CRU tooo?

canada goose jackets
canada goose parka
canada goose coats

Interesting to see how some folks (yes you Locust) are all in favour of bringing things out into the open ('you don't have anything to hide, do you?'), until it is about their friends and their undisclosed links to shady interest groups.

What's wrong with investigating McIntyre, if he has nothing to hide? And if he has, wouldn't you like to know about it, precisely in order to judge his credibility? (Eh, you answered that already.) Do you have a problem with investigative journalism? Wouldn't you say that there could be more of a good thing? Remember Watergate? The Pentagon Papers? Openness is a good thing, daylight the best disinfectant, right? What's your problem?

I think they're hoping that people believe that where there's a witch hunt, there must be witches ...

187 comments on WUWT and 110 at TAV, I'm still waiting for something even vaguely interesting or novel to come to light.

When the list of quotes starts off talking about poverty etc it's probably not a sign there's much to be had. (and I thought it was the evil scientists that hate the poor and want to rob them of cheap energy anyway)

Judging by what WUWT thinks are the "choicest" morsels and the usual paranoid thinking type interpretations put on them by the commenting crew, there is not much extra to see in these new emails.

As a side issue, the perpetrators of "climategate 2.0" may just have shot themselves badly in the foot from the public relations angle. Looking at the timing of the two releases, it should become crystal clear to perceptive observers that they are running a politically motivated disinformation campaign and are not just sceptics out to shine light into hidden corners.

We can now show the public the truth about what these deceivers are doing and the public might just get it this time as understanding dawns.

Crucially, if they were just simple truth seekers out to save the world from unnecessary action, why wouldn't they have released what they had all at once? Clearly they are releasing them at another politically convenient time as another exercise in drip-feeding opinion management AKA propaganda - a brand new bunch of FUD so the media will mindlessly take up the story they want to promulgate. Let's seize this opportunity to show the media what they are doing! The evidence of their guilt is far clearer now they have repeated their methods. Any good magician knows not to repeat a trick once he has baffled his audience as the illusion rarely works as well the second time.

oh. i thought it was all a scam to redistribute first-world wealth to developing countries? or was i just not copied in on that email?

Yawn. Tomsk State University and the Russian secret police at it again; notice just in time for another climate meeting.

One things for sure. If ever I decide to pursue a career in burglary and theft, I'm going to move to Norfolk.

William, Scott Mandia also has a set of media links.

If it's a whistleblower, I guess Norfolk plod have an easy job now. They just have to round up all the CRU/UEA employees who use a non-English keyboard.

Cartoon is from Nick Anderson, via Houston Chronicle (see signature at right hand bottom).

I previously used it here:

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/cru-inquiry-publishe…

You know William, for someone who has single handed subverted the climate science on Wikipedia I would have thought you would have rated more mention in the e-mails. They must be saving those for the 2013 release.

I think this should become an annual tradition. You get a big box and every day in November you open a new window which contains a quote taken from academics' emails.

McIntyre doesn't come out of it too well, with documentation of abuses of his IPCC position in an attempt to interfere with peer review. (email 4868) Was this widely known already?

Mann's email about setting an investigative journalist on McIntyre is also pretty bad. (email 1680) Perhaps these two should just get a room and get it over with.

I wonder if this quote will gain any traction:

'might think about asking Keith to date some timbers, but I want the house not to fall down' (email 0818)

That's Jones clearly worried about the climate change house of cards toppling at any moment.

'oogle image search finds the original; Nick Anderson's cartoons on climate change available by searching at http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/search/

Paul S, in a just world an investigative journalist would be set upon McIntyre. There's more there than meets the eye. OTOH he's pretty well passed his "use by" date at this point.

Re the Jones quote, paranoid much? I think it's more likely the reference is to having to do a lot of rewriting.

Nick, one could only wish that the media (the U.S. variety anyway) didn't have an extensive history of running with politically motivated disinformation campaigns.

James seems to think that this new leak is truly disgraceful.

[I linked that already! -W]

Steve,

Er.. the Jones quote was a joke. If you read the email he's talking about having moved into a new (old) house and joking about getting Keith (a dendrochronologist) to drill in and date the wooden timbers on the front of it.

Perhaps that one's more effective than I thought.

