WaPo reports on East Anglia CRU e-mails, global-warming controversy

posted at 12:00 pm on November 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

It’s out in the mainstream, in a not-too-bad report from the Washington Post.  Juliet Eilperin focuses exclusively on the controversy and not the content in this report, which is a story in itself (via Instapundit):

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate — nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal — public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.

Why is that important?  Global-warming advocates routinely criticize skeptics for not having enough peer-reviewed work rebutting their findings.  If they’re conspiring to block the publication of such research, that undermines their argument and their scientific credibility.  One of their nemeses explains the significance:

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

“There’s an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘If you print anything by this group, we won’t send you any papers.’ “

As I wrote when the scandal first arose, the anthropogenic global warming advocates have not been practicing science, if these e-mails prove genuine.  Scientists welcome debate and analysis of data to test hypotheses and theories.  When people start attempting to silence dissent, they cease being scientists and start being high priests of a faith-based system.  This smacks more of Galileo’s treatment than Galileo’s work.  E pur si muove?

Real scientists also don’t delete data when asked to provide transparency to their work, as John Hinderaker points out:

These emails appear to show that, when faced with a legitimate request under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, these global warming alarmists preferred to delete their emails with one another about the crucially important IPCC report–the main basis for the purported “consensus” in favor of anthropogenic global warming–rather than allow them to come to light. This is one of many instances in the East Anglia documents where the global warming alarmists act like a gang of co-conspirators rather than respectable scientists.

Eilperin’s report is a straightforward account of the controversy.  How long will it be before the media that has hailed AGW scientists and amplified their hysterical findings gives us analysis of the e-mails, such as those being done at Climate Depot and Watt’s Up With That, in order to expose the highly unscientific behavior of AGW hysterics?

Charlie Martin at Pajamas Media gives just such an analysis and concludes:

These emails and the data associated, taken together, raise really important questions about the whole scientific structure of AGW. Is the data really valid? Has the data been effectively peer reviewed and have attempts to falsify been fairly treated? Is CO2-forced AGW really the best hypothesis?Until these questions are answered, the various attempts to “deal with the climate change crisis” have no acceptable scientific basis.

If CRU’s scientists have been conspiring to smear skeptics and keep people in the dark about their processes, the assumption should be that the work is dishonest and could not stand the light of scrutiny.  Based on the e-mails, Hadley and everyone who relied on their work — including the UN and the IPCC — should be forced to start over from scratch … with total and complete transparency.

Update: East Anglia’s CRU is not Hadley.  None of the e-mails exposed came from Hadley’s servers.  Those are two separate institutions.  I’ve corrected this post’s headline and body to reflect that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Charles Johnson is out of demerits

blatantblue on November 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM

NeighborhoodCatLady on November 22, 2009 at 12:56 PM

I believe this is becoming the consensus that the MSM will ignore and will continue referring to the emails as “hacked”. The original file link was posted by someone calling themselves “FOIA”, who stated:

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

13blackcats on November 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM

PMHave you been paying attention at all?

I see the press is covering this. Too late but they’re starting.

And we’re discussing it.

Whether the press will continue to “press” it remains to be seen.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Well, I for one am not surprised. Gun control advocates have been ignoring data that refutes their claims since forever. AGW worshippers are no different.

When I found out that damn near every one of the computer programs that were supposed to predict atmospheric temperatues did not have an algorithm for variable solar intensity, I knew something was being cooked.

Pelayo on November 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM

CJ hasn’t looked this silly since he freaked out over Beck slow cooking a frog; which, unbeknownst to Chuckles, was made of rubber.

Geochelone on November 22, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Thanks charlton Heston!

daesleeper on November 22, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Good work Ed.

And I’ll point out once more that East Anglia CRU and Hadley are closely associated:

From the beginning of January 2006, we have replaced the various grid-box temperature anomaly (from the base period 1961-90) datasets with new versions, HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3 (see Brohan et al., 2006). The datasets have been developed in conjunction with Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office. These datasets will be updated at roughly monthly intervals into the future. Hemispheric and global averages as monthly and annual values are available as separate files.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

So when Gavin Schmidt [realclimate.org NASA scientist that blogs BS on the the taxpayer's dime] tells us that the two are so very far apart, he’s full of sh-t.

toliver on November 22, 2009 at 1:07 PM

The warmenist document release confirms a few things we’ve suspected. The proponents are elitists and they think of the vast mass of humanity as sheeple. They think they can discuss the world truthfully, with full nuance and sublety, among themselves. They can then decide what is best for the sheeple, strip out any language that doesn’t move the merch/advance the/cause/help the brand, and through their media-ecademic-political special-interest coalition, ram the result through. They got Obama through on us. They are working on health-care. The odds are still in their favor on global warming.

So, I nominate the Anonymous Leaker for a new special Nobel Prize, the Galileo, for advancing the cause of the scientific method, and shining a dark light on how it is being abused. Also, Phil Jones for Watermelon of the Year with Gold Prat Cluster.

motionview on November 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Personally, I think the right should drop the topic entirely and focus on how Cap-and-Trade is nothing more than a boondoggle tax for the government.

I have yet to see how it encourages more responsibility in terms of environmental law.

