Free market fundamentalists see this as a corruption as well.
What they don't understand (refuse to see), is that market fundamentalism leads to powerful corporate institutions that can wield this type of influence. "Too big to fail" is a symptom of not enough regulation, and so is "government of the corporation, for the corporation, and by the corporation".
Interesting that Hayek, the intellectual founder of modern republican voodoo-economics, saw the role of government limited to breaking up concentrations of wealth.
It seems that people never get taken advantage of in your world. I used to believe that I would get a fair deal if I worked hard, and learnt the hard way that that is not so, because sociopathy seems to be a trait of management. Strange how the "Just World" hypothesis works.
By presenting three separately sourced graphs, and then modifying them by chopping off data and appending in a single source, it shows independent agreement where there was none. If you can't understand this basic fact then you are hopeless.
This is a joke. I clipped out the complete context of the CCE statements that you quoted. The quote itself says that the graph was misleading given the subsequent iconic significance. But before that it says that the divergence is "well acknowledged" in the IPCC report and literature.
The CCE report repeatedly says that no data was improperly withheld. It does say that station identifies should have been available at the time of publication, and that requests for station identifiers were met with defensiveness. But NO INFOMRATION WAS WITHHELD
You, because every allegation I made was backed up by the report. There are instances where they did not withhold data, but the report explicitly cites an instance where they did, and cited an overall pattern.
The report explicitly says that CRU was not in a position to withhold data.
The resport explicity says that Phil Jones graph was misleading in hindsight (given the iconic significance)
As for my statements being bullshit -- I was quoting the report.
33. We do not find that the data described in AR4 and shown in Figure 6.10 is
misleading, and in particular we do not find that the question marks placed
over the CRU scientists’ input cast doubt on the conclusions.
34. The variation within and between lines, as well as the depiction of uncertainty is
quite apparent to any reader. All relevant published reconstructions of which we
are aware are presented, and we find no evidence of exclusion of other published
temperature reconstructions which would show a very different picture. The
general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive, including
reference to divergence and it therefore cannot be said that that anything has been
suppressed. Presenting uncertainty in this way is a significant advance on the
TAR.
35. We have seen no evidence to sustain a charge of impropriety on the part of CRU
staff (or the many other authors) in respect of selecting the reconstructions in AR4
Chapter 6. This would require that all the conditions in paragraph 13 were met in
respect of tree chronologies either used by, or created by, CRU. No evidence of
this has either been presented to the Review, nor has it been assembled as a
scientific study published elsewhere and subjected to scrutiny. For the same
reasons we found no evidence that there is anything wrong with the CRU
publications using the Yamal or other tree series.
36. We find that divergence is well acknowledged in the literature, including CRU
papers.
37. In relation to hide the decline we find that, given its subsequent iconic
significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC TAR), the figure
supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in two regards. It did not make
clear that in one case the data post 1960 was excluded, and it was not explicit on
the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find
that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, but that the
reason for doing so should have been described.
38. We find that CRU has not withheld the underlying raw Yamal data (having
correctly directed the single request to the owners). But it is evidently true that
access to the raw data was not simple until it was archived in 2009 and this can
rightly be criticised on general principles. In the interests of transparency, we
believe CRU should have ensured that the data they did not own, but had relied
upon in publications, was archived in a more timely way.
14 Briffa KR and Melvin TM (2010 in press) It is a matter for the IPCC Review to determine whether the conclusions were in
line with IPCC processes and guidelines for levels of likelihood. In respect of that
Review we offer the suggestion that putting the combination of different
reconstructions upon a more rigorous statistical footing would help in the future to
make confidence levels more objective.
So, the graph was misleading given its subsequent iconic significance. Well ain't hindsight 20-20. The graph is actually not mislead in the context of the academic literature and the IPCC report.
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards
of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific
allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their
rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of
advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of
behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display
the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the
part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory
requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to
the credibility of UK climate science.
