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 doubt. ... we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. ... But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness
On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not
in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. ... On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence
of bias. ... We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. ... On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial
process we find no evidence to substantiate this ... On the allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU scientists of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 to the public and policy makers, we find that the allegations cannot be upheld
Yes, it's another vindication. Steve McIntyre isn't admitting that he got it wrong, continuing to insist that Briffa broke IPCC rules while writing AR4. Oddly enough McIntyre fails to quote these IPCC rules that he alleges were broken. Where's the transparency?
If you do not mind, a copy of my post at RC:
"Good post Gavin and Mike, I look forward to more commentary from you in the coming days.
This report will of course do nothing to appease certain âskepticalâ elements, well probably most of them, then again when global SATs anomalies approach +2 C they will still remain unconvinced. Odd how that works, they demand inquiries and then simply dismiss them as âwhitewashâ. The reason of course is all about perception, and that it allows them to make more insinuations and to make mountains out of molehills. They know that the science is robust, but the fabricated scandal and ensuing circus has done damage.
What I think now has to happen is that certain âskepticalâ elements need to be officially investigated and held to account. For example, people keep trying to highlight Lindzen coaching Anthony Watts to manipulate the SAT data to avoid obtaining a stat. sig. trend, but that seemingly blatant example of scientific misconduct by a prominent âskepticâ seems to keep falling on deaf ears. Why?
How someone can admit to orchestrating a vexatious FOI barrage and get away without any consequences whatsoever is beyond me. Or how someone can accuse a scientists of withholding data when they had those data all along is ridiculous. And on and on it goes. The âskepticsâ demand âtransparencyâ and âaccountabilityâ, yet no one is officially holding them to account or demanding transparency from them.
Please tell me that there is something in the works to do this. The climate scientists have been on the defensive for far too long now (long before SwiftHack).
Dr. Jones, if you happen to be reading thisâ congratulations.
Now let us all get back to doing science :)"
I found Jim's response interesting.
And if you want to see to true wackiness, not to minimize McIntyre's craziness, read the comment at the CBC forum:
OMG!! Is Canada becoming the bastion of ignorant trolls and conspiracy theorists, with an epicentre near McIntyre's and McKitrick's houses!?
You'll be glad to know that The Australian seems to have decided to keep this report a pretty low key headline.
Unlike their prominent and misleading headline on the Dutch IPCC report (and oddly my letter politely pointing out that the main points of the IPCC report were found to be totally correct doesn't appear to have been accepted).
There is some serious strangeness going on at the editorial and sub-editorial levels of The Australian, which many years ago used to be reasonably neutral and accurate.
May I be the first to demand an inquiry into the Lawson-Peiser [inquiry](http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1204-investigation-into-climategate-…) into the whitewashes inquiries?
I have discovered a serious error in Muir-Russell, which clearly means that:
a) it was all a put-up job.
b) All of the results must be thrown out, and it can be started over with a real independent panel composed of Nigel Lawson, Viscount Monckton, and a few more of their choice.
Benny *Peizer* was mentioned 4 times, and that spelling error clearly invalidates everything.
My favourite bit was section 6.5, where they say they were effectively able to replicate the CRU code and temperature series with no help from them in two days and get essentially the same result with the data freely available over the internet. If they were able to do that so easily, what's been stopping the supposed 'auditors' all this time?
Naturally, the choir at WTFUWT is shrieking to the heavens.
I left them this little note of encouragement. I wonder if it will be there long:
Sing louder, choir; sing louderâ¦you are fading away.
Just like the last Mann report must be thrown out because they referred to a "Dr." McIntyre 5 times. ;)
Seriously, though, such carelessness is not really excusable.
Actually Tim, it's almost time for another report on The Australian's War Against Science.
Their article is headlined ["UN's Climate Report One-Sided"](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/uns-climate-report-one-sided…) and is lazily reprinted from The Times in the UK (maybe it should just be The Time's War Against Science).
It's pretty badly worded, perhaps to intentionally give the wrong impression. Almost all of the article is spent highlighting some minor errors instead of the overall conclusion that the IPCC report's findings are "well founded". If you go to the actual link at the [Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency](http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2010/Assessing-an-IPCC-assessment.-An…) the main points and conclusions read pretty differently from the news article!
"If they were able to do that so easily, what's been stopping the supposed 'auditors' all this time?"
'Dr' McIntyre was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's 'World Tonight' http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qtl3 just now, alongside Bob Ward.
McIntyre sounded reasonable if you'd never heard of him before, and Ward sort of said the right things, but didn't really bother to take McIntyre out to the cleaners.
Indeed, he commented that there were polarized points of view on the blogosphere throwing insults at each other - which basically boils down to some sort of false equivalence meme. Thanks for that.
However, they had Michael Mann on first, who was excellent, and who used the term 'climate change denier' frequently. A master class in how to get the message across. UK climate researchers please take note! In fact, I would have loved to hear an interview between McIntyre and Mann - I suspect McIntyre would have been creamed.
Must try and catch that. BBC2 Newsnight tonight was far too generous to the deniers, making it seem that there was real equivalence between the 2 "sides".
BTW McIntyre appeared in a short recorded clip. Now I know what he looks like.
Could you find something in the Australian about the Muir-Russell report? I looked through the paper fairly intensely this morning, but I couldn't find anything.
Their editor, to put it mildly, belongs in the "all greenies are evil and climate scientists are greenies, therefore all climate scientists are wrong" camp. Firmly. Also, wouldn't know science if it slapped him in the face with a wet fish.
