THE MYTH UNRAVELS – HACKING AWAY AT GLOBAL WARMING
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 23, 2009
Could this be what triggers the final unraveling of the global warming myth? Is this the beginning of the end for the environmentally hysterical? Since a decade of cooling temperatures hasn’t done the trick, and the fact that there isn’t a stitch of evidence proving that rising CO2 levels cause rising temperatures, could this possibly be what sends this fairy-tale trolly off the rails?
Theoretically, you’d think this is one story that just couldn’t be ignored by the mainstream media. Even the most hard-nosed skeptic would have to concede that this juicy little ditty is alphabet-channel newsworthy.
I must therefore tip my hat to the Washington Post who actually put on its journalism shoes yesterday.
They decided to report on the big computer security breach that resulted in over a thousand e-mails and some seventy-two documents being stolen (and made public) from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre in Britain on Thursday – one of the foremost climate research facilities in the world.
The hacking of a major institution’s computer system is always good for a mention or two on the evening news, but what makes this story so delicious is that it goes beyond the run-of-the-mill cyber-invasion. This is actually an attack on global warming itself – and for doomsday environmental zealots, that’s a shot at the jugular.
The stolen documents (specifically the e-mails) are proving to be rather embarrassing, and quite damning, to those who authored them. And it just so happens that the authors happen to be some of the leading proponents of man-made global warming in all the world.
We’re talking the global warming big boys: James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Mann and Keith Briffa (among others).
The words “manipulation” and “deception” come to mind.
From the Washington Post:
While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate — nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded the evidence was unequivocal — public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.
In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Isn’t that delightful?
Thus, it makes perfect sense when the believers of a planet on the brink of doom due to man-made global warming look directly into the cameras, hold up the IPCC report, and say there is scientific consensus on the matter. How could there not be when they deliberately leave out the work of others who refute or question it? These are the same hysterical global-warming intellectuals who go out of their way to blackball or shun those with opposing points of view – or at least those who think more debate is reasonably appropriate. As a result, those who dare to question man-made global warming are omitted from scientific journals and publications altogether.
In other words, if the trouble-making crowd can be pushed off into the scientific hinterlands, they can’t get in the way of forwarding the agenda.
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.
These are supposed to be scientists, mind you – not a group of pre-teen girls deciding who will or won’t be part of their “club.”
But the Washington Post doesn’t go far enough.
For example, according to Tom Wigley (climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research), in an e-mail to Phil Jones, there is a problem with some of the temperature readings from the 1940s. There is a temperature “blip,” as he calls it, that apparently does not conform properly to the man-made global-warming theory. It is problematic enough that adjustments need to be made. The “blip” must be resized.
Although a tad technical in some spots, the gist of the e-mail is clearly understood:
Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Silly me, I wasn’t aware that scientists could retroactively adjust data to meet the desired models.
John Hinderacker at the great Power Line blog comments:
This and many other emails convey the impression that these theorists are making the “science” up as they go along, with data being manipulated until it yields the results that have been predetermined by political conviction.
And make no mistake about it … this is, indeed, a scandal. Whether or not the rest of the mainstream media decides it is worth their time is another story.
Still, there is a whole lot of information to tap into here: From e-mails suggesting that some data would be better off deleted than subjected to public scrutiny, to (as Rob at Say Anything writes) “attempts to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests aimed at getting some of this information disclosed so that it could be reviewed by objective experts,” this one seems to have legs … or so you’d think.