Orange County Register

Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online makes another point about the unfolding story of the global warming scandal unearthed in those hacked (stolen?) documents. There’s more than e-mail…

“Although the e-mails are open to interpretation, there is also a lot of computer code included that is being waded through. There are already indications that the basic code used in many of these models is flawed. There is where the depth of the scientific scandal will be decided. The refusal of many of the principals to share data and methods has long been a source of suspicion by anti-AGW folks.If it turns out that not only was data fudged, but, that even basic computations were done in error, it could be the beginning of the end of all this nonsense.”

Others see similar possibilities, including Iain Murray at Pajamas Media, who writes:

“They’re calling it ‘Climategate.’ The scandal that the suffix–gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade or so revealed by a thousand or so emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists released following a leak from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK. This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers.”

And others still, saw it coming back in April. Professor Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Emeritus at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters said:

“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart. Heads will roll. [...] It is also very important to note that global climate models are unable to produce an output that is verifiable. In other words the output can neither be proved nor disproved. . . . Not only do our studies completely negate the claims made by climate change scientists, but we can demonstrate with a high degree of assurance that all the proposed measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions will be an exercise in futility. There is no way whatsoever that the costly mitigation measures will have a meaningful effect on the world’s climate.”

RELATED POSTS:

Ever wonder why the mainstream press has fawned over and uncritically accepted the global warming scare stories? Since the leak (theft?) of thousands of documents revealing what’s been going on behind closed doors, it’s become clearer what role the press has played.

Jonah Goldberg sums up nicely:

“The elite press treats skepticism about global warming as a mental defect. It uses a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy to delegitimize people who dissent from the (manufactured) ‘consensus.’ Dissent is scientifically unserious, therefore dissenting scientist A is unserious. There’s no way to break in. The moment someone disagrees with the ‘consensus’ they disqualify themselves from criticizing the consensus. . . .

“And journalistic skepticism is almost nowhere to be found. If you know people in the ’skeptic community’ (for want of a better term) or even just normal, honest scientists, the observation that federal and foundation funding and groupthink is driving, or at least distorting, the climate debate is commonplace. But it’s given almost no oxygen in the elite press, because they are in on it.“

RELATED POSTS:

Global warming true believers have insisted for decades the “science is settled” and great minds have figured out we’re headed to global catastophe based on their best calculations.

Then the internal communications hit the fan with the leak (or theft) of hundreds of documents previously seen only by those great minds who claimed to have it figured out. That’s why we think it’s time to investigate.

The Wall Street Journal this morning hits the nail on the head. The most important part has to do with secretive, now highly questionable “science,” being used as the basis for governments preparing, as the Journal puts it, “staggeringly expensive legislation in response…”

We quote at length (emphasis ours):

‘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 U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to “Mike.” Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU’s servers were hacked and messages among some of the world’s most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.

The “two MMs” are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a “unified” view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the “common cause”; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to “hide the decline” of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.

Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn’t have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.

Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: “Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?” AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.”

Just wipe away anything that doesn’t jibe with the agenda. That’s how the science becomes “settled.”

RELATED POSTS:

Gget a load of these comments in light of the data dump of inside, confidential information from the U.K.’s climate research center at East Anglia:

Charlie Martin at Pajamas Media blog says there are at least three scandals:

• First, a real attempt by a small group of scientists to subvert the peer-review process and suppress dissenting voices. (For another look at this, by a respected climate scientist who was one of the targets, see these ^[24] posts ^[25] on Roger Pielke Sr. ^[26]’s blog.)  This is at best massively unethical.
• Second, a willingness to manipulate the data to make a political case. This is certainly misconduct and possibly scientific fraud. This, if it proves true, should make these scientists subject to strong disciplinary action, even termination of their tenured positions.
• Third, what gives every appearance of an actual conspiracy to prevent data from being released as required by the Freedom of Information Acts in the US and UK. If this is proven true, that is a federal crime.

Whattaya think of that? Well how about this from Christopher Monckton:

“They’re criminals. With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute.”

Gee, why would anyone doctor data, suppress opposing views and hide their own research from public inspection? Oh yeah. Those multimillion dollar research grants. That might be a reason.

The Martin post is particularly good reading - unless, we guess, you’re a devout warmist. As Martin says: “These emails and the data associated, taken together, raise really important questions about the whole scientific structure of AGW. Is the data really valid? Has the data been effectively peer reviewed and have attempts to falsify been fairly treated? Is CO₂-forced AGW really the best hypothesis?”

Not quite “settled” science, huh?

RELATED POSTS:

No one’s more surprised than we are to find that the New York Times, no less, already has acknowledged the global warming oops of the year:

“Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

“The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

“In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical ‘trick’ in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as ‘idiots’.”

RELATED POSTS:

As folks worldwide are pouring over the data broken free from the clutches of those who would keep it secret, we’ve come across a pretty good summary of the data that reveals how global warming alarmists may have cooked the books to make their case (and protect their research grants) and to discredit those who would discredit them.

Climatologist Roy Spencer, PhD, sums up, (emphasis ours):

“While it is too early to tell just yet, there seems to be considerable damning 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 mindset 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.

“I think there is a good chance that this was an inside job…either a disgruntled employee at CRU, or someone who is simply getting fed up with the politicization of the IPCC’s science and wanted to reveal some of the inner workings of the IPCC process. I’m sure that further revelations will arise in the coming days”

Stay tuned…

RELATED POSTS:

We noted yesterday that the cat’s outta the bag, the curtain’s drawn to reveal the wizard pulling the levers. The jig is up. A flood of e-mails, data and other information hacked from a UK climate research facility is being examined worldwide, and the fraud behind alarmism may be finally revealed.

At the least, say those who have begun reading the stuff, it probably indicates a willingness by scientists to distort the data to make warming trends seem more clear and convincing. Gee, why would they want to do that? (Duh, control and $$$$)

The worst case scenario? “A scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science,” says Andrew Bolt of the Australian Herald’s Sun.

It appears the e-mails expose a conspiracy that was intended to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming.

This stuff will be dissected and commented on for a long time. It’ll be interesting to see how much attention it will get from - and how long it takes to get the attention of - the mainstream media, which for so long has bought into the hype of global warming.

Go here for some of the good stuff, and here, and here. Then you might want to let Al Gore know how you feel about him becoming a billionaire as a result of this. Wasn’t the science settle? Where, oh where, are the professors and lawyers when you need them?

RELATED POSTS:

We don’t know what to make of this quite yet, but it sounds like it is the germ of something big. Could it be the Mother of all Global Warming Oops Moments?

According to a post at the Watts Up With That? blog, a hacker apparently got into the United Kingdom’’s Hadley Climate Research Unit and acquired hundreds of files - 61 megabytes worth - that he’s placed on a Russian FTP server for others to download.

Quoting from Anthony Watts’ blog:

It contained data, code, and emails from Phil Jones at CRU to and from many people.

I’ve seen the file, it appears to be genuine and from CRU. Others who have seen it concur- it appears genuine. There are so many files it appears unlikely that it is a hoax. The effort would be too great.

Here is some of the emails just posted at Climate Audit on this thread:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7801#comments

Hm. If the science is settled, it’ll be interesting to have a look at this stuff, no? Shouldn’t it uniformly point to the undeniable conclusion that global warming is on pace to kill us and that mankind is to blame?

Or maybe there’s something else in those 61 megabytes. And why is it copies of this stuff haven’t always been publicly available to view, inspect, challenge and test? Hm?

Stay tuned…

RELATED POSTS:

Today’s Global Warming Oops Moment (aren’t they persistent?) comes courtesy of the London Times:

“Alarming predictions that climate change will lead to the extinction of hundreds of species may be exaggerated, according to Oxford scientists.”

Darn. We thought that science was settled. Guess not.

As the Times reported, many biodiversity forecasts haven’t considered complexities of the landscape and have frequently underestimate plants and animals’ ability to adapt to environmental changes. Go figure.

“The evidence of climate change-driven extinctions have really been overplayed,” said Professor Kathy Willis, a long-term ecologist at the University of Oxford and lead author of the article.

Oh those pesky nuances. Stay tuned. Many more  “oops” to come. Hey, anyone still want to sign on to that multi-hundred billion dollar climate change tax and cap?

RELATED POSTS:

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Mississippi landowners have standing to sue deep-pocketed oil and coal companies for - here it comes - emitting greenhouse gases.

(By the way, to be on the safe side, you may want to consult your attorney. You emit greenhouse gases with every exhale. How deep are your pockets?)

The landowners, who are certainly motivated only by a desire to ward off the threat of another possible 1 degree or less of increased temperature in the next century, claim these emissions contribute to the global warming, which has caused (if you believe that stuff) temperatures to increase less than 1 degree over the past century.

Anyone else smell the real motive behind this global warming stink pot? Yeah. Follow the money.

RELATED POSTS: