Editorial by S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
ClimateGate Whitewash
There is now a desperate effort afoot by assorted climate alarmists to explain away the revelations of the incriminating e-mails leaked last year from the University of East Anglia (UAE). But the ongoing investigations so far have avoided the real problem, namely whether the reported warming is genuine or simply the manufactured result of manipulation of temperature data by scientists in England and the United States.
The latest report is by the British House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee, which largely absolved Philip Jones, head of UEA’s Climate Research Unit and author of most of the e-mails. How can we tell that it’s a whitewash? Here are some telltale signs:
- It refers to the e-mails as “stolen”
- It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics
- Yet it derives the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the basic science and that warming is human caused – essentially endorsing the IPCC
None of the investigations have gone into any detail on how the data might have been manipulated. But this is really the most important task for any investigation, since it deals directly with the central issue: Is there an appreciable human influence on climate change in the past decades?
Instead, much of the attention of newspapers, and of the public, has focused on secondary issues: the melting of Himalayan glaciers, the possible inundation of the Netherlands, deforestation of the Amazon, crop failures in Africa, etc. While these issues demonstrate the sloppiness of the IPCC process, they don’t tell anything about the cause of the warming: natural or anthropogenic.
So what do the e-mails really reveal? We know that Jones and his gang tried and largely succeeded in “hiding the decline” of temperature by using what he termed “Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick.” Most people think it refers to CRU tree ring data after 1960, which do show a decline in temperature. However, I believe that it refers to Michael Mann’s “trick” in hiding the fact that his multi-proxy data did not show the expected warming after 1979. So he abruptly cut off his analysis in 1979 and simply inserted the thermometer data supplied by Jones, which do claim a strong temperature increase. Hence the hockey-stick, suggesting a sudden major warming during the past century.
Only a thorough scientific investigation will be able to document that there was no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented warming record is based on data manipulation, involving the selection of certain weather stations, [and the de-selection of others that showed no warming], plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating.
Dr Singer. So they’re calling you names again.
name Singer as a “serial denier” without bothering to define what that term even means.
“Were you surprised about the Phil Jones inquiry?”
Lord Monckton: “Not at all. Remember Parliamentary Inquiries are set up to exonerate Parliament…”
The investigation lasted exactly one day and amounted to a bunch of crack pots patting themselves on the back.
The only place where skeptics can get a fair hearing is a court of law. Someone needs to figure out who to sue and get hopping. I will contribute the first $100 to the legal fund.
Whitewash is everywhere, but if anyone thinks this going to rescue the agw mud palace from destruction, all they have to do is look at the polls of ordinary citizens in US and EU. This disgrace won’t die gracefully but die it will. Already new papers are coming out bringing back to life the Roman WP, the MWP and even the since unsurpassed 1930s temperature highs and drought. Much of the mess made of climate science will be quickly sorted out in this way rather than through adjustments to ipcc and recalculations by hadley et al.
I’m seeing an inordinate number of student-aged canvassers out on the street begging for funds for greenpeace. Clearly climategate has impacted their ability to raise cash from a teed-off public. I believe gp, wwf and other orgs up to their rears in agw disgrace are also on their way out. A good plan for them would have been to jump on another bandwagon but wouldn’t you know, they will cling to the crumbling ruins of agw til death.
Whitewash gate…
Good grief!,
The never ending AGW propaganda baloney train continue and it get stupider and stupider.
The “money” quote:
“Instead, much of the attention of newspapers, and of the public, has focused on secondary issues: the melting of Himalayan glaciers, the possible inundation of the Netherlands, deforestation of the Amazon, crop failures in Africa, etc. While these issues demonstrate the sloppiness of the IPCC process, they don’t tell anything about the cause of the warming: natural or anthropogenic.”
Since we know the AGW hypothesis is still unvalidated and thus fails to advance to the status of a THEORY.Therefore the are trying to convince the ignorant and unfortunately gullible non scientists that we are facing a doom and gloom run away warming future …. ,UNLESS you trust us and support massive government controls over your energy consumption.Thus we will be in greenie paradise!
Feel better now?
The report authors are assuming we are stupid and thus get away with it.They have badly miscalculated because in just the last months there has been a strong growth of new blogs online that attacks the absurdity of the AGW hypothesis and the stupid criers of doom from the media AND environmentalists.
We are onto you and it is not pretty,the way we are tearing your entire alarmist shell game that was nurtured for many years.Now it is over and yet you fail to see it.
You are being pathetic for trying to continue the AGW apocalypse B.S. when it is no longer going to work.
“It refers to the e-mails as “stolen””
They are still trying to make this bogus claim stick.But it is interesting they are not trying to (there is that word) deny the contents anymore.Since it is way to damning to fight it.Thus they are trying to undermine the whole thing with babble that it was stolen and so fourth.
“It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics”
The very ones who were aggrieved by the unethical and sometime unlawful actions by those who were implicated in those e-mails.The ones who did not adequately follow the standard of providing the relevant data along with their science paper for publication.
“Yet it derives the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the basic science and that warming is human caused – essentially endorsing the IPCC”
The same IPCC report that has been exposed as being full of holes,with a lot of unpublished research in it that have been exposed as being erroneous.You have seen the revelations that a lot of so called papers posted were from environmentalist groups and other non science groups.
The same IPCC group that allow a terrible “Hockey Stick” paper (that contradicted a few decades of research in several fields) to be included with fanfare back in 2001.The one that made two well known climate trends vanish.The Medieval warm period and the Little Ice age.
That alone should have convinced many THEN that it was all baloney.I never fell for it because I knew from the 1970’s on their existence of these two climate periods,that greatly impacted the world.
What ever happened to that much vaunted and talked about “PEER REVIEWED” (before it can be published) standards,commonly brought up in various blogs and forums,by those who are AGW believers.The one they kept pestering us with.
ROFLMAO!
I think the whitewashers are stupid for trying to maintain the charade of a failed AGW hypothesis,that are STILL built on the sand foundation quality of climate models.
The obvious lies and the mendacious manipulations to placate a public that is no longer very receptive to their absurd endless scaremongering.The public are tired of the mountain of snow and cold in recent years to care so easily anymore.
When will the alarmist madness end?
kwik.
I say just let them shut Drax, Ferrybridge & Ratcliffe!
They’d pretty soon find out how much support they have. That would be about 8Gw dropped off the grid. I see ropes!
DaveE.
Oh yes.
For anyone who doesn’t believe it, we really are that marginal on power. We nearly had a grid shut-down 2 years ago when there were 2 stations shut down unexpectedly.
DaveE.
The truth doesn’t matter. It’s never been about science–it’s always been about power and exerting it through a global Carbon Come Ponzi scheme.
So, even though we know there is no scientific support for AGW, our alien overlords don’t care, and their minions in the press will write what they are told–especially those like the BBC that are literally invested in Carbon.
Obama, Brown, Rudd; they continue to spout decade-old AGW dogma that has been thoroughly debunked. And their supposed opponents succumb to the siren song of Carbon trading and taxing lucre.
As someone said last week, “We haven’t laid a glove on them.”
Green”peace”….from now on it is called greenhate
Of course it will have been a whitewash, the people doing the investigating were the same ones who feed them millions of taxpayer money to provide the data background for the propaganda to pass such things as the kyoto protocol and the rest.
mandolinjon (17:01:02) :
kwik (16:03:04) :
I found something even more alarming at William Briggs site http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2159 entitled Obamacare & Climate>>
Uhm… the date of the entry is… April 1?
Liam (15:57:42) :
Lon Hocker (15:30:48) :
Use the ballot box.
Time for a non-violent, but thorough revolution
—————————-
Difficult when all 3 major political parties in the UK seem signed up to AGW.
Maybe that makes for an opportunity. Political parties need differentiation. Pick the one that seems the most willing to change. Here in the US, a year ago the Republican party was solidly on the AGW bandwagon. Not so now.
Just bear in mind that the “ban carbon” movement believes they still have the majority here in N. America, and are trying to make their stand here. All governments in NA are closely involved in evolving a tax and fee structure around carbon, and are heavily committed to seeing these ever growing penalties enacted ASAP. It is woven into the budgets of all levels of government. They will not give up this grab easily.
Thanks for keeping the flame burning Anthony (et al)
Liam (15:57:42) :
Easy answer Liam.
Vote UKIP or the party that can’t be mentioned! ABBCC, (Anyone But Brown, Cameron or Clegg!)
DaveE.
davidmhoffer (18:29:52) :
“Uhm… the date of the entry is… April 1?”
Hmmm. The Greenpeace part 1) is 31 march, part 2) is 1’st April…. dunno? Have I been had again?
The Briggs scenario with temperature zones… since you mention 1’st April… It does seem a bit far fetched with temperature targets…they cannot be that crazy? …. Almost like China and Mao’s production targets…… no, cannot be true.
And yet, Merckel and Brown promised, was it 1.5 and 2 degrees they over-bid each other with?
Dr. Singer is one of the true heroes of modern science. He’s been fighting the exaggeration known as anthropogenic global warming for as long as the theory has been in existence and doing it with restraint, style and perseverance.
Thank you, Doctor.
You’ll post the GreenWar death threats but you exclude me ’cause I called them “snot-nosed little creeps”
?
REPLY: well, that was then, this is now.
Most people seem to have missed the important statement James Lovelock recently made in his 3/29/10 Guardian interview
“I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”
Please note the Father of Green says the ozone hole data were faked- not wrong- faked!!!! That statement should have made world wide headlines.
So perhaps this is what the UK Jone’s investigation meant when it claimed Jones simply did what other environmental scientists do.
Cites “Singer, S.F.“:
Vaughan, P.L. (2010). Volcanic Activity, the Sun, the Moon, & the Stratosphere.
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm
Updated April 3, 2010 — new graphs:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT,DVI,VEI,MSI.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/LunarHarmonicSpectrum.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SAOT_Lunar_11a.png
“[…] phase coherence […] is 0.9.”
Lon:
Lon Hocker (15:30:48) :
Use the ballot box.
Time for a non-violent, but thorough revolution.
Let’s just hope those ballots don’t need to be “peer-reviewed” before they are cast or counted!
==Wayne
It was an April Fool’s Day joke.
Of course, the secret of all good humor is the kernel of truth. One could almost believe such insanity plausible these days.
/Mr Lynn
OK, that’s number one: No warming.
If there’s no warming, then numbers two and three are moot.
End of discussion.
Up to now, even most climate realists have conceded that there has been some ‘global warming’ over the past century, particularly over the period from 1979 through 1998. Is it time for the skeptical side to reach down and pull the alarmist scenario up by the roots? If the warming was faked, then all that remains is to shout it from the housetops.
Unfortunately, the media and the politicians are not listening—not even when Prof. Jones said there had been no statistically-significant warming since 1995!
What will it take to break through the wall of vested interest in the AGW mythos? Perhaps a public recantation by James Hansen would do it.
/Mr Lynn
Just exactly what
S. Fred is on in his head.
Singer of Cloud Tunes.
=============