November 30, 2009
FROM- Quadrant Online
by Walter Starck
Climategate: Trivial break in or devastating break out?
The attempts by AGW proponents to dismiss the significance of what is revealed in the Climategate information serves only to further compound the malfeasance involved. What has been exposed is anything but trivial. It goes to the core of the science itself and any attempt to trivialise it is in itself further corruption.
Science has been the most successful of all human endeavours to understand our world and to avoid our propensity for lying to ourselves. Its essence is a search for truth founded on empirical evidence, rational consistency and verifiability. In science all understanding is tentative and subject to revision as indicated by new evidence or better reasoning. Honesty and transparency are vital elements in this process.
The CRU emails reveal an obvious subordination of all these elements to an agenda of presenting AGW as incontestable fact and suppressing or denigrating anything not in accord with this conviction. AGW is exposed not so much as science, but rather as anti-science. Like the so-called creation science it resembles in various respects, it pretends to be science but is devoted to defending a belief not to discovering truth. Evidence is blatantly selected, dismissed, distorted, suppressed, hidden and denied in accord with its conformity with AGW. Conflicting rationales are employed to support differing points of argument and independent verification is treated as a risk to be avoided at any cost. Unlike real science wherein truth is the ultimate aim, in AGW science its main consideration is as something to be avoided.
That the utter disregard for truth exhibited in the CRU emails can be either invisible or insignificant to AGW defenders is indicative of the vast chasm between their faith and the open rational empirical world of real science.
The other very big deal revealed in the CRU files has been the amateur hairball of undocumented unverified computer coding on which much of their climate work is based. That output from such hopelessly inept programming has been accepted by the IPCC as a foundation element for their assessments and become the basis for major national and international policies would be a travesty beyond belief were it not real.
At a time when the world is facing both severe economic instability and constraints on vital energy supplies, to have critical decision making in both areas distorted by deliberate untruths is a very big deal indeed. It is far beyond just a petty academic dispute or scientific misconduct. Even though it does entail millions of dollars being obtained by false pretences and also involves a betrayal of vital national interests, it goes beyond fraud or even treason. Bad decisions stemming from false information on climate change will at minimum result in dangerous exacerbation of economic and energy shortages. With resulting wars and famines, AGW could well become a crime against humanity exceeding any that have gone before.
Although AGW proponents would, of course, make the same argument regarding the danger of climate change, there are distinct differences. Climate sceptics have only argued the reasons and evidence. They have not lied about evidence or suppressed and distorted it nor have they engaged in fraud to obtain billions of dollars in funding. Perhaps most importantly, sceptics have called for open debate, transparency and independent verification while warmers have tried to suppress any opinion other than consent and to hold their authority to be beyond question or examination. In a situation where science is most needed, warmers have greatly damaged both its functioning and its credibility. Ironically though, they have also restored credibility in a healthy scepticism and the authority they tried to claim they have themselves discredited.
Unfortunately, public leaders find it almost impossible to ever admit error and reverse themselves once they have committed to a position. Even though the blatant fraud behind catastrophic warming has been exposed for all to see, a meaningless charade of empty political posturing will probably continue for some time while leaders try to find a graceful way to exit.
When the time comes that mistakes can be admitted some apologies are overdue, especially from:
* Leading scientific journals (esp. Science and Nature) as well as national scientific academies for so readily lending themselves and their prestige to the fraud.
* The Nobel Peace Prize committee for honouring extremist activists advocating policies certain to exacerbate third world hunger and poverty.
* BBC, CBC, ABC and numerous commercial news organizations for regularly regurgitating rank AGW propaganda with no investigation and flagrant bias.
* The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for awarding an Oscar to a third rate polemic posing as a documentary.
* Brown, Rudd, Obama et al. for jumping in front of the climate parade without due diligence.
* The research mob who climbed aboard the AGW bandwagon for the funding and attention it offered while making little effort to inform themselves on the actual evidence.
Although some warmers have advocated Nuremburg style public trials for what they deem to be climate crimes, such does appear excessive. However, it also seems justice should demand that those guilty of actual climate fraud not be let off entirely free. For the major players, a properly warranted commission to determine if and where criminal proceedings might be warranted would be appropriate. As for the multitude of bit players and their fellow travellers, the great climate fraud provides a unique opportunity to effect a badly needed housecleaning in the environmental science establishment. Large numbers of ethically challenged third rate researchers have exposed themselves by taking prominent positions on the climate bandwagon. Their further employ and funding should be evaluated accordingly. Pruning back deadwood in the Fall when it is easy to see can be most beneficial to subsequent regrowth.
Even though the faith of true believers in AGW remains strong and supporters hope, while opponents fear, the CRU episode will soon fade away, this is unlikely. What has been revealed is not simply an isolated blemish on the surface of AGW science, but rather a grand exposure of systemic corruption at the very heart of it. The malaise is widespread and of long standing. That the malignancy extends well beyond what has been just been revealed is obvious. That further revelations will follow seems certain.
Most significantly, the U.S. Congress has expressed a need to investigate this matter. Various Congressional Committees led by chairpersons of differing persuasions have such power and may use it at their discretion, unconstrained by Terms of Reference or approval from the Administration. It now seems inevitable that AGW science is going to have to justify itself. This will require having to answer uncomfortable questions under oath and producing any evidence requested. What has already been revealed in the CRU release makes it obvious that the climate fraudsters are in big trouble.
Public opinion polls over the past few days have indicated a precipitous fall in support for climate control. Politicians who have committed themselves to it would be well advised to start executing their exit strategy. If they can’t think of one, in the face of the inevitable they might do better yet to consider the unthinkable and simply admit having been wrong. Most of us could even have some sympathy with that.
Exclusive interview -- Senator Inhofe discusses upcoming Copenhagen Climate Conference; also, the Wizard of Gore
By Wes Vernon
The big media may think they can go on forever ignoring the Climategate scandal — whereby "respected" scientists have been caught red-handed doctoring evidence so as to perpetrate the fraudulent perception of man-made "global warming."
But investigative forces are gathering that clearly indicate the issue will not go away. And if we have to depend on Fox News, Talk Radio, and the Internet to get the facts out, so be it. It may take time, but information will circulate by word of mouth until at some point, the kept-media's stubborn refusal to report the story will make them look stupid.
The Mr. Magoo metaphor again would be relevant. Except Mr. Magoo in fact is stupid. The man can't help himself. Those imperial deciders of what the public does and does not have a right to know who withhold vitally-important information are fully complicit in a cover-up. They know what's going on, they just don't want to let us in on it, or they play it down and blur its significance.
The investigations begin
On Capitol Hill, Senator James Inhofe has taken steps toward a full-fledged investigation. The Oklahoma Republican has fired off letters to several scientists who were caught up in the revelation of manipulated data — supposedly to prove a "consensus" — notifying them to retain documents related to the release of the damning emails.
The senator, Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, says lawmakers "have an obligation to determine the extent to which the so-called 'consensus' of global warming, formed with billions of taxpayer dollars, was contrived in the biased minds of the world's leading climate scientists." A spokesman for Mr. Inhofe affirmed that he "will be working closely with Senator [and committee Chairman Barbara Boxer] on an investigation." (This column did an interview with the Oklahoma lawmaker about his planned trip to the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference as part of a "truth squad." More on that below.)
Senator Inhofe is not alone is pursuing an investigation of what has all the earmarks of yet one more betrayal of the public trust.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute took legal action during Thanksgiving week against several government agencies to force public disclosure of the relevant documents in the case.
CEI Senior Fellow Christopher Horner (author of Red Hot Lies) says he is after information that would reveal "document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and the U.K. to avoid complying with both countries' freedom of information laws, [as well as] apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of information climate science bodies" that has been going on "for years."
As in Watergate, a Climategate cover-up
As you and I were sitting down to our turkey dinners last week, stories in the un-kept media (Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Fox News, this website, and precious few exceptions in the main media) were reporting that someone (details of this writing are not clear) apparently had hacked into the e-mails of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in England, whose temperature models (according to its own claims) form the basis for the climate proclamations from the high priests of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Smoking guns abound
Phil Jones — head of the CRU — says he "accidentally" deleted some raw temperature data that was used to define aggregate temperatures in the temperature information CRU distributed. If people in those responsible positions only made "mistakes," why don't they occasionally make one in our favor?
Further, in one e-mail, it is admitted that the methodology for determining aggregate temperatures "renders the station counts totally meaningless." Also secretly acknowledged (but not shared with the outside world) is that "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't."
Jones also wrote that if ever there is a Freedom of Information Act in the UK, "I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone."
There were such instructions as "Apply a very artificial correction for [temperature] decline." (Italics added)
The school's Vice Chancellor, Trevor Davies, was very defensive, saying the revelations have "led to some questioning of CRU's Climate science research." (No! Really?)
These — together with other e-mails indicating fierce attempts to silence any professors or journals that questioned the "man-made global warming" doctrine — are examples of the fraud perpetrated on the public for more than two decades.
Senator Inhofe's truth squad
Thankfully, there will be no treaty or binding document that comes from Copenhagen at the Climate Conference gathering there December 7-18. President Obama acknowledged this during meetings in Singapore. Thus, the immediate threat of just such a power grab (discussed in this column November 2) has been lifted — for now.
Senator James Inhofe will be at Copenhagen. He told this column he will attend as part of a truth squad. He and Wyoming Senator John Barrasso will "tell the world that the United States will not support a global warming treaty that will significantly damage the American economy, cost American jobs, and impose the largest tax increase in American history." Also, Americans "will not be a part of a binding climate agreement [that favors] developing nations." The Oklahoman says with U.S. unemployment at over 10 percent, "the last thing we need is another thousand-page bill that increases costs and ships jobs overseas, all with no impact on climate change."
The senator cites an article in the London Daily Telegraph saying that "The worst-kept secret in the world [is that] the climate change summit in Copenhagen is going to be little more than a photo opportunity for world leaders."
Bear in mind, our questions were submitted to the senator before the outbreak of the Climategate scandal — before Mr. Inhofe set the wheels in motion for an investigation of the fraud that is "man-made" global warming.
Senator Inhofe intends to use every lever at his disposal as a senior senator and top member of the EPW committee to see that truth comes out from the whole sticky mess that is Climategate (the scandal itself, as well as the cover-up).
He is confident history is on his side. When I asked — in the event a treaty did come to the Senate — whether he would have the 34 votes to block its approval, Inhofe responded, "The bigger question is if President Obama can get the 67 votes [the two-thirds required] to ratify a treaty." The Senate a few years ago voted 95-0 urging that the U.S. not sign the infamous Kyoto "global warming" treaty. The Senate has defeated "cap-and-trade" legislation three times in this decade, though such a bill was passed by a sliver margin in the House in June. (No way would that have happened if Climategate had been exposed.)
Finally, we get to Prince Albert — a man who has made himself scarce in the last few days (as I write).
The Wizard of Gore
The year 2009 has marked two events connected with The Wizard of Oz.
1 — The 70th anniversary of that classic 1939 film classic has been observed with "Hi-Def" showings and concomitant DVD sales.
The title role — played by Frank Morgan — depicts an all-powerful, all-knowing "Wizard" who scares children and dogs with his booming, resonant, and authoritative voice, implying that he — as "the Great Oz" — has the power to grant "a brain" to a scarecrow, "a heart" to a humanly-constructed piece of scrap metal, and "courage" to a lion beast — normally like offering ice to an Eskimo.
In the end, the "Wizard" is shown to be a snake-oil fraud, protesting "I'm a very good man. I'm just a very bad Wizard."
A modern, but also "very bad Wizard"
What one must say in defense of that "Wizard" is that at least he owned up to his inadequacies, and did not — for example — blame the cyclonic wind-storm that displaced Dorothy's house from its Kansas bearings on — all together now — "global warming."
The Wizard of Gore (as in Albert, Jr.) does share some characteristics of the original: He seeks fame, notoriety, fortune, or whatever, through the age-old mechanism of fraud. Tales of massive floodings and worldwide droughts surely have literally frightened the children attending required showings of his videos at indoctrination centers called schools.
Unlike the original rascal who operated a console to produce faux thunder and lightning, the Wizard of Gore — possibly not wanting to do anything so ostentatiously suggesting "climate change" (fake or real) — instead resorts to intimidation of another sort — i.e., "The debate is over," or anyone who questions his climate snake oil is "discredited," or "not to be trusted."
Not only does the Wizard of Gore refuse to debate the skeptics, he actually compares them to Holocaust deniers. Furthermore, there is no record of this onetime aspirant of the United States presidency contradicting those among his acolytes who have suggested that "deniers" be stripped of their First Amendment freedoms, or hauled before some kangaroo court and jailed for their expressions of doubt. (Translation: Silence! Dare not differ with the Wizard of Gore!)
A Wizard with pants to his ankles
The 2009 Wizard cannot forever maintain his unaccustomed silence since the climate fraud story broke. And maybe he'll have shown his face by the time you read this. (Wonder what's in Albert's e-mails these days.) The Climategate scandal has erupted with — dare we say it? — a full gale force, with the resulting "inconvenient truths" that threaten to smash away all the eggs in the "very bad Wizard's" political basket.
Prince Albert reportedly has even warned conservatives that if they don't climb aboard the "man-made global warming" bandwagon soon, the result will be that when the floods and the droughts come, they will be reduced to political irrelevance. (Some "moderate" Republicans would probably be gullible enough to fall for it.)
Give the Wizard his due, however: His predictions of "climate change" are not entirely without merit. Surely, the fraud uncovered by Climategate could facilitate a change in perceived scientific conventional wisdom on the bogus warming propaganda. That could in turn lead to a change in the political climate on this politically-charged matter.
Senator Inhofe tells this column this issue has already started to garner "tea-party style attention." The grass roots organizations across the land are spreading the word that the "man-made warming" hoax is riddled with traps. The possible result? — out of a job, in the poorhouse, confiscatory taxes if you do have a job (or maybe even if you don't). Government controls on nearly everything you do. Not exactly a bright outlook. Some remember when we had a real president who spoke of America as the "shining city on the hill."
The forecasts of global warming are based on the mathematical solutions of equations in models of the weather. But all of these solutions are inaccurate. Therefore no valid scientific conclusions can be made concerning global warming. The false claim for the effectiveness of mathematics is an unreported scandal at least as important as the recent climate data fraud. Why is the math important? And why don't the climatologists use it correctly?
Mathematics has a fundamental role in the development of all physical sciences. First the researchers strive to understand the laws of nature determining the behavior of what they are studying. Then they build a model and express these laws in the mathematics of differential and difference equations. Next the mathematicians analyze the solutions to these equations to improve the understanding of the scientist. Often the mathematicians can describe the evolution through time of the scientist's model.
The most famous successful use of mathematics in this way was Isaac Newton's demonstration that the planets travel in elliptical paths around the sun. He formulated the law of gravity (that the rate of change of the velocity between two masses is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them) and then developed the mathematics of differential calculus to demonstrate his result.
Every college physics student studies many of the simple models and their successful solutions that have been found over the 300 years after Newton. Engineers constantly use models and mathematics to gain insight into the physics of their field.
However, for many situations of interest, the mathematics may become too difficult. The mathematicians are unable to answer the scientist's important questions because a complete understanding of the differential equations is beyond human knowledge. A famous longstanding such unsolved problem is the n-body problem: if more than two planets are revolving around one another, according to the law of gravity, will the planets ram each other or will they drift out to infinity?
Fortunately, in the last fifty years computers have been able to help mathematicians solve complex models over short time periods. Numerical analysts have developed techniques to graph solutions to differential equations and thus to yield new information about the model under consideration. All college calculus students use calculators to find solutions to simple differential equations called integrals. Space-travel is possible because computers can solve the n-body problem for short times and small n. The design of the stealth jet fighter could not have been accomplished without the computing speed of parallel processors. These successes have unrealistically raised the expectations for the application of mathematics to scientific problems.
Unfortunately, even assuming the model of the physics is correct, computers and mathematicians cannot solve more difficult problems such as the weather equations for several reasons. First, the solution may require more computations than computers can make. Faster and faster computers push back the speed barrier every year. Second, it may be too difficult to collect enough data to accurately determine the initial conditions of the model. Third, the equations of the model may be non-linear. This means that no simplification of the equations can accurately predict the properties of the solutions of the differential equations. The solutions are often unstable. That is a small variation in initial conditions lead to large variations some time later. This property makes it impossible to compute solutions over long time periods.
As an expert in the solutions of non-linear differential equations, I can attest to the fact that the more than two-dozen non-linear differential equations in the models of the weather are too difficult for humans to have any idea how to solve accurately. No approximation over long time periods has any chance of accurately predicting global warming. Yet approximation is exactly what the global warming advocates are doing. Each of the more than 30 models being used around the world to predict the weather is just a different inaccurate approximation of the weather equations. (Of course this is only an issue if the model of the weather is correct. It is probably not because the climatologists probably do not understand all of the physical processes determining the weather.)
Therefore, logically one cannot conclude that any of the predictions are correct. To base economic policy on the wishful thinking of these so-called scientists is just foolhardy from a mathematical point of view. The leaders of the mathematical community, ensconced in universities flush with global warming dollars, have not adequately explained to the public the above facts.
November 29, 2009
Leaked 'climategate' documents show huge flaws in the backbone of climate change science
I've been poring over one of many leaked computer files from the "climategate" scandal.
It's worse than those e-mails revealing leading climate scientists did a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures and privately called it a "travesty" they couldn't explain recent cooling.
This document has the innocuous header "HARRY_READ_Me.txt."
I'm indebted to Kate McMillan, the remarkable Canadian blogger who runs smalldeadanimals.com, for calling it to my attention.
You can easily find it online. I used www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_Me.txt.
The file -- 274 pages long -- describes the efforts of a climatologist/programmer at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia to update a huge statistical database (11,000 files) of important climate data between 2006 and 2009.
The computer coding, along with the programmer's apparently unsuccessful efforts to complete the project, involve data that are the foundation of the study of climate change -- recordings from hundreds of weather stations around the world of temperature and precipitation measurements from 1901 to 2006, sun/cloud computer simulations, and the like.
These presumably precise data are the backbone of climate science.
Reading "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" it's clear the CRU's files were a mess. The programmer laments huge gaps in data, bug-filled programs and worries about all the guesswork he's doing. His comments suggest the problems go back years.
The CRU at East Anglia University is considered by many as the world's leading climate research agency. Here's how CBSNews.com's Declan McCullagh describes its enormous impact on policymakers:
"In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: It claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. The report ... is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it 'relies on most heavily' when concluding carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated."
As you read the programmer's comments below, remember, this is only a fraction of what he says.
- "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17)
- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)
- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died ... no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles ... This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)
- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)
- "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)
- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)
- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)
- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)
- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)
- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)
- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)
- "OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).
- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS ..." (266)
And based on stuff like this, politicians are going to blow up our economy and lower our standard of living to "fix" the climate?
Are they insane?
As a true global warming skeptic that has studied the issue and folowed it closely for some time it is easy for me to forget that most people do not follow the topic very closely. This is understandable, most people are busy living life and have precious few hours to devote to an issue that does not directly affect them-yet
Given that, I want to point to a very important aspect of "climate change" that most people may not grasp . This has to do with the promotion and psychology of the agenda of global warming, not the actual science or the lack there of.
The recent release of e-mails from the Hadley Center are important because it shows that a very elite group of scientist controlling the process by which the scientific community studied and published findings. Putting aside any manipulation or destruction of data that may have occurred, the fact that they were able to make their narrative of the science the only acceptable narrative "the science is settled" had a ripple effect on everything connected to it whether in science, politics, economics or society as a whole.
Let's just look at just the influence on the science aspect of it. Once it became accepted that these scientist's theory on global warming was a reality, all other scientific endeavors fed off that belief. Vasts amounts of time and money were spent to determine the consequences of their assertion that unprecedented warming was and would continue to occur. The key is that they say that what is happening now and what will occur is unprecedented. Once this is accepted it stymies quite a bit of historical investigation. This in turn channels scientific investigation away from the actual theory and focuses attention onto research into what is happening or what will happen because the climate gurus have already stated that everything we are experiencing is new.
