UPDATED: By Douglas J. Keenan – special for WUWT
Phil Jones tried to hush my paper. SUNY Albany won’t discuss the investigation my paper initiated. And QUB ignored my three FOI requests for their data.
I used to do mathematical research and financial trading on Wall Street and in the City of London; since 1995, I have been studying independently (for more details, please see my web site). Some of the e-mails leaked in Climategate discuss my work. Following is a comment on that and on something more important.
In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The e-mails show that Tom Wigley, one of the most highly-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate, thought my paper was “valid”. They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to get the journal editor to not publish my paper.
After my paper was published, the State University of New York, where the research was conducted, carried out an investigation. During the investigation, I was not interviewed: contrary to the university’s policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report’s release, but I was not allowed to see the report: truly Kafkaesque.
Relatedly, my paper (§2.4) demonstrates that, by 2001, Jones knew there were severe problems with the urbanization research. Yet Jones continued to rely on that research in his work, including in his work for the latest report of the IPCC.
The biggest concern with global warming is, arguably, that warming itself will cause further warming. For example, the polar ice caps reflect sunlight back into space (thereby cooling Earth); if the caps shrink, due to warming, then they will reflect less sunlight, and so Earth will warm further. It is claimed to be possible that Earth warms so much that it reaches what is called a “tipping point”, where the global climate system is seriously and permanently disrupted—like when a glass of water has been tipped over, and the water cannot realistically be put back into the glass.
There is much scientific debate over how much Earth has to warm before it reaches a tipping point. No one knows for sure. About a thousand years ago, though, there was a time known as the “Medieval Warm Period”, when much of Earth appears to have been unusually warm. It is not currently known just how warm the Medieval Warm Period was. Clearly, though, the warmth then was below the tipping point, because Earth’s climate continued without problem.
Suppose that during the Medieval Warm Period, Earth was 1°C warmer than today. That would imply that the tipping point is more than 1°C higher than today’s temperature. For Earth’s temperature to increase 1°C might take roughly a century (at the rate of increase believed to be currently underway). So we would not have to be concerned about an imminent disruption of the climate system. Finding out how warm the Medieval Warm Period was is thus of enormous importance for the study of global warming.
It turns out that global (or at least hemispheric) temperatures are reflected by the climate in western Ireland; for a short explanation of that, see here. Trees grow in western Ireland, of course, and each year, those trees grow an annual ring. Rings that are thick indicate years that were good for the trees; rings that are thin indicate the opposite. If many trees in western Ireland had thick rings in some particular years, then climatic conditions in those years were presumably good. Tree rings have been used in this way to learn about the climate centuries ago.
Queen’s University Belfast has data on tree rings that goes back millennia, in particular, to the Medieval Warm Period. QUB researchers have not analyzed the data (because they lack the expertise to do so). They also refuse to release the data. I have been trying to obtain the data, via the UK Freedom of Information Act, since April 2007. The story is scandalous.
As the above illustrates, the problems in global-warming science are with more than just the few directly involved in Climategate. Indeed, I think it would be unreasonable to suppose such.
Finally, in light of all the slander going around, maybe I should add this: I have received no payment of any kind from any entity for any work that I have done since 1995.
======
For some background, see these two guest posts at WUWT:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phil Jones is stepping down so perhaps you’re getting a little payback.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/6758/
all CRU servers and data backups need to be locked down NOW to allow it to be reviewed/researched by non-CRU tech and scientists.
AP is reporting that Phil Jones has stepped down. Saw it posted at Jeff Id’s blog.
CRU will publish the data accodring to the Telegraph (apologies if this is already posted, couldn’t see it).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html
However, if you note the comments nothing much has changed.
Looks as though they still intend to hide behind the IP of the original data owners.
“Professor Trevor Davies, the university’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement, said yesterday: “CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
They have long adopted the make it up as you go approach.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/03/03/menendez-hold-science/
“Dr. John Holdren and Dr. Jane Lubchenco, both world-renowned experts on climate change”
The word for today is Tort, as in “tortious interference”.
We need to accept that government bodies and their running dogs are not going to pursue this matter. I have long been an advocate of Tort Reform, but this is one case where US civil law will reap a bountiful harvest.
Sue the bastards!