Monbiot recognizes his error and mans up:
So was I wrong to call, soon after this story broke, for Jones's resignation? I think, on balance, that I was. He said some very stupid things. At times he squelched the scientific principles of transparency and openness. He might have broken the law. But he was also provoked beyond endurance. I think, in the light of everything I've now seen and read, that if I were to write that article again I'd conclude that Phil Jones should hang on â but only just. I hope the last review gives him some peace.
Any chance that Pearce will do the same?
No surprise to anyone with a functioning cranium, but good to get the lid nailed down on this finally (not that it will stop the wingnuts shrieking about it).
Despite the findings of this report, Fred Pearce over at the Guardian [continues to put the boot in](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/07/climategate…). He's got a book to sell so he's not going to admit error now, dagnabit!
I've seen people describe Pearce as an excellent science journalist. I see no sign of it, just a man with a pre-determined narrative - and a book to sell! - who won't be influenced by minor trifles, such as evidence or lack of it.
@12 - Amanda, no I haven't read anything about the Muir Russell report in The Australian at all. They did briefly touch on the final Mann report, and their reprint of the appallingly deceptive Times' article on the Dutch Government report appeared last night (I'm not in country right at the moment - just going off the website).
Perhaps they couldn't figure out how to spin the Muir Russell report to implicate climate scientists even further?
Yeah the editor has written a few scientific doozies in his editorial opinion column. I'm guessing no-one with any sort of science education actually proof reads them.
Wht cn't wrk t s wh ft dwrfsh fld cmptr scntst s smhw n xprt n glbl wrmng. ll cn s s tht 'm gld tht whn stdd dvncd Cmptr Grphcs stdd ndr g wh ctll ppld hs wrk t th fld f clmt. Smlrl whn stdd mthmtcs nd mdllng wrkd wth rl scntsts ctll dng rl wrk. 'd ht t b stdyng ndr g whs lf wrk s t prp p chrltn scntfc prcdrs nd trwl th wb fr mr trllng pprtnts. t's sms clr tht Lrd Rxbrgh shld nt hv bn slctd t chr th CR nvstgtn. ts ls clr tht lthgh th rvw f Mnn stppd frm pblcl hmltng hm nd pssbl thrb dng grt hrm t scnc, th clrl dspprvd f hs tchnqs nd wr nl bl t cnfrm th mst bsc nd thnk cn frl s ndsptd bsrvtns bt th lst yrs. lthgh ws nc pn t th pssblt tht th GW ws bv brd nd pssbl vn t r dvntg vn f t wsn't, hv snc bcm (ftr hvng hd t rd PCC rprts, scntfc pprs nd mn bks whch cnfss ddn't rll wnt t rd) hrdnd scptc. nd sncrl hp tht sm f th gys ldng ths scm n d nd p n jl bcs 'm prtt sr t's nvtbl tht vntll, vn thr spn wll n lngr b sffcnt. t tht tm, hp. Msgdd zlts lk yrslf wh ctvl wg wr gnst rl scntfc nvstgtn jn thm r t lst rcv th lvl f cdmc dscrdt tht y dsrv. nd yt 'm stll ncrdbl n th drk s t wht mtvtd nd cntns t mtvt y. Yrs f prsctn whlst grwng p nd th nd t ppr mprtnt sspct lthgh myb y hv sm fnncl ntrst y dn't rll dclr. rrlvnt gss. nc rd y cmmnts bcs flt t ws mprtnt t st brst f bth sds f th dbt. Tht ws bfr rlsd y wr nthng bt trll wth mystrs gnd.
"And yet I'm still incredibly in the dark..."
Well, at least one part of one sentence was correct...
Oh look, a new troll.
"after having had to read IPCC reports, scientific papers and many books which I confess I didn't really want to read"... ( rambling post filled with textbook logical fallacies)
Do you have any actual arguments?
No, I didn't think so.
John Frederick writes opens with empty abuse, throws in serveral instance of Fallacy of assertion without substantiation.
>*It's seems clear that Lord Roxburgh should not have been selected to chair the CRU investigation.*
And basically offers and entirly emtpy rant. Bye John, thanks for confirming the standards used by hardened so called "skeptics".
No surprises there. What is terrible is that Australian media are so subverted that we have to scour the overseas news to find out about these things.
After all the faux outrage in "The Australian" (- not!) is it too much to expect some front page headline like "Climate Scientists cleared of all 'charges'!" with sub of "Yet again, climate scientists have been declared guilty of some scientific misdemeanour and yet again, they have been cleared! Just how many times are the professional sceptics and deniers going to waste taxpayers money by chasing scientists through the courts, committees, and commissions, over and over and over? When does it stop?"
Or something like that. Of course, if a journo handed that to the editor it would probably reappear on page 2 as:
"Yet again, climate scientists have been declared guilty. When does it stop?"
You seem to have missed the boat several times in rapid succession. Not surprising though, when one considers that they were obviously swift boats...
You starting of your rant with unsubstantiated, irrevelant ad hominem shows that you have no solid case with which to work, and it reminds me to ask, as someone else surely will if I do not - are you still beating your wife?
You then claim that the subject of your vitriol is propping up "charlatan scientific procedures", which is curious indeed because if they were charlatan procedures they should be collapsing around the ears of the conspirators, and impossible for one such as your envenomed target to prop up.
So, you've read widely, huh? How is it then that a global conspiracy is maintained for decades amongst the vast majority of the world's scientists, whether they are climatologists or not, without the truth seeing the light of day? Because, let's face it young feller-me-lad, every protestation of the Denialati that has so far been proffered has fallen over into the big heap of donkey dung that you seem to imagine mainstream climatology should.
