Skip to main content

The significance of the CRU emails

Whilst your humble Devil is waiting for the rest of the world to finish watching Strictly Come Dancing and the XFactor and catch up with the fact that something quite momentous has happened, I thought that I would point out the significance of the CRU emails.

The whole of the anthropogenic climate change reporting and response is co-ordinated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which produces substantial reports every few years on the current state of the science and economics.

The last of these reports—Assessment Report 4 (AR4, as it is referred to throughout the emails)—was released in 2007.

The scientific parts of the IPCC's reports have been based heavily on the research and reconstructions produced by The Club—particularly on the temperature reconstructions of Michael Mann and Keith Briffa. These reconstructions (usually involving a hockey stick graph) have been constantly attacked—and usually destroyed—by sceptics such as Steve McIntyre.

What these emails show is that members of The Club have presented, as fact, data which privately they have acknowledged to be, at best, flawed.

Further, many members of The Club are editors of the reports submitted to the IPCC, and the emails show that they have deliberately cherry-picked those that agree with their position—and conspired to discredit or reject those that do not agree with their political position.

The Club has also conspired to suborne journals, and to oust editors of other journals who are perceived as being unsympathetic to their cause. And they have been successful.

The emails show that, whilst claiming that sceptics' papers are not peer-reviewed, The Club have actively and deliberately used blackmail and smears to prevent such peer-review or, when review is unavoidable, to have conspired to skew the review process to discredit their opponents.

All of these actions render the scientific reports produced by the IPCC extremely suspect. At best.

And they most certainly destroy the concept of the "scientific consensus".

None of these emails disprove anthropogenic climate change: but they do shatter the idea that there is no dissent and, crucially, they absolutely annihilate the idea that scientists are impartial and uncorrupt.

And these emails most certainly explode the proposition that we should reorder the world economy because of an impending climate disaster.

Every single member of The Club needs to be removed from any post of responsibility; they need to be sacked from their jobs, ejected from the IPCC working groups, their data re-examined by independent assessors and their papers expunged from the IPCC reports—AR5 is due out quite soon and any inclusion of The Club's research—or reconstructions or models based on their research (as most of them are)—will lead to it being stillborn.

And then—maybe—we can make a proper, honest assessment of what is happening in climate science: until then, it is all just bunk.


lotocoti said…
Unless one of those implicated makes that one way journey to the library with a bottle of Scotch and a Webley, I'm afraid the significance of this whole sordid tale will remain conveniently un-reportable.
Anonymous said…
The emails, the emails, the emails...

There were two folders there. Only one was full of emails.

The other contained source code and raw data that had been denied to McIntyre and the scientific community at large. A very dubious practice, by the way, and one that makes it essentially impossible to verify the models that have been produced. What's more, it ties in with known data irregularities as chronicled on the Bishop's blog, that McIntyre has been after for some time.

The emails are fine media pap. The real scientific scandal will lie in the analysis of the data and the model source code. Or not, as the case may be.
Jiks said…
So far the MSM seems to be playing it down the "if we don't report it, it didn't happen" route.

There is a brief mention way down in the bowels of the Telegraphs online edition ...but it receives far less space than an article on David Tennants role in a climate change game...

Elsewhere mentions of the police involvement to track down the evil hackers, no mention of the implications. DK is quite right, this is a massive story, it blows the last vestages of credability for this religion out the water.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
The Gorse Fox said…
Keep up the pressure Devil. Disappointing silence from the MSM Sundays. But guess they've all drunk the Kool-Aid and don't want to look stupid.
Anonymous said…
Well the mail is starting to get the right idea:
Dodgy Geezer said…
All the emails indicating data manipulation are interesting to people who know something about the field, but won't really cause a scandal externally. The general public is not really interested in the details of the science.

But the emails indicating behind-the-scenes manipulation to remove people from posts are very interesting to everybody, and will strike a chord with all readers. These should be publicised as widely as possible...
Rob said…
They could have sent a thousand emails to each other saying that they made up the entire thing, it wouldn't matter - it's politics now, not science. Facts don't matter in politics.

Expect the alarmists to get even shriller in the months ahead, expect the media and the government to turn the screw even further.
Anonymous said…
It would be interesting to see exactly how far they (the CRU) would wish to take this in terms of legal action. I wonder if they would rather than persue this any further in terms of Police action on the matter they would opt for sweeping the matter under the carpet.
If this case ends up in court any good brief would be able to cross examine witness's at the CRU and go over the dodgy data - the reason being in order to put up a whistleblowing defence.
So expect no action to be taken and the whole thing to die a rather quick death.
Budgie said…
Excellent news, and keep pushing it, DK. It is the AGW believers who are the climate change deniers - because they deny that the massive, historical, natural changes can still be happening overwhelming any minor recent human induced change.
jonathan said…
Sorry, but I have to agree with Rob. It is, and always has been, about politics, not science.
The MSM have no interest in reporting anything other than the 'theft' of the e-mails and data files. I predict that the contents of those files will not be reported, and that even if they were,and the dodgy data, lies, smears were revealed to the public, the MSMs usual 'fake but true' defence would see them right.
None of the scientists involved will lose their jobs, none will be punished (except whoever hacked the server).
" Nothing to see here, go back to sleep folks"
With respect to the IPCC, you will need to "clarify" the arguement in terms intellible to the political classes. In particular, there is a considerable conflict of interest in the reports written & edited by a small number of scientists who have views that are open to question. In particular with the hockey stick v. a significant Medival Warm Period. Along with Steve McIntyres published review comments ( e-mails show this conflict of interest has resulted in a very one-sided and political paper.

The conflicts of interest have some parallels with certain published reports and accounts.
- With the later accounts of Maxwell Communications Corporations, where the accountants were manipulated into giving a favourable report through bullying and hiding of important documents from auditors.
- With the accounts of Enron, where the auditors colluded with the company in creating subsiduaries to hide the losses.
Generalfeldmarschall said…
Somebody (in a previous thread?) asked about Jo Abbess' reaction.
None, zero, zilch, nada.
Ignores it resolutely.
Zach Johnstone said…
I hope this goes even some way to pricking the egos of the self-righteous majority of eco-enthusiasts who deem it okay to project their views with no consideration for the reverse argument...

Popular posts from this blog


Your humble Devil apologises for his lack of posting: it has become increasingly difficult to actually put quill to vellum, as it were.

It's not purely that the political situation is rather uninspiring, it is also that I have become very much out of the habit of writing (about politics, at least). As such, every time that I fire up the blogging screen, I feel an incredible weariness.

I asked Pete to blog here because I thought that contemplating the actual mechanics of leaving the EU was important: I wanted to know, as much as anything. My reasons for voting Leave are actually very similar to Pete's, i.e. the rebooting of democracy and power structures in this country: however, he has a knowledge of the intricacies of the technical aspects that is beyond mine and I thought these worth setting down, here, for the record.

I shall try to post a little more frequently going forward. But, please, be warned that the reasons for eschewing this format haven't really gone away. My…

Gove's legacy?

Michael Gove has, quite honourably, said that it was right for Theresa may to sack him as a minister...
"I had six years when I was a government minister. I had a chance to make a difference - I hope that I did."The reforms that Michael Gove made in his time as Education Secretary will come to be seen as the most significant improvements to the British education system since the late 1800s—particularly in the introduction of Free Schools.

Gove made a difference—and his contribution should never be forgotten.