Andrew Weaver, a modeler with the University of Victoria General Circulation Modeling Unit, has attracted considerable attention with his allegations that computer thefts at the University of Victoria were smoking gun proof of teleconnections between American fossil fuel interests, Russian secret agents and Climategate.
Andrew Ll. Weaver, a modeler with the University of Victoria General Crime Modeling Unit (no relation to Andrew Weaver, the General Circulation Modeler), today announced that the identity of the Climategate mastermind had been solved.
In a statement, Weaver said that the solution of the Climategate mystery used the most advanced General Crime Models presently available, together with IPCC detection and attribution methods. Weaver said that he was able to conclusively identify the Climategate mastermind as Macavity the Mystery Cat. Weaver:
Macavity, Macavity, there’s no one like Macavity
He’s a fiend in feline shape, a monster of depravityMacavity, Macavity, there’s no one like Macavity
He’s broken every human law, he breaks the law of gravity …
Weaver then burst into a lively song and dance number.
Climate Audit 
41 Comments
‘Weaver then broke into a lively song and dance number’ – yet another case of academic arm-waving?
It is worrying when the satire writes itself.
I once teleconnected to the Russians . . . but all they wanted to do was sell me a bride. It seems their interests have changed.
“The Hidden Paw” — a good analogy to “Deep Throat”
Given that Global Warming has been blamed for a wide variety of seemingly unrelated ills (tsunamis, prostitution,…), maybe it’s time that scientists considered Macavity a little more carefully.
And since Macavity is often observed doing complicated long division sums, no wonder he was interested in pinching a computer. (not to mention the suspicion that he was behind the breaking of the greenhouse glass–obvious code for “skeptic”!)
Talking about GW and unrelated consequences… Check the link below. I am not sure if I should laugh or cry at such ramblings…
http://www.livescience.com/environment/top10_global_warming_results-1.html
Any chance of a serious post on climategate?
“All work and no play, . . .”
“Given that Global Warming has been blamed for a wide variety of seemingly unrelated ills (tsunamis, prostitution,…), maybe it’s time that scientists considered Macavity a little more carefully.”
I read an article the other day about increasing sea temperature making fish generally more angry/aggressive. Concerning Global Warming, the conclusion was that if we don’t cut back on GHG’s, there will be a lot of very angry fish out there (those that we haven’t eaten yet, obviously). Apparently a warming of just 2 degrees can make them start to attack each other. Although not fish and on land, this might go some way to explaining the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
But anyway Steve, I’ve noticed your blog becoming a little more satirical of late (since CG broke). I know it can’t be helped; there’s just so much here to be satirical about.
Any further analysis in the pipeline?
There are so many things to discuss in the Climategate Letters that I hardly know where to start.
As regular readers realize, when a new issue arrives, I sometimes nibble around the edges of it at first. I realize that this is sometimes frustrating, but it takes me time to do analysis and when an issue is live, I like to have a thread or two in play.
Sometimes satire is the best commentary: Jon Stewart’s commentary on the Trick is much superior to Gavin Schmidt’s or any peerreviewedrealclimatescientist.
However, you can be sure that there’s going to be lots of analysis.
It must be embarrassing to be Gavin. I watched the CNN debate between John Christy and Gavin on Wolf Blitzer. When Gavin said the “trick” is just “a technique to do a smooth”…”it’s nothing nafarious”…”it’s nothing sneaky”. If you look closely, you can almost see Gavin’s nose grow an inch or so. Why can’t the man simply tell the truth of why they didn’t want to acknowledge the fact that the tree ring data is not a reliable measure of temperature so they decided to hide that fact.
The video can be seen at this link: http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=GdaG6Upruz
“No Password in Signature”, a catchy song title: http://eddblogonline.blogspot.com/2009/11/data-leak-lessons-learned-from.html
Here I thought is was Professor Moriarty.
Rumor has it that Macavity is on the payroll of Big Catnip and has ties to the Mouse lobby.
This is too funny. Thank goodness we have computers to solve everything!
In the “possibly related posts” section, the “Macavity the Mystery Cat” link takes you to some website about Istanbul with some wise-ass remarks to boot. Don’t know what that’s all about.
