CLIMATE-GATE INDEX
 notes of 
R.D.(Dick) Garneau, 

CLIMATE-GATE IS AN ACTIVITY CONDUCTED BY A GROUP OF SCIENTISTS AND POLITICAL INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNITED NATIONS 
(IPCC) INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE DURING THE PERIOD OF
1988 TO 2010

 

DIRECTORY HISTORY PRE 1988 LEADING UP TO IPCC 

DIRECTORY HISTORY POST 1988 IPCC TO CLIMATE-GATE 

DIRECTORY HISTORY 2010 IPCC TO 2013 

DIRECTORY LEAKED E-MAILS 1988-2009 

DIRECTORY Return to MAIN HISTORY INDEX

The Climate-Gate scandal is based on about 1,000 E-mails and 3,000 documents leaked from the (CRU)-Climate Research Unit in United Kingdom that was commissioned to gather climate information for the IPCC that was leaked on November 17, 2009.  The (BBC) British Broadcasting Corporation admits they received CRU E-mails on October 9, 2009 and failed to react or investigate.  This is part of the reason that the E-mails were considered leaked rather than hacked.  Some speculate the E-mails were inadvertently misplaced into a public accessible location but I have not seen compelling information to support this opinion.

Some have suggested setting up a (IRSR) International Rogue Scientist Registry to identify scientists and Universities who fudge research results, plagiarize reports, misspend grant money, etc.  

"Before reading these notes clearly understand that no climatologist involved ever completed any university course in climatology. 
Twenty years ago, there were no "climate scientists", nor any PhD in "Climatology", so it was an enticing field, open for exploration." 
 I am not convinced they should be called a science.  
After reviewing all the data, climatology is not a conventional science 
at best its below astrology in integrity and procedure.
But who I am to talk, I only spent 35 working years reviewing integrity, systems process and procedures.
I love researching systemic problems.
We can determine process and procedures but once established they determine us.
The emails suggest they are in league with 'Flat Earth' science, 'Solid State Earth' science.
            - - - - - YOU JUDGE FOR YOURSELF. - - - - -
Always remember a professional is one who never makes a mistake on the road to the great fallacy!

"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time,
 but you cannot fool all of the people all the time"
(P. T. Barnum, and quoted by Abraham Lincoln)
 Dick Garneau has completed a review of all the Climate Research Unit (CRU) information
on January 21, 2010.
that might have been misplaced, leaked or hacked from the University of East Anglia
I will continue to troll the internet as Climate-Gate unfolds
and post findings, stay tuned

Over 100 million people have accessed search engines for Climate-Gate or Climategate.

"BEWARE OF PROFITS MAKING PROPHETS"
others suggest 
"BEWARE OF PROPHETS MAKING PROFITS "
both are likely true!
"It's not the crime, it's the cover up that eventually brings them down"

What do scientist really fear besides loss of credibility?  
Climate change science”, is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.

Climate Change Science is a “meta-discipline” that should be embracing the diversity of knowledge disciplines. (no one knows everything about everything).  A Professional Generalist knows a little about everything but is not recognized by the academic world and is therefore excluded from the process.
Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge, thanking them for their experience and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers (these religious clerics) of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the religious leaders—have used. Not to be confused with the “skeptics” “contrarians” “denialists” which they dismiss out of hand.
This question touches on something of a dark secret within science—one which most scientists, through the need for self-preservation, are scared to admit: most disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases, and dogma.
The career of any professional scientist lives or dies on their success in achieving publication of their papers in “peer-reviewed” journals.  This is the publish or perish rule of science.
First, a scientific discipline can maintain a “closed shop” mentality for a while, but eventually the institutions and funding agencies that provide the lifeblood of their work— the money that pays their wages and funds their research—will begin to question the relevance and usefulness of the discipline, particularly in relation to other disciplines that are competing for the same funds. This will generally be seen by the affected scientists as “political interference”, but it is a reflection of their descent into arrogance and delusions of self-importance for them to believe that only they themselves are worthy of judging their own merits.
Second, scientists who are capable and worthy, but unfairly “locked out” of a given discipline, will generally migrate to other disciplines in which the scientific process is working as it should. Dysfunctional disciplines will, in time, atrophy, in favor of those that are healthy and dynamic.  Climate Science has blocked this natural migration to a dynamic discipline. The Climategate emails show that these self-regulating mechanisms simply failed to work in the case of climate science—perhaps because “climate science” is itself an aggregation of many different and disparate scientific disciplines.
No surprise that the internet has replaced the peer review process.

Historical climatology is the study of climate related to human history and thus focuses only on the last few thousand years.

Paleoclimatology seeks to reconstruct past climate by examining records such as ice cores, tree rings (dendroclimatology), archaeological layers, terrestrial continuous and well dated palaeological sequences. sea surface temperature, ocean currents,  sun spot activity, cloud cover, El Nino - Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Madden-Julien Oscillation (MJO), Northern Atlantis Oscillation (NAO), Nothern Annualar Mode (NAM), Arctic Oscillation (AO), Northern Pacific (NP), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), holes in the ozone cover, jet stream Oscillations, Atmospheric composition of gasses, particle contamination.   Extensive use of models in an attempt to understand past, present and future climate.  The assumptions used in these models are the most significant components.  The most import results are 'anonymous results'.
The most learned and honest scientists will admit that science can't predict what will happen to climate in 100 years, or even in the next 10 years.  They admit decade variability escapes our understanding. 

Climatology requirements:
A masters degree in Geology, Climatology, Meteorology, Physics, Environmental Science or other closely related disciplines.
Completion of mathematics through ordinary differental equations
Demonstrated knowledge of at least one higher-level computer programming language (keep this in mind when programs were altered)
Letters of recommendation from at least three former professors or supervisors 

It is interesting that its an attempt to reconstruct the past but a historian, a generalist is not included nor is an ethics professional.

“We are told by Al Gore and David Suzuki  the self-appointed Pope and Archbishop of the “Church of Climatology” that carbon emissions will wipe out humanity.”
IPCC has finally admitted to a major dogma error (well almost);  January 20, 2010

If the website of your research has been shut down to hid history and the guilty
remember the internet has been archived and you can still find it at;
http://www.archive.org/index.php

New climatology requirements 
The body representing 36,000 world wide physicists has called for a wider enquiry into the Climate-gate Affair, saying it raises issues of scientific corruption.  The (IOP) Institute of Physics says the enquiry should be broadened to examine possible "departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity."  It deplores the climate scientists’ "intolerance to challenge" and the "suppression of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements."  The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honorable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC 's conclusions on climate change.
It is important to recognize that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.
The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC , of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practiced in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.
These Principles were issued in February 2010.

Back to Top