Things have been so nuts for me over the past few days, I haven’t even been able to blog my Washington Post Outlook piece from Sunday about the need for better science communication in the wake of the devastating blow dealt by the ClimateGate scandal. The piece has been drawing tons of supportive private emails, as well as lots of online critiques and reactions, and fully 800 plus comments on the Post’s website, many of them from climate deniers.
Anyway, the article starts like this:
The battle over the science of global warming has long been a street fight between mainstream researchers and skeptics. But never have the scientists received such a deep wound as when, in late November, a large trove of e-mails and documents stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia were released onto the Web.
In the ensuing “Climategate” scandal, scientists were accused of withholding information, suppressing dissent, manipulating data and more. But while the controversy has receded, it may have done lasting damage to science’s reputation: Last month, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 40 percent of Americans distrust what scientists say about the environment, a considerable increase from April 2007. Meanwhile, public belief in the science of global warming is in decline.
The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when science comes under attack.
A few scientists answered the Climategate charges almost instantly. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, whose e-mails were among those made public, made a number of television and radio appearances. A blog to which Mann contributes, RealClimate.org, also launched a quick response showing that the e-mails had been taken out of context. But they were largely alone. “I haven’t had all that many other scientists helping in that effort,” Mann told me recently.
This isn’t a new problem….
Read here, there’s much more….on science communication strategies, how to fight the evolution war, and so forth. In essence, the piece builds on some of the central arguments of Unscientific America, but strained through the new example of ClimateGate, which is surely the number one reason yet that scientists have got to mobilize in the way that we recommended in the book. Hope you enjoy…
January 6th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Dear author,
There are many people who wish that Climategate was just a public relations disaster.
Except it was not and is not.
The problem of Climategate is not that the scientists ignored communication. The problem is that they were obsessed with communication. With presenting their message, with persuading other people, and with preventing their opponents from doing the same.
And in doing so, they totally forgot about the science.
And from your readiness in applying the “denier” stamp to those who disagree with the theory and have the insolence to criticize it, I conclude that you have nothing to do with science either, and everything to do with propaganda.
Who do you think will listen to you? Those who are already sceptical to the AGW theory – will not. Those who are open-minded – will read your piece and compare it with opposing views, and again, won’t believe a word you say because your only arguments are empty claims of “settled science” and ad hominem arguments. So your only audience are the green zealots? Probably serves you right.
January 6th, 2010 at 10:48 am
My question, ChrisM, is why do you refer to this as a “scandal”? There’s nothing scandalous about it. There are a few instances of scientists being petty, scientists talking trash, scientists beating their chests–in short, scientists being human.
But a scandal? No. In order for it to be a scandal, it would have to show scientists doing things to falsify the science. It does not, no matter how many times the “skeptics” take things out of context.
January 6th, 2010 at 10:59 am
How dare Chris Mooney call those of us who clearly see that the climate models have failed to correctly predict the climate behavior for more than a decade as the “climate deniers”?
Chris Mooney has a vested professional interest in the global warming. He has written several books and put his reputation on the line. He also has a clear political agenda as demonstrated by authoring The Republican War on Science. Finally he has a personal agenda as noted by his belief that his mother has been a personal victim of global warming in the form of Hurricane Katrina.
Once again people like me, who are genuine environmentalists and who see real and measurable problems (like erosion, fresh water contamination, deforestation, over fishing, whale hunting and more)are being ignored while people like Chris lie and profit about the global warming hysteria are getting the press.
This is truely a sad world.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:02 am
@2, Chris,
It’s a scandal at the very least because it’s perceived as a scandal, in the same way the evolution-creationism is a controversy because it is perceived as one. I agree that it’s not a scandal, but try telling that to the deniers.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:06 am
ClimateGate is the greatest thing to happen to man-kind. I read the emails and they tell me that even the ClimateGate scientists doubt their computer model predictions and these predictions were proven wrong on all accounts. Might as well spend 50$ on a fortuneteller and have this fortuneteller gives predictions on climate change and save us billions of dollars annually. I’ve been duped and I am pissed at all the ClimateGate scientists. I want my tax money back!
January 6th, 2010 at 11:10 am
The Climategate emails–many written by two coordinating Lead Authors of the UN’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report–underscore the need for the United States to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission. It defies common sense that we outsource our climate science to the UN then allow it to serve as both judge (IPCC) and advocate (Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen).
– Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com
January 6th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Hey you anti-humans, take the time to read the e-mails yourself and don`t rely on other people to do the analysis for you.
I did and it is scandalous. The normal scientific method has been trashed by these climate clowns. The science is not settled and not proven. CO2 = warming? Why then spend Billions on research when it`s such a simple single variable linear equation? You can`t model a chaotic system – forget about it. You can`t “equate” climate. CO2 correlation to temperature has been unstable in the earth`s 4.5 Billion year history. 100 years of the earth`s history is equivalent to 2 milliseconds of a day. Surely not enough to even decipher any trend.
I hope the earth gives them a lesson. Humanity should be concerned about cooling – not warming.
The CERN cloud experiment should start yielding results this year. It will be interesting to see the results and the reactions to them.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:27 am
I have enjoyed Discover for many years, but, I am sorry to say, that has come to an end. I can only assume your bias is shared by all your coworkers.
I advise you read the definition of scientific method, and look at this.
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
January 6th, 2010 at 11:31 am
I read the Washington Post article the day it came out but skipped the comments altogether. So some of the things I’ll be saying in response may have already been said by others. I have two points to make.
Firstly, one of the main themes of the article is the rather feeble attempt to associate the AGW theory with the theory of evolution. The corollary to such an association is that the AGW scepticism is as unscientific as creationism, or ‘inteligent design’ as we came to know later. Creationism derives its tenets from a book of faith. It does not rely on scientific method as the sole basis of its knowledge. AGW scepticism however seeks to use the same scientific procedures that gave way to the AGW theory to acquire its knowledge. I am fairly certain, Chris, that most of the scientists whose help you are seeking are intelligent enough to know that the AGW scepticism is nothing like creationism.
And secondly, the article neglected to expand on why not many other scientists came to the rescue of Micheal Mann, et al. You say,
Well, Chris, in case you did not know already, the reason that not many climatologists as well as scientists from other disciplines offered much help to Mann and others is/was because they did not want to be associated with the secretive, tribal way scientific work was being carried out by the likes of Micheal Mann and Phil Jones. Didn’t Richard Feynman urge young scientists to do exactly the opposite in his Cargo Cult Science speech? Most of the AGW faithful are still in denial about the damage the climategate scandal has done to Climatology and quite possibly to all other scientific fields. Although climategate scandal may have receded from the mainstream media, the manufactured scientific consensus, the corruption of the peer-review process, the secretiveness, the tribalism, the alarmism, and so on, will continue to be discussed in scientific circles for months, years and decades to come, especially if the climate models predicting a catastrophic future is proven false. The fact that so many were cautious in expressing solidarity with Mann, et al, can only show that they knew that not all was right in climate science.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:32 am
“But a scandal? No. In order for it to be a scandal, it would have to show scientists doing things to falsify the science. It does not, no matter how many times the “skeptics” take things out of context.” Chris
Now this is necessarily a long read, but it is an account of the “context” of “hide the decline”
I don’t expect you to read it Chris, but anybody with an open mind on this subject should check it out.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/12/daily-mail-special-investigation/
January 6th, 2010 at 11:35 am
I read the Washington Post article the day it came out but skipped the comments altogether. So some of the things I’ll be saying in response may have already been said by others. I have two points to make.
Firstly, one of the main themes of the article is the rather feeble attempt to associate the AGW theory with the theory of evolution. The corollary to such an association is that the AGW scepticism is as unscientific as creationism, or ‘inteligent design’ as we came to know later. Creationism derives its tenets from a book of faith. It does not rely on scientific method as the sole basis of its knowledge. AGW scepticism however seeks to use the same scientific procedures that gave way to the AGW theory to acquire its knowledge. I am fairly certain, Chris, that most of the scientists whose help you are seeking are intelligent enough to know that the AGW scepticism is nothing like creationism.
And secondly, the article neglected to expand on why not many other scientists came to the rescue of Micheal Mann, et al. You say,
Well, Chris, in case you did not know already, the reason that not many climatologists as well as scientists from other disciplines offered much help to Mann and others is/was because they did not want to be associated with the secretive, tribal way scientific work was being carried out by the likes of Micheal Mann and Phil Jones. Didn’t Richard Feynman urge young scientists to do exactly the opposite in his Cargo Cult Science speech? Most of the AGW faithful are still in denial about the damage the climategate scandal has done to Climatology and quite possibly to all other scientific fields. Although climategate scandal may have receded from the mainstream media, the manufactured scientific consensus, the corruption of the peer-review process, the secretiveness, the tribalism, the alarmism, and so on, will continue to be discussed in scientific circles for months, years and decades to come, especially if the climate models predicting a catastrophic future is proven false. The fact that so many were cautious in expressing solidarity with Mann, et al, can only show that they knew that not all was right in climate science.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:36 am
The folks who keep saying nothing in e-mails show anything but pettiness etc either haven’t read them or don’t know how to read
They’re either repeating what they’ve heard, or have read some online “cleaned up” version with cherry picked quotes, sort of like the cherry picked way they did the science.
Thanks
January 6th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Alexander,
Quite.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:42 am
try reading this:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
It may not be correct, but to say there’s nothing worth investigating is closing your eyes. My concern is to find unbiased investigators;
January 6th, 2010 at 11:46 am
moptop,
Things were not taken out of context. Actually, if you put them into context, it gets worse.
RealClimate is biased beyond belief. 95% of comments are AGW positive and moderated. Here`s another view from the hide the decline.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
The above site is also biased anti-AGW but the comments are not moderated to the same degree.
Here`s another analysis of the e-mails.
read these references with an open mind.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Here`s an analysis of the e-mails from a John P. Costella (Ph.D)
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
January 6th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Again, moptop, you’re recycling arguments that have already been addressed here in the comments that you participated in, but you ignored. (A sign of hackitude, seems to me.)
Skip down to the “Mixed Messages” section of this factcheck.org article:
http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
“Hide the decline” refers to replacing bad data with real temperatures. The bad data was not a secret and was addressed in other articles (some that Factcheck links to in this article).
January 6th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Ahem.
The effort to whitewash this is, frankly, unsettling. And exactly what is so unsettling is that some people… on both sides… are so willing to rush to conclusions based on incomplete data, going off on their typical biases. Imagine two people draw a card from a standard deck. One draws a King and the other draws an Ace. They both think they drew the higher card because they can’t agree on the high or low value of an Ace. They are both biased to win… to be right. So, an entire argument to define the rules of the game takes off… one where the two sides are so vested they will never agree.
Back on topic, ClimateGate is going to go down in several acts, and this was only act one: the revelation of the emails.
First, look at how the researchers refer to being part of the “cause”, how they deal with reporters, and how they deal with peer review. Being “human” is NO defense to these charges. These are not impartial men of science.
Now, that may OR may not invalidate the science. Anyone who rushes to say that it DOES NOT is clearly part of the “cause” and the biases associated with it, but anyone who automatically says it DOES is very likely a denier and part of a completely separate and equally biased cause. The science is NOT settled, now more than ever, which means MORE research… under careful eyes, with full disclosure and transparency, without stonewalling and maneuvering… is needed before we even consider some of the economically deleterious measures we are considering.
Unfortunately, human beings are good at one thing above all else: bias. We may never get our answer if that’s the case.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Jon,
They decided to throw away the “bad data” because the proxy measurements (tree rings) diverged from the measured results starting around 1960. This “bad data” was extensive and should have made the scientists take a step back to question if the proxy data before 1960 could even be relied upon. But instead , they grafted measured data to proxy data pre 1960! Since it was a multi-proxy graph, they made sure the “bad data” line stopped at 1960 at the intersection of another line so a casual observer would not notice. That was the “trick” part.
The thrown out data showed declining temperatures. It`s called cherry-picking your data to show your pre-determined outcome.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Dear author of this article,
Obviously you haven’t read the emails where they squashed other scientific papers from appearing in the journals. How the Russians say their data was cherry picked and they only used temperatures from urban areas. There is a scandal here and these men are being investigated. If the research of this “handful” of men is valid why didn’t they release it so that other scientists could try to reproduce the results? The hockey stick graph has been proven to be junk science so get off your high horse and realize that yes there is climate change but being man made is negligable.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
All these scientists and journalists and politicians and activists who have been ramming global warming down our throats for a decade have suddenly been faced with their reputations being trashed. The result is a completely disingenious attempt to throw blame on climate “deniers” for “exaggerating” the “non-scandal”. Like a man who has just realized that the police know he’s the guilty one, only when people are really scared do they make up ludicrous excuses.
Never mind that the emails reveal that the main set of data on which the entire gloabl warming “consensus” was based, as well as on which was based the IPCC report and UN recommendations, was fudged. It was all made up. The climate model source code, which cannot be “taken out of context”, had a variable array in it arrogantly called “fudge factor”, which cranked up the temperatures in 5-year increments throughout the 20th Century such that a hockey stick would result at the end. Even completely random data entered into the climate model would show a hockey stick.
Yet is it we who are called the “deniers”.
Let me give you a bit of advice. This scandal isn’t going away. Nobody is so stupid as to believe nothing went on. The more you try to pretend nothing happened, the more your reputation will go down the drain. It’s your choice.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
This “bad data” was extensive and should have made the scientists take a step back to question if the proxy data before 1960 could even be relied upon.
The question is whether the problem was called out in the studies, and I believe it was. And these studies, by the way, were not for “the casual observer”. They weren’t publishing in USA Today. They were publishing for other scientists and other technically literate, interested parties. Their audience had every opportunity to challenge their work (which is now ages old, in terms of the development of the science).
And again, as I said in the other thread, you can reach the same conclusions using completely different proxies from tree rings:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.html
January 6th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Jon,
This graph was to be used in the IPCC`s “summary for policy makers” (ie politicians) and they knew that. The optics were of great importance here. Politicians don`t bother reading the details.
Please read this:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
It is timelined with e-mails.
Even if you believe in AGW, you should read it and nuance it with http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/12/daily-mail-special-investigation/
Keep an open mind.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Jon,
I didn’t expect you to read my link, which comprehensively debunks your claim, at a length that precludes summary, by bringing in the history of other relevant events that took place contemporaneously. Tell you what, anybody interested in the truth should read both links. How does that sound Jon?
January 6th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Oh yeah, all of those pretty hockey stick graphs you show either depend on the CRU, which the UK met office is in the process of a three year re-examination of based on issues raised by climategate, or stop at the beginning of the Little Ice Age. Wow. Those are what are called “rhetorical graphs”, you should go back just a little ways further on that borehole graph, Jon.
Lots of those other “independent” graph lines are based on tree rings. You really ought to separate those out, or stop making the claim. One of them is “Moberg et al”
Here we reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the past 2,000 years by combining low-resolution proxies with tree-ring data,
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html
Who is the denier Jon?
January 6th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Again, Syl, considering how old this study is, and that other studies have superseded it (see my link, for instance) the point is moot.
Yes, the “optics” are important. There is an element of persuasion in a graph, and what appears in large and small print. (That’s why politicians hire people to read the small print.)
And this issue also applies to our conversation right here. As a sane lay person, I don’t have time to go through all the studies on 1960 “the decline” and see how strong the case is that the problem is isolated to one particular tree ring data set.
But again, the point is moot. It’s like we’re arguing about a flaw in the Windows 95 operating system. What’s that kvetching got to do with now?
January 6th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
That is, what’s that kvetching got to do with now, other than trying to convince me that the whole history of computing is a HUGE CONSPIRACY involving Microsoft against everybody?
That Windows 95 code is part of a larger picture of the Evil Bill Gates trying to Control the World and other such B movie plots.
January 6th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Hi Jon,
It does matter if it was 10 years ago. The true topic of discussion is the contents of the e-mails. Was is exposed is their behaviour which continues to this day.
They are on a crusade rather than seeking the scientific truth. They prepared in advance rebuttals and negative reviews of certain authors before these papers even became available to them!
And as for Microsoft – you bring a good point. Don`t forget that it was Bill Gate`s own e-mails that nailed them. (ie conspiracy against Netscape and others)
January 6th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
From Technology Review
McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/?a=f
The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.
Thomas Huxley
January 6th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Just as the public believed everything the media has spewed in favour of climate change catastrophe, they now believe everything the media spewes about Climate Gate. The media is now on a crusade saying that ClimateGate is proof that AGW was a hoax all along and the public is lapping it up. You folks didn’t complain when the media was on your side, not you’ve got to eat it when the media jumps from the ship.
January 6th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Dr Stephen Schneider, of Stanford,
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen”
January 6th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Goodness. Surely it wouldn’t hurt your credibility to admit the obvious: The ClimateGate emails were more than a public relations disaster. If you want to spin it, fine, hopefully you can at least admit that the lesson to take from the emails is that scientists are not automatons. They’re human beings who work in the real world and occasionally bicker and act as advocates for their beliefs. But to suggest that the only problems evident in the emails were a result of “being taken out of context”? That’s preposterous. The only people who are going to be convinced by your statements are people who really want to believe it, and who won’t take the time to look at the emails themselves. You’re selling your credibility for cheap, and unnecessarily.
January 6th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Don`t forget that it was Bill Gate`s own e-mails that nailed them.
But this isn’t a case of monopoly. In the case of CRU (even if beyond people saying mean things in confidential emails you found actual substantial wrongdoing) with AGW we’re not talking about one set of scientists, one set of data, one area of experimentation. We’re talking about many independent groups of researchers, many different data sets, many different areas of experimentation.
If you want to generalize about scientists as a whole class of people, and attack them en masse, impugn their honesty, do PR campaigns against them, stifle their findings when they are government employees, “marginalize” them as part of the “the reality based community“, etc., then Chris Mooney will write a book about you, called *The Republican War on Science.*
January 6th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Chris,
The status of your own blog disproves your thesis. Despite your own communication techniques, you are surrounded by eco-denialists and conspiracists. How else can you explain this?
January 6th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Syl: “Don`t forget that it was Bill Gate`s own e-mails that nailed them.”
But this isn’t a case of monopoly. In the case of CRU (even if beyond people saying mean things in emails you found actual substantial wrongdoing) with AGW we’re not talking about one set of scientists, one set of data, one area of experimentation. We’re talking about many independent groups of researchers, many different data sets, many different areas of experimentation.
If you want to generalize about scientists as a whole cl@ss of people, and attack them en m@sse, impugn their honesty, do PR campaigns against them, stifle their findings when they are government employees, “marginalize” them as part of the “the reality based community“, etc., then Chris Mooney will write a book about you, called *The Republican War on Science.*
January 6th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Mankind should have ended by now using the changing of seasons to manipulate the ignorant to gain power.
The calendar cycle of the Great Year ends in December of 2012. It is not so different from the monthly calendar used daily now by all people that it should appear so impossible to understand for so many.
Perhaps it is because of fear and denial that this cycle cannot be controlled or stopped that the average people are refusing to see what is right in front of their eyes as the clearly marked astronomical event used as the end and beginning point for the Great Year approaches.
This calendar was meant to be used so that people could prepare for the Great Winter, ice age, of the Great Year just as they use the monthly calendar to prepare in advance for the yearly season of winter.
It is a travesty that in this age of world wide technological communication the simple, silent calendar of the Great Year is either totally being ignored or totally being dismissed as something that was created out of no real importance.
January 6th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
I read so many conflicting opinions from professional journalists that I finally decided to read the emails myself, as so many commenters recommend.
Actually I read something over 200 of more than a thousand.
Here is a good rule of commentaries. The bias of the commenter can be determined by combinations of three words. Those words are the emails were “stolen”, “hacked”, or “leaked.” If the commenter says “stolen” you can bet the article is biased pro AGW all the way. “Hacked” tends toward pro AGW. “Hacked or leaked” tends to indicate an open mind. “Leaked” seems to be more skeptical. In addition, pro-biased journalists also say, “a few emails,” when there are in fact well over a 1000 of them. In addition, there are countless other documents.
Since they were public information subject to the FOIA, it is impossible to “steal” them, since the person who got them somehow, had every right to them. How can one steal that which one already has a right to? Why would one consider public information being made public is theft?
So lets look at the integrity of the scientists involved. When a FOIA request was filed they tried to get others to “delete the emails.” That is a crime in all jurisdictions with FOIA. Apparently Chris M believes law breaking is just fine when his job may be on the line.
A scientist protects data diligently. Those involved “lost” and/or destroyed data.
This was discovered only when it was requested.
Those involved in the emails discuss how to squelch, by subverting the “peer review” process, those who disagreed. Once they got the process sufficiently in there favor they claimed the skeptics were not scientists because they did not have peer reviewed articles in publications. This is not a my words, they are the plain straight forward words in the emails.
I advise anyone who believes a single word of Chris M. to “READ THEM YOURSELF.”
When I finished the 200 plus, of the over 1000, I came to believe firmly that the lot of them should be researching from behind bars. And, people like Chris M. should be reporting from adjacent cells.
