The Climate Wars … ending?

Hello there fellow warriors for truth, justice and the scientific method,
 
Well, the Climate Wars are still being waged … but for how much longer?

—————————————————

Eowyn defeats The Witch King of Angmar (Lord of the Rings #3)

… or watch the whole fight scene here (great movies, all 3 :-) ).
——————————————————————- 

Question: Likewise, did these 4 independent unpaid skeptical climate bloggers win the decisive battle of the whole Climate Wars ?

Anthony Watts (Watts UpWith That), Jeff Id (the Air Vent), Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) and Lucia Liljegren (The Blackboard).

They quickly and efficiently released the thousands of leaked Climategate emails that shocked the world, by coordinating posts on their blogs and informed by computer experts on many continents. See the original posts here: Anthony Watts (Watts UpWith That), Jeff Id (the Air Vent), Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) and Lucia Liljegren (The Blackboard). Whereas the BBC’s weatherman Paul Hudson hid the story after receiving one of the emails a month earlier. Bad boy Paul!
 
Will the Global Warming movement go down in the annals of scientific fraud as have The Piltdown Man, Eugenics and Lysenkoism?
 
Well, stick with me and be amazed at this infamous tale of the betrayal of a science, that is sure to be a chapter in our grandchildrens’ History of Science textbooks.   

The story so far …
 
1972:  UN’s first environmental conference in Stockholm. Chairman Maurice Stong praises his conference for “bringing climate change to the top of the global agenda.”.

1974: Time and Newsweek magazines start warning of the next Ice Age. Here are the articles in Time magazine 24 June 1974 and Newsweek magazine 28 April 1975:
     The Cooling World Newsweek 1975 temperature change chart
 
 Then the world began to warm .. a bit.

 1988: At Al Gore’s Senate hearings James Hansen (Director of NASA’s GISS climate department) says that he is 99% sure man is catastrophically affecting the world’s climate.

Here is the graph evidence he used to support his speech

The top black line is how his model said the world temperatures would rise if man did not cut back on producing CO2. The bottom black line is what he predicted temperatures would do if we drastically cut back CO2 emissions. The red line are the actual measured temperatures when  we have done practically nothing about CO2. Is there a disconnect with reality here? James Hansen is still director of NASA’s GISS … Hmmmmm.

1988: United Nations IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was  set up.

1990: 1st UN IPCC report – “certain” that the greenhouse effect was enhanced by “emissions from human activites”.  

1992: The Rio Summit – 20 000 green activists, politicians from 170 countries, 108 prime ministers and presidents. Al Gore publishes his “Earth in Balance”.

1997: 2nd UN IPCC report – Scientists: a) no clear evidence of recent changes due to  greenhouse effect b) no studies show man made climate warming c) uncertainites too big d) don’t know if/when a human effect on climate can/will be found.

Changed by UN’s IPCC scientist Ben Santer  to – “… a discernable human fingerprint on Earth’s climate”.

1997: The Kyoto Protocol is signed

Now, here are just some of the many scientific studies that show a significant Medieval Warm Period (MWP)

However the IPCC reports now claim that the MWP was just a local European phenomenom. How could this be? Well ….

1998: … please meet newly examined (1998) PhD student Michael Mann.

He produced a hockey stick graph that “disappeared” the MWP:

Hockey Stick

2001: The IPCC loved it so much that they raised Micheal Mann to lead author of the paleoclimate section of its 3rd report and published his graph 6 times LARGE in its 2001 report. It was used in many highly publicized IPCC press meetings and releases to convince the public of catastrophic man-made global warming:   

 
2003: And then along came Canadian independent statistical experts Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, and spoilt the party :-(   

McIntyre asked Mann for all his data and code to check his results. Mann refused. So they reverse engineered what Mann had done and found that Mann’s code would produce a hockey stick shape even if you feed all the numbers of a telephone book into it (ie. random numbers). Not good. Below are 8 graphs, one is Mann’s “hockey stick” the 7 others are the graphs from “red noise” numbers being fed into his computer program. Amazing! 