Even a cursory examination throws much of this out the window. Why were Vikings buried in Greenland's permafrost? Did they really go to that much trouble to bury their dead or perhaps the ground was not so frozen when they died. Why do receding glacier uncover abandoned mines from the Roman era? Did they really dig through glaciers to get to the silver, or were the glaciers not there when the mines were excavated and the approaching glaciers caused them to abandon them? Of course this is simple logical refutation of the idea that we are in an unprecedented warming. Their are countless others. As the late Reid Bryson put it “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”
So new scientific investigation is not primarily based on how it relates to the historical past, but rather how it will affect the "unprecedented" future. Vast amounts of research is done not on what is but rather on what will be, all based upon the assumptions fed to the world by a few scientist with their hands on the controls of what they find to be acceptable and worthy.
All of this research into the unprecedented future is then fed to the media which promotes disaster as a business model "if it bleeds it leads" and wallah crisis and mayhem are just around the corner. Think I overstate it? I just typed the following phrase into Google search
Climate Change Could
Climate change could boost incidence of civil war in Africa
Climate change could put the heat on California crops -- latimes.com
EERE News: Study Says Climate Change Could Displace 150 Million ...
Climate Change Could Choke Oceans for 100000 Years Wired Science ...
Climate change could kill 250000 children - Telegraph
Climate change 'could reverse malaria patterns' - SciDev.Net
Climate Change Could Drain Great Lakes: Discovery News
IRIN Africa AFRICA: Climate change could worsen displacement ...
Climate change could swamp Venice's flood defence - environment ...
amednews: Climate change could put public's health at risk :: Nov ...
That is the first page, be my guest to check out all 49,100,000 entries. All of this constantly being fed to us in an unending mind numbing beat of apocalyptic dread. But remember all these reports start with the very important qualifier, Climate change "could". If you read any of those articles the chances are you will read more qulifiers, such as :
"...But the new work might hold warning signs for what is to come"
''...Italy's City of Water – could face daily floods, and according to a new study..."
"...as many as 150 million people could be forced from their homes due to climate change impacts"
"Urban communities are more likely to encounter severe flooding and heat waves, rural communities face storm damage and reduced water resources, coastal areas could see an increase in floods, and mountain regions are at risk from melting glaciers and snow."
"Despite recent high-level statements suggesting that climate change could worsen the risk of civil conflict,...
And of course the assumption based upon an assumption inspired by an assumption:
According to a simulation of planetary warming trends, failure to drastically
cut greenhouse gas pollution within the next half century could choke Earth’s
oceans for the next 100,000 years.
It is as if could is now some sort of scientific principle. It is all conjecture, perhaps well thought out and highly researched conjecture, but all conjecture none the less.
Worse, it is conjecture based upon the supposition of the climate scientist who in the their own words admit they do not know what has happened to the global warming they profess is undeniable. The entire climate change industry feeds off the credibility of a very few scientist, most of them having shown themselves to be not only secretive but hyper defensive and sensitive to criticism.
It is my understanding that the way you defend science is with facts, but these guys have done everything they can to hide and muddle the facts and the e-mails and the data released with it proves that.
When you hear, as you still do, "yes some scientist behaved badly but climate change is undeniable." Why, because climate change could ? When you do not compare the present with past, or the past has been distorted, how can you know that what you are observing is unprecedented? If you are told that the future could do this or that but it is all based on science that has no integrity or credibility, why do you believe it?
An absolute foundation principle of the scientific method is skepticism. Yet it has been the very goal of this group of scientist to not only foil any skepticism of their work and theories but to make the very word skeptic anathema to climate science.
Climate Change could do a million things, but one thing it has definitely done, it has tainted the scientific community and unless scientist of integrity speak out, science will be soon held in the same regard as used car salesman-or worse politicians.
By J.R. Dunn
The East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) revelations come as no real surprise to anyone who has closely followed the global-warming saga. The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) thesis, to give it its semi-official name, is no stranger to fraud. It would be no real exaggeration to state that it was fertilized with fraud, marinated in fraud, stewed in fraud, and at last served up to the world as prime grade-A fraud with nice side orders of fakery and disingenuousness. Damning as they may be, the CRU e-mails are merely the climactic element in an exhaustively long line.
A short tour of previous AGW highlights would include:
The Y2K Glitch. This episode involved the NASA/GISS team led by James Hansen, possibly the most fanatical and unrelenting of all warmists, a man who makes Al Gore look like a skeptic. (Among other things, Hansen has demanded that warming "deniers" be tried for "crimes against humanity".) While examining a series of NASA temperature graphs, Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, himself not so much a skeptic as an anti-warming Van Helsing, uncovered a discontinuity occurring in January 2000 that raised temperatures gathered over widespread areas by 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit. McIntyre had no easy time of it, since Hansen refused to reveal what algorithm he'd used to process the data, forcing McIntyre to perform some very abstruse calculations to figure it out.
Once notified, Hansen's team promised to correct the error, stating that it was an "oversight". When the corrected figures were at last released, they rocked the church of warming from bingo hall to steeple. Vanished was the claim that the past few years were "the warmest on record". Now 1934 took precedence. A full half of the top ten warmest years occurred before WW II, well prior to any massive CO2 buildup.
No explanation has ever been offered. We have a Y2K glitch that behaves like no other computer glitch ever encountered, uniformly affecting a large number of sources distributed almost nationwide. Although the incident trashed all recent data and raised uncomfortable questions about the warming thesis as a whole, NASA itself made no effort at an investigation or inquiry. All that we're ever going to hear is "oversight". I guess that's how they do things at NASA/GISS.
The Arctic Ice Melt. We've been informed for the better part of a decade that Arctic ice was melting at an unprecedented rate, and that the North Pole would be ice-free in twenty, thirty, or forty years, depending in the hysteria level of the media platform in question. In truth, ice thinning was due to a cyclical weather pattern in which winds blow ice floes south into warmer water. Everybody involved knew that this cycle occurred, everyone had seen it happen previously time out of mind. But it was too good an opportunity to pass up. Worse yet, when the weather returned to its normal pattern two years ago, large numbers of scientists put in considerable effort to suggest that the "new" ice was thinner than usual and would vanish in a flash as soon as the temperatures went back up. The media went along with the joke. The Germans have a phrase to cover such eventualities: this crew should be stripped of their trade. (Several expeditions setting out for the Pole to "call attention" to the coming Arctic catastrophe had to stop short due to icy conditions. In one case, both women involved suffered serious frostbite.)