AnninCA on November 22, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Drop out and out fraudulent science? No. Just imagine if he had been able to debunk fraudulent racial science in the 1930s (or way earlier.)

These are scientists wo are using, abusing and misusing science in order to further their political goals.

I have no problem with wanting to be more energy efficient — based upon not giving Hugo Chavez or the Wahhabist Saudis more money. But don’t change our society based upon fraud.

rbj on November 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM

I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.

It seems that this actually happened

I have been reading up on this all day. I had no idea the evidence was so flimsy, or that it came from so few people.

Briffa (sp), on whose work the hockey stick graph seems to have been based had 5 yes you read that correctly 5 trees in Siberia in his data set for 1996 in one of his papers. The Russians who collected the data came out with no trend at all for the 20th century.

I don’t think these people are criminal, but I think they have taken interesting attempts at modelling, and behaved as if they were actual results. Even though some of their results directly contradict the actual observed record. eg no medaeval warm period, despite there being Vikings farming Greenland ….

Hope on November 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Fraud is deliberate – willful – deception.

Willful, as in willfully ignoring contradictory evidence.

I’m not sure why you can’t call it fraud. But it’s interesting.

lorien1973 on November 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Actually, “Eppur, si muove” – Galileo’s response to having been declared a heretic for contending that the Earth moves around the sun, rather than the converse, which was then accepted as fact.

Also, Pope John Paul II’s wry remark on meeting the college of Cardinals after surviving an assassination attempt.

“Nonetheless, it moves.”

warbaby on November 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM

So, I nominate the Anonymous Leaker for a new special Nobel Prize, the Galileo, for advancing the cause of the scientific method, and shining a dark light on how it is being abused. Also, Phil Jones for Watermelon of the Year with Gold Prat Cluster.

motionview on November 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM

I’ll second that nomination.

tim c on November 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM

These people, in my view, sincerely believe that AGW is occurring. They ignore contradictory evidence not because they believe that it disproves AGW but because they believe that other evidence proves it or overwhelms any contradictory evidence.

That’s fraud. In science, contradictory evidence is not ignored and it most certainly not suppressed. And people don’t seek punitive actions against those who disagree with your evidence – GW nuts do. And those who are doing it benefit financially.

Someone intends to defraud if he or she intends to deceive another person either to cause a loss of money or goods or service or something else of value or to cause damage to a legal, financial, or property right.

Blake on November 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Willful, as in willfully ignoring contradictory evidence.

I’m not sure why you can’t call it fraud. But it’s interesting.

lorien1973 on November 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Similar to a prosecuting attorney witholding evidence that may prove the innocence of a defendent.

thomasaur on November 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM

It’s all about money. Which scientist will reap the most grants from a liberal government, the scientist whose research is supporting global warming or the scientist whose research is debunking AGW?

It’s not the first time a reaearcher or reaearchers have cooked the data. Remember the cold fusion “discovery” a few years ago?

Pelayo on November 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM

All those people who try to sell boob enlarging creams on television are only ignoring the contrary science and therefore are being persecuted by the government.

Miss Cleo really really believed she was a psychic and only ignored the contrary evidence was persecuted by the government who through her azz in jail.

Blake on November 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

blatantblue on November 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Michael Crichton at the beginning of State of Fear?

bikermailman on November 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

through = threw

Blake on November 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Not releasing data for papers is fraud by intent. Hiding the information, thwarting its release so that the data can be examined is fraud. Not telling how you sampled data and what the parameters are is fraud. Putting graphs together to indicate conincidence of data and not doing separate pull-outs to see what the correlation is, and then dropping datasets that don’t agree is fraud.

Showing your work is the touchstone of science: if you can’t present the data to other researchers, you are not doing science. It has taken years of parameter checking, working on graph residuals and other work to show that the dendochronology was based on a highly limited sample of trees chosen purposefully by the researchers to get just the graph they wanted. A hockey stick was born. The parents of the hockey stick, the limited data set was not released and purposefully misrepresented to be a larger data set. That is fraud by intent and content, and even once it was shown the researchers still would not release the data sets, and only when they responded through a journal that DID require their datasets to be held by the journal, did the data finally come out… years after the data had been used to support the IPCC papers and start the entire political ball rolling.

Would you invest in a financial institution that did not use standard and accepted accounting practices for financial disclosure, and then sought to withhold the data when auditors showed up? And then try to change the standard and accepted practices so as to cover up the institution’s work? Then go on to say that those auditors really need to use the new practices that had been authorized by those running the institution on the basis of practices they won’t reveal but just get the right end result? When the methods are changed to match the wanted result, you see fraud. The numbers don’t add up…

And its the cover-up that kills you.

ajacksonian on November 22, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Their actions are deliberate, so this is fraud, and should be punished as such.

ray on November 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM

And its the cover-up that kills you.

ajacksonian on November 22, 2009 at 1:21 PM

When the same people that control the grants to continue this fraud control the flow of information who’s to say that a cover-up exists.

thomasaur on November 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM

As a former Tennessee resident, it doesn’t get any better than this. Well, er, this was pretty good – photo link. Most Tennesseans regard Gore as a miserable, lyin’, four-flushing braggart. And most of us would love to spit some Beech-Nut in that dude’s eye.