January 6th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Yeesh Jon, I was expecting some kind of reply to my demolition of your “hockey sticks without tree rings” link. But yet, you seem to be in some kind of “denial” that your link is a laughable attempt at covering up what is obviously true. “(A sign of hackitude, seems to me.)”"
Unprecedented” went out with climategate.
January 6th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
*The Republican War on Science.*
I leave it to anyone with an interest in the subject to read leading alarmist blogs like this one. Remember that Realclimate deletes contrary comments, so you can’t get both sides there, and skeptic blogs like “ClimateAudit” and “The Reference Frame”, by Lubos Motl, neither of which deletes comments that are on topic, no matter their point of view. Then decide which side is engaged in a “war on science.”
January 6th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
You can read *Republican War on Science* and decide for yourself the merits of Chris’s arguments. Mind you, Chris isn’t talking about the people who maintain websites. He’s talking about Senators, high and low Republican administration officials, “scholars” at libertarian think tanks, etc.
And I don’t know about Realclimate deleting “contrary comments” (if I were them, I’d get sick of all the “cooling back in the 70’s” comments too), but as for Climate Audit not deleting comments, that’s not what Tim Lambert has said:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/03/climate_paranoia.php
Any backtracks or comments that link to Lambert’s blog are deleted.
January 6th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Mr. Mooney, comparing skepticism of climate change models and predictions to creationist beliefs is eminent nonsense and bovine waste.
January 6th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Chris, you will find that the skeptic community is comprised almost exclusively of scientist and engineers. To suggest that skeptics are akin to creationist or holocaust deniers reveals a profound ignorance on your part (or maybe it’s just your feeble attempt at spin).
Aside from the alleged criminal behavior (obstruction of FOIA, tax evasion and falsification of public documents), what the climategate papers reveal is a coordinated attempt to tamper with the temperature record and proxy data to make these data conform to the desired PR message of the various funding agencies.
With the publication of McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) people became aware of this manipulation, and the involved scientists panicked. Jones allegedly went so far as to destroy the raw station data (arguably the world’s most valuable scientific data) rather than produce it under FOIA.
The Met Office and Penn State are currently investigating whether the actions of these scientists constitute fraud or other forms of criminality. I’ll leave that assessment to them. For your sake I suggest you refrain from declaring this a non-issue pending the outcome these investigations.
What’s clear is that the scientific method has been corrupted. Discover Magazine should be an advocate for science and not for what’s taken place here.
January 6th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I have another point to add to sHX’s 2 points (only 2 in all that wordage?):
in addition to not having even a child’s knowledge of science, shx also doesn’t know enough or care enough to close tags.
January 6th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
is it an em or an i?
January 6th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
It’s just painful, isn’t it.
You know exactly which way these blogs are going to go as soon as you see how the emails were supposedly extracted.
‘Stolen’… ‘hackers’ and the crime isn’t the almost unimaginable fraud that’s taking place but the criminal activity of those brave enough to expose it.
To the author of another limp wristed piece of handwringing rubbish… jump off this ship of lies that’s going to go down faster than the Titanic and get yourself a proper job.
January 6th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Jeeze Jon, still not responding to my point about your link about independent reconstructions?
As for my “cooling in the seventies” comment, I specifically said “in the media”, which happened. So I am not sure if you were trying to make some kind of jab at me by putting words in my mouth, but whatever.
I think that that whole “Lambert” “ClimateAudit” spat had to do with with Lambert deleting links to CA to avoid raising CA’s pagerank in Google. But I could be wrong, so I will accept your point nolo contendere
I think that “The Attack on Reason by Al Gore” is the best book title ever, btw.
January 6th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
[...] That Washington Post Piece on Science Communication and ClimateGate The comments make interesting reading on how people are realizing what is going on. [...]
January 6th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
It’s interesting to watch the man-made climate change believers (like you, Chris) attempt to dismiss the emails as “taken out of context” and a “smear job”. It’s a pity that you are so brainwashed that the actions of 1) trying to silence dissenting opinion, 2) willfully ignoring freedom of information, 3) artfully juxtaposing temperature graphs from unrelated sources, and 4) general disregard of the scientific method by the small group of man-made climate change fanatics leave you no room for pause. Interesting. Very interesting. It is so sad that you have given away your own reasoning skills to engage in lemming science. There are many reputable climatologists who question the true impact of human-produced CO2 on climate change. These folks are called “deniers” because they dare question Al Gore and the whole flock of
“if you say it enough times, it will become truth.”
Label me a denier. I see temperature being warmer in 1997 than in 2007. I see both 2007 and 1997 as -warmer- than 1850. What are all the causes of global climate change? How much have we contributed? Those are questions. Not denials. what is denied is that Al “I invented the Internet” Gore knows anything substantive about the significant forces and the earth’s response to those forces the result in a constantly-changing climate. Remember the 1960’s bumper sticker “Question Authority”? Use your brain, actually ask some questions as to why climate science is now political science. Remember Occam’s razor that you were taught in grade school? If Water vapor is 90% of the earth’s greenhouse gas, why are we focused on the < 10% component as the only “bogey man?” Ask questions. Think. Clearly you have forgotten how.
January 6th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
It’s obvious from reading the e-mails that Briffa, the guy in charge of the paleoclimate data at East Anglia, thinks his data is garbage. Not just the recent data that nobody understands, but the data all the way back. They don’t even seem to be able to calculate their margin of error and Briffa thinks that it might be so large that it dwarfs the recent rise in the instrumentation records.
Briffa did everything that he could to make this point internally and wanted it addressed in the IPCC report, but he was not well received. If it was published elsewhere, it was in a very hidden place. That’s bad science and Briffa knew it. The e-mails also make clear that the “hockey team,” as they call themselves, did everything in their power minimize the damage that Rosanne D’Arrigo did when she questioned the validity of tree rings as proxies.
If anyone can provide a reference to the mystery publication where the CRU published this “problem,” please do so. I would like to read it. Frankly, I doubt that it exists.
January 6th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
A corollary to my recent comment is that if it’s bad science to mix apples and oranges (proxies and recent temperature reccords,) it’s even worse to mix garbage and oranges. Especially when the garbage obviously fails to match the historical record – the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
But don’t get too hung up on the phoney hockey stick chart. That’s far from the only problem being unearthed. It’s a slow process because they consistently refuse to release their data, but Steve McIntyre at climateaudit.org is nothing if not dogged.
January 6th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Bob: “Chris, you will find that the skeptic community is comprised almost exclusively of scientist and engineers.”
Doubtful. And besides, the Intelligence Design community is full of engineers, so what’s your point?
The anti-AGW community is full of people who think science is a godless, lefty-liberal conspiracy crushing the windpipe of Lady Liberty under the jackboot of a New World Order.
January 6th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Very frustrated reading your recent op ed in the Post. One of my NY resolutions was to stop mollycoddling people who are clearly in the wrong; am tired of engaging people who argue with no basis in logic or fact. (Er, I should note that I’m not talking about you; rather, I’m talking about your proposed approach in things like the evolution debate.)
See: http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=962
January 6th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Anthropophobic Global Warming is a dead parrot.
It is a defunct, expired, no longer existing, shuffled off the mortal coil sort of parrot.
Mooney is a bad plagiarist of Monty Python.
Now he’s doing The Dark Knight.
It would be funny but it ends up with Jonestown.
January 6th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Proxy data isn’t even central to the case for GHG-caused climate change. It’s a piece of supporting evidence. And tree ring data isn’t even the only proxy used. There are several others. But since the “hockey stick” graph is what got the dogs barking (it was on the cover of that 10 year old report!!1!), they continue to harp on a 10 year old study to keep them barking.
January 6th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
“And tree ring data isn’t even the only proxy used. ”
OK, you said it again. Where is the non tree ring proxy or direct measurment, bore holes, for example, that shows the current warming as unprecedented, let’s say, since Roman Times.
Don’t give me that last link again. All non tree ring histories seem to stop at the little ice age, end the mixed chart in it, the first one I looked at *was based on tree rings.
“it was on the cover of that 10 year old report!” – Jon
It has been inside of a lot of more recent reports too. AR4 contained it, even though the National Academy of Sciences said it was unreliable. When it goes away, we will stop harping on it. I suspect, now that Jones has been discredited, that it will disappear from the next one.
January 6th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
“it was on the cover of that 10 year old report!” – Jon
In case anybody is wondering whether Jon is right or not that the hockey stick came and went ten years ago, as he seems to imply.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/10/23/bristlecones-foxtails-and-ipcc-ar4/
It is very technical, sorry, but the point is that the graph is in the latest release by the IPCC.