The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : ClimateGate's Josh Steiner Moment

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

ClimateGate's Josh Steiner Moment

By Chris Horner on 12.1.09 @ 9:01AM

By now you've likely forgotten the name of that Bill Clinton aide who feebly testified that he had lied to his own diary when recording events of the time. But you haven't forgotten the pitifulness of the spectacle. I suggest we may have just passed that one in ClimateGate, with the following passage from John Tierney's column in the New York Times, discussing "Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline":

"In fact, one skeptic raised this very issue about tree-ring data in a comment posted in 2004 on RealClimate, the blog operated by climate scientists. The comment, which questioned the propriety of 'grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record,' immediately drew a sharp retort on the blog from Michael Mann, an expert at Penn State University:

'No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto' any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation Web sites) appearing in this forum.'

Dr. Mann now tells me that he was unaware, when he wrote the response, that such grafting had in fact been done in the earlier cover chart, and I take him at his word."

But wasn't it "Mike's trick" to do this that is being described here, grasped and described as such by CRU's Phil Jones as having been performed on Mike's graph, by Mike? So, his defense is that no one had told him that that's what he was doing?

These guys really need to call for a RealInvestigation to get the the bottom of their actions, as the more they stumble around the worse they're making themselves look.

View all comments (3) | Leave a comment

Doug| 12.1.09 @ 10:18AM

Tucked away in the archive dump of the Climategate scandal (the full version – not just the emails) is a .pdf file entitled, “Rules of the Game”. This brochure outlines strategy to “market” global warming in order to change public opinion. Highlights are below:

• “The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it.”
• “…these principles are a first step to using sophisticated behaviour change modelling and comprehensive evidence from around the world to change attitudes towards climate change.”
• “Forget the climate change detractors. Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate change, but how we should deal with climate change.”
• “Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are all worth investigating.”
• “Make climate change a ‘home’ not ‘away’ issue. Climate change is a global issue, but we will feel its impact at home – and we can act on it at home”
• “Research shows that energy efficiency behaviours can make you seem poor and unattractive. We must work to overcome these emotional assumptions.”
• “Use emotions and visuals. Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions and visuals usually do”
• “We need to think radically…”

My question is simple. Why would a scientific organization need a marketing strategy to “prove” something that is “settled science”? I think the answer is self-evident.

Jim O'Brien| 12.2.09 @ 3:04PM

Most Congressmen still write absurd letters to constituents talking about the pressing need to deal with CLIMATE CHANGE. What a pack of brain-dead fools, elected by ignorant constituents.