Climategate: Inhofe Raises the Temperature
Senator James Inhofe has just turned up the heat on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the UN NGO that is responsible for collecting and reviewing the evidence for anthropogenic climate change — and its chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.
Wednesday afternoon, Senator Inhofe gave a floor speech (watch on YouTube here) in which he summarized the rapidly accumulating evidence of severe flaws in the IPCC assessment reports, along with the other issues uncovered by the release of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails.
Inhofe, a long-time critic of the evidence for anthropogenic global warming and of the “cap and trade” carbon exchange schemes, used his floor speech to point out to the Senate that the IPCC report included the infamous “2035″ date for the disappearance of glaciers from the Himalayas — which the IPCC has now been forced to retract.
As Inhofe put it, the Obama administration considers the IPCC reports the “gold standard” of climate change science, but the continuing revelations about flaws in the science have led to a “crisis of confidence” in the IPCC process. This followed Inhofe having built an igloo with his family and marking it “Al Gore’s New Home” after the record-breaking Washington, D.C., blizzard this week. (An effort for which he and his whole family were nominated “Worst Person in the World” by Keith Olbermann.)
Inhofe’s speech didn’t directly call for any particular action on the part of Congress, but it did point out that the Obama administration has asserted that if a cap and trade bill doesn’t pass, it could achieve similar effects by a simple finding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that carbon dioxide is a pollutant — a finding the EPA actually made late last year. However, as Inhofe pointed out in his on-floor remarks, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson had testified to his committee that the CO2 finding was largely based on the IPCC reports.
Inhofe noted that Pachauri had testified on climate change in front of his committee, saying:
Dr. Pachauri should come clean and respond directly to the numerous charges made against himself and the IPCC. Given that Dr. Pachauri has testified before Congress, including the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, we should hear directly from him as soon as possible as to how he can salvage the IPCC’s vanishing credibility.
We know now that the data used by the IPCC was both flawed in the original collection phase and then fudged to make it fit with foregone conclusions. We know that Dr. Pachauri, an economist by training, stands to make a fortune from various cap and trade and carbon exchange schemes.
We know that as a “warming gas” in the atmosphere carbon dioxide is a minor bit player, especially when compared to water vapor. We know that carbon dioxide is essential to plant growth and therefore to agriculture. We know that during various geological eras the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was several times higher than it is now and that plants proliferated. Our entire food chain is dependent on plants.
We know that all previous ice ages and inter-glacial warming periods were due to the sun, supported by other natural phenomena in both the atmosphere and the oceans. In some periods, volcanic activity may have made a contribution to the cooling.
We know that the goal of the AGW crowd is to promote the governmental and tax authority of the United Nations. Most of them hope thereby for personal gain. Many of them seek to diminish or eliminate the economic and military power of the United States along the way – for some of them that is their primary goal.
Given the above, Senator Inhofe has been quite gentle and reasoned in his approach.
It’s about time.
If Congress isn’t forced to acknowledge reality re Climategate, they can achieve the same desired level of damage to our nation via regulations as pointed out in the article. Prior to the 2008 election, relatives accused me of being hysterical, saying, “Even if obama is as bad as you say, as long as we have the Congress and the Constitution, obama can’t just do what he wants…” and my response was, “Have you ever heard of regulatory agencies? Executive orders??”…. Isn’t it fascinating how simple truth cuts a swath through buttery lies? And the people ruling in our nation now ARE lies. They aren’t just liars. They’re lies.
Every day more flaws appear in the UN IPCC reports – how it could even be considered scientific beggars belief
The Enviromental wacko’s are only interested in one thing and that is “POWER”! If getting the power means they will have to lie, create flawed logic and figures, then that will be their modus operendi. Mendacity is the main tool of the radical environmental pukes. “Gold standard” ratings by self-proclaimed “scientists” will never pass honest evaluation by reasonable American citizens. This power grab is finished for the global warming crowd. As the U.S. Army cadre says, “…..this bird will not fly…!” Go Conservatives! Go Republicans! God bless America!
good job Senator.
Two Points:
1. During the time of the dinosaurs, wasn’t the earth warmer than it is now? Perhaps if the world is getting warmer, it sounds like equalibrium to me.
2. The IPCC couldn’t even forcast past temperatures to test the validity of their model on global warming without lying about or “fudging” data. Perhaps after the USA digs itself out of the blizzards and Europe recovers from world-record lows, we can take a fresh look at global warming.
fear the cold …food doesn’t grow under snow and ice.
are the glaciers retreating …well no
are the oceans rising …another no
are global temperatures rising …gee again no.
what makes people cling to the idea that the earth is warming.
the science that is available indicates that the cycles of warming and cooling are natural and that life advances in warm periods and retards in cold periods.
Far be it from me to object that Inhofe has pointed out the flaws in the “report”, which was allegedly based on “science”. But the entire AGW movement has never been about science.
The purpose of the movement is to flow more power toward more centralized forms of authority, and to flow it away from the most decentralized form of authority, the individual.
I would have been marginally happier if Inhofe had made that point. But since he is a member of one of the most renowned authoritative bodies himself, I guess he is disinclined to do it.
Jim, my man, go all the way the next time! Go all the freakin’ way!
—Tom Nally, New Orleans
Each and every Conservative or clear headed thinker must throw their support behind Senator Inhofe. Obama’s reference to global warming in the state-of-the-union address was reckless beyond belief and his use of the EPA to circumvent Congress on the matter of climate change shows that he is acting aggressively to implement his suspect beliefs about global warming. This is recklessness feeding on recklessness. Call your senators and representatives now and insist that Congress remove from the EPA the power to regulate so-called greenhouse gases, especially CO2.
7. Supreme Allied Commander:
Actually, some life is pretty retarded during warm periods too. We know them as liberals.
And then there’s this, Charlie.
http://psu.campusreform.org/group/events/2010-02-08/rally-for-academic-integrity
This all is very unsettling, for a “settled” matter, that is.
What we are coming to understand is that you can’t just listen to Keith Olbermann and get things done.
Also, Charlie…I have been reading the emails that passed between these folks to try to get a deeper understanding of the whole of it.
I used this site to accomplish that.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/
More and more it appears to my eye that the echo chamber doors were padlocked by these insiders and they arrogantly refused to acknowledge any even modest inquiry into their assumptions. Those assumptions then layered themselves, each using the other to create yet another …until a tunnel vision was created filled with arrogance and myopia.
I also noticed a couple of other things as well. While they hold McIntyre in complete disdain, they avoid talking about McKitrick much of the time.
The neatest trick was getting virtually every “contrarian” paper rejected, while insisting on only responding to papers submitted in journals…and then, only in journals they respected.
Blackballing reporters, holding back information because someone “might not be trusted”…all stemmed from the same echo chamber disease.
They not only didn’t want to answer mild inquiries from the “great unwashed”, they wanted to smear and blockade those who raised them.
It also appears that they lost their scientific big boy pants and threw a tantrum every time it was pointed out that their methodology was flawed in some way, or gave rise to serious questions about the reasoning for apparent inconsistencies.
Rather than acknowledgement of perhaps a bad methodology, they went into Fraternity Blackball mode. The behavior was haughty, pedantic, tyrannical and horrific at times. And for all their tantrum throwing, some of the questions appear to have been legitimate and worthwhile exploring.
I do see your point about Mann, however. I even see some defensible arguments to be made on behalf of some of the others, most especially Wigley and even Briffa.
Mann is a hot head, who flies off the cuff and who clearly did not complain about the bad actors within the Fraternal Order of Snoots. But, I don’t see the overt attempt by Mann to manipulate things in these emails.
Some of his data methodologies still give rise to legitimate inquiry. I don’t give him a pass on his passive acquiescence to all the bad acts of tyranny and silencing of critics. In fact, he himself would say things like “be careful when talking to Andy” etc.
McIntyre and McKitrick raised some legitimate questions, that, had they been accepted in the spirit of cooperation and welcomed as a vehicle to allow the public to participate, might have gone a long way to advancing toward whatever the “scientific truth” is…which should have been the ultimate goal all along.
The “warministas” vs. the “contrarians” sparked public interest…in the cheap and tawdry way of a reality show, not the time honored open source methodology of true science. For that…we have all paid the price.
It’s time to take all this to another level and start to pick away at intent. Maybe a few subpoenas toward Generation Investment Management LLP to see what role they play in making sure the climate change narrative stays on message. Is Generation Investment Management LLP simply an investment company or are they helping shape the message in these semi-governmental bodies such as the IPCC and UN.
What is wrong with glaciers retreating a bit? Are they so sacred that they have to remain exactly as they were? Some countries are in the midst of a drought. What’s wrong with some ice becoming fresh water again?
this is also a case of when good people do nothing.
where are the good people. this is not just a case of fudging innocent numbers. it is a criminal fraud.
where are the prosecutors ? where is law ?
if you fudge the numbers for profit you would be in jail. but these crooks are not …why ?
Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Fox News Senator Inhofe …where is the cry for justice ?
cfbleachers,
I always enjoy your posts. In-depth, focused.
Though upon reading the East Anglia emails, knowing colleagues who are Penn State alumni and work in or near the university- they like me are disgusted by Mr. Mann’s ‘findings’.
Not to mention this impostor received $560,000 + stimuless money recently!
Forgive me, I was under the impression the IOU taxpayer money is to ‘create and/or save jobs’. Not give this bloviate spinster more axle grease to rewrite science. It’s 1 thing to have a take on the matter. It’s another 1 entirely when the Government provides, even after this damning information is forthcoming, funds for this conman to espouse his nonsense to the masses.
Ummm….you do know that Inhofe is generally considered a clueless idiot, don’t you? He’s both a national embarrassment and a poster boy for what’s wrong with modern Republicans.
At least we have an honest Republican leader speaking out.
How many days was FEMA closed in Washington this month? What a shame. Now we have the carbon Mullah Suzuki preeching about lack of snow at the coast in Vancouver.
Paul, thanks for the kind words.
Couple of points. I think that the issues surrounding AGW are far from “settled”. I think the evidence of a “hockey stick” spike, whereby the past ten years “show” something remarkable…is highly suspect at this moment in time. The “hockey stick” needs a full scientific peer review from handle to blade…by independent folks, not inner chamber, double secret handshake types.
I think further, that the nexus to carbon emissions “causing” the “hockey stick” spike…is nearly specious…the proof of such so thin, you could become a Shaolin Priest simply by walking on the rice paper it is written on.
That being said, it is not climate science with which I have a quarrel. It’s not even Mann’s studies with which I have a quarrel. The fact that he received funding to do the research is not something with which I have a quarrel.
When accountants try to “cook the books” they do so at times by hiding information in plain view or by skewing the assumptions. If the “warmanistas” are doing the same…then, I have a quarrel.
From my review of the materials, I cannot tell what Mann did with the assumptions or whether he would skew the methodology to fit the narrative.
If he did…Charlie’s request not to frog march him…should be withdrawn. If he didn’t, then he should not be branded with the same iron as anyone else who might have. (I’m old enough to remember a show with Chuck Connors called “Branded”…it comes to mind here…and I can’t get rid of the thought. Charlie owes me one)
I may not like Mann’s personality or the fact that he sat on his hands when the bad actors were smearing and blockading…if he did nothing more than that…I will not condemn him for having a hot head or being cocky alone.
More needs to be investigated here. And, we have to be patient while it gets uncovered.
#13 Ken F: wrote:
What is wrong with glaciers retreating a bit? Are they so sacred that they have to remain exactly as they were? Some countries are in the midst of a drought. What’s wrong with some ice becoming fresh water again?
———
Not to worry. Supreme Allied Commander says that they are NOT retreating. SAC, how many glaciers have you ever visited? I have been to around ten in North America including Alaska and Iceland and they had ALL retreated considerably.
I am not a supporter of cap and trade, not yet, anyway, but let’s at least acknowledge the few or many concrete facts that we really do know.
The problem would be that if there WERE for whatever reason a lot more sustained melting of the ice which is on land, not the floating ice) sea levels would rise and coastal areas of the world
would all move toward a New Orleans scenario.
Ask all the warmists all the hard questions, but until the climate stops warming (and climate being 30 years; it has not done that yet) it seems to me that we should put out less CO2, rather than more AS REASONABLE. Right now, the global recession has done a decent job of cutting CO2 emissions, gulp.
As for the concern about government control of things, and size of government; core Tea Party values, I can’t even imagine going back to the early days of the Republic when concern about a large standing army in peacetime was part and parcel of the small government approach. Most elements of our government have mushroomed, just as the military has. NO, and that certainly includes Reagan been able to stop it, and the states, rather than saying, “STOP, this is our job, stand in line for all the Federal money they can get. Frankly the concept of shrinking government seems to me as much of a fantasy as “stopping” global warming. Someone better get some better ideas on how to do it.
BC,
With villiage idiots like Al (the earth’s core is millions of degrees) Gore and Hussin (bow to the emperor of Japan, how bout those corpse mans?” Obama running around it’s difficult to think of being more embarrased.
I think it was Charles Krauthammer who said that the left went from mourning at the funeral of socialism straight to worshipping at the altar of environmentalism.
His point is that many disciples of AGW are just bitter and twisted socialists. They will only stop promoting green apocalypse when some alternative vehicle for leftist ideology hoves into view. Until then, trying to have a discussion about AGW with its disciples will be like talking to a stop sign.
#19 Dwight,
So, you are saying that personally visiting a fraction of the glaciers on the planet today proves a theory about a fraction of a fraction of a percentage change in one of the more minor compenents of the atmosphere can reliabley predict climatic changes in a dynamic system that is 4.5 Billion years old?
I have personally witnessed trees fall suddenly while walking in forests, therefore it proves that walking in forests causes an increase in trees falling.
19. Dwight:
a lot more then you sunshine. I do exploratory work around the world. Glacial ice makes great coffee.
but don’t take my word for it. there are a lot of web sites where data is provide as well as where they get their data from.
a little critical thinking goes a long way. I will leave that up to you.
if you have faith in what the alarmist tell you (even though the “dog ate their data”) then nothing I say or anyone else for that matter will help you figure it out.
regards
BC:
Ummm…you do know that Gore is generally considered a clueless idiot, don’t you? He’s both a national embarrassment and a poster boy for what’s wrong with modern Democrats.
#16, Inhofe is stupid?!?! Then where, pray tell, does that leave Albert Gore? He surely must be sub-zero in all aspects.
To be rejected: People opposing the largest global power grab in history.
To be believed: People openly scamming the scientific method in order to perpetrate the largest global power grab in history.
Utter Madness!!
Dwight:
“it seems to me that we should put out less CO2″
Can you show any proof that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause warming, and not the way around? (i.e., warming temperatures lead to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations)
And can you also please demonstrate how man’s minute contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is more potent a greenhouse gas than naturally occuring CO2, or other Greenhouse gases, such as methane or water vapor?
Can you please provide evidence that increased warming would indeed be bad for humankind? Especially given the hitorical evidence that in warmings past (Roman Warming Period, Medievel Warming Period–both of which were warmer than today) mankind has grown and life has thrived?
Thank you in advance.
#21 Westerncanadian:
Brilliant and succinct.
So you have drunk coffee from glacier-melt, and I have swum in it. What the hell does that prove? You assert that there are sites which show that a lot of glaciers are growing, but don’t name the sites. My understanding is that almost every glacier in the northern hemispere, (where, by the way, more warming was predicted to take place, and has taken place,) has declined significantly in the last 50 years. That is also what I have seen, but then, you have drunk coffee from glacial water but have not bothered to name ONE expanding glacier that you have seen or even read about.
#27 AF Vet. It is not one OR the other. Increased warming causes increased co2 and increased CO2 causes more warming (all other things being equal.) Reduced sunspots, wobbles of the earth’s axis,and various kinds of soot, sulpuric particles, volcanic smoke, and increased cloud cover can contribute to cooling. And yes, they are “discovering” new phenomena all the time, but more co2 = more warming. OK, I will grant that the “sensitivities” for increased temperature per increased ppm of CO2 are certainly not written in stone.
My position is that the evidence is skimpy enough so that we do not have to take drastic action immediately, but the evidence is substantial enough to show that CO2 caused warming is a distinct possibility.
29. Dwight:
My position is that the evidence is skimpy enough so that we do not have to take drastic action immediately, but the evidence is substantial enough to show that CO2 caused warming is a distinct possibility.
that is what Al Gore wants you to believe. like I said critical thinking is up to you.
I will not respond to you again as you are obviously pushing ideas that have been refuted by many scientists. Making you a troll/useful idiot.
like others have stated the alarmist are just trying to get power. They want to control carbon emissions (fuel).
Actually, BC, you’re making yourself a poster boy for the notion that there’s relatively little about science, and relatively much about political aims, in the argument from the “warmist” side. Far be it from me to suggest Inhofe is a brilliant scientist in his own right — I watched his speech live and found myself wanting to help him with some of the big words — but the points in his speech are good ones: the IPCC has consistently slanted the AR results, cited sources like WWF and Greenpeace pamphlets as if they are authoritative scientific sources, and leading authors of chapters have confirmed in so many words that they did so in order to maximize the political impact, careful science be damned. They’ve had to withdraw some parts of the report and will, I feel confident, be forced to withdraw more.
Against, this, all you have to offer is to call names.
So who is the real clueless idiot then?
SAC, Of course you are not going to respond, because you are just plain wrong about the glaciers.
Some skeptics come up with data to support their position, whereas your gun is just plain empty, but you can blow a little smoke:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Canadian_Rockies_and_British_Columbia_Coast_Range
Al Gore has yet another house!!!!!!!!
Damn, I can hardly afford the ONE I own.
32. Dwight: Wikipedia, REALLY? Ya gotta be kiddin me man (or should I say MANN).
I think the Senator’s main point is to highlight the EXACTING scientific standards that go into an IPCC report. The last published document may rise to the level of innuendo, on a good day.
Have the wackos ever considered how “Greenland” got its name? No, they wring their hands on the island being slightly less frozen. What a bunch of morons….lol
Dwight- While I don’t claim to be a glacial expert, I am a scientist and there’s no way I’d quote Wikipedia as being a definitive source on anything. SOme of the articles cited in there are thirty years old, or more. And the majority are the same kind of anecdotal secondary or tertiary sources the IPCC is now being criticized over. Indeed, one of them is by Greenpeace, and many are just news articles reporting someone’s anecdotal experiences. Hardly authoritative. The media quoting itself quoting itself doesn’t make what’s quoted true, no matter how many times it’s done.
Be that as it may, even if glaciers are melting, there are two enormous problems with AGW- the data, even if it isn’t irrevocably tainted by the biases of those collecting it (and all scientists have biases) may not be replicable or verifiable at this point. And if that’s the case, then the doubt cast by recent events means that nothing can be done about AGW until entirely new datasets are constructed, because the data simply cannot be trusted.
In other words, we’re rapidly approaching the point where solid data are going to be suspect until they can be proven correct. Of course, that’s what should have happened all along to a certain degree- that’s not skepticism, that’s peer review- well, unless you’ve handpicked your peers, in which case it’s really just preaching to the choir. But the obfuscation, corruption, manipulation, deceit and arrogance of a few are now calling everything into question, good data and bad, honest researchers along with the corrupt.
I have no idea what to think. I’ve watched this all from the sidelines for years. But, as a scientist, AGW was always very suspect to me because of the ideological, nearly religious overtones I picked up from supporters of the theory early on. It got out of the scientific realm and into the political and social realm before there was a good handle on the problem, and that’s very regrettable.
thank you Charlie for keeping this out there.
What is really amazing is how many people still support and enable and make excuses for the lies and the fraud.
There is lots of science showing the cyclical nature of nature. None of it caused be human action. CO2 has not even been proven to alter the climate significantly nor has man been the main reason for CO2 in the atmosphere. Volcanoes and natural plant life cycles produce the bulk of all CO2 in the atmosphere.
As for the oceans rising …the variance is so small it is difficult to measure. The glaciers are also not good indicators of man made warming either as the grow and shrink constantly. In direct relation to solar activity. There has been very little solar activity lately and surprise the glaciers are growing.
Like to see them tax the sun.
36. Dana:
very good point Dana. actually the climate warming people were caught altering data on Wikipedia site.
Dwight: how do you explain the warming period during the Middle Ages? Less people, no cars, little industry to speak of, and yet? BC, you once again show your liberal stupidity by attacking the Senator, instead of defending AGW data, or do you realize you CAN’T defend the data, and so consider personal attacks your only weapon?
#36 Dana I agree substantially with your distrust of the collected temperature data for the reasons you mention, but the Wicki stuff is concrete observations about glaciers declining, not some aggregated, adjusted,organized and pasteurized temperature data. If ANYONE can find any evidence about glaciers, expanding, then please post it. Has anyone ever seen a glacier with a marker on the ice, showing where it used to end, before it expanded? Whereas every glacier I have visited has a marker on the gravel or rock showing where it USED to extend to.
Look, we can argue forever about WHY, that is happening, but if people won’t at least acknowledge that is is happening, then they are DENIERS.
Inhofe is one of a very few senators who stood up to the warmers even in their glory days. Too bad the rest of the republican party was, and is, exercising no leadership on this issue.
Fifth in a continuing series on former President George W. Bush and his responsibility for all of Obama’s gaffes, failures, and stupidity, for all the evils in the world including tooth decay, hemorrhoids, and Iran, and for all that goes bump in the night.
Ok, now here’s the scenario and it’s a bit convoluted and hard to follow–and swallow–but try to keep up.
Much of the country has been enduring a brutal winter with record-setting snowfalls in Washington, Baltimore, Chicago, and other cities and states–and it’s all the fault of George W. Bush. As always.
You see, Bush never really bought into this whole global warming baloney and did jacksquat to cripple what’s left of our industrial base and transfer gobs of American wealth to . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1490)
Dwight, concrete observations about glaciers shrinking can still be anecdotal. Aggregated and organized data are EXACTLY what’s needed to put this issue to rest- but reasonable people have serious concerns that the data we have are tainted. It has to be re-done in a transparent and reproducible manner. Until that’s done I don’t care what anyone thinks they saw or didn’t see.
Believe me, in my field this quality of data would be laughed right out of the journals. I can’t tell you how many times “conventional wisdom” and “everybody knows that…” and “I’ve seen it with my own two eyes…” were proven to be utterly false later on.
cfbleachers writes:
“I may not like Mann’s personality or the fact that he sat on his hands when the bad actors were smearing and blockading…if he did nothing more than that…I will not condemn him for having a hot head or being cocky alone.”
In the emails, Jones referred to the “trick” as Mann’s trick. That “trick” is not innocent. It involved hiding the fact that 50 years of data showed that tree-ring data trended down while thermometer data trended up. So, they replaced 50 years of tree ring data with thermometer data. I cannot see how that is not an act of fraud. What they should have done is report their own findings of a divergence and remove their tree-ring data from the graph because they had discovered that the tree ring data is unreliable.
BC:
Your first cite is a diatribe against Inhofe that ends with the following statement from the author about the state that elected Inhofe to the senate: ‘Oklahoma is not a stupid state, just one that’s misinformed and suffering from a massive inferiority complex.’
This is your supporting cite for saying that Inhofe is ‘generally considered a clueless idiot’. I submit that the crowd you run with do not have a clue that what they consider ‘generally’ is anything but. I also submit that citing an author who is still mired in climategate denial as an authority on Inhofe’s general cluelessness makes you appear rather clueless yourself.
Your second cite is a story from the recent Copenhagen climate summit where a Der Spiegel reporter calls Inhofe ridiculous for saying that Global Warming was a hoax. This is your supporting cite for saying that Inhofe is a national embarrassment.
I submit that mounting evidence is showing that Inhofe was better informed than the Der Spiegel reporter. The Der Spiegel reporter’s unprofessional outburst was also an embarrassment to journalism, but he does have a lot of journalistic company in that category.
To support your claim that Inhofe is ‘a poster boy for what’s wrong with modern Republicans’, you cite the Center for Media and Democracy’s fraudulent ‘encyclopedia’, SourceWatch. SourceWatch makes Wikipedia appear absolutely benign in comparison, and that’s no mean feat.
I submit that that sort of asininity may fly well with the crowd you run with, but it won’t with informed adults.
Since the science has been “settled”, I guess this article from 1974 with fears of global cooling and an impending ice age were “unsettled” science?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
This time it’s for REAL!!
Theo @ 44
Please be clear that I am not saying that Mann has done nothing more than be a hot head or cocky…I’m only saying that whatever he did, needs full, independent review.
Charlie (and others) have opined that Mann is less involved or culpable in any active deceit than others. I have read quite a bit of the back and forth and have come away with a wait and see attitude on what was done, by whom and for what purpose.
Below is your description of Mann’s “trick” and McIntyre’s suggestion that it was Jones’ trick, which was different from Mann’s. Mann’s trick…may have been involved in the hiding of the decline…and obscuring Briffa’s findings from the IPCC report. At least according to McIntyre.
The Briffa decline was a “stone in the shoe” and made it difficult to present a “tidy picture”. They didn’t want to give “fodder” to skeptics. So, they “cooked the books” by burying Briffa’s findings…in plain view. (see my accountants reference above)
In the emails, Jones referred to the “trick” as Mann’s trick. That “trick” is not innocent. It involved hiding the fact that 50 years of data showed that tree-ring data trended down while thermometer data trended up. So, they replaced 50 years of tree ring data with thermometer data. I cannot see how that is not an act of fraud. What they should have done is report their own findings of a divergence and remove their tree-ring data from the graph because they had discovered that the tree ring data is unreliable.
Mann’s IPCC trick is related to the Jones’ trick, but different. (The Jones trick has been explained in previous CA posts here, here and consists of replacing the tree ring data with temperature data after 1960 – thereby hiding the decline – and then showing the smoothed graph as a proxy reconstruction.) While some elements of the IPCC Trick can be identified with considerable certainty, other elements are still somewhat unclear.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
Just Hypothetically let’s assume:
1. Global warming is really happening
2. It is caused by me “polluting the atmosphere with CO2
from my car, the factory I work in, the electricity that I use, etc.
Someone please tell me how buying carbon credits from some poor village in Africa – so that I can continue to spew my same amount of carbon – is going to help this situation.
We have known that Mann’s hockey stick was based on flawed statistical analysis, and that he was concealing his raw data from peer review for a decade prior to climate-gate–the marxist media ensured that no sheeple where exposed to this fact. Mann is the grand-daddy of global warming scientific fraud–he showed the way and the rest followed.
What are those claims about the retreating glaciers based on?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
And, what’s really happening?
time lapsed arctic sea ice 1978 – 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8SGs_gnFk
time lapsed Antarctic sea Ice video, plus background 1978-2009
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/antarctic-sea-ice-complete-video/
What the ice core record shows
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
That’s already been done. Several times. But the dirty little secret about the hockey stick is that the argument isn’t over the blade, it’s over the handle. You don’t get an impressive “hockey stick” shape if the handle’s as contorted as a root. The blade part really isn’t in dispute; what “Mike’s trick” was all about is making the handle flat. Which gets into the whole MWP thing.
Just remember, when they’re trying to disappear the MWP this badly, there’s a reason. Dig here.
They blame not enough snow on Global Warming and too much snow on Global Warming.
Enough already, make up your minds. The truth is Global Warming zealots have no evidence any Climate Change is manmade.
Global Warming is a religion to these wackos. Everything that happens is blamed on Global Warming. The money that is stolen from American Tax Payers to fund these Global Warming myths is astronomical! It is Corruption at its worst. Politicians who have pushed this religion/cult/hoax on America should be wearing Orange Jumpsuits now!
http://notyrants.blogspot.com/2010/02/mark-levin-on-global-warming.html
48 Redbear: as you obviously suspect, it’s not going to help at all! But that was never the idea, was it? The idea was just to get some money moving in the direction of the people who wanted more of it and, in the process, to give them the opportunity to feel really, really superior to all the rest of the poor schlubs who were just working for a living, or keeping the water buffalo moving to harvest the rice, or whatever. Somebody, somewhere, for a little time–will feel SUPERIOR!!–because they got you to throw money away on carbon credits. Mission accomplished.
67 percent of America is covered with snow.
My daughter lives 10 miles from Myrtle Beach SC,
4 inches of snow,
(no one can remember that much snow on the beach.)
Climate Scientist email- from ‘Climatgate’
……………..
“the earth should be getting warmer,
that it is not is a travesty.”
MAN MADE PREDICTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?
“IT’S NOT NICE TO MOCK MOTHER NATURE”
To AF_Vet: No — the difference is that Inhofe is a self-made idiot whereas Gore was/is has been a whipping boy by right wing numbnuts ever since that “invented the Internet” stuff was made up by Republicans (mostly Bush & Company) to sucker the gullible. In other words Gore is just a windmill that you guys keep accusing of being a dragon, whereas Inhofe is a windmill off its bearings.
#48 Redbear: the theory is that the money goes to developing countries so they can afford to buy more carbon-efficient technology to replace what they might normally use — so maybe instead of building a power plant that burns coal in an old-fashioned boiler they could buy a more efficient modern plant.
#x everyone-talking-about-wikipedia-as-a-source: I actually find Wikipedia pretty useful in general, but like any secondary source you have to use it carefully. In the case of climate-related stuff in particular, though, there has been a very active small group rewriting the Wikipedia articles from the “warmist” position. See this article in the National Post for more.
As a result, I wouldn’t trust a Wikipedia article on this topic very highly.
Posters like BC can’t stand on facts and logic to support their biases, so they have to distract us to name calling to distract us. BTW, Inhofe seems to be the only senator to take on issues that other Republicans should, but won’t.
‘..Shaolin Priest simply by walking on the rice paper it is written on.’
cfbleachers.. that was great! That’s pretty ‘thin’. Karen Carpenter thin. O.k. admittedly a tad far.
As for the t.v. series, ‘Branded’, I watched the reruns at times as a kid. Oh, a Cohen brothers movie, ‘The Big Lebowski’ gave the show some kudos as well.
You’re a better man than I in giving Mann some wiggle room in this Climategate pickle.
As for you BC, the author of this article and commenter Just Passing Through gave you lucid responses to your emotionally tinged nonsense.
Though your response is ‘right wing numbnuts’ and defending Al Gore. In the grownup world that’s called ‘deflection’.
The National Post..? Really? Then again it’s better than the WWF, IPCC ’07 Report, RealClimate and others you’ve copy and pasted which has proven to be total nonsense..
So good to have you, BC.
It was wrong for IPCC to put poorly sourced items in their report, and VERY wrong for Pachauri to a) continue to insist on them and b) profit from them. That isn’t good science.
As for the hockey stick, I think this
But the dirty little secret about the hockey stick is that the argument isn’t over the blade, it’s over the handle. You don’t get an impressive “hockey stick” shape if the handle’s as contorted as a root. The blade part really isn’t in dispute; what “Mike’s trick” was all about is making the handle flat. Which gets into the whole MWP thing.
is a very good point. The recent rise in temperatures is undisputed. What’s disputed is whether it might have been warmer, recently, for reasons unrelated to manmade carbon dioxide.
But the MWP, even if it is as big as skeptics want it to be, is a bit of a red herring. Suppose your are a smoker and you think you might be getting lung cancer. Well, you know for a fact that 15% of people who get lung cancer don’t smoke. Should you conclude that your smoking is nothing to worry about? Analogously, the MWP might have been warmer, or might not, but the connection between putting lots of carbon dioxide in the air and rising temperatures is as solidly known as the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
What’s funny to me is that people keep going on about “vinyards in Britain”. Britain has vinyards NOW
http://www.snooth.com/wine/wickham-vineyards-vintage-selection-dry-white-hampshire-england-2008/
and did in 1665 when Samuel Pepys visited one.
@Charlie Martin
Actually, BC, you’re making yourself a poster boy for the notion that there’s relatively little about science, and relatively much about political aims, in the argument from the “warmist” side.
Ever get around to reading any of the papers I linked to? Might not want to say there’s relatively little about science, until you do…
#58 Charlie Martin-
Yes, that is the “theory” but based on an examination of history, the money from the carbon offsets will most likely end up in the Swiss bank accounts of third world dictators and U.N. funcionaries who ostensibly “manage” the program.
Two seemingly totally divergent points of view.
One suggests that the data is consistent and “settled” that temperatures are warmer and the Medieval Warming Period is “a bit of a red herring”.
Another suggests that the manipulation of the data relied upon was intentionally presented in such a way as to give a false picture, for the purposes of the movement of trillions of dollars, the overwhelming bulk of which…would be “redistributed wealth” by socialist leaning activists in America and Europe.
Phil Jones has apparently admitted (albeit in a weak, tepid and self-protective manner) that his record keeping was sloppy and disorganized. That he doesn’t believe that most scientists believe the matters related to this “science” are “settled”, and that critics should formulate their own datasets…although, not with his help, since he is incapable and apparently unwilling to share…due to only, solely…his “disorganization”…and heaven forbid…any intent to present a false and fake picture to the world which would lead to “wealth redistribution” on a scale so massive, it would impact the world economy.
….the recent rise in temperatures is undisputed. What’s disputed is whether it might have been warmer, recently, for reasons unrelated to manmade carbon dioxide.
But the MWP, even if it is as big as skeptics want it to be, is a bit of a red herring. Suppose your are a smoker and you think you might be getting lung cancer. Well, you know for a fact that 15% of people who get lung cancer don’t smoke. Should you conclude that your smoking is nothing to worry about? Analogously, the MWP might have been warmer, or might not, but the connection between putting lots of carbon dioxide in the air and rising temperatures is as solidly known as the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
Those still unfamiliar with the details of “Mike’s Nature Trick” can read my full analysis here. In a nutshell, the Climategate conspirators found it necessary to terminate certain proxy-generated (from tree ring density measurements) series at the 1960 mark and splice on “actual” temperature readings (which we now know were themselves manipulated) to hide the fact that their proxies showed a decline in temperatures at that point.
It’s interesting that Jones told the BBC on Friday that he was “justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time.” For however he spins it, the divergence between proxy and instrumental temperature readings after 1960 revealed serious design flaws in the proxy reconstructions.
In December, I observed that such flaws challenge the entire regression analysis dating back to 1000 AD. Given Jones’s admitted acceptance of at least a NH MWP, is there any doubt that neither of these two Hockey-Stick shaped NH graphs represents the reality of the previous millennium? Or that Jones and company were fully aware of the fraud baked into them, as were the assorted U.S. and U.N. agencies that widely published and referenced them?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html
For the purposes of arguments on this site, can anyone agree that:
Continued burning of anything that puts toxic chemicals in the air is good?
That you would rather generate 1KW of electricity by burning oil from a purchased middle eastern country rather than put up a windmill in a cornfield?
That drilling thousands of feet down in desolate yet unspoiled wilderness for gunk made from dead dinosaurs; spending a great deal of energy to refine the gunk into plastic and turning that plastic into a shopping bag to be used once then bury it in the ground where it remains a plastic bag foreveris really a good use of our economic and technological might?
That tearing the top off a mountain to get some coal, which at some point turns into acid rain, is really the best use of a mountain?
I didn’t think so.
I don’t care if the world is warming or cooling, or turning into the weather they have in San Diego. It’s not conservative or liberal to think that as a country, we can do better.
When there is less snow, the Global Warming nuts say that’s because of global warming. When there is more snow, they say it’s because of global warming. Make up your minds!
They are on Video saying no snow means Global Warming. I think the Senator Inhofe knows best.
Charles – The IPCC is the “gold standard” just the way AGW is “accepted science.”
BC @ #16: There you go with the ad hominems. If you disagree with some one, tell us why rather than hurl epithets.
Finally, a good rule of thumb about environmentalists:
They’re watermelons. They use environmental scare stories to try and get government intervention that reduces the scope of our freedom
TiredRobot, do you know what a “red herring” is?
While those who advocate the Climate Change agenda still cling to it despite revelations their settled science is now revealed as unsettled, the very real fact is, unless & until each & every one of the false forecasts, prognostications, predictions, & beliefs, are justified, taking any legislative draconian actions is not only unjustified, its downright insane.
China & Russia now report many of the temperature stations used to record surface temperatures, especially stations in huge cold regions like Siberia, have been eliminated from the tallies on temperature. How can that be? Why eliminate the cold weather station readings? Who made the decision? And despite all of that, has anyone accounted for the dozens of stations located in America, on airport tarmacs, on rooftops, on parking lots, beside A/C condensers, etc? The cold region stations in America were also eliminated & scientists use interpolations to establish readings based on readings from the warmer station locations! Huh?
There is far too much chicanery going on here. If the evil oil industry people were doing this, they would be hung out to dry & rightly so. So why should we accept such shenanigans from the ‘green industry’ types who stand to make billions when their oppressive legislative mandates are imposed on people. Their evil is just as evil as the oil industries evil.
Inhofe & Lord Monckton deserve praise from all. They deserve those Nobel prizes, but then again, I doubt they would attack any credibility or honor in an award from such politically motivated scabs.
Climate Change is dead & these revelations are their tombstone epitaphs. “We lied & they caught us”
Way late to the game here, but I couldn’t help but laugh at BC’s proof and assertions of Inhofe a clueless idiot, and my home state made up of insecurity. Typical of the coastal mentality. But David Corn as proof of your claims? That is parody, right?
Why should Oklahoma be insecure? Contrary to every poll done about my ignorant, backwards state, we have much lower unemployment than the national average, actually require a balanced budget, have a rainy day fund set aside, and are now the reddest of red states where Obama didn’t win one county out of seventy-seven. Obama was thought of so poorly here, Barry couldn’t even pull the gambling casino vote.
Given the abysmal performance of your Dear Leader Benevolent Barack, I’m feeling quite smug and prophetic, and the state appears to be incredibly prescient.
Stand up and be proud America. Repulican or Democrat or Independent or… Global Warming is a false that Al Gore has legislated American money to pay for him to promote. Period! American Tax Dollars are paying for Al Gore and his promotion of bills and legislation that put him into office and promoted his welfare after leaving office. WAKE UP. There is no Global Warming. Only justification to spend American Tax Payer Money to promote Al Gore and his buddies. It is a total farce. All the media that supports are choking on what they said and backing up saying I didn’t mean that I meant this. Kinda Clinton asking what is is.All the facts and tit for tat are not going to change the fact that Congress can award AMERICAN TAXPAYER MONEY any place they want to, so long as the average American is kept in the dark about the truth of WAISTE of TAXPAYER MONEY. There is no Global Warming due to Human Beings.