Climate Alarmists Invent New Excuse: The Satellites Are Lying

Turns out the satellite data is lying.

And to prove it they’ve come up with a glossy new video starring such entirely trustworthy and not at all biased climate experts as Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth and Ben Santer. (All of these paragons of scientific rectitude feature heavily in the Climategate emails)

The video is well produced and cleverly constructed – designed to look measured and reasonable rather than yet another shoddy hit job in the ongoing climate wars.

Sundry “experts”, adopting a tone of “more in sorrow than anger” gently express their reservations about the reliability of the satellite data which, right up until the release of this video, has generally been accepted as the most accurate gauge of global temperatures.

This accuracy was acknowledged 25 years ago by NASA, which said that “satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.”

More recently, though, climate alarmists have grown increasingly resentful of the satellite temperature record because of its pesky refusal to show the warming trend they’d like it to show. Instead of warming, the RSS and UAH satellite data shows that the earth’s temperatures have remained flat for over 18 years – the so-called “Pause.”

Hence the alarmists’ preference for the land- and sea-based temperature datasets which do show a warming trend – especially after the raw data has been adjusted in the right direction. Climate realists, however, counter that these records have all the integrity of Enron’s accounting system or of Hillary’s word on what really happened in Benghazi.

Given the embarrassment the satellite data has been causing alarmists in recent years – most recently at the Ted Cruz “Data or Dogma” hearing last December – it was almost inevitable that sooner or later they would try to discredit it.

In the video, the line taken by the alarmists is that the satellite records too have been subject to dishonest adjustments and that the satellites have given a misleading impression of global temperature because of the way their orbital position changes over time.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Mann v Steyn: If This Trial Ever Goes ahead, Global Warming Is Toast

Mark Steyn has published his latest brief in his protracted court case with discredited climate scientist Michael Mann (who is suing him for libel) and it’s a corker.

Here’s a sample:

The audacity of the falsehoods in Mann’s court pleadings is breathtaking. For example, on page 19 of his brief below dated January 18, 2013, he cites the international panel chaired by the eminent scientist Lord Oxburgh, FRS as one of the bodies that “exonerated” him, whereas on page 235 of Mann’s own book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, he states explicitly that “our own work did not fall within the remit of the committee and the hockey stick was not mentioned in the report.” It is deeply disturbing that a plaintiff should make such fraudulent claims in his legal pleadings. It is even more disturbing that the first such fraudulent claim – to be a Nobel Laureate and thus in the same pantheon as Banting, Einstein, and the Curies – should have led to the amended complaint and the procedural delays that then followed. It would be even more profoundly damaging were his other transparently false claims to be entertained for another two years before trial.

It is clear from the ease with which Mann lies about things that would not withstand ten minutes of scrutiny in a courtroom that he has no intention of proceeding to trial.”

For the full background to the case, read this. But all you really need to know is that Michael Mann is exploiting the flaws in the US legal system to try to draw out proceedings as long as possible in order to exhaust – or bankrupt – Steyn into submission.

Unfortunately for Mann he picked the wrong victim. Steyn is a fighter who knows his way round the courts having battled a similarly vexatious and vindictive case in Canada when he was accused of Islamophobia – or some similar nonsense – by something called the Ontario Human Rights Committee. Plus, Steyn is astute enough to appreciate exactly what’s at stake here.

This isn’t about hurt feelings or a damaged professional reputation, let alone an ill-chosen and imprecise turn of phrase. It’s about the very principle of freedom of speech.

And not just about freedom of speech either, important though that is.

This, if Steyn is successful, could be the moment the dam bursts: the one where the global establishment is finally forced to acknowledge the fraudulence, the corruption, the mendacity, the trickery, the deception, the junk science, the big money and the official complicity which for the last two or three decades have been underpinning the Great Climate Change Scam.

Up till now the response of the climate alarmist establishment (and that would include everyone from the Obama administration to the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia to the Royal Society and NASA GISS to the IPCC to the Prince of Wales to Vice and Grist to John Podesta, Tom Steyer and Michael Mann) in the face of criticism has been to deny, rebuff, bully, insist, conceal, bluster, misrepresent and sue.

They have got away with it not least because they are backed by such vast sums of money – far in excess of anything climate sceptical scientists receive, not just from governments and the United Nations and the European Union but also through various rich and powerful foundations which left-wing billionaire donors use as a political laundering process. (It’s all there in this Senate Minority Report).

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Inventor of Mann-made global warming feels the heat
  2. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  3. Michael Mann as innocent as OJ – possibly more so – finds internal Penn State investigation
  4. Climategate: CRU scientists deserve Nobel Prizes – and very probably Knighthoods too – claims reasonable and unbiased New Scientist magazine

 

Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann

At last, I’ve arrived.

Michael Mann: isn’t he pretty?

Michael Mann, inventor of the Hockey Stick, has written to the Wall Street Journal branding me a “denier” and a “contrarian” and “silly.” These are badges of honour I shall wear with pride.

The letter is interesting for lots of reasons, not least its grotesque hypocrisy. “In recent years”, he writes, “attacks on climate science have become personal” – as if somehow the real victims of all this are not the innocent taxpayers being screwed to pay for the great green boondoggle, but ordinary decent climate scientists like Mann and his Hockey Team just trying to get on and do their job.

Every snowflake is unique, but attacks on climate science all seem the same. I should know. I’ve been one of the climate contrarians’ preferred targets for years.

Has Mann actually read any of the Climategate and Climategate 2.0 emails, I wonder? A lot of them have his name on them, so he must have done at one time or another. But perhaps with all that data-fudging and decline-hiding his brain has been overtaxed of late. So let us gently jog his memory with some examples.

Here’s one from New Zealand. (H/T WUWT) It’s 2003 and a Kiwi scientist called Chris de Freitas has published in a journal called Climate Research a meta-analysis by some Harvard astronomers Soon & Baliunas of all the papers that have been written on the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). The conclusion of Soon & Baliunas? That the vast majority of published, peer-reviewed papers on the MWP conclude that it was both geographically widespread (not, as Warmists and their amen corner in Wikipedia like to pretend, a little local anomaly confined to Northern Europe) and significantly warmer than now.

This irritates Michael Mann and his Hockey Team no end, for it contradicts their view that late 20th century warming is both unprecedented and catastrophic. So how do they respond? Do they counter it with new, learned papers demonstrating in closely illustrated detail just where Soon & Baliunas have got it wrong?

Of course they don’t!

Instead, what they do is gang up to shoot the messenger. They conspire to have Climate Research closed down; to have Chris de Freitas sacked; then, they write to the head of his university in Auckland to see if they can’t get de Freitas deprived of his living too. Nice!

Dr Pat Michaels has another good example of this delightful behaviour by members of Mann’s “Team.”

In Forbes magazine, he writes an open letter to the director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, describing how one of his “most prestigious employees” Dr Tom Wigley sought to have Michaels deprived of his PhD.

Dr Wigley’s evidence for this potentially libellous claim, widely circulated to a large number of his fellow climate “scientists”? None whatsoever.

But hey, as Mann has taught us many times over the years, who needs evidence or facts when you can go straight in for good old character assassination instead.

This, though, is wearisomely familiar stuff to anyone who has been following the Climategate story. What’s perhaps more interesting about Mann’s WSJ letter is his citation of the lead-in-petrol example from a few years back to try to bolster the credibility of his own brand of climate junk science. As we’ll see, he may have cause to regret this.

Here’s what he says in the letter:

Climate scientists can also find kinship with Dr. Herbert Needleman, who identified a link between lead contamination and impaired childhood brain development in the 1970s. The lead industry accused him of misconduct. Later, the National Institutes of Health exonerated him.

Hmm. The Needleman affair is covered very thoroughly in Christopher Booker’s and Richard North’s Scared To Death (Continuum). It does not reflect at all well on the junk science scare industry.

Dr Herbert Needleman was a US child psychologist who generated headlines in 1979 with his research paper showing that lead poisoning was dramatically affecting children’s IQs. This “evidence” became a vital plank in the case of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations from 1986 onwards to have almost all lead removed from petrol. Just one problem: Needleman’s study was about as reliable as Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick.

In the Needleman affair, the McIntyre/McKitrick role was played by another academic child psychologist Dr Claire Ernhart, who worked in the same field as Needleman. She noted that Needleman’s research was based on serious methodological flaws. In particular, she claimed that he had not sufficiently allowed for “confounding variables” that might have explained the difference in IQ scores such as poor schools or parental neglect.

When an expert panel from the EPA tried looking into this, however, Needleman proved as reluctant to reveal the basis of his research as Mann did with raw data underpinning his Hockey Stick.

According to Booker/North:

“When in 1983 the panel visited Needleman’s laboratory to look at his data, he handed over six books of computer printouts, but said that only two panel members could examine them, and only for two hours.”

“Even during this cursory study, the panel found enough evidence to arouse profound doubts about Needleman’s research. Although starting with 3,329 children, he had winnowed out so many, often for apparently arbitrary reasons, that he had ended up basing his conclusions first on 270 subjects, then on just 158. ‘Exclusion of large numbers of eligible participants’ the panel concluded, ‘could have resulted in systematic bias’. In other words, it looked to the panel as though he might have selected his evidence to give the results he wanted.”

Lone bristlecone pines, anyone?

The expert panel concluded that Needleman’s studies “neither support nor refute the hypothesis that low or moderate levels of Pb (lead) exposure lead to cognitive or other behavioural impairments in children.” In other words, that his researches were valueless.

But hey, guess what happened then. Pressure was applied. The expert panel – for reasons which were never satisfactorily explained – completely reversed its decision. And the head of the EPA William Ruckelshaus (the same man responsible for the DDT ban which effectively condemned millions in the third world to die of malaria) was able to use Needleman’s study as the basis for doing what the EPA and environmental campaigners had been wanting to do anyway: ban lead from petrol.

Unsurprisingly, the EU soon eagerly followed suit. As even the Eu Commission admitted, the new rules would cost consumers an additional £4.8 billion a year, raise the average cost of a car by up to £600 a year and force oil companies into £70 billion-worth of new investment. Oh, and also, EU studies estimated, the switch to unleaded (it being less efficient than leaded) would also result in the creation of 15-17 million tonnes a year more greenhouse gas emissions.

But hey, as Michael Mann and his Team could surely tell us, when you’re trying to save the world from non-existent threat no price is too great to pay.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: sack ‘no longer credible’ Michael Mann from IPCC urges climatologist
  2. Michael Mann as innocent as OJ – possibly more so – finds internal Penn State investigation
  3. Inventor of Mann-made global warming feels the heat
  4. Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

 

Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!

Breaking news:

Two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the “scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower ‘FOIA 2011’ (or “thief”, as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

As FOIA 2011 puts it when introducing the selected highlights, culled from a file of 220,000 emails:

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you’re going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you’re going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you’re going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

You’ll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website.Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent.

I particularly like the ones expressing deep reservations about the narrative put about by the IPCC:

/// The IPCC Process ///

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary […]

<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.

<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence.  What is it?

And here’s our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.

<0714> Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.

<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)

Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government – the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – actually putting pressure on climate “scientists” to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:

<3655> Singer/WWF:

we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy

<0445> Torok/CSIRO:

[…] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” […] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef […] It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers […] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change […] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media

Kjellen:

I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming

Pierrehumbert:

What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

I’ll have a deeper dig through the emails this afternoon and see what else I come up with. If I were a climate activist off to COP 17 in Durban later this month, I don’t think I’d be feeling a very happy little drowning Polie, right now. In fact I might be inclined to think that the game was well and truly up.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  2. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
  3. Global Warming? Yeah, right
  4. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!

2 thoughts on “Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!”

  1. Gordonrear says:27th November 2011 at 5:26 pmQuote mining? Oh great Delingpole, is that how your science works? Oh look, here’s somemore quote mining…

    Keith Briffa “picture of the unprecedented warming over the last millennium or so”

    Andrew Kerr “a bleak future for the environment, already suffering from the serious impacts of global warming including rising sea-levels, rising sea temperatures, and increased extreme weather patterns to name just a few,”

    That’s why they look at the overall picture, that’s why the IPCC AR4 has over 1500 reviewers, that’s why they have a consensus amongst those in the field (something you will never comprehend), because scientists will have opinions, will agree and disagree, will argue, will debate. Why don’t you release your decade worth of private emails to the public, let the public start quote mining you on whether you’re just a half crazed wingnut.

  2. Archive Protocol says:28th November 2011 at 1:31 pm“FOIA” deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to forestall the impoverishment of humanity by another $37 trillion. But I don’t think I’ll hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Comments are closed.

RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’ | James Delingpole

Cartoon by Josh

Cartoon by Josh

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep

them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.

If you can’t spot what’s wrong with this email, don’t worry you’re in great company. Among the numerous luminaries who can’t are environmental activist and filmmaker Rupert Murray, celebrity mathematician Simon Singh, celebrity Nobel Prizewinner Sir Paul Nurse and celebrity Guardian doctor Ben Goldacre to name but four. To each one of them I have tried on occasion to explain why the corruption of “peer-review” is the issue that matters above all else in the Climategate emails. But none of them, sadly, was bright enough to get it.

Sigh.

Let me have one more stab. Here’s how I explain “Peer review” in my forthcoming book Watermelons:

Peer review is the benchmark by which most new scientific research tends to be judged. If that research is to be taken seriously by the scientific community then it must be accepted for publication by one of a fairly small number of academic or quasi-academic journals, such as Nature, Science and Scientific American.

Peer review is not a perfect system. In the golden era of  Twentieth century science it wasn’t even thought necessary: neither Watson & Crick nor Einstein were peer reviewed. But in today’s abstruse, fragmented world where the various branches of science have grown increasingly recondite and specialised, peer-review has become widely accepted as the least worst method by which quality science can be sifted from junk science.

And nowhere more so than within the climate science community. In the run-up to Climategate, one of the main weapons used by those within “the consensus” against dissenting scientists was that their various papers picking holes in AGW theory had not been “peer-reviewed” and were therefore invalid. As Phil Jones himself puts it in one of his emails:

“The peer review system is the safeguard science has adopted to stop bad science being published.”

I think that’s pretty clear, don’t you? Now let us revisit that Jones/Mann exchange in the light of this knowledge.  What we see happening is the deterioration of “peer review” into something more akin to “pal review.” The “peer review” process – at least in the debased field of “climate science” – has been corrupted. No longer can it be relied on as a guide to what is true or untrue, correct or incorrect, plausible or implausible. That’s because the scientists who control the “peer review” process – as revealed by the Climategate emails – are a self-serving claque, with rather less concern for the pursuit of objective truth than for their own vested interests.

With me so far? Good. Now we can move on to an incredibly complicated story which is causing much excitement at Watts Up With That?, Climate Audit and Bishop Hill at the moment. Some are saying its as damning of the “Consensus” as Climategate. It involves two people you’ve probably never heard of – Eric Steig and Ryan O’Donnell.

Eric Steig is a member of Michael Mann’s “Hockey Team” – the group of Warmist scientists who established a website called Real Climate, initially to rebut claims by McIntyre and McKitrick that Mann’s Hockey Stick wasn’t quite up to scratch, later to stick up for the Warmist cause generally.

In 2009 Steig et al published a paper considered so important that it made the cover of Nature. (H/T Barry Woods). The paper purported to counter one of the main arguments used by sceptics to dispute “global warming”, viz “if global warming really is as catastrophic and universal as some claim, then how come Antarctica remains as stubbornly cold as it was 30 years ago?” Steig’s paper showed that contrary to earlier claims, Antarctica was in fact warming too.

Or was it? Among the sceptics who suspected the reliability of Steig’s paper were Jeff Id (of the late-lamented Air Vent site) and Ryan O’Donnell. They pointed out that the statistical methods used to show this alleged warming were based on highly dubious extrapolations of data taken from small number of stations on the Arctic peninsula and coastline. (Something similar happened recently, you’ll remember, with NASA’s dramatic “warming” that took place in the Arctic – all of it, funnily enough, in places where there were no thermometers to check the reliability of NASA’s claims).

Steig suggested that rather than argue it out on the blogs O’Donnell, Id at el should publish a paper under peer review. So that’s what they tried. And guess which person it was who was selected to review O’Donnell et al’s paper. And guess which person it was – under the pseudonym Reviewer A – who tried to thwart the paper’s progression to publication with 88 pages of comments and obfuscation ten times longer than the original paper.

Yep. You got it. The mystery peer reviewer was none other than Eric Steig. Even in the monstrously corrupt world of “climate science” this was clearly a breach of protocol. Certainly, in no other scientific discipline would a reviewer with such a clear conflict of interest be invited to review a paper whose main purpose was to criticise one he’d written himself.

Now let us allow Iapogus (the commenter at Bishop Hill from whom I filched this summary: I’m an interpreter of interpretations, me) to continue the story:

Ryan guessed that Reviewer A was Stieg early on, but still remained patient and good natured. At one point in the review process, Steig suggested that Ryan and Jeff should use an alternative statistical technique, which they then did. But then later, Steig then criticised the paper, citing the example of the same statistical technique as an issue (the one he had suggested). So Steig has laid himself open to charges of unprofessional conduct, duplicity. And that was when Ryan decided to bring all this out in the open. Meanwhile Gavin and the other members of the Team at the Real Climate (RC) blog have gone into overdrive in moderating any commenter who ask any reasonable questions about all of this. Basically this was the evidence that peer review at least in climate science is broken.

Now you could argue that I shouldn’t be reporting on stories like this. It’s one of those “How many polar bears can dance on the head of the pin?” discussions of nuances of meaning which may be of tremendous interest to the “climate science” community – both sceptics and warmists alike – but which has little traction in the outside world.

Up to a point, I’d agree with this. The AGW debate – as I repeatedly argue in this blog – is essentially a political one not a scientific one.

Unfortunately, there are still lots of people out there – the Simon Singhs, the Sir Paul Nurses, the Ben Goldacres, the Robin Inces, and their Guardianista Twitter Posses, for example – who think otherwise.

And it’s important that these people are made to realise that not only are there no sensible political or economic arguments to support their cause, but passing few scientific ones either. If the science supporting AGW theory is really as rock solid as Warmists claim, why on earth would they need to resort to the kind of corruption and dirty tricks we first saw in Climategate and are now witnessing again in RealClimategate?

Give up, guys. The game’s over.

PS One more thing. Undoubtedly one of the best things ever to happen to the (somewhat dubious and generally second-rater-friendly) field of Climate Science has been the Watts Up With That? website. Not least among its achievements is to show the way forward after the death of “peer review”. The future is “peer to peer” review, at which WUWT excels. It has become a forum for experts from all scientific disciplines to assess various aspects of climate science rigorously and without the grotesque bias we’ve unfortunately seen so often among the “consensus” scientists at the IPCC. And now WUWT has rightly been put up for the Best Science Blog in the 2011 Bloggies Awards. It deserves your support. Vote early, vote often!

Let me have… (to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  2. Simon Singh: is there anything he doesn’t know?
  3. Climategate: what Gore’s useful idiot Ed Begley Jr doesn’t get about the ‘peer review’ process
  4. The curious double standards of Simon Singh

8 thoughts on “RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’”

  1. Nige Cook says:11th February 2011 at 8:18 amFearless Frank, the details make it look even worse! James isn’t covering up. You’re pulling the quotation out of context, then condemning the fact you take it out of context. The correct context James use it in was as evidence for what it states: the power politics and bigotry behind peer-review, which is as much the basis of science as cheese is chalk.The quotation of the email was not concerned with the future ultimate fate of one paper, whether published or not. It was showing censorship efforts (albeit increasingly failed) by the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.Increased cloud cover due to the buoyancy of warm humid air caused by evaporation cancels out temperature effects from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Miskolczi’s “anti-greenhouse” effect (homeostasis mechanism), its solid evidence, and peer-review censorship of facts by a conspiracy of funded climate research scientists who risk losing everything if they admit the facts.“Plausible patterns for temperature and precipitation changes accompanying a general global warming, such as might occur due to a large increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, are presented. The patterns are determined by comparing the five warmest years in the period 1925−74 with the five coldest in this period. Temperature increases are indicated for most regions, with maximum warming over northern Asia. A few isolated regions show cooling. Precipitation changes are fairly evenly distributed between increases and decreases; the most important features being an increase over India, and decreases in central and south-central USA and over much of Europe and Russia. The latter decreases, should they occur, could have considerable agricultural impact.”

    – T. M. L. Wigley, Phil Jones, and P. M. Kelly, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, “Scenario for a warm, high-CO2 world”, Nature, vol. 283 (1980), pp. 17-21.

    This is the abstract of the first scientific paper I read on global warming as a teenager in the 80s, co-authored by good old Dr Phil Jones. It’s a very nice paper, with great statistics and world-map illustrations of the effects of CO2 on the global climate.

    Unfortunately, it’s not what I call science. It doesn’t focus on the mechanism for CO2 effects on temperature. It takes that for granted. After that, all is downhill. Papers started appearing using tree ring growth rates as a proxy for global temperatures. Er, what about the effects of changes in the average amount of cloud cover on tree ring growth rates? The science is thus more and more perverted until there is none left, and you end up with the perverted curves being spliced together to give curves that are politically correct.

    You can see where it’s going, can’t you? NASA gets a billion dollars a year for climate research and has already censored Miskolczi for threatening that income by trying to publish the facts. Now, Al Gore’s film propaganda lies have converted a majority of the “intellectually elite” politicians and public into fellow travellers of the “greenhouse effect” myth (shutting your eyes to 70% ocean cover and clouds that don’t form as a self-regulation mechanism in a greenhouse!). If James tells the facts, he gets increasing hostility merely for contradicting a “settled consensus”. Science ends once a hardened orthodoxy is in place. It already is.

  2. Martin says:11th February 2011 at 10:21 pmNige Cooke, you should be ashamed of yourself!You are clearly old enough to know better. Pull your head ou of the sand before it is too late. The supposed “conspiracy of funded climate research scientists ” at UAE were exonerated… I suppose you would also claim that Julian Simons was correct to claim that humanity now has the “ingenuity to feed an unlimited population for the next 7 billion years”.If so, you have failed to grasp a few basic concepts: (i) The Second Law of Thermodynamics;
    The concept of Entropy; (ii) The finititude of the Earth’s resources; and (iii) Exponential growth (clue: even 1% annual growth results in 2 x population in 70 years).For god’s sake, wake up and smell the coffee!
  3. Martin Lack says:12th February 2011 at 11:52 amWhy has my previous unoffensive reply not appeared? Was it because I included the link to my website (i.e. blog)?… C’mon James, you at least believe in “free speech”, don’t you? Surely, I don’t have to tell you that censorship is a sign of insecurity and/or paranoia?
  4. James Delingpole says:12th February 2011 at 12:08 pm@Martinlack. Ignorant jerks like yourself are generally welcome on this site, Martin. Welcome because of the informed responses they tend to generate from better-educated, more intelligent contributors like Nige Cooke. The reason your first comment wasn’t posted as quickly as you wanted was simply because I get lots of emails a day and don’t always have time to go through them all pressing the Approve Comment button.
    But I do have a policy of deleting abusive emails sent anonymously because I believe this is an act of cowardice. If you wish to have your fatuous, rude comments included again please give us a forwarding address/website where we may contact you.
    Thanks.
  5. Nige Cook says:12th February 2011 at 10:04 pm“Scientists have every right to complain if they are not allowed to comment on a paper. That paper was flawed and the editor of Climate Research refuse to allow peers to comment on the flaws. hence the complaint. Taking that email of out context means you and Delingpole seem to be promoting censorship within science.” – Fearless FrankThey’re not scientists. They’re doing the censorship of science. They censor all the facts out using peer-review as petty power politics. They allow no criticism of pseudo-science. What peer-review means is a conspiracy of “might is right” pseudoscience, which has been disproved time and time again. Eugenics is a good example which shouldn’t have been backed by “scientists” like Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel who wrote a best-seller on the benefits of Nazis “science” in 1935: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man,_The_UnknownCarrel didn’t know about evolution requiring diversity. Natural climate change deniers like yourself have no idea that we’re still coming out of an ice age. Just like the Carrel, you have no idea about evolution replacing creationism. You think humans are unnatural, when in fact humans are just as much a product of evolution as plants or insects. What humans do is a part of nature. In any case, CO2 drives only cloud cover, not temperature because H2O that is evaporated rises to form clouds: injecting more CO2 has a negative feedback from H2O cloud cover that cancels out the infrared absorption by CO2.But it’s a waste of time repeating the facts because you’re unwilling to be reasonable and listen. You demand you’re right unless I publish in your “peer”-reviewed journal when you’re not a “peer” but a biased quack. What you have to remember, though, is that the more crackpot Al Gore’s followers like yourself become, the more obvious it becomes to the wider public that science is being perverted for political ends, such as Nobel Prizes. I’m 100% certain that medical Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel would have received the “Nobel Peace Prize” like Al Gore if the Nazis had won WWII and doctored the Nobel Committee. It’s a shame it’s already been self-doctored in peacetime! However, “angel” Nobel was a warmonger who supplied explosives to BOTH sides in the Crimean War bloodbath…

    Al Gore thinks he will be dead before “AGW” is dead, but he might be wrong, and you too.

    “If so, you have failed to grasp a few basic concepts: (i) The Second Law of Thermodynamics; The concept of Entropy; (ii) The finititude of the Earth’s resources; and (iii) Exponential growth (clue: even 1% annual growth results in 2 x population in 70 years).” – Martin

    Martin, you don’t appreciate that the H2O in the earth’s atmosphere (where clouds form, unlike a greenhouse) cancels out the greenhouse effect from CO2.

    First, consider the basis for the anti-greenhouse effect of evaporated water due to an initial temperature rise from CO2. On average, today:

    3% of incoming radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases excluding water vapor,
    15% is absorbed by water vapor,
    5% is absorbed by clouds and
    47% is absorbed by the earth’s surface;

    while:

    21% of incoming radiation is reflected back by clouds,
    6% is reflected back by the air, and
    3% is reflected back by the earth’s surface.

    Water in the atmosphere thus absorbs a total of 20% of incoming solar radiation, and reflects back a total of 21%. So the amount of reflection by cloud cover exceeds the amount of absorption due to water vapor absorbing infra-red solar radiation. Overall, 70% of incoming solar radiation is currently absorbed, and 30% is reflected back into space.

    Now calculate what happens to these numbers when a temperature rise due to CO2 increases occurs. You find that doubling today’s water content in the atmosphere – assuming that the vapor mass to cloud droplet mass ratio is a constant – reduces the total absorption from 70% to 64% of incoming radiation, while it increases reflection from 30% to 36% reflection. Hence, evaporated water has an anti-greenhouse effect: a “negative feedback”.

    However, the situation is even worse than this for the IPCC fraudsters, since the atmospheric greenhouse water vapor (humidity) has allegedly not even been rising in step with the total evaporated water:

    “During the 61-year period [since 1948] … the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent.” – Dr. M. Zagoni.

    “You must here distinguish – especially in teaching – the science from the forms or procedures that are sometimes used in developing science. … great religions are dissipated by following form without remembering the direct content of the teaching of the great leaders. In the same way, it is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudo-science. In this way, we all suffer from the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come under the influence of pseudoscientific advisers. … We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people make observations, make lists, do statistics, and so on … They are merely an imitative form of science … The result of this pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of you are. …. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

    – Richard P. Feynman, “What is Science?”, presented at the fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, 1966 in New York City, published in The Physics Teacher Vol. 7, issue 6, 1968, pp. 313-320.

  6. Nige Cook says:13th February 2011 at 11:30 amFearless Frank, the “denialists” are those like Al Gore who deny we’re coming out of an ice age and deny that CO2 injections are cancelled out by increased cloud cover once the oceans warm.Soon and Baliunas are actually in the Al Gore camp. They have no idea how the sun works, they simply have no mechanism for solar output to vary randomly. The sun is an extremely stable nuclear fusion reactor producing energy in the core at 15 million Kelvin. The idea that magnetic effects like sunspots and solar storms at the surface (where the temperature is only around 6000 K) varying the gross energy output is total nonsense: energy is flowing out from the stable nuclear processes in the core has to be emitted from the surface. If you have sunspots, that just means that the rest of the surface is that bit hotter and emits the energy instead. Solar storms have no significant effect. Charged and massive radiation from the sun is mostly trapped in the Van Allen belts in space far above the atmosphere.Trying to correlate solar activity to global warming like Soon and Baliunas is the perfect example of pseudoscience. There is no mechanism, but they don’t care. It’s just like professor Ernest Sternglass in 1969 publishing “The Death of All Children”, correlating the flattening of the rate of fall of infant mortality rate after 1950 to an effect of radiation from nuclear tests, when in fact fall in infant mortality was simply due to antibiotics, and once antibiotics were introduced the fall rate naturally stabilized.Why discuss Soon and Baliunas when they don’t have a mechanism? You’re not discussing real science, just conjecture. I don’t see how Soon and Baliunas were behaving like scientists, they were behaving like politicians. If they want to emphasise scientific credentials, it must be for scientific work. Otherwise, it’s like Nurse or Carrel using their Nobel prize in science as an “authority” credential when promoting pseudoscience.

    It is not possible for the sun’s output to vary significantly because the random flaring and sunspot processes we can see on the surface of the sun from magnetic field energy due to convection of charged particles, has no effect on the rate of fusion that is producing the energy in the centre of the sun at a temperature 2,500 times higher than the surface. The sun must radiate the energy it generates in a very precise, very stable equilibrium, or it would be unstable, the temperature would spiral out of control. If “cool” sunspots form, the energy normally radiated from those areas must be radiated from other areas instead.

    The bottom line is that politically inspired lying “controversy” must be censored out of scientific journals, which must be kept to facts supported by mechanisms. Statistical correlations unsupported by mechanisms are pseudoscience, and the current technique towards publishing and discussing them or criticising them, just prolongs the focus of attention on pseudoscience. This is why “peer”-review is such a tragedy. Journals must in future have separate sections, one for “technician science” (incremental “stamp collecting” advances within a given mainstream theory or paradigm) and a separate section for “alternative theories” (giving space to minority ideas, but not permitting any political groupthink to allow just one “controversial” alternative theory to dominate).

    People like Nurse are essentially good technician scientists (despite the Nobel prize), working in a paradigm that was founded long ago and using techniques largely invented by others. They may invent new tools and methods within the paradigm, but they are not the revolutionary founding fathers like Newton or Darwin. They’re defensive about the paradigm or theory they build upon, seeing revolutionaries are ignorant before they read their work, and relying on “peer”-reviewers to censor out critics of the foundations of their subject. This is exactly how Copernicus and Galileo were censored out. It’s obvious that many of the facts in a groupthink science will survive a future scientific revolution (unless all the data is being fiddled, which seems the case when using tree growth as a proxy for temperature alone!), so it’s mainly the interpretation of the facts that changes.

    Soon and Baliunas did not confront the key scientific fact, the fact that the feedback of H2O on rising CO2 cancels out temperature changes due to the cloud cover mechanism, instead of accelerating temperature rises as the fatally flawed IPCC models claim. So there is no reason to discuss Soon and Baliunas since it is pseudoscience.

    If journals start discussing pseudoscience, it will detract from the hard mechanistic science. This is precisely why Bohr and Heisenberg’s anti-relativistic 1st quantization dogma of 1927 ended physical advances in quantum mechanics, whose physical interpretation remains obscure for political not scientific reasons (1st quantization was disproved in 1929 by Dirac who introduced the simple mechanism for indeterminancy, namely physically real quantum fields creation and annihilation operators, i.e. 2nd quantization which is completely incompatible with 1st quantization despite the efforts of textbook authors to obfuscate this).

  7. Nige Cook says:14th February 2011 at 9:42 am“The point is, the paper is flawed, and any peer review on that paper was censored.”Papers on “superstring theory” are also flawed (there is an “anthropic landscape” of 10^500 different theories, each relating to a different metastable vacuum state stabilized compactification of the assumed extra 6/7 spatial dimensions of uncheckable Planck size).Peer-review on “superstring theory” is causing a crisis in particle physics, by focussing attention on imaginary solutions, not hard real world data explanation. The best way to deal with pseudoscience is to ignore it, not enter into a lengthy “controversy” that gets no where.You can’t scientifically “disprove” something that doesn’t exist, because the proponents will always say that it is “hidden in the background noise”. You can’t “disprove” UFOs, ghosts, little green men, 6/7 dimensional superstring, supersymmetric particles with masses too high to ever detect in the world’s biggest particle accelerators, or many other speculations.

    Therefore, trying to discredit pseudoscience by arguing with proponents of uncheckable guesswork is going to sink genuine science into an unending controversy which can never, even in principle, be resolved one way or another by any conceivable scientific experiment. You have to ignore uncheckable speculations unless or until someone can cme up with some kind of checkable evidence that permits scientific experiments or observations to determine whether the speculation agrees with nature, or not.

  8. Jack Cowper says:18th February 2011 at 12:46 pmGreat article James.Roy Spencer had simular trouble with his paper – “On the diagnosis in the presence of unknown radiative forcing”. A direct quote here:http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/our-jgr-paper-on-feedbacks-is-published/‘After years of re-submissions and re-writes — always to accommodate a single hostile reviewer — our latest paper on feedbacks has finally been published by Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR).’

    So who was the hostile reviewer in this case? Maybe it was someone else in the team!

Comments are closed.

Why Conservatives Shouldn’t Believe in Man Made Climate Change

A rationalist’s blind spot

Ed West: "M'Kay, Mister Gore. If you and Michael "ooh I've been to Greenland and seen some ice melt" O'Hanlon say ManBearPig exists then I guess I have to believe you."

Ed West: “M’Kay, Mister Gore. If you and Michael “ooh I’ve been to Greenland and seen some ice melt” O’Hanlon say ManBearPig exists then I guess I have to believe you.”

But Ed’s stance on CAGW is, coming from a rationalist and a stalwart of the right, so weird it’s bordering on the delusional. It’s sad that Ed can’t (yet) see this, but let me offer up an analogy. One of Ed’s most thoroughly worthwhile campaigns this year has been the one he has conducted against a book called The Spirit Level.

He writes:

I wish that everyone who espoused The Spirit Level would read The Spirit Level Delusion, which explains just how dubious the science behind this grand theory is, and what the real agenda is – massive government expansion.

Now how would Ed feel, I wonder, if someone whose intellect he respected and whose politics he shared began buttonholing him about this marvellous new book he’d read called The Spirit Level?

“Ed, Ed you’ve just GOT to read this book. It explains exactly where we’ve all been going wrong. You only have to look at societies where there’s relative equality and then compare them with ones where there’s relative inequality to realise that massive government intervention and a heavily redistributive tax programme are the only way to sort out our problems. And the authors have got all the facts to prove it!”

I can imagine Ed replying, with growing impatience, how the entire thesis has been based on cherrypicked data. Anything that supports the thesis, the authors bunged in. Anything that didn’t support it, the authors carefully excluded. Result? A veneer of statistical authority disguising a farrago of leftist nonsense.

And I can imagine his friend annoying him further by saying: “Yeah well of course you’d say that Ed. You’re too set in your ways to accept the necessary changes in your lifestyle you’ll need to adopt if Britain is to create a truly fair and happy society.”

Yet on the issue of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), Ed is doing exactly what that annoying, imaginary friend I have supplied for him has done. He has read (or at least had interpreted for him by the biased Mainstream Media) the four increasingly hysterical Assessment Reports of the IPCC and accepted them with just the same gullible alacrity and reluctance to dig beneath the surface he so deplores in all those left-liberals who’ve been getting big in their trousers over The Spirit Level.

Happily for Ed, there is currently a superabundance of stories which should help steer him towards the path of righteousness. I’m sure if he has a glance at them he will begin to see sense for they all indicate just how thoroughly unreliable is the so-called “consensus” science which charlatans like Al Gore have been citing in support of their bankrupt theory.

Here’s a scoop from John Sullivan showing the flaws in the satellite temperature data which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – (the US government agency responsible for one of the world’s main temperature records) – has tried to cover up. No prizes for guessing in which direction (hotter or colder) they exaggerated climatic change.

Here’s a story from New Zealand where the New Zealand Climate Coalition is suing the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) – the Kiwi equivalent of our own disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – for having exaggerated warming trends in its temperature records using heavily biased data adjustments. (Hat tip: Richard Cumming).

Here’s a story in which Michael Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked yet again, this time in a prestigious statistical journal. If you’re unfamiliar with the territory – as Ed must surely be if he’s a believer in CAGW – then this story about the new McShane Wyner paper will seem involved and unimportant. And that’s certainly how subscribers to Al Gore’s consensus would wish you to view it. But let me explain, briefly, why it’s not.

Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick was a chart purporting to offer near-definitive proof that late Twentieth century temperature rises were catastrophic, unprecedented and – by inference – driven by man-made CO2. Though debunked – twice – by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, it is yet still defended by warmists as essentially sound. This latest report uses the same data that Mann used (palaeoclimatological samples from tree rings and such like), subjects them to statistical analysis and shows that even if one were to accept Mann’s claim that his data was not cherrypicked it still doesn’t prove what he says it does.

In other words one of the central planks in the argument for the existence of CAGW has been demolished for a THIRD time. How many more times does it need to be shredded and splintered before the eco zealots who gather to froth and foam at warmist sites like Real Climate accept that their flimsy theory has been falsified beyond credibility?

Related posts:

  1. ‘Climate Change’: the new Eugenics
  2. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  3. Are climate change deniers worse than paedophiles?
  4. Sun Causes Climate Change Shock

5 thoughts on “Why conservatives shouldn’t believe in man made climate change”

  1. Russell says:19th August 2010 at 11:52 amWhy you running this blog if all entries merely link straight to the Telegraph?
  2. Tom Forrester-Paton says:22nd August 2010 at 5:50 am@Russell – perhaps James has other reasons for running this blog, but an excellent one is that since the mouth-breathers that run the DT site won’t accept my registration, it’s the only way I can tell him how right he is about most things.
  3. charles nelson says:22nd August 2010 at 7:15 amDear James,
    Just saw that your Telegraph location has been blitzed with comments.
    I think you hit a nerve there!
    You probably know the quote, from Ghandi apparently…
    “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you, then you win.”
    Look into this Satellite malfunction thing a little deeper.
    By the way, I laughed out loud at your ‘literary piece’.
    Keep up the good work.
    Charlie.
  4. Mike Paterson says:22nd August 2010 at 5:42 pmTom F-P: Me too. Have made numerous attempts to be a DT commenter – following their instructions to the letter, and receiving confirmations from them by email – still thwarted. How the other commenters managed it, I can only guess.
  5. yaosxx says:25th August 2010 at 11:54 amMike Patterson – If you sign into the log in box on disqus the cursor doesn’t feature first time round – you need to refresh the page and then the cursor will then appear and then you can comment. If you refresh a third or fourth time you lose the box and have to start the whole process again!!!

Comments are closed.

Climategate: CRU scientists deserve Nobel Prizes – and very probably Knighthoods too – claims reasonable and unbiased New Scientist magazine

The Climategate scientists did nothing wrong.

So says New Scientist magazine in its latest edition.

This New Scientist is, of course, absolutely no relation whatsoever to the New Scientist whose reporting was singled out for praise by the Climategate scientists in the following email:

From: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: More Rubbish
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
yep, I’m watching the changing of the guard live on TV here!

New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that. They
are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point,
including the HS!

(That “HS” stands for the Hockey Stick, by the way. Gosh that would be embarrassing, wouldn’t it? If you were a supposedly authoritative science magazine and you were found being praised by fraudulent scientists for your help in turd-polishing their fraudulent science?)

Anyway, the magnificent Jo Nova has done a really good number on New Scientist in her blog:

You might think journalists at a popular science magazine would be able to investigate and reason.

In DenierGate, watch New Scientist closely, as they do the unthinkable and try to defend gross scientific malpractice by saying it’s OK because other people did other things a little bit wrong, that were not related, and a long time ago. Move along ladies and gentlemen, there’s nothing to see…

The big problem for this formerly good publication is that they have decided already what the answer is to any question on climate-change (and the answer could be warm or cold but it’s always ALARMING). That leaves them clutching for sand-bags to prop up their position as the king-tide sweeps  away any journalistic credibility they might have had.

And New Scientists readers agree with her. How strongly they agree with her can be seen by the number of deleted comments at the New Scientist website.

Here is a more-in-sorrow-than-anger comment which sums up New Scientist’s decline rather poignantly.

I’ve just had an email asking me to come back to the fold or something after more than a decade of subscriptions. I’ve read NS since the days when it was printed on pulp and reported on the Zeta project. In Officers’ Messes around the world I’ve suggested to the Committee that they get a copy for the anteroom, read it in libraries and left it out so others can stumble upon it. For years my daughter gave me a subscription for my Christmas present.

It took two years before she took my hints (which in the end became a straight-out order) not to bother.

NS has abandoned all pretence that it is written for anyone with an unbiased view of the AGW debate. Every other page has a piece, written at the level of a Sun editorial, about how the sky is falling. All else is ignored in favour of a hysterical repetition of ‘the world is in trouble and it’s your fault. No it may not be and no it probably isn’t. So my daughter now has to buy me something else and your readership has gone down by one. Mark that, particularly — it was free and I don’t read it. You couldn’t even give it away.

Too bad the eco-evangelists corrupted what was a really useful bit of journalism. I hope the reporters get new jobs when it folds — at least those reporters with something on their CVs other than a list of barmy articles about global warming.

Julian Flood

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the lawyers move in – those scientists are toast!
  2. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  3. ‘BBC’s biased climate science reporting isn’t biased enough’ claims report
  4. ‘I want to be remembered for the science’ says Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones to chorus of titters