CRU email

November 17 marked the one year anniversary of the hacking of CRU mail servers and the release of thousands of emails between climate scientists. Though irrelevant to the scientific case for anthropogenic climate change, the event was significant in the public relations sphere. I have not found the time to do a proper memorial write up though I think it is important to reassess and reframe the controversy with the benefit of hindsight. But as luck would have it, a young climate blogger named Kate at Climate Sight has written a piece as well laid out and written as I could ever have hoped to…
Judith Curry has become quite a blog sensation, and did so long before starting her own. I have expressed my frustration with her in the past for a seemingly reckless affinity for "hit and run" postings. I will appreciatively grant that she comments alot, and engages many conversants extensively, but she has posted many very inflammatory or technically flawed diatribes in the past, the kind sorely needing defending or ammending, and left the clear and substantive rebuttals unanswered or inadequately answered. Frequently interested readers were left with only vague promises of "more on that…
Roy Spencer, darling of the climate skeptic community, says he is not very organized, as Phil Jones said of himself, and that "if you asked me to find original data from 20 years ago I'd have great difficulty too. We just didn't realise in those days how important and controversial this would all become - now it would just all be stored on computer." This is quoted in a BBC article on the recent Heartland climate conference in New York. Spencer goes on to say: "Phil Jones has been looking at climate records for a very long time. Frankly our data set agrees with his, so unless we are all…
Science has published a letter with 250 signatories protesting the recent and extreme attacks on scientists, climate scientists in particular. I agree with Michael, this letter should not be behind a paywall. I think the fact that it is, is disturbingly revealing of the disadvantage science has in the PR arenas. It is very well done, though to be honest I wish they had not pushed the creationist button and had instead used an entirely different example of well established science to make their point. As scientifically non-controvesial as the age of the earth is, we need to reach even those…
Here is a fascinating exchange between George Monbiot and Steve Easterbrook exploring the larger issues behind the recent Swifthacking of CRU email (aka ClimateGate). Steve makes an excellent presentation of the case for what happens to be my personal view on this mess, namely that the media has failed in a major and tragic way and that this is a tale of a successful propaganda campaign not scientific corruption. In my opinion, Monbiot seems to understand Steve's points but still does not get the real story. Have a read: The computer scientist Steve Easterbrook wrote an interesting critique…
One thing the blogosphere is good for is spirited discussion and fast dissemination of news stories. One thing it is not good for is the old addage "where there's smoke, there's fire". The recent "swifthacking" of CRU email (aka "climategate") is a great example of tremendous amounts of smoke being created out of something statistically indistinguishable from bupkus. The UK's House of Commons has released a report after weeks of careful investigation into the details and implications of the illegally obtained and distributed emails to and from a handful of East Anglia University climate…
For most of us, the F in FOI stands for "freedom". It seems for Steve McIntyre, it stands for "form letter". Via Eli Rabett we learn that the Freedom of Information requests (FOI) that are central to the only potentially damnng aspect of the CRU "swifthacking" incident have been released. They can be found here[PDF]. I have not looked at them yet, but Eli points out a very interesting one that begins thus (and we are quoting): I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing the following countries…