Saturday, November 21, 2009

Climate Change

Page 1, above the fold of our school's newspaper, was an article showing that climate change hysteria is alive and well at the school at which I teach. Read the article online, see for yourself if you agree with the author. That author is what's known as a "true believer" in the Church of Global Warming. (For the sake of professionalism, considering that this is the school at which I teach, I'll reserve further comment on this student's article--but you might guess what I'd say.)

Now read this summary of the emails that were (illegally?) hacked from some prominent global warming enthusiasts/scientists in England. They don't sound very enthused with the data they're getting, do they?

And they can't be very happy that their charades have been exposed to public scrutiny, either.

I find it hilariously coincidental that the first article and these emails were released at about the same time. :-)

Update: One blogger refers to the Climate Research Unit email release as the biggest scientific scandal since Piltdown Man.

Update #2: This post compares what's in the emails with what those same scientists were contemporaneously saying publicly. It doesn't make the CRU scientists look very good.

Update #3: So what about all that consensus? There's some information in the CRU emails about that, too:

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
Global warming adherents, your Church has been exposed as a sham.

Update #4, 11/22/09: Here's a pretty good summary of what's going on:

But, at least on this first look, it appears that the three scandals are:

* First, a real attempt by a small group of scientists to subvert the peer-review process and suppress dissenting voices. (For another look at this, by a respected climate scientist who was one of the targets, see these posts on Roger Pielke Sr.’s blog.) This is at best massively unethical.
* Second, a willingness to manipulate the data to make a political case. This is certainly misconduct and possibly scientific fraud. This, if it proves true, should make these scientists subject to strong disciplinary action, even termination of their tenured positions.
* Third, what gives every appearance of an actual conspiracy to prevent data from being released as required by the Freedom of Information Acts in the US and UK. If this is proven true, that is a federal crime.

These emails and the data associated, taken together, raise really important questions about the whole scientific structure of AGW. Is the data really valid? Has the data been effectively peer reviewed and have attempts to falsify been fairly treated? Is CO2-forced AGW really the best hypothesis?Until these questions are answered, the various attempts to “deal with the climate change crisis” have no acceptable scientific basis.
No acceptable scientific basis.

Update #5, 11/22/09: When in doubt, delete.

These emails appear to show that, when faced with a legitimate request under Britain's Freedom of Information Act, these global warming alarmists preferred to delete their emails with one another about the crucially important IPCC report--the main basis for the purported "consensus" in favor of anthropogenic global warming--rather than allow them to come to light. This is one of many instances in the East Anglia documents where the global warming alarmists act like a gang of co-conspirators rather than respectable scientists.
Update #6, 11/22/09: It just keeps getting better.
Al Gore's award-winning global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth," socked two years ago by a British court ruling that found several errors, is facing additional scrutiny with the release of a new documentary that seeks to rebut many of Gore's claims.


Anonymous said...

Can you think of a more perfect example of the success of propaganda? I was gagging (and throwing things) as I read the tripe that spilled out from that child's keyboard (emphasis on "child"). Why do we communicate to the children that they are somehow more intelligent than the adults? (Of course, Algore said so in one of his presentations to the kiddies.)

Pardon me while I puke...

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, the 2009 January-October world temperature is tied with 2007 as the fifth warmest on record.

Hummm, actual data keeps getting in the way of global cooling.


Anonymous said...

"...only 13 percent of the Rio student sample conclude that there is no problem. This is a testament to the good science education the students have had at Rio."

One can only hope that an analysis of the errant 13% would reveal a lack of exposure to science at Rio. And clearly there are those who have been taught science but have not learned science.

And, of course, some are convinced that political conviction can bend the arc of scientific reality.

I do enjoy the Piltdown Man reference. Creationists like to trumpet that hoax whenever possible. Of course, it was no Evolution-denier that exposed that fraud; it was actual scientists.

Darren said...

What about the scientists who don't agree with the global warming hysteria? Are they to be disregarded?

Anonymous said...

"What about the scientists who don't agree with the global warming hysteria? Are they to be disregarded?"


There are "scientists" who are proponents of Intelligent Design and The Flat Earth Theory. There are "skeptics" who are proponents of "noetic sciences." All are to be disregarded as well. They have chosen the path of non-science. They cannot get legitimate research grants nor can they get published in legitimate scientific journals.

They are not missed.

Darren said...

Your certainty regarding global warming puts you at the same level of religious zealotry as the "Young Earth" proponents and the others you mentioned.

You're no better than they are. Congratulations.

Ellen K said...

My understanding of the scientific methodology is that when calculation have been made based on observation or experimentation, you have to accurately outline the procedure to allow it to be duplicated. Crosschecking is the way to verify results. But if you are willing to fudge results to stampede the group into a conclusion based on false data, then all you are doing is perpetrating fraud. I admit giggling when I read this on Kerplunk earlier today. After having disclaimers on "Inconvient Truth" this is the most amusing thing I have read all day.

allen (in Michigan) said...

You sure you don't want to prescribe scourging and burning at the stake for scientists who won't see revealed truth when it's veracity is proven by a denial of research funding and an embargo on publication?

Might as well drag in the sorts of punishments meted out to unbelievers if you're using language appropriate to the situation.

Anonymous said...

Founder of Weather Channel and 30,000 other scientists beg to differ about the veracity of Global Warming...

Anonymous said...

Yay! A petition. Creationists have those as well

Anonymous said...

Slightly strange stuff going on here in rural NH. I'm watching half a dozen robins hopping around my front yard. Robins should NOT be here in late November. Also I should be going through two cups of sunflower seed a day at my birdfeeder, based on the last twenty years of experience. For the last month one cup a week has been plenty. Also the black capped chickadees should be swarming the feeder. They vanished completely six weeks ago.
I know this a shapshot anecdotal thing, but I sure don't like it.