Tag Archives: CRU

Exoneration fails to appease conspiracy theorists, cont’d, cont’d, cont’d

Image courtesy of Flickr user "Jennoit", used under Creative Commons

The National Science Foundation’s Inspector General office has completed its inquiry into allegations of misconduct leveled at Penn State climate scientist, RealClimate blogger, and “hockey stick” lead author Mike Mann. Yet again, Mann was cleared of all allegations of misconduct. And, yet again, this does nothing to dissuade the paranoid conspiracy theorists that fancy themselves “skeptics” but who are anything but.

As always, Conspiracy Theory 101 dictates that when an investigation fails to confirm your tin foil nuttery, it can only mean that the investigation was illegitimate and part of the conspiracy. Previous examples here, here, and here.

[UPDATELike clockwork...]

Exoneration fails to appease conspiracy theorists, cont’d

Second verse same as the first.

When the investigation fails to confirm your tin foil nuttery, it can only mean that the investigation was illegitimate. It’s conspiracy theory 101.

[First link fixed]

UK inquiry exonerating Phil Jones fails to appease conspiracy theorists

Exoneration can only mean that the investigation was illegitimate. After all, in the eyes of denialists, the only legitimate reviews, investigations, etc. are the ones that reach the conclusions they want.

But then, you already knew that.

[UPDATE: See BigCityLib Strikes BackDeSmogBlog; Hot Topic; James Annan; Rabbet Run; RealClimate; Stoat for more.]

Climate “skeptics” are anything but: “Russia” vs. CRU edition

Just like “Spain” found that green energy killed jobs, we now learn that “Russia” has accused CRU of fudging the surface instrumental record.

And by “Russia”, they actually mean an anti-regulation think tank founded by a CATO Senior Fellow who previously referred to the Kyoto Protocol as an “international Auschwitz” that was “killing off the world economy”.

Protip: They have front groups in other countries, too, fellas.

This is the equivalent of creationists from Russia citing a Discovery Institute “paper” and press release as “US claims evidence for ‘evolution’ has been faked”. Has there ever been a more credulous group of “skeptics” in the history of our species?

The emerging scientific consensus on the SwiftHack emails: get real, denialists

And of course the emails never have and never will impact the scientific basis of the reality of anthropogenic warming.

[h/t to DeSmogBlog for the IPCC statement]

[UPDATE: Via the comments, for more, see SwiftHack.com and CP under the "Hackergate" tag.]

[LATE UPDATE: More added as they come.]

SwiftHack meme watch: National Review edition

Following up on the very ARTIFICAL outrage post.

From the preeminent conservative media outlet the National Review, we’ve got a lovely demonstration of exactly what I was talking about. As I wrote (all following emphaeses mine):

The code in question appears to “test the sensitivity of certain calculations to the presence or absence” of the post 1960 divergence problem in Briffa’s MXD archive. It does not appear to have been used in any published paper, figure, or data set… In spite of this, if you’ll find claims that this bit of code is in fact… fabricated warming in the global surface temperature record

This post really is quite perfect, as it also cries “hockey stick”, which I also discussed:

It’s odd how some (sticky? viral?) memes propagate through the denialosphere. The classic example is how “hockey stick” lost all of its original context, and soon there was very little that was not a “hockey stick” according to the denialosphere: from the temperature projections in the AR4 to pre-industrial vs. current CO2 levels. And through an apparent belief in sympathetic magic, all it took was the labeling of something as a “hockey stick” in order to discredit it in the eyes of a certain audience.

These geniuses have no idea what they’re looking at, but they are convinced, absolutely convinced, that it’s undeniable proof of Something Nefarious.

CRU head Phil Jones stands aside for inquiry, further evidence of conspiracy and fraud

Here’s the update from CRU.

Think I’m wrong about people eventually claiming the latter? Just you wait.

Quote of the day

If you think that global warming rests on a few temperature data sets and models, you are very wrong. If you don’t understand this then you don’t know enough to have an opinion on the subject, and you most likely will be treated just like any other ineducable troll.

Commenter Daniel J. Andrews at James Hrynyshyn’s Island of Doubt. James highlighted the comment in a post that is also well worth reading.

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.