Posts Tagged ‘Climategate’

The Science is NOT settled

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Professor Phil Jones was  head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of east Anglia before Climategate.  He was in charge when all the numbers were put together that were used by IPCC  but he stood down pending an investigation.   CRU is one of the three sources of data for IPCC so comments by Jones are critical to the credibility of the IPCC.  In an interview on the BBC recently, Professor Jones said that there has been no “statistically significant” global warming since 1995.  To be specific, the “trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.”  In the same interview, he also conceded that the Middle Ages may have been warmer than now and went further by admitting that the science of climate change is far from settled  “There is still much that needs to be understood to reduce uncertainties”.

If the world knew all this in 1995, there would never have been a Kyoto accord, Al Gore would not have produced his slanted “Inconvenient Truth”, there would not have been a Copenhagen summit, there would not have been any proposals to implement Carbon trading – in short, we could have devoted all that energy to more useful things.

But the political momentum is hard to slow down – it takes politicians a long time to learn and an equally long time to unlearn.

Canada’s CBC blasts Climategate

Sunday, December 13th, 2009

Rex Murphy spoke about Climategate on CBC’s National news service yesterday and he was not kind to the scientists involved in  Climategate – in fact, his view is that the whole episode discredits the science of global warming.  He asks how can anyone now separate science from advocacy when they are talking about global warming.  See his video below.

Can we now focus on environment instead of the narrow faulty science of warming?

Temperature data does not support climate scare

Sunday, December 13th, 2009

Every now and then, we need a touch of reality.  There are quite accurate measurements of actual global temperature available – they are taken from satellites and measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.   Roy Spencer, climatologist  and former NASA scientist collects this data regularly and produces this graph.

Global temperature - 1979 - Nov 2009

Global temperature - 1979 - Nov 2009

What does this mean?  It does not mean we currently have global warming as predicted by IPCC.  If you follow the redline, you can see that its centre line is at 0.2 deg  for the period 2001 to 2009.  This is a lot less than what has been claimed.  If this trend continued, in another 30 years (2039) there would be 0.4 deg  and it would take 300 years to reach 2.0 degrees.

And still, the only reason given for the idea that even this small amount is caused by man is a computer model that scientists say they don’t fully understand (ask them about feedback) yet they use it to project warming.  They can’t even make a model to accurately predict short term weather – why would we believe they can predict it long term?  Why are we all bamboozled by scientists twisting models and data to prove something they have decided in advance?

Petition Harper to establish a Royal Commission

Wednesday, December 9th, 2009

Cam MacKay believes that the facts of Climategate at least require an official inquiry into the science and politics of Climate Change.  In Canada, that is best done by establishing a Royal Commission.  So Cam has started a petition calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to establish a Royal Commission  to investigate.    Canadian residents can sign the petition by following this link to Cam’s site.

Inhofe will counter Obama spin at Copenhagen

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

One of the fallacies in almost any argument is that people will point to the person and accuse them of being biased because they have something to gain or because they have a hidden agenda.  The fallacy is that the argument is wrong because of the motive.  If black is black and not white, then it does not matter who says so or why he does.  If something can be backed with evidence then it should be listened to even if it’s a minority opinion.  And if the media is known to be biased (e.g. Fox has a right wing bias), the facts or information could still be correct (or not) – it depends on the facts, not on who says them.

I felt I had to introduce the video below with these comments because anyone who disagrees will immediately dismiss it because it’s FOX.  But it is just an interview with Senator Inhofe and although he has always been a skeptic, that does not make his comments wrong.  It seems to me his comments should be taken seriously.

His bottom line: now that Climategate has happened, there’s no chance that Obama’s Cap & trade bill will get through the Senate. Interesting stuff.

Australia drops cap & trade – for now

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

The Australian Senate  killed off the emissions trading scheme (ETS) put forward by the Australian Government led by Labour Party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.  He will now go to the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in 2 weeks without his legislation (just like Obama) since parliament has now recessed for the southern summer.

Tony Abbott

Tony Abbott

Recently, the opposition Liberal party elected a new leader, Tony Abbott, and he said from the beginning that he opposed the legislation. He has now dumped an ETS from Liberal policy at the next election and opened the debate on nuclear power. However, he is still pledging to cut emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 although he promises “no new tax”.

The Government has not given up and says it is giving the Liberal Party the summer to think about climate change before it brings its emissions trading legislation back into Parliament in February.

