Comment On The Hacking Of The CRU Website

As I am sure, the readers of my weblog are aware of the hacking of the CRU website (e.g. see Real Climate, The BlackboardRoger Pielke Jr.’s Blog, The Examiner and Watts Up With That to name just a few sites). Since I am mentioned a number of times in the released e-mails, I will comment as appropriate on my specific reactions to these-mails. Today, I will address one of the issues raised by Real Climate.

On Real Climate today (under the header CRU Hack), there is a comment by “KTB” and reply by Gavin Schmidt that reads

KTB says:

It would be nice to get comments from the authors for lines like this. This can of course be understood in many ways…
I hope that posting of this small snippet doesn’t violate copyright, and I left the name out:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Xxx and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is”

[Response: Bad papers clutter up assessment reports and if they don't stand up as science, they shouldn't be included. No-one can 'redefine' what the peer-reviewed literature is. - gavin]

The reply by Gavin Schmidt illustrates the gatekeeper aspect of the IPCC report which I documented in detail in my appendix to

Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2008: A Broader View of the Role of Humans in the Climate System is Required In the Assessment of Costs and Benefits of Effective Climate Policy. Written Testimony for the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Hearing “Climate Change: Costs of Inaction” – Honorable Rick Boucher, Chairman. June 26, 2008, Washington, DC., 52 pp

and in

Documentation Of IPCC WG1 Bias by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Dallas Staley – Part I

Documentation Of IPCC WG1 Bias by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Dallas Staley – Part II

The challenge to the IPCC community, now that their duplicity has been exposed, is to communicate to all of us why the peer-reviewed papers that we documented, and that were available in time for the IPCC review process, were considered “bad papers” and thus ignored in the IPCC report.  A balanced assessment would comment on these papers, and provide the reason they disagree with their results.

The reply by Gavin Schmidt documents the control of the IPCC process by a few individuals (see also Climate Assessment Oligarchy – The IPCC).

Comments Off

Filed under Advocacy Masking As Science, Climate Science Misconceptions

Comments are closed.