Climategate: Here Comes Courage!

(Is climate catastrophism losing its ‘politically correct’ grip?)

by Robert Bradley Jr. from masterresource.org
January 4, 2010

The times are changing in the wake of Climategate. And more is to come as the polluted science embedded in the email exchanges gets reviewed by talented amateurs and pros alike on the blogosphere (see Climate Audit,  Roger Pielke Jr., and WattsUpWithThat, in particular).

Given time, the rethink will go mainstream. Scientists are truth seekers at heart, but an entrenched mainstream of climate scientists–so many of them friends and political allies–will need to be nudged out of their denialism.

Old voices are challenging their ‘mainstream’ colleagues, and new voices are coming forth. I have seen this clearly here in Houston (examples below), and I expect it is happening elsewhere.

Consider what Andy Revkin, the recently retired climate-change science writer at the New York Times, told the public editor at the Times regarding Climategate: “Our coverage, looked at in toto, has never bought the catastrophe conclusion and always aimed to examine the potential for both overstatement and understatement.”

Sounds like the Times will report both sides of the issue now, rather than just trumpet alarmism as it was prone to do in the past (remember William K. Stevens?). Joe Romm at Climate Progress (Center for American Progress) is furious at this development, but just maybe over-the-top Joe has himself to blame for getting Revkin and the like to want to report on both sides more than ever before. And Romm himself is now considered damaged goods by the Left, thanks to the four-part expose by the Breakthrough Institute.

Climategate, in short, is making quite a difference. But much more courage is needed.

Dr. Michelle Foss (University of Texas at Austin)

Consider Michelle Michot Foss, an internationally respected energy economist with the University of Texas at Austin who is past president of both the United States Energy Association and the International Associations for Energy Economics. Her December 8th letter to the New York Times read:

To the Editor:

Your editorial concludes, “It is also important not to let one set of purloined e-mail messages undermine the science and the clear case for action, in Washington and in Copenhagen.”

Hold on a minute. It was precisely because “one set” of opinions has been driving climate politics that the whistleblowers, not hackers, published the evidence. And it is precisely because of the type of coverage that The New York Times and other mainstream news organizations are giving the whistleblowing incident that the integrity of both the scientific and journalistic communities is being threatened.

Honest questions have been raised and honest attempts have been made to shed light on questionable claims about climate science for decades. We need to push for greater disclosure, more scrutiny, better research and a halt in the action before we jump into policy and regulatory schemes that we will deeply regret.

Dr. Foss has kept her views somewhat under wraps given her university position, but Climategate was enough for her to go public in the above very public way.  And she has received a number of emails of support–and some emails by her alarmist friends to the effect: ‘gosh Michelle, I agree with you on Climategate, but I thought you were one of us….’

To such critics, her answer can be: Climategate proves that alarmism is exaggerated, and most modest warming scenarios win the debate for adaptation over mitigation. Robert Murphy has made this point in a post very widely read among economists and entitled “Apologist Responses to Climategate Misconstrue Real Issues.”

I think that if some on the UT-Austin faculty were to try to silence her powerful voice, they would have a (climate) McCarthyism issue on their hands post Climategate. What a difference compared to several months ago!

Read full blog post here

Advertisements

71 thoughts on “Climategate: Here Comes Courage!

  1. Someone posted this on climateprogress.

    Joe Bastardi is truthful and honest. He predicted the excess chilling and blizzards for the first 15 days of January and the Met refused to until it started snowing in the U.K.
    There are a lot of deaths and damage because of denial of the winter storms. People deserve less biased forecasting.
    Joe Bastardi embarrassed a lot of “forecasters” in the last 2 weeks.

    Watts up tells us the Met refused to predict the massive storm. It was run thru the Political correct filter.
    Lots of death and agriculture damage but the warmistas stay loyal. They deny cold, chilling and frigid temps. It casts doubt on the high priests of climatology.

    1 example. Great Britain imports natural gas for heating. If they get weather reports that delete “inconveniant thermometers” that show cooling, they know people will freeze and animals will die.
    One solution is to create a black market for heating oil, gas and coal. Then money can be made and people can have safe homes.

  2. And Romm himself is now considered damaged goods by the Left, thanks to the four-part expose by the Breakthrough Institute.

    He should have taken time to study information before attacking out of reflex. Joe is famous for declaring a plane crash due to global warming after the plane disappeared and before they found where it went down.

  3. Good well reasoned report, puts paid to the Warmist argument that no proper scientist disagrees with AGW.

  4. and most modest warming scenarios win the debate for adaptation over mitigation..
    Still believing in “modest warming” while surrounded or interred by snow and ice?

  5. What a good article! Saying it exactly like we know it is, and saying it where it needs to be said – challenging the MSM and even more, the scientific establishment like Nature magazine.

