« Copenhagen: the New Jonestown | Main | The Wrong Side of History »

IPCC Chair on Climategate: Nothing to See Here, Move Along

Via CNN:

One of the world's leading authorities on climate change has dismissed the contents of controversial e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia as nothing more than friends and colleagues "letting off steam."

"Well, I can tell you, privately when I talk to my friends, I use language much worse than that. This was purely private communications between friends, between, colleagues, they were letting off steam. I think we should see it as nothing more than that," Rajendra Pachauri, the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told CNN.

Well, I guess Climategate is settled, just like the science of global wa--er climate change. That's a relief.

I can't help but hope Mr. Pachauri comes to regret making such a ridiculous statement.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/37525.

Comments (25)

Yes, when doing research I ... (Below threshold)
Nancy's Nazi:

Yes, when doing research I can see how lying, fudging data, and working to preclude competing hypotheses is just letting off steam.

Well, I can tell you, pr... (Below threshold)

Well, I can tell you, privately when I talk to my friends, I use language much worse than that.

Hmmm...wonder what he says that's "much worse" than "hide the decline"?

"Screw the poor?"

"Cripple the greedy capitalist pigs?"

"Kill the deniers?"

"I just love that Obama?"

Liberals and the lies they ... (Below threshold)
914:

Liberals and the lies they tell.

"Well, I guess Climatega... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"Well, I guess Climategate is settled, just like the science of global wa--er climate change. That's a relief. "

There was never anything there to start with.

The evidence of climate change is indisputable.

All that the stolen emails dealt with were out of context remarks about the data.

"Trick" for example - as is often the case around here for some strange reason - was completely misunderstood and taken out of context.

You guys who only read right wing blogs and watch Fox News are, once again, out of the loop and therefore "bewildered" by reality.

It's always interesting to ... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

It's always interesting to see which quotes get rebutted---and which ones don't.

How about "hide the decline"? What's the innocuous meaning for that phrase?

"There was never anythin... (Below threshold)
914:

"There was never anything there to start with.

The evidence of climate change is indisputable"


The climate always has changed since time immemorial y'know...4 seasons winter,spring, summer and fall. Do You understand. Doubtful.

"One of the world's leading authorities on climate change has dismissed the contents of controversial e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia as nothing more than friends and colleagues "letting off steam."

Why were they letting off steam idiot? Because they were onto the scam thats why. Liberals.


Speaking of taking out of c... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Speaking of taking out of context - pretend "trick" is nothing special and was taken out of context, while completely ignoring that the actual context was that the "trick" was there to "hide the decline" in a series of tree rings that would show evidence that their whole model was broken...

> You guys who only read ri... (Below threshold)

> You guys who only read right wing blogs and
> watch Fox News are, once again, out of the
> loop and therefore "bewildered" by reality.

Steve you are welcome to troll in the comments here--wizbang doesn't police individual comments much, if at all.

I'll ask you to step up your game though. Who are you referring to with "you guys"? Me? You talking point doesn't work with me. I have a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering. I program and do scientific research for a living. I've worked with some of the climate codes from NASA. I can assure you that my questions about the science of global warming do not come from FOXNews.

I've started a word substit... (Below threshold)
tomg51:

I've started a word substitution system to make reading more realistic:

The science of "muslim terrorism" is settled;
1998-2009 is the hottest period for "MT" since the middle ages;
We must act now to prevent "MT" disaster;
Our goal is to reduce per capita "MT" to 1870 levels;
Rich nations must help poor nations reduce "MT";
Use of alternative fuels, such as nuclear, will reduce "MT";
"MT" is man-made;
Sequestering of "MT" (without trial) is an option;
Recent trend in "MT" is like a hockey stick

"All that the stolen emails... (Below threshold)
JB:

"All that the stolen emails dealt with were out of context remarks about the data."

Yeah, if that if that were true a conspiracy to subvert the peer review process and destroy emails requested in FOIA would be damning enough to nullify the conclusions of the entire enterprise. But you didn't mention these because you're a lying, spinning piece of crap.

> You guys who onl... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:
> You guys who only read right wing blogs and > watch Fox News are, once again, out of the > loop and therefore "bewildered" by reality.

Steve you are welcome to troll in the comments here--wizbang doesn't police individual comments much, if at all.

I'll ask you to step up your game though. Who are you referring to with "you guys"? Me?"

I don't know. Are you one of those folks who only get your news and opinions form Fox News and the right wing blogosphere? If so, it applies to you.

It's in English.

> You guys who only read right wing blogs and
> watch Fox News are, once again, out of the
> loop and therefore "bewildered" by reality.

It's apparent from the comments on this blog that some of the readers fall into that category.

"I can't help but hope Mr. Pachauri comes to regret making such a ridiculous statement."

And since we're in throw-down mode feel free to elaborate.

You've studied climate data. Do you think there are man-made causes behind global warming?

Or more importantly.. since I'm sure you're not denying that climate change is happening, do you think that we can reduce the negative impact of climate change by reducing greenhouse gases, etc.?