The Poor Polar Bears. Closely related is the saga of the polar bears, staring extinction in the face due to warming while, somewhere beyond the aurora, Gaia weeps bitter tears. This was evidently inspired by a single photograph (you've seen it -- the entire world has at this point) of a woebegone polar bear crouched on a melting iceberg. That bear had to be sulking over allowing a nice juicy seal to escape, because it was in no danger. Out of the twenty major polar bear populations only two are known to be decreasing. Estimates of bear population (there are no exact figures) have increased over the past forty years, from 17,000 to19,000 to the current number of 22,000 to 27,000. The bears are becoming pests in municipalities such as Churchill and Point Barrow. (As clearly shown here.) Despite all this, last year the bear was put on the U.S. "endangered" list.
The Hockey Stick That Wasn't. The "hockey stick" is a nickname for a chart prepared by Michael Mann, a University of Pennsylvania professor and leading warmist. The chart purports to show temperature levels for the past millennium, and consists of a straight line until it reaches the late 20th century, when it suddenly shoots upward, creating the "hockey stick" profile. This chart was a major feature of International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports on global warming and is a commonly-used media graphic.
This chart creates immediate doubt in anyone knowledgeable about the climate of the past millennium, which more resembles a roller coaster than a straight line. It developed -- in yet another impressive McIntyre takedown, this time with an assist from Ross McKitrick -- that Mann was utilizing an algorithm that would produce hockey sticks if you fed it telephone numbers. (Mann is the "Mike" mentioned in the CRU e-mails, and this is one of his "tricks".) Despite this disclosure, Mann has never withdrawn the chart, offered an explanation, or made a correction. The chart remains an accepted piece of evidence among warmists.
Tree-Ring Circus. Due to the fact that direct temperature measures for past epochs are lacking, climatologists utilize "proxy measures", such as tree rings, glacial moraines, and lake sediments. Tree rings have played an important part in the warming controversy, as evidence backing the claim that temperatures have been consistently lower worldwide until recently. A crucial series of measurements, utilized by Mann among others, involves trees located on the Yamal peninsula in Siberia. How many trees were measured, you ask? A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand?
The answer is twelve. A number perfectly adequate to trigger international panic, overthrow the capitalist system, establish a Green totalitarianism, and completely turn Western culture on its head.
But it turns out that further measurements were in fact made in the area, involving at least thirty-four other trees. And when this data is added to the original twelve, then the warming evidence disappears into the same branch of the Twilight Zone as the blade of Mann's hockey stick. Another "oversight", you understand.
We could go on to mention the automated U.S. weather stations chronicled by the tireless Anthony Watts, which were conscientiously placed next to air-con vents, atop sewage plants, in parking lots, and in one case, in a swamp (as many as 90% may be giving spurious high readings). The glaciers that are vanishing worldwide except where they aren't. The endless papers demonstrating that the coral reefs, along with various birds, animals, insects, and plants, are facing extinction even though no warming whatsoever has occurred for twelve years. (And in the thirty years before that, the total rise was 1.25 degrees Fahrenheit, easily within normal variation.) Powerful stuff, this warming -- it maims and destroys even when it's not happening.
It's within this context that the East Anglia e-mails must be judged. The vanishingly small number of legacy media writers who are paying attention behave as if the messages comprise some kind of puzzling anomaly, with no relation to anything that came before. In truth, they stand as the internal memos from the East Anglia branch of the Nigerian National Bank, which can save us from the horrors of global warming after payment of a small up-front fee.
There is always a deeper level to the damage caused by fraud. It strains social relationships, generates cynicism, and debases standing institutions. What has suffered the most damage from AGW is faith in the scientific method, the basic set of procedures -- it could be called an algorithm -- governing scientific investigation. These procedures embody simplicity itself: you examine a phenomenon. You gather data. You construct a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon. And then...
Well, first, let's cover what you don't do.
You don't manipulate data. (As CRU chief scientist Phil Jones stated he was doing in the now-famous "Mike's trick" e-mail, not to mention throughout the now-famous source code.)
You don't fabricate data. (As one CRU scientist did while compiling weather-station data. Running into problems, he states, "I can make it up. So I did." He adds an evil smiley face. This e-mail has gone under radar up until now. It can be found in the comments on James Delingpole's blog.
You don't deny data to other investigators. (As Hansen, Jones, and, it appears, everybody else in the warming community has done at one time or another.)
You don't destroy evidence. (As the members of the CRU did following a Freedom of Information request.)
You don't bury contradictory data. (As Jones and several colleagues did in an attempt to undercut the impact of the Medieval Warming Period.)
You don't secretly manipulate the argument from behind the scenes. (As the CRU staff did with the website Realclimate.org., screening comments to allow only those that supported the warming thesis.)
You don't secretly undercut your critics. (As Mann advised the CRU to do concerning the scientific journal, Climate Researh: "I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.")
You don't try to get a journal editor critical of your case fired. (As the CRU staff evidently succeeded in doing with an editor for Geophysical Research Letters.)
What you do, if you are a serious scientist operating according to the established method, is attempt to falsify your hypothesis. Test it to destruction; carry out serious attacks on its weakest points to see if they hold up. If they do -- and the vast majority of hypotheses suffer the indignity embodied in a phrase attributed variously to Thomas Huxley and Lord Kelvin: "a beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact" -- then you have a theory that can be published, and tested, and verified by other scientists. If you don't, you throw it out.
None of this, amidst all the chicanery, fabrications, and manipulations, appears to have been done by anyone active in global warming research, the CRU least of all. From which point we are forced to conclude that AGW is not science, and that any "consensus" that can drawn from it is a consensus of fraud.
(The late-breaking revelations of temperature manipulations at New Zealand's NiWA institute -- another one of Mike's tricks? -- merely underlines the lesson of CRU. Now that the dam has busted, we'll be hearing dozens of stories like this over the weeks and months to come.)
The West is a technological society. Science is as responsible for making us what we have become as any other factor, including the democratic system of government. The two are in fact complementary, each supporting and encouraging the other across the decades since this country was established. (And yes, I am aware that Britain and Germany were both centers of scientific progress, both of them nations liberalized by the example of the United States. Even the utterly authoritarian Bismarck was forced to heed the voice of the people despite his inclination to do anything but.)
The technology developed from scientific research has created a world that would be unrecognizable to our forebears of even a century ago. Technology has transformed diet, health, communications, and transportation. It has doubled lifespans in advanced countries. Prior to the modern epoch, few ever caught a glimpse of the world past their own farming fields. India, China, and Africa were wild myths, the Pacific and Antarctica utterly unknown, the planets and stars merely pretty lights in the sky. Technology opened the world, not just for everyday men and women, but for invalids, the disabled, and the subnormal, who once lived lives of almost incomprehensible deprivation. Technology was a crucial factor in the dissolution of the ancient empires, the humbling of the aristocracies.