The Senate has rejected the ETS legislation twice, at least three months apart, and the Government can now call an election on the issue if it wants although it’s not clear if they will.

Australia’s action are important since it had been the leader in introducing emissions reduction legislation. But now Climategate has made many Australian politicians doubt that the science is settled.  Further, Tony Abbott realistically sees that Australia’s effort without participation by China and the U.S. would be meaningless.  He also advocates implementing clean nuclear power.

The Copenhagen talks are now expected to be just that – talks.  With no outcome other than some rhetoric that says more talks will follow.  I expect the focus to be on what the under-developed countries want as compensation from developed countries.

Climategate disgust is spreading

Friday, November 27th, 2009

In many ways, Australia has been a leader on the rhetoric about climate change and now it may be leading the way to sanity.  Australians are more concerned than most about climate change because they have recently experienced unusual warming and droughts.  It’s very tempting to believe that something can be done to stop this so when “scientists” said it was man-caused, they were happy to agree and then convinced their politicians to “do something”.  The Australian Government, like the U.S. government, has a Cap & Trade bill almost ready to be passed and this had been expected to pass in time for the Copenhagen talks.

But now the release of emails, now dubbed “climategate” (see previous post),  has let the cat out of the bag and there is proof of cooking the data.  The bill was to be supported by the main opposition party (the Liberal Party) but now news sources in Australia report that the Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios in protest against the emissions trading scheme.  Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation. Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

And in the U.S., the climategate scandal is spreading like wildfire.  Right-wing Fox news is taking delight in spreading the news since it is a vocal critic of President Obama.  However, Fox is the most watched news network so the American Public is now becoming convinced it’s skepticism was well founded.

To help spread the word, Skeptic U.S. Senator James Inhofe has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. It is now widely believed on Capitol Hill that Obama’s Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast.  The shoe is now on the other foot and it’s the turn of warming alarmists to be defensive.

In Canada, Jim Prentice (Minister of the Environment) is openly saying that the Copenhagen convention expects only to lead to “…a political agreement that can generate the momentum required to forge a broader, more specific and comprehensive document over the course of 2010″.  He also said that Canada would follow the U.S. lead since our economies are so closely tied and that without a move by China and the U.S., the whole thing would not be effective.  Hopefully he will soon see that the best course of action is to plan for mitigation, if required, and not impossible “prevention”.

The skeptics are vindicated

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

David Warren of The Ottawa Citizen has written a column (headlined like this post) which summarizes the current situation. Below is an edited version of his column. See the original longer version here.

“A computer hacker in England has done the world a service by making available a huge quantity of evidence for the way in which “human-induced global warming” claims have been advanced over the years.

By releasing into the Internet about a thousand internal e-mails from the servers of the Climate Research Unit in the University of East Anglia — in some respects the international clearing house for climate change “science” — he has (or they have) put observers in a position to see that claims of conspiracy and fraud were not unreasonable.

More generally, we have been given the materials with which to obtain an insight into how all modern science works when vast amounts of public funding is at stake and when the vested interests associated with various “progressive” causes require a particular scientific result.

There is little doubt that the e-mails were real. Even so warmist a true-believer as George Monbiot led his column in the Guardian yesterday with: “It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow. The e-mails extracted … could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.”

…..(over the years) supporters of the (warming) hypothesis have been able to reverse the onus of proof. In the last resort, their argument comes down to: We say the planet is warming. And anyone who says the contrary must “prove the negative” beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt. And we will be their judges.
Nigel Lawson (a.k.a. Baron Lawson of Blaby), the former British chancellor of the exchequer, who is among prominent persons demanding a full and open public inquiry, summarized the content of the e-mails in this way:

“Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals. …
… the correspondence that has been hacked is not mere backroom gossip. It includes incriminating exchanges between some of the biggest names in the “global warming” business.

It is amusing to see mainstream media sources such as the New York Times, which thinks nothing of publishing purloined government documents that will endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers in the field, and compromise vital intelligence operations, suddenly become all jowly and uptight about publishing the e-mails in question because they were “illegally obtained.”

Other media — which have played a leading part for years in giving credibility to “global warming” claims — are now maintaining the silence of Iago on the revelations. We will see how long this can be sustained.”

My thanks to David Warren for clearly summarizing the situation. Maybe now we will get real answers to some of the objections raised to the seemingly faulty science instead of being subject to personal attacks which prove nothing.