2005: The Wegman and North reports were commissioned by the US government because the now very public debate was concerning US citizens. The findings of these 2 report were damning:

[Mann's] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions…It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.

Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.

It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.

our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.”

Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.”

This was when the main battle lines were drawn in the sand. On one side: The politicians, The UN IPCC, The Media, NGOs (WWF, Greenpeace etc) and government scientists. On the other side: independent scientists, unpaid skeptical bloggers and statistics experts from around the world. The skeptics were furious that they had been lied to and that climate science had by then turned into a political ideology. They set up their own camps and investigations of climate “science”. The Climate Wars began in earnest. 

———————————————–

Note Some music to set the “I’m leaving you” mood.


MUSIC: Eurythmics (1985) – Would I Lie To You?   Note

——————————————————————-

2007: The UN produces its 4th IPCC report and Al Gore releases his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” with its version of Mann’s discredited Hockey Stick (he was lifted up on a crane to reach the top of the “blade”). Michael Mann & The Hockey Team‘s …

…new  IPCC “spaghetti graph”  features prominently, again, and includes his old tree rings as well as Keith Briffa’s hockey stick shaped Yamal tree rings, especially YAD06: the most influential tree in the world!

Siberia2008_larch_comparison 

———————————————————

Note “Bad Boys! What will you do when they come for you?”


MUSIC: Bob Marley – Bad Boys or Bad Boys II   Note
————————————————-
2008: Michael Mann publishes another Hocky Stick graph, with your old favourites as well as some newbies.

Trick question: Which of the the 4 images below have all parts not upside down? (#4 is from Mann et al. 2oo8)

Answer: All of them have upside down parts!

Shocked? Well … read on here and be amazed too.

2009: On 17 Nov the Climategate emails were released. The first quick coordinated response from The Hockey Team & Supporters was: “There is nothing to see here, move along” …

… however, as even an average citizen could look at the evidence of the emails themselves, a different conclusion could be reached:

ClimateGate Timeline

Read them and weep … for the betrayal of a science for a political ideology. Or … be spurred on by the search for truth and justice with this “Climategate Email Rap” -

All your emails are belong to us

All Your Emails Are Belong To Us     

China, India and Saudi Arabia are not Climategate happy :-(

2009: (7-18 Dec) The Copenhagen  Climate talks … collapse.

2 years organising, 12 days of talks, 100+ religious leaders,  140 private jets, 192 countries, 1000 arrested, 1200 limousines, 15000 officials, 40500 tons of CO2,  50000 angry green activists,  …

Copenhagen climate summit: confusion as 'historic deal' descends into chaos

6 governmental heads, 1 backroom deal & 0 climate treaty. :-)

2010: The 3 British inquiries spurred by the Climategate emails have now been completed but they all have only increased suspicion of climate “science”. 1) The Parliamentary inquiry had only one day of hearings and didn’t interview McIintyre and McKitrick. 2) The Oxburg inquiry had a chairman who was  selling carbon credits and only looked at a selection scientific papers supplied by … wait for it … CRU. 3) The Russel Muir inquiry head did not even interview Phil Jones nor ask him if he deleted any emails …

——————————————————-

Note Time for some catchy music that “went viral” around the world just after the Climategate emails were released. For your listening pleasure here is: Hide the Decline I and Hide the Decline II, to get you “warmed up” … as well as setting the mood for the decline in the public’s confidence in our elected officials. 

     Note

——————————————–

… and cartoonists are having some fun too :-)

2010: The effects of the Climategate emails are still reverberating around the world. The Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been ousted due to the effects Climategate.
——————————————————– 

Note  Here are Australian comedians poking fun at Kevin Rudd’s Labor government. His deputy Julia Gillard has to stay at home while “Kev” is away travelling, like taking a 114 person climate delegation to Copenhagen 2009, then coming back and cancelling his carbon tax proposal.     

