Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Global Warming Alarmists unconcerned by deceitful practices

From our good friend and frequent commenter Wakefield Tolbert, who was kind enough to forward this retort to a recent Mark Steyn article on Climategate:

"The so-called ‘climategate’ is climate change denial’s last gasp. Hackers stole ten years worth of emails, and they were scoured for anything that might appear damning, finding only two that have been endlessly paraphrased since. The term ‘trick’ is commonly used in science journals as an accepted clever methodology rather than an intent to deceive, and the study mentioned in the email that includes the word ‘trick’ plays no part in official IPCC findings. The ‘can’t explain the decline’ email refers to a study of tree ring formation, and rather than being a secret, the scientist who wrote the email also wrote a public article about his inability to explain his findings."

Thus said the ostrich as he placed his head in a hole.

The nature of the files made available in the document dump lead one to believe that it was a collection of files in preparation for a FOI response, and though the compilation could have been located, hacked into and downloaded if the computer where the file was stored was active on the net, it is still true that someone at Hadley put the file together and that the information disclosed was all subject to FOI requests anyway. In essence, the document dump partially satisfies multiple FOI requests which Phil Jones had been stonewalling for years. The other possibility is that a whistle blower at Hadley CRU had access to the files and dumped them on the web. Either way there is hardly cause for concern as to how the files came to be available. In fact, of particular interest in the material contained was Jones' own advice on how he goes about blocking FOI requests. He advises scientists working with him on how to avoid releasing information that they were required by law to release. I'm sorry, but the plea for compassion on the grounds that the files were "ill got" gains them no favor from me.

As to the claims regarding the tricks Dr. Jones, so often defended as being innocent and taken out of context, Steve McIntyre has an excellent analysis of the context for the ‘trick’ used to hide the decline of the tree ring data discussed here. Drawing from the e-mail records made available from Hadley CRU, the context becomes clear:
the late 20th century decline in the Briffa reconstruction was perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, that “everyone in the room at IPCC” thought that the Briffa decline was a “problem” and a “potential distraction/detraction”

The study referred to that Phil Jones was trying to trick out was Dr. Keith Briffa's tree ring data, which was presented in the IPCC report. It's details were initially hidden physically by being covered over by Michael Mann's and Phil Jones' data, all presented on the same graph. When McIntyre requested details of the covered section, that is when Jones decided to replace the tree ring data with the land temperature data from 1961 onward, thereby invalidating the information source. Obviously, you cannot do that with any integrity. From my perspective, science is not about hiding the data to streamline the discussion. Such manipulation is done in the realm of politics.

By far and away the most damning information from the Hadley document dump was the code itself. As you recall, the Harry Read me file was clearly a very poor tool, having been patched together and branched onto, rather than being managed with its future growth in mind.

Shannon Love has done an excellent series of articles on the problems with the computer codes used in the models that were being used to tell us of impending global overheating. Her most recent offering includes the following helpful quote from The Guardian:
"Computer code is also at the heart of a scientific issue. One of the key features of science is deniability: if you erect a theory and someone produces evidence that it is wrong, then it falls. This is how science works: by openness, by publishing minute details of an experiment, some mathematical equations or a simulation; by doing this you embrace deniability. This does not seem to have happened in climate research."

In addition to this, it is now known that the IPCC 2007 Report predicting the complete loss of the Himalayan glaciers in the next twenty five years was based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. In point of fact, it was inserted into the report purely as a political ploy to apply pressure on the governments in question. This is absolutely outrageous, and utterly undermines the alarmists.

Ultimately, it is not a question of whether or not the skeptics have proven that warming is not taking place. It is up to the alarmists to prove that it is. The tricks and deception employed by the alarmists undermines everything they have attempt to foist upon us. They have failed to make their case, the science is not settled, and the efforts to "settle" the science have been purely political in nature.

Meanwhile, you just gotta love this:
“Today, Michael Mann was scheduled to give a colloquium on climate change at the University of Pennsylvania, where I am a graduate student. As you may know, Philadelphia has been hit by multiple snowstorms in the past week. Today, for what I am told is the first time since the mid-1990s, the university suspended normal operations due to snow, and his colloquium on climate change has been postponed.”



  1. WOW. *wipes brow*

    I'll have to tweak some more and check back with WUWT. Don't worry, as this time I was far less of a horse's ass and just asked questions.

    Oh--BTW--not to make too much of this, but on that site ChicagoBoyz, I do wonder if Shannon is male and not female?

    I'm not sure, and never asked myself...

  2. But whatever, Love answered my stuff well, and reminded me too that computer coding is full of trickery if need be and that it can very well be either horridly sloppy or manipulated to a foreordained conclusion.

    That's not my forte', but I understand what was being said...

  3. Excellent, BTW.

    Here's the latest, Nick.

    Yes, I forwarded onto Watts Up.

    The print version is also highly recommended, as it has an interview with Dr. David Morrison and he allegeldy shoots down all the common Watts/McIntyre type arguments, among others, such as "carbon is good", and "there really is not consensus", etc.

    Enjoy, if for no other reason than to reload your bandolier of ammo, Nick.