RealClimate logo

One year later

Filed under: — gavin @ 20 November 2010

I woke up on Tuesday, 17 Nov 2009 completely unaware of what was about to unfold. I tried to log in to RealClimate, but for some reason my login did not work. Neither did the admin login. I logged in to the back-end via ssh, only to be inexplicably logged out again. I did it again. No dice. I then called the hosting company and told them to take us offline until I could see what was going on. When I did get control back from the hacker (and hacker it was), there was a large uploaded file on our server, and a draft post ready to go announcing the theft of the CRU emails. And so it began.

From that Friday, and for about 3 weeks afterward, we were drafted into the biggest context setting exercise we’d ever been involved in. What was the story with Soon and Baliunas? What is the difference between tree ring density and tree ring width? What papers were being discussed in email X? What was Trenberth talking about? Or Wigley? Or Briffa or Jones? Who were any of this people anyway? The very specificity of the emails meant that it was hard for the broader scientific community to add informed comment, and so the burden on the people directly involved was high.

The posts we put up initially are still valid today – and the 1000’s of comment stand as testimony to the contemporary fervour of the conversation:

I think we did pretty well considering – no other site, nor set of scientists (not even at UEA) provided so much of the background to counter the inevitable misinterpretations that starting immediately spreading. While some commentators were predicting resignations, retractions and criminal charges, we noted that there had not been any scientific misconduct, and predicted that this is what the inquiries would find and that the science would not be affected. (Note, the most thorough inquiry, and one that will have to withstand judicial review, is the one by EPA which, strangely enough, has barely been discussed in the blogosphere).

Overall, reactions have seemed to follow predictable lines. The Yale Forum has some interesting discussions from scientists, and there are a couple of good overviews available. Inevitably perhaps, the emails have been used to support and reinforce all sorts of existing narratives – right across the spectrum (from ‘GW hoaxers’ to Mike Hulme to UCS to open source advocates).

Things have clearly calmed down over the last year (despite a bit of a media meltdown in February), but as we predicted, no inquiries found anyone guilty of misconduct, no science was changed and no papers retracted. In the meantime we’ve had one of the hottest years on record, scientists continue to do science, and politicians…. well, they continue to do what politicians do.

442 Responses to “One year later”

  1. 51
    SteveP says:

    @ Balazs 32
    Yes those poor people in the undeveloped world without electricity, without central heating, without air conditioning. Without poorly filtered re-circulated air, without stirred up mold spores, without over dry air in winter. Without wallet parasites in the form of oil companies and utility companies. Without overflowing coal ash sludge piles and oil spills. Without death defying commutes to work periodically interrupted by having to crawl past wreckage and ambulances. Without children stuck in virtual computer fantasy games murdering enemies all day long.
    And how do many of us spend our vacations, our free time? Getting as naked as we dare and going to the beach? Or driving to a forest and forsaking as many modern amenities as we are able to in an activity called “camping”?
    I would say that the idealization of a powered “modern” society is highly over rated. Third world people who might long for its benefits are probably not told of its many disadvantages.
    You have of course heard the story of the indigenous man wistfully telling how, before the “white man” and his “civilization” came, their lives consisted of hunting and fishing all day and making love to their woman into the night. Leave it to whitey to screw up an idyllic world such as that with his clothes, industrialization,electic lights and drive for money.
    Food for thought.

  2. 52
    CM says:

    Gavin said:
    > I think we did pretty well considering

    Ah, British understatement. You rocked.

    “Climategate” set a new standard of depravity in public debate on the science of climate change. Somehow you made it a teaching moment for setting a new standard of integrity instead.

  3. 53
    Jim Ramsey says:


    Did the police actually try to figure out whole stole the E-mails? Even better, did they follow the money and figure out who payed them to do it?

  4. 54
    BillD says:

    About the passionate versus dispassionate scientists–I want to say that I am excited about my experiments but go into a very dispationate even somewhat paranoid mode when analyzing my own data. I am very critical. Often I am amused when people citing one of my papers push interpretations further than I would go myself.

    So, I expect that Gavin would agree that scientists need to be very critical and dispassionte when analyzing their data. When writing the scientific paper, we want to show, in an objective way, the strengths and limitations of our study. However, scientists need to be passionate about their field of study and work in general. In my view, climate scientists have presented a moderate, well reasoned view of the risks of our current path. As an ecologist, who does research on populations, my intiutive expectation is that world human populations will be reduced to <10% of current values over the next 200-300 years and the results will not be pretty for human suffering and democratic ideals. It's especially upsetting that it will take 1000's of year for CO2 levels to fall to early industrial levels. Our political system typically deals with a 1-2 year outlook, which makes it very difficult to act on longer term threats. I have two grandchildren and I would like to feel that they and their children will not judge us too harshly.

