January 31, 2010
By: Michael Barone
That’s the thought I had as I read this Wall Street Journal news story headlined, “Slowdown in Warming Linked to Water Vapor.” The lead sentence reads, “Climatologists have puzzled over why global average temperatures have stayed roughly flat in the past decade, despite a long-term warming trend.” The first thought that occurred to me was: Well, maybe it wasn’t an eternal long-term warming trend. We know from history that weather sometimes gets colder and sometimes gets warmer; we have good reason to believe (although Michael Mann’s discredited hockey-stick graph tried to deny this) that temperatures were higher in western Europe and other places in the years from 1000 to 1250 than they have been in the past half-century. And we know that even so London and Paris weren’t under water.
The WSJ story has something like a who’d-a-thunk-it undercurrent. Who’d have thunk that something besides increased carbon dioxide emissions could influence weather and climate? The theory that increased carbon dioxide emissions will increase temperatures is of course absolutely irrefutable if carbon dioxide emissions were the only thing affecting weather and climate. But of course they aren’t. Other such factors include, as the article points out, the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere, fleeting changes in ocean currents and aberrations in solar activity. Climate scientists don’t seem to fully understand how all these factors and others combine to produce weather and climate. And why should they? Surely the potential interactions are very complex, and probably beyond the capacity of even the most sophisticated computer.
All this points to a common sense conclusion. We should try to understand these things better. But we should not insist that those who doubt the theories—advanced as certainties—by global warming alarmists are like Holocaust deniers. The recent revelations of the Climategate emails and the confession that the prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 had no scientific basis shows that much of our climate science has been hijacked by those for whom predictions of global warming have taken on the character of a religious faith. Let science be science.
by John P. Costella
October 26, 2003: email 1067194064
Mike Mann receives secret information about the forthcoming McIntyre and McKitrick paper, which marks the start of the debunking of the "hockey stick":
Two people have a forthcoming Energy and Environment paper that’s being unveiled
tomorrow (Monday) that—in the words of one Cato Institute / Marshall Institute /
Competitive Enterprise Institute type—
… will claim that Mann arbitrarily ignored paleo data within his own record and substituted other data for missing values that dramatically affected his results.
When his exact analysis is rerun with all the data and with no data substitutions, two very large warming spikes will appear that are greater than the 20th century.
Personally, I’d offer that this was known by most people who understand Mann’s methodology: it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the early centuries.
In other words, most of Mann’s colleagues were fully aware of the problems.
Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past….
Mike Mann passes this on to a large number of colleagues:
A remarkable conclusion, given that he hasn’t read the paper yet!
This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in confidence. Who knows what trickery has been pulled or
selective use of data made. It’s clear that Energy and Environment is being run by the baddies—only a shill for industry would have republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to Climate Research without even editing it. Now apparently they’re at it again…
My suggested response is:
1) to dismiss this as a stunt, appearing in a so-called "journal" which is already known to have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear, for example, that nobody we know has been asked to "review" this so-called paper;
Again, Mann displays unbelievable arrogance in assuming that each and every paper submitted for publication should automatically be passed to one of his gang, so that it can be vetoed.
Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course, the usual suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important thing is to deny that this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for the stunt that it is..
Thanks for your help
How on Earth can Mann tell others to discredit this paper, before anyone has actually read it? Simply because it disagrees with him?
One of the most disturbing outgrowths of the global warming controversy over the last twenty or so years has been the increased politicization of science. Of course, this is far from the first time this has occurred, but it may be one of the most important, because we are at a particularly fragile moment in the global economy. Indeed, had it not been for the release of the Climategate emails and documents in November, the recent Copenhagen conference might have succeeded in reallocating billions, even trillions, of dollars, possibly leading to a form of global bankruptcy. Less than two months later, with the so-called science now unraveling on an almost daily basis, the whole thing seems close to insane. How could we have done it?
Well, how could we have done it?
Okay, I’ll take a pass at that – with the caveat that this is a very early narrative of a story that many will tell and examine in the future, undoubtedly in book form. In fact, it deserves several books.
But let’s start with the obvious. Most of us love Mother Earth. It’s a beautiful planet to live on with many extraordinary places and creatures “in’t.” Most of us want to preserve it. And for decades we have been trying to do so – liberals and conservatives in sometimes different ways – via governmental and non-governmental means. To greater or lesser degrees, some of these means worked – or at least improved things. Anyone who lives in Los Angeles, as I do, knows the benefits of air quality legislation. You can actually see the hills and your eyes don’t tear, as they once did, when you walk into the back yard.
As we know, while these things were going on, organizations were growing and forming in protection of the Earth, or what was perceived to be the protection of the Earth. Many of these groups would phone us or go door-to-door asking for money, which many of us, I among them, gave. We were all good servants of Gaia. No matter what our religion – or lack thereof – it was the right thing. The Earth was in jeopardy. We had to defend it. And these organizations continued growing. Being “green” became the normative behavior, in practically every aspect of our existence, from the school to the supermarket. We lived in a “recycling world.” (Yes, I know there were many environmental errors and misidentifications of endangered species, etc., but mistakes are the way of the world. Let’s pass over that for the moment.) Environmentalism had become for many a replacement religion rather than the simple common sense that it is.
Enter Al Gore. Recently having lost a highly-disputed election for the most important position in the world, he was ripe for a cause and became influenced by a small group of scientists who had deep and sincere beliefs in an impending catastrophe from CO2 caused Anthropogenic Global Warming. The most prominent of these scientists is James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who is said to have a general dislike for industrial civilization and what it has wrought. Whether this is true or not or whether Gore knew it, I don’t know, but it doesn’t appear to have mattered. Gore – who had no scientific training and indeed had an exceptionally poor academic record in general – seized upon the information proferred by Hansen and the others, not questioning them, as far we know, for a second. (As you will see from this link, many, including director superiors, are questioning Hansen now.)
Giving the former vice-president his due, several motivations (probably more) were operative: 1. In the pervasive pro-environmental atmosphere, most people – himself included – would tend to take what the scientists told him at face value. 2. Gore needed something to resurrect himself from what he undoubtedly considered an unfair loss and assault on his ego. He had won the popular vote for President, after all. 3. He probably didn’t have the skills to question the scientists anyway, even if he wanted to.
He did, however, have the skills of a politician and the many important connections accrued from years of power. These things conspired to make Gore the most significant force in the promulgation of man-made global warming theory. In a short time he was lecturing everywhere as its designated spokesperson and had made a film on the subject, An Inconvenient Truth, which garnered an Oscar, despite mediocre aesthetic value. This was followed by the Nobel Peace Prize he shared with United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization – it should be noted – that gathered none of its own facts, but relied on others. In that way, Gore and the IPCC (although filled with scientists) were similar. They learned everything second-hand.
This, to borrow a word from Gore, was convenient, because, as often as not, they did not have to examine truth or the facts directly. Their so-called truth could completely be at the behest of belief systems they wanted to believe. Science was becoming fully politicized and not, in fact, science. (One of the great ironies is that the skeptics were the ones who were accused of being anti-science, when it is the reverse. Similarly, as recently as a few weeks ago, I saw James Carville on television accusing global warming skeptics of being “pro-pollution,” which is not only a lie, but a completely anti-scientific one. Many of the skeptics had been the ones complaining that the the fixation on AGW left proven environmental problems – like dirty water – unattended. )
Meanwhile, with AGW now “settled science,” Gore was able to find and campaign for a solution to the problem. That solution turned out to be the trading of “carbon credits,” a system which entailed the setting up of carbon exchanges across the globe that would make many people rich, very rich, to the tune of billions of dollars, including Mr. Gore. The former vice-president would become wealthy beyond his wildest dreams through promulgating a scientific theory that would save humanity from itself. No narcissist could possibly ask for more.
In a certain way we could look upon Gore as a joke, had not his ideas so permeated the culture. Although the British papers are having a field day with the recent revelations, our mainstream media – still engaging, one could say, in the politicization of science – have largely ignored them or relegated them to back pages. And much of the popular culture still takes the position that we are on the brink of climate Armageddon. Leonardo DiCaprio and Cornel West (shame on him!) have just released yet another video warning of imminent disaster. Ask almost any kid about global warming and they will parrot back what they learned in nearly every school. Man-made global warming is a perilous reality.
January 30, 2010
Raje we hardly new ya
Revealed: the racy novel written by the world's most powerful climate scientist
FROM- UK Telegraph
The chair of the UN's panel on climate change Dr Rajendra Pachauri has taken a break from writing academic papers on global warming to pen a racey romantic novel.
As the UN's climate change chief, Dr Rajendra Pachauri has spent his career writing only the driest of academic articles. But the latest offering from the chairman of the UN’s climate change panel is an altogether racier tome.
Some might even suggest Dr Pachauri’s first novel is frankly smutty.....
Read entire Article here
Obama’s War on Science: Trillions for a Hoax, but Not One Cent for NASA’s Moon Mission
Invited to a tea party debate on climate change, AGW supporters opt out of participating — and quite rudely.
by Kimberly Jo Simac
When the idea came up for a debate on global warming, it seemed like a great idea to our tea party group. We had just finished presenting a very successful health care forum in our small town in northern Wisconsin and were looking for the next event to put on the calendar.
Many members said we should just call it a forum, as we would never be able to get any scientists who believe that global warming is a crisis to come to the table. But thinking I would know how to do what no one else has been able to do, I assured them a debate would be held.
That was eight weeks ago. I gave up after many, many emails and too much time spent behind the computer.
Our event is Saturday. Thinking that the most important audience should include those who will have to deal with the issue in the future, we invited over 220 high school students. Let them hear both sides so that they can decipher the conflicting opinions that have lately made it into the news. Knowing society has been preached only the “doomsday” side for a decade or more, it seems only fair to give the “skeptic” side a place at the table. As for the question of a debate, who wouldn’t want to defend their data and facts if they were so certain it was the absolute truth?
I invited scientists from all over the country — even some from around the world — to a fair and balanced event. I was amazed at the lack of response to the many invitations that went out, but more interesting were the insulting, mocking, sarcastic replies I received from scientists who seem to share a similar belief that a debate is ridiculous on such a settled science.
Now, I am not a scientist. I am just a mother who raised 9 kids and trains horses for a living. Nothing scientific about that, but it seems to me everything should always be open for discussion. The idea that a subject like man-made climate change is a done deal just doesn’t make sense to me, yet reply after reply let me know in very certain words that there is nothing to talk about.
In addition, the shared attitude of arrogance towards me or anybody who would even consider such “propaganda” as an alternative view was surprising. Humorous at first, but then a bit hurtful. My intelligence, my character, and, just a few days ago, my faith were attacked by men, all much smarter then me, who for some reason felt they needed to smear me and our simple, small-town event.
Outrageous to me was one scientist who claimed our high school students would not be able to understand the information and especially when the opposing side was paid off and presenting lies.
All the replies seem peculiar to me. If my career had been based on investigating something and I was so certain of my data, why would I not want to defend it? Suspicious, to say the least. It’s like pleading the fifth; it usually means you are hiding or protecting something.
I wonder what these scientists are hiding.
January 29, 2010
by John P. Costella
August 25, 2005: email 1124994521
Mike Mann writes to Christoph Kull, Phil Jones, Heinz Wanner, and others:
In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (with question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to consensus and progress.
Phil Jones to Christoph Kull:
I agree with Mike that the last two names on the list should be removed.
Debate and disagreement is crucial to the healthy functioning of science. Weeding out those who may prevent a predetermined “consensus” is abhorrent.
August 26, 2005: email 1125067952
Heinz Wanner to Christoph Kull:
Concerning the participants:Mike Mann concurs:
- If Phil and Mike do not support von Storch it does not make sense to invite him (or Eduardo Zorita?).
I’m afraid I don’t agree on Zorita. He has engaged in some very nasty, and in my opinion unprofessional email exchanges with some close colleagues of mine who have established some fundamental undisclosed errors in work he co-published with von Storch. Given this, I don’t believe he can be involved in constructive dialogue of the sort we’re looking for at this workshop.Again, a “constructive” dialog appears to be one that leads to their predetermined “consensus”.
