Categories

Archives

Climategate Round-Up #8

Alarmists act like rodents, Tony Blair says that science don’t matter and the Daily Mail won’t stop asking awkward questions.  Life is good for skeptics and awful for weather hysterics, and there’s a hottie.  Do Monday’s get any better than this?

The Leak/Hack

Deny, deny, deny.

How damaging was the leak?  Very, very damaging.  And not just for the motley CRU:

ClimateGate doesn’t just bring down the scientists who wrote the emails, it brings down all the institutions and organizations that were supposed to have exacting standards and ought to have exposed the crimes years ago. The men whose work was so bogus, were lauded by the IPCC, published in Nature and Science, and defended by the National Academy of Science.

This evidence of collusion, falsification, hiding data, and consistent deceit blows away the infrastructures of the practice of science. It doesn’t hurt the scientific method, but it destroys the premise that the IPCC expert review means anything, that peer review is capable of even picking up outright fraud, and that the National Academy of Science is functional.

Climategate Inconvenient Emails/Data

One atmospheric scientist suggests that the motley CRU “substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view“.

The UK Met Office doubles down on stupid, but wait, what’s that… coercion?

Facts, damned inconvenient when you’re trying to hobble the world’s economic engine.

Steve McIntyre, statistician and kryptonite to corrupt scientists everywhere, eviscerates the IPCC ‘trick’. I believe those are Michael Mann’s credibility entrails on the floor.  It has much to do with this image, read it all:

end of the green line?

end of the green line?

The climategate leak/hack broke the dam, and now there is more evidence of data being maniupulated coming from around the world.

The 60 second video that destroys the hockey-stick myth once and for all:

..

UPDATE: CRU has removed data from it’s website.  What PR advice are these folks getting?  They have even less clue about how to manage the fallout from their misbehavior than they do about the scientific method.

Climategate in the Media

CNN hosted a debate between John Christy and Gavin Schmidt wherein Schmidt plays the victim and spins the email content wildly:

..

Canada’s Globe and Mail notices Climategate, sort of.

Reluctant acknowledgement of the scandal, complete with extra-spin cycle from Australia’s National Times:

…accusations of fraud will persist because the so-called ”debate” on climate change has veered into the realms of fantasy. The fog on the public relations battlefield has obscured the real question: how to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a fast but sensible way.

The UK’s Daily Mail does a special investigation into Climategate and gets to be the must-read link of the Round-Up:

However, Warmergate strikes at something more fundamental – the science that justifies the basic assumption that the present warming really is unprecedented, at least in the past few thousand years.

Take the now-notorious email that the CRU’s currently suspended director, Dr Phil Jones, sent to his IPCC colleagues on November 16, 1999, when he wrote he had ‘just completed Mike’s Nature trick’ and had so managed to ‘hide the decline’.

The CRU’s supporters have protested bitterly about the attention paid to this message. In the course of an extraordinary BBC interview in which he called an American critic an ‘****hole’ live on air, Jones’s colleague Professor Andrew Watson insisted that the fuss was completely unjustified, because all Jones had been talking about was ‘tweaking a diagram’.

Davies told me that the email had been ‘taken out of context’ adding: ‘One definition of the word “trick” is “the best way of doing something”. What Phil did was standard practice and the facts are out there in the peer-reviewed literature.’

However, the full context of that ‘trick’ email, as shown by a new and until now unreported analysis by the Canadian climate statistician Steve McIntyre, is extremely troubling.

The Economist, once a respected paper, beclowned itself over Climategate and is taken to the woodshed for it.

Seth Borenstein of The Associated Press is far too close to those he was supposed to report on, and is exposed in great detail as a shill for the warmers.  Another in-the-tank ‘journalist’ Andy Revkin of the NYT repairs his reputation with the warmistas.

Awkward.  Climategate questions in the UK Houses of Parliament.  So much for the ‘nothing to see here, move on now’ spin.

A hard editorial from the Washington Times, the tip of the Climategate iceberg.

Got questions about Climategate in Copenhagen?  Better bring a flak jacket.

Hexploding Hippie Heads

Absent any real defense for the dishonesty and lies revealed in the Climategate emails, most hippies try to draw attention to the ‘illegal hack’ that blew the lid off their cozy hoax.  But, as Horner suggests, it’s the substance, stupid.

You know the difference between an alarmist and a hamster?  There isn’t one.

armor pantsed

Head of the UN IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri has his head buried in the sand with his fingers in his ears and denies that the CRU emails and code represent a problem with climate science.

A memo to members of the global warming cult.  Heh.

Pielke Jr. rogers the HuffPo for telling porkies.

Another IPCC scientist defects from the hysteric crowd and calls the behavior ‘fraud‘.  Ouch.

Tony Blair, not content with having wrecked a perfectly good country, wants to see action at Hopenchangen “even if the science is not correct”.  Which says it all, really.

[ad#insert-large]

Climategate Hottie

Sticking with the hack movie linkery, 1995’s The Net told a tale of online chicanery.  It also featured Sandra Bullock, which was nice.  Welcome then, Mrs. Jesse James to the Round-Up:

*click

*click

Thanks for reading.