Skip to comments.Lord Moncktonís summary of Climategate and its issues
Posted on 12/02/2009 12:40:01 PM PST by Forgiven_Sinner
Both Steve McIntyre and I are mentioned in this comprehensive summary. Ive posted some excerpts below, with a link to the full report in PDF form. It is well worth a read. Anthony
Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate scandal
THE WHISTLE BLOWS FOR TRUTH The whistleblower deep in the basement of one of the ugly, modern tower-blocks of the dismal, windswept University of East Anglia could scarcely have timed it better. In less than three weeks, the worlds governing class its classe politique would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the worlds wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade global warming.
The unnamed hero of Climategate, after months of work gathering emails, computer code, and data, quietly sent a 61-megabyte compressed file from one of the universitys servers to an obscure public message-board on the internet, with a short covering note to the effect that the climate was too important to keep the material secret, and that the data from the University would be available for a short time only. He had caught the worlds politico-scientific establishment green-handed. Yet his first attempts to reveal the highly-profitable fraud and systematic corruption at the very heart of the UNs climate panel and among the scientists most prominent in influencing its prejudiced and absurdly doom-laden reports had failed. He had made the mistake of sending the data-file to the mainstream news media, which had also profited for decades by fostering the global warming scare, and by generally denying anyone who disagreed with the official viewpoint any platform.
The whistleblowers data file revealed, for the first time, the innermost workings of the tiny international clique of climate scientists, centered on the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, that has been the prime mover in telling the world that it is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that humankind is responsible.
REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere. His crime? He had revealed what many had long suspected:
- A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to todays climate. The Team, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.
The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in research grants from the Teams activities. The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UNs climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panels conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons. The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UNs climate panel to report. They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors. They had emailed one another about using a trick for the sake of concealing a decline in temperatures in the paleoclimate. They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was a travesty. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that global warming science is settled. They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers. They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint. They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journals editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes. They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created. Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their research was either honest or competent. THE NATURE TRICK TO HIDE THE DECLINE IN TEMPERATURES Among the most revealing of the emails released to the world by the whistleblower was one dated November 1999. In that email, Professor Phil Jones of the CRU wrote to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, the authors of the infamous hockey stick graph that falsely abolished the medieval warm period: Almost immediately after the news of Climategate broke, Professor Jones told Investigative Magazines TGIF Edition that he had no idea what he might have meant by the words hide the decline. He said:
Theyre talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered but theyre talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and its just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they dont always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.
A few hours later, the science hate-crime website created by the Team cobbled together a jumbled, snivelingly self-serving, and entirely different pretext:
The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction [the hockey-stick graph of pre-instrumental temperatures over the past 1000 years in the Northern Hemisphere], and the trick is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term trick to refer to a good way to deal with a problem, rather than something that is secret, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the decline, it is well known that Keith Briffas [another prominent member of the Team] maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the divergence problem and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al. in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so, while hiding is probably a poor choice of words (since it is hidden in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Enter Steve McIntyre, the one who had first realized that the UNs climate panel in 2001 had used a corrupt graph that had falsely abolished the medieval warm period with the aim of pretending that todays global temperatures are unprecedented in at least 1000 years. Later that day his website, www.climateaudit.org, revealed the truth about the conspirators trick. In order to smooth a data series over a given time period, one must pad it with artificial data beyond the endpoint of the real series. However, when Mann, Bradley, and Hughes plotted instrumental data against their reconstructions based on the varying widths of tree-rings from ancient trees, their favourite form of proxy or pre-instrumental reconstructed temperature, no smoothing method could conceal the fact that after 1960 the tree-ring data series trended downward, while the instrumental series trended upward. This was the Teams divergence:
So Manns solution [Mikes Nature trick] was to use the instrumental record for padding [both the proxy and the instrumental data series], which changes the smoothed series to point upwards.
Accordingly, though the author of the original email had said that the trick was to add instrumental measurements for years beyond available proxy data, his conspirators at the science-hate website admitted it was actually a replacement of proxy data owing to a known but unexplained post-1960 divergence between the proxy data and the instrumental data. In fact, it was a fabrication. The next day, in a statement issued by the University of East Anglias press office, Professor Jones fumblingly tried to recover the position:
The word trick was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.
As we shall see, Professor Jones was not telling the truth. BREAKING THE BROKEN CODE: DISSECTING THE DODGY DATA The Documents folder in the enormous data-file released by the whistleblower contains many segments of computer program code used by Jones and the Team in contriving the Climate Research Units global temperature series. The data-file also contained a 15,000-line commentary by programmers concerned that the code and the data used by the Team were suspect, were fabricated, and were not fit for their purpose. Looking at the seldom-tidy code, the sheer number of programs which subject the raw data to various degrees of filtering, processing, and tampering is disconcerting. Some of these alterations were blatant and unacceptable, notably those which removed proxy data that correlate poorly with measured regional temperature, or even replaced proxy data altogether with measured data to conceal a discrepancy between what the proxy data actually showed and what the Team wanted it to show.
The Teams programmers even admitted, in comments within the code, that they were artificially adjusting or correcting the proxy data from tree-rings. In Fortran, the high-level computer language long in use at universities for programming, a programmers comment is usually preceded by the statement REM for remark, indicating that the text on the line following the word REM should be ignored by the compiler program that translates the Fortran code that humans can understand into executable machine language that the computer can understand. One of the commonest remarks included in the program fragments disclosed by the whistleblower is as follows:
These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.
There could scarcely be a plainer admission that the data are being regularly, routinely, materially tampered with, for the sake of making it appear that the proxy data are sufficiently reliable to appear close to the instrumental temperatures. This is no mere debating point. The UNs climate panel had issued specific warnings against using proxy data (MXD) from tree-rings, because warmer weather is not the only reason why tree-rings become wider in some years than in others. There are at least two other prominent reasons, both of which can and do distort the tree-ring data beyond the point where they are useful as indicators of (or proxies for) pre-instrumental temperatures. First, the tree-rings become wider whenever the weather becomes wetter. Secondly, and of still greater concern, the tree-rings widen when there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And there is 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was in 1750.
Yet, as McIntyre and McKitrick had established originally in 2003, and had published in a leading journal in 2005, the majority of the data on the basis of which Mann, Bradley and Hughes, and later other members of the Team, had attempted to pretend that there had been no medieval warm period were tree-ring series. Take out the suspect tree-ring series, together with just one other rogue series, and all the remaining data series establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Middle Ages were truly, materially, and globally warmer than the present.
Scientists with programming knowledge have already begun to examine the computer code that Professor Jones and his colleagues had attempted to hide for so long. Here is Marc Sheppards selection of three examples of the tortuous sequences of deliberate data tampering that are evident within the program code.
Read the complete report from SPPI here:
Big media is still ducking this. For how much longer can they not see what’s under their noses?
The MSM is totally in the tank.
Here’s where you can digg the article:
Raise this story’s profile!
Everyone associated with this bs agw scam should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. al gore “LIED TO US... HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS”!
And the rest of Brits are catching on to this: CLIMATE CHANGE 'FRAUD'
But their politicians and ours just keep humming the "Global Warming/Greenergy" tune as though nothing has changed.
Amazing. This is the first nuts and bolts description I’ve read of how the corrupt methodology was carried out. Thanks.
a must read for anyone wanting to understand the great boondoggle.
Bump for later, I heard the appeals he made in recent months about Hopenhagen 2009.
It is very BIG MONEY!
“Global Banker” is by far the most overblown title for a thieving criminal POS these old ears have ever heard.
....even if they do their stealing on such a grand scale.
bump for home
Behind the scenes, large financial houses are moving in stealthily. In 2008, carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion and is projected to grow to become a $2-$10 trillion dollar market, or The largest commodity traded world wide. The largest. Thats bigger than oil, coal, gas, or iron.
Banks want us to trade carbon
JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, BNP Paribas, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Credit Suisse are just a few financial houses calling for emissions trading schemes. (None of them seem to be calling for a tax?) Those who broker the trades are guaranteed to make money.
Journalists who repeat IPCC press releases without investigation are unwittingly acting as unpaid agents for large financial players.
This free market is not free, and is not based on a commodity, but on unverifiable, unauditable permits for actions that depend on motivations. They are issued to companies to build clean factories they would otherwise not have built (who can tell?). The top two auditors in Europe have both been suspended in the last 12 months. Carbon permits have no value other than by government decree. Its another fiat currency to be exploited by financial institutions.
Bankers benefit you pay
The potential for fraud and corruption is limited only by what the voting public will put up with (and what they are aware of). Once this legislation is in place it will be impossible to unwind without major compensation claims. Big bankers win either way.
It sucks wealth from those who produce real goods.
* Gun? What gun? Try not paying your carbon taxes and say hello to four grey walls.
Sources: Carbon Trading, World Bank Report.
Predictions: Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) USA.
You need this one.
“Amazing. This is the first nuts and bolts description Ive read of how the corrupt methodology was carried out. Thanks.”
I have a group of conservative diggers I follow and I get a lot of good articles from them. Then I read FR daily and get a lot of good articles from here. So I cross pollinate the two sites. This one came from digg.
The full report otherwise appears to be very well done, although I don't know enough to rule out other minor glitches. Real peer review of the open source type is called for. I especially like its recommendations, starting with "What is to be done?" on pages 38-40. Those involved should be removed forever from all involvement in "science" and all public financed activities as being unfit of any use of the public trust or the public purse. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And I would add, in an age where governments around the world are complaining of running out of funds, that not only are there substantial savings available in the canceling of scheduled and possible future spending on "green" matters, but there is a very large body of past "green" expenditures, fraudulently obtained, at least some of which may be recoverable via legal proceedings. By comparison Madoff was a piker. Go after those who Gore'd the world with the same zeal.
Spreading wide and far! (This article, that is.)
“The full PDF version of the report, which is linked to at the source, ends with a nice quote from Eisenhower’s Farewell Address. However accuracy should require, especially in THIS report, pointing out Ike was misquoted. Basically Ike used the two sentences cited in the reverse order.”
So the correct quote should be:
The prospect of domination of the nations scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
. . . Public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite ...
Thanks for catching that! You made me look at the pdf file, which I had previously downloaded. Seems even more complete and condemning than this summary.
Valuable posting. Thanks.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Paul Johnson’s history of the US examines every President through Reagan. He challenges many “normal” historical assessments. His assessment of Eisenhower was that he was brilliant, and hid it from the public.
Bump Save Much Appreciated