Climategate 2.0 Roundup

The Climategate 2.0 emails continue to produce some really great examples of scientists, or maybe that should be "scientists", behaving badly. There's so much, in fact, that it's hard to pick ones to excerpt. "Target rich environment" is an understatement.

Anthony Watts has two excellent summary threads (here and here) that chronicle the discoveries coming out of this latest batch of over 5,000 email messages. And, as always, Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit is an indispensable resource. (Aside: If I were president, my first executive order would be to turn over to McIntyre every shred of climate research ever conducted on behalf of the taxpayer. Not sure we're going to get that from AGW believer-of-convenience Mitt or couch-sittin' Newt).

What strikes me as most interesting about the emails is how focused the coterie of warmist scientists are on keeping any dissenting papers from seeing the light of day. Other scientists and journal reviewers are fair game if it looks like they're not devoted to "the cause".

And of course this makes sense, given that the entire AGW scam relies on Consensus Science™. The declines have to be hidden and the data can't be questioned because shut up.

Here's just one example. Pat Michaels at Cato is a thorn in their side, so they tried to have his PhD stripped. Michaels turns the tables:

Everyone agrees that the tone and content of many of [the Climategate emails] is a bit shrill and occasionally intolerant (kind of like University faculty meetings), but there is one repeating thread, by one of your most prestigious employees, Dr. Tom Wigley, that is far beyond the pale of most academic backbiting.

The revoking of my doctorate, the clear objective of Tom’s email, is the professional equivalent of the death penalty. I think it needs to be brought to your attention, because the basic premise underlying his machinations is patently and completely false. Dr Wigley is known as a careful scientist, but he certainly was careless here.

Unconvinced scientists need not apply. There's a consensus to be manufactured, don't you know.

Here's Minnesotans for Global Warming's take on it (via Climate Audit):

No word on whether thin-skinned fraud (hmmm ... who does that remind you of?) Michael "Piltdown" Mann has threatened to sue them again. Censor this, punk!:

Until the science is conducted out in the open, the claims of the warmists can't be taken seriously. It's as simple as that.

Climategate 2.0 Roundup&bodytext=The Climategate 2.0 emails continue to produce some really great examples of scientists, or maybe that should be "scientists", behaving badly. There's so much, in fact, that it's hard to pick ones to excerpt. "Target rich environment" is an understatement....&topic=world_news"> posted by Andy at 04:37 PM

| Access Comments