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…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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…