Climategate was indeed a "game changer"

Nothing to see here

But hang on a minute – haven’t we just spent the past six months listening to scores of AGW-funded scientists try and sweep the whole Climategate debacle under the carpet? Wheeling out the “nothing to see here” line? What’s more amazing is that this piece is published in The Age, or “Pravda on the Yarra” as it is less than affectionately known (kind of the Aussie version of The Guardian). It appears that climate scientists are all of a sudden suffering pangs of remorse for all the hype and spin, and think that more openness and honesty is required. Well, bravo at last for that.

SENIOR climate scientists have conceded that their world has changed irrevocably – and for the better – in the wake of the so-called Climategate scandal.

As Sir Muir Russell, chairman of the inquiry into the leak of the University of East Anglia emails, finalises his report for publication in Britain tomorrow [which we can guarantee will be another paper-thin whitewash], scientists the world over agree the affair was a ”game changer”.

”The release of the emails was a turning point,” Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, told The Guardian . ”The community has been brought up short by the row over their science. Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties.”

Bob Ward, policy director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said researchers had to accept that the affair would not only result in their own science being judged but also their motives, professionalism, integrity and ”all those other qualities that are considered important in public life”.

Hans von Storch of the KGSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, told the newspaper that trust had been damaged by the affair:

“People now find it conceivable that scientists cheat and manipulate, and understand that scientists need societal supervision as any other societal institution,” he said.

Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, the scientist who has worked hard to try to reconcile warring factions, said the idea of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists as ”self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel prize, is now in tatters”.

The outside world, she said, could now see that the science of climate was ”more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe”.

Alle-freaking-luia. As I have said many times before, I have no axe to grind whether CO2 is causing climate change or not, but I do expect our governments to make decisions on the future of the planet based on impartial, unbiased science, not on quasi-religious, politically motivated dogma.

Read it here.

Comments

  1. Unfortunately it hasn’t stopped a hoard of scientists, bloggers etc from still declaring CAGW a “certainty”.

  2. The Loaded Dog says:

    So now they are telling us ‘a good science has lost its way and we have a responsibility to step up and make sure it gets back on track.’

    Same science….but with added spin.

  3. OzJuggler says:

    Yep, the green-tinted blogosphere is still trying to pretend the climategate emails did not show any kind of scandal and that nothing was wrong. eg-
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881323/-The-real-scandal-about-the-scandal-that-never-was

    I’m still wondering how the envirofascists will spin their new favourite crisis of biodiversity. I predict the same old fallacies of “It’s decreasing at an enormous rate” (compared to what) and “unprecedented extinctions” (how could we know it has not been worse in Ice Ages and asteroid strikes) and no doubt the species reporting bias will be used to create a hockey stick at some point. There will be no satellite data to save the day this time around.

  4. Yes, it is incredible The Age would print this nonsense given the conclusions of the Muir Russell report.

    And incredible what you guys will read into an article.

    • @cbp: And incredible that anyone would think the Muir Russell report was worth the paper it was printed on.

%d bloggers like this: