A fair and impartial kangaroo court

March 23, 2010

In the wake of the scandals surrounding deep evidence of scientific fraud regarding claims that global warming was anthropogenic in nature, the UK’s Royal Society, which should be the gold standard for objectivity in science, has announced who will lead its inquiry into what’s been broadly called “Climategate.” James Delingpole gives us the comforting news:

And guess what? The man could scarcely be more parti pris if they’d given the job to Al Gore.

His name is Lord Oxburgh and, as Bishop Hill reports, he is:

  • President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association
  • Chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables
  • A member of the Green Fiscal Commission

In other words, someone with a large financial interest in seeing the pro-alarmist cause redeemed. This is like asking Bill Gates to investigate Microsoft’s business practices.

If this produces anything but a gigantic cover for Dr. Jones and the CRU, I’ll eat my hat.

Well, if I had one, that is.

Advertisements

Another day, another global warming claim goes *poof!*

February 16, 2010

First it was the temperature data and the Dread Hockey Stick of Doom that turned out to be near-total fabrications. Then it was the glaciers that weren’t really melting as fast as claimed, and the rain forests that weren’t receding as much as claimed. And now it’s the increase in the frequency and power of hurricanes that isn’t happening:

Dr. Les Hatton, a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, today released a global statistical analysis testing six Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration to prove there has been no increase in global hurricanes or typhoons, contrary to IPCC claims.

Hatton was inspired to analyse the IPPC hurricane data after the climategate email revelations and found that although the North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, the increase was cancelled out overall by diminished activity in the East Pacific. Thus, the declines balance the increases. His detailed report can be found in this PDF.

  • “When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.”

I begin to wonder if there’s anything true at all in anything the IPCC has published. The organization’s credibility has been ruined, a self-inflicted death. Time for it to be disestablished.

Oh, and time for Al Gore to surrender his Nobel Peace Prize and his Academy Award.

LINKS: More at Hot Air and Fausta.


We’re not the only ones wondering

February 15, 2010

In an earlier post, I wrote a bit about the lack of mainstream media coverage of the ClimateGate scandal and the growing collapse of the Global Warming mania.

I’m not the only one wondering about the curious incident of the dog in the night-time:

If there’s one thing the Snowpocalypse-hastened collapse of the Great Global Warming Hoax has shown us, among other things, it’s that Mark Steyn, as usual, was right all along, and “Anthropogenic Global Warming” — ridiculous on its face, as anyone who knows history could have said, and did — was as much a journalistic scandal as a scientific one.

Think about their coverage of ClimateGate and the global-warming controversy in general, and then about how the major media protected Barack Obama and refused to investigate his career, his associations, and his political beliefs during the presidential race. Then recall how they spent much of their free time in that same campaign savaging Sarah Palin. Do just that, and the professional and ethical bankruptcy of the media becomes clear.

Mainstream journalism is dead.

FAIR IS FAIR: Apparently The Washington Post still has some integrity left, albeit their spin of this scandal as “missteps” is laughable. (h/t NewsBusters)

TANGENTIAL UPDATE: An example of how the media ignored the political environment in which Obama was raised.


CRU’s chief weasel admits the science isn’t settled.

February 14, 2010

Via NewsBusters. This is like a Catholic cardinal admitting he’s an agnostic. Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, one of the primary sources of ammunition for global-warming alarmists, admits in a BBC interview that there has been no statistically significant warming in recent years, acknowledges the likelihood of warmer periods in the past (such as the Medieval Warm Period), and admits to manipulating key data to support the alarmist case. Here’s an example:

A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Read the whole thing. If this were an episode of Perry Mason, Jones would be crumbling under a cross-examination and just seconds away from confessing he murdered Mr. Boddy in the library with the candlestick. His evasions and caveats aside, Jones admits that the science is not settled, that the data is questionable, and that natural causes could explain climate changes. It’s a far cry from the “science is settled” arrogance pushed by leading alarmists and their puddingheaded followers.

Oh yeah, about that manipulated data:

Q – Let’s talk about the e-mails now: In the e-mails you refer to a “trick” which your critics say suggests you conspired to trick the public? You also mentioned “hiding the decline” (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?

This remark has nothing to do with any “decline” in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.

The phrase ‘hide the decline’ was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.