Al Gore and Google team up to increase climate change awareness

October 5, 2009 11:38 AM

Google has launched a new climate change simulator that displays the dangerous effects of manmade climate change that have been predicted. Using Google Earth software, users can view the various scenarios put forth by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The search giant also announced the launch of a special YouTube channel dedicated to the topic.

Released ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) set to take place in Copenhagen in December, Google encourages users to, “Explore the potential impacts of climate change on our planet Earth and find out about possible solutions for adaptation and mitigation.”

Adding some ‘star power’ to the new simulator is an introductory video narrated by former vice president Al Gore. The most recognized of global warming alarmists paints a dire picture of the earth’s future as one might expect.

I hope you enjoy your trip to Copenhagen next month, Mr. Gore.

ReagansRight on November 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM

spit some Beech-Nut in that dude’s eye.

good ol’ Hank Jr. Great song, great lyrics.

ray on November 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

AS you say Ed, the WaPo is reporting this, but they are staying away from the most damaging aspects of the story.

The attempt seems to be in the most recent WaPo report is to make this simply a case of scientists being ‘bad’ to one another. While this is a part of the story, it isn’t the story itself.

The story should be how these e-mails show a coordinated effort at wrong data and bad practices, celebrating a ‘skeptics’ death, fixing the data, deleting the data, wrongdoing, hiding information, peer-review interference, and shady financial practices

catmman on November 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM

***
The Polar Bear on the rapidly melting ice floe reminds me of Comrade Obama (PBUH) trying to decide what to do about Afghanistan. SINK OR SWIM time is coming very soon.
***
Great photo(shop?) work.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on November 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Google has launched a new climate change simulator that displays the dangerous effects of manmade climate change that have been predicted.

All this based on 12 tree cores in Siberia …

I thought they had been number crunching data from all over the world and from multiple sources. Not just from 12 trees in Siberia.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

Read this HotAirians.

Hope on November 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM

I have no doubts these alarmists, pseudo scientists are in this for money. Many, many people stand to make a great amount of moulah with the passage of laws, and restrictions on citizens.

Greed is a terrible thing. To bad liberals don’t apply that to themselves the same way they apply to every one of us.

capejasmine on November 22, 2009 at 2:16 PM

From something I saw at Climate Dept -

Wonder if this is one of those days that Al Gore wishes he’d never created the Internet. . .

Wind Rider on November 22, 2009 at 2:17 PM

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/baby-steps/

A good review of the implications of what the emails and documents may be.

CommentGuy on November 22, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Absolutely NONE of this should need to be pried from their damn hands. It ALL should be publically available.

All of it.

Especially when Democrats are using this garbage to assert complete control of our lives.

drjohn on November 22, 2009 at 2:22 PM

-spit some Beech-Nut in that dude’s eye.

good ol’ Hank Jr. Great song, great lyrics.

ray on November 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

A great line from a great song.

A bit off topic; but I didn’t get a chance to acknowledge my appreciation all of our military service members during Veterans Day – especially the men, women and family members at Ft. Campbell, Ky. Thank you, one and all.

Military Tribute: Hank Jr.; Country Boy Can Survive

ReagansRight on November 22, 2009 at 2:32 PM

It’s no wonder they’ve “lost” all the original data.

drjohn on November 22, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Just a little anecdote, here. I emailed one of the climatologists in the story on temperature data, wherein the scientists had stated quite clearly that their temperature data did not match their computer climate models, and therefore the temperature data must be wrong.

My note was a non-caustic taunt looking forward to his public explanation of this phenomenon and his reliance on computer models and not his own ability to collect temperature data (I assured him that the public’s confidence in a PhD’s ability to read a thermometer was almost certainly very high, and that he shouldn’t doubt himself so).

I cannot ethically provide his name nor his responses, but let me just say that he is so effing dense that he couldn’t even read the sarcasm, instead thinking that I was a GWH fanatic, and that I was looking for an even stronger statement from him in support of the (deeply flawed) computer models, which he gladly provided.

His response somewhat undermined the steps of the scientific method:

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
(Conclusion – the data is all wrong! It doesn’t match my hypothesis!)
Communicate Your Results (to your fellow scientists, calling for a conspiracy to suppress the data and boycott periodicals which publish the findings of skeptics)

Heh.

Jaibones on November 22, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Charles Johnson is out of demerits

blatantblue on November 22, 2009 at 1:06 PM

No, he’s just out of his ever loving mind… He has plenty of demerits left, just fewer and fewer people to give them too.

doriangrey on November 22, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Amid the thousands of files apparently misappropriated from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) last week sit two documents on the subject of the unit’s funding. One is a spreadsheet (pdj_grant_since1990.xls) logging the various grants CRU chief PD Jones has received since 1990. It lists 55 such endowments from agencies ranging from the U.S Department of Energy to NATO and worth a total of £13,718,547 or approximately 22.6 million USD. I guess cooking climate data can be an expensive habit, particularly for an oft-quoted and highly exalted U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chief climatologist.

But it’s actually the second document (potential-funding.doc) that tells the more compelling tale. In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of “energy agencies” they might put the bite on. Three — the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative and the Energy Saving Trust — are UK-based consultancy and funding specialists promoting “new energy” technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fourth — Renewables North West — is an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind and geothermal energy in the Pacific Northwest.

Needless to say, all four of these CRU “potential funding sources” have an undeniably intrinsic financial interest in the promotion of the carbochondriacal reports CRU is ready, willing, and able to dish out ostensibly on-demand. And equally obvious is that Jones is all too aware that a renewable energy-funded CRU will remain the world’s premiere authority on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) despite any appearance of conflict.

And yet, no such latitude has ever been extended to scientists in the skeptical camp.

From American Thinker

journeyintothewhirlwind on November 22, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Global warming is regarded by the sheeple as true, by those who can think for themselves as clearly false and by the power mad and money grubbers as … … useful … … very useful in their pathological quest to filch ever more money and power to themselves.

MB4 on November 22, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Unless the press is completely corrupt – a debatable point to be sure – this should lead to more scepticism and critical reporting.

Of course they’re completely corrupt. Dr. Mann was busted on the Hockey Stick years ago. It didn’t make a dent in his flow of funds. One or two lame excuses and the millions kept on coming.

What I want to know is how come Penn State alumni haven’t had this lying POS fired?

Americans are corrupt and they’re getting the news, colleges and government they deserve. It will take repentance first before any of this is really fixed.

rcl on November 22, 2009 at 3:20 PM

Some background on the main goals of peer review.

J_Crater on November 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM

Hope on November 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Yeah… and its more than just this “one” piece of flimsy evidence.

We have Weather ground stations all over the world, taking REAL readings. These seemed to show warming, so we put up satelites to monitor temperatures as well.

Problem is, the Sattys and the Ground stations did not really aggree… Sattys saw nothing… ground stations still showed some warming. So, you had TWO different data sets which did not aggree….

Well… some of us started looking at the weather stations themselves… turns out that many are situated in places where the Heat Island effect, and environmental sighting problems give falsly high readings (you can find picks online of these stations sitting right next to LARGE Air conditioner units, or right next to roads and such).

They also then take the data from the ground stations, and “norm” it by some algorithm they won’t release. Supposedly they take High and Low readings and somehow weed these out (actualy change them to be more inline with other surrounding stations)… but once again, they won’t release the RAW data, or the actualy process by which they “norm” the data.

So… False data abounds in this debate, but that is what they want to use as an excuse to destroy our economy.

Romeo13 on November 22, 2009 at 3:59 PM

How long will it be before the media that has hailed AGW scientists and amplified their hysterical findings gives us analysis of the e-mails, such as those being done at Climate Depot and Watt’s Up With That, in order to expose the highly unscientific behavior of AGW hysterics?

About a decade after totalitarian CO2-reduction legislation has been in place long enough to become irreversible in the next three lifetimes.

Do you seriously think they’re going to stop cheerleading for Progressive dictatorship over something like this? No, didn’t think you did.

JDPerren on November 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Junk science.

the_nile on November 22, 2009 at 4:06 PM

So: since the fakery of the global-warming crowd is being exposed, can we end all that Crap and Tax B.S.?

Also: can we get Al Bore and his cohorts to return the billions of dollars they have extorted from the gullible public?

MrScribbler on November 22, 2009 at 4:15 PM

MrScribbler on November 22, 2009 at 4:15 PM

It is all about power, not about science. They will not abandon their agenda (the accumulation of control and power) because Science does not support their conclusions or proves their conclusions to be wrong.

The only way to prevent this is putting pressure on the politicians.

Holger on November 22, 2009 at 4:20 PM

The AGW crowd has fallen back to the following positions:

1. The e-mails are stolen property and decent people should not even look at them, and
2. The e-mails have been taken out of context, and
3. There is still plenty of evidence that the world is warming.

Of course, they also overlook:
1. The New York Times never seemed to have any problem using stolen US government property when it was making a point. For example, the Pentagon Papers case or with any number of Bush Anti-Terrorist policies.
2. If the e-mails were taken out of context what do you think “using a trick to hide a decline” means?
3. Evidence of Global Warming is NOT the same as evidence of AGW. (The sun, cosmic rays, sunspots and any number of alternate hypothesis are possible reasons for any changes in global temperatures). And, of course, why did temperatures decline from 1998 to the present if CO2 is the one and only acceptable forcing mechanism?

Man-made Global Warming is a religion and a political movement more concerned with raising taxes and controlling other people’s lives than it is a scientific theory.

Fred 2 on November 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Yes, and it’s called fraud for a reason. The reason behind the fraud is irrelevant.
Fraud is deliberate – willful – deception.
These people, in my view, sincerely believe that AGW is occurring. They ignore contradictory evidence not because they believe that it disproves AGW but because they believe that other evidence proves it or overwhelms any contradictory evidence.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Like being pregnant, scientific fraud is not subject to shades of nuance: it is binary. You are, or you are not, pregnant. You are, or you are not, committing scientific fraud.

If I perform an experiment and I muck it up, whether through sloppy methods, or inadequate controls or through shoddy analysis of the results, that is bad science.

