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.
CLIMATEGATE – I like that
Dr. Spencer:
Nicely said. But were you really surprised? After the dust has settled and skeptics see that their fears have been confirmed, what will be the consequences? It now appears that this file, very significantly labelled FOIA, originated from whistleblowers not hackers. These whistleblowers undoubtedly have important insight and information on who did what with regards to the FOIA requests. If so, the knock on effects are going to be very significant for Dr. Jones and the UEA administrators involved in the stonewalling of the FOIA requests, most notably those from Steve McIntyre. In a further piece of irony, the elitism that you note and which drove Dr. Jones and others to dismiss the work of Steve McIntyre and other serious amateurs and which is undoubtedly behind their refusal to release data and code, will lead ultimately, IMHO, to serious charges of misconduct and possibly legal action. All this could have been so easily avoided if they had simply released the data and the code – but then that would have meant that they would have to legitimize some of us in the great unwashed.
If I was advising the UEA Chancellor I would immediately put an end to it by demanding that Jones et al immediately both acknowledge the general inappropriateness of their behavior and release all the information requested that is relevant to climate research. After all, when you find yourself in a hole, the smart thing to do is to stop digging!!
A further comment about 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.
***************************
NASA, like most large institutions has rules on conduct that employees (read: Gavin Schmidt) are required to comply with:
NPG2810.1 Computer Systems Rules of Conduct
4.8.4.2. Some uses of NASA computer systems are clearly outside the boundaries of official business and permissible use. Prohibited uses of NASA’s IT resources include using systems to do the following:
a. Maintaining or conducting an outside business.
4.8.4. Other Permissible Uses
4.8.4.1. Because there is no measurable cost, some limited personal use of Internet services, such as the World Wide Web and electronic mail, is permitted, provided it does not interfere with the employee’s work
or the work of others. Extreme care must be taken regarding content matter. Under no circumstances is it permissible to access or download material that would create a hostile or offensive work environment…
Judging by the time stamps of his posts and comments, Gavin spends a lot of NASA time doing working on his business, realclimate. Clearly, these emails show that Gavin has used RC to create a hosile working environment. Janets example is but one.
A complaint to NASA’s compliance officer should get attention, particularly if it deals with the issue of a hostile work environment.
The faithful press rush to the rescue
This climate email-hacking episode is generating more heat than light
Another skirmish has broken out in the long-running battle between climate scientists and so-called sceptics, and this one is likely to lead to more public confusion
…For the past few years, a small group of climate change ‘sceptics’ have been poring over scientific journal papers that report historical trends in temperatures from around the world, as recorded by directly by thermometers and other instruments, and by ‘proxies’, such as tree rings. Their primary objective has been to seek out evidence that global warming has been invented by climate researchers who fake their data….
It is inevitable as we approach the crucial meeting in conference in Copenhagen in December that the sceptics would try some stunt to try to undermine a global agreement on climate change. There is no smoking gun, but just a lot of smoke without fire.
• Bob Ward is Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-email-hacking
“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”.” Pam Gray
Some see the trees (details) and some see the forest (surmised worldview).
“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.” Pamela Gray
Nice to see you are becoming a libertarian, Pam.
Sorry – bit off topic.
Kate (05:19:09)
Fascinating post Kate. My dad used to grow roses. He gave up when the ‘Clean Air Act’ (UK) came in because after that his roses kept getting Blackspot, which he put down to lack of sulpher in the air. Was he mistaken in his assumption?
Sorry, that’s a deflection, not even a defense; there is no contest as to the ‘in print’ existance of the three items.
The in “print existence”??? To a unilingual Chinese, the “in print existence” of those three items is a bunch of squiggles on the page. Apparently you think words mean something all by themselves. Words are merely references, the post I cited lays bare the referent. The whole point of of having words in the first place to refer to their referents. I suppose you also believe people are convicted in court on account of the in print existence of some charges against them?? Obviously y’all have appointed yourselves judge, jury and executioner in this matter, but still!
Y’all jumped the shark yesterday, I hope you realize that.
Here’s how to file a code of conduct complaint with NASA against Gavin Schmidt. Conact the Inspector General at:
NASA Office of Inspector General
Code W
300 E Street SW
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Tel: 202-358-1220
If you are a NASA employee and want to file a complaint:
ANONYMOUS HOTLINE
All NASA and NASA contractor employees are encouraged to alert the OIG to crime, fraud, waste, and mismanagement in NASA’s programs. The OIG Hotline offers a confidential means for reporting this important information.
NASA OIG PHONE HOTLINE
1-800-424-9183
NASA OIG CYBERHOTLINE
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/hotline.html
Or Write:
NASA Office of Inspector General
P.O. Box 23089
L’Enfant Plaza Station
Washington, DC 20026
The IG Act protects Government employees from reprisals or retaliation by their employers for reporting to the OIG. Although as a Hotline caller you may remain anonymous, we encourage you to provide us with your contact information. The ability to gather additional information from Hotline callers is often key to effectively pursuing allegations.
A first rate post from Dr. Roy Spencer. And, as usual, some very wise (and some very amusing) comments. (And, naturally, the odd, pathetic troll).
No wiser comment, perhaps than @crosspatch (22:32:47). Don’t miss this!
Perhaps it is time to give the ‘Hockey Team’ a little avuncular advice.
First, thanks to Dennis Healey:-
“It is a good thing to follow the first law of holes; if you are in one, stop digging.”
Secondly, from me:-
‘The biggest danger in being a champion bullshitter is that you come to believe the bullshit yourself.’
Thirdly (maybe just a corollary of the above):-
‘There may be times in life where people will accept a show of arrogance as a substitute for actual competence. But if arrogance is all you have to offer, sooner or later, you will find yourself with no friends, a need to run very fast, and your trousers around your ankles.’
I’ve no anticipation that the Hockey Team will read this. Nor that they would be in the least interested if they did. The nature of the beast. But nevertheless, food for thought, perhaps.
Meanwhile, the BBC, having brushed the whole Climategate incident well under the carpet, has found something MUCH MUCH more important. The misdeeds of Homo Sapiens again I’m afraid. But not the current batch:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8368485.stm
These people will never, ever, give up.
A nice piece from @Kate (05:19:09) about acid rain! (And good to see one of the old CRE team on here!)
Of course, ‘they’ have now decided that sulphur emissions may yet counteract Global Warming! [And I did read a piece recently by a Norwegian boffin saying that acid rain was actually beneficial to trees (but not to lakes). Can’t find the reference, unfortunately.]
So, ‘save the forests’ or ‘save the planet’?
There’s a dilemma!
Here’s an example of where Gavin mixes NASA with his business dealings (realclimate):
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=897&filename=1212276269.txt
Note that the email signature block reads:
*——————————————————————–*
| Gavin Schmidt NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies |
| 2880 Broadway |
| Tel: (212) 678 5627 New York, NY 10025 |
| |
| gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin |
*——————————————————————–*
I love the inherent assumptions in the “team’s” thinking…
– what is the point of attempting to detect a simulated signal of climate change over some part of (e.g.) the Southern Ocean if there are no observations there in which to detect the expected signal? That would clearly be pointless.
– Tim Osborn (21/11/03)
– from 1069630979.txt
Detecting “the expected signal”. You gotta love that thinking.
Of course you may, Sandy.
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?
Sure, they’ll be happy to tell you you’re wrong.
Kate (05:19:09) : ,
Very interesting story on acid rain. It has parallels now with science being ignored and a social industry started to perpetuate the myth. I distinctly remember that time with forests dying and steams becoming clear and lifeless instead of turbid,it make a good photo opportunity for the press and then the story just died. The DMS mentioned seems be be the same molecule that James Lovelock implicates in phytoplankton ocean release as an important cloud seeding device.
So DMS has a double life as a wonderful cloud seeder at ocean level but a ph forest reducer at the river bank ?
“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.”
This is part of the reasoning that led Fowler (in his classic Modern English Usage) to recommend the “k” spelling to Britons.
=========
“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.” “
LOL!
“”” Bill Illis (05:13:20) :
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. “””
Bill,
Your suggestion that the pre-1979 record may be tainted, is quite in line with the position that I have stated several times on these pages; but for a different reason. You, I presume, are alluding to the fact that the satellite record as reported by both UAH and RSS has around that date as its origin.
