Pay No Attention to the Climate Scientists behind the Curtain

In case you hadn't noticed, the esoteric deliberations of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Orthodoxy were exposed for all the world to see when someone hacked into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Center. Now this hacking was an invasion of privacy and probably illegal, so I deplore it. But that doesn't mean I can ignore it now that it's public!

That there has been a change among the MSM of late is very interesting. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times report the story, more or less honestly. Could it be the influence of Fox News? Better get it out, before Glen Beck goes postal.

These emails tell us what prominent scientists who are campaigning to stop anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are saying to each other in private. In one juicy tidbit, a climate researcher describes how he intentionally distorts the data to hide the recent decline in global temperatures.

In other released messages, global warming alarmists discuss how they can bring pressure on peer-reviewed journals and IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) to suppress any papers or reports that contradict the orthodoxy. From the WaPo:

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Well, that's a solution to peer-reviewed research that contradicts the orthodox view: redefine "peer-review literature" so that it excludes certain inconvenient findings.

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

This is not science. It is an established church conducting an inquisition. Many legitimate and credentialed researchers who are skeptical of AGW have complained of brutish campaigns to marginalize and exclude them. Their complaints are now confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.

Powerline today points out something even more interesting: global warming activists acknowledging to one another that they don't know at all what the climate is doing. Industrial activity in China and elsewhere emits green house gases like carbon dioxide. But it also admits other substances, some of which have the opposite effect of green house gases, and promote cooler temperatures. How does it balance out?

Sulphur dioxide, like carbon dioxide, is emitted as a result of industrial activity. Unlike carbon dioxide, it is actually a pollutant. But whereas carbon dioxide tends to warm, sulphur dioxide tends to cool, and MacCracken suggests that SO2 emissions from China and India may well be offsetting the temperature impact of CO2. The net effect of human activity, therefore, may be much closer to neutral than the alarmists have been claiming.

That's Powerline's summary of a long quote from the emails. These are the scientists at the very center of the global warming orthodoxy, and they don't know whether their own climate models are any good or not. Are we really going to suppress economic activity all over the globe, at a moment when the world is experiencing a grave economic downturn, over such as this?

I have loved science since I was ten years old. Science always faces serious threats from people who don't want to know that the world isn't what they think it is. It is clear which side of that divide the global warming alarmists are on.

Comments

[Jim Watson]

The AGW elite have been successfully excluding skeptics from the pier review/publishing process and then turning around and saying these skeptics should be ignored because they are not pier-reviewed and published.

This hypocracy is akin to the child who murders his parents then begs the court for mercy because he is an orphan.

[bill]

In case you hadn't noticed, the esoteric deliberations of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Orthodoxy were exposed for all the world to see when someone hacked into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Center. Now this hacking was an invasion of privacy and probably illegal, so I deplore it. But that doesn't mean I can ignore it now that it's public!

That there has been a change among the MSM of late is very interesting. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times report the story, more or less honestly. Could it be the influence of Fox News? Better get it out, before Glen Beck goes postal.

[John Q]

Its about time that this "emergency" was exposed for what it is. Clearly they have been hiding data that contradicts their belief rather than examining the raw data for what it is.

People like myself that have been thru the eggs are good then eggs are bad age have often been skeptical of global warming, mostly because there hasn't been "hard proof" of it.

Look at it this way, would you have open heart surgery based on a theory from your doctor or would you consult a couple more doctors first?

[Mike]

Still seems an unsettled question whether this was hacking or an inside whistle blower.
We should remember that the subject of these emails and documents has been funded by taxpayers. The biggest illegality in all this is the deleting of data to subvert freedom of information requests.

This link gives a good short summary of many emails:
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html

Follow the Money:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html

Climate Depot keeps an updated running file of the newest links to info.

[Miranda Flint]

I can understand trying to ignore evidence that the world is not the way you think it is when your way is more pleasant. Wanting to believe that the digestive system is pretty, for instance, makes sense. But it is difficult to understand why anyone would want global warming to be real. It is not, however. hard to understand why individuals might suppress information that might decrease their power or put less in their pockets.

I would suggest, then, that the motivation behind these actions might be personal protection, rather than a desire to believe in another type of world.

[Will]

From the logs:

"As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its

about plausibly deniable accusations.”

* From: Edward Cook

On that line from the global warming pundits, all I

can say is "wow".

What a line.

And this is how they are trying to react to the story

as it breaks.

[mr]

"But it is difficult to understand why anyone would want global warming to be real."

"They" want the control over each nation that an emergency like global warming will give them. It is all part of the "One world government theme".

[Chad Woodburn]

Was the hacking illegal? I don't know. Was it justified even if it was illegal? To answer this, let me ask you a parallel question: If someone had known what the 9-11 terrorists were up to, and had been able to hack their emails, and thereby expose and prevent the crime, would that have been not only okay to do, but the right thing to do? I would argue that regardless of the legal technicalities of the issue, it would have been immoral NOT to have hacked the 9-11 terrorists communications (assuming you knew what they were up to). Well, some of us believe that the damage to the world that will be caused by what the AGW crowd is planning to do is far greater than anything the terrorists have been able to accomplish. Therefore, I support the hack and honor those who did it.

[George Mason]

Eventually the truth always comes out. Unfortunately many times it is later
rather than sooner, but here someone has provided the illumination in a timely fashion. This provides confirmation what many of us, who practice science, have
been attempting to put on the table for some time. Well known and respected scientists, like Richard Lindzen, who dispute the "facts" because of the lack of scientific rigor applied, have been threatened with legal action and
physical harm by the acolytes of Al Gore, et al. The same people who have
demanded that Global Warming apostasy be criminalized. We must always be wary of those for whom the sky is always falling and will brook no dissent to their
predictions of disaster.

[Tucci]

Seems as if the Copenhagen conference scheduled for December ought to be called off right now, on account of the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes at all.

What will there be for the bureaucrats and the politicians to discuss? "We're here because we couldn't get back the deposit on the hall, and if we don't use up our travel budget before the 31st, we lose it anyway."

[KB]

Miranda: There are very good reasons for wanting AGW to be true or false, depending on your political perspective. If true, it justifies massive government interventions in the economy. It also serves the need that environmentalism in general fulfills for many of its proponents: it gives them something to believe in along with a satisfying doctrine of sin. When you treat dissenters as heretics, there has to be an orthodoxy that needs protecting.

[Miranda]

Dr. Blanchard: I can see how a significant amount of control might be tantalizing. But how much is that control worth if the world is really facing
the sort of catastrophes some are predicting? I would think that the sheer horror of disaster would outweigh anyone's desire for an excuse for governmental interventions - but perhaps that is because I am seeing the world the way I want it to be.

[KB]

Miranda: A lot of people like horror. They want the world to be coming to an end on 2012, and they want the end to be part of some meaningful story. Tons of books are sold each year to satisfy the demand for this. Al Gore wants it to be true because then he becomes a prophet, engaged in a moral crusade. I am not saying that it makes sense to want it; I am just saying that people do want it.

Environmentalism, like socialism, is to some extent a decayed form of Christianity. It has a doctrine of sin and salvation. It divides the world into the faithful and the unfaithful. Add that to the promise of more government control for global warming theocrats, and there is more than enough there to make the doctrine attractive.

And by the way, I am not talking here about whether AGW is sound, just about the obvious fact that a lot of people seem to want to believe it badly enough to behave in a very suspicious manner.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your extensive clan!

[Miranda]

Dr. Blanchard:
It's true that many people like horror, but few actually want horrific events to happen to them. Plenty of people, for instance, watched Rosemary's baby, but few would have wanted to give birth to it. There is a huge difference between buying a book about the world ending in 2012 and believing that it will.

There might be something to the religious aspect of global warming. I suppose that it might give Al Gore the satisfaction of knowing he was prophetic if it turned out to be sound. But what good is that if we are really destroying the world? Any recognition he would have would be fleeting. In Christianity, believing in destruction is different, because people have the afterlife to look forward to. If a belief in global warming is your entire religion, there is no such hope. I suppose it makes sense if we agree that it doesn't have to make sense.

A belated Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!

[KB]

Miranda: I think we may be talking past each other here. To be sure, few people want bad things to happen to them, especially apocalyptic bad things. But a lot of people crave something generally bad because it satisfies some longing for adventure, revenge, or only the satisfaction of being right all along. Survivalists, for example, who stock their fallout shelters with guns and canned goods, do seem to want the great disaster to come because they believe, very naively, that it will be fun.

It seems clear to me that the AGW partisans do want the theory to be true. That's because it means that capitalism is evil, and that we all have to go along with their programs. It means that George W. and all the oil men are the devils that they want them to be. To Al Gore, it means that he will finally, in a decisive moral sense, win the 2000 election. This doesn't mean that they want the world to melt and drown. What they want is to be in charge.

[denature]

The intimation that data was distorted is false. He was trying to make the graph look pretty. Raw data was not altered. The methods were described. No scientific norms were violated.

As to the pull quotes. That the papers the e-mailer didn't want discussed in the IPCC report were actually discussed in the IPCC report directly falsifies the contention that there exists a willing conspiracy among the climate science community to actively suppress journal articles they disagree with from being duly considered.

That the e-mailers were upset with a badly constructed review article being published is not surprising. And I don't think their sentiments were secret, but they may have been a bit more diplomatic in a public forum. The publisher of the article admitted that the review process broke down in this particular instance and that they should have requested the evidence for several claims made in the paper.

[George Mason]

Miranda; InRe KB's responses: See Denatures post. Denature, it is one thing to clean up data it is quite another to distort or destroy data. If their data or corespondance needed clarification or proper classification that is a relatively simple (although sometimes time consuming) process. The obvious cover up detailed in the e-mails is a shabby attempt to produce proof of their hypothesis no matter what.

[Miranda]

Alright! I'm convinced!

But I still believe that _some_ of those at the forefront of this issue are in it for the money, rather than because of a true belief in global warming. You liken global warming to Christianity, therefore, I'll liken Al Gore to a bad televangelist. Sometimes, preachers preach because they believe in what they say. Sometimes, they just want others to.

[denature]

How was data distorted or destroyed? The two versions of the graph are both available. How would the interpretation have been different? What about all the other reporting agencies who have all the raw data available? How is the cover up obvious? Where were the details of the cover up mentioned? What issues or methods were brought up in the e-mails that haven't already been previously discussed?

[George Mason]

For some years now it has been obvious that those in the global warming business
were "cherry picking" their data to create and sustain the hysteria. The infamous
"Hockey Stick" was the best example. Under careful (read that scientific)
scrutiny it was discovered that significant data was conveniently left out. The E-Mails provide more evidence of these types of actions. The more the subject is studied with scientific rigor the greater the evidence that warming/ cooling cycles (like drought cycles) are a historic, natural occurrence. Unfortunately another natural occurrence is the cyclic rise of charlatans like Al Gore et.al. who profit handsomely from the hysteria they create. Like a bad televangelist, Al Gore can fire up the congregation but, the life he tells the congregation to lead is not the life he leads.

[George Mason]

WSJ provides a more cogent explanation of this inconvenient truth today.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574564291187747578.html

[KB]

Miranda: I am sure that some global warming activists are motivated in part by the money. To be sure, there is a lot of money to be made in the industry by certain kinds of activists. However, unaccustomed as I am to defending Al Gore, I can see no reason to believe that he doesn't believe what he is saying. Honest belief in the seriousness of a cause is as powerful a motive to dishonest campaigning as money ever was.

Likewise, fame is a motive and Al sure is keeping himself in the public eye by riding this issue. The desire for public honor can certainly become a cause of moral corruption; however, being classically trained, I do not regard it as corrupt in and of itself. A desire to achieve immortality through saving the planet, if only with a PowerPoint presentation, looks like the stuff of heroes to me. It as least as honorable as trying to achieve honor through being elected President.

But again, I am no sure we are really at odds on this issue.

[KB]

denature: I am sorry, but infamous CRC emails can't be whitewashed. When you talk of redefining what a peer-reviewed journal is in order to exclude certain points of view, or of boycotting a journal that accepts heterodox articles, your pretenses to honest science have been discredited. Then, when it turns out that you have lost your original data base when moving into a new building, and that is your second story about why you cannot produce the original data, you are now in the land of "the dog ate my homework".

Critics of the AGW thesis have complained for years that the "consensus" is serving a political agenda rather than a scientific one. Their complaints are now largely confirmed. This is a major scientific scandal. Precisely if AGW is true, it is necessary to acknowledge it and look for ways to correct the damage. Denial is no use.

[denature]

"For some years now it has been obvious that those in the global warming business were "cherry picking" their data to create and sustain the hysteria."

Obvious to who? All the independent science organizations that put out statements of agreement to the consensus? The e-mails are specifically cherry-picked and taken out of context. Most of the common denialist talking points are examples of cherry picking. And when someone points to a blog post or WSJ editorial with the facts, a correction is not issued.

"The infamous "Hockey Stick" was the best example."

The so called hockey stick data and analysis was examined independently by the National Academy of Science by request from the federal government. They found the analysis valid. Members of this group are volunteers without a profit motive. If what you describe was a comprehensive scientific analysis, they should have published it. The only rebuttal to that is that there is a massive conspiracy consisting of thousands of people to keep these skeptical articles out of the journals. They have been massively successful, but someone forgot to put out the word to not talk about fight club in e-mails.

"The more the subject is studied with scientific rigor the greater the evidence that warming/ cooling cycles (like drought cycles) are a historic, natural occurrence."

This is just not true. Natural cycles can be studied. The data doesn't fit with what we have now. If you want blatant deception go to one of the denialist web sites and look at the graphs. For natural cycles they always hide either the unprecedented rate we have now compared to the past, or stop the graph at the point where recent temps have gone higher than historical. With solar activity they won't carry out the data to the point where the correlation breaks down. But this is the methodology you accept? Methods in published papers are available. Raw data is widely available.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

[denature]

KB: As to the talk of redefining peer-review. Those two articles were discussed in the IPCC report. This is empirical evidence that an e-mail rant by one person does not equate to control over the process of informed study of the evidence. All those e-mails and it's the same 3 quotes that get repeated? This is more of a swifthacking than a scandal.

The journal article the e-mailer was upset that got published wasn't original work, it was a review. Just like the intelligent design paper that got published in an obscure journal a few years back, this is an example of denialists trying to bypass peer-review to get their message out. Find a friendly editor and get your talking points in. The e-mailer was upset that the journal's review process broke down. This is not secret information only found in this e-mail. The issue was much discussed and covered by the media at the time. Responses were published in the journal. The publisher admitted that the review process broke down and they should have asked for evidence backing some of the claims.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf

[charles odell]

Jessus, what a bunch of morons!

[KB]

denature: When the nose of the ship points to the heavens, it's time to quit bailing and hop in a life raft. We now have one major resignation and another academic inquiry launched over the infamous emails. I think the emails mean what they say. You think they mean something else or nothing. One of us is wrong. Either way, this ship is going down.

But consider this piece by John Tierney at the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html. Tierney is no "denialist" (a term that shows the political rather than scientific nature of the debate), but he confirms my view.