If the data for my “experiment” consists of observations– direct or indirect — that are considered to be part of the climate record and I choose to use or not to use data depending upon whether or not it supports my hypothesis, then I am not doing science and for me to represent it as being science is to commit scientific fraud. My motives are irrelevant; my actions are fraudulent. In the community of scientists who adhere to the scientific method my work is suspect and by whomever I am employed, I am likely to be fired.

These “scientists” use mathematical models to “test their hypotheses”. In their hubris and, I think, desire to have their models and the results derived therefrom to be considered all-powerful and all-knowing, they crossed over to fraud because, Lord knows, their all-powerful and all-knowing models had to be able to account for everything. They lost sight of the fact that models are not reality and can never hope to match or predict reality perfectly.

As for the question of whether their communications — recorded electronically — are confidential andare “theirs” to dispose of, they are not. In the commercial world we are told repeatedly that whatever material we place on company computers or servers is explicitly owned by the company and that we have no legal privacy rights in this regard since, in the event of legal action, our employer would be held responsible for this material, as would we.

In the scientific community, ideally, these folks are now outcasts and it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate, through full disclosure of their data and methods, that their peer-reviewed and published work is not fraudulent. If they fail to do so, the journals and other means by which their work was published are bound to issue retractions of their published material. Other scientists who relied on these peoples’ work may either correct their own or retract it.

ya2daup on November 22, 2009 at 4:44 PM

CJ seems to be invested to an irrational point regarding AGW. Either that or simply dishonest.

CWforFreedom on November 22, 2009 at 4:59 PM

ya2daup on November 22, 2009 at 4:44 PM

As for opinions expressed in my final paragraph, note that I said “ideally”.

Given the money, politics and power involved, I’d be shocked, shocked if such disclosures and / or retractions resulted from this. It wouldn’t change the fact that this is fraud, however.

ya2daup on November 22, 2009 at 5:02 PM

I strongly suggest you do as JCrater says and read th linked article

Some background on the main goals of peer review.

J_Crater on November 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/most-useless-phrase-in-the-polical-lexicon-peer-reviewed.html

CWforFreedom on November 22, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Not telling how you sampled data and what the parameters are is fraud.

ajacksonian on November 22, 2009 at 1:21 PM

But CNN, C-BS, al-AP, ABC/Washington Post, and the NY Times fo that all the time.

They call it “polling”.

Del Dolemonte on November 22, 2009 at 5:07 PM

I have been looking at one of the documents HARRY_READ_ME.TXT . It is a 200K text file filled with the working notes of someone trying to wrestle this mass of data and software into the results the big guys, Jones and Mann etc. present in their papers and UN reports. If you read through it, though heavily filled with technical detail, it is clear that they are just trying things and if it looks like what they expect they go with it. No formal validation of the software. They are also trying, sometimes unsuccessfully, to go back and reproduce some of their originally published graphs.

If you wrote this software as part of a medical device the FDA would close your company. If it was part of a Defense contract 60 Minutes would be nailing you to the wall.

They are betting the global economy on hope-ware.

motionview on November 22, 2009 at 5:43 PM

SteveMG “They ignore contradictory evidence not because they believe that it disproves AGW but because they believe that other evidence proves it or overwhelms any contradictory evidence.”
That’s not it. They believe they are smart and good and they will decide what’s in all of our best interest. They must supress contradictory information so we poor ignorant cavemen don’t get all confused by the nuance and turn bitter and clingy and make the wrong decision. AlGore says, the science is settled, the politics is settled; this is now a moral issue.

motionview on November 22, 2009 at 5:49 PM

I haven’t checked the comments yet, but in case no one has posted this, Mark Steyn weighs in: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mzc1MTkzNDc3NWE0ZDc2NzljOTZjZjU4YTAyYTE3YmE=

Ultimately, he observes that climate change (like our issue over State-run health care) is one of control by self-designated elites who intend to run the world (society) according to their own utopian ideals.

onlineanalyst on November 22, 2009 at 5:56 PM

A tale of two leaks…

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling

LONDON (AP) — A leading climate change scientist whose private e-mails are included in thousands of documents that were stolen by hackers and posted online said Sunday the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month’s global climate summit in Denmark.

Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado, said he believes the hackers who stole a decade’s worth of correspondence from a British university’s computer server deliberately distributed only those documents that could help attempts by skeptics to undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.

Trenberth, a well respected atmospheric scientist, said it did not appear that all the documents stolen from the university had been distributed on the Internet by the hackers.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said hackers last week stole from its computer server about a decade’s worth of data from its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. About 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents have been posted on Web sites and seized on by climate change skeptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence.

Report: Leaked UK documents detail Iraq war chaos

LONDON – Leaked British government documents call into question ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair’s public statements on the buildup to the Iraq war and show plans for the U.S.-led 2003 invasion were being made more than a year earlier, a newspaper reported Sunday.

Britain’s Sunday Telegraph published details of private statements made by senior British military figures claiming plans were in place months before the March 2003 invasion, but were so badly drafted they left troops poorly equipped and ill-prepared for the conflict.

The documents — transcripts of interviews from an internal defense ministry review of the conflict — disclose that some planning for the Iraq war had begun in February 2002. Maj. Gen. Graeme Lamb, then head of Britain’s special forces, was quoted as saying he had been “working the war up since early 2002,” according to the newspaper.

In July 2002, Blair told lawmakers at a House of Commons committee session that there were no preparations to invade Iraq.

Both by “David Stringer, Associated Press Writer.” Both dated November 22. Curious how much different the emphasis is, no? In one, the issue is the information itself, and the other it’s that the information was published. Gee, I wonder why that is?

Mynuet on November 22, 2009 at 6:19 PM

After seeing the caption for this blog post, all I can say is

DIE Polar Bear, DIE :-) Yeah i am evil like that.

nagee76 on November 22, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Global warming is a hoax. Even if it weren’t, Cap and Trade is a scam. Any questions?

KillerKane on November 22, 2009 at 6:30 PM

This is the equivalent of the financial melt down. It started slowly too. I know. We lost our shirts in banking before it was clear what was happening.

Now we will find out if AGW is too big to fail and gets a government cover up to save it.

EU? UN? US? Who will be the first to repudiate AGW?

I’m not holding my breath. It wouldn’t help the climate anyhow.

petunia on November 22, 2009 at 6:53 PM

After seeing the caption for this blog post, all I can say is

DIE Polar Bear, DIE :-) Yeah i am evil like that.

nagee76 on November 22, 2009 at 6:28 PM

He’s not going to die! He’s going to swim! Polar Bears are funny like that they swim. Stupid environmentalists! I don’t think they even like nature! They just like to tell people what to do.

petunia on November 22, 2009 at 6:55 PM

Bad news for the cause?

Redouble the propaganda offensive!

Somewhere, Herr Goebbels is smiling.

Wind Rider on November 22, 2009 at 7:05 PM

Climate Audithad to put up a mirror site because of all the traffic. Steve McIntyre, in looking at all of the data says the source codes they use to come up with their climate data, have been so doctored up, they could only produce a desired result.

My guess is that much more is going to come from this. I hope it forces the Democrats to rethink Cap and Tax, but I doubt it. Their plan isn’t about climate change it’s about money. Perhaps it will force them to rethink how they’re going to do it.

bflat879 on November 22, 2009 at 7:26 PM

CJ hasn’t looked this silly since he freaked out over Beck slow cooking a frog; which, unbeknownst to Chuckles, was made of rubber.

Geochelone on November 22, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Okay! Okay! I’m going over to see this! There is an unhealthy interest in this Charles fellow… whose site I found hidden in my favorites list… I must have read him at one time and thought him worthy of marking but had forgotten.

But since so many hotairites gauge the success and failure of conservative politics by how angry it makes this Charles fellow I better figure out who the guy is and why anyone cares.

petunia on November 22, 2009 at 7:28 PM

It’s one thing to have personal and/or corporate responsibility or awareness regarding the consequences of your behavior on the environment. It’s an entirely different matter altogether to manipulate results and wantonly engage in the restriction of publications (a fact which the AGW alarmists use as a bludgeon against skeptics).

This is blatantly unethical and unprofessional behavior on the part of scientists. This misinformation is being used to further extraordinarily expensive legislation now meant to consolidate power and funds into a narrow band of people who benefit from it.

It is a fallacy upon which people have built their careers and staked their political reputations. I am glad to see this house of cards coming down.

ted c on November 22, 2009 at 7:29 PM

He’s not going to die! He’s going to swim! Polar Bears are funny like that they swim. Stupid environmentalists! I don’t think they even like nature! They just like to tell people what to do

Just trying to have fun, petunia – you are dead on – the Polar Bear is a survivor and will most definitely swim his/her way out of trouble.

The Leftists/environuts always try to emotionally blackmail people – instead of reasoning with these idiots, i think we should have a “I hope the polar bear dies and goes straight to hell” attitude.. not that i wish for it, but just to watch the leftists foam at the mouth.

nagee76 on November 22, 2009 at 7:42 PM

But since so many hotairites gauge the success and failure of conservative politics by how angry it makes this Charles fellow I better figure out who the guy is and why anyone cares.
This is Charles Johnson at LGF that they are talking about – i think LGF broke the RatherGate story wide open.. but of late he has become an absolute jerk (especially when it comes to Islamic terrorism) that people no longer identify this guy any more.

I cannot believe that LGF has effectively pariahized itself from the conservative blogging community.

nagee76 on November 22, 2009 at 7:44 PM

Global warming is a hoax. Even if it weren’t, Cap and Trade is a scam. Any questions?

KillerKane on November 22, 2009 at 6:30 PM

None from me!

BobAnthony on November 22, 2009 at 9:33 PM

I love hairy men’s sweaty balls in my mouth! – Charles Johnson

ZoneDaiatlas on November 22, 2009 at 9:48 PM

A tale of two leaks…

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling

LONDON (AP) — A leading climate change scientist whose private e-mails are included in thousands of documents that were stolen by hackers and posted online said Sunday the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month’s global climate summit in Denmark.

Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado, said he believes the hackers who stole a decade’s worth of correspondence from a British university’s computer server deliberately distributed only those documents that could help attempts by skeptics to undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.

Trenberth, a well respected atmospheric scientist, said it did not appear that all the documents stolen from the university had been distributed on the Internet by the hackers.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said hackers last week stole from its computer server about a decade’s worth of data from its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. About 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents have been posted on Web sites and seized on by climate change skeptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence.

Report: Leaked UK documents detail Iraq war chaos

LONDON – Leaked British government documents call into question ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair’s public statements on the buildup to the Iraq war and show plans for the U.S.-led 2003 invasion were being made more than a year earlier, a newspaper reported Sunday.

Britain’s Sunday Telegraph published details of private statements made by senior British military figures claiming plans were in place months before the March 2003 invasion, but were so badly drafted they left troops poorly equipped and ill-prepared for the conflict.

The documents — transcripts of interviews from an internal defense ministry review of the conflict — disclose that some planning for the Iraq war had begun in February 2002. Maj. Gen. Graeme Lamb, then head of Britain’s special forces, was quoted as saying he had been “working the war up since early 2002,” according to the newspaper.

In July 2002, Blair told lawmakers at a House of Commons committee session that there were no preparations to invade Iraq.

Both by “David Stringer, Associated Press Writer.” Both dated November 22. Curious how much different the emphasis is, no? In one, the issue is the information itself, and the other it’s that the information was published. Gee, I wonder why that is?

Mynuet on November 22, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Even though I’m disgusted by this media-bias, I’ve come to expect it, and I laughed at your two comparative quotes. Too funny.

toliver on November 22, 2009 at 10:07 PM

what ever happened to Charles Johnson?

moonbatkiller on November 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM

What happened to Charles Johnson? Well, he was a typical liberal hippie bike rider/blogger blogging about bike things until Sept. 9 2001. Then he was wacked upside the head by reality and changed his blog to anti-terrorism and a conservative slant. He gained a big following and after he jumped on the “throbbing memo” bandwagon he became “Mr. Big Sh!t’. Power went to his head and he killed off the best thing he had going for him, the commenters, and he has slunk back under his rock and reverted to liberalism.

R D on November 22, 2009 at 10:10 PM

Forget about CJ and LGF. Neither he nor his blog matters anymore. Flipping shame but that’s the sad truth, it gives me no pleasure to say.

princetrumpet on November 22, 2009 at 11:32 PM

For those who may still not fully grasp what “peer-reviewed” actually means, lets take a little journey back, about 10 years or so. A couple of scientists laid the claim that they initiated cold fusion. Now, when that hit the world every other scientist in their field dropped their test tubes, bought a new pocket protector and lab coat, loaded up on coffee and proceeded to take the data and methods used by the original scientists. Then one by one they were unable to recreate the results. The original scientists then took a refreshed look and realized they did not creat cold fusion. The media continued for a bit, but the hoopla died down. That is peer-reviewed. A chosen group of scientists were not chosen, the data and everthing was laid out for all other scientists to test and pick at, not cover up. That is science. This climate/AGW crap is not science, it’s politics with a pseudo-religion mixed together.

TQM38a on November 22, 2009 at 11:51 PM

Interesting take on this from a dissenting climate scientist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac&feature=player_embedded#

AUINSC on November 23, 2009 at 12:24 AM

As I suspected on Friday, the more bespectacled types would be poring over the data files before the weekend was out and the game would shift away from the emails. And so they have — starting with the unassumingly named HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is North America’s only cap and trade system … Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE) is a landmark derivatives exchange. Methinks tomorrow morning “Carbon Credits” and “Carbon Derivatives” could crash and burn. We’ll see. Meanwhile Gold just touched 1165/oz (bid).

Buckle up boys, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

13blackcats on November 23, 2009 at 12:26 AM

Take a look at this.

d1carter on November 23, 2009 at 12:31 AM

As I wrote when the scandal first arose, the anthropogenic global warming advocates have not been practicing science, if these e-mails prove genuine. Scientists welcome debate and analysis of data to test hypotheses and theories. When people start attempting to silence dissent, they cease being scientists and start being high priests of a faith-based system. This smacks more of Galileo’s treatment than Galileo’s work. E pur si muove?

Even more damning is that this is EXACTLY what the skeptics have been claiming ALL ALONG.

Allegations of fudged numbers verified.

Allegations of silencing critics and blocking them from the peer review process verified.

Allegations of stalling and intentional ‘dirty ticks’ regarding FOIA requests verified.

Given the AGW critics are the people who DID predict the current cooling trend it becomes very difficult to believe the work of the warm mongers in general.

Moreover – this has been happening in academia for some time now. The scientific work produced by many of our colleges are similarly tainted by politics.

Mr Purple on November 23, 2009 at 1:25 AM

Scientists welcome debate and analysis of data to test hypotheses and theories. When people start attempting to silence dissent, they cease being scientists and start being high priests of a faith-based system.

How many of these global warming scientists also push evolution as the origin of life? Just asking.

withmanitisimpossible on November 23, 2009 at 6:53 AM

Gun control advocates have been ignoring data that refutes their claims since forever. AGW worshippers are no different.

There is a large difference: AGW people have been preparing this hoax for many decades, propagandizing for the environment, (it transcends sovereign borders) and against the capitalism they so loathe, in schools and in every other TV or Hoaxyhood movie.

Talk about useful idiots!

