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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ginckgo (04:25:44),
Yes, do your own research about “getting people fired and supressing publications.” You will sound less foolish, and certainly less ignorant.
We’re not here to spoon feed those afflicted with terminal cognitive dissonance. The exact events you described are well documented in the East Anglia/CRU emails, and they have never been denied by their authors.
Anyone sentient has read the emails by Mann, Jones, and the other petty tyrants threatening professional journals and individuals, and scheming to further corrupt their lucrative climate peer review/grant gaming of the system.
Get up to speed on the real world, and read the emails yourself. Where have you been since last November? In your mom’s basement, reading realclimate?
ginckgo (04:25:44),
Not that difficult: here is a link to a book that will give you what your heart desires – might have to spend a few $$’s to get it though!!!!
C:\Users\HP\Desktop\World Climate Widget.htm
Reply: As much as I’ve seen examples poor network security from CRU, I doubt very much that link to your desktop will work for the rest us. ~ ctm
Smokey: I’m here commenting, so obviously I’ve steeped outside of my ‘ivory tower’ of AGW sites occasionally.
Let’s see: I’m supposed to redo research others supposedly have already done, into something I gather has no substance? I’ve got better things to do, so just point me to one sentence that proves worngoing.
In all these months, however, all I’ve seen are biased interpretations of statements that do not conclusively confirm any wrong-doing. If indeed a single sentence had been found such as “yay, our meddling got so-and-so fired” or “we successfully got so-and-so’s papers rejected from all journals” this would have trumped all the reading between the lines necessary for “tricks” and “hide the decline” statements.
Reply:
1212063122.txt
826209667.txt
How do you interpret those? ~ ctm
Just did a quick search on the Climatehack site: clicked on an email that supposedly contained the word “lie” (http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=1035&s=tag49). Guess what? not a single instance of “lie”, unless “replied” counts. Hah, bunch of FUDers.
1212063122.txt: I assume those emails they deleted are not among the hacked stash? So what reason do you interpret (from extensive reading of all their other emails) they had to get rid of them?
Reply: It was a direct illegal evasion of an FOI that Phil is not being prosecuted for ONLY because the statute of limitations ran out. You asked for examples of “wrong-doing”. ~ ctm
826209667.txt: how is this at all relevant to the science?
Reply: Tax evasion is an example of “wrong-doing”. Again statute of limitations comes into play, although I’m not sure in Russia. ~ ctm
1212063122.txt: Well they must be pretty bad at their “wrong doing” if they left the email saying to delete other emails undeleted 🙂 Fair enough, this one sounds dodgy, but we don’t know how dodgy without the contents of those emails.
Reply: The content is irrelevant This was a direct attempt to evade an FOI. The UK Information Commissioner agrees and would like to investigate but is prevented by Statute of Limitations. If you really don’t already know this you haven’t read any of the serious writings concerning these.You may want to read my roommate’s book. It could seriously change your perspective. ~ ctm
826209667.txt: just sounds like clever money management. Anyone with good knowledge of how tax systems work could do that and maximise the money the have available to work with. Sounds like a stretch to effectively allege criminal activity.
Reply: Yeah, I’m sure the tax authorities approve of funneling commercial funds through private accounts in small amounts. ~ ctm
Friends:
I consider it a privilege that I count Fred as being one of my friends. I have known him for many years. He is a gentleman and a great scientist with several astonishing achievements.
I have always agreed with him until now, but I disagree with him on this issue. He rightly says:
“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?”
But he does not address why the investigations have so dismally failed in this manner.
I explain my understanding of the problem at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/comments_uk_p.pdf
And I say there:
“These comments conclude that there was no ‘whitewash’ but that both the completed investigations used the same flawed method to assess the affair, and this method inevitably provides findings that seem to exonerate the Team. The used method was to adopt a legal definition of ‘evidence’, and this has resulted in the enquiries saying those under suspicion are exonerated because the suspected persons said they had done nothing wrong.
Hence, the two completed enquiries have resulted in greater suspicion of the involved scientists by providing an impression of a whitewash.
Importantly, neither of the completed enquiries provides a proper assessment of the fact that the released emails indicate that the ‘Team’
(i)
Usurped the peer review process by conspiring to review (and approve) the papers of each other,
(ii)
Usurped the peer review process by concerted effort to use the peer review process to prevent publication of papers which did not support their agenda,
(iii)
Attacked journals that published papers which did not support their agenda,
(iv)
Attempted to remove a journal Editor who would not reject all papers that did not support their view (soon after he did leave the job),
(v)
Wrote to the University that employed another journal’s Editor in an attempt to discredit her because she refused to reject for publication a paper which did not support their view,
(vi)
Attempted to redefine peer review as a method to excuse refusal to mention a paper in the most recent IPCC Report (it was not mentioned in the Report but several not-reviewed papers were),
(vii)
Misrepresented scientific findings (e.g. of paleoclimate data obtained from tree-ring studies) when publishing results of scientific studies.
These points seem to be clearly and unambiguously spelled-out in their own words by the ‘Team’ in the released emails.
So, any enquiry must provide a specific explanation of each of these points if it is to be generally accepted. The PSU and UK Parliamentary Select Committee Enquiries failed to provide specific explanations of each of these points any one of which would be damning of the Team if it were true.
Suspicions will remain concerning members of the Team and their actions until a different form of enquiry is completed. Hence, whatever the ‘truth’ of the Climategate affair, such a different form of enquiry is needed if that ‘truth’ is to be divined and is to be generally accepted. That different form of enquiry needs to assess the information in the emails and the computer code by using a scientific definition – not a legal definition – of ‘evidence’.
It is to be hoped that the investigations of Climategate that are now being conducted will be such a different form of enquiry. Failure to conduct such a different form of enquiry would result in continued suspicion of the affected climate scientists and could damage the reputation of science as a whole.”
Anyway, that essay explains what I think about the matter.
Richard
How can the whitewash committee refer to the emails as stolen? IN the first instance, the U K freedom of information law says that those emails do belon to the public. Whoever did the public service of hacking into the computers and extracting the emails was a member of the public. He/She took only what was his/hers. Second, our bloviating Ex Vice Prex, to whom the AGW axis genuflects, has urged “civil disobedience” in re climate change. Even if those who still claim the AGW is real, like the Easter Bunny, should e able to recognize that if civil disobedience is to be followed by one of two opposed groups, it is also alright for the other group.
C A Berg