Email WebMaster

Links to some Analysis of the Emails

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good Science, Bad Politics

'Climategate' reveals a concerted effort to emphasize scientific results useful to a political agenda.

 

By HANS VON STORCH

"Frankly, he's an odd individual," a well-known climatologist wrote about me in a private e-mail to a friend in the U.K. On this, we agree—I am an odd individual, if by that we mean a climatologist whose e-mails would not document a contempt for such basic scientific virtues such as openness, falsifiability, replicability and independent review.

 

Climategatekeeping: Jones reviews Mann

Dec 23, 2009 – 10:29 AM

 

As noted previously, the Climategate letters and documents show Jones and the Team using the peer review process to prevent publication of adverse papers, while giving softball reviews to friends and associates in situations fraught with conflict of interest. Today I’ll report on the spectacle of Jones reviewing a submission by Mann et al.

 

Met Office Archives Data and Code

Dec 22, 2009 – 11:20 PM

 

The UK Met Office has released a large tranche of station data, together with code.

 

Only last summer, the Met Office had turned down my FOI request for station data, saying that the provision of station data to me would threaten the course of UK international relations. Apparently, these excuses have somehow ceased to apply.

 

Climategatekeeping: Schmidt 2009

Dec 22, 2009 – 1:31 PM

 

We’ve seen that Climategate emails provide evidence that Jones, Briffa and Cook took steps to block publication of articles that were perceived as potentially damaging.

 

The Climategate documents also provide a glimpse of another aspect of Team gatekeeping – acting as peer reviewers of submissions by associates and friends. Phil Jones was a peer reviewer for Schmidt (IJC 2009), which criticized Michaels and McKitrick (2007) and de Laat and Maurelis (2006). Whereas Jones “went to town” as a reviewer of articles criticizing CRU Siberian temperatures, his review of Schmidt 2009 was perfunctory and trifling – a bias that is just as corrosive to the literature.

 

 

Terence Corcoran on Climategate

In the thousands of emails released last month in what is now known as Climategate, the greatest battles took place over scientists’ attempts to reconstruct a credible temperature record for the last couple of thousand years. Have they failed? What the Climategate emails provide is at least one incontrovertible answer: They certainly have not succeeded.

 

Climategatekeeping: Siberia

Dec 21, 2009 – 1:21 PM

 

Siberian temperatures are an interesting case study in CRU gatekeeping. As reported a few days ago here, in an email of Mar 31, 2004, Jones advised Climategate correspondent Michael Mann that he had “gone to town” in his rejection reviews of submissions criticizing CRU’s handling of Siberian temperatures.

 

Today, in a Climate Audit exclusive, we provide you with the rejected paper (by Lars Kamél), one which seems like it would have been a useful contribution to the peerreviewedlitchurchur.

 

Mann’s WaPo Editorial

Dec 19, 2009 – 10:44 AM

 

Climategate correspondent Michael Mann has published an editorial in the Washington Post.

 

Climategatekeeping: Wikipedia

Dec 19, 2009 – 10:13 AM

 

Lawrence Solomon has an interesting column in the National Post today on William Connolley’s climategatekeeping role at Wikipedia. See also an article last year.

 

Climategatekeeping #2

Dec 17, 2009 – 2:41 PM

 

One of the Climategate texts that has attracted considerable commentary is:

 

IEA: Hadley Center “probably tampered with Russian climate data”

Dec 16, 2009 – 2:26 PM

 

Climategate emails show that Phil Jones of CRU, acting as a reviewer of the CRU data used in the HadCRU gridded temperature, “went to town” to block the publication of criticisms of his handling of Russian data.

 

DOE sends a “litigation hold notice” regarding CRU to employees

Dec 15, 2009 – 12:45 AM

 

Anthony reports that DOE has sends a “litigation hold notice” regarding CRU to employees – asking to “preserve documents”. DOE funded Phi Jones at CRU for 25 years. I think that I recall Jones saying somewhere in the Climategate Letters that he hopes no one finds out.

 

Daily Mail: Special Investigation

Dec 12, 2009 – 9:44 PM

 

Daily Mail has detailed coverage on “hide the decline”.

 

IPCC and the “Trick”

Dec 10, 2009 – 6:50 PM

 

Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline”. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context”. In this case, I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in “hiding the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction.

 

Relevant Climategate correspondence in the period (September-October 1999) leading up to the trick

 

A story of conversion: Global Warming Believer To Skeptic

22 12 2009

 

Bradley Fikes writes in the NCtimes.com

 

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate scientists.

 

William Connolley and Wikipedia: Turborevisionism

 

UPDATE2: There’s now some question about who is who regarding the editing of the Connolley page at Wikipedia.One of the problems with Wikipedia is the use of handles.

 

How IPCC scientists interfere with publication of inconvenient scientific results

 

By David H. Douglass, Professor of Physics, University of Rochester, New York, and John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama at Huntsville

 

   * In this article, reprinted from The American Thinker, two eminent Professors reveal just one of the many seamy stories that emerge from the Climategate emails. A prejudiced journal editor conspires with senior IPCC scientists to delay and discredit a paper by four distinguished scientists demonstrating that a central part of the IPCC’s scientific argument is erroneous.

 

Pachauri’s Carbon Choo-Choo off the rails

 

There are some interesting developments in British press about the IPCC and Pachauri, both on the extraordinary financial conflicts of interest in the IPCC process.

 

Darwin Zero Before and After

Recapping the story begun at WUWT here and continued at WUWT here, data from the temperature station Darwin Zero in northern Australia was found to be radically adjusted and showing huge warming (red line, adjusted temperature) compared to the unadjusted data (blue line). The unadjusted data showed that Darwin Zero was actually cooling over the period of the record. Here is the adjustment to Darwin Zero:

 

More on Wikipedia and Connolley – he’s been canned as a Wiki administrator

WUWT reader Dennis Kuzara wrote to Wikipedia in response to our earlier article on Wikibullies prompted by Lawrence Solomon of the National Post. He has received an eye-opening reply. Emphasis mine – Anthony