So the scientists didn't fudge any data (which was availabe), the honesty of the scientists is not in question, they provided accurate information to policy makers, but they were not open enough. Enough is a woolly term, but I agree with the CCE findings. It doesn't matter how irrational and hate filled (they do receive death threats) people are -- if they ask for information, you should give it to hem.
I am going to accuse you of cherry picking from the report. Let me fill you in on the surrounding sentences that you omitted
16. On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not
in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. We
demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly
from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis.
17. On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence
of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land temperature trends is
robust to a range of station selections and to the use of adjusted or unadjusted
data. The level of agreement between independent analyses is such that it is highly
unlikely that CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome.
Such action would have required collusion with multiple scientists in various
independent organisations which we consider highly improbable.
18. On the allegation of withholding station identifiers we find that CRU should
have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the
versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record
(CRUTEM) at the time of publication. We find that CRUs responses to
reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive.
19. The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to
which CRUs work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon
and we find no evidence to support that implication.
So the CRU was not in a position to withold data.
Should I go on, or are you going to actually read the report now?
The CCE report specifically says that no data was improperly withheld. Is does say that scientists reacted defensively to requests, and that data was sometimes hard to maintain. That is not the same as incorrectly withholding data.
The CCE report says that the graph was correct, and that the relevant issues were widely discussed in literature and the IPCC report. It does say that the particular graph should have been suplimented to make it more clear.
What is this talk of strawmen? That means you pick you fail to respond to your opponents strongest argument. I have accused you of cherry picking a few sentences out of the IPCC report. You have done this. You should read the sentences surrounding the sentences that you picked out.
Take a deep breath, and try to process the entire CCE findings. You can just read the executive summary, which is chapter 1, from which you have cherry-picked a single statement, and implied that somehow the CCE thinks there is some substance to the climategate charges.
For some hint on why climate scientists might be defensive, watch this video, which includes footage of Michael Mann reading death threats that were sent to him, and also shows how death threats are incited. Keep that in mind.
Denial is part of the human condition, and in particular, is driven by the confirmation bias, as negative emotions that stop you from placing your mind on disconcerting information.
Read the whole executive summary, take a deep breath, read it again, and then tell me that there is some substance to the climategate charges.
You should really re-read the CCE reviews conclusions. In particular, you have cherry picked the single conclusion that you want to see -- that somehow the CCE calls the credibility of climate science into question. It simple does not. Read the conclusions for yourself.
In denial much? How many times do I need to point to the CCE review, which called the graph misleading? The review also dings them for not being open with their data.
We can agree that Phil Jones did not act like an angel.
My issue is that finding one misleading graph (and it really isn't that misleading) is insignificant. But deniers will take the tiniest most insignificant piece of information as proof that the science is overblown.
If anything, the CCE's review reflects the highly politicised nature of the debate. The arguments about the science just aren't on the radar.
Certainty is a relative term. Error bars are the livelihood of real climate scientists. They spend their days examining the degree of certainty, and make very conservative estimates. Somehow that is translated into scientists making wild outlandish claims that they cannot be certain about. Watch this clip between Michaels and Santers at a recent congressional hearing. They are from opposite sides of the fence, and the central issue is one of certainty.
You have/one/ respected physicist, harping on about one minor point in a vast body of literature. There are other "skeptics" who also harp on about this. However, the essential model was reified by scientific reviews from NAS and nature magazine (and others I believe), and replicated by half a dozen other scientists. This is totally blown out of proportion.
Scientists lie in their papers all of the time, and usually don't get caught because nobody reads them closely enough. Phil Jones didn't lie, and it is debatable that he played fast and loose with the truth. He has been exonerated of scientific misconduct after extraordinary scrutiny.
Cling to the "truth" that climate scientists are a shifty bunch. Afterall, Phil Jones is, right?
I'm playing the "integrity in science" role. You're playing the "downplay serious issues for the sake of politics" role.
You just think that. In the he-said, she-said, I have the entire academy on my side, and you have a bunch of cranks, a few scientists, and Fox news, and the associated viewers.