"Misguided zealots", eh? So, upon what rock-solid evidence are you basing your so-called 'scepticism'?
What revelation are you operating under that moves your stance from a phenomenal Dunningly Krugered ideology to actual supportable science? If your stance is actually a supportable one, you will have no trouble providing a succinct rebuttal of carbon dioxide's action as a greenhouse gas, nor of any of [the questions that I posed to many others](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…) a few months back.
Let's see what you are really made of.
Whoops, there go all the vowels again.
Kind of like what pseudo-scepticism looks like since it doesn't include any science.
At times he [Jones] squelched the scientific principles of transparency and openness.
This tends to get overblown. All things being equal, more transparency and openness are a good thing, but all that's really necessary is that you state your methods with enough clarity so that other scientists can replicate your results. I'm not aware of any instance in climate science where this hasn't been the case.
It's not a scientific principle that others should have access to every file on your computer and every piece of data you ever used to "audit" your work. Such endless requests are a fishing expedition at best and a form of harassment at worst. If someone can't replicate your results, then they may be justified in digging deeper to find out who made the mistake, you or them. But as the report shows, replicating CRU's results is easy. The self-appointed auditors obviously skipped that step and went straight for accusatory demands for ever more data and code that they didn't need.
Steve, Monbiot's statement is also complete bullcrap.
George Monbiot, in a desperate attempt to avoid saying he was wrong (Fred has much more work to do, but he's trying to sell a book) and therefore is adamant in his attempt to produce some still remaining reason why he wasn't wrong after all.
Similarly, they continue (both of them) to harp on about the FOI work, as does the panel (in a vain attempt to assuage the denialists baying for blood). But FOIA does allow refusal for many reasons and merely SAYING "I'm gonna throw all future requests from this Bozo" is NOT ILLEGAL and DOESN'T breech the spirit of the FOIA.
DOING SO would be, but not saying so in a private correspondence with a fellow who is also being hammered by vexatious requests.
Jack Thompson has been barred from raising a court issue against computer games for his years of vexatious abuse of the court system. Not threatened, not vented privately to another judge, but actually banned.
This isn't an abuse of the common law right to redress in court.
But CRU's actions are????
Mike #15. Oh, good. I think I misread your comment. I was most puzzled going through The Australian this morning.
I agree: they can't spin it to make it sound bad for climate scientists/science, therefore it is ignored. Thank goodness for their HES supplement, where sanity reigns. Their version of the Dutch report was pathetic.
I cringe at their interpretation of science. I remember their interpretation of sea-level rise stuff just being so horrifyingly wrong and inept and awful that I was embarrassed for them. And it has to be bad when you're embarrassed for someone who you vehemently disagree with.
It is clearly ideologically driven, though - the overall hatred of anything green is quite clear. It's corporate profits, development and infinite growth all the way for them, and full speed ahead. I always wonder if even once they've ever asked themselves, "What happens when it runs out?" It doesn't matter what "it" is. I think the concept of limits on growth is something they cannot allow themselves to even consider. And they reckon greenies like me have a nihilist bent...
ABC News here in Sydney has just managed quite a balanced piece on the CRU vindication on the 7pm bulletin. Harped on a bit about lack of openness, but stressed the science was sound. And a scientist (I missed his super, sorry) got the last word - "we need to be more sceptical of these sceptics' claims." I might put that on a T-shirt.
How would this sound on the front of the Tee shirt....
"sceptical of the climate skeptics"
Interesting that you used both the "sc" and "sk" spellings. Is that why the 2nd one was not in quotes?
But anyway, that is the exact reason for my ID on these blogs.
Crispy @ 26:
a scientist (I missed his super, sorry) got the last word - "we need to be more sceptical of these sceptics' claims."
That'd be Prof. Will Steffen. At least the ABC News gave it some prominence though, as we all know, Auntie is "biased" and "left-wing". Hence the Oz and its "Bolt-ons"... ;-)
From the Inernational Cognition and Culture Institute, http://tinyurl.com/27at3nz
"Most apologetics and polemics are [...] an attempt to shore up group solidarity and conviction within a community that feels insecure and under attack. The a priori conviction of such polemics is simple and unshakeable: 'We are right and they are wrong, and now we will think up some reasons to prove that they are wrong.' â
Shouting at the converted, dear people, is not restricted to the denialist ignorati. It also happens here. Every comment in Deltoid represents time and effort that could have been used to send a short, punchy email to your MP, or to a "Letters to the Editor" column.
Tim Lambert is doing a great job of recording and correcting developments in the anti-science street fight. Let us get on with the job of showing the politicians and opinion makers that there are a lot of people in the real world who understand what is happening to the biosphere and want the damage brought under control. So far, the ignorati have been shouting louder.
I wonder if there are other tactics to use as well. Shouting at the denialati is pointless, for the reasons you describe. To capture the attention of those who aren't ideological warriors may require using different forms of information, that appeal directly to people.
As an example, I recently saw a very powerful graph of Murray-Darling inflows. Instead of being arranged in chronological order, the bars were arranged from lowest inflow to highest and marked by years. The lowest inflow years were horrible to look at: 2006/07, 2009/10, 2007/08 etc etc - a cluster all jammed together at the very, very lowest end of the scale. It was such a clear illustration of a very, very practical and extremely affecting (both emotionally and in terms of its effect on our lifestyles) result of climate change. These kind of graphs may be helpful to produce for rural areas where there's strong resistance to the politics of climate change. Farmers and rural people understand river inflows and the resulting agricultural outcomes, where temperature anomaly graphs may leave them feeling baffled and therefore more likely to reject climate change out of hand.