New email discovered. Possibly fake. But then again…
From: P**** *on**@CRU**********.uk
To: T** *ig*** @********.uk
Hi Tom,
Last time we advertised for a vacancy we were inundated with applications. As you know I’m flying off to a conference in New Zealand later today to discuss the evils of unnecessary travel, so I will be out of the country for a couple of days.
How about we narrow down the applicants with a simple questionnaire? We can then interview the best candidates when I return.
Ciao
Pete
PS Don’t include the scoring system on the form.
Climate Scientist Application Form.
Answer the following questions as honestly as possible.
Someone hypothesises you can accurately correlate temperature to tree ring growth. Do you?
A collect data which is found to correlate annual tree ring widths very poorly with instrumental temperature thereby enabling you reject the hypothesis.
B collect data which correlates tree ring widths very poorly with temperature and attempt to patch a fit by using lake sediments in the opposite manner than was originally intended because it gives the “correct” answer.
C collect data which correlates tree ring widths very poorly with temperature and think, B*gger this, let’s just stick the actual temperature to the end of it. We’ve been banging our heads together for the last 15 years attempting to get this nonsense to correlate”
An article appears in the peer reviewed literature which appears to contradict the findings of some of your earlier work. Do you?
A Digest the findings of the new work. It may provide some valuable insights that will allow you to improve on your previous research.
B Don’t worry too much about it. It won’t make it to the IPCC even if you have to redefine what the peer review process is.
C Write to the journal’s editor telling him you know who the publisher is and that you will get him fired if he ever publishes another paper like it.
You receive a request for the raw historical temperature data on which you base your published findings. Do you tell the applicant?
A I will comply within 2 working weeks. Thank you for taking an interest in our work.
B that you lost the data when you moved offices.
C that the raw data is covered by confidentiality agreements.
D that the confidentiality agreements were lost and this, therefore, forbids you releasing any raw data.
E that you would rather destroy the raw data than show it to anyone else.
F that other independent temperature series, such as GISS, give approximately the same answers as your processed data, so this should give confidence in the accuracy of your published results even though you intend to keep the data you worked with a secret.
G that your raw data is the exactly the same raw data used in other “independent” studies.
H that the raw data was on old fashion floppy discs and tape and that you can no longer read them.
I that the dog ate it.
J all of the above except A
You are sitting in your office at work and notice that it is too cold for comfort. It is only October but the snow outside is 2 feet thick. Throughout the continental United States where your office is situated, the weather is unseasonably cold. The thermometer on the wall reads 40 Degrees F. Do you?
A Ring the services department and ask them to fix the heating, pronto.
B wrap up and battle on working. The day will soon be over.
C Ring the services department and ask them to add more mercury to the thermometer bulb until the column is level with the 82 degrees F mark, the same temperature as Bali.
A scientific rival has died recently. Whilst you had academic disagreements you have no other reason to dislike him. Do you?
A Offer his widow condolences and send her flowers
B Attend the funeral and comfort his widow personally
C Hire a string quartet and arrange to meet them at the cemetery and then proceed to dance on his grave.
How you did.
Mainly “As” you are obviously a denier, fascist scumbag with no more right to live than a cockroach. Your father was probably Hitler and you mother was most likely Rose West.
Mainly “Bs” you have some way to go. You still have some habits associated with good scientific practice. You will have to rid yourself of these if you are to fit in here.
Mainly “Cs”. Welcome aboard!
Steve you made my day. I love your wicked sense of humour.
“The Napoleon of crime” h’mmm, interesting, Napoleon (and Hitler) was defeated eventually by the climate, the Russian winter he forgot to anticipate. Ya! Yamal! this time
The contents on this site and some comments are really deterioating. I am truly dissapointed. I was under the impression that this site were to be taken seriously?
I am so anti the agw, and I come here to find quality material and information, but, that is not the case any more.
Shape up.
AdderW, I think the problem is that Steve is having trouble extracting data from the computer that was stolen from Weaver. The computer, as it turns out, wasn’t dead it was just frozen and Weaver didn’t think to check that because none of the models predicted freezing.
