A few more things to say about those hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia. First, the latest news: It looks like the head of the university's Climate Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones, is stepping aside temporarily while the entire matter comes under independent review. Seems fair. As I noted in my last post, some of Jones's e-mails sounded awfully unprofessional, especially the ones where he told other researchers to delete their e-mail correspondence. (They didn't, but still.) Penn State is also investigating.
Now, that said, the growing mantra among conservatives that these e-mails somehow discredit the entire body of climate science is getting overheated and absurd. Here's the New York Post complaining that, because CRU discarded one set of raw surface temperature data back in the 1980s (they still have the processed data on file, and the raw data still exists at the original weather stations, although it'd be a pain to collect again), the whole idea of man-made warming is therefore thrown into doubt.
But that second part doesn't follow. For one, CRU isn't the only group in the world tracking global temperature trends. As Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist at the University of Illinois, points out, there are at least three other groups, including NASA, NOAA, and the Japan Meteorological Agency, that have been analyzing surface temperature data for well over a century (there's a fair bit of overlap in what raw data they use, but they all have their own ways of analyzing it). Here's how they all stack up (click to enlarge):
All very similar, all showing the same clear upward trend. (If anything, note that CRU readings have been on the low side in recent years, largely because they don't include temps from the Arctic, where the Earth is warming most rapidly.) I suppose the Post could always argue that all these agencies are in cahoots, somehow coordinating fraud so as to fabricate global warming and achieve whatever dastardly ends they're trying to achieve.
Meanwhile, there have been plenty of allegations that climate scientists were engaged in statistical chicanery to manufacture the famous "hockey stick", which reconstructs global temperatures going back 1,000 years and shows that the rate of twentieth-century warming has been unprecedented. Many of the latest accusations, from what I've seen, are based on CRU e-mails quoted out of context—see here, here, or here for some rebuttals.
But set that aside for a sec: I've never understood the obsession with the hockey stick. The argument that greenhouse gases are warming the Earth doesn't even depend on it. As Potsdam oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf explains, that case was built on a variety of attribution studies that look at recent temperature trends and sift through different possible culprits, such as CO2 or solar variations or volcanoes. What's more, if by some chance all those studies turned out to be flawed, we'd still be left with the basic fact—rooted in nineteenth-century physics—that more CO2 in the air will change the radiation balance of the earth, combined with climate-sensitivity studies that look at what previous CO2 increases have done to the Earth's equilibrium temperature. The main debate, at this point, is how strong that warming effect will be. The best historical evidence suggests it's unlikely that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will lead to an increase of less than 2ºC, while recent observations have suggested that the IPCC may have understated the pace of warming (Arctic ice melting faster than expected, and so on).
In any case, to echo my original post, yes, climate scientists should take pains to be as transparent as possible, and some of the CRU e-mails cut against that. That needs to be remedied. Georgia Tech's Judith Curry also has a sharp take, noting that good-faith engagement with skeptics can be a positive thing. But there's no evidence that climate data has been fudged, and even if there was a smoking gun in the CRU e-mails, the basis for what we know about man-made climate change still comes from a vast array of sources—sadly, it doesn't hinge on this particular handful of scientists.* I realize the National Review editors are excited about this story and want to lash out and scream "LIAR!!!!!" but a little skepticism on their part might not be so bad.
*I say "sadly" because, frankly, I'd much prefer if global warming was fake. It's not a terribly fun issue to cover and gets a bit gloomy after awhile. Just sayin'...
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (7)
The obsession with the hockey stick is part of a disinformation campaign. The goal is to sow confusion (among the public). There have been other targets before that, and when they fail with one thing they move on to the next. But the ultimate target is the ordinary person, who doesn't know that much about the science, and who they hope can be led to confusion or doubt by claims that such and such disproves everything climate scientists say about climate. They combine targeted attacks with a general level of noise about everything, even when most of the noise is complete nonsense.
You are correct -- the scientific consensus about climate change has never been about any one study, or even any ... view full comment
The obsession with the hockey stick is part of a disinformation campaign. The goal is to sow confusion (among the public). There have been other targets before that, and when they fail with one thing they move on to the next. But the ultimate target is the ordinary person, who doesn't know that much about the science, and who they hope can be led to confusion or doubt by claims that such and such disproves everything climate scientists say about climate. They combine targeted attacks with a general level of noise about everything, even when most of the noise is complete nonsense.
You are correct -- the scientific consensus about climate change has never been about any one study, or even any one data set. It comes from a combination of basic understanding of physics, chemistry, and an abundance of data from various sources that lead to one conclusion. Not so long ago, it was the fact of warming in the 20th century that the deniers attempted to discredit. But you don't even need the temperature record to know that warming has occurred over the 20th century -- you can infer that from the responses alone.
I'm looking at the graph: from 1860 to 1950 (before CO2 effects), earth warmed 0.60 degrees. From 1950 to 2009 (as CO2 effects kicked in), earth warmed 0.20 degrees.
The hockey stick matters-IPCC 2007 dropped it-you know it was false and Gore and others used it to start the hype.
These emails matter-they establish a concerted effort to alter records, exagerate the numbers, promote one theory, prevent alternate theories and hijack the press.
You also know that catastrophic global warming can only occur due to changes in cloud cover and rain-which the IPCC acknowledges their models do not handle and monumental evidence from "peer" reviewed material suggests the modeling level ... view full comment
I'm looking at the graph: from 1860 to 1950 (before CO2 effects), earth warmed 0.60 degrees. From 1950 to 2009 (as CO2 effects kicked in), earth warmed 0.20 degrees.
The hockey stick matters-IPCC 2007 dropped it-you know it was false and Gore and others used it to start the hype.
These emails matter-they establish a concerted effort to alter records, exagerate the numbers, promote one theory, prevent alternate theories and hijack the press.
You also know that catastrophic global warming can only occur due to changes in cloud cover and rain-which the IPCC acknowledges their models do not handle and monumental evidence from "peer" reviewed material suggests the modeling level and signs are wrong (cloud cover may be a negative feedback).
I've read both sides-and the CO2 side is dead wrong.
Enjoy the coolaid.
The hockey stick wasn't dropped by the IPCC in 2007—it's still right there in Chapter 6 of WG1, along with a dozen other reconstructions that show similar results. See fig 6.10 on p. 467:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
The hockey stick wasn't dropped by the IPCC in 2007—it's still right there in Chapter 6 of WG1, along with a dozen other reconstructions that show similar results. See fig 6.10 on p. 467:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
bubu lubu sven is at it again. yes, there was no pollution caused whatsoever by the Industrial revolution, the great factories in Europe and the US ran on fairy dust. People did not burn coal to heat their homes, they warmed themselves by the glow of Adam Smith's wealth of nations.
And contrary to physical evidence and satellite photography, the glaciers are not retreating, the global ice is not melting, islands in the South pacific are not being flooded, nope. We should ignore the physical evidence and rely soley on the belief of bubulubu sven, who, I am sure, would tell the people on islands like Kiribati that that is not seawater that is up the their waists, it is Kool Aid from liberals an ... view full comment
bubu lubu sven is at it again. yes, there was no pollution caused whatsoever by the Industrial revolution, the great factories in Europe and the US ran on fairy dust. People did not burn coal to heat their homes, they warmed themselves by the glow of Adam Smith's wealth of nations.
And contrary to physical evidence and satellite photography, the glaciers are not retreating, the global ice is not melting, islands in the South pacific are not being flooded, nope. We should ignore the physical evidence and rely soley on the belief of bubulubu sven, who, I am sure, would tell the people on islands like Kiribati that that is not seawater that is up the their waists, it is Kool Aid from liberals and they only need drink it. Ok bozolobo, buy some beach front property there.
You read both sides....what a joke. Is it anything like that study you presented to me about Japanese health care that admitted that it took things for granted, and had guess work, and that you proceeded to misquote and misrepresent? A paper written by a couple of college interns working at a consulting firm, a paper that would get thrown out of every reputable college everywhere since it did not source any of its blanket statements (some of which were absurd on its face) You remember, the one I completely and utterly refuted sending you back under your bed in humiliation. Yeah, you read both sides. The one written by that renowned climatologist Rush Limbaugh, and the one that confirmed global warming written by a 3rd grader. Yes, I am sure it was balanced.
Honest to God, do you even attempt to read things that don't conform to your own narrow minded set of beliefs? Oh check that, I know the answer, I know you don't.
Bton, I addressed your comments on Japanese health care-with interesting data from Federal Health Insurance Program and Kaiser Family Foundation. I also asked you, without including your name, to tell us what you teach and where. You didn't respond.
The history of the world is replete with the environmental changes you listed-the overwhelming majority of which occurred before manmade CO2. I acknowledged the world is heating up. The question remains: how much is due to CO2 and will the positive feedbacks of cloud changes and water vapour changes actually lead to catastrophic warming.
Did you look at the graph presented with Brad's dity? Why has 3/4 of the warming occured befor ... view full comment
Bton, I addressed your comments on Japanese health care-with interesting data from Federal Health Insurance Program and Kaiser Family Foundation. I also asked you, without including your name, to tell us what you teach and where. You didn't respond.
The history of the world is replete with the environmental changes you listed-the overwhelming majority of which occurred before manmade CO2. I acknowledged the world is heating up. The question remains: how much is due to CO2 and will the positive feedbacks of cloud changes and water vapour changes actually lead to catastrophic warming.
Did you look at the graph presented with Brad's dity? Why has 3/4 of the warming occured before CO2 could cause any climate change. You can harmonize a line from 1860 through today-and-one could argue that the world was just heating up anyway. We do know that the world has heated and cooled throughout it's history.
One could turn your ad hominum and grade school comments right back at you. Why bother.
What's truly real-boys-when you take a room of people, allow both sides to present their evidence and arguments-your side loses. Simple as that. If that's narrow minded-I'm proud to be one.
As I told you before, I run a high school debate team. Many of our topics deal with global warming-directly or indirectly. I live in the Bay Area-a liberal bastion. Therefor, our kids must be prepared to debate both sides of any issue-including man-made global warming. So, I have read both sides. Your side, though, is hard to ignore. The other side, as the Anglin emails show, must be stamped out.
Finally, on our last posts, I wondered how a person of your behavior could actually be a college professor.
Finally, as I've informed you before, I don't listen to Rush, I don't watch Fox News-very little of my information comes from consertives. I spend the lions share of my political informing time on this website, listening to progressive radio and watching Keith/Ed/Rachel.
Later.
Impressive, lobosven. First three paragraphs, three falsehoods. Your warming claim: Look at the graph again and try to cherry-pick more accurately. 1860: -0.35C, 1950: -0.3C (blue line, HadCRU). Maybe you meant to say 1858 to 1943, but that would have given the cherry-picking away. Hockey stick: see Brad above, and also the National Academy panel that evaluated it after McIntrye and McKittrick raised a fuss, and agreed that the conclusions were sound. Or just read the damned report, it is a free download -- you might learn something. The emails: Evidently you believe everything you are told by some sources, and doubt everything you hear from others. As for your catastrophic warming claim, I ... view full comment
Impressive, lobosven. First three paragraphs, three falsehoods. Your warming claim: Look at the graph again and try to cherry-pick more accurately. 1860: -0.35C, 1950: -0.3C (blue line, HadCRU). Maybe you meant to say 1858 to 1943, but that would have given the cherry-picking away. Hockey stick: see Brad above, and also the National Academy panel that evaluated it after McIntrye and McKittrick raised a fuss, and agreed that the conclusions were sound. Or just read the damned report, it is a free download -- you might learn something. The emails: Evidently you believe everything you are told by some sources, and doubt everything you hear from others. As for your catastrophic warming claim, I really don't know one way or the other.
And nobody has attempted to claim that every variation in global temperature is man-made. So I don't really understand why you seem to be investing so much energy in knocking down that particular straw man.
You really should look into global warming a little more deeply...others are, regardless of their political discomfort.
A major breach of accepted scientific method may have occurred, and may be continuing. Even an hour's reading of the released text and code comments is shocking...and far beyond normal sausage making gore among professionals. Scientists, after all, are susceptible to the hubris and the debasement that represents the dark side of human conduct.
1. Evidence in the so-called "documents" subfolders of the CRU release indicates that raw data was repeatedly manipulated to cause temperature history to conform to the hockey stick shape that activists and politicians need to sway publ ... view full comment
You really should look into global warming a little more deeply...others are, regardless of their political discomfort.
A major breach of accepted scientific method may have occurred, and may be continuing. Even an hour's reading of the released text and code comments is shocking...and far beyond normal sausage making gore among professionals. Scientists, after all, are susceptible to the hubris and the debasement that represents the dark side of human conduct.
1. Evidence in the so-called "documents" subfolders of the CRU release indicates that raw data was repeatedly manipulated to cause temperature history to conform to the hockey stick shape that activists and politicians need to sway public opinion. Be aware that in climate science a 0.1 degree C change is deemed very significant, and that’s within an agenda driven code-makers reach. The scientist misconduct revealed in the CRU release could constitute distortion with the intent to deceive...for power and monetary reward. Meretricious behavior? Or just advancing shared goals?
2. The customary peer review process that protects us from scientific advocacy and fraud was clearly stacked in favor of the AGW hypothesis and actively repressed dissenting views. Some among the MSM appear to have been complicit in this suppression, or useful idiots.
3. Many recent developments within climate science cast substantial doubt that the AGW hypothesis is valid and predictive. As discussed in their own posts, and related comments in the computer code, hiding the recent temperature decline has absorbed much energy at East Anglia. Maybe they should spend some of that time evaluating alternative hypotheses.
Finally, in reading the MSM on this subject, an embarrassing role reversal is noticeable. The more detailed and thoughtful information is found in readers’ comments, while the main articles seem defensive, vague, confused, and opaque in comparison.
These inquiries have been begun among the curious, the frustrated, and the skeptical. But the results will be demanded by the electorate, before any legislation will pass Congress. The results should attract all who have an interest in truth and the integrity of professional science. Much information and comment is being circulated on the internet.
So why do some among the MSM appear to lack even minimal curiosity about the subject? Case closed? Higher priority issues? Bias?
For further research inquire into the following:
A. http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php
B. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-...
C. http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/still-hiding-the-decline/
D. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-...
E. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html
F. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870393940457456742391702540...
G. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870393940457456742391702540...