Deniers reponse to CRU report: the wheeze of an asthmatic ant

The denial movement... running out of puff.

One had hoped the denial movement could have been more creative in responding the Science & Technology Committee’s report on the stolen (or in Denierese, “liberated”) CRU emails. Not only was result almost certain – the science is solid, there was no conspiracy – but the denial movements own response was even more predictable.

Yes, the claims of a massive global conspiracy to massage the data, cover their tracks and manipulate politics on a global scale.

Typing out that last claim does my head in: do they really claim the “warmists” have that much control over the geopolitical system? That they’ve got the governments of China and the United states “in their pocket”? And the UN? And the IPCC? And every recognised scientific institution on the world? And the entire apparatus of the global financial markets? And, and…

And pretty much anyone who considers climate change an issue of importance.

So, just how ferocious has been the denial movements counter attack? About as fierce as an asthmatic ant attacking a full-grown man.

The wheeze of the asthmatic ant: the half-hearted claims of “the conspiracy”.

What’ more interesting is the lack of comments from the movements more outspoken personalities. Andrew Bolt, the Herald Sun resident anti-science advocate made one brief reference to the report on the day it was released:

Climategate was a lot of fuss about nothing, claims Britain’s parliamentary inquiry into the scandal:

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change…

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.

A remarkably generous finding.

Some noncommittal comments. Unlike his other denialist peers, Bolt does not even bother to resort to claims of further conspiracies and “whitewash”. The post’s commentators go to town, and like their response to the CSIRO’s report the comments are wild, angry and fueled by paranoid conspiracies.

Bolt can’t even bring himself to link to the report, instead sending readers to “Watts up with that?” and his own original posts. He does his best to perpetuate the hall of mirrors the denial movement live in.

Bolt was  key player in helping disseminate the claims of the denial movement, and initially could not contain himself in post, after post about late last year:

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory – a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below – emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.

Yes, Andrew a “scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science”. How’s that egg on your face sitting?

There should be a scientific investigation into it!

“Watts up with that?” allows tobacco lobbyist Fred Singer to cast more conspiracy theories:

There is now a desperate effort afoot by assorted climate alarmists to explain away the revelations of the incriminating e-mails leaked last year from the University of East Anglia (UAE).  But the ongoing investigations so far have avoided the real problem, namely whether the reported warming is genuine or simply the manufactured result of manipulation of temperature data by scientists in England and the United States.

The report concluded the complete opposite. However, it does not Singer from making the same tired old claim.

Only a thorough scientific investigation will be able to document that there was no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented warming record is based on data manipulation, involving the selection of certain weather stations, [and the de-selection of others that showed no warming], plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating.

Yes Fred there has been a scientific investigation into it. It’s called decades of peer-reviewed research.

They gave it their best shot, and failed

One only has to look at the list of submissions from interested parties to see just how concentrated an effort the denial movement made in their attempt to shape the committee’s decision. When one reviews the list of names and reads their submissions, you can see just how hollow their claims of “not being heard” are. It was a public inquiry that accepted statements from many parties:

Wannabe climate scientist Steve McIntyre’s submission:

While this is an important issue and was the topic of the FOI inquiries that drew attention to CRU,  it ignores the other equally important aspect of CRU work and influence: 1000-year temperature reconstructions, a topic which is even more at issue in the Climategate Letters. I suggest a companion question along the lines perhaps of:

How independent are other 1000-year temperature reconstructions used by IPCC?

Our good old friend, Richard S. Courtney was part of a joint submission to the inquiry:

In the face of these facts, the degree to which the debate on global warming is being influenced by the publicizing of alarmist temperature scenarios – based on unverified, deterministic computer models – and by the encouragement of public hysteria about atmospheric CO2, is of great concern to us. That concern is deepened by the fact that senior governmental science advisors, once-influential science journals and distinguished science academies all currently continue to fuel such public alarmism.

So in the face of a significant defeat in a open public forum where they are given the opportunity to make their case how do they respond? With denial of course.