  5. 55
    adelady says:

    Iso-35. What on earth has science got to do with “attacking” and “defending” a theory?

    Science is not, and never will be, the same as a coach urging on the members of a debating team to ‘attack’ or ‘defend’ arguments regardless of their intrinsic worth.

    Scientists may not bother with nice manners or diplomatic language when criticising poor science, but that is not the same thing as arguing a point for the sake of arguing. It is possible, even desirable, to debate around a scientific topic. But you should never mislead yourself or others into thinking that the debate _is_ the science. It’s not.

  6. 56
    HotRod says:

    BPL: What part of “drought will increase until harvests fail all over the world and human civilization falls” did you not understand?

    Er …. none of it.

    SteveP #51 – that’s just weird and patronising. Watch what the Indians, Chinese, sub-Saharan Africans are actually doing, not what you would like them to be doing in some Robert Louis Stevenson. Be real.

    On Climategate my opinion, fwiw, is that it ‘legitimised’ people who had no especial reason to mistrust the science, like me, had a tendency to mistrust some claims seized on, quite understandably, by Greenpeace and other advocacy groups, questioned the certainty in impacts, and were mistrustful of the Kyoto/Copenhagen mitigation policy response actually working or having any material impact.

    So a strange effect, given that Climategate had nothing to do with any of that, and, I fully agree, left the (WG1) science quite unchanged and intact. But it has meant somehow that it is now legitimate to critique the policy response, without critiquing WG1 – a healthy separation imho.

  7. 57
    The Wonderer says:

    Thank you Gavin. I am curious whether you think there is any hope that the perpetrators will be caught, and if the resources in trying to catch them have been adequate.

    [Response: I have no idea. My guess is that no-one is likely to be caught unless the perpetrators show their hand again – perhaps because they are frustrated that nothing much has changed. It must be an interesting dilemma for them. – gavin]

  8. 58
    Hank Roberts says:

    I’m curious whether y’all have heard of other copies of material from the stolen files being hacked into or left with other computer sites. I realize often sites don’t want to admit they got hacked and just erase whatever got left, while trying to figure out how it got in there.

    I’m also curious if anyone followed up the earliest claim apparently from the thieves that what they distributed was a “random sample” out of some larger volume of material — both whether more was stolen, and whether what got distributed did appear to be random or selected.

    Third question, is any pattern apparent in the continuing attempts made to disrupt and distract conversations about this subject?

    I realize much can’t be talked while there’s an ongoing investigation. But I’d wonder if a pattern of site visits using anonymous routers or sock puppets might show where interest in the subject is continuing to come from.

  9. 59
    simon abingdon says:

    #44 Anand

    The story with Soon and Baliunas makes the Team look horrible. Never mind Soon and Baliunas. What about [edit]

    [Response: If you want to raise a specific issue, do so. Links to “but what about climategate? GW is a hoax!” type sites are not interesting (or welcome). – gavin]

  10. 60
    Ray Ladbury says:

    You clearly do not understand how science works. One challenges a theory every time one does an analysis or experiment that attempts to verify a prediction of that theory. Gavin does so whenever he incorporates new physics or data into his climate model.

    It is, rather, the denialists who do not challenge theory, as they produce no new science, data or ideas.

    It is certainly not unreasonable to defend a scientific theory against an unscientific or even anti-sciengific challenge, is it?

    Or do you contend that there are data that contradict the theory? If so, what?

  11. 61
    rb says:

    that Gavin seriously believes that the effect of Climategate was “confirmation bias in action” for those who don’t agree with the “consensus” says more about Gavin than anyone else.

    The “investigations” were transparently not rigorous or even relevant to the issues. It is a shame that Gavin can’t admit this when on any cursory examination that conclusion is obvious. You lose serious amounts of credibility in pretending otherwise.

    What I also find noteworthy is that there is almost no dissenting opinion in the comments here. Why is that?

  12. 62
    Brian Dodge says:

    “Never mind Soon and Baliunas”

    Pay no attention to the Koch brothers behind the curtain.


  13. 63

    that Gavin seriously believes that the effect of Climategate was “confirmation bias in action” for those who don’t agree with the “consensus” says more about Gavin than anyone else.

    The “investigations” were transparently not rigorous or even relevant to the issues. It is a shame that Gavin can’t admit this when on any cursory examination that conclusion is obvious. You lose serious amounts of credibility in pretending otherwise.

    Can anybody parse these sentences for me? I can’t seem to find any content.

  14. 64
    pete best says:

    Some people seem to take issue with climate science being mainly done by proxies and hence this leads to much uncertainty and little certainty as detailed in the IPCC reports. No one alive today will be alive in 2100 (pretty much anyway) so its a really big ask to ask for action when its freezin cold outside and the heating from gas and oil keeps it all at bay.

    Climategate was another good attempt to derail the science along with many other attempts to do so. However if science worked by committee as politics do and minds/opinions could be changed then fine but science is and never will be like that. Still its all delaying tactics and they are working so long as the media classes keep on printing it all.

    Its hard to think that anyone would commit us to a warmer world but printing news stories but politics and journalism are like that. Its all up for grabs.

  15. 65
    pete best says:

    Re #61 becuase we have all read around and followed the science for years and cant see any serious malpractice going on. Several committee reports have been produced clearing any wrong doing and no peer reviewed papers have been with drawn. So what would we be dissenting ?

  16. 66
    Mike Roddy says:

    Snapple, thanks for the Russian links, they will help in my upcoming Climate Villains piece that includes Cuccinelli.

    Russian oil criminals and the Koch brothers appear to be the ones behind the CRU hack and the attempted breakin at the University of Victoria. These were professional operations, well funded and leaving few traces except a very important one- the emails were loaded onto a Russian server. Koch (with long historical ties to Russian oil companies) and Gazprom had the means, the motive, and the opportunity.

    This won’t be proved, because oil companies have too much power in both governments to allow for the release of relevant evidence. An independent investigator would be murdered. We should be aware that we are talking about some of the most evil and malignant men on earth, whose distortion and persecution of scientists counts as one of their more casual crimes.

    These people can only be defeated by fighting them, through humiliation and well publicized outrage. Scientists are disinclined to do this, but the stakes are too high this time. We need you to be heroes as well as brilliant men and women.

  17. 67

    Climategate was a tactical error by those that wish to deny the science or to delay action. Their illegal action woke up a sleeping bear. Scientists are now engaging with the media and the general public more than ever to set the record straight and they will not stand by watching one of their own being attacked. They have the truth, they have the passion, and now they have the numbers.

  18. 68
    Brian Dodge says:

    rb thinks “..that conclusion is obvious.” but wonders why “…there is almost no dissenting opinion in the comments here.”

    Maybe when your observations don’t fit your theory, you should reconsider your theory, however difficult.

    “Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.” – John Kenneth Galbraith.

  19. 69

    68 (Brian Dodge),

    “Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.” – John Kenneth Galbraith

    Excellent quote. I need to save it.

  20. 70
    Daniel J. Andrews says:

    @61 rb:
    What I find noteworthy is that on evolution sites there is almost no dissenting opinion that the earth is over four billion years old. Why is that?

    Do you have anything other than hand waving, and accusations of cover-up among (or stupidity, incompetence) among the several investigations and numerous investigators? Maybe if you didn’t do a “cursory examination” fed to you by ideologues, you might have something of interest that hasn’t been debunked several hundred times by independent bodies.

  21. 71
    Ray Ladbury says:

    rb says, “What I also find noteworthy is that there is almost no dissenting opinion in the comments here. Why is that?”

    Because most of us are reasonable and understand science…unlike you?

  22. 72
    JCH says:

    Climategate’s swagger is quickly fading to its only lasting significance, which will be its place in alphabetical order.

    Look for it between Billygate and debategate. You remember those gates, right?


  23. 73
    Peter Backes says:

    It’s been deeply frustrating to me and probably many others that RC and the climate research community have had to defend the (legal) actions they have taken during the course of their work while the criminal perpetrators of ‘Climategate’ have gotten off scott-free and have not had to justify their actions in any way.

    Gavin deserves a Nobel Prize in the new category of ‘BS Debunking’.

  24. 74

    TJ 37: “I have been often in the crosss-fire of alarmists and skeptics, two politicized gangs of climate activists – who often have something useful to say, but who are conditioned by their respective loyalties to their “agendas”, while not being too much interested in providing the cold and impassionate science needed to come up with reasonable and acceptable climate policies.”

    Or, to be more philosophic, Reinhold Niebuhr:

    “Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are unsure that we are doubly sure.”

