Free Markets, Free People


Who Are The Deniers Now? Part II

In a previous post, I talked about Dr. Judith Curry from Georgia Tech. She believes that there is a case for human caused global warming. But, as I noted, she doesn’t think there’s a case for shoddy science and believes that CRU emails show serious problems are likely with the data produced there.

She’s not the only one.

Roger Pielke, Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, could in no sense be described as a climate change sceptic, let alone a ‘denier’.

‘Human-caused climate change is real, and I’m a strong advocate for action,’ he said. ‘But I’m also a strong advocate for integrity in science.’

Pielke’s verdict on the scandal is damning.

‘These emails open up the possibility that big scientific questions we’ve regarded as settled may need another look.

‘They reveal that some of these scientists saw themselves not as neutral investigators but as warriors engaged in battle with the so-called sceptics.

‘They have lost a lot of credibility and as far as their being leading spokespeople on this issue of huge public importance, there is no going back.’

Or to those trying to wave away the scandal and pretend this isn’t “any big deal” it is you who are in denial now. As you can tell, ethical scientists disagree completely.

The quote is from a must-read article in the UK’s Daily Mail in which we’re shown why, via some blowups of the CRU’s data, one way inconvenient data was omitted (literally – it wasn’t graphed because it showed a marked cooling trend rather than a warming trend – so they left it out).

Also found in the article was this little nugget:

Critics such as McIntyre had been ‘after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone’.

Yesterday Davies said that, contrary to some reports, none of this data has in fact been deleted. But in the wake of the scandal, its reliability too is up for grabs.

Really? So where is it and why hasn’t it been produced by now?

Last nugget:

Russian secret service agents admitted yesterday that the hacked ‘Warmergate’ emails were uploaded on a Siberian internet server, but strenuously denied a clandestine state-sponsored operation to wreck the Copenhagen summit.

Read the whole article – there is some excellent info in there and some more detailed analysis of the CRU emails.
~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

18 Responses to Who Are The Deniers Now? Part II

  • Time to buy stock in paper shredders and degaussers.

  • I’d rather it were time to short carbon-offset companies.

  • To be fair Pielke claims he was misquoted by the Daily Mail and has requested a correction.  He added a conditional to his statement the Mail excluded.  (Pielke didn’t totally repudiate the Mail piece – he says much of it was “well done” – but it does look like they botched the quote you picked out for this post.)

  • So they go away and re-examine the data.  And eventually they come back with a response derived in a verifiable scientific way.   

    Its either going to be:

    A – We have found there to be insignificant link between man-made gasses and climate fluctuations.

    or

    B – We have found there to be a link between manmade gasses and climate fluctuations.

    If it is “A” then good, we luck out and avoid worldwide regulation of industry by virtue of a scientific decision making process.  

    But the vast majority of QandO readership (myself included) is not qualified to comment on scientific merit, mostly because we are just people like debating politics on the internet and who favour increased liberty as a solution (and partly because we don’t have the data).  So the chances are that “B” might be the answer, no matter how much we wish otherwise.

    If it is “B” then, we are required to present an alternative political philosophy to combat climate change that is based upon greater liberty* rather than greater state control.  To not have this alternative is to effectively concede the future to socialism, because it would appear that liberty as philosophy is flawed and unable to cope with observed reality.   Should the science be convinced that climate change is occuring, we need liberty to solve the problem otherwise liberty dies.

    Please start presenting options through which a growth of liberty can solve climate change.

    * I reckon the best of the alternatives is neo-liberal in nature.  Cost carbon pollution to the consumer at a price (tax) sufficiently high that the market becomes driver to seek low carbon alternatives and as the consumer is the driver it is important that the consumer market be maximised by removing all non-market factors (minimising the state and lessening regulation).  Its not perfectly libertarian (because perfect libertarianism cannot solve a commons issue like climate change), but it requires smaller government than we have now and lots less government than any world government regulatory scenario. 

    • But the vast majority of QandO readership (myself included) is not qualified to comment on scientific merit, mostly because we are just people like debating politics on the internet and who favour increased liberty as a solution (and partly because we don’t have the data).

      One thing that science did, many centuries ago, is to take knowledge out of the realm of revelation and make it accessible to any man of reason and logic.
      One need not be qualified in the DETAILS of a scientific discipline to grasp the fundamentals and follow through to the conclusions. It is when “scientists” work long and hard to obfuscate the issue that it becomes apparent that there is nefarious intent.
      IOW, someone with a good, fundamental grasp of physics can follow the data and corresponding arguments.
      In sum, take that pompous pontification and shove it!

      • SharpshooterOne thing that science did, many centuries ago, is to take knowledge out of the realm of revelation and make it accessible to any man of reason and logic.  One need not be qualified in the DETAILS of a scientific discipline to grasp the fundamentals and follow through to the conclusions.

        Absolutely.  In this particular case, one need not be a scientist to start doubting other alleged scientists who refuse to show their raw data to ANYBODY because the dog ate it they threw it out.  One need not be a scientist to start doubting other alleged scientists who show only part of the data.  One need not be a scientists to start doubting other alleged scientists whose computer models, which they claim prove that the earth will become catastrophically warm 10 20 50 years from ten years ago now, cannot recreate CURRENT climactic conditions.

        If we accept that the common man is incapable of grasping the root of some matter after some reading and discussion, then we ought to chuck democracy (and jury trials, for that matter) right now and hand everything over to scientists like Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri.

        Oh, wait…

      • Thank you.

      • And yet CO2 and methane and Flourocarbons do have different heat capacities and different absorbtion spectrum characteristics to Nitrogen and Oxygen.  And we are doping atmosphere.  This input is going to cause an output and all that remains is to judge the nature of that output through effective analysis. 

        So let me qualify my above pompousity - you are not qualified to comment on each and every analysis from now on in being wrong.  If your goal is to avoid a world government solution merely by denying the existance of a problem you are likely to fail.  No one is qualified to make that call, because no one has undertaken an effective analysis of the data.  The next analysis of the data is going to be more robust, less open to easy criticism and may well still determine a significant outcome from Earths airborne pollution. 

        All the CRU e-mails have done is show that the models currently employed to anticipate an output are flawed or lacking appropriate proofs.  These flawed models point to catastrophic climate change, but their flaws do not actually negate the possibility that climate change is going to occur anyways (in the same way that a stuck clock is right twice a day) there is a chance that any “nefarious intent” driven programs might have reached the correct conclusion by sheer luck.  And the next more effective analysis of the data might broadly agree with the IPCCs conclusions.  At best they buy us time to formulate a political response, at worst the scandal is hushed up and progressives make “progress”. 

        I do not want to see an extension of world government and empowerment of the UN to deal with climate change.   My ability to predict the outcome of climate change research is less than yours and I don’t trust yours anyway – so please with return compliments take (what appears to be) your claimed psychic ability to predict the outcome of scientific research and shove it.  

        I am looking for a political solution to climate change that reqires a reduction of government. 

    • (rebutting an item not yet addressed)  If those preaching AGW were honest (not the useful idiots that the ‘fat cat’ warmists have enlisted),  we would see two available and very clean sources for energy rapidly built.  The first is hydroelectric – which is the cleanest on-demand source – and nuclear.  That these proven and readily available sources are absolutely shunned is as good an indication that the warmists are merely using climate change as a tool for ulterior aims.  Furthermore, the rapid construction of such new energy infrastructures stateside would employ thousands and thousands of both skilled and unskilled labor… and diminish our need of foreign sources.
      Something else.  We know that this world has seen vast fluctuations in temperatures during the eons that industrial man was absent.  I think it would be wiser for US, and all other developed nations, to work on figuring out how best to provide necessary (and unnecessary as defined by many AGW wackos) commodities in times of climatic extremes.  (How about also defining what the extremes really are, both high and low, and what are the determinative baselines and how were they arrived at?)  The point being that if one buys into the idea of catastrophic climate change, it may not be man that causes it (think of Shasta, Hood, Rainer, and Baker all going off together), it would probably better to be prepared rather than trying to control something over which we have no control.

  • I think the Russians probably did it, but in this case, good on them.

  • Another thing to consider, the “improved” CRU data was THE data source for a lot of climate researchers. Now they will need to go back and re-evaluate any research they’ve done based on that data.

    Garbage in/Garbage out

  • Speaking of deniers …

    Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb. The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

    So much for that Nov 2007 NIE that mislead the country with claims that Iran had given up their nuclear program.
    The Iranians must have been laughing their asses off.

  • There is far more independent due diligence on the smallest prospectus offering securities to the public than on a Nature article that might end up having a tremendous impact on policy.”

    .. and here underlies the real problem.

  • Judging by the # of reporters assigned to it, Climategate isn’t nearly as important a story as checking out Sarah Palin’s book….

    Thank god for whoever hacked those emails.

  • Science writer Andrew C. Revkin, the individual journalist most identified with reporting on climate change, is leaving The New York Times.

  • I ran across this TNR piece at Althouse (her parenthetical commentary is interesting).
    Worse yet, many years of painstaking efforts to explain climate change to the American people and get them concerned about it seem to be gradually unraveling. As Chris Mooney notes in a piece on the ‘disastrous’ turn in the narrative, an October 2009 Pew report shows that, since April 2008, the number of Americans who believe there is “solid evidence the earth is warming” has dropped from 71 percent to 57 percent. During that same period, the proportion who accept the existence of climate change and attribute it to human activity has dropped from 47 percent to 36 percent–not exactly a robust constituency for immediate action.

    It is all about the narrative; facts be damned. And damn those rubes who are starting to doubt the narrative that the warmists have so painstakingly manipulated data to foist.

  • Does this …

    December 14, 2009 DOE Litigation Hold Notice DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”

    … have anything to do with …

    Failure to reopen the record to include CRU’s new revelations would result in a fundamentally misleading administrative record. That record would falsely suggest that the climate-change data relied upon by EPA has evidentiary support when in fact it fails EPA’s own data quality standards. Moreover, since the underlying data no longer exist, the record would falsely suggest that CRU’s claims are reliable.

    … and …

    Washington, DC, Dec. 7, 2009 –The Environmental Protection Agency today finalized its finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare and therefore must be regulated under the Clean Air Act. CEI announced that it will file suit in federal court to overturn the endangerment finding on the grounds that EPA has ignored major scientific issues, including those raised recently in the Climategate fraud scandal.