Climate scientists crushed by context

I have shown elsewhere on this blog that the Climategate emails reveal that some of the scientists involved very clearly attempted to persuade other scientists to jump on the global warming bandwagon, so that they could influence “key decision-makers (e.g. EU Kyoto negotiaters and Environment Ministers) and other opinion-makers in Europe (e.g. editorial boards of newspapers)” by seeking endorsement for their personal views masquerading as scientific assessment, without full disclosure.

You may have gathered that I have little respect for the IPCC, a United Nations offspring, and much venerated (or at least self-venerated) organization responsible for shaping the message.

Climategate certainly put a monkey-wrench in the works of the IPCC whose Chairman’s whitewash (greenwash?!) includes:

In summary, no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an I.P.C.C. assessment. Likewise, individuals and small groups have no ability to emphasize a result that is not consistent with a range of studies, investigations, and approaches. Every layer in the process (including large author teams, extensive review, independent monitoring of review compliance, and plenary approval by governments) plays a major role in keeping I.P.C.C. assessments comprehensive, unbiased, open to the identification of new literature, and policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.

The unfortunate incident that has taken place through illegal hacking of the private communications of individual scientists only highlights the importance of I.P.C.C. procedures and practices and the thoroughness by which the Panel carries out its assessment. This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental.

Now that the MSM are finally getting around to reporting on Climategate, many of them seem to like to pit an alarmist against a realist. This certainly gave the alarmists enough time to circle the wagons – and possibly even develop their talking points. Their message seems to be that their opponents “have an agenda” and/or their arguments are “spurious” and/or that the emails have been taken out of context.

And speaking of context … Steve McIntyre, whose Climate Audit must be the bane of the AGW alarmists existence, has also been examining the emails:

IPCC and the “Trick”

Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline”. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context”. In this case, I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in “hiding the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction.

Relevant Climategate correspondence in the period (September-October 1999) leading up to the trick email is incomplete, but, in context, is highly revealing.

Here’s that link again. Don’t just mouse-over it, click :-)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s