Climategate 2.0

Last week, 5,000 files of private email correspondence among several of the world’s top climate scientists were anonymously leaked onto the Internet. Like the first “climategate” leak of 2009, the latest release shows top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully and silence opponents, and displaying far less certainty about the reliability of anthropogenic global warming theory in private than they ever admit in public.

The scientists include men like Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, both of whose reports inform what President Obama has called “the gold standard” of international climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The new release of emails was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the original climategate leak and with the upcoming United Nations climate summit

(to read more, click here)

19 thoughts on “Climategate 2.0”

  1. James, I firmly believe that Climategate 2.0 will prove to be the final nail in the coffin (to not coin a phrase) of climate change denial itself. There was nothing new in this second batch of word-searched emails from pre-2009. The only difference is that most people are now wise to the way they were ‘played for fools’ last time around.

    1. The liars of the mainstream lyingly call critics “climate change deniers”, when climate change is natural: the argument is about whether the earth is a “greenhouse” that is super-sensitive to CO2 injections or not; the case for NOT being the earth is NOT a greenhouse. If the earth were a greenhouse, there would be no oceans (71% of surface area) and no cloud cover which varies in direct response to CO2. Pump in CO2 and you increase cloud cover, which reflects back more sunlight into space, keeping the surface cool. This is negative feedback, totally ignored by all IPCC models, which make the same collective politically-correct mistake of assuming that the greenhouse effect is true. In a greenhouse, water vapour is prevented from rising to from cloud cover that cools the greenhouse, because of the GLASS CEILING.

      So in greenhouse models, the water vapour is prevented from rising, expanding and condensing at high altitudes to form clouds, and instead stays in vapour (uncondensed) form, where it amplifies the warming effect of CO2 by absorbing additional infrared (water vapour is an excellent wide band IR radiation absorber, like CO2; water in white cloud droplet form works in a diametrically opposite way on the climate, as a reflector which shadows the lower altitude air and surface, cooling it).

      What’s fascinating is this physics is all proved fact. It’s a fact that warm air rises. It’s a fact that you can’t get warm air from the top surface of a cloud to the ground because of this (even if rain forms – usually from the middle or base of clouds, not the top warm reflecting layer – air drag conductively passes on the warmth to the air they move through long before they arrive at the ground, so the can’t warm the ground).

      So why does the “greenhouse effect” myth survive? First, it’s a belief system like religious dogma. Second, nobody wants to try to explain the error in IPCC water positive-feedback assumptions to the public. James must try at some stage. Giving the correct factual model is the only way to kill off this pseudoscience. You have to make people understand where the error is in the IPCC models, and the quantitative implication that CO2 injections don’t produce the greenhouse warming that all IPCC models “predict”.

      1. “Scepticism is … directed against the view of the opposition and against minor ramifications of one’s own basic ideas, never against the basic ideas themselves. Attacking the basic ideas evokes taboo reactions … scientists only rarely solve their problems, they make lots of mistakes … one collects ‘facts’ and prejudices, one discusses the matter, and one finally votes. But while a democracy makes some effort to explain the process so that everyone can understand it, scientists either conceal it, or bend it … No scientist will admit that voting plays a role in his subject. Facts, logic, and methodology alone decide – this is what the fairy-tale tells us. … This is how scientists have deceived themselves and everyone else … It is the vote of everyone concerned that decides fundamental issues … and not the authority of big-shots hiding behind a non-existing methodology. … Science itself uses the method of ballot, discussion, vote, though without a clear grasp of its mechanism, and in a heavily biased way.”

        – Professor Paul Feyerabend, “Against Method”, 1975, final chapter.

        “The notion that a scientific idea cannot be considered intellectually respectable until it has first appeared in a ‘peer’ reviewed journal did not become widespread until after World War II. Copernicus’s heliocentric system, Galileo’s mechanics, Newton’s grand synthesis – these ideas never appeared first in journal articles. They appeared first in books, reviewed prior to publication only by their authors, or by their authors’ friends. … Darwinism indeed first appeared in a journal, but one under the control of Darwin’s friends. … the refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy. … ‘peer’ review is NOT peer review.”

        – Professor Frank J. Tipler, Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?

        In 2006, the bestsellers by Lee Smolin and Peter Woit “Not Even Wrong” and “The Trouble with Physics” were published, showing that superstring theory has become a dogmatic consensus, like epicycles being “defended” by less-than-objective methods. Right on cue, the world’s greatest genius behind M-theory, Ed Witten, happened to write a letter to Nature (v. 444, p. 265, 16 November 2006), headlined:

        “Answering critics can add fuel to controversy.

