ClimateGate and the Elitist Roots of Global Warming Alarmism
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The hundreds of e-mails being made public after someone hacked into Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system offer a revealing peek inside the IPCC machine. It will take some time before we know whether any illegal activity has been uncovered (e.g. hiding or destruction of data to avoid Freedom of Information Act inquiries).
Some commentators even think this is the beginning of the end for the IPCC. I doubt it.
The scientists at the center of this row are defending themselves. Phil Jones has claimed that some of the more alarming statements in his e-mails have been taken out of context. The semi-official response from RealClimate.org, a website whose roots can be traced to George Soros (which I’m sure is irrelevant), claims the whole episode is much ado about nothing.
At a minimum, some of these e-mails reveal an undercurrent of elitism that many of us have always claimed existed in the IPCC. These scientists look upon us skeptics with scorn. It is well known that the IPCC machine is made up of bureaucrats and scientists who think they know how the world should be run. The language contained in a draft of the latest climate treaty (meant to replace the Kyoto treaty) involves global governance and the most authoritarian means by which people’s energy use will be restricted and monitored by the government.
Even if this language does not survive in the treaty’s final form, it illustrates the kind of people we are dealing with. The IPCC folks jet around the world to all kinds of exotic locations for their UN-organized meetings where they eat the finest food. Their gigantic carbon footprints stomp around the planet as they deride poor Brazilian farmers who convert jungle into farmland simply to survive.
Even mainstream journalists, who are usually on board with the latest environmental craze, have commented on this blatant display of hypocrisy. It seems like those participating – possibly the best example being Al Gore — are not even aware of how it looks to the rest of us.
The elitist attitudes exist elsewhere, too. While the skeptics’ blogs allow those who disagree to post opinions as long as they remain civil about it, RealClimate.org routinely ignores or deletes posts that might cast doubt on their tidy worldview. The same thing happens at Wikipedia, where a gatekeeper deletes newly posted content that departs from the IPCC party line.
A few of the CRU e-mails suggest that manipulation of climate data in order to reduce the signature of natural climate variations, and to exaggerate the supposed evidence for manmade climate change, is OK with these folks. Apparently, the ends justify the means.
The defense posted at RealClimate.org actually reinforces my point. Do the IPCC scientists assume that this is how all climate scientists behave? If it really was how the rest of us behave, why would our eyebrows be raised up to our hairlines as we read the e-mails?
If all of this sounds incompatible with the process of scientific investigation, it shouldn’t. One of the biggest misconceptions the public has about science is that research is a straightforward process of making measurements, and then seeing whether the data support hypothesis A or B. The truth is that the interpretation of data is seldom that simple.
There are all kinds of subjective decisions that must be made along the way, and the scientist must remain vigilant that he or she is not making those decisions based upon preconceived notions. Data are almost always dirty, with errors of various kinds. Which data will be ignored? Which data will be emphasized? How will the data be processed to tease out the signal we think we see?
Hopefully, the scientist is more interested in discovering how nature really works, rather than twisting the data to support some other agenda. It took me years to develop the discipline to question every research result I got. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and very difficult to be right.
Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress. I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming. Can the IPCC scientists admit the same thing?
Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works. The ‘data spin’ is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…
Nice exercise of realism from R. Spencer. For years to come, the IPCC machine will darken climate science because politics jumped to the badwagon. No matter how much compromising information will come out, people will always be driven by opinionmakers that, mostly, are in the wrong side of science. In my point of view, all we have to trust is that nature will teach all us a lesson…
Lysenkoism is alive and well.
And not just Lysenko.
The “Downwind People” were assured that above ground nuclear tests were perfectly safe. Sabin’s live virus oral polio vaccine required Soviet intervention to get it accepted since most American scientific opinion favored Salk. And now climate science.
Science has been and can be highly malleable.
And that is the inherent danger.
I think all climate scientists should be compelled to study ethics as part of their university studies.
Also papers shouldn’t be allowed to be published unless all data is made available.
RIP IPCC (22:02:51) :
As part of most professional accreditations an applicant must pass an ethics exam. In my field, geology, I have known several individuals who consider it a joke. Learning the ethics of professional behaviour does not guarantee ethical behaviour.
Dr. Spencer,
Earlier today, I was inclined to be cautious about the Climategate revelations. Now I share your assessment.
However elitism is the common denominator of political fanaticism in general; it’s not unique to Climate Alarmists. It’s best summed up in Jack Nicholson’s famous line from A Few Good Men:
“You can’t handle the truth!”
Truth from those in power is necessary for democratic institutions to function properly. The irony: True Believers can talk a good game of democracy, but they’re not capable of living it.
We take emailing for granted now, but as I did much of my research in the pre-email days, I can see that instant interconnectedness is working against solitary research.
On one hand the email communication system provides an ability to share and enhance ideas, on the other the pattern displayed in the released emails indicate a considerable degree of coercion as those higher in the pecking order make sure that the script is being followed. Telephone and mail correspondence would be just too slow to achieve to same the same outcome as email.
.
So, this communication technology has helped to create this beehive mentality with its queens,workers and drones.
The word sceptic comes from the latin root which means: 1) to analyze 2) to think through thoughtfully.
“Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress.”
You bet it is.
The entire culture around “global warming” is warped. I only today discovered that there was such a thing as:
The “Environmental Psychology Research Group” at the University of Surrey which I discovered in this document while digging into those responsible for creating this document, a copy of which was found in Jones’ files in the documents directory.
It is all apparently about how to convince the population to “buy in” to more government control of their lives using “global warming” as the hook.
If you look at it in the abstract, it isn’t about whether or not there really is any “global warming”. The science doesn’t really matter. As long as they can get people to “believe in it”, that is enough. It is hearts that matters, not minds as is evident from the quote found in document at the first link:
So once you have someone “believing in” the notion that the climate is headed for disaster, that it is our collective fault, and only “the government” or the UN can save us from disaster, then they will shut out the message of “skeptics” and actually react against “skeptics”.
The second document is about propgandizing “global warming”. That is the document that was found in Jones’ files. It is produced by Futerra which seems to be an environmental version of Fenton Communications (Current Fenton staffers have worked with Futerra and vice versa).
This is bigger than just science. Imagine if global policy were to be founded based on my research and imagine that I had the power to influence the direction of research results by influencing what gets published and what doesn’t get published. Imagine I have access to a group of people who work in concert to manage the message presented to people and we have a website and we coordinate what is posted and whose comments and what content we will allow. That would make me a very powerful person, indeed. Now imagine what would happen if it were all exposed.
This is the problem with SteveM’s approach. Nobody is interested in the science, really. He can disprove every single paper they produce and it will never see the light of day in academia because they would never allow him to be published. They will never admit he is right, they will dismiss his work because it isn’t published while working to make sure it never gets published.
Global warming IS political. It is being used as a lever to emotionally influence people in order to close their minds to any debate on the subject and allow them to willingly allow the government to control them. And it is one side of the aisle that stands to advance their agenda though this avenue. It goes like this:
1. There is a disaster looming.
2. It is our fault.
3. It can be corrected.
4. Only government can correct it. It is the fault of the private sector.
5. The steps needed to correct it are in line with our party agenda.
6. Elect our party and allow us to correct it.
Our kids are being taught that this is FACT in our schools. What McIntyre says isn’t going to matter soon. We will have a whole new generation of voters who have been taught since kindergarten that the “science is settled” and that “skeptics” are lunatics.
Look in that “documents” directory. It is to me more interesting than the emails as it shows the larger picture.
The IPCC and Agenda elitism stems from a belief that they are unassailable, untouchable and they act like it. The emails speak loudly.
Context —“ blatant display of hypocrisy. It seems like those participating – possibly the best example being Al Gore — are not even aware of how it looks to the rest of us.”
I can understand how Gore’s ideas developed out of touch with the rest of us because he was born into the privileged life of a US senator’s family and colleagues. I don’t understand how the others ended up this way. Many of the people in this generation (thinking of my friends, family, and college classmates) were first-to-graduate of the family, and then only with some stress on the family for going that route.
It doesn’t take much show of an elitist attitude to raise my ire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anthony,
I had to look twice at the pavement roller before my weary eyes (too much reading about the big data dump) and brain made the connection. Then I followed the link backwards to see what you started with. You should get an award for this. Nice.
OT:
Nature has a brief article on the ‘hacking’ episode, and their focus is more on the theft than the content.
Still a complete stone wall of silence here in Australia- no mention of the hacking at all from the ABC, whose elitism knows no limits. Perhaps the news gatekeepers are thinking, “Maybe if we ignore this it will just go away…”
Time will tell, and maybe at last the unsceptics’ time has come… or gone.
Anthony,
Thanks for posting Steve McIntyre’s new site. With all the monies spent less than a year ago doesn’t mean that it would take the hits that CA did the last couple of days took. I saw your graph on a earlier post here…I had to laugh! See, it’s “all” in the statistics! 🙂 The amount of hits had to be through the “Roof”!
I was bumping heads with a gov’t official once. An attorney told me that to a man, the people who end up working in gov’t positions are guys who went to college – not to get an education but because they wanted to get something to lord over others. In the environmental realm you have the added factor that they do it all with a gleam in their eye.
Gavin: “I hope that we’ve over-estimated climate sensitivity, that we’ve underestimated ocean uptake of CO2, that we’ve overestimated GHG growth rates, and that money grows on trees. Yet the science indicates that none of those things are likely to be true. That’s the difference between science and wishful thinking.”
I’m assuming that Gavin would not consider the possibility that climate sensitivity has been over-estimated anymore than he would consider the possibility that money grows on trees. That’s the difference between science and belief.
I just went over to Real Climate to see the comments about the E-mail leaks and how Gavin was responding to them… Here is an emotional one:
#703. I’m the daughter of scientist you all sharply criticized, discredited, and claimed his theories were washed up a few years back on this site, and I just want you to know your pain at the moment is my pleasure.
[Response: Sorry if we caused you any problem, but whether a scientific idea is valid or not is not a reflection on the quality of the person who proposed it. I would advise you to take scientific criticism less personally. – gavin]
I agree with everything that Dr Spencer has so succinctly stated.
The problem is that the duck season has ceased UFN. Don’t expect any of the MSM to come onside.
Unless the world weather noticeably disproves AGW in the next decade I am afraid the battle is going to be a long and drawn out one conducted in the forum battlefields of cyberspace such as this one.
All I can say is keep plugging away, keep it professional, keep it objective and have faith. If truth is on your side history will ultimately show you to be the real leaders in scientific understanding of our universe.
Wise words, Roy.
Pretty lame post.
Oh no they are eletists!!
Oh no they fly in jets!!
And eat good food!!
Oh My!!!
Anyway I could care less about their attitude. What I do care about is their ethics. You see these people are members of science organizations. Organizations that have ethics rules guiding how they behave. They are also faculty of Universities. Universities also have ethics rules. They are employed by government agencies. Again which have ethics rules.
Rather then pulling the “They are Elitists!” ploy why don’t you go after the fact that they conspired to run a dirty tricks campaign to block publication of critical science in the peer review literature?
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. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board…
What do others think?
mike
At 08:49 AM 3/11/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
You are a scientist Dr. Spencer, why don’t you file an ethics complaint rather then whine to us about elites?
I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming.
LOL.
Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works.
Name names! Of course you never do, on the advice of your lawyer, no doubt.
Don’t expect too much to come from this, at least in the short term. Sceptics already assumed something like this was going on as indeed it is. But politicians who have been banging on about having 50 days to save the world are not going to back off, it would make them look foolish. Outside the politicians we have what is little more than a religion with followers who won’t want to hear this, and will interprate the e-mails and documents in a benign manner because they want to believe humans are bringing about the destruction of the planet. My belief is that these documents will only be put into context when the politicians have finally grasped that, unbelievable as it may seem, there are a bunch of scientists who are prepared to manipulate data to give the impression that humans are destroying the planet. Their motive? I haven’t got a clue, and doubt if anyone else has. It could be the acquisition of money to fund their research, it could be blind fanatical environmentalism or it could be they’re enjoying their day in the sun. But to any reasonable person the extent of punishment, not just they, but all their colleagues in the climate science community will receive from the politicians once the penny has finally dropped, would discourage us from taking part in such outrageous behaviour. And it is this that will make the acceptance of these data difficult to swallow, the apparent lack of motive, and the fact that it is unbelievable that they haven’t taken the consequences of their actions into account.
It seems to me the e-mails also reveal:
(1) Members of The Team really do see themselves as a team. For example, there is an e-mail from one guy (Phil Jones?) where he talks about a friendly e-mail he received from Steve McIntyre. He suggests that Steve is being nice to him in an effort to undermine group solidarity.
(2) Members of The Team regularly engage in results-oriented reasoning. i.e. they start with the conclusion they want to reach and then work backwards. For example, there is an e-mail from one Team member (Gavin?) where he asks for help rebutting the latest “nonsense” from McIntyre while at the same time admitting that he does not understand McIntyre’s argument. Well, if he does not understand the argument then he should not automatically reject it.
A few of the CRU e-mails suggest that manipulation of climate data in order to reduce the signature of natural climate variations, and to exaggerate the supposed evidence for manmade climate change, is OK with these folks. Apparently, the ends justify the means.
It’s just ‘robust’ discussion between scientists that’s been taken out of context.
Shurley U. Jest!
.
.
Hopefully, we won’t be hearting about consensus in the scientific community any more after this played out. I mean not even in the MSM.
And Gavins efforts of damage control and playing this down at RC are pityful, and as you say essentially confirming their attitude and the gravity of the implied malfeasance.
“The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom,
but to set a limit to infinite error.”
— Bertolt Brecht, Life of Galileo
Shurley Knot (22:59:22) :Name names! Of course you never do, on the advice of your lawyer, no doubt.
Very funny, coming from an anonymous coward!
“You are a scientist Dr. Spencer, why don’t you file an ethics complaint rather then whine to us about elites?”
When the “scientists” involved threaten to change the “nature of peer-review” in order to keep certain people from being published, that would be indication enough to consider abandoning that process.
(from 1089318616.txt)
Do you think the announcement in August that the raw CRU data was “lost” is what triggered the email disclosures. It seems to me that that could be the trigger.
I also wonder why nobody has linked Jones email in 2005 that he would “delete the files” rather than provide CRU data to MM, with the fact that he now 4 years claims the raw data was lost and all that remains is the “value added” data?
That is the big scandal and he is eventually going to have to explain how the data was lost in context with his earlier threats to delete it before he would release it.
Shurley Knot – surely you AGW fabricators have landed yourselves with a knotty problem.
A few of them:
Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.
Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.
Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results.
Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.
Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase. (oh really)
Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.
Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.
Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.
Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too.
Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’.
Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.
Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant). Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.
Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.
The list is far from complete.
But among the most outrageous of all since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants. The major amounts came from HEFCE (6.6 million pounds) and NERC (2.7 million pounds).
13.7 million pounds to foist a fraud on us? Surely Not!!
“CRU Emails #6: follow the money
Posted by Devil’s Kitchen at 11/20/2009 09:56:00 PM
Now that the general hilarity engendered by the email has simmered down a little, people are starting to look at the (vast numbers of) documents—many of which are very revealing.
Your humble Devil has constantly pointed out that climate scientists may not be in a conspiracy to deceive mankind—but they do need money for research. A lot of money.
And creating a massive scare and then doing some research on it is a very good way to get that money.
Yes, yes, Devil: but how much money?
Well, Phil Jones—one of the main players in the CRU conversations—has collected… well… a lot.
since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants. The major amounts came from HEFCE (6.6 million pounds) and NERC (2.7 million pounds). Later, we will get some idea whether he has used the money to do proper science and whether the truth and objectivity was kept as the key principle, beating a possibility to double the amount. 😉
What is my reaction to these financial amounts? These numbers are difficult for me to comprehend so I just borrow a reaction from Jeff Id: Big Oil My Ass. 🙂
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/cru-emails-6-follow-money.html
Spot on, Dr. Spencer.
Science is logically rational to a high degree; the scientists, however, are another matter. When entering the domain of climate research, check your logical rationality at the door (at least if you want to play with the big boys).
Passion has its place in science — in support of logical rationality. When that passion is directed first in support of a preconceived belief, what you have is not science, but a quasi-religion.
Don Penim (22:52:34) :
I used to be impressed with scientists. But after two years of looking in to global warming for myself I found that I needed to lower my expectations of scientists to understand Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Mark Surreze, et al.
I copied this comment from Pistolus from CA it seems pertinent to our conversation here
APE
Pistolus:
November 20th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Kevin Trenberth explains how to respond to skeptics:
“but the response should try to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do.”
Science at work.
The sheer vastness of the documents require compilation and analysis to expose the revealing bits.
This is being done by very ably by “His Ecclesiastical Eminence” Bishop hill here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
and also being mirrored on a clearer site here:
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/some-cru-email-summaries-4.html
I suspect it will be business as usual. In economics, for example, economists of the Austrian School show that you can’t do modelling to reach predictions because the basic unit of economics, a quantity of money, isn’t a physical measurement but an arbitrary valuation of a buyer and seller. Despite this flaw, governments continue using econometrics and modeling for policy purposes. It’s the social sciences using formulae of the physical sciences to make economics “scientific”.
Same with climate science – and the GCM’s. Weather is a chaotic non-linear system and it cannot be modelled either but that has not stopped them from trying.
This whole development could be traced back to the early 1970”s when political correctness started infesting the universities and other public institutions – as well as most of government.
The team’s approach to any auditing or checking of their science by the great unwashed is quite revealing – Bernard Goldberg described in his two books about mainstream media arrogance and bias, and it applies to the academics as well, especially those with a progressive political approach. I think they actually believe we sceptics are red-necked, wingnut wacko’s while they are “normal”.
I also realise that the AGW supporters in Australia, basically the ALP and its socialist fellow travellers, regard themselves as the natural elites to hold political power and that whenever a conservative government gets elected, then that itself is regarded as an aberration and and error made by the voters. They do not see any conservative political stance as legitimate.
This is why it’s futile challenging the science – it’s pseudoscience and as intractable to deal with as mainstream astrophysics is. These people don’t seem to understand the idea that no scientific theory can be proven, but can be falsified. Note the continuing efforts at proving AGW theory rather than ghoing back to the drawing board once it’s been falsified. AGW is basically progressive science, or politically motivated science.
That’s why I suspect this information leak will pass and they will get back to business once all the hubbub has died.
Shurley Knot – surely you AGW fabricators have landed yourselves with a knotty problem.
A few of them:
Sorry, there’s no there there. See Phil Clarke’s comment @ 15:58:30 here. Y’all need to exercise a little more skepticism and a little less fantasy!
RE: crosspatch (22:32:47)
Scarey stuff…
IMHO there are two science; physics and mats.
Chemistry, astronomy, metallurgy, biology or climate science is a “branch” of the two. Not to undermine the importance of these of course!
Now, physicists astronomers etc. get away with lots of public money for research.
But here is the difference, they not try to change our life with socialistic law.
Just study the universe and try to understand it. Yep, better bigger colliders/telescopes would be nice, but the PRIVET taxpayers have to pay the bill with productivity and wealth generation.
The astronomers could use similar fear tactics to scare the “sajze” out of the citizens with asteroids to get more money for research. They want more money surely, but not try to change the social structure and not try to make a new religion for the gullible.
So way are the AGW climate scientists are not happy with this arrangement when it works for other faculties?
We, do need to know what we capable to know. Every human born with the
desire to know what is behind the next hill. Climate science, meteorology is important just like any other unknown to know.
Sorry for then rant (and the less than perfect English) folks.
Shurley Knot (00:26:47) :
Shurley Knot – surely you AGW fabricators have landed yourselves with a knotty problem.
A few of them:
Sorry, there’s no there there. See Phil Clarke’s comment @ 15:58:30 here. Y’all need to exercise a little more skepticism and a little less fantasy!”
With Phil Clarke, take your own advice and a cold shower.
Knut Witberg said
November 22, 2009 at 4:36 am
Read comment nr 8 in this blog: crosspatch (22:32:47): An excellent summary of the situation.
The worst is what you cannot see
It is important to emphasize that the worst damage is not what you can see – the FOI refusals, the successful efforts to get skeptical researchers sacked – it’s what you can’t see.
All the researchers lower in the hierarchy who witness that a skeptic gets fired, who get promoted, who’s got the big money to spend on research – they realize pretty qickly what they should think and do to get a career going – and even more so what NOT to say.
Sacking, ridicule, denial of space in publications and so on is reported from many countries, not only Great Britten and USA.
The parallel to the situation in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union is obvious – and be clear on this: many believers in communism and nazism believed that they were doing the right thing – just as many AGW proponents are about the climate today. There was no lack of “good faith”. It is the system that is to blame.
What does “consensus” mean in a situation like this?
What we soon will see is the Empire strikes back. Many researchers, who has conformed and lived well in this political system, will protest. They will in essence say: “No, I didn’t agree because of cowardnes, I believe in AGW!” But the main strategy will be denial and – silence.
Even worse is the situation in the political circles. So many has committed themselves to the belief in AGW. It is pretty difficult to come forward now and publicly express uncertainty or doubt, not to mention a change in their conviction.
And all the big shots in poor countries that already could smell the money soon coming to line their pockets. They will do all they can to maintain the current situation, to deny any need for change in the IPCC, academic hierarchies, allocation of funds etc and they will blame “capitalists”, “imperialists”, “reactionaries”, “liars”, etc.
The repair of the system will take years – if it can be repaired. But we must try. In the end – this is about protecting our democracy.
Geoff C (22:41:06) :
Nature has a brief article on the ‘hacking’ episode, and their focus is more on the theft than the content.
Funny thing is it may not be criminal theft. It just might be a violation of office policy.
Shurley Knot (00:26:47) :
Sorry, there’s no there there. See Phil Clarke’s comment @ 15:58:30
I see trolls have been talking amongst themselves.
I suppose any tactics used by people you agree with are just fine, right?
By definition, then, anything, including self defense, is unacceptable from those you disagree with.
Mods, just out of curiosity, how much more rope are you going to give the new troll?
“[…] the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works.”
Well-said.
They do not appreciate nature as much as their designs for it.
Sorry, that’s a deflection, not even a defense; there is no contest as to the ‘in print’ existance of the three items. This also falls under the category “No entitlement to your own facts”.
.
.
“That is the big scandal and he is eventually going to have to explain how the data was lost in context with his earlier threats to delete it before he would release it.”
If someone is creating a talking points list for the media, put that one at the top!
Queenslander! (22:43:04) :
Still a complete stone wall of silence here in Australia- no mention of the hacking at all from the ABC, whose elitism knows no limits. Perhaps the news gatekeepers are thinking, “Maybe if we ignore this it will just go away…”
Time will tell, and maybe at last the unsceptics’ time has come… or gone.
…. Except for Andrew Bolt, nothing, zilch. Just watched the main evening news services and just a mention from Labor (left) that the Liberals (right) have until tomorrow to make up their minds about the Carbon Pollution thingy.
Have a look at the Fairfax press tomorrow morning (Sydney Morning Herald), I will be surprised if Paul Sheehan does not have something to say.
“The team’s approach to any auditing or checking of their science by the great unwashed is quite revealing – Bernard Goldberg described in his two books about mainstream media arrogance and bias, and it applies to the academics as well, especially those with a progressive political approach. I think they actually believe we sceptics are red-necked, wingnut wacko’s while they are “normal”.
“I also realise that the AGW supporters in Australia, basically the ALP and its socialist fellow travellers, regard themselves as the natural elites”
I think a large part of the MSM’s complicity in this farce, and the complicity of progressive fellow travelers, is that it is a way of distancing themselves from the unwashed and enhancing their self-regard as beings above lowly selfish considerations.
Please let’s not all pile on poor Shurley Knot’s work here – Shurley’s got to eat and pay the bills just like everyone else.
Shurley Knot (00:26:47) :
Y’all need to exercise a little more skepticism and a little less fantasy!
Very nice, Shurley, you’ve mastered the fine art of Cargo Cult criticism quite admireably, and your future here must look very bright indeed!
If I were a speculator in green stock I’d get rid of all of it when the markets start trading tomorrow, watch the Market trading the catalyst for breaking this story may come from reporting on the finacial fall out of this.
Louis Hissink (00:03:28)
You make an important, if depressing , point. All this activity in cyberspace will count for very little if the MSM simply ignore or distort it (as they are largely doing). For example I scoured today’s Sunday Times (Murdoch) for any mention of the incident and could find nothing. It’s all too simple a technique. Just ignore it and it’ll go away. They and our politicians are skilled at this. Remember Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s phrase “a week is a long time in politics”.
Two points:-
1/ Had I submitted a lab report omitting results ( or even a reference to them) and calculations I woulld have expected a kindly teacher/lecturer to ask me to re-submit- and an unkindd one would simply have failed me. The whole point, I was led to believe, was to enable anyone reading my work to reproduce it.
How is it that anyone accepts as scientific papers with these omissions?
2/ It is commonly assumed that our system of qualificatiions serves to grade people according to their intelligence and knowledge. These are of course included in the method of assessment, but what is never remarked on is the degree to which they grade compliance to authority. Try submitting a paper- in any subject- that disagrees with your professor’s (teacher’s whatever) views. include lots of valid references, research it really well- and you’ll stil get worse marks than the student who just rephrases the lecture.
This is not so much of a problem in hard science (maths physics, chemistry, meteorology etc.) as the results will be used fairly quickly and errors discovered- my bridge design might please the professor, but if the bridge falls down the error becomes apparent, we know fairly soon if the weather forecast is wrong.
In really soft subjects (Art, Literature) it is of little immediate consequence- all the judgements are subjective, and have no practical application, hence compliance is emphasised and many people are certified clever and knowledgable who actually aren’t.
Climatology seems to offer the worst of both worlds. It is impossible to check by experience the accuracy of a forecast for one hundred years hence, so the hard science discipline is lost- but accepting the results has large consequences.
AGW is now as Yamato battleship after several hits. The last 1000-pounder just disabled the front gun turret. In reality, it took dozens of bomb and torpedo hits until the ammo magazine went off.
Who knows, maybe the decisive bomb is already falling..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/Battleship_Yamato_sinking.jpg
Spot on Dr Roy. These people think the rules don’t apply to them. It’s a brand of megalomania.
The IPCC can afford elitism because Kings, Queens and Presidents support them.
Like Prince Willem Alexander van Oranje for example during a speech in Mexico the 4th of November:
Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
First, I would like to thank all of you for participating in today’s seminar. I would also like to extend a special word of thanks to our Mexican hosts. It is an honour to be here today. In a way, this seminar shows just how far we have come on our way to a new, low-carbon energy future. New technology, new partnerships, a truly global approach to the problem of climate change: this is what I see emerging. We have also measured – as far as we could – the distance we still have to go. Let’s take encouragement from the fact that we are on this road together, and that we are indeed moving ahead. Energy efficiency is an issue that is particularly close to my heart. There are several reasons for that.
First of all, it is a subject that touches upon our daily lives. In order to be more energy-efficient, we must critically re-appraise how we live and the choices we make. Everybody needs to be aware of the extreme effects of climate change and the urgency with which we must deal with them. And everybody needs to be involved in finding sustainable solutions. This, I believe, is crucial to bringing about positive change: a low carbon economy should start at grass-roots level.
Second, energy efficiency is about our production methods. How we deal, or fail to deal, with our planet’s mineral reserves. Precious natural resources merit careful treatment. We need to be in awe of nature, not see it as our right to abuse it. That is a basic starting point.
Mexican history can teach us a lesson here. As we now find ourselves in the one-time capital of the mighty Aztec empire, perhaps we can spend a few moments taking a closer look at the Aztecs, the true ‘children of the sun’. Aztec culture is about respecting and revering nature. The famous Aztec pyramids of the sun and moon in Teotihuacan still attract thousands and thousands of tourists every year. The Queen, my wife and I look forward to visiting them on Friday. The Aztecs built their pyramids in order to pay tribute to their gods, the sun god in particular. Their message still rings true: we depend on nature, not the other way round. We depend on the sun as it is the one and only source of energy that makes our life on earth possible. Likewise, we depend on the unique atmosphere of this planet to protect us from the very harmful effects of that same sun. We have to stop this vital shield’s gradual degradation.
Maybe the Aztecs were light-years ahead of us in realising that the sun is the only source of energy and that all other sources like fossil, hydro, wind or bio energy are mere derivatives. Maybe they were telling us to focus on the sun and to join forces in making solar energy so efficient that we can use it to solve all our energy requirements. Every 30 minutes the earth absorbs enough light to meet the world’s energy needs for a year! Every 30 minutes! If only we could harvest it!
So while we are rightly looking for methods to reduce emissions in the short and medium term that have a distinct immediate effect on the pace of climate change, like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), we should never lose sight of the genuine long-term solutions to our energy problems. As I have already pointed out, our only source of energy is the sun. The rest are derivatives. So solar energy has the brightest future. And although it will take decades or even centuries before solar is our main source of energy, it is of the greatest importance to all future generations that we start conserving the best catchment areas, the world’s deserts. Many regard deserts as a barren and hostile environment. In fact, they are a precious source of life, which we should embrace and protect for the common good. The circle of deserts surrounding the globe presents us with wonderful opportunities for both generating and transmitting solar energy.
Large-scale solar plants in deserts, connected to a cross-border or even intercontinental grid, are a fundamental solution for sustainable energy supplies after 2050. As an interesting side-effect – and of great benefit to the local population – heat from the power-generation process may be used to desalinate seawater or to generate cooling. So heat and water stress, now almost synonymous with deserts, can partly be solved, while mitigating the effects of climate change.
Although this solution may sound costly, scaling it up will make it a more profitable business than fossil energy. The point is, if we do not approach energy as a long-term investment, we will end up paying much higher bills.
So, ladies and gentlemen, we know the technology is there. Now we need the political will and the right approach to investment to achieve this fundamental transition towards a new energy system. Investments in sustainable solutions make our communities healthier, our planet cleaner, our economies stronger and our future brighter. Let us look beyond the current financial and economic crisis and build the foundations of a sustainable future. As a result of this crisis, billions of dollars of public spending are needed to bail out our economies and regenerate economic growth. If spent wisely on sustainable solutions, these investments will also contribute towards rescuing our planet. We owe this to our children and future generations.
The COP 15 conference which will be held in Copenhagen in December is the ideal opportunity to prove that we understand the urgency of the threats that face those future generations. The current generation is the only one that can help mitigate them. We have the knowledge and the means. Let us show the world we have the courage to take bold and necessary steps.
Let us make sure those future generations can be proud of us. Let us not go down in history as yet another generation that could have acted, but chose not to.
In a way, Mexico and the Netherlands are ‘natural’ partners in the field of energy. Mexico produces oil, the Netherlands produces gas, and we are both working towards a sustainable energy future. The Memorandum of Understanding which is about to be signed points the way ahead. We are guided by shared ambitions and work in the same spirit. Working together in a field as important as energy policy will benefit our two countries, as well as the world at large. We can and must make sure that the world acts together. Only then can Copenhagen be successful.
To make Copenhagen a success, we need drastic emission reductions, accepted by all nations. Do we achieve that through negative or positive strategies? Should we only focus on saying no or could we take a different approach? Should we allow everybody to emit as much as they want and then tax them so heavily under the ‘polluter pays’ principle that they make greater reductions collectively than through an approach that limits emissions? With those kind of financial incentives the private sector will gladly provide us with technologies that lead to huge emission reductions. I gladly leave it up to the delegates of COP 15 to make the right decisions and, if necessary, to finalize the treaty here in Mexico next year.
Let me conclude by giving you a Mexican proverb. “Cámaron que se duerme se lo lleva la chingada”, or in English: “a shrimp that sleeps gets carried by the tide.” Right now, strong currents are trying to pull us along, leading us to a future of energy scarcity, rising sea level and increasing pollution. Let’s wake up, let’s turn the tide and move in a different direction. Let’s set an example to the rest of the world. I am sure that this seminar, with its plans, ideas and expertise on energy efficiency, will be a source of inspiration to all of you.
Thank you again for sharing your ideas with us. Thank you for being here.
Here the speech of the new EU President going after a Wolrd Government 10 minutes after his election.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/eu_president_wants_copenhagen_to_give_us_global_management#63675
What’s waiting for is when the World Government is a fact is told by Alan Garuba:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-carbon-footprint-scam.html
I hope it makes the warmists happy.
crosspatch (22:32:47) :
Can I use this when discussing the issue with a true believer colleague? It sums up my thoughts much better than I can myself.
Sandy
This has the potential to play our like the ACORN child prostitute videos. There is a buzz that this was just a “random” sampling. Truth is always a casualty in matters like this but if Jones is to be believed they have not asked the police to step in. Of course if the police were involved they would tell Jones to lie in hopes of gathering evidence. It’s virtually certain some of the emails contain disclaimers of the type that’s become popular (those that say you can’t read the email, etc., etc.). My guess is there will not be a criminal case brought against the “hacker” by these folks. Better to let it die and let the usual propaganda pushers muddy things.
Dear Moderator,
Any idea where my last two postings went?
Reply: I’ve asked you to post links instead of such cut and pastes in the past. They are currently in the spam filter. Anthony or someone else may are may not release them. ~ ctm
par5 (22:28:20): “The word sceptic comes from the latin root which means: 1) to analyze 2) to think through thoughtfully.”
The Latin word scepticus derives directly from skeptikos, which is Ancient Greek. Skeptikos derives from skepsis, which means doubt as well as inquiry. It is related to skopein, to inquire, or to examine, which gives us all the -scope words.
Lets see whether Alan Jones picks this up on radio in Sydney tomorrow, also hopefully there will be some editorial comment in the Australian, we need to write to our politicians en-mass to make them aware of what is going on – links to their email addresses on Steven Fieldings site (also on mine). If we keep the comments coming on Andrew Bolts site and also get more people to sign the online petition that Barnaby Joyce has then we can give this greater momentum. Get to work people!
Additionally if people can link/and or comment about this site, Bishop Hill, Air Vent, Climate Audit, Andrew Bolt etc on their tweeter, facebook, myspace etc – it will give greater traction and exposure!
The article is quite correct in saying that research results are coloured by the ideas and expectations of the scientists doing the research. Scientists are human, and while they should try and be dispassionate, its inevitable that a certain amount of bias creeps in. THAT is why the hiding of data and methods by the climatoligists is so reprehensable – its the allowing duplication and checking of research that is the main way of eliminating these (even if unconscious) biases. The secrecy is why I refuse to acccept any ‘evidence’ from these people unless the methods and data are made public.
It is a good thing we have the satellite lower troposphere series now.
It is clear now that the pre-1979 historical record produced by Phil Jones, James Hansen and Tom Karl, which have an unknown amount of adjustments in them, can’t really be trusted. They are all part of the team.
We read in the emails they were working on a new Hadcrut4 composed of a new HadSST3 (which is in first draft form) and a new Crutem4 (which might be published separately) [despite the fact that CRU apparently lost all of the raw data].
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=974&filename=1242136391.txt
It seems we need to rely on the MSU series and/or just go back to the raw instrument-based temperature measurements (with caveats that there may be TOB errors etc.) Any chance Roy we can use some old MSU data to extend the lower troposphere data back farther.
Lysenkoism is still defended by some in Russia to this day.
Eugenics lasted far too long, and was adopted by many allegedly ‘enlightened’ people and political leaders.
That AGW, obviously corrupt and false, will stagger on, and maybe even do more damage, is not really surprising.
Its appeal, like that of Lysenko’s theories, eugenics, outright banning of DDT, etc. etc., has a certain attractiveness that does not need peaky things like truth, honesty or facts.
Ron de Haan (04:31:32) :
Dear Moderator,
Any idea where my last two postings went?
Reply: I’ve asked you to post links instead of such cut and pastes in the past. They are currently in the spam filter. Anthony or someone else may are may not release them. ~ ctm
Thanks you
Global Carbon Footprint Scam
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-carbon-footprint-scam.html
Everybody with a vested interest will either ignore the implications of these emails, or play down the importance of their contents until any interest from the media has died down. All they have to do is keep as quiet as possible and wait until the next big scandal/disaster/shock/horror hits the headlines.
When science proves government institutions wrong, the “organs of the state” will always conspire to bury the science, and the truth with it.
Here is a first-class example from my own experience of this happening…
The Truth About “Acid Rain” From Coal-fired British Power Stations
By the way, by far the best paper on the politics of so-called “acid rain” was published by Sonja Boehmer-Christansen. I commend her paper if it’s still possible to get a copy.
I was employed at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (CRE) at the time when British and German coal fired power stations were being castigated as causing “acid rain” that was inducing “waldsterben” (forest death) in Scandinavia and central Europe. So, I looked at the geographical pattern of acid deposition, and it did not fit the claim that the power stations were causing the enhanced acidity.
All rain is acid because it contains carbonic and sulfurous acids. Indeed, sulfur in acid rain is an integral part of the sulfur cycle and all life on land would die without it. The acidity of rain over Northern Europe was observed to correlate with its sulfur content but the pattern was of highest acidity near river estuaries. Acidity of rain was low near power stations and downwind from power stations except where power stations were near river estuaries. And the acidity was very high near the estuaries whether or not there were power stations in those regions.
Sulfur compounds emitted by power stations are very soluble in water (sulfur compounds are scrubbed from power station flue gases by putting them through a shower) and, therefore, highest acidity of rain could be expected near power stations, especially downwind of the prevailing wind. But there was no enhanced acidity and no waldsterben near and/or downwind of the power stations. Also, high acidity of rain in Scandinavia occurred at tracks which had to pass over regions of high acidity of rain near river estuaries. There was no clear reason why the sulfur was being deposited preferentially in those regions.
I suggested that the major cause of the enhanced sulfur content of rain was probably a disruption to the sulfur cycle as a result of altered agricultural practices. Nitrogen and phosphor-rich fertilizers had become widely used by agriculture following WW2, and excess fertilizer could be expected to be delivered to the North Sea by rivers. This could be expected to fertilize the phytoplankton which produce DMS (dimethyl sulfide and associated compounds) with resulting increase to the rate of the sulfur cycle. Indeed, there was evidence that such fertilization was happening because toxic algal blooms were starting to wash up against shores. If this suggestion were true, then the enhanced acidity of rain was a result of the agricultural industry and not the electricity industry.
Upon investigation, this suggestion proved to be correct. And this brings us to Sonja’s brilliant political analysis.
France had a large nuclear electricity industry but Britain and Germany had large coal-fired electricity industries. Forcing coal-fired power stations to fit flue gas desulphurization (FGD) equipment would increase the cost of coal-fired electricity (FGD adds ~20% to the capital cost and ~10% to the operating cost of a power station). And the electricity grids of Germany and France are connected. So, France promoted the “acid rain” scare because that would increase our electricity costs and, therefore, the costs of everything that used electricity in Britain and Germany. These increased costs would provide economic advantage to France. Scandinavian countries went along with this because they feared for the health of their forests. Britain and Germany had no answer except to agree to their reducing the so-called “acid rain” emissions from their power stations. This resulted in establishment of the European Union’s Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) that limits the “acid rain” emissions permitted from power stations.
Then the true cause of the “acid rain” was discovered to be French agriculture and not British electricity generation. Also, the waldsterben was discovered to have been a myth that was not happening. France had a large agricultural industry with much political influence so the “acid rain” scare was conveniently forgotten.
However the LCPD and its bureaucracy had been established. They still exist, and the bureaucrats have mortgages to pay and wives to keep, and kids to put through college. The bureaucrats need to justify their jobs, so they keep lowering the emission limits set by the LCPD. These limits have now been set so low that Britain is being forced to close almost all of its coal-fired power stations during the next eight years. As yet, nobody has explained how the lights are to stay on in Britain when these closures are completed.
…………………………………….
An interesting insight to that period. Britain being labeled “The Dirty Man of Europe” in the scaremongering days of “acid rain” was all political hogwash. To this day we have to bear the cost of this politically-inspired scare story, while the French dropped the matter when it was proven beyond any scientific doubt that the problems they had were caused by their own agricultural businesses. And have we got a refund for all the billions of pounds it cost us? What do you think?
I saw a comment a day or two ago that pointed out the CRU handling of data violated the EPA’s own standards. Expect lawsuits against EPA’s CO2 policy, and more leverage for Sen. Inhoff & allies in the Senate. Then the MSM, as usual, will be bringing up the rear.
Melanie Phillips has a blog entry on “the smoking iceberg” at The Spectator online. The first comment on her piece relies on a submission at realclimate.org to refute the very idea that scientists would ever countenance using a trick of any sort. (When I use the word trick, of course, I mean merely a cunning stratagem of deceit but nothing that’s actually tricky in any way.)
“Geoff C (22:41:06) :
Nature has a brief article on the ‘hacking’ episode, and their focus is more on the theft than the content.
Funny thing is it may not be criminal theft. It just might be a violation of office policy.”
If public funding was used to do the research and generate the results that were deliberately deleted/destroyed, then there might be a predicate for prosecuting for fraud. As in “making stuff up on the taxpayer’s dime” or as in “destroying material in which the taxpayer has acquired an interest.” Not to mention any specific offenses under Freedom of Information Act. Any halfway enterprising lawyer could check into this, and maybe find a plaintiff, and bring an action. Under False Claims and whistleblower statutes, a relator action can be very rewarding for the plaintiff.
“The IPCC folks jet around the world to all kinds of exotic locations for their UN-organized meetings where they eat the finest food. Their gigantic carbon footprints stomp around the planet as they deride poor Brazilian farmers who convert jungle into farmland simply to survive.”
We are all equal but some are more equal than others.
I picked this off RC our Gav seems to have stopped censoring but what a hard hearted pompous man:-
703Janet says:
21 November 2009 at 7:41 PM
I’m the daughter of scientist you all sharply criticized, discredited, and claimed his theories were washed up a few years back on this site, and I just want you to know your pain at the moment is my pleasure.
[Response: Sorry if we caused you any problem, but whether a scientific idea is valid or not is not a reflection on the quality of the person who proposed it. I would advise you to take scientific criticism less personally. – gavin]
Why couldn’t he have just said sorry and left it at that instead of adding further insult to injury?
“It took me years to develop the discipline to question every research result I got. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and very difficult to be right.”
—
Amen to that – same here.
The ironic thing I have found though is that, as I focus more on facts, checks and double-checks in my own papers and less on speculation and story telling, I’m having more and more trouble getting them published…
What it seems to me is lacking in all debates about ‘climate science’, ‘global warming’ etc etc are the following:
i. An agreement as to what currently available data is capable of revealing and what it is not;
ii. An agreement as to the effects of different statistical analyses of raw data;
iii. A communication, in simple succinct language, of what the top three key issues facing climate science currently are, how research is being carried out to address them and the limits of those research methods in their ability to answer those issues;
iv. The key advances which need to be invented, discovered or understood to allow the next key step change in understanding of global climate and, indeed, weather in a manner of relevance to economic actors around the globe.
It’s all too easy for many to descend into slanging matches over this issue.
But equally, it appears to me that the subversion of the global climate science research community at the levels of research grant awards, Govt budget allocation, UN policy and pressure group memberships is sufficiently serious to question whether a moratorium on funding should take place until such questions are answered and communicated satisfactorily, allied to the inevitable ‘restructuring’ which may be required following revelations which may be at times embarrassing, difficult, emotionally charged and career-damaging.
Sometimes it takes something like this to break the logjam.
But it’s all too easy to find a few scapegoats.
It’s the political momentum which needs to change, not a few titular positions.
IMHO.
Once upon a time –
I lived under the misguided belief that academics were, for the most part, devoted to the pursuit of truth. After climbing into the pit for a while, I have come to the conclusion that they are little different than any other human beings. Some good – some bad – and many just looking out for number one.
I have seen the American history community bitterly divided over whether colonial legislatures of the North or South were more contentious with British authorities – with sources carefully sifted to make one argument or the other and with sides drawn according to professional loyalties.
It’s sad – but it happens all the time.
Here’s the real question, is there a British form of RICO?
Jack Okie (05:21:46) :
I saw a comment a day or two ago that pointed out the CRU handling of data violated the EPA’s own standards. Expect lawsuits against EPA’s CO2 policy, and more leverage for Sen. Inhoff & allies in the Senate. Then the MSM, as usual, will be bringing up the rear.’
I check his (Sen. Inhoff) web site yesterday. No mention of Phill’s email scandal.
I’ve emailed both my senators asking them to find out what’s going on over at Penn State. Tomorrow, I’ll be mailing my senators, congresswoman and governor a CD of the raw data with the same request. Penn State is probably rechecking its computer security right about now. The next hack will come thru the front door in the guise of a subpoena if any of those representatives want my vote.
Reading all of this it becomes clear that scientists at CRU thought they are superior to other scientists work and found the need to suppress those findings rather than challenging them the scientificly but supporting those like minded scientists no questions ask.
There is another area in our society that works the same way.
The MSM thinks its superior to the blogosphere and claims information found there is unreliable disregarding there journalistic standards but repeat reports from other MSM outlets or press releases from interest groups no questions ask.
“So, this communication technology has helped to create this beehive mentality with its queens,workers and drones.”Keith Minto
Good! In fact, excellent! This may magnify the stupidity till it is more apparent. Meanwhile, a lone worker such as Steve McIntyre can show up the entire hive.
Elitism I think this is, in an anti-scientific way.
I don’t know if the tendencies to jet-set life are all that relevant for the subject matter. And many could be throwing stones from glass-houses in this respect.
I think the worst problems “uncovered” regard attitudes, ethics, openness and willingness to cooperate. In an almost paradoxical way, these attitudes have been so counter-productive that climate research work today, in practice, does not very much rest upon the contributions of this self-declared elite. The IPCC business is not dependent on them, and could in fact turn out to be much more effective without. And this being an end to AGW? Please check out what that hypothesis is about..
If the leakages improve transparency, cooperation and tolerance, which we might hope, this is really for the good.
Would you buy a used car from this guys?
Well they are trying to regulate all your life.
For those who think science should only seek the truth, I agree. But please realize in this post-Creator world that man is now literally responsible (in his own mind) for everything including the climate. Don’t be surprised, therefore, if the “precautionary principle” discounts the murder of millions or billions for the “sake of the planet”.
But hey, if we want sustainable, then let’s reform the banking and money system to allow liberty. Evil generally requires other folks money to survive.
We must refute the claim that the attitude and actions shown in the emails is typical of how science is done. As one who has participated in the peer-review process in other fields, I am extremely dissappointed in the actions of this group. I do not consider pressuring journals an acceptable, ethical, or common practice
Some posts here that have strong political undertones prompted me to write a word of caution. Those who would argue against the current power holders by calling them elitists, such as was the case in Russia, are themselves at risk of becoming like them, elitists. There is historical evidence for this. How often in history has true scientific progress and individual rights been held back by those in power, who have themselves taken the position of the elitism they so abhorred previous to their own rise? Absolute power corrupts absolutely, regardless of your political persuasion or the type of governmental rule you espouse.
With that in mind, I think it wise to focus on the details and provide clear descriptions of the questionable behavior alluded to in the emails rather than give the whole shebang a label such as “elitism”.
The huffingtonpost says that “One reputable group of scientists, Real Climate, has posted a response on its blog to the allegations about what information is actually contained in the hacked emails.”
Well, that’s cleared up, then.
Elsewhere, in an unrelated story, huffingtonpost reports that polar bears do not eat baby seals; a reputable ursine group, Thalarctos maritimus, has posted cute and cuddly pictures on its website which show polar bears to be harmless but frightened, fun-loving, pacific, tofu-eaters.
Had huffingtonpost existed in the days of Watergate, the story of alleged malfeasances would have been dismissed, no doubt, with something like, “One reputable group of political experts, the Committee to Reelect the President, has posted a response on its newsletter to the allegations about what information is actually contained in the tape-recordings.”
I don’t think I believe you.
Deadman (08:42:56) :
The huffingtonpost says that “One reputable group of scientists, Real Climate, has posted a response on its blog to the allegations about what information is actually contained in the hacked emails.”
Would that be the same group of reputable scientists that are implicated in the allegations?
Apparently, the pressuring journals, collusion to select what gets published when is all part of good peer review. From Realclimate:
Gavin–You seem to believe that the peer review process as revealed in the emails is normal. As someone who has participated in review in other fields, I can assure you it is not. Perhaps your field is too small to ensure the required anonymity and diversity required, but the review process in climate science as it exists today cannot possibly function properly.
[Response: Not true. Peer-review is of course imperfect – people don’t have enough time, there are tens of thousands of papers to review, editors don’t always know who appropriate reviewers might be, and sometimes the process messes up. The three examples I mentioned above are great examples. But there is plenty of good critical reviewing going on and it generally leads to better papers in the literature. Having seen poor initial drafts morph into well-argued journal articles many, many times, I know this to be true. – gavin]
Mike (06:46:40) :
The ironic thing I have found though is that, as I focus more on facts, checks and double-checks in my own papers and less on speculation and story telling, I’m having more and more trouble getting them published…
‘Story telling’: it’s been my strong advice to everyone to avoid anyone or any entity that shows almost any hint whatsoever of Political Correctness, for it suffuses their thinking and actions such that what they say and do is flat out dangerous.
1) It is nice to see that I was not just paranoid about the different treatment my climate papers received compared to my others.
2) A nice essay on the general problem (not only in climate science): Stanley Trimble. 2007. The Double Standard in Environmental Science. Regulation summer issue p. 16-22. He documents cases where sloppy work is considered ok if you are claiming some environmental disaster or attacking a skeptic.
A lot of people are now wondering ‘what’s next’ — how does this story advance from here? I think two things need to happen.
There needs to be more articles like this where outrage is publicly expressed by mainstream scientists. This sort of opinion piece needs to start to show up in the MSM. The RC notion that ‘boys will be boys’ and ‘everyone’s email accounts look like this’ needs to be debunked by those who have been injured.
Second, we need to replace the idea that this is a scientific controversy with the fact that this is a story about official corruption and possible felony obstruction of the FOIA. To make this a big story, someone in government needs to make a statement they they are interesting in looking into this. A US Congressman needs to announce hearings or a British MP needs to express interest in investigating or a prosecutor needs to indicate that they will look into it.
If people want to get involved, contact an elected representative or a law enforcement official and ask for an inquiry.
The PR / Press / Political Battle.
Warming to the climate con job
* By Tim Blair
* From: The Daily Telegraph November 23, 2009 12:00AM
DISPLAYING his usual keen grasp of science, and not in any way seeking a distraction from events involving certain Sri Lankan boating enthusiasts, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last week addressed the Parliament.
There had been, Rudd revealed, a crucial incident in Melbourne.
It was an incident that would shape our national future and determine core government policy. An incident pivotal in Australia’s history. An incident that, were it not for Rudd’s insight, may have passed with little notice.
Melbourne, he told Parliament, had experienced a hot November evening.
This is apparently all the evidence Rudd needs to be convinced anew of global warming, which previously was understood to be global. Now that it’s fully contained within a city on Victoria’s southern coast, I suppose we can ignore weather events from anywhere else.
For example, Delhi recently enjoyed its coldest November day in five years.
Perth’s previous November was its coldest since 1971. November 18 in Hong Kong was the coldest such date since records began in 1883. New York’s October? The coldest in 23 years. Canberra itself hasn’t exactly been a cauldron lately, recording its coldest day in 43 years this past June.
Even your hardcore warmies tend not to blame solitary toasty nights on climate change, but our PM, armed with his ANU arts degree, isn’t bound by logic or convention. You’d expect the scientific community to have taken Rudd to task over his Melbournal warming thesis, but as the week went on they faced more pressing concerns of their own.
Unless you’re the PM, we ordinary folk lack any empirical means by which to determine whether or not global warming is happening. We can’t see global warming, hear it, or touch it. As far as we can tell, a hot night in Melbourne is just like any previous hot night in Melbourne. They tend to happen every year or so.
Thus, we rely on experts to inform us about, as Leigh Sales referred to it on Friday night’s Lateline, “the majority scientific opinion on global warming”. Problem is, even as Leigh delivered her line (a single keystroke probably calls it up on ABC teleprompters) the majority scientific opinion on global warming was taking one of its biggest hammerings yet.
It seems that either hackers or some disgruntled insider busted into the email records at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), then exposed to the world hundreds of messages to and from the likes of climate scientists Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Ken Briffa, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth and Jonathan Overpeck, who are among the most senior formulators of that majority scientific opinion.
An anonymous statement attached to the emails announced: “We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”
It sure does. Few outside of climate nerd circles have ever heard of Jones, Mann, Briffa etc, but these blokes (why are climate alarmists usually rich white men, by the way?) are largely the reason we’re all talking about destroying our economy in order to save some forest sweepings for our cave-dwelling grandchildren to eat.
Should they be proved genuine, which is looking likely at this point, in the absence of any denials, these emails are absolute dynamite. In one, CRU director Jones mentions using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in certain temperatures. (Hilariously, one of his online defenders subsequently claimed: “Scientists often use the term trick to refer to a good way to deal with a problem, rather than something that is secret, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.” Could’ve tricked me. As for hiding a decline, the same defender meekly admits to “a poor choice of words”.)
Other words also seem poorly chosen, such as these, also allegedly from Jones: “If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.” Considering that we’re told by these gumbies that the consequences of global warming would be untold death and destruction, Jones is clearly quite committed to his cause. Most normal people would cop the odd error here or there if it saved a single life; Jones would apparently rather people die than be shown up as wrong.
Just in case you still think Jones is just some no-name boffin toiling pitifully in academia’s climate change coal mines, one file in the exposed CRU records reveals that he has collected 13.7 million in grants since 1990. Remember this the next time you hear anyone talking about all the oil company money being funneled to we evil denialists. As one commenter wrote on America’s National Public Radio website: “I’ve been working around scientists milking this scam for a decade for grant money. Most will admit it’s BS when you pour enough beers into them, but hey, the money’s good.” Jones’s fellow warmer Overpeck allegedly writes in another email: “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.” A lack of warming? Haven’t heard much about that from the majority scientific opinion. Nor have we previously heard of much else covered in the exposed emails, from dodging FOI requests to tax avoidance and shafting non-compliant journalists.
Here’s more bad news for the warmenists. There is great public hunger for this story.
In May, the UK Daily Telegraph stacked on 600,000 in sales through its coverage of the expenses scandal involving British MPs. Well, they’ve got another hit on their hands. On Saturday, the most-read single item on the Telegraph’s website covered what has become known as Climategate.
Given that Australia, the US, and every developed nation on Earth is threatened by the same economically-ruinous eco-alarmism, you’d expect other newspapers to also be jumping all over this yarn. They could, after all, do with the circulation.
Perhaps they’re taking their lead from Kevin Rudd. More important matters need attending to. It was hot in Melbourne the other night.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/warming-to-the-climate-con-job/story-e6frezz0-1225801796426
The evidence of climate fraud!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html
With reference to this post at “Real”Climate:
******************************************************************
703Janet says:
21 November 2009 at 7:41 PM
I’m the daughter of scientist you all sharply criticized, discredited, and claimed his theories were washed up a few years back on this site, and I just want you to know your pain at the moment is my pleasure.
[Response: Sorry if we caused you any problem, but whether a scientific idea is valid or not is not a reflection on the quality of the person who proposed it. I would advise you to take scientific criticism less personally. – gavin]
*************************************************************
How can Gavin Schmit not understand that it is the non-scientific manner of their criticism and work that is the issue.
As far as any unscientific flak coming their way now, “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
This is an excellent summary by Roy Spencer, one that should be reprinted by every honest media around.
In Canada the Globe and Mail owned by the very powerful group Thomson-Reuters has yet to comment but was able to prop up some quick article by one of their activist reporter about a poll commissioned by Hoggan, the owner of desmogblog, the racist et delationist site that denounces scientists who would dare to go against the Family, chairman of the Suzuki Foundation!
In France Le Figaro, close to the power (center right) and highly infeoded to the IPCC views has yet to comment!
In Switzerland, the francophone Le Temps, a hot bed of rechauffistes, is mum.
The MSM fracture lines betray the interest of their owners and the masks are falling…
Climate Heretic asks:“Would that be the same group of reputable scientists that are implicated in the allegations?”
Yes. (Hence my burlesque on polar bears maintaining that they’re cute. I could have just as easily have referred to a huffpost story wherein Reynard T. Fox refutes any suggestion that chickens are being disadvantaged, claiming that Fox and Associates are clearly the leading experts in the field of henhouse-management theories.)
On another topic, Gavin notes: “But there is plenty of good critical reviewing going on and it generally leads to better papers in the literature. Having seen poor initial drafts morph into well-argued journal articles many, many times, I know this to be true.”
In other words, writers are gaining credentials for being authors of published articles because reviewers are editing their papers or suggesting improvements, or both. Those published papers are then used as references for their supposed scholarly but actually inferior abilities. Is it any wonder that the world is full of people with postgraduate degrees in science who believe in the AGW scientific-consensus dogma?
Hank Henry — An attorney told me that to a man, the people who end up working in gov’t positions are guys who went to college – not to get an education but because they wanted to get something to lord over others.
In Europe in the 1300’s the church controlled everything and it was common for those with political leanings to become monks accordingly. As a rule the 1st son was the inheritor of lands and the 2nd son was expected to go to work for the church.
Nothing has changed much other than who holds the reins of power.
CLIMATEGATE – I like that
Dr. Spencer:
Nicely said. But were you really surprised? After the dust has settled and skeptics see that their fears have been confirmed, what will be the consequences? It now appears that this file, very significantly labelled FOIA, originated from whistleblowers not hackers. These whistleblowers undoubtedly have important insight and information on who did what with regards to the FOIA requests. If so, the knock on effects are going to be very significant for Dr. Jones and the UEA administrators involved in the stonewalling of the FOIA requests, most notably those from Steve McIntyre. In a further piece of irony, the elitism that you note and which drove Dr. Jones and others to dismiss the work of Steve McIntyre and other serious amateurs and which is undoubtedly behind their refusal to release data and code, will lead ultimately, IMHO, to serious charges of misconduct and possibly legal action. All this could have been so easily avoided if they had simply released the data and the code – but then that would have meant that they would have to legitimize some of us in the great unwashed.
If I was advising the UEA Chancellor I would immediately put an end to it by demanding that Jones et al immediately both acknowledge the general inappropriateness of their behavior and release all the information requested that is relevant to climate research. After all, when you find yourself in a hole, the smart thing to do is to stop digging!!
A further comment about this post at “Real”Climate:
******************************************************************
703Janet says:
21 November 2009 at 7:41 PM
I’m the daughter of scientist you all sharply criticized, discredited, and claimed his theories were washed up a few years back on this site, and I just want you to know your pain at the moment is my pleasure.
***************************
NASA, like most large institutions has rules on conduct that employees (read: Gavin Schmidt) are required to comply with:
NPG2810.1 Computer Systems Rules of Conduct
4.8.4.2. Some uses of NASA computer systems are clearly outside the boundaries of official business and permissible use. Prohibited uses of NASA’s IT resources include using systems to do the following:
a. Maintaining or conducting an outside business.
4.8.4. Other Permissible Uses
4.8.4.1. Because there is no measurable cost, some limited personal use of Internet services, such as the World Wide Web and electronic mail, is permitted, provided it does not interfere with the employee’s work
or the work of others. Extreme care must be taken regarding content matter. Under no circumstances is it permissible to access or download material that would create a hostile or offensive work environment…
Judging by the time stamps of his posts and comments, Gavin spends a lot of NASA time doing working on his business, realclimate. Clearly, these emails show that Gavin has used RC to create a hosile working environment. Janets example is but one.
A complaint to NASA’s compliance officer should get attention, particularly if it deals with the issue of a hostile work environment.
The faithful press rush to the rescue
This climate email-hacking episode is generating more heat than light
Another skirmish has broken out in the long-running battle between climate scientists and so-called sceptics, and this one is likely to lead to more public confusion
…For the past few years, a small group of climate change ‘sceptics’ have been poring over scientific journal papers that report historical trends in temperatures from around the world, as recorded by directly by thermometers and other instruments, and by ‘proxies’, such as tree rings. Their primary objective has been to seek out evidence that global warming has been invented by climate researchers who fake their data….
It is inevitable as we approach the crucial meeting in conference in Copenhagen in December that the sceptics would try some stunt to try to undermine a global agreement on climate change. There is no smoking gun, but just a lot of smoke without fire.
• Bob Ward is Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-email-hacking
“With that in mind, I think it wise to focus on the details and provide clear descriptions of the questionable behavior alluded to in the emails rather than give the whole shebang a label such as “elitism”.” Pam Gray
Some see the trees (details) and some see the forest (surmised worldview).
“How often in history has true scientific progress and individual rights been held back by those in power, who have themselves taken the position of the elitism they so abhorred previous to their own rise? Absolute power corrupts absolutely, regardless of your political persuasion or the type of governmental rule you espouse.” Pamela Gray
Nice to see you are becoming a libertarian, Pam.
Sorry – bit off topic.
Kate (05:19:09)
Fascinating post Kate. My dad used to grow roses. He gave up when the ‘Clean Air Act’ (UK) came in because after that his roses kept getting Blackspot, which he put down to lack of sulpher in the air. Was he mistaken in his assumption?
Sorry, that’s a deflection, not even a defense; there is no contest as to the ‘in print’ existance of the three items.
The in “print existence”??? To a unilingual Chinese, the “in print existence” of those three items is a bunch of squiggles on the page. Apparently you think words mean something all by themselves. Words are merely references, the post I cited lays bare the referent. The whole point of of having words in the first place to refer to their referents. I suppose you also believe people are convicted in court on account of the in print existence of some charges against them?? Obviously y’all have appointed yourselves judge, jury and executioner in this matter, but still!
Y’all jumped the shark yesterday, I hope you realize that.
Here’s how to file a code of conduct complaint with NASA against Gavin Schmidt. Conact the Inspector General at:
NASA Office of Inspector General
Code W
300 E Street SW
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Tel: 202-358-1220
If you are a NASA employee and want to file a complaint:
ANONYMOUS HOTLINE
All NASA and NASA contractor employees are encouraged to alert the OIG to crime, fraud, waste, and mismanagement in NASA’s programs. The OIG Hotline offers a confidential means for reporting this important information.
NASA OIG PHONE HOTLINE
1-800-424-9183
NASA OIG CYBERHOTLINE
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/hotline.html
Or Write:
NASA Office of Inspector General
P.O. Box 23089
L’Enfant Plaza Station
Washington, DC 20026
The IG Act protects Government employees from reprisals or retaliation by their employers for reporting to the OIG. Although as a Hotline caller you may remain anonymous, we encourage you to provide us with your contact information. The ability to gather additional information from Hotline callers is often key to effectively pursuing allegations.
A first rate post from Dr. Roy Spencer. And, as usual, some very wise (and some very amusing) comments. (And, naturally, the odd, pathetic troll).
No wiser comment, perhaps than @crosspatch (22:32:47). Don’t miss this!
Perhaps it is time to give the ‘Hockey Team’ a little avuncular advice.
First, thanks to Dennis Healey:-
“It is a good thing to follow the first law of holes; if you are in one, stop digging.”
Secondly, from me:-
‘The biggest danger in being a champion bullshitter is that you come to believe the bullshit yourself.’
Thirdly (maybe just a corollary of the above):-
‘There may be times in life where people will accept a show of arrogance as a substitute for actual competence. But if arrogance is all you have to offer, sooner or later, you will find yourself with no friends, a need to run very fast, and your trousers around your ankles.’
I’ve no anticipation that the Hockey Team will read this. Nor that they would be in the least interested if they did. The nature of the beast. But nevertheless, food for thought, perhaps.
Meanwhile, the BBC, having brushed the whole Climategate incident well under the carpet, has found something MUCH MUCH more important. The misdeeds of Homo Sapiens again I’m afraid. But not the current batch:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8368485.stm
These people will never, ever, give up.
A nice piece from @Kate (05:19:09) about acid rain! (And good to see one of the old CRE team on here!)
Of course, ‘they’ have now decided that sulphur emissions may yet counteract Global Warming! [And I did read a piece recently by a Norwegian boffin saying that acid rain was actually beneficial to trees (but not to lakes). Can’t find the reference, unfortunately.]
So, ‘save the forests’ or ‘save the planet’?
There’s a dilemma!
Here’s an example of where Gavin mixes NASA with his business dealings (realclimate):
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=897&filename=1212276269.txt
Note that the email signature block reads:
*——————————————————————–*
| Gavin Schmidt NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies |
| 2880 Broadway |
| Tel: (212) 678 5627 New York, NY 10025 |
| |
| gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin |
*——————————————————————–*
I love the inherent assumptions in the “team’s” thinking…
– what is the point of attempting to detect a simulated signal of climate change over some part of (e.g.) the Southern Ocean if there are no observations there in which to detect the expected signal? That would clearly be pointless.
– Tim Osborn (21/11/03)
– from 1069630979.txt
Detecting “the expected signal”. You gotta love that thinking.
Of course you may, Sandy.
Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress. I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming. Can the IPCC scientists admit the same thing?
Sure, they’ll be happy to tell you you’re wrong.
Kate (05:19:09) : ,
Very interesting story on acid rain. It has parallels now with science being ignored and a social industry started to perpetuate the myth. I distinctly remember that time with forests dying and steams becoming clear and lifeless instead of turbid,it make a good photo opportunity for the press and then the story just died. The DMS mentioned seems be be the same molecule that James Lovelock implicates in phytoplankton ocean release as an important cloud seeding device.
So DMS has a double life as a wonderful cloud seeder at ocean level but a ph forest reducer at the river bank ?
“The Latin word scepticus derives directly from skeptikos, which is Ancient Greek. Skeptikos derives from skepsis, which means doubt as well as inquiry. It is related to skopein, to inquire, or to examine, which gives us all the -scope words.”
This is part of the reasoning that led Fowler (in his classic Modern English Usage) to recommend the “k” spelling to Britons.
=========
“As one commenter wrote on America’s National Public Radio website: “I’ve been working around scientists milking this scam for a decade for grant money. Most will admit it’s BS when you pour enough beers into them, but hey, the money’s good.” “
LOL!
“”” Bill Illis (05:13:20) :
It is a good thing we have the satellite lower troposphere series now.
It is clear now that the pre-1979 historical record produced by Phil Jones, James Hansen and Tom Karl, which have an unknown amount of adjustments in them, can’t really be trusted. They are all part of the team.
We read in the emails they were working on a new Hadcrut4 composed of a new HadSST3 (which is in first draft form) and a new Crutem4 (which might be published separately) [despite the fact that CRU apparently lost all of the raw data].
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=974&filename=1242136391.txt
It seems we need to rely on the MSU series and/or just go back to the raw instrument-based temperature measurements (with caveats that there may be TOB errors etc.) Any chance Roy we can use some old MSU data to extend the lower troposphere data back farther. “””
Bill,
Your suggestion that the pre-1979 record may be tainted, is quite in line with the position that I have stated several times on these pages; but for a different reason. You, I presume, are alluding to the fact that the satellite record as reported by both UAH and RSS has around that date as its origin.
My concern relates to a different problem which has about the same time origin; that being the deployment of the first oceanic buoys to measure the water and air temperatures at the same time. I presume these are the so-called Argo buoys; but I don’y know if that is the correct designation.
But John Christy, et al, reported on results of those observations in Jan 2001, I believe in Geophysical Research Letters; in any case some such journal.
Their report, evidently covers about 20 years of those simultaneous water temperatures at -1 metre depth, and air tempertaures at +3 metres.
Apparently the prior assumption was that these two temperatures should be the same, and the global temperature data covering 73% or so of the earth surface was predicated on that assumption.
I can’t imagine why anyone would ever expect the water and lower air temperatures to be the same, given that ocean currents maybe a handful of km/hr, while wind speeds can be orders of magnitude higher, so water and air are seldom in contact long enough to equilibrate.
So I have always been skeptical of that assumption.
Well Christy et al reported in 2001, that for that 20 year period, the water temperatures recorded about 40% (to the best of my recollection) more warming, than did the air temperatures. Well maybe they said the air temperature rise was 60% of the water rise. In some way they described a difference of about that order.
Well of course such a revelation means that the prior 150 years or so (pre-1979-80) global temperature data is unreliable because for 70+% of the earth, the water temperatures were measured, instead of the air temperatures; notwithstanding of course that the very methodology of tossing a bucket over the side to retrieve awater sample from some quite uncontrollable depth, to be measured on the deck of a wind swept ship; to be replaced later by intake cooling water sensors, often mounted in hot engine rooms, is also quite Rube Goldberg.
However the important conclusion of Christy’s buoy study, is that the water and air temperatures ARE NOT CORRELATED. Now I e-mailed Dr Christy on that issue, and he was good enough to reply, and said something to the effect that there was “some correlation” in “some locations”. Well I am sure he was being cautious in his wording so as to not mislead me.
But I got the distinct impression that; he felt in some way, the two data sets aren’t well correlated.
Which means that the correct near surface air temperatures; to mix with the 60 inch high or whatever the standard is, land based Stevenson screens etc (owl boxes) are NOT reconstructable from the errant water temperature data.
There is the added effect that ocean currents meander just like rivers on land, so a ship could return to the exact same geographical co-ordinates, and be in totally different water.
So I have ever since been highly critical of the veracity of the pre 1979-80 global temperature data for that reason. So I feel it doesn’t matter if the GCMs are correct or not; the early data that was fed into them is garbage.
I have not read about, or heard of ANY attempt of effort, to try and reconstruct global ocanic temperature data pre 1979 as a result of what Christy et al reported in 2001.
I wish Dr Roy would discuss this point with Dr Christy, and perhaps give us an update on what John feels about that study.
To me that Jan 2001 paper of Christy et al is a seminal paper that signals a “wait a minute” caution about early oceanic climate data.
In a similar vein, I feel the same way about Frank Wentz et al’ s July 7, 2007 paper in SCIENCE; “How much more Rain will Global Warming bring ?”
They reported that global evaporation, total atmospheric water content, and global precipitation EACH increased at a rate fo 7% per degree C rise in mean global surface temperature. The GCMs agreed with the total atmospheric water content rate, but were in gross disagreement with the evap and precip rates (which themselves must end up equal). The modesl disagreed by a factor of 3-7 times for the evap and precip rates of increase. I hope I have that the right way round in my mind.
What Wentz didn’t state; but which I infer as an obvious conclusion from their data, is that the 7% increase in global precip for a one degree rise, must also imply an increase (maybe even about 7%) in the total global precipitable moisture containing clouds; which in turn implies a huge negative feedback cooling effect, since all that moisture and clouds (increase) likely occurs in the more tropical regions where evaporation does occur, so the albedo increase, plus the blockage of surface solar insolation, results in a strong cooling effect.
That leads me to the clonclusion; “It’s the Water, stupid !” And a belief that the physical properties of water are largely responsible for controlling the comfortable temperature range that we enjoy on earth; and the puny efforts of other GHGs are inneffectual at best; and likely quite inconsequential.
Which doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge the mechanisms by which GHG molecules intercept surface emitted thermal LWIR emssion from the earth and warm the atmosphere; but Water vapor is the premier contributor to that effect; and can do it all without any mystical triggering by CO2 in some imagined feedback process. Water would exhibit the very same temperature control, in the complete absence of any other GHG species in the atmosphere.
Well this got a bit longer than I intended. But 1979-80 does seem to be about the birthdate of climate “science”, and I wish Roy and John Christy would comment on that buoy data correlation business.
George
Nemesis (10:42:45) :
his roses kept getting Blackspot, which he put down to lack of sulpher in the air. Was he mistaken in his assumption?
…No, he had a good instinct. Sulfur is good for roses.
Black spot is one of the most common diseases for roses. It is caused by the fungus Diplocarpon rosae.
Black spot occurs most frequently during rainy seasons when temperatures are moderate. Leaves on the bottom of the rose tend to become infected earlier because they are shaded by other parts of the plant and thus stay wet longer.
To prevent germination of the black spot spores, apply either sulfur dust or wettable sulfur to the plant. Sulfur can be applied every 5-10 days but thorough coverage of the plant is critical. Applying sulfur does not kill the fungi already on the plant.
Another option is to spray the roses with a mixture of baking soda and water (two tablespoons per gallon), however, roses will have to be sprayed weekly and after every heavy rain. Each week you alternate sprays – one week the alkaline baking soda and the next, the acidic lime sulfur. The black spot fungus will have to work very hard to establish itself if you are diligent.
Watering
Diplocarpon rosae thrives in wet conditions. When watering your roses, always water from the base of the plant and never from the top. It is also best to water your roses in the morning to allow the leaves the most time to dry.
Nemesis – equally off-topic reply. Your father was absolutely right. Sulphur is a well-known fungicide and the prevalence of ‘black spot’ on roses has increased dramatically since the banning of coal burning in much of the UK.
That was an exceptionally informative post from Kate, BTW. And how interesting to see, yet again. the Hull University connection (as per the leaked e-mails). Is there an old grudge at work here that we ought to know about?
Anthony,
Thanks for maintaining this brilliant blog with so many clever and amusing comments from knowledgeable scientist. I’ve only been around for a couple of months, but I must say that I am every day impressed by the numerous quick, funny and intelligent statements written here.
We have for a while suspected that there is something fishy going on regarding AGW, partly because we find AGW in disagreement with our honest understanding of science, and partly because the AGW arguments usually are somewhat hostile and off-topic.
Certainly being hostile and off-topic does not mean that there is something fishy going on, unless you have something to hide. After the big data dump, the Climate Gate, this has changed…
Keep up the good work Anthony.
Best Regards,
Invariant
After the big data dump:
Man made global warming is really man made…
Should serve as a nice party line or newspaper head line!
Good to see that Roy’s post is generating lots of comments and long comments, but I am not reading them, way, way too long.
Roy you are toast now. You admitted you could be wrong. I can see it now, front page NYT “Climate Skeptic Admits He Could Be Wrong”.
Follow-up:
Le Temps, Swiss newspaper based in Geneva, finally reports about it…
“réchauffement climatique lundi23 novembre 2009
Une «conspiration des scientifiques»?
Luis Lema
A quelques jours du sommet de Copenhague, des pirates informatiques dévoilent des aspects peu reluisants de professeurs voulant écarter tout avis de collègues plutôt sceptiques sur la théorie du réchauffement inéluctable de notre planète…”
Better yet that Thomson-Reuters CTV Globemedia… They perhaps are waiting for Hoggan or Suzuki to write the article! LOL
Great work…Roy.
A bit OT…
But, I am curious if any one has seen any studies…
re: the increased global pollution (not CO2 – the real stuff) resulting from the ‘Green’ movement forcing manufacturing to explode in relatively uncontrolled areas of the developing world…vs. the west?
I have a gut level feeling that the ‘Greens’ have actually conspired to make the world a much dirtier place.
Would the posts by Shurley Knot make more sense if he reversed the positions of the “K” and the “S” in his moniker?
Just wondering.
Patrick (07:10:05) :
Here’s the real question, is there a British form of RICO?
Not exactly. But there is a general common law definition of what constitutes a “conspiracy.” That is first proof of an actus reas – an agreement that forms the basis of the conspiracy. In the case of CRU that might be any of the email exchanges where suggestions to alter, hide or destroy data are made. And there must also be a mens rea – an intent to carry out the agreement. Again, with CRU the factual alteration of data, hiding of data or destruction (loss) of data can meet this requirement.
In British common law “inferences drawn from the course of conduct of the conspirators” is enough to serve as evidence of an agreement. And one
may become a conspirator without agreement if assistance provided is the bringing together of other conspirators with the intention that they reach an agreement to commit a crime.
Also, the concept of early intervention, where a person intervenes in a process or act at an early stage, e.g. trying to prevent access to lawfully demanded data, is fundamental to conspiracy.
“In Britain, the notion that group criminal activity might be more insidious than individual activity finds support in the case law and the reports of the Law Commission. The Commission stated that the doctrine would allow the prosecution of organizers as members of the conspiracy, but believed that this was an added bonus to early intervention which was the primary rationale.”
Also, as Dr. Phil is a recipient of American taxpayer funds, he falls under the jurisdiction of U.S. law in which the RICO Act is an active means of prosecution.
Now, if only Denny Crane were still practicing…
Here is an amazing email by Tom Wigley about climate science and separating personal opinions and scientific responsibility.
Original Filename: 880476729.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley
To: jan.goudriaan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, grassl_h@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Klaus Hasselmann , Jill Jaeger , rector@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, uctpa84@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, john@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mparry@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pier.vellinga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
Reply-to: Tom Wigley
Cc: Mike Hulme , t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both “immediate control” and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options. It is not IPCC’s role to make “convincing cases”
for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement.
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No
scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever
endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully
themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief
that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science
— when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords
with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on
the subject.
Let me remind you of the science. The issue you address is one of the
timing of emissions reductions below BAU. Note that this is not the same
as the timing of action — and note that your letter categorically
addresses the former rather than the latter issue. Emissions reduction
timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx
pathways towards CO2 concentration stabilization. It has been clearly
demonstrated in the literature that the mitigation costs of following an
Sxxx pathway are up to five times the cost of following an equivalent
WRExxx pathway. It has also been shown that there is likely to be an
equal or greater cost differential for non-Annex I countries, and that the
economic burden in Annex I countries would fall disproportionately on
poorer people.
Furthermore, since there has been no credible analysis of the benefits
(averted impacts) side of the equation, it is impossible to assess fully
the benefits differential between the Sxxx and WRExxx stabilization
profiles. Indeed, uncertainties in predicting the regional details of
future climate change that would arise from following these pathways, and
the even greater uncertainties that attend any assessment of the impacts
of such climate changes, preclude any credible assessment of the relative
benefits. As shown in the WRE paper (Nature v. 379, pp. xxx xxxx xxxx), the
differentials at the global-mean level are so small, at most a few tenths
of a degree Celsius and a few cm in sea level rise and declining to
minuscule amounts as the pathways approach the SAME target, that it is
unlikely that an analysis of future climate data could even distinguish
between the pathways. Certainly, given the much larger noise at the
regional level, and noting that even the absolute changes in many
variables at the regional level remain within the noise out to 2030 or
later, the two pathways would certainly be indistinguishable at the
regional level until well into the 21st century.
The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse
gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much,
too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are
most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late
(which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future
generations of the same groups). Our ability to quantify the economic
consequences of “too much, too soon” is far better than our ability to
quantify the impacts that might arise from “too little, too late” — to
the extent that we cannot even define what this means! You appear to be
putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the
equation. Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues
are. In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does
you little credit. Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually
putting a lie into the mouths of innocents (“after carefully examining the
question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against
postponement to be more compelling”). People who endorse your letter will
NOT have “carefully examined” the issue.
When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I
find this extremely disturbing.
Tom Wigley
I’m a meteorologist, but not in research, so I’m not up on the “rules of the road” regarding data/software used in a published journal article. It’s too bad the journals don’t have ironclad rules on releasability of data and software upon publication. If you publish an article, you have to cough up the data and software. If the data has licensing restrictions, provide enough details so that an interested party can purchase the data themselves. If the data cannot be obtained freely nor purchased, the paper cannot be published. Same for the software. If you want to hide behind intellectual property rights, then get out of academia and go into the for-profit world.
Can someone explain what is common practice among the “leading” journals regarding data/software? Is the practice enforced? Or is it all done with a wink and a nod?
Regarding the talk of law suits, I wonder if the power generators have thought of using these latest revelations of data manipulation in their law suits in Victoria:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/generators-threaten-ets-legal-action/story-e6frg6n6-1225801890979
This is a reaction to the current negotiations over permit allocation under the proposed Aussie ETS (called CPRS), which Prime Minister Rudd is trying to ram through in the last sitting week of the Federal Senate this year.
Hans von Storch, quitting the journal Climate Research
“Only naive people think that climate science has only to do with facts and
truth. Also, climate science is to some extent a social process, with many
extra-scientific influences. Climate science is definitely in a postnormal stage,
and we have to make sure that publications are not just reconfirming
preconceived concepts or concepts to which we have grown accustomed to.
Ludwig’s Fleck remarkable analysis “Genesis and Development of a Scientific
Fact” describes this syndrome, which eventually leads to a dogmatization and
stand-still of science. Thus, we need a certain level of liberalism. Articles
must be allowed to present in addition to their hard and reproducible facts a
certain amount of creative speculation. However, papers must be explicit
where facts end and where such speculation begins.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070703025424/w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/CR.editorial.pdf
“papers must be explicit where facts end and where such speculation begins.”
Uh-huh.
Hans von Storch, quitting the journal Climate Research
“Only naive people think that climate science has only to do with facts and truth. Also, climate science is to some extent a social process, with many extra-scientific influences. Climate science is definitely in a postnormal stage, and we have to make sure that publications are not just reconfirming preconceived concepts or concepts to which we have grown accustomed to. Ludwig’s Fleck remarkable analysis “Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact” describes this syndrome, which eventually leads to a dogmatization and stand-still of science. Thus, we need a certain level of liberalism. Articles must be allowed to present in addition to their hard and reproducible facts a certain amount of creative speculation. However, papers must be explicit where facts end and where such speculation begins.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070703025424/w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/CR.editorial.pdf
“papers must be explicit where facts end and where such speculation begins.”
Uh-huh.
The ‘rationalize it’ crowd would seem to be either rapidly spinning up or in full swing…
It might be quite interesting if someone familiar enough with ‘journalists’ who write the most pro-AGW articles from the largest outlets were searched for by name in the hacked/whistleblown data. If I recall correctly there’s been at least one who’s already been noted in the emails as ‘safe’ or something along those lines. Or if someone has the time and inclination to try to figure out who some of the most pro-AGW journalists are and then search on them…
It would also be really useful to see a layout of each of the players along with the continent and organization they’re associated with – sort of an organization chart of players. I mention this because there are a ton of people out there who perhaps recognize one name or organization, but not much more – laying it out and showing where these folks fit in would be pretty useful to display just how serious this is.
This is particularly true since it appears that the CRU guys (and other players) are in overtime trying to minimize this entire fiasco – including claiming that the CRU data is only a small part of the existing data – which ‘of course’ comes from ‘unaffected’ organizations – upon which the entire AGW theory rests. If they have to, and cannot spin this away enough, I’m sure they’d cut lose the CRU researchers and their reports to save AGW if they can distance the other organizations and scientists enough to save their credibility with politicians, governments, and the general public (even if they’re guilty as sin in reality).
Meanwhile, back to my initial sentence – I just ran across this very brief article by AP, but linked at Google news, which gets heavy worldwide usage:
—–
Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling
(AP) – 11 hours ago
LONDON — A leading climate change scientist says the leak of documents stolen from a British research institute may be aimed at undermining talks at next month’s Copenhagen global climate summit.
Kevin Trenberth — of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado — said in an interview Sunday that hackers cherry-picked from the stolen data and distributed selected documents to try to undermine scientific consensus on man-made climate change.
Britain’s University of East Anglia said hackers last week stole data from its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change.
Skeptics claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming.
Trenberth says the hackers took data out of context.
—-
What’s appalling is that any real scientist could find the hack/whistleblowing ‘appalling’ and claim the data is cherry-picked, all without apparently being bothered by the content of that information. Now if THAT isn’t ripe.
It’d be nice to know the names of the AP ‘staff’ writers who wrote this bit – AND the editor who approved it.
(wasn’t Trenberth in some of those emails? My bad if not, going from vague and perhaps incorrect recollection on that one)
“Most will admit it’s BS when you pour enough beers into them, but hey, the money’s good.” Roger Knights
Actually, the money is not “good” because of the unethical way it is produced. No wonder then that it is used to fund a lot of crap.
Did anyone else notice:
To be honest, I’m blown away by this email from Tom Wigley, and my level of respect for him went up a notch.
For the record, Tom Wigley was formerly the director at East Anglia and is currently at UCAR.
Cheering News:
Warmer Scientists starting to distance themselves from “The Team”?
Judy Curry – slightly deprecating? Yet defending AGW on CA
Dr. Hans von Storch –
1. Data must be made public so that “adversaries” may check the analysis. [Now this is the basic prinicple of science]. This must be enforced!
2. Scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like the IPCC!
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/
Wow!
Maybe an appeal should be launched to other genuine warmer scientists that they, at the very minimum, endorse these recomendations of Dr. Hans von Storch.
George Monbiot believes that drastic action coupled with strong political will is needed to combat global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot
George Monbiot: “It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
.. there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request….”
Global warming rigged? Here’s the email I’d need to see: “… Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
Well youre a hard man George Monbiot but just you wait and see George Monbiot… just you wait and see.
(If youre not a stickler for the exact wording the substance is there in An Inconvenient “Truth”)
Many thanks Kate and GCooper for comprehensive response. My dad had very little academic education but had innate wisdom and powers of observation.
(note to scientists!!!)
BBC, I suspect under pressure have finally caught up and covered this on the Daily Politics show and on Newsnight with Prof Singer.
Richard (23:43:36)
Richard, if you could supply links or quotes to the above comment it would be greatly appreciated and make the comment far stronger. a LOT TO ASK BUT THANKS IN ADVANCE IF POSSIBlE