AGW catastrophism Climate Change Culture Dissent Freedom Global Warming HadCRUT IPCC Omniclimate Policy Politics Science Skepticism

The CRU…CRU…CRU…el Destiny Of Climatology

Twenty-four hours later, we can be pretty sure that of “smoking guns” in the leaked CRU documents there are none. Everyone can read that information any way they please, as evidence of a global conspiracy or demonstration that climate science is solid and honest.

Whatever…now there’s a little bit more people aware that Science is done by humans, with their preferences and dislikes, their personal beliefs, and capable to use all the tricks of “power politics” to isolate opponents and to support friends. At the end of the day, the problem is not much in scientists that have an “ideology of science”. There’s plenty of it in history, from the controversy about the wave-particle nature of light to the patriotic debates about who invented calculus.

The problem is with scientists whose ideology involves stifling debate and censoring those who do not follow orthodoxy.

Let’s just hope there will be less of that…especially because the alternative is the piling up of yet more revelations, transforming it all in some kind of “climate tabloid journalism”.

0 replies on “The CRU…CRU…CRU…el Destiny Of Climatology”

In reply to papertiger:

“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.”

This reminds me of the Mark Twain aphorism:
“Tell the truth once, and nobody will ever believe you again no matter how much you lie.”

1. The ‘climate change’ ‘camp’ and the
2. POLITICALLY DRIVEN International Conference on Climate Change gibberish (Copenhagen etc.),
3. Are ADVOCATES of the U.N.’s GENOCIDAL “sustainable”AGENDA 21 depopulation-at-any-cost program.
4. So – Al Gore’s (THE FIRST) Carbon Trading Exchange, based in Mafia Chicago, promising to-
5. ‘Give’ us all ‘protection’ –

What part of THIS IS A MAFIA ‘PROTECTION MONEY’ RACKET (against a theoretical and unproven ‘threat’ that does not exist) DO WE NOT GET?


Come on. They al l know it’s bogus and a tax grab on the very air we breathe.

Notwithstanding the proclivity to ‘get personal’ with ad hominem attacks when bogus grant applications for junk science, holier-than-thou selfishness and non-stop lies are revealed – ‘climate changers’ behave like religious zealot CONverts forever trying to prove themselves to be more fervent, more righteous and more devout than anyone else; even going so far as to ‘out do’ each other in advocating and practicing violent radicalism (I.e. – terrorism for their own agenda of political power and/or personal financial gain), we must remain ever-wary of people who over-emotionally insist “IT’S FOR THE:
A. Children,
B. Mothers,
C. Aged,
D. Minorities,
E. Disadvantaged and/or
F. Humanity!” – doo dah, doo dah –
when the only agenda is – THEY ARE IN IT FOR THEMSELVES (emotionally AND financially)!

It’s all good Luke.

I’m having fun with it. It only looks like I’m cursing you. I’m really cursing “the Team”.

Say, you want to see the before and after preparations used prior to ““Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. ”?
Here (jpg) you go.

From: 1153172761.txt

“Be wary of any science that loathes statistics or resents
external investigation. That’s the start of rot.”

That’s dancing on the head of a pin.

“we didn’t fully graft it. Some of it is still dangling there.
Can you see? Totally different thing.”
/hurt feeling voice

Tell me these guys aren’t using Clintons pr management.

Blue dress moment is an apt description.


Just to be clear what I tried to say in my larger comment is that this ‘dossier’ should be enough to declare a mistrial (by IPCC) but not to prove or disprove MMGW either way.

Scientists lie, cheat, steal, backstab, bitch, fight, shatter reputations, bully. distort, selectively quote etc all the time. It does not necessarily invalidate their findings nor validate Steve’s.

Papertiger – try the horse’s mouth not its ass:

“Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. ” From Jean S. at Climate Audit.

What a load of horse manure. For several years we have been asked, no rather demanded to take global warming on the strength of the word consensus.

No matter how you twist it that means taking their word for it.

These emails give a direct context to the character of the people whose word we are supposed to accept.
Forget evidence.
Their evidence is in their ass.
GISS temps that rely on phantom heatwaves in the Arctic.
Ice retreats that rely on satellite cut off to maintain.
One tree paleoreconstructions.

