Climategate

Tag archives for Climategate

On the trick to hide the context

Peter Hadfield (potholer54) talks on the deceitful quoting of the emails stolen from CRU in 2009 Juliette Jowit in The Guardian puts some more of them in context.

Stolen CRU emails: the rejects

Some more of the emails stolen from the Climate Research Centre in 2009 have been released. This time they are accompanied by a readme with out-of-context quotes that asserts the purpose of the release is information transparency, but that’s an obvious lie, since they’ve sat on them for two years and released them just before…

Following in the foot steps of the Sunday Times‘ retraction of their bogus Jonathan Leake story, the BBC has apologized for falsely stating that UEA researchers had “distorted the debate about global warming to make the threat seem even more serious than they believed it to be”. The BBC offers the excuse “that this was…

Following vindications from the NRC panel, the independent Penn State Committee, the House of Commons report, the International Panel, the Penn state Investigatory Committee, the Independent Climate Change Email Review has reported On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in…

Penn State investigation concludes: The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University. More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate…

Earlier I noted the way McIntyre quote mined the stolen CRU emails. But would an honest analysis of the messages have found? Brian Angliss makes the case that it is impossible to understand the emails without consulting with the authors to find out what the original context was.

Rose and McIntyre

Deep Climate documents what happened when Steve McIntyre combined his talent for making mountains out of molehills with David Rose’s talent for fabrication: So in summary, we have a nonsensical accusation of “artful” manipulation of a key graph. And we have a fake “blowup” from the Mail on Sunday that contains important differences with the…

Oxburgh refuted

Andrew Bolt comes up a killer argument to refute the findings of Oxburgh’s committee: Oxburgh’s “choice of transport to the press conference”. You see, Oxburgh drove there in an enormous SUV, so obviously he doesn’t really believe that the CRU scientists’ work is sound, else he would have come on a bicycle or something. Oh…

Phil Jones vindicated

The House of Commons report on the emails stolen from CRU has vindicated Phil Jones — he has “no case to answer”: The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in…

Deep Climate covers the latest in the IOPgate scandal The controversy over the Institute of Physics biased submission to the U.K. Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee’s investigation of the stolen emails from East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit is about to get a whole lot hotter. Of particular interest to Deltoid readers might be the Monckton…