    Those who feel called by Robert Bradley’s words

    Climategate, in short, is making quite a difference. But much more courage is needed

    would do well to putting that courage to use: Help get Neutralpedia up and running, take it from its current Alpha state through Beta…

    If you visit my User page there, you will see I have done quite a bit of work in this direction… I am continuing “tweaking” and creating “stubs” to help generate the right energy there.

    Neutralpedia has been conceived as a “complement” to Wikipedia, thus neither competing nor denigrating… simply doing what WP, by its very setup, is, for the best of reasons (ie No Original Research), unable to do… yet we now need a scientific edge, that cherishes Scientific Method yet keeps humanly-balanced and open to Citizens Science as well as the best of professional science. As do Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, and a growing number of blogs.

  6. Henry chance (06:32:38) :

    And Romm himself is now considered damaged goods by the Left, thanks to the four-part expose by the Breakthrough Institute.

    He should have taken time to study information before attacking out of reflex. Joe is famous for declaring a plane crash due to global warming after the plane disappeared and before they found where it went down

    Henry-not only that-when they found it the Plane went down due to severe icing.
    -Which Joe then blamed on Global Warming…

  7. Henry,

    I believe the Met Office here in the UK could NOT report the coming cold snap after going public with their claim that 2009 was the hottest year since the creation of the universe and then stating the reason they made the claim was to influence Copenhagen.

    Now imagine trying to tally that with reporting a massive cold snap for the UK. People would just laugh at the Met Office and wonder what the hell they are on about.

    For me, its almost as if the Met Office is so deeply entrenched in global warming that they cant publish anything that goes against that…well not until its obvious (ie. snowing outside and record cold temps around the country).

    Mailman

  8. What a difference a couple months makes, indeed. . . .
    Every time one more respected academic like Dr. Foss @ UT-Austin goes public with statements like her above letter to the editor, it’s another incremental step in the right direction. Still a long way to go, but there is a growing sense that the prevaling winds on AGW are fundamentally starting to shift.

  9. Did you all check out the link behind the word “denialism”? Very interesting commentary by Ken Green. I agree that it’s about time we started dishing out what we’ve been taking for so long, and start calling the other side “deniers”, since the shoe now fits their feet much more closely than ours.

    Regards,
    Trevor

  10. Dr. Tim Ball – The Science is NOT Settled (Part I)

    Dr. Tim Ball – The Science is NOT Settled (Part II)

    Dr. Tim Ball on Climategate (Part I)

    Dr. Tim Ball on Climategate (Part II)

  11. “Henry chance (06:25:44) :
    […]
    One solution is to create a black market for heating oil, gas and coal. Then money can be made and people can have safe homes.”

    I thought about that but it only works for big industry. Reason: Carbohydrates are too much mass per dollar you can earn. So you can only do black market profits when you carry huge chunks of it. They’ve been doing that by “topping up” oil tanker loads, in other words, when the official OPEC quota would allow somebody to load 100k Barrel, well bribe someone and top it up to 120k.

    Doesn’t work for the small guy. Too much heavy lifting involved. That’s why ordinary people tend to smuggle higher value goods like cigarettes, chocolate and electronics. (Yes: people who smuggled cigarettes from Poland to Germany took chocolate on the way back because that was cheaper in germany than in Poland and it’s relatively high profit per kg)

  12. “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses one by one.”
    Charles MacKay, Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1841.

    John I

  13. And Romm himself is now considered damaged goods by the Left,

    They are going to have to buy a bigger bus. With a LOT more room under it.

  14. Every single newspaper in the UK has published the following satellite image of the UK today – it shows the entire country in glowing white – snow and ice now appears the entire British Isles from John O’ Groats at the Northern tip of Scotland – to Landsend in Cornwall.

    Despite this – and we are now in our 25th day of sub zero temperatures – the MET Office put up a spokesman on Newsnight last evening claiming that their forecast for a ‘very mild winter’ had ‘only been a probability!!

  15. Another series of excellent articles (embedded in the links) for the office door. Some of the comments from these deserve to be posted, too. Do you suppose my colleagues have figured out I’m a “denier” yet?

    Good luck, Lucy! Hope some of the scientists who visit will join in your effort. If I see something where I could reasonably contribute (as a historian) I will join in your Neutralpedia effort.

  16. Henry Chance

    That politically correct filter seems to be working overtime at the Hadley Centre in Exeter where the CET to 6th has, after a long delay due to software problems, been promulgated at -.8C.
    The figure for the 7th, published by http://theweatheroutlook.com/twodata/dattwocet.aspx is -2.3C
    Further research reveals Philip Eden’s calculation up to the 7th as -2.1C
    http://www.climate-uk.com/index.html
    So there we have it.
    Three attempts to measure the average temperature of a small triangle of England over a six/seven day period produce a discrepancy of -1.5C and yet we are asked to believe that they can measure the whole globe over a 100 year period and produce an irrefutable temperature rise of 0.7C
    How can this be?
    Well, the odd one out is the Hadley Centre, employing 200 persons in Exeter and funded by our apostolic warmist government through departments DEFRA and the Ministry of Defence.
    However they also derive substantial funding from industry for advice on global warming through amongst others, Project EP2.
    Once again we follow our money and find it tainted under a pile of self serving corruption in which even parts of our industry are complicit.

