Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Petition to the President | Main | Myron Ebell in transit - Cartoon notes by Josh »

ClimateGate 2.0?

Just about everywhere.

Story at Judy Curry's, Mail on Sunday, GWPF, WUWT,and Twitter of course.

Cartoons by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (270)

Oh Dear ......

There is going to be some TRULY 'concerned' scientists worldwide this time
Concerned as to how long their Fake Wages & grants are going to be 'sustainable'

Feb 20, 2017 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterBLACK PEARL

Roy Spencer points out @ Watts Up that NASA, except for the monitoring satellites, is not really very much into climate, though its efforts are egregious. GISS is superfluous and will probably move to NOAA, another swamp to drain first.

But yes, this will impact a few researchers, perhaps one in particular who spends a lot of effort and taxpayer monies on a propagandistic blog.

Feb 20, 2017 at 3:21 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Kudoes to the Bish for helpin' out Judy @ GWPF.

Feb 22, 2017 at 12:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Oh oh...looks like more trouble brewing! least all those really brainy Mann Made Global Warming (tm) scientologists who got together and signed a letter about their concerns around data integrity when Trump took over power have all their data backed up right :)



Feb 23, 2017 at 10:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Last few nails in the coffin of 'ClimateGate 2.0'…

For what it’s worth, Karl told us that he has no knowledge of a computer failure that wiped out critical information, saying that “This allegedly happened after I retired, but I have been informed that is simply not true.”


Whether the research was published to influence the Paris climate talks is a moot point, said Andrew Light, a senior member of the State Department’s climate talks negotiating team in 2015. He said the talks had already been underway for about four years when the paper was published and that 188 nations were relying on a tremendous amount of research to support their goal of reducing humans’ carbon emissions to slow the warming of the planet. They had also already crafted proposed reductions by the time the research was published, he said.
“I never heard it discussed once, let alone this one NOAA report, discussed in Paris, the run-up to Paris or anything after Paris, so this is really just an incredibly bizarre claim,” Light said.


What David Rose fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.
Rose’s claim that NOAA’s results “can never be verified” is patently incorrect, as we just published a paper independently verifying the most important part of NOAA’s results.


Feb 23, 2017 at 11:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

If they are all looking at the same data how can they claim anything claim anything as being independent independent??


Feb 23, 2017 at 9:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Feb 23, 2017 at 11:18 AM | Phil Clarke

Why should anyone trust you, or your sources? Did you or your sources find anything wrong with Gergis? Or Mann?

Climate Science is finished. That is the real news.

Feb 24, 2017 at 12:50 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Down meme'ry lane...

We're clever specializers
In the art of climatology,
We're very highly specialized
In modelling futurology,
We're really rather good at,
Yes, we're good at hind-castology,
And upside-down-Tiljender,
Such a tricky methodology.
Now you skeptics think
Our measurements
Perverse and upside-downery,
but we're very very good at,
Yes very, very good at,
Oh we're really very good at
Getting money from the guvuh-mint!


Feb 24, 2017 at 8:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterBeth Cooper

Beth Brilliant you should get together with Josh.

Feb 24, 2017 at 9:08 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

And now in English!!! If they are all looking at the same data using the same methods how can they claim anything as being independent??


Feb 24, 2017 at 9:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Significant recent media and political attention has been focused on the new NOAA temperature record, which shows considerably more warming than their prior record during the period from 1998 to present. The main factor behind these changes is the correction in ocean temperatures to account for the transition from ship engine room intake measurement to buoy-based measurements and a calibration of differences across ships using nighttime marine air temperatures (NMAT). Here we seek to evaluate the changes to the NOAA ocean temperature record by constructing a new buoy-only sea surface temperature record. We find that a record using only buoys (and requiring no adjustments) is effectively identical in trend to the new NOAA record and significantly higher than the old one.

Feb 24, 2017 at 10:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

And I thought you were making a witty poignant statement about replication of results.
Hey ho!

Feb 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

geronimo, thx and appreciate yr comment... Josh stands alone I'd say, tho' we owe
much ter those who went before us.... Here's a poem from my 'Book of Feathers,'
14th Edition of Serf Under_ground Journal re reflections on the human condition. )
This from a serf's perusing Nassim Taleb, 'The Black Swan.'

Black swan, ebony gleaming,
Gliding artlessly on
A mirrored lake, unaware
That you're an oddity exposed
By northern ornithologists.
Glossy bird, you'd be surprised
To learn you are compared
To Hume's thanksgiving turkey,
Symbol of the out-liar event,
The single observation that exposes
How fragile is our human knowledge.

Black swan, you have become
A symbol too - so much
Less and more than
Mere blackbird - you.

beth the serf.

Feb 24, 2017 at 12:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterBeth Cooper

Phil Clarke: "... from 1998 to present"? Does this mean that the "corrections" have not been implemented prior to 1998? Not correcting prior to 1998 could be misleading since it would remove/reduce any change in the trend slope(s) by using a corrected post-1998 trend slope and an uncorrected pre-1998 trend slope.

Feb 24, 2017 at 12:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterBudgie

…ship engine room intake (ERI) measurements and an improved calibration of differences across ships.
Mr Clarke: this issue has been addressed elsewhere on this site. What kind of scientist would use instruments that have not been suitably calibrated, are known to be poorly located, and of greatly uncontrolled and variable depths (from less than a metre to twenty metres)? Ship’s engine room intakes are the equivalent of the dial on your car dashboard, indicating the engine temperature – certainly not one that could be used for scientific evaluation where tenths of a degree is considered!

The ONLY ship records that should be used is that provided by voluntary weather ships, who provide(d?) six-hourly reports using instrumentation provided by meteorological organisations, with the staff taking the readings being suitably trained and motivated. However, these have been dismissed in the past as not rigorous enough for use in weather forecasting – but now they are to be used as a metric to base modern measurements upon! If these readings were crap back then, they should continue to be considered crap, now… surely?

What is the accuracy of the ARGO buoys’ temperature sensors? How is this accuracy monitored and maintained? I suspect that the answer to both those questions is likely to be: “We don’t know.” In which case, how on Earth can any of this be considered scientific enough to base economics policies of the developed nations on?!

We have only just STARTED to get reliable readings – and we have not been doing it long enough to formulate any reasonable conclusions.

Feb 24, 2017 at 12:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

Hmmm... Perhaps I should have but the word “reliable” in quotation marks – as I have suggested, it is possible that even the ARGO buoys’ data might be suspect. More work needs to be done to ensure that we can gather data that is reliable enough for scientific perusal, pondering, postulation and prognostications.

Feb 24, 2017 at 2:13 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent


Sorry mate...Im not nearly that creative (hence why Im not a climate scientist).



Feb 24, 2017 at 3:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Mailman, Climate Science does require the assumption that God created earth's climate flat and level as imaged by the Holy Hockey Stick.

Deviating from Mann's chosen will is heresy in Climate Science, as the Creation of the Holy Stick is considered to be the one and only route to the kingdom of riches for the faithful, and ruin for the non-believers.

Judgement Day is fast approaching, and the deluded are in for a shock.

Feb 24, 2017 at 5:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Meanwhile , ice is up by a whole Wadham, Polar bears up by 5,000 and green denial over Drax has risen to .75 of a Clarkian

Feb 25, 2017 at 2:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

Feb 25, 2017 at 2:56 PM | EternalOptimist

But they still have a fabricated 97% Consensus Support for Mann's Hockey Stick to put on their CV's as they apply for new jobs and careers in political advocacy.

Feb 26, 2017 at 2:40 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>