All of it is in their ass.

At the end of day all they have is their credibility.
Would this guy lie to you???

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,,
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
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.
Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with

In December 2004 John Finn asked Realclimate’s Michael Mann about the divergence issue;
“Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.”

Michael Mann answered back;
“No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.”

SO the answer to the question, “Would these guys (Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughs) lie to you?” is

Without batting an eyelash.


After much pondering/text file reading I completely agree with you. Ignoring the legalities of how this stuff materialised & the creepy sense of trespassing through someone else’s hard drive, this is a complex issue. The quotes being bandied around are being lifted without context to make it sound like a detailed and deliberate conspiracy to mask the ‘truth’, the veritable smoking gun. But they need to be seen within their organisational, scientific, academic and social context.

Organisationally, for example, I could pull bad comments about CRU from their ‘away day’ SWOT type thing, but the same is true for any org. I won’t quote to avoid exacerbating the situation. And of course you have to look for funding to survive these days.

Scientifically, the issue appears to hinge on naivety versus the messy day to day. It is a shame we don’t have an e-mail trail for former scientific spats but if you look at the history of science there is massive evidence of dirty tricks on both sides, precisely because each side thinks it’s right. (Your Hubris point).

Academically, Kissinger’s comment “Academic politics are so vicious, precisely because the stakes are so low” still stands. People aren’t asked to “defend” their thesis for nothing. Anonymous peer review is (usually) impersonal and can be quite harsh. I noticed RealClim using the analogy of a junk filter for peer review recently. This is a good analogy to counter peeritarian thought but masks the very apparent subjective element in the e-mails:

Quote: “This paper is to be thoroughly welcomed and is particularly timely with the next IPCC assessment coming along in 2007. The availability of the data and the programs on a website will go a long way to silencing the critics. I suspect though that this will not be the last word on the subject.”

Can anyone defend this quote as a context-independent scientific one?

Finally, socially, I think we need to recognise that there is a more complex element to this than we have seen with any other scientific issue to date. Both the stakes being high and the relatively early stages in a web-enabled debate. It’s only human to be annoyed by someone outside of your esoteric circle needling your every move. From what I’ve seen on the blogs there are some very vitriolic commenters/ e-mailers who have a permenant red mist, frequently a poor grasp of science and have created a bit of a circle your wagons mentality.

However, context to one side, and pending perhaps any specific revelations behind say the HS or Yamal debates, I think that the leaked stuff demonstrates the far more subtle and important point that climate science is not just “basic physics”. This is the most important conclusion. Thus I second your comment that “Climate Science (my change) is NOT a nicely consensual necessary conclusion of an unbiased reading of the data”.

The afore-mentioned concern for the timing of IPPC reports, trying to remove rival schools of thought from editorial panels, interaction with NGOs, the filtering ‘tricks’ themself all demonstrate this. If nothing else these e-mails should cause anyone who uses the words “the science is settled” to be revealed as an idiot. They also show the inherent danger in the existence of the IPCC as a biased block vote on these complexities and the folly of the Royal Society’s position. As to the ‘facts’ of the underlying science these e-mails reveal pretty much nothing. (or at least that’s my interpretation.)



sitting in the chair, head slumped back, staring at the
lights. Perspiration drenches him… drips into his
eyes… he blinks, squints… looks up…

as he shakes his head to clear it… sits up… looks
around. He is alone in the room. He sees, on the desk
before him —


which contains the IPCC’s entire AR4, a hated object which has contributed
to the extent of his misery.


stares at it, transfixed. It’s within his reach. What
will happen if he takes it? Smashes it? Mesmerized,
he reaches out his arm, touches it… picks it up…
stares at it…

And then he rises and hurls it against a wall, smashing
it. It falls to the floor, broken.

That won’t help. I have many

Bellamy turns and sees Jones walking toward him from
the open door. When he speaks, his voice is quite
hoarse from screaming. He is weaker than we have seen

…still… felt good…

Jones gives a small laugh.

Enjoy your good feelings when you
can. There may not be many more
of them.

He walks briskly to his desk and sits.

