Free Markets, Free People

Climaquiddick – Who Are The “Deniers” Now?

What an interesting week. The wheels on the AGW bus aren’t going “round and round” any more, they seem to be coming off. Unless you listen to a good portion of the alarmists who are in the middle of denying the significance of the CRU emails, that is.

But I prefer to start my examination of what has been found with a couple of quotes from Eric S. Raymond (via Reboot Congress), software engineer, open source advocate and author of the book “The Cathedral & the Bazaar“.  The first:

For those of you who have been stigmatizing AGW skeptics as “deniers” and dismissing their charges that the whole enterprise is fraudulent? Hope you like the taste of crow, because I do believe there’s a buttload of it coming at you. Piping hot.

Pretty strong, no? So why do you suppose Raymond feels confident enough to make such a pronouncement? Because his review has found blatant and undeniable fraud within the programing used to “predict” the warming supposedly taking place. Or as he says:

All you apologists weakly protesting that this is research business as usual and there are plausible explanations for everything in the emails? Sackcloth and ashes time for you. This isn’t just a smoking gun, it’s a siege cannon with the barrel still hot.

Even stronger – and here’s why:

From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/ , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions.

From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/ , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions.

Raymond, in reaction to this bit of code, says:

This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1940s 1930s — see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.

You have to love it, in a sick sort of way – the routine is called “a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for the decline” and the correction is named a “fudge factor”. Blatant? Unbelievable. Again, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist, or a scientist at all to see through this garbage.

What does it all yield? Raymond plots it:


How very convenient – the “hockey stick” which began “Mann-made Global Warming”. Raymond adds an update:

Now the data is 0.75 scaled. I think I interpreted the yrloc entry incorrectly last time, introducing an off-by-one. The 1400 point (same as the 1904) is omitted as it confuses gmuplot. These are details; the basic hockey-stick shape is unaltered.

As is the basic point – “data-cooking”. Blatant data-cooking.

And yet the Alarmists want to wave it all away saying it doesn’t matter. At least those who have a political agenda which are most. But even some scientists who believe the AGW case to be valid are having difficulties reconciling what happened at CRU with what they consider to be the role of science and how science must work:

What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them.

Those aren’t the words of a skeptic or a skeptical pundit. They’re the words of Dr. Judith Curry, Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology. Her main message, the same message that Raymond sends, is that this should all be open source and available to other scientists. What happened at the CRU is, in Dr. Curry’s words, indicative of “circle the wagons/point guns outward” mentality which uses “ad hominem/appeal to motive attacks; appeal to authority; isolate the enemy through lack of access to data; peer review process”. That precisely describes the emails and occurrences over the last few years as skeptics tried to get the CRU data.

Speaking of transparency, Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia has this to say about the scandal:

The key lesson to be learned is that not only must scientific knowledge about climate change be publicly owned — the I.P.C.C. does a fairly good job of this according to its own terms — but the very practices of scientific enquiry must also be publicly owned, in the sense of being open and trusted. From outside, and even to the neutral, the attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good.

There are two reasons I completely agree with his assessment: 1) the research is mostly publicly funded and 2) obviously public policy is being derived from their findings and conclusions. When science is used in that sort of a way, it must be doubly open and rigorous as far as I’m concerned. And, if scientists don’t like that, they can seek their funding elsewhere (which, btw, I’d prefer as this is a wonderful example of “advocacy science” if ever I’ve seen one).

Hulme goes on to say this about Copenhagen, again something I agree with completely:

This will blow its course soon in the conventional media without making too much difference to Copenhagen — after all, COP15 is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. But in the Internet worlds of deliberation and in the ‘mood’ of public debate about the trustworthiness of climate science, the reverberations of this episode will live on long beyond COP15. Climate scientists will have to work harder to earn the warranted trust of the public – and maybe that is no bad thing.