There are some similarly problematic issues with Cubasch, who, like von Storch, … has engaged in inflammatory and personal public commentary. There is no room for that on any side of the debate.
If the Germans need to be represented here, I would suggest instead someone from the Potsdam group, such as Eva Bauer …
Our attention is here drawn to an undercurrent in this entire saga: the need to give the perception of international agreement—which translates into the notion of the need for a “quota” of representation from the key countries involved, rather than true international debate
Biofuel requirements for cars may help destroy the rainforest, watchdog says
Using biofuel in vehicles could be destructive to the rainforest as well as leading to higher green house gas emissions than using just petrol and diesel, a fuels watchdog has claimed.
Fuel providers are compelled to add an increasing proportion of biofuel to diesel and petrol under the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation. This year 3.23 per cent must be made up of biofuel and by 2020 that increases to 13 per cent.
However, the first annual report by the Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA) claims that fuel companies are exploiting a loop hole which means they are not required to disclose the origin of nearly half the biofuel supplied to filling stations in 2009.
Last year Esso reported the source of only 6 per cent of its biofuel while BP reported 27 per cent. Shell, the best performing of the main oil companies, only revealed two thirds of its biofuels origins.
Palm oil is the cheapest fuel to buy and is used by most companies to meet part of their biofuels obligation.
However, it is also the most damaging to the environment due to the CO2 released when forest is burnt down to create plantations.
The RFA said: "The large proportion of unknown previous land use is of concern. If even a small proportion of this was carbon-rich grassland or forestland, it could have substantially reduced the carbon savings resulting from the renewable transport fuels obligation as a whole, or even resulted in a net release of carbon."
Indonesia is the third largest CO2 emitter after America and China due to the expansion of the palm oil industry.
Oil companies can provide certified sustainable palm oil which is slightly more expensive but last year only 0.5 per cent of the 127 million litres of palm oil added to petrol and diesel came from sources approved by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, an international monitoring body.
The RFA report named Chevron, Murco and Topaz as failing to report any of the requirements under the RTFO.
by Joseph D'Aleo
...We don’t dispute the fact that there has been some cyclical warming in recent decades — most notably from 1979 to 1998 — but cooling took place from the 1940s to the late 1970s, again after 1998, and especially after 2001, all while CO2 rose. This fact alone questions the primary role in climate change attributed to CO2 by the IPCC, environmental groups, and others.
However, the global surface station data is seriously compromised.
There was a major station dropout — and an increase in missing data from remaining stations — which occurred suddenly around 1990. Just about the time the global warming issue was being elevated to importance in political and environmental circles.
A clear bias was found towards removing higher elevation, higher latitude, and rural stations — the cooler stations — during this culling process, though that data was not also removed from the base periods from which “averages,” and then anomalies, were computed....
...Actually Klotzbach et al. (2009) found that when the satellites were first launched, their temperature readings were in relatively good agreement with the surface station data. There has been increasing divergence over time (exceeding 0.4C now), but the divergence does not arise from satellite errors. Further, they found that the divergence between surface and lower-tropospheric measurements, which has probably continued, is consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.
...Land temperatures trends were 0.31C for NOAA, versus 0.16C for the satellite measurements from the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH).
NOAA announced that June 2009 was the second-warmest June. In sharp contrast to this, GISS and the UAH satellite assessments had June virtually at the long-term average (+0.001 C°, or the 15th coldest in 31 years). Remote Sensing Systems (RSS — the other satellite measurement database) had June at +0.075 C°, the 14th coldest in 31 years.
NOAA proclaimed June 2008 to be the eighth-warmest for the globe in 129 years. Meanwhile, NASA showed it was the 9th-coldest June in the 30 years of its record in 130 years, falling just short of 2005.
Satellites were positioned by NOAA to be the future of temperature monitoring — but they amazingly are never mentioned in the NOAA or NASA monthly report...
"A soberer, less silly, less politicised, and less excitable public figure, the UN’s Right-to-Food Rapporteur, has also recently used the phrase “crime against humanity”, but in the opposite context. Herr Ziegler has said, “When millions are going hungry, it is a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels”.
So, who are the criminals against humanity? The brave and diligent scientists whose research in many different fields now amply demonstrates that the chief conclusions of the UN’s climate panel are nonsense, or the pietistic true-believers whose policies allegedly designed to address the non-problem of “global warming” are already killing millions by starvation? "
January 28, 2010
Excerpts from "Burt Rutan: The maverick of Mojave"
I whip out my list of questions, but before I get to the first, Rutan blindsides me. "Which magazine are you from again?" I tell him. "OK, well, I won't talk to Scientific American," he says, "They improperly covered man-made global warming. They drink Kool-Aid instead of doing research. They parrot stuff from the IPCC and Al Gore." I'm taken aback but curiosity gets the better of me so I ask him what he means. For the next 30 minutes he launches into an impassioned diatribe. He believes claims of catastrophic global warming are nothing but scare-mongering and are a product of "the greatest scientific fraud ever". At first I think this is some sort of joke but he's totally serious and at times gets quite angry.
And yet, if you didn't know his views, you'd think Rutan was an arch environmentalist. In 1989 his house featured in Popular Science magazine, billed as the ultimate energy-efficient dwelling, and for years he drove an electric car. "People thought I was a liberal and a tree-hugger, but I'm not. It's not because I have any concern about saving the planet, or peak oil. It's about neat technology."...
...Over the next few days Rutan sends me numerous emails supporting his argument about a climate change conspiracy. I am far from convinced, but find myself thinking there's something beguiling about such passionate persistence - perhaps this is exactly what makes him such a maverick genius.
January 29, 2004: email 1075403821
Phil Jones forwards to Mike Mann an email advising the sudden death of skeptic John Daly:
In an odd way this is cheering news! One other thing about the Climatic Change paper — just found another email — is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to provide all the data and computer programs!! According to legal advice, Intellectual Property Rights overrides this.