This “divergence” is well known in the tree-ring literature and “trick” did not refer to any intention to deceive – but rather “a convenient way of achieving something”, in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.

I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time – an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.

The misinterpretation of the remark stems from its being quoted out of context. The 1999 WMO report wanted just the three curves, without the split between the proxy part of the reconstruction and the last few years of instrumental data that brought the series up to the end of 1999. Only one of the three curves was based solely on tree-ring data.

The e-mail was sent to a few colleagues pointing out their data was being used in the WMO Annual Statement in 1999. I was pointing out to them how the lines were physically drawn. This e-mail was not written for a general audience. If it had been I would have explained what I had done in much more detail.

Weasel. Both Marc Morano at American Thinker and Coyote at Climate Skeptic, as well as Steve McIntyre at Watts Up With That?, demonstrate exactly the deception Jones and his colleagues were up to when they tried to hide the decline.

I’d call this a death-blow to the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming, but the persistence of folly never fails to amaze. And now that the cult has credulous Western governments on its side, the inertia behind economy and liberty destroying programs that will do no good and much harm will be difficult to overcome.

But they’re on the run.

RELATED: More at the Daily Mail, Watts Up With That, Climategate (headline: “OOOPS!”), Hot Air, Blue Crab Boulevard, Fausta, Hot Air again, and the Times of London. That last is another body blow. And have you noticed that almost all the good MSM coverage of Climategate is coming out of the UK, and precious little of it here in America?

Almost as if the US press is married to a particular agenda…  Thinking


More climate-change fraud revealed

February 2, 2010

The hits keep coming. At this rate, it’s becoming safer to assume that the opposite of whatever the IPCC says is true. First, from China:

Climategate intensifies: Jones and Wang apparently hid Chinese station data issues

The “climategate” controversy intensified last night when the senior British scientist at its centre, Professor Phil Jones, faced fresh accusations that he attempted to withhold data that could cast doubt on evidence for rising world temperatures.
But the new allegations go beyond refusing FOI requests and concern data that Professor Jones and other scientists have used to support a record of recent world temperatures that shows an upward trend.
Climate sceptics have suggested that some of the higher readings may be due not to a warmer atmosphere, but to the so-called “urban heat island effect”, where cities become reservoirs of heat and are warmer than the surrounding countryside, especially during the night hours.
Phil Jones is the “scientist” who, until the recent leaking of the damning emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, was one of the Chief Priests of the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming.  Now the allegations of fraud extend back at least 20 years and involves hiding evidence of a) how urban areas skew temperature readings and b) the terrible track that’s been kept of these stations, some of which don’t even exist anymore.
And we’re to take this man seriously why?
Meanwhile, following up on a story I covered a few months ago, a major New Zealand research unit has been forced to admit it cannot explain how it came up with the temperature data it has, because it destroyed the raw data:
With great embarrassment the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) in New Zealand has been forced to release it’s raw temperature data, but they have no record of why and when any adjustments were made to this data. Yet again, it appears climate scientists are re-writing the temperature history of the world.
In other words, the adjusted results are crap because no one can test the raw data to verify them. We just have to take them on faith.
How fitting for a cult.
Oh, and the Man Behind the Kiwi Curtain is Jim Salinger, who has collaborated with noted AGW alarmist (and ClimateGate principal) Michael Mann of Penn State… who also happens to be under investigation.
Is this science or a remake of Ocean’s 11?

It’s on! Sarah Palin vs. The Goracle

December 10, 2009

Yesterday I linked to an op-ed piece in the Washington Post in which Governor Palin denounced the corruption of science revealed in the Climategate files and called on President Obama to boycott the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen. It was an example of the well-reasoned, commonsensical, and ethical conservative argument we’ve come to expect from her. For example:

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a “deal.” Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

It was a fair analysis in opposition to a policy the authoress believed harmful to the interests of the United States. But it was blasphemy to some, a challenge to the orthodoxy of the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming that had to be quashed.

There was only one person to do it, one illuminated being with the gravitas (and the girth) to reassert inconvenient truths, remind us that the science is settled, and restore our faith in a coming doom from which only he and other technocratic elites could save us (inconvenient evidence be damned): Al Gore himself.

Asked about Palin’s charge on Facebook that these are “doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood,” Gore replied that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years. “It’s a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”

In other words, “Don’t listen to that moose-hunting, baby-making, state-school educated hick from a barely-civilized state! Don’t let her fool you with facts supplied to her by deniers who are traitors to the planet! No, listen to me! I’m wiser than her. I’ve been a senator, a vice-president … I HAVE AN OSCAR!!

Let us not forget that this is the same genius who asserted on national television that the temperature of the Earth’s core tops out at several million degrees. Hint: if that were true, the Earth would have had a very bright, but very short career as a fireball, before ending as a cosmic smoke-puff. (Inconvenient truth: scientific estimates range from about 5,000 to 9,000 degrees Celsius.)

Gore has also either lied about or is ignorant of the emails at the center of the controversy, claiming the most recent was ten years old. Wrong. The most recent is from November of this year.

I ask again, why does anyone take this fat, bombastic, profiteering moron seriously?

When someone presents contrary evidence, his replies amount to saying “nuh-uh!” over and over again. When asked to prove climate change is anthropogenic in origin, he looks with disdain and says essentially, “Because… shut up!”

All Al Gore can do when challenged is roll his eyes and condescend in an attempt to intimidate and demean his opponents, because the genuine science is increasingly against him and his statist money-making scheme theory. Governor Palin, on the other hand, presented reasonable arguments about why we should look very seriously at the integrity of the science of climate change before making any drastic commitments based on it.

I know who I trust. How about you?

POSTSCRIPT: The former Alaska governor had this to say on her Facebook page in response to The Goracle:

The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”

Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it.

However, he’s wrong in calling me a “denier.” As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.

Former Vice President Gore also claimed today that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years, and therefore it is settled science. Well, the Climategate scandal involves the leading experts in this field, and if Climategate is proof of the larger method used over the past 20 years, then Vice President Gore seriously needs to consider that their findings are flawed, falsified, or inconclusive.

Vice President Gore, the Climategate scandal exists. You might even say that it’s sort of like gravity: you simply can’t deny it.

LINKS: Hot Air covers Gore’s disappointment in Obama’s focus on health care; California senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina reminds us that facts are important things; J. Storrs Hall provides evidence that assertions that the infamous hockey stick graphs can only be explained by anthropogenic causes are poppycock. At Pajamas Media, Environmental Protection Agency scientist Alan Carlin discusses the risks inherent in the Obama Administration’s politicization of the agency, Roger Kimball discusses how Al Gore flunks logic, and mathematician Frank Tipler argues that relativism corrupts science.


Links fiesta: Climategate, Smart Power, and more!

December 9, 2009

It’s a busy Wednesday today, so here are some interesting links to keep you amused and informed:

Climategate marches on:

  • While the world’s (so-called) leaders meet in Copenhagen to save us from a crisis that doesn’t exist, consider the following:
  • How climate alarmists are like hamsters trapped in a cage.
  • Solar geomagnetic activity is at an all time low. Expect things to get colder, in defiance of Al Gore.
  • The EPA has declared carbon dioxide a major threat to your health. Scientific truth be damned; this is all about a breathtaking power-grab by the Obama Administration, which is frustrated by resistance from Congress and the American people.
  • The Goracle may be a Green poet, but he has a tremendous tin ear.
  • Taking a break from her book tour, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin pens an article for the Washington Post (But I thought she was irrelevant?) condemning politicized science and asking President Obama to boycott the farce in Copenhagen.
  • And all that talk of transferring trillions to developing countries to help them fight global warming? Would you like to buy a bridge, too? Then again, if it crashes the conference, this double-cross would have to be counted a Good Thing(tm).

Smart Power in action:

  • Nile Gardiner in The Mail wonders why Barack Obama seems to hate Great Britain and if the “special relationship” can survive. John Steele Gordon calls it gratuitous arrogance. I don’t know. Our President-Messiah did promise us change, after all. He just didn’t mention that would involve trashing a century-old alliance.
  • Con Coughlin thinks it’s time Obama learned some manners.
  • Don’t worry, Britain, it’s not just you. Our new policy seems to be to hug our enemies and slap our allies. The latest target apparently is Norway, which has just awarded Obama a Nobel Peace Prize (for nothing). Even people who like him get slighted.

Bits and Bobs:

See ya later tonight or tomorrow, folks!