smoke for nothing? Opportunity missed!
Posted: January 08, 2021
Was there a scientific scandal in climate change
matters almost one dozen years ago? "Climategate" began in
November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying
thousands of emails and computer files (the Climatic Research Unit documents) see: Wikipedia . One side
claimed that the hacked emails showed evidence that climate scientists
manipulated data. The opposite side said that the release of emails was a smear
campaign. The latter group won. The matter is off the table. The mainstream media and the Climategater scientists themselves claim
complete exoneration by the various ‘inquiries, as discussed in a detailed
assessment by Judith Curry (2019/Nov.12). Indeed the
other side, the so called climate change denialists /sceptics, had a topic to pester science for some time, but were
didn't have to be if they had looked closely at the beginning of the process. We want to briefly explain this again below, because it
consists of only four steps, as follows:
An open letter reply to a
letter written to government by 18 different scientific organizations
concerning climate change legislation, dated 21st October 2009.
A reply to the letter dated 12th
A publication of both letters
on the Blog, posted on 13th November 2009,
A comment to the post, which included a links to the incriminating about more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents.
The climate change denialists /sceptics may have spoiled a good chance to converse
the climate change debate on a more transparent and fruitfully discussion.
Meanwhile the Climategate-2009 is unlikely to emerge again. Here is now the
story how it commenced:
open letter reply to a letter written to government by 18 different scientific
concerning climate change legislation to the US Congress.
October 21, 2009
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific
organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research
demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by
human activities are the primary driver.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent
lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective
assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong
evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society,
including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States,
climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater
threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water
scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of
biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change
impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades (a). If we
are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse
gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary
to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts
include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water
and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved
emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves. We in the
scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you
seek to address the impacts of climate change.
(a) The conclusions in this paragraph reflect
the scientific consensus represented by, for
example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Global Change
Research Program. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in
their own statements, including the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American
Meteorological Society, and American Statistical Association.
The letter in reply on 12th November 2009
to Senators concerning climate change legislation – 21.Oct.2009
Dear President or Executive Director,
How could it happen that more than a dozen
of the most prestigious scientific associations signed and submitted this
letter on ‘climate change’ without having ensured that the used terminology is
sufficiently defined? Good science can and
is required to work with reasonable terms and explanations. The science about
the behavior of the atmosphere should be no exception. But WMO1,
IPCC and other institutions simply are using the layman’s term of weather and
climate not even recognizing that this is very unscientifically. Actually
nowadays climate is still defined as average weather, which may be fine for the
general public, but nonsense as scientific term. This can be well demonstrated
with the most relevant international legal instrument, namely the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change, 1992 (FCCC).
Article 1 of the FCCC providing definitions
offers none on the term “climate”, and if it had been based on the common explanation on “average
weather”, the word “weather” would have required a definition as well. That the
drafters failed to do so is a clear indication that they either lacked the
scientific competence to do so, or they knew it would make no sense, because
‘average weather’ is statistics, and remain statistics regardless of any name
given to the set of statistics.
Instead the FCCC defines in
Para. 2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed
directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the
global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability
observed over comparable time periods.
Para. 3. “Climate system” means the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere,
biosphere and geosphere and their interactions.
Both explanations explain nothing. It is nonsense to
say: Climate change means the change of climate, while ‘climate system’ does
not say anything more as the interaction of nature. Science is using layman’s
terms without being able or willing to define them in a scientifically
reasonable manner, or not to use them at all. A detailed discussion is
available at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/.
It is therefore very unfortunate if the reference
letter of just 240 words mentions ‘climate change’ seven times. If your
organization believes that “rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the
greenhouse gases emitted by human activities“ has an impact on air
temperatures, then any alert should be restricted to this aspect. But as long as science is not able and willing to
define CLIMATE, and subsequently CLIMATE CHANGE it is misleading and wrong to
tell the general public and politics, that greenhouse gases are the “prime
driver” of climate. That are the oceans as expressed in a letter to NATURE
1992: “Climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means”2,
or to say it with Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519): “Water is the driver of
(3) The comment by FIOA (Freedom of
Information Act) with links to documents for downloading (time restricted).
