The appearance of concern may overshadow reality …

There is no doubt in my mind that the environmental movement in the United States and elsewhere has been infiltrated by socialists, communists, anarchists and others who have discovered that non-profit tax-exempt organizations simultaneously allow them to raise significant amounts of money from unaware do-gooders and to pursue a comprehensive political agenda without being sanctioned by the authorities for meddling in politics. For radicals, this is the best of all worlds – allowing them to influence politicians and public policy makers without revealing their own hidden agenda.

Using our own laws against us …

By subverting our own legal infrastructure and using our own laws against us, those radicals in the environmental movement are able to hurt our military, our economy and further restrict the freedoms and liberties which were won with blood, sweat and tears. Freedoms protected by those fighting in foreign lands to keep us safe and to extend human rights and individual freedoms to those who remain oppressed by those who deny their citizens even the most basic of human rights.

The greatest example, up to now, has been the environmental movement’s campaign against nuclear arms and energy generation. Mainly for impacting the development of the nuclear arms which keeps us safe from aggression and the source of cost-effective, sustainable and renewable nuclear power generation which would provide a large measure of energy independence, the ability to significantly grow our economy and avoid transferring significant amounts of money to our enemies.

A confluence of evil influence …

Unfortunately, the agenda of the environmental movement is being adopted by others who see the benefits being enjoyed by the so-called environmentalists.

• Being able to raise funding from the public with little more than press releases and reports.
• Being able to shelter a significant portion of their revenue from the tax collector while investing in properties not subject to ordinary taxation. Not to mention the relaxed reporting standards which keeps the public from prying into the private affairs of the organization and its leadership.
• Being able to direct funding to friends and other special interests to secure additional support and political influence. 
• Being able to earn a good living while traveling the world in grand style – ostensibly to promote the good works of the organization.
• Being able to secure favorable media attention with a minimum of scrutiny or critical analysis.

Thus we see corporations join the movement to enhance revenues and media coverage. We see institutions promoting the movement to ensure continuing funding and government support. And worst of all, we see governments sign on to the movement for the significant benefits of having a rallying point for their own political agendas.

• Raising tax revenues, both directly, through tax assessments, and indirectly through third-party taxes passed along to consumers by a service provider. One need only look at their utility bills (water, power, telephone) or the notice on your gas pump to see the extent of this indirect taxation methodology. The government has a vested interest in higher prices as their tax revenues are often based on the total purchase price of goods and services.
• Supporting the special interests which result in further campaign contributions and voter support.
• Curtailing the freedom of choice in order to alter the behavior of  citizens. Here in California, the State has deliberately chosen to make driving on our roads as difficult as possible to promote the “mass transit” strategy that is being foisted on the public by the “enlightened leftists” who control California’s legislature.

The real problem with the science is politics …

It appears that many in the environmental movement have gone beyond a science-based approach to public policy and have adopted radical socialist Saul Alinsky’s “Rule for Radicals” to condition the debate. Shouting down the opponents who believe that the variability of solar output, the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, the behavior of deep ocean currents, the action of the most prevalent “greenhouse” gas water vapor, and the output of volcanoes and other natural processes vastly trump man’s puny ability to influence nature. Basing public policy less- and-less on the science and more-and- more on a self-serving political agenda and economics which adversely impacts the citizens who have elected politicians to represent them.

The simple truth: Why Carbon Dioxide?

Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that is necessary to sustain life on Earth. In fact, greater concentrations of carbon dioxide in the past appear to have been beneficial to plant life, and by extension, human life. But the reason the environmental movement must demonize carbon dioxide is that it is the key to controlling energy production and can provide a political stranglehold on our economy and environment. Serving as the basis to control the economy in the same manner that the Obamacare legislation would allow politicians to exert greater control over our individual lives.

The basis of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming goes something like this: man’s increasing emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is causing perilous global warming which, if unchecked by government intervention, may result in the destruction of life as we know it. Or at least make it extremely uncomfortable.

I call bullshit …

Occam's razor (entia non sunt multiplicanda prater necessitatem) is a nice way of saying things should not be overly complicated and that among competing theories, the simplest one is more likely to be the truth.

So applying Occam’s Razor to global warming, we should consider the following …

One, the Earth has been much colder and hotter than it is presently;

Two, the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been lesser and greater than they are presently;

Three, carbon dioxide is part of a life-sustaining natural feedback loop which keeps the carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and the carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere somewhat stable.

Four, that the rise in the carbon dioxide levels LAGS the rise in temperature which tends to say that carbon dioxide is not a causal agent of the warming, but an after-effect. And this can be demonstrated by considering a recently-opened ice-cold beer. As the beer warms, carbon dioxide comes out of solution (the oceans) and enters the atmosphere where the concentration of carbon dioxide has seemingly increased.

Five, the accumulation of atmospheric heat resulting from greenhouse gases should be seen in the troposphere – but no evidence of warming can be found.