Feel free to step up your game and do more than just call his statement "ridiculous" by explaining why it's ridiculous.

NBC news:-THO... (Below threshold)

NBC news:
-
THOMPSON: Penn State scientist Michael Mann, who features in the e-mails, said the word "trick" in one exchange does not refer to deception, but rather an accepted data technique.

MANN: It was all clearly labeled in the paper. There was nothing secret about it. What, what the person meant was it was a clever approach to the problem.
-
The full quote?

Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
-

So, in other words, what they're saying is:

'I've just completed Mike's Nature clever approach of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.'

-

Yes, that's much more comforting and scientific. Shame they don't give all the facts (or quotes) in some peoples' sources like MSNBC or Kos or even NBC and rely on partial quotes to 'hide the most inconvenient bits', as it were...like "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL [sic] correction for decline".

Here's my question- Who would defend a tobacco company researcher whose hypothesis was that nicotine decreased cancer rates and had emails leaked that showed they were using a "trick" or "clever approach" to "hide the rise" of cancer rates amongst heavy smokers and instead show a graph where rates were steady and then dropped like a rock after their brand cigarette was introduced?

Translation:"Pay n... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Translation:

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

Yes, not very scientific to... (Below threshold)
914:

Yes, not very scientific to extrapolate results through "tricks" rather than just using the actaul data from this time period to determine temperature decline or rise. But than this is not about science is it.. It is about politics, special funding grants ( taxpayer freebies ), World centralized power grabbing, control of the sheeple for the pleasures of the elitists..

There was never anything th... (Below threshold)
Chiaroscuro:

There was never anything there to start with.

The evidence of climate change is indisputable.

All that the stolen emails dealt with were out of context remarks about the data.

"Trick" for example - as is often the case around here for some strange reason - was completely misunderstood and taken out of context.
You guys who only read right wing blogs and watch Fox News are, once again, out of the loop and therefore "bewildered" by reality.

-Steve Green
-----------------------------------------------

You are such a tool, green.

When caught, always use the "out of context" excuse. You must have a keyboard button just with that phrase assigned to it.

Stick to your "art," bub.

I especially like the last piece, all the way to the right of the page.

At least that can be interpreted a few different ways. No "out of context" pitfalls.

I'm sorry. It's listed in ... (Below threshold)
Chiaroscuro:

I'm sorry. It's listed in the "art projects" page.

To the right.

Something about "useless."

Rajendra Pachauri - trust h... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Rajendra Pachauri - trust him, he knows all about climate. All railroad engineers do.

Racheal Carson lied big tim... (Below threshold)
Flu-Bird:

Racheal Carson lied big time in her book SILENT SPRING and PAUL EHRLICH made all sorts of rediculous prediction none which ever happened and still the news media listen to these fruads

If what they did was "open"... (Below threshold)

If what they did was "open", and simply a "clever approach" to solve a problem and "an accepted data technique"...then why was their first reaction not to laugh about the misunderstandings arising from their use of words like "trick" and "hide" and explain what they meant then instead of destroying the raw data?

s green ""Trick" for e... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green ""Trick" for example - as is often the case around here for some strange reason - was completely misunderstood and taken out of context. You guys who only read right wing blogs and watch Fox News are, once again, out of the loop and therefore "bewildered" by reality."

Why do you fail to put it in "context" for us?

You, as usual, make an accusation and make zero effort to correct us or prove your point.

And BTW, do your google thing on "Danish text secret draft agreement" and learn what the REAL drive behind climate change is all about.

It DAMN sure isn't about saving this, or any other planet.

s green, how much are YOU w... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green, how much are YOU willing to pay?

The EU has proposed a global fund of about $74 billion be set up to help poor countries adjust to climate change but will not say how much it will commit to. The U.S. has said it will pay its fair share but has not committed a specific amount at Copenhagen either.

How much should we set aside?

More importantly, what will the poor countries use it for?

Umbrellas to ward off the EVIL sun?

To purchase canoes so they can stay afloat when they "go under?"

For the purchase of face masks to filter out all the airs pollutants?

And BTW considering you're all about "context," what was meant when CRU director Phil Jones told Australian scientist Warwick Hughes in a 2005 [leaked] email: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

20.And it never was.... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

20.
And it never was.

Steve Green, is it a good I... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Steve Green, is it a good Idea for Mr.Pachauri to fly back to India for cricket matches?

I guess Green doesn't quite... (Below threshold)
Weegie:

I guess Green doesn't quite grasp the concept of the scientific method. First, all data and methodology need to be publicized so that others can agree that the data set is correctly taken and without error and that the methodology is based on accepted and proven concepts.

As we all know, neither of these basic scientific concepts has been accomplished during the forging of the "consensus" (i.e. an agreement without any meaning in science).

What we had was a conclusion without the publishing of the data or the methodology and without any meaningful peer review.

Sorry, Green-boy, but many of us on the right are quite familiar with science. And we recognize things that violate basic scientific methodology when we see it.

huh.. love this thoughts :)... (Below threshold)
PhanyGax:

huh.. love this thoughts :))




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy