UPDATE: After some late night insomnia, and re-reading Steve’s essay again, I have decided to make this introduction to his essay a “top post” for a couple of days. New stories will appear below this one.
Readers, I urge you to read and digest this story, because it forms the seminal basis for everything that is wrong with Team paleoclimate science: the hard earned field work of Russian field researchers whose inconvenient data was excluded, warnings from colleagues ignored, tribalism exposed, testimony self-contradicted, whitewashes performed, and in a hat-tip to Leibig’s Law, even a “reindeer crap theory”. As one CA commenter, Peter Ward, put it:
My 13-year-old daughter asked me what I was reading. I explained at a high level and showed her figure 4. She grasped it immediately. How can we get this figure publicised widely?
I urge every climate blog to pick this utterly damning story of forensic investigation up and make it as widely known as possible. – Anthony
By Steve McIntyre
In The Climate Files, Fred Pearce wrote:
When I phoned Jones on the day the emails were published online and asked him what he thought was behind it, he said” It’s about Yamal, I think”.
Pearce continued (p 53):
The word turns up in 100 separate emails, more than ‘hockey stick’ or any other totem of the climate wars. The emails began with it back in 1996 and they ended with it.
Despite Jones’ premonition and its importance both in the Climategate dossier and the controversies immediately preceding Climategate, Yamal and Polar Urals received negligible attention from the “inquiries”, neither site even being mentioned by Kerry Emanuel and his fellow Oxburgh panellists.
I recently submitted an FOI request for a regional chronology combining Yamal, Polar Urals and “other shorter” chronologies referred to in an April 2006 email – a chronology that Kerry Emanuel and the “inquiries” failed to examine. The University of East Anglia, which seems to have been emboldened by the Climategate experience, not only refused to provide the chronology, but refused even to provide a list of the sites that they used to construct the regional chronology.
This refusal prompted me to re-appraise Yamal and its role in the Climategate dossier.
Read the full story here: Yamal and Hide-the-Decline
============================================================
It appears the cardinals of deadwood at UEA and CRU have learned absolutely nothing.
Note to the person who’s running the BOT to keep posting one star like you did the last top post where over 1000 “1” star votes were logged (a new record). I have your IP address from the widget. If you keep it up, I’ll register a complaint with your ISP. In the meantime, “grow up”.
– Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
DirkH says:
[Dave Springer] SOMETHING is making the earth’s surface 39C warmer and it must be either or both of the fact there is an atmosphere and global ocean.
[…] This is where the atmospheric greenhouse comes in.
[DirkH] Not necessarily. Thermodynamics suffice.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf
Based on 10 minutes skimming, I suspect the author, at certain points, confuses the emission temperature of the entire earth and atmosphere with the temperature at the earth’s surface. Take this for whatever it’s worth. Even if I get around to reading the thing closely, I won’t be doing it soon.
Ecclesiastical Uncle:
You have made several posts – most recently at April 10, 2011 at 7:31 pm – which dispute my post at April19 2011 4.57am (which has been supported by several others).
That post which you reject said:
“Acting under orders is NOT – and must always be prevented from being – a valid defence for any nefarious activity. Google Nuremburg Trials if you want to know why.”
Clearly, you have not studied those deliberations at Nuremburg or – if you did – you have failed to understand them.
The matter is a subject of both ethics and morality but has very important practical implications.
Yes, life can provide hard choices and often does. But the choice confronting the UEA-gang was not hard: it was merely a choice between honesty and a minor disagreement with a current employer.
Your adopted title suggests some interest in ecclesia so I point out that next Sunday is Palm Sunday and, therefore, my sermon will be addressing precisely the moral issue of choosing whether or not to ‘go with the crowd’. This is an issue on which you display complete ignorance and, therefore, I cordially invite you to attend my Service next Sunday or some other Christian Worship on that day.
Richard
PS Your routine declaration is boorish and I commend you to drop it.
My own take is….Conspiracy is not as out landish as it was once thought of.The main players clearly know what they were/are doing and the message that they want to be perceived by joe public,They may twist and turn but in the end will be found out. Al Cappone thought he was untouchable for his crimes….he was until they got him on tax avoidance one way or another these players of truth will face justice..
that also only points to a regional warming currently, instead of a global warming?
SteveE says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:45 am
Curiousgeorge says:
April 10, 2011 at 6:45 am
“The entire CAGW edifice is designed to eliminate modern energy production and the benefits that brings. What I find incomprehensible is that so many people are willing, even eager, to stake our energy supply and our civilization on something as unpredictable as the weather!”
Well it’ll happen because we choose to do it, or because we are forced to do it when the oil and gas runs out in a few years time.
I think it’s better to plan to do something about it now rather than weight until you have no other choice and little time to dean with the situation.
I suggest you read a bit more about hydrocarbon reserves. You appear to have been brainwashed by the greenie beenies in the point of peak Hydrocarbons.
geronimo says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:46 am
“What I can’t get my head round is why no one has broken ranks, I’m convinced they’ve been up to no good, the evidence is there in the climategate emails, and their desire to stifle scientific work that doesn’t fit their plans. But they must, somewhere in the darkest recesses of their minds, understand that this will all come out at some time or other and they will finish in the Science Hall of Infamy, their names forever associated with scientific fraud. They’ve probably gone to far to pull back now, but they know what’s coming to them.”
Two reasons. One. Breaking ranks would be something like whistle-blowing. Tough to do. Reason Two. The nature of academia. Why has no one broken ranks on the claim that there is no downside to gay marriage. More to the point, why is debate about gay marriage, one among many issues, forbidden in academia? It is forbidden, you know.
stephen richards says:
April 11, 2011 at 5:06 am
I’m a geologist who works in the oil industry, I probably know a lot more about oil reserves and the amount that is left than yourself.
“The pre-Climategate issue that is the issue”
So, this is the final nail? Time to pack in WUWT – job done, ‘team’ nailed? Or just the latest in heaven knows how many posts here on on other sites that claim to have ….finally, got the team?
Me thinks the disputers of all think ‘team’ cry ‘get the nail gun’ too often.
Smoking Frog says:
April 11, 2011 at 2:55 am
“[DirkH] Not necessarily. Thermodynamics suffice.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf
Based on 10 minutes skimming, I suspect the author, at certain points, confuses the emission temperature of the entire earth and atmosphere with the temperature at the earth’s surface.”
I don’t think so; he’s talking about the sum of the radiation received (and thus also re-emitted) by Earth and compares that to the behaviour of an ideal blackbody to find out the temperature of that blackbody.
stephen richards says:
April 11, 2011 at 5:06 am
I’m a geologist who works in the oil industry, I probably know a lot more about oil reserves and the amount that is left than yourself.
————————————————————————————————-
Me too, Last survey I was on before retirement, it was estimated that there was more oil still in Iraq than was ever sucked out of Saudi Arabia.
Also, someone should check the coal reserves in Queensland, from the government web site, there is enough coal in Queensland to supply the world at current consumption rates to last another 3000 years.
Google Queensland gas reserves, again from the web site, “almost unexhaustable”
It must be somwhere else that is running on empty, but not here in Australia.
SBVOR says:
April 10, 2011 at 9:27 pm
François GM says:
April 10, 2011 at 8:28 pm
I think you two hit the nail on the head: no one here is arguing about temps since the instrumental record began (sans proxies) and especially not since the satellite record began. The current technical controversy surrounds this fundemental reality:
“ScottishSceptic says:
April 10, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Theo Goodwin says: April 10, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Climate science is in its infancy.
You are about 9 months too early. Climate “science” doesn’t yet exist! Climate “science” would be a testable set of hypothesis, the application of scientific methodology and a scientific ethic – none of this exists in this subject.
Infancy? Think for of someone just waking up with a hangover to discover they are in a bed with some jerk and they are just trying to remember through the fuzz where they could buy the morning after pill!” (repeated for effect).
SM’s et al paper is an attempt at clarification of the facts so that a meaningful direction change can be made to correct the corrupt vector that has been persued by Jones, Mann, et al as directed by their task masters, technically speaking. And he’s done a great job, can’t wait for the rest. Politically…forget about it: the yo-yo’s in charge at the UN/IPCC and the NGO’s will be hard to convince.
It’s worth reviewing Pamela Gray at 4/10/11 at 6:50 a.m.
I don’t think for a moment that this particular issue isn’t the result of a knowing manipulation of data to achieve a politically desirable outcome. Beyoond that, there is a persnal eagerness as well as an economic incentive to make one’s “scientific” study say something that everyone will notice. Mission accomplished by reckless disregard of the most important scientific principles.
Still, now that the nail is being driven into this coffin, it’s possible to ignore and repeat. After all, the policy has literally defined and directed the research from the beginning invalidating the results from the beginning. The human beings that used tools of science to support their ego or to effect a particular result for whatever the reason are not scientists. They just play one in real life.
Regarding basic education, they should stick to emphasizing the scientific principles as the defining characteristic rather than whether it “makes a difference.” Right now, it’s the exact opposite.
Ecclesiastical Uncle, I thought the “just following orders” defense went out with the Nuremburg trials.
R. Gates: That “large uptick” in the late 20th century is nothing more than the PDO and AMO going positive. If you widen the time frame of your study, you will find that the arctic temperatures of late are not in the least bit unusual.
Pamela Grey: You left out a 4th option. That is they feared the consequences to their careers for going against “conventional wisdom”.
SteveE would — no doubt — be surprised to learn that the USA has — in untapped resources — about 6 or 7 times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. And, one reaches that number by examining only a FEW of our untapped resources:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2008/07/oil-resources-in-usa.html
SteveE has, indeed been brainwashed — brainwashed into denying the vast hydrocarbon resources available in the USA, brainwashed into accepting “Peak Oil” dogma as an irrefutable religious creed and brainwashed into believing that only a Fascist form of Crony Capitalism can save us:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2011/02/gangster-government-general-electric.html
In other words, SteveE is yet another victim of the Socialist paradigm our country adopted for the delivery of publicly funded “education” (er, sorry, indoctrination).
Chris in Hervey Bay says:
April 11, 2011 at 7:08 am
Each year we are using more oil than is being discovered, it’s not a question of will we hit peak all, it’s just a matter of when. Most estimates put it within the next 10-20 years with some suggestions saying we are already at the maximum capacity for oil production.
There’s always going to be plenty of oil in the ground, it comes down to a question of how much you are willing to pay to get it out as all the “easy” oil has already been extracted. Why do you think that there’s billions of barrels of undiscovered oil sitting in Iraq? An even if you are right it’s going to take decacades to build the infrastructure to get at it and extract it.
Saying there’s loads of coal left is all well and good, however my car doesn’t run on coal and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in this regards.
Gas is nice but you need a pipeline or need significant quantities to make a LNG plant a vaiable option, and where it is viable they have probably already built or building one.
Ken Hall says:
April 11, 2011 at 1:39 am
Surely that also only points to a regional warming currently, instead of a global warming?
Yeah, but at least we know the devastation which occurred when it also hit YAD061 after almost wiping out Greenland earlier.
Your car does not run on coal? Why not?
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2008/07/coal-liquification.html
Have tried to comprehend this posted issue several times, but despite being reasonably intelligent and having been a physics major at school, I find it hard to follow.
May I suggest a simpler explanation designed for the novice to follow. There is to much pre knowledge required to really grasp the issue. Remember who the audience should be.
Steve McI. has just posted a short piece tying together his Yamal/Polar Urals series of threads with the Oxburgh alleged investigation. Worth adding to this thread:
http://climateaudit.org
On a seperate note, Steve McI. has frequently made reference to the disclosure and data integrity requirements that must be met with a mining prospectus. It might be helpful to explore that subject in a little more depth. A mining prospectus is a document that is distributed by a company that seeks to raise capital in the public markets aka stock exchanges or from private investors. These offerings are one time events. Investors are not obligated to make further investment each year for the foreseeable future. The making of mis-statements, use of bodgy data (I like that term so had to use it), erroneous statistics, false claims, etc. are felonies that carry criminal penalties that nearly always include prison sentences. The amount of money that is at stake is usually in teh tens of millions of dollars U.S. Contrast that with the cost of what the climate “science” team, the Green Industry, our politicians et al are attempting to foist upon the public, a bill that will run into the trillions of dollars and will continue until our economies and societies collapse. And they face no criminal or other sanctions.
SteveE: While it is true that we using more oil than we are discovering, that is because the govt is not letting us drill or explore most of the best spots in the US. As to the claim that we will run out in 10 to 20 years, nothing could be further from the truth. The recent discover in Montana alone will last much longer than that. There’s enough shale oil alone to last us for over a hundred years. Add in the known, but not proven deposits and we have hundreds of years more in supply. Then there are the unknown but highly suspected deposits, such as those unexplored areas of the Gulf and off of our Pacific and Atlantic coasts, and we can go even longer. Beyond that there is natural gas and coal. (Coal to oil conversion was profitable back at $50-$60/brl)
I supose you have managed to keep yourself ignorant of the huge discoveries being made in the rest of the world. $100/brl oil has cause an explosion of exploration in areas previously not worth the effort. When oil goes to $200/brl in a century or so, the level of exploration will get higher still.
So, to reiterate for the uninitiated:
1) Hockey stick plot used to show man is changing climate rapidly
2) Hockey stick plot debunked by MM and others.
3) Hockey stick revived by saying, “But other papers show the same shape without bristlecone pines! The hockey stick lives!”
4) Hockey stick #2 has it’s premise shown to be squishy, it’s methods questionable, and it’s conclusions suspect by Steve McIntyre on his recent blog post.
Wait for it…. “The hockey stick is dead, long live the hockey stick!”
Ecclesiastical Uncle:
“And might not many of the failures to provide data in response to FOI requests and the like have been because they simply lost it? And because they eventually got round to looking for it amongst all sorts of discarded rubbish only to find it was in so much of a bxxxer’s muddle it could not be sent off, at least until it had been recreated or extensively cleaned up. Sloppy work and archiving rather than deliberate obfuscation?”
So, you are then saying that it would be reasonable for them to treat the core data behind their work as “discarded rubbish?”
Losing/destroying one’s raw data, especially on a project this large, is the scientific equivalent of eating one’s young. There is no excuse for this, and the most generous explanation is that these are a bunch of incompetents who should never be allowed near a lab.
SteveE says
“Well it’ll happen because we choose to do it, or because we are forced to do it when the oil and gas runs out in a few years time. ”
“I think it’s better to plan to do something about it now rather than weight until you have no other choice and little time to dean with the situation.”
Steve,
Oil/gas will only run out in the US because the current administration has an agenda to kill delay any fossile production. The peak oil lie in the US is a self fulfilling event because of all the restrictions the administration places on exploration and production.
And by the way, possibly you can explain why OBama is giving Brazil several billion dollars to drill offshore in deep waterwhile doing everything possible to stop offshore drilling here? OH yeah remember, Soros is an investor in PETRABRAS. How corrupt can thing get. The administration has been found by a US court in contempt for all the illegal manuvers to curtail drilling in the US. And to my surprise BP has been given permission to resume drilling in the Gulf while those who drill responsibly are still in limbo. BP is the last company I would all to drill offshore based on their horrible safety record on and off shore.
I suppose that due to your sources of information, you are totally unaware of the massive discoveries of Natural gas in the US and the corresponding discoveries of oil in the US besides the oil that Obama and the Dems in congrress have already locked up and prevented production. This is blindly believing the MSM with their agenda.
Steve says “Saying there’s loads of coal left is all well and good, however my car doesn’t run on coal and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in this regards.”
“Gas is nice but you need a pipeline or need significant quantities to make a LNG plant a vaiable option, and where it is viable they have probably already built or building one.”
Steve, others have indicated that you are brainwashed.
I will avoid being be so blunt, but you do need to do your hgomework and realized that coal can be converted in a clean manner to liquid fuels for transportation at prices lower than making liquid fuels from corn, wood, switchgrass or other costly “phoney green” methods that are highly subsidized by the Administration. These so called green process conversions have been a technological failure. There are no commercial operating plants to make liquid fuels other than the subsidized corn ethanol industry. The EPA has significantly scaled back their initial outrageous assumption that we would manufacture ethanol from sources other than corn.
Also coal can be converted to electricity to run electric cars if and when a decent battery is invented, it is a waste of dollars to engineer the car or re fueling stations in the absence of a proper battery. The battery is the pinch point!!
There is already a massive pipeline system in place to distribute natural gas, it will probably be expanded by private investment as needed. For your info auto engines can be designed to run on natural gas and natural gas can be converted to a liquid fuel, the technology has existed for several decades, but it does not compete well with liquid fuels from crude oil unless the gas is stranded and really cheap.
The Anministration is wasting our hard earned tax dollars on alternative fuels that will never never meet our needs. Research is OK and useful, but building facilities where the technology is totally lacking is a waste.
I am curious after years of condescending sarcasm how Real Climate will respond to planetary cooling.
There is in the paleoclimatic record cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The hide the decline Cabal has also has hidden cyclic abrupt climate change which correlates with a restart of the solar magnetic cycle after it has been interrupted.
If you are interested in an overview of the science Svensmark and Calder’s Chilling Stars is good place to start. (No sarcasm included, Svensmark is a meticulous conservative scientist.)
http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/1840468157
The solar specialist Lockwood has found 24 Maunder minimums in the last 1000 years of paleo solar data.
Solar cycle 24 is predicted to be the weakest cycle in 200 years. The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspot groups continues to decline linearly. As the sunspots of the past cycle are the seeds for the next cycle and as the past cycle sunspots require a minimum field strength to survive their trip down through the turbulent convection zone to the solar tachocline, it appears solar cycle 25 will be a Maunder minimum.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf
If the 20th century warming was primarily due to solar magnetic cycle changes rather than C02 increases then the warming would not correlate with the CO2 changes. The scientific back peddling does begin.
Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions? Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in the last decade (Fig. 2.8a). The least squares trend for Janu¬ary 1999 to December 2008 calculated from the HadCRUT3 dataset (Brohan et al. 2006) is +0.07±0.07°C decade–1—much less than the 0.18°C decade–1 recorded between 1979 and 2005 and the 0.2°C decade–1 expected in the next decade (IPCC; Solomon et al. 2007). This is despite a steady increase in radiative forcing as a result of human activities and has led some to question climate predic¬tions of substantial twenty-first century warming (Lawson 2008; Carter 2008).