Climategate: More spin and deception from the scientists

It seems the cabal of scientists and their enablers, central to the Climategate scandal, just cannot stop themselves from making false statements in an effort to convince those not paying attention that they are being open with the long withheld data.

Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit explains how New Scientist magazine has used the occasion of CRU’s release of CRUTEM station data (temperature records) in response to the ICO’s rejection of CRU excuses to disseminate further disinformation about the Climategate dossier.  New Scientist is spinning that:

Anyone can now view for themselves the raw data that was at the centre of last year’s “climategate” scandal.

Only the raw data they are talking about is the temperature record which was not at the centre of the scandal at all.  Climategate was focused on the ‘Hockey Stick’, Yamal tree ring records and proxy reconstructions.

Those at New Scientist know this, but they are determined to cynically distort the facts to make it appear the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) is open and transparent.  It isn’t.  As McInytre explains, a recent FOI request for the 2006 Yamal regional chronology was rejected by the University.

UEA seems desperate to hide data Keith Briffa appears to have excluded from the tree ring set that it is believed shows no statistically significant increase in temperature.  The only tree rings that were included are believed to be those that suggested there had been an increase.  The University could easily put this matter to rest by simply release the full, unadjusted data set.  But it is refusing to do so.

People should make up their own minds what CRU/UEA is trying to hide.  Meanwhile the misleading statements from CRU/UEA and their friends in the journal community continue to pour forth.

5 Responses to “Climategate: More spin and deception from the scientists”

  1. 1 permanentexpat 31/07/2011 at 11:27 pm

    They will never give up. Sinecures , Grants & their sponsors’ financial interests cannot allow it
    There is an unrelated case in ‘Nature’ about Grant Fraud:
    which suggests, to me in any case, that it’s fairly widespread & consistent and, that those suspecting & reporting it fail to follow through because, and it is true, the whistle blower eventually comes to no good..
    As always; follow the money..

  2. 2 Grumpy Old Man 01/08/2011 at 7:56 am

    Dear AM. Dr Briffa appears to be somewhat coy with his resume. I cannot find it on google and any notes about Dr Briffa cite only his published papers. The Wiki entry is word for word what is in other web pages, so it appears that simeone has spent considerable time ,”smoothing”, Dr Briffa’s academic citation. Can you steer me towards the information on line?

  3. 3 Gallovidian 01/08/2011 at 8:35 am

    I have no faith in New Scientist magazine, there is too much sociopolitics and spin in there.

  4. 4 Autonomous Mind 01/08/2011 at 9:40 am

    GOM, I have never found his resume, but I haven’t looked very hard either. So if that’s the information you’re looking for I doubt I can help.

  5. 5 AJC 01/08/2011 at 10:03 am


    Perhaps you might raise that question on Bishop Hill.

Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: