Basis for Global Warming Questioned–reports found incorrect
Nov 23rd, 2009 by David Anderson
Some of the key findings which led to the conclusions on which the UN Global Climate Change Panel based its recommendation are in doubt. The historic temperature readings based upon Treemometers where cherry picked.
In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.
How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a secret – failing to fulfill procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious peer reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.
At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open – and Yamal’s mystery is no more.
From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.
In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked.
(This oversimplifies the story somewhat: for more detail, read this fascinating narrative by blogger BishopHill here (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html).)
Controversy has been raging since 1995, when an explosive paper by Keith Briffa (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/) at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia asserted that that the medieval warm period was actually really cold, and recent warming is unusually warm. Both archaeology and the historical accounts, Briffa was declaring, were bunk. Briffa relied on just three cores from Siberia to demonstrate this.
Three years later Nature published a paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes based on temperature reconstructions which showed something similar: warmer now, cooler then. With Briffa and Mann as chapter editors of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this distinctive pattern became emblematic – the “Logo of Global Warming”.
Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on “Climategate” (UN IPCC included!!)
senate.gov ^ | 11/23/2009 | senate.gov
Senator Inhofe: Well, on this thing, it is pretty serious. And since, you know, Barabara Boxer is the Chairman and I’m the Ranking Member on Environment and Public Works, if nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation. ‘Cause this thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with.
Melanie Morgan: So what will you be calling for an investigation of?
Senator Inhofe: On the IPCC and on the United Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.
The worm keeps turning on Global Warming. The proof keeps coming in that this is a leftist hoax.
SHHH! Nobody tell Perry. He’s an ordained bishop in the Church of Global Warming!
It seems like something every few days.
November 25, 2009 — 12:56 p.m. EST
Opinion Journal.
The Litigation Begins
Yesterday “the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal–for nearly three years–to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act,” CEI fellow Christopher Horner announces at Pajamas Media:
The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “Climategate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer code, and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.
All of that material, and that sought for years by CEI, goes to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, “cap-and-trade” legislation, and the EPA’s threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.
A lawyer writes us that “‘the purloined ‘global warming emails’ suggest several lines of legal inquiry”:
Tortious interference. For researchers and academicians, publication in peer-reviewed journals is important to advancement, raises, grant funding, etc. Wrongful interference with the ability to publish has monetary and reputational damages. If that interference is based not on editorial judgment of worthiness for publication, but rather on protecting reputations, scientific positions, political goals or “places in history” (as mentioned in one email), then it could give rise to liability in tort for the individual scientist and possibly for the university or organization for which he works.
Breach of faculty ethics standards or contracts. Most universities and research organizations have ethics clauses in their faculty/employee manuals and in their contracts with faculty/researchers. If (as suggested by the purloined emails) these individuals cooked data or manipulated assumptions to achieve preferred outcomes, or denied others access to data essential for replication of result that is essential to the scientific method, they could have violated university or organizational ethics standards.
State-chartered universities. Some of these individuals appear to work for state-chartered and state-funded institutions, and might well be classified as state employees (and thereby eligible for generous state benefits). The conduct suggested by the purloined emails might violate state ethics or funding policies. State governments and legislatures therefore might have a basis for inquiry and oversight.
Federal grants. Federal grants typically have ethics/integrity clauses to assure that the research funded by the grant is credible and reliable (and to assure that the agency can avoid accountability if it isn’t). As noted, the purloined emails suggest that data might have been cooked and assumptions might have been manipulated to generate a predetermined outcome. If true, and if the work in question was funded by federal grant, the researchers in question might well have violated their federal grant contracts–for which there are legal consequences. Inspectors general of the grant agencies should be in position to make inquiry if the data/assumptions in question could be linked in time and topic to a contemporaneous federal grant to the researchers in question.
This promises be a boon for comedians as well as lawyers. Here’s our first effort:
Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There’s a consensus that it’s going to change, so they’ve decided to keep us in the dark.
Global Warming is a hoax? STOP THE PRESSES!!! CALL THE PRESIDENT!!! TELL HIM NOT TO GO TO COPENHAGEN!!!
oh….right…I forgot…
Obama and Gore and the rest of the climate change idiots knew it was a farce all along. They don’t care that WE know now because we gave them license to carry forward their eco-terrorism. They should all be brought up on charges for crying “FIRE!!!” in a crowded theater.