Bishop Hill Another anniversary piece
Nov 17, 2010 Climate: CRU Marc Sheppard looks back at the last twelve months too. Your humble host is mentioned briefly.
All three examinations took place within the country of physical jurisdiction, Great Britain, and none disappointed those of us anticipating whitewash. Simply stated, all parties were cleared of all wrongdoing other than perhaps sloppy journaling and sophomoric note-passing and all suspensions were lifted. As Andrew Montford summarized in his report, The Climategate Inquiries:
[T] here can be little doubt that none of [the inquiries] have performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU. None has managed to be objective and comprehensive. None has shown a serious concern for the truth. The best of them – the House of Commons inquiry – was cursory and appeared to exonerate the scientists with little evidence to justify such a conclusion. The Oxburgh and Russell inquiries were worse.
Reader Comments (21)
You should show less humility and more pride in your achievements - just saying.
Your 'umble servant.
While reading Marc Sheppard's piece, I was taken by how similar his description of the demise of the Global Warming Scam was to the demise of a company that was once leading edge and then slowly fell behind and very, very gradually died.
There have been several such technology firms I have either worked for or been associated with. First, there was DEC or Digital Equipment. They lingered on the edge for years after they should have gone away. Then there was CDC. Most recently, SGI. There are countless others as well.
It's like they have a corporate cancer which slowly ate the guts out of the organization. Surgeons, called "turn around specialists", were hire to trim away the disease. Most of the time, they failed. The exceptions that I can point to are Apple and IBM. All the rest that I can think off died.
So it appears to be the case with the Warmist Scam. They are trying to revive their very sick and dying cause with whatever they can. And unless they find a truly gifted CEO to turn it around, it will, in time, die.
It is just a matter of time as I do not believe Al Gore is anything like Steve Jobs.
good summary here
http://climatesight.org/2010/11/17/the-real-story-of-climategate/
Don Pablo
Good analogy, but AGW has only clung on this long, because of Government support and funding. Stop the funds and......
Then they all move on to bio diversity. I give it 10 years before some eco loon is criticising Wimbledon for promoting monoculture on its famous lawns
Louise:
You posted that link at WUWT. Are you joking or what? Tamino thought it was a great article, so it must be BS (which anyone reading it can see).
Don: It will die anyway because a lie can only be sustained for so long. Just as the companies dide because they didn't move and adjust with the times, so AGW will die because it cannot keep up with the evidence.
A flaw of almost all government policy-making is the tendency to suffer from groupthink. Climate science is groupthink too, in that it is civil service work rather than proper science, and inquiries into it are groupthink too.
I had a look at UEA's website the other day and found this gem of a description of their BSC Climate Science:
The emphasis is on the underpinning scientific drivers of climate change, with consideration given to the societal impacts from, and in response to, climate change.
In the first year you will take an holistic view of the Earth system, while also developing the necessary mathematical, dynamical, chemical, and study skills to embark on the subsequent honours years. After the first year you will concentrate on the scientific subjects required to study the underlying causes of climate change, such as meteorology, physical oceanography, atmospheric and marine chemistry, biogeochemical cycling, life systems, and paleoclimatology. You will also continue to hone your mathematical, research, and presentational skills...Graduates of the degree in Climate Science will have a sound foundation for careers in academia, in research organisations, in government agencies and local authorities, and in environmental consultancies
(https://www.uea.ac.uk/env/courses/bsc-climate-science)
So you'll "concentrate" on seven different scientific disciplines. Riiiiiiiiiiight. While honing not only your mathematical but also your "presentational skills". That's science, is it? Perhaps that's the Hiding the Decline module. Or perhaps this is where you are taught, pace Stephen Schneider, that it's OK not to be honest as long as you are effective.
And then you'll go on to a glittering career in an ecofascist quango.
Call me old-fashioned, but the above summary of what a climate "science" degree entails explodes any claim that climatology is a proper science at all. There's no General Theory of Climate to study, because there isn't one. Hardly any of that content is to be found in any worthwhile A-Level and therefore what is studied must be studied from scratch. So after 2 or 3 years they're at what - GCSE level, maybe, in this stuff?
We are talking, anyway, of a third-rate university here. It's 299th in the world's top 500, according to http://www.topuniversities.com/sites/default/files/QS_World_University_Rankings_top500.pdf, and lagging behind such intellectual powerhouses as Aston, Loughborough and even Strathclyde. To get in to read this degree, whose content is so broad it's sure to be shallow, all you need is three Bs at A-Level (http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.141957!/EnvironmentalSciences.pdf, p35).
What level of statistical attainment is to be expected of rather thick undergraduates who are also spending time improving their presentational skills? They'd be able to construct a PC analysis properly, would they, or know a poor one when they see it? And what is the significance for the science of the "societal (sic) impact" - does it change the facts, for example? Gosh, I think I just saw a cat leap from the bag there.
