3 ms·

> Perhaps there are multiple factors involved. For example the IPCC email scandal There was no scandal. What happened is that the University of East Anglia wa

> Perhaps there are multiple factors involved. For example the IPCC email scandal There was no scandal. What happened is that the University of East Anglia was hacked, and the emails of the Climate Research Unit were stolen. Climate skeptics then trolled through the archives and selected short quotes out of context, completely distorting the meaning behind the emails, which were perfectly fine and entirely unobjectionable. How can a pseduoscandal invented by climate skeptics possibly be a reason for why climate skeptics exist? Maybe the distortions and fake outrage did convince some people, but it still seems wrong to point to this as a valid cause.

yters 6y ago
I personally read through a zip archive of the emails, and my non selective reading they looked pretty damning. search for "FOIA2011.zip" to read them yourself For those interested in the actual email zip, here's one working link I found. http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA2011.zip http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA2011.zip The top level README.md contains what the compilers thought were some of the most damning texts, and give reference so you can see the context for yourself. Here are some from the README.md: <1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...] <3066> Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run. <1611> Carter: It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group. <2884> Wigley: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...] <4755> Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out.
- jlmorton 6y ago
  Do you have an example of an objectionable email to share?
  - yters 6y ago
    only off the top of my head i read them many years ago on one of my previoys computers what i remember: - exchanges about how to quiet skeptics - the engineer's negative opinion of the codebase he was hired to clean up maybe sometime this week i can dredge up the files to take another look, if there is interest the zip archive may still be floating around on the web somewhere UPDATE: found it For those interested in the actual email zip, here's one working link I found. http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA2011.zip http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA2011.zip The top level README.md contains what the compilers thought were some of the most damning texts, and give reference so you can see the context for yourself. Here are some from the README.md: <1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...] <3066> Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run. <1611> Carter: It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group. <2884> Wigley: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...] <4755> Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out.
    - MengerSponge 6y ago
      Yes, we would like to quiet celebrity skeptics. They're a bunch of dipshits who are not acting in good faith and we're running out of time. The internet works even though its built on a horrifyingly rickety series of dependencies. People complain about other people's code. The only code that doesn't have someone complaining about it is signed Knuth, and Djikstra would probably complain about something if you asked him.

yters 6y ago

I personally read through a zip archive of the emails, and my non selective reading they looked pretty damning. search for "FOIA2011.zip" to read them yourself For those interested in the actual email zip, here's one working link I found. http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA2011.zip http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA2011.zip The top level README.md contains what the compilers thought were some of the most damning texts, and give reference so you can see the context for yourself. Here are some from the README.md: <1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...] <3066> Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run. <1611> Carter: It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group. <2884> Wigley: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...] <4755> Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out.

jlmorton 6y ago
Do you have an example of an objectionable email to share?
- yters 6y ago
  only off the top of my head i read them many years ago on one of my previoys computers what i remember: - exchanges about how to quiet skeptics - the engineer's negative opinion of the codebase he was hired to clean up maybe sometime this week i can dredge up the files to take another look, if there is interest the zip archive may still be floating around on the web somewhere UPDATE: found it For those interested in the actual email zip, here's one working link I found. http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA2011.zip http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA2011.zip The top level README.md contains what the compilers thought were some of the most damning texts, and give reference so you can see the context for yourself. Here are some from the README.md: <1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...] <3066> Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run. <1611> Carter: It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group. <2884> Wigley: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...] <4755> Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out.
  - MengerSponge 6y ago
    Yes, we would like to quiet celebrity skeptics. They're a bunch of dipshits who are not acting in good faith and we're running out of time. The internet works even though its built on a horrifyingly rickety series of dependencies. People complain about other people's code. The only code that doesn't have someone complaining about it is signed Knuth, and Djikstra would probably complain about something if you asked him.