“Hide the decline”
In this scandal, we see antiscientific attitudes of the IPCC, the big government branch of the big science conspiracy Hadley CRU, a coalition of big government and big science to take control of your life, with the intent of preventing you from making a living in an “unsustainable” way. And if the earth cannot support so many people “sustainably”, that is your problem, not their problem.
The men revealed by the emails knew what the truth must be, no matter what the evidence might show.
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment …the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
and if the data is surely wrong, then the wrong data must be hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden, hidden lest climate skeptics misuse it.
or better than hidden, wrong data must be corrected, replaced by the values known to the the truth, so that the data showed the real truth, lest people be confused by mere observations:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps … to hide the decline”
Phil Jones to Tom Wigley:
Tom,
Keep quiet about both issues.
Tom Wigley replied.
The statements in the papers that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (WCW at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect.
But nonetheless did indeed keep quiet.
Scare quotes around ‘corrected’ in original source code.
And what, you may ask, were the corrections. That too is available in the source code. Now while comments, intended for humans, may well be involve nuance, ambiguity, and disagreement as to the meaning, computers do what they are told. And what the computer source code told the computer to do was lie
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
Mann asks Briffa to make his data agree with that of Mann
everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series.
>> … dilutes the message rather significantly …
They perceived those who did not accept the real truth (regardless of what the data might show) as enemies of the earth, not to mention enemies of their grant applications,
Such enemies of the earth and the truth must be kept out of science, to preserve the truth and save the earth from its enemies. ‘Legitimate peer review’ (scare quotes in original) must stop such inconvenient and potentially misleading data from being published.
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’
‘Legitimate peer review’
The “donate me a little cash” quote is from Martin Lutyens. What research was he doing that he was looking to get funded by Siemens? Well, he is a sculptor:
The NationalTrust is working with Marcos Lutyens and Alessandro Marianantoni on the design for an installation which Is responsive to carbon dioxide levels In the environment, the primary contributor to greenhouse gasses.
The Installation will first be exhibited In London in December 2009 at the Royal Academy of Arts which presents GSK Contemporary 2009; the second annual contemporary art season at 6 Burlington Gardens. Earth: Art of a changing world will present new and recent work from more than 30 leading international contemporary artists, including commissions and new works from the best emerging talent.
The installation is modular, so that in 2010, after the initial exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts it will be installed at various NationalTrust properties.
http://www.co2morrow.net/co/?page_id=2
Now there is certainly room to question how appropriate it is for scientists supposedly researching the truth to be involved in crass propaganda like CO2morrow, but that is a rather different question than what your article suggests, talking about “their grant applications”, implying the scientists’ own funding.
Sceptics are going a bit overboard in pulling quotes out of the leaked data without any attempt to identify the context.
You and I both know how grants work
Those consultation fees go directly into the personal and individual pocket of the person who arranged the grants, or the wife, husband, or mistress of the person arranging the grants.
If we are going to be “realistic” about “science”, we should also be realistic about grants. These “artists” will of course need advice from “scientists” on their “art”, for which advice they will most generously pay, out of this grant, or another one.
[…] Jim’s Blog Liberty in an unfree world « climategate 1 […]