My concern relates to a different problem which has about the same time origin; that being the deployment of the first oceanic buoys to measure the water and air temperatures at the same time. I presume these are the so-called Argo buoys; but I don’y know if that is the correct designation.
But John Christy, et al, reported on results of those observations in Jan 2001, I believe in Geophysical Research Letters; in any case some such journal.
Their report, evidently covers about 20 years of those simultaneous water temperatures at -1 metre depth, and air tempertaures at +3 metres.
Apparently the prior assumption was that these two temperatures should be the same, and the global temperature data covering 73% or so of the earth surface was predicated on that assumption.
I can’t imagine why anyone would ever expect the water and lower air temperatures to be the same, given that ocean currents maybe a handful of km/hr, while wind speeds can be orders of magnitude higher, so water and air are seldom in contact long enough to equilibrate.
So I have always been skeptical of that assumption.
Well Christy et al reported in 2001, that for that 20 year period, the water temperatures recorded about 40% (to the best of my recollection) more warming, than did the air temperatures. Well maybe they said the air temperature rise was 60% of the water rise. In some way they described a difference of about that order.
Well of course such a revelation means that the prior 150 years or so (pre-1979-80) global temperature data is unreliable because for 70+% of the earth, the water temperatures were measured, instead of the air temperatures; notwithstanding of course that the very methodology of tossing a bucket over the side to retrieve awater sample from some quite uncontrollable depth, to be measured on the deck of a wind swept ship; to be replaced later by intake cooling water sensors, often mounted in hot engine rooms, is also quite Rube Goldberg.
However the important conclusion of Christy’s buoy study, is that the water and air temperatures ARE NOT CORRELATED. Now I e-mailed Dr Christy on that issue, and he was good enough to reply, and said something to the effect that there was “some correlation” in “some locations”. Well I am sure he was being cautious in his wording so as to not mislead me.
But I got the distinct impression that; he felt in some way, the two data sets aren’t well correlated.
Which means that the correct near surface air temperatures; to mix with the 60 inch high or whatever the standard is, land based Stevenson screens etc (owl boxes) are NOT reconstructable from the errant water temperature data.
There is the added effect that ocean currents meander just like rivers on land, so a ship could return to the exact same geographical co-ordinates, and be in totally different water.
So I have ever since been highly critical of the veracity of the pre 1979-80 global temperature data for that reason. So I feel it doesn’t matter if the GCMs are correct or not; the early data that was fed into them is garbage.
I have not read about, or heard of ANY attempt of effort, to try and reconstruct global ocanic temperature data pre 1979 as a result of what Christy et al reported in 2001.
I wish Dr Roy would discuss this point with Dr Christy, and perhaps give us an update on what John feels about that study.
To me that Jan 2001 paper of Christy et al is a seminal paper that signals a “wait a minute” caution about early oceanic climate data.
In a similar vein, I feel the same way about Frank Wentz et al’ s July 7, 2007 paper in SCIENCE; “How much more Rain will Global Warming bring ?”
They reported that global evaporation, total atmospheric water content, and global precipitation EACH increased at a rate fo 7% per degree C rise in mean global surface temperature. The GCMs agreed with the total atmospheric water content rate, but were in gross disagreement with the evap and precip rates (which themselves must end up equal). The modesl disagreed by a factor of 3-7 times for the evap and precip rates of increase. I hope I have that the right way round in my mind.
What Wentz didn’t state; but which I infer as an obvious conclusion from their data, is that the 7% increase in global precip for a one degree rise, must also imply an increase (maybe even about 7%) in the total global precipitable moisture containing clouds; which in turn implies a huge negative feedback cooling effect, since all that moisture and clouds (increase) likely occurs in the more tropical regions where evaporation does occur, so the albedo increase, plus the blockage of surface solar insolation, results in a strong cooling effect.
That leads me to the clonclusion; “It’s the Water, stupid !” And a belief that the physical properties of water are largely responsible for controlling the comfortable temperature range that we enjoy on earth; and the puny efforts of other GHGs are inneffectual at best; and likely quite inconsequential.
Which doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge the mechanisms by which GHG molecules intercept surface emitted thermal LWIR emssion from the earth and warm the atmosphere; but Water vapor is the premier contributor to that effect; and can do it all without any mystical triggering by CO2 in some imagined feedback process. Water would exhibit the very same temperature control, in the complete absence of any other GHG species in the atmosphere.
Well this got a bit longer than I intended. But 1979-80 does seem to be about the birthdate of climate “science”, and I wish Roy and John Christy would comment on that buoy data correlation business.
George
Nemesis (10:42:45) :
his roses kept getting Blackspot, which he put down to lack of sulpher in the air. Was he mistaken in his assumption?
…No, he had a good instinct. Sulfur is good for roses.
Black spot is one of the most common diseases for roses. It is caused by the fungus Diplocarpon rosae.
Black spot occurs most frequently during rainy seasons when temperatures are moderate. Leaves on the bottom of the rose tend to become infected earlier because they are shaded by other parts of the plant and thus stay wet longer.
To prevent germination of the black spot spores, apply either sulfur dust or wettable sulfur to the plant. Sulfur can be applied every 5-10 days but thorough coverage of the plant is critical. Applying sulfur does not kill the fungi already on the plant.
Another option is to spray the roses with a mixture of baking soda and water (two tablespoons per gallon), however, roses will have to be sprayed weekly and after every heavy rain. Each week you alternate sprays – one week the alkaline baking soda and the next, the acidic lime sulfur. The black spot fungus will have to work very hard to establish itself if you are diligent.
Watering
Diplocarpon rosae thrives in wet conditions. When watering your roses, always water from the base of the plant and never from the top. It is also best to water your roses in the morning to allow the leaves the most time to dry.
Nemesis – equally off-topic reply. Your father was absolutely right. Sulphur is a well-known fungicide and the prevalence of ‘black spot’ on roses has increased dramatically since the banning of coal burning in much of the UK.
That was an exceptionally informative post from Kate, BTW. And how interesting to see, yet again. the Hull University connection (as per the leaked e-mails). Is there an old grudge at work here that we ought to know about?
Anthony,
Thanks for maintaining this brilliant blog with so many clever and amusing comments from knowledgeable scientist. I’ve only been around for a couple of months, but I must say that I am every day impressed by the numerous quick, funny and intelligent statements written here.
We have for a while suspected that there is something fishy going on regarding AGW, partly because we find AGW in disagreement with our honest understanding of science, and partly because the AGW arguments usually are somewhat hostile and off-topic.
Certainly being hostile and off-topic does not mean that there is something fishy going on, unless you have something to hide. After the big data dump, the Climate Gate, this has changed…
Keep up the good work Anthony.
Best Regards,
Invariant
After the big data dump:
Man made global warming is really man made…
Should serve as a nice party line or newspaper head line!
Good to see that Roy’s post is generating lots of comments and long comments, but I am not reading them, way, way too long.
Roy you are toast now. You admitted you could be wrong. I can see it now, front page NYT “Climate Skeptic Admits He Could Be Wrong”.
Follow-up:
Le Temps, Swiss newspaper based in Geneva, finally reports about it…
“réchauffement climatique lundi23 novembre 2009
Une «conspiration des scientifiques»?
Luis Lema
A quelques jours du sommet de Copenhague, des pirates informatiques dévoilent des aspects peu reluisants de professeurs voulant écarter tout avis de collègues plutôt sceptiques sur la théorie du réchauffement inéluctable de notre planète…”
Better yet that Thomson-Reuters CTV Globemedia… They perhaps are waiting for Hoggan or Suzuki to write the article! LOL
Great work…Roy.
A bit OT…
But, I am curious if any one has seen any studies…
re: the increased global pollution (not CO2 – the real stuff) resulting from the ‘Green’ movement forcing manufacturing to explode in relatively uncontrolled areas of the developing world…vs. the west?
I have a gut level feeling that the ‘Greens’ have actually conspired to make the world a much dirtier place.
Would the posts by Shurley Knot make more sense if he reversed the positions of the “K” and the “S” in his moniker?
Just wondering.