• Brent Buckner

    You write:
    Many skeptics have gone too far in using the revelations as grounds for casting doubt on the entire scientific case for AGW.

    I think if you look at how much the temperature record has been adjusted from the raw data (where such raw data is still known) you’ll see that without confidence in those adjustments the case for (net non-zero) amplification of GHG climate forcings has room for doubt.

    We are told that certain raw data is unavailable and we see e-mail discussion of how to get to certain desired levels of adjustments (re: “1940s spike”).

    So, being as the IPCC mean estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is approximately three times the estimate of direct (radiative) effect of doubling of CO2, I’d say that having less confidence in two-thirds of the entire scientific case is not outrageous.

    Much of the IPCC case comes down to requiring amplification of GHG radiative forcing to explain the modern temperature record. There’s now another obvious mechanism to explain *away* the modern temperature record.

  • Dylan

    re; Your self satisfaction/denial-
    Horseshit! The Shroud of Turin proves Christianity doesn’t exist…discuss. That’s as fallacious an argument as yours.

  • Vangel

    “Many skeptics have gone too far in using the revelations as grounds for casting doubt on the entire scientific case for AGW. ”

    I don’t see how the sceptics can go ‘too far’ when the e-mails and code show that the global temperature reconstruction was obtained by fudging the data and that the raw data set is kept from being examined. The fraud has already been established so if the AGW movement wants to be credible it will have to argue the science rather than pretend that there is consensus.

    “The scientific implications of the Climategate files are probably small, but the political implication is certainly large–because of the politicized nature of climate science confirmed by the files.”

    Actually, the scientific implications are huge because it is clear that the scientific method was not followed. For an paper to be scientifically valid it is required that the data and methodology are fully documented, archived, and available for scrutiny by other scientists who may wish to verify the results. In the case of the climate papers, it has been clear that the statistical methods are inadequate ever since the Wegman commission evaluated Mann, Bradley and Huges (MBH98/MBH99). Wegman’s social network analysis also showed the potential problems with the peer review system, which were clearly exposed by the e-mails.

    Let us be very clear about one thing. When you hide your data from scrutiny and use methods that add fudge factors to produce something you do not have science, no matter how many other like minded individuals you get to agree with you. To have science you need to have empirical data and well documented methods that show exactly how the conclusions were reached. The math and logic also must work. In the case of the dendro and surface record reconstructions they do not work. There is no warming since the 1930s in the raw data; all of the warming comes from adjustments that are not adequately justified and use a flawed 1990 paper by Phil Jones, which includes Chinese data that the e-mails admit to be fraudulent. If Dr. Jones’ 2008 paper on the UHI is used instead, all of the warming signal disappears.

    • daklute
  • Carrie Muir

    The emails and data are available on the internet for anyone to download and read. I have done so, and my husband who used to use Fortran (yes he is an old nerd, one of the originals who was working with computers before PC’s were developed for the rest of us – this is a very old programme), has been amusing himself working his way through the code and data. Large guffaws are coming from his desk as I write this, with snorts of disbelief when finding code fudged to get the result required.

    I on the other hand, have been reading the emails, and am horrified at the arrogance, bullying, elitism, and cronyism displayed by Dr Phil Jones, who is the leading IPCC scientist and acknowledged as the number one AGW scientist.

    Folks, we are not talking about any old scientist here, but the worlds leading scientist in the field, fudging his data, blocking FOI requests (thats illegal for starters), asking others to destroy emails (all required to be kept by FOI laws).
    How can any of you dismiss his words and attitudes as displayed in the emails, as being of no consequence to the science of global warming? Particularly when those words were followed by the following actions – editors being sacked, scientists having careers ruined, and data eliminated that is needed to form accurate forecasts for public decision making.
    Interesting enough, in one email, Prof Jones also refers to keeping quiet his own 25 year funding from the oil industry! How’s that for hypocracy, when anyone who asks questions of the science, is immediately charged that they are being funded by Big Oil and co.
    I also see some people on this blog and on other blogs, taking pride in not reading the emails! They are wearing this non examination of the evidence like a badge of honour! Let me explain to you how to be more scientific in your reasoning.

    Scepticism is part of the scientific process. One scientist proposes a theory, supplies the data on which he bases his theory, and other scientists try to knock it down. If his thesis can stand up to this, and real world data starts to confirm the theory, then it eventually moves along the line into accepted scientific wisdom, and one theory can last for years. Eventually, however, someone else might come along and disprove it.

    You can’t disprove or support a theory unless you actually take the first step of reading the data! People on this forum are making fools of themselves (on both sides of the argument), because they have not read the basic data (the emails) with which sceptics are now arguing for police investigations to take place.

    What Dr Phil Jones and the Hockey Team have done is to stop any verification of their theories, by deliberately withholding the original data of temperature readings from around the world, and also hiding the maths in the programme used to try to sort the whole lot into one unified whole temperature reading for the globe.
    In addition, he systematically went about knocking out papers opposing his theory, from the IPCC reports, and furthermore, in the summary of the reports, which politicians base their policies on, he and the team deliberately wrote misleading conclusions. It is well documented elsewhere that over the years, other scientists have resigned in protest at this activity.

    • daklute

      i think this could be an important outcome. if the code and data are available, others will test both to see how accurate the conclusions were. will look foward to these findings being made public and discussed.

  • btok

    Time is getting short and it is coming down to the fact, that soon I will have to pray to the good Lord to maintain our freedoms and not allow our leaders to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, which will take away our liberties, let go and let God-this being a challenge to our Lord and Saviour? However, while there is still time to prevent the loss of a lifetime, perhaps loss of life it’s self – I will do what I am able to fight for our freedoms! The whole Climate change agenda is a proven fraud and racketeering, but the United Nations and Globalist governments don’t care as that is just the excuse instrument they have used to ensnare us! Has everybody out there become a tree hugger? The tree will be standing 100 years from now, but will you be looking at the tree, from inside the fence of a Concentration Camp? Anyone out there want to fight to maintain their freedom anymore? Please do all you can to preserve freedom in North America!

    Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

    To request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose
    their Sovereignty and Freedom email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca

    Any lawyers want to help out by filing this Copenhagen Treaty be classified as an illegal Treaty, in order to, help save Freedom in North America? ( Unlimited Promotion Opportunity Here For a Law firm to Gain a favorable high profile credibility! )

  • Bill Gardner

    Evidence of consensus. From the American Physical Society:
    “WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming.”

    • Vangel

      Can you please remove the previous posting? I cut it off before I could complete it and had a few formatting and grammar issues that were left uncorrected.

      Evidence of consensus. From the American Physical Society:
      “WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming.”

      Really? Just what percentage of the membership believed that man’s emissions of CO2 were causing warming? You can’t tell us because there has been no poll taken of the membership. All you have is a statement of support for the IPCC from the leadership, which jumped on the AGW bandwagon and is looking to save face.

      Here we have evidence of disagreement from a poll taken of members of the American Meteorological Society, people who should have a good idea about what is going on in the field of climate study. This poll had some interesting results.

      When asked to evaluate the IPCC statement that, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced,” 50% either disagreed or strongly disagreed while only 24% agreed or strongly agreed. That means that twice as many meteorologists did not believe the warming was man made than did.

      The climate models did not do very well in the poll. When asked to evaluate the statement, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections of a warming of the planet,” 52% of the meteorologists disagreed while only 19% agreed.

      While only 29% of meteorologists agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “global warming is a scam,” the result should not be surprising because there is no disagreement that the planet is warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age. What gets me is the fact that given the obvious knowledge that the earth came out of the Little Ice Age about 150 years ago only 45% disagreed with the statement that global warming was a scam. I am assuming that many of the respondents must have been confused about the wording because the statement was unclear to them.

      It is also clear that meteorologists were far more aware of the uncertainty than their leadership, which has come out of support of the IPCC. I found this part interesting.

      When weathercasters were asked in this survey to identify the “greatest obstacle to reporting on climate change,” their top answer (41%) was “too much scientific uncertainty,” despite the growing consensus of climate scientists evinced by the In- tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and in direct conflict with the AMS Statement on Climate Change. (This statement, in the February 2007 issue of BAMS, concludes that “despite the un- certainties noted, there is adequate evidence that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming . . . and that humans have significantly contributed to this change.”)…

      Once again let me be clear. There is an obvious disconnect between what the leadership of the AMS says and what the membership believes. As such, I do not accept general statements from leadership groups of various organizations or government agencies as evidence of consensus of the membership.

      Of course, science has never been about consensus and consensus does not have a great deal of credibility on its own. After all, there was consensus that ulcers were caused by stress and lifestyle choices. When I was a kid the consensus was clearly against plate tectonics. At the turn of the last century the consensus position favoured the prudence of eugenics and argued that something had to be done to protect society from the excessive breeding of inferior low IQ groups like blacks, Jews and Asians. All of those positions turned out to be wrong even if most people believed them.

