Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Climate Gate Analysis

Climate Gate Analysis

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 1,205|Likes:
Published by fotogal51
This earliest email of note in the Climategate collection reminds us that—as with many things in life—money plays a key role in this saga. Let me emphasize that Climategate is not riddled with financial scandals—not explicit ones, of Madoff magnitude, in any case. Rather, we here are reminded of the fact that the entire industry of “climate science” was created out of virtually nothing, by means of a massive influx of funding that was almost universally one-sided in its requirement that its recipients find evidence for man-made climate change—not investigate whether or how much mankind had caused climate change.
3
In contrast to the literally trillions of dollars of global expenditure ultimately urged on world leaders by these scientists by the end of 2009, the amounts involved in funding their research appear trifling—typically measured in “mere” millions of dollars. (A trillion is a million millions!) But many “climate scientists” built their entire careers on this funding; and so it is not surprising that they became so completely reliant on this conditional lifeline, that they became single-mindedly focused on achieving the ends for which they were commissioned—and viciously attacking any intruders who may threaten that lifeline.
This earliest email of note in the Climategate collection reminds us that—as with many things in life—money plays a key role in this saga. Let me emphasize that Climategate is not riddled with financial scandals—not explicit ones, of Madoff magnitude, in any case. Rather, we here are reminded of the fact that the entire industry of “climate science” was created out of virtually nothing, by means of a massive influx of funding that was almost universally one-sided in its requirement that its recipients find evidence for man-made climate change—not investigate whether or how much mankind had caused climate change.
3
In contrast to the literally trillions of dollars of global expenditure ultimately urged on world leaders by these scientists by the end of 2009, the amounts involved in funding their research appear trifling—typically measured in “mere” millions of dollars. (A trillion is a million millions!) But many “climate scientists” built their entire careers on this funding; and so it is not surprising that they became so completely reliant on this conditional lifeline, that they became single-mindedly focused on achieving the ends for which they were commissioned—and viciously attacking any intruders who may threaten that lifeline.

More info:

Categories:Types, Brochures
Published by: fotogal51 on Jan 13, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/18/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
SPPI
 
EPRINT
S
ERIES
 
 
December 18, 2009
 
C
LIMATEGATE
 A 
NALYSIS
 
by
John P. Costella
 
 
2
C
LIMATEGATE
 A 
NALYSIS
 
by
John P. Costella
|
 
December 2009
S
OURCE MATERIAL
 
 
All files (62 MB, zipped)
 
Emails (browsable folder)
 
Documents (browsable folder tree)
O
PINION
 –
EDITORIAL
 
 
F
ORUM
 
 
M
ATERIAL FROM OTHERS
 
 
C
AST OF COLORFUL CHARACTERS
 
 
Mike Mann:
lead conspirator in the United States 
 
Phil Jones:
lead conspirator in the United Kingdom 
 
Ben Santer:
dangerously arrogant and naive young conspirator in the United States 
 
Other conspirators:
of varying degrees of complicity and integrity 
 
Skeptics and other unrelated parties
 
(NOTE: Color-coding and re-formating still in progress)
 
A
NALYSIS
INCLUDING EXCERPTS FROM
,
AND LINKS TO
,
RELEVANT EMAILS
 
March 6, 1996: email 0826209667 
This earliest email of note in the Climategate collection reminds us that—as with many things in life—money plays a key role in this saga. Let me emphasize that Climategate is
not 
riddled with financialscandals—not explicit ones, of Madoff magnitude, in any case. Rather, we here are reminded of the factthat the entire industry of “climate science” was created out of virtually nothing, by means of a massiveinflux of funding that was almost universally one-sided in its requirement that its recipients
 find evidence
for man-made climate change—not investigate
whether 
or
how much
mankind had causedclimate change.
 
3In contrast to the literally trillions of dollars of global expenditure ultimately urged on world leaders bythese scientists by the end of 2009, the amounts involved in funding their research appear trifling—typically measured in “mere” millions of dollars. (A trillion is a million millions!) But many “climatescientists” built their entire careers on this funding; and so it is not surprising that they became socompletely reliant on this conditional lifeline, that they became single-mindedly focused on achievingthe ends for which they were commissioned—and viciously attacking any intruders who may threatenthat lifeline.In this unfortunate case, a scientist in the former Soviet Union appears to descend to level of taxevasion, in order to maximize the amount of money available. As Stepan Shiyatov writes to Keith Briffa:Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the
advance
money on the personal accounts which wegave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be morethan 10,000 U[nited] S[tates] D[ollars]. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes [...]Unfortunately, all other emails relating to these cash transfers have either been lost, deleted, orwithheld by the Climategate whistleblower, so we don't know whether Keith Briffa complied with thisrequest or not.I believe that this level of financial impropriety would be a rare occurrence—although it does highlightthe fact that some of the people involved in this research were prepared to “bend the rules” in order toachieve their goals. It also reminds us that scientists in general are often ignorant of the requirements of the law; but, most of the time, this does not lead to any significant ramifications. Therefore, althoughthere are other examples of low-level financial impropriety and misappropriation sprinkled throughoutthe Climategate emails, I do not believe that they are of any significance over and above the generalcomments that I have made here, and I will not explicitly list them in the following.
July 11, 1996: email 0837094033 
Phil Jones to Alan Robock:Britain seems to have found it[]s [skeptic]. Our population is only 25% of yours so we only get 1 for every4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good asa couple of yours and he's an utter prat but he's getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his day jobhe teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts the weather from solar phenomena.[...] He's not all bad as he doesn't have much confidence in nuclear-power safety.Alan Robock:Could you please define "utter prat" for me? Sometimes I think we speak the same language, andsometimes I'm not so sure.
September 17, 1996: email 0842992948 
Keith Briffa:

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->