 

MUSIC: Working 9-9Note
———————————————————–

The American Cap and Trade carbon dioxide tax has been stopped. The Chinese are writing books, but not allowing English translations, laughing at the Western AGW scam.  

 The price of carbon credits has crashed.

Green groups around the world are pulling back from the Global Warming cause.

And public debates are finally being allowed between “warmists” and “skeptics”. Even Steve McIntyre is now allowed to speak.  WOW!

Guardian 'Climategate' debate

So … has the politically driven Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming (CAGW ) scare finally been beaten?

Has the bright comet of the Climategate emails plummeted public support …  and finally killed off the dinosaur Man Made Global Warming scare … whose huge body has been only held aloft by the twin spindly legs of money and politics? Will alternate theories, like the mammals, until now trampled underfoot … finally be free to fill their rightful scientific niches vacated by this lumbering giant?  

Are The Climate Wars … ending?

Well, there is still a huge amount of money and political pressure behind it. But survey after survey now shows that the public are no longer supporting the scare. And though the science has been shown to be lacking,

mcshane wyner fig. 16 

   “Our backcasting methods, which track quite closely the methods applied most recently in Mann (2008) to the same data, are unable to catch the sharp run up in temperatures recorded in the 1990s, even in-sample.”

“That’s not what’s happening here. In this paper, the model is off by a factor of 2 to 4, and the result is statistically significant.”

… maybe the Global Warming Scare, after 40 years, will just slowly fade away, just like Eugenics and Lysenkoism. Let’s hope so.

Books like this are doing wonders for opening the eyes of the well meaning public too. WOW! :-)

The Hockey Stick Illusion;Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds)

Stay skeptical and enjoy the Holocene Interglacial, while it lasts. :-)

Brady

This entry was posted in Books, Climate, Education, Hockey Stick, Political Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The Climate Wars … ending?

  1. lucia says:

    I am no man! My favorite scene in the trilogy.

  2. Pingback: A long time ago, in a university far far away….. « the Air Vent

  3. Jeff Id says:

    Just a small correction, my understanding is that Paul Hudson, didn’t have all the emails a month before, he only had one.

  4. Pingback: The Climate Wars … ending? (via Skeptical Swedish Scientists) « ClimateMedia

  5. Brady says:

    Thanks to Lucia and Jeff (fixed) for mentioning my new blog.

    I’m trying to keep this post simple and interesting for all those well meaning souls out there who had no idea the Climate Wars were even going on. And on a level that my 15 year old students can enjoy too. Suggestions welcomed. :-)

  6. omanuel says:

    Interest in Earth’s heat source – the Sun and in similarities between the Sun and the Rutherford-Bohr planetary model of the Hydrogen atom [1-3] were renewed by the comments of Japan’s Dr. Iori Fujita on the spacial distribution of ejecta from Supernova 1987A ["Supernova ejects material axially", Physics World (11 Aug 2010)]:

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43451

    Dr. Fujita noticed that although:

    a.) The Sun is now spherically symmetric, like the wave function that describes an electron in the ground state (1s) orbital of the Hydrogen atom, . . .

    b.) The Supernova that gave birth to Supernova 1987A, to the Planetary Nebula Eta Carina, and to the Sun and its planets had the shape of a wave function that describes an electron in the excited state (4f) orbital of the Hydrogen atom.

    http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy02.html

    http://www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm

    Thus supernova explosions may be like the excited state of an atom, and the present calm stable solar system may be like the ground state of that atom.

    If the same analogy is used to consider the internal structure of the Sun, then the solar core may be more like the dense core of the atom (~10^15 g/cm^3) than like a highly-compressed version of the hydrogen and helium seen at the solar surface.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    References:
    1. E. Rutherford. “The Scattering of α and β Particles by Matter and the Structure of the Atom”, Philosophical Magazine 21 (1911) 669-688.

    2. Niels Bohr, “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules, Parts I, II & III”, Philosophical Magazine 26 (1913) 1–24, 476–502, 857–875.