    BPL: So I guess it ticks me off when idiot ideologues try to revive geocentrism because I’m not really sure the Earth orbits the sun.

    Epic fail, bub. Try again.

  25. 75

    I’m having trouble finding a publisher for “The Case for Global Warming.” Could someone who has published a nonfiction book on climate change please contact me? My email address is

  26. 76
    Andy S says:

    Plenty, maybe too much, has been written about the content of the stolen emails and the way that certain comments appear damning only if taken out of context and seen through distorting filters. Less attention has been paid to the dogs that didn’t bark in the night-time. The more extreme contrarians must have been disheartened by what was not in the hacked private messages, as RealClimate noted a year ago:

    More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socia-list/communist/vegetarian overlords.

    The conspiracy theorists came away empty-handed and this was surely the best shot they will ever get at proving their case.

    Also missing was any evidence that working climate scientists were in any way concerned in private about the content of the more scientific contrarian criticisms. To be sure, Jones expressed his frustration with the time-wasting harassment of some of the FOI requests; but it must have been a disappointment, for example, for McIntyre to discover that the “team’s” publicly-expressed lack of concern about the significance of his criticisms was not a bluff but a true belief.

  27. 77
    Didactylos says:

    How about we look on the bright side?

    “Life is quite absurd / and death’s the final word”

    Climategate does have one very significant upside that hasn’t been discussed. The media are fickle. They can’t just stand idly by and applaud truth. They need struggle and tension; they build up, they knock down – they want to be involved, to be in the driving seat of history.

    Journalists were getting tired of playing the science side. They had tried all the positions they could think of: serious debate, horrible warnings, alarmism, mitigation, geoengineering, adaptation. There are only so many climate specials you can do before it gets dull.

    So climategate gave them a refreshing change. They got to say immoderate things, and smash down their idols, and fill column inches.

    And what happens next? The idols get dusted off, put back together, regilded and restored. Now that “attacking the climate scientist” has been done, it’s old news. Nobody except Fox and friends will be interested in a repeat performance.

  28. 78
    Typical Joseph says:

    “BPL: So I guess it ticks me off when idiot ideologues try to revive geocentrism because I’m not really sure the Earth orbits the sun.”

    Yes, it’s exactly that simple.

    Now, can we please get back to speculating about shadowy Russian oil oligarchs, this is a science blog after all.

  29. 79
    One Anonymous Bloke says:

    Your mail thief made me sit up and take notice, and when I did, I tried to understand the science (thanks Gavin et al, I’m glad someone understands it better than I), but more importantly it helped me understand the politics. There is a certain irony in the fact that the Tea Party seems to be funded by Russians. If only Stalin had thought of that!

  30. 80
    John says:

    #21 – I appreciate the point you make in your comment Gavin. However, it reminds me of this quote: ‘Most people can’t think, most of the rest won’t think and only a tiny minority of people do think and think accurately’. These are probably those convinced of AGW.

  31. 81
    Isotopious says:

    The goal of science is to get an answer. The issue is that it remains (for the large part) unresolved.

    That “most of the warming in the last several decades is very likely due to humans”, is still an interesting question in my view.

    However, BPL @39 thinks to challenge the result is the same as asking whether the earth is flat, Donald Oats @36 is happy for the issue to never be resolved, and it is completely lost on Ray Ladbury @60 that if climate models did a good job of internal climate variability, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

  32. 82

    I guess scientists will continue to do what scientists do.

    From this post and comments, it would appear that nobody noticed the election results of Nov 2.

    Adelady 55 pointed out that there is science and there is talk about science. However, there is also talk about what to do about science, and this latter business has been started by scientists but not handled well, in my view. As a result, the election tells us that nothing real is going to happen – – again, in my view.

    The surprising thing that I have learned here is that espoused dedication to solving global warming evaporates when confronted with doing action that would upset established ecosystems; even though climate change threatens far more disruption of these established ecosystems.

    Thus Galbraith’s message comes full circle. When confronted with a need to change (the ecosystem one knows), effort goes to proving it is not necessary – – or to change much of anything, for that matter.

  33. 83
    calyptorhynchus says:

    One year of almost complete media failure…

    Wait a minute, one year of almost complete media failure following the previous 25 years of almost complete media failure to communicate climate change.

  34. 84
    adelady says:

    Andy@76 Disappointment? Maybe you’re right. I’d not thought this through before.

