ClimateGate busts things wide open

by **ronan01** » July 15, 2010, 9:32 am

Climategate and the Big Green Lie

Jul 14 2010, 12:13 AM ET | Comment

By way of preamble, let me remind you where I stand on climate change. I think climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously. I think energy policy should be intelligently directed towards mitigating this risk. I am for a carbon tax. I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption. The scandal attracted enormous attention in the US, and support for a new energy policy has fallen. In sum, the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute, and set back the prospects for a better energy policy.

I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.

The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann -- the paleoclimatologist who came up with "the hockey stick" -- would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for "lack of credible evidence", it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT's Richard Lindzen tells the committee, "It's thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I'm wondering what's going on?" The report continues: "The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr Lindzen's statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.") Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers -- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

You think I exaggerate?

This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research...

Had Dr. Mann's conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions...

Clearly, Dr. Mann's reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.
In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed, with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble.

Further "vindication" of the Climategate emailers was to follow, of course, in Muir Russell's equally probing investigation. To be fair, Russell manages to issue a criticism or two. He says the scientists were sometimes "misleading" -- but without meaning to be (a plea which, in the case of the "trick to hide the decline", is an insult to one's intelligence). On the apparent conspiracy to subvert peer review, it found that the "allegations cannot be upheld" -- but, as the impressively even-handed Fred Pearce of the Guardian notes, this was partly on the grounds that "the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was 'team responsibility'." Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of the university which houses CRU, calls this "exoneration".

I am glad to see The Economist, which I criticized for making light of the initial scandal, taking a balanced view of these unsatisfactory proceedings. My only quarrels with its report are quibbles. For instance, in the second paragraph it says:

The reports conclude that the science of climate is sound...

Actually, they don't, as the article's last paragraph makes clear:

An earlier report on climategate from the House of Commons assumed that a subsequent probe by a panel under Lord Oxburgh, a former academic and chairman of Shell, would deal with the science. The Oxburgh report, though, sought to show only that the science was not fraudulent or systematically flawed, not that it was actually reliable. And nor did Sir Muir, with this third report, think judging the science was his job.

Like Pearce, The Economist rightly draws attention to the failure of the Russell inquiry to ask Phil Jones of the CRU whether he actually deleted any emails to defeat FoI requests. It calls this omission "rather remarkable". Pearce calls it "extraordinary". Myself, I would prefer to call it "astonishing and indefensible". I don't see how, having spotted this, the magazine can conclude that the report, overall, was "thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics." (Well, the critics make such unreasonable demands! Look into the charges, they say. Hear from the other side. Ask the obvious questions. It never stops: you just can't satisfy these people.)

However, The Economist is calling for the IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri to go. That's good.

So where does this leave us? Walter Russell Mead is always worth reading on this subject, and I usually agree with him -- but I think his summing up in this case is not quite right.

Greens who feared and climate skeptics who hoped that the rash of investigations following Climategate and Glaciergate and all the other problems would reveal some gaping obvious flaws in the science of climate change were watching the wrong thing. The Big Green Lie (or Delusion, to be charitable) isn't so much that climate change is happening and that it is very likely caused or at least exacerbated by human activity. The Big Lie is that the green movement is a source of coherent or responsible counsel about what to do.

He's right, of course, that the green movement is not trusted as an adviser on what to do. So what? Its counsel on policy is not required. Nor, for that matter, is a complex international treaty of the sort that Copenhagen failed to produce. Congress and the administration can get to the right policy -- an explicit or implicit carbon tax; subsidies for low-carbon energy -- without the greens' input, so long as public opinion is convinced that the problem is real and needs to be addressed. It's not the extreme or otherwise ill-advised policy recommendations of the greens that have turned opinion against action of any kind, though I grant you they're no help. It's the diminished credibility of the claim that we have a problem in the first place. That is why Climategate mattered. And that is why these absurd "vindications" of the climate scientists involved also matter.

The economic burdens of mitigating climate change will not be shouldered until a sufficient number of voters believe the problem is real, serious, and pressing. Restoring confidence in climate science has to come first. That, in turn, means trusting voters with all of the doubts and unanswered questions -- with inconvenient data as well as data that confirm the story -- instead of misleading them (unintentionally, of course) into believing that everything is cut and dried. The inquiries could have started that process. They have further delayed it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... -lie/59709

by **jackspratt** » July 15, 2010, 10:09 am

Hard for Crook to Climb Down on 'Climategate'

A blog post penned by The Atlantic's Clive Crook today highlights just how hard it is for some people to admit when they are wrong.

Maybe it's a pride thing -- the Chinese call it "saving face." Maybe it's something entirely different. After all, who knows what is running through anyone else's head?

Regardless of what it is called, Crook has it in spades on the issue of the infamous stolen emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at London's East Anglia University.

At the time of the controversy last November, Crook wrote column after column indicting climate scientists in the court of public opinion before any inquiry into the matter could take place.

Only 13 days after the stolen emails were made public Crook had already made up his mind writing that, "the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering." (*** see below - jackspratt edit)

But after three inquires into the so-called "climate gate" matter, one of them conducted by a bi-partisan UK government committee and two by academic boards, the overwhelming conclusion is that there was no wrong-doing.

For example, the UK government's bi-partisan Science and Technology Select Committee concluded that, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones [one of the scientists at the center of the matter] and CRU remains intact".

A New York Times editorial over the weekend makes the point that, "perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming."

Indeed we should.

But it seems no end of inquiries and investigations confirming that climategate was a manufactured scandal based more in the land of conspiracy theories than reality will convince the likes of Crook who cherry-picked a sampling of text from the inquiries to write an Atlantic blog post today that he thinks proves that there is a conspiracy to cover up the conspiracy that has already been proved to be untrue.

Some logic. But it is obviously proving hard for Crook to admit he was wrong after taking such a strong opinion on the issue.

I would suggest that The Atlantic run a contest to win the Kool Aid Crook is drinking or give away a free tinfoil hat with every new subscription.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-gra ... 45831.html

*** http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2009/11/m ... imategate/

by **ronan01** » July 15, 2010, 2:57 pm

Jackspratt:

A New York Times editorial over the weekend makes the point that, "perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming."

I thought it was all about Climate Change?????

Oh well ..........

by **UdonExpat** » July 16, 2010, 8:16 am

The problem of global warming continues regardless of the denials.

Governments around the world are making feeble efforts to do little. We're willing to live our lives in relative comfort to the detriment of the younger generations.

Jan.-June warmest first half of year on record
2010 tops 1998 temps; question now is whether 12 months will break 2005 record for warmest year

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38263788/ns ... vironment/

by **marshallb66** » July 16, 2010, 1:28 pm

What a crock of rubbish this whole temperature and climate change thing is.
If you believe these announcements relating to temperatures around the world the manmade co2 is causing temperature increase in some places but not everywhere. My question is, what is causing the temperature decline in other places. There must be not enough manmade co2 in those areas. That would be the childish answer these so called climate scientist would offer.
They are making claims of around 1 degree warming. If most people were told it was 25 degrees yesterday and 26 degrees today, honestly, who could tell the difference without a thermometer?
Where I lived it used to be 40 degrees in summer. 60 years later it is still 40 degrees.
Climate and weather can be different in only the space of a few hundred kilometers. There is absolutely no proof offered by any one at all that any temperature changes are due to manmade Co2.
This is just a theory put forward by those whose job it is to model and test in a lab the data they collect from likeminded people and they formulate more theories and results which they get paid for by people and governments who have an interest in receiving results that suit their purpose.
The above people could be compared to asking life sentence prisoners in a jail to be the jury and one to be a judge of a murder case defendant. The verdict is entirely predictable.
Some people are genuinely convinced it is manmade Co2 that is causing climate change and just as many are not convinced. So there is balance there.
But the majority of those who support manmade Co2 climate change which consists of big corporations and government plus the climate scientific community do so for monetary gain. Their whole purpose is to make money. There is not another single reason for it. They create Co2 all day as they are doing these test and computer models. But they don’t change their work or lifestyle.
If you look at the nations who are making the most noises about climate change and demanding some form of payment or tax to reduce carbon, it is the developed nations making these claims and who have rorted the money system in all sorts of ways and know how to create schemes to collect money from apathetic humans. So now they have a scheme to line their pockets by charging everyone money to reduce co2. Meanwhile, nothing changes other than you part with your money to give to someone who already has more than their fair share. The co 2 just stays the same.
I work in places like India, Burma, China, Vietnam, Russia, Indonesia and I can tell you not one of these countries governments give a toss about the climate change or global warming. Each individual in those countries creates more co2 pollution in 30 seconds than what all this bull dust carbon saving schemes will achieve in one month.
Climate change? Maybe, but I am not entirely convinced of that yet. Manmade? Maybe again but I am absolutely sure it is not Co2 that is causing it.
I think the problem is the world population. There are simply too many people on the planet using water which is drying out rivers and dams. Humans are diverting rivers, growing food everywhere they can and making too many roads which are heat sinks. These types of things are more likely to be changing the climate
Every 4 days nearly 1 million humans are added to this planet. That means in just over 80 days the entire population of Australia is doubled. Each new addition needs to drink water and each one needs food. That essential requirement to live is what is changing this planet not Co2

by **cookie** » July 17, 2010, 10:55 am

and more data and news ,
but the sceptics already refused to accept the data from NASA,
I suspect that they will refuse the numbers from NOAA also...
well, at least we have to keep on trying,
it took in the Middle ages also a long time before the sceptics believed that the earth was round and not flat....

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html

NOAA: June, April to June, and Year-to-Date Global Temperatures are Warmest on Record

July 15, 2010

Last month’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature made it the warmest June on record and the warmest on record averaged for any April-June and January-June periods, according to NOAA. Worldwide average land surface temperature was the warmest on record for June and the April-June period, and the second warmest on record for the year-to-date (January-June) period, behind 2007.

The monthly analysis from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which is based on records going back to 1880, is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides government, business and community leaders so they can make informed decisions.

Global Temperature Highlights – June

*

Temperature anomalies June 2010.

High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record at 61.1°F (16.2°C), which is 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average of 59.9°F (15.5°C).
* The global June land surface temperature was 1.93°F (1.07°C) above the 20th century average of 55.9 °F (13.3°C) — the warmest on record.

* The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.97°F (0.54°C) above the 20th century average of 61.5°F (16.4°C), which was the fourth warmest June on record. The warmth was most pronounced in the Atlantic Ocean.
* Sea surface temperature continued to decrease across the equatorial Pacific Ocean during June 2010, consistent with the end of El Niño. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, La Niña conditions are likely to develop during the northern hemisphere summer 2010.

Temperature Anomalies January - June 2010.

High resolution (Credit: NOAA)

April – June 2010 and Year-to-Date

* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for April-June 2010 was 1.26°F (0.70°C) above the 20th century average—the warmest April-June period on record.
* For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 57.5°F (14.2°C) was the warmest January-June period. This value is 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average.

Polar Sea Ice and Precipitation Highlights

* Arctic sea ice covered an average of 4.2 million square miles (10.9 million square kilometers) during June. This is 10.6 percent below the 1979-2000 average extent and the lowest June extent since records began in 1979. This was also the 19th consecutive June with below-average Arctic sea ice extent.
* Antarctic sea ice extent in June was above average, 8.3 percent above the 1979-2000 average—resulting in the largest June extent on record.
* China had near-average precipitation. Regionally, Guizhou, Fujian and Qinghai had above-average precipitation during June 2010, resulting in the second wettest June since national records began in 1951—according to Beijing Climate Center. Meanwhile, the province of Jiangsu had its driest June on record, while Shanxi had its second driest on record.
* According to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, the continent had its fourth-driest June on record.
* The first six months of 2010 were the driest since 1929 for the United Kingdom, according to the UK Met Office. The average rainfall during January-June 2010 was 14.3 inches (362.5 mm), just 3.4 inches (86.8 mm) above January-June 1929. The January-June long-term average is 20.1 inches (511.7 mm).

Scientists, researchers and leaders in government and industry use NOAA’s monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world's climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers with critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.

Scientists, researchers and leaders in government and industry use NOAA’s monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world's climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers with critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.

by **ronan01** » July 17, 2010, 4:52 pm

A spot check on NOAA’s “hottest so far” presser

Posted on July 16, 2010 by Anthony Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/16/a ... more-22042

From the story: The Australian’s overheated time warp misses half of 2010 which had a NOAA press release in it below the fold, Dr. Richard Keen weighs in and does a spot check of the data from his own NOAA station (he’s an official observer).

And if you find this map hard to look at, you aren’t alone in seeing spots.

Keen writes:

Lawrimore’s comment…

“Heavy snow, like the record snows that crippled Baltimore and Washington last winter, is likely to increase because storms are moving north. Also, the Great Lakes aren’t freezing as early or as much. “As cold outbreaks occur, cold air goes over the Great Lakes, picks up moisture and dumps on the Northeast,” he says.”

…shows a complete lack of understanding of weather (which makes up climate).

East coast snows are caused by lows off the coast, and if the storms move north, Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYC et al. find themselves in the warm sectors of the lows, and enjoy warm southerly winds and rain.

Furthermore, during the snow storms, the winds are from the northeast bringing moisture from the Atlantic (hence the name “nor’easter” for these storms); very little of the moisture comes from the Great Lakes. One of Philadelphia’s snowiest winters was 1978-79, when the Lakes were all but frozen over. Along the east coast, a region that averages very near freezing during the winter, the limiting factor for snow storms is not moisture, but temperature. Most storms are rain.

Now, the spot check.

NOAA’s calculation of the global temperature is based on their analysis of departures at 2000 or so grid points. One of those points included my weather station at Coal Creek Canyon, Colorado, a location with no UHI or other troublesome influences. The NOAA map of June anomalies for the US, based on an unknown selection of stations, has Coal Creek sitting on the +4F contour.

The Coal Creek record is long enough to calculate 30-year normals, and June 2010 comes in at +1.0F above normal.

That’s 3 degrees less than the NOAA estimate for the same location, which is the difference between June being in the top 3 or being in the middle third. Now, this is simply a spot check of one of NOAA’s 2000 grid points, but it leads to the question of how far off are the other grid points?

Dr. Richard Keen

by **cookie** » July 17, 2010, 5:05 pm

I predicted this one isn't it
:lol:

by **ronan01** » July 17, 2010, 5:11 pm

cookie wrote::lol:
I predicted this one isn't it

You predicted what?

by **cookie** » July 17, 2010, 5:14 pm

but the sceptics already refused to accept the data from NASA,
I suspect that they will refuse the numbers from NOAA also...

by **ronan01** » July 20, 2010, 11:35 am

Without candour, we can't trust climate science 14 July 2010

IS CLIMATEGATE finally over? It ought to be, with the publication of the third UK report into the emails leaked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Incredibly, none looked at the quality of the science itself.

The MPs' inquiry - rushed out before the UK general election on 6 May - ducked the science because the university said it was setting up an "independent scientific assessment panel" chaired by geologist Ron Oxburgh.

After publishing his five-page epistle, Oxburgh declared "the science was not the subject of our study". Finally, last week came former civil servant Muir Russell's 150-page report. Like the others, he lambasted the CRU for its secrecy but upheld its integrity - despite declaring his study "was not about... the content or quality of [CRU's] scientific work" (see "Scientists respond to Muir Russell report").

Though the case for action to cut greenhouse gases remains strong, this omission matters. How can we know whether CRU researchers were properly exercising their judgment? Without dipping his toes into the science, how could Russell tell whether they were misusing their power as peer reviewers to reject papers critical of their own research, or keep sceptical research out of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

Russell's report was much tougher on data secrecy, finding a "consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness". Key data on matters of public importance - like CRU's assembly of 160 years of global thermometer data - cannot be regarded as private property. Even so, he ought to have joined Oxburgh in calling for greater documentation of the "judgmental decisions" that turned raw data into the graphs of global average temperatures. Data manipulation is the stuff of science, but that manipulation has to be as open and transparent as the data itself.

Global thermometer data going back 160 years cannot be regarded as private property
Russell's team left other stones unturned. They decided against detailed analysis of all the emails in the public domain. They examined just three instances of possible abuse of peer review, and just two cases when CRU researchers may have abused their roles as authors of IPCC reports. There were others. They have not studied hundreds of thousands more unpublished emails from the CRU. Surely openness would require their release.

All this, plus the failure to investigate whether emails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws, makes it harder to accept Russell's conclusion that the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists concerned "are not in doubt".

Some will argue it is time to leave climategate behind. But it is difficult to justify the conclusion of Edward Acton, University of East Anglia vice-chancellor, that the CRU has been "completely exonerated". Openness in sharing data, even with your critics, is a legal requirement.
But what happened to intellectual candour - especially in conceding the shortcomings of these inquiries and discussing the way that science is done. Without candour, public trust in climate science cannot be restored, nor should it be.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ience.html

by **ronan01** » July 20, 2010, 11:38 am

More on Oxburgh's eleven

When my FoI request to Imperial led to the disclosure of the Hand and Hoskins emails, there were many redactions of names, which I found rather frustrating. From the language of many of the emails, it appeared that many of the names were of senior people and should thus have been disclosed. I queried this with Imperial who have now disclosed almost all of the relevant detail.

One interesting snippet has emerged from this. When the original emails were released I reported on an inquiry made to Lord Oxburgh by Oliver Morton of the Economist about how Oxburgh's Eleven papers were chosen. When he replied, Oxburgh said in essence that he didn't know.

What I received was a list from the university which I understand was chosen by the Royal Society The contact with the RS was I believe through [name redacted] but I don't know who he consulted. [Name redacted], when I asked him, agreed that the original sample was fair.

Well, now we know who the redactions were. The contact through with the Royal Society was through Martin Rees - we knew that already. The other redaction, the other person consulted about whether the sample of papers was reasonable, was...Phil Jones.

Now, whichever way you look at it, this is a funny question to put to the accused if one's objective is a fair trial. I mean, what could Jones say? "You've picked all my bad papers"? And of course Jones must have known that the sample was not representative.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/ ... leven.html

by **jackspratt** » July 20, 2010, 12:24 pm

Nobel climate scientist dead at 65

Nobel prize-winning climate change researcher Stephen Schneider has died at the age of 65.

The Stanford University scientist worked on the international research panel on global warming that shared the 2007 Nobel Prize with former US vice-president Al Gore.

Dr Schneider died of a heart attack this week on a flight between Stockholm and London...........

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... ion=justin

by **marshallb66** » July 21, 2010, 10:05 am

Climate change causing global warming? How much money do they want to cooll the place down? It seems to me nature is taking care of that. This report is one of many i have seen this year of below average temperatures.
Where i am now in Russia the temprature has not gone above 15 degrees other than two days of 25 degrees. Thsi is the middle of summer here and it should be between 25 to 30 degrees for this month.

Dozens of people are reported to have died from hypothermia as a cold snap sweeps across several countries in Latin America.
In Argentina, 33 people died as temperatures dropped down to around -14 degrees Celsius in the centre of the country.
Many homeless people are among the victims who died in the capital city Buenos Aires.
Nine people died of hypothermia and another three were killed after inhaling toxic fumes from coal-burning ovens, the health ministry in Paraguay reported.
The Rural Association of Paraguay estimated 1,000 cattle died in the freezing temperatures, mostly in the northern part of the country.
The country's meteorological experts are warning the cold weather and rain are expected to continue for the rest of the week.
South America is at the peak of its winter season, but the temperatures in a number of regions are unusually harsh.
In tropical areas of Bolivia, where temperatures rarely dip below a balmy 20 degrees Celsius, the mercury was recorded to be around freezing, and at least four people were reported dead from the cold.
Parts of Chile are also experiencing unusually heavy snowfall, but no deaths have been reported.

by **Farang1** » July 21, 2010, 2:41 pm

marshallb66 wrote:Climate change causing global warming? How much money do they want to cool the place down?

You're right about that, Marshall. It's all about money. The scientists on how much can they milk it. And the government sees another way to get taxes.

ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open

Who is online