Difference between revisions of "Climategate"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(wikipedia import reminder)
(|description=account of corrupt science practice |constitutes=climate change/preparation, deception)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
|image_width=400px
 
|image_width=400px
 
|image_caption=What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?
 
|image_caption=What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?
 +
|description=account of corrupt science practice
 +
|constitutes=climate change/preparation, deception
 
}}
 
}}
−
The [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]] (aka '''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 to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on [[climate change]].<ref>''[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf "Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 8th Report of Session 2009-10: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia"]''</ref>
 
  
−
The story was first broken by climate change skeptics, with columnist [https://twitter.com/JamesDelingpole James Delingpole] popularising the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy. They argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy and that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics. The CRU rejected this, saying that the emails had been taken out of context. “Fact-checkers” claimed that climate change skeptics misrepresented the contents of the emails.<ref>''[https://web.archive.org/web/20131203205308/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climategate-redux "Climategate Redux"]''</ref>
+
In 2009 [[Wikileaks]] published <1000 emails from the United Nations' [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) scientists. Most of these emails are not spectacular, but some mention how easy it is to deceive [[peer review]]ers and the public alike.  
  
−
The [[mainstream media]] picked up the story, as negotiations over [[climate change]] mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December 2009. Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference. In response to Climategate, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding: "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global [[climate change]] caused by human activities is now underway... it is a growing threat to society".<ref>''[https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climategate-10-years-on-what-lessons-have-we-learned "Climategate 10 years on: what lessons have we learned?"]''</ref>
+
Several referenced emails contain joking remarks about how they massaged statistics, i.e.
 +
* truncating the temperature and time axis on diagrams
 +
* omitting data from measurement stations that were "too cold to be included"
 +
* failing to mention contradicting information, i.e.
 +
** polar ice data from [[Patagonia]] (the other pole, where ice is increasing)
 +
** failing to report standard deviations or volatility measures
 +
** failing to mention conflicts of interest, explicit joking about easy available grants and salaries
 +
* omitting a decent timeline of several thousand years
  
−
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, claiming to find no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that [[global warming]] is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.<ref>''[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/23/climate-scientists-hacked-emails-uea "Climate scientists defend work in wake of new leak of hacked emails"]''</ref>
+
The dubious funding of [[IPCC]] was also discussed in the [https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:Climategate-emails.pdf| Climategate] leak of emails. A condensed version is found on WS https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:Climategate-emails.pdf.
 +
 
 +
In sum [[IPCC]] scientists admit to fraudulent activity, not by outright falsehoods but by distortion,  omission and selctive attention. Moreover they admit that plenty of money is available for the "easy job" of doing so.
  
 
{{SMWDocs}}
 
{{SMWDocs}}
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
−
 
−
{{PageCredit
 
−
|site=Wikipedia
 
−
|date=5 March 2021‎
 
−
|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
 
−
}}
 

Revision as of 21:54, 16 May 2021

Concept.png Climategate 
(climate change/preparation,  deception)Rdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
Climate Hoax.jpg
What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?
account of corrupt science practice

In 2009 Wikileaks published <1000 emails from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists. Most of these emails are not spectacular, but some mention how easy it is to deceive peer reviewers and the public alike.

Several referenced emails contain joking remarks about how they massaged statistics, i.e.

  • truncating the temperature and time axis on diagrams
  • omitting data from measurement stations that were "too cold to be included"
  • failing to mention contradicting information, i.e.
    • polar ice data from Patagonia (the other pole, where ice is increasing)
    • failing to report standard deviations or volatility measures
    • failing to mention conflicts of interest, explicit joking about easy available grants and salaries
  • omitting a decent timeline of several thousand years

The dubious funding of IPCC was also discussed in the Climategate leak of emails. A condensed version is found on WS https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:Climategate-emails.pdf.

In sum IPCC scientists admit to fraudulent activity, not by outright falsehoods but by distortion, omission and selctive attention. Moreover they admit that plenty of money is available for the "easy job" of doing so.


 

Related Documents

TitleTypePublication dateAuthor(s)Description
Document:Climategate its the heat source stupidCommentary
Document:People and Data Cherry-Picked For the IPCC Political Agendaarticle20 April 2014Tim BallA cogent critique of the UN IPCC personnel and methodology designed to suborn and harness science to a clearly political agenda. Written by a Doyen of climate science and author of the book "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science".
File:Climategate-emails.pdfarticleMarch 2010John Costella
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.


References

Retrieved from "https://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?title=Climategate&oldid=210839"