The Guardian hounds CRU with new reports

A series of events appears to be unfolding in the UK that provide for a serial story. As they say in the news biz “it has legs”.

Two more stories have emerged from the Guardian by Fred Pearce. They read like Climate Audit narratives rather than Guardian stories we’ve come to know in the past. In fact, Climate Audit is heavily cited, a first that I can recall.

Here are the two headlines:

click image for the source story

and this one….

click image for the source story

The Guardian is keeping up the pressure on UEA/CRU and Dr. Jones. It’s almost like a “death spiral” to borrow a phrase from Dr. Mark Serreze of NSIDC.

I would not be surprised if resignations are being considered.

h/t to Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum for links

UPDATE: It appears that the Guardian reporter has tipped his hand. WUWT commenter “dodgy geezer” writes:

…note this comment from the Guardian, explaining why they seem to be addressing the skeptical line for the first time. It seems they are building the story into a big ‘disproof’ of the skeptical position. Find it at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/yamal-data-climate-change-hacked-email?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Question – What is the purpose for publishing all these articles by Fred Pearce?

Many thanks for your comments and questions. The fall-out from the hacked UEA emails is the hottest story in climate science at the moment and a lot of claims about what they tell us have been flying around since they were made public in November.

The Guardian’s editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions, but that does not mean we are blind to contradictory evidence. It would be remiss of us journalistically to ignore a story like this where the actions of leading scientists are being seriously called into question.

We asked Fred to do a thorough investigation into some of the unanswered questions.

Is there evidence in the emails of data manipulation? Is there evidence of abuse of peer review and FOI? Is there evidence of “hiding” temperature declines? Is there evidence of fraud and conspiracy? etc etc

The answer to most of these questions turned out to be no. But it would be wrong of us not to have asked them. The aim of this investigation (which continues tomorrow) was to produce a more nuanced account of what went on behind the scenes of climate science than has appeared elsewhere. Some of it is not pretty, but significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged.

J Randerson

………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

It may be that Jones will be made the sacrifice for the FoI transgressions, so that they can get the bus back on the road.

Advertisements

103 thoughts on “The Guardian hounds CRU with new reports

  1. Fred Pearce is convinced that the withheld data does not undermine the science.
    I wonder if it has occurred to him that is exactly the reason the data was withheld?

  2. Bizarre, I had to do a double take when trolling over there. Similarly the Newsnight report of last night was equally surreal. Perhaps we are finally turning the corner on this AGW scam.

  3. The Guardian finally is doing honor to it’s name.
    Guarding the truth! The only way for our media to protect our freedom.
    Hopefully other media will see the light too.
    This process is inevitable and can not be stopped.
    Truth in a scientific process plays the same role as gravity on a flying object.
    What goes up, finally comes down.
    All fraudsters will be caught, it’s inevitable.

  4. Although it’s great they are finally not just drinking the Kool-Aid, it doesn’t seem too bad. Rather, the headlines appear to be more of the same old “Yeah, they withheld some data and were mean to sceptics, but the data itself is fine and climate change is real.” I was reminded of how real it all is last night when the global warming storm dropped almost 4 inches of climate change crystals instead of the flurries we were supposed to get. It is worse than we thought and the period of change has become as little as 24 hours!!!

  5. Think it’s time to reward the Guardian for being brave. I’ve pledged to buy at least one copy a day for all of next week.
    All are welcome to join me.

  6. No, the Guardian is NOT guarding the truth! Look down the list of comments for the Yamal piece, and you will find that this is a planned series which is intended to show that, though there are problems, the fundamental AGW science is sound. Here is a quote from one of the comments, apparently from a sub-editor called J Randerson:
    ………………………………………
    “The Guardian’s editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions, but that does not mean we are blind to contradictory evidence. It would be remiss of us journalistically to ignore a story like this where the actions of leading scientists are being seriously called into question.
    We asked Fred to do a thorough investigation into some of the unanswered questions.
    Is there evidence in the emails of data manipulation? Is there evidence of abuse of peer review and FOI? Is there evidence of “hiding” temperature declines? Is there evidence of fraud and conspiracy? etc etc
    The answer to most of these questions turned out to be no. But it would be wrong of us not to have asked them. The aim of this investigation (which continues tomorrow) was to produce a more nuanced account of what went on behind the scenes of climate science than has appeared elsewhere. Some of it is not pretty, but significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged…

  7. The Guardian wants Jones and others to go away quickly, so that they can get back on track pushing alarmism 24×7.

  8. Just imagine if Millikan had withheld his oil drop experiment data and stated that people should just believe him? Or Arthur Compton withholding his x-ray scattering data?
    Science is not proven science until independent scientist can reproduce the experimental results.
    Fed has only recently allowed himself to look at the other side. Give him time for this new information to sink in. I wonder what he will be writing in a month? 🙂
    Mike Ramsey

  9. Fred Pearce seems to be all about spinning this as some kind of “win-win” soft-controversy and using Steve McIntyre’s famous humility to do so. While Steve is correct in saying:
    “…the results do not in any way show that AGW [anthropogenic global warming] is a ‘fraud’, nor that this particular study was a ‘fraud’.”
    This is Steve using a cleverly silent tongue on what it does in fact say. You see, the spin being applied here is turning a deliberate and specific witholding of information from the public that led directly to IPCC conclusions lifted from the pages of magazines and tour guides is being deftly spun into something like, “oh, some scientists were less than open. but that’s ok because we caught it in time.”
    They didn’t catch it in time, no how, no way. The people who buy into that c**d are about to be disappointed again and again and again… We are witnessing a “total protonic reversal” (to make a movie reference) in the AGW debate. I predict that from here on out, the conversation will be dominated by questions pointed at the conclusions rather than the absurd mantra of “the science is settled”. This alone should be staggeringly humiliating to all the people who kept assuring us that the science was in fact settled while refusing to hear what anyone else had to say about it.
    The warmists have had their last say and they’ll be backpedaling forever because they have stoutly refused to look at their own methods with a wholly honest eye.

  10. Interesting juxtaposition of apostrophes from the first article

    to avoid the charge that “bogus science” was being “hidden”.
    ..
    I think it’s where you put the apostrophes defines whether you are a believer or a sceptic

  11. … what if anything would undermine the IPCC science?
    Well, since IPCC “science” is just pure religious faith mixed with politics: I would say nothing would undermine it in the eyes of the true believers. Nothing.

  12. omnologos (15:15:34) :
    It would be nice to ask all those reporters a simple question…in their own judgment, what if anything would undermine the IPCC science?

    Their Chief scientist?

  13. So, Ancient trees dragged from a Siberian bog don’t do anything to disprove the theory of AGW that is largely based on these trees?
    Who is the denier now?

  14. “the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged.”
    WOW. Perhaps this is the tact that the Roger Harrabin of the BBC will try to take. It is already clear that Richard Black is adopting this strategy.
    Token investigative journalism. Spoken with “authority” of the Guardian’s highly respected scientifically trained researchers.
    Admit that it ain’t pretty – however the blogs you see everywhere which claim these revelations are serious and undermine AGW are run by complete nutjobs and the skeptics who post there regularly are all paranoid schitzoid idiots.
    So please sheeple (err folks) move along now, as the science is absolutely rock solid: action to curb CO2 is “crucial for humanity’s future”!

  15. George Monbiot is smart (think otherwise at your peril!).
    He picked up on Climategate instantly, and immediately set the scene for Phil Jones to be the scapegoat.
    After PJ has gone, it will be business as usual, with enhanced teflon.
    omnologos asks the right question : in their own judgment, what if anything would undermine the IPCC science?

  16. The Guardian and the BBC are, at the end of the day, going to find that the allegations against the CRU and the IPCC are groundless. The problem is that the real issues of dispute and wrong doing are not being explained. Despite what many WUWT readers believe there is very little evidence that data is being manipulated. There is, though, plenty of evidence that dodgy reconstructions have been presented to show that the MWP was a non event. The messages are becoming blurred. Forget all the guff about GISS, HadCrut etc.
    Steve McIntyre should respond to any invitation from the Guardian or BBC to provide a piece which details the “trick”, it’s significance, and it’s relevance to the hockey stick.

  17. “The aim of this investigation (which continues tomorrow) was to produce a more nuanced account of what went on behind the scenes of climate science than has appeared elsewhere. Some of it is not pretty, but significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged.”
    The Guardian has NOT changed is position. Its another case of “we have the answer, now lets just go out and get the right sound bite to support our answer.”

  18. I don’t remotely believe that we are witnessing some Damascene conversion by the Guardian and certainly, absolutely, not by Fred Pearce … popes … bears etc. This is quite clear from their reiterated belief in AGW, even in these supposedly critical articles. You only have to look at this appalling piece from today’s issue (the Graun is supposed to be a serious newspaper) to see that:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/bbc-climate-change-denier
    This is the language of witch-hunting and the auto-da-fe. These are the people you’re dealing with.
    The motive has inevitably to be to find some means to get this locomotive back on the tracks by offloading the now weaker vessels but still holding onto the essentials. They have too much invested (in all sorts of ways) in their relationships with the pressure groups, the quangos, the deluded middle-class believers and, most importantly, with the government itself. They have no great reason to fear the new government after our election in relation to this issue: both likely candidates, Labour and Tory, are fully committed ideologically to AGW and are extremely unlikely to quibble at a devious (and now opportune) fix which permits the craziness to continue after dumping the Jonahs at CRU.
    On the other hand, the Grauniad *does have a very great deal to fear from the Tories because of the paper’s overall political stance and its fanatic attachment to NuLabour. Kissing Tory arse on AGW may be seen as a way to remain useful to the incoming bunch of warmists and as a damage limitation exercise which lets the paper stay in business when/if it loses its enormously lucrative government sponsorship.
    I for one am not getting overly happy about this. Beware. Be very, very careful, they will use and abuse their contacts with decent and honest sceptics to eventually defame and discredit them. If a contributor like Hundal in the article above can attack the BBC – the BBC ! for God’s sake – for being heretic lovers and deniers, don’t imagine the Guardian will treat sceptics as anything but an infestation that needs to be controlled and, preferably, silenced.

  19. PaulH (15:23:35) :
    What is the purpose of the glass sphere in the Gloomian (oops Guardian) photo of the Yamal weather station?
    REPLY: Its a Campbell-Stokes sunshine duration recorder – Anthony

    Ohhh. I thought it was the crystal ball they forecasted the weather with.

  20. Anthony,
    The Guardian and the BBC will work very closely together. The paper could almost be the house magazine for the BBC – all the BBC vacancies, for instance, are advertised solely in the Guardian. So I suspect they have been talking together ever since this story broke.
    They are in damage-limitation mode, and appear to have decided not to defend any individual scientist, but to defend the concept of AGW. So the scientists will have to fight their own battles – I daresay there are some ambitious juniors anxious to move up a grade if they go down, but at all times it will be emphasised that a few bad apples do not mean that the fundamental science is at fault.
    My son reckons that a good move might be for you to talk to some friendly competing journalists on a different paper, such as Brooker or Delingpole. They will be much more attuned to the politics in the UK and should be able to give useful advice.

  21. This merely heralds a shift in the MSM, from years of dismissing Sceptic claims about the Science, to attacking them, in a concerted attempt to defend the Science.
    They have gone off the dismissive and onto the defensive, at last.
    It’s about to get rather unpleasant.

  22. Not so sure about the Guardian’s machiavellistic behavior. Most readers only will see the HadCRU misconduct and IPCC science-gates that will stuck in the mind. Maybe the Gruadian overestimates it’s readers? It’ll be very difficult to get the bus back on track after all the turmoil. It’ll be on track but it will have lost 3 of it’s 4 wheels.
    If one reads the comments the skeptic views get the most recommands and are in the majority. If this is really Garudians aim, than probably they’ve shot themselves in the foot. Because it leaves the door open for all kinds of skeptical articles and analysis.

  23. John Beddington comment to the Guardian is a significant development:

    John Beddington urged scientists to share data freely even though some sceptics sought to cherry-pick facts to fit a ­political ­argument. He said:
    “Scepticism and criticism is the way science grows. Where at all possible, data and analyses should be available so that people can do the challenging in an unhindered way.”

    While the Guardian (Pearce and Monbiot) is still not clear on the meaning of sceptic, it is getting better. Claims of ‘fraud!’ and ‘hoax!’ ‘MASSIVE lie’ in the online media, claims based in part on McIntyre’s research – these are beyond scepticism. However, McIntyre has been careful to remained only sceptical – that is by criticising the science but withholding judgement on the overall AGW conclusion. This is why he has been just too dangerous to touch. But now, at this end of the week atleast, Pearce seems to give some recognition of the voice of the scientific sceptic behind all the shouting (A change from Monday?).
    In my view these actions by Beddington and Pearce will have a very positive influence on this debate, and on public practice of science generally. Now the science may have a chance – a licence – to work itself out, and if the cause for AGW alarmism is found to be dubious there is a good chance that this will now emerge into the public arena.
    Sure we are angry, and we want to blame and convict, but it is not for Beddington or Pearce to present the case against AGW, it is only for these gate-keepers to open the gate and permit the debate. Given they are who they are, can we ask any more?

  24. “Some of it is not pretty, but significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged.”
    This is the same punch line when climate gate broke “the science is not pretty, its ugly but it does not undermine the theory of global warming.”
    This is a twist of logic and a distraction. Science is either correct or incorrect. I don’t care if Phil Jones is nasty personally, though he likely is. [snip]
    My concern is, where is the raw data? Why should we trust the adjusted(manufactured) data? What is the logic behind this? The media ignores the science but at the same time claims science supports AGW. The typical message the media preaches goes something like “don’t be afraid of science/trust the scientists”, and of course most ignorant people don’t want to be on the dumb side. Afraid of science=stupid.
    When has the media ever truly debated the science of GW? Why won’t these “champions” of science do so?

  25. “Anyone who thinks the Guardian is coming around needs to read this piece by Pierce the other day,
    How the ‘climategate’ scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics’ lies
    FYI Mr. Pearce, George Will is an “intellectual” – George F. Will, Ph.D. Political Science.”
    People like Pearce and Monbiot still underestimate the readers. One cannot claim one thing today and another thing tomorrow. Readers won’t buy this, read the comments (Pearce and Monbiot do that fersure) and eventually both will revert to a moderate, middle of the road approach of Climate Science.

  26. I’m paraphrasing J Brignall here
    You are a scientist, you discover a catastrophe about to happen, do you…

    1) Ignore it?
    2) Announce from the rooftops that the catastrophe is about to happen & release all your data & methods so that everyone can see the coming apocalypse?
    3) Announce from the rooftops that the catastrophe is about to happen but refuse to release tour data on the grounds of intellectual property rights?

    DaveE.

  27. OMG. How stupid do they think people are?
    We looked around for some bogus science to
    hide, but there wasn’t any, so we had to hide
    the good science. It’s not the science that’s
    going to destroy these people, it’s their own
    arrogance.

  28. In the end, I don’t think it much matters what the Guardian or their ilk say or don’t say. Twenty years ago, sure. But today we have this thing called the internet and people are free to dig up information on their own without gatekeepers controlling the flow of information. The emails from CRU came out last fall with no help from the traditional media and in a few short months decades of “settled science” have been completely unsettled in the court of public opinion.
    The Guardian is now just reacting to what has become obvious to anyone, scientist or not, with a modicum of common sense and they are no longer in the position of power they used to enjoy. I get much more information and factual data in places like this from posters and commenters than from newspaper columnists.

  29. Pearce says that Briffa was not guilty of wrongdoing in the way that his data was used and then concludes that no one was guilty of wrongdoing. That logic does not work. Pearce seems correct to say that Briffa is innocent in the matter, and I do not think the point is worth an investigation. But Jones and Mann are shoulder deep in guilt in this matter. Is it not true that Briffa’s tree ring data showed a decline in temperature after 1960 or so but thermometer data showed an increase in temperature. The “trick” to handle this problem was simply to replace the tree-ring curve with the thermometer curve after 1960. This is “hiding the decline.” What the hidden decline would have shown is that there is 50 years of evidence that tree-ring data is not a reliable proxy for temperature. That would have required dropping all tree-ring data from the reconstructions. So, Briffa might be innocent but Jones and Mann are guilty of brute fraud. I cannot believe that Pearce does not understand these points. It looks to me that he is misdirecting the public to protect the Climategaters.

  30. the Guardian is just covering it’s arse, now it can say it gave “equal time” to the skeptic side. scientists will take the fall. soon?

  31. I think this is about damage control. A few bodies will get thrown under the bus.
    Some new ‘transparency rules’ will be put into place.

  32. I thought these articles were better:
    Climate scientists have long been targets for sceptics:Attacks designed to force researchers to resign or get fired is nothing new – the denialist industry has been at it for years
    How the ‘climategate’ scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics’ lies:Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation
    REPLY: I suppose the photo of flames used with this caption
    Kevin Trenberth suffered abuse for publicly linking global warming to Hurricane Katrina. Photograph: Michael Appleton/AP
    Doesn’t bother your cowardly hide and snipe world view there deechy?

  33. Yes, it seems that the new Guardian position is a typical political set up move. They’ll admit that some scientists may have done unsavory things, although not impacting the science itself. Then, once those scientists get “resigned” from their positions, everything will be all ok again and the Guardian returns to business (alarmism) as usual.
    My take is that even this is a net good thing for skeptics. The Guardian is still prominently featuring the term “Climategate” and the more they do that, the more readers will get curious and hit Google, ultimately finding the truth elsewhere.
    It’s a bit like that quote attributed to Gandhi that goes something like: “First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then they lose”. I think the Guardian is shifting modes from “Ignore/Mock” and is setting the stage to go into “Fight” (once the movement has rid itself of a few inconvenient scientists/railway engineers). That’s a very good thing.

  34. >>>What is a decline?
    For those not familiar with this saga, here is a potted history.
    The Yamal tree rings gave a temperature proxy that was pretty steady, but actually went down for the last 50 or so years up until year 2000.
    This is the decline.
    But the decline did not agree with Al Gore’s super-warming hockey-stick, supposedly recorded by land-based thermometers. So the decline in the Yamal proxy temperatures had to be hidden.
    This was done by removing most of the steady and declining temperatures (tree-rings) and relying on YAD061 – the one and only tree that showed lots and lots of ‘warming’. (Actually, this tree’s big brother probably blew down in a storm, and let 061 grow strongly for once. Tree-rings are not actually very good temperature proxies, as there are many other variables involved).
    So why worry about tree-ring proxies anyway? Why not use real temperatures??
    Answer – the Yamal tree-ring proxies also managed to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period. How can you have scare stories about AGW caused by 4×4 pickups (UTEs, in OZ), if they had the same warming back in the days of horse and cart (is a horse a 4×4?).
    That is why Yamal was important, and that is why they had to — all sing along now — “Hide the Decline – hide the decline”.

    .

  35. I think the point is that the scientists are in shock at being questioned. The interesting thing will be more how the scientific journals respond – will they tighten the review process and so the science starts to improve. The policiticians can hardly back down overnight. If good reviews were in place most of this stuff would not have made it into the journals in the first place. Hopefully the politicians will back down to cost effective c02 reduction. More sceptical papers will make it into the press. The next UN report will know it risks being torn apart for poor citations. Institutions like NASA and CRU and IPCC are only of use to governments if their statements are taken as being scientifically plausible. The damage they do to these institutions by carrying on like this will eventually make them hollow shells. The credibility they are losing here is incredibly difficult to get back, unless they start coming back with a proper scientific defence soon. From what I recall from the conversion is that it the sceptics case gives you the reference points to question every news article on the subject. If they don’t lose their jobs the reputations of the institutions are damaged. If they do, the other scientists are scared of over-representing the facts enough to lose their jobs. Their best bet really is to back off the expensive measures and wait for the media attention to die down. The problem for them appears to be that they have hordes of believers who are pushing them to act, and a rather expensive gravy train which is becoming more difficult to justify.

  36. The public perception is pretty straightforward. If it stays cold they will more and more ignore the Jeremiahs of Global Warming. If it turns hot again it will continue to have legs for a little longer.
    It was interesting to read comments on an Australian board the other day. Lots of AGW supporters there still in numbers you don’t seem to find anywhere else. But of course it is in the middle of summer in a warm/hot climate there. It is so much easier to be an AGW believer in an Australian summer than it is in an American or European winter.
    Another cool summer followed by another harsh or harsher winter will really knock this on the head. A hot summer and a mild winter will let it drag on for a while longer. What we might see this year is complete debunking of the ‘ice caps are melting’ story which is at the moment generally accepted and one of the main sound bites of AGW supporters who know little else.
    I wonder what the UK Met Office will forecast for the coming summer. I wonder if they dare forecast another BBQ Summer?

  37. Maybe the Science that supports CAGW is correct, maybe it’s uncertain and, perhaps, it is way off target.
    Time will judge.
    For the moment, we can only live in the present. If the Guardian and RH of the BBC are willing to ask questions that were unthinkable, for them, just a few weeks ago, then why should we attack them?
    As Anthony said earlier, let us build a bridge that joins, more than it divides!
    I agree with that.
    Fact, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact, mankinds activities create GH gases.
    Fact, we warm the planet.
    Fact, most , after that, are worthy of debate.
    Admission, I’m really happy that RH of the BBC and the Guardian newspaper have joined the debate.
    Forget about motives because that is speculative and adds nothing, other than bad blood, to the narrative!
    Jaw, Jaw, Jaw. Better than War, War, War.

  38. Ralph (16:54:03),
    Good explanation of "hide the decline."
    Here is the single tree that Briffa used to create his hokey stick: click
    Without that one tree [YAD061], there is no hockey stick. These graphs show the difference: click
    Fred Pierce and the Guardian are lying. QED

  39. John Finn (15:48:26) :
    You can’t be following along and be serious about the below:
    “Despite what many WUWT readers believe there is very little evidence that data is being manipulated. There is, though, plenty of evidence that dodgy reconstructions have been presented to show that the MWP was a non event.”
    Your second sentence invalidates your first.
    Here are some ways the data has been manipulated:
    1. forcing behavior in the Fortran programs
    2. “losing” all but the massaged data, and passing the massaged data along to other researchers
    3. cherry picking which stations to use to compute site temperatures which are used to interpolate missing data points between the cherry picked sites
    4. cherry picking which trees from the Yamal cores would be used, and mixing those with tree cores from 400 km away
    5. showing an upward trend in temperatures in the NZ temp record that the publicly available data doesn’t show
    6. ignoring the ice core data that shows rising temps precede CO2 increases by as much as 800 yrs
    7. ignoring Argo buoy data that shows the oceans have lost energy
    etc etc etc
    Until all the data is made freely available, the Fortran programs made available, the assumptions made available, and until others are able to reconstruct the results, the belief has to be that manipulation has occurred.
    What other branch of science would allow the so-called elite to behave in such a manner? None, of course. None.
    Remember, the “results” from these scientists are used as inputs for the others studying climate change. The data manipulation is huge.

  40. @RichieP (15:51:21) :
    “I don’t remotely believe that we are witnessing some Damascene conversion by the Guardian … You only have to look at this appalling piece from today’s issue (the Graun is supposed to be a serious newspaper) to see that:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/bbc-climate-change-denier
    This is the language of witch-hunting and the auto-da-fe. These are the people you’re dealing with.”
    The reference above, for people who do not want to go there, is a fairly incoherent rage against the BBC by a Guardian journalist for daring to have a skeptic on a program. Obviously over the top and unjustified.
    I strongly suspect that this is part of the ‘misinformation process’ and that the piece was commissioned by the BBC themselves. They need to appear balanced – it’s in their charter – and they obviously aren’t. If they commission a friendly newspaper to ‘attack’ them, they can point to the piece and say “We must be balanced – look, here we are being attacked for being pro-skeptic…”.
    This is the sort of game we are starting to enter. The Brits used to be very good at this sort of thing – probably world leaders during WW2. I suspect they are less good at the moment, but I would not underestimate them….

  41. Smokey 17.07
    Fred Pierce. (its Pearce btw). May be lying, but he must be watching this site, (also his editors) and realise that the consensus is not what it is claimed by the IPCC. They know how many people log onto sites like this, and how many people log onto their own site. So maybe they are trying to follow the peoples opinions in order to improve circulation??
    Just a thought.

  42. Smokey (17:07:30) :
    Ralph (16:54:03),
    Good explanation of “hide the decline.”
    Here is the single tree that Briffa used to create his hokey stick: click
    Without that one tree [YAD061], there is no hockey stick. These graphs show the difference: click
    Fred Pierce and the Guardian are lying. QED
    Smokey, as much as I recognize your intelligence (and I do) your attribution of malfeisance may be faulty.
    I think that Fred and his paper are sincere. I also believe that they have been misled. I suspect that they are re-assessing their sources.
    Sorry Smokey but I think that they fall into the slot of victims not liars!

  43. Dodgy Geezer 17:16:04
    I just read the article and don’t know how to respond??
    What the hell planet is that man on???
    The BBC is pushing anti AGW.??? I’ll have to have a while to think on that. Its sad, so sad. I may have to go to bed and sleep on it.

  44. Mike U.K. (17:27:17),
    Thanks for the correction on Fred Pearce’s name. I wouldn’t want him to think I was referring to anyone else.
    This site alone [WUWT] is fast approaching 35 million hits, and there are many, many more sites skeptical of the IPCC, the CRU, NASA, NOAA, and their paid sycophants.
    Word of their shenanigans is getting out. Sooner or later they’re going to have to admit they made up the data as they went along. And as Dan Rather now knows, “fake but accurate” is a failed defense.

  45. royfomr (17:31:09),
    You’re right. Even though that’s what I think [and even more so, after just finishing reading a couple of Pearce’s articles], I should not have used ‘liars’ when referring to him and the BBC. That wasn’t nice.
    “Mendacious” would be a more appropriate term.

  46. Something has certainly changed over at the Guardian. George Monbiot’s blog seems to be less moderated now. Any Sceptic that used to post was taken down within minutes, a sure sign, in my book, not to waste ones time reading anything printed there.
    Trust the Guardian? Only if its hanging on a piece of string in my toilet! The reporters and staff at the rag are similar to lots of scientists. Stay onside or funds will dry up!
    As for the BBC mans approach to Anthony, maybe the investigation of bias at the Beeb has some people worried. Just maybe they are looking at the position Jones had got himself into.
    Anyway, back to the weather 😉

  47. I would be highly suspicious of overtures from the malicious media.
    Remember “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” and “A leopard does not change his spots.” One needs to perform a scruples check on them to see if they have any.

  48. AGW theory is getting ready to implode, the MSM is running for the cover of “unbiased reporting”. the politicians and MSM will just blame it on the scientists. taxpayers pick up the tab.

  49. If The Guardian is thinking that they can just cut a Jones-shaped lump of gangrene from AGW and convince everyone that all is right with the global warming world afterwards I think they are in for a shock. Let’s not forget that we, as WUWT readers, are aware of many of the problems with AGW so The Guardian articles merely scratch the surface, but most people have seen little or nothing which is sceptical.
    In the UK anyone who isn’t particularly interested in the subject may well have previously seen nothing on TV and read nothing much in the papers from a sceptical point of view. Those few articles which have appeared have previously been totally in the right-leaning press and hence easily written off by anyone with a different political outlook.
    These new articles in a non-right paper may well cause a huge disillusionment for a lot of previously ignorant people which a “climate science is otherwise squeaky clean” coda will do little to reverse.
    Once the genii is out of the bottle…

  50. RE REPLY: I suppose the photo of flames used with this caption

    Kevin Trenberth suffered abuse for publicly linking global warming to Hurricane Katrina. Photograph: Michael Appleton/AP
    Doesn’t bother your cowardly hid and snipe world view there deechy?

    Why should that bother anyone? Copy editors often go for the sensational. Harassment of scientists does bother me, though. Mann is being basically exonerated – he did nothing wrong – but all these “investigations”, including those following the stolen e-mails, turn into time sinks. Of course, the perps are safely immune from FOIA requests – I doubt anyone here is willing to have their e-mails made public.
    Have I attacked anyone in my comments? No – I was just pointing out that while celebrating the latest writings of Fred Pearce, your readers might be interested in the other articles he has written. And what the h-e-double-hockey-stick is “hid and snipe”?

    REPLY:
    The implication of harrasment with the house in flames? You are blind

  51. I’ll never understand how people know something is when the evidence is that it is not proven, and while more and more the evidence is piling up that it is not true.

  52. “PaulH (15:23:35) :
    What is the purpose of the glass sphere in the Gloomian (oops Guardian) photo of the Yamal weather station?
    REPLY: Its a Campbell-Stokes sunshine duration recorder – Anthony”
    And here I was thinking that it was the IPCC’s crystal ball………

  53. The mental image that I have is that the alarmist AGW argument has been a giant game of Jenga and we all know how that game ends. They over-stretched and toppled the tower themselves with the Copenhagen fiasco being the final brick. As the tower falls, the complicit media are faced with a dilemma – do they support the narrative that they have helped build up or do they honour a more personal narrative of journalists being “truth-seekers”.
    I’m afraid that the Guardian thinks its a lot smarter than it actually is in attempting to deal with this dilemma through compartmentalising ‘bad’ scientists from ‘good’ science. They’ll soon find out that there will always be another scientist to throw under the bus…

  54. As previously noted, the comments are the most interesting part of the articles. I found the following one of the most interesting:
    Fentonchem
    4 Feb 2010, 2:01AM
    “timber hauled from the permafrost of the Yamal peninsula”
    Trees do not grow in permafrost.
    The Yamal peninsula is, at present, permafrost.
    The ‘team’ show that the Yamal peninsula is warmer now than at any time in the past.
    The Yamal tree series proves that the temperature of the permafrost Yamal peninsula is higher than it has been for more that 1500 years.
    These tree rings of trees found in the permafrost clearly demonstrate that there are no trees in the permafrost. Q.E.D.

