Climategate and the Politics of ‘Global Warming’

I also don’t see why I should help people I don’t want to work with and who spend most of their time critisising me.

Thus wrote Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit of the UK in 2005 in one of the Climategate emails. Dr. Jones is one of the most prominent pro-catastrophic global warning researchers in the world. He also is quoted as saying:

“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Here is why: In order for a hypothesis to be “scientific,” it — by definition — must be reproducible by others, preferably those who are skeptical of your work and not members of your clique. Jones data was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy which put it into the public domain and subject to U.S. Freedom of Information laws.

In most of science (climate science being the only major exception), skeptics who advance the science by falsifying incorrect hypothesis get as much — and, often more — glory than those who “go with the flow.”

I bring this up because Steve McIntryre has a fascinating and (as usual) extensively documented post about how Jones and Nature created the myth that Jones was “inundated” by requests for data and, thus, “could not,” when, in reality, he would not provide it to independent researchers.

This is why so many meteorologists like myself are so skeptical of the Al Gore-IPCC catastrophic global warming hypothesis. Temperatures are running well below the IPCC’s own forecast that is just 5 years old. That might not seem significant until you realize they are running well below an interval in which they said they had 95% confidence (the green interval at the link). The odds their model forecasts are correct are less than one in one thousand. 

With sea level falling recently (it is forecast by the IPCC to rise at an accelerating rate), temperatures well below what they were predicted to be (link above), news that the increased carbon dioxide may stave off another ice age (scroll down), the forecasts of catastrophic global warming look to be long shots. In fact, there is a new global warming forecast that reduces the predicted amount of warming to quite tolerable levels.

And, with this being a political year, we find the usual suspects in the pro-global warming camp engaging in inappropriate political activity under the cover of non-profits.

Repeated refusal to release required data. Forecasts consistently far too warm. Inappropriate political activities. I ask you: Is this the behavior of people who are confident in their position?

2 thoughts on “Climategate and the Politics of ‘Global Warming’

  1. Good write up. If they won't make the data public, it won't ever be accepted in the scientific community. Don't believe anything until you see where it came from and why.


  2. If they are being funded by the USDE, and the the government wants certain results because of an agenda, then this all makes total sense. The truth has no agenda, sadly, all agencies have one.