Climategate 1 and 2

Climategate 1 is self summarized by the famous line:

Mike’s Nature trick  … to hide the decline.

Climategate 2 is self summarized by the theme:  ‘

help the cause

Climategate 1

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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Meaning hide the fact that alleged proxy measured temperatures for the past several hundred years failed to replicate alleged instrumentally measured temperatures for recent decades by replacing the proxy with “the real temps”.

The theme running through through the over a thousand emails and three thousand other documents was that these “scientists” were hiding unfavorable information, and were, as Harry Readme complained, making up favorable information.  Every document, one way or another, supports the story that global warming is indeed Mann made, in that the evidence for it is Michael Mann made.

Climategate 2

<3115> By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

<3940> They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.

<0810> I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause

I have not read a lot of the Climategate 2 documents, whereas I have read most of the Climategate 1 documents.

It looks to me that the Climategate 1 documents were hand selected by human judgment to tell a coherent and complete story, whereas the Climategate 2 documents appear to be more of a grab bag of random stuff.  Climategate 1 is a story, Climategate 2 is a pile of emails.

But since grabbed from a team of human beings, a uniting theme appears anyway:

While the uniting theme of the Climategate 1 documents was that the warmists were not practicing science, the uniting theme of Climategate 2 is that the warmists are engaged in a holy crusade.

Climategate 2, unlike Climategate 1, contains a lot of emails where scientists expressed doubt in anthropogenic global warming, but often these demonstrate the response to doubt. Doubt is treated as sinful, evil, doubt needs punishment, as for example, the effort to cancel Pat Michaels’s PhD.

Whereas Climategate 1 showed us that these were salesmen and political campaigners, rather than scientists, Climategate 2 showed us that these were priests, rather than scientists.

7 Responses to “Climategate 1 and 2”

  1. anonymous says:

    The Economist reports on some new cutting-edge climate research published in a peer-reviewed article in Science that challenges some core green doom warnings. In particular, the study suggests that the probable sensitivity of the earth’s climate to increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is far lower than the assumptions traditionally used by the (already discredited) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Not only that, the authors find that the existence of a so-called “fat tail” — the notion that extreme temperature changes in response to increases in atmospheric CO2 are likely — is illusory.
    The Economist tells us that the conclusions of this study, if confirmed by others, have far-reaching implications for predictions about the climate.
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its most recent summary of the science behind its predictions, published in 2007, estimated that, in present conditions, a doubling of CO2 would cause warming of about 3°C, with uncertainty of about a degree and a half in either direction. But it also says there is a small probability that the true number is much higher. Some recent studies have suggested that it could be as high as 10°C.If that were true, disaster beckons. But a paper published in this week’s Science, by Andreas Schmittner of Oregon State University, suggests it is not. In Dr Schmittner’s analysis, the climate is less sensitive to carbon dioxide than was feared.
    So much less sensitive, in fact, that the doomsday scenarios can be ruled out. Carbon dioxide just does not make the world as much warmer as the green Malthusians believe. The Economist continues:
    The group’s most likely figure for climate sensitivity is 2.3°C, which is more than half a degree lower than the consensus figure, with a 66% probability that it lies between 1.7° and 2.6°C. More importantly, these results suggest an upper limit for climate sensitivity of around 3.2°C.

    • jim says:

      Global warmists seem to have exhausted the patience of the rest of the left. The EU recently cut 45 billion in payola to warmism activists. The BBC produced a frozen planet series as a vehicle for warmist propaganda, and then when selling the show overseas allowed its customers to show the series without the tedious warmist propaganda.

      It is a quite extraordinary event when elements of the left get actual cutbacks. Normally when one part of the left coalition is in bad odor with the others, their funding increases less rapidly than the others. It is never cut, and yet we are seeing actual cuts.

      • red says:

        Did the left actually believe the global warming stuff? I really can’t tell.

        • jim says:

          The left believes six impossible things before breakfast – global warming being more of the same.

          Among the climategate conspirators, Briffa and Harry would wonder whether it was true or not, but for most of them, there was total and complete lack of interest in whether global warming was real or not. The rest of them would no more think about such questions, than they would wonder whether the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin was zero, one, finite, or infinite.

          When one argues with leftists, they will sometimes openly express the opinion that it does not matter whether global warming is real or not. Since it is a justification for imposing rules that ought to be imposed, it is everyone’s duty to believe in global warming. I think that a lot more think that than say that, and this attitude looks to me to be the majority view among those revealed in the climategate files.

  2. […] The democratization of culture, brought by a democratic economy. Social justice came true. Still conservatives remember those early years, the 50s, as little less than utopia. When manual labor was respected! And people trusted each other. But strangely for a utopia, it didn’t last long. Already in the 60s the system started to crack, and by the 80s we had the full cocktail of modern culture. Schools that don’t teach, the obesity epidemic. Modern art. The decline of technological innovation. The loss of manners. The sexual marketplace. Marriage 2.0. Global warming pseudoscience. […]

  3. […] mean.  The first climategate release was the emails of a criminal conspiracy to falsify science.  The second climategate release was the emails of a holy priesthood engaged in a crusade to purify the planet of the sins of […]

  4. […] mean. The first climategate release was the emails of a criminal conspiracy to falsify science. The second climategate release was the emails of a holy priesthood engaged in a crusade to purify the planet of the sins of […]

Leave a Reply