Climategate II

The emails do not show the 'global warming isn't happening' nor do they show 'global warming is a hoax'. They do show that a cabal of climate scientists (and they include many of the most prominent) have worked together to shape what the journals publish and what the public hears about climate science, often overtly supporting false statements of current and future risk, successfully stifling scientific findings that did not support 'the cause' [their term, not mine], hiding and deleting emails to prevent these activities from being exposed, conspiring to circumvent FOI laws (both in the US and the UK), colluding on how to represent/misrepresent information about climate change to best support their cause, encouraging other scientists not to release contrary findings, failing to speak out when another scientists overtly misrepresent data (read 'lies') in public statements, interfering in the peer review process that is intended to guarantee that published research findings are sound, interfering in the IPCC process, ....this list goes on and on.

@ 15 John Garrett.

Yep. Slopy-seconds-gate, it is. Same shit, different climate conference.

Sorry, Paul S, although it does go to show that a sufficiently out-of-context quote can be misinterpreted multiply.

speaking of the rugby, what exactly did tindall do on his night out? I'm sort of curious, but not enough so to read the tabloids.

[Sounds like a question for James -W]

Let's hope this second tranche doesn't keep the upcoming climate conference from reaching another historic agreement to get together again sometime soon.

[:-) -W]

Nothing new? Really?

I've found all sorts of goodies. One of my favorites is Michael Mann looking for a journalist to discredit McIntyre - and recommending Gavin for the task since he apparently has specialist knowledge when it comes to that sort of thing.

You do realize that's not how science works outside of climatology right?

Honestly, and I'm being serious here, you really should consider getting some help for Michael - he seems really paranoid about "Big Oil." Consider that a personal attack if you like, but it wasn't meant that way.

[Burrowed -W]

They do show that a cabal of climate scientists (and they include many of the most prominent) have worked together to shape what the journals publish...

They do show one climate scientist blowing off some steam by talking about keeping a couple of (very obviously bad) papers out of journal or the IPCC report, but as those papers were published and were discussed in the IPCC report, this was demonstrably just empty words, in what was after all a private email where the author was not thinking about an audience reading many years later, and the audience may not be aware of a conversation the next day where the author perhaps stepped back from a intemperate remark after reflection.

...successfully stifling scientific findings that did not support 'the cause'... [their term, not mine]

What the emails show is groups of scientists arguing with each other about who is right. One group tries to get the other group to shut up and accept that they are right. This is perfectly normal behaviour in science. It would be surprising if the emails hadn't show this. Of course years later the evidence has built up to a point where it's obvious one group was wrong and everybody can see this, which might look like an outsider like 'stifling scientific findings' but is in fact just people who are wrong having to give up and move on.

...false statements... hiding ... exposed... conspiring... circumvent... colluding... misrepresent... failing to speak out... interfering...

Yes, the list goes on and on, but how many independent enquiries have said these slanders are nonsense and not backed by any evidence in the emails?

Phil Jones got his wrist slapped for handling FOI requests badly. That's what the evidence says the emails show. It's a pity that unlike scientists, the phoney sceptics can't move on when the evidence is against them.

Donald -- "Yes, the list goes on and on, but how many independent enquiries have said these slanders are nonsense and not backed by any evidence in the emails?"

Nine.

[It is like the old lemming joke: 100,000,000 lemmings can't all be right :-) -W]

One of my favorites is Michael Mann looking for a journalist to discredit McIntyre - and recommending Gavin for the task since he apparently has specialist knowledge when it comes to that sort of thing."

"But I think it worthwhile to point out that the first line of this email has "They will misrepresent you and take out of context anything you give them". How prescient! For everyone else, this is an email discussing the appalling (and officially investigated and rejected) allegation of fraud that Keenan made about a scientist at SUNY Albany. Jones was asking for advice on whether and how to respond to a request from Peiser (acting editor of Energy and Environment) for comments on a paper Keenan had submitted claiming a 'fraud'. If you are looking for people who have experience discrediting people, I would start with Keenan. - gavin"

"Love the way you are spinning this! It is textbook stuff. For the record, I have not, am not and will not, 'hire investigators to discredit opponents'. The notion is laughable. Even funnier is that the email source for your claim doesn't discuss 'hiring investigators' either. So you have a made-up allegation, you attribute it to someone else (me) who is only peripherally mentioned later in the email, and you wrap it up in some oh-so-clever 'gotcha' question. Sorry, but you are just an idiot if you think this has any connection to reality. - gavin"

TGL, you state that "You do realize that's not how science works outside of climatology right?"

TGL, what should Mike Mann do to counter the neverending attacks on blogs, in the media, and through e-mails sent to his employer?

