A first look at the internal climate emails

Rather than reading for data that discredits particular erroneous results, a task that Steve and his crew can do much better than I can, I study the papers to reveal evil and madness, to reveal the cause of error, rather than specific particular errors.

The Anthropogenic Global Warmers know in advance the results of peer review that is not yet done.  They also know in advance what the decisions of the environmental protection agency will be:

I suppose that a more formal response by the relevant scientists is likely eventually to become part of the EPA docket as part of their rejection of the CEI petition. But that will drag on

Like psychotic, they mistake their own voices for the external validation of their ideas that it purports to be.  Simultaneously, however, they know that such peer review is not legitimate:

Michael E. Mann:

The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a ‘legitimate’ peer review process anywhere.

Which quote marks suggest a conscious awareness that any peer review that they control is illegitimate, and therefore that peer review at Climate Research is legitimate and at the time of this email, 2003 March, was the only journal with legitimate peer review.  They circulate a copy of Freitas’ defense of the Climate Research Peer Review process, and only discuss only how to destroy the journal, its editors, and those who produced unacceptable peer review results, not what is wrong with his defense, a silence that implicitly concedes the truth of Freitas’ defense, and their awareness of the truth of that defense.  In discussing how to destroy these people, rather than rebut Freitas’ account of Climate Research peer review, they must know they are discussing how to ensure that ‘peer review’ is review for theological correctness, rather than empirical validity.

In contemplating their response to the Soon & Baliunas paper they did not consider replying in the pages of the same journal, the normal scientific procedure, despite naming various editors which they assume to be in their own pocket, which deviation from normal science implies an awareness that their reply could not survive legitimate peer review, only ‘legitimate’ peer review – implies awareness of evil.

By 2007 however, they no longer show confidence that peer review will produce predetermined results – there numerous journals whose peer review is no longer ‘legitimate’, among them “Energy and Environment”, and they cease to discuss destroying those responsible in ways that display confidence that they will succeed.

When they cherry pick statistics:

since ca. Nov 2008, satellite data was removed from the analysis, and was called v3b, but the methodology is essentially the same as in the paper.  The reason was that there was a residual cold bias in the satellite data. This caused problems for users concerned with rankings.

It is because they know what the results must be, therefore data that fails to support the predetermined result must be wrong.  They sincerely believe they are practicing real science, and they do not sincerely believe they are practicing real science.

I had come to feel that the days of science and mathematics had ended, that science and mathematics had largely become like high art, a multitude of little government funded fiefdoms in which each specialty was controlled by a little incestuous group that approved each other’s grants and was indifferent to external reality, unwanted facts and internal consistency.  On the evidence of these emails, that is indeed the state of affairs, but contrary to my expectations, does not go unchallenged.

Tags:

6 Responses to “A first look at the internal climate emails”

  1. Constantinopoli says:

    The discussion surrounding the emails is also interesting. Scientists, however corrupt, can’t sustain their activity in a complete vacuum. They need willing support from outside. Some phenomena I have noticed in commentary about this:

    1) Blaming the behavior of the alarmists on McIntyre. He made them do it! E.g. he made them delete their data.

    2) McIntyre is a gadfly. This is treated as if it were self-evidently bad.

    3) McIntyre has a political agenda. This is stated and repeated in the face of the clearly stated observation that McIntyre was right on points and forced revisions. No apparent awareness of the clear agenda of the alarmist scientists.

    4) McIntyre is not a real scientist. Stated and repeated in the face of the observation that McIntyre does good science.

    5) It is pointed out that McIntyre has a background in oil exploration.

    6) It is pointed out that facts can be distorted without exactly being lied about. True – however, no examples are given.

    7) No evidence in the emails of a worldwide conspiracy in the classic smoke-filled-room sense. (I would call this a straw man)

    8) Appeals to scientific consensus. Many scientists hold McIntyre in low regard, etc.

    9) Ignore the emails. Emails are not data.

    10) Let McIntyre release all his email.

    11) Boys will be boys, sausage factory analogy.

    12) This is legitimate science – these actions are legitimate – e.g. it is necessary to oust bad scientists.

    13) A lot of things get said in email. Richelieu quote: “Give me six lines written by the most honest man, and I will find something in them with which to hang him.”

    • jim says:

      Constantinople:

      7) No evidence in the emails of a worldwide conspiracy in the classic smoke-filled-room sense. (I would call this a straw man)

      I have actually been in conspiracies in the smoke filled room sense, the genuine communist conspiracy, and we always spoke in euphemism, hence if we had ever committed anything to writing (which we never did, all potentially incriminating conversations were strictly oral) there would still be no evidence of a conspiracy in the classic smoke filled room sense. However our conversations required placing a certain body language on certain euphemisms that might otherwise have been taken literally, which had we ever committed anything to writing might have been represented by quote marks around those words. Thus I infer from the quote marks around ‘legitimate’ a world wide conspiracy with a small leadership group that can and does meet in a room small enough that if any of these guys smoked, it would indeed become smoke filled, though of course none of these guys smoke. Their advance knowledge of the outcome of government and peer reviews indicates the classic conspiratorial discipline.

      Indeed, the argument that there is no evidence of a small nonsmoke filled room with half a dozen leading conspirators sitting around a small table is similar to the neo nazi argument that nothing in Hitler’s writings indicates he knew of the holocaust. Hitler, like these guys, and like communist conspirators, always spoke in euphemism. Double think remains as doubletalk, even when doublethink fades away to consciousness of evil.

    • jim says:

      I have given up on Wikipedia, which seems to be controlled by a group with absolutely no regard for truth, but if you have a go, will give you a hand, just to stir them up.

      • The Climategate wiki is outrageously biased. The article is currently locked down, and the various editors haven’t approved an edit to note that Phil Jones has stepped down *because they don’t like the tone of the first mainstream news article that reported on it.* Yes, that’s totally insane.

        Read the discussion page to see how Wikipedia’s rules are perverted to create bias.

        • jim says:

          Wikepedia’s rules are not being perverted, they innately and inherently create bias. One is required to source stuff, not in reality, not in what is observable, but in what respectable authority says, which necessarily excludes climategate from Wikipedia.

          Thus, for example, respectable authority does not like anything that Darwin said, for all of it is apt to support raaaciiiiissssm. But respectable authority cannot simple throw Darwin overboard as an evil Nazi. So instead, respectable authority attributes to Darwin the advances of his predecessors, loudly praises him for those ideas, and denounces Darwin’s actual ideas as “ultra darwinism”. It is then necessary to deny that Lamarck proposed common descent. And so, if one quotes Lamarck’s own words discussing common descent, this will be deleted from Wikipedia in fifteen seconds, and replaced with some eminent academic telling us what Lamarck supposedly said. Quoting Lamarck as evidence of what Lamarck said is “original research”, and obviously that is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Indeed, any evidence based assertion is “original research”. and thus all of climategate, and all of the results of Steve McIntyre, are “original research”. The rule against original research, necessarily prohibits evidence or facts based on evidence from appearing in Wikipedia.

Leave a Reply