More cracks in the climate “consensus”

June 2, 2010

Great Britain’s Royal Society has for several years been one of the bulwarks supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and their strong endorsement has been used both as a shield and a club by alarmists in their arguments with skeptics.

That time may just have come to an end:

Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism

Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.

The Royal Society has appointed a panel to rewrite the 350-year-old institution’s official position on global warming. It will publish a new “guide to the science of climate change” this summer. The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.

The society appears to have conceded that it needs to correct previous statements. It said: “Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect — there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements.” This contradicts a comment by the society’s previous president, Lord May, who was once quoted as saying: “The debate on climate change is over.”

The admission that the society needs to conduct the review is a blow to attempts by the UN to reach a global deal on cutting emissions. The Royal Society is viewed as one of the leading authorities on the topic and it nominated the panel that investigated and endorsed the climate science of the University of East Anglia.

The Royal Society made a serious mistake by taking sides in the first place, instead of remaining a neutral forum for debate and research. Any change away from their pro-alarmist stance is to be welcomed, and we can hope that this encourages more skeptical researchers to “come out of the closet” and engage before the Green Statists in and out of government do terrible harm to Western economies and liberties.

(via Baseball Crank)

Advertisements

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?

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.


Global warming fraud exposed?

November 21, 2009

These are dark times indeed for true believers in the religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming: not only is the empirical evidence going more and more against their Inconvenient Truths, but now there have come revelations of scandal within the walls of one of the Holy Places of the Faith. A hacker broke into the computer systems of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit and stole over 60 megabytes of emails and other documents and released them to the public.

The significance of of these files is that they strongly indicate deliberate fraud and the illegal destruction of data by researchers seeking to bolster the case for AGW. They also speak of plans (at least) to corrupt the peer-review process by smearing skeptical scientists in order to blackball them, thus creating a review process slanted favorably toward research that supports the anthropogenic thesis of global warming and ignores any problems with that research.

James Delingpole of The Telegraph has a good overview of the ethical roaches uncovered by this (let’s be blunt) theft. Let me quote from one of the emails dealing with the corruption of the peer-review process:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Talk like this should mortify anyone concerned for the integrity of science. The peer-review process is crucial to maintaining this integrity. For any scientist to try to game and shape this system in their favor should lead to calling into question the whole body of their research, especially when global-warming alarmists, such as the scientists at the CRU, are demanding governments take extreme measures to fix a problem the scientists claim is incontrovertible fact.

If half of what was revealed is true, then any credibility possessed by the pro-AGW faction in the scientific community, national governments, and the UN is crippled or outright destroyed. The Senate should call an immediate halt to any further consideration its version  of the Waxman-Markey bill, passage of which would be disastrous for the US economy, until the truth about these revelations from CRU can be determined.

Besides Delingpole’s article, here are a few other links you’ll want to read to get an idea of the scope of this scandal:

The mind boggles at the possible scope of the fraud revealed today. For the sheer magnitude of its potential effect on the world’s economy, it dwarfs other scandals, such as fake fetal stem cell research. If true, it could be fatal to the Anthropogenic Global Warming movement.

Let’s hope it’s true, then.

LINKS: Others writing on this include Michelle Malkin, Gabriel Malor, Ed Morrissey, Stacy McCain, Climate Skeptic, SBVOR (which calls this the “Watergate of Global Warming”), Sister Toldjah, Big Government, and Blue Crab Boulevard. At Power Line, attorney John Hinderaker looks at the emails and thinks they reflect not so much an active conspiracy as a bunker mentality among true believers.

(hat tip: Watt’s Up With That?)