    3. Niels Bohr,”The spectra of helium and hydrogen”, Nature 92 (1914) 231–232.

  7. Brian H says:

    “phenomenom. How could this be? Well ….”
    Since it would be a phenomenon if “phenomenom” were actually a word, I guess it couldn’t be! ;)

  8. M. Simon says:

    Except Lysenko was correct. Just not generally. Thank the Maker you didn’t add Cold Fusion which seems to be making progress. Sometimes the Right scientists get it wrong and the Wrong Scientists get it right.

    Learning about the real world is a humbling endeavor.

  9. GregO says:

    Great summary! Thanks for your post.

  10. Derek says:

    May I suggest an addition, in 1999 Richard S Courtney published,
    Courtney RS, „An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK‟s Hadley Centre‟, Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999.

    Richard S Courtney sums up what the paper says briefly with this recent excerpt from a posting at globalwarmingskeptics.info specifically in this thread, http://www.politicaldivide.info/globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/index.php/topic,286.0.html
    Excerpt,
    ” My 1999 paper reports that the Hadley Centre GCM showed an unrealistic high warming trend over the twentieth century and a cooling effect was added to overcome this drift. The cooling was assumed to be a result of anthropogenic aerosol.

    So, cooling was input to the GCM to match the geographical distribution of the aerosol. And the total magnitude of the cooling was input to correct for the model drift: this was reasonable because the actual magnitude of the aerosol cooling effect is not known.

    This was a reasonable model test. If the drift were a result of aerosol cooling then the geographical pattern of warming over the twentieth century indicated by the model would match observations.

    However, the output of this model test provided a pattern of geographic variation in the warming that was very different from observations;
    e.g. the model predicted most cooling where most warming was observed.

    This proved that the aerosol cooling was not the cause – or at least not the major cause – of the model drift.

    The Hadley Centre overcame this unfortunate result by reporting the agreement of the global average temperature rise with observations. But THIS AGREEMENT WAS FIXED AS AN INPUT TO THE TEST! It was fixed by adjusting the degree of input cooling to make it fit!

    However, this use of supposed ‘aerosol cooling’ to compensate for the model drift means that any input reduction to anthropogenic aerosol cooling must result in the model providing drift which is wrongly indicated as global warming.

    In any other branch of science this ‘aerosol cooling’ fix would be considered to be incompetence at best and fraud at worst.

    Importantly, this one fact alone proves – beyond any possibility of doubt – that the climate models provide incorrect indications of global warming. My paper reported this in 1999, and no subsequent dispute of it has been published. ”
    End of excerpt.

    May I repeat the central point, proven in 1999, by Richard S Courtney,
    Importantly, this one fact alone proves – beyond any possibility of doubt – that the climate models provide incorrect indications of global warming.
    My paper reported this in 1999, and no subsequent dispute of it has been published.

    That RSC’s paper was brushed under the carpet and we had the Hockey Stick rammen down our throats at the time,
    is a central “point” of AGW’s history / propaganda I would suggest.

  11. Gnomish says:

    Excellent ‘cliff’s notes’.
    I’ll pass the link along.

  12. ArndB says:

    A very helpful summary, but one important subject is missing, the UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, 1992, adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 1992 (in force 1994). It is the highest international legal instrument all State parties (currently 194), according which the Kyoto Protocol was adopted 1997 (in force since 2005). The texts require “ to reduce global warming and to cope with whatever temperature increases are inevitable.” http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php The international Climate Change activities (e.g. the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, 7-19 December 2009) have to apply these documents.

    However, The UNFCCC is a big laugh. The title refers to “Climate”, but neither defines climate, nor “weather” (WMO: climate is average weather). The consternation was expressed soon after the Rio Summit in a Letter to the Editor, NATURE 1992, “Climate Change”, Vol. 360, p. 292; (extract)
    ____”For too long, climate has been defined as the average weather and Rio was not able to define it at all. Instead, the Climate Change Convention uses the term ‘climate system’, defining it as “the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions”. All that this boils down to is ‘the interactions of the natural system’. What is the point of a legal term if it explains nothing? For decades, the real question has been who is responsible for the climate. Climate should have been defined as ‘the continuation of the oceans by other means’…..” (Full text at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/1992-nature.html )

    More about the matter was expressed in an OPEN LETTER at AIR VENT on 13 Nov.2009: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/ , that has the place at which “FOIA” droped in COMMENT 10 the Climategate emails on November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm
    ____ “FOIA said November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm “We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps …..”
    to which the above documentation refers to (Question, “Jeff Id (the Air Vent)”). Thanks.

  13. mrpkw says:

    Outstanding post.
    Great history and information !!

  14. Barry Woods says:

    The BBC is still at work…

    Rice Yields ‘to fall’ when in fact they are not!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10918591

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/12/bbc-to-issue-correction-on-rice-yields-story/

    Richard Black has posted on his blog, a sort of apology, but insists the headline is correct, because of ‘projections’ of rice yield. !!!!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/08/as_several_of_you_pointed.html#comments

    Imagine, as an analogy..
    If the BBC business section had written an article titled.

    House Prices ‘to fall’

    When in fact the rate INCREASE of house price had fallen slightly….. ( they have increased, but only by say, for example, 4% this year compared to, say, for example 5% the previous year)

    Imagine, if it had been pointed out to them, this was factually wrong, and they issued a minor correction and left the same title, and bulk of the story/spin..

    The BBC would be (rightly) accused of spinning a headline against the facts, as a political statement, and there would be trouble (lots of it, poltical and otherwise – ie markets)..

    (remembering, at all times, the BBC is publically funded, and has a charter that say it should be impartial and accurate, and provide an apolitical public service. It is not some sort of newspaper or media channel with a party line, or political bent)

    So prior to the correction, ‘sloppy’ journalism….. possibly?
    Following the correction, the facts having been spelt out to them by many people.
    Then deliberate ‘spin’ to keep that headline, and not rewrite the article to get it accurate……. Totally unacceptable for the BBC

  15. Gary says:

    Brady,

    A reference to the Milankovich cycles (see, for example, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/194/4270/1121) in the mid 1970s might be worth adding to your chronicle. It was on this foundation of low resolution paleoclimate data that the high resolution stuff built and took off.

  16. Brian H says:

    Barry W.;
    Surely that’s because the Beeb felt it was “fake but accurate”? Full of troothiness?

  17. PhilJourdan says:

    One stop shopping for the controversy! Thanks for compiling it with the links.

  18. BarryB says:

    Fascinating! Thanks for putting the summary together.

  19. Greg Stevens says:

    This is just to much!

  20. Pingback: Biodiversity – an ecology of dirty test tubes | Skeptical Swedish Scientists

  21. Michael Cejnar says:

    Great fun post, just what the novice public needs.

  22. ArndB says:

    Hi Brady,
    I wonder whether you would be interested to post a subject particularly interesting for Scandinavia, namely why the winter 1940/41 was record cold in the Skagerrak region, discussed at: http://www.what-is-climate.com and In a shorter version at: http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/If you need further information or the materialPlease let me know.
    Best regards
    Arnd Bernaerts

    Reference CLIMATE links :

    http://climate-ocean.com/

    http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/

    http://www.arctic-warming.com/

    http://www.whatisclimate.com/

    http://www.oceanclimate.de/

  23. Conclusion:

    “The budget should be balanced,
    The Treasury should be refilled,
    Public debt should be reduced,
    The arrogance of officialdom
    Should be tempered and controlled, and
    The assistance to foreign lands should
    Be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.
    People must again learn to work,
    Instead of living on public assistance.”

    -Cicero – 55 BC

    The above quote, shamelessly copied from e-mails by Climate Skeptics, would be a fitting conclusion to the Climate Wars.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s