I'm sure you can tell him how a scientist would act "sciency" in counterattacking such continuous defamation of character.

Dear Mr Locust.
McIntyre is not a scientist. He is a Canadian mining promoter and as such is advised to refuse free helicopter rides.

Mann is not concerned with discrediting a scientist but with the disinformation od an anti-scientist.

John McManus

John McManus

TGL: "you really should consider getting some help for Michael"

Great idea! I'll email him and ask if there's anything concerned members of the public can do to improve his grant situation. Researchers like Mike who are on multiple cutting edges of the science deserve all the support they can get.

@J Bowers

I never said he was "hiring" an investigator. I used the terminology in the email, which was:

"I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests."

Gavin's response is to imply that this is "out-of-context." I note that this was the immediate defense even before any of them had read the posted emails.

And yet Gavin never bothers to put it into context. He simply attacks Keenan.

What is the proper context for digging up journalists to discredit your opponents?

That question was part of my follow up comment at Realclimate, which was of course not posted. Just like Gavin never explains why Michael thinks he has "thoughtful insights with respect to such matters."

@Marco "TGL, what should Mike Mann do to counter the neverending attacks on blogs, in the media, and through e-mails sent to his employer?"

Two options:

1) Nothing
2) Better science

The emails I've read make it clear that many other climatologists feel he takes his work too personally and thus is not receptive to criticism. Some of them have even said the defense of Mann's work was not "honest."

"I'm sure you can tell him how a scientist would act "sciency" in counterattacking such continuous defamation of character."

Withdraw from the public eye. Take up Buddhism. Don't feel the need to respond to everything you don't like. Most of all, don't do things that will come back to bite you - like telling people to delete emails to evade FOIA requests and finding journalists to discredit your critics.

@McManus "McIntyre is not a scientist. He is a Canadian mining promoter and as such is advised to refuse free helicopter rides."

He was a reviewer for at least one of the IPCC reports. He has a Masters (more than some IPCC authors) and plenty of real world experience in his field.

[Being a reviewer is meaningless. But I'm sympathetic to the idea that being a scientist is more than just a matter of formal affiliation. However, although McI has published papers, he has published very few. More, he is far out of the mainstream, and it is very hard to do good science from that position (I wrote that somewhere, but I forget where) -W]

Most importantly, his credentials as a scientist (he has published papers) have no bearing on the ethics of using journalists to discredit him.

Why is there such a strong need to defend and excuse the indefensible and inexcusable?

In any case, I still welcome the proper context for when it is okay to actively look for a journalist who will dig up dirt and "connections with fossil fuel interests" in order to defend their reputation/science.

TheGoodLocust @28 and @29 wrote:

What is the proper context for digging up journalists to discredit your opponents?

Whoa cowboy. Mann in the quote suggested investigating Mcintyre not discrediting him.

Discrediting is what evil types do to innocent opponents. Investigating is what honest types, driven to the end of their tether by relentless innuendo and misrepresentation of the science think might help to show the public who's truthful and who's mendacious.

@Nick "Whoa cowboy. Mann in the quote suggested investigating Mcintyre not discrediting him.

Discrediting is what evil types do to innocent opponents."

I was using one of his words. Here is the sentence:

"I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them."

You can read the full email here if you like:

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1630

TGL, your proposal is:
"roll over and play dead"

It doesn't work like that in real life. In real life, a scientist is not a scientist 100% of his day, and thus has these typical human traits like not accepting what he considers malicious lies and unwarranted attacks.

And it's funny you want to call McIntyre a scientist (which is fair enough with me), and then stay far, far away from even the slightest hint that the various attacks by McIntyre on his blog are rather unscientific behaviour. For whatever reason the septics ((c) William) can do whatever they want, must be taken serious, are scientists, but do not need to behave like scientists, but oh dear when 'the Team' does anything or writes anything that certain people think they can use for their 'cause'. Then the locusts arrive...

Firefox + Greasemonkey + KILLFILE work here.

@Marco Actually yes it does work that way. Most people's problems are of their own creation. This is especially true for people who are always blaming others for their own faults instead of taking personal responsibility.

[Well, you certainly got yourself banned from wikipedia due to your faults -W]

He may consider somethings "malicious lies and unwarranted attacks" but that doesn't make it true or untrue.

