Climategate 2.0 emails – thread #2

This is the letter I will be sending to my Congresscritter and US Senators later today. Unfortunately, my Congresscritter doesn’t have an email address for his constituents – a real failure in this century. Feel free to copy and paste or use whatever you wish. Sorry for the length.
===========================================
Dear Congressman Lamborn (R-CO District 5)
I have currently read less than ten percent of the latest “Climategate” emails, and less than 70% of the previous release. Even so, it has become blatantly obvious that climate “science” is not as settled as many would have us believe, and that the “anthropogenic signal” is neither as strong as it has been portrayed to be, nor as “dangerous” as the “true believers” espouse. The one certainty I have acquired from my readings of these emails and other information is that the Environmental Protection Agency’s ruling that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” is both scientifically wrong and politically indefensible. Any regulation based upon that ruling is also indefensible.
I know you don’t have time to keep up with all the information currently available, and the tons of additional information that is constantly being generated. I do believe, however, that this subject is something that must be dealt with, and that someone on your staff should be tasked with openly, honestly, evaluating this data. There is every indication that not only fraud but slander, libel, and the deliberate destruction or misrepresentation of data has taken place, including such acts at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU).
While it would be “nice” to have a totally reliable, pollution-free, low-cost source of electrical energy, the technology just isn’t currently available, and probably won’t be for fifty years or more. The current Administration’s attempt to force the issue has resulted in extensive fraud, graft, and outright theft, and has failed miserably. We truly do need a national energy policy, but that policy will require that we continue to use oil, coal, and natural gas for the foreseeable future – possibly for another century or more. Nuclear power, especially thorium reactors, may be one key to a carbon-free future, but obviously solar and wind will only be capable of supplying a small percentage of our needs. In the meantime, government action is only delaying our achieving any sort of energy independence and killing jobs.
I’m a disabled veteran with a chronic pain problem, so I can’t be much help with keeping track of this for you. I do recommend, however, that this is something that could be “crowd-sourced” here in Colorado, for little or no cost. I’m sure that there are many others who would be willing to devote a small portion of their time to tracking what is being written about climate science, and keeping you informed. There are also another dozen topics that could equally be crowd-sourced to your advantage, including environment, jobs, the military, infrastructure, and government over-reach. You may also wish to discuss some of these ideas with your colleagues in the House of Representatives.
In the meantime, here are a list of sources that can provide anyone interested with links to both sides of the climate debate:
Honest, open debate
Watts Up with That http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
Climate Audit/Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/
CO2 Science http://www.co2science.org/
Bishop Hill http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
Bob Tisdale http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/
The Air Vent/Jeff Id http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/
Icecap http://icecap.us/
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
Climate Skeptic http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
Dr. Tim Ball http://drtimball.com/
Tallbloke’s Talkshop http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
Jo Nova http://joannenova.com.au/
The Chiefio – E. M. Smith http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
Global Warming Policy Fndn. http://thegwpf.org/
Dr. Roy Spencer http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Dr. Judith Curry http://www.judithcurry.com/
Science & Environmental Policy Proj. http://www.sepp.org/
Science & Public Policy Inst. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
“Consensus-driven Science”
Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/
Sierra Club http://www.sierraclub.org/
Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/
Science of Doom http://scienceofdoom.wordpress.com/
Tamino’s Open Mind http://tamino.wordpress.com/
Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/
NOAA http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Natural Resources Defense Council http://www.nrdc.org/
Sincerely,
Michael A. Weatherford
MSgt, USAF, Retired
Colorado Springs, CO

Hey, how’s Arctic ice doing?
;^)

Which email, is the smoking gun?

I’ve just been Climate Censored! :-O (new word?) The Swedish university town of Uppsala’s local newspaper UNT ”disappeared” my Monday 28/11 skeptical commment, then put it back after my complaining and has now deleted it again!
http://www.unt.se/debatt/skarp-klimatmalen-1547082.aspx
Climategate 2.0 emails are a very forbidden subject over here in Sweden. What has Tomas Lohammer got that I haven’t got ??? Here is what I wrote:
———————————————
Jens and Jabob are talking politics not science, consensus not facts. Internationally and in Sweden people are righly getting bored with their doomsday scare stories. See this Newsmill article for a viewpoint opposing Jens and Jacob:
http://newsmill.se/artikel/2011/11/27/klimatskeptikerna-hade-r-tt
Their ”100 scientists against Einstein” argument, or ”200 polar researchers say”, does not change the fact that polar ice varies naturally in 60 year Pacific Ocean cycles, ask NASA and look at the data.
http://www.theclimatescam.se/2011/11/28/inre-och-yttre-pressen-okar-i-sydafrika/
Canada has just pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, USA and China have pulled out of giving money to the Climate Fund, the Climate Circus is collapsing daily & Jens and Jacob are on Durban’s sunny beaches.
——————-
Maybe I was ”erased” because of linking to disreputable websites 🙂 or maybe it was the non-respectful skeptical tone, maybe the English or maybe I got the weather prediction at Durban wrong. But hey … who really believes they can accurately predict future weather ? … oh wait …;-)

John points @ur momisugly a physicist toward the WSJ article “Scientists’ Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results”

John, the well-written WSJ article that you provided (thanks!) is just the tip-of-the-iceberg … not an iceberg of incompetence and corruption (although these will always be with us) … but an iceberg of huge data-sets and increasingly sophisticated models for explain them.
In retrospect, one of GW Bush’s best appointments was Elias Zerhouni as NIH Director, and it’s well-worth watching Zerhouni’s Roadmap for Medical Research.
For what it’s worth, it’s my strongly held opinion is that Zerhouni’s roadmap underestimates the accelerating pace of medical science, and moreover the WSJ greatly underestimates both the challenges and the enterprise opportunities of assimilating and applying that progress. Indeed, my colleagues and I work as hard and creatively as we can to make certain that even experts like Zerhouni and the WSJ grossly underestimate the pace and scope of today’s medical research challenges and opportunities. You can count on it! 🙂
As for climate change research, it’s not all that different from medical research … in neither case should the pace of progress be underestimated, and neither should the participants be mistaken for saints. 🙂

Dr Phil to Peter Thorne in 4460.txt

Peter,
Probably worth doing. Start something off at you end. This issue should die down soon. I’m coming down for June 1. David was going to check availabilities for discussions of HadCRUT4 (and HadSST3). We could decide to make the station data available that will go into CRUTEM4 (and hence HadCRUT4). My issue about not doing it is when will it stop. They will then want programs. As you know there are two key files (the 61-90 normals and the SD file). The station headers within the station data aren’t that well documented. If MOHC does release the station data, I’ll let MOHC deal with all the flak. You don’t know what some of the header info is, for example. There are codes that cause some series to only get used from certain dates. I can barely remember some of it. There will also be questions as to why some series don’t come to the present date – the US ones for example.
Cheers
Phil

Jones to Wigley and Santer 2308.txt Now that Pielke has resigned they will be able to ignore him?

Ben and Tom,
Congratulations on the paper coming out on Aug 12. I did talk to Nature about the three papers.
Last week seems to have been a good one to have had off. I did this because of the IPCC submission deadline of Aug 12. As you said Tom, there were some stupid messages going around. If only these people would try and write peer-review papers, provided they get proper reviews. The one from Sonia should be kept as it proves that E&E is not a proper journal. I almost missed the one with Pielke’s resignation in. Is this going to make your CCSP task easier or harder? Presumably now you’ll get all his comments to officially deal with. Maybe you’ll be able to ignore them?
Cheers
Phil

So what defines a “proper” journal is apparently who it gets to do its reviews.

