Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Climategate: Where Are the Apologies?

Climategate: Where Are the Apologies?

So after the hack-fest that was Climategate, what has it really shown us? That climate scientists were dishonest, covering up data, manipulating data for their own ends, spinning us a propaganda tale? Not a bit of it.

The Independent Climate Change Email Review was set up by the University of East Anglia to investigate the charges because, of course, an academic institution rests on its reputation. If scientists are indeed abusing their position, manipulating data and misleading people, that’s serious and demands prompt action.

But as was obvious when the story first broke, based on a bunch of hacked emails, it was a load of nonsense. The scientists had been accused of withholding temperature data from weather stations and keeping secret computer algorithms for processing it into a record of global temperature.

But the report found that the source data was openly available, that the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) wasn’t in a position to restrict access to it, and that it took less than two days to write the computer code to analyse it, all independent of the CRU. And guess what? The results were consistent with other independent analyses. What does that show us? It shows us that climate change deniers were out to get these scientists, to undermine their credibility, and to trump up charges that would encourage people to question the reality of man-made global warming.

So now we can expect these deniers to accept the facts and stop raising absurd allegations? Alas no, that’s not how it works.

As every propagandist knows only too well, once you have told someone something, especially from a potentially authoritative source like a newspaper, a large proportion of them will continue to believe it even when presented with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. The more outrageous the initial claim, the more resistant it is to some people from being subsequently changed by evidence.

The howl from the hack-pack is substantially louder than the whisper of any reasonable enquiry report. Of course, there have already been three previous enquiries which made an equally loud whisper. The House of Commons select committee had already cleared them of any malpractice and Ron Oxburgh who chaired the House of Lords enquiry has already said, “We found absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever”. Pennsylvania State University has also cleared Michael Mann of any impropriety.

So what now? Reasonable people should be justifiably concerned about these climate change denier hacks getting off scot-free. They have impugned the reputations of professional scientists who, had the charges been upheld, would never have worked as scientists again. Surely there are libel laws? We already know how keen some sectors are to employ libel as a weapon against scientists exposing unjustified medical claims. How about a similar charge being levelled against global warming denier journalists who make damaging allegations against reputable scientists?

But hold on. We don’t need to drop to the level of gutter tactics to deal with these ignorant suspicious people who don’t understand the science and see a conspiracy under every piece of pizza. The data is available, the evidence is widespread, there is a massive scientific consensus, and virtually every government now accepts (after years of denial it has to be said) that global warming has a critical man-made component.

We should learn from the consequences of Climategate. We should learn that ignorant and ill-informed people can make a lot of damaging noise. We should learn that scientists are generally not the same as PR merchants or lobbyists, and don’t work with the same media-grabbing tools. They don’t slur and abuse; they use open argument backed up with data, peer-reviewed and challenged.

But we should also learn that the results of science are not simply opinions to be disputed as a matter of taste. If the data says that global warming is substantially man-made, then it is.  Science is not the result of consensus but the result of a critical process of data analysis, theory, hypothesis, testing, and the review of results.  To be acceptable as a scientific result, the evidence has to stand up to open public scrutiny.  And it has.

Science is sometimes difficult to understand because we have to have some knowledge of the subject to make sense of the results. If we are not willing to put the time in to becoming informed about the subject, then we either have to rely on experts, accept the conclusions uncritically, or oppose the results on fatuous grounds. But if we want to engage in the debate, we need to mug up on the subject, learn about greenhouse gases and their properties, understand the constraints used in climate models, look at the data provided by the IPCC, study the data and the arguments, and so on.

About Bob Lloyd

  • Doug Hunter

    What did you expect? the University of East Anglia set up an ‘independent’ review to determine if the University of East Anglia faculty was at fault and it cleared itself.

    The issue was the scientists not sharing their climate data so it could be independently verified and the report backs up that assertion. From your own article:

    “”However, the review board, chaired by former British civil servant Sir Muir Russell, said there has been a “consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness,” both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who “failed to recognize not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.”

    Specifically, the report concluded that on the allegations that the CRU did not appear to have acted in a way consistent with the spirit and intent of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR), there was “unhelpfulness” in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request have been made for them. “University senior management should have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for FoIA and EIR compliance,” the report concluded.””

    So in summary, your post is misled cheerleading interspersed with personal attacks on anyone who would disagree with you… pretty pathetic.

  • http://www.leavingthelandofwoo.com Bob Lloyd

    Doug:
    The criticisms raised by Russell et al were to do with complying with the multitude of requests through the Freedom of Information Act. The data requested under this act by climate skeptics were already available on open source and that’s what the CRU told everyone. But not actually providing the data themselves laid them open to criticism.

    They could have supplied everyone who asked with terabytes of data, duplicating what was already openly available in which case they would have been prevented from working on climate science – which was possibly one of the aims of the skeptics.

    But the fact remains that the charges levelled against them of misleading and manipulating data was utterly untrue. It is surely reasonable that after such an appalling demonstration of media hostility to these scientists, that those responsible for the demonstrably misleading reports should be held to account?

    We should be very clear about this. The scientists did not prevent anyone getting access to the data. They pointed to where it was already available. The CRU were in any case unable to release some of the data they themselves had because it was under licence from other institutions.

    I think the brunt of the criticism that came from the reviews shows that they were not set up with PR front-men who could deflect the stream of requests under the Freedom of Information Act. They certainly weren’t media-savvy. That’s very different from saying they were out to manipulate data and mislead people. Those are surely actionable claims?

  • http://www.leavingthelandofwoo.com Bob Lloyd

    Doug, just a minor point:
    [personal attacks on anyone who would disagree with you]

    You will see, and so will everyone else, that I have made no personal attacks on anyone.

  • caerbannog

    A complete list of the FOI requests made to the CRU can be found here.

    It should be pretty clear to anyone reading through those requests that most of them were made in bad faith; the obvious goal was to harass the CRU scientists and waste their time, not to verify the CRU’s results.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    What did you expect? the University of East Anglia set up an ‘independent’ review to determine if the University of East Anglia faculty was at fault and it cleared itself.

    But it was not by any means the only enquiry which exonerated the CRU, as Bob noted in his article and as is freely referenceable elsewhere. You’re cherry-picking.

  • John Wilson

    All this sudden interest in Science! Wow!

    Of course, it won’t last, because it is insincere. Anti-GW folk just get enough science-sounding stuff to slander their enemies, the scientists who predict and measure GW. Political enemies, not science enemies.

  • gary

    When looking for apologies I believe the scientists involved are lacking as well. They created this mess by not obliging others who asked for the data to replicate their work. It is false to claim that all this data was available. In the key issues raised by the very fair and even handed Steve MacIntyre there is still data unavailable to him to verify some of the proxy data used to support the hockey stick. The original FOI’s were very basic in request. When the scientists responded with poor excuses (the country that the data came from prevents us from showing it to you) more FOI’s were prepared but only to ask for the “confidentiality agreement” for each country. Since there were many countries this resulted in quite a few FOI’s at this point. But all were identical in wording except for the country of request. This was not related to the data and did not require the “scientist” to respond. Clerks could have handled. But guess what…there were no confidentiality agreements in many cases. This is an example of the detail that the so called independent reviews completely overlooked. They never even asked Phil Jones if he deleted emails! He is on record stating he would do just that in the climategate files. Why bother with a review if the result is preordained. It does not matter though. The train has left the station. There are too many sordid details that will not ever allow the scientists to produce studies from now on without the full set of data to go with it. So in the end… they got away with it in the past but never again in the future.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    It is false to claim that all this data was available.

    How about if 99% of it was?

    Since there were many countries this resulted in quite a few FOI’s at this point. But all were identical in wording except for the country of request.

    Most people, on receiving notification that there was a confidentiality agreement precluding the release of data, would have taken it on good faith. Instead, a campaign of what can only be described, even judging by the words of your own account, as harrassment ensued.

    This was not related to the data and did not require the “scientist” to respond. Clerks could have handled.

    Clerical staff don’t just sit around on their arses all day. They’re generally quite busy on their own account, and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t have regarded the bombardment of frivolous FOI requests as any less of a nuisance than the scientists did.

