Why the The Pro-Global Warming Forces Think it is ‘War’

Below, I have a posting that links to a Scientific American piece that calls the debate between the pro- and anti-GW forces ‘war.’ I agree. One side is fighting with science and the other is faking documents, fighting freedom of information act requests tooth and nail in court (wasting taxpayer funds on documents clearly in the public domain), the EPA’s “scrubbing” its database of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it gave to Fakegate’s protagonist (Peter Gleick), Climategates 1 and 2, etc., etc. The question some of my correspondents are asking is “why?”

Here is my theory as to why so much unscientific and unethical behavior is now occurring so frequently:

The Wall Street Journal just ran a second piece written by scientists like me that are skeptical of the Gore/IPCC theory of catastrophic global warming. It is the same piece I linked to yesterday.

The piece includes this graph that shows the IPCC’s various forecasts (dotted lines) compared to the red line. Notice anything? All of the forecasts are too warm! The 1995 forecast isn’t too bad but if you take out the 1998 peak, it would be almost entirely too warm, also. The unmistakeable conclusion is that the models overweight the effects of CO2…the very foundation of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis.

A pro-global warming defense of the forecasts presented in the above graph is here. In it, the author states that it takes 30 years to falsify the models. This is moving their own goal posts. They used to say seventeen years (one example here, I could link to many more). 

Here are world temperatures over the last 15 years:

See any net warming? Since temperatures are currently trending down, it would take something extremely surprising for the IPCC/Gore forecast to not be completely falsified in another two years. In fact, by any measure, the most famous of the forecasts, 1990, is already falsified. 

This is why you are seeing so much nonsense from the pro-global warming forces. They realize that, one day soon, the media and politicians are finally going to realize that there is at least no near-term (10-30 years) global warming crisis. Given the current federal budgetary constraints, the biggest — by far — gravy train in the history of atmospheric science may start drying up. So, desperate times call for desperate measures and you get Climategate 2 two months ago and Fakegate and its many defenders this past week. 

Thursday, both Republicans and Democrats asked the EPA to stop regulating CO2. Here is the list of Democrats (from ThinkProgress/Green):

There is little question that Democrats would not have signed this letter as little as two years go. It is dawning on more and more people that they have been “had.” There is no immediate global warming crisis. 

I bring up the politics of this because the pro-global warming forces are seeing this major shift, too. Thus, the increasingly desperate tactics. I expect more between now and the election. 

UPDATE: 12:11PM via WattsUpWithThat, Dr. Judith Curry (a member of the IPCC and genuine climate scientist) writes about what I’m calling “Fakegate,”

When ‘Heartlandgate’ first broke, I saw no parallels with Climategate. Now, with the involvement of Gleick, there most certainly are parallels. There is the common theme of climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a ’cause’. 

"Open Access to Environmental Data" Would Be a "Perversion"

Last Wednesday, I wrote about the evasion of Freedom of Information laws and other shenanigans by the usual cadre of pro-global warming advocates under the guise of science. In the posting, I wrote:

Is this the behavior of people who are confident in their position?

So, I’m not surprised that this nonsense continues — as recently as last week.

Steve McIntyre, who I think is worthy of a Pulitizer Prize for his investigative reporting, documents more attempts to hide data and keep the work of the pro-global warming International Panel on Climate Change secret.

As I said in the original posting: The replication of scientific results is an absolutely essential part of the scientific method. If results are not reproducible, they are not science.

While I disagreed with some of the early results of the IPCC’s fifteen years ago, I respected the process. It has since devolved into a largely closed advocacy group that uses sloppy science to achieve its results. My expectations for their newest report — due out later this year — are extremely low.

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?

Climategate 2: Keeping the Faith in Warming Religion in Spite of the Data

Anthony Watts is keeping everyone up-to-date on the latest disclosures here.

So far, my ‘favorite’ Climategate 2 email is the one where the pro-global warming clique is discussing the lack of warming during the previous eleven years and the increasing number of forecasts that the lack of warming (or even cooling) would continue. This email is from Phil Jones:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
>Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
>To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
>Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
>Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
>
>
> Tim, Chris,
> I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
> till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
> half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> record, 1998!
> Still a way to go before 2014.
>
> I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
> where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
> scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

So, let me get this straight: Global warming is a “catastrophe” for the humanity, yet Jones wants it to happen so he can “wear their smug grins away.” I guess it never occurs to the clique that there might be something wrong with their hypothesis.

