Climategate Whitewash

I had noticed several articles in my browsing last week dismissing Climategate much ado about nothing.  I remember commenting on one at Salon. 

Anyway, Dr. Patrick Michaels writes about the whitewash in the WSJ today.

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.

Go. Read. One of your Climategate Apologist friends might hit you up with this "independent review" ... and you should know more about it before they do.

Dr. Sanity

I used to read Dr. Sanity a while back.  I had forgotten about her, but I do remember I liked her stuff.

tim, or "small 't' tim" as Buck calls him, pointed me to a really great article on her blog with links (circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, eh?) on what the Hadley CRU documents exposed and what it means, relating it to the Challenger disaster.

And on the blog roll she goes!

It's "Logical"

So this morning on Fox & Friends Geraldo weighed in on the CRU Email issue.   He said is isn't about the data being wrong ... (it's not?  Then why hide, obfuscate, and destroy?) ... it's about it "looking" bad, and it'll deal a body blow to the movement.

He then went on to say (correctly) that this doesn't mean there isn't global warming, it's just a blow to the case, but in saying that he blurted out something very close to  ... It's logical that there is global warming because of pollution.

NO!

How can you appear to be so close to getting it and just miss it entirely in the end?

Isn't that what this research has been all about?  To figure out what, if any, effect  man's contribution to earth's carbon budget has?  If it were just logical, then what has all this money been spent for, exactly?

He only says that because it's been repeated ad nauseum for 20 years on every newscast, every movie, every award ceremony, sit-com, newspaper -- because these clowns who can't explain the stabilization in temperatures, whose dire predictions keep getting pushed farther and farther into the future, whose models cannot reproduce past climate variations -- have systematically interfered with anyone checking or even questioning their work -- decree that it is so.

I'll admit, I heard "obvious" instead of "logical" at first, which is what got me fired up.  There is a line of logic (we call these things "theories" until they're proven -- that's what the scientific method is about) that says that since CO2 is a strong visible absorber and IR emitter,  more of it (up to a point) would contribute a positive temperature feedback.  In the absence of any other negative feedback that might be introduced by other factors.   Still, while "obvious" and "logical" aren't technically synonymous, they are in the minds of most lay people.

Maybe Geraldo's right about this.  It's not about the data.  It's about the whole process from beginning to end.

More Climategate (sorry, the AGW religion is one of our pet topics around here)

Via ICECap.

Watt's Up With That? digs into the kinds of "adjustments" that are made to, ahem, "hide the decline".

Note: my personal take is that in the last 10 or so years, we really can't say there's been cooling.  But nor can we say there has been any warming.  It appears that IPCC scientists politicians just tend to like hiding declines when they find them.

Speaking of "Hide the Decline", with my above note in mind -- Minnesotans for Global Warming have struck, stricken, strickificated ....  again:


I believe that's Michael Mann of Hockey Stick Chart fame's mug in the video.  And in the spirit of the season ....

Gore Dismisses Hadley CRU emails as "Old"

Via Drudge:

Gore dismisses the Hadley CRU emails that he says he hasn't read on the grounds that they're 10 years old.

Well, the oldest ones are 13 years old.  The most recent ones aren't even 10 weeks old.  Or even 5.

Great Global Warming Swindle and the Hadley CRU Documents

For those of you who missed it, or for those of you who have seen one "side", that is, "An Inconvenient Truth" ... and haven't seen the other side of the story, I post this from March, 2007. Watch it, and I do mean the whole thing. Then go read about the Hadley CRU emails, and ask yourself who is telling the truth here.

Must Watch PJTV Trifecta

Video:  Trifecta on Climategate.

Steve Green is in rare form.  And Bill Whittle is his usual insightful self.

And the quote Bill Whittle unearthed from President Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex speech from 50 years ago rings true.

the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

And please consider subscribing to PJTV to keep it going.  It is a valuable service, IMHO.  $5 a month.  Well worth it to me.

Peer Reviewed! Peer Reviewed! Peer Reviewed!

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  - Phil Jones, Director - Hadley CRU

Frankly, I doubt Ed Begley Jr. has a clue what "peer review" means. It's just a term AlGore's been throwing about lately, so Ed parrotts it.

If you get to define away scientists who disagree with you as non-peers, then peer review becomes meaningless.  Well all the people who agree with us agree with us!!!

Richard Lindzen Speaks

Haven't seen much from MIT's Richard Lindzen lately (probably by design ... what with the IPCC "scientists" and the media shutting out anything outside of the now clearly manufactured "concensus"), but he is the single scientific voice I respect the most on the subject.

Go.  Read.  Be enlightened.

RCP Article on the Hadley CRU Documents

This should blow the lid off of the Global Warming movement once and for all.

This is all very Alinsky, I hate to keep bringing this up ... but these are exactly the tactics they've used over and over and over again.

• Ignore all criticism of your position.
• Marginalize anyone who disagrees with name-calling ("deniers", "big oil stooges") or ridicule ("they're not published!")
• Exert pressure on "authorities" to distance themselves from or refuse to recognize opponents.

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."


Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."


So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.

:
:

The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.

WSJ picks up on Hadley CRU Hack story

From today's WSJ

Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

 Really!!?

No wonder there is a "consensus".

Hadley CRU Break In Update

It looks to me, from reading various articles on the net this morning, that the Hadley CRU folks are basically admitting that the emails and files are from them, that they are legit -- because it looks as though the tactic they're taking is to defend them or dismiss them rather than to deny them.

Good news is the London Daily Telegraph reports that this story is the top story being hit on their website, dispite, and perhaps because of, the MSM's refusal to critically cover the story -- displaying the kind of incuriousness they used to love to accuse G.W. Bush of having.

This morning's Telegraph story pointed me to this handy post that summarizes and bookmarks many of the various email -- among several other links to chase.

This is big, big, BIG news

Let's see how well the MSM can smother it.  Or if it's ready to wake up and smell the coffee.  After all, they do SO love a scandal, and if they're forced not to ignore it (John Edwards) they actually kinda get into it.


Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails. <--- Go read and follow any links.

UPDATE: Here's the London Telegraph article Patrick Michaels was talking about on Nolan's show this afternoon.

Between the Thanksgiving break coming up and the KSM trial in New York and chasing Ricky Hollywood around with a mic & camera ... we'll see if the story gets buried.

It's important.  "We" may be about to sign our soveriegnty away.







Hyperbole? "Fundamentally transform"? "We are the people we've been waiting for"? "Redistribuitive wealth"? Did you read "The Forgotten Man"?  "Liberal Fascism"?  Ringing any bells? Any bells at all?