CRU Emails

I’m withholding judgment until all of the facts come to light, but so far the “evidence” of conspiracy, wrongdoing, data fudging, etc. is pretty thin gruel. So far the claims seemed to based upon (willful?) equivocation on word meaning, excising of context, and so on. [UPDATE: See RC for more on that.] It’s also apparent that even if the worst possible spin on the allegations ended up being true, the net impact on the state of climate science would be small- certainly relative to the scope that is being claimed.

Amusingly, Roy Spencer whines (in a post referencing former President Bill Clinton’s sex scandal) that the BBC’s first report on the issue doesn’t discuss the contents of the email.

As of this writing, the BBC is the first mainstream news source to cover the story. But instead of discussing the content of any of the e-mails, the BBC is focusing on the illegal nature of the computer system breach. An expert was quoted who alluded to the contentious nature of the global warming debate, and how both sides would resort to tricks to help their side.

That’s pretty rich. If the hacked e-mails — with incriminating content — just happened to be Sarah Palin’s, does ANYONE believe that news reports would avoid disclosing the content of those e-mails?

You can probably see where this is headed…

In fact, the Beeb’s first reporting* on the Palin email hack did not discuss the email contents either.

In any event, I don’t condone misconduct, so if any substantive misdeeds end up having been committed, I’ll gladly add my voice to the chorus of those crying foul. Until then, GHGs are still rising and the paleoclimatological news isn’t getting any better.

*Though subsequent stories did superficially characterize the contents of some emails.

11 responses to “CRU Emails

  1. Pingback: This is not good, the CRU computer hack « Greenfyre’s

  2. Yeah, a guy who collected 22 million pounds falsifying science to justify bogus energy taxes and rationing for the entire worlds population isn’t any big deal. It’s all he said she said.

    The blogs are on fire with this story. 99+% of all posts are outraged, and the first two hits on Google are how Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are overblowing this. Funny.

    The New World Order is calling in favors. You know this is a big one.

  3. Now more than ever read Altemeyer’s “The Authoritarians” to understand why the people like the commenter above are so genuinely insane.

  4. dublds:

    Can you give me any evidence of “collected 22 million pounds falsifying science”?

    Science is expensive £22m is nothing. But you like the electronic goods you use, and the medicines you take, right? Well someone has to pay for it. As to falcifying, well there is no evidence of that. All the emails show is the raw data before they were published. And no one has yet published a *before* and *after* showing that any falsification occurred. before you jump on the email from Phil Jones about the “Nature trick” all he was doing was referring to a clever way to show data, not any form of falsification.

    If you’ve never been a scientist, you’ll not know how scientists talk.

  5. The problem is that a lot of the allegations are like this:

    http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=928&page=11#34965

    They are taking emails and just finding words like “milked” and assuming that justifies their accusations of fraud.

  6. Working under the assumption that the emails are genuine…

    Nothing has been found to incriminate the science itself. The personal stuff is irrelevant. The bad stuff relates to responses to FOI and one presentation of results, and are imv very bad…

    a) Requesting that scientists delete email correspondence
    b) in the knowledge that those emails may be subject to FOI
    c) Proposing to deliberately mangle/supply requested data into a form that is more difficult to use
    d) Proposing the deletion of parts of a dataset before it is released under FOI
    e) Considering the deletion of an entire dataset to avoid FOI release
    f) Deliberately concealing a mismatch between reconstructed and instrumental temperatures (“to hide the decline” is unambiguous, and is not excused by the fact that the discrepancy is discussed in *other* publications; Pat Michaels’ omission of Hansen 1988′s B & C scenarios in Congressional testimony is not justified by the fact that they were available in Hansen 1988 — I am not saying though that the two are ethically equivalent)

    This appears to be (hopefully) ‘the lot’. All relate to Phil Jones.

    With to the release of data, some of the less frequently cited emails reveal that Jones and other climate scientists were genuinely concerned that it would be used by ‘auditors’ and other ‘skeptics’ to obfuscate the science. Scientists other than Jones also claimed a huge waste of time would result from debunking such distortions. There is no evidence of an intent to ‘hide errors’. I thoroughly agree with those assessments, having observed the actions of ‘auditors’ and other ‘skeptics’ for some time. The intention of Jones may have been ‘good’. That does not excuse the actions. The ends do not justify the means, as the means are part of the ends. This is a war between science and PR disinformation. War has ethics, and sides may have different standards. What are scientific ethics in this regard? Of course the other side are engaged in a scope and depth of dishonesty which makes the current kerfuffle appear trifling. Sadly, and ironically, they can now cast doubt on the integrity of the climate science community and the science with impunity. I think this will shake public confidence and setback understanding by years. If the climate science community act to defend Jones’ actions, it will make the issue worse in the public eye. Discussing climate science with ‘skeptics’ is even more pointless forevermore, as any discussion will inevitably derail to this issue. Meantime, emissions rise, the atmosphere and oceans warm, and the trainwreck continues to steam down the tracks.

    I’ll be crossposting to other climate science sites in the hope of eliciting comment and criticism (particularly from Barton, Hank, Chris, Deep, TCO, George, Eli, Timothy, and David.)

  7. FYI, Here is a portion of a post I put up at realclimate.org, along with Gavin’s reply. It pretty much tells you all you need to know about AGW “skeptics”.
    ################################

    Under Hansen, the NASA/GISS data and source code have been freely available on-line for years. And all of the sceptics’ scrutiny of said data has uncovered only one or two minor “glitches” that have had minimal impact.

    Just a quick question (or two) to Gavin, if you feel the need to spend even more of your weekend downtime answering questions here.

    Given that all of your climate-modeling source-code has been available for public scrutiny for quite a long time, and given that anyone can download and test it out, how many times have climate-model critics have actually submitted patches to improve your modeling code, fix bugs, etc? Have you gotten *any* constructive suggestions from the skeptic camp?

    [Response: Not a single one. - gavin]

  8. It pretty much tells you all you need to know about AGW “skeptics”.

    Indeed.

  9. dublds: “Yeah, a guy who collected 22 million pounds”

    Yeah Phil Jones just wandered into parliament and pocketed 22 million pounds from the safe that holds all the tax money.

    And it’s this kind of thinking (I say thinking..) the “skeptics” want to convince us with.

    The word “skeptics” gets double quoted because these people are showing a remarkable lack of skeptical analysis of their allegations.

  10. Caerbannog,

    Gavin is full of it. Not only do they hide the data but also the source code. There are quite a few emails in their regarding how to hide data, and prevent anyone from getting hold of their source code.

    In fact, some of the model code is available in the downloads and it’s some of the most god awful code in existence. Highly unreliable coding styles. The comments in the code itself indicates what crap it is. This stuff was never made public, that is baloney.

  11. The CRU emails do provide an honest look into the working of a climate group closely associated to the IPCC. Legitimate concerns are raised by the emails. Jones has discredited himself based on the context of many of those emails. Michael Mann was discredited several times over by “Climate Audit.Org.” Open your eyes people there is some bad business going on in world government right now. The socialists are looking for a way to get your money and suspend your freedoms. Every good free man is a paranoid free man.

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