Skip to content

WSJ

November 23, 2009

Tough article by WSJ here.

They conclude:

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

22 Comments leave one →
  1. Alexander Harvey permalink
    November 23, 2009 7:34 pm

    I think they got this spot on.

    “Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn’t have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them. ”

    For a change the devil is in the big picture.

    Alex

  2. crosspatch permalink
    November 23, 2009 7:42 pm

    “IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.”

    Sounds like a bureaucrat’s utopia. You have an organization of people that nobody elected, responsible to nobody but itself, that is exempt from every transparency regulation on the planet.

    It would be funny if the US passed a regulation that stated that as long as the UN is headquartered in the US and funded with US tax dollars, that it must have provide some mechanism for transparency. Such a rule might accomplish a few things.

  3. November 23, 2009 7:58 pm

    You have an organization of people that nobody elected, responsible to nobody but itself, that is exempt from every transparency regulation on the planet.

    It must be the offspring of Brussels.

  4. Alexander Harvey permalink
    November 23, 2009 8:42 pm

    First I am east of greenwich,

    So I can only presume that being one of the “TOP STORIES IN Opinion” at the Wall Strret Journal – Online, carries weight and is what the well informed politico would see as a must read, I do hope so.

    What I would like to see come from all this is some Glasnost and Perestroika.

    My problem with climatic change is that I won’t buy a plot of land until I know where all the bodies are buried.

    I am always more happy with a warts and all picture than the dumbed down one. Perhaps I am more Morlock than Eloi.

    I have no problem with the truth if it is the whole truth. And I am sure that I am not alone. Ironically I, and I think quite a few others have been soured by RealClimate. There are still a lot of things that we don’t understand (these are my buried bodies) and that don’t make sense (like the 1940s blip) but that is the joy in it. I would welcome the blip being resolved but is it a data or an understanding problem, or both. And I think that we can see that neither Jones nor Wigley know the answer (BTW I think that the Wigley comments are probably quite innocent because near the end of the email he indicates that he is going to present his thoughts to some group or other).

    My problem is I don’t like being hoodwinked, EVEN WITH THE TRUTH. I don’t like kangaroo courts, or their “Trust me I’m an expert”. Also blogs like RealClimate make it really difficult to convince people that there may be some truth in AGW because AGW has a lot of leeway in it and is perhaps more uniformitarian that catastrophic. Yet the catastrophists wish to build a concensus of and for the extreme. I am tired of my AGW position being seen as aligning me with a lot of humourless catastrophic revolutionary zealots. Given the chance I would rather march the wrong way than march under the yoke of zealotry. We must always attack zealots even if it cut off our nose. Once they are done for, we can do what is needed even if it is what they prescribed, at least we do it freely and with eyes to see.

    Finally, despite wat they may say, this is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (or QCD). Yes it is detailed but it is not conceptually difficult.

    There are so many questions I would like answered. Many are detailed, I just want to assure myself that the application of the science really is solid, and that it is possible, if we try hard enough for long enough, to model the past and the future of climate.

    Alex

  5. Calvin Ball permalink
    November 23, 2009 10:04 pm

    And I don’t know where else to put this, but it’s absolutely hilarious:

    Iowahawk Geographic: The Secret Life of Climate Researchers

  6. November 23, 2009 10:47 pm

    Iowahawk is frequently quite entertaining. He is a wingnut’s wingnut, but very very funny. See also his classic Pelosi GTxi SS/RT sport edition ad:

  7. Daryl M permalink
    November 23, 2009 10:54 pm

    Wow, this is a fantastic thread, one of my favourite ever on CA.

    First a link to an amazing, perhaps UNPRECEDENTED article on WSJ.

    Then a very well-thought, well-written post by Alex.

    Then we find out that Senator Inhofe is all over this.

    I have hoped for a long time something like this would happen, but didn’t want to hope too much. I never would have believed it, but now it actually seems possible that the AGW house of cards is going to unravel before our very eyes. I would love to see Congress and the press descend on Jones, Mann and the rest of the hockey team like a pack of wild dogs and tear them to shreds.

    If I seem vindictive toward the hockey team, I guess thats because I am, but right now I’m not scowling. I’m grinning from ear to ear because of the delightful article from Iowahawk Geographic. That is a keeper.

  8. DaveJR permalink
    November 24, 2009 3:30 am

    “(BTW I think that the Wigley comments are probably quite innocent because near the end of the email he indicates that he is going to present his thoughts to some group or other).”

    The other way of reading it was that the blip was currently unexplained and his report would be much better if it could be explained using the explanation given. Unfortunately, the reply is “Maybe I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying, but the adjustments won’t reduce the 1940s blip but enhance it.” making it clear that the data aren’t cooperating.

  9. stephen richards permalink
    November 24, 2009 3:43 am

    Crosspatch

    Same principle as the EU. One great big fraudulent gravy train

  10. Paul Z. permalink
    November 24, 2009 4:25 am

    Dr Phil Jones – “all gut feeling, no science”

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=440&filename=1098472400.txt

    ===
    Bottom line – their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
    Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.
    Cheers
    Phil
    ===

    I hope this charlatan gets the sack soon.

  11. EddieO permalink
    November 24, 2009 4:43 am

    Alex

    I think many of us ended up at Climate Audit because we could smell the propaganda at Realclimate. If Gavin and co. are so sure of their science why do they obfuscate and disappear posts that question their “orthodoxy”? As a scientist I do not react well to people hiding their data and/or there methodology, especially if they are publicly funded. I wanted to understand how they arrived at their their conclusions, and that lead me to CA.

    I didn’t expect the rabbit hole that I fell into in my search for reason to be so twisty and deep.

    Eddie

  12. November 24, 2009 5:00 am

    I’m a bit amused that the face-saving meme is that the emails show there is no climate science conspiracy, that idea is just an invention of an industry-funded denier conspiracy. To start to think in this inane contradictory fashion must be one of the symptoms of group-think.

  13. brent permalink
    November 24, 2009 8:21 am

    Climate Science and Candor

    http://tinyurl.com/yagnrzt

    WSJ

  14. November 24, 2009 9:23 am

    Folks, I think the big cover up was not the MWP, but that 1940’s blip which can be seen in the CRU land temp data everywhere. Clearly the CRU gang was covering up the fact that there has been no significant warming in the last 100 years – see for yourself with their own data:

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11466

    Cheers, AJStrata

  15. bender permalink
    November 24, 2009 10:57 am

    AJStrata,
    I’ve pointed this out many times in the past, that Hansen, Schmidt et al. were, and still are, mystified by the Arctic warmth in the 1930s. They simply can not account for it (Hansen et al. 2005). It is the single biggest failing of the GCMs – the failure to get that early warm pulse. Only by cranking the aerosol cooling knob very high can you get the cooling of the 1970s – and even that fails to account for the strength of the Arctic warming in the 1930s. And you will recall that it was McIntyre who discovered Hansen’s error that forced 1998 to appear warmer than 1934:
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880

  16. bender permalink
    November 24, 2009 11:14 am

    The sort of “gut feeling” that would cause somebody to suggest the MWP should be “contained”, to prevent any inconvenient truths from emerging?

  17. Ariannis permalink
    November 24, 2009 2:39 pm

    What are you saying…we can’t get “transparency” from our own government, let alone a rogue agency like the IPCC…lol!

  18. November 24, 2009 3:18 pm

    Bender,

    No argument – but it seems CRU had the data that proved Steve M right.

  19. Larry permalink
    November 24, 2009 7:44 pm

    My letter to the WSJ:

    When I read last weekend in an article that didn’t even make it to the front page of my local newspaper about the hacked documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, I assumed I’d hear more about it on the nightly news shows or at least on the NewsHour or NPR. But I didn’t. C’mon guys! This story is big. Scientists, if they can be called that, are using doctored data (“tricks” is the scientific term one of them used) and censorship of alternate views to pick the pockets of taxpayers worldwide to the tune of trillions of dollars to fix a problem that may not exist. This story is at least as big as Michael Jackson, Jon and Kate, or even the balloon brat.

    Thankfully the Wall Street Journal is pursuing the “Tricks for Trillions” story. (I look forward to one of your journalists sinking his or her teeth into this new cult and its leaders–Dorothy Rabinowitz would be my pick.) And hopefully more than just a few Republicans are willing to pursue this fraud, since everyone—Democrats, Republicans, and Independents—will be having their pockets picked. Bjorn Lomborg has been showing us there are so many real problems we can actually do something about. Let’s not drink the Kool Aid on a monetary black hole that cannot be proven to exist even with fraudulent data.

  20. Shona permalink
    November 25, 2009 3:18 am

    Thank Heavens for the Americans. There will always be some ornery Senator to have a proper investigation.

    The Met Office has just sent out some amazing scaremongering, in The Times

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6930523.ece

    Potsdam is now projecting 7degrees.

    The figures are becoming ridiculous. But they’ll be easy to see with the naked eye (or the bikini …) won’t they?

    I suspect we’ll all look back at this and it will be a famous “bubble”. Rather like tulip mania.

    Aha I see a pattern, East Anglia is the UK’s tulip capital … tulips create global warming!

    I suggest we name the “very artificial, hide the decline” corrections “McKay Corrections” in honour of his

    “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_bubble#Mackay.27s_Madness_of_Crowds

  21. November 26, 2009 4:30 pm

    This is very good: A brand new opinion piece in the WSJ online is getting down to the real heart of the matter. (IMO this is the manipulation of peer review, IPCC review and so forth. This is what needs to be noticed. WSJ gets it.)

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: