refute AGW?

So only now are you getting around to the question of what would refute AGW? I would have thought that would have been the very first step of a truly "skeptical" mind. Better late than never I suppose.

How about:
- EVIDENCE of a particular collection of "natural" factors that correlate with the temperature trends of the last 500 years.
- A robust theory of HOW they have caused those temperature trends.
- A rational explanation of WHY they have controlled our climate that doesn't contradict what we know about the fundamentals of atmospheric physics.

Do you see this being offered anywhere by denialists? I urge you to look for it.

Interesting. I guess the planet has only been around for the past 500 years.

Unbelievable.

Since the planet has been here for 4.5 billion years and the climate all that time was all natural and worked quite well, then your premise is shown false.

That means you have not at all shown anything that would qualify as a possible falsification AGW.

So let me be specific.

Should the planet continue to cool for the next 20 years would that qualify? (Your friends at RC admitted that to one of my posts last year).

Should it be found that indeed a review of the current data from both the CRU and from NASA be shown to have all been fabricated, and we have not had any signiifcant warming at all over the past 100 years, would that qualify?

BTW, I have been asking this question ever since AGW started. As yet, not one of you people has been able to answer the question.

"Since the planet has been here for 4.5 billion years and the climate all that time was all natural and worked quite well, then your premise is shown false."

I always call this line of argument the 'geological contribution' to the debate. The Carters, Plimers and Kroonenbergs of this world don't seem to be able to get their heads around the notion that we are not talking here about the continued existence of the planet but of a livable planet, livable for close to 7 billion people whose present mode of making a living and whose regional distribution is dependent on a fairly narrow temperature range.

Well, that is also false. We have people now living in the Artic and in the Sahara, so people can live in a very wide range of temps. If anything people, human society, does better in a warmer climate than a cold one. People can starve with early and late frosts that kill crops.

Geological periods are very important in this argument. Every single warm period in geological history has been a boon to the biota. Every single one. World average temp is about 14C. Yet prior to 45myo the planet's average temp was 22C, and was so for more than 150 million years.

So yes, geological perspectives is vital to AGW.

So again I ask, what would falsify AGW?

Any such hypothesis would also have to explain the temperature increases during interglacials without invoking greenhouse gases.

I can sum up why your wrong in one statement you gave. "A rational explanation of why they have controlled our climate that doesnt contradict what we know about atmospheric physics"

We don't know anything about the climate system. Was it not the IPCC who said "we understand 20% of the climate system" So this means that some of the accepted beliefs are wrong. Let's start with radiative forcing. The IPCC has changed the numerical value 3 times. Next, how about the medieval warm period. Michael Mann just made up his own graph of how he thought the temperature trend should look.

So if you aren't looking for new theories while collecting evidence and as technology improves, your a fool.

Either way, stolen is stolen.

On a related note, I find offense the description of these events as "Climategate." The "gate" suffix comes from the Watergate scandal, which took off when there was a break-in at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters on June 17, 1972 at the Watergate office building in Washington, D.C. That was clearly a crime worthy of investigation. But in this situation, too few people (particularly in the media) seem to care that the breaking into the email servers is also a crime, worthy of investigation. It's worth noting, in this context, that the Watergate criminals learned nothing of value from their break-in and instead ended up in prison. The more people focus on the contents of a few private emails between scientists rather than the crime itself, the more I am convinced that the same outcome will hold true here: those who tried to benefit from the break-in are the true criminals.

Those Emails were 'delivered[' to the world. Our tax dollars paid for this research and we own it. How can we steal what we already own?

Besides ... fraud is fraud. This was a big one.

It's over Ricky and you have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

I'm sure Big Tobacco said the same thing about Jeff Wigand's testimony. How does it feel to be linked to tobacco Richard?

That's right, Richard. Nothing to see here. Just keep moving folks.

The evidence that was 'released' in the Emails and coding are the rightful property of the public... after all, whose money paid for that fraudulent research. They have been liberated by a person with a conscience.

The term 'stolen' as applied here is absolutely nothing compared to the theft of tax payer funds that was planned by this evil body of so-called scientists and their political allies and let us mention the useful idiots that run blogs of this sort.

It is over now and we can all breath a sigh of relief and get on with our lives. The green boot has been removed from our throats.

Private correspondence of individuals is private regardless of their employment. The only obligation in this case is to their employer. This is what "Freedom of Information" acts are about; determining what information is legitimately of interest to the public and what is not. I get a laugh out of the enthusiasm of the largely "personal liberty"-obsessed denialists over the exploitation of OTHER PEOPLE'S privacy.

The posited "person with a conscience" hacked into a backup mail server, snooped around, and STOLE personal e-mails. a similar trespass/theft attempt was made recently at a Canadian university with the same intent. I see no honourable motives here whatsoever. That fact that you do says plenty about your ethical standards.

JWest is a blinkered fool who is oblivious to the fundamental fact that none of the trumped-up "revelations" have any implication for the actual facts of AGW.

Ah, these rightwingers have no respect for law and order.

And you leftists have no respect for capitalism and democracy.

I can throw steriotypic generalations just as well as you can.

Talk about denial!

Those alleged scientists work for the tax payer. That is us. We have a right to know what our tax dollars are doing.

Those buffoons have refused to respect the law you are crowing about. They refused to comply with on-going requests for that information we have paid for.

You have a backward view of their dilemma. They are criminals indulging in a giant fraud to force tax payers to fund all the loser countries of the world.

It ain't gonna happen. The justly 'stolen' emails and code have proved that this AGW is a fraud.

I know you hate what has happened and like the Main Stram Media, you are looking for a graceful way to change your misguided 'opinion' on what causes any sort of climate change, but the facts 'dictate' that you have no choice in the matter.

Meanwhile I am gloating and enjoying your pain.

"justly 'stolen'"? Grow up.

What does that comment have to do with anything? I am an adult and my statements are based on fact and reality. Growing up has nothing do do with anything. I suspect you simply have nothing else in your little head to say. Grow up is just silly and I think you need to say that to your mirror.

The reality is that evidence has been made available by whatever means, that points to a gigantic misuse of tax dollars, climate science and the political process. We adults know that this was only being used to gain more control of the Capitalist countries of the world in order to take down the middle classes. You know ... those pesky nouveau rich that 'stole' their money from the back of the poor or some such nonsense.

You somehow think that this will make life better for other people? I suggest that it will mean that those who have the wherewithal to climb out of the slime and enjoy prosperity and wealth will be enslaved to the green prison and the poor will get poorer in the process.

It's a great plan for despots and tyrants. There is no shortage of those folks waiting for their chance to destroy freedom.

I tell you now .... it won't happen without the mother of all battles.

Sorry that should have read 'grow up'.

I type too fast and edit too little.

"I convince myself too fast and think too little." Fixed it for you. That's what you meant, right?

"I type too fast and edit too little" and think even less.

Here's a tip Arie: when someone admits some mistake or personal shortcoming, it's a bad time to take a shot at him. It makes you look less than gracious.

In contrast to all the grace displayed by the naysayers on this blog you mean?

Oh the irony, the irony. All this huffing and puffing by denialists regarding some emails they really haven't got a clue about is exactly what the KGB might have meant them to do (see Tom Scott on the Russian connection down below).

Pages