Barrel Strength

A good story by the excellent Declan McCullagah. Please read through some very good comments, particularly about the almost criminally bad data use.

In the same way that some Americans woke up to find out that Van Jones had left the Obama adminstration (”Who?” “Why?”) and the same way that some still do not know how badly ACORN has been soiled (”They videoed this behaviour at how many offices?”) or learned that hundreds of thousands of Americans have been protesting against government spending (”There was something called a Tea Party here the other day, apparently.”), news of the incredible climate manipulations will eventually get around the gatekeepers and leave them looking even more compromised and irrelevant.  It is Tuesday afternoon and the Globe and CBC have still not touched the story, so far as I can tell.  Maybe they will never run it, or run it only when it has been minimized and marginalized and sanitized. I do not care any more.  Anything to hasten the disbanding of the CBC and the bankruptcy of the Globe that I can honestly do, I will do, but my best efforts cannot even come close to their own.

The Wall Street Journal reports that various senators are showing interest in the climate fraud.

A more moderate interpetation of the behaviour of the Climate Club scientists appears today at the Air Vent. This is a letter from a climate skeptic to the New York Times reporter,  Andy Revkin, who it appears from the hacked data, has been working hand in glove with the Climate Club scientists. Identified as Ryan O, he writes:

“These (a selection of emails) serve to illustrate not that the scientists involved are engaged in fraudulent behavior for personal gain, but rather that they feel that it is their right or duty to be the gatekeepers of what information is allowed to be seen. I think it is clear that the scientists believe that they are correct. I think it is clear that they use this belief to justify actively engage in censoring their own results (and pressure others to censor theirs) to prevent full disclosure of the uncertainties involved in the methods they employ. I think it is clear that they use this belief to justify attempts to discredit legitimate criticisms, in some cases with the knowledge that those criticisms are accurate. I think it is clear that they use this belief to advocate suppressing free expression on the internet. I think it is clear that they use this belief to attempt to manipulate the peer review process to present their results in a way that lends more credibility to their conclusions than otherwise would be the case. This is advocacy, not science. It in no way invalidates AGW theory, but it does call into question the certainty with which these scientists claim to understand the magnitude of the AGW effect – and, by extension, the magnitude and timing of the anticipated consequences.”

“This naturally leads into another important lesson: the insular nature of this relatively small, yet incredibly influential, group of scientists leads them to believe that it is their right to decide who should be privy to data and code. As a party to several of the FOIA requests of the University of East Anglia and CRU, I find myself appalled at the cavalier manner in which several key individuals handled FOIA requests.”

An excellent review of the nature of the offences against science is given at Pajamas Media: “Three things you absolutely must know about climategate“, by Iain Murray. He states that the data released show unequivocally that:

1. They have manipulated data to produce predetermined results (NB All computer modelling does this to some extent).

2. They have discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. (ANd then said that opponents, such as Stephen McIntyre,  should not be listened to because they have not been published in peer-reviewed journals.

3. They have worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.

All this is unequivocal. What is alluded to but not mentioned in Murray’s article is that the data does not produce the published results when it is run through the algorithms they say they have used. Too many “parameterizations”, what we know as fudge factors, have been employed, I reckon. We will be hearing more about this aspect soon.

“…in the same manner that Al Gore can fly around the world in a private jet without polluting, I have negated my bad code footprint through the purchase of Bad Code Offsets.”
The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology (24 November 2009)
http://thedailywtf.com/
http://snipurl.com/teh35

See here.

And more will follow.
 
From the Australian Herald Sun, news that a major propagandist for man caused global warming recants.

None of this would matter in the least if trillions of dollars in cap and trade, and other major policy initiatives, were not at stake.

As one physicist said, if information is lost in black holes, that is a genuine scientific dispute. The second law of thermodynamics would be violated, and Stephen Hawking would have some explaining to do.

Whether the planet is cooling or warming is not really a genuine scientific dispute, unless the measurement is intended to drive a vast transfer of wealth from productive societies to unproductive ones.  Who gives a damn if the planet cools or warms by two degrees centigrade? You care only if the warming is the harbinger of an irreversible crisis. If it is the normal variation (it is) in a planet wobbling between ice ages, then global warming should be relished while it lasts.

Meanwhile, the ships of state plow forward.The government of Quebec yesterday announced a major policy on greenhouse gas reductions, with the Premier of Quebec blasting Ottawa for failing to do more of the same. Premier Jean Charest said that climate warming was “real”. Probably he is judging climate change by how late the golf courses are open this year, the same way everyone else does.