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…
“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 @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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.