        “SIR — Your Editorial “To build bridges, or to burn them” and News Feature “In the name of nature” raise important points about criticism of science and how scientists should best respond (Nature 443, 481 and 498–501; 2006). The News Feature concerns radical environmentalists and animal-rights activists, but the problem covers a wider area, often involving more enlightened criticism of science from outside the scientific establishment and even, sometimes, from within.

        “The critics feel … that their viewpoints have been unfairly neglected by the establishment. … They bring into the public arena technical claims that few can properly evaluate. … We all know examples from our own fields … Responding to this kind of criticism can be very difficult. It is hard to answer unfair charges of élitism without sounding élitist to non-experts. A direct response may just add fuel to controversies. Critics, who are often prepared to devote immense energies to their efforts, can thrive on the resulting ‘he said, she said’ situation. [Critics must never be permitted to thrive.]
        “Scientists in this type of situation would do well to heed the advice in Nature’s Editorial. Keep doing what you are doing. And when you have the chance, try to patiently explain why what you are doing is interesting and exciting, and may even be useful one day.

        “Edward Witten
        Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive,
        Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA.”

        The next letter on that Nature page (from genetics engineer Boris Striepen) stated: “How and why did our public image
        change from harmless geeks to state- and industry-sponsored evil-doers worthy to be a target? More importantly, what do we do about it? And how do we communicate more effectively what we are doing, why we are doing it and what the opportunities and challenges of modern science are?”

        The whole reason why “scientists” get depreciated today is the reason why famous mathematical physicist Ptolemy was depreciated in history: an insistence on patiently “explaining” to critics “why what you are doing is interesting and exciting, and may even be useful one day.” Self-deluded egotistical dictatorship is not an adequate response to critics of nonsense hype that censors alternative ideas. It is exactly what a bad politician does when in serious difficulty. It amounts to dictatorship: ignoring the criticism and then stereotyping all critics as ignorant morons who will benefit from a little “nickel-worth of free advice,” or educational brainwashing in mainstream dogma.

        “Centralization of information and decision-making at the top has been destructive to most organizations. The Greeks had a word for the notion that the best decisions can only be made on the basis of the fullest information at the highest level. They called it hubris. In a living scientific organization, decisions must be pushed down to the lowest level at which they can be sensibly made. … Leadership would be decentralized throughout, not concentrated at the top. … It would also facilitate the downward transmission of goals, the only things that can be usefully passed down from above, and make room for the upward transmission of results, which should be the basis for reward. It should be obvious that this structure need not be imposed from above. There is no reason to await a decision from the top to do so. Everyone in the chain has the flexibility to organize his own life and thereby to decide whether he is to be a manager or a leader.”

        – Gregory H. Canavan, The Leadership of Philosopher Kings, Los Alamos National Laboratory, report LA-12198-MS, December 1992.

  2. Nige, climate change deniers aren’t critics, they’re just ignorant, preferring to be spoonfed quotes from emails rather than looking at the whole picture.

      1. Scientific consensus (consensus amongst the experts) is a darn sight more reliable than denialist science, which based solely on the opinions of one man, Delingpole, the man who doesn’t know he doesn’t know anything.

        1. How about Dr Roy Spencer, :

          “In the case of global warming research, the alternative (non-consensus) hypothesis that some or most of the climate change we have observed is natural is the one that the IPCC must avoid at all cost. This is why the Hockey Stick was so prized: it was hailed as evidence that humans, not Nature, rule over climate change.

          “The Climategate 2.0 e-mails show how entrenched this bias has become among the handful of scientists who have been the most willing participants and supporters of The Cause. These scientists only rose to the top because they were willing to actively promote the IPCC’s message with their particular fields of research.

          “Unfortunately, there is no way to “fix” the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.

          “I believe that most of the hundreds of scientists supporting the IPCC’s efforts are just playing along, assured of continued funding. In my experience, they are either: (1) true believers in The Cause; (2) think we need to get away from using fossil fuels anyway; or (3) rationalize their involvement based upon the non-zero chance of catastrophic climate change.”

          Spencer is author of key papers showing that water vapour has a net negative feedback (cancelling essentially all IPCC predicted future temperature rises from continuing CO2 injections), because it evaporates and rises from oceans to form a slight increase in cloud cover, which shadows and cool the surface.

          See his paper “Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data”, and his book “Climate Confusion”.

          1. Roy elsewhere on his blog explains the faulty mainstream response to his work as follows: “… Dessler has … used models which DO NOT ALLOW cloud changes to affect temperature, in order to support his case that cloud changes do not affect temperature!”

            Again, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere causes an initial small temperature rise as the oceans heat up, then global warming stops because water evaporation increases the amount of cloud cover over the oceans, which shadow and cool the surface. In all IPCC “models”, this can’t and doesn’t occur, because all IPCC models assume that moist air warmed by sunlight and evaporated from the oceans due to positive H2O feedback, doesn’t rise. This is false. Of course it rises and cools unless there is a strong inversion. Also, the false IPCC model assumption of positive feedback from water vapour implies that evaporated water in in the path of infrared radiation from the sun, i.e. positive H2O feedback in the IPCC models assumes both that evaporated water has a clear sky above it so it gets heated by sunshine containing substantial IR components, and that the warmed moist air doesn’t rise and condense into clouds. It’s absolutely crazy.

          2. “… [Dr Andy] Dessler has … used models which DO NOT ALLOW cloud changes to affect temperature, in order to support his case that cloud changes do not affect temperature!”

            – Dr Roy Spencer,

            This quotation is the smoking gun: Dr Roy Spencer’s latest paper was shot down by peer-review, then he was contacted by Andy, whose paper is in proof, and is claiming that cloud cover doesn’t have negative feedback (i.e. cancel out CO2 injection effects on climate, the entire AGW scam) because the model doesn’t include cloud cover. If ever there was a circular argument, this is it. It’s a groupthink “ends justify the means” delusion, where they think they can safely suppress the facts because “making the environment cleaner” is an unassailable objective. precisely like Stalin killing 40 million in collectivization of farming in the 30s, in the safe belief that it was necessary step on the road to global communist utopia, and Hitler gassing 6 million safe in the belief he was ethnically “cleansing” humanity. Yeah, right. Nobody will ever get through to Martin Lack or Paul Nurse, they’re completely deluded and have invested in a belief system which devalues objectivity.

  3. Ex-NASA climatologist Dr Roy Spencer ends his latest Climategate 2.0 blog post:

    “But when only one hypothesis is allowed as the explanation for climate change (e.g. “the science is settled”), the bias becomes so thick and acrid that everyone can smell the stench. Everyone except the IPCC leadership, that is.”

    Like the Emperor’s New Clothes, when the word goes around that the leadership is faulty, nobody dares overthrow the leader, or they bungle it. It’s precisely like the situation of Stalin or Hitler, who have got to the top by having a private army of bodyguards and propaganda chiefs, so that people like Delingpole can be pushed down. The claim that democracy would allow the people to overthrow a scientific dictatorship of quacks funded by political expediency is laughable and is well disproved by all examples of scientific corruption in history, from the injection of false Aristotlean physics into medieval Christianity by Thomas Aquinas, to 11-dimensional superstring M-“theory” (which contains no theory, merely a vacious framework in which 10^500 different metastable vacuum states can sit).

    Everybody can smell the stench from this piece of vile pseudophysics with its Gestapo response to critics, it’s abuse of the peer-review system for censorship of criticisms, and its patiently false “greenhouse” assumption which relies on an invisible non-existent glass ceiling to prevent water vapour from becoming cloud cover.

      1. “Denialism”-labelling is McCarthyism in 2011: the fascist sophistry of stereotypically conflating all objective criticisms with a strawman argument that appeals to fellow fascists.

        Tomorrow we are set for the second biggest piece of scientific crackpotism after the groupthink that we live in a greenhouse with a glass ceiling that stops evaporated water from forming cloud cover that cancels out CO2. This is the world’s largest particle accelerator, our £6 billion 27 kilometres circumference underground CERN Large Hadron Collider. Tomorrow, Tuesday 13 December 2011, they announce their first official results for the search for the “Higgs boson”, the modern equivalent of searching for “phlogiston”.

        The theory is that electromagnetism and weak force symmetries are explicitly broken by a massive “Higgs boson”, which also provides mass to every other massive particle by acting like an aether. The problem is, the theory doesn’t predict a mass and they are just a pair of equal and oppositely-travelling gamma rays (or maybe weak bosons) with a total energy of 126 GeV. This – if the data are statistically significant – is only going to “confirm” the standard theory because it’s the only theory that is now dogma, just as AGW is dogma. It’s a great achievement to spend £6 billion of European Union taxpayers money on this toy, but how do you know the pair of gamma rays are not coming from another interaction? How do we know that the emails in CERN are not a duplicate those in Climategate 1.0 or 2.0?

