Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • May 20 - golf charlie on
    COP 23
  • May 20 - golf charlie on
    COP 23

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Oxburgh's conflict of interest | Main | Royal Society panel announced »

Emmanuel on the Climategate emails

Reader Mac notes Kerry Emmanuel's comments on the Climategate emails, delivered at an MIT debate on the subject:

"What we have here," says Kerry Emanuel, are "thousands of emails collectively showing scientists hard at work, trying to figure out the meaning of evidence that confronts them. Among a few messages, there are a few lines showing the human failings of a few scientists…" Emanuel believes that "scientifically, it means nothing," because the controversy doesn't challenge the overwhelming evidence supporting anthropogenic warming. He is far more concerned with the well-funded "public relations campaign" to drown out or distort the message of climate science, which he links to "interests where billions, even trillions are at stake..." This "machine … has been highly successful in branding climate scientists as a bunch of sandal-wearing, fruit-juice drinking leftist radicals engaged in a massive conspiracy to return us to agrarian society…"

I'm speechless. Even after the debacle of Philip Campbell's resignation from the Russell panel, no lessons appear to have been learned.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (13)

Yeah but...

Richard Lindzen professes he has “no idea” what Emanuel is talking about -- if a “machine” exists, it’s on the “other side,” marginalizing those who disagree on the science. The release of emails is likely due “to a whistleblower who couldn’t take it anymore.” Lindzen sees evidence in the correspondence of “things that are unethical and in many cases illegal,” including the refusal to allow outsiders access to data, and the willingness to destroy data rather than release it. He believes that since it’s hard to read the documents “and not conclude that bad things are going on,” this will have a negative impact on “popular support for science.” There are “scandals, cheating and arguments” over research dealing with tiny increments of temperature change, Lindzen speculates, because so many scientists and ordinary people are invested in the idea of dramatic, human-based warming -- “People are being thrown catastrophes.”

Mar 22, 2010 at 1:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

A interesting follow up to the debate/forum with a deliberate attempt to smear Richard Lindzen.

We can be clear what the Royal Society panel will report.

1. There is nothing wrong with climate science.

2. 'The Machine' have spent $billions, no $trillions, to prevent mitigation of climate change.

3. Climate sceptics eat their own babies.

Mar 22, 2010 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Looking at the composition of this "independent" panel, I think one can safely assume that they are taking the piss.
This one of the problems, they have become so used to taking the piss, without meaningful challenge from the media, that it continues unabated, under its own inertia, blissfully unaware of the brave new internet world.

Mar 22, 2010 at 1:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

I commented about Emanuel on the previous thread:

Emanuel's recent alarmism and Gray's rebuttal are at

Mar 22, 2010 at 2:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Tolja. We're not winning this yet, not by a long stretch. No matter how many Climategates, how many Himalayan glaciers, how much debunking, they're going to keep steam-rollering along. Twenty years in the making, billions upon billions at stake - they're not going to be stopped by a few lousy facts.

Mar 22, 2010 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterThon Brocket

Emmanuel and Mann have published papers together:

Mar 22, 2010 at 5:27 PM | Unregistered Commentermpaul

Links out here in the comments keep getting truncated...can we wrap the links up in the good old anchor tag?

lt a href="" gt click here lt /a gt

like this: click here

lt = less than sign
gt = greater than sign

Mar 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin

Or more accurately, on 2 different threads, Phillip Bratby's links are truncated. C'mon Phillip...

Mar 22, 2010 at 6:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin

Please can somebody tell me how I can get my grubby mitts on all these funds that are supposedly sloshing about?

Do I have to be in the US...or is there a British Chapter of 'Hells Skepticks' that I can join?

I have a good employment history and NI number, but haven't seen many adverts in the Job Centre for full time 'deniers'. So how can I get recruited by Big Oil or Messrs V E Stedinterests.

Mar 22, 2010 at 6:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterStirling English

Apropos Climategate, odd postings at the Blackboard and Roger Pielke Jr. sites referencing a Climategate 'Lessons Learned' retrospective done by Profero?, and funded by Oxfam????

Mar 22, 2010 at 7:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterChuckles


We can be clear what the Royal Society panel will report.

1. There is nothing wrong with climate science.

2. 'The Machine' have spent $billions, no $trillions, to prevent mitigation of climate change.

3. Climate sceptics eat their own babies.

All very true. I enjoy eating my own barbecued babies at least once a week. Too bad we didn't have the promised barbecue summer last year. I would have partaken twice a week. Slathered with spicy BBQ sauce, that's the way I like 'em. The sweetmeats are the best parts. Chewy, yet gooey. Yum!

Meanwhile, Lord Oxburgh is surely just a stand-in for Lord Monckton. Too bad Chris wasn't asked. Must have been some sort of mix-up in the scheduling.

Mar 23, 2010 at 3:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterSmokey

I was at the MIT "debate" back in December regarding the impact the release of the CRU emails would have on "climate science."

I was aghast at the response of Emanuel. While admitting his paper on the supposed increasing intensity of hurricanes had been withdrawn, he was adamant that the "machine" was at work in distorting what the public was hearing about climate science. He likened it to the "tobacco" machine.

I couldn't fathom what I was hearing it was so bizarre coming from an ostensibly acclaimed scientist.

I was privileged to have a brief opportunity following the "debate" to speak personally to Dr. Lindzen. I asked him if it was ever appropriate or acceptable for a scientist to graft an instrumental data set onto one comprised of proxy data without clearly describing, and justifying, what was being done. He said absolutely not, and doing so in such a manner was scientific fraud. Kerry Emanuel has a lot of explaining to do in describing why his protest has any validity, and why his claims of a propaganda machine aren't more clearly pointing directly back at him.

Mar 24, 2010 at 2:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterSam

Well, aren't they? Just joking. Or am I?

Mar 25, 2010 at 12:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Murphy

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>