Climategate: You should be steamed
By NEIL FRANK, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Jan. 2, 2010
Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”
If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.
Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.
But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people’s endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel’s report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.
Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS’ true position.
What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.
Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.
Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.
The revelation of Climategate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth’s temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?
Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.
Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.
[h/t: Invariant]
Climategate: You should be steamed
By NEIL FRANK
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Jan. 2, 2010, 4:28PM
/*
Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”
If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.
Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.
But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people’s endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel’s report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.
Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS’ true position.
What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.
Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.
Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.
The revelation of ClimateÂgate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth’s temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?
Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.
Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More & more Papers and Reporters are seeing the light and having the guts to come out in support of the “Reality”.
The future investigations should be interesting considering the many billions in the Stimulus package ear-marked for climate change research.
The other question is whether Congress, when asked to send billions to the third world for damages that we have supposedly done to them with our CO2 emissions, will start looking seriously at the science to find, easily, reasons not to send the money, particularly in light of the recent over-spending. The real science will support doing nothing.
We need more guys like this speaking out
I absolutely agree. There should be a proper, independent investigation of the claims of the AGW camp undertaken by not only climate scientists, but mathematicians, numerical analysts, staisticians, signal processors, physicists etc. who are experts in the fields that underpin climate science and can scrutinise specific aspects of the whole body of work. I expect that when the CRU and Met Office data is really dug into, there will all sorts of errors. The Wegman report is a masterpiece of cool, objective thinking in an overheated subject and could act as a template for further investigations.
Thanks to Dr. Frank for speaking out and informing the general public.
What can the scientific community do to confront the recent unscientific findings of the EPA and associate governement propaganda claining carbon dioxide is a threatening atmospheric pollutant?
Yea,yea..but he’s not a “climate specialist”,he only dealt with weather what he says about a few out-of-context e-mails stolen from the private,none-more-private, computers of the endlessly harassed planet-saving heroes of the gallant CRU does nothing to invalidate the megatons of research that proves driving SVUs and building coal-fired power stations is killing polar bears faster than was previously thought.
Just thought I’d point that out to save the warmists a job.
I wish some GW would strike Dallas. I am tired of winter already.
He still wants to blame “hackers” even though analysis here at WUWT, at ClimateAudit.org, at JunkScience.com and elsewhere show that it was more than likely to have been the work of insider who goofed or a whistleblower. Regardless, the rest of the article is spot-on.
Charles Higley (10:14:49) :
The other question is whether Congress, when asked to send billions to the third world for damages that we have supposedly done to them with our CO2 emissions, will start looking seriously at the science to find, easily, reasons not to send the money, particularly in light of the recent over-spending. The real science will support doing nothing.
————————-
Right now, if Bolivia or Venezuela, as good examples, sued the US for those damages in the World Court, could they not subpoena Al Gore and the EPA leadership (to name just a few), as witnesses for the prosecution ??
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100021135/climategate-michael-manns-very-unhappy-new-year/
Michael Mann is soon going to find out who his friends are ! -click the link.
It will be increasingly difficult to hide behind the “Climategate does not undermine the science of climategate” excuse if a few more papers publish pieces like this.
And to think, if I may borrow from a past popular song, ‘we have only just begun’ winter …
Forecast for D/FW area is teens (F) come Friday.
.
.
“Rob M. (10:27:24) :
[…]
Just thought I’d point that out to save the warmists a job.”
So the skeptics control both sides of the debate now by posing as pro AGW? That’s a Fenton Communications move and should be below us.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1240201/Watchdog-rethinks-consumer-cost-green-energy.html
The Warmists are very coy when it comes to telling the public about how much this green revolution will cost.
“Doing nothing is not an option”. Well doing something don’t look to good an option either.Especially if your wrong.
A great post from Andy Revkin’s blog
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/the-greatest-story-rarely-told/?sort=recommended
“skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil”
Coal is a much bigger CO2 problem than oil. Coal, coal, coal – not oil. The big problem is coal.
What should happen is that any university associated in any way with a “team member” should lose its accreditation. All team members should be barred from receiving any federally sponsored contracts. All team members employed by the federal government should be immediately fired for violation of the Hatch act.
What will happen is that the media will try to muzzle the outcry and things will remain quiet. Remember who is in power. This will infuriate the members of the general public who are informed. The next round of elections will create a turnabout that is unprecedented.
Perhaps from the media perspective, “Its worse than we thought!”.
🙂
I am indeed steamed about climategate and the dishonesty of climate researchers central to the alarmist movement, but I’m surprised that Dr. Frank would confuse the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a private group responsible for the petition mentioned, with the unrelated University of Oregon, a highly regarded public institution. I hope his error is unintentional and will soon be acknowledged and corrected. It only invites derision from the warmists and, perhaps legal attention from the U of O.
Some propositions:
1. Amending Frank, slightly, you don’t have to be a skeptic, but just an observer, to see that the warming since 1850 is nothing unusual, much less alarming or dramatic. Yet it has been sold as alarming and dramatic.
2. The correlation between CO2 and this nothing unusual warming could have as much meaning as the correlation between the increase in the popularity of the cigarette during WWI and the dramatic increase in Western longevity in the 20th Century. Correlations, in other words, are everywhere.
3. A parallel line of climatologists could produce research that shows CO2 is suppressing natural warming rather than adding to it. Where there is no distinct signal, you can fit data to whatever hypothesis you like.
4. What makes Climategate doubly infuriating is that the CRU blokes and their chums elsewhere worked so hard to raise waves in what turns out to be a teacup and now serious people have to attend to fraud on top of the original exaggeration. And “the world” is still spinning around the AGW axis and making a fool of itself.
Copied over from the thread I first saw this:
I’m not sure how important it is in the grand scheme of things, but count it as another score for MSM recognition that AGW isn’t settled science and may be wrong. Hasn’t the Houston Chronicle printed some other skeptical pieces in the past few months?
Neil Frank, in my estimation, was the best director of the NHC they’ve ever had. I particularly appreciated his blunt assessment of coastal condos and the damage a coast-hugging hurricane could do to them. I wonder how he would have handled the step increase in Atlantic activity in 1995.
Meanwhile from the Financial Times we get this:
Will 2010 be the hottest year globally in recorded history?
Climate change sceptics frequently point out that 1998 was the hottest year since measurements began. If the world is warming, why has the record not been broken, they ask.
Scientists say 1998 was so hot because of the exceptional El Niño warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that year. With another El Niño apparently developing now – and superimposing its effect on man-made climate change – it is more likely than not that 2010 will beat the 1998 record, according to the much-maligned but often accurate UK Met Office.
Although a big volcanic eruption or El Niño’s sudden death would cool things down, I’ll go for the big heat. Next year’s global average temperature will be the highest on record – which may give renewed impetus to international action against global warming, after the Copenhagen fiasco. Clive Cookson
My response, bahahahaha
Oops. That shhould have been “Climategate does not undermine the science of climate” excuse
@philincalifornia
You are saying that Hugo Chavez and Al Gore will become close friends, helping out each other? That’s a logical consequence, right.
Happy crazy New world.
There is a lot of talk about what “skeptics believe” in this article. There is truth in that: the so-called skeptics are basing their opinions on belief, not on facts or scientific evidence. Meanwhile, those who accept the preponderance of scientific evidence for AGW are derided as “believers”. The cognitive dissonance is loud and not so astonishing. The parallels between the way Big Tobacco fought science and the current “debate” are deep and significant.
The silence in the main stream comedia has been deafening. It must be a horse size pill to swallow after spewing misinformation all these years. If I were a journalist that had been going on and on about CAGW based mainly on the findings of the IPCC and CRU, I would be loath to admit that my basic assumptions were based on falsehoods. Personally, I would still have the cajones to admit I was wrong, and then let history judge me and my credibility. Fat chance that any of those journalists are going to do that.