As Paul Johnson has pointed out, a technological breakout appeared imminent at a number of points in the past millennium. Consider the anonymous Hussite engineer of the 15th century who left a notebook even more breathtaking than that of Leonardo, or the revolutionary English Levelers of the 17th century who dreamed of flying machines and factories. If a breakout had occurred at those times, the consequences would have been unimaginable. But the Hussites were destroyed by the German princes, the Levelers by the reestablishment of the English crown. It required the birth of a true democratic republic in the late 18th century to provide the setting for a serious scientific-technical takeoff, one that after 200 years has brought us to where we stand today, gazing out at the galaxies beyond the galaxies with the secret of life itself within reach.
It is this, and no less, that scientific fraud threatens. This is no trivial matter; it involves one of the basic elements of modern Western life. When scientific figures lie, they lie to all of us. If they foment serious distrust of the scientific endeavor -- as they are doing -- they are creating a schism in the heart of our culture, a wound that in the long run could prove even more deadly than the Jihadi terrorists.
Such failings are not relegated only to climatology. With the apparent success of the climate hustlers, it has infected all areas of research. Over the past decade, stem-cell studies have proven a hotbed of fraud. Recall Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, the South Korean biologist who claimed to have cloned various higher animals and isolated new stem cell lines, to worldwide applause. Suk was discovered to have faked all his research, prompting the South Korean government to ban him from taking part in any further work. Nor was he alone. Researchers throughout the field have been caught fabricating and manipulating data, and at least one large biotech company has developed the habit of announcing grand breakthroughs to goose its stock prices.
A number of factors are responsible, among them the grant-making process, which rewards extravagant claims and demands matching results, and the superstar factor, in which media adulation creates a sense of intellectual arrogance -- as in the case of Dr. Suk -- unmatched since Galileo's heyday. But the major problem lies in politics, specifically as involves ideology.
In both major recent cases of fraud, science had become entwined and infected with ideology to a point where its very nature had been transformed. It was no longer science in the classic mold, boldly asking basic questions without fear or favor. It had become an ideological tool, carrying out only such research as met with the approval of political elites. Stem-cell research had become enmeshed with the abortion question. Embryonic stem cells, obtained by "processing" aborted babies, received the lion's share of funding and attention despite its showing no potential whatsoever. Adult stem cells, obtainable from bone marrow, skin cells, or virtually any other part of the body, were shunted aside despite extraordinarily promising research results. This bias permeated the entire field and distorted all perceptions of it -- one of the reasons Dr. Suk was so wildly overpraised was his willingness to attack Pres. George W. Bush for limiting embryonic stem-cell exploitation.
Scientists were once among the most trusted figures in Western public life, similar to bankers, priests, and doctors, but in a real sense standing above them all. Scientists were honored as truth-tellers, aware that their reputation for veracity and seriousness was their only real asset. And while exceptions existed (read the story of Blondlot and his N-rays, for one example), the public took them at their own valuation.
The next set of questions in physics cannot be answered without equipment costing billions at the very least, and possibly much more. Will a disbelieving public pay for that? We are facing serious dilemmas concerning breakthroughs in biology, not only in stem-cell technology but also in neurology and synthetic biology, breakthroughs that threaten to distort the very nature of humanity itself. Should we leave the solutions up to people who want us to pick a card, any card?
The collaboration between science and democracy is one of the great achievements of human history. It is now threatened by the behavior of people at the very heart of that collaboration. If it is destroyed, something of unparalleled value will have vanished, something that will be nearly impossible to replace. If the Western world wishes to continue its magnificent upward journey, we will have to save science from itself. An errant and corrupt climatology is the place to start.
November 28, 2009
by John Izzard
Yesterday I visited John L. Daly’s tiny office where he lived on the outskirts of Launceston. It is about the size of two telephone boxes. His wife, Amy, has kept is just as it was when John died in 2004. His computer, his files, the maps on the wall — his notes, letters, photographs and dairies. She has also kept alive his web-site which he was still updating at the time of his death.
Looking at his scientific work today gives an insight into why the people at the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were so annoyed with Daly’s work and why he was such a thorn in the side of their climate theories and research.
Daly was a pioneer in the questioning of global warming theory when the rest of the world was taking little interest in the issue. In the year the IPCC was formed under the shelter of the UN (1988), and a year before Margaret Thatcher gave the IPCC her blessing, Daly was writing a scathing book on what he called the myths and politics of the Co2 scare campaign.
Entitled The Greenhouse Trap— Why the greenhouse effect will not end life on earth., the book, published in 1989, clearly laid out what would be the crucial arguments later presented by the IPCC. To each and every argument Daly countered with his own arguments, questioning the “orthodox” science.
He was perhaps the first to point out and identify, in his book, what he called "The Armageddon Syndrome", "The False Prophets", "The Cult of Experts", "The Science of Non-Communication" and pounded away at "The Burden of Proof". His chapters on "How Nigh is the End" and "Spotty Sun, Pimply Earth" and "The Ice-Man Cometh" combine a sense of irony with surgically-precise scientific argument.
His charts and diagrams look eerily like those presented today. His predictions of dodgy computer modelling have a spooky ring to the present day questioning of modelling science, and indeed the notion of “self-fulfilling prophesy” that seem to be at the heart of present day scepticism of the IPCC’s modus operandi.
And what John Daly seemed to recognised back in 1989 was that it wasn’t the “almost 90% certain” part of the climate-change science that needed to be examined, questioned and rigorously debated, but the remaining 10% that was in doubt. That 10% of doubt is avoided like the plague, with climate scientists using every available device to stop research and debate. Spin, ridicule, lies, deceit, destruction of evidence, avoidance of oversight and character assassination are now clearly on the record for future historians to mull over.
Name any funding, by any government or academic institution, that is designed to examine the 10% of doubt.
John Daly was born in Bournemouth, UK in 1943. He followed his father’s occupation and joined the merchant navy as a radio officer in the Blue Funnel Line. He and his family migrated to Tasmania in 1980 where he eventually became a lecturer in economics at Launceston College. In a kinder age he would have been considered a ‘Renaissance Man’ being self-taught in a range of earth and climate sciences. No-one financed John L. Daly’s research. It all came out of his weekly wage.
Daly’s last great battle with the “science-is-settled coalition” was over a small line and arrow carved into a rock on the shoreline of the Isle of the Dead, at Port Arthur, Tasmania. It was placed there by the Antarctic explorer Captain James Clark Ross in 1841 to mark the Mean Sea Level in Tasmania.
The marking venture was approved, curiously, by the Governor of Tasmania at the time, Sir John Franklin. Franklin was later to become the Arctic explorer who died trying to find the Northwest Passage.
Daly’s research uncovered flaws in claims made by scientists that the Isle of the Dead base-line mark proved a rapid rise in sea levels. Daly showed this to be wrong. Scientists then tried to claim that Ross was marking the high tide level. Again Daly proved this to be wrong. The latest claim by climate scientists is that the Isle of the Dead is “Rising” up out of the sea, so the mark is misleading. Really!
After looking at the material that Amy still keeps - the nasty, snide letters and emails from IPCC members and other scientists, the evidence of the endless efforts to destroy his reputation - it seems ironic that the man the IPCC scientists so disliked, and tried to destroy, has now come back to haunt them. The comment by the Chief Scientist at CRU, Phil Jones, on learning that Daly was dead — “… in an odd way this is cheering news” — was not one of the great moments in scientific endeavor.
Daly’s life was perhaps best summed up by Professor Emeritus John Brignell of the University of Southampton who said at the time of his death in 2004:
No matter how long you live on this planet, the shock of sudden death never seems to lose its potency. One moment someone is a vital presence that you are inclined to take for granted, the next they are gone. Daly was the epitome of a new phenomenon of the post-scientific age, a lone scholar with all the traditions of meticulous attention to detail and truth that the word implies, with limited means upholding the principles of the scientific method in the face of adversaries with vast resources. He usually won, but the establishment media ensured that the world never got to hear of it. He was the eternal small boy gleefully pointing out that the emperor had no clothes.
November 25, 2009
Lord Lawson was right to call in today’s Times for an inquiry into the global warming scandal. As noted below, through a set of hacked emails a group of some of the most influential scientific proponents of anthropogenic global warming have been revealed to have been manipulating, suppressing and distorting scientific evidence in order to bolster their claim. They in turn have said the email messages have been taken out of context. And with so much material now in the public domain, it is possible that some of it has an innocent explanation. But in an awful lot of it it is hard to see such innocence. As Lawson observes:
There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government,but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.
This is the kind of thing these emails have revealed.
Here is lead IPCC scientist Keith Briffa admitting:
"I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same."
Here are Phil Jones, Director of the Hadley Centre’s Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University and Michael Mann, creator of the infamous (and false) ‘hockey stick curve’ that underpinned AGW theory, discussing how to suppress the work of AGW sceptics, including changing the peer-review rules to do so:
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes. "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.
Here is Phil Jones proposing to delete data to avoid having to reveal it under a Freedom of Information request:
The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
And here is lead IPCC scientist Kevin Trenberth effectively acknowledging the sceptics’ case. On a thread fretting about the likely influence of the BBC’s ‘climate change reporter’ Richard Black in reporting that there had been no warming since 1998 and that Pacific oscillations would ‘force cooling for the next 20-30 years’, Trenberth wails:
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days forthe coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather)... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't...The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
This material has revealed what has been described as ‘Nixonian-style paranoid plotting’ by these scientists to defraud the public. Actually, I think it reveals something even worse.
What appears to be the case is that these scientists did not set out to mislead the world so much as try to force data which did not correspond to their ideology of anthropogenic global warming to support that ideology. For me, one of the most telling emails was this one from Phil Jones on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.(My emphasis)
In other words, despite the fact that science (or history) tells us that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, thus destroying the basis of the AGW myth that we are living through an unprecedented warming of the climate caused by carbon dioxide arising from industrialisation, it cannot be true – because the Hadley CRU Director’s ‘gut’ tells him so.
All the manipulation, distortion and suppression revealed by these emails took place because it would seem these scientists knew their belief was not only correct but unchallengeable; and so when faced with evidence that showed it was false, they tried every which way to make the data fit the prior agenda. And those who questioned that agenda themselves had to be airbrushed out of the record, because to question it was simply impossible. Only AGW zealots get to decide, apparently, what science is. Truth is what fits their ideological agenda. Anything else is to be expunged.
Which is the more terrifying and devastating: if people are bent and deliberately try to deceive others, or if they are so much in thrall to an ideology that they genuinely have lost the power to think objectively and rationally?
I think that the terrible history of mankind provides the answer to that question. Nixon was a crook. But what we are dealing with here is the totalitarian personality. One thing is now absolutely clear for all to see about the anthropogenic global warming scam: science this is not.
by Ian Plimer
Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud (PJM Exclusive)
A decorated scientist and author of the most influential book debunking global warming joins Viscount Monckton in calling the CRU behavior criminal.
In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant.
Humans have adapted to live on ice sheets, deserts, mountains, tropics, and sea level. History shows that humans and other organisms have thrived in warm times and suffered in cold times.
In the 600-year long Roman Warming, it was 4ºC warmer than now. Sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years it was 5ºC warmer. Sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age, which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period.
Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions.
There was warming from 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1976 to 1998, with intervening periods of cooling. The only time when temperature rise paralleled carbon dioxide emissions was 1976-1998. The other warmings and coolings in the last 150 years were unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions.
Something is seriously wrong. To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.
The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud.
Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked. They show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination.
Data was manipulated to show that the Medieval Warming didn’t occur, and that we are not in a period of cooling. Furthermore, the warming of the 20th century was artificially inflated.
This behavior is that of criminals and all the data from the UK Hadley Centre and the US GISS must now be rejected. These crooks perpetrated these crimes at the expense of the British and U.S. taxpayers.
The same crooks control the IPCC and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world.
You should be angry. Very angry.
By David Warren
A computer hacker in England has done the world a service by making available a huge quantity of evidence for the way in which "human-induced global warming" claims have been advanced over the years.
By releasing into the Internet about a thousand internal e-mails from the servers of the Climate Research Unit in the University of East Anglia -- in some respects the international clearing house for climate change "science" -- he has (or they have) put observers in a position to see that claims of conspiracy and fraud were not unreasonable.
More generally, we have been given the materials with which to obtain an insight into how all modern science works when vast amounts of public funding is at stake and when the vested interests associated with various "progressive" causes require a particular scientific result.
There is little doubt that the e-mails were real. Even so warmist a true-believer as George Monbiot led his column in the Guardian yesterday with: "It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The e-mails extracted ... could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them."
He went on to rekindle his own faith in the "settled science," however, by revealing that he will not give up on the global-warming hypothesis until he sees an e-mail that reveals a specific conspiracy over the centuries by a secret fraternity of "knights carbonic" to seize planetary power and install a Communist World Government.
Behind this sarcastic little face-saving joke is a disheartening reality. For, as we glean from the hacked documents, supporters of the hypothesis have been able to reverse the onus of proof. In the last resort, their argument comes down to: We say the planet is warming. And anyone who says the contrary must "prove the negative" beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt. And we will be their judges.
Nigel Lawson (a.k.a. Baron Lawson of Blaby), the former British chancellor of the exchequer, who is among prominent persons demanding a full and open public inquiry, summarized the content of the e-mails in this way:
"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals. ...
"There may be a perfectly innocent explanation," he continues with that impartial aplomb for which we have always adored British lords, but then he reminds just how much government spending and bureaucracy, in Britain and all over the world, has been mounted entirely upon this dubious research; and thus how far-reaching the implications if the obvious turns out to be true.