If he was unhappy with temperature trends in 2009 when the above email was written, Dr. Jones must really be glum these days. I’ve added an arrow pointing to the world temperatures when the email was written. Dr. Jones works for the Hadley Center’s Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The graph below was constructed from their data. It shows no warming since Jones wrote his email lamenting the lack of warming.

Neither Jones, the IPCC, nor the IPCC’s models forecast this 13 years and counting without warming.

The Wall Street Journal chimes in with wise commentary about the ‘religion’ of “global warming:
Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.
As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term “climate change” when thermometers don’t oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other “deniers.” And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit…
Meanwhile, the world marches on. On Sunday, 2,232 days will have elapsed since a category 3 hurricane made landfall in the U.S., the longest period in more than a century that the U.S. has been spared a devastating storm. Great religions are wise enough to avoid marking down the exact date when the world comes to an end. Not so for the foolish religions. Expect Mayan cosmology to take a hit to its reputation when the world doesn’t end on Dec. 21, 2012. Expect likewise when global warming turns out to be neither catastrophic nor irreversible come 2017.
You can read the entire editorial here.

And, if you have any doubt that global warming has morphed from science to religion, take a look at this.

That’s why turning off lightbulbs is important. To turn off the light when you leave a room is an act of piety just as much as lighting a candle in church. It has no measurable effect on the crisis at all in itself. It doesn’t even have a notable effect on your own electricity bill, and if it ever does, the world economy will be in a dreadful mess. But it is a token of seriousness. It is, if you like, a gesture of faith.

Sheesh.

In the rest of science, when data substantially conflicts with a hypothesis, the hypothesis is said to be “falsified.” Given the lack of warming, the lack of major storms, the lack of increase of sea level rise, etc., I believe it is time to withdraw the catastrophic global warming hypothesis and rethink the paradigms of climate science. 

"The Climate Fix"

My friend, Roger Pielke, Jr., has written a fresh and much-need look at the politics and related issues surrounding climate change — both natural (the climate is always changing) and man-made.

Global warming/climate change is a significant issue for our world but an extraordinarily difficult topic for the average person to understand. Anything that clarifies the issue in a non-technical manner is a most welcome addition to the discussion.
The Climate Fix is an outstanding, balanced view of the entire issue of mankind’s effects on the atmosphere and its consequences.  Roger is the son of meteorologist and climate expert Roger Pielke, Sr. and has learned a lot of atmospheric science through osmosis. His full-time job is a policy researcher at the University of Colorado.
Fix takes us through the history of the global warming hypothesis and the politics surrounding it. He lightly touches on the science but Fix is not a “science book” (i.e., there is nothing technical or difficult for the non-scientist to grasp).
The first chapter is a “dinner table” conversation about climate change, both natural and human-induced, and the politics pertaining to both. From there, the book takes us a logical and interesting discussion of how climate politics play out around the world, the technologies available for decarbonization, and his recommendations as to where we go from here.
Roger accurately explains in Chapter 7 that there is no current evidence that carbon levels in the atmosphere are making storms worse, a position that I completely agree with (that it not to say such evidence may emerge in the future). That said, Roger is a strong proponent of decarbonization but not for sole concern of global warming. Roger points out that 1.5 billion of the world’s people have no practical access to electricity that keeps their standard of living insufficient. By bringing electricity to these we will have to mine carbon (i.e., coal, oil, natural gas) at an unsustainable rate.
Those who have read this blog for a while know that I believe that condemning the third world to poverty due to previously proposed decarbonization schemes (Kyoto, the original proposed agreement in Copenhagen) is immoral.
The solution, according to Roger, is a rapid and major R&D program in energy development and innovation (i.e., new sources of energy). The “fix” is to create a source of energy that is less expensive, per unit of energy, than coal (the least expensive “conventional” energy source). This is an elegant concept. I agree with Roger, although I am more of a proponent of the new generation of nuclear energy than Roger seems to be. I also believe decarbonization is desirable because of the need to preserve natural gas, oil, etc., as chemical feedstocks for future generations (i.e., there is currently no practical way to make plastic-based materials without those as raw materials).
For anyone who wishes to learn about the genuine concerns and solutions pertaining to increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere will benefit from reading The Climate Fix. I highly recommend it.
Roger’s blog is here.
For Midwest readers, there is an event at Purdue University featuring Roger, Judy Curry (esteemed climate scientist), and Andy Revkin (climates science journalist) at Purdue University on November 3. It promises to be an enlightening and energetic evening. 

Putting The Blame Everywhere, Except Where It Belongs

From Tom Friedman’s column in Sunday’s New York Times assigning blame for the Democrats pulling the “climate” bill.

