Climategate: You should be steamed
By NEIL FRANK, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Jan. 2, 2010
Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”
If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.
Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.
But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people’s endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel’s report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.
Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS’ true position.
What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.
Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.
Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.
The revelation of Climategate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth’s temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?
Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.
Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.
[h/t: Invariant]
Climategate: You should be steamed
By NEIL FRANK
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Jan. 2, 2010, 4:28PM
/*
Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”
If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.
Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.
But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people’s endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel’s report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.
Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS’ true position.
What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.
Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.
Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.
The revelation of ClimateÂgate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth’s temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?
Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.
Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.
It will be tough for any computer program or form of data manipulation
to smooth the following ro conform with the warmistas Paradigm:
From:
http://www.wunderground.com/US/WI/002.html
Record Report
Statement as of 3:57 PM CST on January 02, 2010
… Record low temperature set at International Falls MN…
A record low temperature of -37 degrees was set at International
Falls MN today. This breaks the old record of -34 set in 1979.
Public Information Statement
Statement as of 09:15 am CST on January 03, 2010
The temperature observations below are low temperatures from
Sunday January 03 2010 as of 0900 am and may not depict the
lowest temperature of the morning.
Orr 3e … … . -40
Ash Lake … … . -39
Littlefork … … . -39
International Falls… -37
Embarrass … … . -38
kabatogama … … . -36
Crane Lake … … . -35
Orr … … . -35
Cook … … . -35
Bigfork … … . -33
Ely … … . -33
Longville … … . -31
Pine River … … . -31
Brainerd … … . -30
Aitkin … … . -29
Grand Rapids 15n… … -29
Cook 8ne … … . -29
Bruno 7ne … … . -28
Moose Lake … … . -27
Hibbing Arpt … … . -27
Duluth Airport … … . -26
Two Harbors 7ne… … . -26
Grand Rapids … … . -26
McGregor … … . -26
Eveleth … … . -24
Hayward … … . -22
Cloquet … … . -22
Silver Bay … … . -24
Finland 3se … … . -20
Hinckley Arpt … … . -20
Siren … … . -19
Grand Marais Arpt… .. -17
Two Harbors … … . -17
Phillips … … . -17
Superior … … . -13
Sky Harbor … … . -9
Grand Marais Harbor… -6
Ashland … … . 0
All temps are in the key of F not C degrees.
Reply: Well….Orr 3e could just as well be Celsius. ~ ctm
Mike (11:08:42),
Could Mike be more wrong? Not likely.
The AGW true believers are those who put their blind faith in the repeatedly falsified conjecture that a tiny, harmless trace gas will cause catastrophic global warming.
Scientific skeptics, on the other hand, simply ask questions; they are skeptical of any hypothesis that can not make accurate predictions, and which has no verifiable, testable, real world evidence to back it up.
Mike’s psychological projection is well known to readers of WUWT, as is the cognitive dissonance endemic throughout the cult of believers in the CO2=CAGW [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming] hypothesis.
In his seminal work When Prophecy Fails, Dr Leon Festinger wrote about the cognitive dissonance that afflicted a cult of true believers who awaited the arrival of flying saucers on a particular date.
The cult believed that the flying saucers would save them, while the Earth and everyone else on it was destroyed. But on the appointed date, no flying saucers appeared.
Upon disconfirmation of their belief, did the group admit that they were wrong, and disband? No. Instead, they re-set the flying saucers’ arrival date. Again, no flying saucers appeared. And again, they moved the goal posts, announcing that their own goodness and faith had been sufficient to spare the Earth, so there was no need for the flying saucers to appear. But they never stopped believing in the flying saucers.
The parallels between Festinger’s flying saucer cult and those who believe that a tiny trace gas will cause climate doom are obvious. Neither group can admit that they were wrong. Festinger explains:
Certainly a most devastating attack on the CO2=CAGW belief system is the fact that the planet itself is falsifying the hypothesis that rising CO2 will cause rising global temperatures; as CO2 rises, the global temperature is declining.
The believers’ response: AGW is still happening, but the missing heat is hidden “in the pipeline.” The fact that they can not identify the pipeline, or where the heat is lurking does not matter. So long as they have a basis for their belief, any explanation will do, no matter how far fetched.
Scientific skeptics comprise the other side of the CO2=CAGW debate. The scientific method requires that skeptics must question hypotheses. Skepticism is the opposite of true belief. Those putting forth a new hypothesis like AGW are also required by the scientific method to be skeptical of their own conclusions. But since the believers in AGW are not motivated by science, they are not in the least skeptical of the AGW hypothesis. They are true believers, no matter what the planet is telling them.
The only reason that skeptics’ questions have not resulted in complete obliteration of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis is due to the fact that those promoting AGW refuse to disclose their raw and “adjusted” data and methodologies, so no one can question how they arrived at their conclusions. In essence, they are saying, “Trust us.”
The true believers afflicted with cognitive dissonance really do trust the scientists purveying their climate catastrophe hypothesis, even when confronted with the disconfirmation exposed in the East Anglia emails and the Harry_read_me file, where these same scientists admit to fabricating large swathes of data in a manner designed and intended to support their hypothesis.
Conversely, skeptics respond with: “Show us exactly how you arrived at your conclusions, by disclosing your full and complete data sets and methods.” Their requests are routinely stonewalled.
Only someone seriously afflicted with cognitive dissonance would accept “Trust us” as a satisfactory answer.
Well, first the obvious: The Earth is not a coke bottle.
But second, although there are some here who question the basic link between CO2 and atmospheric warming, I think the vast majority of folks here accept the “basic physics and chemistry”, but not the convoluted arguments based on global circulation models and the magical “everything is caused by global warming” claims.
Sure, “all things being equal”, the earth is likely to be warmer with a higher level of CO2, but that’s the trick isn’t it? “All things being equal”.
And that leaves us with:
1) how much?
2) by when?
3) so what?
Item 3 is not just meant as a smart a$$ remark. It is asked in all seriousness. So the Earth warms by x amount by year y. What does it really mean to the Earth?
You can’t answer that with a coke bottle experiment.
My comment was meant for Roger (12:01:23) :
Well, Roger, AGW was sold on the basis of the hockey stick. It was sold as recent, dramatic, unprecedented warming. But it isn’t dramatic or unprecedented. That was merely an artful presentation that has taken years to put in context. The AGW people had a big head start and then held both carrot and hockey stick with which to intimidate skeptical attitudes, much less entice researchers into not rocking the boat.
I don’t know if there is a counter-consensus about CO2. But if I was forced to guess, then I would say that it would be that the Earth’s climate system is too complex and too formidable in that complexity to be overridden by even a substantial increase in a relatively minor if essential atmospheric gas like CO2.
Otherwise, scientists can argue all night about the complexities involved, but the A signal in the very minor GW of the past 150 years is very faint, which is being generous.
At least that’s what I get out of my ten years following this. I have always been very conscious of the environment and spent several years of an otherwise misspent youth writing and editing on solar technologies. I looked into the AGW matter cold, and I’ve always sensed that the skeptics have made the better case, starting with the great ones like Lindzen.
Thank you to Neil Frank and to the Houston Chronicle !
Climategate is but the tip of a very old and dirty iceberg.
At the base is the unholy alliance of politicians and scientists that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address to the nation 49 years ago, in January 1961.
Again, thanks!
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Great article Dr. Frank – here we have a man who has spent his life working in Meteorology and Al Gore, a wannabe climatologist, gets the press – we are victims of a dumbed-down media circus. We have a new provincial gov. in N.S. (New Democratic/Socialist) busy chasing their tails with a green agenda, while they are facing a hefty deficit. Their leader took an entourage to Copenfraud and they all returned with high expectations for new green business in 2010. Our schools are filled with this so called “settled” science and our smaller municipalities are on the same path as the big guys. I’m waiting for the day the Old Stream Media are exposed for being co-conspirators in this U.N. driven pseudo-science. Until then we can only keep up the GOOD FIGHT… follow the money!!!
Roger,
I think there is general agreement that C02 is a greenhouse gas. The question is one of “climate sensitivity.” I’m sure you have heard the term “runaway” global warming, in which the system has positive feedback loops that make the system warmer still.
Another possibility is the opposite. That is, the planet naturally regulates its temperature. Say for instance, the hotter things get the more clouds there are and temperatures drop.
The earth has many systems that effect weather in a non-linear fashion. Not including all the main ones or knowing how all the major, and potentially minor, systems work together and affect each other invalidates the climate models until they agree with observation.
I for one am interested in seeing agreement between observers and modelers. Until such time I will consider myself a skeptic. I simply don’t whether man’s activities are increasing global warming, whether man is not warming the earth, or whether it is so insignificant it doesn’t matter. Unfortunately, there are now questions as to whether the observations themselves are valid. You can read about the Australian Darwin weather system to get a sense of how it seems that data has been manipulated, and Michael Mann’s “trick” also seems to manipulate data by merging the most convenient data to get his hockey stick.
Meanwhile, I see you are a green. Coal is a source of C02 we could replace with Nuclear. One thing I do not understand about the warmer politicians is why they are not pushing nuclear. It’s clean, cheap energy, but it seems as the South Africans and Japanese are pushing for small nuclear power plants for the emerging world, Luddites in the US are pushing to go back to the cart and buggy days or to try to make “green” energy, whatever that is, work.
Read wattsupwiththat: all this stuff is here to learn about.
OT
Since December 19 there has been record snow every day in the US.
you can do daily map here
http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,lowmax,highmin,snow
Of course, the warmists will downplay anything that comes out of Texas as being right wing, anti-science and big oil propaganda. Note, however, that Houston just elected its first openly lesbian mayor.
If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU,
We don’t yet know it’s hackers. But anyway.
“Moreover, maybe someone can explain why every
time Mann and his colleagues draft another curve, the temperature in 2000
gets warmer and warmer after the fact…”
–Phil Jones, in an email dated Fri Jul 23 15:29:11 2004
I’m getting steamed, and I didn’t even know it. If only Mann would stop drafting curves….
Roger — all you needed to do was to search this site for a good debunking of the pop bottle “experiment”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/24/bbc-botches-grade-school-co2-science-experiment-on-live-tv-with-indepedent-lab-results-to-prove-it/
AGW is like one of the zombies from the Night of the Living Dead. Every time you think it’s dead it comes crawling out of the grave and tries to bite you. 🙁
On a more serious note, AGW won’t die because it is supported by our government which unfortunately is run by criminals. They cannot be persuaded by facts, figures or logic. None of that matters. They are dedicated only to carrying out their agenda. This cannot end until we throw them all out of office.
I found this list of “skeptical” scientists.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Oh my god you people are just plain insane!
Did you even read the controversial parts of the emails?
Aside from standard “We have to make sure we are the ones to get published” BS the statistical methods that has been questioned are standard procedures that any minor stat student would know.
Even if you distrust the treehuggers, the fact remains: THE OIL WILL RUN OUT!
So even a lie regarding the climate change is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST!
Grow a geard will ya!
This will, indeed, go a long way to spread some sanity around locally. Dr. Frank spent many years here as the “go-to” guy on anything weather related and especially hurricanes.
As someone previously said, he’s a “just the facts ma’am” kind of no-nonsense character. If he says it, then Brother, in Houston it’s gospel!
Roger (12:01:23) :
As Neal (12:45:44) : says, the historical record is in doubt.
This is how GISS have adjusted the historical temperature record of the USA
http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif
This has changed yet again & 2006 & 1998 are now tied in the GISSTemp contiguous USA record with 1934 3rd. 1999 now enters the picture as a ranking member of the series too.
Can whoever did the animated gif add a third layer or replace the 2009 layer?
I can plot it but scaling to add it to the animation may be a problem for me
DaveE.
There is no such thing as settled science. The very term is unscientific.
The term “made up my mind” means what? It means I will no longer entertain additional input, regardless of its veracity and the degree to which it invalidates my opinion at this moment. It means that I will not change my mind, even when confronted with unimpeachable evidence that I am wrong.
If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?
Everyone knows the answer is they shouldn’t be.
Only people with ulterior motives will insist they should be.
Insisting they should be trusted to those who know they shouldn’t be is a losing proposition.
Neal (12:45:44) :
In the EUSSR, nuclear is given a carbon equivalence value making France officially one of the most carbon polluting countries in the EUSSR with ~80% nuclear.
DaveE.
i’m sure i’m missing something but shouldn’t,
Invariant (03:21:26) : of your “Swiss ETH: Glaciers melted in the 1940’s faster than today” post, get a h/t for this post?
honorable mention?
From Dirk 12:29
Roger, the basic mechanism of greenhouse gases is not disputed.
But: The greenhouse effect is created by CO2 and water vapor.
These two gasses have a complex interrelationship. It works a bit
counter intuitively:
Earth sends radiation upwards (to cool down).
CO2 and water vapor diffuse this radiation, in the end sending hold of it back downwards and half upwards. due to the physics of absorption and re-radiation, this is always 50:50 !
COOL and accepted so far so good!
The greenhouse effect of combined CO2 and water vapor already did this to ALL the IR even before we started emitting industrial CO2!
All Good here why we have habitable atmosphere – the sweet spot. so then you agree that without global warming we’d be out of luck and earth would a whole lot colder – YES?
My point the same mechanism that caused this as a habitable (sp) planet was due to naturally occurring CO2 and the mechanism you described above.
I believe we accept this premise.
Pinatubo cooling was basically ejection material ash and other chemicals which caused much more reflected sunlight in the stratosphere i,e See “Year without a summer”, 3 volcanoes mainly Mt. Tambora ejection material with more outgoing long wave radiation OLR which then cooled the earth? I do not think CO2 had much if anything to do with that cooling.
I’ll wait for your response thank you very much! I think this is where might start to differ on causes. I want to explore more of this.
Thanks Dirk
Another interesting Revkin article taking about media reporting and informational fatigue…
I apologize if this was posted earlier.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/the-greatest-story-rarely-told/
Neil Frank,…was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87)…
Ah, I see. So he’s not on the fringe.