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.
Since we are sharing stories about conversions, I’ll make my first post here today by telling you this one:
I have a friend at work who is very forgiving of my skepticism on warming and will actually humor me by having an intelligent discussion on the subject. We were discussing the Darwin data the other day when he made the anecdotal reference that “winters are milder now compared to when I was a kid” (we are in the NE USA). So, just for grins… I went to the NOAA web site and requested the temp data for a town near us. It was emailed to me within moments and I put it into Excel, plotted the daily temps into a graph, and then had Excel add a trend line. The trend for 1960 to 2002 (latest data available from NOAA) was a slight DECLINE.
After sending the graph to him, his reply was “Does this mean the data needs to be adjusted?”.
He seems to have been paying attention after all!
I used the daily mean temp provide by NOAA, removed days with blank/9999 temp readings (about 400 days out of 40,000+ days) from the series, narrowed the range for the graph down to 1960-2002 because Excel can’t plot more than 32,000 points, and had Excel plot the trend as a linear line. I did not adjust any numbers beyond removing those dates without a valid reading.
One down, about 300,000,000 to go…
very gud
Nick Stokes wondered:
Criticism based on science, yes. Criticism using different data showing different trends, from other researchers or amateurs careful about their data, yes. Heckling on the basis of assumed political stands, no.
There’s a difference between saying “I got a different result” and saying “YOU’RE A MASS MURDERER LIKE HITLER, CROOKED AND STUPID, AND YOU HATE YOUR OWN GRANDMOTHER, CHILDREN, AND YOU PROBABLY SPIT ON THE AMERICAN FLAG!” It’s not a subtle difference. I’ll bet you’d notice it, too.
Can’t say where Mr. Stokes was, but I was complaining to the U.S. attorney about it. Data management policies in all the accounting firms required shredding of data as Andersen did. Andersen’s crime was in delaying the shredding, so far as I can figure.
Much of the data were published, and much more are public data that anyone can get. The purloined e-mail flap isn’t over the bulk of data, only those where certain e-mail threads can be misconstrued as embarrassing. There is no methodical program to check the numbers on climate warming, with the possible exception of Anthony Watts’ project — and that may have no significant effect on numbers regardless its outcome.
Some tax records are maintained for five years, but up to Enron the policy in all the Big Six accounting firms — endorsed by FASB — was to shred the records six months after the project ended. At Ernst & Young we were required to do that even on non-audit projects in the management consulting arm.
Another auditor should be able to go into the client and get the records to replicate the audit. Another scientist should be able to start from scratch and replicate scientific observations or experiments. I’m really curious about why there aren’t more people out there gathering data to publish contrary papers, if warming isn’t continuing, didn’t happen, won’t happen in the future.
If the project involves federal funding in the U.S., there are laws requiring no fiddling with the data — it could be a felony in some cases. There are not a lot of prosecutions, but it’s still a crime. On the front end, the paperwork in science is much more thorough than in auditing — scientists base their entire careers and reputations on accuracy. There is no money in science to speak of, anyway — it’s not as if a pot of money awaits anyone who documents global warming.
Well, yeah, it is. FOI requests and other heckling from opponents of Hadley date back more than a decade. Few people who claim there is no warming or no human causation work in the institutional environments most scientists work in, where formal requests for data generally are honored. If you read the e-mails through, you’ll get a glimpse of part of the problem: Scientists have spent an inordinate amount of time filling these heckling, harassing requests. Then, when the full data dump hit the “skeptics,” they come back asking what to do with them, and asking other stupid questions that show they don’t know what they’re doing or why.
I’ve been on all sides of the issue. In the U.S., FOIA is a great tool in the hands of an ethical investigator or researcher looking at an agency where there is skullduggery going on. It’s a great pain to underfunded, cramped-for-time scientists where there is no money in the grant or the agency budget to go above and beyond publishing the data. FOIA requests are favorite tools of the right wing in the U.S. to harass researchers and officials with other jobs to do.
In one case we had a well-funded group sue to stop publication of our official report because, they claimed, we had not answered their FOIA request to their satisfaction. They were shocked to find that I had a record of mailing each of them notices of all the meetings and full boatloads of all the data. They denied in court that they had the stuff they asked for, and in deposition it became clear they didn’t know what they were talking about. They wanted the document that said “let’s break the law this way.” When the agency isn’t breaking a law, an FOIA request generally means “we don’t have the guts to ask you for your data, so we’re going to cost you an arm and leg in lawyers’ fees.
I don’t think much of the gutless who file those requests.
Criticize all you want. Let’s see your database of figures, and will you come to the society’s meeting and do a poster session on how you arrived at your numbers? You’ll need to bring the copies of the papers you have published on the issue or that you have in process toward publication — and show your work, as the high school math teachers say.
If you’re unwilling to do the criticism, don’t wuss out by filing a mean-spirited FOI or FOIA request, okay? That reveals you for the witless, artless troll you shouldn’t wish to be.
wws: “You would have everyone sit around zen like saying “I don’t know, no one knows, no one should do anything because action is an assertion of knowing and I do not know, ohhhhmmmm”
I’m not sure that zen Buddhism employs scepticism in its practice, but yes, scepticism does involve the withholding of judgement. Otherwise, it’s advocacy.
The debate over climate change is about the clash of explanations for the current climate. “Climate scepticism” is an umbrella term that subsumes a number of positions. On the science, you have lukewarming, cosmic rays, solar, clouds, natural variation; on the politics, funding motivations, peer pressure, hubris, corruption, fraud etc.
What you very rarely have is garden-variety scepticism: the withholding of judgment in the face of insufficient evidence. That’s fine; everyone has a point of view. But to understand your own position, you need to understand that it is in fact a position.
Bradley J Fikes: “I don’t quite get your point. The behavior is wrong, wrong wrong… The advocates are the ones saying Climategate doesn’t affect the evidence for AGW and move along, nothing to see.”
You can have advocates for both parties. The fact that your opponents are advocating does not mean that you are not advocating.
My point is that you are framing your move as “from global warming believer to skeptic”. But what are you sceptical about? Earlier you say, “…I’m withholding judgment…” about AGW. That’s a good example of scepticism, so pat on the back.
But you go on to say, “…until the fraud is removed from the science…”, which is in no way sceptical. My comment about advocacy relates to this claim.
[REPLY – It seems to me that calling fraud on certain scientists and saying their conclusions are therefore invalid merely invalidates that position. It does not necessarily validate the contrary position. That’s what he is saying. ~ Evan]
Doug in Seattle (15:47:05) :
Hate to say this, but there pleanty of uninformed climate skeptics too – just not nearly as many as on the AGW side.
Yes but at least we are willing to admit we are uninformed and are willing to try and increase our understanding. Thank you Anthony and a “warm” welcome to Bradley Fikes
Ed Darrell (12:44:25) :
Just for the record, that wasn’t me wondering.
Ed Darrell (12:44:25) :
Criticism based on science, yes. Criticism using different data showing different trends, from other researchers or amateurs careful about their data, yes. Heckling on the basis of assumed political stands, no.
There’s a difference between saying “I got a different result” and saying “YOU’RE A MASS MURDERER LIKE HITLER, CROOKED AND STUPID, AND YOU HATE YOUR OWN GRANDMOTHER, CHILDREN, AND YOU PROBABLY SPIT ON THE AMERICAN FLAG!” It’s not a subtle difference. I’ll bet you’d notice it, too.
OK, I hardly know where to begin, but we could start with my name. I was responding to Nick Stokes, so you could address me instead of him. The Nazi comparisons do come out too often in any political issue, but where did the issue of AGW become political? You seem to have assumed a great deal about political stands in this response, so pot, meet kettle.
Much of the data were published, and much more are public data that anyone can get. The purloined e-mail flap isn’t over the bulk of data, only those where certain e-mail threads can be misconstrued as embarrassing. There is no methodical program to check the numbers on climate warming, with the possible exception of Anthony Watts’ project — and that may have no significant effect on numbers regardless its outcome.
It is apparent after this statement that you do not have the appropriate background on the issue involved in the emails. Hockey stick graphs and all that dendrochronology stuff, or that you don’t see the issue with the IPCC using science of questionable veracity to push a political position, see Copenhagen summit for political position.
Some tax records are maintained for five years, but up to Enron the policy in all the Big Six accounting firms — endorsed by FASB — was to shred the records six months after the project ended. At Ernst & Young we were required to do that even on non-audit projects in the management consulting arm.
Another auditor should be able to go into the client and get the records to replicate the audit. Another scientist should be able to start from scratch and replicate scientific observations or experiments. I’m really curious about why there aren’t more people out there gathering data to publish contrary papers, if warming isn’t continuing, didn’t happen, won’t happen in the future.
I was referring to PCAOB’s rules on keeping working papers of the audit itself, in order to be reviewed by PCAOB.
If the project involves federal funding in the U.S., there are laws requiring no fiddling with the data — it could be a felony in some cases. There are not a lot of prosecutions, but it’s still a crime. On the front end, the paperwork in science is much more thorough than in auditing — scientists base their entire careers and reputations on accuracy. There is no money in science to speak of, anyway — it’s not as if a pot of money awaits anyone who documents global warming.
Actually, there is a good deal of money in studying the ‘effects of climate change’. There is a significant amount of pressure on private enterprises and public entities to study what is going to happen based on the GCMs predictions, which is what the IPCC publishes reports intended for. Perhaps this is why some bear the title “Summary for Policymakers”. I challenge you to point to a scientist who studies climate change on his own time, without working for an institution.
I don’t think much of the gutless who file those requests.
I don’t recall asking what you think, but McIntyre’s communications involving the data certainly don’t seem unreasonable. Of course, I still suspect you have no idea what on Earth I am talking about and are hiding behind your own experiences with FOIA, but I admit I could be wrong. Can you tell me why McIntyre is gutless to use FOI in the way he used it? I will share this: I don’t think much of uninformed cheerleaders who can’t even address the correct person in a twenty paragraph tirade.
All AGW skeptics have deplored the politicization of climate science by the alarmists yet, mirabile dictu, many politically liberal skeptics here are now agonizing over the fillip that the revelations of alarmist corruption may give to “The Right”, thereby thoroughly re-politicizing the issue once more!
Can we not anesthetize our ideological obsessions and partisan anxieties at least as regards climate science? John A and Jay Neumark fret that Climategate and all its works make Rush and Fox News look “fair and balanced” thereby subverting their own hitherto “settled” repugnance towards them as spittle-flecked cross-burning nutjobs. Fox News and Rush “look fair and balanced” on climate change because they are so. They share the skepticism of all those who support this blog. Give them credit where it’s due and revise your judgement of them when necessary.
This, after all, is what we’re asking the alarmists to do, jettison their biases, however dearly held, and objectively and without prejudice assess the evidence fairly, letting the chips fall as they will. Heck, that’s what we loudly proclaim ourselves as doing. We got into this godawful mess in the first place in large part because those who were trusted as principled seekers after truth allowed their own personal, political and ideological predilections to subvert and contaminate their objectivity. They have been roundly and rightly condemned for doing so. So should any of us be condemned if we follow their footsteps into the mire.
Leave politics to the politicians. Rest assured they’ll muck things up quite thoroughly without any help from us.
I’m interested in FOI’s regarding their expenditure of grant funding. More of the usual sort of an audit. Also sources of funding, transfers, and percentage of FTE’s for quality assurance, travel, expense accounts… That sort of thing.
That could be interesting.
@Phil Clarke (16:08:26) : “More detail, please. I am sure that you won’t object to me forwarding your allegations on to Professor Mann while we are waiting, and cross-posting this to RealClimate?”
It would be very interesting to hear Prof. Mann being required to provide evidence in court. That seems pretty unlikely, however, since he’s not even prepared to debate the current issues with sceptical scientists like M*M.
“REPLY – It seems to me that calling fraud on certain scientists and saying their conclusions are therefore invalid merely invalidates that position. It does not necessarily validate the contrary position. That’s what he is saying. ~ Evan”
To call fraud is to make a claim, ie to adopt a position.
Furthermore, it is not the case that making a claim is equivalent to invalidating a position; otherwise, we could invalidate any position by merely making a claim.
Brendan H (19:29:13) :
You can internally invalidate a claim that has not been externally validated but held as valid internally.
conversion? I don’t like how that sounds ;]
I thought fraud was pretty simple:
“1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
(dictionary.com)”
Fraud is not any more a belief system than anyone’s language. One would let a lot of civilities go, letting this one pass.
I hope Bradley and others do not fail to also at least *consider the possibility* that conservatives may be right about a few other things as well as this particular matter.
Bonnie (22:53:13) :
I hope Bradley and others do not fail to also at least *consider the possibility* that conservatives may be right about a few other things as well as this particular matter.
Well, Bonnie, I do not know about Bradley, but I have always tried to consider every point of view when I think about something. I have been liberal my entire life. I also bought the AGW line until recently. Last winter, in fact. When it was below zero for almost a week straight in Ohio, my belief hit bottom. Easy to believe when it is 90F outside, but not when it is -20F with windchill!! Then I began reading and thinking and I feel that there is a gross error in the way that the problem of Earth’s temperature has been approached. I don’t feel that the temperature of the surface over the last 30 years is conclusive of anything, and especially not after I read what Anthony documented with the surface stations project. Since then, I have remained firmly unconvinced by anything the scientists have sputtered out. It is incredible to me how much of what they say goes flat out unchallenged. See the Texas Climatologist for an example.
As far as giving everything else conservatives say a chance, I don’t know about that. Conservatives seem to have the common sense clinical approach to humanity while the liberals have the Earthly concern for humanity. As paradoxical as this seems, I feel it is true. Which is why I think the way I do and feel the way I do. I give everyone a chance to prove themselves, regardless of affiliation. If we began to talk economics, taxes, or societal concern, you would see the difference (and similarity) between me and a conservative, but in AGW, again, I remain firmly unconvinced.
In short, I am one of the truly unaffiliated people in the American political process. If I could have, I would have pulled the ticket for McCain-Biden.
If we were playing poker this is where I’d say “I’ll see your 2035 date and bid 2030”
NASA carries things a bit further and says “Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030.”
The reference is IPCC AR4, so I have no idea why NASA changed the bogus 2035 date to an even more bogus 2030.
ref: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ , go down to the 6th photo.
Our tax dollars at work
Charlie (23:27:15) :
Which only begs the question:
How much of the peer reviewed literature is valid?
Think about it! IPCC cited this, NASA cites IPCC, EPA cites NASA, CO2 is found dangerous.
So forget about the melting ice – of course Global Warming has absolutely nothing to do with temperature. Gnomes have lowered the freezing point of water and have changed agricultural plants in such a way that they grow and yield earlier. Just like that!
‘Conversion’ is no science, guys.
Charlie (23:27:15) :
NASA carries things a bit further and says “Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030.”
The reference is IPCC AR4, so I have no idea why NASA changed the bogus 2035 date to an even more bogus 2030.
***
There are several “glaciers gone by 2030” claims that are not the Himalayas. Glacier National Park in Montana and Kilimanjaro in Africa are two easily found examples. So while the sentence is technically accurate if the writer is talking about “certain regions” and not specifically the Himilayas, throwing in the Himilayas at the end, just before the 2030 date, is misleading and confusing. As a child of the NASA heyday, I expect better from them.
Wow, Bradley – you’ve been “converted” – too bad nobody told the Kenyans in Africa (http://mcc.org/stories/news/climate-change-affecting-small-scale-farmers-kenya) or the Inuits in the Canadian Arctic (http://inuitcircumpolar.com/files/uploads/icc-files/PR-2009-11-13-call-to-action.pdf) that climate change isn’t real!
Christine (04:15:25),
Stick around here for a while. I have a feeling you’re going to get an education – not only on the science, but on how to recognize rent-seeking propaganda.
The climate always changes, and the Inuit simply have their hand out.
Christine (04:15:25) :
Wow, Bradley – you’ve been “converted” – too bad nobody told the Kenyans in Africa (http://mcc.org/stories/news/climate-change-affecting-small-scale-farmers-kenya) or the Inuits in the Canadian Arctic (http://inuitcircumpolar.com/files/uploads/icc-files/PR-2009-11-13-call-to-action.pdf) that climate change isn’t real!
Wow, Christine! You offered a straw man argument – too bad nobody told you those are logical fallacies, and therefor useless. No one says climate change isn’t real. It has always changed, and always will. Currently, we seem to be in a cooling phase, and the evidence points to significant cooling in the coming decades. That will not be good, as warmer is always better for humans, and for all life.
The argument is about what effect man’s roughly 3% contribution to C02, a beneficial gas which plants require, and thrive when there is more of it has on climate. If you will try reading just a bit beyond the usual Alarmist claptrap articles such as the ones you linked to, you too will find yourself believing the AGW nonsense less and less, until you realize it’s all been a huge fraud. The lie that has held sway for so long is now, finally, giving way to the truth.
Christine:
As for the Kenyans, “it’s an ill wind …” I.e., the residents around the Sahara (and one other desert), which is shrinking, are benefiting from climate change.