(Comment) 10. FOIA said at November 17,
2009 at 9:57 pm
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to
be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and
documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people
This is a limited time offer, download now: http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
0926010576.txt * Mann: working
towards a common goal
1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years
makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get
0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science
but production of results”
1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference”
1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy
1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can
refer to them in the chapter for AR4
(4) “Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold”
The first reaction
cam on 19th November 2009, Link: Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold
Posted by Jeff Id on November 19, 2009
This is the biggest news ever broken here. The first thing I have to say
is that I have no connection to the source of these files. It was left as a
link on my blog while I was hunting for cloaked deers (fruitlessly) in the
Upper Penninsula. These files are real IMO but they cannot be one hundred
percent verified as such. How can we be certain but IMO, real. They were
potentially scraped from multiple computers in my opinion by a hacker or an
insider involved in some of the endless FOIA requests.
I’ll say this delicately – this person risked one f..k
of a lot to show us this data.
I need some legal advice regarding the files received today. I’ve
verified that the data seems to be true, simply due to the volume of it and
knowing the issues – currently the link is offline, I took it down the minute I
realized what it contained. I need to understand the legal ramifications of
making some of the emails public. In the meantime, a summary of the 62 MB of
data is – personal email correspondences between some of the major players
Santer, Briffa, Mann, Osborne, Wahl. Data and code, the data SteveM and I will
enjoy but I can’t load CA now. The code or a version of it for HadCRUT was
released also. The tone of the emails is quite interesting Steve McIntyre is the
focus of much of them but there are quite a few references to obstruction and
making things difficult for the ‘skeptics’. There are also budgetary items and
grant monies- you wouldn’t believe how much money these boys play with.
There are several comments about scientists wanting to
hide their environmentalist views to promote the best results. Also, some about
people being happy with the death of skeptics as well as a lot of rubbish about
the latest Yamal results at CA.
What I need to know is what are my legal obligations
as to posting a link to this file and what is allowed to be shown from it. In
the meantime I see Anthony at WUWT who has more experience than me with media
has posted several emails, so in this case there is one particular letter which
deserves to see the light of day because of it’s amazing nature.
One of the biggest criticisms of skeptics is
non-publication. I think we can put an end to that charade here and now. If
someone can find me a lawyer to let this loose I’ll add the rest of the names
but let’s just say it’s our favorite ends justify the means group.
commenced on 17th November 2009
More about the history
PROLOG from one comment three days later
said - November
20, 2009 at 5:56 am
TO: FOIA (# 10 & 19)
You did it. You made many people very, very happy with your visit here and the
given link. Luckily Jeff Id discovered it immediately: “This is the biggest
news ever broken here. hunter said November 20, 2009 at 12:01 am , „Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
God bless you.“ And at : http://www.examiner.com Terry Hurlbut (Nov19; 9:42 PM)
said: „Commentary on all the blogs involved has been brisk, except, oddly
enough, at The Air Vent, where only seven comments have been received.“
Allow me to assume you did it
intentionally with regard to the subject OPEN LETTER. That would at least make
me very happy, as it would be a clear indication that there are other person
out (at minimum one), which would agree with me that a science is nuisance if
it is not able and willing to define in a reasonable scientific manner what it
is talking about. That the talking about a definition on CLIMATE should not be
taken lightly, is indicated in my previous comment. If a nonsense term is used
by science it is not only misleading the simple people, but also shows that
they do not understand what they are talking about. That is the real tragic of
all the talking about the CO2 greenhouse gases since the James Hansen’s AGW
claim before the US Senate in 1988. They stare in the air, without knowing
where they are going to. OK. Currently, presumably only you, (few other ?) and
I know. That should change, and your kind appearance here may have been a help,
hopefully, for which you deserves my highest appreciation, and sincere thanks.
Link to the comment No 21: