Editor of Nature forced to resign from climate review panel

From Channel 4 news in the UK:

‘Climate-gate’ review member resigns

By Tom Clarke

Phillip Campbell photo: Rockefeller University

Within hours of the launch of an independent panel to investigate claims that climate scientists covered up flawed data on temperature rises, one member has been forced to resign after sceptics questioned his impartiality.

// In an interview last year with Chinese State Radio, enquiry panel member Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature said: “The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong.”

He went on: “In fact the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.”

Dr Campbell, was invited to sit on the enquiry panel because of his expertise in the peer review process as editor of one of the world’s leading science journals.

The journal has published some of the leading papers on climate change research, including those supporting the now famous “hockey stick” graph, the subject of intense criticism by climate sceptics.

Dr Campbell has now withdrawn his membership of the panel, telling Channel 4 News: “I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks.

“As I have made clear subsequently, I support the need to for a full review of the facts behind the leaked e-mails.

“There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team.”

The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog, run by climate sceptic Andrew Montford, will come as an embarrassment to the enquiry’s chair Sir Muir Russell.

At a press conference this morning to launch the panel, the experienced civil servant and former vice-chancellor of Glasgow University, emphasised his hand-picked panel’s impartiality.

A press release about the panel read: “They were selected on the basis that they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues of the review.”

Speaking this evening, Muir Russell said “I have spoken to Philip Campbell, and I understand why he has withdrawn. I regret the loss of his expertise, but I respect his decision.”

Read the complete story at Channel 4 News

157 thoughts on “Editor of Nature forced to resign from climate review panel

  1. And why on earth did Muir Russell think he was unbiased? Will he be replaced with William Connolley?
    ===========================

  2. “I have spoken to Philip Campbell, and I understand why he has withdrawn. I regret the loss of his expertise, but I respect his decision.”

    Translation:

    “Wow, being an editor at such a compromised periodical, I really thought this guy knew how to play ball, oh well, the list of true believers is long.”

  3. Amazing. The enquiry is falling apart faster than the science it purports to be investigating. Respect due to campbell for declaring his impartiality though.

  4. No TGSG, I don’t think anyone really expected an honestly independent review. This is a $7 billion / year industry. They will not go quiety into the night of their humiliation.

  5. I think this extremely serious. They are basically saying/admitting that the Journal Nature is biased so we have to remove him. I reckon this will be bigger than climategate overall. Basically AL:L credibility is now gone. Nature will have to either kick him out as well or be seen as a trash publication?

  6. So, Nature is to assess the process and the Royal Society is to assess the output. It would be just as appropriate for a Mafia boss to ask his mother for a character reference and his brother to assess his guilt. Fortunately the MSM are just beginning to smell blood and I can see a lot of would be panel members being challenged. This could be really entertaining. As each one is named it will be open season. I can’t think of anyone in the warming camp (other than the luke warmers like the Pielkes) who have not been prone to bias and wild exageration. This could be fun.

  7. OT: Greenhouse effect is a constant

    If this is true and holds water, it’s pure dynamite:

    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate

    Claim is that earth’s greenhouse effect is already at it’s maximun and constant level, as long we have water left to vaporize.

    If CO2 or any other greenouse gas increases in the atmosphere it is compensated by less humidity in the atmosphere.

    The greenhouse effect on earth is claimed to be an constrant, only the division between different greenhouse gases and water wapor changes. If all CO2 would disappear from atmosphere, it would be compensated by 0,08 prcm (3%) increase of water vapor. If Co2 would double, our climate would compsate this by 3% decrease of vater vapor in the athmosphere.

    The whole increase of CO2 from 1940 to 2008 has been compensated by less than 1% decrease of water vapor in the athmosphere.

    The mathematical solution is simple as E=mc2 and theoretical result correlates with measurements within 0,1%.

    Has any of you heard about this before? If this would be true, it would make the IPCC theorry and AGW obsolete.

    All the anomalies in the climate history would be related to other effects than greenhouse effect.

    Actuals documents are embedded to to web page and can be downloaded from scribd.com.

  8. I wish everyone would stop pretending that “Nature” had any credibility at all.

    Over the years every paper by any “quack”, who they could “put up” as a “legitimate scientist” (usually because of a quirk in university tenure laws, which don’t allow you to fire someone just because they’ve become “flakey”, who wrote some alleged paper, which exaggerated, or made some bogus case against nuclear power…was published without the slightest hesitation.

    Being anti-nuclear power is, well, for the LEFT, completely acceptable.

    In 1999, after completing a series of exhaustive testing of an IEC (Inertial Electrostatic Confinement) fusion device, Dr. George Miley submitted (with his Phd Graduate student, Brian Dysjerack, a paper to Nature…about the results of their work. The SINGLE PEER REVIEWER rejected the paper, on the basis that, “The IEC or Farnsworth Fusor, CANNOT WORK.” He sent Dr. Miley a 1972 paper by some fellows at Oak Ridge, that showed that the IEC device “cannot, theoretically” cause any fusion reactions to occur.

    Suffice it to say, this was a shock to Dr. Miley (and now Dr. Dysjerack) who had spent a couple years measuring the 10 Billion D fusion neutrons (5 MeV) per second coming from the device when powered up.

    Now let’s talk about BIG MONEY! I.e., the Tokomak “Tribe”. They will not broach ANY competition. Just look up IEC and note that the Tokomaks DO have a lot of competition. But for NATURE to be so HAUGHTY, so, “We walk on water, and the rest of you fools are such rubbish…” HA! Laughable. Nature is really a dinosaur waiting to die.

  9. John W. (13:39:48) :

    If only he could be forced to resign from Nature.

    For a moment that’s what I thought the headline of this article said. Oh Well better luck next time.

  10. “I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks.”

    Like all good scientists he gets his evidence from the media. Bet it was the Grauniad. Wait; it couldn’t have been the Graundia. They were the last rag to report on Climategate.

  11. I found this statement from David Eyton, another member of the inquiry:

    David Eyton, BP group vice president, Research & Technology, said: “The challenge of climate change requires policy development at all levels: global, national and local. Our work with Princeton is an example of BP’s commitment to collaborative research, and has already provided a vital contribution to the pace of policy development. We trust that governments will be successful in reaching a consensus for significant action, and we are working to inform their actions based on our experience of low-carbon technologies and businesses.”

    He is Vice President of a division of a multi billion dollar company investing heavily in clean technology, carbon capture, etc, technologies entirely dependent on government subsidies to be viable.

    Now – would he put his company’s investments at risk by in any way questioning the science on which such subsidies are based?

    Think not.

  12. I think this Nature story is so big that it has now been taken off Google news search. Please leave it here!

  13. “JP (13:48:32) :

    OT: Greenhouse effect is a constant

    If this is true and holds water, it’s pure dynamite”

    No if it’s true it means it holds LESS water…. sorry i had to ;-)
    The examiner’s article is very good. The most insightful writeup about Ferenc Miskolczi a newspaper has managed by now.

  14. The most amazing part…

    “The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog, run by climate sceptic Andrew Montford, will come as an embarrassment to the enquiry’s chair Sir Muir Russell.”

    No longer can the powerful elites control the flow information. A guy typing away in his rec room just changed the course of the UK government’s planned whitewash.

  15. JP (13:48:32)

    Milkoszi’s hypothesis has been around for a couple of years. It remains a hypothesis as far as I know.

  16. It’s unfortunate and sad that the editors of New Scientist and Nature have lost their focus and fascination for science and instead started to act as politicians pushing an agenda. I am looking forward to a time when this “dark age” in modern science is history.

  17. Thank goodness we haven’t been having historical blizzards here in Oregon. No problem going to the grocery store to buy more popcorn.

    And sodas. Got to have that CO2 fizzy feeling while I watch Nature go through unnatural contortions.

    Here’s a tip for Campbell. Want to rescue your circulation? Put Sarah Palin on the cover. Or Elvis waving hello from the alien mothership. Unbiased real science ain’t your thing anymore. Might as well go with the flow.

  18. RC already has a post alleging that Miskolczi is deluded and that a paper that another author wrote in rebuttal of the RC review is similarly from the lunatic fringe.

  19. I wish the unraveling of this craptastic scam would slow down. I don’t even get a day to enjoy a scandal before another one hits.

  20. Lord Lawson questions the openness of the CRU inquiry – BBC main news.
    Bet Steve M. is not called.

  21. Normally, Britain’s Royal Society would be the ideal body to forward a candidate for the now empty seat on the UAE Inquiry. Having recently read about its glories in centuries past, I am appalled to see how biased their website is on the Great AGW Debate.

    Just one quote: “Once our actions have raised concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, levels will remain elevated for more than a thousand years.”

    This current generation of intellectual pygmies are not fit to walk in the footsteps of Hooke and Newton. They should rebadge themselves Royal Society for the Promotion of Scare Stories.

  22. Peer review. It looks like Jones wanted his “peers” or buddies to review his integrity like they reviewed his papers. Clean it up or I will call Exxon. They have talent that can review these mental midgets.
    Exxon has spent a couple billion cleaning up a spill. They can clean up a leak for less.

  23. JP

    Have read Examiner article and looked at the presentation. My maths does not allow me to judge the presenation, but this needs some profile. AGW is not scientific theory, only hypothesis. If Mikolczi’s work can be called scientific theory then it is already way ahead of AGW ‘theory’.

  24. 1/ Miskolci Theory is called the saturated CO2 effect.

    2/ There are however at least two other approaches to the issue which are also, if not more, destructive of AGW:

    a/ The first is the adiabatic theory of the “hothouse effect” (the 33C delta) by Sorokhtin and al. “Global Warming, Global Cooling” Evolution of Climate on Earth.”, Elsevier 2007.
    Sorokhtin is a distinguished rusian scientist, a Member of the Russian Academy of Science.
    and
    b/ Gerlich, Tcheuschner paper on the “Impossibility of the greenhouse effect within the framework of physics.” But it is a very difficult theoretical paper and I am unable to follow their arguments, though I understand the main points.

    I personally like a lot the Sorokhtin book. And on the basis of this book I consider the entire IPCC and not-IPCC radiative theory of the grenhouse effect deeply flawed – as there is no place in it (even in the sceptic’s version with lower CO2 sensitivity) for the adiabatic component in the calculation of temperatures. However, as the atmospheric gases have weight, the adiabatic effect nust exist, even if Sorokhtin et al. are not 100% right.

    Regards.

    Jerzy Strzelecki from Warsaw

  25. Sigh, well, at least they are being transparent. (Their real efforts towards impartiality) If the rest are as impartial as Dr. Campbell, then this inquiry will be as effective as Penn State’s into Mann.

  26. The revelation [by Bishop Hill of the Campbell’s explicit statement of partiality] is evidence of the well-organised and highly-motivated campaign by climate change sceptics…

    How anyone who has read Nature editorials on the topic could suggest that an editor of Nature in sufficiently impartial is beyond me. It is to the discredit of science journalism that they did not stated the obvious – that Nature, as the publisher of CRU research, has its huge reputation at state in the outcome of such inquiries. Surely there is a motivation here that is highly virtuous. Bravo to Bishop Hill for doing the work that these journalists are paided to do.

  27. It would be impossible to find people totally impartial. Maybe they should hurry up and ask those people before Al Gore visits them…

  28. Oslo (14:03:10) :
    “David Eyton, BP group vice president, Research & Technology”

    BP has been funding the CRU since 1974.

    No conflict there.

  29. JP – wow! Thanks for the heads up – this is gold.

    “Dr. Miskolczi’s Constant was discovered with a program that is the result of a project started 25 years ago in Hungary. It was then he began the process of writing a high-resolution radiative transfer program which would describe the Earth’s climate using the TIGR Global radiosonde archive of the Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique, Paris database. With this information he was able to accurately describe mathematically how the atmosphere absorbs and releases heat using a long standing Equation called the Schwarzschild-Milne transfer equation to accurately calculate the Earths infrared optical depth. That is what Global climate is; the process by which Earth either holds onto or releases heat. The IPCC and the CRU scientists would have us believe that CO2 increases the heat the atmosphere holds on an infinite unlimited basis. That conclusion is absolutely false, and the CRU and the IPCC have had to falsify and invent data to make it appear that it does.”

  30. This is the sort of thing that will now stick to this man’s reputation.
    Though there is a nice positive spin put on the story, it is because his impartiality was called into question that he had to resign.
    As another reader asks, isn’t it possible he could also resign as editor of Nature?
    Perhaps that is not so unlikely.
    How long can Nature retain his services?
    Nature’s reputation is linked to the rputation of their editor.
    His responsibility was to ensure the proper and effective wroking of the peer review process for Nature. If it is suspected that his partiality may have compromised this process or allowed others to manipulate it, then both his and Nature’s reputations are both at risk.
    I’d say there are some at Nature who are already making this judgement and he may soon announce his “resignation” to take up other duties….
    Of course, at this stage of the game there is no real incentive to do anything other than brush things under the carpet. There may be a great loss of “belief” in the scientific community (mainly in the climate community but possibly corroding its way out to related sciences) but so far no head have rolled. The IPCC chairman is still in place, the various climate scientists are still effectively in place (Phil Jones has “chosen” to step aside while the investigation/whitewash takes place) so there may still be a feeling that this is something that can be “ridden out”.
    Of course, we can hope that if one goes, then like dominoes many more will follow, not just in the sciences but in the media as well and including especially the so called “peer reviewed” publications.
    What is far less likely is that people like Al Gore will ever have to answer for their advocacy and exploitation. Sadly, we’ll get to see some of the expendables getting their just deserts, hopefully, but probably very few others.

  31. “Brent Hargreaves (14:20:20) :
    […]
    Just one quote: “Once our actions have raised concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, levels will remain elevated for more than a thousand years.””

    Well, they’re wrong. Man-made CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100000000000000000000000000000 years. Man-made methane is even worse: 200000000000000000000000000000 years. I need 999999999999999999999999999999 dollars for more studies into this.

  32. Nature belongs to MacMillan who belongs to Holtzbrink Publishing Group, a private German company. No one can hold them to account.

  33. Dr. Campbell removed himself from what I am sure would have been a painful experience. It’s clear from the Climategate e-mails that Jones was on very friendly terms with various Nature Editors. Any investigation worth the name would have to look into those links, especially allegations that referees were stacked against papers that didn’t agree with “the settled science”. So in retrospect, Dr. Campbell couldn’t have served impartially even if he was inclined to do so.

    Everybody who has been through a scandal will tell you that the consequences of the cover up are always much worse than the original crime. When you make a mistake:
    1. Admit it
    2. Fix it
    3. Don’t repeat it

    Truly independent investigators are essential in a scandal. Dr. Campbell could never have been that.

    Mike Ramsey

  34. “Muir Russell said ‘I have spoken to Philip Campbell, and I understand why he has withdrawn. I regret the loss of his expertise, but I respect his decision.'”

    This does not sound good. If Muir really regrets the loss of Campbell, then he really regrets the loss of his not-guilty predetermination.

  35. @RayG and Harry:

    “Dr. Miskolczi first published his work in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Services in 2004, Volume 108, No 4. He published further statistical proof in the same Journal in 2007, Volume 111, No. 1. In the 5 years since he first published his results, not one peer review has come back disproving his theory, or his Constant. To date, not one scientist has come forward to disprove Miskolczi’s theory that the Earth’s climate is at equilibrium, and that Carbon Dioxide cannot be released in amounts great enough to upset that equilibrium.”

  36. This is a shocking witch hunt by believers in the new religion.

    Who will not stop until all leading scientists have been replaced by pygmies, folk who can be relied to parrot the full spectrum of flat-earth beliefs.

    The editor of Nature would have been an ideal person to judge arguments between scientists, and his disqualification because he made comments about the e-mails doubtless applies to the other panel members.

    Commenting is not a crime – should only folk who have said nothing about Iraq be involved in the current Inquiry?

    I think they all the new panel should resign in protest.

  37. Canada’s CBC, known as CBCPravda, has gone to air with this.

    Looks to be a first for CBC.
    …-

    “This is the Current.

    Glaciergate – Andrew Weaver

    We started this segment with a clip of Rajendra Pachauri, the Chair of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was speaking to the BBC late last month amidst a growing number of calls for his resignation. But Mr. Pachauri was unapologetic.

    Since then, the backlash against the IPCC has grown. The latest criticism stems from a statement that appeared in its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Specifically that the Himilayan glaciers could melt away by 2035, threatening the water supply of hundreds of millions of people. The problem is that it was wrong.

    And now, “Glaciergate,” as it has become known, has taken on a life of its own … and threatens to undermine the credibility of what had been one of the most respected scientific organizations in the world.

    Andrew Weaver has worked extensively with the IPCC. He’s climatologist at the University of Victoria. He helped write the last three IPCC reports though not the sections in question. He was in Victoria.

    Listen to Part One:”

    http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2010/201002/20100210.html

  38. O/T
    Live Q&A with Fred Pearce
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/11/live-fred-pearce

    Your chance to quiz the man who led the major investigation into the climate science emails on his interpretation of the scandal.

    Join us this Friday at 1pm to chat with Fred Pearce, the environment reporter who led the Guardian’s investigation into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia.

    Fred will be online from 1-2pm on 12 February to answer your questions on the email controversy: just post your questions below.

    This is your chance to quiz him on his interpretation of the emails and their contents – how scientists dealt with freedom of information requests, how researchers tried to hide flaws in a key study – and ask about our collaborative online effort with experts and protagonists to tell the true story of the emails.

  39. It appears there are TWO separate reviews, Sir Muir Russell’s panel is to review the appropriateness of CRU actions as revealed by the emails. But another panel in concert with the Royal Society is to review (apparently) the science issues. What? in addition to Parliament’s inquiry? Does anyone have a url for the Royal Society-linked review?

    Meanwhile, look at the Links page for Muir Russell. Neutral, balanced? Wikipedia there but no Climate Audit? This surely deserves a complaint.

  40. “JP (13:48:32) :
    OT: Greenhouse effect is a constant

    If this is true and holds water, it’s pure dynamite:”

    I assume the pun was intended ….

  41. Hmmm…

    From: http://www.cce-review.org/Biogs.php
    Professor Geoffrey Boulton OBE, FRS, FRSE

    …Professor Boulton’s research is in the field of glaciology, glacial geology, Quaternary science and energy….

    He put his name to this:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6950783.ece

    Statement from the UK science community
    We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.

    Given the obvious dishonesty of glaciergate, either Professor Boulton didn’t read the IPCC report (with those findings he upheld), or he is not unbiased, or perhaps there are two Prof Geoffrey Boultons at Edinburgh University.

  42. Well a cock-up for the CRU independent review panel before it’s even started! No surprise with Sir Muir Russell in the Chair – his seems to have had a somewhat chequered career!

    Wiki says:-
    “…Career civil servant who was seconded to the Cabinet Office in 1990. He was appointed Permanent Secretary at The Scottish Office in May 1998, and to the Scottish Executive since its establishment in 1999.

    He was widely believed to be primarily responsible for the massive overspend on the new Scottish Parliament Building and was criticised by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie’s enquiry for failing to keep the politicians informed that the expenditure was far in excess of the budget.

    He took office as Principal of the University of Glasgow on 1 October 2003, but attracted much criticism for his handling of the 2006 lecturers’ strike, as well as attempts to close the University’s Crichton Campus in Dumfries and for receiving pay rises which were much greater than the rate of inflation. He retired in October 2009.”

    Sounds like a good choice of Chairman if you want the review to be a fiasco :-))

  43. JP (13:48:32) : OT: Greenhouse effect is a constant

    I followed your link, and yes, it looks like some sort of explosive, but I also stumbled on these:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d3-Open-Letter-to-NASA-director-Dr-James-Hansen-NASA-GISS

    An open letter to NASA director Dr. James Hansen (NASA GISS) on the same subject, and this:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d18-EPA-ignores-reality-in-scientific-breakthrough–unable-to-disprove-greenhouse-effect-in-equilibrium

  44. “”” JP (13:48:32) :

    OT: Greenhouse effect is a constant

    If this is true and holds water, it’s pure dynamite: “””

    Well some of us have been saying this for years. But the party line is that H2O is NOT a GHG; it is a CO2 feedback factor.

    Sorry; the atmosphere cares not who it is that conveys energy to it, in the form of heating; and water has been doing that for as long as humans can remember; in fact for as long as dinosaurs can remember too.

    Need I say it again; H2O is the only GHG that exists in all three phases in the earth’s atmosphere, and the balance between the vapor phase, and the other two (clouds) is what arrests any tipping point in its tracks.

  45. Shameful:

    “If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language…that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong…they have behaved as researchers should.”

    Then we find that he hadn’t looked at the emails himself, he was going on the basis of media reports.

    “I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks”

    Astonishing. So now we know why Nature was so biased in favour of ‘the Team’ and against sceptical scientists, and why it wrote such disgusting editorials. If ‘the Team’ and the Guardian say that sceptical scientists are a bunch of loony scumbags, and ‘the Team’ are first class scientists, then that’s gospel is it? And Nature can be used as a vehicle to impede science, slander scientists, and cover up malpractice – that’s OK is it?

    “I made my remarks…on the basis of media reports”.

    Yea, right, just like an editor of a prestigious journal ought to do. Campbell has NO credibility left whatsover now, and neither will Nature until he’s long gone and the journal has had a massive shake up and shake out.

    A disgrace to science.

  46. It’s a sorry state of British science that they can’t find a sceptical scientist in the climate field. After depriving anyone who questions global warming of funding for 20 years, what would they expect? Anyone who would have questioned global warming would have gone into other fields. No funding, no research. No research, no experts.

  47. “George E. Smith (14:56:24) :
    […]
    Well some of us have been saying this for years. But the party line is that H2O is NOT a GHG; it is a CO2 feedback factor.”

    Which obviously leads to the conclusion that there is anthropogenic H2O in the atmosphere – caused by feedback through anthropogenic C2O. And just like anthropogenic CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for 1000 years, i expect at least the same from anthropogenic H2O. Oh the Humidity!

    I love this AGW cult thing.

  48. At least Philip Campbell has some integrity and recognises his own bias and the inadequate base on which he cast his initial opinion. Hopefully he takes this new-found honesty into his work.

    Seriously, how does one choose an unbiased committee? Just about every “competent” person has a viewpoint on AGW. The task has all the difficulties of jury selection in a court of law.

  49. Philip Campbell should promptly resign as editor-in-chief of Nature.

    Astrology is more scientific than the consensus fairy tales published in Nature about the solar physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and nuclear physics.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Studies
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  50. Typo in the article, independent panel, should be in quotes: “independent panel”.

    REPLY: repeated as excerpt from Channel 4, take it up with them – Anthony

  51. “I made my remarks…on the basis of media reports”.
    Finally we know how it works: LOL
    “Nature” got the clues from the media, media from ICPP, ICPP from “Nature”
    How lovely triangle, I bet is getting hot inside. And this is good thing

  52. Andrew30 (14:27:56) :

    Oslo (14:03:10) :
    “David Eyton, BP group vice president, Research & Technology”

    BP has been funding the CRU since 1974.

    No conflict there.
    —————–
    Reply:
    So here we have a petroleum-producing company supporting AGW?

    Doesn’t this scuttle the idea of Big Oil supporting the deniers with big checks and research grants?

    Are they trying to profit at least twice on the carbon they produce–first when they sell the fuel and on the carbon tax aspects once it sits in the atmosphere?

    On the appointment of Philip Campbell to this board of inquiry, I just have to ask myself why he ever agreed to do it in the first place considering his cozy relationship w/ the CRU. Methinks he hasn’t read any of the hacked/whistleblown emails himself nor any critical analysis on the subject. That could be the only logical explanation.

  53. I have exactly zero respect for this so-called review. These people are committed to the cause – period. Put a fork in ’em.

  54. Putting David Eyton of BP on to the Climate Review Panel is wild. Isn’t BP funding CRU projects? The only positive thing that could come out of this is that if Mr. Eyton is a good man, and knows the scientific method, he may be shocked enough by the emails to get BP to pull out of the carbon fraud. Yeah, I’m a dreamer. But I’d feel real good about BP if they were to invest those monies in real eco projects instead of this BS PR stuff. I mean how about if they figure out how to mine the thousands of square miles of plastic debris floating in the oceans? Plastic is an end product of oil extraction and processing so they have a direct tie to the problem.

    It would be more rational to assume the fix is in and fight to kick Mr. Eyton off the Panel.

  55. There is a plethora of sound science and data on the side of the skeptics, hardly making it the “new religion”. Warmists have stepped up their use of Disinformation rule #26 by invoking the name of the flat-earthers and making comparisons to pygmies. The warmists are clearly now in cover-up mode in the aftermath of Climategate, and the unraveling has just barely begun. It was the cover-up, not complicity in the actual break-in that brought down Richard Nixon in the aftermath of Watergate.

  56. “No if it’s true it means it holds LESS water…. sorry i had to ;-)”

    True! :-)

    “The examiner’s article is very good. The most insightful writeup about Ferenc Miskolczi a newspaper has managed by now.”

    Has there been any thorough and neutral reviews about Miskolczi theory? How credible it is?

    To me it seems to be synoptic to Spencer and does not rule out Svensmark’s therory.

  57. The terms of reference are very frightening.
    “The Independent Climate Change Email Review will only be assessing the conduct of researchers at the UEA, not the conclusions of their scientific research. ”

    Clearly they will find misbehaviour in the “delay” in releasing the material requested in the FOI’s, but they will find that everything else is good science.

    And if the panel is truly “independent”, there is (from what I can recall) nothing internally inconsistent in the emails. It requires reference to outside information to know what the conspirators are referring to and what they are doing.

    This will be a whitewash.

  58. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, the whitewash is off to a typical start. I am a bit more cynical than some here, ( OK I am getting old, probably a LOT more cynical than most here ), I wonder if Natureboy’s was a withdrawal is a hat tip to impartiality to muddy the waters.

    As for his replacement, I hear Professor Philip Jones has some free time on his hands, looking at his resume, he looks ideal :-)

  59. I think this will end AGW must sooner than we all thought! The Editor In Chief of Nature MUST resign. It is no longer a credible journal. He/They have destroyed an icon of research and they must all go (so called “climate scientists”) so that the Journal can recover its respectability. BTW same goes for the AAAS etc….

  60. DW (14:39:31) – Quite apart from the lack of any scentific evidence presented, I object to the language of insults you are using. This is a science blog. Please ground yourself in some science. Then explain your hypotheses – but expect them to be challenged, as is normal in the scientific process.

  61. Regarding the Hungarian physicist paper, how does it work over large land masses like Asia where there is not excess moisture available to take place of CO2? This could explain why most of the warming has been observed in Asia and very little warming has been observed in the SH, which is mostly covered with water.

  62. Nature is complicit in this whole set of shenanigans. It is no wonder that they are circling the wagons along with the scientists of the CRU. I wouldn’t expect anyone at Nature to be an impartial judge on this matter.

  63. There is a concerted effort by Google/or someone in there me thinks to try to supress this story or at least minimise it. Its not even coming up in the news “climategate” etc..mr paranoie me LOL

  64. ScientistForTruth (15:06:05) : I entirely agree.

    Nature has been a disgrace and embarrassment to science and continues to be so.

  65. Thank you, Anthony; thank you, Andrew Monford (Bishop Hill blog); )thank you, Channel 4 News; thank you, Chinese State Radio; and thanks to all the truth-seekers with expertise who comment on WUWT. Reading all the comments is a pure delight.

    I am about as skeptical as anyone about any truth-seeking purpose of this inquiry. We easily can see that the outcome is planned, simply by the inappropriate appointment of Muir Russell at its head — look at his background; look at his statement of regret: ” I regret the loss of [Phillip Campbell’s] expertise”. It is Campbell’s expertise in phonying-up editorials, hijacking peer review for ideological AGW purposes, designing covers that lie, and publishing articles that falsify science (e.g., “Hockey Stick”, one of so many) that has made him an inappropriate choice from the beginning. The new international spotlight on this fraud is what INADVERTANTLY sealed his doom.

    I CONSIDER PHILLIP CAMPBELL’S HEAD AS THE FIRST ONE TO ROLL (anyone have other names to contribute? ) AS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT PARTICIPANTS IN THIS CONSPIRACY TO “DESTROY THE SCIENCE” OF GLOBAL WARMING. UNFORGIVABLE IF THERE IS TO BE SCIENCE!

    Perhaps Cambell’s influence (head-ship) has been only partially severed. After all, resigning from an inquiry is not the same as being removed as the editor of Nature. But we can bet that the world is watching. And are those Germans who took over Nature the same ones who destroyed Scientific American, a once fine popular science magazine, now an AGW rag? And who changed the policies of the once excellent Economist, now also beating the ideological AGW drum? The world is watching.

    Perhaps the world will pay more attention to: Kirls 13:37:22, “This is a $7 billion/year industry”. (And do you think that maybe most of those involved financially are trying to use tax dollars/fees [cap-n-trade] or government subsidies to get themselves out of debt or to cover for the fact that they have become incapable of making a profit in the “free market”. I think this $7 billion/year industry is a desperate last-gasp attempt to get out of the enoumous debt that the socialist and bubble (Greenspan, Paulsen et al) economies have inflicted on “us” — citizens of every country.

    Two closing comments: 1) Max Hugoson 13:55:05, “Nature is really a dinosaur waiting to die”; and 2) “No longer can the powerful elites control the flow [of] information. A guy typing away in his rec room just changed the course of the UK government’s planned whitewash.”

    I think there are a huge number of angry citizens in this world.

  66. “Dr Campbell, was invited to sit on the enquiry panel because of his expertise in the peer review process as editor of one of the world’s leading science journals.”
    __________

    His expertise in the (current) peer review process could be summed up on one side of a typed page and passed to a gold fish who would do a better and more equitable job of assessing the “climategate” fiasco at CRU in this “enquiry”.

  67. Clever move on behalf of UEA.

    Divide the problem into 2. The emails and scientific conduct, and secondly the science itself. Both reviews can fob off adverse comments by stating that the subject is being reviewed by the other panel, nicely obfuscating the whole affair.

    More importantly, they can find some damaging stuff in the emails etc, and issue mild rebukes where necessary, – problem dealt with. Meanwhile a team of on-side scientists finds nothing wrong with the science. They will report with a considerable time lag between them, so that any damage limitation can be complete before the next report comes out.

    They have taken 3 months to get this far. Not because they are slow, but because climategate didn’t go away. Meanwhile they have been busy behind the scenes working out how to deal with the problem. This is not Watergate, this is something that the majority of Western Governments and a lot of money are committed to. It is not something that outrages the public, as most of them are reliant on the MSM for their viewpoint. Until it outrages the MSM, it is going to be a long, drawn out knife fight. A week is a long time in politics. These reviews will not see the light of day for a few months, and there is much that could happen in between to distract attention.

    All credit to Anthony and Co. for keeping it going, and all credit to those who comment here, but I expect we have a way to go yet. These reviews, the review into Mann, and the parliamentary inquiry here in UK will not bring closure, of that I am sure. Example: Penn state inquiry into Mann. How long did the general outcry into the results last? 5 minutes. How did they draw the sting? -announce another inquiry. Politics as usual. The man in the street doesn’t have an attention span longer than yesterdays page 3 in the Sun. The media know it and so do the politicians.

    Sorry, I am getting old, so I have seen it all before.

  68. maz2 (Feb 11 14:40) wrote:

    Canada’s CBC, known as CBCPravda, has gone to air with this.
    Looks to be a first for CBC.
    This is the Current.
    Glaciergate – Andrew Weaver
    ====

    Actually, Rex Murphy was the first http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/rexmurphy/story/2009/12/03/thenational-rexmurphy-091203.html

    and, IMHO, did a much better job.

    FWIW, after listening to the segment, I sent the following via their Contact Us form:

    While it is refreshing to hear the CBC give some coverage to the issue of the declining credibility of the IPCC, Weaver was probably not the person to choose. Weaver (for all his protestations about how the IPCC does not prescribe “policy”) was one of the authors of the “Copenhagen Diagnosis” – described (quite accurately) by the National Post’s Terence Corcoran as:

    “[…] an IPCC-related piece of agit-prop issued just before the recent Copenhagen meeting.

    “The Copenhagen Diagnosis is as manipulative a piece of policy advocacy as can be found, filled with foreboding and alarming assessments. Described as “an interim evaluation of the evolving science,” it was an attempt to jump-start decision-making at Copenhagen. It failed, perhaps in part because one of the authors was U.S. climate scientist Michael Mann, who plays a big role in the Climategate emails.”

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2488011

    In the same ariticle, Corcoran notes that Weaver said of the 2007 IPCC report that it “isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles.” And if that isn’t an example of overhyped alarmist advocacy, I don’t know what is.

    Furthermore, his protestations regarding the purity of the findings of Working Group I (the so-called “sound/settled science” WG) fail to acknowledge the many conflicts of interest inherent in this so-called “gold standard”. For an example of this ethically-challenged – but much vaunted – “Review” process in action you might want to look at:

    http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/the-climate-change-game-monopoly-the-ipcc-version/

  69. In 1999, after completing a series of exhaustive testing of an IEC (Inertial Electrostatic Confinement) fusion device, Dr. George Miley submitted (with his Phd Graduate student, Brian Dysjerack, a paper to Nature…about the results of their work. The SINGLE PEER REVIEWER rejected the paper, on the basis that, “The IEC or Farnsworth Fusor, CANNOT WORK.” He sent Dr. Miley a 1972 paper by some fellows at Oak Ridge, that showed that the IEC device “cannot, theoretically” cause any fusion reactions to occur.

    *Snicker* The Farnsworth Fusor has been manufactured as a cheap neutron source for some time, I wonder where the neutrons are coming from? From what I’ve read, that the fusor achives fusion was established in the 1960s.

    Now, if the correct quote from the Oak Ridge paper was along the line of “cannot acheive or sustain break even”, that would be an accurate and non-risable conclusion. Bussards Polywell is an evolution of the Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor, Bussard figured out how to eliminate the internal electrode by confining the electrons with magnets.

  70. Once upon a time – before Nature sold its soul to those controlling the flow of federal research funds – Nature published unexpected findings of:

    a.) A basic flaw in the Uranium-Lead age of the Solar System [Nature 240 (1972) 56],

    b.) Severe mass fractionation (~4 % per mass unit) across the nine stable isotopes of Xenon in the Sun, the Earth, and the carbonaceous chondrites [Nature 240 (1972) 99], and

    c.) A pattern of excess Xe-124 and Xe-136 in carbonaceous chondrites that matched that expected in fresh supernova debris from the rapid p- and r-processes of nucloeosynthesis in a supernova explosion [Nature 240 (1972) 99].

    In 1972 Nature published a news story on the importance of these unexpected findings [“Isotopes in meteorites”, Nature 240 (1972) 378-379].

    Subsequent measurements over the next decade confirmed that poorly mixed supernova debris formed the entire Solar System (e.g., Excess Xe-136 accompanied all of the primordial He at the birth of the Solar System

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm

    and Nature even acknowledged “The demise of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System” [Nature 303 (1983) 286].

    That same year another journal published a paper showing that the most abundant element inside the Sun is Iron (Fe), although lightweight elements (H and He) cover the top of the Sun’s atmosphere [“Solar abundance of the elements”, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222].

    After 1983 Nature and other major journals switched their efforts to the rebirth of established dogmas of the formation of the Solar System from an interstellar cloud of H and He.

    I don’t know why. Was that when the unholy alliance of politicians, federal research agencies and publishers decided to use science as a propaganda tool to control people?

    Dr. Philip Campbell might be able to explain why Nature and other major journals have been systematically deceiving the public since 1983.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Sciences
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  71. I hopr this is not off topic but it has been raised by others including George E Smith who I respect.
    There are 4 considerations about CO2
    1/ That CO2 is saturated and any increase does not matter -Miskolczi mentioned in one of the first posts, also by Dr Hug see http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm
    2/ That radiation absorption of CO2 follows Beer’s law used by Lord Monckton. This resulting in logarithmic decline of absorption as CO2 increases ie exaggerated concern
    3/ That CO2 is not saturated but that absorption is insignificant which can be calculated from its spectra, the amount present and beam length in equations such as determined from experimentation in heat transfer equipment by Prof Hoyt Hottel (Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook)
    4/ The IPCC assumptions that CO2 is not saturated and that it increases temperature of the atmosphere and this in turn allows more H2O in the atmosphere and together they radiate back to earth. This has been disproved by the various findings such as temperature leading CO2 in ice cores, measurements of CO2 showing very much higher levels in the long past including ice ages and levels around 1940 equal to those at present, satellite data showing little temperature increase, satellite data showing no increase of H2O in the troposphere etc etc.

  72. The media quotes Dr Campbell who then quotes the media who quote Dr Campbell who………! Is the tail wagging the dog or what?

  73. JP (13:48:32) :

    This I just found, it is new to me:

    The Speculist –
    Miklos Zagoni isn’t just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

    That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center.

    I have read the paper, twice, and the review by a physicist, Miklos Zagoni mentioned at
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/ .
    or
    http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/13/ferenc-miskolczi%e2%80%99s-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-c02-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming/
    or just video

    and the actual paper
    http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

    It has some very deep implications if correct and evidently it has withstood scrutiny for some years now though I picked up some contention on Wiki.

    Read it, no wait, better to first read the review to prepare you for the paper, it hard to follow due to numerous parameters as you would expect from such a complex system as a planet’s climate, and all written in short form.

  74. RockyRoad (15:29:41) :
    “So here we have a petroleum-producing company supporting AGW?

    Doesn’t this scuttle the idea of Big Oil supporting the deniers with big checks and research grants? ”

    You decide.

    At the bottom of this page:

    www. cru. uea. ac. uk/cru/about/history/

    From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial list of companies that fund the CRU.
    It includes:

    British Petroleum, ‘Oil, LNG’
    Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, ‘Food to Ethanol’
    The United States Department of Energy, ‘Nuclear’
    Irish Electricity Supply Board. ‘LNG, Nuclear’
    UK Nirex Ltd. ‘Nuclear’
    Sultanate of Oman, ‘LNG’
    Shell Oil, ‘Oil, LNG’
    Tate and Lyle. ‘Food to Ethanol’
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, ‘Nuclear’
    KFA Germany, ‘Nuclear’
    World Wildlife Fund, ‘Political Advocates’
    Greenpeace International, ‘Political Advocates’

    You might what to check out what these and the other funding companies actually do.

    These companies have been funding the CRU for years and years. British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell were in there right at the start in 1974.

    I think that any organization that provided funding to the CRU must NOT be looking at the process or the outcome, since they already bought the processs and paid for the outcome.

  75. Ralph (17:14:43) :

    How many wheels does this ruddy wagon have?? It must have lost 12 already.

    It’s an 18-wheeler.

  76. Fasool Rasmin (18:33:57) :

    The media quotes Dr Campbell who then quotes the media who quote Dr Campbell who………!

    ******************
    Substitute Dr. Campbell with Climate Alarmist and the media with WWF, Greenpeace or just “the media” and you’ll get where many the facts come from supporting AGW.

  77. “Phillip Campbell photo: Rockefeller University”

    Rockefeller, this guys surely serves no special interests, he is fighting big oil which the Rockefeller’s are not part of.

  78. I don’t think the British Government will be able to salvage what they would term a satisfactory result from the various Climategate inquiries with banning the internet.

  79. wayne (18:33:58) :
    JP (13:48:32) :

    It has some very deep implications if correct and evidently it has withstood scrutiny for some years now though I picked up some contention on Wiki.

    Someone on another thread, a couple of days ago, said that there were 100 publications refuting this theory, but didn’t give a reference. I’ve seen a few refutations based on semantics, i.e. Miskolczi misquoted someone’s law or whatever. I’d like to ask that poster to perhaps provide the reference to the best scientific refutation, if it exists.

    I think Anthony had a short article on this some time back, but this would seem like a great topic for an article for someone like Willis. I could certainly school up on the principle of maximization of entropy and minimization of energy of our piss-ant ball of rock, water and a bit of gas.

    Also of note, Susan “1000 year carbon dioxide” Solomon was the first author on a paper in Science two weeks ago showing that water vapor levels in the stratosphere were down the past 10 years and, according to the press release, the conclusion was that this explained the leveling off of temperatures this decade. I need to read the original paper though (which is more difficult since I cancelled my subscription), but I’m still wondering if Miskolczi was referenced in that paper.

  80. Oliver K. Manuel

    I worked in academic libraries from the 70s up until the very late 80s. I am not sure about the reason but scientific and technical journals were hit with dramatic publishing and distribution costs during this time. It is also possible that academic libraries generally suffered budget cuts. I don’t recall that. Perhaps someone above my pay scale at the time will.

    Libraries were able to keep up with these expenses for a while but I remember seeing hard choices being made and overall number of subscriptions being cut dramatically. Librarians particularly dropped magazines they could fetch for patrons from near by libraries with ILLs and RBAs. This was the biggest issue at the time and it was done with a great deal of craft and much discussion between libraries.

    I remember being told that many of the big name journals found they could replace these subscription losses by writing on a more “popular level” and on subjects also more generally popular. Or at least by expanding their distribution base they could realize favorable economies of scale in production and distribution. That is, academic subscriptions became less important relative to these new individual subscriptions.

    For myself, I gave up reading Scientific American as far back as the late 70’s and now you say Nature jumped the shark as early as 1983!

  81. I feel I must say that this is about the most poorly written article I have ever read. If one were not familiar with the situation at hand one would be (as I am) lost. I manage to figure out only that another Campbell is humiliated, which pains me for reasons you might imagine.

  82. It was actually a commenter at Bish’s blog that brought up the comments that forced Campbell to resign for the inquiry.

  83. West Houston (20:29:45) :
    “I feel I must say that this is about the most poorly written article I have ever read. ”

    I think it was hastily posted as a “breaking” news story there and not edited wholly.

  84. philincalifornia (20:03:06) :

    Seems a shame that a longer period of a quiet sun, say eleven years, may have provided enough data to narrow the view on its merits one way or the other. This theory relies heavily on radiation balance. We have data from many years of the sun in active mode, seems he could use more data from many years while the sun remains quiet.

  85. Quote: John G. Bell (20:23:02) :

    “I worked in academic libraries from the 70s up until the very late 80s. I am not sure about the reason but scientific and technical journals were hit with dramatic publishing and distribution costs during this time. It is also possible that academic libraries generally suffered budget cuts. I don’t recall that. Perhaps someone above my pay scale at the time will.

    Libraries were able to keep up with these expenses for a while but I remember seeing hard choices being made and overall number of subscriptions being cut dramatically. Librarians particularly dropped magazines they could fetch for patrons from near by libraries with ILLs and RBAs. This was the biggest issue at the time and it was done with a great deal of craft and much discussion between libraries.

    I remember being told that many of the big name journals found they could replace these subscription losses by writing on a more “popular level” and on subjects also more generally popular. Or at least by expanding their distribution base they could realize favorable economies of scale in production and distribution. That is, academic subscriptions became less important relative to these new individual subscriptions.

    For myself, I gave up reading Scientific American as far back as the late 70’s and now you say Nature jumped the shark as early as 1983!”
    —–

    Thanks, John, for your reminder of events in the late 70’s and early 80’s.

    Yes, up to and including part of 1983 Nature published research articles and even published news reports as the old dogma was collapsing that Earth’s heat source is a Hydrogen-filled star.

    In 1977 Science published this debate about the origin of the Solar System and the solar neutrino puzzle [“Strange xenon, extinct superheavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195 (1977) 208-210].

    http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf

    It is intriguing that Nature, Science, and other major journals then abruptly reversed themselves and started publishing consensus opinions that led to the current climategate scandal.

    As I vaguely recall, the late 70’s or early 80’s was about the time that federal research agencies started funding mostly “block grants” to large groups of researchers.

    That produced climategate and a report by 178 scientists who coauthored the “discovery” that solar neutrinos from our Hydrogen-filled sun oscillate away before reaching detectors on Earth!

    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practise to deceive!

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  86. “I made my remarks…on the basis of media reports”.

    That’s an example Post Normal Science in its practical operation.

    Another is the infinite repetition of the “consensus” and “the consensus about a consensus” memes – everyone knows there is a consensus.

    “The Monkeys know it is true because they always say it is true.”

  87. I say this without a trace of facetiousness, but it would seem that any group empaneled “to investigate claims that climate scientists covered up flawed data on temperature rises” should incorporate – as a numerical majority – individuals who have spent the past several decades promulgating coherent critiques of the AGW hypothesis, emphatically to include people like Anthony Watts, Timothy Ball, S. Fred Singer, and others of similar inclination and reputation.

    To build upon a suggestion by an earlier poster, we might take the Wikipedia “hate list” of William Connolley – all those persons whom this mendacious [snip] has maligned on the issue of “climate change” in the Web pages of “Wiki-bloody-pedia” – and base initial recruitment on that criterion alone.

    I trust Mr. Connolley’s bad opinion as a strong positive indicator of a skeptic’s intelligence, eloquence, and fund of knowledge on this issue.

  88. Strikes me the forces of denial and darkness are trying to salt the panel to get their politically desired outcome.

  89. Maybe Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature, could not continue the editoral and propaganda publishing push and serve on the investigating panel at the same time.
    BAD FORM ah what? he would be of better value to the cause to stay independant.

  90. wayne (18:33:58) :

    I have read the paper, twice, and the review by a physicist, Miklos Zagoni …


    and the actual paper
    http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

    It has some very deep implications if correct and evidently it has withstood scrutiny for some years now though I picked up some contention on Wiki.
    ———————————————————

    Thanks for the links! I baed on paper and video I feel that this is quite solid theory and to none of the three studies which need to be disproved to disqualify this have not been disproved.

    I’ve just browsed through the paper so I can’t answer to question about dry continents like Asia, but map in the study shows that measurements have been done also in Asia and Siberia. I guess that there are regional differences as the cloud cover varies between 0-100% regionally, but the constant 1.8676 would be the globe.

    Global temperature would still vary based on variances of incoming energy (Sun / secondary effects) but the global greenhouse effect would be a constant and out of equation for warming or cooling, no problem if you double or triple the amount of CO2, it will be automatically compensated by less humidity (H2O).

    This would also give a solid explanation why we have had 7x or 20x CO2 in the atmosphere in the past wo runaway AGW.

    If this paper has withstood scrutiny for some years now, should we put some effort to get it checked by as many scientists we can and if the theory still seems to be robust, use this Information in connection with UK Hearing?

    Then it would be something like “IPCC Scientists have been using questionable methods trying to defend their global warming theory, which is proven to be obsolete by Dr. Miskolczi ”

    Hearing or not, who would then be interested about hearing how white is their whitewash?

    It would really be science again if the whole AGW theorem would be crushed by these three papers. This would be similar to what happened to Ether when some Austrian patent office clerk came along.

  91. I guess the only thing which is important about this story is whether the Nature editor tried to get away with it and stay on the panel to organise a whitewash.

    And who asked him to be on the panel in the first place.

    And why.

    You’ll note I’m note saying he did, I’m saying it’s a possibility which needs to be determined and acted upon. Because if he did seek to organise a whitewash, then he may need to resign from his day job too……

  92. I would not dismiss the ability of the British establishment to get to the truth. Sometimes it happens. There have been some interesting revelations in the Chilcot enquiry on the Iraq war. Just this week the appeal court ruled in the Binyam Mohamed case to release some confidential documents showing that the CIA was involved in torture of British suspects at Guantanamo, despite the fact that the British and US governments wanted that kept quiet.

    The Sir Muir Russell enquiry is supposed to look into what was leaked or hacked. The Commons Select Committee, to be held in March, has more of a brief around the science. Select Committees are usually the place where the fur and feathers fly.

    There’s a new mood of transparency in the UK based on:

    The internet informing us all of the non-establishment views (thanks Anthony) including these enquiries being streamed and / or having their own websites
    The Human Rights Act
    The police, government, etc. having been caught out several times in outright lies, and the public being in no mood to hear any more of them.

    What we have to do is to keep the issues we care about in front of the MSM , to ensure that the enquiries get the appropriate level of focus when they occur.

  93. Editor-In-Chief Nature:Key words that seems to be forgotten here and (newspapers) everywhere else. This is extremely signbificant in the whole AGW saga. They seem to have been pushing the same agenda

  94. Thanks Anticlimactic, that’s the best summary yet, very detailed.

    Everyone just loves RealClimate, all of their integrity, right?

    The following link goes into Nick Stokes’ (RealClimate wiki) persistent attempts to discredit and stall this paper and here is a link to Dr. Miskolczi’s and the authors line by line explanation countering Stokes’ assertions.

    All should read both.
    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi
    This one is a real eye opener.
    http://miskolczi.webs.com/Answers_to_some_criticism.htm

    What really will get you, if you know the difference between closed form integrating an equation and solving an integration by numeric methods, Stokes complains that Miskolczi paper is not acceptable because instead of numerically integrating the equation in a computer like all of the GCM’s do, he actually integrated the closed form of the Schwarzschild- Milne equation instead. Stokes seems not to accept that (authority?). Stokes seems not able to solve the equation himself. I didn’t see any of his objections holding any weight. Basically Stokes seems not like the old tried and true laws of physics, he must trust data more, wonder why.
    ( For the layman: that is similar to telling Einstein that you will no accept his paper on general relativity because he has only solved closed form equations in his paper. He must rewrite every equation in a differential form in four dimensions so the peer-reviewers can place them in a computer and numerically integrate to approximate the answer to verify his gravitational fields. That’s pretty close to what Stokes seems to be saying. )

  95. Nominees for Inquiry Panel on Global Warming

    With an obvious bias that nuclear energy ultimately heats the Earth, the Sun and sustains life, I offer the following names of knowledgeable reviewers that might serve on the new enquiry panel being organized by the University of East Anglia or to replace of Dr. Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature, on the enquiry panel chaired by Sir Muir Russell to investigate claims that scientists covered up and/or distorted data on global temperatures.

    1. Dr. Stephen O. Dean, editor, Journal of Fusion Energy.

    2. Dr. Tibor Braun, editor, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry.

    3. Professor Freeman Dyson of Princeton University.

    4. Dr. David Whitehouse, science news reporter.

    5. Dr. Benny Peiser, editor of CCN, Cambridge Conference Network.

    6. Lord Nigel Lawson, Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and former Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    7. Dr. Yurii G. Abov, editor, Physics of Atomic Nuclei (Yadernaya Fizika).

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Sciences
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  96. Due to the complicity and duplicity of the Mainstream Media, Politicians, some wealthy Entrepreneurs, etc., I think all the issues will be papered over, minimized, etcetera.

    I imagine the committee will “rephrase” the issues such that “innocence” is the only possible outcome. And, it will be found that “denier” bloggers have “conspired” to make a “mountain out of a mole hill”.

    Until, the US Senate drives a stake into AGWs heart, it will continue to be a political “monster” threatening to drain civilization’s resources — for the benefit of the “connected” few. Right now the Senate is loaded up with “true believers” and “connected” individuals — so, I am not holding my breath.

  97. Tucci (22:29:39) :
    I say this without a trace of facetiousness, but it would seem that any group empaneled “to investigate claims that climate scientists covered up flawed data on temperature rises” should incorporate – as a numerical majority – individuals who have spent the past several decades promulgating coherent critiques of the AGW hypothesis, emphatically to include people like Anthony Watts, Timothy Ball, S. Fred Singer, and others of similar inclination and reputation.

    as a numerical majority” ?!?! Not likely! It would be enough to ask them to include a single “devil’s advocate” — of a milder character than a noted skeptic — on their panel, so that they don’t make fools of themselves, the way the Penn State panel did, by failing to address important leads and topics. That consideration is the only one that will cut any ice with them.

    llen 63:

    Until, the US Senate drives a stake into AGWs heart, it will continue to be a political “monster” threatening to drain civilization’s resources — for the benefit of the “connected” few. Right now the Senate is loaded up with “true believers” and “connected” individuals — so, I am not holding my breath.

    Get a load of this link (interview with Dick Morris): “Can GOP gain 51-seat majority in 2010?”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585243,00.html

  98. @Tucci: But it’s of course a terrific idea for commissions of inquiry to SOMEHOW include input from knowledgeable fringies, as you suggest. All too often the “insiders / normals /establishment-men” think they know it all and thus defeat their purpose (reassuring the public that all is under control) due to the too-narrow scope of their investigation. Example #1, the Warren Commission,

  99. kim (13:26:53) said :

    And why on earth did Muir Russell think he was unbiased? Will he be replaced with William Connolley?
    ===========================

    I think Billy Connolley would be a much better investigator than these twits. :)

  100. cold hot: “Naturegate?”

    now that’s going too far too many climate scandals are just being overblown by the gate suffix

    It’s beyond a joke, its gate-gate!

  101. Tucci “I trust Mr. Connolley’s bad opinion as a strong positive indicator of a skeptic’s intelligence”

    How do I put this – let’s just say that Wikipedia has been very useful, it has kept people like Billy busy on a fruitless task which will take just minutes to undo (when the time is right) whilst the real campaign was being fought and won elsewhere!

    And in his own special way, silly billy has done more than anyone else to galvanise the campaign against alarmism. Come on this joker has been a god send to us – particularly when he was an admin doling out bans left right and centre and convincing everyone he met by his rude manner that there was clearly something rotten in climate science.

  102. A little Nature perspective. From “The Road to Serfdom”, by F.A. Hayek, 1944:
    “…the passage in which M. Benda speaks of the “superstition of science held to be competent in all domains, including that of morality…It is to be noted that the dogma that history is obedient to scientific laws is preached especially by partisans of arbitrary authority. This is quite natural, since it eliminates the two realities they most hate, i.e., human liberty and the historical action of the individual.”
    …C.H.Waddington’s little book under the characteristic title, “The Scientific Attitude”, is as good an example as any of a class of literature which is actively sponsored by the influential British weekly Nature and which combines claims for greater political power for the scientists with an ardent advocacy of wholesale “planning.”…he clearly sees and even emphasizes that the tendencies he describes and supports inevitably lead to a totalitarian system. Yet apparently this appears to him preferable to what he describes as “the present ferocious monkey-house civilization.”
    Dr. Waddington’s claim that the scientist is qualified to run a totalitarian society is based mainly on his thesis that “science can pass ethical judgement on human behavior” – a claim to the elaboration of which by Dr. Waddington, Nature has given considerable publicity. [Footnote here: “The September 6, 1941, issue of Nature contained an essay by Waddington titled “The Relations between Science and Ethics,” together with comments on the article by eight others. Subsequent issues contained further exchanges between Waddington and various others. All of this was ultimately collected in the book…”]
    …[From] Dr. Waddington’s book (which was a collection of the just mentioned discussions in Nature). Freedom, he explains, “is a very troublesome concept for the scientist to discuss, partly because he is not convinced that in the last analysis, there is such a thing.”…
    …Dr. Waddington’s convictions are largely determined by his belief in “inevitable historical tendencies” which science is presumed to have discovered and which he derives from “the profound scientific philosophy” of Marxism, whose basic notions are “almost, if not quite, identical with those underlying the scientific approach to nature”…”

  103. Phillip Campbell

    You said, “The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong.”

    Phillip, after reading the following email of LAST YEAR, I found that the widely used statement “the science is settled” was untrue.

    ‘——————————————
    On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

    Hi Tom

    How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

    Kevin

    Source: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt
    ‘——————————

    Cheers

  104. Quote: Fen (08:37:03) :

    “There should be consequences for this global fraud.”

    There are indeed consequences that none of us expected!

    Our democratic governments have been undercut by an unholy alliance of politicians, publishers, journals, and the news media that began using science as a tool of propaganda in the late 70’s or early 80’s.

    These are the consequences that absolutely none of us expected to find when we first recognized fraud in out individual fields of science: climatology, cosmology, space sciences, nuclear physics, solar physics, astronomy and astrophysics.

    Regretfully,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Sciences
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  105. Hi from Norway :-)

    I picked up this walktrough/walkover of the last 30 years of surfacetempdata collecting methods:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html

    it is a 111 pages of ripping-to-pieces the credibillity of the global warming bias that almost everything in the IPCC2007 is based upon… If the underlying datasets and the so called compensation-adjustments is so proven messed with, it is GAME OVER for the IPCC-order already!

    Every single reference to Global Warming/Climate Change as the cause of every single nature phenomena these days, is based on the FAKED FACT that this temperature-reporting from NOAA-NASA-CRU is showing a rising temperature. Even the climate-models is based on and trimmed to support this lie!

    This report, made by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, should be heavily distributed so to make it harder to make such claims of connection -these claims are the ones Politicians build their “climatic power” upon. Ice melting, earthquackes, sealevelrise, heatwaves.. -they all scare the belief into people.

    Add the subsea vulcano activity and hotsprings close to both poles…melting ice?? can you beleive it? -this subsea activity is not reported by IPCC, it’s not funded and researced upon either ;-). But by accident it is documented :-)

    ((As to why this AGW conspiration was started, my horse is: to prepare for a CO2 market to take over for the fading oil market and power. Those riding the oilmoneypower do not want to lose their influence over the world and it’s trade. CO2-trade is an even more perfect intrument than oil to controll with it’s simply not geograpically dependent. When this truth start to surface, the only coverup left for the power behind is to generate huge, worldwide crises or catastrophes…… or will they try this “wasn’t me” once more ? ))

    Kindly, Roger Abel

  106. IsoTherm writes:

    And in his own special way, silly billy [William Connolley] has done more than anyone else to galvanise the campaign against alarmism. Come on this joker has been a god send to us – particularly when he was an admin doling out bans left right and centre and convincing everyone he met by his rude manner that there was clearly something rotten in climate science.

    I agree that the egregious Mr. Connolley has served well as the personification of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi in the Web pages of “Wiki-bloody-pedia” (props to Mr. Monckton for that ever-so-apt descriptor), but I’m quite serious in my suggestion that we use Mr. Connolley’s hate list as a screening tool for the selection of articulate and informed skeptical reviewers of the AGW hypothesis.

    The practices of “silly billy” in his obsessive mangling of the Wikipedia site have been reliably informed by a kind of perverse expertise and understanding of sound methodology in the analysis of global climate change. That would have to be the case, else Mr. Connolley could not so proximally perceive the postings and the persons who have undertaken either directly or indirectly to threaten “the consensus” which Mr. Connolley and his co-religionists support so fanatically.

    If “silly billy” is indeed a godsend to those of us on the realist side of this exchange, it is less as a poster child for the public ridicule of AGW hysteric fraudulence and rather more as a cohering factor to help us better identify potentially valuable allies who have come independently to the same conclusions about the “Cargo Cult Science” Mr. Connolley has been shoving down people’s throats for the past decade and more.

  107. Every day the fraud is exposed. We will not rest. We are going to expose every single rat who propagated this garbage and we are going to expose the media who served as propagandists for the warming alarmists. This is outrageous. Wait until the grab for money is investigated. The investigation will not come from the driveby media, the statists, or the MSM. It will come from those who believe in truth and fact based evidence. We are going to drive out of science and the media every bum and liar who put forth this filth for decades. Say good bye to that vacation condo, you freaks.

  108. “The scientists have not hidden the data.
    If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong.”

    NOW THAT IS FUNNY- We all recognized the LIES but apparently only Scientist’s think lies are something else- Scientific “Jargon”
    Throw them all in Jail for criminal deception and fraud- Start with Al Gore
    They only want our money- and there is darn little left of that at this point
    THEIVING -LYING -CRIMINALS -PLAIN AND SIMPLE

    If you stole a loaf of bread you would go to jail

    THEY STEAL BILLIONS THRU FRAUD- and claim we dont understand Scientific”Jargon”

  109. for a summary of ethics and safety concerns at a high profile cancer research center (mskcc, where clinical trial candidates are developed), please see:
    http://www.mskccheats.blogspot.com
    “Sloan is pursuing a systemic approach to reducing expenses and increasing revenues […] One example of this is discouraging terminally ill patients from seeking initial treatment or second opinions from the cancer center […] the admission of such patients is counterproductive […] to Sloan Kettering.” [paraphrasing salient features, MSKCC, CFO/Chief Financial Officer]
    Institutes and individuals capable of performing such high levels of research clearly know better than to act in so disingenuous and selfish a manner
    Why would a non clinician instruct a colleague to withhold/embargo known information relative to availability of clinical trial candidates developed off site, yet tested at MSKCC (e.g. BMS’, Novartis’) when the in house (e.g. Bioorganic’s) candidate had not yet left the proverbial starting gate?
    Why have there been reports of high profile non clinicians leveraging clinicians overseeing clinical trials to continue enrollment possibly in variance with the intuition of the clinician … when very large ‘milestone’ (e.g. completion of a clinical trial phase) achievement royalty payments are in the balance?
    Why would Sloan build a laboratory building strewn with toxins and knowingly not install ductwork controls?
    Why would Sloan abandon a building after its employees are chronically exposed to poison (carbon monoxide) after terminating on pretense employees who complained about heath concerns?
    MSKCC has been cited for ’serious’ environmental health and safety infractions by OSHA
    MSKCC has been cited by the EPA
    Ed Mahoney VP currently heads MSKCC Facilities Management
    Sarah Danishefsky Ph.D. (a non clinician) has administered the bioorganic chemistry laboratory
    Attorney Shelly Friedman has represented MSKCC when it attempts to assuage a rightfully concerned local community (and its CB8M board) relative to environmental health and safety (EH&S) concerns
    Christine Hickey has in the past been a spokesperson for MSKCC
    MSKCC, we hoped you’d be our hero.
    MSKCC, minimally you’re supposed to care.
    Shame on you MSKCC
    Boo.
    You know better.
    How dare you, MSKCC

  110. This turkey had a vested personal interest in covering up anything contrary to AGW orthodoxy. I’m amazed that he recused himself- this whole mess must be even worse than it looks.

  111. Robert Kral, having been part of the believers and doing my bit to cheer leader them on, I know that there doesn’t need to be a lot to totally change your view. Here is how I think it happens:

    1. I used to assume the “sceptics were highly paid lobbyists” and the “believers” were well intentioned individuals struggling to get the science heard. It’s not until you WRONGLY get labelled as a sceptic and become the target of the bile of the well organised highly professional attack machine of the believers and see the disparate individuals who were sceptics – that paradigms suddenly looks ridiculous

    2. I used to assume “someone had done the science”. Every one tells you the “science is settled” so you assume that somewhere there’s this superb science which you don’t need to see because it is it bound to be there.

    3. But when you realise that it is just possible the evidence may not be all that it is said to be, and you start looking…

    4. You go through a phase of looking whilst “giving them the benefit of the doubt”. The fact you can’t see how they justify their assertion doesn’t mean that somewhere there isn’t something that does justify their assertion that mankind is the proven factor warming the globe.

    5. Eventually you realise that you have followed enough leads to papers that are about the effects of warming and not the cause and you have been led up enough blind alleyways and assured enough times that “it is there” without being able to find it that, you realise, even though you don’t want to, that you can no longer assert the assumption that: “there must be science underpinning this assertion”.

    6. For a while you mildly assert: “on balance …. I’m not sure … but the evidence is not there”

    7. Pistoffenough
    Finally, the realisation dawns, that there wasn’t ever any evidence, that people have been blatantly conning you – and you’ve be lying to other people. And you know you used to be so certain that manmade warming was true, and now you realise that you’ve been had.

    Notice, none of this change is based on MORE evidence, it is based on appraising the evidence that is currently available and finding it lacking. Most of the mainstream media are now in around phase 3/4. They are still giving the climate “scientists” the benefit of the doubt, but the onus is now on the climate “scientists” to prove that they have the evidence to back their assertions.

    But as you will notice from the lack of any such evidence being put out by the mainstream media, the climate “scientists” simply lack the goods to back up their claim, and so it is only a matter of time before the press pack stop giving them the benefit of the doubt and you get the last phase:

    8) “search for the guilty”.

  112. IsoTherm had written of his own progress from AGW “believer” to AGW “sceptic” in eight stages, and I confess that I’d never thought about such a process before.

    I’ve been a skeptic (extremely unpaid) on the subject since it first came to my intention around 1980. In addition to an education in the sciences, I’m a lifelong science fiction fan and was at that time very active in SF fandom. Mundane (“outsider”) prejudices to the contrary, fandom represents a population of highly literate, analytically adroit, technologically well-informed, and extremely argumentative people. SF conventions routinely run “science tracks” consisting of well-attended panel presentations on cutting-edge technologies of interest to SF fen.

    Hell, at one Balticon, several clinical research people from Johns Hopkins presented several seminars on space medicine. At the first presentation, during Q&A, the chair got a puzzled look on his face when confronted with query after query couched in language straight out of Dorland’s Medical Dictionary and asked for all the physicians and nurses to raise their hands.

    Well over half of those attending did so, which surprised the hell out of me.

    He asked us to sign in at the end of the lecture series, and I came away from that Balticon with three CME credits from Johns Hopkins. Who’da thunk?

    The moment the AGW hypothesis broke – decades ago – SF fen started batting it back and forth intra familia, and “the consensus” quickly evolved to the effect that the mundanes were (as usual) out of their friggin’ minds. It was obvious right then and there that they were overestimating the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 by at least three or four orders of magnitude.

    Fandom then being what fandom is now – a loose aggregation of speculative fiction afficionados quietly convinced of our innate superiority in all regards when compared against the mundanes – pretty much disregarded the AGW blatherskite as bootless, and I recall no further significant discussion of the concept during the rest of the ’80s.

    But I’d never had to make such a progression as is detailed by IsoTherm because from the outset I understood it to be an untenable and unsupported hypothesis, and had dismissed it utterly.

    No change in the intervening decades, of course.

  113. Scientists have not hidden the data but they have lost the raw data by their own admission. The most ridiculously suspicious graph in the history of graphs must be hockey stick one representing proxy temperatures over the last millennium. Steadily going down from 1000 AD and suddenly rising exponentially as soon as the industrial revolution starts. Could anything look more suspicious than that. Al Gore had to stand on a step ladder to demonsrate the dramatic rise. If I was responsible for something so obviously bogus I would lose the raw data as well.

  114. IsoTherm (01:40:39), 13 Feb:
    You describe a step-by-step process, initially accepting at face value what the Warmists said, gradually educating yourself, arriving at the conclusion that we’ve been duped, and finally wanting to “search for the guilty”.
    My own journey has been identical to yours.
    Although the battle of ideas is going strongly in our favour (since the hacker published the Climategate e-mails, bless him), I am still concerned that there are so many vested interests that the Warmists may still win. A lot of politicians will lose face if they recant. Many scientists will lose their seat on the gravy train. There are clever besuited bastards in the City of London preparing to make millions out of Cap and Trade.
    So how do we consolidate this “victory”. I sugest that (a) We exert citizen-power on the various inquiries going on, and tell ’em that no Penn State Whitewashes will be tolerated (b) The newspapers (brainless numpties that they are) have reached a tipping point, and now think they can sell more copies by ridiculing the Gore Brigade (c) We put pressure on our MPs (congressmen etc), to get with the sceptic programme and, as a by-product, save us all from increased taxes which otherwise would’ve been frittered away on solutions to a nonexistent problem.
    Future generations will look on Hansen, Mann, Briffa, Jones, Gore, Pachauri et al with scorn and contempt.

Comments are closed.