WaPo reports on East Anglia CRU e-mails, global-warming controversy

posted at 12:00 pm on November 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

It’s out in the mainstream, in a not-too-bad report from the Washington Post.  Juliet Eilperin focuses exclusively on the controversy and not the content in this report, which is a story in itself (via Instapundit):

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate — nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal — public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.

Why is that important?  Global-warming advocates routinely criticize skeptics for not having enough peer-reviewed work rebutting their findings.  If they’re conspiring to block the publication of such research, that undermines their argument and their scientific credibility.  One of their nemeses explains the significance:

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

“There’s an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘If you print anything by this group, we won’t send you any papers.’ “

As I wrote when the scandal first arose, the anthropogenic global warming advocates have not been practicing science, if these e-mails prove genuine.  Scientists welcome debate and analysis of data to test hypotheses and theories.  When people start attempting to silence dissent, they cease being scientists and start being high priests of a faith-based system.  This smacks more of Galileo’s treatment than Galileo’s work.  E pur si muove?

Real scientists also don’t delete data when asked to provide transparency to their work, as John Hinderaker points out:

These emails appear to show that, when faced with a legitimate request under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, these global warming alarmists preferred to delete their emails with one another about the crucially important IPCC report–the main basis for the purported “consensus” in favor of anthropogenic global warming–rather than allow them to come to light. This is one of many instances in the East Anglia documents where the global warming alarmists act like a gang of co-conspirators rather than respectable scientists.

Eilperin’s report is a straightforward account of the controversy.  How long will it be before the media that has hailed AGW scientists and amplified their hysterical findings gives us analysis of the e-mails, such as those being done at Climate Depot and Watt’s Up With That, in order to expose the highly unscientific behavior of AGW hysterics?

Charlie Martin at Pajamas Media gives just such an analysis and concludes:

These emails and the data associated, taken together, raise really important questions about the whole scientific structure of AGW. Is the data really valid? Has the data been effectively peer reviewed and have attempts to falsify been fairly treated? Is CO2-forced AGW really the best hypothesis?Until these questions are answered, the various attempts to “deal with the climate change crisis” have no acceptable scientific basis.

If CRU’s scientists have been conspiring to smear skeptics and keep people in the dark about their processes, the assumption should be that the work is dishonest and could not stand the light of scrutiny.  Based on the e-mails, Hadley and everyone who relied on their work — including the UN and the IPCC — should be forced to start over from scratch … with total and complete transparency.

Update: East Anglia’s CRU is not Hadley.  None of the e-mails exposed came from Hadley’s servers.  Those are two separate institutions.  I’ve corrected this post’s headline and body to reflect that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Wholie Crapolie.
From the emails :

Too much informatio to highlight read the whole thing

Dear Mr. Covey – Many thanks for coming back to me so quickly. You mention Hansen’s recent
papers. I have recently been looking at an (attached) earlier projection of his – the
projection of temperature increase which he made to the US Congress in 1988, effectively
starting the “global-warming” scare. Updating his graph shows that annual global mean land
and sea surface air temperature is not rising anything like as fast as his
attention-grabbing but now manifestly-misconceived Scenario A suggested. Indeed, it is
beginning to look as though temperature is beginning to fall below his estimate based on
CO2 having been stabilized in 1988. Morner, the world’s leading authority on sea level, has
been very clear in saying there is very little evidence to justify the IPCC’s sea-level
projections. The IPCC itself forecast up to 0.94m sea level rise in a century in its 1996
report; up to 0.88m in its 2001 report; and now 0.43m in its 2007 report. If one loosely
defines whatever t he IPCC says as the “consensus”, then not only does the “consensus” not
agree with itself: it is galloping in the direction of the formerly-derided sceptics.

As to future world population, I did some research on this several years ago, because the
UN was making alarmist noises and this alerted me to the likelihood that we were being fed
political propaganda masquerading as science. I learned that the prime determinant of dP in
any population is the general level of prosperity in that population. As prosperity
increases, dP tends to zero. The prosperity factor is many times more potent as an
influence on dP than even enforced, artificial contraception or child-killing. Since I
expect world prosperity to increase in the coming century, I regard it as near-certain that
dP will tend to zero in the next half-century. The reason for the plummet thereafter is the
widespread availability and use of artificial methods of birth-control. The combined
effects of rising general prosperity and the general availability of artificial
birth-control on depressing indigenous population are already discernible in all those
Western European populations not having to cope with mass immigration from poorer
countries. In Russia, the indigenous population is falling so fast that Muslims will soon
form more than half the population.

As to the “hockey-stick” problem, the NAS report does state very clearly that, though the
conclusion of Mann et al. is “plausible”, evidence going back more than 400 years before
the present is increasingly unreliable, and that very few reliable conclusions can be drawn
if one goes back more than 900 years. This illustrates one of the problems bedevilling the
climate-change question: too much of the data and processes on the basis of which we are
trying to draw conclusions are unreliable, incomplete or very poorly understood. This
should not deter scientists from trying to make increasingly intelligent guesses: but
anyone with diplomatic knowledge of the fast-emerging, fast-growing fast-polluters such as
China, India, Indonesia and Brazil will tell you that the ruling regimes in these countries
will not try to prevent their people from enjoying the fossil-fuelled economic growth we
have already enjoyed unless and until the science is honest, the uncertainties are admitted
and the case is strengthened by the accumulation of measurements and the improvement of
analytical techniques in the coming years.

Finally, you are right to take me to task for using words such as “rubbish” and “useless”.
I apologize. That said, a validation skill not significantly different from zero indicates
that no valid scientific conclusion may be drawn from the “hockey-stick” graph.

Searchable here:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=776&filename=1170724434.txt

Burgher on November 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Ripping quotes out of context from hacked private emails is just taking a page from the creationist handbook of denial. Such tactics are purely red herrings intended to distract people from the facts we do know about global warming. Just like in the courtroom, when the evidence isn’t on your side, try to muddy the waters in hopes of getting the jury to stop paying attention to the facts.

starfleet_dude on November 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Ripping quotes out of context from hacked private emails is just taking a page from the creationist handbook of denial. Such tactics are purely red herrings intended to distract people from the facts we do know about global warming. Just like in the courtroom, when the evidence isn’t on your side, try to muddy the waters in hopes of getting the jury to stop paying attention to the facts.

starfleet_dude on November 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Care to prove that the quotes are being taken out of context?

MarkTheGreat on November 23, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Ripping quotes out of context from hacked private emails is just taking a page from the creationist handbook of denial. Such tactics are purely red herrings intended to distract people from the facts we do know about global warming. Just like in the courtroom, when the evidence isn’t on your side, try to muddy the waters in hopes of getting the jury to stop paying attention to the facts.

starfleet_dude on November 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Um, little tardlett, speaking of muddying the waters when evidence is not on your side, do you have the full context? No? Just being a good little tool, passing on the talking points? Just what I thought.

Would I be on track, thinking you have a Journalism School degree, little one?

MNHawk on November 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Ripping quotes out of context from hacked private emails is just taking a page from the creationist handbook of denial. Such tactics are purely red herrings intended to distract people from the facts we do know about global warming. Just like in the courtroom, when the evidence isn’t on your side, try to muddy the waters in hopes of getting the jury to stop paying attention to the facts.

starfleet_dude

Those against the “global warming” theory have maintained from the beginning that much of the evidence put forward by the global warming lobby is manufactured and stretched. These e-mails seem to confirm that manufactured evidence. Do these e-mails alone prove the case against global warming? No. But they do show the level of base corruption within the global warming lobby.

IntheNet on November 23, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Ripping quotes out of context

I dare you to go to the searchable web site and read the email threads. Each thread is in context and reveals many levels of deceptions, cover-ups, arguments amongst the scientist and more.

Don’t be afraid. The truth will set you free.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1037&filename=1254751382.txt

Burgher on November 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM

starfleet_dude on November 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Man up and kill yourself. For the planet.

PimFortuynsGhost on November 23, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Ripping quotes out of context from hacked private emails is just taking a page from the creationist handbook of denial.

The E-Mails were not hacked. They have every indication of being released from the inside by a whistleblower. You can derive context from the E-Mails themselves. Why don’t you go ahead and call us Holocaust Deniers.

Such tactics are purely red herrings intended to distract people from the facts we do know about global warming.

Facts we do know about Global Warming. CO2 is a trace green house gas that is a percent of 1 percent of the Atmosphere and Man releases about 500 billion tons annually. But the Earth pumps 97,000 times that amount in Water Vapor every day in to the atmosphere. At no point in the record does CO2 force anything and infact preceeds temp by about 800 years. And CO2 is a crappy green house gas capable of absorbing IR energy in three narrow wavelengths. Sunspot activity correlates strongly to temp trends.

Just like in the courtroom, when the evidence isn’t on your side, try to muddy the waters in hopes of getting the jury to stop paying attention to the facts.

starfleet_dude on November 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Funny coming from a proponent of a Theory that does just that.

Holger on November 23, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Such tactics are purely red herrings intended to distract people from the facts we do know about global warming.

starfleet_dude on November 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

There’s the fact that we have no idea how much the earth has warmed in the last century, or even if actually did, do to the poor quality of the temperature sensor network.

Even if it did increase, there have been 4 even larger temperature increases during the last 5000 years, without benefit of CO2 enhancement.

The world has been cooling for the last decade, despite CO2 continuing to rise, something that was not predicted by any of the climate models.

Enhanced CO2 has been a boon for plants, allowing them to grow faster, stonger, and with less water.

The other planets in our solar system have been warming and now cooling in synch with the Earth.

And that’s just a start.

MarkTheGreat on November 23, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Now, the deniers are even taking computer programming out of context. At least, the starfleettard, who dresses in a red shirt before posting, would say.

Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065

MNHawk on November 23, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Ripping quotes out of context from hacked private emails is just taking a page from the creationist handbook of denial.

starfleet_dude on November 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

So, what this comes down to, is that your religion (Gaia, the worship of Mother Earth ) is in conflict with Christianity.

Johan Klaus on November 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Embargo of article that discount the holy grail of the climate religion, “The Hockey Stick Graph’

Article:
Comment on “Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data”
Eugene R. Wahl,1* David M. Ritson,2 Caspar M. Ammann3

von Storch et al. (Reports, 22 October 2004, p. 679) criticized the ability of the “hockey stick” climate field reconstruction method to yield realistic estimates of past variation in Northern Hemisphere temperature. However, their conclusion was based on incorrect implementation of the reconstruction procedure. Calibration was performed using detrended data, thus artificially removing a large fraction of the physical response to radiative forcing.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5773/529b

Alleged CRU Emails:1141187005.txt
I want to make a reminder about the embargo for release of the WRA Science comment article. Please do not disseminate this article to anyone else, or discuss it publically until it is actually published, which I know Science wants to do soon. I still believe citation is appropriate, and I have asked for clarification on this from the editors. I will let you know what/if I hear from them.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php

Burgher on November 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM

I want my DAMNED MONEY BACK!!!

I have been paying my taxes for these clowns to do their “Global Warming Studies” and they have been faking it?

Even if they deliberatly faked one element of one footnote, it is wrong.

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

barnone on November 23, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Fascinating that AP doesn’t address this issue. Guess he doesn’t like to critique his religious leaders like he likes to critique religious leaders.

Sultry Beauty on November 23, 2009 at 1:52 PM

No more hope for the dopes in Copenhagen.

Connie on November 23, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Except for the conspiracy aspects of the contents of FOIA2009.zip, exactly why was all this stuff secret in the first place ?

Likewise, if the part of the theory that says this was put together as part of the review to Steve McIntyre’s FOIA request, exactly what contained with FOIA2009.zip, aside from the embarrassing conspiracy perpetrated by CRU employees, were the CRU officials trying to protect by denying the request.

Finally, the legal department of CRU found nothing strange reading this material that obviously reveals many unethical, if not illegal, acts by CRU employees ?

Frankly, the best course for the CRU and the University of East Anglia is to announce that a ongoing probe had been started on Nov. 12, 2009 into the actions of various employees of the CRU, from material that came to light because of a FOIA request.

J_Crater on November 23, 2009 at 3:58 PM

What’s the correct global temperature?

hawksruleva on November 23, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Burgher on November 23, 2009 at 10:11 AM

What’s also interesting about the emails is the level of understanding they have about many of the worlds problems. The writer looked into the UN’s talk about the problems of population explosion, and found that there was no problem to be afraid of. Indeed, he notes that Russia will be mostly Muslim soon. But he doesn’t consider the policy implications of that, nor does he wonder if he is involved in exactly the same sort of deceit that the population scare involved.

The combination of wilful blindness and short-sightedness is amazing.

hawksruleva on November 23, 2009 at 4:21 PM

Just like in the courtroom, when the evidence isn’t on your side, try to muddy the waters in hopes of getting the jury to stop paying attention to the facts.

starfleet_dude on November 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

The waters aren’t muddy at all.
Climate change happens.
Earth’s ecosystem copes with that change.
We have an incomplete understanding of the factors that influence our climate.
Man has some effect on the environment.
The sun has some effect on temperature.

We can agree on all of these, yes? With that information, a policy decision is easy to make. Prepare for eventual climate changes, which will happen with or without man. Expect change.

Even if the computer models are correct in the long run (while being wrong in the near run), the earth will still exist. Man may be wiped out, but lots of other species will thrive in our place. Why would we want to stop that? More likely, mankind will be subject to warm times and cool times, and eventually to hot times and cold times. That is the way of nature on our planet.

hawksruleva on November 23, 2009 at 4:29 PM

One would think that, considering the disciples of global warming theory also worship at the altar of Darwin, they would look at the benefits of climate change as opposed to invoking apocalyptic fear in the masses. Take the polar bear, for example. Contrary to popular belief, although their numbers have been depleted (only part of that due to melting ice floes however), they are not endangered and in fact many are adapting to their new circumstances. Isn’t this the sort of survival of the fittest mentality that evolutionists embrace? For a movement that purports to rely on science, its followers certainly do allow emotion to disproportionately inform their claims and beliefs. This planet has been around for 4 billion years. It has endured and survived far more inhospitable conditions than exist today. The notion that a planet full of cars are somehow more powerful than the freaking sun is laughable. The planet has certainly warmed and cooled in the past; what we’re seeing is cyclical. And as some species wane, others thrive. That’s the beauty of nature, and the magic of this planet. It’s something to be celebrated, not bemoaned.

NoLeftTurn on November 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM

Those conversations led Gore to politically inconvenient conclusions in this new book. In his conversations with Schmidt and other colleagues at the beginning of the year, Gore explored new studies – published only last week – that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming.
Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.
“Over the years I have been among those who focused most of all on CO2, and I think that’s still justified,” he told the magazine. “But a comprehensive plan to solve the climate crisis has to widen the focus to encompass strategies for all” of the greenhouse culprits identified in the Nasa study.

Next we will find out that Al Gore has cornered the market on methane absorbers.

J_Crater on November 23, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Polywater! LOL, I remember hearing about polywater waaaaaayyy back in the 70s. Something about it being the reason why Russian wheat stalks didn’t freeze up in the winter. Been a long time since I’ve even heard it mentioned. :-)

Oldnuke on November 23, 2009 at 8:50 AM

That was Lysenkoism, Polywater was what Vonneget wrote about in Cat’s Cradle. I happen to be taking a class on pseudoscience at college and these things were just discussed. My professor claims he’s agnostic on AGW but he’s a physicist who distrusts computer models in general and is well aware of how science is politicized. However, he teaches at a very liberal college that would probably boot him if he came out too strongly against the orthodoxy. They let him trash string theory but this college doesn’t a dog in that fight. Global warming, they do.

Ann NY on November 24, 2009 at 7:28 AM

Apropos making the fire gods angry, some wisdom from Fat Larry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3OxhCmCQ6c&feature=related

Grunchy Cranola on November 24, 2009 at 7:55 AM

The combination of wilful blindness and short-sightedness is amazing.

Most Muslims lead a minimalist lifestyle, easy on the environment, little co2 emmision. AGW propenent probably would like that.

How much CO2 will be expended for a pilgrimage to Haj every year?

Burgher on November 24, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Obviously, all of this will be ignored by the White House …

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holden is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

J_Crater on November 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3