  17. I’m thinking on a small scale, about my friends, and I can imagine this splitting environmentalists into two or three groups.

    Some, who at the end of the day, won’t compromise on rational inquiry, will see the climategate emails and decide the research from that particular group and related groups, is not trustworthy. They value the objectivity of science, and will be keen to protect it by cutting out the cancers. These people will change their minds when necessary.

    Those who have a new-age slant, on the other hand, who believe in their own intuition, feelings, and images about a natural healthy world, idealise a world free of “killing”, and who don’t want their own cherished beliefs questioned, will post-rationalise and become more entrenched. They were never that interested in science anyway, and will simply come to dismiss climate research as easily as they already dismiss medical research.

    I guess that there are also other types, but they’re in a small minority. There are some true environmentalists who don’t care whether something involves high technology or not, whether it involves eating more meat or learning to meditate, but who just want whatever works. But I’m guessing they’re kinda a minority. Still, as greenie culture is 50 years old already, that minority will grow over time.

  18. “Here comes courage” – when I saw that I was worried this was going to be a new Dan Rather sighting.

  19. I have seen this effect myself. I am co-author on a scientific paper. A final draft was sent around for comments before being sent off to a journal for review. Climategate gave me the courage, born of outrage, to insist that the sentences which made gratuitous connections to global warming be removed as irrelevant. These had persisted despite my earlier objections. Amazingly, this time I got no fight. Getting these gratuitous references to global warming out of the literature is a small but important part of the battle, in my opinion.

  20. I hope that he is right that ClimateGate will bring courage to closet skeptics and proper levels of transparency to climate science.

    Hopefully, it will also encourage uninformed alarmists to consider why they believe the IPCC.

  21. From the 01/07/2010 Lexington, KY Herald-Leader:http://www.kentucky.com/210/story/1085813.html

    Resolution says state should ban limits on carbon dioxide

    Global warming: Three state lawmakers, including the chairman of the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee, have introduced a resolution that would ban state and local governments from enacting or enforcing any limits on carbon dioxide emissions in Kentucky. House Joint Resolution 20 also questions the science behind climate change. The resolution is sponsored by Rep. Jim Gooch, D-Providence, chairman of the House environment committee; Rep. Joseph Fischer, R-Fort Thomas; and Rep. Mike Harmon, R-Junction City. The resolution cites controversial e-mails from climate-change scientists in Great Britain that skeptics cite as proof that scientists manipulated and suppressed climate-change data. Most scientists think carbon dioxide, which comes from burning coal and other fuels, has contributed to global warming.

  22. In John Coleman’s talk on global warming,

    http://tinyurl.com/yjmjdsk

    John suggests the possibility of suing Al Gore for damages caused by his misinformation.

    The question is whether Al Gore is simply a tool of the same group that now controls US Presidents?

    Certainly Al Gore was involved, but I suspect that Al was a pawn – just as George Bush was a pawn when he decided to use US forces to police the world and invaded Iraq in violation of the US Constitution.

    Nobody that I know ever voted to make the US a police force for the world.

    Barack Obama is now moving our forces to another country, but US voters were not involved in that decision either.

    The real culprits may be identified if Al Gore is sued for damages caused by his role in creating and distribution false information.

    John Coleman’s lawyers probably have some idea if Mr. Gore is the perpetrator or the perpetrator’s instrument. Could that be the reason for their delay?

    Whether or not they believe Al Gore is the primary perpetrator, a lawsuit would help us get to the bottom of an intriguing mess that involves leaders of many different countries and organizations, such as Nobel Laureates Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri of the UN’s IPCC, Former Vice-President Al Gore, Norway’s Nobel Prize Committee, NASA, NAS and literally armies of consensus scientists.”

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  23. good to hear about climategate again.
    was beginning to think it’s “15 minutes” were used up.
    probably our best weapon in the short term.

  24. All greenies should be forced to grow all their food them selves (no animals allowed) and should not be allowed to import or buy or trade any other product for their subsistence – then they would quickly go extinct I think. The problem with the green movement is that they are so dependent on the rest of us to survive. E.g. how did they travel to Copenhagen? By swimming? because they would certainly not chop down a tree to build boats? They are all hypocrites in one way or the other.

  25. JonesII (06:36:25) :

    ” “and most modest warming scenarios win the debate for adaptation over mitigation..”
    Still believing in “modest warming” while surrounded or interred by snow and ice?”

    The advantage of adaptation is that it will help whether there is modest warming or not and pushing an adaptation agenda is still possible for people who are too embarrassed to admit that they drank the kool-aid. As a pragmatist, I am pushing this with most of my (warmist) colleagues to keep them talking – if you just tell them they are wrong, you lose a lot of the audience….. (trying to write a smiley face here – unsuccessfully for some reason!)

