Did Nature misreport fraud issue with Jones?

posted at 8:48 am on February 17, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, I linked to a NewScientist blog post noting the rather weak challenge from former East Anglia CRU chief Dr. Phil Jones demanding that bloggers conduct a scientific debunking of AGW rather than point out the myriad errors and bad science conducted by its advocates.  Jones originally issued the challenge in an interview with Nature that outlined Jones’ response to the heavy criticism of his work, including the allegation that Jones knowingly published flawed data in order to support his AGW theories.  Nature explains the claim of Douglas Keenan and presses Jones for a response:

Central to the Russell investigation is the issue of whether he or his CRU colleagues ever published data that they knew were potentially flawed, in order to bolster the evidence for man-made global warming. The claim specifically relates to one of Jones’s research papers1 on whether the urban heat island effect — in which cities tend to be warmer than the surrounding countryside — could be responsible for the apparent rise in temperature readings from thermometers in the late twentieth century. Jones’s study concluded that this local effect was negligible, and that the dominant effect was global climate change.

In the paper1, the authors used data from weather stations around the world; those in China “were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times”, they wrote.

But in 2007, amateur climate-data analyst Doug Keenan alleged that this claim was false, citing evidence that many of the stations in eastern China had been moved throughout the period of study. Because the raw data had been obtained from a Chinese contact of one of Jones’s co-authors, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany in New York, and details of their location had subsequently been lost, there was no way of verifying or refuting Keenan’s claim.

“Presses” may be the wrong word here, as Nature allows Jones off the hook with this response:

Jones says that approaching Wang for the Chinese data seemed sensible at the time. “I thought it was the right way to get the data. I was specifically trying to get more rural station data that wasn’t routinely available in real time from [meteorological] services,” says Jones, who asserts that standards for data collection have changed considerably in the past twenty years. He now acknowledges that “the stations probably did move”, and that the subsequent loss of the details of the locations was sloppy. “It’s not acceptable,” says Jones. “[It's] not best practice.” CRU denies any involvement in losing these records.

Jones says that he did not know that the weather stations’ locations were questionable when they were included in the paper, but as the study’s lead author he acknowledges his responsibility for ensuring the quality of the data. So will he submit a correction to Nature? “I will give that some thought. It’s worthy of consideration,” he says.

“The science still holds up” though, he adds. A follow-up study2 verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant. “They are trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion,” says Jones of his critics.

Keenan e-mailed me this morning to correct the record as presented by Nature in this passage.  First, while Keenan may be an “amateur climate-data analyst,” his paper on this topic was peer reviewed and accepted.  In fact, one of the three scientists in the peer review process (and the one who voted against acceptance) was a Dr. Phil Jones of the East Anglia CRU, as Keenan informed Nature in a comment attached to their story, emphases mine:

This news report discusses my work on the Chinese weather-station data, but provides no references for that work. The main reference is this: Keenan, D. J. Energy & Environment, 18, 985-995 (2007). It is freely available on the web.

The news report also misrepresents my allegations.

My principal allegation is that some of the data on station histories never existed. Specifically, Jones et al. (1990) claim to have sourced their data from a report that was published by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Yet for 49 of the 84 meteorological stations that Jones et al. relied upon, the DOE/CAS Report states “station histories are not currently available” and “details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times … are not known“. Those statements imply that the quoted claim from Jones et al. is impossible: “stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times”. My paper presents more details; some updates are available via http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm .

I have also alleged that, by 2001, Jones knew there were severe problems with the Chinese research and yet he continued using that research–including allowing it to be relied on by the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report. Evidence is in Section 2.4 of my 2007 paper. Jones was one of the reviewers for my paper (the reviewer tally was 2-1 for acceptance, with Jones being the 1). Although Jones had many comments, he did not attempt to dispute this allegation.

Additional support for the latter allegation is given in my submission to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. A copy of my submission is available via http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5610.htm . The submission additionally alleges that Jones acted unscrupulously when he was reviewing my paper.

The news report further claims that “e-mails and documents were illegally obtained from the university”. In fact, it is not known whether the leak of the e-mails and documents was illegal: the leak might be covered under whistle-blower legislation.

Lastly, with regard to Jones’ question “Why don’t they do their own reconstructions?”, the answer is that the data has not been released. In particular, regarding the Medieval Warm Period, what is arguably the most valuable tree-ring data extant remains unavailable. Details on that are at http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900.htm .