    Sounds like dodgy science.

  55. Just weighing in. It’s great that the Guardian and others are finally owning up to the *problems* with climate science. Their now just discovering stuff that many of us knew long ago and was widely reported on the blogs. And they’re reporting it like its news!
    Unfortunately, I get the impression they think the problems are minor, and primarily a PR problem. They want to sweep this (climategate, glaciergate, disastergate, amazongate, climingmagazinegate, studentpapergate, Mannomaticgate, etc…I can’t keep up!) under the rug. They’re positioning themselves for “Sure, a few mistakes were made, but the science is still sound. Just a few bad apples.” And they will probably throw a few inconvenient souls under the bus (Jones, Pachauri, and perhaps Mann for a long shot!).
    We need to keep the pressure on. Thanks to Anthony, Steve, Jeff, Chiefio, and many, many others for keeping their feet to the fire. But now is not the time to celebrate victory – the battle is just beginning.

  56. >>You only have to look at this appalling piece from
    >>today’s issue (the Graun is supposed to be a serious
    >>newspaper) to see that:
    >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/bbc-climate-change-denier
    You know they are running scared when they start mentioning the tin-foil hats. I have debated many times with these kind of guys on other forums, and the format is always the same.
    a. Rational and lively debate.
    b. They are beginning to lose the argument.
    c. Copious verbal abuse and stigmatisation.
    d. Declaration you are wearing a tin-foil hat.
    e. If they want to be abusive, I turn up the rhetoric a notch.
    f. Screams of horror that I could say such things to such pure, white and innocent beings. Shock, horror and hurt feelings all around.
    g. They leave the forum.
    .
    With the Gruniad (Guardian), we have got to step d. .
    .

  57. My take on this: go read Sir Humphrey’s take on how to handle issues like this.
    The take home message is simple: embrace the person or position who you intend to destroy………
    Beware Greeks bearing gifts………..

  58. Re: Dodgy Geezer (Feb 3 15:21),
    [quoting Guardian’s comment]
    “Some of it is not pretty, but significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged”
    This is the same line that Borenstein [friend of the CRU crew] and his buddies took in that AP “analysis” that hit many front pages on Dec. 13. But, to the Guardian’s credit, unlike Borenstein et al, they certainly see more problems than AP did.

  59. “Is there evidence in the emails of data manipulation? Is there evidence of abuse of peer review and FOI? Is there evidence of “hiding” temperature declines? Is there evidence of fraud and conspiracy? etc etc
    The answer to most of these questions turned out to be no.”
    *sigh*. Turned out to be? Turned out to be???
    How can they know that because the data has not been released?
    How can they even claim that when they are running the headline that they are?
    It seems that the Guardian’s left hand doesn’t know what its even further left hand is doing.
    Roll on the Select Committee! The Iraq War committee is dredging up some interesting stuff, let’s hope this one does too.

  60. Some of the MSM have realised that they can sell more newspapers by reporting the scandalous behavior of CRU and the IPCC. Even the BBC has realised that it needs to adopt a more neutral appearance to keep the punters happy. The various ‘gate’ stories are important, but in the scale of AGW they are peripheral.
    The basic climate science is rock solid and so is the scientific consensus and the MSM has kept its distance from that argument.
    The sceptics (including me) avidly scan the blogs to find the ‘killer blow’, the disclosure that exposes AGW as a big mistake or hoax. Is that ever going to happen? The basic science depends on just two claims, i.e. steep global temperature rise and CO2 is the cause. Disproving just one of these at MSM level could be critical. Joe, E M Smith and Anthony published the closest to a killer blow just recently but the MSM ignored it.
    Obviously they don’t fully believe the evidence and they must be wary of effectively accusing the US Government (or its Agencies) of fiddling the temperatures. What can we do to convince them that we are right? That is the challenge. I would be interested to hear the views of the authors.

  61. I don’t know whether anyone else noticed this. One commenter on the Guardian post asked the question “What is the purpose for publishing all these articles by Fred Pearce?”. This was replied to by staff writer James Randerson, who inter alia replied:
    [JRanderson, 3 Feb 2010, 9:30PM, Staff]
    “The Guardian’s editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions…”
    In other words, it’s not interested in looking where the science leads. AGW is the editorial line. It is being pushed from the top. Articles must support the AGW agenda even if it’s phoney. If Monbiot and Pearce want to continue writing for the Guardian they are obliged to toe this editorial line. Therefore Pearce, who is getting involved in lots of articles now (over two months too late) simply cannot behave as a proper investigative journalist since he has to conform to an editorial line. This thus taints everything he says. Do bear this in mind when reading Pearce’s articles in the Guardian.

  62. Not A Carbon Cow (17:08:05) :
    John Finn (15:48:26) :
    You can’t be following along and be serious about the below:

    I can and I am. Your list contains not one shred of evidence that the surface temperature record has been manipulated to show temperatures warmer than they would otherwise be.
    This allegation can simply be brushed aside by showing the agreement in trends over the past 20 years between UAH, RSS, GISS and Hadley. It can be pointed out that UAH is the datase trusted by sceptics. It can also be pointed out that UAH also shows strong warming in the arctic which supports the GISS extrapolation. The arctice summer ice melt since 2000 also supports the GISS extrapolation.
    Furthermore ‘accurate’ trend calculation does not necessarily need accurate and precise measurement. AGWers will be able to show that siting issues and UHI have only a negligible effect on the overall trend. Note if there’s no trend in UH – then UH will not affect the trend.
    Finally, there has been a surface station project which is intended to highlight poor siting issues across the US. The 30 year US trends (1979-2008) for UAH and GISS are as follows:
    GISS +0.25 deg per decade
    UAH +0.25 deg per decade
    Where’s the problem?
    The argument will be messy and, in my opinion, will be blown out of the water. The world has warmed in the past 100 years or so; whether GISS have have over-stated the rate of warming by a couple of hundredths of a degree or so is irrelevant (or will be seen as such). If it hasn’t warmed why are all the solar supporters trying to explain the warming.
    Focus on the weaknesses to which AGWers can’t easily respond. The nature ‘trick’, in particular, and the (tree ring) reconstructions, in general, are areas where they are vulnerable. Show that there is nothing ‘unprecedented’ about modern warming. Use the GISS record to show that the world was warming at a similar rate between 1915 and 1945 as it has since ~1975. Use it again to show that the arctic warmed almost 2 degrees in this same period when CO2 levels were barely above pre-industrial levels.

    “Despite what many WUWT readers believe there is very little evidence that data is being manipulated. There is, though, plenty of evidence that dodgy reconstructions have been presented to show that the MWP was a non event.”

  63. RE: hro001 (00:59:50) :

    Re: Dodgy Geezer (Feb 3 15:21),
    [quoting Guardian’s comment]
    “Some of it is not pretty, but significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged”
    This is the same line that Borenstein [friend of the CRU crew] and his buddies took in that AP “analysis” that hit many front pages on Dec. 13. But, to the Guardian’s credit, unlike Borenstein et al, they certainly see more problems than AP did.

    That’s because the science has not been seriously challenged. Where are the scientific papers showing that CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas? That CO2 levels are not rising? That warming has not occurred? That a bulk of the recent warming is not due to CO2? That the climate sensitivity is not around 3 degC/doubling?
    Accusations are not proof. Do you think that if Pachauri is out of the way that thousands of scientific papers will suddenly disappear? If Mann can be silenced, that glaciers will stop melting? If you want to start earning some cred, publish that surfacestations paper in a reputable journal. If it’s rejected, publish the reviews.

  64. royfomr (15:11:26) :
    Think it’s time to reward the Guardian for being brave. I’ve pledged to buy at least one copy a day for all of next week.
    All are welcome to join me.
    If you are a Brit and don’t have a strong heart, I would skip Wednesday’s edition, which usually contains adverts for +100 pages of non-jobs in the government sector. Gordon B has so trashed our economy that this has become the weekly dose of adding insult to injury.

  65. Some of us perhaps need to ask the question: “Just suppose the alarmists are right and the actions of mankind are indeed responsible for recent global warming, then what particular action of ours has caused it?”
    A good scientist – for example, a geologist, physicist or chemist – would ask: “OK, what have we done to significantly change the face of the Earth over the past 100 years, particularly over the past 50 years which could account for the warming?”
    There are several possible answers:
    1. Lots more asphalt roads now absorbing heat, as opposed to reflecting the sun’s rays. Verdict: too small to be a significant factor.
    2. We have been cleaning up the atmosphere over the past 50 years, there are therefore much less ‘cooling’ sulphates than previously. Verdict: may be a minor factor.
    3. Much of the world’s land surface is now irrigated – from back garden (yard) to fields of rice, grape vines, tomatoes etc – hundreds (maybe thousands) of billions of tonnes of water are now evaporating into the atmosphere each year and water vapour is a recognised greenhouse gas. On land, this is going to have a significant impact on water vapour levels in many parts of the world. Verdict: Something large enough to potentially have a significant impact, but no research available.
    4. We have built thousands of power stations over the past fifty years, most with huge cooling towers – cooled by water – significantly adding to the water vapour content of the atmosphere. Verdict: Probably having a measurable impact, but no research available.
    5. Urban Heat Islands (UHIs) Verdict: locally a significant impact, but globally probably only a very small one. The big problem is that a large percentage of temperature monitoring stations are located within these UHIs and insufficient compensation is made in the published data to compensate for this.
    6. We burn a lot of stuff these days, huge amounts of soot particles are released into the atmosphere. These settle on snow and glaciers having the twin effect of reducing reflection of the sun’s rays and acting as a catalyst for melting. Verdict: Could be a significant factor in the colder parts of the planet, but no one has yet tried to measure its impact.
    7. Then there is methane, a supposedly powerful greenhouse gas, now approaching 1.7 parts per million in the atmosphere. Verdict: too small to have even the slightest effect, even if it increased tenfold.
    8. Carbon dioxide levels – up 50% over the past century to a terrifying one part in every 2,600 in our atmosphere – is a known greenhouse gas. One part in 2600? That’s like putting a match box full of cotton wool in the loft of your house and saying you have insulated it. Verdict: Possible very minor impact on global temperatures.
    Conclusion: A real scientist would comment: the geological record shows that constant climate change is the norm, so what we are experiencing today is probably mostly that, but water vapour levels could also be a partial culprit for recent warming.

  66. Hasn’t pearce noticed the stupidity of the sub heading. Ancient trees dragged from frozen siberian bogs etc surely he needs to ask himself how it grew there, in the chuffing permafrost!

  67. Gilbert (21:32:28) :
    As previously noted, the comments are the most interesting part of the articles. I found the following one of the most interesting:
    Fentonchem
    4 Feb 2010, 2:01AM
    “timber hauled from the permafrost of the Yamal peninsula”
    Trees do not grow in permafrost.
    The Yamal peninsula is, at present, permafrost.
    The ‘team’ show that the Yamal peninsula is warmer now than at any time in the past.
    The Yamal tree series proves that the temperature of the permafrost Yamal peninsula is higher than it has been for more that 1500 years.
    These tree rings of trees found in the permafrost clearly demonstrate that there are no trees in the permafrost. Q.E.D.
    Sounds like dodgy science.
    —————
    Gilbert,
    I’m afraid you have succeeded in demonstrating how a faulty premise can lead you astray.
    Trees do grow in the seasonally thawed ground above permafrost.
    That is not to say that dendrothermometers should in any way be taken seriously.

  68. “It would be remiss of us journalistically to ignore a story like this”
    Shouldn’t that be: “it has been remiss of us, burying our journalistic heads in the sand for years over stories like this”..?
    And now they are claiming exclusives! Well, I suppose they are in their little parallel universe…

  69. Deech56,
    There are actually quite a few papers out there that say that the warming caused by CO2 is on the order of 1C per doubling (not 3), and that water vapor may provide a negative feedback rather than a positive. Do some more current digging than you have.

  70. Peter Miller,
    Current CO2 concentration is indeed 388.1 parts per million (or 1 part in 2600 as you have converted); however, it is important to realize that quite a few studies have shown it to be much higher than this in the past, and this was LONG before any human causation whatsoever.
    At the Mauna Loa Observatory, CO2 concentration has risen from ~310ppm to ~390 ppm in the past 50 years, which is a rise of about 26%; however, one must remember that nearby Kilua’ea has been errupting nearly non-stop for about half of that time period, and I am not really sure if anyone has studied the impact of a nearby constantly errupting volcano on this measurement. Mauna Loa Observatory seems to be the most frequently cited station for “global” CO2 concentration if you google “atmospheric CO2 graph” or something of the sort.
    Many papers also claim that prior to 1850, atmospheric CO2 concentration had been STEADY AT AROUND 250-270 PPM FOR 400,000 YEARS (?!?!?) I find that claim to be pretty doubtful. I have seen other studies that claim that it has varied by quite a bit during that same time period.
    So, what we need seems to be more data, and we also need to determine which methods (if any) are actually reliable for reconstructing not only old temperature data, but old CO2 concentration data as well.
    If we can find reasonably reliable and verifiable methods to reconstruct both historical CO2 and historical temperature, then we are at least more likely to be able to show whether what is occurring now is likely natural variations, or likely caused by human intervention in the environment.
    Overall, to say that the scientific misconduct does not undermine or refute the data is not really accurate. What has happened HAS cast doubt on both the historical temperature reconstructions, as well as the historical CO2 reconstructions, both of which are CRITICAL to our understanding of what is happening now, and whether it is nature, man, or some combination which is causing it.
    If it has indeed warmed approximately 0.8C in the last 150 years (and even most skeptics believe that it has), what must be determined is whether such a change (and the rate of the change) fall within the boundaries of what is “normal” from past experience, or whether such a change is outside of the confidence limits of what has been normal in the past. If such changes have occurred fairly often in the past, that is an indicator that we may well not be the controlling factor in what is going on. If such a change is truly “unprecidented” (which I personally doubt), then it would be an indicator that we are currently driving climate in a way which has not happened in the past.
    I personally see a lot of people referring to 1850 as “the end of the little ice age”. If this is indeed the case, one would expect extended and perhaps even fairly rapid warming. After all, what happens at the end of an ice age (be it a “little” one or a big one”? I would think…. warming??

  71. The Gaurdian may be playing a double game, but is dangerous in one respect.
    Every Article for or against AGW is exposing more of their Readers to the TRUTH.
    It won’t affect the die hards, but any reasonable readers may decide to investigate a bit more for themselves, the way most of us on here have done.
    Deech56 (02:30:29) :
    You obviously are not keeping abreast of the latest reports that “That the climate sensitivity is not around 3 degC/doubling?” is much too high.
    As CO2 is still rising and Temperatures aren’t perhaps you have a logical explanation an don’t bother with 10 years is just Weather and not Climate it won’t work on this Site.

  72. PaulH (15:23:35) :
    “What is the purpose of the glass sphere in the Gloomian (oops Guardian) photo of the Yamal weather station?”
    A. To focus the energy from the Sun onto the weather station, they could not find a magnifying glass.
    B. To turn everything upside-down so as to hide the decline.

  73. Yeah, I agree that if the Guardian is trying to steer the AGW bus back on course then this article is an attempt to get back on the road by driving into the swamp.
    The residual effect of Climategate will be a hyper-sensative FOIA environment and scientists actually thinking more clearly about their work at every stage because it is all an FOIA away from public scrutiny.
    I suppose if you are a true believer then you would naturally assume that in such an environment that global warming would still be proven… but AGW is batting 0.000 against skeptics over the last 4 years, so their trust in the science is misplaced.

  74. Deech56 (02:30:29):

    Where are the scientific papers showing that CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas? That CO2 levels are not rising? That warming has not occurred? That a bulk of the recent warming is not due to CO2? That the climate sensitivity is not around 3 degC/doubling?

    This has been explained repeatedly, but you cannot seem to deal with the way the Scientific Method operates: Skeptics have nothing to prove.
    It is the purveyors of the CO2=Catastrophic AGW hypothesis who have failed to overcome the burden of showing that their hypothesis explains reality, and makes better predictions, than the theory of natural climate variability — which the alarmist crowd has never been able to falsify because the observed temperature changes remain well within historical parameters.
    The long held theory of natural climate variability is what must be falsified. But the alarmists constantly resort to turning the Scientific Method on its head, and demand that skeptics must falsify their scary new CO2=CAGW hypothesis instead.
    Climate alarmists are deliberately misrepresenting the Scientific Method: Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit: the proof is upon he who affirms, not upon he who denies; since he who denies a fact cannot prove a negative.
    Regarding the hypothesis that human produced CO2 is causing “unprecedented” global warming, the burden lies upon those who make that claim, not on the skeptics who question it.
    The same applies to those who claim that there has been an alarming increase in global temperatures: the burden is on those who make that claim. And as we have seen, all such claims prior to the satellite era are now highly suspect. The raw temperature record has either been heavily and repeatedly “adjusted,” or it has been “lost.” At the same time, the great majority of rural temperature stations have been de-commissioned. The result is that the temperature record is unreliable.
    The ‘bulk of the recent warming’ has not been empirically shown to be due to CO2. It may or may not be. But there is no real world evidence to verify that assertion. None.
    However, there is empirical [real world] evidence, published by the IPCC and NOAA, showing that almost all of the emitted CO2 is the result of natural processes — and not the result of human emissions: click
    The alarmists have turned themselves into pretzels trying to blame natural CO2 emissions on human activity. But the fact remains that it is the planet, and not human activity, that is responsible for almost all of the CO2 currently being emitted.
    The ‘greenhouse gas’ claim is based on the presumption of a 3°C or greater temperature rise per doubling of CO2 — which in turn is based on the debunked presumption that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a century or more: click. The entire CO2=CAGW hypothesis is built on a house of cards, with no verifying empirical evidence supporting it.
    When you preface your argument based on appeals to corrupted authorities by asking, “Where are the scientific papers showing that CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas? That CO2 levels are not rising? That warming has not occurred?…”, you need to understand that neither papers, nor the climate peer review process, nor computer climate models, are “evidence.”
    Models are tools [and not very accurate ones], and your alarmist papers are opinions simply hand-waved through peer review by friendly referees — while skeptical papers are by and large stopped by the same gatekeepers.
    Empirical evidence is composed of real world, verifiable facts, such as daily raw temperature readings taken from calibrated instruments. Since the alarmist clique lacks any real evidence to back their claims, they resort to endless appeals to various authorities, which in turn use always-inaccurate GCMs [not one of which predicted the flat to cooling temperatures since 2002], and peer reviewed papers citing other peer reviewed papers — which all cite the same authors, in a round robin of rent-seeking grant hogs with both front feet in the public trough. That may be lucrative. But it is not the Scientific Method.

  75. Dodgy Geezer (17:16:04) :
    “Fairly incoherent rage against the BBC”
    Some interesting comments on that piece, but for me significant for my first sighting of a contest-winning Glaciergate rebuttal:
    “2035 was simply a typo made by some lowly IPCC droid, whereas in fact the (Russian) article being cited read 2350”.
    We’ve met some really effective Indian con men over the years – the Maharishi and the Orange Bhagwan come readily to mind – but that Raj Patchy really takes the biscuit!

  76. RipVan@63 (09:31:49) :
    Dodgy Geezer (17:16:04) :
    “Fairly incoherent rage against the BBC”
    Some interesting comments on that piece, but for me significant for my first sighting of a contest-winning Glaciergate rebuttal:
    “2035 was simply a typo made by some lowly IPCC droid, whereas in fact the (Russian) article being cited read 2350″.
    We’ve met some really effective Indian con men over the years – the Maharishi and the Orange Bhagwan come readily to mind – but that Raj Patchy really takes the biscuit!

    But the IPCC didn’t cite the Russian paper, so that’s a non-starter. That false typo excuse was (knowingly, I think) inserted into one of the AP’s articles.

  77. Roger Knights (12:33:16) :
    “But the IPCC didn’t cite the Russian paper”
    Indeed, the typo thing is simply made up … but for those coming to the issue for the first time it’s a lie that effectively discourages further enquiry. We can all identify with the fact that a typo is “an easy mistake to make”.
    In fact in a week or so Patchy will probaby comer to believe it too, because:
    ” To tell you the truth, I hardly interact with Professor Hasnain. He is out in the field most of the time. I know nothing about glaciology, and there are 900 people working in TERI and particularly with the time I’ve been devoting to the IPCC report, I’ve been delegating most of these things to people at the next level. So, I’ve never discussed this situation with him at all.”
    From a thoroughly revealing interview:
    http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15473066

  78. I wrote something earlier about the Grauniad’s motives. Having thought some more today, I do also wonder whether, if we look at this from a para-religious point of view, the process they’re going through is something like confession. They’ll acknowledge their sins, be chided, be absolved, do penance and then feel that it’s fine to return to the usual business with a clear conscience and pure soul. It’s simply purging the psychic bad matter.

  79. RE PeterB in Indianapolis (07:25:42) :

    Deech56,
    There are actually quite a few papers out there that say that the warming caused by CO2 is on the order of 1C per doubling (not 3), and that water vapor may provide a negative feedback rather than a positive. Do some more current digging than you have.

    A C Osborn (08:01:49) :

    Deech56 (02:30:29) :
    You obviously are not keeping abreast of the latest reports that “That the climate sensitivity is not around 3 degC/doubling?” is much too high.
    As CO2 is still rising and Temperatures aren’t perhaps you have a logical explanation an don’t bother with 10 years is just Weather and not Climate it won’t work on this Site.

    I’ve been following the literature and haven’t seen too much recently besides Lindzen & Choi, which was demolished on this site by Roy Spencer and in the scientific literature by Trenberth, Fasullo, O’Dell and Wong. There are many lines of evidence that go into the 3 degC value; it’s all in Knutti & Hegerl, which is the state of the art, circa 2008.
    And of course, temperature does not increase in lock step with CO2 – there are other influences that influence short-term noise. Yes, a decade is too short to determine a trend. That’s basic statistics, which should work on this Site.

  80. RE A C Osborn (08:07:28) :

    Deech56 (02:30:29) :
    see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm

    Yes, I am familiar with Frank, et al., but these findings do not support a sensitivity of 1 degC/doubling. From the BBC article:

    The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises.

    This paper only addresses the release of carbon as a feedback when temperatures increase. Some models incorporate this feedback, others do not. Again, from the BBC article:

    [David Frank] said that if the results [of] his paper were widely accepted, the overall effect on climate projections would be neutral.
    “It might lead to a downward mean revision of those (climate) models which already include the carbon cycle, but an upward revision in those which do not include the carbon cycle.”

  81. RE Smokey (09:31:40) :

    Deech56 (02:30:29):
    Where are the scientific papers showing that CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas? That CO2 levels are not rising? That warming has not occurred? That a bulk of the recent warming is not due to CO2? That the climate sensitivity is not around 3 degC/doubling?
    This has been explained repeatedly, but you cannot seem to deal with the way the Scientific Method operates: Skeptics have nothing to prove.

    Well, you posted a lot of words, but your supporting material wasn’t from the peer-review literature. How am I supposed to believe a site with a headline such as, “Will ‘Peer-Reviewed’ Become Known As The ‘Science of Idiocracy’? Should Anyone Believe Scientists Any Longer?”
    BTW, If you want to talk vaccines, I’ve done plenty of research in the field, and the greatest push-back to Wakefield’s research was from mainstream scientists and physicians – the consensus, as it were.

  82. Deech56 (17:34:00),
    *Sheesh!* You STILL do not get it:
    It is not the job of skeptics to prove anything.
    Even so, I responded to all your points.
    For someone to admit that to him the Scientific Method is just “a lot of words” indicates a tightly closed mind. Cognitive dissonance has taken hold.
    I answered the points you asked about, even though the burden is on the purveyors of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis to show that it can withstand skeptical scrutiny. It hasn’t been able to, so the alarmists turn the tables, and demand that skeptics must, in effect, prove a negative. The alarmists are in a desperate situation.
    My point was pretty clear: there is no empirical evidence showing that CO2 has any measurable effect on global temperatures. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers, and lots of computer climate models. But there is no real world evidence showing that an X increase in CO2 will cause an X increase in temperature. In fact, the planet itself is falsifying your hypothesis.
    Show us real world evidence, if you can. Because we already know the climate peer review gatekeepers have traded in their professional ethics for fame and fortune, and the climate modelers couldn’t model their way out of a wet paper bag. And the data and methodologies are a big time secret. What does that tell you?
    Show us real world evidence. Or your CO2=CAGW hypothesis fails.

  83. RE Smokey (18:09:38) :

    Deech56 (17:34:00),
    *Sheesh!* You STILL do not get it:
    It is not the job of skeptics to prove anything.
    Even so, I responded to all your points.
    For someone to admit that to him the Scientific Method is just “a lot of words” indicates a tightly closed mind. Cognitive dissonance has taken hold.
    I answered the points you asked about, even though the burden is on the purveyors of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis to show that it can withstand skeptical scrutiny. It hasn’t been able to, so the alarmists turn the tables, and demand that skeptics must, in effect, prove a negative. The alarmists are in a desperate situation.
    My point was pretty clear: there is no empirical evidence showing that CO2 has any measurable effect on global temperatures. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers, and lots of computer climate models. But there is no real world evidence showing that an X increase in CO2 will cause an X increase in temperature. In fact, the planet itself is falsifying your hypothesis.
    Show us real world evidence, if you can. Because we already know the climate peer review gatekeepers have traded in their professional ethics for fame and fortune, and the climate modelers couldn’t model their way out of a wet paper bag. And the data and methodologies are a big time secret. What does that tell you?
    Show us real world evidence. Or your CO2=CAGW hypothesis fails.

    Lots of words, but little evidence. I’m looking for good references, like this paper, which shows a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation at the wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2 and CH4. Evans, et al. also showed increases in downward longwave radiation. “…an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.” Real world evidence that atmospheric anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing warming.

  84. Deech56 (18:43:18),
    That’s not empirical evidence. It’s just another opinion, hand-waved through peer review by a friendly referee. How can the authors know the increases in downward longwave radiation from 160 years ago? How do they know an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 was created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850? They can’t; they are speculating and assuming.
    See what I mean? Real world evidence is hard to establish. It requires rigor. It wouldn’t be such a problem, but the climate peer review system has been gamed, and the clique running it can no longer be trusted. Their reputations are in tatters. Neither do they disclose their data and methods, so their work can not be verified. That leaves empirical evidence, which can be replicated, and cannot be fabricated.
    They brought this situation on themselves.
    The answer is, of course, that they simply made it up as they went along, as the Harry_read_me file admits. They were the ones who invented entire data sets, they were the ones who programmed the GCMs, they were the ones who controlled most of the relevant journals, they were the ones who corrupted the FOIA officer(s).
    Now they are caught. They cannot disclose their fraudulent data, or their methodologies, or their algorithms, or their notes, or their experiments — which must all be disclosed to scientific skeptics, according to the Scientific Method.
    So they turn the Scientific Method on its head, and demand that skeptics must prove a negative. That will only buy them some time — but the questions will never go away, until there is a final reckoning.

  85. RipVan@63 (13:03:39) :

    Roger Knights (12:33:16) :
    “But the IPCC didn’t cite the Russian paper”

    Indeed, the typo thing is simply made up … but for those coming to the issue for the first time it’s a lie that effectively discourages further enquiry.

    It wasn’t initially made up, it was a coincidence. But, now that the dust has settled, the “typo” idea should be dropped. Not even Choo Choo, Lal, or the IPCC has the brass to make that excuse, although maybe they don’t have to, with Seth Borenstein doing it for them at the AP. Here’s what I wrote a couple of weeks ago about this matter, in response to crosspatch:

    crosspatch (21:20:15) :
    “According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493! ”
    So there you go. That’s how they came up with 2035. It was supposed to be 2350.

    No, that was just a first guess as to where the mistake had come from, because someone [Cogley] noticed the 2305 number and speculated that a transposition had been made. Now [thanks to Cogley’s deeper digging] we know the true source, the Hasnian cliam via the New Scientist report via WWF, because the footnote in AR4 referenced the latter, and the parties involved in making and reporting the claim have disclosed what went on.

  86. Roger Knights (19:13:58)
    >> It wasn’t initially made up, it was a coincidence. <<
    Ah, I see. All of which had passsed me by, so many thanks for that.

  87. RE Ron de Haan (06:44:48) :

    Climategate, is it criminal?

    Don’t know the British laws, but hacking into a computer system probably is.

  88. My problem with the whole shebang stems from my crazy idea that science is mostly based around observation.
    This particular science mostly appears to revolve around reconstructions, models and projections. Worse, the portion of observed data (I see that as being about 15%???) that is used is adjusted, filtered, corrected and merged.

Comments are closed.