  26. As an Alumni of the University of Texas, with my degree in Economics… I gotta say a big hoorah for my school!

    Glad there’s something to celebrate after our loss last night, might be time to reply to those alumni newsletters I keep getting :D

    I’m trying to recall if I studied under Foss… I don’t think so but I can say that the Economics Department there is top notch with lots of good, realistic folks. Strangely enough for a very liberal college (a lot of people call it the Berkley of Texas), the Economics Department was very even-handed… unlike many of the other Departments, in particular Government/PoliSci and History.

    Hook Em Dr. Foss!

  27. This is an excellent article, as have been the majority of updated information this website provides on Climategate. However, I have just one minor issue with this sentence: “The times are changing in the wake of Climategate,” because you’re linking to Wikipedia from the keyword “Climategate.”

    Personally, having followed the scandal closely since November, Wikipedia is the last source you should be linking to as a reference on Climategate. Instead, I’d recommend linking to Conservapedia’s Climategate page, here: http://conservapedia.com/Climategate

    It’s a much better, factual source than what you’ll treat readers with if linking to Wikipedia’s page. It’s just a suggestion, but I’m sure if you read through Conservapedia’s article it’ll become clear why I’m making this recommendation. Hope this helps and keep up the great work!

  28. Strangely enough for a very liberal college (a lot of people call it the Berkley of Texas), the Economics Department was very even-handed… unlike many of the other Departments, in particular Government/PoliSci and History.

    Sounds a lot like U. Chicago. My alma matter and #2 son’s school as well. He far eclipsed me. I dropped out. He graduated with honors.

  29. Master Resource provides another exellent read . Of particular interest are the links in the right hand side bar – if you want to know how weasley JR is just check it out . Ditto for Erlich , Holdren and Krugman . While not of MR’s articles hold mt interest , I visit almost daily and recommend it to all regular readers of WUWT .

  30. And all the while we sceptics point out the disgrace of Climategate and the barefaced lies put out by such con men as the CE of the UK Met Office and Al Gore. What do we hear from those that matter, eg. Barak Obama, Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband, David Cameron, Greg Clark (Ed Miliban’s shadow), and just about every other world leader and influential politician? “Global Warming is real,the science is settled, look for and punish the Climategate hacker/whistle blower, CO2 is a pollutant, tax carbon etc., etc.”

    Until just one of the great and the good breaks ranks, I am afraid we are just p*****g in the wind.

  31. The AGW narrative took 30 years to really get going and although it will probably die off more quickly than that, it will take a lot longer than some commentators seem to think, and it will take more than a few science wonks poring over some leaked emails to do it. This nonsense is so deeply embedded that politicians don’t even pause to think before automatically invoking AGW. For example, just today we see this BBC item: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/8447314.stm

    The relevant snippet that made me laugh like a horse was our future Prime Minister referring to the current cold spell saying, “[…]we are going to see more extreme weather events and we have to prepare for them better.”

    There is nothing warming can’t do, including causing unprecedentedly cold winters (like those of 1981, 1963, and 1947 and…oh, wait, those are precedents…)

  32. This isn’t strictly on topic, but I have been wondering if anyone knows the literature well enough to confirm whether there exists a paper proving that the amount of CO2 that we currently have could cause the observed warming. If they’ve been working at this for 30 years or more they should be able to produce such a paper, right? The fact that we’re still having (or are now starting) a debate suggests that they do not have such a paper and are working other angles.

  33. Thursday, January 7th, the U.K. Daily Telegraph carried the following short article:

    BBC to review ‘biased’ science coverage claims

    By Urmee Khan

    The BBC Trust is to launch an investigation into allegations of bias in its science coverage.

    The BBC has been criticised for its science reporting and accused of failing to cover the climate change debate objectively. The corporation came under fire in November, after Paul Hudson, a BBC weather presenter and climate change expert, admitted he knew about the leaked climate change emails from the University of East Anglia a month before the story broke. The messages indicated that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining.

    Some critics have said the trust is not in a position to conduct the review because it is too close to the corporation. A trust spokesman said the review would be independent of the trust and would “take an in-depth look” at BBC science coverage.

    End of Daily Telegraph article.

    So we might be getting somewhere with the BBC as well. Keep complaining.

  34. Makes me so proud of my father who has stuck to his guns for more than 30 years, despite all the lies and misinformation on the net about him. I had a customer tell me the other day that she looked my father up on the net and came to the conclusion that he was right about all of it. She recognized the ad homs and the fact that they did not attack the science, but attacked the man. She also went on to add that no one in her office (a very large firm) believed in global warming. She had heard nothing about climategate, so I suggested she google it, and also that she check WUWT?. It was all I said. She was bright enough to recognize and made mention of the fact that I tried in no way to convince her of my views, but was allowing her to make up her own mind. Gives me hope for sanity to prevail.

  35. “Thanks to the four-part expose by the Breakthrough Institute.”

    Got a link for that 4th part? I found only three.

  36. There are four elements that come together to challenge the AGW hysteria

    1. Climategate – the emails which revealed the biased mindset of the Michael Mann and his friends

    2. Climategate – the data which revealed the biased tampering of the raw data to make the results to produce the “science” that underlies AGW hysteria.

    3. The Weather – which is experienced by us all and simply does not match the pattern predicted by the AGW “pseudoscience”

    4. IPPCgate – which is the corrupt politics at the top of the IPCC that is promoting the AGW hysteria to make money for Pachauri wearing his other hat as head of TERI. TERI helps banks to invest in green solutions and carbon trading. This is the newest element and it is due to receive a big boost this weekend when the Sunday Telegraph publishes Richard North’s allegation against Pachauri and his crowd.

    Can I recommend any of you who enjoy jigsaws that you can have a lot of entertainment helping Richard look for the various pieces and help him fit it all together. We have threads where we all work as one team on eureferendum.blogspot.com and it is possible for you to make a contribution to ending the nightmare of AGW pseudoscience hysteria.

  37. Your editorial concludes, “It is also important not to let one set of purloined e-mail messages undermine the science and the clear case for action, in Washington and in Copenhagen.”

    It is important not to let one set of intruders in an obscure office in the Watergate development undermine the important tasks ahead in the Nixon reelection.

  38. Bill S. “This isn’t strictly on topic, but I have been wondering if anyone knows the literature well enough to confirm whether there exists a paper proving that the amount of CO2 that we currently have could cause the observed warming.”

    No there isn’t and that’s why so many scientists and engineers are sceptics. The reasoning we have from the alarmists is that it’s getting warmer (we all agree, maybe the extent of the warming is in doubt but the world is getting warmer, it should be we’ve just left a little ice-age), the CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, we can find no other reason why it’s getting warmer, so it must be the CO2. That, Bill, isn’t science, it’s soothsaying.

    Historical records cannot find any relationship between the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature, except of course CO2 rises around 1000 years after a temperature rise.

    I’t scientific bunkum, they could indeed be correct but not scientifically it would still be soothsaying.

  39. “Stefan (07:48:00) :
    […]
    I guess that there are also other types, but they’re in a small minority. There are some true environmentalists who don’t care whether something involves high technology or not, whether it involves eating more meat or learning to meditate, but who just want whatever works. But I’m guessing they’re kinda a minority. Still, as greenie culture is 50 years old already, that minority will grow over time.”

    Natural selection. The vegans will always have a tough time reproducing.

  40. The basic radiative precept of AGW is a strictly theoretical notion not subject to experiment. Thus “climatologists” had only two options, neither of which is science:
    (1) build computer models to attempt to simulate the world climate system and see if they produce warming; (2) examine huge amounts of global temperature data and try to tease a trend out of the noise.
    I’ve constructed complex computer models and know full well that I can get any result I want; that’s just what the climatologists did. They started with the conclusion that there was warming and tweaked the models until they agreed. They also used novel (to say the least) methodologies to produce historical temperatures that conflict with history. Did they know that they were no longer doing science? Yes, they obviously did, based on their deliberate subversion of the peer review process and their vilification of everyone who disagreed. They HAD to do this, since they knew their results were non-scientific, would never stand up to full scrutiny, and conflated correlation with causation. The result is Climategate. Science is dead; let us never forget who killed it.

  41. Roger (07:46:11) :

    Henry Chance

    Three attempts to measure the average temperature of a small triangle of England over a six/seven day period produce a discrepancy of -1.5C and yet we are asked to believe that they can measure the whole globe over a 100 year period and produce an irrefutable temperature rise of 0.7C
    How can this be?
    Well, the odd one out is the Hadley Centre, employing 200 persons in Exeter and funded by our apostolic warmist government through departments DEFRA and the Ministry of Defence.

    Known in the ‘trade’ as DEFRA and blindra

  42. David Ball (11:02:29) :

    Makes me so proud of my father who has stuck to his guns for more than 30 years, despite all the lies and misinformation on the net about him.

    And proud you should be. I recall once Steve McIntyre advised Tim to step out of the political debate (regarding see oh two as I recall) since it would not do him any good (I don’t remember the actual context). Steve, of all people, who has done more to wreck the “consensus” than anybody else (Ross as an accomplice, but only because he is not as active). Your father has been a beacon of light in an otherwise dark realm.

    Mark

  43. Susan C. (07:54:21) :

    I have seen this effect myself. I am co-author on a scientific paper. A final draft was sent around for comments before being sent off to a journal for review. Climategate gave me the courage, born of outrage, to insist that the sentences which made gratuitous connections to global warming be removed as irrelevant

    —…—

    Thank you!

  44. Peer-to-Peer Review: How ‘Climategate’ Marks the Maturing of a New Science Movement, Part I

    Posted by Patrick Courrielche Jan 8th 2010

    How a tiny blog and a collective of climate enthusiasts broke the biggest story in the history of global warming science – but not without a gatekeeper of the climate establishment trying to halt its proliferation.

    It was triggered at the most unlikely of places. Not in the pages of a prominent science publication, or by an experienced muckraker. It was triggered at a tiny blog – a bit down the list of popular skeptic sites. With a small group of followers, a blog of this size could only start a media firestorm if seeded with just the right morsel of information, and found by just the right people. Yet it was at this location that the most lethal weapon against the global warming establishment was unleashed.

    http://bigjournalism.com/pcourrielche/2010/01/08/peer-to-peer-review-how-climategate-marks-the-maturing-of-a-new-science-movement-part-i/

    Now, as expected, the virtual organism that is the global warming establishment resisted release of the weapon. At the first appearance of the Climategate files, which contained a plethora of emails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, the virtual organism moved to halt their promulgation. Early on, a few of the emails were posted on Lucia Liljegren’s skeptic blog The Blackboard. Shortly after the post, Lucia, a PhD and specialist in fluid mechanics, received an email from prominent climatologist Gavin Schmidt from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). It said in part, “[A] word to the wise… I don’t think that bloggers are shielded under any press shield laws and so, if I were you, I would not post any content, nor allow anyone else to do so.”

    In response to my inquiry about his email, Schmidt posited, “I was initially concerned that she might be in legal jeopardy in posting the stolen emails.” Gavin Schmidt was included in over 120 of the leaked correspondence.

    When asked if she thought the Climategate documents were a big deal at first sight, Lucia responded, “Yes. In fact, I was even more sure after Gavin [Schmidt] sent me his note.”

    Remember these names: Steven Mosher, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Jeff “Id” Condon, Lucia Liljegren, and Anthony Watts. These, and their community of blog commenters, are the global warming contrarians that formed the peer-to-peer review network and helped bring chaos to Copenhagen – critically wounding the prospects of cap-and-trade legislation in the process. One may have even played the instrumental role of first placing the leaked files on the Internet.

    This group can be thought of as the first cousins to Andrew Breitbart’s collective of BIG websites – obsessively curious, grassroots investigators that provide vision to the establishment’s blind eye. Peer-to-peer review is the scientific version of the undernews.

    To fully understand how this amorphous body came about, one has to press rewind – back to the introduction of the now famous “hockey stick” graph, and how this iconic image inadvertently gave birth to this group.

    (Read it all)

    Reply: I already scheduled this article for publishing tomorrow so you don’t get a hat tip. ~ charles the moderator

  45. Well it is going to take more than courage in the media.

    You have all these Universities, and their tenured professors, who are counting on retiring on the tuition fees of generations of new mushheads that they can indoctrinate into the cult of “Climatology”.

    Some of them will be “mathematicians” who will seek to find just that precise value for a set of parameters to do a regression analysis, on some input data, presumably gleaned from some observational sites, that will suddenly cause a nice straight line graph to pop out of a plot of:-
    Tav vs log (CO2)

    We have some input data for such a graph going back to the Precambrian, and covering a CO2 range up to 8000 ppm, and down to todays miniscule levels; and if that’s a logarithmic function, then I’ll eat my hat; and I have a whole bunch of hats.

    Just for laughs, I hauled out my Andy Grove (fmr Pres Intel Corp) “Physics, and Technology of Semiconductor Devices.”

    It’s one of the classic text books of Silicon Valley, by one of its most recognized experts. I learned the subject at his knee, at Fairchild Semiconductor in 1967.

    In the chapter on p-n junctions, Grove derives the accepted formula for the Voltage versus Current in a semiconductor diode, and then publishes measured curves for real diodes, for a variety of semiconductor materials such as Germanium, Slicon, and Gallium Arsenide. He shows that the current is composed of a diffusion current, and a recombination current, and follows the formula:-
    If = a.e^[q.Vf/m.k.T} Here q is the electron charge, k is Boltzmann’s constant, T the temperature (Kelvins) and m is 1 for diffusion current, or 2 for recombination current. Recombination current dominates at very low currents (pA), and recombination current at higher levels (mA) for typical signal diodes.
    In Ga As diodes for example, recombination current dominates over most of the useful range, and the If-Vf curve follows the above formula accurately from 1pA to 10 microAmps at 25-50 deg C temperature ranges.
    THAT IS A LOGARITHMIC RELATIONSHIP THAT IS ACCURATE OVER SEVEN DECADES.
    Silicon and Germanium are progrssively less well behaved, but Si is logarithmic at m = 1 from about 1 uA to 10 mA, which is still four decades. Higher bandgap materials may be even better behaved.

    The point is that SOME physical processes truly are logarithmic relationships (same as exponential backwards).

    So Dr Steven Schneider’s assertion of a logarithmic relationship for CO2 and Temperature should be a piece of cake, since the extreme range of CO2 values since the Cambrian is something less than 60; not even two orders of magnitude.

    Well save your breath; the available data for that relationship, is not even remotely a straight line over that range or even the 20:1 range from today’s value for CO2.

    Well, within the range on human instrumented measurements of CO2, we pretty much have the range from 280 ppm up to 390ppm; almost 1.4 : 1 range.

    So maybe its logarithmic over that restricted range of CO2 values. Wow !, now we don’t even have one order of magnitude, let alone seven; we don’t even have a single ocatve, which wpould demonstrate the IPCC’s hallowed value of 3 deg C; or is it 3.6; well it could be between as low as 1.2 and as high as 10 they say when their 3:1 GCM fudge factor is thrown in.
    Hey it is almost half an octave range; surely that’s enough to prove a logarithmic relationship.

    Well unfortunately the relationship observed is not even monotonic; and given that ln(1 + x) can be expanded as x -x^2 /2 + x^3 /3 etc, the first error term, never exceeds 8%, and the third is 2% and either one of those is much less error than is in the raw data.

    So the observed data, is just as likely to be perfectly linear, as it is to be logarithmic.

    So even empirically; the mathematical foundation for Schneider’s “Climate Sensitivity” is a complete joke; and becomes a riot, if you search for a physical causality for such a logarithmic relationship.

    Yet the adherents to the current dogma of climatology scoff at those who don’t follow their methodology. Well you have to learn the rules; and the secret handshake, before you are competent to comment on their regression analyses.

    Well actually the rules of science haven’t changed. The burden of proof for any science theory, rests on the proponents; not on the skeptics.

    So the real courage, is whether this entrenched religion, is ready to toss the whole trappings, and return to the rational world, where the theory has to follow the observations, and not the other way round.

  46. Peter Stroud (10:01:43) :

    “And all the while we sceptics point out the disgrace of Climategate and the barefaced lies put out by such con men as the CE of the UK Met Office and Al Gore. What do we hear from those that matter…

    Until just one of the great and the good breaks ranks, I am afraid we are just p*****g in the wind.”

    Start campaigning for a reasonable politician and hope like heck for a really bad snowstorm a week or two before the election. Sort of an Al Gore effect on the greenie candidates

  47. Mark T (13:30:23) :

    “David Ball (11:02:29) :

    Makes me so proud of my father who has stuck to his guns for more than 30 years, despite all the lies and misinformation on the net about him.

    And proud you should be….

    Thank your Father for his courage. I always enjoy reading his articles. It is nice to see there are still a few leaders left in this world.

  48. David Ball,

    What a pleasure to see your comment – I’ve been reading your father’s articles for some time now. I always look forward to a new one from him.

    I haven’t seen the video yet – I’ve had it open in a tab waiting for my husband to have the time to watch with me.

    I already started reading bigjournalism yesterday as I knew it was being set up but hadn’t looked today yet (came here first) – now I’m even more impressed that they already have an article about us – if I may be so presumptuous as to include myself in the commenters acknowledgment, rare though that is. I’d like to see all the sites get a mention with time. And I was pleased that Jeff Id’s Air Vent was mentioned by name, as several articles about how it all started have not.

    I consider myself a lucky one who saw the comment at Jeff Id’s while he was gone – not only did I not have the time just then but felt it was way beyond my competency to dare to open it but waited with bated breath for what would come from it – feeling that history was in the making.

    While I can’t contribute – at least not yet – at least I feel good about the role I can have in not only learning but also letting others know that there are places like this (just when I thought I was driving people crazy in Facebook, I got a thanks from someone I thought was totally resistant!).

    Re bigjournalism – did they coin the term peer-to-peer or has that already been used? Great term!

  49. I am glad that WUWT published this piece to get MasterResource links to a wider audience.

    Yes, the Wiki link is probably weak–we need to keep working for balance there.

    Michelle Foss is not a UT-Austin professor but head of a UT energy program here in Houston, Texas. Wish there were professors like her, however.

    Best wishes to all,

    Rob Bradley

  50. It was triggered at the most unlikely of places. Not in the pages of a prominent science publication, or by an experienced muckraker.

    I remember the evening and night when the story broke. I remember the first confirmation of the accuracy of the e-mails. I blogged it as soon as I had read the first news at WUWT. I stayed up all night to keep on top of the story. (no hardship I normally keep programmers hours) What fun. The logjam had finally been broken. The great ship of the the Climate Cabal had been holed below the water line. What was once circumstantial evidence was now open fact.

    Over time it is my hope that scepticism will be restored to its proper place in science. Because skepticism is the essence of science.

  51. A heartfelt thank you to all who responded to my post. There are a couple of things in the works that will please all those who question the validity of ACC. One may turn out to be VERY big. Keep reading, ….. Dave

  52. Hmm, just thought I would post this, from the Farmers Almanac forum.

    his is just my observation (Nothing official, & I may be mistaken completely, just to keep in Mind). HOWEVER, I saw something today that really got me angry if it is indeed true, well, its sick, if that happens to be the case.
    I Keep track & save Data files from NOAA/CPC. As some of you may know, the Current El Nino Fell Very Weak in Fall, (It was actually below +0.5F for a time, which is technically not a nino according to them). When I went to check the Latest Official Update, the so called “official” Data from portions of the Fall had been Changed, & had the Temerature & Strength of the Nino RISEN, for that matter. The reason I know this is because I record this data, & when I saw the change, In my View, from what I know, I got the feeling NOAA was trying to sneak something in. I may be wrong, but I , at least, want an explanation for the change, as there should be no change to “official” data unless a statement is released informing of the impending change. I’ll make a request for an explanation, as best I can. But IMO, seeing how folks just make up numbers these days is driving me off the edge! Any Thoughts/Comments?

    http://www.farmersalmanac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1133

  53. God bless Tim Ball, and his son David who has graced us with his post today. Keep fighting the good fight, both of you. But I know (probably because Tim is Canadian) that he confused Obama science advisor John Holdren with Attorney General Eric Holder in the YouTube video. But that is okay, both Holder and Holdren probably share the same twisted mind on this subject and both of them are charlatans who need to be thrown out of their offices.

  54. This article is spot on. One does not have to look very hard on the internet to see the difference in tone from many experts and the commenting public. There has been a fundamental shift in how everyone processes the AGW propaganda.

    It’s also about timing. Everything in life is about timing and history is littered with such examples. We’ve witnessed some very coincidental events that have combined to work against and halt the AGW momentum.

    Not only was there a global decrease in temperatures over the last decade, but the worldwide economic downturn has created an atmosphere less sympathetic to the any over-the-top environmental regulations and taxation. 2009 seemed to usher in more counter AGW research and more groups speaking out against the “consensus” agenda. Then Climate Gate occurred and a flurry of resultant negative events leading into Copenhagen which seemed doomed from the beginning, but certainly fell apart for many of these same reasons listed within.

    And now a weather-not-climate cold spell to usher in the New Year and remind us that being cold is, well, not really cool [pun – couldn’t resist]. It’s a perfect storm to derail AGW – with a little courage as noted.

  55. Even the magazine “Popular Mechanics” has boarded the AGW bus. I had to double check the February, 2009 issue to make sure it wasn’t by some chance “Popular Science”, which has long been kowtowing to the “hockey team”.

  56. David Ball (21:31:50) :

    David, I’d just like to join with the others in wishing the very best to you and your distinguished father. When the history of this sorry tale is finally written we can be sure that your father – and the others, such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy and Steve McIntyre – will have a place of honour.

    I’m nearly at retirement age. A year ago my passionate wish was that I would see the tide turning in my lifetime. But who could have imagined what happened towards the end of 2009?

    Just another indication of how the tide may be turning: a report in the Daily Telegraph, whose coverage in the past has been relentlessly biased and one-sided. The heading: “Plant gene to fight climate change”.

    In most WUWT readers the obvious thought will be “Here we go again”. But not a bit of it. This report suggests the (ominous) possibility of extended global cooling, as the development could be used to protect plants in lower temperatures. Here’s the report:

    “British scientists have discovered a technique that affects how plants react to temperatures, leading to the prospect of crops resistant to climate change.
    Tests on a mustard seed plant at the John Innes Centre in Norwich suggested that the gene that triggered growth in warmer months could be manipulated in a way that made the plant grow even when the temperature was very low”.

  57. Oliver K. Manuel (08:03:40) :

    Whether or not they believe Al Gore is the primary perpetrator, a lawsuit would help us get to the bottom of an intriguing mess that involves leaders of many different countries and organizations, such as Nobel Laureates Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri of the UN’s IPCC, Former Vice-President Al Gore, Norway’s Nobel Prize Committee, NASA, NAS and literally armies of consensus scientists.”

    And don’t forget the Culinary Institute of America! The wacos behind the whole gambit.

  58. Larry (22:02:28) I thank you for the compliment. I would like to assure you that my father knows very well who John Holdren is. He watched as Holdren assassinated the character of Sallie Balliunas at Harvard. He was in communication with Soon and Baliunas at the time. Hopefully Sallie Baliunas returns to fight the good fight now that Climategate has revealed the devious intent of Mr. Holdren . Big shout out to the anti-humanists in the crowd. Go freedom of speech!!!

  59. David Ball:

    Your father is a hero. Those of us who value truth honour him. In years to come when the history of the AGW scare is studied then he will be recorded as a hero by posterity.

    Be proud. Be very proud.

    Richard

  60. I have failed to keep pace with developments over the Christmas break and the return of my son for a week of leave from Navy. I came upon this article, seeking understanding (and pleaseohplease encouragement) about how the debate had evolved.

    I find myself pleased and encouraged if this article does justice to the condition of things. The whistleblower and his CRUdities have had a lingering and evolving effect. Maybe we won’t end up as Zimbabwe after all!!

Comments are closed.