Travelling through many different bits of the world, I have to say that every farmer I've talked to is extremely aware that climate is changing, probably more intimately than any other profession. And yet, in Australia, older rural men tend strongly towards denial, which seems to relate to a strong mistrust of government and a belief that accepting AGW will mean destruction/denigration of their lives. It would be interesting to determine what kind of communication strategies might begin to change that and harness the skills and determination of farmers to assist in climate change mitigation.
I'm sorry. I'm being terribly off-topic on this thread. I should go back to Open Thread with my speculations.
Um - good on the Muir-Russell enquiry. Glad to see sanity prevailed.
Sir Muir Russell on CRU's computer network architecture and security:
> 22. IT Organisation. In common with other areas of the Science Faculty, CRU operates largely independently of the central IS [information systems] functions of the UEA. [...] CRU has its own local [computer network] architecture based on a mix of individual PC based and server based processing. In common with many other research groups across the university, this is distinct from the UEA preferred model of client-server operation. Internet communications for CRU is however routed over the university network and through the university firewall. CRU has its own IT Manager for whom CRU is 40% of his workload. CRU originally had no central backup arrangements for the individual researchers' PCs however its IT Manager introduced automated backup (using open source software) to a simple server held securely within the Central IS machine room.
Every comment in Deltoid represents time and effort that could have been used to send a short, punchy email to your MP
Rather naive to think that such emails make the slightest difference.
An article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Paola Totaro (Australia) is repeating an error relating to the "hide the decline" issue. Totaro writes: "data that showed a decline in temperatures", when in fact it was a decline in growth ring thickness.
This is the best [no nonsense get-on-with-climate-change](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2010/jul/08/david-mitchel…) I've come across. David Mitchell should be given the job of talking about climate change to world leaders et al. Its also a welcome relief from all the stuff over the past few days.
Our banned 'friend' Poptech has commented on the CRU investigations in :-
(post #29)his comments between the dotted lines.
We are well aware of the whitewashes Clippo,
Climategate Whitewash Complete: Third Inquiry Clears Everyone Involved (Prison Planet)
But the real reports tell a different story,
'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (PDF) (83 pgs) (United States Senate)
The CRU emails show scientists,
- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science âconsensusâ; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process
The Climategate Emails (PDF) (168 pgs) (The Lavoisier Group)
Say no More !!!!
""If they were able to do that so easily, what's been stopping the supposed 'auditors' all this time?"
Except the code was not released till after the emails became public
Let me put it a different way. Would someone please give me an example of a blog post or comment on global warming that has resulted in an observable change in behaviour by a government or large business.
@36, Alan I think we're damned if we do, damned if we don't in some ways. You're correct that blogs probably won't change policy, but then letters to the editor showing that what the editor wrote is complete nonsense are not exactly commonly published.
Likewise, you can't write to Australian Senator Steve Fielding (aka Richard Dawkins' alleged "dumber than an earthworm" quote) and demonstrate to him how clueless he is, because his cluelessness by definition prevents him from recognising it! Not to mention that most people who voted for him share the same problem.
It's a real conundrum in our modern times.
"Why hide something if you have nothing to hide?" As some perceptive person said. Anyway, gentlemen, its these people you have to persuade; at least while the democratic process is extant; I believe some of you may be working to repair [sic] that;
Don't forget to vote.
Yes, Cohenhite, because voting in some crappy poll for an outcome that will be forgotten after a day is *just like holding your own enquiry*!
The only people who bother which such things are obsessive, angry old men looking for any outlet to vent their rage at the "fra*d" that is AGW.
@37, Dave Andrews
"Except the code was not released till after the emails became public."
Dave, read the damn report.
In section 6.5.2, titled "The Availability of Computer Codes," they report that they were able to write their own code based on the methods published in papers, that ti took ~ 600 lines of code, and they did so in less than 2 days. They did NOT use or rely on the published code from Jones et al. So, it didn't matter if the code was released - any competent scientist could have independently verified the Jones' work.
I'm so glad to see the "climate scientists" have been vindicated again, and that such an utterly superficial perusal brings you such comfort and joy.
Just as well these committee members were not involved in the Nuremburg trials, or the Nazis would've been hailed as heroes.
Sadly, it's difficult to tell which is prosecuted with more rigor; the whitewashed investigations, or the "science" itself.
For all the moral superiority the deltoid crew openly flaunts, you are more than happy to accept a succession of whitewashed investigations as proof that your "science" is sound, and then you wonder why the public isn't listening to you anymore.
Did somebody just fart?
Passing wind writes:
>*I'm so glad to see the "climate scientists" have been vindicated again, and that such an utterly superficial perusal brings you such comfort and joy.*
Passing wind is of course refering to what is superficial, the denialist memes and premature pronoucment on the issue. As opposide to the rigor of three seperate inquiries.
>*Just as well these committee members were not involved in the Nuremburg trials, or the Nazis would've been hailed as heroes.*
Fail by use of Godwin's law, pitty about Windy's lack of substance to back his superficial claims.
>*Sadly, it's difficult to tell which is prosecuted with more rigor; the whitewashed investigations, or the "science" itself.*
Sady Windy need present no facts nor arguement, just empty allegations.
