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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Woo Teva (13:04:12) :
“So even a lie regarding the climate change is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST!”
Well, no, it isn’t. Not by a long shot. You might try looking up what consequences of the changes proposed based upon that lie. They will be far more devastating than any conceivable damage from warming.
“…the fact remains: THE OIL WILL RUN OUT!”
No, it won’t. 1) The Peak Oil concept has been wrong for well over 100 years, bit it will probably be correct someday. 2) Even if oil/coal beings to run out it will be gradual. It will get increasingly expensive and alternatives (including nuclear) will become increasingly viable. Alternatives will take over long before the oil “runs out.”
dekitchen (13:36:54) :
“So, now you have discovered that there is no good scientific basis to flaw the CRU…”
You haven’t been paying attention, have you?
“Have you read, as I have, the force and venom of much of the rhetoric on this blog? Seems to me the folk at CRU were positively saintly! 🙂 ”
Actually, believers are treated very well here when they ask honest questions and don’t come across as trolls. (EG: see the response to believer comments on this page.) Skeptics aren’t treated as well on believer blogs. You want venom? Try RC.
“This contribution moves us nowhere. Just more zombie arguments that are really getting boring, and lets get this straight, talk about all these protesters with PhDs is pure obfuscation. it means nothing unless we know what their PhD was in and what their research and/or teaching record is. ”
Please show us proof of your PhD in climate science so that you may continue with your trolling discussion. Otherwise, by your own standards, you’re not qualified to voice your opinion. Check the last paragraph of the article, if you’re actually interested in Dr. Frank’s qualifications.
“… and even his facts are largely correct, they are just not relevant to the subject and his personal opinions are specious.”
As you say, his facts are largely correct. His opinion is extremely relevant to the discussion. This issue needs a lot more discussion, especially considering the weakness of the believer argument.
DirkH (15:05:27) :
“… this GHG of course also reflects some of the incoming IR right back into space. Half of it.”
Not true. Not all IR radiation is equal(Incoming is much shorter wavelength than outgoing). Sorry.
Oh and a remark re free markets, the price of oil and the price pressure that influences when alternative energies become viable:
Even though new developments make more sources of fossil fuel available, it is noteworthy that the extraction of these resources tends to become more and more expensive. The shale gas i mentioned for instance will be viable at a price of 30$ for natural gas for the heating equivalent of 1 barrel of oil IIRC. So that’s pretty expensive.
When mankind started exploiting petroleum they went for easy sources first. They had to expend 1 calory of work to get 100 cal back. ATM the fossil fuel industry expends 1cal for a return of 10cal. Historically, societies have collapsed when they had to expend 1cal of work and got less than 3 back from whatever their energy source was. That’s a frequently used doom scenario for our civilization.
Of course that would be the point where new energy sources would be more than welcome.
westhoustongeo , your opinion about my numbers?
Well said!
I always liked Dr. Frank when he was head of the Hurricane Center.
Thinking out loud here…just take some of the premiere hurricane experts out there:
Frank….Gray……Landsea…..Maue……
Not ONE of these mentioned is a Warmist.
I have a question: Just where….where the is that “small minority” of global warming skeptic scientists???
Small minority, my ***!
More like a SIGNIFICANT “minority”.
And one day in the future, the number will a MAJORITY….because NATURAL SELECTION demands it!
Under the blue shroud of a severe NH cold outbreak, as CRU and the UKMet and NASA Goddard and their piss-poor leadership continues to lose credibility, that day may happen sooner than later.
Can’t happen fast enough for me.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
westhoustongeo (15:27:26) :
As far as oil (more specifically, hydrocarbons) running out:
I wish human kind would try to use them up.
Roger (14:31:03) :
I will throw a party if there is no AGW
Have you checked the data? Climate is cooling. AGW predictions are wrong.
Of course when you talk about AGW you could be meaning a broad range of things.
But in general it mean disasters are now on earth and more and even worse ones are coming from manmade co2. There is no science to prove this is true.
So have your party.
westhoustongeo (15:27:26) :
As far as oil (more specifically, hydrocarbons) running out:
One thing that has been a great benefit of manmade co2 and fossil fuels burning being observed with this fine toothed global warming comb is that we’ve learned that fossil fuels are not as damaging to the earth as we once feared.
This gives us permission to use them much more.
Woo Teva (13:04:12) :
Try reading instead of emoting. If you had bothered to follow the threads on Climate Audit, read the Wegman report or any of the sites that are actually trying to replicate the temperature data you’ll find that the so called “climate scientists” are doing anything but using standard statistical methods. And since when was throwing in “fudge factors” a standard statistical method?
So if the oil runs out: problem solved right? What has the oil running out have to do with whether CO2 is driving the climate to a catastrophic state? Get a grip and stop drinking the Kool-aid.
Roger wrote:
“The problem of course is it’s [nuclear’]s incredible accident possibility and 2. Terrorism.”
I suspect if you look at deaths from nuclear vs. power generated otherwise, it is one of those safer technologies compared to just about any other.
With regards to terrorism, I’m not terribly concerned about that in the US. I think terrorists would like to Iran, Pakistan, and possibly insecure sources in the Ukraine, etc. were we don’t have sovereignty, I would imagine that would be the inexpensive avenue for terrorists. The US is the least of my concern.
Of course, this isn’t the point at all. Even with the dangers, I would like to see Al Gore and other warmers tell us all which is more dangerous, Nuclear or AGW.
With a complicit press, we have seen how the seas will rise, plague and pestilence will ravage the land, and drought will cause mass starvation.
I’m not going to hold my breath, because they are pushing a political agenda, not a scientific one. They want it both ways: Nuclear is worse than AGW, and AGW is worse than Nuclear. Once you get to this point, you have to then ask yourself the question “why should I listen to these people at all?” Yet somehow, they have tremendous influence over everyone.
“acementhead (16:48:50) :
DirkH (15:05:27) :
“… this GHG of course also reflects some of the incoming IR right back into space. Half of it.”
Not true. Not all IR radiation is equal(Incoming is much shorter wavelength than outgoing). Sorry.”
Oh, thanks for the correction. Found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
I would’ve thought the suns spectrum was broader. My fault.
DavidE,
Do you know much about the rationalization for C02 equivalents for nuclear power? I understand there is some C02 released in Uranium mining, but thought France used breeder reactors, which vastly multiplies how far the ore extracted can go.
Regards,
–Neal
Janice (15:51:05) :
> I am by training and inclination an engineer, not a scientist. I am also getting close to sixty years old.
Me too. Did you stay inside during recess to listen to the Mercury suborbital flights?
> Then there was DDT, followed by lead paint, followed by something being sprayed on apples.
ALAR. Don’t forget the cranberry crisis in 1959 that clobbered carnberry sales for that year’s Thanksgiving thanks to two shipments from Oregon and Washington with aminotriazole contamination.
westhoustongeo (15:27:26) :
Working in “the Patch” myself, I can only concur. New seismic technologies, and new drilling technologies are unlocking previously undiscovered, or undrillable reserves. Marine shales like the Bakken have literally mind-boggling quantities of hydrocarbons. Many of these shales are unexplored, since they were thought to have no economic value. No economic value – those words should always raise questions.
There is a lot of talk about what “skeptics believe” in this article. There is truth in that: the so-called skeptics are basing their opinions on belief, not on facts or scientific evidence. Meanwhile, those who accept the preponderance of scientific evidence for AGW are derided as “believers”. The cognitive dissonance is loud and not so astonishing. The parallels between the way Big Tobacco fought science and the current “debate” are deep and significant.
Well, well, well. Sceptics used to be deniers. I guess we are moving up in the world.
when I lived in the houston area, dr. frank was an outstanding weatherman and a stand up kind of a guy in the community. I hope he is using some of his retirement to continuing doing that stand up action still. This article sure suggests he is.
DirkH (16:50:49),
I looked forward to reading Westhoustongeo’s answer to your question.
But regarding markets, I know that the free market has produced whatever is in demand simply by using price signals. This mechanism has never failed, despite the frantic arm-waving of Luddites and Malthusians alike.
Petroleum products will never run out. They will become more expensive if they are in short supply [which currently they are not]. But then, everything is going to be much more expensive, if the current AGW silliness persists.
