CRU

Climategate Update Feb 18, 2010 Phil Jones and the NASA files

In an interview with the BBC, Phil Jones, the head of the British Climatic Research Unit at the heart of ClimateGate, told the BBC: the recent warming trend that began in 1975 is not statistically different from two other planetary warming phases since 1850; there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and; it is possible the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a global phenomenon thereby making the temperatures seen in the latter part of the 20th century by no means unprecedented. Jones also explained why he manipulated the data to “hide the decline.”

The BBC interview: http://tinyurl.com/yb9h7vd

 

Chris Horner, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, filed a freedom of information request to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), in August 2007. Finally on Dec. 31, 2009 NASA complied with the request and released emails and other documents.

According to Horner, “The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise. The emails show NASA making off with enormous sums of taxpayer funding doing precisely what they claim only a “skeptic” would do. The emails show NASA attempting to scrub their website of their own documents, and indeed they quietly pulled down numerous press releases grounded in the proven-wrong data. The emails show NASA claiming that their own temperature errors (which they have been caught making and in uncorrected form aggressively promoting) are merely trivial, after years of hysterically trumpeting much smaller warming anomalies.”

Horner article part 1 here: http://tinyurl.com/ylkkq76

NASA emails here: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/business/foia/GISS.html

Climategate Analysis

The Science and Public Policy Institute has published an analysis of the leaked climategate emails. This 149-page document takes the emails in chronological order and shows, with comments on each message, how science was perverted.

In the introductory material the report says:

The entire industry of “climate science” was created out of virtually nothing, by means of a massive influx of funding that was almost universally one-sided in its requirement that its recipients find evidence for man-made climate change—not investigate whether or how much mankind had caused climate change.

Many “climate scientists” built their entire careers on this funding; and so it is not surprising that they became so completely reliant on this conditional lifeline, that they became single-mindedly focused on achieving the ends for which they were commissioned—and viciously attacking any intruders who may threaten that lifeline.

The PDF file may be download from either of these links:

Click to access climategate_analysis.pdf

or http://tinyurl.com/yl8o3t8

Global Warming Industry Meets Reality

FlyingMoneyIt seems that there really is “Mann”-made global warming. It is made of fraud, data manipulation, collusion, squelching dissent, hiding data, deleting data, and punishing scientific journals that dared to publish papers challenging the carbon cabal.

The global warming industry is very big business and there is a huge vested interest in maintaining the myth that human carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” George Orwell, 1984.

The upcoming Copenhagen meeting sponsored by the United Nations had hoped for a global redistribution of wealth over the next 20 years of between $6 trillion and $10.5 trillion, according to the draft treaty, to “Compensate for damage to the less developed countries’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees.” Third world governments see dollar signs.

 

In the U.S., the Treasury Department estimates that the president’s cap-and-trade approach would “generate federal receipts on the order of $100- to $200 billion annually.” The Congressional Budget Office reports that a 15 percent CO2 reduction would cost an average household $1,600 a year.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a bureaucrat’s paradise that exists solely to perpetrate the myth, while enjoying frequent meetings at exotic venues throughout the world.

Many governments maintain bureaucracies just to “study” the myth. In the U.S., it’s the Global Change Research Program. NOAA, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the National Climate Change and Wildlife Center of the USGS, and the EPA are just a few other federal agencies feeding at the trough.

Over the last 20 years, the US government spent $32 billion on climate research, yet has failed to find any evidence that carbon dioxide emissions significantly affect temperature or represent a danger. Government agencies, the private sector, and universities were the recipients of this money. These organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the myth.

The feds also spent another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. Solar and wind-power generation of electricity can be a supplemental supply, but these methods could not compete with fossil fuels without a subsidy. These industries have a vested interest in maintaining the myth.

The ethanol industry is founded solely on the myth that we must reduce our use of fossil fuels, even though the U.S. has abundant supplies.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Bailout bill) contained $3.4 billion for research and experimentation in the area of carbon sequestration – burying carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuel plants. There are also, really wild schemes for geoengineering, schemes to block the sun with mirrors, or seed the atmosphere with sulfur to produce more clouds.

On the world commodities market, trading carbon credits generated $126 billion in 2008, and big banks are collecting fees, and some project a market worth $2 trillion. Al Gore’s venture capital firm, Hara Software which makes software to track greenhouse gas emissions, stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation. If the myth is destroyed, this market will evaporate.

Back in 2007, a coalition of major corporations and environmental groups formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) to lobby for cap & trade. The companies planned to profit (at least in the short term) from either the cap-and-trade provisions or from selling high-priced, politically-favored (if not mandated) so-called “green” technology to the rest of us — whether we need it or not, and regardless of whether it produces any environmental or societal benefits.

Corporate USCAP members include: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar Inc., Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, Exelon, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, John Deer & Co, PG&E Corporation, and PNM Resources.

Has science been co-opted by greed and ideology; has government been co-opted by scientific elitists?

In his farewell address, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave this warning:

“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.”

“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

“It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

The Obama administration, which promised to “restore science to its rightful place,” is ignoring events and sailing its ideological titanic to Copenhagen.

The vested interests are strong and many. Is the global warming industry “too big to fail?” It remains to be seen whether those interests, and political ideology will triumph over truth and common sense.

We should suspend any further consideration of cap & trade schemes and carbon taxes until there is a thorough investigation and re-analysis of the science, costs, and benefits. We also need the government to re-examine energy policy. We need to examine our system of research grants to universities which seems to have been biased toward the politically correct, rather than seeking scientific truth.

The global warming industry is predicated on manipulated computer modeling rather than observational data. The touted “consensus” has been shown to be the result of suppression of dissenting voices, and fueled by greed, power seeking, and the perversion of the scientific method.

If the “warmists” have their way, the result will be suppression of freedom and a criminal waste of resources.

For more information, see my blogs on Climategate at the Tucson Citizen:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2009/11/21/climategate/

and

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2009/11/24/climategate-update/

For more stories on the climate scandal see:

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Climate Audit explanation of the “trick”: http://tinyurl.com/yd2aj2d

Bishop Hill selected emails: http://tinyurl.com/ylzrmro

 

Searchable index of emails: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

Climategate Update

Battle of graphsContinued analysis of emails and reports leaked from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England, which have been confirmed as real by CRU, show not only an effort to manipulate climate data, but that their computer database is in disarray. Both the IPCC and the EPA have relied heavily on these databases to form their policy decisions.

At the very least, Congress should thoroughly investigate the state of the science before passing any Cap & Trade system and before the EPA promulgates rules about carbon dioxide “pollution.”

The following is from a CBS News report including their embedded links.

The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it “relies on most heavily” when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

Last week’s leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field’s most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data (“have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots”), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

One e-mail message, apparently from CRU director Phil Jones, references the U.K.’s Freedom of Information Act when asking another researcher to delete correspondence that might be disclosed in response to public records law: “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.” Another, also apparently from Jones: global warming skeptics “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.” (Jones was a contributing author to the chapter of the U.N.’s IPCC report titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.”)

In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named “Harry” — possibly the CRU’s Ian “Harry” Harris — was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added”

I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation – apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective – since we’re using an off-the-shelf product that isn’t documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn’t coded up in Fortran I don’t know – time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn’t enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it’s too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

One thing that’s unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country’s met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

Climategate

In the past few days a major scandal in climate science has developed. Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia, in England (aka Hadley CRU). The CRU has been a major proponent of anthropogenic global warming and a principal in report preparation for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

More than 1,000 internal emails and several reports from CRU have been posted on the internet and the blogosphere has gone wild with the implications of the revealed messages. Dr. Phil Jones, head of CRU, confirmed that his organization has been hacked and that the emails are accurate.

The emails reveal a concerted effort on the part of a small group of scientists to manipulate data, suppress dissent, and foil the dissemination of the information by “losing” data and skirting Britain’s Freedom of Information Act. The emails reveal that the contention that there is dangerous human-induced global warming, is not supported by the data, that those supporting that contention knew it, and sought to control the discussion so as to hide the unreliable nature of what they were claiming.

This revelation should be noted by policy makers since it undermines the justification for control of carbon dioxide emissions.

Comment by Dr. Roy Spencer on the incident:

While it is too early to tell just yet, there seems to be considerable … evidence that data have been hidden or destroyed to avoid Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data requests; data have been manipulated in order to get results that best suit the pro-anthropogenic global warming agenda of the IPCC; e-mails that contain incriminating discussions are being deleted. And, on the bright side, we skeptics seem to be quite a thorn in the side of the IPCC.

In reading these e-mails from the ‘other side’ of the scientific debate I am particularly amazed at the mind set of a few of these scientists. I exchange e-mails with other like-minded (read ‘skeptical’) scientists, as do the IPCC scientists with their peers. But never do I hear of anyone manipulating climate data to achieve a certain end. I must say that I am pleased to see that NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth admits that it is a “travesty” that no one can explain the lack of global warming in recent years. See: http://tinyurl.com/ylz7ss5 See a follow-up blog: http://tinyurl.com/yzdh8zy

Battle-of-graphs

 

You can read some of the news stories here:

London Telegraph: http://tinyurl.com/yhx9juw

Guardian (UK): http://tinyurl.com/yf5c2er

Canada Free Press: http://tinyurl.com/yljzn9h This one names a prominent University of Arizona professor as being involved.

Herald Sun, Australia: http://tinyurl.com/ybka6az

Examiner.com Phoenix: http://tinyurl.com/yd372g2

This article shows several of the emails including one from Phil Jones that says in part how he hid the decline in proxy temperature data and appended other data to produce the infamous “hockey stick” graph.

Here is access to a searchable database of the emails:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php

Note to readers of RealClimate.org: Many RealClimate bloggers are principals in the scandal.

This is story is still unfolding. The next few weeks should be interesting.