The denial movement’s response to the report: “La, la, la… Can’t hear you”

Jo Nova, Perth’s resident science mis-communicator also joins the chorus:

The UK Parliamentary Committee was always going to be a whitewash. They put no skeptics on the committee; they interviewed no skeptics; they didn’t ask Steven McIntyre to speak…

Yes Jo, they didn’t put a sceptic on the committee because it was a UK parliamentary committee in which only sitting members of parliament could preside. Last time I checked, McIntyre was not a member of Parliament. And Mr. McIntyre “did speak” by making a submission that was accepted by the Committee.

The “climate change sceptics” were given a voice. It’s just that they can’t make a case. Nova ends her tiresome little rant against reality with the following chant:

If the results don’t work the way you want, you can adjust them.

If people want to check those results, you can lose them.

If you get caught losing and adjusting them, you can always count on the committee results to whitewash it.

Sticks and stones Jo. Let’s try that again:

If the results don’t work the way you want, you can adjust them claim it is a massive global conspiracy

If people want to check those results, you can lose them read the published peer-reviewed papers

If you get caught losing and adjusting them, you can always count on the committee results to can’t accept the verdict of multiple committee around the world, claim it is a whitewash it.

7 thoughts on “Deniers reponse to CRU report: the wheeze of an asthmatic ant

  1. J Bowers says:

    “Yes Jo, they didn’t put a sceptic on the committee because it was a UK parliamentary committee in which only sitting members of parliament could preside.”

    Actualy, Graham Stringer MP seems to be an ardent “sceptic”, and dominated the questioning during the March 1st hearing, seeming to ask roughly half of the total questions, which means the “sceptics” got to ask roughly 50% of the questions, often referring to the likes of McIntyre and McKitrick. He also has a scientific background.

    Nothing will ever, ever, ever satisfy the “sceptics” / “denialists”, regardless of how often their sad attempts to manufacture controversy fail in epic proportions: ‘Climategate Troofers’, it’s all a conspiracy.

    • Mike says:

      Thanks J, I was not aware of that. Firstly, I appreciate having my own claims corrected. Secondly, it makes their claims of the “the conspiracy” even more ridiculous.

  2. Sou says:

    Don’t forget the two comedians who took a heap of the committee’s time at the hearings – Lord Watzit and his sidekick, Benny whatsisname. They aren’t just ‘skeptics’, they are outright deniers. And if you count quantity (definitely not by quality), the deniers and sceptics had the majority of submissions (70%, being mostly rubbish and unwarranted vitriol). I’d say their views were over-represented.

    McIntyre should be pleased he didn’t have to appear in public. The errors in his submission would have been exposed to an even wider audience.

    I love the asthmatic ant. Hope it doesn’t suffer the same fate as the denier movement. (I have a soft spot for ants.)

  3. Mike says:

    Indeed, what struck me was the how they bombarded the committee with submissions. That they failed so badly speaks volumes. Re ants, I’ve got a soft spot for them as well. Have you read any of E.O. Wilson’s popular work on ants and insects? If not, Google him. Fascinating stuff.

  4. Ken says:

    Mike, I think the next inquiry to report will be Sir Muir Russell’s Independent Climate Change Email Review. There are already some submissions available on the web site.

    I suspect the deniers will be even more upset because this inquiry will probably be more thorough, and more authoritative, \ than the parliamentary one.

    • Mike says:

      Again, thanks for the heads up. I will be watching (haha, see the pun) for that one 😉

      I’ll check out the submissions. I wonder if they’ll redouble their efforts? I’m also hoping more scientific bodies and organisations get in there and make submissions to counter-balance their propoganda. Given how they corrupted the IOP’s submission and played it up.

  5. slrtx says:

    Jo Nova: “They put no skeptics on the committee; they interviewed no skeptics”

    I chuckle when I see anti-AGW “skeptics” claim only THEY can wear the mantel of “skeptic”.

    Sorry, but that ain’t how this works.

    We are ALL skeptics. It’s just some of us are more RATIONAL than others.

    The irrational “skeptics” are denialists, whose brains are falling out.

    Which are you, Nova? I am skeptical of your claims.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: