from main source
Author: Robert Bradley Jr.
“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she thought she was doing, but it didn't help the cause or her professional credibility. (- Michael Mann, below)
The futile, wasteful anti-CO2 campaign is entering its 37th year, dating back to the hot, dry summer of 1988, when NASA scientist James Hansen sounded the alarm to U.S. lawmakers led by Al Gore .
Last week, the United Nations Conference of Parties (COP) ended with an unenforceable agreement pledging to transfer wealth to developing countries (totalism) to develop “clean” energy.
Reduced CO2 emissions? With nearly all major emitters far exceeding the targets set by the 2015 Paris Agreement, the (and) unenforceable agreement is losing more and more of its targets every day as self-interest drowns out aspirations. Acceptance of the welfare state described COP29 as “chaos”, a “complete failure”, an “optical illusion”, “stage management” and “trivial”. Big Green sees the international community's efforts as more greenwashing than progress, contrary to previous COP results. The mainstream media tries to put a happy face on The Walking Dead.
The failure of COP29 should be no surprise, right? James Hansen said.
[The Paris agreement] It's really a scam, fake. They say, “We're going to set a 2 degrees Celsius warming target and then try to do a little bit better every five years, which is absolute nonsense for them.” It's just worthless words. There are no actions, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels, they will continue to burn.
But it all started with physical science, the science of climate alarmism that has never actually recovered from the PR disaster it was 15 years ago: climate gate. No amount of whitewashing can erase the words, sentences and paragraphs of one of the greatest scientific scandals of our time. Four categories are mentioned below:
The Anthropogenic Warming Controversy
“I know there's pressure to come up with a nice, concise story about 'unprecedented warming evident in proxy data for a thousand or more years,' but in reality it's not that simple.”
–PhD. Keith Briffa, Climate Research Group, reveals Climategate emails, September 22, 1999.
“Keith's [Briffa] The series…is for the most part the exact opposite direction of Phil's [Jones] It's ours. This is an issue that we are all aware of (everyone in the IPCC room agrees that this is an issue and may distract from/detract from the reasonable consensus view we want to present to Jones et al and Mann et al throughout the series)” .
–PhD. IPCC lead author Michael Mann reveals Climategate emails, September 22, 1999.
“…it would be good to try to 'contain' the supposed 'MWP' [Medieval Warm Period]…”
–PhD. IPCC lead author Michael Mann reveals Climategate emails, June 4, 2003
“By the way, when is Tom C going? [Crowley] About to formally publish his reconstruction of circa 1500? Being able to call a rebuild that confirms Mann and Jones, among others, will help the cause.
–PhD. IPCC lead author Michael Mann reveals Climategate emails, August 3, 2004.
“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she thought she was doing, but it didn't help the cause or her professional credibility.
–PhD. IPCC lead author Michael Mann reveals Climategate emails, 30 May 2008
“Well, I have my own article about where exactly global warming is… The fact that we currently cannot explain the inadequacy of climate warming is a travesty that we cannot explain.”
–PhD. IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth reveals Climategate emails, October 12, 2009.
Processing temperature data
“I just finished Mike's [Mann] Natural tips for adding real temperatures to every collection of Keith's collections over the past 20 years (i.e. starting in 1981) and starting in 1961 [Briffa] to cover up the decline.
–PhD. Climate Research Director Phil Jones reveals Climategate emails, November 16, 1999
“In addition, we have completely artificially adjusted the post-1960 data so that they appear closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data…
–PhD. Climate research group Tim Osborn reveals Climategate emails, December 20, 2006.
“If you look at the attached map, you'll see that this land also shows warming in the 1940s (which I'm sure you know). So if we could reduce the ocean light spot by, say, 0.15 degrees Celsius, Then that would be significant for the global average, but we still have to account for the terrestrial blips…”
–PhD. Atmospheric Research University Corporation Tom Wigley disclosed the Climategate email to Phil Jones on September 28, 2008, while adjusting global temperature data.
“Therefore, we do not hold raw data, but only value-added (i.e. quality control and homogenization) data.”
—The Climate Research Unit website, the world's leading provider of global temperature data, admits it cannot produce raw thermometer data, 2011.
Data suppression; avoidance of freedom of information (FOI)
“We've been working on this for about 25 years. Why would I give you this data when your purpose is to try to figure out what's wrong with it.
–PhD. Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, email to Warwick Hughes, 2004.
“Several people are harassing me to release temperature data from CRU stations. None of you three should tell anyone that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act.
–PhD. Climate Research Director Phil Jones reveals Climategate emails, February 21, 2005.
“microphone [Mann]can you delete all emails between you and Keith? [Trenberth] Heavy AR4? Keith would do the same thing…can you also email Gene and ask him to do the same? I don't have his email address…we'll get Casper to do the same.
–PhD. Climate Research Director Phil Jones revealed the May 29, 2008 Climategate email.
“You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I heard the IPCC overrides national freedom of information laws. One way to protect yourself and all AR5 staff [the upcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report] All emails will be deleted at the end of the process. It’s hard to do because not everyone will remember it.
–PhD. Climate Research Director Phil Jones disclosed the Climategate emails on 12 May 2009 to circumvent a freedom of information request.
Disrupting the peer review process
“I can't see any of these papers appearing in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] Even if we had to redefine peer-reviewed literature, I would exclude them somehow!
—Phil Jones, director of climate research, revealing the Climategate emails, July 8, 2004.
Influence
The authorities sugarcoated the incident and then pretended the incident was over. Mr Climategate Michael Mann called the incident “tragic” and “shameless”. [1] “After three investigations, thousands of column inches and several death threats,” Dave Wray wrote in nature“, “The 'Climategate' saga is now receding into the long grass of conspiracy blogs. [2]
No. Climategate has not been forgotten as a blatant case of professional misconduct and a classic case of “getting caught.” It lives in shame.
————————-
[1] Mann added:
As for the emails that involve me in some way, I see almost nothing damning about them, even though the snippets are taken out of context. I figured they ran out of things to deal with and eliminated in the first round the emails that were most likely to be taken out of context and try to embarrass me…. Agents running dirty bids in the fossil fuel industry know they cannot question the basic science of human-caused climate change. As a result, they have turned to slander, innuendo, criminal website hacking, and the leaking of out-of-context personal email snippets in an attempt to confuse the public about the science and thereby prevent any action against this serious threat.
[2] Derek Lowe in science “I think what needs to be looked at is the conduct of science,” he said. “I'm not a climatologist, but I'm an experienced working scientist – so, is there a problem here?
I'll give you the short answer: yes. I have to say that there appear to be several problems, as indicated by the many troubling features in the released documents. The first one is An apparent attempt to circumvent UK freedom of information laws. I don’t see how these messages could be interpreted in any other way as an attempt to break the law, nor do I see how they can be defended…. Second issue It's a joint effort to shape what kind of papers get into the scientific literature. Again, this does not seem to be a matter of interpretation; Messages like this, this, and this explain exactly what is happening. You talk about firing journal editors… The third issue What I want to comment on is the issue of data and its analysis…. No matter what you think about climate change, if you respect the scientific enterprise, this is very bad news. Respect must be earned. And it can get lost.
Editor's note: Watts Up With That covered the Climategate scandal back in 2009
Many of our posts about the event and controversy can be found on this page.
Relevant
