2011-11-23 11:24:40Climategate 2.0: Skeptics serve up two-year old turkey
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.35.74

Working draft is here. I think the specific point-by-point rebuttals should be encapsulated in another post, otherwise we risk diluting the message that climategate 2.0 is hogwash. 

2011-11-23 12:12:51
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

A couple of quick suggestions.

---- strongly suggest this is yet another attempt to influence public opinion

---- trotted out to a scientifically naive audience.

If most (or some) of these emails are from the first hack that is the thing we should be emphasising in the strongest possible terms because that will turn people off quicker than anything else.

I would say denier blog sites have predictably exploded (WUWT has 4 separate updates already)

 

2011-11-23 12:32:30
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

A few comments:

"... where world leaders were met to discuss and agree on actions to address climate change ..."

"... this new batch of e-mails just so happens to surface before ..."

"Despite the stolen e-mails being nothing more than private discussions being taken out of context, and they were misrepresented by skeptic blogs and mainstream media."

At the end of the conspiracy theory section, to wrap up the section, maybe add: "The theft and release of private email correspondence between climate scientists represented the best imaginable opportunity to expose a 'conspiracy' in the climate science community.  That none was found further exposes the emptiness of the conspiracy argument.  Nothing in the sloppy seconds (leftovers) served up this time offers anything more in this regard."

From the (skeptic) emperor: "So let's just point out, for the sake of clarity, how many "skeptic" hypotheses explain the observations in the figure 1 below. Unlike the mainstream view, that would be Zero. Zip. Nada.  There is no coherent consistent hypothesis presented by skeptics that can explain the observations that make up our understanding  of the 'fingerprints' of greenhouse gases warming our planet.  That's right, climate skeptics, including Richard Lindzen et al, would have you accept what they say on the basis of faith, while consciously ignoring all the other lines of evidence that contradicts their point of view."

I'd highlight a couple of other things: Like Brian says above it looks very much as though the emails are all old, so this really is the leftovers from the original theft (as far as I can tell from RC and elsewhere).  This means that many issues that were out of date in 2009 (like criticism of Mann's work) are even more out of date now.  That will turn people off the issue lots - nobody like being served lold news as if it were new.   I'd also highlight that the emails were stolen from CRU, who have just had the ultimate vindication via the BEST project - that they didn't exaggerate their results, in fact the CRU results are on the low side!  Some conspiracy, that!

 

2011-11-23 13:12:18
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

I made some changes Rob - nothing too major, you did a nice job.

2011-11-23 13:28:09
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

I also incorporated Brian and skywatcher's comments.

2011-11-23 14:13:28
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Looks pretty good, but I would counsel leaving the dorr open that they may have said something especially stupid or incriminating. I would also insist that John C can have a look before it goes live to make sure you haven't fallen into any of the communication traps.

I like Joe Romm's healdine:

"More stolen emails cannot stop disasterous global wamring, only we can".

I replaced "catastrophic" with "disasterous".

This is all just a fabricated distraction from inconvenient truths and underscores the fact that they have nothing when it somes to the science, it underscores th evacuity of their arguments, so they have to engage in criminal behaviour, ad hominems and quote mining. Pathetic.

2011-11-23 14:39:25
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

very interesting quote from the following article:

http://getenergysmartnow.com/2011/11/22/climategate-redux-an-opportunity-to-show-learning/

Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) responded with a call on the intelligence community to investigate these hackers determined to disrupt international negotiations:

This is clearly an attempt to sabotage the international climate talks for a second time, and there has not been enough attention paid to who is responsible for these illegal acts. If this happened surrounding nuclear arms talks, we would have the full force of the Western world’s intelligence community pursuing the perpetrators. And yet, with the stability of our climate hanging in the balance with these international climate treaty negotiations, these hackers and their supporters are still on the loose. It is time to bring them to justice.

It may be that the hackers get more than they bargained for this time around?