>*For all the moral superiority the deltoid crew openly flaunts, you are more than happy to accept a succession of whitewashed investigations as proof that your "science" is sound, and then you wonder why the public isn't listening to you anymore.*
Sadly instead of argument or evidence Windy just uses a label "whitewash" and hopes that is an adequate substitute for rigor.
>>*""If they were able to do that so easily, what's been stopping the supposed 'auditors' all this time?"*
And perverse incentive. Its easier to push FUD when you avoid genuine inquiry. If the audit team did a decent job they risked [clearing up too many misunderstandings](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/climate_scientists_vindicated.p…).
I hope you didn't trip over the dog and injury yourself in your rush to respond.
Nobody doubts your commitment to la causa, only your gullibility. If three inquiries equals rigor, would fifteen guarantee rigor mortis?
The whitewashed inquires are the moral equivalent to the Pope ordering three groups of cardinals to conduct investigations on pedophile priests and conclude they might have been more open and sharing, but it doesn't in any way cast doubt on the underlying truth that God exists or the sanctity of the Holy Roman Church.
I am so glad the investigations passed your rigorous standards. What a moron!
@37, Dave Andrews, the report has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Inquiry had enough independent brains to reproduce the software code on the original information available in a short space of time.
Which in turn proves that all climate sceptics who complain about the code not being available are not particularly bright - at least when it comes to writing and/or understanding code.
Which in turn also makes me openly wonder whether climate sceptics bleating about unavailability of the code would even have the faintest idea what to do with it if it was served to them on a silver platter.
Give it up mate. You guys are really starting to look like a flock of headless chooks now.
@47 Passing Wind. After each inquiry we all have heard the same calls long and loud from the denialosphere: "Whitewash, whitewash ..." but it can be shown to hold no water with a simple explanation. I have a coin (20c)and i'll flip it. If it comes up heads then you can have the coin. If it comes up tails then you give me $100. Will you take that bet? No? Why? Because it is a dumb bet. Only an idiot would risk $100 to win 20c.
This is the case with these inquiries. If it were truly a whitewash then I do not know anyone who would risk their reputation and the reputation of an institution to which they belong to rescue the reputation of another. If there was even a hint of impropriety, Mann, Jones and the CRU would have been hung out to dry and the members of these panels would have distanced themselves quicker than you can pass wind.
When the currency of these researchers and institutions is reputation, if dodgy deeds were done no-one would risk their reputation to ressurect another's. Why? Because it is a dumb bet.
did I just see Godwin's Law invoked on the Deltoid blog?
Yes! Yes, I think I did. How cool!
Windy, thanks for confirming [my assessement](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/climate_scientists_vindicated.p…).
Need I say 'predictable'.
Windy BTW good to see you've finally recovered from [your embarressment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).
But your lack of arguement and self contradictions lower the tone and havn't been missed.
The code writing was a particularly brilliant stroke by the Muir report committee. But even better though is the deniers ignoring of this piece of evidence and so yelling about whitewash.
Wonderful, wonderful responses from Dave boy, Cohers and passing wind. This time I sprayed my cornflakes as far as Hunter Street. Passing wind's stuff bringing in the Nuremberg trials. You just couldn't make it up. Even the cat's laughing.
>*Even the cat's laughing*
That made me laugh! What a wonderful image.
Jckff, yr mstkng m fr smn tht gvs fck wht y thnk. bt y wr yr jcks n th tsd, sprhr styl? Wht dck.
[Confirmation with](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/climate_scientists_vindicated.p…) bells on windy!
Have you found in your life that abuse is a substitute for reason? How intereting.
Cheers and thanks for the laugh!
PW, What an enquiry eh?
Who'd a thunk that one particularly relevant finding would be that the denialati were not only too dumb to get the data from primary sources, but also too dumb to process it for themselves.
I guess that supports the conclusion that denialists/auditors are too dumb for further words.
It seems that the Denialati also are too ignorant to understand that they are actually ignorant, let alone understanding how to find the data and being able to process it.
They have pretty much packaged the Dunning-Kruger effect into sound-bite form.
A colleague of mine used to damn certain folk with faint praise - he'd tell them that they were very good at what they do... just as the denialists are who yammer here and elsewhere.
you gloat about this because you did it yourself? Didn't think so.
Okay, you must be gloating about this because you have confirmed that the data has always been available from primary sources? No, that's not it either.
Got it! Your gloating because you didn't actually read the finding so you didn't notice that without the station identifies, the whitewashers could only match 90% of the stations. Without a complete list of stations used, reproduction of CRUTEMP3 was impossible - which was the entire point. Read 6.5.1 is anything but the endorsement you think it is.
You'll notice that they only want the code they can't get, not the equivalent code they can.
They could get the GISS code. US models produce the same result as CRU. So if the CRU is making it up, then the US is making it up. So why not get that openly available code?
Because it's available.
Mind you, the same idiots believe that proxies can't measure past temperature yet still insist that the MWP was hotter despite nothing other than proxies.
"Did somebody just fart?"
Don't worry, it was all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Windy, its a step up from abuse (glad you took your pills), but its just an abstract story (perhaps the pills?). The only link you create is with your white wash lable. Unfortunately for you, there is a striking lack of evidence to support your white wash claim.
But lack of evidience dosn't stop those commited to denying facts does it Windy?
>*Read 6.5.1 is anything but the endorsement you think it is. Whitewash.*
Windy get you assertions sorted out, first you call it a whitewash, then its a damning report, then its whitewash?
[PW said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/climate_scientists_vindicated.p…) "you gloat about this because you did it yourself"?
Au contraire, Oh Windy One.
