A public note for UEA, RC and other advocacy groups
Posted by Jeff Condon on November 30, 2011
I felt it was important at this stage of Climategate that I give some opinions and express where I’m at personally in this whole mess. I started blogging on climate with a true interest in the science and numbers. There is no question that I’ve been critical of the politically leftist nature of the environmental movement in general and I had been skeptical of the IPCC for its intentionally bias-creating structure. It is clear that the IPCC can’t exist without extreme, dangerous climate change which requires expensive solutions. Without that the group fails to continuously attract funding for the other groups. Still, that is a completely separate issue from data, statistics and methods. Since my introduction to climate science, I have been exposed to numerous flatly false statistical techniques which are often simply accepted by the science as long as the message is right. Shrinking fish, goofy coral papers, false model comparison papers, ridiculous paleo work on and on…. I do not accept the claim that climate scientists believe that selecting preferred data doesn’t automatically bias the results. Most high school students would be able to tell you that. Why the community won’t reject them is now crystal clear.
These emails are actually far worse than the previous batch because we can see the bias in operation through the completeness of numerous conversations, funding discussions, blocked peer review, deletion of emails, promotion of the right kind of people and denial that anything is wrong. It shows the ugly underbelly of a single-minded group of people who have the firm belief that they are right and that it does not matter if data needs to be massaged to prove it. Soon and Baliunas could not set-back a healthy scientific field by decades with a single paper. In a healthy science, a paper strong enough to change opinions would be pushing it forward. From the emails and papers, the paleoclimatologists featured are convincingly not scientists and I beleive the same is true for many modelers who don’t seem to realize the models are running hot. Throughout these emails the featured advocates continually tweak, massage, adjust, reject and modify anything which takes away from the extremist message of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Real Climate website has made the claim that nothing important is in these emails but it is clear from some of the authors featured position in the emails (and the false claim) that RC authors are not in any way qualified to judge. They are so close to their friends good intentions that they have even taken the position that there is nothing at all wrong with selecting the preferred data or adjusting the curves to show what you want.
This is not science.
Yes there is real scientific discussion in the emails, but all too often the discussion is which data supports the conclusions and how it should be used or conveyed for maximum public impact. We can see the regular rejection of data which show X when the real answer you believe is Y. Of course the public has to be able to read more than 3 words in a row e.g. ‘hide the decline’ to understand most of it but plenty of it is blatant.
It is clear now that climate science is sick in general. This includes modelers, paleo, impact groups and even the biased handling of issues in basic thermometer data. This does not preclude the real scientists who do exist which can see that there is real science to be done. Because of the contentious and tenuous nature of the climate field, those who find contradictory results live ostracized from the field for saying the wrong things. They are aggressively attacked if they don’t say the right Gaia-saving lines in every publication. Ed Cook’s suggestion of publication followed by retirement to avoid the retaliation is a perfect example.
At this point I beleive that few if any of those featured prominently in these emails will go down in history as people who have contributed to understanding climate in a meaningful way. They are to a person like-minded politically motivated people and it is disgusting to see their treatment of statistics and the abuse of science in general. I’m a pro-business green company owning conservative who doesn’t care where the data leads because we need to know the truth. Most of these featured individuals are extremist liberals who don’t care either because they need their funding, political result, and the support of their peers. A condition which they, as scientists, work to hide aggressively. After all, it is for the public own good that “the-all-knowing” slave away at their keyboards.
We also understand from the emails that UEA,IPCC and RC scientists see themselves as good people doing the right thing. This is very clear and the lack of separation of the two, brings their general scientific ability into question. They should have shame. They should realize their errors and the huge uncertainty in the results – but they won’t.
Yes I am tired of this bullcrap. I didn’t want to spend time reading CRU emails – ever. I am not interested in attacking climate science for good work. I was interested in knowing if dangerous global warming was correct. After seeing how such key features of the science work in the backrooms, I don’t think we will find out until it happens (or doesn’t) from the caliber of today’s number mashers. We certainly won’t find out from the UEA. Therefore, I will continue to doggedly read and publish these emails in context despite “scientific” lies to the contrary, in the hopes that the media and public will understand the shenanigans and why the science is broken.
Maybe I’ll even do more presentations on the variance loss present in every single paleoreconstruction (hockey stick) ever made – it would obviously be impossible to put through a Mannian review. It sounds worth doing except that nobody in paleoscience would listen. It would be a shame if someone managed to create a paper which set paleoscience back a decade by simply pointing out the idiocy of pre-selecting data or regression of long noisy (and often pre-sorted) data on short temperature curves . The little epsilon at the end of the regression guarantees a variance differential. Oh yeah, I can’t publish because I haven’t taken climate matlab class yet.
What a waste of my life and talents.
If you are a climate scientist who does care, why haven’t you spoken up? How is it that you don’t separate yourself from these people or call them out on the trickery? Why so few comments on the fake investigations? I know we are not alone in our opinions here.