You’ve got this which appeared on Monday in my local paper. Note the ridiculous use of the Arctic ice decline anomaly to show we’re all doomed. Not only is the time period used, from 2007 – 2009, a great example of cherry-picking, with the entire ice decline happening in one year, 2007, but the ice has since then returned to 2005 levels. The extraordinary melt of 2007 was caused by shifting wind pattern, not by increased global warming.
This hit the web today.
But there’s hardly a peep about Climategate. Is anyone else not surprised?
*** Note# 1: I’m off the grid for a few days. If you leave a comment, I’ll reply as soon as I can. Man, I miss my iPhone! ***
*** Note # 2: If you’re familiar with climate science and Climategate, skip the first paragraph. ***
For those who aren’t familiar with the in’s and out’s of what the heck I’m talking about, it’s very complicated and there is so much taht can’t be explained in one post. That said, I will give a brief (very brief) explanation of paleo-climate science. Paleo-climate science is the study of our climate – weather, temperature, atmospheric gases and other natural phenomenon, over a long period of time. Since we only have been accurately measuring temps since 1850, we have to use proxies such as coral samples, tree rings and concentrations of oxygen isotopes in ice core samples to try and flesh out the temperatures of a region. Also, there is a core of paleo-climatologists, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Phill Jones etc., who have published much of the research that states that we are experiencing unprecedented warming at the tail end of the twentieth century. Many of these same scientists are also at the center of the latest controversy. Collectively, skeptics refer to them as “The Team”, as they are dominant in the field, often work together on research papers, have heavy influence in what gets included in various peer review journals and the IPCC publications, and are staunch allies in the fight against the skeptic POV. Mann is also a co-author of the RealClimate blog. ***
Gavin and company at RealClimate have had to spend quite the amount of energy defending the content released from the Hadley / CRU hack. Here is their latest:
This is a continuation of the last thread which is getting a little unwieldy. The emails cover a 13 year period in which many things happened, and very few people are up to speed on some of the long-buried issues. So to save some time, I’ve pulled a few bits out of the comment thread that shed some light on some of the context which is missing in some of the discussion of various emails.
* Trenberth: You need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth’s energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes.
* Wigley: The concern with sea surface temperatures in the 1940s stems from the paper by Thompson et al (2007) which identified a spurious discontinuity in ocean temperatures. The impact of this has not yet been fully corrected for in the HadSST data set, but people still want to assess what impact it might have on any work that used the original data.
* Climate Research and peer-review: You should read about (1) the issues from the editors (2) (Claire Goodess, Hans von Storch) who resigned because of a breakdown of the peer review process at that journal, that came to light with the particularly (3) egregious (and well-publicised) paper by (4) Soon and Baliunas (2003). The publisher’s assessment is (5) here.
The first two bullets don’t concern me at the moment. The third one does. Lets look at the links. To me, links are one of the strengths of good blogging; they give the reader a chance to confirm and corroborate the idea or argument being presented. Lets start with the paper that led to the resignation of the two editors Storch and Goodess. The paper is a meta-study, i.e. an examination of many previous published papers, a practice common in science journals and in the scientific community at large. The studies examined in the (4) SB 2003 paper are temperature reconstructions dating back 1000 years. The Soon meta-study asks three questions:
(1) Is there an objectively discernible climatic anomaly during the Little Ice Age interval (A.D. 1300–1900) in this proxy record?
(2) Is there an objectively discernible climatic anomaly during the Medieval Warm Period (A.D. 800–1300) in this proxy record?
(3) Is there an objectively discernible climatic anomaly within the 20th century that is the most extreme (the warmest, if such in-
formation is available) period in the record?
The paper then lists 240 published studies of various temperature reconstructions, indicating “yes”, “no’, or “-” for each of the papers on the list. Here is the conclusion:
There is going to be a ton of info on this controversey, so I’m creating a page to give access to links of the story. I’m going to Washington state tomorrow to visit the family (and play a gig with my older brother Jeff) so I don’t know how much time I will have to follow the story or keep up with this post, however, I’ll my links page start with two links that summarize the issues and implications of “Climategate”.
Summary of Issues # 1 – Charles Martin
Summary of Issues # 2 – Bishop Hill
PS. A big part of me wants to jab at the MSM for not being on this story, but, for now, I’ll bite my tongue, as I realize that many in the MSM are not as aware of the background on this story, and there is so much revealed in the data and e-mails. But, as they say, stay tuned.
Is This “The Day After Tomorrow” For Climate Science? Massive Fraud Revealed!!! (Maybe) UPDATE – It’s Real!
NOTE*** Before you read on, I want to make note that the topic of this post, and some of the data and e-mail info had yet to be verified as completely genuine…. but so far it’s looking authentic.***
UPDATE; BBC confirms hack. Now to confirm that the damning e-mails are not plants. There are so many, and in context, that it would be very hard to keep the consistency of suject matter and writing style of each climate scientist involved.
This is potentially much much worse for the science of climate change than any of the dire predictions they have issued on the fate of our planet, and the integrity of the science may be on the brink of experiencing a total meltdown that will make the melting of the arctic look like an ice cube melting on a summer day. Apparently, Hadley CRU, one of the main data repositories for climate change science has been hacked. The lifted data includes both research data and e-mails between various scientists. Preliminary reports of the e-mail content does not look good for the main scientists who publish papers concerning anthropogenic global warming. Here is one damaging example.
Michael Mann, one of the top climate scientist who became famous for his ground breaking (and maybe rule breaking) tree ring hockey stick graph, has stated over and over again that he, nor any other climate scientists, splices actual temperature records onto the graphs of proxy data:
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.
This is a direct quote from Mann, taken from the website RealClimate, the site that is run by Mann and other climate scientists, geared toward refuting skeptics such as Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre. Here is an e-mail from the Hadley data:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone [snip]
School of Environmental Sciences Fax [snip]
University of East Anglia.
Not only is Climate Scientist Phil Jones admitting that Mann HAS spiced the data, but also confirms one of the skeptics complaints that graphs are altered to discard inconvenient data that contradicts the anthropogenic global warming thesis. There are a lot more e-mails that are as damning, and some reveal the manipulation of the scientific journal publishing rules and discredits the entire peer review structure as practiced by the climate science community. If this info is true, this will be a scandal involving the falsification of science the likes and on a scale we have never seen. There is a long history of conflict between the climate scientists and the skeptics. Go to Climaite Audit, Watts Up With That, and RealClimate to get a taste of the feud. All I can say at this moment is that, if this data is genuine, and if this info pan out, this will be a HUGE setback for the entire climate science community, and just about discredit the entire pool of research presented through the IPCC. If this is true, there are a whole bunch of people who will have lots of splainin’ to do.
PS. Many are being skeptical because it seems to good to be true. I also agree we need to be very wary of this. But, for those who are doubting because it seems so bizarre that these smart people would write and have these e-mails saved, remember that most of the big corporations that have gotten into legal trouble, from Microsoft to Enron, have had a heck of a lot of evidence presented in court in the form of e-mail correspondence that, when read, you wouldn’t believe someone would not erase it, much less write it. They only purge the things when they think they might get caught, which no one ever does.
Remember how the Bush administration was accused of silencing critics within the administration when dealing with disagreements on science issues? James Hansen (who appeared on 60 minutes to declare his being censored) I’m looking your way. Remember how Obama pledged that his administration was going to be open to scientific debate? Well, the administration is open to all points of view… as long as they tow the party line on policy. The EPA is trying to squelch two critics of the administrations “cap and trade” bill. The two EPA officials, with over twenty years dealing with global warming climate change issues, agree with critics who say that the pending legislation will do nothing to prevent climate change. They made a video expressing their thoughts, but were told to either take it down, or face disciplinary actions. The original video video appears to be gone, but some plucky internet hacker copied the video before it was pulled. It’s grainy, but here is the copy.
And BTW, this is the second time someone has fallen victim to the policy police, Alan Carlin being the first (that we know of) to fall into the vortex of silence. Hmmm, two in nine months. At this rate, the Obama administration may break Bush’s record of censorship.
PS. There is good news here. It appears the Obama administration can do SOMETHING without the need to appoint yet another Czar, A Censorship Czar. Hmmmm. It does have a nice ring to it, though I probably shouldn’t give them any ideas.
First, let me say that I have no problem with reasonable criticism and fact check when it comes to ANY political candidate celebrity type person, of the like of Barrack Obama or Sarah Palin. Sullivan has this THING about Palin that just grinds his gears. He can’t get her out of his system. Some of his criticism towards her has been spot on, but he goes way over the deep end, especially when it concerns baby Trig. Today he posted on the inconsistency of her reaction on the McCain campaign pulling out of Michigan. He writes:
Here we go again. Yesterday, Sarah Palin said the following to Oprah Winfrey on the air:
WINFREY: Didn’t several times they say to you when actually you mentioned, when you were talking about pulling out of Michigan and you said I wished we’d stayed in Michigan. Weren’t you told then, Sarah just stay on script?
PALIN: Right, told after wards and that, that was always puzzling to me because if I were to respond to a reporter’s questions very candidly, honestly, for instance, they say, “what do you think about the campaign pulling out of Michigan” and I think, “darn I wish we weren’t. Every vote matters, I can’t wait to get back to Michigan” and then told afterwards that, “oh, you screwed up. You went rogue on us Sarah, you’re not supposed to be.” And my reminder to the campaign was, I didn’t know we pulled out of Michigan. My entire VP team, we didn’t know that we had pulled out. I’m sorry, I apologize, but speaking candidly to a reporter.
Then he continues:
This was a lie. And we know it was a lie the way we know that 33 other statements by Palin are lies – because objective reality proves it so. On October 3, as Matt Corley explains, Palin told Carl Cameron that she disagreed with the decision to pull out of Michigan. How can she have disagreed with something that she now says she didn’t know at the time? Here’s the money section of the Cameron interview:
CAMERON: Thanks very much, Governor. I’m going get the hook. I have one quick political question for you that if I don’t ask you, I would be (INAUDIBLE).
Yesterday, just before the debate it was announced that the campaign was going to withdraw some of its exercises in Michigan, essentially leave Michigan for Obama to win. What’s going on there?
PALIN: Well, that’s not a surprise because the polls are showing we’re not doing as well there, evidently, as we would like to. But, I (INAUDIBLE) up this morning, also. I fired a quick e-mail and said, oh, come on. Do we have to call it there? Todd and I would happy to get to Michigan and walk through those plants where car manufacturers [sic].
We’d be so happy to get to speak with the people there in Michigan, who are hurting because the economy is hurting. Whatever we can do and whatever Todd and I can do in realizing what their challenges in that state are, as we can relate to them and connect with them and promise them that we won’t let them down in the administration. I want to get
back to Michigan and I want to try.
I have no idea how Andrew determines that these two statements contradict each other. The point she makes in both quotes is that she was not in the loop of the decision-making process that led to the campaign pulling out of Michigan, and that she didn’t get the message to “stay on point” until after they had left the area, and she was still harping on that decision…..
Crap. I want to defend Palin. I really do. I though that I could decipher her pidgin-English-Palin speak to mean that she didn’t know she was going rogue, and it almost worked. But I just can’t twist it and turn it enough and make it work. In the Oprah interview she seems to be saying not only that she was not involved in the decision making process, but that she was not told even AFTER the decision had been made. She says clearly ” And my reminder to the campaign was, I didn’t know we pulled out of Michigan. My entire VP team, we didn’t know that we had pulled out. I’m sorry, I apologize, but speaking candidly to a reporter.“. As much as I try, I can’t get that line to jibe with the fact that she did know as evidenced by the e-mail. The campaign announced the retreat from Michigan on Oct 2nd, she sent the e-mail first thing in the morning on the 3rd. Which means she knew the day before. And in the Cameron interview she says: “Well, that’s not a surprise because the polls are showing we’re not doing as well there, evidently, as we would like to.” which echo’s the line said to the Washington Post by a senior McCain campaign advisor the day before – “The numbers have been bad in Michigan for some time,”.
Now, had Sarah Palin been more accessible to the media during the campaign, and she had commented to a reporter on October 2nd, then she would be in the clear. But we know how tightly controlled her media appearances were kept, and there doesn’t appear to be any record of her talking to anyone else but Cameron between the time she was informed of the decision to ditch Michigan and the interview.
Point – Sullivan.
A little while ago, Rush called the TARP and stimulus package passed earlier this year a “political slush fund”. I googled the term slush fund to see if anyone else had used the term in this fashion. Nothing came up. So let’s see how long it takes before the other conservative media outlets echo this meme.
When I was doing my student teaching a couple of years ago, one of my students was a little freaked out over the impending doom that would occur in the year 2012. That is the year the Mayans supposedly foretell DOOM for the planet Earth. Of course, the Mayans failed to see their own demise, so why we should trust them is beyond me. But anyway. Hollywood, ever eager to make $$$$$ on the destruction of the Earth has this week-end released their rendition of what the end of the world will look like. 2012 has made good money so far:
…this weekend’s great numbers for 2012 prove once again the irrelevance of movie critics and bad buzz (only 36% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes) and the effectiveness of early and relentless marketing. Not to mention everyone’s seemingly insatiable appetite for world annhilation especially when it targets iconic landmarks. “Really, how many times can you get away with destroying the White House? Nice touch taking out the Vatican, though, even with the Pontiff on the balcony,” snarked a rival studio exec to me.
Though I have great contempt for this kind of mindless stupid CGI driven ridiculous type of movie, I have nothing against destroying things per-se, and as a neo-agnostic, I personally don’t care about the destruction of the Vatican on film. Ultimately, it’s just a building. Hell, one big earthquake in the region will probably take it down in our lifetime. That said, I call out the Hollywood producers who guided the direction of the movie. This last bit appears at the end of the above quoted paragraph:
(But when [director Roland] Emmerich proposed demolishing a sacred Muslim shrine, his colleagues freaked out about a possible fatwa — and the idea was dropped.)
What spineless chickens! This is the South Park Muhammad thing all over again (which by design made the studio dimwits who censored that look like complete idiots – I love you Trey and Matt). I normally don’t support boycotts, as they do no good, and the boycotters usually end up looking like idiots. But I’ll make an exception here. Christians, have at it!!!
PS. Word has it that there is a 2013 series in the works.
First it was Levi, now it’s Carrie Prejean, who had to settle her stupid breach of contract suit she file against the Miss California pageant for firing her because…. it was revealed that SHE was guilty of breach of contract. And when I say revealed, I mean “Revealed“. I gotta tell you, I HATE fake smiles:
I don’t get it. Why do you go on national TV after something like this comes out, and expect the topic won’t come up? Oh look, she’s also been on The View. You’re an idiot. You’re not helping yourself! Sit Down, Get Away Form The Camera’s, And Shut Up!!!!
A big thanks goes out to Bill Handell, who mentioned the reason why the lawsuit was settled on his radio show last week. I regret not writing about it earlier, and making note of which news outlets probably wouldn’t cover it.
UPDATE: Someone please clarify. If you’re suing someone for breach of contract, and it turns out you were the one who breached the contract for making a nude video, wouldn’t the settlement stipulate that the other side can’t talk about the embarrassing vid, not you? Isn’t it assumed that you wouldn’t talk about it because it makes you look bad?
Why would you put language in a settlement that restricts you from talking about something you don’t want to talk about anyway.