Ignore Jones’s insensitive comments regarding an opponent’s death, if you can. What is remarkable here is that Jones apparently finds completely bizarre and foreign the idea that the data and methods used to arrive at a scientific conclusion should be made available for independent scrutiny! This is astounding: these requirements are fundamental to the entire scientific method, through its demands of reproducibility: any scientist, anywhere in the world, must in principle be able to reproduce and verify a scientific result, before it is even considered to be a result at all.
Of course, in the context of the climate debate, Jones’s arrogance is far more damning: these results, central to their call on world leaders to enact treaties and legislation that would have truly astounding ramifications for the planet, should have been audited, scrutinized, validated, and verified with greater thoroughness than possibly any other results of modern science. To have Jones and Mann argue that the data and programs central to these recommendations are “private property”—protected by patent and copyright laws—is not just obnoxious: it is criminal.
Letters to the Editor and other People Speak
Brrrrr: Time to stop selling those carbon credits
I must admit that I did not believe that exchanging carbon credits could cure global warming. I felt that Al Gore, having failed to enrich himself after inventing the Internet, was now enriching himself by buying and selling carbon credits (which he also invented). Imagine my surprise, then, when I learned that my hometown in Iowa is having the coldest and most miserable winter they have ever had. Spencer, Iowa, is not alone; the rest of the United States as well as the world is likewise experiencing record cold weather. It is apparent that Al Gore and his fellow carbon traders have cured global warming. It is time to stop trading carbon credits lest the world become too cold.
I previously believed that the elevated level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was the result of burning carbon that had been buried deep in the earth millions of years ago. This deeply buried carbon (fossil fuels) overwhelmed the plants' abilities to convert the carbon dioxide back into carbon, oxygen and energy as part of the carbon cycle. I felt that the solution was to find a non-carbon burning way of producing energy such as nuclear fusion. I now must accept that the trading of carbon credits from forests to large producers of C02 like coal-fired power plants and automobiles has cured global warming. And, best of all, we have not had to change our method of energy production. Al Gore has once again solved the world's problems and been well rewarded for his efforts.
Since their carbon credit crusade has been successful, Al Gore and his eco-troopers can now turn their attention to other problems, like world peace, economic depression and water shortages.
Denver Nelson is a retired physician living who resides in Eureka
Letters to the Editor and other People Speak
Global warming takes leaf out of Trojan horse
A specter is haunting the world. It's the specter of global warming. Throughout the ages man has feared the end and to that end I am looking forward to 2012.
Not only will Barack Obama be re-elected, but the world will experience a complete warming meltdown.
Instead of Joseph McCarthy launching the war against communists, Al Gore has launched a war against "evil" capitalists, as a humbling heroic gesture to save the world.
Is the specter real? Will the oceans rise because of trays and will trees go into non-existence because of Capital students printing out power points for class?
A New York Times story published Nov. 20, 2009 reported on hacked e-mails from a British university between pro-global warming scientists. Several scientists discussed the lack of evidence of current warming and the use of "tricks" to hide the decline of global warming.
As people continue to buy into the myth of our century, I can't help to think of the superstitious Trojans who brought in the Trojan horse. It was a brilliant ploy of deception by the Greeks to get into the walls of Troy and conquer it.
In the era of our superstition towards the "conclusive science" one cannot help but be amazed at the parallel of international attempts to regulate and tax developed nations.
What is more horrifying is the notion that developed nations such as the United States are buying into the "do-gooder" superstition and going against their own self-interest. They do this by supporting cap and trade policies that will benefit a select few corporations that get contracts at the expense of other corporations getting regulated out of business.
While the liberal elite in the form of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may label those who are skeptical of global warming guilty of "treason," I would hope that people re-evaluate the Global Warming scare.
Since when has science been completely conclusive on the weather? Climatologists use probability as a means to predict rain for a five-day forecast.
The clear fact about global warming is that it's a political ploy to impede on the freedoms of citizens by means of expanding governmental regulation over their lives.
The creators of the ploy seek to place what amounts to an international tax for cap and trade against those "evil" developed nations of the west.
Those on the far-left have returned their communist manifestos to Barnes & Noble in exchange for the elite Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". This is not change we can believe in.
By Gabe Koshinsky
January 27, 2010
The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.
The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.
The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.
The stolen e-mails , revealed on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, showed how the university’s Climatic Research Unit attempted to thwart requests for scientific data and other information, and suggest that senior figures at the university were involved in decisions to refuse the requests. It is not known who stole the e-mails.
Professor Phil Jones, the unit’s director, stood down while an inquiry took place. The ICO’s decision could make it difficult for him to resume his post.
Details of the breach emerged the day after John Beddington, the Chief Scientific Adviser, warned that there was an urgent need for more honesty about the uncertainty of some predictions. His intervention followed admissions from scientists that the rate of glacial melt in the Himalayas had been grossly exaggerated.
In one e-mail, Professor Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
He also told a colleague that he had persuaded the university authorities to ignore information requests under the act from people linked to a website run by climate sceptics.
A spokesman for the ICO said: “The legislation prevents us from taking any action but from looking at the emails it’s clear to us a breach has occurred.” Breaches of the act are punishable by an unlimited fine.
The complaint to the ICO was made by David Holland, a retired engineer from Northampton. He had been seeking information to support his theory that the unit broke the IPCC’s rules to discredit sceptic scientists.
In a statement, Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said: “The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information.”
He added: “The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. We will be advising the university about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information.”
Mr Holland said: “There is an apparent Catch-22 here. The prosecution has to be initiated within six months but you have to exhaust the university’s complaints procedure before the commission will look at your complaint. That process can take longer than six months.”
The university said: “The way freedom of information requests have been handled is one of the main areas being explored by Sir Muir Russell’s independent review. The findings will be made public and we will act as appropriate on its recommendations.”
September 3, 2003: email 1062592331
Ed Cook writes to Keith Briffa, describing his experiences with Ray Bradley at a conference in Norway:
After the meeting in Norway, … hearing Bradley’s follow-up talk on how everybody but him has fucked up in reconstructing past Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1000 years (this is a bit of an overstatement on my part, I must admit, but his air of papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times), I have come up with an idea that I want you to be involved in.