If I gloat, it's because it's official confirmation of a pattern of incompetence that includes McI's Russian data that he'd had for ...what was it... six years? And done naff all with, just like the denialists have done nothing with any of the other readily available data.
Also, because like DaveA previously in this thread, there's a denialist implication that 'the code' was forged in the Fires of Mordor, jealously guarded and handed down generation unto generation when in fact the 'secret' is workmanlike competence. And then there's the denialist fetish for exactly copying, which isn't what replication of results is about in science.
In short, I gloat because this inquiry in particular exposes more about denialist clowns than is realised by them yet.
Don't you get it?
Every statement by a climate scientist must be subjected to intense scrutiny, and the scientist must be prepared to let any doubter minutely examine every scrap of evidence he collected. The media will report this as a "scientific debate".
Meanwhile, a denialist can SAY WHAT HE OR SHE DAMN WELL PLEASES, and the media will report it as fact.
Here's my write up of it all and I've quoted a couple of you people can you make great points! http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2010/07/climate-science-is-right.html
The latest "talking point" proffered as though it made sense:
"Global warming is 'true' for those who believe the science is complete and accurate. I don't believe the science is complete."
(Of course it never will be "complete", because science is an ongoing accumulative process, with no projected endpoint where everybody will drop their tools and say, "That's finished, we're done with learning new things!")
Yes, the replication of the CRU temperature record from raw data in two days including writing the code was the most graphic demonstration of the incompetence of the armchair critics. This had already been done of course, but you can't beat having it there in the report.
Those who complain that the station identifiers were needed must look up the meaning of the word "robust". Choice of station set has little effect on the resulting record, as the NOAA and GISS series show. Global average temperatures have risen according to the instrumental record, and this can also be confirmed from the satellite record.
Deniers seem to be rusted on to the idea that big bad climate scientists are deliberately hiding secrets from them. They don't want the readily available data or code. They want the secret data code and *hidden* the CRU *really* uses to measure climate. Presumably these secret items are next to where the British government keep their UFO files and what happened to Glenn Miller.
On another topic, isn't interesting how this report, more than the others, has really brought out the denilati? I expect this is the report they thought they had a chance of going in their favour. Brent, after all, put in a submission.
What's the bet the nutters at Climate Audit and Watts are going to band together and hold their own investigation, with a pre-determined outcome?
Judging by the limited sample set consisting almost entirely of Passing Wind's complete lack of substance and desperate attempts at highjacking via unsupported inflammatory accusations, this inquiry result is really having an impact.
[John said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/climate_scientists_vindicated.p…) "What's the bet the nutters at Climate Audit and Watts are going to band together and hold their own investigation, with a pre-determined outcome"?
Nah - Peiser's already on it (or rather, announced it, which is much the same thing as being done, dusted, judged, juried and executed in some circles).
So I guess we still have the high farce of whitewashgate to look forward to which will be entertaining beyond epic.
Michael Mann is Fat, therefore Climategate.
Good call. Check out Terence Corcoran in the National Post.
Terence Corcoran whopper: Mannâs hockey stick "eliminated some of the data from 1960 forward â¦ and then spliced on actual temperature data"
Terence Corcoran may well have just unleashed the National Postâs biggest whopper yet about climate science â and thatâs saying something.
Corcoranâs commentary on the recent Russell âclimategateâ email review lays one error-laden defamation on top of another, as he attempts to demonstrate that the report "provides plenty of evidence that climate science has been and remains an uncertain shambles".
Along the way, Corcoran even manages to confuse a little known Phil Jones graphic with Michael Mannâs "hockey stick" millenial temperature reconstruction. This leads to the astonishing (and entirely wrong) accusation that the hockey stick creators âeliminated some of the data from 1960 forward â¦ and then spliced on actual temperature dataâ. Yet neither the âhockey stickâ graph (the real one) nor the associated Mann et al study are mentioned in the report at all!
Now Corcoran holds out the hope that bogus accusations might even lead to criminal trials for climate scientists. But, apparently, well-connected right-wing editors and columnists can spew falsehood after falsehood, and smear upon smear, without any consequences whatsoever.
Thatâs the real scandal of "Climategate".
Holy crap. These people are really obsessed with Mann.
tonysidaway says | July 9, 2010 8:21 AM
Global average temperatures have risen according to the instrumental record, and this can also be confirmed from the satellite record.
Sure. It's just that station temperatures over the continents have recorded more warming than satellite instruments did over land. Is there a human detectable influence why this is so? Sure. Is the science robust which part is natural, which part land use change, which part radiation imbalance? No.
isn't the previous poster's handle missing the last 'l'?
Holy crap. These people are really obsessed with Mann.
Just to balance things out for some truth seeking readers, here are some quotes:
âindependentâ CRE Review
Chapter 1.3.2 Temperature Reconstructions from Tree Ring Analysis
21. We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. In particular, on the question of the composition of temperature reconstructions, we found no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions that would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of
uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence. In this respect it represented a significant advance on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR).
That was after the remake of Mann, take 1, HOWEWER,
23. On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a âtrickâ and to âhide the declineâ in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading.
35. Handling the blogosphere and non traditional scientific dialogue. One of the most obvious features of the climate change debate is the influence of the blogosphere. This provides an opportunity for unmoderated comment to stand alongside peer reviewed publications; for presentations or lectures at learned
conferences to be challenged without inhibition; and for highly personalized critiques of individuals and their work to be promulgated without hindrance. This is a fact of life, and it would be foolish to challenge its existence. The Review team would simply urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand. That said, a key issue is how
scientists should be supported to explain their position, and how a public space can be created where these debates can be conducted on appropriate terms, where what is and is not uncertain can be recognised.
