Climategate – a year old and still going strong

It is a year since emails were leaked from the University of East Anglia in the scandal called Climategate. Despite protestations from some that this was an unlawful act and the emails prove nothing (really they don’t), they do in fact reveal inappropriate intentions, collusion between scientists to subvert the peer review process and an unscientific refusal to share scientific information.

The only reason Phil Jones was not prosecuted for breaches of the Freedom of Information Act was that too much time had elapsed since his offences. He’s guilty all right, but because the time expired no court is permitted to hear the charges against him.

To mark the anniversary, Val sends us this cartoon.

global warming cartoon

21
Leave a Reply

9 Comment threads
12 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andy

We could also mention the complete whitewashes of so-called “independent” inquiries, which spectacularly managed to completely avoid addressing any of the issues.

In particular, none of the inquiries addressed the issues around the deletion of emails.

This to me is the bigger scandal.

val majkus

This is a bit of a personal story but first of all thanks to a commentator whose name I can’t find on the WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/19/one-year-ago-today-breaking-news-story-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#comments site where I found the cartoon Second: the name Climategate came from an Aussie commentator on that site see Quadrant Online https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/07/bulldust-australian-hero Bulldust: Oz blogger hero July 7, 2010 Guinness Book of Records please note. Anthony Watts claims an Australian contributor to his blog was the first to dub the breaking CRU scandal “ClimateGate”: Oh, and a note of acknowledgment to WUWT regular “bulldust” who coined the phrase “Climategate” right here on WUWT (Bulldust coined the phrase at 3:52PM PST Nov 19th) just hours after we broke the story. It was great to meet you in Perth. At the time Climategate broke my sister had recently died and I had ceased my legal practice in Tamworth Australia to look after my mother (who was and remains blind) but I still remained interested in what was happening in Australia Two months later I wrote an open letter to Australian Parliamentarians (first published on Climategate.com) and published on Quadrant Online http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/01/open-letter-on-climate-change Here’s the first para: Until Climategate occurred I didn’t… Read more »

val majkus

On this anniversary I’ve been looking at temperatures and thought you readers might be interested in this article published on Australian Climate Science Coalition NEW RETREAT FROM GLOBAL WARMING DATA BY AUSTRALIAN GOVT BUREAU http://www.auscsc.org.au/ Posted: 17th November 2010 Global warmers are in full retreat as Aussie experts admit growing doubts about their own methods as a new study shows one third of temperatures are not reliable says this article by John O’Sullivan and Val Majkus at Canada Free Press. LINK to article The reason I started to think about temperatures today was the strange homegenisation which occurred with Canadian temperatures and for those who believe satellites are infallible here’s a good site to catch up on http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/noaa-caught-in-temperature-fraud-satellitegate-will-deliver-a-new-blow-to-the-agw-scam/ Global warming data apparently cooked by U.S. government-funded body shows astounding temperature fraud with increases averaging 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit. (a couple of paras) The tax-payer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has become mired in fresh global warming data scandal involving numbers for the Great Lakes region that substantially ramp up averages. A beleaguered federal agency appears to be implicated in the most blatant and extreme case of climate data fraud yet… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

“Until Climategate occurred I didn’t really think much about global warming; like a friend of mine I thought ‘well the Government is relying upon expert opinion.’ When Climategate occurred as a person with a legal background and with an open mind I did a lot of research on the web” Val, my story is similar except that I was disgusted with NZ’s ETS but not enough to be motivated to really delve into the science and I naively trusted the climate scientists as a professional group or so I thought. My assessment was only intuitive at that stage. I was not however, naive to the UN and totalitarianism so I was following the lead up to COP15 closely as I new they had a golden opportunity to impose global governance in some form. I saw how our politicians were completely gulled by Ban Ki-Moon’s posturing but I was not prepared for the fact that the science had been manipulated to fit that agenda. The Climategate story broke and I followed it at DT,TBR, tAV and WUWT, saw Bulldust’s comment and eventually read not just emails but the code and spreadsheets that get overlooked… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

From: Kevin Trenberth To: Michael Mann Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600 Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer Hi all Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

In case this is too much info, I should clarify that it deals with:-

“Missing Energy” – a discrepancy between OHC and TOA energy budget.

Not

“Missing Heat” – a discrepancy between model temperature predictions 2000 – present and observed temperatures.

Or

“Missing Hot-Spot” – the missing AGW signature in the upper troposphere above the tropics.

The Trenberth and Fasullo article is an easy read and well worth it along with the subsequent comment-response sequence.

The Spencer-Miskolczi debate is similar and addresses the near equality of incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes. Miskolczi replies in comments.

Hertzberg, Schreuder and Siddons show how deeply erroneous assumptions about theoretical vs. real body radiative estimates lead to the erroneous warming assumption in “A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?” (easy read).

Hertzberg also has a paper “Earth’s Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar Irradiance”

Richard C (NZ)

From; “Earth’s Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar Irradiance” Various agencies, including IPCC [5] have estimated the measured changes in the average atmospheric temperature near the Earth’s surface over the last century to be as follows: 1910 – 1940, increase of 0.5 C; 1940 – 1970, decrease of 0.2 C; 1970 – 2000, increase of 0.5 C. As can be seen from Fig. 2, those increases of 0.5 C for the two thirty year spans from 1910 to 1940 and from 1970 to 2000, correspond to a relatively small decrease of only 1.5 percent in Earth’s albedo. The observed decrease in temperature of 0.2 C from 1940 to 1970 corresponds to an albedo increase of only 0.5 percent. Those modest changes in temperature are thus readily explained in terms of minor changes in albedo, brought about by small changes in cloudiness and/or snow and ice cover over the Earth’s surface. [Snip] Pure water reaches its maximum density at 4 0C, whereas saline ocean water reaches its maximum density at its freezing point which is slightly below 0 0C. Those density differences, caused by temperature and salinity variations between the polar latitudes and lower latitudes,… Read more »

val majkus

RichardC thank you for those educational comments; I don’t know if your readers are aware of Climategate analysis by John P. Costella http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/ published I think in early December 2009 this is from his editorial: The most difficult thing for a scientist in the era of Climategate is trying to explain to family and friends why it is so distressing to scientists. Most people don’t know how science really works: there are no popular television shows, movies, or books that really depict the everyday lives of real scientists; it just isn’t exciting enough. I’m not talking here about the major discoveries of science—which are well-described in documentaries, popular science series, and magazines—but rather how the process of science (often called the “scientific method”) actually works. The best analogy that I have been able to come up with, in recent weeks, is the criminal justice system—which is (rightly or wrongly) abundantly depicted in the popular media. Everyone knows what happens if police obtain evidence by illegal means: the evidence is ruled inadmissible; and, if a case rests on that tainted evidence, it is thrown out of court. The justice system is not saying that… Read more »

Andy

There’s a pretty interesting article on Climategate by Terence Kealey here:

http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1886-terence-kealey-what-does-climategate-say-about-science.html

What Does Climategate Say About Science?

It’s well worth a read, putting this into some historical perspective.

I found these comments in the article about Pythagoras rather illuminating:

But Pythagoras had a student called Hippasus, and Hippasus discovered that the square root of 2, √2 is not a rational number. It is in fact an ‘irrational’ number, and its exact quantity will never be precisely calculated because, as Hippasus showed two and a half thousand years ago, irrational numbers can never be definitively calculated. This proof upset Pythagoras and he asked Hippasus to retract it. But Hippasus refused, so Pythagoras had him drowned.

val majkus

Thanks Andy for that article; the old scientists are advocates principle; I don’t see though why advocacy is inconsistent with transparency and the author of the article implied that advocacy can entail a lack of transparency; in any event what Climategate has shown in my view is that politicisation of science results in its minimisation; or I suppose a better way of saying that is that once science becomes political it’s no longer unbiased science

Andy

Yes I completely agree there Val. One has to wonder whether climate science was ever unbiased, since the formation of the IPCC, UN Agenda 21, etc.

However, I think it is interesting that, in the historical context, the politicisation of science is not a particularly new phenomenon.

val majkus

and don’t forget the thoughts of Charles R Anderson
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2010/06/moon-effect-called-greenhouse-effect-on.html
Neither I nor Hertzberg, Siddons, and Schreuder were claiming that the moon is experiencing a greenhouse effect. What they were clearly saying is that there is an effect on the moon, which has no atmosphere, which is also an effect on earth. But on earth, the effect is mistakenly attributed to the greenhouse gas effect.

val majkus

I knew I was thinking about temperatures for a reason and I’ve found it http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=686&Itemid=1 TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT by New Zealand’s illustrious Dr Vincent Grey The most important climate property for establishing the “greenhouse” theory is temperature It is the public perception that the globe is warming. Yet there is no technique currently available to us to discover whether this is true, to a known level of accuracy. It is just not possible to place temperature measuring equipment in a random and representative fashion over the entire surface of the earth, Even measuring the surface temperature in one single place cannot be done in a satisfactory manner. This point is eloquently made by Hansen11 and elaborated by Pielke et al.12 Yet it was Hansen himself13 who was responsible for the suggestion that “temperature anomalies” could be established by making use of temperature measurements at weather stations. He proposed a system of dividing the globe into latitude/longitude boxes, averaging temperature measurements from approved stations within each box, and by comparing the “anomaly” figures for each year it would be possible to establish a temperature “trend” for the entire earth’s surface There are many objections to… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

I think the key is quality not quantity i.e.

*No airport stations (they’re for aviation).
*No UHI influenced stations
*No subjective adjustments.
*No short-term records.

Look no further than The Central England Temperature dataset.

“‘AGW? I refute it THUS!’: Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009” – James Delingpole

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022226/agw-i-refute-it-thus-central-england-temperatures-1659-to-2009/

Same record, different vert scale and slightly shorter from C3 Headlines.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7f2ff2b970b-pi

Personally I’m a fan of 1m below ground temperature measurement like this example from Griffith, Australia “Heat into the Ground”

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/09/sensible-heat-latent-heat-and-radiation/

Nice smooth sine curves. Where I would find long-term records, I don’t know.

While we’re at, a special page for Gareth Renowden again from C3 Headlines

“Climate Model Predictions vs Reality” from C3 Headlines

http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-model-chartsgraphs.html

Featuring “James Hansen’s Climate Model Failures Since 1988”. The “Accumulated Ocean Heat” comparison is topical too.

val majkus

Thanks Richard for those links and here’s a link for you http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm
I don’t know if you’re aware of John’s work; he’s a member of the Australian Science Coalition and his bio is on their website
You’ll enjoy
Tropospheric temperatures – 9 graphs summarising lower tropospheric temperatures28 OCT 2010

Richard C (NZ)

J. D. McLean,

Applied Science Consultants, Croydon, Victoria, Australia.

General Notes.
1 – The information on these pages is updated when I have time and when there’s something worth posting. I’ll try to ensure that new items appear in the “What’s New” listing so you can keep track of changes.

2 – I’m a member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, see http://www.nzclimatescience.org/

3 – My public email address is mcleanjoh (at) gmail.com but I don’t check every day for email.

What’s New

28 Oct 2010 Global “Glaciergate” highlights IPCC flaws
28 Oct 2010 Global Lower Tropospheric temperatures to Aug 2010
27 Sep 2010 General We Have Been Conned – an independent review of the IPCC
02 Apr 2010 Australia Addition to Melbourne as an Urban Heat Island
31 Mar 2010 General Censorship at AGU: Scientists denied right of reply
16 Mar 2010 Global Lower Tropospheric temperatures to Feb 2010 now at v5.3
9 Feb 2010 Australian Updated page about Great Barrier Reef sea temperatures
06 Dec 2009 General Posted essay “Climate Science Corrupted”

http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm

Richard C (NZ)

How we were censored by Bob Carter and John McLean March 29, 2010 Climate science censorship in action at the American Geophysical Union Censorship of the right of reply by the original authors of a scientific paper to criticism is extremely rare, and requires extraordinary circumstances to justify or explain it. In this case, the explanation seems to be improper actions taken, or not taken, by both the FEA authors and the editor of the JGR. Probably because of their alarm at the impact that the MFC paper was having on public opinion, at about the same time that they submitted their critique to the JGR editor, FEA also took the remarkable step of posting it on the web, formatted in JGR publication style – this posting in effect masquerading as an AGU publication. Doubly unfortunately for the FEA group, some months after the submission and posting of their critique the Climategate emails were released into the public domain. Amongst these emails were several that contain behind-the-scenes interchanges between the FEA authors, and between them and the JGR editor. Thus has been revealed in full glory the techniques by which the FEA authors… Read more »

val majkus

An interesting analysis http://kestencgreen.com/green&armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf We forecast effects and outcomes of the global warming alarm movement using a structured analysis of analogous situations. To do this, we searched the literature and we asked experts to identify phenomena that were similar to the alarm currently being raised over dangerous manmade global warming. We obtained 71 proposed analogies. Of these, 26 met our criteria of being based on forecasts of material human catastrophe arising from effects of human activity on the physical environment, that were endorsed by experts, politicians and the media, and that were accompanied by calls for strong action. None of the 26 alarms were based on scientific forecasting procedures. None of the alarming forecasts were accurate. Governments took action in 23 of the analogous situations and those actions proved to be harmful in 20. The government programs remained in place after the predicted disasters failed to materialize. The global warming alarm movement appears to be the latest manifestation of a common social phenomenon of false alarms based on unscientific forecasts of human-cased environmental disasters. We predict that the alarm over forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming will, like previous similar alarms, result in… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Exhibit 1: Analogies to the alarm over dangerous manmade global warming 1 Population growth and famine (Malthus) 1798 2 Timber famine economic threat 1865 3 Uncontrolled reproduction and degeneration (Eugenics) 1883 4 Lead in petrol and brain and organ damage 1928 5 Soil erosion agricultural production threat 1934 6 Asbestos and lung disease 1939 7 Fluoride in drinking water health effects 1945 8 DDT and cancer 1962 9 Population growth and famine (Ehrlich) 1968 10 Global cooling; through to 1975 1970 11 Supersonic airliners, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1970 12 Environmental tobacco smoke health effects 1971 13 Population growth and famine (Meadows) 1972 14 Industrial production and acid rain 1974 15 Organophosphate pesticide poisoning 1976 16 Electrical wiring and cancer, etc. 1979 17 CFCs, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1985 18 Listeria in cheese 1985 19 Radon in homes and lung cancer 1985 20 Salmonella in eggs 1988 21 Environmental toxins and breast cancer 1990 22 Mad cow disease (BSE) 1996 23 Dioxin in Belgian poultry 1999 24 Mercury in fish effect on nervous system development 2004 25 Mercury in childhood inoculations and autism 2005 26 Cell phone… Read more »

Andy

I think a lot of this is covered in Booker & North’s book

Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares Are Costing Us the Earth

http://www.amazon.com/Scared-Death-Global-Warming-Costing/dp/B0029OW65W/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290388048&sr=8-2-fkmr2

Andy

When I heard today of the Wikileaks emails and NYT publishing them, I thought this was a tad inconsistent with their position on the CRU emails

Seems I wasn’t the only one

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/11/027788.php

Post Navigation