I could blame Republicans for the fact that not one G.O.P. senator indicated a willingness to vote for a bill that would put the slightest price on carbon. I could blame the Democratic senators who were also waffling. I could blame President Obama for his disappearing act on energy and spending more time reading the polls than changing the polls. I could blame the Chamber of Commerce and the fossil-fuel lobby for spending bags of money to subvert this bill. But the truth is, the public, confused and stressed by the last two years, never got mobilized to press for this legislation. We will regret it.


How about putting some blame on Tom Friedman, one of the numerous ‘global warming’ alarmists (Al Gore at the top of the list) who have carbon footprints that dwarf those of 99% of the world’s population?!

This is a photo of Mr. Friedman’s home. Need I say more?

Glenn Reynolds says, I’ll believe global warming is a crisis when the people telling me it is a crisis start acting like its a crisis. 


UPDATE: Monday Evening. Pat Sajak has a sensible proposal for Tom, Al, Laurie, and the rest of the jet-set global warming alarmists.

UPDATE 2, 8/4/10:  I am not the only one to link behavior of global warming activists to the defeat of cap and trade. From Clive Crook who believes we need to tax carbon:

Second, the evident fondness of climate-change activists for delegitimizing dissent and spinning the facts to make them more “understandable” is simply not working. Cap and trade just died for lack of public support. I think climate-change activists are partly to blame, as I argue in this recent FT column. They are harming their own cause.

If Only the U.S. Media Would Conduct an Interview Like This

John Hirst is the head of the British Met Office, UK’s equivalent to the U.S.’s National Weather Service.  Mr. Hirst firmly believes in human-caused global warming.

Prior to Climategate he proclaimed,

“But actually there’s massive certainty about global warming. The evidence is overwhelming, irrefutable.”

In response to Climategate, he said,
Met Office chief executive John Hirst and chief scientist Professor Julia Slingo organised the petition. They said: “This tremendous response affirms our confidence in the science, and reinforces the immediacy of the challenge and the critical nature of the discussions at Copenhagen.”
The petition said: “We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities.”
Here is an amazing interview from the BBC about the Met Office’s failure (like the U.S.’s Climate Prediction Center’s) to predict the cold wave the month before it occurred.  The interviewer was well-prepared, knew the facts, and did a great job.  
The takeaway from this is not to attack Hirst.  I’m sure he is sincere in his beliefs.  The two things I would like you to consider are, “How can the Met Office be ‘certain’ about man-caused global warming 30 years in the future when the organization cannot forecast a cold wave 30 days in advance?” The second is how refreshing it was to see an interview that did not follow the coached template I wrote about Thursday. 


UPDATE:  What was the interviewer referring to when he said “Bar-B-Que Summer”?  Answer: the British Met Office used that phrase in late-spring 2009 when it forecast a record hot summer for the UK, as in “we’ll all be roasting” (my words).  Instead, it was one of the coldest summers in UK history.  


UPDATE II, January 13th:  I wasn’t the only one struck by this interview. Roger Pielke, Sr. blogged on it today.  His bottom line?  ”To claim that the UK Met Office can provide skillful forecasts of the likelihood of such extreme events decades from now based just on the knowledge of a subset of human climate forcings (i.e. primarily added atmospheric carbon dioxide) is a very significant misrepresentation of the science.”

Climategate Update V – They Protest Too Much

In the two weeks since Climategate broke and brought the scientists contentions about global warming into contention, we have been told “there is no smoking gun” by the New York Times’ Paul Krugman and numerous others, there “is no scientific dispute” by the White House, and “I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists” by the White House ‘climate czar.’

But what does one of those 2,500 scientists say?

Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., is a leading advocate of human-caused global warming.  I last encountered Kevin at an American Meteorological Society meeting in Denver in summer, 2008.  He was adamant that global warming was occurring and a real threat to humanity.

Less than two months ago, Dr. Trenberth participated in a written debate with Dr. Bill Gray of Colorado State University (a global warming skeptic).  Dr. Trenberth wrote, “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and “global temperatures [have] especially warmed since the mid-70′s.”

But, what did a Climategate email show Dr. Trenberth writing two days later?
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and its a travesty that we can’t.  Here is a screen capture of the two side by side (click to enlarge):

I’d call that a “smoking gun.”

Glenn Reynold’s of the wonderful Instapundit blog says, I’ll believe global warming is a crisis when the people telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.”

Given the number of private jets carrying people to Copenhagen, one wonders how many of the delegates really believe global warming is the dire, immediate crisis they keep preaching to the rest of us.