“It’s impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren’t looking…. [Sir Muir Russell’s committee] only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.” (Patrick Michaels, below)

On the 16th anniversary of Climategate, an editorial from 2010 by the late Patrick J. Michaels, is as timely as ever. Michaels, the most trenchant climate scientist against the alarmist consensus, would be pleased with the demise of the Paris Agreement and ‘Net Zero’ at this year’s COP30. His editorial published in the Wall Street Journal (July 12, 2010) follows.

Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year’s data manipulation scandal. Don’t believe the ‘independent’ reviews.

Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world’s leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called “a nice, tidy story” of climate history.…

“There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.” – Andrew Dessler, “Climate E-Mails Cloud the Debate,” December 10, 2009.

Another anniversary is marked regarding one of the greatest scientific scandals in the history of physical science, politicized physical science. Many books have been written on Climategate, one of the best, in terms of finding middle ground, being Fred Pearce’s The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming (Random House UK: 2010).

Pearce, then climate reporter at the The Guardian, wrote an extensive opinion-page editorial at the Progressive Left organ. His “Climategate’ was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer Review,” was fronted by this editor note:

In a unique experiment, The Guardian published online the full manuscript of its major investigation into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia, which revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature.

“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.” (- Michael Mann, below)

The futile, wasteful anti-CO2 crusade is in its 37th year, dating from the hot, dry summer of 1988 when NASA scientist James Hansen sounded the alarm before U.S. lawmakers, led by Al Gore.

Last week, the United Nations Conference of Parties (COP) ended with acrimony over an unenforceable agreement pledging to transfer wealth to developing (Statist) countries for “clean” energy development.

CO2 emissions cuts? With almost all major emitters well beyond the targets set in the 2015 Paris Accord, the (also) unenforceable agreement is losing more and more every day as self-interest swamps aspirations. The recipient welfare states described COP29 as “chaotic,” “complete failure,” “optical illusion,” “stage managed,” and “paltry.”…

“Gaygate 2023 and Climategate 2009 reinforce each other. So when will basic honesty and academic standards return to academia? To climate science?”

It’s a whitewash–again. The plagiarism (and data falsification?) of Harvard president Claudine Gay brings to mind the similar exposé of the Climategate emails, whose words, sentences, and paragraphs had to be swept under the rug back in 2009/2010 by an embarrassed establishment protecting its own. [1]

Wiki’s whitewash, for example, brought attention to the source (“denialists”) and then misrepresented the importance of the exposé.

The story was first broken by climate-change denialists, who argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy and that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics. The CRU [Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia] rejected this, saying that the emails had been taken out of context.