  • John Wilson

    What did ‘the scientists’ get away with? Are ‘scientists’ your politicall enemies?

    “There are too many sordid details that will not ever allow the scientists to produce studies from now on without the full set of data to go with it. So in the end… they got away with it in the past but never again in the future.”

    Sordid?

  • http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709/ Just Tex

    Bob, nobody will ever find any “truth” if they are deliberately failing to look for it.

    With that being so with the “Climategate” affair, there won’t be any “apologies”.

    Anyone that knows the background of these issues well, & has also studied the “Climategate” emails closely, know that both so called “Official Investigations”, one into Michael Mann’s role, and the other looking into CRU’s, have been nothing but complete one sided shams.

    Clive Crook, at The Atlantic (neither he nor The Atlantic are known to be ~rabid Right Wing & Radical), wrote an excellent article in response to both of the Climategate investigatory shams.

    Here’s a excerpt:

    “It’s not the extreme or otherwise ill-advised policy recommendations of the greens that have turned opinion against action of any kind, though I grant you they’re no help. It’s the diminished credibility of the claim that we have a problem in the first place. That is why Climategate mattered. And that is why these absurd “vindications” of the climate scientists involved also matter.”

    Read the rest here.

  • http://www.leavingthelandofwoo.com Bob Lloyd

    Just Tex:
    [Bob, nobody will ever find any "truth" if they are deliberately failing to look for it.]

    That says it all! Scientists don’t go looking for a predetermined truth whereas the climate change deniers and the conspiracy theorists do. Looking for evidence to support a case is called bias and although it’s justifiable in building a prosecution case, there has to first be credible evidence to support a charge.

    The scientific evidence was there for everyone to see but many of the conspiracy folks couldn’t or wouldn’t understand the science. They weren’t able to evaluate the data for themselves but didn’t trust the scientists who could.

    The enquiries did address the charges of manipulating data and cleared the scientists. Of course the scientists were harrassed by inumerable inane requests to divert their time into providing already available material and responded abruptly, as doubtless you would have.

    If you don’t trust the scientists but don’t understand the work they do, and don’t trust the enquiries that investigated the claims against them, you’re left with following your unfounded prejudices.

    But that’s no more credible that the unfounded allegations in the first place.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    In the end, none of this hoopla has anything to do with the science as Bob and others have noted.

    The science stands. There is no credible science which effectively counters the fact of human influence in global warming. Allegations do not achieve the level of fact.

    B

  • pablo

    Rather that trying to actually engage in a civilized debate with Mr. Lloyd (which is impossible) on his Chicken Little hysteria regarding the Climagegate scandal, I have linked to several articles on the issue written by folks that are considerably more literate than myeslf.

    Furthermore there is no reason to waste my time on an author who is disingenous and pompous.

    Yet Another Climategate Review : Global Warming Fears Not Based on Science

    Global Warming Scam : 2010 is Not the Hottest Year

    New US Court Battle Starts After Disputed Climategate Inquiries

    The ‘Climategate’ travesty

    Furthermore anyone that is even slightly knowledgeable about the CRU unite at East Anglia knows that a good deal of their funding came from Shell Oil and BP, something that Mr. Lloyd will never acknowledge. Global warming caused by CO2 is pure bunk, as are its chief proponent con men Mr. Gore and Mr. Pauchari head of the IPCC. These are the modern day snake oil salesmen.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Rather that trying to actually engage in a civilized debate with Mr. Lloyd (which is impossible)

    Pablo, I don’t recall Bob ever typing an uncivilized word on Blogcritics. If I’m mistaken in that, please point me to an example or two of his rudeness.

    Global warming caused by CO2 is pure bunk, as are its chief proponent con men Mr. Gore and Mr. Pauchari head of the IPCC.

    “Chief proponents”? Perhaps you could direct us to some peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject which were authored by Messrs Gore or Pachauri?

  • pablo

    Well Dread one person’s civilized is someone elses uncivilized.

    Mr. Lloyd has frequently used the disparaging term, in a disparaging way the word denier. It is one of the cute un-scientific snide ways in which, instead of actually debating an issue, his side resorts to name calling.

    Indeed I find that sort of discussion distinctly un-civilized, hence my remark about it. I hope this clears up the issue for you Dread.

    The first thing that using the term denier does, is subtly assert the argument that “deniers” do not believe that there is climate change. Which is absurd and dishonest on its face.

    The second thing that it does in an even subtler fashon but more insidious is link holocaust denial with those that are questioning man made global warming.

    Equally interesting in part and parcel of the global warming proponents, is their utter inablity to debate, or even question a theory, and assert orthodoxy over the issue.

    I have attempted on numerous occassions to discuss this issue with Mr. Lloyd before, and pointing out in particular his un-civilized manner all to no avail.

    This is why Dread, that I used particular links, (you might even check them out!) to make my case, regarding the CRU’s attempt to put the genie back into the bottle.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Pablo, I’m not personally fond of the term, but there are parallels between “global warming deniers” and “Holocaust deniers”.

    Both camps doggedly refuse to accept something, in spite of an abundance of evidence, because the truth of it threatens their belief system.

  • pablo

    Ok Dread your in the same camp as Lloyd, as if I give a shit.

  • http://www.leavingthelandofwoo.com Bob Lloyd

    Pablo:
    I am sorry that you find the clear expression of an argument uncivilised. It is a fact that the media accused the climate change scientists of manipulating the data and providing a misleading case. It is a fact that they were exonerated after three separate investigations. You can choose to refuse to accept these judgements of course.

    Mr. Lloyd has frequently used the disparaging term, in a disparaging way the word denier.

    The use of the word “denier” is understood in the context of the debate about whether or not human activity plays a significant or even determining role in global warming. Most, if not everyone, understands that. The fact that those who were attacking the scientists were denying the role of human agency in global warming makes them “deniers”.

    I find it unfortunately that people broaden the meaning of “denier” to make comparisons with Holocaust deniers as there is no reason at all to link those who dispute man-made global warming with those who denied the reality of the Holocaust. It is nothing more than a slur to associate the two. I don’t do that.

    What encourages people to make the link is that there is an obvious refusal to acknowledge well-established peer-reviewed evidence.

    I am more than willing to discuss the evidence for man-made global warming and I’ve written articles and reviews doing just that and responded to questions and comments. Almost without exception, the “denier” camp refuse to accept the scientific evidence, fail to look at the specific scenarios in the IPCC models, fail to take note of the documented atmospheric and ocean changes, and adamantly deny that man is the cause.

    They have pointed to causes which demonstrably don’t account for the changes and point to historical records which do not in fact support their claims.

    Faced with such dogged refusal to engage with the science, it seems eminently reasonable to describe them as “deniers”.

    Equally interesting in part and parcel of the global warming proponents, is their utter inablity to debate, or even question a theory, and assert orthodoxy over the issue.

    This is an astounding claim given the wealth of detailed published peer-reviewed information produced, the detailed consideration in IPCC publications of alternative theories and objections, the publication and evaluation of potentially conflicting data sets, and the running of the simulations with parameters designed to question assumptions.

    Perhaps you haven’t seen these debates or haven’t followed the detail. If that’s the case, you might like to have a look at John Houghton’s excellent book Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. There you’ll see a very full consideration of all the points made by deniers and the evidence against them.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Pablo, I have quite a lot of sympathy for more than one of your points of view and even agree with you completely on some, but here you are just being arrogant, dogmatic and rude. None of these are attractive qualities…

    The rational and sane approach to anything, which lies at the heart of scientific processes – and in stark contrast to the magical thinking of faithists and the superstitious – is to start from a position of humility, knowing nothing and making efforts to find out. This requires an openness, a sense of wonder and a certain vulnerability that “believers” either can’t reveal or simply don’t have.

    Personally, most days I start off feeling like I know nothing and wondering with hope and excitement what I might learn today.

    Disappointingly, much of the time I learn the same things, one of which is that you can never have a conversation with someone who knows they are right, which tends to include both faithists and deniers.

    I’ve actually read the four articles you linked to but found them largely to be obsessed with minor details whilst missing the big picture.

    I’m a big picture person by nature, although I have learned the importance of details, mostly the hard way, over the years.

    To my mind, I see little benefit in worrying too much over whether mistakes were made by the CRU. Even if they did have a little conspiracy, which is unproven so far, the work of many other scientists all around the world will either confirm their position or confound it.

    As to the big picture issue of alleged global warming and its causes, the key points to me seem to be these; judging by events such as the shrinking Antarctic ice (which is the main concern because it is mostly on land, as opposed to the Arctic ice which is mostly in the water) and that most mountain glaciers are retreating, to say nothing of the fact that in my lifetime and part of the world, Western Europe, the Winters have tended to get milder and the Summers warmer (although not in a simple linear way), it would seem reckless to assert that the climate is not changing or that that change is not one of warming rather than cooling.

    Now, this may all be part of a natural process as the planet’s climate changes, as it has done for millenia. If so, we will still have to adapt and react in order to survive.

    However, with the planet’s population at an all time high and increasing and our consumption, energy use, heat output and waste output also at an all time high and increasing, it doesn’t seem reckless to conclude that our collective output is adding to the natural processes to some degree.

    Attempts to reduce that footprint don’t seem like a bad thing to me, particularly as our attempts to do so increase our overall knowledge, understanding and capability in general.

    I wish that we could all just ignore these issues and not have to worry about or debate something which is actually pretty boring most of the time despite the importance of the issue, but even though mistakes are naturally going to be made by parties on either side of the debate and those mistakes will be corrected over time, I still think it is a debate worth having.

    Finding ways to care for the only planet we have, for now at least, seem like common sense to me, lest we really screw things up for ourselves by an excessively blinkered approach to our environment.

    Compared to many other species past and present, humans have only been around for a short while. It would be good to think that we will be around for a long time yet, giving our still immature species time to grow into something truly impressive and lasting. That is my hope and desire.

  • Dan

    “Now, this may all be part of a natural process as the planet’s climate changes, as it has done for millenia. If so, we will still have to adapt and react in order to survive”—Christopher Rose

    If you’re interested in “big picture” concepts here’s one. Why care about survival? The global warming goblin works too slow to get any of us. And since there is no God or after life, and our existence here is as meaningless as it is accidental, why give up your comfort for some future generation of purposeless inhabitants who likely come to regard us as either chumps or hated environmental spoilers?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I don’t think it quite works that way, Dan. If it did, we’d have numerous generations of ancestors whom we loathed.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Dan, your churlish and short-sighted remark isn’t a big picture concept at all, just stupid.

    Although I would agree with you that there is no god or after life, I don’t see our existence as meaningless at all. Although I note that you appear to see your own as such, but that’s more about you than anything else.

    I don’t want to give up my comfort, I want to protect it, for me, my family and those who will come after we are gone.

    I hope you get over your cynicism one day…

  • Dan

    Those who come after you are doomed as well. The planet is doomed. All suns burn out. All efforts at sustaining the accidental existence of humanity will be rendered meaningless, but this won’t matter to anyone because we will all cease to exist.

    Giving up some of your present comfort is what the warmers are about. That is why they talk about sacrifice and carbon taxes.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    We’rrrrre all doomed! DOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!

  • Dan

    Dr, well it looks like you’ll at least put up a fight. What kind of pitchfork is that?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    It’s the kind that fought the Germans. They don’t like it up ‘em, you know.

  • Dan

    In between German impalings it looks to be a good campfire weenie roaster.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    You bring the buns and I’ll bring the bratwurst. And now, may I please be excused?

  • http://www.aipingfulepp.com/ Aiping Wang

    The secrets of getting life coaching clients are the same as with any clients, and attracting Reiki clients is no difference to getting hypnotherapy clients: at least not in the way you go about it and the techniques you use. Whether by article marketing, blogging or teleseminars, it doesn’t matter whether you are promoting life coaching or advertising Reiki: the methods are the same.

  • http://www.leavingthelandofwoo.com Bob Lloyd

    Aiping Wang:
    Your comment seems to have ended up on the wrong article. On the subject of Reiki clients, perhaps they should be recommended to read something along these lines.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Aiping Wang’s comment is spam.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    And particularly obnoxious, imo, it is to see ‘practitioners’, who espouse the ‘spiritual’ and ‘holistic’ and ‘healthy’ and ‘natural’, using the methods of the ordinary ruthless capitalist to use everyone in sight to make money.

    Capitalism looks even worse on people who you don’t expect to lie to you.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Oh, I got sidetracked and I almost forgot …Good article Bob! :-)

  • http://www.leavingthelandofwoo.com Bob Lloyd

    Cindy:
    Since AW was spamming, I thought I’d put the link to one of my own articles about the silliness of Reiki claims.

    Glad you liked the article.

  • Zedd

    Love the picture Doc.

  • Zedd

    The dooooomed one

  • genealogymaster

    It won’t lay the controversy to rest until they do what they said the would do and that is examine the science. They also need to examine all of the emails and prove none were deleted. They all failed miserably. The deck was stacked they are not going to say these guys were bad.

  • http://www.leavingthelandofwoo.com Bob Lloyd

    genealogymaster:
    That’s a strange principle you work by. They won’t be innocent until they can prove they haven’t destroyed any potential evidence? That’s an impossible demand at the best of time because you can’t prove a negative. And you seem to think that any email they might have deleted could be potential evidence. How could you assess that?

    That’s the principle of guilty until proven innocent isn’t it?

    The allegations were that they had manipulated the data and mislead people. The didn’t and they haven’t.

    As for examining the science, it really is in the public domain. The data is public, the analysis is public, the scenarios are all published along with the criteria, the design of the models is public, and there’s an open invitation to critique them.

    The only people claiming that the science hasn’t been examined are people who don’t understand the science and who have never seen any of the published material. Climate science is open, peer-reviewed and published. It’s been demonstrated that the data is all available to anyone who decides to download it. And anyone can analyse the data and see if it supports the Unit’s conclusions.

    So you see, clinging to the idea that a potentially deleted email indicates guilt is really clutching at straws. It’s also turning justice on its head and assuming guilt.

    By the way, why do you assume that they should never have deleted emails? Have you kept every email you have ever received? That seems like a very bizarre requirement to put on anyone.

  • pablo

    Dread 14 you said:

    “Chief proponents”? Perhaps you could direct us to some peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject which were authored by Messrs Gore or Pachauri?”

    A very disingenous reply at best Dread. Indeed Gore and Pachauri are in point of fact the chief purveyors of the chicken little myth. Gore has vanished into the night, and Pachauri is on the verge of being indicted for fraud in the UK.

    I find it utterly amusing that the chief purveyors of man made global warming
    are all oil men. Gore, Pachauri, and Maurice Strong, the infamous Rothschild shill.

    Adding to that is the fact that both BP and Shell Oil have been major funders of the CRU unit at East Anglia for years.

    The only real agenda here Dread, is a global carbon derivative fraudulent scheme, whos ultimate goal is not even financial!
    The plan is really very simple. You are toxic, the air that you inhale is killing the planet. All huminoids will be subject to an RFID chipped identity card that will track every movement that you make, to determine your “carbon footprint” (what a lovely term!).

    The fact that you cannot see this Dread, only goes to show how utterly naive your politics really are.

    On another note Dread, because I do not want to go and find the other thread where you and I were briefly discussing the power to declare war:

    You said, and I am characterizing, that the constitution was ignored because in the modern day and age due to technology the power to wage war does not have time for the congress to declare war. I found that argument to be disingenuous as well.

    The fact is that each and every time that the US has unlawfully invaded other countries in the last 50 years there was plenty of time for congress to exercise its constitutional responsibility. And each time that the law was broken, my country became lesss of a constitutional republic, and more of a despotic corporate controlled monolithic police state.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Indeed Gore and Pachauri are in point of fact the chief purveyors of the chicken little myth. Gore has vanished into the night, and Pachauri is on the verge of being indicted for fraud in the UK.

    Neither Gore not Pachauri are climate scientists, and as I have repeatedly said in the past, it is not what they say which I pay attention to but what the science says. If you are unwilling to look at the science, as seems to be the case, then you’re really only arguing with yourself.

