> Climategate, what is going on?

article image
Climategate, what is going on?
Last updated 5:47 am, Wednesday 4th April 2012

Related Tags: global warming, climatic research, climategate, climate change

Climategate, what is going on?
5 star(4.73 out of 5) from 51 ratings. Rate Now!
Stars: 0 1 2 3 4 5 


Comments left

  • Dave W. said:

    Well written article. The danger of the "science" these men have been doing is that it "poisons" and corrupts all of the data and conclusions downstream. Science is never as "fixed" as they would have had us all believe.

    By bullying opposing views, and taking steps to silence critics and hide data, they have shown that, most likely, there is something VERY wrong with the data.

    Because of the magnitute of the steps being considered, we MUST go back to step one and do NOTHING until the data is reconstructed and then analyzed. (In an open and transparent manner....)

    I appreciate the way the author of this article does not rant or scream, but merely states the facts and conclusions in a calm and reasoned manner. One cannot say the same thing of the "Doomers" that promo te Global Warming...

    ON Tue, 22 Dec 09, 3:27am probably from Australia  Reply to this comment

  • Twawki said:

    Great post - well done. Linked you on my blog

    ON Wed, 23 Dec 09, 12:24pm probably from Australia  Reply to this comment

  • Jt said:

    A pleasant surprise on a green blog, balanced and objective. I've added you to my favorites.

    ON Wed, 6 Jan 10, 8:17pm probably from Canada  Reply to this comment

  • Guillermo Gefaell said:

    I have been in the sceptics (realists?) side for a long time and post regularly on the subject of anthropogenic CO2 global warming at http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/what-do-we-think-about-climate-change-21390.html

    I am most pleased to see such a balanced article in a Eco-site. Most encouraging. I have added your site to my favourites. Thanks a lot.


    ON Wed, 6 Jan 10, 8:52pm probably from Spain  Reply to this comment

  • David Cooke said:

    This is the clearest statement of the problems with the IPCC model of global warming that I've found, after following the issue on the net for weeks. Some others who have made the same points can be criticised for their right-wing viewpoint or their aggressive tone. But I can recommend your page to my lefty-greenie colleagues without a blush.

    ON Thu, 7 Jan 10, 3:33am probably from Australia  Reply to this comment

  • Mkurbo said:

    Great post - finally some balance on such an important issue ! Thanks

    ON Fri, 8 Jan 10, 4:34am probably from United States  Reply to this comment

  • Tomfp said:

    I am astonished to see such candour on a site like this. You stand in marked and admirable contrast to the wagon-circling and name-calling that characterises ALL other green-leaning responses to Climategate. This would merely be a souce of amusement to sceptics, were it not for the fact that

    good science and good scientists have been driven out by bad science and bad scientists,

    A lot of (quite) well-meaning people have given their hearts to this fraud,

    We nearly ended up with another casino market trading in a commodity given an arbitrary value by an argument whose falsehood was bound to emerge eventually – a recipe for another GFC.

    Vast sums have already been misspent on this fraud, and could have been better spent growing the world economy and devising alternatives to fossil-fuels,

    Last but not least, none of this proves that the climate isn’t capable of dumping on us, in ways that we can’t resist. Learning to live with such episodes requires healthy, growing economies, not ones which have dissipated their wealth investing in a 21st Century tulip-bulb market. The current N hemisphere winter a case in point.

    I posted the following in response to one of George Monbiot's "what will it take to convince you..." laments - I hope you will allow space for it: " 1. Remember Occam's Razor - that the simplest explanation for all the known facts is preferable to other more complex ones, no matter that all may work.

    2. Remember Einstein “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Consensus in science, far from "settling" it, ought to inspire at least as much suspicion as it does confidence. So for sceptics, banging on about 90% or 95% just deepens our suspicions. Stop it.

    3. Remember Popper - produce your theories in a form that can be falsified by experiment repeatable by all. Even if you yourself cannot understand the experiments, be sure that both method and data are freely available to others who can.

    4. If someone objects that data they are using is proprietary and cannot be shared, reply politely that in that case it cannot possibly be used to justify expensive public policy, nor public funding - then move on.

    5. Lose the condescending, this-is-for-your-own-good tone of the priestly classes - it might give you and the choir you preach to a warm feeling inside, but it's no substitute for scientific rigour, and it just makes you sound like latter-day druids.

    6. If within these constraints (all of which, except perhaps for the last, have served genuine science well for a long time) you can persuade us that the climate should worry us a jot more than, say, the problem of hip displasia in overbred spaniels, you can go back to being as smug, bombastic and condescending as you like - you will have earned it.

    Best of luck. But I think you've got a long way to go "

    ON Thu, 14 Jan 10, 12:02am probably from Australia  Reply to this comment

  • David S said:

    Excellent article - well done. At last someone is making the point that there is more to being green than ranting about CO2 and cap-and-trade. The saddest thing about the whole saga is the diversion of attention and resources away from all the real, pressing environmental issues for which there are practical, achievable mitigation strategies. Also depressing is the way opinions seem to be following the left-right political divide - I am offended by the idea that because I do not trust the CRU data and Mann's manipulations, this makes me a Bush-supporting neocon.

    ON Thu, 28 Jan 10, 3:00pm probably from United Kingdom  Reply to this comment

  • Ed Darrell said:

    What two or three major assertions of global warming scientists are called into question by Hadley having its e-mails hacked?

    What research backs up your claim that these parts of science are now in question?

    ON Sat, 30 Jan 10, 10:31pm probably from United States  Reply to this comment

  • Theskyisfalling said:

    Great article Keith. Thanks for the comment on my blog (which is how I found you here). I'll be doing a post to this excellent pieve this week. Great series of links you have there too by the way.

    ON Mon, 1 Feb 10, 9:49am probably from Australia  Reply to this comment

  • Mrpete said:

    Great article! One significant mistake: there's no evidence the emails/data were "hacked"; now evidence points to inside leak.

    Someone asked about the impact of all this on the science. Several impacts, including:

    1) Scientific process called into question for this whole arena of science

    2) What papers have NOT been published that would falsify claims made, and what papers HAVE been published that should not have been. (i.e. gatekeeping impact)

    3) Clearly, we can't be so confident about the "scientific consensus." In fact, the realistic answer is provably worse than we've been led to believe. Recognizing the IPCC process is designed to ONLY consider CO2 impact and not other possibilities, even that impact is far more uncertain than presented. A paper is available showing the scientific LOSU (Level Of Understanding) was mostly as UNcertain as possible in a majority of topics, at the end of scientific input to the latest report. But by the time the non-science editors got done with it, ALL of that uncertainty had been removed! Google: ipcc losu mckitrick, then see Table 1 on p11]

    ON Thu, 4 Feb 10, 3:10am probably from United States  Reply to this comment

    • Eco Guy said:

      Agreed, updated to cover off the insider case (although we still do not know for sure).

      ON Thu, 4 Feb 10, 3:19am probably from Australia  Reply to this comment

  • Daniel Fierro said:

    what do you think about this .. when even your President knows Global Warming is a scam!

    ON Thu, 4 Feb 10, 4:16am probably from Australia  Reply to this comment

    • Eco Guy said:

      Erm, he is not 'my' president

      The video to be honest could be taken both ways - we need to see the larger context to know for sure.

      ON Thu, 4 Feb 10, 4:16am probably from Australia  Reply to this comment

  • Mcharris said:

    This is a wonderful resource which I will be linking to from my sites. I would kindly say that most people are 'green' at heart and would willingly do things at the local level to clean up the planet, they just don't want UNELECTED entities taxing us to kingdom come and taking away national Sovereignty in the process. Neither do they want our politicians signing away our future and that of our children, to the UN. We are Australian..... and proud of it.

    I am happy for people to visit my site http://just-me-in-t.site40.net/index.php where I try to show what is happening in the ugly world of the THEORY of AGW. To me it is a theory as it is unproven. Sadly it has moved out of the realm of science and right into the realm of politics and big business. If there is a dollar to be made to can be assurred there will be a few crooks involved.

    Thanks again for putting all the links and stories together.

    ON Sat, 6 Feb 10, 5:50am probably from Australia  Reply to this comment

  • Roger Dee said:

    Oh! Thank goodness. Your article is a breath of fresh air, and you have also restored my faith in environmentalism. Thank you very much.

    I am AGW sceptic, and I have been turning sour towards AGW propaganda, green activists, left wing politics etc. For months I have been wearing the “denier” mantle on many CIF forums and indulging in tribal behaviour, mainly because I have grave concerns about the political and economic implications of the current hysteria and also because I hate being browbeaten, insulted and ridiculed just because I have my own opinions.

    Having said all that, I’m not sure my lifestyle qualifies as typical of the “denier” stereotype. I live in a small holding in the English countryside and I grow as much of my own food as I can. I try to drive as little as possible, preferring to walk (I need the exercise). If possible I take my motorcycle in preference to my car. Not because of carbon, it just makes sense to conserve fuel when possible. Also, I have installed a ground source heat pump to provide my heating and hot water, and am currently saving up for a 20Kw free standing wind turbine so that I can produce my own electricity (I’ve got the land to do it without annoying anyone). Again, not because of carbon, it just makes perfect sense both environmentally and economically.

    So, perhaps I’m not a typical “denier” any more than you are a typical “greenie” and maybe there is hope of both camps finding common ground. What a wonderfully optimistic thought. I shall be following your website with great interest and a more balanced attitude. Thanks again.

    ON Thu, 18 Feb 10, 12:28pm probably from United Kingdom  Reply to this comment

  • Steve Jones said:

    Well done EcoWho. This site is what being green is truly all about. Keep up the good work.

    ON Fri, 25 Nov 11, 9:00pm probably from United Kingdom  Reply to this comment

Add Coment

Got a question or comment about this?

Find what you were looking for?.. Not quite what you expected?.. Got a question to ask people?
Share your thoughts and use the form below to post a public comment right on this page.

Simple HTML is supported i.e <b> <i> etc. Excessive inline URL's, spam, ANY ads or swearing is blocked/removed quickly. youtube URL's get embedded.

Back to the Articles Index Page   Visit our Facebook page

EcoWho RSS News Feed