"And it's funny you want to call McIntyre a scientist (which is fair enough with me"

Actually I didn't call him a scientist. I just put forth the little bit of knowledge I had where someone could make that case. Honestly, I don't know if he is a scientist or if he even considers himself one. I personally consider him to be an experienced statistician which is relevant to a large body of modern-day climate science.

I consider myself a scientist, but that's only due to my mechanism of thinking and love of knowledge.

"far away from even the slightest hint that the various attacks by McIntyre on his blog are rather unscientific behaviour"

I don't read his blog. I'm unaware of his "various attacks." I have a passing familiarity with his criticisms of the Hockey Stick graph. Namely that the methods used by Mann would create a hockey stick even out of random data.

[Appears to be a common illusion amongst the skeptics. http://deepclimate.org/tag/michael-mann/ will put you right (or rather it would, if you read and understood it, but I'm pretty sure you'll do neither) -W]

Indeed, in these emails, if I'm reading this correctly, Dr. Rob Wilson seems to find the same thing when plays with his own set of random data:

"The reconstructions clearly show a 'hockey-stick' trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about."

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4191

In any case, even if McIntyre was guilty of "malicious attacks," which is unclear to me, such behavior would not excuse Mann's own behavior and is merely a deflection.

If he wants to respond then respond in an appropriate way - not by talking to "folks" (whoever that is) about finding someone to investigate him with the purpose of discrediting him. If his criticisms had no meat then I wouldn't expect to see his name mentioned in the FOIA emails so much. I'd expect him to be ignored as a quack if that was the case.

TheGoodLocust @31

I simply don't understand how you can write that. You appear to be another one who uses paranoid thinking interpretations of individual words, stripped of context, to make your "arguments".

Mann is suggesting investigating Mcintyre's antics in order to "discredit" him because Mcintyre should not have the "credit" that he does, in other words it's a process of removing undeserved credit to allow people to see the truth more clearly. What "sceptics" such as Mcintyre try to do is to discredit people who deserve at least the credit which they have. That is called traducing a person. Completely different effect.

Look at the context of the email you quote mined. I read the mail in full and it is crystal clear that Mann is an honest person under attack by malicious deceivers. I fail to see how your reading comprehension can be so poor that you missed the proper context, but let me help you. Right at the beginning Mann wrote:

They will misrepresent and take out of context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you provide

That is why he suggests exposing the denialist tactics - to take away their unearned credit.

Discrediting an honest person is bad and twisted; discrediting a deceiver is good and right. Can you not see the difference?

I personally consider him to be an experienced statistician...

Heh.

Much ado about nothing.

"[Well, you certainly got yourself banned from wikipedia due to your faults -W]"

I assume you mean topic banned like yourself since I wasn't banned (to my knowledge - haven't logged on in a while).

[So you weren't - my apologies. It was just that you had no other interests, so the topic ban was effectively a ban -W]

In any case, that was certainly an interesting decision since I hadn't posted in any climate change articles/talk pages for several months when that decision was handed down nor was my content ever in dispute (IIRC).

[Now you're off in la-la land, which is dull -W]

Of course, I don't consider it a problem either - perhaps an amusing example of the Peter Principle though.

[A not very honest way of evading your original point Most people's problems are of their own creation. You didn't leave voluntarily -W]

"[Appears to be a common illusion amongst the skeptics. http://deepclimate.org/tag/michael-mann/ will put you right (or rather it would, if you read and understood it, but I'm pretty sure you'll do neither) -W]"

[Trolling removed. This may be a good point to mention that this comment thread isn't for a re-run of the HS wars -W]

TGL, I second William's idea that you'll probably not follow the link and understand what DC is explaining.

The evidence is in the same e-mail you quote, which has a line a little bit further down:
"It is certainly worrying, but I do not think that it is a problem so long as one screens against LOCAL temperature data and not large scale temperature where trend dominates the correlation."
That it is not a problem is exactly what is shown by McIntyre: the hockeystick-shape in his analysis is, even when taking the highest 1%, much smaller than the actual signal in Mann's analysis, although you won't see McIntyre admit that...

Regarding the "problems of their own creation", that's one excuse I actually heard from school bullies, where kids go after other kids because "they are different". How nice, because James wears glasses, a problem fully of his own creation, it's OK to pick on him. Because Janet has her hair in pigtails, a problem solely of her own creation, those pigtails can be pulled. What you are defending is that people act like total jerks toward another person, because the latter may have made some "mistakes".