    Nevertheless, the information in Gore’s films and books is broadly accurate, albeit simplified for popular consumption. Pachauri’s fraud troubles arose from his membership on company boards, not from his chairmanship of the IPCC. If you are unconvinced of his innocence of fraud then that is your prerogative, but again it has nothing to do with the science. To repeat an analogy I made before, if Adolf Hitler knocks on your door and tells you your roof is on fire, you would probably want to at least check it out before dismissing the warning out of hand.

    Adding to that is the fact that both BP and Shell Oil have been major funders of the CRU unit at East Anglia for years.

    Firstly, so what? Corporations often invest in universities: it’s where their future employees, researchers and leaders are going to come from. Secondly, I don’t find it in the least bit unusual that an oil company would want to find out more about how its activities are affecting the environment.

    The only real agenda here Dread, is a global carbon derivative fraudulent scheme, whos ultimate goal is not even financial!

    Hmm, let’s see… a theory based on secrecy, rumour, hearsay, innuendo and conclusion-jumping versus one based on peer-reviewed, publicly available scientific literature. Which way to go…?

    The fact that you cannot see this Dread, only goes to show how utterly naive your politics really are.

    Arguing over whose politics are the more sophisticated while atmospheric temperatures climb to potentially disastrous levels is rather like arguing over who gets the top bunk in the shelter while the ICBM starts its re-entry into the atmosphere above your head.

    Finally, on the “declaration of war” discussion, I actually agree with you, Pablo. The power was delegated to Congress specifically because the founders knew Congress would take till halfway to eternity to agree on anything. It was intended to put a brake on the hawks and prevent the country going off half-cocked every time a British or Spanish warship got within 100 miles of the coast.

    I was merely analyzing the rationale behind the behaviour of modern governments.

  • Dan

    “The allegations were that they had manipulated the data and mislead people. The didn’t and they haven’t.”—Bob Loyd

    According to the ICCER report (page 60,paragraph 26), with regard to the famous “trick” to “hide the decline” e-mail statement, the investigators concluded that the figure published for the World Meteorological Organization Report “was
    misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together.”

    The earlier investigations, including Penn St., found it to be a valid procedure. So we can see disagreement even in the attempts to clear the scientists.

    The real value in exposing the scandal is that anyone can see for themselves by reading the e-mails that AGW scientists at the highest levels are not simply applying scientific method and following the evidence where it leads. Instead they are invested in a political activism.

  • http://www.leavingthelandofwoo.com Bob Lloyd

    Dan:
    It’s interesting that the ICCER report didn’t regard the splicing of the data together as wrong per se, only that since the graph had achieved iconic status, it would have been better to have been more explicit. But this is old hat anyway, since it had been debated extensively by scientists ever since.

    It’s only non-scientists jumping to conclusions who were not in a position to interpret the graphs correctly, and that’s a problem generally for journalists reporting science. The scientists themselves had been debating it over and over.

    There are very many statistical techniques used to identify trends and it takes some understanding of the mathematics to judge the suitability of the techniques. In this case, it was a reasonable technique to use, especially since the source data is, and has been, available for anyone to do an alternative analysis.

    Every statistical technique makes some assumptions and if you understand the statistical methods, you will know what they are and take them into account. The minor criticism made was that they should have been more explicit. Views on that will vary depending on what mathematical sophistication you expect in the scientific readership interpreting the graphs and data. Of course, media hacks might not possess mathematical skills and won’t know what they are looking at.

    The real value in exposing the scandal

    The problem with phrases like that is that there isn’t any scientific scandal at all. These scientists have been cleared of any misleading and it’s been shown that they didn’t manipulate the data. The scandal is the atrocious treatment of these scientists by the press, by people who clearly didn’t understand the science and who jumped onto the bandwaggon of assuming a conspiracy and guilt without any credible evidence. Scientists who have worked with open data and peer-reviewed publication, have had their reputations trashed by media hacks who had nothing to go on but a large quantity of nicked emails and a lust for juicy headlines.

    It made for a hackfest for journalists with very low standards, and could have irreparably damaged the reputations of those scientists working in the field. That’s the real scandal here.