More “Ground Zero” CRU email battles‏

28 Dec 2009

Hello Hockey Slayers,

Here is an update of all the delicious Climategate gossip flooding the scientific and political blogsphere right now 🙂
 

 
I hope you all get well after your extravagant christmas festivities … and stop eating that damn christmas ham!
 
Here are a few links to the CRU emails, that Hockey team members say: “Nothing to see here, move along”.
 
So is there nothing to see? Well, not according to these opinions. You be the judge. 
 
————————————————————–
First off, here is a new catchy tune and video to cheer you up before you go to bed:
“All your emails are belong to us”
All Your Emails Are Belong To Us
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SWAytBHG90
 
or maybe you prefer this one from last year:
The 12 days of Global Warming
The 12 Days Of Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI
—————————————————————-
 
 
I’m afraid it is probably no good argueing with Green friends, if they have the Environmentalist Religion then there is no saving them. My experience is that Greens often say they want to play football with the rules of reason but then quickly pick up the ball and play the rugby argumental fallacy game instead. They have no real intention of admitting that they may possibly be wrong. Here are some articles that say something similar:
 
Copenhagen: Hysterical pressure groups lose the plot
“Have the green and development pressure groups completely lost the plot? It seems so from the way they have behaved over the Copenhagen climate summit…. Instead of insisting that the glass is half full, “it is time to smash the glass”, retorted Action Aid. Perhaps oil giants like Exxon Mobil should soon start funding Greenpeace and co as “useful idiots”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6879766/Copenhagen-Hysterical-pressure-groups-lose-the-plot.html
  
Don’t confuse environmentalism with science
” Climatology is a science, not to be confused with environmentalism. The heart of environmentalism is not to be found in the natural sciences. It is ideology and nothing more. That is why it ends in “-ism.”
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091213/COLUMNIST0110/912130363/1007/OPINION
 
… also here is a nifty video showing a “payback time” raid on Greenpeace.
 
CFACT drops the banner on Greenpeace ship in daring land raid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6kJ8uWBrRw
 
—————————————————————–
A Spectacular Poster of ClimateGate Covering 3 Decades
 
ClimateGate Timeline
 

You have to see this to believe it. Look up close and admire the detail while you despair at how long science has been going off the rails. To better appreciate the past and what was exposed by the CRU emails, the Timeline chart consolidates and chronologically organizes the information uncovered and published about the CRU emails by many researchers along with some related contextual events. That the chart exists at all is yet another example of how skilled experts are flocking in to the skeptics’ position and dedicating hours of time pro bono because they are passionately motivated to fight against those who try to deceive us.”

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/climategate-30-years-in-the-making/
—————————————————————
  
  
Climategatekeeping: Jones reviews Mann
” …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. “
  
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/23/climategatekeeping-jones-reviews-mann/
 
 
—————————————————————

 
And here is a former close ally of the Hockey Team trying to distance himself from the CRU “Train Wreck” while still saying that he “knows” that catastrophic-man-made-global-warming is true anyway (very strange), though Von Storch does say some very important things about the Scientific Method :
 

 
“What we need to do is open the process. Data must be accessible to adversaries; joint efforts are needed to agree on test procedures to validate, once again, already broadly accepted insights. The authors of the damaging e-mails would be wise to stand back from positions as reviewers and participants in the IPCC process. The journals Nature and Science must review their quality-control measures and selection criteria for papers.”
 
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/23/von-storch-op-ed-in-the-wsj-climategate-reveals-a-concerted-effort-to-emphasize-scientific-results-useful-to-a-political-agenda/
 
 
 
————————————————————–

CRU Releases (Some) Data

“This is the beginning of the result of climategate. We owe a big debt to those who released the emails, and an even bigger debt to Steve McIntyre for his never ending efforts to force the revelation of some of this information. Now we can begin to understand the premier temperature dataset in climatology. Does this mean it’s done — nope. This is only the beginning,...”
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/cru-releases-some-data/#more-7185
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/27/the-uk-met-office-subset/
 
——————————————————-

More Wisdom on Activist Climate Science

“In the FT today Tom de Castella has a worthwhile piece on the lessons that the climate science community should draw from the aftermath of the CRU email hack/leak. Unfortunately, from my vantage point the community is far from learning these lessons.”
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-wsidom-on-activist-climate-science.html
 
————————————————-
Michael Mann on the “Poor Judgment” of His Colleagues

Mann: ” I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote … Some statements in the stolen e-mails reflect poor judgment — for example, a colleague referring to deleting e-mails that might be subject to a Freedom of Information Act request — but there is no evidence that this happened.”  Question: Is this true?

“I doubt that Professor Mann will be getting many cheery Christmas cards from his CRU-email colleagues.”  
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/michael-mann-on-poor-judgment-of-his.html
 
———————————————————–


“John Christy and David Douglass provide a detailed accounting of how a comment on one of their papers was handled in the peer review process (even more detail here). Their experience, with the gory details revealed by the CRU emails, show in all of its unpleasantness how activist scientists sought to stage-manage climate science from the inside.”” … we should all be able to agree that efforts to stage manage the peer review process are not good for science …” Well said!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/treating-peer-review-like-partisan-blog.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climate_conspiracy_appendix_b.html
 
 
Kind regards and Happy New Year,
 
Brady

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Climate, Hockey Stick, Political Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s