But I went way beyond appeals to authority in investigating this. Watch Naomi's talk, investigate the claims. I know you wont, because it will be too challenging to you "integrity in science" meme, which is just a crok of shit.
What's bizarro is that you can interpret "hide the decline" as anything but deceit.
99% of scientists who looked at this, and 100% of science organisations are wrong. You, Watts, McIntyre, and a handful of intelligent designers, market fundamentalists, and petrolueum CEOs are correct.
Call me stupid, but that would just be projection -- something which you should learn about, but will not.
It is such a small thing, and there are reasonable explanations for everything, but to understand that, you first need to appreciate what it is like to be harassed by deluded ideologues for decades on end.
+ These scientists get a constant stream of death threats.
+ Busybodies spend significant amounts of their life trying to obstruct their work, and/or deamonise them.
+ Anything they do, or do not do, is construed by ideologues as proof of some conspiracy. (This is just like 9/11 conspiartors.)
+ It doesn't matter what they say or do, people will yell at them about how they are wrong, and they are control freaks
So Phil Jones hates the inquisition. Big deal. I hate it too. Had to deal with related ideological nonsense myself. It is amazing what bizarro land people end up in.
The record is very clear:
+ Data was withheld because of legal constraints.
+ There was no intentional deceit over "hiding the decline" and mathematical "tricks". That is just bizarro land.
+ Erasing email, and deleing data was/not/ done, but the actors involved were expressing immense frustration at people like you, who speak, but don't listen, and keep speaking for years and years about the same nonsense, without ever stopping to learn something. And then there's your cousins who use legal threats, engage in witch hunts, and send death threats.
The noise is 99% from the denialists (called Heads in the Sand). "Group-think" style denial is a well established phenomena. It is deployed deliberately by astute political actors -- who act in broad daylight. Dr Naomi Oreskes gave a very consise one hour talk on the subject. You should watch this talk so that you KNOW exactly what role you are playing in this affair.
If you watched the video, then you would have seen the link to Nature magazine.
Scores on AGW debate:
Scientists: large self-consistent body of theory covering multiple disciplines, and over 100 years.
"Skeptics": we don't like the way Phil Jones treats a tiny piece of data in a single paper, even though most scientists and scientific organisations support the treatment.
When someone can make a coherent argument against AGW, then I'll listen. So far, there's just be a *lot* of noise, and a belief that a loud argument often repeated argument is a good one.
There is a conspiracy of madness. There was nothing wrong with the "trick" to "hide the decline". Nature magazine has a scathing rebuttal of this particular point. I have watched this video, and it is a perfect example of the confirmation bias in play. Without the confirmation bias, climategate would not exist, because it evaporates when you actually apply scientific thinking.
It has been stated ad nausium, why the real temperatures were spliced in over the/particular/ tree ring data data. It has also been stated ad nausium, that there are possible speculative ideas for why the tree ring data suddenly starts to diverge from real temps.
There is just a non issue, that it is a joke. For a starters, AGW does not rest on the hockey stick. Second, the hockey stick uses many different proxies, and the "trick" is to do with just one of them. Further, the hockey stick had been thoroughly analysed, by NAS, nature magazine, and other climate scientists, and they all replicate the same results.
There is no proof of any conspiracy, and this particular fiasco is proof that deniers simply have their ears firmly shut. You take a vast body of evidence, find some tiny corner that looks dodgy to an ignorant, and yell "LOOK, THEY'RE LYING TO US!"
Search youtube for greenman3610, and climate gate to find 4 videos on the subject. Or better yet, read what Nature magazine has to say.
I have the tape as well, and he does he does caution about global warming in episode 4. As for him flogging global cooling, yeah right, when did he do that. (Note that nuclear winter doesn't count -- he does talk about that in episode 13.)
Slashdot Mirror
Free market fundamentalists see this as a corruption as well.
