Climate conspriricists pounced at the opportunity yesterday to draw grandiose conclusions from the illegal hacking of private emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
They wasted no time declaring global warming a vast science-wing conspiracy, orchestrated by a powerful handful of white-coats who, when not publishing in reputable peer-reviewed science journals, were (gasp) emailing each other to talk shop and vent about climate skeptic “idiots” (how un-PC).
The scandalistas say little about the fact that this breach of security and publishing of private communications is a crime, content to enjoy the opportunity to cherry-pick a few lines from these internal emails to push the skeptic theory of a sinister master plan by mainstream scientists to warn humanity that man has altered the climate in dangerous ways.
The Telegraph’s resident skeptic blogger, James Dellingpole, immediately labeled this episode “Climategate,” pondering whether this is “the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming.’”
If James Dellingpole lived in Newton’s day, his blog (er, scroll) might have read something like this.
And here are some of the “tasters” Sir Dellingpole might have pulled from Isaac Newton’s personal communications [H/T CarbonFixated]:
Conspiring to avoid public scrutiny:
There is nothing which I desire to avoid in matters of philosophy more then contentions, nor any kind of contention more then one in print: & therefore I gladly embrace your proposal of a private correspondence. What’s done before many witnesses is seldom without some further concern then that for truth: but what passes between friends in private usually deserve ye name of consultation rather then contest, & so I hope it will prove between you & me.
Newton to Hooke, 5 February 1676
Insulting dissenting scientists and equating them with holocaust deniers:
[Hooks Considerations] consist in ascribing an hypothesis to me which is not mine; in asserting an hypothesis which as to ye principal parts of it is not against me; in granting the greatest part of my discourse if explicated by that hypothesis; & in denying some things the truth of which would have appeared by an experimental examination.
Newton to Oldenburg, 11 June 1672
Manipulation of evidence:
I wrote to you on Tuesday that the last leafe of the papers you sent me should be altered because it refers to a manuscript in my private custody & not yet upon record.
Newton to Keill, May 15 1674
Knowingly publishing scientific fraud:
You need not give yourself the trouble of examining all the calculations of the Scholium. Such errors as do not depend upon wrong reasoning can be of no great consequence & may be corrected by the reader.
Newton to Cotes June 15 1710
Suppression of evidence:
Mr. Raphson has printed off four or five sheets of his History of Fluxions, but being shew’d Sr. Is. Newton (who, it seems, would rather have them write against him, than have a piece done in that manner in his favour), he got a Stop put to it, for some time at least.
Jones to Cotes, 17 September 1711
Abusing the peer review system:
…only the Germans and French have in a violent manner attack’d the Philosophy of Sr. Is. Newton, and seem resolved to stand by Cartes; Mr. Keil, as a person concerned, has undertaken to answer and defend some things, as Dr. Friend, and Dr. Mead, does (in their way) the rest: I would have sent you ye whole controversy, was not I sure that you know, those only are most capable of objecting against his writings, that least understand them; however, in a little time, you’ll see some of these in ye Philos. Transact.
Jones to Cotes, October 25 1711
Insulting their critics:
The controversy concerning Sr. Isaac’s Philosophy is a piece of news that I had not heard of unless Muys’s late book be meant. I think that Philosophy needs no defence, especially when tis attack’t by Cartesians. One Mr Green a Fellow of Clare Hall in our University seems to have nearly the same design with those German & French objectors whom you mention. His book is now in our press & is almost finished. I am told he will add an appendix in which he undertakes also to square the circle. I need not recommend his performance any further to you.
Cotes to Jones, November 11 1711
Follow Brendan DeMelle on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bdemelle
Climate change deniers did not hack into emails from the University of East Anglia because they suspected improper collusion between climate scientists. They hacked into emails, then tampered with the evidence, to create the appearance of improper collusion between climate scientists.
The hackers are criminals, the scientists were the victims of privacy invasion and theft. And, anyone can take statements taken out of context, and reassemble them to create an alternative reality.
Teabaggers are the new "flat-earthers."
"Newton's Letters." That's the best you've got?
"Follow the money" and you might find a really interesting story.
is spot on...
HuffPost's valiant efforts to diffuse this
Global Warming Bombshell
with trite Historical Science Scenarios
is of course understandable
- given their readership base.
However if you spend some time looking
at the source material
you cannot help but conclude that this
story won't be kept off the Front Pages
for much longer.
Even a partial review of the emails
is highly illuminating.
Naturally the sceptics will believe a
“A miracle just happenedâ€.
Unfortunately for the AGW lobby
it is not just the email brawl that's hot.
Its the data modelling computer program code
also copiously released
into the air
that counts here.
With careful analysis over time
it is the code and how it works
that is gonna get people in trouble.
Al Gore's stock has just taken a massive hit.
What ever side your global bread
is buttered on.
“This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.â€
The bottom line is, as Scanlan, pointed out
Newton was never funded by tax dollars.
Neither did he make discoveries or claims
that were seen by government
to have tax dollar leverage possibilities
of the order of magnititude
envisaged for carbon based taxation...
Sweeeeet! :-)
The papers in question were, to a climate scientist, just about as loony as what I proposed about Babe Ruth. You see an objection to a flawed peer review as an attempt to suppress the truth because you simply don't understand the science well enough to recognize true junk science.
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip"."
read the emails. Start with result you want then fudge the data to match. That sounds like legitimate science.
The scientists have been exposed. AGW is nothing but a money grabbing HOAX they HAS BEEN exposed. FINALLY the "Big lie" is OVER Rover!
I, for one, hope that more of the information is revealed, hacked out, or otherwise revealed. I'd like to shake the 'hacker's' hand. Now, if only somebody can do the same to the other bastions of dis- and misinformation.