… 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 ?
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.
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
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:
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!
[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.
Some music to set the “I’m leaving you” mood.
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!
“Bad Boys! What will you do when they come for you?”
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!
… however, as even an average citizen could look at the evidence of the emails themselves, a different conclusion could be reached:
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” -
China, India and Saudi Arabia are not Climategate happy :-(
2009: (7-18 Dec) The Copenhagen Climate talks … collapse.
… 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 …
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.
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 9-9
Green groups around the world are pulling back from the Global Warming cause.
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,
“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.