And quacks cannot be ignored when their claims as so easily spread throughout the media. In South Africa the failure to address quacks led to perhaps tens of thousands of deaths, when Mbeki's government decided to believe Matthias Rath et al rather than the medical establishment, resulting in poor HIV treatment. Like with McIntyre vs Mann, there was little possibility to respond to Rath "appropriately", because Rath did not do science in scientific journals, but scientific criticism mixed with politics in fora outside scientific journals and meetings.

Leaked climate emails force carbon dioxide to resign

@Marco "I second William's idea that you'll probably not follow the link and understand what DC is explaining."

And as I told him, which he removed, I don't know who is correct. I simply know that people more qualified than myself on both sides have stated opposing views.

I know that privately, in these new emails, climatologists have said:

"I think, that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not especially honest."

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1606

So again, I really don't know who is correct. My criticism of the Hockey Stick relies on different criteria.

"Regarding the "problems of their own creation", that's one excuse I actually heard from school bullies, where kids go after other kids because "they are different"."

Alternatively, there was a kid who hung out around us in chess club all the time. He smelled horrible, scraped the thick plaque off his teeth with his fingernails in front of us and actively tried to annoy and disgust people focusing on their games.

We seriously disliked him, one could say "bullied" him, but he kept coming back and seemed to take great delight in eliciting negative reactions towards himself.

Obviously not everyone's problems are of their own creation, but generally speaking if someone has a persistent problem they are at some fault. Am I making the fundamental attribution error in this case?

Perhaps, but I don't think so. There are plenty of pro-AGW climatologists out there who don't have these problems. I assume it is mostly due to them keeping a low profile.

@WMC "[So you weren't - my apologies. It was just that you had no other interests, so the topic ban was effectively a ban -W]"

No, I had other interests, but the case demonstrated to me serious flaws in wikipedia and squelched any desires to contribute. I used to fix errors all the time while logged off, but since then I've stopped completely.

"[A not very honest way of evading your original point Most people's problems are of their own creation. You didn't leave voluntarily -W]"

Sure I did, I could've continued contributing to plant physiology or any number of topics. I probably would've updated the articles relating to Minoan culture since I've been reading several books about them lately.

I'm sure if I'd made the effort my topic ban would've been lifted by now, but again, I have no desire to contribute unless there is a reformation of wikipedian culture or an apology for the "double jeopardy" sentence that was passed on me.

Great, TGL comes with another quote and by proxy blames Mann(!) for the reaction of others (according to ONE scientist who does not work in the field of paleoclimatology).

Regarding the bully-example: yes, you are making the fundamental attribution error to proclaim someone must have asked for it. I don't doubt that Mann *could* have handled things differently, but I also have no doubt that it would not have mattered one tiny little bit for the attacks on him. The reason he is one of those under attack has little to do with how he behaves and everything with being an iconic target (through the hockeystick). It's the approach of discrediting individuals to discredit the whole. Make the attack too diffuse, and you'll find a too large group against you, a public that can't follow the story and loses interest, and less chance that you can get some climate scientists to also have some doubts about the people being attacked. Focus on some of the figure heads, and it gets a lot easier to get the small fish(*) to respond positively.

(*) I know some scientists who are in the margins of their field (for various reasons) and who believe the big shots in their field are keeping them down. In a few cases they're right, in most cases they're small fish because they don't possess the scientific or, and this will likely be misconstrued by someone somewhere at some point in time, political abilities to be in the same league.

[This is rapidly approaching the "we know we disagree but neither side will allow the other to have the last word" territory. I've "burrowed" some TGL stuff, and in all fairness I'm close to doing the same for replies -W]

I think Joe Romm did the best job of summarizing this latest tempest in a teapot:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/22/374559/fool-me-once-shame-on-y…

"The Varsity team couldnât derail the science so it's really hard to see how the Junior Varsity team could."

J Bowers:

If it's a whistleblower, I guess Norfolk plod have an easy job now. They just have to round up all the CRU/UEA employees who use a non-English keyboard.

Tee-hee.

Stoat: here's a more 'updated' write-up by yours truly, after I'd finally downloaded the FOIA2011.zip file and looked at it.

-- frank

Mr. Locust:

[Aie, no, no more, please -W]

I do not think that Wikipedia should ban "Conway, William M." (in this notation), though I do not personally like his editing. If Wikipedia Administrators have enough evidence to suspect that he has been a repeated offender by other names, it is OK.

I wonder his name, if a pseudonym, is a parody not only of WMC but also of *. M. Conway, who likely agree with WMC on many things perhaps except about William N*.