ClimateGate: The climate scam is exposed

I have been hugely encouraged by the leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), which undermine the case for global warming.  The CRU is one of the world’s leading sources of climate data, and works closely with other similar units in the USA and elsewhere.
A hacker has recently broken in to the CRU, and made available a very large file of data and internal correspondence.  This material shows that scientists at CRU systematically altered data to exaggerate global warming; suppressed data showing a recent decline in temperature; urged the destruction of data and correspondence which they feared might have to be revealed under Freedom of Information requests; and conspired to prevent publication of dissenting opinions.
Former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson has demanded an investigation into the leaked material, and the behaviour of personnel at the CRU.
Governments and politicians from around the world are meeting in Copenhagen in December, aiming to achieve a new global agreement to “fight climate change”, which will involve swingeing reductions in CO2 emissions, and huge fund transfers from Western countries to developing economies like China and India to support so-called green technologies.  This will impose huge costs on Western economies.  It now seems that the science underlying these initiatives is deeply flawed.
I have been campaigning on this issue for several years.  Most recently I organised a one-day conference in Brussels, on Nov 18th, which was addressed by scientists from Europe and America — including two who are members of the IPCC’s expert review panel — the 2,500 scientists with the IPCC, who are often presented as “the scientific consensus”.  In fact a number of them profoundly disagree with the IPCC’s alarmist position.
It is clear that there has been a systematic campaign to exaggerate the global warming story and to prevent honest debate.  The small changes we have seen in mean global temperatures over the last hundred years are entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles.  It is outrageous that during the worst recession in living memory, British tax-payers are asked to pay for new green taxes, and for higher green electricity prices, and now they are expected to transfer billions of pounds for green technology to developing countries — all in pursuit of failing solutions to an increasingly speculative problem.
Links to the leak story
The New York Times:

Link to Lord Monckton story on Climate Emails:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to ClimateGate: The climate scam is exposed

  1. Richard J says:

    A portenteous warning- Eisenhowers Farewell Address..

  2. Philip Burrows says:

    The newspaper that publishes George Will (and Sarah Palin) editorializes: “Many — including us — find global warming deniers’ claims irresponsible.”

    From the Washington Post
    Last weekend was a good one for climate-change deniers. A hacker stole and released scores of documents, including personal e-mail exchanges, from a server at Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, a premier climate-change research center. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” proclaimed one skeptic.

    Not quite. Assuming the documents are genuine — the authenticity of all has not been confirmed — critics are taking them out of context and misinterpreting at least one controversial e-mail exchange. None of it seriously undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change. But a few of the documents are damaging for other reasons….

    Many — including us — find global warming deniers‘ claims irresponsible and their heated criticism of climate scientists unconvincing….

    By our reckoning — and that of most scientists, policymakers and almost every government in the world — the probability that the planet will warm in the long term because of human activity is extremely high, and the probability that allowing it to do so unabated will have disastrous effects is unacceptably large. The case that governments should hedge against that outcome is formidable enough.

  3. Philip Burrows says:

    The CRU hack: Context

    * Trenberth: You need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth’s energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes.

    * Wigley: The concern with sea surface temperatures in the 1940s stems from the paper by Thompson et al (2007) which identified a spurious discontinuity in ocean temperatures. The impact of this has not yet been fully corrected for in the HadSST data set, but people still want to assess what impact it might have on any work that used the original data.

    * Climate Research and peer-review: You should read about the issues from the editors (Claire Goodess, Hans von Storch) who resigned because of a breakdown of the peer review process at that journal, that came to light with the particularly egregious (and well-publicised) paper by Soon and Baliunas (2003). The publisher’s assessment is here.

    * HARRY_read_me.txt. This is a 4 year-long work log of Ian (Harry) Harris who was working to upgrade the documentation, metadata and databases associated with the legacy CRU TS 2.1 product, which is not the same as the HadCRUT data (see Mitchell and Jones, 2003 for details). The CSU TS 3.0 is available now (via ClimateExplorer for instance), and so presumably the database problems got fixed. Anyone who has ever worked on constructing a database from dozens of individual, sometimes contradictory and inconsistently formatted datasets will share his evident frustration with how tedious that can be.

    * “Redefine the peer-reviewed literature!” . Nobody actually gets to do that, and both papers discussed in that comment – McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) were both cited and discussed in Chapter 2 of 3 the IPCC AR4 report. As an aside, neither has stood the test of time.

    * “Declines” in the MXD record. This decline was hidden written up in Nature in 1998 where the authors suggested not using the post 1960 data. Their actual programs (in IDL script), unsurprisingly warn against using post 1960 data. Added: Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment was made in 1999 – 10 years ago, and has no connection whatsoever to more recent instrumental records.

    * CRU data accessibility. From the date of the first FOI request to CRU (in 2007), it has been made abundantly clear that the main impediment to releasing the whole CRU archive is the small % of it that was given to CRU on the understanding it wouldn’t be passed on to third parties. Those restrictions are in place because of the originating organisations (the various National Met. Services) around the world and are not CRU’s to break. As of Nov 13, the response to the umpteenth FOI request for the same data met with exactly the same response. This is an unfortunate situation, and pressure should be brought to bear on the National Met Services to release CRU from that obligation. It is not however the fault of CRU. The vast majority of the data in the HadCRU records is publicly available from GHCN (v2.mean.Z).

    * Suggestions that FOI-related material be deleted … are ill-advised even if not carried out. What is and is not responsive and deliverable to an FOI request is however a subject that it is very appropriate to discuss.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s