36. Openness and Reputation.
An important feature of the blogosphere is the
extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognise this and to act appropriately, can lead to immense reputational damage by feeding allegations of cover up. Being part of a like minded group may provide
no defence. Like it or not, this indicates a transformation in the way science has to be conducted in this century.
Like it or not, many of the commenters in this thread do their own cause a disservice by the stile they argue and by the cynism of their ad hominem attacks.
For anyone who hasn't heard of this bunch, they are the UK-based [Global Warming Policy Foundation](http://www.thegwpf.org/) ([Director](http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/director-dr-benny-peiser.html), [Trustees](http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/board-of-trustees.html), [Academic Advisory Council](http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council.html))
Bill [picked you in one}(http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/climate_scientists_vindicated.p…), didn't he?
I see that you haven't learned anything about science since you apparated here a while back, as a dewy-eyed denialist completely devoid of any acquaintance with testable fact.
You're almost making Tim Curtin look plausibly educated by comparison. I suggest that you quietly disappear, and not put your neck on the chopping block of rationality, because if you do your head will be separated from the rest of your carcass.
the stile they argue and by the cynism of their ad hominem attacks
Ever heard of the concepts of irony and hypocrisy, you ignorant propagandist?
It's OK to attack Michael Mann, who isn't even a staff at CRU, because Chewbacca lives on Endor.
I hereby coin the term "Climategate Mann Derangement Syndrome".
It's OK to attack Michael Mann, who isn't even a staff at CRU
Really? Well, I didn't do that.
I gather you have nothing to say.
I didn't attack Michael Mann, who isn't even a staff at CRU, in response to the CRU report! All I did was to suggest, in the interest of balance, that it's OK to attack Michael Mann! Because Chewbacca lives on Endor!
Chewbacca lives on Endor! Chewbacca lives on Endor! Chewbacca lives on Endor! Michael Mann! Michael Mann! Michael Mann! The fact that you can't even muster a response to my impeccable logic means you're a bunch of closed-minded Global Warmists! Haha!
>*It's just that station temperatures over the continents have recorded more warming than satellite instruments did over land.*
Good thing too as they are measuring different things. One the temperature of surface the other the lower troposphere.
S. Fred Singer is another case of Mann Derangement Syndrome:
Chek, I hope you paid attention to "Mike Rader":
>Propaganda is designed to make us slaves. The Truth will set us free! Thank you Heartland Institute for exposing the deceitful tongues trying to enslave us.
I'm not sure if he's talking about global warming or the Heartland's new pamphlet "Smoke Yourself To Better Health in 7 Easy Weeks!"
@ John - Paid attention to MikeRadar's comment? I'm hoping to let a couple of weeks slide by then lift it to post at Denial Depot.
May I suggest you turn off your megaphone for a while and go into a quiet corner and read the CRE Review, Chapter 1.3.2 - -Temperature Reconstructions from Tree Ring Analysis-, text from par. 21. - 36. in its context. It is self explanatory.
Of course, the level of criticism to those responsible of Mann's icon in a misleading way in the TAR summary (which according to the report includes CRU responsibility) is ok and well balanced and the changes made between TAR and AR4 are an advancement in science where this critisicm no more applies, thanks to all parties involved inside and outside the academic scientific community, incl. those who are biased themselves such as MM. The error bars reach now from about + 0.6Â°C in the medieval warmperiod till much below -1.5Â°C for any 30 year period of the NH, and end with little less than + 0.4Â°C for the past 30 years (1961-1990 base). Kudos to Prof. Mann up until now.
>go into a quiet corner and read the CRE Review, Chapter 1.3.2 - -Temperature Reconstructions from Tree Ring Analysis-, text from par. 21. - 36. in its context. It is self explanatory.
I know English isn't your native tongue, cp, but one would expect one to be able to count. Chap. 1.3.2 has only 5 paragraphs, #20 - 24.
>1.3.2 Temperature Reconstructions from Tree Ring Analysis
>_20_. The central implication of the allegations here is that in carrying out their work, both in the choices they made of data and the way in which it was handled, CRU scientists intended to bias the scientific conclusions towards a specific result and to set aside inconvenient evidence. More specifically, it was implied in the allegations that this should reduce the confidence ascribed to the conclusions in
Chapter 6 of the IPCC 4th Report, Working Group 1 (WG1).
>_21_. __We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading.__ In particular, on the question of the composition of temperature reconstructions, we found no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions that would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of
uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence. In this respect it represented a significant advance on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR).
>_22_. On the allegation that the phenomenon of âdivergenceâ may not have been properly taken into account when expressing the uncertainty associated with reconstructions, __we are satisfied that it is not hidden and that the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.__
>_23_. On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a âtrickâ and to âhide the declineâ in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic
significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. __We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data,__ but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain â ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text.
>_24_. On the allegations in relation to withholding data, in particular concerning the small sample size of the tree ring data from the Yamal peninsula, __CRU did not withhold the underlying raw data (having correctly directed the
single request to the owners).__ But it is evidently true that access to the raw data was not simple until it was archived in 2009 and that this delay can rightly be criticized on general principles. In the interests of transparency, we believe that CRU should have ensured that the data they did not own, but on which their publications relied, was archived in a more timely way.
Here's some context for you cp. Hindsight is 20-20.
>The error bars reach now from about + 0.6Â°C in the medieval warmperiod till much below -1.5Â°C for any 30 year period of the NH, and end with little less than + 0.4Â°C for the past 30 years (1961-1990 base).
Given that those numbers you [cite](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig610.png) are in the â¥10% likelihood range of the 'error bars', is that something on which you'd be willing to bet the farm?
I just want to note the list of replications made of CRU's temperature series to date. If anyone knows of any more could you please let me know as I'm getting fed up to the back teeth of the "it can't be replicated" meme that is still insisted upon by a considerable number of plonkers.
Jeff Id & Roman M (sceptics)
Roy Spencer (sceptic)
UK Met Office
Clear Climate Code
Nick Stokes (??)
Muir Russell Panel
Thet all wrote their own code, or adapted existing code.
Am I correct in saying that Ron Broberg may have done it, too?
There's also an Italian guy (I think he's a dentist in Rome) whose blog I read a couple of months ago but I lost the link. Anyone know who he is?
Would someone please give me an example of a blog post or comment on global warming that has resulted in an observable change in behaviour by a government or large business.
As soon as you can give me an example of a cigarette that resulted in lung cancer.
Chap. 1.3.2 has only 5 paragraphs, #20 - 24.
. Fair enough. Your kinship with frank is understandable.
Given that those numbers you cite are in the â¥10% likelihood range of the 'error bars', is that something on which you'd be willing to bet the farm?
I am not sure if I understand your question. "The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of con fidence." was the abstract of the underlying paper of TAR (with MBH98), not AR4. To my understanding, this level of confidence has been subsequently widened in AR4. 1998 is no more mentioned in AR4 as being the warmest year of the millenium, is it, since 1998 is within the confidence interval of possible 30-year Gaussian-weighted filters, which allows - this my conclusion - individual years of the past or even decades to be higher than 1998, resp. 1989-1998 (NH of course). So, denialists or contrarians are those who still claim that MWP has been warmer than now, not those who believe there have been individual years warmer than 1998. As for me, I am not willing to bet anything on that. I am simply happy with the AR4 version and the balanced review by Sir Muir Russel. I see neither a complete vindication nor a whitewash.
Thank you for your comment. Above is my reply.
@jakerman | July 11, 2010 6:55 AM
It's just that station temperatures over the continents have recorded more warming than satellite instruments did over land.
Good thing too as they are measuring different things. One the temperature of surface the other the lower troposphere.
Ok. Given the fact that SST trends are in line with Lower troposphere temp. (LTT) trends over the oceans and land temperatures according to station measurements suggest a warm bias compared to LTT (Klotzbach et al 2009), which one do you suggest to be the right one to measure CAGW?
Posted by: @jakerman | July 11, 2010 6:55 AM
>*Given the fact that SST trends are in line with Lower troposphere temp. (LTT) trends over the oceans and land temperatures according to station measurements suggest a warm bias compared to LTT*
[RSS LTT (global)](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut…)
is inline with SST becasue the sea surface and LTT have both (for different reasons) warmed at a slower rate than the land surface.
UAH LTT is not inline with SST.
I love the way that climate science is being 'vindicated' by everything except...the environment...!
@ Jack Lacton | July 15, 2010 10:05 PM
Yes, it's remarkable what you can't see if you keep your eyes shut.
In other news, gravity "skeptic" jumps out of plane at 10 000ft with no parachute. After falling 9 999ft without incident skeptic declares impacts of theory of gravity proved false...
>*After falling 9 999ft without incident skeptic declares impacts of theory of gravity proved false...*
They didn't wait that long to decalare victory, and they pushed out the most vulnerable first.
Scientists vindicated? http://sppiblog.org/news/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission#more-2100
"Dear Dr Mcintyre,
Thank you for your message. What you report may or may not be the case. But as I have pointed out to you previously the science was not the subject of our study.
So [toby](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/climate_scientists_vindicated.p…) I take it you're a McIntrye fan who refuses to believe that climategate is dead?
The quote you draw attention to hinges entirely on the interpretation of the word "accuracy", but even given the error bars inherent in [these multiple studies](http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=deepclimate.wordpress.com&ur…) it is apparent that modern gobal temperatures exceed those of the relevant period of the past.
You'd think McinTyres would learn by now that selective quotation invariably ends up with him and his believers looking foolish and worse.
He should leave the science to actual scientists. Hobbyists like him are out of their depth.
This merely reinforces what a sham these enquiries have been http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727692.900-without-candour-we-c…
Shorter toby robertson:
I spam some links, therefore the inquiries are invalid.
Actually, Toby has a point.
The CRU inquiry should have been conducted by a panel composed of:
- Sen. Inhofe
- Andrew Bolt
- Ian Plimer
- Joanne Codling
- Anthony Watts
- Piers Akerman
- Christopher Monckton
- Melanie Phillips
- Nils-Axel MÃ¶rner
*Then* it would have been an inquiry we could trust.
(I feel queasy).
You're forgetting Sarah Palin.
Vince, strangely - or should that be predicatably - a similar conclusion has been reached at [The Climate Scum](http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2010/07/lament-on-difficulties-in-ma…?)
THANKS, MFS, just when I managed to forget Sarah Palin, you go and remind me...
Interesting quote from the New Scientist:
"They have not studied hundreds of thousands more unpublished emails from the CRU."
Sir Muir Russell and the panel would be in their graves by the time that was accomplished. I can see the denial blogosphere having plenty of fun with the years it'd take to go through that many with any degree of scrutiny... and still call it a whitewash.
New Scientist is far from perfect as Dawkins, Myers and Egan found out. Now, if Nature was to write such an piece....