Skip to comments.The edifice crumbles: top climatologist openly breaks with Climategate conspirators
Posted on 01/26/2010 7:51:52 PM PST by mimi from mi
Further damning revelations are pouring in from the gaping wound that has inflicted the fast unraveling theory of the green monster that is man made global warming. As reported today by By Marc Morano of Climate Depot, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has split ranks with other members of the discredited hockey team of climatologists exposed for fraudulently hiding and destroying data in the Climategate scandal that broke on November 19, 2009.
Christy served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed in these new revelations he explains how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes. But he fell from favour for proposing that the IPCC allow for well-credentialed climate scientists to craft a chapter on an alternative view presenting evidence for low climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases.
I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol, Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007.
Christys statements carry even more weight when we examine the considerable pressure also being applied to him to keep quiet about the cracks appearing in the dodgy science dossiers being churned out for the IPCC. We get an insight into the conspiracy of secrecy Christy was opposing as he is one of the climatologists whose leaked emails are part of the Climategate scandal.
In the leaked CRU email dated Thu, 24 May 2001 11:33, Michael Mann was critical of Christy and scolded him for publicly showing dissent for not agreeing with Mann that 20th century temperatures were higher than the Medieval warm period:
So do I [Mann] understand correctly that you are referring to the results of Dahl-Jensen et al as conflicting with what we say in the chapter? At the face of it, this argument has no merit whatsoever. I think we should all use a better explanation from you, since you seem to be arguing publically that the Dahl-Jensen et al record undermines what weve said in the chapter.
Professor Phil Jones again tries to indicate the peer pressure they are all under not to make public admissions damaging to their ever more flawed theory in an email sent to Christy dated Tue Jul 5, 2005;
The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isnt statistically significant.
The unrelenting peer pressure being applied to Christy continues, this time coming from Michael Mann. Climatologists, Neville Nichols and Phil Jones discuss the issue in another leaked CRU email dated Wed Jul 6 15:07:45 2005.
I know I [Nichols] could have asked John [Christy] about all of this, but I suspect he feels a bit over-burdened and harassed at the moment, and I didnt want to add to the pressure on him, so thanks for passing this stuff on to me.
Further emails substantiate that the hockey team were systematically applying peer pressure to convince Christy that recent weather balloon data (out of kilt with dodgy ground thermometer readings) was, itself in error.
Phil Jones admits, the sondes [weather balloons] clearly show too much cooling in the stratosphere.
The fact weather balloons were detecting cooling rather than warming in the tropical stratosphere was a key signal that the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming was probably wrong. Thus, to avoid embarrassment the hockey team rounded on Christy to conspire to suppress these facts.
Professor Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces a document designed for uniformity and consensus. Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. An alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed, Christy said. If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required, he added. The reception to my comments was especially cold
Ther are some “scientists” that need to spend a little time behind bars for this scam
Uhm, I am pretty sure John Christy had already been a skeptic of AGW for at least a few years. I’m not sure he ever thought the theory had much merit.
Only if they have broken a law. I'm not saying they have or haven't, I'm just concerned with inference that someone should be jailed for having a stupid opinion.
Dude...John Christy was who the ClimateGate conspirators were conspiring *against*.
He’s been the leading authority on ground-based Earth temperatures. He’s the real deal.
One problem that the ClimateGate conspirators have is that Christy’s ice-hole-cores show accurate ground temperatures for thousands of years, making it possible to see the natural temperature variations over time...
...plus...his ground temperatures haven’t shown the fast rise that the ClimateGate conspirators have fabricated in East Anglia’s air temperature measurements.
Now listen, this is IMPORTANT: if CO2 warms the Earth, then where CO2 has maximum thickness/densisty (i.e. at ground level) would have to be where temps rise the most.
Christy’s ground temperature data therefor has shown since the 1990’s that the ClimateGate conspirators were fudging either their own air temp readings **OR** the impact of man’s emmissions.
And they’ve been out to discredit him ever since.
He was never one of them. He’s an actual Climatologist publishing actual, peer-reviewed scientific data.
It’s just that his incontravertible data shows that AGW is false.
Thanks for posting. Very interesting. BTTT!
Well said. The article is worth reading, but the headline is misleading.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
The ones that count are the politicians and they are the last who will come around. AGW is too rich a source of more wealth and power for them and less for everyone else.
I guess the price on carbon credits will be coming down, way down.
Fraud is a crime and it does carry a jail sentence.
They have tried to whitewash ClimateGate as just opinion and disgruntled talk, but looking at the actual data and the computer programs they used to “adjust” the data before publishing it, there is no question it was intentional fraud.
This was brought up in comments at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/comment-page-1/
atJames interesting post from Bookers column:
Loophole in UK FoIA law will allow CRU to avoid prosecution
There will be no prosecutions under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, regardless of the final outcome of the investigation. Although withholding or destroying information is a criminal offence under the terms of the Act, apparently no prosecutions can be brought for offences committed more than six months prior. As anyone who has made a UK FoI request knows, it can take six months to exhaust the internal review process before the ICO even becomes involved. The ICO can then take another six months before starting his investigation.
Its clear now that civil servants are able to withhold and destroy information without any consequences and its interesting to ponder how such a dramatic flaw can have found its way into the terms of the Act. Of course we in the UK are used to poorly drafted laws finding their way onto the statute books, but we might also consider the thought that the civil servants involved have knowingly inserted this crucial error, in order to ensure that when push came to shove they could keep things quiet without any concerns that they might find themselves in the dock.
Im sure the collective of CRU is breathing a sigh of relief knowing this, however there may be other unforeseen repercussions coming from the investigation, and UEA may have other rules for professional conduct that may apply.
on January 25, 2010
at 07:39 PM
Indeed. But stupidity is not all there is to this fraud. In fact, I have no trouble imagining that absolutely everyone in this had an admirable IQ.
First, how are you going to argue that credentialed scientists writing in peer reviewed journals are stupid?
Second, the fraud is self-serving. That peer pressure is not like kids egging one of their own to jump into the water. Scientists lose careers -- not merely jobs but whole careers when they lose the support of their peers. The whole academic system works on peer review. Science is also overwhelmingly financed by government grants, likewise dependent on peer review.
Thirdly, there are billions out of the taxpayer pockets hinging on this, because it is not just grants to advance knowledge, this is industrial policy. These theories do real damage. If, for the sake on an argument, someone put fools in charge of the climate science and then linked climate science to industrial policy, then that is criminal too.
It reminds me of a story overheard on the radio. A gangster shoots the pilot of a private plane dead cold near Miami airport as the plane was still in the air. He is brought in for murder. His defense is imaginative: "I just bought me a new gun and wanted to go shoot at planes to see if it works. I am not a very smart man, your honor."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.