“The data are surely wrong”

Another Climategate e-mail, the best one yet:

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.

Click the link for the full text, the context, and discussion.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Wyldeirishman

    *spit take*

  • Wyldeirishman

    *spit take*

  • Bruce Gee

    Just to be completely fair (or, to completely confuse you): go to RealClimate.org and read through the comments. It has some comments for, some against, some explanations–which are to some extent possibly satisfactory–for some of the seemingly more egregious comments in the emails, etc.

    I think there is a growing concern that we don’t have correct data, but until the scientists themselves stop their catfights, we may never know. In the meantime, I wish some of these pro-climate-change people would stop for a moment and consider that they are talking about an immense open system: lab-work maybe can’t really duplicate what they are talking about here (with regard particularly to the interaction of CO2 and temperature). The more I read, the more immense seem to be the natural forces at work. Science appears to have a handle on a tiny bit of it, and some scientists on that basis seem to be ready to move ahead with fixes that may not work. No one knows. The history of science can be seen as a continuing series of black boxes that, as God allows, are slowly illuminated to show us something we had no idea about before, and that tended to turn the current scientific paradigm on its head. So what black boxes are we dealing with here?

    I think a lot of us would like to return to a time when we could implicitly trust scientists to do their job. With the huge amounts of money at stake–and so much of it directed to grants given out to scientists to “prove” something specific–it has gotten a bit spooky. Yes, I know, the oil companies are also funding “counter” arguments. But that makes my point: can the scientists in the room please drop their agendas and talk to each other? Both sides?

  • Bruce Gee

    Just to be completely fair (or, to completely confuse you): go to RealClimate.org and read through the comments. It has some comments for, some against, some explanations–which are to some extent possibly satisfactory–for some of the seemingly more egregious comments in the emails, etc.

    I think there is a growing concern that we don’t have correct data, but until the scientists themselves stop their catfights, we may never know. In the meantime, I wish some of these pro-climate-change people would stop for a moment and consider that they are talking about an immense open system: lab-work maybe can’t really duplicate what they are talking about here (with regard particularly to the interaction of CO2 and temperature). The more I read, the more immense seem to be the natural forces at work. Science appears to have a handle on a tiny bit of it, and some scientists on that basis seem to be ready to move ahead with fixes that may not work. No one knows. The history of science can be seen as a continuing series of black boxes that, as God allows, are slowly illuminated to show us something we had no idea about before, and that tended to turn the current scientific paradigm on its head. So what black boxes are we dealing with here?

    I think a lot of us would like to return to a time when we could implicitly trust scientists to do their job. With the huge amounts of money at stake–and so much of it directed to grants given out to scientists to “prove” something specific–it has gotten a bit spooky. Yes, I know, the oil companies are also funding “counter” arguments. But that makes my point: can the scientists in the room please drop their agendas and talk to each other? Both sides?

  • Tom Hering

    There’s a connection between oil and the resurgence of Islam in the 20th century, the spread of Islam in the West, and the funding of extremists. The global warming agenda – scam or not – finally has us on the road toward energy independence, and so toward greater national security. If AGW goes down in flames, what would replace its effective motivation?

    Be careful what you wish for in a fallen world.

  • Tom Hering

    There’s a connection between oil and the resurgence of Islam in the 20th century, the spread of Islam in the West, and the funding of extremists. The global warming agenda – scam or not – finally has us on the road toward energy independence, and so toward greater national security. If AGW goes down in flames, what would replace its effective motivation?

    Be careful what you wish for in a fallen world.

  • Peter Leavitt

    This sort of data buggering has been well known for years. See Ricjard’s Lindzen’s Nov. 2008 paper, Here, in which he writes:

    “Given the above, it would not be surprising if working scientists would make special efforts to support the global warming hypothesis. There is ample evidence that this is happening on a large scale. A few examples will illustrate this situation. Data that challenges the hypothesis are simply changed. In some instances, data that was thought to support the hypothesis is found not to, and is then changed. The changes are sometimes quite blatant, but more often are somewhat more subtle. The crucial point is that geophysical data is almost always at least somewhat uncertain, and methodological errors are constantly being discovered. Bias can be introduced by simply considering only those errors that change answers in the desired direction. The desired direction in the case of climate is to bring the data into agreement with models, even though the models have displayed minimal skill in explaining or predicting climate. Model projections, it should be recalled, are the basis for our greenhouse concerns. That corrections to climate data should be called for, is not at all surprising, but that such corrections should always be in the ‘needed’ direction is exceedingly unlikely. Although the situation suggests overt dishonesty, it is entirely possible, in today’s scientific environment, that many scientists feel that it is the role of science to vindicate the greenhouse paradigm for climate change as well as the credibility of models. Comparisons of models with data are, for example, referred to as model validation studies rather than model tests.”

