An Actual Inconvenient Truth

Scientific progress depends upon accurate, complete and reliable data. Unfortunately, none of this seems to be the case when it relates to “climate change”, formerly know as “global warming”. In emails that were uncovered from the Climate Research Unit (the “CRU”, which should not be confused with the fictional “CTU” of 24 fame – except as we here at RSP have long thought, both are really engaged in fiction.) at the University of East Anglia in England, some of the world’s so-called leading experts on climate change (I say “so-called” because how can you be an expert in something that doesn’t exist) are, and have been, engaged in a conspiracy to destroy and hide data that did not support their global warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of CRU, and professor Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, another so-called expert on global warming, were caught in an email exchange wanting to engage in the “trick of adding in real temps to each series to hide the decline in temperature.” There is no explanation that can justify this exchange. These so-called scientists are engaged in efforts by to falsify data. No reasonable person should believe any explanations provided by these two, considering their fraudulent research.

It is also comical that the New York Times, while reporting on this incident, has refused to re-publish the emails by claiming that they were not meant for public consumption. I wonder if the Gray Lady will take the same position the next time someone presents it with classified CIA documents. I’d guess not.

Unfortunately for Professors Jones and Mann, this is not their only act of malfeasance. In another email exchange, Prof. Jones to Prof. Mann, “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.” He goes on to say, “We have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” Prof. Jones then urged Prof. Mann to join him in deleting email exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s controversial assessment report.

In other emails, Prof. Jones complains that he has been told by a UK government official that due to the Freedom of Information Act, he should not be deleting emails. Mr. Jones concocts a rationalization for his continued actions of deleting data and emails unfavorable to his position on climate change and his repeated failure to comply with lawful requests by saying that since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an international organization, it is above any national Freedom of Information Act. So much for Her Majesty’s sovereign government. I wonder if the Crown Prosecutors, even under this sympathetic Labour government, would buy that argument.

Throughout the emails, proponents of global warming refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Unfortunately, only the emails from Prof. Jones’ university have been made public. And, of course, we only know part of the picture since the good professor has deleted data and emails that did not support his position of global warming. As Donald Rumsfeld might say, apparently, we may never know what we don’t know.

It is time that the other institutions involved in this controversy release data and emails that are relevant to the situation. Penn State University must immediately conduct an investigation to determine the extent of its faculty’s involvement in this cover-up.

In light of the fact that global warming has to a large extent been debunked by this conspiracy, it is unfortunately that President Obama has decided to go to Copenhagen for the United Nation’s next conference on this topic. Instead, the President should call for an investigation of all of the data regarding global warming. In the end, such action may save the economies of the free world.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I don't think that we should make decisions based on some hacker stealing scientists' notes and emails.

I don't know what you learned about radiative transfer in school and subsequently. It is certainly a highly non linear phenomenon. Thus you can mix two white and black pigments and get a yellowish grey or a bluish grey, depending on the particular pigments.

Obviously, there is no simple formula that predicts temperatures as a function of concentration of various gases in the atmosphere. But the lack of such a formula, and the difficulty of developing accurate models to make temperature predictions, is not enough to dismiss the value of the global warming hypothesis out of hand.

We do know that the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have risen to levels not seen for at least 800000 years. We also know that CO2 has a significant effect on global warming, and that there is evidence of increasing temperatures over the last 150 years.

Even if we had seen no temperature increase, one ought to have substantial concern about an increase in the CO2 level that is roughly the same is the difference in CO2 level between ice ages and interglacial periods. The effect of this is unknown. If we had a really good model of its effect, then we could either say "no problem", or have some really good motivation to get to work.

Although we have models that are very good from a scientific point of view, they have enough uncertainty that they are unsuitable for motivating drastic public action (at least with public's that are used to 'Joe the Plumber' tactics.) There are also political factions that have short term interests in resisting action.

So go ahead and attack the global warming models all you want. If you succeed in discrediting them, we will be left with a lot of unquantified risk regarding CO2 levels. What should we do about that? Perhaps try to reduce them to levels with known climate stability. That sounds like a reasonable policy to a naive person, but it is far more aggressive than Kyoto or Copenhagen.