For the correspondence that has been hacked is not mere backroom gossip. It includes incriminating exchanges between some of the biggest names in the "global warming" business. In its attempt to resist an inquiry, a British Meteorological Office spokesman effectively acknowledged as much. He fell back on the traditional clinching argument of persons "dressed in a little authority": that the sublimity of their office and the splendour of their robes puts them beyond the possibility of suspicion:
"It's a shame that some of the skeptics have had to take this rather shallow attempt to discredit robust science undertaken by some of the world's most respected scientists. The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be."
The same spokesman alleged it was no coincidence that the incriminating materials had been released on the eve of the United Nations' Copenhagen climate conference. But, of course, that is exactly what the hacker was doing: getting a story out that could be released in no other way and at the best possible moment to draw attention. Those would be the first two laws of journalism.
It is amusing to see mainstream media sources such as the New York Times, which thinks nothing of publishing purloined government documents that will endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers in the field, and compromise vital intelligence operations, suddenly become all jowly and uptight about publishing the e-mails in question because they were "illegally obtained."
Other media -- which have played a leading part for years in giving credibility to "global warming" claims -- are now maintaining the silence of Iago on the revelations. We will see how long this can be sustained.
Dr. Fred Singer
Dr. Robert Carter
and there are thousands more
November 24, 2009
The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science.
'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.
The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.
Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.
Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.
Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.
Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?" AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.
In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."
When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."
It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.
For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.
However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.
November 23, 2009
Fudging results in an attempt to make the world fit one’s preconceptions is beyond the scientific pale and a real crime.
At the dawn of the modern age of science, a few hundred years ago, accounting for the motion of the planets was a mystery, but one driven by a flawed theory. It was thought, going back to the ancient Greeks and Plato, that the motions of the planets, being otherworldly and celestial objects, must be perfect and therefore circular. Unfortunately, actual observations were hard to reconcile with this notion. The ancient astronomers could have fudged the data to make it conform to the theory, but that would have been unscientific, so they fine-tuned the theory to try to make a better fit. Almost two millennia ago, Ptolemy refined the concept of circles within circles, or epicycles, to try to develop a model that would explain the observed planetary motions. The theory reached its height half a millennium ago when Copernicus, with the insight that the earth orbited the sun, like the other planets, came close to modeling planetary motion by adding new epicycles, albeit with a different model for each planet. But it was a very complex system, and still wasn’t quite close enough.
Kepler resolved the issue by demonstrating that the best fit of the motion was not circles within circles, but rather simple ellipses. He came up with simple but powerful and explanatory laws that described the motion of the planets as a function of their distance from the sun. Newton in turn used this finding to validate his own universal theory of gravitation.
But it still wasn’t quite good enough. For centuries, the innermost planet, Mercury, stubbornly refused to conform perfectly to Newton’s laws, and many more modern astronomers postulated a hidden planet elsewhere in the solar system that might account for the discrepancies; they didn’t abandon Newton’s theory. However, despite years of trying, they could never determine its location or mass. But despite this frustration, they never yielded to the temptation of simply denying the planet’s mercurial behavior — they continued to refine the theory, no matter how difficult.
About a century ago, another physicist, Albert Einstein, came up with a new theory of gravitation. A key part of it is that Newton’s laws must be adjusted slightly to account for the near presence of large masses. By Einstein’s new theory of general relativity, of which Newton’s earlier theory was simply a special case for velocities much less than that of light and locations not adjacent to very large masses, Mercury’s motion was perfectly explained by its close proximity to the sun.
Over thousands of years, at each step, the response of the scientists was to continually adjust and refine their theories to conform to the data, not the other way around. This is how science is done and how we developed the knowledge that has given us such tremendous and accelerating scientific and technological breakthroughs in the past century. It is occasionally reasonable to throw out a bad data point if it is in defiance of an otherwise satisfactory model fit, as long as everyone knows that you’ve done so and the rationale, but a deliberate and unrevealed fudging of results in an attempt to make the real world fit one’s preconceptions is beyond the scientific pale. Journal articles have been thrown out for it; PhD candidates have lost their degrees for it.
But such behavior, along with attempts to cover it up and dishonestly discredit critics, is exactly what was revealed in a leak of emails last Friday from a research facility in eastern England. And it was not the behavior of previously unknown researchers on some arcane topic of little interest to anyone outside their own field. It was the behavior of leading luminaries in perhaps the greatest scientific issue and controversy of our age: Whether or not the planet is warming to a potentially dangerous degree as a result of humanity’s influence. It is a subject on which billions — if not trillions — of dollars worth of future economic growth and costs hinge. It was the basis for the massive “cap and trade” bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in the spring and seems stalled in the Senate. It is accordingly a subject on which a great deal of money is being spent on research to understand the problem. And when there is a great deal of research funding at stake, often funded by people less interested in truth than in power and political agendas, the temptation to come up with the “correct” answers can perhaps overcome scientific integrity.
It is hard (perhaps impossible) to know the motives of the people who would so betray the basic precepts of science. It is easy to postulate that they have political aims, and there are certainly many “watermelon” environmentalists (green on the outside, “red” on the inside) who see the green movement as a new means to continue to push socialist and big-government agendas, after a momentary setback with the collapse of the Soviet Union two decades ago.
But scientists are human, with human failings. Thomas Kuhn noted half a century ago that science doesn’t always follow the idealized model of the objective scientist seeking only truth; it is often driven by fashions and fads, peer pressure, and a lust for glory and respect by the other courtiers of the court that fund them. So we may never know whether this defense of a flawed theory arose from the sense of power that it might give them over the rest of our lives. Or perhaps it was due to simply an emotional attachment to a theory in which they had invested their careers. Either way, what they did was not science, and they should be drummed out of that profession. They can no longer be trusted.
Many in the climate change community have condemned what they call “skeptics,” often to the point of declaring them de facto criminals and assigning them to the same category as Holocaust deniers. They tell us that “the science is settled” and that we should shut up. But every scientist worthy of the name should be a skeptic. Every theory should be subject to challenge on a scientific basis. Every claim of a model’s validity should be accompanied by the complete model and data set that supposedly validated it, so that it can be replicated. That is how science works. It is how it advances. And when the science is supposedly “settled” and they refuse to do so, it’s not unreasonable to wonder why.
Well, now we know.
In fact, when scientists become politicians but continue to pretend to be doing science, that is the real crime. The theory being promoted by these men was being used to justify government actions that would result in greatly diminished future economic growth of the most powerful economy on earth (and the rest of the world as well). It would make it more difficult and less affordable to address any real problems that might be caused in the future by a change in climate, whether due to human activity or other causes. It could impoverish millions in the future, with little actual change in adverse climate effects. And when such a theory has the potential to do so much unjustified harm, and it has a fraudulent basis, who are the real criminals against humanity?