By the way, have you heard the unconfirmed reports that claim world renowned dentist Dr. Phil Macavity (no relation to the above) is now warning of the dire consequences of Global Warming and the resultant lack of freezing for dentistry? 😉
AdderW, if you want quality information right now, have a look under my name, explore my Climate Science stuff. Explore my index page.
We are all working on the science but much of it is a bit behind the scenes pro tem, somewhat of necessity. ClimateGate was a shock to the system and lots of new posters came here while Steve was pretty overwhelmed. WUWT is preparing a decent index; they realize the problem and have stickified a really important factual piece. It will level out, and perhaps you can help that happen.
Thank you, Lucy Walker. I am now glued to that site. (as well)
snip
Sorry, that should be Lucy Skywalker of course 🙂
I suspect the only thing smoking in Mr Weavers office doesn’t go ‘bang’ but makes a low sucking noise. What a churlish attempt he has made to try and take media attention from the CRU scandal.
I think he must be referring to the SVR.
regards
Blame Macavity the cat? Isn’t that species-ism?
Would that be that Andrew Lloyd Weaver?
Investigative
Panel on
Computer
Crime
?
Lucy Skywalker said “Napoleon (and Hitler) was defeated eventually by the climate, … “.
Napoleon (600,000 french and allied soldiers, there were still some 100,000-200,000 men envolved in logistics) was defeated by diseases spread by insects because the summer and autumn was warm and the winter late in 1812. During the first two months Napoleon lost about 300,000 men from diseases and 6,000 men in one battle. Totally less than 10 % of the troups died during battles and about 85 % from diseases. 2-3 % returned home. Only about 10 % ever saw the enemy.
So, in a way we can say that Napoleon was defeated by warm “climate”.
I hope this thread survives for years. I hope to come up here for air often. There is just so much serious stuff you can submerge yourself into.
BTW, Steve is not the only skeptic becoming a bit giddy with the surfeit of lunacies coming to the surface: http://cfact.eu/2009/12/10/trading-friends-for-treaty/
Robinson
Posted Dec 10, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Sorry to do this. NO I am not.;)
Ought to credit T.S. Eliot’s “Book of Practical Cats” for Macavity– “Cats” Broadway-run lasted quite some years. We especially appreciate “Old Deuteronomy” and “Growl Tiger” the bravo-cat, whose demise was cheered on Thames-side wharves: “Rats were roasted whole in Depford and along Victoria Dock, and a day of celebration was commanded in Bangkok.”
Thanks, Steve, that was excellent!
I myself have read so much of the blinking CRU emails, analysis and editorializing that I’m starting to go a bit batty with it all….
Some humor really helps, sir! Cheers and best, Chuck in Chicago (Univ of Illinois)
And all the time I thought it was this guy.
OT
Not to single you out, but there have been dozens of people making identical comments in past weeks. It’s a topic that has been discussed to death at CA. If you read the blog you’ll see there’s a wide range of commentary from insightful to useless to idiocy. For some reason climategate has given people license to post comments without actually reading the blog.
.
Treeline trees are more temperature limited than those below treeline, both in theory and in fact. But still, yes, there are other factors that limit growth, such as moisture, N and C (the latter of which are usually presumed as fixed). Univariate reconstructions are thus approximations. Dendros know this. The issue is how you go about quantifying the error and uncertainty on a mis-specified approximation. The problem is not trivial.
Dendros, please feel free to chime in and correct me.
Correction: feel free to seek out a dendro thread and correct me there. The topic here is the Weaver break-ins.
snip – piling on
How it’s “piling on” to elaborate on how I agree with you I don’t see.
Nobody seem to have thought about a very reliable way to follow temperature variations.
The Degree/Days system that has been in use for a long time to calculate the heating needs for all buildings is probably the best way to get very good data.
The University of Oxford has a nice data set for a 20 years period from 1987 to 2006 for all of UK showing the yearly average.
The result show a cooling trend that correlate nicely with those tree rings that they tried to hide.
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/degreedays.php
I will try to get Canada data