ClimateGate Whitewash

It is a bit startling just how swiftly reports have come in to exonerate the good old boys who gave us global warming.  Here is Fred Singer on his take on the situation.

There are now plenty of additional articles out there that have come down on this cabal of climate scientists very hard and few are pulling punches at all.  They are all on the way to been enshrined as participants of the greatest scientific hoax ever.  I added a second item on at the end of this one.

In the end, the curious agenda of those statists who dream of world taxation and dispensation of lolly to the deserving will have to wait a lot longer.  There are plenty of real problems to keep us all occupied for the nonce.

ClimateGate Whitewash
April 14, 2010

There is now a desperate effort afoot by assorted climate alarmists to explain away the revelations of the incriminating e-mails leaked last year from the University of East Anglia (UEA). A concerted whitewash campaign is in full swing to save the IPCC and its questionable conclusion that the warming of the last thirty years is anthropogenic. But ongoing investigations so far have avoided the real issue, namely whether the reported warming is genuine or a manufactured result by scientists in England and the United States who manipulated temperature data.

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has repeatedly characterized anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as a "hoax" -- and he may soon be vindicated. Certainly, the remedies invoked to "fight" AGW are a cruel hoax -- mainly a tax burden on low-income households who will pay more for electricity, food, transportation, and other necessities of life.

The UEA's "internal" investigation has largely absolved Dr. Philip Jones, the head of its Climate Research Unit (CRU) and author of most of the e-mails, of any misdeeds. (The UEA has also commissioned an "independent" investigation by Sir Robert Muir-Russell, due in August.) Pennsylvania State University (PSU) has merely slapped the wrists of Dr. Michael Mann for various ethical offenses but sees nothing wrong with the science. The United Nations, at the urging of the Royal Society and U.S. National Academy of Sciences, has launched a supposedly independent investigation of IPCC procedures to be conducted by the InterAcademyCouncil (IAC), a creature of the science academies. It is likely to backfire and lower further the public's opinion of the academies -- and indeed of science generally.

The latest report, by the British House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee, received testimony from many sources, conducted hearings, and largely absolved Jones. How can we tell that it's a whitewash? Here are some telltale signs:

  • It refers to the e-mails as "stolen."
  • It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics,
  • Yet it concludes that there is nothing wrong with the basic science and that warming is human-caused -- essentially endorsing the IPCC.

These investigations have focused mainly on procedural issues and scientific ethics, including the withholding of data, preventing skeptical scientists from publishing their results, pressuring editors of scientific journals (often with their ready connivance), and generally misusing the peer review process. None of the investigations have gone into any detail on how the data might have been manipulated -- nor were any of the panels competent enough to do so. But this is really the most important task for any inquiry, since it deals directly with the central issue: Is there an appreciable human influence on climate change in the past decades? 

Instead, much of the attention of newspapers, and of the public, has focused on secondary issues involving climate impacts, not causes: the melting of Himalayan glaciers, the possible inundation of the Netherlands, deforestation of the Amazon, crop failures in Africa, etc. While these issues are important and demonstrate the sloppiness of the IPCC process, they cannot decide the cause of warming: natural or anthropogenic. 

So what do the e-mails really reveal?  We know that Jones and his gang largely succeeded in "hiding the decline" of temperature by using what he termed "Mike [Mann]'s trick." Most assume that this refers to CRU tree-ring data after 1960, which do show a decline in temperature. However, I believe that it refers to Michael Mann's "trick" in hiding the fact that his multi-proxy data did not show the expected warming after 1979. So he abruptly cut off his analysis in 1979 and simply inserted the thermometer data supplied by Jones, which do claim a strong temperature increase. Hence the "hockey-stick" graph in his Nature (1998) paper suggesting a sudden major warming period since the late '70s. 

Only a thorough investigation will be able to document that there was really no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented record is based on data manipulation involving the selection of certain weather stations (and the omission of others that showed no warming), plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating. 

How to confirm this? The only possibility may be an investigation by the U.S. Congress. Not this Congress, of course. But after the November 2010 elections, control of important committees like Science may change. Hearings that use real experts can then unravel ClimateGate, demonstrate the manipulation of temperature data, and once and for all destroy the "warming trend" on which the IPCC has based its fanciful conclusion of anthropogenic global warming.

Once accomplished, it will become possible to do away with the myth that CO2 is a pollutant and all of the controls and regulations that are based on this mistaken notion. Yes, that includes EPA's Endangerment Finding on CO2 and all cap-and-tax legislation. The nation, and indeed the world, will be better off. 

The writer, an atmospheric physicist, is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years, a NY Times bestseller.

And then we have this piece:

Global Warming: Obituary and Post Mortem
March 25, 2010, 1:45AM

 R.I.P.   Gllobal Warming       1992-2010       

2010 will be remembered as the year Global Warming died.  Global Warming wasMann made using clever computer 'tricks' and 'massaged' data. After slowly developing in the womb of junk science for several years, the primary birth announcement and christening occurred when Al Gore published Earth in the Balance in 1992.  Gore, the self proclaimed genius who had "created the internet" , eagerly adopted Global Warming and put his new baby in the public spotlight.

 Global Warming was a very good earner who attracteded billions of investor's dollars to Gore's for-profit corporation called Generation Investment Management.  From day one Global Warming was all about making money. His detractors dared to call him a fraudster and a control freak who wanted to tell everyone how to live. 

Gore's book was really quite boring and it failed to get Global Warming the attention (and money) Gore felt his baby deserved, so Gore followed up with An Inconvenient Truth in 2006. The movie will go down in history as an excellent example of what happens when one person, with a hidden financial agenda, tells one side of a story.

Despite it's success, the wildly popular movie was the beginning of the end for Global Warming. It triggered a quick and lethal downward spiral. The movie galvanized scientists who recognized a bogus pseuo-scientific scam when they saw one. Powerful opposition groups formed around the world. Books were written by scholars that destroyed the credibility of Al Gore's pride and joy. 

Global Warming was a cash cow, and his opposition had no money, but the opposition ("skeptics") had something more powerful than money: The Truth. 


In short order Global Warming was busted for scamming the public, and forced to appear in Britain's high court. It was an inconvenient verdict for Al Gore's baby: Guilty on eleven counts of scientific fraud which the judge described as "inaccuracies", "false claims" and other synonyms for flat-out lies. The judge pointed out that the movie was one person telling one side of a story. All of the key pillars that Global Warming stood on were knocked out from under him on that fateful day in court.

It was all downhill from there. Global Warming had already been in poor health for many years before his death due to relentless attacks from prominent scientists who beat the lies out of him.

The final death-blow for global warming was a confession by Professor Phil Jones. Jones was the leader of Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) which provided temperature data to the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) and NASA. Jones stepped down in the wake of the  emails disclosure known as Climategate

It probably cleared his conscience when Jones went public with the truth. At least he stated an important part of the truth anyway. His admissions included facts that stunned everyone who had been suckered by Al Gore and a high-level network of taxpayer-funded climate scammers.

- Global Warming had completely disappeared in 1995.
- Data for Global Warming's Mann made 'hockey stick graph' has also gone missing.
- Global Warming and global cooling periods have happened many times before, and human activity had nothing to do with it.

Things got so bad after the Climategate scandal that even GreenPeace called for the resignation of the leader of the IPCC.   Rajendra Pachauri had been the butt of jokes that climate fraud was so easy, even a caveman can do it. 

Post Mortem Analysis

Jones was right. Global Warming was nothing new. Our planet has a long history of warming and cooling. Global temperature is never 'stable'. The only constant thing about climate is change itself.

The infamous hockey stick turned out to be a fake climate history.  Like a Criss Angel Mindfreak trick the computer tricks had morphed the actual climate history beyond recognition. The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did the Little Ice Age. The hockey stick got the past 100% wrong, and it was ridiculous to trust the hockey stick to predict future climate in the first place.  The history of actual thermometer readings ("raw data") did not show any significant global warming whatsoever. The CRU had to digitally manipulate the raw data to create global warming. That was their specialty. 

Climate Manipulation Unit would have been a more accurate name. The manipulation processes were called things like "cold bias removal",  "temperature homogenization", and one researcher admitted the big problem was to "hide the decline" in temperatures. The CRU's biggest achievement was software that could morph any data-set into a hockey stick. 

Looking both ways

Gore was 100% successful in attracting a huge amount of public attention to climate. His mistake was his gross underestimation of both public intelligence and the power of his first "creation": The Internet. There are still many real scientists out there who call bullshit when they see it. The mainstream media (MSM) gagged the skeptical scientists, but you can't control the internet. 

They actually tried to manipulate public opinion on the internet by creating RealClimate, a website that acted as a cheerleader for the Climategate scientists and their fearmongering, while silmutaneously promoting the bogus "hide the decline temperature histories" as being the real deal. Dozens of other websites were also set up to promote the phony CRU and IPCC temperature histories. The real temperature histories were systematicly hidden from genuine scientists by repeated and illegal failures to comply with freedom of information requests. 

Gore had spent his political career operating safely under the umbrella of a centrally owned and compliant MSM. The powers that be in this world, including the MSM, hate the internet. The net flipped their apple cart upside down and they never even saw it coming. The decentralization of news and information is literally putting them out of business while exposing their previous iron-fisted control over what the public knew and when they got to know it. Nothing has made this more clear than the collapse of the Global Warming scam. 

If you yell "fire" people will always take notice and jump into action. But if they find out it was a hoax the instigator loses all credibility forever. Al Gore is now an international joke. Gore is a college student turned politician who was never a climate scientist in the first place. 

Gore seems to be missing in action ever since his pride and joy was unmasked. There is nothing out of character here. For many years Gore has  used a "duck and cover" tactic every time a real climate scientist challenged him to a debate. Perhaps he is trying to find out where his cash-cow disappeared to, the same way O.J. Simpson scurried away "to find the real killers."

There is one piece of bad news. The funeral for Global Warming is being delayed and a quick burial will not be permitted. Like a scene from a 'B' horror movie, the climate profiteers are trying to resuscitate the maggot-infested carcass of Global Warming. New lies and new scare tactics are being cooked up as I write this. Thefinancial interests will keep trying desperately to revive Al Gore's baby. They want to bleed every possible penny from the public and achieve even greater control over our personal lives and lifestyle choices, all under the pretext of saving the planet.  They will ignore the real science, as exposed by Climategate, and pray that the public joins them in being ignorant. 

But the good news outweighs the bad. People are not so ignorant anymore. Almost nobody (33%) still believes "human activity" causes global warming
See Graph Top-Right  "Planetary trends" (natural cycles) is now the most accepted explanation with support at 48%. These encouraging trendlines will continue. The 'skeptics' are now the majority, and that will never change.  

No comments:

Post a Comment