2010-11-14 16:07:06Climategate series explanatory note
James Wight


I’ve been working on a report on the findings of the Muir Russell inquiry, to appear as a series of posts in the days following the Climategate anniversary on the 17th. I am posting it here to get some feedback; because it is so long I have divided it up and posted it over several threads. I wasn’t sure what sub-forum it should go in so I’ve just posted it here for now.

I have followed the format of the inquiry’s report, but John plans to break it up into individual rebuttals (we can add any necessary skeptic arguments, eg. “Climategate shows temperature records are faked”).

I could do with some help on the reorganisation front and also appreciate your feedback on my draft.

2010-11-14 18:04:00Title
James Wight


I'm still trying to think of a useable title so any suggestions would be appreciated.

I'm not really happy with any of the ideas I've come up with:


Climategate, Schmimategate

The Death of Climategate

Climategate Debunked

Climategate Unlocked

Climategate: Myth and Reality

The Climategate Swindle

2010-11-15 05:30:28

Excellent job, accurate and balanced, it firmly stands on the findings of the Russel Review. The posts are a bit too long and not in SkS style. Though, if they are intended to be the "final word" on Climategate, it's ok.
I'll give a thumb just here but it's for the whole set of posts.
You should consider making a short booklet out of it that we all could disseminate.

A general (and offtopic) thought. Sometimes we dig a lot to write a post. In cases where the issue is really settled (surface temperature record, Arctic warming, 2nd law of thermo, etc.), it could be worth to have longer versions in the form of booklets with standarized graphics to be hosted at SkS.

2010-11-15 05:47:17
Everything looks great to me!
2010-11-15 22:53:24Can anyone help me with skeptic quotes?
James Wight


I'm trying to restructure my series of posts to better fit the SkS format. I'm looking for some suitably concise quotations from contrarians making the following broad allegations:

Climategate means temperature record can't be trusted

CRU faked its tree ring records

Peer review process was corrupted by CRU

IPCC process was corrupted by CRU

CRU incorrectly denied FoI requests

Can anyone supply some quotes or point me in likely directions?

2010-11-18 23:49:06Substantial additions to intro
James Wight


I have greatly extended the introductory post to include further context from the Review and a lot of editorialising (ranting might be a more descriptive term). Broadly I say that the science is unchanged by Climategate; the media failed to cover the inquiries clearing the scientists; the media holds scientists to far higher standards than contrarians; and the real scandal is the attacks on climate science. Towards the end it turned into an extended rant against conspiracy theorists, the media, and politicians - I'll leave it to John to decide how much of this is appropriate!

I expect it will go live very soon, but any feedback would be useful. I also haven't decided on a title - any suggestions?