Cook describes his idea of publishing a paper, with a large author list—possibly including Bradley, Phil Jones, and Mike Mann—but notes the problems with the idea:
I am afraid that Mike Mann and Phil Jones are too personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003Geophysical Research Letters paper that is probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in—Bradley hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they can contribute without just defending their past work—this is the key to having anyone involved. Be honest. Lay it all out on the table and don’t start by assuming that any reconstruction is better than any other.
This is testament to the parlous state of this field: that an established member of this group is reduced to suggesting that a paper be written in which past mistakes are no longer covered up.
Cook’s suggestions end with comments that are only half-humorous:
7) Publish, retire, and don’t leave a forwarding address
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about … temperature variability within a century (at least as far as we believe the temperature proxy estimates), but that we honestly know fuck-all about what the … variability was like on timescales greater than a century with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).
Cook’s “calling a spade a spade” immediately endears him to my heart, and gives us confidence that he is expressing his genuine opinion. And while that opinion agrees completely with my own assessment of this field of science, it is astounding to hear it so explicitly (and colorfully), directly from the mouth of one intimately involved in this case:
temperature variations within a century can probably be reliably estimated, but we can conclude absolutely nothing about temperature variations over longer time-scales.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the absolute crux of the global warming question: whether current temperature changes are “unprecedented” over historical time periods. Here we have, in no uncertain terms, a definitive statement that we have no idea if this is the case.
The jury is dismissed. Mankind has been found innocent of all charges.
FROM-Sydney Morning Herald
The visit to Australia this week of Lord Christopher Monckton - the world's most effective global warming sceptic - couldn't have been better timed. Hot on the heels of the "Climategate" email leak, which called into question the "tricks" used to sex up the case for the war against global warming, have come back-to-back revelations tarnishing the reputation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change....
Read entire article with a video interview of Lord Monckton here
"At some stage there will have to be an accounting among scientists who failed to defend the tenets of their discipline in an age of politically-motivated unreason, and who failed to defend the few sceptics who dared to speak up and were punished for it. "
January 26, 2010
FROM-Sydney Morning Herald
Be alert but wary on climate claims
Doubts over modelling and emissions trading schemes are justified.
PRE-COPENHAGEN, the global warming debate had been captured by prophets of doom and the language of apocalypse. This was particularly off-putting in a discussion that depends on high-quality science, cool logic, and careful argument. It raises old suspicions. The West has already experienced theories of impending environmental disaster-with the Club of Rome launching a successful scare campaign in the 1970s about the world running out of food. Its book, Limits to Growth, sold 30 million copies. Hardly a decade had passed before its predictions were proved wrong.
Of course, the objective case for global warming is separate from the manner in which some of its proponents have publicised it. And, it should be judged on its own merits. Nevertheless, I must confess to being wary of causes that attract pseudo-religious enthusiasm and intellectual fanaticism.
Current predictions of global warming and its long-term effects depend on computer-generated mathematical models. There are two major problems with such models. First, their relationship to reality is compromised by the simplifying assumptions they have to make in order to reduce the number of variables they can take into account to a workable number.
In economics this means they are next to useless for long-term prophecy. We are confronted every day with how poor economic commentators are at prediction. If this is true in the domain of economics, how much more the case is it for climate, where the potential variables are vastly greater?
The second problem with mathematical models is that they assume current factors will continue as they are-major ones will stay major, minor ones minor, and no significant new ones will emerge.
History is a story of the rise of the unexpected. Having said this, some predictions are better than others. For instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report projects greenhouse gas emissions. In the limited case of carbon dioxide over the next two decades, there is some plausibility to the predictions - given current dependence on coal-fired power stations and the long development times needed to switch modes of electricity generation. However, when it comes to linking emissions to rising world temperatures, the models become fanciful.
The New York Times, hardly an enclave of climate scepticism, featured an article on September 23, 2009, which admitted that global temperatures have been stable for the past decade, and may even drop in the next few years. Surely, this trend may be an anomaly, but its existence does raise a serious question mark, for all but true believers.
Some disciplines in both the arts and the sciences are highly speculative, and that makes their theories and predictions unstable. Does climate science belong here? I have my suspicions. For instance, climatologists told us for a decade or more that climate in south-eastern Australia - and in particular, rainfall - was determined by weather patterns and sea currents across the Pacific Ocean. Now, suddenly we are being told that it is rather the Indian Ocean that is critical.
The claims made about the science have been rash, asserting dogmatic certainty about human-induced warming when the reality is that the overall picture is quite unclear. This has now backfired, with the IPCC admitting mistakes in its 2007 report, and the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, which the IPCC has drawn heavily upon, shown to have been, at the least, devious in the results it has made public.
There may be some link between the rashness of the global warming campaign and the haplessness of the politics that has followed. The best current bet is that, after Copenhagen, emission controls is dead as a serious international issue. And further, only some environmental disaster that can be convincingly linked to climate change will rekindle it. The ''sceptics'' have won the politics.
The clumsy politics is international and local. An emissions trading scheme, as proposed by the Australian Government, is very bad policy. It is a form of taxation on carbon under another name. To tax carbon will lead to thousands of pages of regulation - a godsend to bureaucracy, but paralysing for initiative and industry.
To give one example: taxing carbon, especially in Australia, would make little sense unless agriculture is included within the scheme. Farmers tell me that the amount of carbon dioxide released from the soil during ploughing depends on the depth of the furrows. There will need to be different regulations for different types of ploughing. Multiply this small particular across the range and complexity of Australian agriculture and our farmers will be looking at a code of regulations that will make the Taxation Act look like a kindergarten primer. One of the benefits of Copenhagen is that an ETS may now be politically dead in Australia.
Leaving aside the reservations I have expressed here, what if the gloomy predictions about global warming and its consequences turn out to be justified? It is not prudent for us humans to throw too much muck up into the sky.
So where does that leave us? We do need emission controls, but they should be kept as simple as possible. Why not just target major polluters, and notably coal-fired electricity generation? But Copenhagen has rendered even that futile for a trivial world polluter such as Australia, given that China and India have made it clear they will not be cutting back on their use of coal.
John Carroll is professor of sociology at La Trobe University.
by John P. Costella
March 2, 2001: email 0983566497
Chick Keller, of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California at San Diego, United States, writes to Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Tom Crowley, Jonathan Overpeck, Tom Wigley, and Mike MacCracken, pointing out problems in the historical temperature estimates obtained from individual “proxy” methods:
Anyone looking at the records gets the impression that the temperature variation for many individual records or sites over the past 1000 years or so is often larger than 1°Celsius. … And they see this as evidence that the 0.8°Celsius or so temperature rise in the 20th century is not all that special.
He then makes note of a trick that they have used to mask this effect:
The community of climate scientists, however, in making averages of different proxies gets a much smaller amplitude of about 0.5°Celsius, which they say shows that reasonable combinations of effects can indeed explain this and that the 20th century warming is unique.
Keller realizes the mistake inherent in this trick shortly. First, he provides an excellent summary of the debate:
Thus, the impasse—one side the skeptics pointing to large temperature variations in many records around the globe, and the other side saying, “Yes, but not at the same time and so, if averaged out, is no big deal.”
He then points out that this glib brush-off is simply not valid:
But, just replying that events don’t happen at the same time (sometimes by a few decades) is the reason might not be enough. It seems to me that we must go one step further. We must address the question: what effects can generate large … temperature variations over hundreds of years, regional though they may be (and, could these occur at different times in different regions due to shifting climate patterns)? If we can’t do this, then there might be something wrong with our rationale that the average does not vary much even though many regions see large variations. This may be the nub of the disagreement, and until we answer it, many careful scientists will decide the issue is still unsettled, and that indeed climate in the past may well have varied as much or more than in the last hundred years.
This remarkable statement—mailed to all of the key players in this scandal—shows that they knew, clearly, more than eight years before the Climategate whistle-blower released these emails, that the entire basis of their claims was on shaky ground.
In his last paragraph, Keller points out the elementary mathematical error in the “averaging trick”:
Also, I note that most proxy temperature records claim timing errors of … 50 years ahead or behind the correct date or so. What is the possibility that records are cancelling each other out on variations in the hundred-year timeframe due simply to timing errors?
There are, in fact, many more mathematical reasons why the “averaging trick” is completely wrong; but Keller’s observation is completely correct, and by itself discredits the entire discipline of work establishing these “multi-proxy” historical temperature estimates
January 25, 2010
Good news for the Earth, bad news for the IPCC.
It's been a good week for the future of Life as We Know It. First the keepers of the climate-science consensus admitted that the Himalayan glaciers are not on the verge of disappearing, as these columns pointed out last month. Now we've learned that there wasn't much science behind the claim, also trumpeted in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report, that rising temperatures were leading to more-intense storms and more-expensive natural catastrophes.
This is good news for everyone, except perhaps the IPCC itself.
The IPCC's latest headache involves the section on global warming and natural disasters in its 2007 report. There, it cites "Muir-Wood et al., 2006" as claiming that "a small statistically significant trend was found for an increase in annual catastrophe loss since 1970 of 2% per year." That detailed and caveat-laden section was then translated in the IPCC's synthesis report as saying that more "heavy precipitation" is "very likely" and that an "increase in tropical cyclone intensity" is "likely" as temperatures rise. The IPCC's 2007 report was not the first star-turn for "Muir-Wood et al." The hugely influential 2006 Stern Review, commissioned by the British government, cited Muir-Wood to help support its dramatic predictions of the costs of unchecked global warming.
The idea that hotter temperatures will lead to apocalyptic storms has had a major policy impact. In October 2009, a court in New Orleans ruled that victims of Hurricane Katrina could sue oil and gas companies for their supposed contributions to the ferocity of the storm. In September 2009, U.S. President Obama told a climate conference that "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."
One hitch: "Muir-Wood et al" had not been published when it was selected for the IPCC report. It had not even been peer-reviewed. When the research in the paper was finally published in 2008, as part of a larger book called "Climate Extremes and Society," the authors concluded they had found "limited statistical evidence of an upward trend in normalized losses from 1970 through 2005 and insufficient evidence to claim a firm link between global warming and disaster losses." Indeed, most scientists studying the link between global temperatures and extreme weather agree, saying the relationship is far from established.
Yet at its Copenhagen conference in December, the IPCC did nothing to correct the record. Instead, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri reminded delegates in his opening speech that climate change would "in all likelihood" lead to an "increase in tropical cyclone intensity" and an "increase in frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation." And yesterday, in response to a London Times report on the reliability of the claim, the IPCC stood by the finding, saying its procedures "were carefully followed" without making any effort to justify its use of an unpublished paper that, when it finally did see the light of day, had substantially walked back the findings on which the IPCC's original projection was based.
We understand that a few errors or omissions do not alone suffice to demolish the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. As for the credibility of the IPCC process, however, it is melting far faster than a Himalayan glacier these days.
Excerpt FROM-Pew Research
Public's Priorities for 2010: Economy, Jobs, Terrorism
Energy Concerns Fall, Deficit Concerns Rise
Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey. Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents.
by John P. Costella
August 23, 2000 :email 0967041809
In this email we get an insight into how the politics of propaganda completely overrode the rules of good scientific practice, when it came to publications on “climate science”. Steve Schneider of the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University in the United States complains to a number of his international colleagues:
… please get rid of the ridiculous “inconclusive” for the 34% to 66%subjective probability range. It will convey a completely different meaning to lay persons—read decision makers—since that probability range represents medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A
phrase like “quite possible” is closer to popular lexicon, but “inconclusive” applies as well to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be misinterpreted on the outside.
To anyone even vaguely familiar with probability and statistics, Schneider’s suggestion is unforgiveable; and it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to understand why. Forget about climate change, for the moment, and consider the simpler example of tossing a coin. If the coin is fair, and it is tossed fairly, then the likelihood of getting “heads” is 50%. Now, imagine that you had to describe how sure you are that you would get “heads” on the next toss, to your boss—or your spouse—without using any numbers. “It’s inconclusive” would accurately convey the fact that it’s just as likely that you would not get “heads” as it is that you would. “It’s quite possible”, on the other hand, conveys the impression that it’s a possibility that is quite likely; it biases the language in one direction, without faithfully conveying equal likelihood that reality could go in the exact opposite direction.
Indeed, placing any emphasis at all on a 34% to 66% confidence interval is a complete misapplication of probability and statistics. Standard scientific practice is to only consider a result to be significant if the probability of it being true is estimated to be greater than some pre-determined threshold—typically 95%, for everyday analyses, or some more stringent threshold if the ramifications of getting it wrong are more grave.
Tom Karl, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center, compounds the comedy:
Despite Karl completely agreeing with his butchering of the language, Schneider is concerned that Karl’s term is still not alarmist enough. His response reminds one of Sir Humphrey in Yes, Minister:
Steve, I agree with your assessement of “inconclusive”—“quite possible” is much better and we use “possible” in the United States National Assessment. Surveys have shown that the term “possible” is interpreted in this range by the public.
Great Tom, I think we are converging to much clearer meanings across various cultures here. Please get the “inconclusive” out! By the way, “possible” still has some logical issues as it is true for very large or very small probabilities in principle, but if you define it clearly it is probably OK—but “quite possible” conveys medium confidence better—but then why not use “medium confidence”, as the 3 rounds of review over the guidance paper concluded after going through exactly the kinds of discussions were having now?
Indeed, if they continued this farce for long enough, they would eventually conclude that they may as well say that it is "overwhelmingly likely"! Remember, we are here talking about a scenario that—even according to their own calculations—was just as likely to be wrong as it was right!
By Jessica Wood
In November 2009, e-mails from the University of East Anglia showing evidence of manipulated data were leaked onto the Internet, compromising the integrity of scientific claims made to strengthen the case for global warming in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report.
“What is this claim,” you ask?
According to a claim made in the IPCC Report, it is highly likely that Himalayan glaciers will completely melt away by 2035.
What’s peculiar is that most glaciologists have arrived at the mutual consensus that this sort of depletion should, in reality, take hundreds of years.
Tricky. The IPCC appears to be in a pickle.
Now the matter lies in the hands of the IPCC to pick up the disjointed pieces of scientific data that have been strewn upon the scientific community, or really anyone who gives a shit about global warming.
Despite the false claims in the publication, the IPCC continues to accept, for the most part, that the perpetrators of global warming are the good ole’ Homo sapiens.
That’s right. You, me and Dupree. But I digress.
Despite the major error, an apology with a sugarcoated smile and a cherry on top seems to be enough to right the wrongs made by the IPCC.
The data was not misprinted; there was no misunderstanding. What has happened here is a blatantly intentional skewing of data in order to get the ball back in the UN’s possession.
Is it permissible to disregard such overt manipulation of empirical data from a publication that should be of the most reliable sort?
Chew on this. Global warming is occurring, noticeably enough that it is unnecessary for the IPCC to manipulate data in order to prove a point.
However, the IPCC is receiving a pat on the back for apologizing since its claims did not change the grand scope and original conclusion of the report, that being man-made emissions are the cause of global warming. No harm, no foul.
Sure, apologizing is the “right thing to do.” We can forgive and forget, but in this case, may we? I’m not so certain.
One thing is for sure: Scandals such as these are forgiven when compared to the large scheme of things, mostly thanks to we-the-people and our media outlets.
Celebrities, artists, politicians, scientists and the like are rarely persecuted for their actions. Usually it ends up being us simpletons who are forced to endure the brunt of the consequences of these individuals’ carrying-ons, mostly because we are too ignorant and lazy to bother examining the information, evidence and claims being made by such people.
Continually brushing these incidents off as nothing and allowing the cheaters and liars to get away with some pretty hefty claims is unacceptable.
Just as Shirley & Company so aptly sang “Shame, shame, shame” in the mid 1970s, some more shaming is in order.
Shame on the IPCC for distributing a publication with false claims pertaining to global warming, an issue so pertinent in today’s world.
Double shame on the IPCC for expecting people to forgive the organization once its spokesman apologized.
And, finally, shame on the people, the publishers, the distributors, or anyone who accepts false information and provokes researchers to keep spewing out more B.S. It’s time to wake up and start paying attention.
Oh well, I guess even the UN body needs its ass saved sometimes.
January 24, 2010
" A picture is emerging of a UN organisation apparently out of control, fixated on having the proper story ready in order to drive the agenda at Copenhagen. It appears from the outside that they may have realised that this was their last best chance, with skepticism rising and the economies of the developed world falling....
....We appear to be watching the monolithic titan of the institutional fight against global warming fall broken to the ground. And it appears to have been constructed of papier mache. "
by John P. Costella
July 29, 1999: email 0933255789
The World Wildlife Fund’s Adam Markham writes to University of East Anglia climate scientists Mike Hulme and Nicola Sheard, about a paper that Hulme and Sheard had written about climate change in Australia:
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in World Wildlife Fund Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from Australian scientists. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible. …
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash on this they need something that will get good support from Australian scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
Climategate takes on a new dimension with this revelation: political activists from an environmental lobby group are telling East Anglia climate scientists to rewrite sections of their paper, as it is less alarming than the message that Australian scientists have already presented for public consumption!
By Alan Caruba
Once, very long ago, I used to be “a stringer” for The New York Times. My articles would appear in the New Jersey section and an occasional short book review would make it into the legendary newspaper.
My Father read the The Times more faithfully than an ayatollah reads the Koran or a Hasidim reads the Torah. Little did he know that, during the early years of Stalin’s regime, a Times reporter named Walter Duranty deliberately failed to report the deaths of millions of people in the Ukraine because Soviet communism demanded they obey or die.
Starting in the 1980s, The Times has led the greatest fraud of the modern era, the global warming hoax. It went through a succession of reporters who turned out articles that all asserted various claims attributed to a dramatic increase in the Earth’s temperature that was not happening. At one point, it published a story that the North Pole was melting.
The leading advocate of the global warming fraud has been Al Gore, a former Vice President who has enriched himself selling bogus “carbon credits” and investing in “renewable energy” businesses. His so-called documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, was filled with so many inaccuracies that a British court ruled it could not be shown in its schools without informing students of them in advance.
We know now, thanks to the “Climategate” revelations, that a handful of scientists, working at the behest of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deliberately distorted or invented climate data to further the fraudulent claims.
They were associated with the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain, the Pennsylvania State Earth System Science Center, as well as U.S. government agencies such as NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Most are currently being investigated for alleged abuses of the positions they held and questionable actions in which they engaged.
The release of emails detailing their conspiratorial efforts to advance their false data and suppress any that represented a contrary point of view destroyed what little credibility there was for the recent UN Conference on Climate Change held in Copenhagen. It collapsed like a circus tent.
So why, on Sunday, January 24, did The New York Times publish an editorial titled “The Case for a Climate Bill” in an effort to support the insupportable, the Senate’s Cap-and-Trade legislation?
The bill is superficially intended to put limits on greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide, that are alleged to be “causing” global warming. It is, in reality, a massive tax on the use of energy, harmful in countless ways to the nation’s economy and a burden on all producers and consumers.
Cap-and-Trade has no basis in science because carbon dioxide plays no role whatever in climate change and because the Earth has been in a cooling cycle since 1998; a cycle that legitimate climate scientists predict will last another decade or two.
It takes an enormous amount of gall to support this legislation claiming “The long-term trend in greenhouse gas emissions is up (the decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record.)” No, a decade in the 1930s was the warmest. The last decade saw a constant decrease in temperature, leading to the record-breaking blizzards, expanding glaciers, and other indications that the Earth is cooling.
“Finally there’s the question of credibility: Mr. Obama said in Copenhagen that the United States would meet at least the House’s 17 percent target” of reduced CO2 emissions said The Times.
President Obama has virtually no credibility left and had to flee the Copenhagen conference in order to avoid being snowed in there and unable to land in Washington, D.C. which was also expecting a snowstorm!
This blind and desperate refusal to face the facts, let alone to report them, will ultimately destroy the famed “newspaper of record” and, if that happens, I will not mourn its passing.
FROM-There is No Frakking "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming: More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning IPCC Report:
By Dexter Wright
The mainstream media were convinced of global warming theory's legitimacy by the warnings supposedly signed by large numbers of the world's climate scientists. The propagandists in this effort were led by the now-discredited Dr. Phil Jones of Britain and former Vice President Al Gore.
Several of the recently leaked Climategate e-mails reveal backstage manipulations to produce a propaganda tool, the Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate, intended to be unveiled at the Kyoto Climate Conference. Members of the Jones Gang from East Anglia University organized efforts to get just about anyone to sign this statement to push up the numbers. In an e-mail dated 9 October 1997, Dr. Joseph Alcamo admonishes other members of the Jones Gang to forget credentials and just get signatures.
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
Alcamo clearly has no respect for the media, implying that they are either lazy or stupid. Operating under this premise, Dr. Alcamo goes on by saying the following:
Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those names!
Is he suggesting that his gang members go to skid row and have homeless winos sign this document? Maybe he was suggesting that they go to a Chicago cemetery for names? "Get those names!"
Simultaneously, the folks at Greenpeace were also working to get signatures on a document of their own to manipulate the media. Their formula is tried and true: Don't read the fine print -- just sign. To showcase this subterfuge, Greenpeace was organizing a media event ahead of the Kyoto meeting to display the document signed by concerned "scientists." The Jones Gang wanted to make sure that maximum media manipulation was accomplished by coordinating media events as is detailed from the same e-mail:
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a different day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions
Different directions? Maybe he meant something like left and far left. I hope he never helps a little old lady across the street.
But one of the Jones Gang was looking the other way before he crossed the street, and that was Professor Richard Tol. In an e-mail dated 12 of November 1997, Prof. Tol pointed out the dirty little secret: There is not a consensus among scientists.
I am always worried about this sort of things. Even if you have 1000 signatures,
and appear to have a strong backup, how many of those asked did not sign?
But why was so much energy put into a propaganda campaign for the media to see that there was a "consensus" among the scientific community? The answer dates back to 1992, when the Jones Gang was caught by surprise right before the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. At that time, a group of notable and respected scientists began circulating a document known as the Heidelberg Appeal for signatures.
By the end of the 1992 summit, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal. This document stated that the science of climate change was uncertain and that the theory of carbon dioxide (CO2)-induced global warming was an unproven theory. The document appealed to policy makers to avoid making policy based on uncertain science. The document explicitly stated the following:
We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and non relevant data.
The original Heidelberg Appeal document was presented at the Rio conference, but it was largely ignored by the media and a pseudoscientific community that was more interested in seeking grant funding than seeking the truth. To date, more than four thousand scientists and intellectuals from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, have signed it.
The Jones Gang knew that this would likely happen again before the 1997 Kyoto Climate Conference. If they were right, they were hopeful that they could deliver a counter-document to lend credence to their cause and steal the spotlight.
Another document urging caution was circulated among reputable scientists in the wake of the Kyoto Climate Conference. This document is known as the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change. The document expressly states the following:
As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that -- contrary to the conventional wisdom -- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes (i.e. weather balloons) show no current warming whatsoever -- in direct contradiction to computer model results.
Among the signatories of this declaration are scientists from NASA, the Max Planck Institute, one of the former Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, and many members of the American Meteorological Society. These people are not lightweights in the field of science. Clearly the so-called "consensus of scientists" so often referred to by Mr. Gore is not a consensus at all.
In addition to these two powerful and well-considered public statements calling for restraint, there is also the Oregon Petition. To date, over 31,000 American scientists have signed this document. The petition explicitly states the following:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of Carbon Dioxide, Methane or other greenhouse gasses is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
Unlike the uncovered e-mails from the Jones Gang, these statements of caution are in the public domain and have been for years. By contrast, the Jones Gang engaged in an effort to misinform nations by hiding the facts and overstating the "consensus" -- but then, secrecy is essential for propaganda to be effective and ensure that the checks continue to be signed.