2011-11-23 14:41:45
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Looks good to me. I did wonder whether 'virtual orgasm' is SkS fare but I did LOL when I read that part so what the hell, let's run with it :-) Thumbs up from me and I say publish now or asap

2011-11-23 14:43:56BTW, wonderful framing from Steve Lewandowsky
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

His one-liner sums it up: "The scandal isn’t the emails, it’s the hacking"

http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-a-real-climategate-out-there-4428

2011-11-23 14:45:48
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Yes, get it out quickly to counter this synchronized attack by powers that put their interests before everything else – including the planet.   

2011-11-23 14:53:50
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Some thoughts:

"where world leaders met to discuss and agree on actions to address climate change (so much for that)"

Isn't it better to say AGW?  Climate changes naturally, always has, always will.  We are speaking to our involvement here are we not?

 

"Given that the e-mail excepts contain nothing which impacts the validity of the veritable"

maybe say "Given that the quote mined phrases/excerpts".  Keep rubbing it in that they are quote mining out of context. Also note spelling of "excerpts".  I would say "nothing that challenges the robustness and validity of the veritable...."

 

"this is yet another attempt to influence public opinion and distract the policymakers attending the Durban conference"

Maybe say 'desperate attempt'...

 

"the climate denialists are once again predictably having a virtual orgasm over these stolen emails."

I'm all for orgasms, but maybe this is not a good analogy in this context.  Maybe feeding frenzy and play on them chumming for the skeptics-- policy lass uses this analogy and I think is perfectly ecapsulates wht they do.  they do not even think, they just get excited, and swallow the chum without thinking.  So maybe "predictably having a feeding frenzy in response to the chumming" 

 

"have no substantive evidence that undermines the consensus view of man-made global warming"

I would suggest leaving consensus out of this, it may draw flack and distract from the message IMHO. How about "They have no  substantive evidence or science that undermines the theory man-made global warming"?  Nothing in the emails challenges the value of climate sensitivity does it?

 

"Yet in spite of this serial wrongedness and lack of an overarching hypothesis, the "skeptics" 

Is "wrongedness a word?  Should it be hypotheses (i.e., plural)? 

 

"seriously,  even though they do enormous damage by misinforming the public."

Extra space after "seriously,".

 

"many of the freak weather events of the last 18 months"

I'd say extreme or disasterous.

 

"What the evidence shows us is that rather than retreating from reality as the "skeptics" would have us do, humanity must ignore these empty distractions and confront our new reality."

This is a great sentence but it is lost being directly below the figure.....

 

"The longer we wait to take serious action, the worse the consequences will be."

And I'd add the more expensive adaptation and mitigation will be as per the recent IEA report.

 

Well done guys!!

2011-11-23 14:55:59
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Okay I'm going to add Steve's quote, make Alby's changes, and go live.  Rob, feel free to edit if there's something you want to change.

2011-11-23 14:59:49
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

thumbs up from me too, good article!

2011-11-23 15:12:27
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Oh, I'm going to pass this along to TreeHugger too.

2011-11-23 17:05:03
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.251.20

Cheers guys. Nice work. So are we going to have a 'sticky' for the inevitable drip-feed of out-of-context e-mails? I realize we do have to debunk them at some point. 

2011-11-23 18:37:04
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.179.95.162

Coming in on this late and I like it but one point. The phrase 'quote-mined' is used too often, it starts to get annoying.

2011-11-23 18:39:41
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.94.242

So it worked! Great! Word association- Climategate=turkey=quote-mined. 

2011-11-23 19:46:45
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.179.95.162

Cool. If that was your intention, it worked.

2011-11-23 20:15:47
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.94.242

Glenn, if everyone here can refer to Climategate 2.0 as two-year-old turkey, then it may just catch on. Take a leaf out of the deniers playbook. I see Gareth at Hot Topic has used the turkey theme too. Nice.

2011-11-24 05:32:08Broken Page Due To Image
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

The Human Fingerprints on Climate Change graphic on this post breaks the page layout slightly.  Look at the pengins in the banner at the top of the page.  The image width needs to be reduced.

2011-11-24 05:41:41
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Got it, thanks for the heads-up.