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.
Patrick (07:10:05) :
Here’s the real question, is there a British form of RICO?
Not exactly. But there is a general common law definition of what constitutes a “conspiracy.” That is first proof of an actus reas – an agreement that forms the basis of the conspiracy. In the case of CRU that might be any of the email exchanges where suggestions to alter, hide or destroy data are made. And there must also be a mens rea – an intent to carry out the agreement. Again, with CRU the factual alteration of data, hiding of data or destruction (loss) of data can meet this requirement.
In British common law “inferences drawn from the course of conduct of the conspirators” is enough to serve as evidence of an agreement. And one
may become a conspirator without agreement if assistance provided is the bringing together of other conspirators with the intention that they reach an agreement to commit a crime.
Also, the concept of early intervention, where a person intervenes in a process or act at an early stage, e.g. trying to prevent access to lawfully demanded data, is fundamental to conspiracy.
“In Britain, the notion that group criminal activity might be more insidious than individual activity finds support in the case law and the reports of the Law Commission. The Commission stated that the doctrine would allow the prosecution of organizers as members of the conspiracy, but believed that this was an added bonus to early intervention which was the primary rationale.”
Also, as Dr. Phil is a recipient of American taxpayer funds, he falls under the jurisdiction of U.S. law in which the RICO Act is an active means of prosecution.
Now, if only Denny Crane were still practicing…
Here is an amazing email by Tom Wigley about climate science and separating personal opinions and scientific responsibility.
Original Filename: 880476729.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley
To: jan.goudriaan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, grassl_h@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Klaus Hasselmann , Jill Jaeger , rector@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, uctpa84@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, john@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mparry@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pier.vellinga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
Reply-to: Tom Wigley
Cc: Mike Hulme , t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both “immediate control” and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options. It is not IPCC’s role to make “convincing cases”
for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement.
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No
scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever
endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully
themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief
that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science
— when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords
with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on
the subject.
Let me remind you of the science. The issue you address is one of the
timing of emissions reductions below BAU. Note that this is not the same
as the timing of action — and note that your letter categorically
addresses the former rather than the latter issue. Emissions reduction
timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx
pathways towards CO2 concentration stabilization. It has been clearly
demonstrated in the literature that the mitigation costs of following an
Sxxx pathway are up to five times the cost of following an equivalent
WRExxx pathway. It has also been shown that there is likely to be an
equal or greater cost differential for non-Annex I countries, and that the
economic burden in Annex I countries would fall disproportionately on
poorer people.
Furthermore, since there has been no credible analysis of the benefits
(averted impacts) side of the equation, it is impossible to assess fully
the benefits differential between the Sxxx and WRExxx stabilization
profiles. Indeed, uncertainties in predicting the regional details of
future climate change that would arise from following these pathways, and
the even greater uncertainties that attend any assessment of the impacts
of such climate changes, preclude any credible assessment of the relative
benefits. As shown in the WRE paper (Nature v. 379, pp. xxx xxxx xxxx), the
differentials at the global-mean level are so small, at most a few tenths
of a degree Celsius and a few cm in sea level rise and declining to
minuscule amounts as the pathways approach the SAME target, that it is
unlikely that an analysis of future climate data could even distinguish
between the pathways. Certainly, given the much larger noise at the
regional level, and noting that even the absolute changes in many
variables at the regional level remain within the noise out to 2030 or
later, the two pathways would certainly be indistinguishable at the
regional level until well into the 21st century.
The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse
gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much,
too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are
most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late
(which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future
generations of the same groups). Our ability to quantify the economic
consequences of “too much, too soon” is far better than our ability to
quantify the impacts that might arise from “too little, too late” — to
the extent that we cannot even define what this means! You appear to be
putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the
equation. Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues
are. In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does
you little credit. Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually
putting a lie into the mouths of innocents (“after carefully examining the
question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against
postponement to be more compelling”). People who endorse your letter will
NOT have “carefully examined” the issue.
When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I
find this extremely disturbing.
Tom Wigley
I’m a meteorologist, but not in research, so I’m not up on the “rules of the road” regarding data/software used in a published journal article. It’s too bad the journals don’t have ironclad rules on releasability of data and software upon publication. If you publish an article, you have to cough up the data and software. If the data has licensing restrictions, provide enough details so that an interested party can purchase the data themselves. If the data cannot be obtained freely nor purchased, the paper cannot be published. Same for the software. If you want to hide behind intellectual property rights, then get out of academia and go into the for-profit world.
Can someone explain what is common practice among the “leading” journals regarding data/software? Is the practice enforced? Or is it all done with a wink and a nod?
Regarding the talk of law suits, I wonder if the power generators have thought of using these latest revelations of data manipulation in their law suits in Victoria:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/generators-threaten-ets-legal-action/story-e6frg6n6-1225801890979
This is a reaction to the current negotiations over permit allocation under the proposed Aussie ETS (called CPRS), which Prime Minister Rudd is trying to ram through in the last sitting week of the Federal Senate this year.
Hans von Storch, quitting the journal Climate Research
“Only naive people think that climate science has only to do with facts and
truth. Also, climate science is to some extent a social process, with many
extra-scientific influences. Climate science is definitely in a postnormal stage,
and we have to make sure that publications are not just reconfirming
preconceived concepts or concepts to which we have grown accustomed to.