    Sooner or later this blatant fraud of global warming science will be see for what it is. These e-mails are revealing, though not dispositive.

  • Peter Leavitt

    This sort of data buggering has been well known for years. See Ricjard’s Lindzen’s Nov. 2008 paper, Here, in which he writes:

    “Given the above, it would not be surprising if working scientists would make special efforts to support the global warming hypothesis. There is ample evidence that this is happening on a large scale. A few examples will illustrate this situation. Data that challenges the hypothesis are simply changed. In some instances, data that was thought to support the hypothesis is found not to, and is then changed. The changes are sometimes quite blatant, but more often are somewhat more subtle. The crucial point is that geophysical data is almost always at least somewhat uncertain, and methodological errors are constantly being discovered. Bias can be introduced by simply considering only those errors that change answers in the desired direction. The desired direction in the case of climate is to bring the data into agreement with models, even though the models have displayed minimal skill in explaining or predicting climate. Model projections, it should be recalled, are the basis for our greenhouse concerns. That corrections to climate data should be called for, is not at all surprising, but that such corrections should always be in the ‘needed’ direction is exceedingly unlikely. Although the situation suggests overt dishonesty, it is entirely possible, in today’s scientific environment, that many scientists feel that it is the role of science to vindicate the greenhouse paradigm for climate change as well as the credibility of models. Comparisons of models with data are, for example, referred to as model validation studies rather than model tests.”

    Sooner or later this blatant fraud of global warming science will be see for what it is. These e-mails are revealing, though not dispositive.

  • John C

    Just to muddy the waters –
    An article in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph reports that a panel of 60 marine scientists has found that there has been an increase of 0.7C in sea temperature off the Australian east coast since 1930. They predict the temperature to rise to 1C by 2030 and 2.5C by 2100. Tropical fish are already increasing in subtropical and temperate waters. Sea turtle eggs and hatchlings are dying in greater numbers now because of warmer sand temperatures.
    Doesn’t it make you wonder what is happening to the glaciers Peter?

  • John C

    Just to muddy the waters –
    An article in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph reports that a panel of 60 marine scientists has found that there has been an increase of 0.7C in sea temperature off the Australian east coast since 1930. They predict the temperature to rise to 1C by 2030 and 2.5C by 2100. Tropical fish are already increasing in subtropical and temperate waters. Sea turtle eggs and hatchlings are dying in greater numbers now because of warmer sand temperatures.
    Doesn’t it make you wonder what is happening to the glaciers Peter?

  • DonS

    Tom Hering @ 3 well represents the liberal view of this issue. We have a worthy goal (reduce oil imports from the Middle East). We can’t persuade the citizens to reduce consumption to accomplish this goal (and, we refuse to increase U.S. production because we are captive to environmentalists). So, given a worthwhile end, the means to that end is justified, even if it includes defrauding the public regarding AGW.

    Nice.

  • DonS

    Tom Hering @ 3 well represents the liberal view of this issue. We have a worthy goal (reduce oil imports from the Middle East). We can’t persuade the citizens to reduce consumption to accomplish this goal (and, we refuse to increase U.S. production because we are captive to environmentalists). So, given a worthwhile end, the means to that end is justified, even if it includes defrauding the public regarding AGW.

    Nice.

  • Peter Leavitt

    There are good reasons to strive for a balance of energy production that includes mainly nuclear, oil, and gas, Other forms of energy, including hydro, wind, and solar are helpful but in truth only at the margins.

    Tom Hering’s view that oil has aided the radical Muslims is partly true, though AGW happens to be a very questionable proposition; those who use this ideological proposition to promote anti oil and gas measures, also tend to be against nuclear power. The fact is that most of these people, especially Al Gore, are using this issue as a disguise for their core anti-free economy pieties.

  • Peter Leavitt

    There are good reasons to strive for a balance of energy production that includes mainly nuclear, oil, and gas, Other forms of energy, including hydro, wind, and solar are helpful but in truth only at the margins.

    Tom Hering’s view that oil has aided the radical Muslims is partly true, though AGW happens to be a very questionable proposition; those who use this ideological proposition to promote anti oil and gas measures, also tend to be against nuclear power. The fact is that most of these people, especially Al Gore, are using this issue as a disguise for their core anti-free economy pieties.

  • Carl Vehse

    “The data are surely wrong”

    “The data are surely thrown away”:

    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

    The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building….

    Yeah, a new building… that’s the ticket!

  • Carl Vehse

    “The data are surely wrong”

    “The data are surely thrown away”:

    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

    The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building….

    Yeah, a new building… that’s the ticket!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X