Two schools get mention in this thread. if a school has a climate department, they also have a burden to review textbooks and their records practices. From 10 days ago and forward, a school has no choice but to release any and all records under FOIA laws. I know some faculty have faulty records and will balk. They have no choice. Blocking information ruests and non cooperation is a symptom of bad record keeping and even fraudulent records.
Phil Jones stepping down:
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/uk-climate-scientist-to-221080.html
@ur momisugly tallbloke I used the words “The wonderfully talented Lord Stern ” .I was of course taking the pi** 🙂
Check this out everybody: live debate on the internet tonight between Monbiot, Lomborg and Lord Lawson: http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/climate_change/
“prestigious”, damn at least AP have a sense of humour.
Anyone else having google come up with nonsense when searching for climategate?
alleagra (09:46:36) :
Its possible that the man who thought all the ships in the bay were his considered his critics to be muddled
@richard, 9:49 “It is high time criminal complaints be lodged – any lawyers / judges amongst the 3 million+ viewers here?”
Yes, there are several attorneys reading/commenting on WUWT (I am one such). However, attorneys are very limited in what we can write on public forums such as this. We cannot, for example, solicit work. We are allowed to make general comments, as long as no client confidentiality is compromised.
Also, criminal complaints are brought by prosecutors at the state or federal level, which is a very small percentage of attorneys (writing about attorneys in the U.S. only – things may be different in other countries.) The crimes would be “white collar crimes.”
Judges in the U.S. must remain impartial, and cannot be involved until the case is brought before them. Judges are also extremely limited in what they can say in public, or write.
There are a host of non-criminal matters that will likely be brought against certain persons, (civil matters), which may include issues such as fraud, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and some others. Plaintiffs in such legal actions would be those who can show a direct harm resulting from the alleged acts of defendants.
crosspatch (11:35:27) :
They had better get it right: This is no small matter, and the public is watching with keen interest.
Hiding a Hot Potato under your coat is a recipe for getting burned.
In a normal world, I would expect some of the politicians who knew this was a fraud from the get go, to weasel out, by nobly calling out for a suspension of policy efforts and a freeze on funding. If any don’t, I will no longer consider the universe normal and certainly won’t consider these politicians “sane”.
Sane (yet slimy) politicians know when to bail out. Perhaps they do still know, but are just staging for their announcements to come.
tarpon (10:18:46) :
There is nothing useful in the whole climategate affair, a total reset is needed, after the UN IPCC is disbanded and buried.
The wealth transfer scam has been fully exposed.
Because theft is not a “transfer.” Theft by deception is called FRAUD. People who engage in fraud are criminals.
That’s the problem with internal investigations. Sounds like the AG needs to look into this.
Re: Munk debates tonight…
Somewhere I have heard this debate format referred to as “Oxford-style” debate, and it sounds familiar to what we’ve seen with the Intelligence Squared debates. Wherever they originated, they are richly entertaining to listen to, refreshingly honest, and extremely informative. For those who haven’t seen one, you might take a look at one of these (edited version of two past I-squared debates below on NPR)
Global Warming is Not a Crisis
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151
Is Reducing Carbon Emissions Worth the Cost?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97998613
RE: Stern.
They ARE all being very polite,aren’t they? Watson Vs Singer. Now Stern. No rudeness,don’t let the mask slip. Science is a civilised,process based pursuit. I don’t know how you break the media embargo except by contacting ones’ political representatives – and then contacting them some more – and telling everyone you know down the pub or in your sculpture class or on the bus.Maybe posting flyers. How about a picket outside CRU?
Someone called DennisA has commented on the Stern piece in the Telegraph today.
I think it’s worth repeating if I may since it puts Stern’s views in perspective.
“The Grantham Institute which Lord Stern heads was set up in Feb 2007 by US billionaire Jeremy Grantham: http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/environment_sciences/report-79626.html
Mr. Grantham will sit on the management board of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, along with Imperial’s Rector Sir Richard Sykes who will chair the Board; Carter Roberts, President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund; and Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense.
At the same time, Grantham set up a sister institute at Imperial College, London. A common advisory board will oversee the work of both Institutes.
The Grantham’s total investment of over £24 million, made through the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, is one of the largest private donations to climate change research.
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, CBE, FRS is the Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London
“Committed to ensuring that climate research is used to advise governments and influence policy, Sir Brian was a member of the Royal Commission that first proposed a 60% target for reduction of UK carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. He also acted as a scientific advisor to the Stern Review, credited with pushing the issue of climate change to the centre of the political agenda in the UK, and was a member of the IPCC assessment team recently awarded the Nobel Prize.”
Most of the members of the UK Climate Change Committee are based at or associated with Imperial College and LSE and many of them with the World Bank and IPCC. Their powers of control over UK emissions targets will soon be enshrined in law.
So UK Climate Policy is now directly influenced by WWF International and Environmental Defense and cross-linked to IPCC.
Lord Stern is heavily involved in carbon trading advice via the company IdeaGlobal, and its offshoot IdeaCarbon, which he helped to found:
http://www.ideaglobal.com/products/info/about.html
Established in 1989, IDEAglobal is an independent, global research organization, with its headquarters in Singapore, and subsidiaries in New York and London.
IDEAglobal has over 80 full time research staff as well as access on an exclusive basis to a group of expert academics at the London School of Economics, as well as an active Advisory Board of former central bankers and former CEOs of investment bank.
IdeaCarbon:
http://www.ideacarbon.com/advisors/index.htm
Lord Nicholas Stern,
Advisor to IDEAglobal Group, parent company of IDEAcarbon
Author of the seminal Review on the Economics of Climate Change and former Chief Economist at the World Bank, currently the IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government at the London School of Economics, heading a new India Observatory within the LSE’s Asia Research Centre and also a Visiting Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford. He was Adviser to the UK Government on the Economics of Climate Change and Development, reporting to the Prime Minister from 2003-2007.
Dr. Samuel Fankhauser is a Principal Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics. He also serves as Chief Economist at Globe International, the international legislator forum.
He just happens to be a member of the climate change committee and sub-committee on mitigation, (ie Carbon trading).
In 2007/08, Fankhauser was Managing Director at IDEAcarbon:
http://www.ideacarbon.com/advisors/index.htm
IDEAcarbon’s premier strategic advice service has been created to give senior decision makers tailored intelligence about key developments in climate change policy and the evolution of the carbon markets.
There is more, much, much more. “
I’m glad but not surprised to see Doug Keenan stepping up here. He was one of the targets of the Crutape Letters. He was accusing Wang (rightly IMO) of professional, er, something like malpractice – in a situation where Wang was also a firstrate fundraiser for SUNY. I suspect there are many more revelations to come.
Titanic, the water is still coming in. If you declare emergency (= transparency that includes us), you won’t look so good now, but you will save more lives later on.
The whole of Science is up for reform. The captains of NAS, Nature, Royal Society, that’s you. And this time, Citizens Science will simply not go away. Thank God.
This is a very,very worrying development I think.I copied my response to StuartR on camirror.wordpress.com: Mike Hulme,Jerome Ravetz using the BBC to push the ‘post-normal science’ agenda.
Very interesting,StuartR!!!
Several people here have mentioned Jerome Ravetz regarding ‘post-normal science.’ and Mike Hulme made a statement about it a few days ago.This is another branch of the scam in the making imo.
StuartR permalink
This on BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm
“Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz”
Title:
“Show Your Working’: What ‘ClimateGate’ means”
Excerpts:
“How well does the public understand professional peer review, for example, or the role of a workshop, a seminar and a conference in science?”
“A Citizen’s Panel on Climate Change (CPCC)?”
Not read it in depth, it seems an essay on a post-IPCC world, appears to me like a lot of familiar woolly talk of getting the public to see it the scientists way, rather than backing the scientists out of the political PR sphere.
Roger Sowell (12:03:58) :
In the UK, if the DPP, (Department of Public Prosecutions), fails to prosecute for reasons of perceived insufficient evidence or perhaps political expedience; an individual or organisation can bring a private criminal prosecution.
I believe they can subpoena police evidence too, though I may have to stand corrected on that point.
DaveE.
Lomborg has tactfully accepted AGW, which is a shame. Lord Lawson is a fine man but a politician and not a scientific heavy weight. So what purpose will this debate serve? They will discuss policy, adaptation and the like but not the fundamental premises of AGW.
Update on the Irish State Broadcaster RTE. I had a reply from their Environment Correspondent who assures me that he did a brief mention of “climategate” [but not using that term ] on one of the chat shows on RTE and that UAE was [i]briefly[/i] mentioned on the main lunchtime news today. I am assured that as Cop draws closer that the subject will be expanded and covered in more detail . I have sent another email offering to go on air in another chat show Wed AM ,as they say,stay tuned 🙂