The Skeptics are Vindicated
Late last week, emails and other data including source code for climate models, were obtained illegally from East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit. They were originally submitted to RealClimate.org whose staff did not post the data and then notified the CRU of the security breach. They were then uploaded to a Russian server where they were available for anonymous download and a link was posted on a blog called the Air Vent. Eventually it was discovered, downloaded, and then disseminated across the Internet. If you want to look at the actual file, you can find it at http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009.
A few things you’ll find when browsing the file:
- Efforts to prevent skeptical scientists from publishing peer-reviewed papers while at the same time touting peer-review as the only reliable source of scientific information
- Discussions of how to “correct” for data sets that don’t display the expected warming
- Discussions of erasing information lawfully requested through the UK’s equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act
- Horribly sloppy source code for climate models where errors are just ignored and the models continues operation
- Publically touting RealClimate.org as an objective site while privately controlling it to push their agenda
This late in the game, I have little to add that others haven’t already written, so I’ll link to what I think is some of the best analysis. I do want to make a few quick points of my own:
It doesn’t seem that these scientists were interested in truth. Enormous changes to our lifestyle are being proposed based on climate science. Trillions of dollars are at stake based on the outcome of this debate. We are constantly told by the mainstream climate scientists that the science is settlled and that we must enact radical changes to prevent runaway warming from occurring.
These emails demonstrate that the reality is that the science is anything but settled. Such enormous stakes demand that the evidence provided be particularly persuasive. Instead, we see sloppy work, rigged data, and efforts not to answer the questions of skeptics, but rather to silence them.
The interesting thing will be how government responds to the release of this data and whether or not they slow down their attempts to implement caps on carbon output. My prediction is that they will continue full speed ahead since it’s more about controlling our economies than anything else. If they really cared about the scientific outcome, they’d take the time to go back and fix the flaws with their data and reasoning.
Call your Senators. Tell them to vote NO on cap and trade.
Other analyses:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025022.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024993.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024996.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025011.php
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/the_real_problem_with_the_clim.php
http://volokh.com/2009/11/28/we%E2%80%99re-the-experts-trust-us-has-clearly-gone-by-the-wayside/
November 29th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Mike – you are a big fat liar and I hate you for being a hater.
You are silly, stupid and naive.
Global warming is a fact. Every scientist agrees its happening.
Stop trying to sell us your lies.
Stop speaking out against what the whole world (except you) knows to be true.
The science is settled – didnt you hear?
Besides, “climate change” is a much bigger problem than you understand because your right wing extremist mind isnt capable of understanding the extremely precise, extra accurate, super-duper UN modeling that made this theory a fact.
Don’t you have some rally you can attend and whine about racist stuff and hating poor people?
In all sincerity…this is just the tip of the iceberg – yes, thats a funny!
Ok, ok…Just wanted to get a head start on the name calling and ad hominem attacks!!
Good post. My lack of blog activity lately has been pathetic (work and meeting schedule is rough). Happy you beat me to it!
Chris Littleton
December 1st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
*Yawn*
No need to bash. Everyone knows that you guys are flat earthers also.
God you make Cincinnati SUCH an embaressment.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Oh and Chris. You never responded to me on Blog post http://cincinnatiteaparty.org/blog/?p=336 about using a Batpoop crazy Betsy McConaghy editorial as a basis in fact when she’s the biggest ill informed pundint out there.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 am
I find great irony in the fact that those who believe in the hyped religion of Man Made Global Warming are calling those who believe in the science that undermines such claims “flat earthers”. That’s just hilarious!
I just wonder how many of the Warming devotees were Cooling disciples in the 70s.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:33 am
Come on Will… flat earthers? Really? That’s just a silly accusation.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:44 am
@Will – you are all over the map sometimes. I looked back at Chris’s post.
1. He pointed out that he was quoting an *unsigned* editorial.
2. You never asked him to respond to anything. You just taunt in the last comment that he didn’t respond to anything Coleman wrote.
3. I have no idea who Betsy McConaghy is. A google search for “betsy mcconaghy” returns exactly two hits.
4. Criteria matter of course, but claiming that Besty (whoever she is) is the biggest ill informed pundit out there is pretty extreme given the existence of Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman (except when talking about free trade) and Maureen Dowd. They have the advantage of being crazy and well known unlike poor Betsy.
5. I’m still trying to figure out who Betsy is. I went to http://www.opinionjournal.com/about/whoweare.html and didn’t find anyone listed with a name who’s even close.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Mike,
Are you trying to tell me that because East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit has an ethics problem, that we should abandon all data collected, papers published, and research accomplished over the past half-century that pertains to pollution and pollution control measures?
If that’s the case, will you whole-heartedly change your position to support cap and trade legislation and help us get it through?
I mean, there are hundreds of times more cases of this exact thing happening in the opposition side of the climate change and pollution debate. If your criteria is a select case of a group of scientists not interested in truth, then by your reckoning we should abolish the Defense of Marriage Act for not being backed by any legitimate science, while we are at it, and all Cap and Trade opponents at the same time.
After all, a very similar approach was employed to control the proliferation of NO2 in our air, which has resulted in widespread success in 1) not destroying our economy, and 2) virtually eliminating the phenomenon known as “acid rain” and all of its ill effects from existence. That alone is more evidence to support the solution proposed by the so-called “cap and trade” legislation than any evidence that the opposition has brought to date. It even mutes many of the baseless “end of the American economy” arguments that have been made in the past.
Seriously? End all climate change legislation and debate on the virtue that East Anglia University has a credibility problem?
If that’s the case, then would you be willing to publicly announce opposition to anything Sarah Palin embraces and lobbies for? She’s got more on-the-record credibility problems than any single entity participating in any of these debates!
As for your #4 statement above, I’m sorry but your group hosts rallies that champion the virtues of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Both of them are 1) easily the most ill-informed pundits out there, and 2) easily the most frequently and unabashedly wrong pundits out there. Hands down.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Its intersting that MY ORIGINAL Questions about the article are now missing from that page.
As for “Betsy McCaughey” its funny that you DON’T know her since you and your group was spouting the “death panel” bull for months. Do you always spout “facts” without looking them up first or where they originate from?
And actually when you come down to it what merit is an unsigned OPINION EDITIORIAL?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:48 am
It’s interesting how you all reply to information like this. If you weren’t threatened by the information you wouldn’t be posting such negative comments. Mike, thank you for the information.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
It’s interesting how you all reply to information like this. If you weren’t threatened by the information you wouldn’t be posting such negative comments. Mike, thank you for the information.
The only thing threatened by this is the institution of reasoned debate in this country. Somehow along the way, the conservative movement decided that you only need to cite one isolated example of any sort of questionable behavior to “win” an argument against an idea that the conservative movement dislikes. However, in the face of numerous conservative-friendly issues, any and all questionable tactics, lies, and misinformation (just watch or listen to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh for a night) are completely fair and balanced as long as they support the conservative argument.
The witch-hunt being levied by the right against climate change science, as well as against the unrelated ACORN organization, is completely absurd. ACORN didn’t steal an election. Please show evidence that this occured.
The ironic thing is that there has been shown to be almost no evidence of any election-stealing conspiracy by ACORN, yet the conservative movement has embraced this as fact. Conversely, there have been decades of research evidencing that pollution controls, conservation mechanisms, and other means to fight pollution production and climate change would be beneficial, but the right doesn’t seem to want it because there isn’t “absolutely proof positive” evidence.
Even if we throw out all of East Anglia’s research work and data, there are still decades upon decades of research that provides a sufficient amount of backing for pollution-control being something we should endeavor to accomplish.
This brings me to the crux of my complaint. How am I supposed to take seriously a movement that takes “as fact” items that are completely non-sensical and have next to no backing facts in reality: 1) birth-certificate denialists, 2) climate-change-denialists, 3) ACORN-stole-the-election-theorists, 4) A group that claims that every single thing that they don’t like is “socialist” whether or not said thing actually bears any resemblance to a socialist program, while simultaneously abusing the trait that scientific exploration always leaves some room for argument, however narrow, to reason that legislation that is disliked by the right should not happen.
When I see: 1) A list of links to evidence of orchestrated election fraud that evidences the election being stolen, I might actually believe the anti-ACORN complaints bear merit. 2) An argument against climate change legislation that doesn’t involve a) cherry-picking excerpts from larger reports, b) cherry-picking individual cases of bad research or reporting practices, or c) arguments based purely upon what the author “thinks” will happen, without a proper evidence-conclusion sequence, I might just then believe that the anti-cap-and-trade camp has a meritorious argument. 3) If you can illustrate a) what actually is “socialist” about a subject, b) examples of how this “socialism” works, and c) define what “socialism” means without using the words “evil”, “un-american”, “communist”, “fascist”, or “Castro!”, then I might be able to accept that your cries of socialism are more than a boy crying “wolf!”.
December 10th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
What evidence do you have beyond this one email?
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
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 [sic] from1961 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.
Cheers, Phil