Climategate: It Won’t Go Away
April 30, 2011 1 Comment
The mainstream media continues to delay reporting the “Climategate” scandal. Just the same, the genie is out of the bottle, and they will have to account for it some day. The CRUfiles are available online for anyone who wishes to read them. Note: no one seriously doubts or denies their authenticity, including their authors, only their basic importance to the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) debate. You can access them in directory form: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/. Or download them as a whole: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206. What’s most intriguing about these files, apart from the unethical activities revealed in the emails, is the computer code, and subsequently, CRU’s flawed computer modeling. It’s arguable that any computer modeling of coupled non-linear chaotic systems such as the earth’s climate, are impossible to predict, regardless of the data that have been input. But, I’ll save the details of that argument for later. What the code reveals, specifically, is flawed data management, a deliberate distortion of data, and seriously flawed conclusions from leading climate scientists.
It’s also self-evident to the objective observer that climate science has become far too politicised — to the point where a complete denial of contrary evidence reigns, as well as a religious-type fervour and intolerance of dissent. Anyone who questions AGW, even on a scientific level, is labelled a climate change “denier”. Most revealing of all is that many proponents of AGW confidently assert that: “The science is settled”, and that “there’s a consensus”. Well, I’m sorry, but that’s not an argument! That’s an opinion. A convincing argument does not merely assert an opinion. It backs itself up with data that persuades others the opinion is valid. As for the so-called scientific “consensus”, that’s certainly not what science is, or has ever been, about. We need only look to the history of scientific discovery to know that science has never been about consensus. Scientific ideals, ethics (ever since the Enlightenment), have espoused the questioning of authority, the openness to new ideas, and the rigorous testing of all hypotheses. This means that in the case of AGW, where the data clearly does not support the hypothesis, that is, the real world doesn’t conform to the theory (as Mann and co. discovered), then their hypothesis may in fact be wrong.
The “Climategate” scandal is a classic case of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Namely, the AGW theory has largely been underpinned by fraud! So, first, what is called for here, from policy makers and politicians in particular, is caution. Second, when it comes to new taxes, such as cap and trade schemes like the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), requiring the radical restructuring of world economies, it must now be accepted that the CRU revelations seriously undermine the need for such measures (at least in the short-term). The mainstream media, politicians and environmentalists need to wake up to this new reality. If they want to argue their case for a cleaner planet, that’s fine, few would oppose. But it shouldn’t be brought about by fear, or irrationality, especially of some environmental apocalypse of our own making, or most distastefully, from the moral grandstanding of the affluent first world, to the detriment of the developing world. The catastrophist nonsense from Global Warmists must end now. And, it would help, for a start, if they could simply admit that the planet has been cooling since 1998.
Finally, and contrary to some pundits, “Hide The Decline” does not refer to the temperature decline since 1998. It involves tree-ring data that does not tie-in with other modern temperature data. In fact, this proxy data was scrapped at arbitrary points (Mann’s & Jones’ after 1980, and Briffa’s after 1960), because unlike modern temperature measurements the data showed a marked decline. Non-tree-ring numbers were fused onto the later averages, to make it look like part of the same series. In a word, Michael Mann’s “trick” was used to manipulate it — because the existence of a “decline” would have challenged the entire data series dating back to 1000 AD — therefore, the accuracy of their historical temperature reconstruction. This manipulation is so serious because our ability to judge whether past temperatures were warmer or cooler than today, using tree-ring data, has been seriously undercut, so to speak. (Mann’s “Hide the Decline” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk).
29 November, 2009