Editorial by S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
ClimateGate Whitewash
There is now a desperate effort afoot by assorted climate alarmists to explain away the revelations of the incriminating e-mails leaked last year from the University of East Anglia (UAE). But the ongoing investigations so far have avoided the real problem, namely whether the reported warming is genuine or simply the manufactured result of manipulation of temperature data by scientists in England and the United States.
The latest report is by the British House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee, which largely absolved Philip Jones, head of UEA’s Climate Research Unit and author of most of the e-mails. How can we tell that it’s a whitewash? Here are some telltale signs:
- It refers to the e-mails as “stolen”
- It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics
- Yet it derives the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the basic science and that warming is human caused – essentially endorsing the IPCC
None of the investigations have gone into any detail on how the data might have been manipulated. But this is really the most important task for any investigation, since it deals directly with the central issue: Is there an appreciable human influence on climate change in the past decades?
Instead, much of the attention of newspapers, and of the public, has focused on secondary issues: the melting of Himalayan glaciers, the possible inundation of the Netherlands, deforestation of the Amazon, crop failures in Africa, etc. While these issues demonstrate the sloppiness of the IPCC process, they don’t tell anything about the cause of the warming: natural or anthropogenic.
So what do the e-mails really reveal? We know that Jones and his gang tried and largely succeeded in “hiding the decline” of temperature by using what he termed “Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick.” Most people think it refers to CRU tree ring data after 1960, which do show a decline in temperature. However, I believe that it refers to Michael Mann’s “trick” in hiding the fact that his multi-proxy data did not show the expected warming after 1979. So he abruptly cut off his analysis in 1979 and simply inserted the thermometer data supplied by Jones, which do claim a strong temperature increase. Hence the hockey-stick, suggesting a sudden major warming during the past century.
Only a thorough scientific investigation will be able to document that there was no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented warming record is based on data manipulation, involving the selection of certain weather stations, [and the de-selection of others that showed no warming], plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr Singer goes to the essence of the CRU Climategate matter, and concisely analyses the Parliamentary hearing findings.
We need to spread the word, by all available means. As WUWT has been doing so ably. Thanks WUWT.
John
Use the ballot box.
Time for a non-violent, but thorough revolution.
The cover-up is so stupidly blatant, it’s making the Emperor look even nakeder.
I believe I have already checked out the Pacific Northwest and into Nevada.
No significant warming post 1979 in Orland, Red Bluff, Redding, Orleans, Weaverville, CA;
Winnemucca, NV, Ashland, Grants Pass and Roseburg, OR,
and Sitka, AK.
Using raw COOP, US Weather Bureau and US Army Signal Corps, Volunteer and Smithsonian Observers, and even some of Phil Jones released CRU 91, 94 and 99 data sets.
You can have my data, or you can go and research it out for yourself under your own steam:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/WhatGlobalWarming.htm
I did find evidence of a most horrific drought in the 1870’s in some of those data sets. That CA drought is referred to in a literary work, and it sent some stations temps into the stratosphere….130-140 years ago.
Well, at least there is a police inquiry, ironically kicked off by those who believe they were the victims of hacking. A political inquiry can be a political statement. The police have to avoid “perverting the course of justice” and have competent prosecutorial oversight. Guess we’ll have to wait for that to unfold.
I think this is what most of us thought the outcome would be.
I think we know all this already – the problem is that it isn’t about science any more. It’s about one-world global power politics and global corporate finance and as long as both groups are winning – and they are – then nobody with enough clout is ever going to commit the resources necessary to overturn the existing inadequate + fraudulent science and to replace the existing defective climate infrastructure.
The only way to bring this runaway train to a halt is to stop voting for AGW politicians and to stop doing business with corporates who preach AGW and skim a percentage off the top.
I expected nothing else from the woefully ignorant lobby-fodder that constitutes our House of Commons. If only it were the House of Commonsense…
IMHO, all was well until this paragraph:
==
“Only a thorough scientific investigation will be able to document that there was no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented warming record is based on data manipulation, involving the selection of certain weather stations, [and the de-selection of others that showed no warming], plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating.”
=============
Needs a re-write/expansion, or something.
I’ve seen many commenters on this site who could do much better.
Haste makes waste.
I heartily endorse verifications of the temperature record, to determine whether, in fact, there has actually been any warming.
At the same time, I want to see the alarmist’s evidence that this claimed warming is due to humans. Evidence? Please? Anything?
Thirdly, is this supposed warming, even if caused by humankind, actually bad for the planet? Please explain.
This is the three wave assault on AGW that needs to be confronted by the alarmists. They are not defending their proposition with these whitewash investigations; they are not addressing the issues, they are attempting to change the discussion. Even the propagandised great un-washed see these whitewashes as just BS.
E.M. Smith’s (Chiefio) results from GISStemp show complete fabrication of global warming. Country by country, the results are a function of thermometer selection over time.
There is no man-made global warming.
see http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
Lon Hocker (15:30:48) :
Use the ballot box.
Time for a non-violent, but thorough revolution
—————————-
Difficult when all 3 major political parties in the UK seem signed up to AGW.
I love the fact that Google is currently serving ad’s for “Al Gore’s Repower America” at this site. I clicked on the add so that Al Gore would have to pay you $1.
Greenpeace is angry;
“If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.”
Here;
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html
They are basically saying its okay to break the law.
Just like FOIA laws?
I honestly don’t know why they wasted an entire day on it. Wouldn’t a 5-minute press conference with a whitewash statement have been enough? Much easier to retract later on. Just say “Oops… we read the wrong statement” when it becomes politically correct to recant.
It seems like we are in the “What are going to believe? Me or your own lying eyes” territory. It really is becoming embarrassing watching the apologists squirm and wriggle.
What’s next? Are they going to try to re-invent the language again?
Great to hear from the ‘father’ of ‘sceptics’, or rather someone who has always spoken out for scientific integrity and the importance of empirical data.
As we know, the AGW supporters refuse to debate in open forum the basis of their claims, whether it be the temperature record or the sensitivity of climate to CO2 forcing.All the rest is secondary, only evidence of the attempted political manipulation of the inept IPCC. (I bet if Steve Mc. was in charge of manipulation policy for the IPCC no-one would find out,he’s too clever).
This is not about science any more, and the more I read the more convinced I am that Chris Monckton and Richard North and Chris Booker are correct in their analyses.
The single most important thing that will emerge from this 20 year fiasco is that beginning now, there will be no more secrets and no more cherry picking data. It is all out in the open, and in a few years , suprisingly we will see that in fact there is no such thing as AGW , or a personal ” global footprint ” ( god I hate that expression ) and mankind isn’t doomed by ourselves.
Now, science will have to be peer reviewed by real scientists, not just those on the same ( green ) bandwagon, and the so called consensus which has been proven to be another fabiceation , will have to be given a second look….trust me , there is no real scientific consensus among real scientists. Its like saying that at a recent UFO conference, a consesnus of ufologists agree that UFOs are real and visiting earth.so therefore it is true….see what I mean….now you know why my username is, what it is..
IanMacVindicated….
kwik (16:03:04) :
Greenpeace is angry;
[from the greenpeace post]
Wow! “an army of climate outlaws” are going to stuff up our lives because we don’t believe what they preach? What ‘financial oxygen’ is this anyway? It’s hilarious, apart from being tragic. I mean all of us are going to stop sayiung what we say, just because they do some nebuouls thing to some perceived ‘evil overlord’ like the scary BIG OIL.
These are like ranting ideologically misguided teenagers. Perhaps that is what they are.
My solution: Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, who truly believes AGW is a disaster we need to avert, jut buy renewable energy. 100% renewable energy. That’s all it will take, and it is so much easier than trying to force others to bend to your will, especially when there is little evidence to back up your arguments. Yes, it will cost you, but that is effectively what you are trying to force on us and yourselves anyway.
The result? Simple. When enough is invested in renewable energy, it will become cheaper than fossil fuels. When that happens, we’ll gladly follow your lead (as it was a rational one) and use the now cheaper energy. We may even thank you for what you have done.
Your solution: You’re going to jail, matey, sorry.
I would say what else is expected. In the Theaetetus, Socrates concluded true knowledge was a logical impossibility. That was not a popular conclusion then and it still is not. Public men above all do not want uncertainty even hinted at. They among others have invested far to much in promoting that which they in fact do not know to properly examine it.
kwik (16:03:04) :
I found something even more alarming at William Briggs site http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2159 entitled Obamacare & Climate Change: Temperature, Health Targets. Most alarming is the rider in the health bill just passed that applies to climate control. It is unbelievable what is proposed.
Take your blood pressure meds before you read this.
There it was, hidden on page 1,323 of the 2,700-page health care bill: a proposal to define the ideal climate for the Continental United States and Alaska
So the Obama administration will attack the “vector” that they say will bring increased rates of illness. That vector is “changes in climate”; specifically, temperature change.
The Environmental “Protection” Agency will be in charge of setting both the ideal temperatures and the allowed deviations. The EPA will also be allowed to suggest penalties for when those allowed deviations are exceeded.
There are some constraints the EPA must follow. The country will be divided into climate “zones.” That is in quotes, because the zones aren’t contiguous; they appear to be climatically gerrymandered. For example, Vermont, California, New York, and Massachusetts are “Zone B”. Texas, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Alaska are “Zone C.” Strangely, Arkansas is its own zone. And so forth.
Each zone will have its own temperature ideal. Like I said, these ideals aren’t yet specified; that will be left to the bureaucracy. But what’s fascinating is that each State in a zone must meet the same ideal. Texas and Alaska, therefore, must have the same yearly averaged temperature
Again, I’m no lawyer, but it appears that if any State in a zone fails to meet it targets, all States in the zone are punished equally.
It seems that the progressives have found yet another way to control us.
“kwik (16:03:04) :
Greenpeace is angry;
“And we be many, but you be few.”
”
I wouldn’t be so sure about that.
Once again, many people are fooled into thinking that the left actually cares about facts or truth.
You are dealing with the British establishment. They invented the cover up and could not care less about facts. You will come to be like sisyphus if you think you can win by using science.
Re Greenpeace
I read the whole rant on their web site.
Now folks, it is one thing to advocate taxes to support a specific world view. It is quite another thing to advocate breaking the law, massive civil disobediance, and imply that violence may be justified:
“We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.
We need to be inclusive. We need to join forces with those within the climate movement that are taking direct action to disrupt the CO2 supply chain”
These is no longer alarmism and advocacy. This is incitement to hatred and violence. This is the language of terrorism.
While they do sound like cornered rats, anyone who has ever cornered a rat knows they get seriously nasty. For the first time I am actually alarmed by something the alarmists are saying.