1214.txt (love this one) Tim Osborn to Briffa:

Apparently we owe Mike Mann an apology!
B*ll*cks to that!
Tim

Also includes a zinger from von Storch to Ritson in the quoted text:
“I am actually not that stupid as you indicate.”

pauline says:
December 1, 2011 at 1:43 am
I am appalled,….
Now, if this was medicine and people had relied on similar scientific break throughs and research (which then turned out to be falsified) to cure or ameliorate illness, ……..what then?
_____________________________
I hate to tell you Pauline but the rot has gone all the way through the science community. The fact that societies like the American Chemical Society et al have “officially” agreed to support these buffoons is the outward sign of the rot. Now we are starting to see the nastier side.
Scientists’ Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results
“This is one of medicine’s dirty secrets: Most results, including those that appear in top-flight peer-reviewed journals, can’t be reproduced….
There is also a more insidious and pervasive problem: a preference for positive results….
Adds Atlas’ Mr. Booth: “Nobody gets a promotion from publishing a negative study.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/02/team-ugliness-an-call-to-get-a-skeptics-phd-thesis-revoked/#comment-816357 or
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203764804577059841672541590.html
”The FDA has found “widespread falsification” and “manipulation of equilibration samples” at Cetero research from 2005 to 2010. The fallout could affect dozens of drugs and companies…”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42849261/fda-finds-falsification-of-drug-trial-results-affecting-dozens-of-companies/
Dutch psychologist falsified dozens of papers; suspended from university
”A Dutch psychologist has admitted making up data and faking research over many years in studies which were then published in peer-reviewed scientific journals….
This university psychologist has admitted that he falsified numerous studies in an effort to meet the academic demand to “publish” and to “perform” and was subsequently suspended from his position at the university. While this is worthwhile news in and of itself, it raises a question regarding the validity of the subject of psychology. If a psychologist must falsify dozens of studies to either prove his hypothoses or to make his studies more impressive or publishable, the implication is that there is something not quite right with the subject of psychology. 
This raises a second concern: How many other university/research psychologists are presenting falsified research?”
http://psychcrimereporter.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/dutch-psychologist-falsified-dozens-of-papers-suspended-from-university/
Part of the underlying cause:
The Shadow Scholar

…..In the past year, I’ve written roughly 5,000 pages of scholarly literature, most on very tight deadlines. But you won’t find my name on a single paper.
I’ve written toward a master’s degree in cognitive psychology, a Ph.D. in sociology, and a handful of postgraduate credits in international diplomacy. I’ve worked on bachelor’s degrees in hospitality, business administration, and accounting….. I’ve attended three dozen online universities. I’ve completed 12 graduate theses of 50 pages or more. All for someone else.
You’ve never heard of me, but there’s a good chance that you’ve read some of my work…. My customers are your students. I promise you that. Somebody in your classroom uses a service that you can’t detect, that you can’t defend against, that you may not even know exists.
I work at an online company that generates tens of thousands of dollars a month by creating original essays based on specific instructions provided by cheating students…..

I wonder if some of the crappy papers critiqued here at WUWT were written by this guy???

There is a saying in medicine “The plural of anecdote is not data”, and to my knowledge (and I would be happy to be corrected) there has been no systematic study of whether positive-outcome climate-change research fares better in peer review than negative-outcome.
It would surprise no-one, however, if such a study were to find appreciable climate-change reviewer bias, for the simple and sobering reason that reviewer bias is commonplace in mathematics, science, engineering, and medicine as a whole. The following two high-quality studies of peer review bias are readily found on PubMed: “Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial” (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), 2007) and “Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not” (Archives of Internal Medicine 2010).
Paradoxically, the deplorable prevalence of bias throughout mathematics, science, and medicine ensures that cherry-picking instances of bias in climate research uncovers little or no useful information, since similar instances will be found similarly often by similar cherry-picking in every scientific enterprise examined.
How then do mathematics, science, and medicine progress? Surely not article-by-article, since it has been evident for several centuries that every field of math, science, engineering and medicine is afflicted by innumerable articles that are boring and/or and/or badly reviewed and/or simply wrong and/or fraudulent. The four keys to progress instead are replication, prediction, inspiration, and consilience. For example, one climate-change article with a hockey-stick graph means relatively little, but the progressive accumulation of climate-change hockey-sticks accretes confidence.

The gift that just keeps giving 🙂