Changes

The ''CBC’s'' Rex Murphy discussed Climategate in an editorial on December 03, 2009.

The ''CBC’s'' Rex Murphy discussed Climategate in an editorial on December 03, 2009.

{{cquote|...Climate science has shown to be, in part, a sub-branch of climate politics. It is a situation intolerable even to serious minds who are on side with Global warming. Such as Clive Crook, who wrote in Atlantic magazine about this scandal as follows: 'the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'. Climate science needs its own reset button. And Climategate should be seen not primarily as a set-back, but as an opportunity to cleans scientific method, to take science away from politics, good causes and alarmists. And vest climate science in bodies of guaranteed neutrality, openness, real in vigorous debate; and away from the lobbyists, the advocates, the Gore's, and professional environmentalists of all kinds. Too many of the current leadership on Global warming are more players than observers, gatekeepers and not investigators, angry partisans of some global engineering, rather than the humble servants of the facts of the case. Read the e-mails, you'll never think of climate science quite the same way again.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/you-wouldnt-accept-that-at-a-grade-9-science-fair-cbc-finds-a-moment-of-clarity/ “You wouldn’t accept that at a grade 9 science fair…” – CBC finds a moment of clarity on Climategate], ''WUWT'', December 03, 2009.</ref><ref>Clive Crook, senior editor of ''The Atlantic Monthly'' and former deputy editor of ''The Economist'': "The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And this scandal is not at the margins of the politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process. It goes to the core of that process." [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/03/climategate-fallout.aspx Climategate fallout], ''National Post'',  December 03, 2009.</ref>}}

{{cquote|...Climate science has shown to be, in part, a sub-branch of climate politics. It is a situation intolerable even to serious minds who are on side with Global warming. Such as Clive Crook, who wrote in Atlantic magazine about this scandal as follows: 'the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'. Climate science needs its own reset button. And Climategate should be seen not primarily as a set-back, but as an opportunity to cleans scientific method, to take science away from politics, good causes and alarmists. And vest climate science in bodies of guaranteed neutrality, openness, real in vigorous debate; and away from the lobbyists, the advocates, the Gore's, and professional environmentalists of all kinds. Too many of the current leadership on Global warming are more players than observers, gatekeepers and not investigators, angry partisans of some global engineering, rather than the humble servants of the facts of the case. Read the e-mails, you'll never think of climate science quite the same way again.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/you-wouldnt-accept-that-at-a-grade-9-science-fair-cbc-finds-a-moment-of-clarity/ “You wouldn’t accept that at a grade 9 science fair…” – CBC finds a moment of clarity on Climategate], ''WUWT'', December 03, 2009.</ref><ref>Clive Crook, senior editor of ''The Atlantic Monthly'' and former deputy editor of ''The Economist'': "The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And this scandal is not at the margins of the politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process. It goes to the core of that process." [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/03/climategate-fallout.aspx Climategate fallout], ''[[National Post]]'',  December 03, 2009.</ref>}}

===Primary issue===

===Primary issue===

{{cquote|I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to '''hide the decline'''.<ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html UN Climate Reports: They Lie], ''American Thinker'', October 05, 2009.</ref>}}

{{cquote|I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to '''hide the decline'''.<ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html UN Climate Reports: They Lie], ''American Thinker'', October 05, 2009.</ref>}}

Michael Mann's [[hockey stick graph]] hid the real declining temperatures and instead showed a [[warming trend]].<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/ Historical video perspective: “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale], ''WUWT'', December 12, 2009.</ref> Mann's graph portrayed temperatures as steadily declining since [[Medieval Warm Period|medieval times]] and then sharply rising in the last century and a half. Notably, his reconstruction fueled claims that 1998 and following years had the highest temperatures in 1,000 years. Once it became publicly known that man-made global warming is a hoax, as a direct result of the e-mail discussing a "trick" for adding data to each temperature series for the last 20 years, Climategate motivated the making of a video called, "Hide The Decline."<ref>Derek Erwin. [http://derekerwin.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate-video-hide-decline.html Video of the Year: 'Hide The Decline' - Climategate], ''A 1-In-100 Blogger'', November 27, 2009.</ref>

Michael Mann's [[hockey stick graph]] hid the real declining temperatures and instead showed a [[warming trend]].<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/ Historical video perspective: global warming in the context of scale], ''WUWT'', December 12, 2009.</ref> Mann's graph portrayed temperatures as steadily declining since [[Medieval Warm Period|medieval times]] and then sharply rising in the last century and a half. Notably, his reconstruction fueled claims that 1998 and following years had the highest temperatures in 1,000 years. Once it became publicly known that man-made global warming is a hoax, as a direct result of the e-mail discussing a "trick" for adding data to each temperature series for the last 20 years, Climategate motivated the making of a video called, "Hide The Decline."<ref>Derek Erwin. [http://derekerwin.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate-video-hide-decline.html Video of the Year: 'Hide The Decline' - Climategate], ''A 1-In-100 Blogger'', November 27, 2009.</ref>

====Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction====

====Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction====

==Climategate emails==

==Climategate emails==

The Climategate emails discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure dissenting papers had no access to publication. The Climategate emails show that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money, deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. The collection of data and data processing programs, code from the CRU shows proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref>Steve Gilbert. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/some-summaries-of-the-cru-emails A Few Summaries Of Some ‘CRU Emails’], ''Sweetness & Light'', November 22, 2009.</ref>

The Climategate emails discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure dissenting papers had no access to publication. The Climategate emails show that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money, deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. The collection of data and data processing programs, code from the CRU shows proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref>Steve Gilbert. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/some-summaries-of-the-cru-emails A Few Summaries Of Some ‘CRU Emails’], ''Sweetness & Light'', November 22, 2009.</ref>

===IPCC and the CRU's 'Trick'===

===IPCC and the CRU's 'Trick'===

After a second file search was executed to double check how many of the Climategate emails contained some permutation of the letters "t r i c k," it revealed 29 emails out of the 1079 emails in the [http://junkscience.com/FOIA/ FOIA2009.zip] file. Only one instance was found where Dr. Jones used the word "trick" in reference to a procedure on data. There are other uses and variations of the word "trick" in other emails, but only one instance attributed to Jones where he refers to this data issue. As Dr. Jones put it: The word ‘trick’ was used in the lone instance colloquially as in a clever thing to do (eg. "that’ll do the trick"). But it was questioned that one would expect to see it in general use by Dr. Jones in other emails if it was indeed a colloquialism. In the thousand plus Climategate emails, there’s no other use of the word "trick" by Dr. Jones related to data truncation or otherwise, though there are other colloquial uses of the word by other authors.<ref name=trickcount/>

After a second file search was executed to double check how many of the Climategate emails contained some permutation of the letters "t r i c k," it revealed 29 emails out of the 1079 emails in the [http://junkscience.com/FOIA/ FOIA2009.zip] file. Only one instance was found where Dr. Jones used the word "trick" in reference to a procedure on data. There are other uses and variations of the word "trick" in other emails, but only one instance attributed to Jones where he refers to this data issue. As Dr. Jones put it: The word ‘trick’ was used in the lone instance colloquially as in a clever thing to do (eg. "that’ll do the trick"). But it was questioned that one would expect to see it in general use by Dr. Jones in other emails if it was indeed a colloquialism. In the thousand plus Climategate emails, there’s no other use of the word "trick" by Dr. Jones related to data truncation or otherwise, though there are other colloquial uses of the word by other authors.<ref name=trickcount/>

===Themes===

===Wikipedia===

On the climate science environmental agenda and the scandal that Climategate revealed all together, [[Glenn Beck]] commented on the [[e-mail|emails]]:

Lawrence Solomon from the ''[[National Post]]'' discovered from the Climategate emails how a small band of [[climatologists]] plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the [[Medieval Warm Period]].<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=Wikipedia&submit=Search Search - Wikipedia], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> The Climategate emails revealed the enlistment of [[Wikipedia]] in their attempt at rewriting history. It was revealed how Wikipedia’s "green doctor," a U.K. scientist and [[Green Party]] activist, rewrote 5,428 climate articles. The recruited [[Wikipedia]] administrator, William Connolley, literally rewrote history and then abused his administrative privileges to stifle criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/ Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes Wikipedia climate information], ''WUWT'', December 19, 2009.</ref> Lawrence Solomon wrote on this revelation and on Wikipedia's loss of [[integrity]] as a source of factual information, and on the clear abuse of power from administrative authorities within Wikipedia:

{{cquote|[The scientists] were asking each other to delete messages to avoid [[Freedom of Information Act]] requests. That doesn't sound legal. Scientists are working together to try and change the definition of [[peer review]] journals so that anybody who said global warming wasn't real couldn't get their papers published. ... [And then with] these thousands of E-mails ... Shouldn't this be - oh, I don't know - everywhere now? All of them are, to varying degrees, important. But how much could any of those actually cost you? This scandal will literally cost you trillions of dollars. That's what's at stake worldwide. It's on how we deal with the climate.<ref name=nbstaff>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/11/24/glenn-beck-cites-newsbusters-bash-tvs-climategate-boycott Glenn Beck Cites NewsBusters to Bash TV's ClimateGate Boycott], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>}}

{{cquote|Starting in February 2003, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.<ref>Lawrence Solomon. [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor], ''[[National Post]]'', December 19, 2009.</ref>}}

 

According to [[Rush Limbaugh]], another theme of the e-mails that have been released is how people at the Climatic Research Unit were constantly trying to "shake down" the oil companies (ie. Exxon, [[Shell]]) for [[money]] and for partnerships.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/ Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support], ''WUWT'', December 04, 2009.</ref> On this reoccurring theme, Limbaugh mentioned the following:

{{cquote|They talk about it openly, how they're constantly trying to shake down the oil companies. The only thing man-made about global warming is the theory behind it. What you are going to do with people who are even willing to lie about the weather?<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125111.guest.html It's Not a Consensus, It's a Cabal], RushLimbaugh.com, November 30, 2009.</ref>}}

 

==Global reactions to Climategate==

==Global reactions to Climategate==

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="350" style="margin-left:5px"

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="350" style="margin-left:5px"