Print 95 comment(s) - last by Robert Murphy.. on Dec 5 at 8:55 AM

Penn State researcher and his CRU/IPCC colleague treated AGW like a religious "cause" despite warnings from peers

Anthropogenic global warming is a fascinating hypothesis that mankind may be able to systematically increase the Earth's temperature in the long term by burning deposits of hydrocarbon fuels.  But the key thing to note is that despite the intriguing premise, little definitive information has been determined in this field even as politicization runs rife.  In fact, researchers are still struggling to explain why warming has stalled in the last decade even as levels of carbon dioxide -- supposedly the most important greenhouse gas have rose.

I. Climatologists "Pull an Enron", Shred the Evidence

The recent University of California, Berkley "BEST" study -- perhaps the most comprehensive climate change investigation to date -- was blasted by AGW proponents.  They were upset that the study -- funded in part by the charity of a major oil entrepreneur -- highlighted the fact that temperatures had flat lined over the past decade, and were more upset still that the study suggested that other factors like sea currents could have driven the warming that occurred in the 1960s-1990s.

But newly reportedly leaked emails reveal that accusations of bias are perhaps a bit of projection.  The new emails include discussions that sound as shocking or more so as the infamous "Climategate" emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The new emails revisit embattled climate researcher-cum-AGW evangelist Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In one email Professor Jones explains to researchers how to best hide their work to prevent anyone from being able to replicate it and find errors:


Of course Phil Jones and his supporters will likely claim that the emails were taken out of context of some larger more appropriate discussion.  But as a researcher it's pretty damning to make comments that even would seem to imply that you were engaging in trying to suppress peer review of questionable data -- academic fraud.

Particularly trouble is the phrase "cover yourself", which suggest a conspiratorial, political undertone to what is supposed to be a transparent field of research.

The emails contain outright requests for the destruction of professional communications regarding research in an effort to cover up public scrutiny of public flaws.  The leaks add yet another humiliating scandal to Pennsylvania State University as they implicate prominent Penn State climatologist Michael Mann even more directly than the last release.  

Writes the Professor Jones to Professor Mann:


Michael Mann and Phil Jones
Michael Mann (left) and Phil Jones (right) appear to share tips on how to best destroy damaging climate evidence. [Image Sources: (left) PSU (right) Chris Bourchier / Rex Features]

Some professors and experts even tried to reach out to Professor Mann, warning him of the danger of turning science into religion by purposefully ignoring evidence.  Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office writes:


Even Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research who was implicated in the first CRU email scandal for suggesting the removal of an editor who allowed peer-reviewed skeptical studies to be published, seemed to agree on this extreme instance:


The IPCC did eventually change the draft somewhat -- perhaps due to this feedback -- but critics say it still did far too much cherry picking of its sources.

II. Forget Science: You're Either For the Cause, Or You're Against It

In a later email, Professor Mann implies AGW advocacy is a political/pseudo-religious "cause" and that those who question it on scientific merits are enemies of the "cause".  He writes, "I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause."

Ironically, Professor Curry appears to be the only one behaving like a true scientist.  The emails neglect the forgotten truth that the distinguished Georgia Institute of Technology began as a believed in man-made global warming, publishing a notable 2005 study published in the prestigious Science journal investigating the potential correlation between hurricanes and man-made temperature increases.

The study earned scathing criticism from warming skeptics, but rather than treat her work as religious dogma, she carefully considered the criticism.  Supported by her co-author, she personally met with some prominent critics and considered their claims.  After all, she recalls in a Scientific American interview, "We were generally aware of these problems when we wrote the paper, but the critics argued that these issues were much more significant than we had acknowledged."

Soon she began to blog for AGW a skeptical blog run by Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, and Climate Audit, run by statistician Steve McIntyre.  She began blogging hoping to convince skeptics of the merits of AGW theory via an open discussion.  But in time she found herself increasingly troubled by the lack of transparency and conclusive evidence on such an important topic.  She singles out the IPCC as a particularly guilty party, accusing it of outright "corruption."

Given the released emails it's hard to argue with that assessment.  Writes Jonathan Overpeck, lead coordinating author of the IPCC's most recent climate assessment:


Aside from destroying evidence and ostracizing colleagues, the emails also reveal another sign of dogma and the antithesis of science -- ignorance.  In one email Phil Jones admits he has no idea how to perform the basic statistical analysis that forms the basis of one of his past claims, writing:

I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing. I'm not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.
What you have to do is to take the numbers in column C (the years) and then those in D (the anomalies for each year), plot them and then work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. I had someone do this in early 2006, and the trend was upwards then. It will be now. Trend won't be statistically significant, but the trend is up.

III. When in Doubt, Deny

Already AGW advocates are jumping to the defense of the researchers implicated in the scandal.  Writes Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard:


The new round of hacked emails from climate scientists floating around the internet hasn't generated the same buzz as the last iteration—at least not yet. But in certain circles, it's playing out much like the first batch of emails did in 2009. In addition to the tranche of emails, the poster included a list of "greatest hits"—short quotes from the emails taken out of their context that are intended to paint scientists as scheming or lying. The entire batch was quickly posted in searchable format on another site.

But such critical reports have thus far failed to actually provide virtually any such contextual explanations, despite their suggestion that they must exist.  Further, the critics of the email publication are ignoring the fact that there are certain types of things that researchers should know to never say -- such as making comments that even sound like suggesting the destruction of academic evidence.

The reports also ignore the fact that while it's easy to accuse the media, the oil industry, et al. for a mass conspiracy to silence anthropogenic global warming advocates, there's just as compelling a cause for AGW proponents to conspire to silence their critics in a dogmatic, non-scientific fashion.

Such an approach not only guarantees researchers lucrative research grants, it guarantees their political allies potential billions of dollars in windfalls in "carbon credits" and other AGW-inspired wealth redistribution schemes.  Al Gore in particular has made close to a billion dollars based on his evangelizing AGW in lectures, film; via carbon credit investments; and by pushing the government to funnel money to his high-risk "green energy" investments in the name of fighting AGW. 

Al Gore
AGW political proponents like Al Gore stand to make billions more if they can convince world governments to fully enact their wealth redistribution schemes under the auspice of "fighting warming". [Image Source: Associated Press]

You can download a torrent of the emails here.

Comments     Threshold


RE: Real science s about evidence
By retrospooty on 11/25/2011 8:50:01 PM , Rating: 1
or... Plants consume co2 and create oxygen. More co2, = more efficient plants, = more oxygen to balance the co2.

It is almost as if nature is a perfect system... Oh wait.... Its exactly as if it is =)

RE: Real science s about evidence
By StevoLincolnite on 11/25/2011 9:29:49 PM , Rating: 1

That would work normally... Except we are destroying the plants that create the oxygen.

The Amazon forest, also known as the "Lungs of the Earth" probably won't be around forever at the rate it's being wiped out. -

Currently about 60,000 square kilometers (37,000 miles) of forest area is cut down per year around the world, to put that in perspective, that's about the size of Ireland each year. -

RE: Real science s about evidence
By dj LiTh on 11/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: Real science s about evidence
By ekv on 11/25/2011 10:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
Plants love a CO2-rich, warm environment. So you're implication is that AGW is therefore an incorrect theory? or perhaps humans ought to commit hara-kari in order to make things fairer for plants?

Or do I need to go do my part to help plants, i.e. fire up my V8 gas-guzzler, go drag racin' down in the old 'hood, turn all the lights on, stereo up, invite friends over, throw a few more shrimp (and cow) on the barbie... 8)

[Just fyi, I too consider Amazonian deforestation ignominious].

RE: Real science s about evidence
By FaaR on 11/27/2011 1:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
Plants don't "love" a CO2-rich environment just because they require it for their sustenance any more than humans "love" a water-rich environment just because an adult person needs several liters of the stuff per day.

Plants have evolved and adapted to a particular CO2-concentration in the atmosphere, so when that level changes it affects the plants in more ways than you might expect. It has been shown that while trees may grow faster at higher CO2-levels, the wood they produce also becomes less dense (ie: weaker.)

So you can't make a blanket statement that more CO2 = better for plantlife, because nature isn't that simple.

RE: Real science s about evidence
By ekv on 11/27/2011 3:19:47 AM , Rating: 1
any more than humans "love" a water-rich environment
Of course, if yer working yer butt off in, say, 114F degree weather, in the Sun, then a water-rich environment sounds pretty damn good 8) And the need to stay hydrated is something I can personally attest to.

I'll avoid the subject of clean water for drinking and personal hygiene and the amazing advances that has allowed for civilization. Though permit me to mention that few cultures / countries have gone about reclaiming desert, turning it into arable land. Israel comes to mind. The solution is not so technical as it is social (hint: a profit motive helps). Same thing for deforestation.
Granted, I'm no bio-chemist, but does density matter to the tree more or to a carpenter? From the human perspective, lower density would adversely effect load-bearing ability. With today's manufactured lumber however, not so much of a problem.
Ok, but if nature is not that simple, then the Solar System is not that simple, and the Sun is more a driving force than humans. [Let me also say, again, this would not abrogate our, i.e. Man's, responsibility to be good stewards of our natural resources, tax dollars included].

So ... can I throw a few more shrimp on the barbie for ya?

RE: Real science s about evidence
By ekv on 11/28/2011 10:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't add a smiley face ... and perhaps somebody took this the wrong way. It was intended to be a cheeky comment, not sarcastic.

RE: Real science s about evidence
By ShaolinSoccer on 11/26/2011 12:17:38 AM , Rating: 3
That would work normally... Except we are destroying the plants that create the oxygen. The Amazon forest, also known as the "Lungs of the Earth" probably won't be around forever at the rate it's being wiped out. -

Think about it. If people destroyed enough plants, that would mean less oxygen. Which would mean more people dying. That in turn would lead to plants making a comeback? The Earth will always be able to fix itself until the days when the Sun starts to die.

RE: Real science s about evidence
By OAKside24 on 11/26/2011 2:46:38 AM , Rating: 1

I guess that depends on one's definition of "fix". There are too many things that can and will effect ( put it lightly) life on Earth before the Sun destroys it in 7-8 billion years.

I give humans a tiny fraction of that time. (The other 99% of life will certainly celebrate and thrive in our absence.)

RE: Real science s about evidence
By ekv on 11/26/2011 6:11:53 AM , Rating: 3
You may well imagine those of us who value life would thrive in your absence. Before you accuse me of suggesting you "logout", as it were ... why is your nihilist world-view, or perspective-on-life, acceptable, even popular, and say, a non-secular world-view is not? Where does that come from? Does Scientific Rationalism inevitably lead to such a dark ethos?

RE: Real science s about evidence
By Kurz on 11/26/2011 9:49:28 AM , Rating: 2
Its probably just a self loathing individual that would post something like that. Though instead of trying to shift the blame on the rest of humanity for having wants and desires, he should instead look to him/herself to figure out whats wrong with them.

By ProScience on 12/3/2011 12:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
While it is true a greenhouse effect has a CO2 fertilization effect -- this is only true if there is enough rain and fertilizer to sustain the added growth. Turns out the real world doesn't work like a commercial greenhouse.

There are season cereals (Wheat, rye, triticale, oats, barley, and spelt) that grow in moderate weather but cease to grow in hot climates.

A study of the warming from this century has shown a very uneven distribution of rains –
And the warmer temperatures means more evaporation of moisture in the soil leading to MORE intense and larger drought areas

More important global warming has been estimated to harm the oceans. This has the greatest negative effect of all!

(i) Science studies have shown that as the surface water of the oceans warmed up, phytoplankton biomass declined -- which means that there will be less ocean plants to uptake this greenhouse gas and less food in the chain for ocean life.

(ii) Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid, resulting in ocean acidification. This is already killing off the coral reefs and creating dead spots.

<<New study says oceans' chemistry changing rapidly