    We all know it’s more annoying to be ignored than it is to be disputed or criticised. How _humiliating_ to find that people weren’t even discussing your work, let alone worrying that it might overturn or undermine their own conclusions. That could stir up some vitriol.

  35. 85
    Didactylos says:

    “That “most of the warming in the last several decades is very likely due to humans”, is still an interesting question in my view.”


    It’s a really stupid question.

    For two reasons: 1) it’s already answered, and 2) even if you try looking for a different answer, you won’t learn anything useful.

    How about a far more useful question: “How much of the warming in the last several decades is due to humans?”

    We have answers to this question, too – but there is still enough uncertainty for interesting contributions to be made here. But I’m guessing you won’t be one of those making useful contributions, Isotopious. Not if you insist on tilting at windmills.

  36. 86
    CM says:

    Mike Roddy (#65),

    Please be careful about accusing named persons of criminal acts without evidence.

    Snapple (passim),

    I have appreciated the background information you’ve posted on connections between Russian fossil fuel interests and various attacks on the science.
    *But* I wish you’d rein in the speculations, and the repeated postings of the same suspicions/insinuations in comment threads on this site whether or not it’s on topic. This site is, after all, about the science and the evidence.

  37. 87
    Foobear says:

    If by “no misconduct was found” you mean that the boards of inquiry consistently THRASHED Phil Jones and Co. for their culture of secrecy, then sure, no misconduct was found.

    Gavin – please stop defending bad behavior by climate scientists. If you want to cultivate a reputation for honesty, you have to *stop pretending* that the boards of inquiry never said anything bad about Phil et al. Until then, will remain known for its bias.

    [Response: My point all along is that this revealed nothing about the science that changes any conclusion that exists in the literature. However, even on the first day I said that the way that the FOIA requests were dealt with was ill-advised, and I have not defended that. As someone who is equally the target of FOIA requests, I am very conscious of the issues surrounding them (though they are not as clear cut as some of the commentary assumes). Scientific misconduct is a very specific thing – it is not the same as being unhelpful or rude to persistent critics. No scientific misconduct has been, or will be, found. – gavin]

  38. 88
    Didactylos says:

    “culture of secrecy”?

    Foobear is too, too funny. Can we keep him? Please?

  39. 89
    dhogaza says:


    Gavin – please stop defending bad behavior by climate scientists

    Lots of people behave badly in their jobs. If their employer doesn’t mind, and if they break no laws, then it’s nobody’s business and not in any way, shape, or form a substantive issue.

    Newton was an ass, by all accounts. So what?

    This is all you people have? Climate science is a hoax because you thinks some people behave badly?

  40. 90
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Isotopious says, “The goal of science is to get an answer.”

    Well that confirms my diagnosis. No Isotopious, the goal is not an answer, but rather understanding. With understanding you can get LOTS OF ANSWERS.

    You don’t even understand enough about science to realize how good climate science is.

  41. 91
    calyptorhynchus says:

    Further thought:

    I was reading recently about one of the early explorers (was it Bougainville?) When his ships arrived in Tahiti it was soon discovered that an iron nail would pay for sex with a local woman. The sailors began tearing the ships apart for the nails and it was looking like the entire expedition would be marooned on the island with their disassembled ships. The only thing that prevented this was the leader ordering anchors to be raised and leaving.
    Sounds like a pretty good analogy for now, only now there’s no leader to give the order to up anchors for us to sail away from our addictions.

  42. 92
    CRS, DrPH says:

    Thank you, Gavin and all on RC. I strive for accuracy in my own science, and believe in a warming (and acidifying) scenario. However, when this email event happened, I felt that the world shifted under my feet, as I’ve worked for 25+ years on methane mitigation technologies, including some that were incorporated into the UN CDM. I saw all of this work literally vanish. However, one year later, I’m much more confident.

    We’ve survived despite the political changes, and now I’d enjoy for skeptics & proponents of AGW to hash this out! Personally, I believe that the ocean acidification scenario is far more menacing and immediate than warming, as this is threatening the ocean’s food web as I type this. However, we have also learned that “panic mongering” to the public is counterproductive, so we need to focus our efforts. More accuracy, shorter-term forecasts, demonstrable science and honest discussions about what this portends to the world community, leaving the hyperbole behind.

    In the past year, I’ve met Dr. David Archer and Dr. John Holdren, viewed a stunning presentation on cloud feedbacks by Dr. Joel Norris of Scripps Institution, and discussed climate disruption with many in politics, academia, business and the lay community. Let’s work towards sharpening our presentation skills and avoid arguing, the truth will win out. Cheers to all at RC.

  43. 93
    dhogaza says:


    We’ve survived despite the political changes, and now I’d enjoy for skeptics & proponents of AGW to hash this out!

    What is a proponent of AGW? Is that sort of like being a proponent of gravity? photons?

  44. 94
    Isotopious says:

    I’m glad you have highlighted the issue of understanding, Ray. We understand the models do not simulate known modes of climate variability. So why use ’em if they don’t work? To build your understanding? You must have a very sound ‘understanding’ by now, after decades of models that still don’t work. Truly amazing.

    [Response: Which known modes do you think models don’t simulate? I’m curious… There is of course a big difference between an incomplete or an imperfect simulation and no simulation at all. – gavin]

  45. 95
    Snapple says:


    I let the scientists discuss the science, but I have a degree in Soviet Studies and understand Russian influence operations pretty well. I know a good deal about Soviet-era propaganda operations against scientists and have had some modest successes in this field.

    Climate science is under attack by political operatives, not scientists; just fighting with science will not win the battle unless ordinary people see who the scientists’ opponents really are–wealthy fossil fuel interests and the Russian petrostate.

    Cuccinelli is an elected official whose actions and family biography suggest that he may be corrupt, not misguided. If we don’t ask him questions, we will never get answers. And if we ask him questions, and we never get answers, then we are entitled to our reasonable suspicions.

    Even Tacitus only made a circumstantial case that Nero burned Rome.

    As for Alisher Usmanov, he is a Gazprom offical with an education and career that strongly suggest an affiliation with the KGB. I read the trash his newspaper Kommersant published about the British scientists.

    This is not science; this is the power and wealth of the Russian petrostate. Still, even Kommersant couldn’t come up with a scientist to serve as a mouthpiece. They only got the booby prize—Andrei Illarionov. Russian scientists may have to be quiet, but they evidently aren’t for sale.

    Usmanov’s newspaper is an organ of the Russian government, and that is why it can publish attacks on Russia’s foreign intelligence service. In case anyone had doubts, the recent attack on the SVR exposes the government’s hand behind the facade of “respectable” Kommersant.

    Cuccinelli cited the RIA Novosti version of the Kommersant attack on the climate scientists in his brief to the EPA.

    The so-called “evidence” in this ridiculous document is newspaper articles, not scientific articles.

    None of this is speculation. These are facts I read in the Russian media and in Cuccinelli’s own brief.

    The great experts on Russia and Gazprom write:

    “Moscow is skillfully advancing its interests in the West, not through intelligence but business, often supported by crafty industrial espionage, influence-buying, and under-the-table deal-making…

    In Western Europe, Moscow has operated by making lucrative arrangements with foreign energy companies that become de facto lobbyists for the Kremlin within their own countries.”—“Why The Russia Spy Story Really Matters” (RFE/RL, 7-9-10)

  46. 96
    dhogaza says:

    We understand the models do not simulate known modes of climate variability.

    No, we don’t, and actually they do.

    Gavin, a leading modeler, answered you, so I guess the basic issue here is …

    Are you interested in learning? You seem to have Gavin’s ear, so there’s a great opportunity for you to do so without enrolling in a graduate program, if you choose.

    But my impression is that you’re more likely to be one of those who will lecture the experts on their field, presuming you know more than them, simply because you disagree with them.

  47. 97
    Rod B says:

    dhogaza, you realize of course that there are serious questions whether or not photons exist, and General Relativity, taken to its rarefied extremes implies that gravity doesn’t exist…..

  48. 98
    David Klar says:

    Realclimate has been an excellent resource for understanding and predicting climate. The use of climate models to help understand and predict how environments worldwide will be affected should be applauded by all. The deliberate, dishonest attacks on reputable climate scientists by anonymous cowards has failed and is just another example of denialism emptiness. Denialistas have no alternate climate models that can stand up to peer review, so they attack climate scientists.

  49. 99

    Gavin et al.: Thanks again for keeping going through all this. My personal response: a petition to allow others the option to express support for the right of scientists to work without harassment, and a talk I developed debunking the so called skeptics, which I presented to several audiences.

  50. 100
    MarkB says:

    I admire the patience of Gavin and other scientists here. They’re working in a field that inevitably gets attacked because of the political implications of what the science indicates, and there are many hoping to make a buck or a name for themselves by engaging in such behavior. Such attacks will wax and wane, but they will continue to varying degrees over the next few decades, as long as the political and ideological motivation exists.