Copenhagen’s politics aren’t really about “climate change” and its dangers. Climate change is the only the excuse for an exercise in power as it relates to governments. That and a redistribution scheme to assuage the guilt of the liberal industrial states and the greed of the third world.

But Hulme’s point about “climate scientists” having to “work harder to earn the warranted trust of the public” is a sure thing given these emails.

So while the pundits using climate change and man’s contribution as a means to more power try to wave this off and given the fact that real scientists are recognizing the huge damage these emails do to the validity of the science of climate change, the pundits are now in the “denier” category, not the skeptics.

I, for one, find the irony delicious.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

13 Responses to Climaquiddick – Who Are The “Deniers” Now?

  • I still suspect its possible that these e-mails were leaked not be coincidence, but deliberately to allow European Politicians (or some one else’s politicians) an out, if the Obama push was too strong and the utility of AGW to some of these governments became a burden.
    I’m not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.  These are what they are and its about time the charade was brought to an end.  Now if this was only done 5-10 years ago, it wouldn’t take years to slay this beast.  But too many politicians have hitch their wagons to that horse and it won’t go quietly.

    • I thought that for a while, but I’m not so sure any more ..

      Lesson 1: Don’t let users put passwords in their signatures. Yep, you got that right: One of the scientists included both on his e-mail signature — which means that anyone receiving an e-mail from this guy had access to his files. This may have been the source of the hack; in fact, some folks have theorized that a recipient of the e-mail was the source of the data dump.

    • You really have to ask yourself  .. what was left for these folks if Copenhagen had resulted in the treaty envisioned at the beginning of the year ? Surely, once the treaties were ratified by the various countries, they would be disposable or worse .. a liability.

    • No. Like Kyoto, they just wouldn’t meet their goals. And any such thing would hurt the US more anyway.

  • I wonder if it matters.  This was a headline today on Yahoo!

    Leaders say momentum building on climate change

    So, we’re going to get that treaty on “climate change” whether climate change exists or not.  This tells me that the politicians don’t bother keeping up with the state of the (ahem) science, or they really don’t care that it’s looking increasingly fraudulent.

    • “Leaders” may ignore the CRU debacle in order to push for climate change legislation, but I’m sure that China, India, and any other emerging industrial nation will not.  It makes a great bargaining chip for their position, which is that they should be allowed to continue to generate more and more CO2, and the rest of the world should pay for it.  Having documents on hand that show that the US and UK tried to make things look worse than they are will serve as a perfect mallet with which to pound both nations, and the EU as well.
      However, Copenhagen can still serve its purpose, which is to attempt to cripple the USA via impossible carbon restrictions.  The CRU emails can serve that purpose just fine.

    • Same mindset as the CRU frauds!
      I mean, has Climate Change EVER been anything but an excuse?

  • docjim505,
    I watch Yahoo headlines as well. It can be depressing.
    I do love that after “deniers”  was invented the phrase “alarmist” popped up. Excellent.

  • The data and emails could not have been leaked before TAO took office because the AGW crowd would have said it was all a CIA plot by GWB to help the oil industry 🙂

  • What does Chairman Bow-say-dung have to offer the AGW religionists at Copenhagen? The “Cap and Trade” thing only barely passed the house and that was before the Hadley CRU “hackers” blew the whistle. I suppose he will give a wonderful speech about himself and his lowering the oceans. It will be a smashing success, assuming the teleprompers don’t break.

  • What it means is that they will double down to try and get a cap and tax scheme up and running since they know they now have only a short time to get it in before public opinion is 99% against it.
    None of this was EVER about the earth’s climate. This is perhaps the most colossal scam in the history of the world.

  • …the I.P.C.C. does a fairly good job of this according to its own terms

    Really? The IPCC’s job is to push the AGW agenda. Not the science, the AGENDA.
    Of those “4,000  scientists”, much as been written of their “credentials< and the part everyone hears about is the “Summary” for “policy makers” (read: bureaucrats and usurpers)