That whole course appears to be nothing but a disgraceful production line churning out useful idiots to go straight onto the public sector payroll.
Given the constant appeals to authority that is climate alarmism's best argument, it's a farce that the authority is so pitifully thick.
Phillip Bratby 'Louise' was so excited about being praised by Tamino that she posted it at 'Delingpole' at 3.17 . This is where she spends most of her day under the name of 'bje' and is affectionately (?) known as 'budgie'. She does tend to get a little strident though !
I find it amazing that they were damned by their own words. They provided all the evidence to prove their own guilt. They admitted that the emails were genuine. Then the esteemed knights of the realm come along and declare them to be splendid chaps.
Justice4Rinka
It was a start up uni when I put it as my last choice in case I failed A levels. It no longer has a physics department, so it cannot teach the hard science needed to understand what drives the climate.
Toad: Yes I noticed her at dellers.
o/t Jon Snow has just linked the Cornwall flooding with "global warming" in the headlines on C4 News... must be an international climate change conference coming up or something...
Phillip Bratby
It no longer has a physics department, so it cannot teach the hard science needed to understand what drives the climate.
But I am told that they have a superior Creative Writing program, and surely that more than makes up for the lack of a physics department. And, if I am not mistaken Jones lectures during the Science Fiction course, with cameo roles played by Mann with "How to Lie with Statistics" and "Creative Data Collection Techniques" lectures.
Surely that is more than an adequate basis for their Climatology Department?
Justice4Rinka
Gosh, I think I just saw a cat leap from the bag there.
Probably Schrodinger's Cat . Give him a nice bowl of mike.
Phillip Bratby ... It will die anyway because a lie can only be sustained for so long. (...)
Don't be so sure. It's religion. Some religions have survived and thrived for millenia without their adherents being troubled by the failures of prophesies to materialise.
I think it is entirely possible that in 2000 years time, prayers will be being said to St Mike and to St Phil to predict us from the Catastrophic Climate Change that will very shortly be upon us. The fact that the climate will not yet have changed catastrophically will simply be considered a testament to the power of prayer and the benefits of handing 40% of our income to the Church of CAGW and its priesthood.
The Devil (a.k.a Beegoyal) will be there behind the scenes, ready to bring disaster and damnation to any skeptic who doubts that "the science is settled".
Y2K was proved false by inconveniently not happening as predicted. We may well be stuck with this one (CAGW) until it too doesn't happen. In both cases there were experts keen to take your money and were often the driver of the hysteria. The MSM just filled air/column inches then and now.
@ SSAK
It's entirely plausible that measures pointlessly implemented to address non-existent CAGW will simply be re-purposed to address, ex post facto, the latest scare, for another 100 years.
I used the example of position limits in commodity trading the other day. These have persisted for 100 years despite having no basis in reason. Another example is portfolio valuation rules. Pensions used to value and rebalance their portfolio every 2 years and fund managers every day, but legislation has forced them both to do it quarterly, with dire effects on market volatility. The "solution" to a non-existent made matters worse and required more of the "solution".
We're in 1921 again and wheat prices just crashed.
Meanwhile, India's 'IPCC' has released its first ever report. Briefly, it states that climate science in India sucks.
Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh: “Climate science today is not just a scientific enterprise, but also a political enterprise.”
You gotta admire the honesty.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article892363.ece
derek walton -
and others who discussed the idea of a foi request to BBC re paul hudson.
derek, do hope u will go ahead. hudson was with the Met Office, but would seem to be employed by bbc, according to the profile on his blog - "worked as a forecaster with the Met Office for more than ten years locally and at the international unit before joining the BBC in October 2007". he should be confirmed by now, i would think.
My Climategate Anniversary Rant: Paul Hudson as the Smoking Gun
for 12 months, the question has been:
WAS IT A HACKER OR A WHISTLEBLOWER?
23 Nov 2009: BBC: Paul Hudson: 'Climategate' - CRU hacked into and its implications
I will add comment on this page as soon as I can free up some time. But I will in the meantime answer the question regarding the chain of e-mails which you have been commenting about on my blog, which can be seen here (LINK), and whether they are genuine or part of an elaborate hoax.
I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article 'whatever happened to global warming'. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.
The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml
the link Hudson provided was: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt which is no longer active, but the series is this one:
East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - 1255523796.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt
so, we know Hudson is saying the emails are "IDENTICAL" to those forwarded to him. NONE ARE ADDRESSED TO HIM.
in one of the emails, from Michael Mann, Mann remarks: " I might ask Richard Black what's up here?"
question: who amalgamated this set of emails?
Hudson's local paper reported:
27 Nov 2009: BBC weatherman in global warming row
A BBC Look North weatherman has become embroiled in a national global warming row…
When contacted by the Mail, the weatherman said he was not allowed to comment and asked us to speak to the BBC press office…
A BBC spokesperson said: “Paul wrote a blog for the BBC website on October 9 entitled Whatever Happened To Global Warming. There was a big reaction to the article – not just here but around the world. Among those who responded were Professor Michael E Mann and Stephen Schneider whose e-mails were among a small handful forwarded to Paul on October 12.
“Although of interest, Paul wanted to consider the e-mails as part of a wider piece, following up his original blog piece…
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/BBC-weatherman-global-warming-row/article-1553969-detail/article.html
Hudson did not followup with a "wider piece". Mann and Schneider were among those writing emails in 1255523796.txt.
From The Australian in March this year we get a name for this BBC spokesman:
12 March 2010: Australian: BBC defends journalist Paul Hudson over climate email claims by ABC chairman Maurice Newman
THE BBC says ABC chairman Maurice Newman was wrong to criticise BBC climate journalist Paul Hudson, who Mr Newman alleged sat on emails related to the so-called Climategate affair…
(BBC spokesman Simon Hailes ) Mr Hailes responded: “Paul wrote a blog for the BBC website on 9th October 2009 entitled `Whatever Happened to Global Warming’. There was a big reaction to the article – not just here but around the world.
“Amongst those who responded were (climate change scientists) Professor Michael E. Mann and Stephen Schneider whose emails were among a small handful forwarded to Paul on October 12th…
“Although of interest, Paul wanted to consider the emails as part of a wider piece, following up his original blog piece.
“In early November Paul spotted that these few emails were among thousands published on the internet following the alleged hacking of the UEA computer system. Paul passed this information onto colleagues at the BBC, who ran with the story, and then linked to the emails on his blog.”…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/bbc-defends-journalist-paul-hudson-over-climate-email-claims-by-abc-chairman-maurice-newman/story-e6frg996-1225839965257
Hudson's colleagues did not run "with the story", but Hailes' comment would seem to be suggesting that Hudson did not receive the "chain of emails" from his colleagues!
"early November" is also of interest!
did Michael Mann send Richard Black the series of emails and Black forward them on to Hudson?
OR did someone at CRU/UEA forward the "chain of emails" to Hudson?
Hudson obviously knows who "forwarded" them to him.
BBC's Hailes and Hudson's "colleagues" mentioned above also know who forwarded the "chain of emails" to Hudson.
BBC has never suggested the "chain of emails" was hacked.
if Hudson received a"chain of emails" "IDENTICAL" to 1255523796.txt and the amalgamation of the emails as we now know them was done at source, then this is the best PROOF we have that the leak was from a WHISTLEBLOWER.
my own guess is that when BBC did not publish the "chain of emails" the WHISTLEBLOWER released the whole shebang!
go for it, Walter.
Happy Anniversary Bish and friends.
Just read your report, Bish, and I have to say it's wonderfully clear - bringing together lots of strands I had been having difficulty connecting. You have a very unusual talent for clarity of expression.
Dear All,
RE: TERMS OF ENDEARMENT
I am confused why the terms 'climate alarmist', 'climate skeptic', 'climate denier', and 'climate realist' continue to be used in the mainstream media to label proponents and opponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I mean, c'mon! It's like saying you're a 'hemisphere alarmist' or a 'hemisphere skeptic' or a 'hemisphere denier' or a 'hemisphere realist'. These climate labels make no sense whatsoever.
I'm an AGW skeptic and would therefore greatly appreciate it if the media would stop trying to insult me with climate labels that don't make any sense. Instead, please consider inciting hatred and physical harm upon me by calling me a 'global warming skeptic' or 'global warming denier'. Come to think of it, the world isn't even warming anymore, so those terms probably shouldn't be used either.
Tell you what! Feel free to call me a 'carbon taxation nigger'. In fact, I insist. 'Carbon emissions faggot' is fine too. But no pressure!
Anthony, if you feel the need to censure the words 'nigger' and 'faggot', then let me ask you this: if it's not ok to publish the words 'nigger' and 'faggot' on a blog, then how can it be ok for mainstream newspapers and journals to repeatedly use the word 'denier' to stigmatize AGW skeptics as Nazi sympathizers?
Any publisher that censures the words 'nigger' and 'faggot' should then also censure the word 'denier', because all three words are used for the same purpose: to stigmatize and incite hatred against others.
I'm curious to know just how many Black, Jewish, or homosexual AGW proponents have in the past labeled AGW skeptics as 'deniers'. Better them than me, right?
It must really suck to be a Black Jewish homosexual AGW skeptic.
===
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
[snip - let's keep it on topic please]