What they don't understand (refuse to see), is that market fundamentalism leads to powerful corporate institutions that can wield this type of influence. "Too big to fail" is a symptom of not enough regulation, and so is "government of the corporation, for the corporation, and by the corporation".
Interesting that Hayek, the intellectual founder of modern republican voodoo-economics, saw the role of government limited to breaking up concentrations of wealth.
There is a good reason why diplomatic cables are usually kept secret.
One must weigh the cost of keeping secrets against the cost of exposing corruption.
Would you prefer a world where wikileaks never existed, and the Arab Spring never happened?
It seems that people never get taken advantage of in your world. I used to believe that I would get a fair deal if I worked hard, and learnt the hard way that that is not so, because sociopathy seems to be a trait of management. Strange how the "Just World" hypothesis works.
Someone clips a graph out of the report, ignores the surrounding text, and then calls the graph misleading.
What a bunch of crap.
By presenting three separately sourced graphs, and then modifying them by chopping off data and appending in a single source, it shows independent agreement where there was none. If you can't understand this basic fact then you are hopeless.
This is a joke. I clipped out the complete context of the CCE statements that you quoted. The quote itself says that the graph was misleading given the subsequent iconic significance. But before that it says that the divergence is "well acknowledged" in the IPCC report and literature.
The CCE report repeatedly says that no data was improperly withheld. It does say that station identifies should have been available at the time of publication, and that requests for station identifiers were met with defensiveness. But NO INFOMRATION WAS WITHHELD
Go home.
You lose.
You, because every allegation I made was backed up by the report. There are instances where they did not withhold data, but the report explicitly cites an instance where they did, and cited an overall pattern.
The report explicitly says that CRU was not in a position to withhold data.
The resport explicity says that Phil Jones graph was misleading in hindsight (given the iconic significance)
As for my statements being bullshit -- I was quoting the report.
rotfl!
So... tell me what cherry picking is again?
33. We do not find that the data described in AR4 and shown in Figure 6.10 is misleading, and in particular we do not find that the question marks placed over the CRU scientists’ input cast doubt on the conclusions.
34. The variation within and between lines, as well as the depiction of uncertainty is quite apparent to any reader. All relevant published reconstructions of which we are aware are presented, and we find no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions which would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence and it therefore cannot be said that that anything has been suppressed. Presenting uncertainty in this way is a significant advance on the TAR.
35. We have seen no evidence to sustain a charge of impropriety on the part of CRU staff (or the many other authors) in respect of selecting the reconstructions in AR4 Chapter 6. This would require that all the conditions in paragraph 13 were met in respect of tree chronologies either used by, or created by, CRU. No evidence of this has either been presented to the Review, nor has it been assembled as a scientific study published elsewhere and subjected to scrutiny. For the same reasons we found no evidence that there is anything wrong with the CRU publications using the Yamal or other tree series.
36. We find that divergence is well acknowledged in the literature, including CRU papers.
37. In relation to hide the decline we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in two regards. It did not make clear that in one case the data post 1960 was excluded, and it was not explicit on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, but that the reason for doing so should have been described.
38. We find that CRU has not withheld the underlying raw Yamal data (having correctly directed the single request to the owners). But it is evidently true that access to the raw data was not simple until it was archived in 2009 and this can rightly be criticised on general principles. In the interests of transparency, we believe CRU should have ensured that the data they did not own, but had relied upon in publications, was archived in a more timely way.
14 Briffa KR and Melvin TM (2010 in press) It is a matter for the IPCC Review to determine whether the conclusions were in line with IPCC processes and guidelines for levels of likelihood. In respect of that Review we offer the suggestion that putting the combination of different reconstructions upon a more rigorous statistical footing would help in the future to make confidence levels more objective.
So, the graph was misleading given its subsequent iconic significance. Well ain't hindsight 20-20. The graph is actually not mislead in the context of the academic literature and the IPCC report.
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.
So the scientists didn't fudge any data (which was availabe), the honesty of the scientists is not in question, they provided accurate information to policy makers, but they were not open enough . Enough is a woolly term, but I agree with the CCE findings. It doesn't matter how irrational and hate filled (they do receive death threats) people are -- if they ask for information, you should give it to hem.
I am going to accuse you of cherry picking from the report. Let me fill you in on the surrounding sentences that you omitted
16. On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis.
17. On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement between independent analyses is such that it is highly unlikely that CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome. Such action would have required collusion with multiple scientists in various independent organisations which we consider highly improbable.
18. On the allegation of withholding station identifiers we find that CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record (CRUTEM) at the time of publication. We find that CRUs responses to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive.
19. The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to which CRUs work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication.
So the CRU was not in a position to withold data.
Should I go on, or are you going to actually read the report now?
The CCE report specifically says that no data was improperly withheld. Is does say that scientists reacted defensively to requests, and that data was sometimes hard to maintain. That is not the same as incorrectly withholding data.
The CCE report says that the graph was correct, and that the relevant issues were widely discussed in literature and the IPCC report. It does say that the particular graph should have been suplimented to make it more clear.
What is this talk of strawmen? That means you pick you fail to respond to your opponents strongest argument. I have accused you of cherry picking a few sentences out of the IPCC report. You have done this. You should read the sentences surrounding the sentences that you picked out.
Dare you.
Take a deep breath, and try to process the entire CCE findings. You can just read the executive summary, which is chapter 1, from which you have cherry-picked a single statement, and implied that somehow the CCE thinks there is some substance to the climategate charges.
For some hint on why climate scientists might be defensive, watch this video, which includes footage of Michael Mann reading death threats that were sent to him, and also shows how death threats are incited. Keep that in mind.
Denial is part of the human condition, and in particular, is driven by the confirmation bias, as negative emotions that stop you from placing your mind on disconcerting information.
Read the whole executive summary, take a deep breath, read it again, and then tell me that there is some substance to the climategate charges.
You should really re-read the CCE reviews conclusions. In particular, you have cherry picked the single conclusion that you want to see -- that somehow the CCE calls the credibility of climate science into question. It simple does not. Read the conclusions for yourself.
=)
In denial much? How many times do I need to point to the CCE review, which called the graph misleading? The review also dings them for not being open with their data.
We can agree that Phil Jones did not act like an angel.
My issue is that finding one misleading graph (and it really isn't that misleading) is insignificant. But deniers will take the tiniest most insignificant piece of information as proof that the science is overblown.
If anything, the CCE's review reflects the highly politicised nature of the debate. The arguments about the science just aren't on the radar.
Certainty is a relative term. Error bars are the livelihood of real climate scientists. They spend their days examining the degree of certainty, and make very conservative estimates. Somehow that is translated into scientists making wild outlandish claims that they cannot be certain about. Watch this clip between Michaels and Santers at a recent congressional hearing. They are from opposite sides of the fence, and the central issue is one of certainty.
Just the facts, you decide.
Oh please. Could someone make a coherent argument against AGW already? Didn't think so.
You have /one/ respected physicist, harping on about one minor point in a vast body of literature. There are other "skeptics" who also harp on about this. However, the essential model was reified by scientific reviews from NAS and nature magazine (and others I believe), and replicated by half a dozen other scientists. This is totally blown out of proportion.
Scientists lie in their papers all of the time, and usually don't get caught because nobody reads them closely enough. Phil Jones didn't lie, and it is debatable that he played fast and loose with the truth. He has been exonerated of scientific misconduct after extraordinary scrutiny.
Cling to the "truth" that climate scientists are a shifty bunch. Afterall, Phil Jones is, right?
I'm playing the "integrity in science" role. You're playing the "downplay serious issues for the sake of politics" role.
You just think that. In the he-said, she-said, I have the entire academy on my side, and you have a bunch of cranks, a few scientists, and Fox news, and the associated viewers.
But I went way beyond appeals to authority in investigating this. Watch Naomi's talk, investigate the claims. I know you wont, because it will be too challenging to you "integrity in science" meme, which is just a crok of shit.