Ludwig’s Fleck remarkable analysis “Genesis and Development of a Scientific
Fact” describes this syndrome, which eventually leads to a dogmatization and
stand-still of science. Thus, we need a certain level of liberalism. Articles
must be allowed to present in addition to their hard and reproducible facts a
certain amount of creative speculation. However, papers must be explicit
where facts end and where such speculation begins.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070703025424/w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/CR.editorial.pdf
“papers must be explicit where facts end and where such speculation begins.”
Uh-huh.
Hans von Storch, quitting the journal Climate Research
“Only naive people think that climate science has only to do with facts and truth. Also, climate science is to some extent a social process, with many extra-scientific influences. Climate science is definitely in a postnormal stage, and we have to make sure that publications are not just reconfirming preconceived concepts or concepts to which we have grown accustomed to. Ludwig’s Fleck remarkable analysis “Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact” describes this syndrome, which eventually leads to a dogmatization and stand-still of science. Thus, we need a certain level of liberalism. Articles must be allowed to present in addition to their hard and reproducible facts a certain amount of creative speculation. However, papers must be explicit where facts end and where such speculation begins.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070703025424/w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/CR.editorial.pdf
“papers must be explicit where facts end and where such speculation begins.”
Uh-huh.
The ‘rationalize it’ crowd would seem to be either rapidly spinning up or in full swing…
It might be quite interesting if someone familiar enough with ‘journalists’ who write the most pro-AGW articles from the largest outlets were searched for by name in the hacked/whistleblown data. If I recall correctly there’s been at least one who’s already been noted in the emails as ‘safe’ or something along those lines. Or if someone has the time and inclination to try to figure out who some of the most pro-AGW journalists are and then search on them…
It would also be really useful to see a layout of each of the players along with the continent and organization they’re associated with – sort of an organization chart of players. I mention this because there are a ton of people out there who perhaps recognize one name or organization, but not much more – laying it out and showing where these folks fit in would be pretty useful to display just how serious this is.
This is particularly true since it appears that the CRU guys (and other players) are in overtime trying to minimize this entire fiasco – including claiming that the CRU data is only a small part of the existing data – which ‘of course’ comes from ‘unaffected’ organizations – upon which the entire AGW theory rests. If they have to, and cannot spin this away enough, I’m sure they’d cut lose the CRU researchers and their reports to save AGW if they can distance the other organizations and scientists enough to save their credibility with politicians, governments, and the general public (even if they’re guilty as sin in reality).
Meanwhile, back to my initial sentence – I just ran across this very brief article by AP, but linked at Google news, which gets heavy worldwide usage:
—–
Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling
(AP) – 11 hours ago
LONDON — A leading climate change scientist says the leak of documents stolen from a British research institute may be aimed at undermining talks at next month’s Copenhagen global climate summit.
Kevin Trenberth — of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado — said in an interview Sunday that hackers cherry-picked from the stolen data and distributed selected documents to try to undermine scientific consensus on man-made climate change.
Britain’s University of East Anglia said hackers last week stole data from its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change.
Skeptics claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming.
Trenberth says the hackers took data out of context.
—-
What’s appalling is that any real scientist could find the hack/whistleblowing ‘appalling’ and claim the data is cherry-picked, all without apparently being bothered by the content of that information. Now if THAT isn’t ripe.
It’d be nice to know the names of the AP ‘staff’ writers who wrote this bit – AND the editor who approved it.
(wasn’t Trenberth in some of those emails? My bad if not, going from vague and perhaps incorrect recollection on that one)
“Most will admit it’s BS when you pour enough beers into them, but hey, the money’s good.” Roger Knights
Actually, the money is not “good” because of the unethical way it is produced. No wonder then that it is used to fund a lot of crap.
Did anyone else notice:
To be honest, I’m blown away by this email from Tom Wigley, and my level of respect for him went up a notch.
For the record, Tom Wigley was formerly the director at East Anglia and is currently at UCAR.
Cheering News:
Warmer Scientists starting to distance themselves from “The Team”?
Judy Curry – slightly deprecating? Yet defending AGW on CA
Dr. Hans von Storch –
1. Data must be made public so that “adversaries” may check the analysis. [Now this is the basic prinicple of science]. This must be enforced!
2. Scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like the IPCC!
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/
Wow!
Maybe an appeal should be launched to other genuine warmer scientists that they, at the very minimum, endorse these recomendations of Dr. Hans von Storch.
George Monbiot believes that drastic action coupled with strong political will is needed to combat global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot
George Monbiot: “It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
.. there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request….”
Global warming rigged? Here’s the email I’d need to see: “… Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
Well youre a hard man George Monbiot but just you wait and see George Monbiot… just you wait and see.
(If youre not a stickler for the exact wording the substance is there in An Inconvenient “Truth”)
Many thanks Kate and GCooper for comprehensive response. My dad had very little academic education but had innate wisdom and powers of observation.
(note to scientists!!!)
BBC, I suspect under pressure have finally caught up and covered this on the Daily Politics show and on Newsnight with Prof Singer.
Richard (23:43:36)
Richard, if you could supply links or quotes to the above comment it would be greatly appreciated and make the comment far stronger. a LOT TO ASK BUT THANKS IN ADVANCE IF POSSIBlE