Posted by Jeff Id on March 26, 2011
Recently there have been some posts on the internet which have had my attention. First, is a series of posts by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit that have led to another vastly expanded version of hide the decline. It turns out that Briffa’s data wasn’t only truncated in recent years but also in historic years. F-ing unbelievable fraud in my opinion, which is the only word for it. You’ll note we don’t use that word here, but if both shoes fit….
It also looks like the team was far more active in ‘fixing’ the data than they could ever have admitted. If many here have noticed, the over-the-top guys on the enviroblogs i.e. dhog’s and MapleLeaf types have often made the climategate argument that it made sense to replace the bad data with temp because it didn’t match temp. Of course the argument was pure sophistry since the ‘skeptics/realists/thinking person’s’ point was that the ‘decline’ meant that the treemometer data isn’t a good temperature measure but I wonder how these sorts of sophistknowledgists apply the argument to clipping of historic data? What is the argument that historic data should also be clipped. The reality is obvious of course but now the peanut gallery is also faced with the question — what is the ‘scientific’ reason for chucking the ‘historic’ data you don’t like?
Here’s the absolutely damning image Steve produced.
So with that said, a reader called my attention to a recent post at Real Climate which deserves a reply. Of course I can’t post there (even on a climate paper with my own name on it) and therefore will be required to place my reply here. IMO, even without regular posts, tAV is a better blog anyway. At least we’re honest here.
The RC post was brought about by yet another leftist post from Nature – the pamphlet apparently which deserves much critique for the continued non-recognition of the actual problems in the Climate Science™ sales pitch. If you read the Nature link, I promise that you will loose IQ points and would recommend against it, but to each his own.
Below are the opening paragraphs:
As Nature went to press, a committee of the US Congress was poised to pass legislation that would overturn a scientific finding on the dangers of global warming. The Republican-sponsored bill is intended to prevent the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, which the agency declared a threat to public welfare in 2009. That assessment serves as the EPA’s legal basis for regulation, so repealing the ‘endangerment finding’ would eliminate its authority over greenhouse gases.
That this finding is scientifically sound had no bearing on the decision to push the legislation, and Republicans on the House of Representatives’ energy and commerce committee have made clear their disdain for climate science. At a subcommittee hearing on 14 March, anger and distrust were directed at scientists and respected scientific societies. Misinformation was presented as fact, truth was twisted and nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists, let alone learn from them. It has been an embarrassing display, not just for the Republican Party but also for Congress and the US citizens it represents.
Now anyone who has followed the issue knows that the EPA legislation allowing control of CO2 gasses is a kluge designed to get around Democrats actually voting for regulations in congress. The elected democrats can’t vote directly for the economically destructive extremist policies they want (because they would lose their jobs), so they have backdoored the EPA into the process. Any complaint about removal of the hideous mess from EPA control is simply political in nature and the climate scientists of RC and Nature digest, apparently think they want the draconian mess which the EPA will bring on economies. Only straight talk here though, calling repeal of the ‘endangerment finding’ anti-science is a fools game, played by pseudo-scientist politicians. What we the subjected public will (and have) received from the EPA in return for our hard earned and fast wasted money is a vastly stupid political solution. And of course there are very good reasons, fully outlined in climate blogs as to why Climate Science™ can not be trusted.
So just what does the Real Climate ‘group’ have to say about it? Here is a quote from the apolitical group hosted by Fenton Communications:
In so doing, it cited as an example the charade of a hearing conducted recently, including the Republicans’ disrespectful and ignorant attitude toward the science and scientists. Among many low points, this may have reached its nadir when a House member from Nebraska asked, smirkingly and out of the blue, whether nitrogen should be banned–presumably to make the point that atmospheric gases are all either harmless or outright beneficial, and hence, should not be regulated.
I do agree that it was likely a ‘charade of a hearing’, which is more honesty than you will hear from the blatantly dishonest scientists who have covered up and even lied about the climategate fraud. It is a charade because it needs to be. Everyone should agree that bad legislation needs to be excised from the government law. We the people need to be allowed to be heard on the issues, not legislation by fiat through an unelected branch. Of course, climate science™ is fully ready to dictate what ‘We the People’ need best as Real Climate points out shortly after the above quote.
There have been even more strongly worded editorials in the scientific literature recently as well. Trevors and Saier (2011)*, in a journal with a strong tradition of stating exactly where it stands with respect to public policy decisions and their effect on the environment, pull no punches in a recent editorial, describing the numerous societal problems caused when those with the limited perspective and biases born of a narrow economic outlook on the world, get control. These include the losses of critical thinking skills, social/community ethics, and the subsequent wise decision making and planning skills that lead a society to long-term health and stability.
It is amazing the hubris of these assholes. They are simply boundlessly full of themselves. So from that statement we learn that admitted conservatives like myself, who run businesses, hire people, pay salaries and build product (the most efficient in the world), somehow are the ones with a ‘narrow limited economic outlook’ while the government funded, never worried about a paycheck, six figure, fly everywhere climatologists, have the broader view. It doesn’t matter that I talked to at least a dozen different CEO’s in manufacturing just yesterday (nearly all conservatives), what could We the People possibly know.
To use their words from their article, it ‘boggles’ the mind that not only are the climatologists experts in climate, they are also experts in proper political policy and even business economics. If we handed over our company to the Real Climate elitist ‘group’, I have no question that they would bankrupt it within three months – because they are clueless about business. At least in business not enforced by government law. The problem is though that — they are clueless and loud — a bad combo in any environment — college classroom, college bar, a war zone or climate blog.
I will take only a few sentences to again warn the extremist climatologists before closing this post. First, businesses globally are strained to the limits. Globalization happened too quickly and has forced the shifting of money to areas of the world with political goals that are very bad for humanity in general. We know which politicians are responsible but we also know ‘true’ conservatives want less of the politicians. CO2 regulations, limiting drilling for the US yet not others, and taxation of US burning of coal are far more destructive to the future of humanity from non-environmental issues than any of you CS people have ever written coherently. When power is transferred away from the ex-free people (as I believe will continue to happen), the consequences to the environment of society will be far more severe than any of the IPCC’s worst disaster scenario’s. Don’t listen to me though, I’m not an ‘actual’ climatologist, but just an ignorant ‘ limited mind’ with little understanding of economics, environment, politics, matlab, Antarctic temperature and whatever else you would like to throw on the pile.
So why did I combine this into one post, because the Climate Audit post is further, shockingly incontrovertible evidence that some primary climate scientists are up to their elbows in data manipulation. It is amazing when you consider that the main players are involved. You cannot delete or hide data without explanation or with minimal explanation ten years separated from the main IPCC publication, and then make powerful conclusions from the remaining data. I think a high school student should give it a shot in lab and let me know how it went – your own risk of course. This issue is directly related to the claims by Real Climate and the Nature pamphlet. When the elitist/extremist apolitical ‘scientists’ make claims that ‘admitted’ conservatives are anti-science, without any recognition of the serious issues outlined, you just wonder who is the politician and who is the scientist.