Given that Keenan’s work has been peer reviewed and freely available, it seems at least curious that Nature apparently never attempted to contact Keenan about the allegations he has made in those papers.  The description of Keenan as an “amateur” also seems somewhat misleading, given that he has written at least one peer-reviewed paper directly on the subject of misuse of data in climate-change research.  Had Nature actually done a little research themselves, they would have known that Jones has not been accused of doing sloppy work, but of deliberately and knowingly using faulty (or at least unsupported) data to support his theories.

Keenan wrote this morning in his e-mail:

It is notable how Nature went about reporting the story of the dispute between me and Jones.  The dispute essentially boils down to this: one party accused another party of fraud.  Nature’s reporting consisted of asking the accused party if he was guilty, and finding that the accused declared himself innocent.  The reporting did not include examining any evidence for the accusation, nor interviewing the accuser.  (Inadequate resources could not be the problem, because the journalist traveled to Jones’ university in Norwich, to do the interview.)  Even without assessing the merits of the accusation, then, I believe it is fair to say that the reporting on this was a failure.

Indeed — as has been most of the reporting on AGW advocacy for a long time.  Ironically, Nature uses a picture of Jones with the caption, Phil Jones: facing up to his critics.  Not if Nature’s approach continues to be used by the media.

Update: Doug Keenan e-mails me with an update:

Just saw your post–I am very glad for this!  It is excellent to see the story getting out.

Your post mentions that the “description of Keenan as an “amateur” also seems somewhat misleading, given that he has written at least one peer-reviewed paper directly on the subject of misuse of data in climate-change research”.  We agree.  Moreover, I have actually published two such peer-reviewed papers.  This is a bit off-topic, but there is a write-up about the other paper at http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3200.htm –the paper is about another failure by Nature.


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

This douchebag is a crook and a phony…He should be hung by his rocky mountain oysters for the whole world to witness…..

hawkman on February 17, 2010 at 8:50 AM

I’m sorry Ed, Oakland, our resident climatologist must comment on these revelations in graphical format. Please set his little white box settings to “crayon”

–thanks. ted

ted c on February 17, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Scientists….all scientists are the laughing stock of the world.
Every time some one states “A scientist claims….”, we will all roll our eyes.
This is what the scientists don’t get, it isn’t just about climate now, it is how “peer review” is actually just a way to CYA.
Until scientists stand up and demand the heads of these crooks, then all scientist will be regarded as political hacks.

right2bright on February 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM

Ed and AP: Mega congrats on the news. I hope things work out very well for you as you’ve put a ton of work into the site.

Dusty on February 17, 2010 at 8:59 AM

It’s funny that Nature appears to be complicit in the defense of Jones. If the integrity of the temperature collection methods–locations, reliability, calibration etc–are in question, then it is up to Jones to explain that and for Nature to retract that paper.

Moreover,

The description of Keenan as an “amateur” also seems somewhat misleading, given that he has written at least one peer-reviewed paper directly on the subject of misuse of data in climate-change research

. you’re right. Some journals conduct a blind peer review (unknown name/location/institution etc) on papers, so Keenan’s label as an amateur isn’t nearly as telling as the fact that he published a peer-reviewed article. If he was published, then he’s got his chops.

ted c on February 17, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Ed and AP: Mega congrats on the news. I hope things work out very well for you as you’ve put a ton of work into the site.

Dusty on February 17, 2010 at 8:59 AM

wha? what’s the news!?

ted c on February 17, 2010 at 9:01 AM

This!

Dusty on February 17, 2010 at 9:02 AM

If you are so inclined, Gary Thompson at the American Thinker has a superb write up about the inconvenient physics and completely debunks the notion of CO2 forced global warming. It’s quite simple actually, CO2 cannot trap enough long wave radiation to heat the planet. And yes it has also been proved, with real world measurement, not computer models.

Read here:

tarpon on February 17, 2010 at 9:03 AM

In fact, one of the three scientists in the peer review process (and the one who voted against acceptance) was a Dr. Phil Jones of the East Anglia CRU,

Do I have this right?
Keenan wrote a paper refuting Phil Jones (I think it is now clear we should drop the “Dr.” title from Phil) on the data collection methodology. One of the peer-reviewers was the same Phil Jones. And the one who voted against acceptance was Phil Jones (who in the CRU emails is shown to be a bully against skeptics).

Um, who selected Phil to be a peer reviewer, why was he selected, and why in hell did he agree to be a peer reviewer. As soon as he saw that the paper was about him and his work, he had to recuse himself. In the legal profession any time a judge gets sued in his capacity as a judge (or any other time), that judge has to recuse himself and not get to judge the new suit. You do not get to be the judge when you are the issue.

Anyone with half a brain would think there is something not right about the situation. More and more this is looking like Phil Jones is not merely a misguided scientist honestly relying on data that is shown to be bad. This is deliberate fraud.

rbj on February 17, 2010 at 9:05 AM

This!
Dusty on February 17, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Holy smokes! Gentlemen, watch your language.

kingsjester on February 17, 2010 at 9:06 AM

Whoa ho ho –AWESOME! I hope this is a good thing for ya Ed, my boy. Congratulations Ed, Michelle and the resident Humpbot repairman and videographer AP—

Still begs the question, are we going to get ban hammer insurance grace points?

ted c on February 17, 2010 at 9:06 AM

This is deliberate fraud.

rbj on February 17, 2010 at 9:05 AM

its an incestuous deal up at these journals. Usually the guys who are the most influential and published in the journals in their field are also double hatted to be reviewers for the journals they publish in. The only layer of protection is usually anonymity on the reviewed papers (ie, the reviewers don’t know who writes them)

ted c on February 17, 2010 at 9:07 AM

WATERBOARD HIM!!!!

Make him give up the big enchilada…ALGORE!!!

BigWyo on February 17, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Excellent post, Ed.
Watching how this develops, and how sllooowwwlly it is unfolding on this side of the pond is truly a “teachable moment”.

shibumiglass on February 17, 2010 at 9:08 AM

This!

Dusty on February 17, 2010 at 9:02 AM

So, that’s the big news AP was alluding to yesterday.

Congrats guys. Hope a big payraise or bonus was in the deal.

conservnut on February 17, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Whoa ho ho –AWESOME! I hope this is a good thing for ya Ed, my boy. Congratulations Ed, Michelle and the resident Humpbot repairman and videographer AP—

Still begs the question, are we going to get ban hammer insurance grace points?

ted c on February 17, 2010 at 9:06 AM

Meanwhile, LGF sinks into obscurity.

Disturb the Universe on February 17, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Dr. Phil Jones is a complete and total disgrace to the scientific community, not to mention that he is a charlatan, a fraud, and a promulgator of junk science at its absolute worst.

Where did he get his certifications and degrees from, the back of a matchbox cover or the inside of a box of Cracker Jack?

pilamaye on February 17, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Dusty on February 17, 2010 at 9:02 AM

We are told that, from a user’s perspective, Hot Air will remain the same despite the change in ownership.

We’ll all be banned in short order.

Akzed on February 17, 2010 at 9:09 AM

So even with the change in ownership, can we still refer to the The Boss as The Boss?

JamesLee on February 17, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Ruh Roe!

Salem Communications (NASDAQ: SALM) is a U.S. media company specializing in evangelical Christian and conservative political talk radio.

I will not be denied my humpbot this November dang-it!!!!!!!

conservnut on February 17, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Allow me to re-post this one from late in the CRU thread:

Tim Dolan posted this comment following an article in the online WSJ about ObaMao’s budget “fixes” of new taxes and regulations on energy in the upcoming budget:

.Hot off the presses. The following story was related to me by a young lady I met while standing in line at Disneyland. She told me this story about a bufoon she met on a flight from Australia:

An Australian windmill salesman on his way to COP13
was seated next to a little girl on the airplane leaving from Adelaide when he turned to her and said, ‘Let’s talk.
I’ve heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger. ‘

The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the total stranger, ‘What would
you like to talk about? ‘

‘Oh, I don’t know, ‘ said the Australian windmill salesman.
‘How about global warming or universal health care’, and
he smiles smugly.

‘OK, ‘ she said. ‘Those could be interesting topics. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a
deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do
you suppose that is? ‘

The Australian windmill salesman, visibly surprised by
the little girl’s intelligence, thinks about it and says, Hmmm, I have no idea. ‘ To which the little girl replies, ‘Do you really feel qualified to discuss global warming or universal health care when you
don’t know $hit?

Kind of brings a tear to your eye.

onlineanalyst on February 17, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Because something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

-Bobby Z

Bat Chain Puller on February 17, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Ugh, Ed, sorry about the OT but I couldn’t contain myself and this page was open at the time. Quick, put up a headline so this thread isn’t dragged off course, completely.

Dusty on February 17, 2010 at 9:13 AM

Meanwhile, LGF sinks into obscurity.

Disturb the Universe on February 17, 2010 at 9:08 AM

LGF—who dat?

ted c on February 17, 2010 at 9:13 AM

Check out this Red State today re:

Exodus From Climate Change Bandwagon Begins en Masse [Updated]

Rats and sinking ships and all that…
Posted by haystack (Profile)

Tuesday, February 16th at 11:33PM EST

[quick note-Texas is getting in on the action now, too...]

BP America, Conoco Phillips, and Caterpillar (among others) have announced their intentions to quit the Climate Action Partnership, a group whose mission is to “call on the federal government to enact legislation requiring significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”

BP American says it “intends to go solo in its quest to influence the national discussion on climate change.” Conoco says it’s quitting to “focus on reducing near-term greenhouse gas emissions by developing its natural gas operations.” Caterpillar says it wants “to focus on commercializing technologies that it said would accomplish the same goals pursued by U.S. CAP.”

What they didn’t say was said for them by Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (”a public interest group dedicated to free enterprise and limited government”):

BP America, Conoco Phillips, and Caterpillar are recognizing that cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the U. S. Congress and that global warming alarmism is collapsing rapidly. We hope that other major corporations will soon see the light and drop their support for cap-and-trade and other energy-rationing legislation.

What also wasn’t mentioned in any of the articles about BP, Conoco, and Caterpillar is that lawsuits are starting to pop up challenging the EPA’s so-called Global Warming regulations specifically because of new revelations that man-made climate change is a lie and has been uncovered as a hoax and a generation-long falsehood:

In two separate filings Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute challenged massive energy regulations forthcoming from the Environmental Protection Agency. The actions come in the wake of damaging disclosures this week by Phil Jones, head of the disgraced British Climate Research Unit, who reversed himself on several basic issues in a BBC interview.

There will be more of this; withdrawals from feel-good coalitions to save mankind from something that doesn’t exist…and the lawsuits needed to begin unraveling years of the mess our politicians and activists have made. Someday there will be legislation enacted to make things right, though Politicians with the will to see it through might not be in any hurry. It’s going to take many successful litigations from the private sector and many billions of dollars in Jury awards, but we’ll get there.

BP, Conoco, and Caterpillar…to name a few…are betting on it.

there it is on February 17, 2010 at 9:13 AM

I will not be denied my humpbot this November dang-it!!!!!!!

conservnut on February 17, 2010 at 9:11 AM

the peeps have got to have their humpbot.

I lovs me some humpbot.

ted c on February 17, 2010 at 9:14 AM

LGF—who dat?

ted c on February 17, 2010 at 9:13 AM

ted c: Ssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh,the mere mention of
the coloured sports ball,is grounds for Hot
Air Banishment!!

Jus try’n to help!!hehe:)

canopfor on February 17, 2010 at 9:16 AM

I wonder if Mr.Jones has his tax’s paid,jus say’n!!

canopfor on February 17, 2010 at 9:18 AM

though i am really proud of Ed et al, will we still have posts that are not necessarily evangelical Christian in nature?

if I post a pro-choice view, will i get banned?

kelley in virginia on February 17, 2010 at 9:23 AM

Thanks, Ed, for keeping us on top of this. More grist for the mill.

Seems clear already the AGW hoax has a place in history along side Lysenkoism, except that in terms of greed and power, Lysenkoism pales in comparison.

petefrt on February 17, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Phil Jones was allowed to be one of three scientists in the peer review process of a paper that was challenging his own work? What the hell?

rsrobinson on February 17, 2010 at 9:26 AM

“The science still holds up” though, he adds. A follow-up study2 verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant. “They are trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion,” says Jones of his critics.

So it doesn’t matter how many times a station is moved, the data is still valid?

MarkTheGreat on February 17, 2010 at 9:27 AM

This story is getting hotter and hotter. I love it!

SouthernGent on February 17, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Congrats to the Hot Air gang, I guess. It makes me a little nervous, however.

In my experience, when successful little start-ups reach a certain point and are bought up by the big guys, they eventually lose what made them so successful in the first place. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

If that happens, a new “Hot Air” will spring up, I hope.

Sloan Morganstern on February 17, 2010 at 9:30 AM

Congrats guys. Hope a big payraise or bonus was in the deal.

conservnut on February 17, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Hey,
What about the posters who do the most to drive up volume?

MarkTheGreat on February 17, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Meanwhile, LGF sinks into obscurity.

Disturb the Universe on February 17, 2010 at 9:08 AM

I’m sure Chuckles will devote a very special thread to this outrageous event. Inquiries must being now! ;)

I wonder if Salem will give AP a humpbot budget.
/Cross-fingers

Lance Murdock on February 17, 2010 at 9:33 AM

rbj on February 17, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Does Jamie Gorelick represent Doctorer Phil?

Barnestormer on February 17, 2010 at 9:33 AM

BP, Conoco, and Caterpillar…to name a few…are betting on it.

there it is on February 17, 2010 at 9:13 AM

I can only hope that Jeff Imelt gets the memo…I got a boatload of GE stock that is in the gutter…just waiting until it gets up to 50% of my cost basis before I dump it on principle.

Chewy the Lab on February 17, 2010 at 9:40 AM

After the statements that Jones made,how can he still call himself a scientist?
Anyone who pased fifth grade Science knows that it is incumbent upon the person proposing a theory to prove it.
No one has to disprove a theory,because that would be trying to prove a negative,which is impossible.

DDT on February 17, 2010 at 9:43 AM

So it doesn’t matter how many times a station is moved, the data is still valid?

MarkTheGreat on February 17, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Yes, the data is still valid, as long as you apply the proper correction factor to the numbers. But what is the correction factor for each location that these stations were moved to? Who would know that?

Electrongod on February 17, 2010 at 9:48 AM

there it is on February 17, 2010 at 9:13 AM

Your comment with the RedState quote has so much important info that I’d like to support it with some of the RedState links.

Here’s the RedState post: Exodus From Climate Change Bandwagon Begins en Masse [Updated]

And here’s the CEI news release about the lawsuits that are starting to pop up:

New Lawsuit, Petition Challenge EPA Global Warming Regulations After Lead Global Warming Scientist Admits Data Sloppiness, No Warming

CEI, Allies Urge Reconsideration of Economy-Crushing Regulations

Washington, D.C., Feb. 16, 2009 – In two separate filings Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute challenged massive energy regulations forthcoming from the Environmental Protection Agency. The actions come in the wake of damaging disclosures this week by Phil Jones, head of the disgraced British Climate Research Unit, who reversed himself on several basic issues in a BBC interview.

CEI, along with nonprofit ally FreedomWorks and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), filed a lawsuit in federal appeals court challenging EPA plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The lawsuit asks the court to review the EPA’s regulation.

In addition, CEI joined with SEPP and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change in updating its petition demanding that EPA reconsider its decision.

petefrt on February 17, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Imagine if one set of data was fudged after testing of a new weapons system. There would be immediate investigation by Congress of every detail of every other test, likely with an eye to killing the program. Yet, they do nothing about this deepening scandal.

I guess the warmers won’t let go of their belief unless every last piece of data has been refuted; already one posted here that an article of expose was ‘propaganda’.

The prez has some competition, it seems. New details of Climategate are coming faster than Obamateurisms!

Liam on February 17, 2010 at 9:53 AM

So it doesn’t matter how many times a station is moved, the data is still valid?

[MarkTheGreat on February 17, 2010 at 9:27 AM]

Yeah, and I’d put it this way:

It was valid as evidence for AGW before it was valid as evidence for fraud.

Dusty on February 17, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Just guessing here, but if Nature were to report this accurately, and confront the fraud in it’s reporting, their customer base would tank? It’s usually all about the money with these morons, isn’t it?

capejasmine on February 17, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Wang’d science.

Speakup on February 17, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Virginia’s AG takes on the EPA.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/CUCC17_20100216-222005/324766/

riverrat10k on February 17, 2010 at 10:07 AM

Sadly, Phil Jones proved himself all too human. He was faced with two choices: 1) expose AGW for the fraud that it is and go find another source of revenue, or 2) continue the charade, watch the money flow in, and hope nobody caught on to the scam. Sadly, for Jones, he chose number two. The commenter who wrote that ALL scientists are now viewed as potential con-men is correct. “Science” is almost never “settled”, and when “scientists” join politicians and start screaming “There’s no time to talk (or think, or question) we’ve got to do SOMETHING RIGHT NOW!!!”, the little alarm bells should go off in your head. Real scientists don’t object to reasonable questions and they don’t “mis-place” their data. Good record keeping is a foundational skill for competent research. “The dog ate my data” does not inspire confidence either in the scientist or their conclusions.

oldleprechaun on February 17, 2010 at 10:12 AM

I swear to God, the more I read the news, the more convinced I am that we are living in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

riverrat10k on February 17, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Virginia’s AG takes on the EPA.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/CUCC17_20100216-222005/324766/

riverrat10k on February 17, 2010 at 10:07 AM

YES!

petefrt on February 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM

If one reads the CRU email one can readily see the parties involved actively and deliberately corrupted and manipulated the data to make the result come out in a desirable fashion.

That is not science.

Jones is scum, determined to force his beliefs down other’s throats regardless of the facts, in very much the same mold as the disgusting fanatics that imprisoned Galileo.

dogsoldier on February 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Important to note there are two separate petitions here, one to EPA and another to the federal appeals court:

1) On behalf of the state, Cuccinelli filed a petition asking the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its December finding that global warming poses a threat to people.

2) Cuccinelli also filed a petition with the federal appeals court in Washington seeking a court review of the EPA finding.

petefrt on February 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Virginia’s AG takes on the EPA.

Good! That means I don’t need to sell my house today and head for Texas. (yet)

oldleprechaun on February 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

I’m sorry Ed, Oakland, our resident climatologist must comment on these revelations in graphical format. Please set his little white box settings to “crayon”

–thanks. ted

ted c on February 17, 2010 at 8:56 AM

oakland bailed from the other thread. It was getting too WARM. That warming can give one the nervous hives.

A graph throw down is scheduled for oakland’s return.

Yoop on February 17, 2010 at 10:21 AM

If it weren’t for the “amateurs” like McIntyre & McKittrick & Monckton & Keenan there would be very little science in climate science.

motionview on February 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Mother, NATURE can be such a fool.

Shivas Irons on February 17, 2010 at 10:37 AM

The art of the Big Con, revealed.

notagool on February 17, 2010 at 10:41 AM

So Tom Friedman is calling all the “Scientist” that state yes AGW is flawed and a sham…Liars. Carbon offsets are going for 10 cents on the Chicago stock exchange…Tom didn’t get the memo – The Greenies Crashed.

Tom Friedman not in anyone’s loop?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html

Dr Evil on February 17, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Just guessing here, but if Nature were to report this accurately, and confront the fraud in it’s reporting, their customer base would tank? It’s usually all about the money with these morons, isn’t it?

capejasmine on February 17, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Great stock tip. AGW publications etc should be short.

barnone on February 17, 2010 at 10:54 AM

“…the rather weak challenge from former East Anglia CRU chief Dr. Phil Jones demanding that bloggers conduct a scientific debunking of AGW rather than point out the myriad errors and bad science conducted by its advocates.”

Translation: You amateurs should be trying to do the peer reviews that we faked, in order to disprove what we never proved! And shut up, he helpfully elaborated.

drunyan8315 on February 17, 2010 at 10:55 AM

drunyan8315 on February 17, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Don’t forget:
And you can’t use our data ’cause we lost it all.

barnone on February 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM

BP, Conoco and Cat drop out of Climate Action Partnership. Chicago Stock Exchange “Credit Offsets” trading at 10 cents.

The Greenies Crashed.

So Tom Friedman is not helping his brand and whoever told the President to stick “Fight Climate Change” in his State Of The Union Speech, which the media flunkies applauded, should be FIRED. Let the Donald do it….he lays it out on Cavuto. Al Gore give back the Nobel Peace Prize.

Dr Evil on February 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Carbon offsets are going for 10 cents on the Chicago stock exchange…Tom didn’t get the memo – The Greenies Crashed.

Dr Evil on February 17, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Bwahahaha! Did you notice the six-year chart on CCX Carbon Financial Instrument Contracts?

Algroe, call your broker.

petefrt on February 17, 2010 at 11:03 AM

As with news magazines such as Time and Newsweek the more biased the reporting the sooner the magazine will fail.

Why would people keep getting their information from magazines who advocate rather than report. If they state their purpose as advocacy that’s fine but if the pretend to be scientific journals and then advocate… they will lose the trust of the public.

That’s what has happened in political news and now in science news.

Why read a magazine when you have to have heavy doses of salt?

Science should be based on science not belief.

petunia on February 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Bwahahaha! Did you notice the six-year chart on CCX Carbon Financial Instrument Contracts?

Algroe, call your broker.

petefrt on February 17, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Thanks for the link I added it to my facebook page.

We have “Carnies” pulling scams everywhere we look.

What Progressive Movement, isn’t tainted with a Scam?

ACORN? Organize For America? Climate Change?

Dr Evil on February 17, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Scientists….all scientists are the laughing stock of the world.
Every time some one states “A scientist claims….”, we will all roll our eyes.
This is what the scientists don’t get, it isn’t just about climate now, it is how “peer review” is actually just a way to CYA.
Until scientists stand up and demand the heads of these crooks, then all scientist will be regarded as political hacks.

right2bright on February 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM

This is the real shame of the whole Global Warming scandal. Scientists–REAL scientists who do painstaking, detailed research for years–should be admired, not “the laughing stock of the world”.

SOME scientists, including Phil Jones, have used their authority and public trust as “scientists” to manipulate data and opinion in order to foist their agenda on an unsuspecting public, and have only recently been found out. And some of them DID use “peer review” as a way of squelching dissenting points of view, to sow confusion between truth and lies.

Then there’s the money, that corrupting but sadly necessary influence. Scientific research, including honest research, needs money to continue, but if the piper-payers are calling a tune that clashes with the data, what does a scientist do? Report what he has found, and risk losing his job, or report what his sponsor wants to hear? Publish or perish?

There are many honest scientists out there, with the integrity to report the truth from the data, come what may. But the actions of some corrupt scientists have tainted science, and sown public skepticism and mistrust of scientists, which in the long run could be beneficial–holding scientists accountable for their honesty, rather than naively being manipulated by the dishonest.

Science, like any other human endeavor, can be corrupted. Scientists are human, and can make honest mistakes or deliberately and maliciously mislead others based on their scientific credentials. Those with integrity and the scientific knowledge to distinguish facts from fiction need to be alert and ready to denounce scientific fraud, and explain it to the public.

The self-policing of science needs to continue, and scientific fraud is nothing new. What about those phoney “missing link” fossils of the 1920′s and 1930′s (Piltdown Man, based on a pig’s tooth), and the “cold nuclear fusion” of the 1990′s? What about disastrous side-effects from “wonder-drugs” which were covered up for decades, and exposed during lawsuits from their victims?

We need to stay alert, think for ourselves, and question EVERYTHING. Including scientists.

Steve Z on February 17, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Dr Evil on February 17, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Keep up the good work, Dr.

petefrt on February 17, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Has anyone noticed that whenever the warm-mongers spout that all the snow is caused by AGW, they never seem to address the central issue of temperature?

The BS follows the logic that the earth is supposed to be getting hotter, so the air can hold more moisture and thus bigger snowfalls, etc. But they don’t address the reasoning of why these aren’t rain events in the first place.

They spew the line that there is a difference between weather and climate – that supposedly one weather event don’t disprove AGW – but over time multiple events and below average temperatures sure do.

Colbyjack on February 17, 2010 at 11:51 AM

As more and more of the details on how “science” is practiced in “Climate Science” the more my already low option deteriorates; in my view climate “science” is a junk profession with little to do with real science except to try to steal the name to lead credence to what they do.

Allowing a researcher whose work is being questioned to be one of the reviewers of said article? Not acceptable. I know from first hand experience in the Physics and Electrical Engineering journals this would not be acceptable.

How badly is the “science” claim failing? Pretty badly for even EETimes to write about the substandard methods used there.

nerdbert on February 17, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Dr Evil on February 17, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Keep up the good work, Dr.

petefrt on February 17, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Thank You.

I don’t know why people didn’t question this “Science” more from the outset? Al Gore kept telling everyone “It’s Settled Science” He just kept the repetition going believing that was enough to convince everyone…Al Gore, you can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people, all of the time.

Dr Evil on February 17, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Ok, so I need to enable cachefly to submit links. Read this opinion piece the EETimes just published on another engineer’s view of how much Climate “science” has to do with real science.

nerdbert on February 17, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Al Gore kept telling everyone “It’s Settled Science” He just kept the repetition going believing that was enough to convince everyone…Al Gore, you can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people, all of the time.

Dr Evil on February 17, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Part of The Big Lie. See Rush’s first segment today. Dear Liar tells a Big Lie, and so does Al Goebbles.

rbj on February 17, 2010 at 12:41 PM

nerdbert on February 17, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Great article, you’ve got to love EETimes.

Juno77 on February 17, 2010 at 1:21 PM

First, while Keenan may be an “amateur climate-data analyst,” his paper on this topic was peer reviewed and accepted.

‘Amateur’ just means someone who isn’t being paid for the work in question.
You can easily be an expert amateur.

Count to 10 on February 17, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Bwahahaha! Did you notice the six-year chart on CCX Carbon Financial Instrument Contracts?

Algroe, call your broker.

petefrt on February 17, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Funny, it crashed really hard in the summer of 2008…

Count to 10 on February 17, 2010 at 1:33 PM

The AGW crowd now demands we disprove them.

We’d love to, but we need the data.

We’re now stuck in a devil’s proof situation.

Chaz706 on February 17, 2010 at 2:41 PM

We’re now stuck in a devil’s proof situation.

Chaz706 on February 17, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Don’t let them get away with that crap. The burden of proof is on THEM to prove their hypothesis, not on us to disprove it.

If they blew up their own evidence, then that’s their tough luck.They’ll just have to start all over again.

petefrt on February 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Coming at this from just about every imaginable angle, the seeming conflicts are quite apparent.

For example, Ed, the connection of Nature magazine, and the article about Phil Jones, is very important taken in the context of the “independent” review being conducted into the East Anglia e-mail scandal.

Right now, the “independent inquiry” regarding the Climategate scandal is going forward in the UK, headed by Sir Muir Russell. Here is the link to their website. There are a total of six members, with one current vacancy occasioned by the abrupt withdrawal just a few days ago on the 11th of February of Dr Philip Campbell, editor in chief of Nature.

The pressure to force that resignation came from without, not within. Here are the bios of the remaining five members, and this is their “mission” statement for conducting their review.

From the inquiry website, check news releases found here:

Dr Philip Campbell withdraws from the Review (11 Feb 2009)

Sir Muir Russell has reluctantly accepted the resignation of Dr Philip Campbell, Editor of [sic] Chief of Nature, after a recording of an interview given by Dr Campbell to China Radio International (CRI) in December 2009 was alleged to raise doubts over his impartiality.
. . . .

Trochilus on February 17, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit, and Bishop Hill blog, have also been paying particular attention to Russell’s early-on assurances that the members of the inquiry would be free of any conflicts of interest, and that, therefore, no “Climategate” correspondents, or others connected with East Anglia climate research, or the IPCC would be on the inquiry board.

But the reality looks rather suspiciously like it might be otherwise – consider the member, Geoffrey Boulton.

As cited by McIntyre, when the Chair if the “independent review” Sir Muir Russell, was asked by the BBC about the need for members who were “independent” of the University and of the climate gate crowd, here was their question, and what Russell said in response:

Q: Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?

Sir Muir Russell: No. Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at.

Today, Bishop Hill posted the following statement (made in early December) by Sir Muir Russell, speaking on the absolute need for independence of the members of the inquiry:

“Given the nature of the allegations, it is right someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.”

And, on the inquiry website, it says the following of the members:

None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More information about each of the review team members can be found in the Biographies section.

However, as McIntyre and Bishop Hill have both painstakingly detailed over the past several days, a certain Geoffry Boulton is on the inquiry committee and is far from “independent” from the climate research crowd, or perhaps even the IPCC. The most glaring fact is that (though he did not reveal it at first) he was teaching at East Anglia for at least 18 years, overlapping several years with Phil Jones! And, McIntyre has cited proof that Boulton has also been quite active and quite recently with the Royal Society of Scotland in promoting both AGW, and climate change fears at Edinburgh.

So far (unlike Campbell) Boulton has been toughing out the critics.

Here were the “findings” – issued two days ago by Sir Muir Russell and Geoffrey Boulton regarding the allegations of bias against Boulton. One is reminded of Carroll . . . “I’m the judge, I’m the jury, said cunning old fury!

And, owing to a clever evidentiary discovery by Steve McIntyre, it looks like Boulton will indeed be the driving force in the inquiry . . . (right click & check the author of the issues document.)

For a guy who claims to be independent there are certainly some other interesting comments made by Geoffrey Boulton in this 2008 presentation to the David Hume Institute (ht: a few commenters on Climate Audit), entitled:

Reducing Carbon Emissions – the View from 2050 — 14 October 2008

Throughout, it cites most if not all the “scary stuff” that is now falling apart under scrutiny, such as the 50% of the Netherlands being under sea level; the melting glaciers, the Antarctic ice shelf collapsing due to melt.

See, e.g., pages 23 to 26 which were written by the “independent” Geoffrey Boulton.

So, many signs indicate that a very small and quite insular group is “defending” the castle, and that they’ve even got their man inside running the inquiry.

Trochilus on February 17, 2010 at 5:39 PM