Bradley Fikes writes in the NCtimes.com
A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate scientists.
Boy, was I naive.
Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even outright fraud, I’ve been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those columns, I even wrote: “And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science without the political spin.”
In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists, concerned more with politics than with science.
My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can also exploit their agenda for profit.
Read the entire story here in the NCtimes.com
h/t to ClimateDepot
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bradley,
I too was convinced of the validity of the AGW hypothesis for some time. As a medical research scientist, I am able to sort real science from unsubstantiated claims. I’ve read many of the abstracts and IPCC reports and saw major discrepancies in what was in the literature vs. what was being sold to the public.
My defining experience that led me towards identifying myself as a skeptic was when I went to some of the pro-AGW sites (one of them being RealClimate) and asked a few sincere critical questions. Wow! I was shocked that most of my questions didn’t make it past the moderators. The few times a question got through, I felt like a bone thrown to wild dogs. I found that they can’t handle critical questions nor do they encourage honest scientific inquiry. Their purpose is to carefully compose the dialog to put a science face on a patent ideology.
I happened upon WUWT and CA following a web article and found an open group of other scientists, engineers, and critical thinking individuals from many walks of life who had the same questions as I. I found they would take the time to explain the issues and provide excellent on-line resources. Not being a climatologist, I’m sure I’ve asked a few ignorant questions which have been graciously forborne by the more knowledgeable that comment here. Having a better balanced opportunity to weigh the arguments of both sides, I find the science of AGW to be unsupportive of the apocalyptic and dreadful claims being made by AGW activists.
I’m pleased to see that your asking critical questions has taken you on the same journey as many of us. Here you’ll find a good mix of individuals who, like you, are truly concerned about sorting the science from the hype. You’re in good company. I hope to hear more of your thoughts in the future.
Kirls (19:03:59) :
I feel like Steve McIntyre. I am speechless.
Hi folks!
Phil Clarke followed me to my blog with his intimidation tactics, which didn’t surprise me in the least. I knew what the response would be from people who aren’t used to being challenged. Here is my response:
———————————-
Phil,
When a scientist deliberately withholds data from skeptics that puts his research into bad light, that is fraudulent science. The evidence is Mann’s own email, not only stating that he had “dirty laundry”, but urging his colleague to keep it confidential. He admitted it!
The fraud lies in deliberately misrepresenting the scientific evidence. It was not an innocent mistake, by Mann’s own choice of words and instructions to keep the information from skeptics. That reflects knowledge Mann was doing something wrong. I don’t know why this is so hard for you to understand.
As for how much of the research has been tainted, I’ll have to wait and see the results of the university’s investigation, assuming it’s rigorous. I have to wonder if there are other instances where Mann has concealed “dirty laundry” from skeptical examination.
But at least we know Mann thought the hockey stick residuals included “red” data (didn’t accord with expected results) and that this was “dirty laundry”. As Steve McIntryre states:
The Mann et al 1998-99 reconstruction had “steps” (grandiosely called “experiments” by Mann), but the results of the individual steps were never archived, only the splice of 11 steps. For statistical analysis, one needs to have the residuals, which we requested in 2003. Mann refused.
So for skeptical inspection of the results, the residuals were needed, but Mann refused. He confidentially told a colleague the residuals were “dirty laundry” and to be kept confidential lest skeptics get it. This is contrary to the norms of scientific practice, in which all the evidence, pro and con, is to be considered. Deliberately concealing “dirty laundry” means Mann violated that norm intentionally.
You may not think that is scientific fraud, but I sure do. Perhaps you need to recalibrate your ethics.
————————————————–
And as I’ve tried to make clear, I am no “denialist” on AGW. I tend to think there is probably some AGW. However, the evidence as to how much is far from conclusive, and moreover it has been tainted by the fraud, deception and bad science revealed in Climategate. The burden of proof is on those who propose a theory. And when fraud and misconduct is revealed at the heart of AGW science community, it’s not intellectually respectable to ignore it or minimize it. First, we must know how far the rot has gone, and not just pretend it’s business as usual.
We need to do a full scrub of the climate science, with the skeptics involved and not shut out. The bad scientists should be exiled from the field and their tainted research withdrawn. Then we’ll have a better idea just how much was really science and how much was politics and deceit.
[REPLY – Hear! Hear! And welcome. ~ Evan]
Michael (17:39:45
‘BBC acknowledging The “Little Ice Age”? ……Is a white Christmas just a dream?’
I wonder If BBC ever heard of Charles Dickens?
‘I’ve always said there’s nothing an agnostic can’t do, if he really doesn’t know whether he believes in anything or not’ – Palin ??
The data is the same on both sides of the issue. That hasn’t changed. Looking at what skeptics said, their case, their data, didn’t open this guys eyes. Apparently data (science) isn’t what makes some people believers or not. It’s about their paradigm, how they view people, how they view the world.
Once this guy saw shady dealings on his side he changed his side. The science didn’t change him. And the science hasn’t changed.
This is why I think most believers in America are Democrats—because they go with Al Gore, a Democrat. They don’t care about the science. And they don’t care about the cooling climate right now. They makes excuses for both the science ate the climate when they don’t align with Al Gore.
Cult of personality.
Where the Global warming Hoax Was Born
http://www.twine.com/_b/download/11gckb4jj-6g/b0bsl79jx59rwtw7lr978psshbdk7tsxlb1w4wlpmfhprmt/11gckb4jj-6g/b0bsl79jx59rwtw7lr978psshbdk7tsxlb1w4wlpmfhprmt/Where_the_Global_Warming_Hoax_Was_Born.pdf
Global Warming English for Genocide
@ur momisugly bruce (18:50:26) : Speaking of burning food, there’s been an ongoing series of articles and such on Progressive Farmer regarding biofuels, land use, and related topics that are of interest to farmers. Farmers are one of the groups that are most impacted by changes to Ag laws, taxes, etc that are being driven by a belief in climate change, CO2, cap and trade etc. http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/ . Read some of the past blog posts on ethanol, etc. and the pressure being put on the farming community to accept various proposals from USDA.
…..I know your anger, I know your dreams
I’ve been everything you wanna be ohhh…
Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You won’t have to follow me
Only you can set me free…
I sell the things you need to be
I’m the smiling face of your T.V. ohh…
I’m the Cult of Personality…
I exploit you; still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three ohh…
I’m the Cult of Personality….
You gave me fortune, you gave me fame
You gave me power in your God’s name
I’m every person you need to be ohh…
The author hasn’t learned a thing. He’s jumped from one blind conclusion to another with no fundamental understanding to the science behind either position. He’s the classic “leaf in the wind”. He responds to his “impressions” rather than to any appreciation of fact. He is the ultimate sucker. He does not count for anything in the tally for truth. He is cannon fodder.
CH
AdderW (13:59:41) :
“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932.
science was settled on that, so nuclear power plants were never built.
There are a lot of things attributed to Einstein floating about on the net that are not so, but if he did say such a thing the irony is that he and Leo Szilard held the original patent on the nuclear reactor.
Believing in co2 warming I planted hundreds of trees along the railway line. Then I read Dr David Evans article on the ‘Missing Hotspot’ and decided to look at the date for myself. Climate debate daily put me on to Anthony and Steve McIntyre. Revelation and relief. Two years on, a committed sceptic, I still plant trees along the railway line.
Phil Clarke (16:08:26) :
How are you handling an early start to winter in Europe and the US for a third year in a row?
Kirls (19:03:59) :
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
See if you can spot the plea for the perversion of science in support of an agenda.
Phil Clarke (16:08:26) :
You are levelling an accusation of outright fraud against Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University for the withholding of evidence. Is that correct?
Answering to this ‘accusation’ is something Michael Mann may have to do under oath some day.
photon without a Higgs
Once this guy saw shady dealings on his side he changed his side. The science didn’t change him. And the science hasn’t changed.
The science didn’t change, but the credibility of those I trusted on the science changed. Remember, I am a mere ink-stained wretch, not a scientist. Beyond a certain point, I have to trust the scientists. What I found in the Climategate emails was evidence of deceit. What I thought I knew, I didn’t know. So for me, the science changed.
I’ll try to carry this lesson over to other areas of science.
re to Michael (19:20:18)
I had found that website and that document but do you know where to find the original report on the 1974 UN Conference in Romania or to the 1975 Conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina?
Jack Straw, thank you as well. I had indeed found that article. I’m hoping we can find the original report(s). In 1974, I’m sure they were paper only. I might have to make a trip to the county library for this one. They put things on fiche way back then iirc.
Hunter,
you were lucky that William Cionnelly did not find the book referece you mentioned and edit it too.
Kirls (20:15:00) : Wrote
re to Michael (19:20:18)
“I had found that website and that document but do you know where to find the original report on the 1974 UN Conference in Romania or to the 1975 Conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina?”
This may help;
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5912823
“A story of conversion: Global Warming Believer to Skeptic.” This headline is at least partly a misnomer.
The original article concludes: “And until climate science is cleaned up, it doesn’t deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted practitioners.”
This claim is not scepticism, which involves the withholding of judgment. It is advocacy. The writer has clearly made up his mind that fraud has occurred, and appears to have skipped from one position of advocacy to its opposite.
Don’t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with advocacy. But advocacy is not scepticism.
Bradley J. Fikes (20:13:22) :
When I say ‘science’ I am not talking about what Briffa, Mann, Santer, Jones, et al, did.
I am talking about what Soon, Balluinas, Spencer, Lindzen, Svensmark, et al, are doing. That science hasn’t changed.
Kirls (20:15:00) : Wrote
re to Michael (19:20:18)
“I had found that website and that document but do you know where to find the original report on the 1974 UN Conference in Romania or to the 1975 Conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina?”
Could this be what you are looking for? I’m trying to find a free copy.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B757C-48CFVTT-1RP&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1144720771&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f39d3c0da7b9af226dedde39c3ecae38
Richard Feynman: “Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.”
Phil Jones: “I know why he can’t replicate the results early on – it is because there was a variance correction for fewer series.”
(http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/mail/1114607213.txt)
Just comparing Nobel Laureates thoughts.
Bradley J. Fikes (20:13:22) :
What I found in the Climategate…
ClimateGate has changed everything.
I know you’re new here—and I’m happy to see you here myself—but if you had been here for some time in the the past you would see that most global warming believers that posted comments here are gone.
Phil Clarke is one of the very few that has stayed. But his comments are few now. I wonder if he is the Phil Clarke from this web site:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/771266064