I’ve just received word. There’s
been a weather disaster. St. Abbs is
a dead zone. An invasion of jelly fish
destroyed all life there. Your life’s
work was for nothing…
except that it led to a successful
Copenhagen climate treaty.

Bellamy stares at him.

…don’t… believe you…

(shrugs, unconcerned)
There is no further need for
information from you… the treaty
passed successfully in spite of your
refusal to help me.
(small smile)
You might have saved yourself a
great deal of torment by yielding
at the beginning.

There is a beat as he stares pensively at Bellamy.

I… want to see… neutral

There is no such person. The consensus
is complete.
The word will be that you perished
with your crew while diving at Eyemouth.
No one will ever know that you are here
with us. As you will be, for a long, long

Bellamy stares at him with bleary eyes.

You do, however, have a choice.
You can live out your life in
misery… held here, subject to my

He leans in, seductive, beguiling…

Or you can live in comfort, with
good food and warm clothing…
women as you desire them…
allowed to pursue your nature walks
and botany.
I would enjoy debating with you.
You have a keen mind.

He rises, wanders toward Bellamy.

It’s up to you. A life of ease…
of reflection and intellectual
(gesturing around him)
Or this.

What… must I… do… ?

Jones smiles. His voice is soothing…

Nothing, really.
(gestures upward)
Just tell me that climate science is sound.

There is a heavy silence. Bellamy slumps in the chair,
staring up at the lights. In the distance, we hear the
SOUND of approaching footsteps. An urgency appears in
Jones’ voice.

Just say it. The science is sound.

No answer.

This is your last chance… the
guards are coming… don’t be a
stubborn fool…

Bellamy stares up at the light fixture, eyes glazed, not

Hurry. You’re running out of time.

The door opens and Richard Black ENTERS, accompanied by two
guards. He surveys the scene.

You told me he would be ready to

Jones has to tear his eyes away from Bellamy to address

We had some unfinished business.

Get him cleaned up. A car is
waiting to take him to the
BBC studio. He’s going to be our
Copenhagen Ace in the Hole now
that your boys are caught up in
the email scandal.

ON Bellamy

as he stares at Jones, realizing that everything
Jones had said was a ruse… one last desperate effort
to bend Bellamy to his will.

ON Jones

as he returns the look… a complex welter of feelings
overwhelming him… chagrin that Bellamy now
understands… anger at failure… and, in spite of
himself, the beginnings of respect for Bellamy’s
extraordinary courage.


as BLACK looks from one to the other… curious at the
potent looks.

Professor Bellamy… if you will go
with the guards, they’ll take care
of you.

Still holding Jones’ look, Bellamy rises… starts to
lose his balance but holds on… takes deep breaths of
air… straightens himself, and walks close to Jones.

Global warming is a hoax.

Jones stares at him briefly, and then, the slightest
possible nod and smile — in deference to a man he has
come to admire.

Bellamy turns and walks out of the room with the guards.
Jones watches him go. BLACK looks from one to the
other, feeling the charged atmosphere, but completely
out of touch with what has transpired.

From Andrew Bolt:

(Note: in saying that, I should add that these emails may simply be poorly worded, out of context or even altered by the whistleblower who leaked them. Jones may also not knowingly have done anything wrong, and there is no proof that he did anything against the law.)

Whether laws were broken or not, the emails prove beyond doubt how resistant Jones and his colleagues were to having their work properly scrutinised by anyone not of their “team”. No wonder, perhaps, when the documents reveal Jones has so far attracted $25 million in grants.)

Let’s leave criminal matters to criminal experts. On the Science side, I don’t care much if Jones is exposed as a bully (there’s many of them in academic circles): I care that from now on I can say without worry of a rebuttal that climatological alarmism is NOT a nicely consensual necessary conclusion of an unbiased reading of the data.

Jones’ convictions may still be right. But skepticism towards them should definitely be institutionally defended, not fought against.

“Twenty-four hours later, we can be pretty sure that of “smoking guns” in the leaked CRU documents there are none. ”

So, you don’t think conspiracy to subvert FOIA requests is a smoking gun??

You don’t think knowingly creating hockey sticks that the DATA doesn’t support isn’t worth firing people over??

You don’t think…


Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.