Add to this the relative scarcity of actual temperature measurement sites, the increasing urbanization of areas in which temperatures are measured and the fact that heavily-massaged data is fed into computer models which do not seem to mirror short-term global climate behavior and you have the basis for scientific skepticism. 

The mainstream media is not helping with their biased reporting …

One of the most obnoxious trends in the coverage of the science related to global climatology is the apparent biased reporting that seems to be prevalent in the mainstream media. Some publications will report news which seems to suggest that global climate change is not man-made and thus cannot be ameliorated by man’s efforts, but bury the report in the lesser-viewed sections of the publication. Others will “pick and choose” which facts they report or assign pejorative terms such as “rightwing blogosphere” or characterize the source as a “denier.”  The real story is not getting out.

Peer review is not always the answer …

Most people believe that “peer-reviewed” publications are the be-all and end-all in scientific reporting. Something which can be, depending on the publication, far from the truth. Peer review is an internal process that prepares a scientist’s work for publication, correcting obvious errors and bring more clarity to the paper. Very rarely are fundamental assumptions and the hypothesis questioned as this is the purpose for publishing. The process can be easily subverted by the politics of the publication, the interests of the publication’s leadership and, of course, the selection of those who will peer review the paper. And, in most cases paper authors do not need to provide access to the underlying data and computer programs which were used as the basis for the original research.

If there is any take-away from this blog entry, it should be the knowledge that peer-reviewed does not mean that the position of the paper’s author or authors has been independently confirmed. That is the subject matter for additional papers and research.

Scientists as bitchy little girls …

Scientists are like other humans, with the same foibles and propensity to shade their findings in order to secure recognition and funding for their projects. Their work is highly influenced by those funding the research – and it would be naive to believe projects which fundamentally challenge the work of the institution, its leadership or other scientists would be look upon favorably. Many scientists live in a “publish or perish” environment and their work is complicated by securing profitable funding for the institution and managing their graduate students.

The purloined letters …

Numerous media reports are covering the alleged “hacking” of servers belonging to a prestigious climate research organization. While the leftists are loudly crying foul over the release of e-mails, computer code and other materials on the Internet, one should remember that many of these very same people hailed the release of the stolen classified  “Pentagon Papers” as a blow for freedom. They are now on the Internet, so wailing about spilt milk seems disingenuous.

Damage Control …

Many are subtly questioning the validity of the released material. Others are questioning whether or not the information released has been edited for effect or taken out of context. Even if we are provided a “glimpse” of what is being discussed among scientists, this should serve to raise our awareness of potential manipulation of the data, the computer programs, the delivered papers and the positions taken by various scientists.

What can we learn ….

While this is but a smattering of data, let us consider a few things that were revealed.

What does peer review look like …

line 32 of abstract – change ‘known’ to ‘presumed’ or some other word. The NH temperature trends are not ‘known’, instead we have good estimates! Could emphasize in the first paragraph of the Introduction that most of the SAT/GST comparisons are discussed in the context of models. The long sentence encompassing lines 74 to 79 could be reworded to make it easier for readers. I had to read this several times to get the meaning. Perhaps split it into two and don’t begin with the ‘If’. p85 add ‘global average’ to mean radiative forcing changes. The next sentence gives the important information. The sentence extending over p91 to 94 could usefully do with a reference. The reason the difference in trends between 2.1 and 1.2 on pp 101/102 is because you are talking about the global average. This point is made a little higher, but it could be repeated. p111, can you restate what the question is? It wasn’t obvious to me at this point. p132, presumably the 10m SAT values from GISS-E do not have any effect as you’ll be using anomalies from a modern reference? Would be worth stating this. p142, reducing sea level by 40m 9Ky BP ago, the land surface is now higher in this simulation compared to those later in the sequence. A simple lapse rate calculation would make this simulation 0.24ºC cooler than the later ones. p151-155, I was going to suggest a map of the boxes in some Supplementary Information, but a map sort of appears in Figure 1. It might be worth mentioning that here. p159, can you state the modern, pre-industrial period you are using? In the discussion in pp180-186, the SAT peak over the Holocene, compared to GST, is a broader flatter one that has a slight peak about 3K Years ago. A reference to the ‘inverse’ perspective on p188 would be useful. The long sentence encompassing pp193-198 could again be useful split to enable easier reading. p233, other models would be useful, but my guess would be that none have run a similar set of experiments. p247, remove ‘in’. The likelihood that seasonal trends differ from annual ones has been discussed in a number of papers – at least for the last 1000 years. It would be useful pointing out that the seasons needn’t follow the annual average, especially in the context of the seasonally and latitudinally different forcing that took place. A useful reference for the recent millennium would be Jones et al. (2003).

Is peer review free from bias, manipulation and fraud?

This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on). The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult.

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

Using the peer-review process to silence critics and those with lesser credentials…

if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will be in the    discredited contrarian home journal  "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you are aware that    McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer review.

It appears that some journals are extremely “clique-oriented” and seem to have a “preferred line of inquiry.”

Researchers seeking  assistance from others …

It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly.  One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO.  So my first question is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail? My second question is that I am invovled in a working group organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have worked especially from the small island States or similar areas, who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group and/or to invite to speak?

The random conversations between colleagues …

NB I have not updated the piece of code that has to do with mid year/end year values and your .dis files. Please could you do what is necessary for that. If you don’t know what I’m talking about I’ll come and show you. For the results for the TAR we just ignore the sea level. For the temperature results from 1990 to 2100 plot please try with and without IS92e/GFDL and IS92c/PCM. Ie a high and low result with SAR scenarios. Use the new versions of these as in M3mike, TAR_IS92.zip Please ask if a problem……. Can’t think of anything else right now. Want all the figures and appendix tables please. But if you want to just do the line temp plots for a first check it might be a good idea.

Testing data and alternative theories …

As we've discussed, the residual land time series highlights the signature of the volcanos. And as far as low frequency variability goes: the residual land time series supports the IPCC contention that   the global warmed from ~1900-1940; did not warm from ~1940-1980; and  warmed substantially from 1980 to present. OK.... so now I'm going to play with removing the volcanic signal. There are a lot of ways to do this, and I haven't settled on the best  method. For now, I am driving the simple climate model I've been   using for ENSO with the Ammann et al. volcanic forcing time series. I get identical results using Crowley's estimate and Sato's estimate. The figure on page 2 shows the effect of removing the volcanic signal. From top to bottom: the the global-mean residual land time series (repeated from the previous figure); the volcanic fit; the   'ENSO/COWL/Volcano' residual land time series. Some key points: 1. the volcanic fit isn't perfect, but captures most of the volcanic signal. 2. the residual time series (bottom of Fig 2) is interesting. If you look closely, it suggests the globe has warmed continuously since 1900 with two exceptions: a 'bite' in the 1970s, and a downwards 'step' in 1945. The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in the ocean data. But it's there. (I'm guessing the corresponding  change in variance is due to a sudden increase in data coverage). 3. the volcanic fit highlights the fact that the lack of warming in the middle part of the century comes from only two features: the step in 45 and Agung. When Agung is removed, land temperatures march upwards from 1945-1970 (Fig 2 bottom). 4. the bite in the 1970s could be due to an underestimate of the impact of Fuego (the bite is also evident in the SST data). What do you think? The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in   the SST data. But it's certainly there. It's evident in the COWL/ENSO residual time series (top of Fig 2): removing Agung simply clarifies that without the step temperatures marched steadily upwards from 1900-1970.

Of course, some of the documents appear to create the impression that the data may have been manipulated to achieve a specific result.

Settled Science or preconceived notions by people trying to prove a point ?

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?  We are asking that here in    Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record.  We  had 4 inches of snow.  The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it    smashed the previous records for these days by 10F.  The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.  This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.  The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.  Our observing system is inadequate.

Or something more sinister?

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps  to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from  1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual  land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land  N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999  for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with  data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

The smoking gun …

If there is anything to be learned from these leaked documents, it is that scientists work with others of like mind and similar attitudes and beliefs. And while there are embarrassing conversations not meant for public scrutiny or details of who funded which project – the great majority of this material proves nothing except that there might be a loosely-coupled conspiracy among those who want to promote their own position and who are fighting to have their work considered and included within larger programs.

Yes, there are hints of data manipulation: replacing of raw data with estimates, removing outlier data which does not fit the central thesis, the creation of data by interpolation where none exists. But unless the researcher has good cause to engage in manipulating the data or the computer program, the real results will eventually be published. One reason why we cannot allow politicians to rush to judgement when it comes to implementing drastic public policies on the basis of on-going science.

There are also hints of deliberate manipulation and distortion of the data. All of which needed to be thoroughly investigated and, if true, sanctioned.

Bottom line …

The proponents will promote, the deniers will deny – and the public will be screwed over by corrupt or complacent politicians who are manipulating the science for their own personal and political self-interests.

Scientists will be held accountable by peers and those who have been sloppy with their research will be mocked. Those who are likely to be proven wrong will alter their research or move on to more fertile areas. Those who have led their institutions astray will be sanctioned. Such is the way of big science. People should remember, it only takes one dissenting opinion to start the debate and that most science builds upon the work of others. Science is not done by consensus and groupthink. It is an ongoing process of discovery, enlightenment, explanation and education.

It is now time to consider the "official" pronouncements of a relatively small group of scientists and scientific organizations who have driven the debate and shouted down, with the complicity of politicians and the media, those who disagree or merely want to debate. Government agencies which sanctioned employees who disagreed with the central thesis of global warming need to be investigated and those responsible for suppressing the truth or credible dissent dismissed without their retirement bonuses.

Considering the leak of these materials, there appears to be no rational reason why we should allow our elected representatives to push a hostile and toxic political program such as cap-and-trade forward when the science is still unsettled and the consensus subject to political manipulation.

-- steve

Reference Links:

For those wishing more information, I suggest that you might want to read the Investor's Business Daily editorial.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works