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…
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.