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?

Climategate: junk science, worthless data, and hookers

December 6, 2009

Head over to The Devil’s Kitchen to see what other techies think of what they’ve found in the program code leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. Hint:  it ain’t pretty.

Data horribilia: the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file

…come with me on a wonderful journey as the CRU team realise that not only have they lost great chunks of data but also that their application suites and algorithms are total crap; join your humble Devil and Asimov as we dive into the HARRY_READ_ME.txt (thanks to The Englishman) file and follow the trials and tribulations of Ian “Harry” Harris as he tries to recreate the published data because he has nothing else to go on!

Thrill as he “glosses over” anomalies; let your heart sing as he gets some results to within 0.5 degrees; rejoice as Harry points out that everything is undocumented and that, generally speaking, he hasn’t got the first clue as to what’s going on with the data!

Chuckle as one of CRU’s own admits that much of the centre’s data and applications are undocumented, bug-ridden, riddled with holes, missing, uncatalogued and, in short, utterly worthless.

And wonder as you realise that this was v2.10 and that, after this utter fiasco, CRU used the synthetic data and wonky algorithms to produce v3.0!

You’ll laugh! You’ll cry! You won’t wonder why CRU never wanted to release the data! You will wonder why we are even contemplating restructuring the world economy and wasting trillions of dollars on the say-so of data this bad.

By all rights this should be the end of the global warming myth, but true believers (and those with a financial interest) will carry on. They’ll say all the right things about settled science and impending doom at the Copenhagen conference this month, maybe even come up with a “programme of action,” but, in the end, they’re like Prince Prospero and his guests at the grand ball, trying vainly to ignore the doom that stalks them.

Oh, well. At least they can console themselves with free sex.

RELATED: NASA is fudging (to put it nicely) the data, too. Marc Sheppard on Understanding Climategate’s Hidden Decline. William Jacobsen explains why 56 newspapers worldwide will lie to you tomorrow about global warming. More on that from Sister Toldjah. Michelle Malkin calls them 56 Chicken-Littles.


First head rolls in Climategate?

December 2, 2009

The scientific-fraud scandal first revealed in emails and computer code leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has claimed its first scalp: the  CRU’s director, Dr. Phil Jones has temporarily stepped down pending an investigation:

The head of the British research unit at the center of a controversy over the disclosure of thousands of e-mail messages among climate-change scientists has stepped down pending the outcome of an investigation.

Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England, said that he would leave his post while the university conducted a review of the release of the e-mail messages. The university has called the release and publication of the messages a “criminal breach” of the school’s computer systems.

The e-mail exchanges among several prominent American and British climate-change scientists appear to reveal efforts to keep the work of skeptical scientists out of major journals and the possible hoarding and manipulation of data to overstate the case for human-caused climate change.

They forgot the part where he says he’s “leaving to spend more time with his family.” That’s de rigeur in scandals these days.

I don’t know whether this is the beginnings of a faux-investigation that will whitewash the scandal, or if Jones is being prepped as the sacrificial victim for the greater good of CRU and the AGW Cause, or if it’s the start of a genuine housecleaning and a move toward transparency climate science. I hope for the latter, but I suspect there’s strong pressure for one of the first two options.

And this isn’t the first investigation started in the wake of Climategate: the article also mentions that Michael Mann, author of one of the infamous and debunked hockey stick graphs, in now under investigation by his employers, the University of Pennsylvania. I bet these won’t be the last, either.

RELATED: The consequences are spreading outside the realms of science and academia, as the Australian Senate defeated a government measure to impose a destructive cap and trade scheme on the country by a vote of 41-33. Climategate was a certain contributor to this. Under Australian rules, this could lead to a dissolution of both houses of Parliament and a general election in early 2010. Let’s hope that Australia’s is just the first among many governments to come to their senses. More at Hot Air.


Saving the planet takes your breath away

December 1, 2009

Literally. The head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, has declared that regulating carbon emissions may not be enough to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change. We must remove carbon from the air itself!

Carbon must be sucked from air, says IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri

In an interview with The Times, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), proposed that new techniques should be applied to help to mop up atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide that have been pumped into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

“There are enough technologies in existence to allow for mitigation,” he said. “At some point we will have to cross over and start sucking some of those gases out of the atmosphere.”

Speaking days before the start of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Dr Pachauri, who collected the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC with Al Gore, said that such a strategy needed to be pursued as a matter of urgency.

The Indian scientist, 69, also said that the target adopted by the 192 governments that are due to attend the conference, of restricting average global temperature rises to less than 2C (3.6F), may be insufficient to prevent catastrophic warming impacts such as a rise in sea levels of between 0.5m and 1.4m (1.6ft and 4.6ft) and enough to devastate many coastal cities around the world such as Shanghai, Calcutta and Dhaka. Instead, he said, a 1.5C rise was a safer target.

Dr Pachauri raised the prospect of so-called geo-engineering, whereby carbon dioxide is actively stripped from the atmosphere. A range of techniques have been proposed including seeding artificial clouds over oceans to reflect sunlight back into space, sowing the oceans with iron ore to boost plankton growth and using carbon capture and storage technology to fix emissions from power stations.

Right. So to deal with a “crisis” that now has every indication of being created by green statists in government and their hysteria-pimp enablers at CRU and other institutes of “higher learning,” we not only have to cripple the most productive economies in the world that have created the highest standard of living humanity has ever seen, we must re-engineer the atmosphere itself!

They laughed me in Vienna, the fools!

So, who is this Pachauri guy, anyway, besides being the head of the IPCC and the man who would save us from carbon dioxide? Why, he’s also the Great and Powerful Oz trusted scientist who assures us there is no problem with research at CRU. None at all. Nothing to see here. Move along:

“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he told The Guardian.

(…)

“So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”

(via The Jawa Report)

Transparent, eh? No possibility, says he? Oh, really?

Anyway, back to Dr. Lizardo’s Pachauri’s suggestions, perhaps he needs to review the literature on plants and the oceans as carbon sinks, since the balance between airborne and absorbed CO2 has hardly changed since 1850. If there is no excess of carbon in the atmosphere, then there is no need for great, big devices to scrub the atmosphere, or huge government programs to build them – or aging Indian scientists anxious to get their hands on research grants to design those devices, grants that would be funded by the taxes those governments would have to impose.

Lord, save me from the people who would save me.

(via Heliogenic Climate Change)


The dog ate my data!

November 29, 2009

The scientific-fraud scandal that’s rocked the Global-Warming Cult is rapidly moving from outrage to farce. First the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) refused for years to release their raw data and programming code, conspiring to resist UK FOIA requests. Then, after emails and code were leaked indicating extensive data manipulation and efforts to corrupt the peer-review process, word comes today that CRU has agreed to release their data. A victory for transparency, right? It’s the beginning of the restoration of trust in science, no?

No.

In fact, the London Times Online reports that the data, if it is released, is not the raw data. The CRU threw that away.

Climate change data dumped

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.

In other words, “Sure we’ll share the data. And, aren’t we nice? We cleaned it up and made it all pretty for you. Look! A hockey stick!

I’d ask how dumb they think we are, but they’ve already answered that question.  Waiting

The CRU data set has been one of the primary sources for researchers around the globe conducting their own investigations into global warming. The refusal to share the raw data itself is bad enough (Good science depends on letting others test and challenge your theories.), but then to admit you tossed the original data, that only the manipulated data is available and that others will just have to trust that your corrections were appropriate is nothing short of appalling. Without the original, raw, unadjusted data to test against, the CRU data set is worthless and likewise any research based on it

And yet these are the same people who demand we regulate and massively tax the world’s most productive economies to deal with a crisis they claim is proved … by this same data.

The real crisis is when crooked science meets stupid politicians.

RELATED: More on the revealing comments hidden in the CRU’s program code; Hot Air on weird science; Michael Mann, the originator of one of the now-discredited hockey sticks, is now under investigation by his employer, the University of Pennsylvania, in the wake of the CRU revelations. Information on the other debunked hockey stick. Climate Skeptic translates the double-speak in the CRU’s announcement that it had destroyed the raw data. Sister Toldjah wants a show of hands to see who believes the CRU’s excuse.