      And who would think of using the idea of ‘consensus’ in a credible scientific argument? As the late Michael Crichton pointed out, we don’t talk about consensus when trying to show that the moon is not made of green cheese or that the sun does not revolve around the Earth. All we do is to point to the evidence. That is the problem of the AGW movement; it has no empirical evidence that man is causing global warming or that the wrming is unusual so it has to manufacture consensus by fiddling with the data, hiding the fact that the ice cores show that it is temperature that drives CO2 and not the other way around, trying to hide the Medieval Climate Optimum, Little Ice Age, Holocene Optimum, and ignoring the major decadal effects of natural factors like the AMO and PDO. I note that the AMO, which was never brought up as a major factor when the temperatures were going up, now is brought up to excuse the fact that Latif, Mann, Jones, Trenberth and their pals can’t explain the decadal cooling even as human CO2 emissions were at record highs.

      If you wish to argue consensus go right ahead but don’t give us statements by political committees that run various organizations. Show us actual polling data by the membership and include a clear statement about what they are agreeing on. I am arguing that if meteorologists overwhelmingly reject the IPCC consensus statement (2 to 1 against) while the AMS leadership supports it, you cannot claim consensus by pointing to the statement from another leadership group. There is no consensus and there has to be debate on the actual science. Free the data and methods so that we can all have a look at the temperature reconstructions and judge about the merits of what has been done so far. If the data is not freed and the methods are not released then you have no science but are basing your position on faith based beliefs.

      • Bill Gardner

        Thanks for your thoughts. Of course the statements from the councils of the National Academy of Science and the American Physical Society might be wrong. My view, however, is that their views are more credible than a poll of television weathercasters.

        • Vangel

          The NAS review of Mann’s MBH98/MBH99 papers agreed with the Wegman findings. It concluded that the data and methods used to create the MBH98/MBH99 Hockey Stick were wrong but that the conclusions were right because other people had supported them. The panel members must be very embarrassed because the code and e-mails show that those other people had fudged the data just as Mann, Bradley, and Hughes did. I think that what is needed is an investigation that would re-examine the way that the NAS conducts reviews. How can so-called reputable scientists come up with a statement that wrong data and methods are not important because the conclusions are correct? What the NAS should have done is to do what the statistical review panel did; clearly state that the methods were not correct and the data was inappropriate because it relied on stripbark proxies that respond to factors other than temperature. The fact that Mann cut off the data in 1960 and used instrumental data to calculate the running average should have set off alarm bells because nobody who knows anything will accept such a splice as valid, particularly when the post 1960 data is available.

          There is no way to spin this story. The leaked code shows the use of fudge factors, inappropriate truncation of data, and cherry picking that makes the reconstructions invalid. That means that we need to open up the process for everyone to see what the full data sets really show and what the methods really do.

          • Bill Gardner

            Perhaps we can agree that the NAS should go back over the data and methods in the light of the emails? In general, the science community doesn’t pay sufficient attention to research integrity. Moreover, climate change will, probably, be the most important science policy issue of our lifetimes — the data and methods can’t be reexamined too often. And, yes, all these data should be open and public.

          • Vangel

            That is all the sceptics have been asking for; an honest review of all of the data and methods used to come up with the reconstructed temperature profiles and an examination of the science that looks at natural factors that effect climate trends. But the problem is a bias among the established gatekeepers who are in very deep and have reputations to protect. I read Dr. North’s interview and was disgusted by his lack of understanding of the methodology issue. While his committee slammed Mann, Bradley and Hughes by pointing out that the stripbark proxy data was inappropriate and the methods were wrong, it offered cover by saying that the wrong data and wrong methods did not mean the conclusion was wrong because MBH had been supported by others who had come to the same conclusions. While the Wegman committee had the sense to stick to its mandate and evaluate what was presented, the North panel did not and is now in trouble as much of the support for MBH came from papers and data provided by people who have admitted to using statistical tricks and fudge factors.

            What we need is an open process in which everything that goes to the review panel is made available publically. That way nobody can try to hide the facts in order to save face for themselves or their political patrons.

        • Vangel

          Let me be clear. While the NAS panel agreed with the Wegman findings, the Wegman Panel did not agree with the NAS conclusions that wrong data and wrong methods were not important because others have reached similar conclusions as MBH.

          Wegman slammed Mann and his co-authors and showed that there was no independent peer review process and no evidence of knowledge of advanced statistical methods. First, the reviewers of the Mann, Bradley and Hughes papers had all been co-writers with the authors on many other papers. Second, the authors and reviewers were insufficiently skilled in the proper use of statistical methods and missed what were basic errors that an independent amateur had managed to find without much difficulty once he was provided with the data and was able to recreate algorithms to process that data. (MBH did not allow anyone to look at the code for obvious reasons; they cut off the proxy data after 1960 because it showed a decline. Anyone reading the Wegman report would not be surprised by the CRU leaks because they show exactly what had already been revealed.

  • Vangel

    Evidence of consensus. From the American Physical Society:
    “WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming.”

    Really? Just what percentage of the membership believed that man’s emissions of CO2 were causing warming? You can’t tell us because there has been no poll taken of the membership. All you have is a statement of support for the IPCC from the leadership, which jumped on the AGW bandwagon and is looking to save face.

    Now here we have evidence of disagreement from a poll taken of members of the American Meteorological Society, people who should have a good idea about what is going on in the field of climate study. This poll had some interesting results.

    When asked to evaluate the IPCC statement that, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced,” 50% either disagreed or strongly disagreed while only 24% agreed or strongly agreed. That means that twice as many meteorologists did not believe the warming was man made than did.

    The climate models did not do very well in the poll. When asked to evaluate the statement, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections of a warming of the planet,” 52% of the meteorologists disagreed while only 19% agreed.

    What we have here is evidence that there isn’t much in the way of consensus among the membership of organizations that claim to support the IPCC and its conclusions. Of course, science has never been about consensus and consensus does not have a great deal of credibility on its own. After all, there was consensus that ulcers were caused by stress and lifestyle choices. When I was a kid the consensus was clearly against plate tectonics. At the turn of the last century the consensus position favoured the prudence of eugenics and argued that something had to be done to protect society from the excessive breeding of inferior low IQ groups like blacks, Jews and Asians.

    And who uses the idea of ‘consensus’ in a scientific argument? As Michael Crichton pointed out, we don’t talk about consensus when trying to show that the moon is not made of green cheese or that the sun does not revolve around the Earth. All we do is to point to the evidence. That is the problem of the AGW movement; it has no empirical evidence that man is causing global warming or that the wrming is unusual so it has to manufacture consensus by fiddling with the data, hiding the fact that the ice cores show that it is temperature that drives CO2 and not the other way around, trying to hide the Medieval Climate Optimum, Little Ice Age, Holocene Optimum, and ignoring the major decadal effects of natural factors like the AMO and PDO. I note that the AMO, which was never brought up as a major factor when the temperatures were going up, now is brought up to excuse the fact that Latif, Mann, Jones, Trenberth and their pals can’t explain the decadal cooling even as human CO2 emissions were at record highs.

    If you wish to argue consensus go right ahead but don’t give us statements by political committees that run various organizations. Show us actual polling data by the membership and include a clear statement about what they are evaluating. If meteorologists overwhelmingly reject the IPCC consensus statement (2 to 1 against) while the AMS leadership supports it how can you argue that you have evidence of consensus?

    * Almost a third agreed or strongly agreed that “global warming is a scam.”
    * When the meteorologists were asked to identify “the greatest obstacle to reporting on climate change,” their top answer (41%) was “too much scientific uncertainty.”

  • Vangel

    Bill Gardner

    My point being: The evidence from the emails is clear, Don’t trust the CRU. However, I trust the APS. And the National Academy of Sciences, and, for that matter, the national academies of all the G8 countries.

    You have a problem. The NAS, APS, and other academies are basing their positions on conclusions reached by the IPCC. Those conclusions were based on CRU data. Without the foundation of accurate data the conclusions have to be reviewed and statements coming from the national academies are worthless opinions.

    Let me remind you of what I wrote above. The leadership of the AMS supports the IPCC conclusions and thinks that the evidence is clear. But 50% of American meteorologists said that they did not agree with the IPCC statement, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.” That was twice the number that agreed or strongly agreed. When twice as many members did not agree than did agree I do not see how one can claim that the members support the statement. The same is true of other organizations. Nobody bothered to ask the members for their opinion and presented the evidence from both sides of the argument. Without a clear debate there is no way to hide behind the false argument that you have consensus.

    • tim

      “But 50% of American meteorologists said that they did not agree with the IPCC statement, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.””

      Where is the source for this? I googled this quote and it said 50% of *TV* meteorologists did not agree.