There were also the alarmist "accidents" like the Himalayan glacier melt going into the IPCC report.
1000s of scientists, 10000s of pages of data, 1 minor mistake that is correct. What a joke.
As for people like McIntyre, he found acknowledged faults in Mann's original paper.
This is simply untrue. McIntyre's critique was pulled apart as in literature. McIntyre has never responded.
What's bizarro is that you can interpret "hide the decline" as anything but deceit.
99% of scientists who looked at this, and 100% of science organisations are wrong. You, Watts, McIntyre, and a handful of intelligent designers, market fundamentalists, and petrolueum CEOs are correct.
Call me stupid, but that would just be projection -- something which you should learn about, but will not.
It is such a small thing, and there are reasonable explanations for everything, but to understand that, you first need to appreciate what it is like to be harassed by deluded ideologues for decades on end.
/not/ done, but the actors involved were expressing immense frustration at people like you, who speak, but don't listen, and keep speaking for years and years about the same nonsense, without ever stopping to learn something. And then there's your cousins who use legal threats, engage in witch hunts, and send death threats.
+ These scientists get a constant stream of death threats.
+ Busybodies spend significant amounts of their life trying to obstruct their work, and/or deamonise them.
+ Anything they do, or do not do, is construed by ideologues as proof of some conspiracy. (This is just like 9/11 conspiartors.)
+ It doesn't matter what they say or do, people will yell at them about how they are wrong, and they are control freaks
So Phil Jones hates the inquisition. Big deal. I hate it too. Had to deal with related ideological nonsense myself. It is amazing what bizarro land people end up in.
The record is very clear:
+ Data was withheld because of legal constraints.
+ There was no intentional deceit over "hiding the decline" and mathematical "tricks". That is just bizarro land.
+ Erasing email, and deleing data was
The noise is 99% from the denialists (called Heads in the Sand). "Group-think" style denial is a well established phenomena. It is deployed deliberately by astute political actors -- who act in broad daylight. Dr Naomi Oreskes gave a very consise one hour talk on the subject. You should watch this talk so that you KNOW exactly what role you are playing in this affair.
If you watched the video, then you would have seen the link to Nature magazine.
Scores on AGW debate:
Scientists: large self-consistent body of theory covering multiple disciplines, and over 100 years.
"Skeptics": we don't like the way Phil Jones treats a tiny piece of data in a single paper, even though most scientists and scientific organisations support the treatment.
When someone can make a coherent argument against AGW, then I'll listen. So far, there's just be a *lot* of noise, and a belief that a loud argument often repeated argument is a good one.
There is a conspiracy of madness. There was nothing wrong with the "trick" to "hide the decline". Nature magazine has a scathing rebuttal of this particular point. I have watched this video, and it is a perfect example of the confirmation bias in play. Without the confirmation bias, climategate would not exist, because it evaporates when you actually apply scientific thinking.
/particular/ tree ring data data. It has also been stated ad nausium, that there are possible speculative ideas for why the tree ring data suddenly starts to diverge from real temps.
It has been stated ad nausium, why the real temperatures were spliced in over the
There is just a non issue, that it is a joke. For a starters, AGW does not rest on the hockey stick. Second, the hockey stick uses many different proxies, and the "trick" is to do with just one of them. Further, the hockey stick had been thoroughly analysed, by NAS, nature magazine, and other climate scientists, and they all replicate the same results.
There is no proof of any conspiracy, and this particular fiasco is proof that deniers simply have their ears firmly shut. You take a vast body of evidence, find some tiny corner that looks dodgy to an ignorant, and yell "LOOK, THEY'RE LYING TO US!"
Search youtube for greenman3610, and climate gate to find 4 videos on the subject. Or better yet, read what Nature magazine has to say.
I have the tape as well, and he does he does caution about global warming in episode 4. As for him flogging global cooling, yeah right, when did he do that. (Note that nuclear winter doesn't count -- he does talk about that in episode 13.)