Rob M. (10:27:24) :
Yea,yea..but he’s not a “climate specialist”,he only dealt with weather what he says about a few out-of-context e-mails stolen from the private,none-more-private, computers of the endlessly harassed planet-saving heroes of the gallant CRU does nothing to invalidate the megatons of research that proves driving SVUs and building coal-fired power stations is killing polar bears faster than was previously thought.
Just thought I’d point that out to save the warmists a job.
First this guy is a climate specialist, he has a PhD and it pertains to weather, which is a function of climate.
Second, the emails from climate gate show an active collusion not to allow anyone else into the fold so to speak who was not lock step with them… So… of course he is not ‘a specialist’ since only those blessed by the ones already in charge got to be ‘specialists’. It is an interesting social dynamic that took place in the Climatologists community. It is only know when people can see the disastrous effects of the muddled research that they have really started to care that they were not in the climatologists circle.
Lastly, please don’t put words in peoples mouths if they have not said them. It is a poor man’s straw man argument. My opponent is not here but if he were here I am sure he would insult you all… Just does not go over well…
Woo Teva (13:04:12) :
“Oh my god you people are just plain insane!”
—-
Reply: If open discussion and being inquisitive are the hallmarks of insanity, may it strike me and everyone else here.
“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.”
—-
Reply: I understand Mann formulated his own statistical methods rather than buying several off-the-shelf statistical packages that were far superior to what he was able to cobble together (It’s also a big reason he’d never let any statisticians review his work–the results would be…well, about what we have found they were–laughable).
But to counter your assertions, I would say it is you who has not read any of the emails. And I would also submit that, as a scientist myself, their content show professional actions that are deplorable in the extreme. These people truly cannot be called by the name “scientist”.
“Even if you distrust the treehuggers, the fact remains: THE OIL WILL RUN OUT!”
—-
Reply: This has been handled sufficiently by many comments above. However, you’re asking me to trust “treehuggers” regarding a solution? (An image of Fred Flintstone foot-peddling his “tree car” just struck me.) As an engineer, I have not seen a single solution proposed by “treehuggers” that has merit. And many solutions that I consider viable are being ignored.
“So even a lie regarding the climate change is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST!”
—-
Reply: Not if we all invest in a wardrobe that’s geared to hot weather just to find another glacial epoch has arrived. You’re going to look pretty silly on that glacier barefoot and nearly naked. And no amount of sun block will keep you warm.
[FURTHER REPLY – Peak Oil: Peek and ye shall find. ~ Evan]
Woo Teva (13:04:12) :
“Oh my god you people are just plain insane!….
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!”
Oh so that means we all need to join Amish or Mennonite communities and go back to 75% to 80% of us working on farms pulling weeds and picking off bugs by hand? We need to give all our remaining wealth to the World Bank so they can invest it in China? We need to hand over ownership of our “wildlands” to the World Bank (UN) so they can complete the take over of the world’s untapped resources?
The democrats in the form of Bill Clinton and Al Gore already did major damage to the US with the World Trade Organization. Statistics (courtesy of Bridgewater) showed in 1990, before WTO was ratified, foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP.
http://www.fame.org/HTM/greg%20Pickup%201%2010%2003%20report.htm
The “treehuggers” have been hijacked by the bankers – FOLLOW the MONEY
“An analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries shows the world’s finances are in the hands of a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first report of global concentration of financial power…” http://www.insidescience.org/research/study_says_world_s_stocks_controlled_by_select_few
“Grace Commission report notes that 100% of personal income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt, the lion’s share of which goes to the banking cartel that we know as the Federal Reserve.” http://www.bloggernews.net/17032
One of the most influential documents in the global warming “debate” is the Stern Review. Lord Stern, a former World Bank Chief Economist, became head of the UK Government Economic Service. The Stern Review was commissioned by Gordon Brown with major input from the Tyndall Centre and Phil Jones’ Climate Research Centre.
Then look at this comment by Richard Folland
The financial sector has a major stake in Copenhagen. Decisions there will affect investment and business. At J. P. Morgan, we are significant participants in the carbon market as traders, project developers and in voluntary carbon offsetting.
Our hope for Copenhagen is that we get clarity, to set out the long-term policy framework that investment needs. Parties could, for example, reform and improve the Clean Development Mechanism. This is criticised, sometimes justifiably, but its achievement in incentivising private finance for clean energy projects in developing countries is undeniable. Our fear is that an inability to reach an agreement puts these decisions on hold, thus delaying investment and therefore emissions reductions which are urgently needed.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427366.800-great-and-good-share-hopes-and-fears-for-copenhagen.html?page=1
The first UN Earth Summit in 1972 as well as Kyoto was run by a big oil exec, Senior Advisor to the World Bank, trustee of the Rockefeller foundation (Standard Oil and Exxon) and member of the Club of Rome. He is a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange and now an advisor to the Chinese government, working for a Construction and Engineering company in Beijing. He is Maurice Strong implicated in the UN oil for food scandal.
Playing “The Sky is Falling” tune is just playing into the hands of the manipulators. Activists keep stating big [insert evil industry] is behind some kind of planned and well funded denial scheme when it is the exact opposite.
Here is the members list for the European Climate Exchange and what the World Bank thinks the market is worth now and it view of the the future.
People will notice some of the names on the list such as: Shell, BP and every major bank on Earth. Get real, they want to turn carbon into a Trillion dollar market, and they are not far from doing that. Why would they want to sow any doubt of any kind?
Members list:
http://www.ecx.eu/media/pdf/members%20list%20-%20october%202009.pdf
09.pdf
World Bank:
http://wbcarbonfinance.org/docs/State___Trends_of_the_Carbon_Market_2009-FINAL_26_May09.pdf
Anthony, might I suggest that you give all your moderators a healthy rise in pay. They are truly magnificent !! ( I know that they do not get payed, but if they did, they would rightly deserve a substantial bonus in this months envelope.) If I had the resources, I would supply said envelope. *SIGH* If only there were some truth to the “big oil shill” debasement. Now I must go and carpe my diem !!
REPLY: [ I’ve heard a rumor our pay will be doubled! 😉 -mod]
I assume you know that we have had the technology to manufacture synthetic oil for about 70 years and using the current technology is is cost effective at about $90/bbl oil prices?
All you need is a carbon bearing feed stock (trash, bio mass, etc.) water and a source of heat.
Even if the natural hydrocarbons were completely exhausted (highly unlikely in this century), we could manufacture essentially unlimited amounts of synthetic oil limited only by our supply of feed stocks and a source of process energy (Nuclear).
Hydrocarbon fuels, lubricants, chemicals (plastics) are not going anywhere in your life time or you grand children’s life time.
Larry
While we are busy investigating the CRU fiddle consider the fact that the GISS and NOAA data is compliant with that of CRU.
CRU was adulterated by the heroes at CRU so that it fit the results of the other two. Ergo the other two must be “fudged” as well.
CO2 – a lot of ado about nothing. The discussion about it is like listening to ancient philosophers discussing how many devils can dance on the head of a pin. So amusing and entertaining. Unfortunately it is not so entertaining when these philosophers create problems for the rest of us in our daily lives.
My take on the global ‘thing’ is quite simple. Many will disagree because they want to keep things complex.
Earth has 2 forms of heat – external and internal. Internal is geothermal, regardless of the
causes.Humanities influence is infinitesimal in this situation. External is the sun and the moon (if you want to take the latter into consideration). The atmosphere is an insulator with specific properties ie density and composition. If I went to a chemical engineer or an insulation company and claimed extraordinaty abilities from my product because I changed 1 of the components from 200ppm to 800 ppm, I would be laughed out of the building.
I read parts of the comment section in the Houston Chronicle (it long) and the AGW proponents have now picked up the meme that since the AP (Associated Press) says the Climategate docments don’t disprove AGW then it must be so!
Please, the AP is a committed liberal media group.
The AP is no more qualified than anybody else to judge the documents of Climategate and likely less objective because they have a liberal bias (like many MSM).
Just because the Associated Press says so?
Fat chance — take that argument back to the barn and throw it in with the pigs where it belongs.
It stinks…
“Just thought I’d point that out to save the warmists a job.”
You mean eliminating some jobs. Think about their children, have you no heart?