        You see, I predicted the cosmological acceleration of the universe correctly in 1996 using quantum gravity (the prediction was verified by Perlmutter in 1998, who got the Nobel Prize in physics for setting up some software to automate supernova redshift observations electronically from CCD telescopes). Nature, Classical and Quantum Gravity, later Physical Review Letters, all rejected it as a “non-standard” theory. So do I call them “DENIALISTS”, for ignoring the evidence.

        “Denialism” can be directed both ways in science. It’s just a vacuous piece of playground name-calling. What matters is the substance of the science, not how fashionable something is. Fashionability matters for getting funding, of course, and this is where Lord Acton’s “All power corrupts…” comes in. Scientists are no more ethical than anyone else.

        Educational psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (Lawrence Kohlberg, “Stage and Sequence: the Cognitive Development Approach to Socialization,” in D. A. Goslin, Ed., Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, Rand-McNally, Co., Chicago, 1969, pp. 347-380) has found that peoples go through six stages of ethical development:

        (1) Conformity to rules and obediance to authority, to avoid punishment.

        (2) Conformity to gain rewards.

        (3) Conformity to avoid rejection.

        (4) Conformity to avoid censure. (Chimps and baboons.)

        (5) Arbitrariness in enforcing rules, for the common good.

        (6) Conscious revision and replacement of unhelpful rules.

        The same steps could be expected to apply to scientific ethical development. However, the disguised form of politics which exists in science, where decisions are taken behind closed doors and with no public discussion of evidence, stops at stage (4), the level of ethics that chimpanzees and baboons have been observed to achieve socially in the wild.

        1. Note that the CERN quango (like the EU itself) has 20 European members and Britain contributed the 3rd most to the LHC. CERN fiddles its accounts figures on its website: just giving annual running costs, not the gross outlay. Other figures CERN gives are for the LHC machine minus construction and infrastructure costs. If they lie about the costs, will they also lie in their “data”? Who can replicate their data if they fiddle it?

          Note also that twenty years ago, American planned to search for the “Higgs boson” by building the “Superconducting Supercollider”, but Congress cancelled it to save money. The whole story of the “Higgs boson”, the “Standard Model” and the superstring theory (which predicts 10^500 different Higgs bosons, one in each parallel universe) is hubris. It’s dictatorship. They only maintain their dogma by Gestapo censorship of alternatives. If they were honestly testing a theory, fine, but it’s a contrived “heads you lose, tails we win” test, where whatever the results are, they will be interpreted within mainstream dogma, which is infallable by virtue of “peer”-review. It’s Climategate, with more obfuscation.

  4. I got diverted here by accident. And now that I have had the opportunity to see the controversial emails, all I can say is what a load of horsesh**! It sure doesn’t do anything to suggest manipulation of data. The emails discuss public relations strategies. This is your basis to deny the fact that greenhouse gases are contributing heavily to global warming? Oh wait, we can’t call it global warming because there are so many idiots in the world who think hey, if the planet warms up five degrees, Alaska will become Tahiti. I understand and sympathize with the scientists, not with this blowhard and his gullible band of followers.

      Making up data to present a more compelling message:
      Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
      with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December
      monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?
      Adjusting the message to the audience, to present a consistent lie:
      They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
      approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular,
      they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events
      beefed up if possible.
      Fiddling the graph to make it look better:
      I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
      to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
      1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

      Climategate is riddled with scientific fraud and bad practice.

      1. EWorrall, oh quote mine won’t you. “Hide the decline” aka “divergence problem” was so well hidden it was glaringly published in the IPCC AR4 Chapter 6 page 40 onwards.

        Oh look, anybody can quote mine;

        Andrew Kerr Oct 1997

        “already suffering from the serious impacts of global warming including rising sea-levels, rising sea temperatures, and increased extreme weather patterns to name just a few,”

        Darn, those lying scientists. Guess they were trying to hide the fact global warming is already impacting on society, not something that will happen in the future.

        1. Gordon, for the last time, climate change can be natural. You and your buddy Al Gore go through the same sequence:

          1. Lie that critics “deny” climate change or global warming.

          2. Lie that all critics are denying natural global warming.

          3. Lie that global warming or natural climate change are the same thing as proof that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect.

          4. Lie that a glass-ceiling greenhouse with no clouds in it (caused by CO2 increasing evaporation and thus cloud cover) somehow models the earth.

          5. Lie that the temperature curve correlates with the CO2 level.

          6. Lie that there really is a problem from CO2 by trying to claim it has other effects like forming carbonic acid (H2CO3) in the oceans which burn all life in the oceans.

          6. Lie that ecofascism isn’t a new socialism groupthink exploitation.

Comments are closed.