Don L on November 23, 2009 at 7:12 AM

Stop all grants and tax breaks, and watch the real scientific community clean house of their Marxist brothers.

Don L on November 23, 2009 at 7:15 AM

For those who may still not fully grasp what “peer-reviewed” actually means, lets take a little journey back, about 10 years or so.

Pons & Fleishman come to my mind, every time I see the likes of Mann and Hanson. One difference, though. P & F were sloppy. Nothing more. They were then ostracized.

Mann, Hanson, Jones, ect? No matter how many time they’re caught purposefully manipulating data, applying trickery, and out and out defrauding the taxpayers of literally billions, they keep getting their billions.

Let’s keep feeding frauds like Mann, Hanson, Jones, ect into the machine of Big Science. It’s not like these frauds are feeding right into the hands of those who push distrust of ALL science, are they? It’s not like Michael Mann makes Penn State look like a disreputable institution, does he? It’s not like James Hanson ever puts a bad light on government research, no matter how many times his data is found to be cooked, does it?

MNHawk on November 23, 2009 at 8:03 AM

TQM38a on November 22, 2009 at 11:51 PM

Don’t forget the Polywater incident the decade before either. This is more like what happened in the Soviet Union with Lysenko and his version of biology and genetics.

Ann NY on November 23, 2009 at 8:04 AM

Ann NY on November 23, 2009 at 8:04 AM

Polywater! LOL, I remember hearing about polywater waaaaaayyy back in the 70s. Something about it being the reason why Russian wheat stalks didn’t freeze up in the winter. Been a long time since I’ve even heard it mentioned. :-)

Oldnuke on November 23, 2009 at 8:50 AM

Looks like Soros needs to give Joe Romm and climate Progress more money.

Peer review coming from Michael mann and Jones means nothing. Looks like they can’t explain the Medfieval warm period so they make up numbers and formulas.

seven on November 23, 2009 at 8:52 AM

I knew the AGW could not stand up to scrutiny when the response to differing opinion was character assassination.

Slowburn on November 23, 2009 at 9:10 AM

The “whole scientific structure”? Because of these e-mails involving, I believe, essentially 3 or 4 people? That’s really reaching, it seems to me.
SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:08 PM

These people are the heart and soul of the global warming movement. Without them and their papers, there never would have been a movement in the first place.

MarkTheGreat on November 23, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Blake on November 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Britain has it’s own version of the Freedom of Information Act. (It may even have the same name.)

MarkTheGreat on November 23, 2009 at 9:46 AM

It’s one thing to reveal fraud; another to reveal an error.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Deliberately ignoring contradictory evidence isn’t fraud??

MarkTheGreat on November 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM

The warmenist document release confirms a few things we’ve suspected.

Yeah… like Raining Polar Bears! I expected this for a long time and now it’s come true…

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/11/global_warming_98.html

IntheNet on November 23, 2009 at 9:49 AM

The history of science is filled with examples of this.

They’re called human beings.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 12:53 PM

The history of human beings is filled with all kinds of vile things. That shouldn’t be considered an excuse for other vile things, just a warning to be more vigilant.

Just because other scientists in the past resorted to fraud to support their work, does not excuse further fraud.

Ignoring and suppressing any data that doesn’t support your thesis is the very definition of fraud, and in most subject areas, would be subject for termination, even if one had tenure.

MarkTheGreat on November 23, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Personally, I think the right should drop the topic entirely and focus on how Cap-and-Trade is nothing more than a boondoggle tax for the government.

I have yet to see how it encourages more responsibility in terms of environmental law.

AnninCA on November 22, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Disproving the science behind Cap-and-Tax is not a valid response???

MarkTheGreat on November 23, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Fraud is deliberate – willful – deception.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Ignoring data that doesn’t fit into your theory, is deliberate – willfull – deception.

The scientific method requires that one put forth all data. Not just the data that supports your theory. Any data that doesn’t support your theory is to be explained.

Doing anything less, is lying. It is by definition deliberate – willfull fraud.

MarkTheGreat on November 23, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Fraud isn’t one of them.

SteveMG on November 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM

So if I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the sun really does revolve around the earth, then it’s ok to punish Galileo because he says differently?

It’s ok to squash any evidence that purports to show otherwise, because after all, I already know?

MarkTheGreat on November 23, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Science is not your high school debate club, where you support your position and the other team supports theirs and the side that does the best wins.

The scientific method requires you to present all of your data in your paper, you aren’t allowed to present only the data that supports your conclusion and hide everything else.

To do anything less is willfull fraud.

MarkTheGreat on November 23, 2009 at 10:07 AM

It’s not the first time a reaearcher or reaearchers have cooked the data. Remember the cold fusion “discovery” a few years ago?

Pelayo on November 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Nobody involved in the cold fusion episode “cooked” their data. They presented all of their data, they also included all of the data on how they ran their experiments. It was this data which allowed other people to re-run the experiments and hence find the errors in the original experiments.

In one experiment the second researchers tested the probe used, and they found it had a temperature sensitivity that was not shown on the manufacturers data sheets. The researcher failed to validate that his instruments were fully valid in the regime of the test. (Full disclosure here, I worked with Dr. Mahaffey for a number of years while I was at Georgia Tech.)

MarkTheGreat on November 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3