I’ve decided to use this page for lots of global warming posts. I’ll cut and paste it to the top of my blog every once in a while, so I can have easy access to it. The bottom items in it will be the older ones.
- “A Petition I Am Thinking of Circulating.” My draft ClimateGate petition for economists to sign, which has lots of ClimateGate email excerpts on the two topics of fiddling with journals and hiding data.
- This 2005 post at ClimateAudit thoroughly discusses the open-data policies of the US funding agencies that the East Anglia people ignored (and the US D. of Energy condoned). It has the story of the famous Philip Jones email quote, when refusing to disclose his data: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
- Dec. 18 in NatureNews, two prominent climatologists not at East Anglia, Von Storch and Allen, show their total unconcern with the unethical practices displayed in the Climategate Emails: “We welcome debate about the ethics of science prompted by the language of some of these e-mails, which, rightly or not, have created concerns about the scientific process.”
- This 2009 post has the story of the Kamel Siberia paper that Jones boasted of having gotten rejected. “In the case of another paper (Aufhammer et al )[the economists], obstruction has delayed publication of the paper by six years but the authors are still endeavouring to get the paper into print. This was not the case with the Kamél paper; Kamél himself had abandoned the field.”
- This pdf article by James Hansen is a good survey of lots of global warming issues from his warmist point of view. It shows what a fraud he is, too. Two things I note are (1) when he discusses the year-2000 mistake, he fails to point out that it was a skeptic who found it in spite of Hansen’s total lack of cooperation, and (2) when he discusses the failure of temperature to rise over the past decade he says that temperature did rise, because the 11-year moving average rose. (This last is blatantly deceitful, because if temperatures are rising and then flatten, it will take 11 years before the 11-year moving average stops rising! Note, too, that 1998 was by his own admission a year that was unusually warm for reasons unrelated to CO2.) The best place to prove a man’s lack of integrity is from his own writing.
- December 20, 2009
A Climatology Conspiracy?
By David H. Douglass and John R. Christy. On the conspiracy to slow down an article’s appearance in print till the warmists could write a response (and the editor’s acquiescence and apparent guarantee of acceptance).
- Climatedebatedaily is a very good site that in two columns links to Warmist and Skeptic webposts, and even links to “Ripostes” and “Replies” to each webpost. It is especially useful for the Warmist column, I think— better than RealClimate.
Wikipedia’s climate doctor: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles
December 19, 2009, Lawrence Solomon
- There;s a good post by a statistician showing step by step how to do your own Hockey Stick, at
I’d like to try this out myself, but I haven’t yet. He even limits himself to free spreadsheet statistical software (Star OpenOffice–Excel doesn’t have the tools). Any statistician could have found out what was wrong with the Hockey Stick paper, one of the most important in the field, if he’d been allowed to see the data and techniques.
- EUReferendum reports on the truly remarkable number of conflicts of interest thatDr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, has. It’s about as bad as if he were a director of Exxon. The number of directorships and consultantcies he has must make him a very rich man. Pegasus Capital, Siderian Ventures, The Sustainable Future Fund Iceland, International Risk Governance Council, Asian Development Bank, GloriOil Limited,Chicago Climate Exchange, Inc. , Oil Trade Associates Singapore, Climate Change Advisory Board of Deutsche Bank. Some of these are “advisory board” positions, so maybe they aren’t paid much, but it makes one wonder.
- A good post on public opinion: “You can feel that most crucial of propaganda processes happening with Climategate: the reversing of the burden of proof.”
- Hamweather record weather events mapped over the US for last week.
- RealClimate, the main Warmer blog, has been surprisingly quiet about ClimateGate. Below are their most recent updates on it. These are useful because they present the Warmer case, which essentially is “I’m a very good guy and so is Phil Jones and it’s a shame people are saying bad things about him ” without mentioning anything specific. There’s not a sign of contrition. Don’t take my word for it— read these.
Further update: Nature’s editorial.
- “Pielke Sr. responds to NCDC’s “Talking Points” about surfacestations.org”. Arguments that the US raw temperature record is of dubious value for looking at long-term trends. Very feeble response from the weather station people, it seems.
- “The Climate Research Dispute over Publishing Soon and Baliunas”. Response of the journal editor to complaints about his publishing a Skeptic article.
- It’s interesting how comments are so often better informed and wiser than the writer. This Megan McCardle post is about death threats to climatologists after ClimateGate. The comments note that the only evidence that such threats were really made comes from the same scientists who have been discredited in the scandal itself.
- Fables of the Reconstruction
(Or, How to Make Your Own Hockey Stick). This goes through it, supplying the temperature and proxy data and telling you how to download and use OpenOffice to do principal components analysis. I’ll do this myself when I have time. I emailed the author asking why principal components was a better technique than just regression here.
From Mark Steyn:
The documents were leaked on the Internet, the CRU confirmed their authenticity, they’ve announced that they’ve thrown out all their raw data, the head guy has stepped down . . . But that’s no reason not to “continue to look into the issue” for another, oh, three, four, seven months before running a story. I like this fellow’s sign-off:
Slice your average environment correspondent through the middle and you’re going to find a left-leaning liberal arts graduate who is utterly out of his/her depth. Their world view is being swept from underneath them and they are being shown — in ways that they do not really and have never had to understand — that the guys they thought were the goodies are in fact “at it” and that those they have spent a decade disparaging as deniers were in fact spot on.
I would find that hard to report too.
Like eight year olds that just found out there’s no Santa. Kind of earth shattering and traumatic. Lied to by those you most trusted.
- The Harry Read Me file is worth having a link to. Here are some excerpts. One of them: “So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option — to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations … In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad …”
- In my regulation class this week, a Taiwanese student jokingly suggested that the way to solve global warming would be to kill any children born to a family that already had one child. Then this Op-Ed appeared in one of the top Canadian newspapers:
“The real inconvenient truth:
The whole world needs to adopt China’s one-child policy”
- Megan McCardle very gently brings up the Darwin data fraud and politely asks if there’s some reason it’s not as bad as it looks. She hopes the warmist blog RealClimate will say something about it. I’ve been checking that site regularly, and they seem to have adopted the strategy of saying very little about ClimateGate and related scandals, probably because they can’t give good answers and they don’t want to even give their readers access to any details that might upset their views.
- Look at the comments on this Boston Globe blog in which Harvard Prof. McCarthy tries to dismiss ClimateGate. The amount of scorn heaped on the Globe is amazing.
- Bellamy: Twenty-Eight Years on TV, Then Blackballed for Challenging AGW
- Global Warming US Cities Getting Warmer: This is a You-Tube video a geneticist made with his son showing how only the urban temperatures in the US are going up, not rural stations. “A comparison of GISS data for the last 111 years show US cities getting warmer but rural sites are not increasing in temperature at all. Urban Heat Islands may be the only areas warming.” The emperor really does have no clothes. I’ve wondered about that myself, but I thought people in the field had surely looked at something so simple.
- Climate Scientist to Revkin: “we can no longer trust you” to carry water for us. Another incredible email leak. A well-known U. of Illinois scientist condemns a NY Times liberal writer for making light of global warming and threatens to cut off his sources. These people have no shame, and no sense of humor either.
- It is worth keeping in mind that maybe people who say they don’t believe in absolute truth and who believe that the most important things for scientists to do is to help people, not to advance science, actually mean what they say, in which case they believe that a scientist has a duty to lie about his results if he thinks that will advance social justice. And if they believe that, they’ll do it.
Nature has an editorial belitting the importance of ClimateGate and making misstatemetns such as that Antarctic sea ice is diminishing. Read it, and think less of that journal.
- A good Levitt-Dubner comment on why anything happening with glaciers is unrelated to global warming (for example– where glaciers are melting, temperatures aren’t rising!)