Thursday, November 26, 2009

Climate-change Lies

Now we have learned that leading climate-change scientists deliberately suppressed some data, used tricks to manipulate statistics, and conspired to keep their opponents' work out of scientific journals and conferences. It's true that the evidence was obtained illicitly-- by hackers who broke into a university's computer network. But the evidence of scientific misconduct is mountainous. In email exchanges, scientists boast of using "tricks" to skew statistical results, referred to professional colleagues as "idiots," and discussed the inconvenient bits of evidence they planned to hide. In one message that neatly sums up these researchers' attitude toward scientific objectivity, one scientist vowed to keep a critical piece out of circulation "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" The emails seemed to show ample evidence of scholarly misconduct: a "smoking gun," as many commentators put it. But one climate-change skeptic saidThe climate-change theorists have sustained a serious blow to their credibility. Yet it appears-- for now, at least-- that they will retain their dominance in the public discussion. The mass media have fully embraced the climate-change hypothesis, and now show no inclination to question it. (Diogenes points out that the New York Times has cited public opinion as the reason not to scrutinize the data more carefully.) The world's political leaders-- who are already planning sweeping policy changes in response to the supposition that mankind has caused climate change-- are not ready to second-guess their own premature conclusions.
In short, the climate-change hypothesis is popular among the people who control political affairs and public opinion. that metaphor was inadequate: "This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.” ...

From an article byPhil Lawler - Director,


Anonymous said...

Perhaps the criminal hackers can be whisked away to Guantanamo while Phil Lawler prays for them.

Anonymous said...

According to scientists, the "smoking gun" was fired by the hackers. Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said the hackers were selective in choosing documents they believed could be used to make the scientists look bad. As such, it was a "trick", a "conspiracy" by the hackers to "deliberately suppressed some data" abd distort the truth. Phil Jones, the maligned scientist, denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. "The word 'trick' was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward," he said in a statement Saturday.

Gibbons in SF said...

Anonymous 5:47:

Here's one of the unedited emails from the "maligned scientist," Phil Jones. It's one of a number posted on the Wall Street Journal:

I particularly draw your attention to the fifth sentence in the second paragraph. What kind of scientist talks about deleting his data rather than making it public?

"At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:


I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it!

Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if you are. Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley, Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the right emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel, so will keep you informed.

Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert by GRL statndards.



Anonymous said...

Mr. Gibbons, you asked "What kind of scientist talks about deleting his data rather than making it public?" The answer is that "data" is so broad as to mean anything and include most everyone. For example, if you correct even a typing mistake, you have deleted data, erroneous data. I myself often have data files which contain erroneous or flawed data, and even valid data which I'm required to protect from public release because of agreements with third parties or, because of the way it might be viewed by persons who do not respect the truth, might be abused if such were made public. Do you not have files on your computer that you'd rather delete than be made public? Or do you not handle sensitive information in your duties at the church. Perhaps (as I have read elsewhere) the scientist's data or some portion thereof is subject to protections by agreements with third parties and he's not (according to his understanding) legally free to release the data even if he wanted to and he's instead morally bound to protect it, by which in his frustration and desire to protect it he expressed in an informal e-mail that he'd rather the file be deleted than released in violation of the agreements or some other good reason he may have. I cannot speak for the scientist and his data and whatever he meant or didn't mean, but I can speak the Church's teaching: "Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it." And, "The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it."

Not Really A Conspiracy Theorist said...

If you are without God you must make one decision. The first is do you want to make the world better for humanity or for yourself.

If you choose for humanity than you must determine what is wrong with the world. The undeniable answer is people.

The people who are drawn to government to make the world better must figure out how to control these people that vex them so.

They take away rights, liberties, private property, foment wars and split families so that the world better matches the utopia in their heads. Christians know no utopia can exist on Earth and we are eager for the true King to rule.

They have seized the young in brainwashing campuses for minimum 12 years stretches, encourage promiscuity and abortion, incite families to divorce, and start aggressive wars on flimsy pretexts.

They love climate change because it allows these politicos to control even more of our lives, especially if they can regulate carbon dioxide. They can restrict our movements, ban us from choosing the vehicles we want, forcing us to subsidize their pet industries and pork products in companies they happily profit from. They salivate at the idea of regulating the food we choose to put in our bodies, commencing taxes on cows because cows produce methane, ie fart. If they can control CO2 they can control our very breaths.

So what if the data has been fudged. These people are in the business of brainwashing, kangaroo family courts and war. What is a little bit of fudged numbers?

That's okay, they're just here to help.

Gibbons in SF said...


You are grasping at straws. Even one member of the UN's own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is now calling for Jones' resignation. Jones is the Director of the CRU. The IPCC has been basing their recommendations on the CRU's data. Governments around the world have been writing policies based on the IPCC's recommendations. So this whole edifice rests to a very significant extent on CRU data.

And Jones refused to release that data. That's unnacepptable. Today's Daily Telegraph reports:

"This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence."

Anonymous said...

Mr. Gibbons, I'm offering the information I've been provided as I practice the Church's teaching on charity. You write, "Jones refused to release that data. That's unnacepptable." While it might not be acceptable to you and "one member", it is apparently acceptable and understandable to others. Here is the opinion of fellow climatologist Dr. Gavin Schmidt: "Please read the background on this. The FOI requests started in 2007 and they were turned down then (and again as recently as Nov 13) not because there is anything wrong or embarrassing about the data, but because some of it is restricted by agreements with third parties. The public domain source data is available to all and sundry and has been for years (GHCN) and is the basis of the other temperature records (i.e at GISTEMP). As for MBH98/99, the data and code is all available, and again, has been for years. This is also true for the more recent and comprehensive reconstructions. - gavin"

Here are also some of the regulations that were cited to me by others:

Regulation 12(5)(f) applies because the information requested was received by the University on terms that prevent further transmission to non-academics.

Regulation 12(1)(b) mandates that we consider the public interest in any decision to release or refuse information under Regulation 12(4). In this case, we feel that there is a strong public interest in upholding contract terms governing the use of received information. To not do so would be to potentially risk the loss of access to such data in future.

Given as you presented in your article that "Diogenes points out that the New York Times has cited public opinion as the reason not to scrutinize the data more carefully," I find the claim "that there is a strong public interest in upholding contract terms governing the use of received information" to be at least plausible (if not also in accord with Church teaching) unless proven otherwise. And whether it's called public opinion, strong public interest or the will of the people, I'm quite sure I've seen you demand that the will of the people be accepted and respected in other situations -- where it concurred with your opinion. Is that straw available to you here? Given that "one member" is allegedly "calling for Jones' resignation", perhaps Dr. Jones might be offered as a sacrificial lamb to satisfy the wolves' hunger. But I doubt any such resignation or release of CRU data will change the apparent consensus of the scientific community.

Anonymous said...

Fr. Malloy's blog states: "the climate-change hypothesis is popular among the people who control political affairs and public opinion." So where, then, do the bishops and the Church stand on the matter? To quote the USCCB in one of its recent media statements: "The facts: we know the Catholic Church supports efforts to combat climate change. This has grown ever more apparent as Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out time and again, most recently in his new encyclical. The U.S. bishops have followed the pope's lead." The U.S. Catholic bishops have declared, "At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God's creation and the one human family. It is about protecting both 'the human environment' and the natural environment." Bishop Thomas G. Wenski, chairman of the U.S. bishops' international policy committee said: "The traditional virtue of prudence suggests that we do not have to know with absolute certainty everything that is happening with climate change to know that something seriously harmful is occurring. Therefore, it is better to act now than wait until the problem gets worse and the remedies more costly. This precautionary principle leads us to act now to avoid the worst consequences of waiting. Prudence sometimes keeps us from acting precipitously. In this case, it requires us to act with urgency and seriousness." Likewise, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, apostolic nuncio of the Holy See's permanent mission to the U.N., stressed that the scientific evidence for global warming and mankind’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses "becomes ever more unimpeachable" and that its effects were already impacting the world community. "The consequences of climate change are being felt not only in the environment, but in the entire socio-economic system, Archbishop Migliore said, noting that "such activity has a profound relevance, not just for the environment, but in ethical, economic, social and political terms as well."

Gibbons in SF said...


Whatever reasons Dr. Jones & the CRU had for refusing to release the data have apparently just evaporated. This morning's Telegraph story "Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row," tells us

"The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, "stolen" by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.

In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

The publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. The full data, when disclosed, is certain to be scrutinised by both sides in the fierce debate."

But, lo & behold, this afternoons Times UK story ("Climate change data dumped")it turns out there is no raw data to release:

"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 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.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible."

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said

Gibbons in SF said...


This is becoming circular. The Pope & bishops (and the IPCC and governments) were saying that based on recommendations from people relying on CRU data. They though the science was genuine.

Now we find the original data that the CRU was working from is not there anymore, can't be examined--and the emails seem to indicate the data was being massaged to show desired results.

As the Times story said: "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."