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’. 

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?

Dr. Ross McKitrick: Fix the IPCC or Fold It!

Published in Canada yesterday, please read the whole piece:

For many years, attempts to encourage debate on global warming science or policy have run into the obstacle that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued definitive statements, and therefore—the reasoning goes—the era of debate is over. The IPCC is made up of thousands of the world’s top scientists, it has one of the most rigorous and exhaustive review processes in the history of science, and the oversight by 195 member governments ensures balance, transparency and accountability. Or so we are told.
These claims about the IPCC are not true, but until relatively recently few were willing to question what they were told. Things began to change in 2009 with the leak of the Climategate emails, which prompted some observers to begin questioning their assumptions about the IPCC. Then this fall, Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise released her book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, a superb exposé of the IPCC that shows convincingly that the IPCC has evolved into an activist organization bearing little resemblance to the picture of scientific probity painted by its promoters and activist allies.

Superb Comment from Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.

On a number of occasions, I have talked about how global temperatures peaked in 1998 and have failed to rise since, in spite of ever-rising concentrations of CO2, falsifying the predictions of the United Nation’s IPCC (the Al Gore case for global warming).

Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. is both a real meteorologist and a real climatologist. He has a cogent and succinct summary of where we are in this post. I encourage anyone concerned about ‘global warming’ to read it. I particularly like this comment:

The risk is that if the IPCC forecasts do not occur as projected, then the credibility of the climate science community will be lost for a long time. This would be tragic as we need an effective climate policy to deal with the threats that climate variability and change pose to society.
As I have said many times, if you are worried about global warming, you are worried about the wrong thing. Neither I, nor anyone else, knows whether the earth will be cooler, the same, or warmer in 5 years. What we need to be doing is building more resilient systems that will serve us well regardless of future weather. 

The IPCC Shoots Itself in the Foot … Again

You’ll recall the International Panel on Climate Change was created to be an independent body to assess the effects of ‘climate change.’

Note: Climate change is assumed in their charter. They never question that global warming is real and a problem.

The job of the IPCC is to cull the scientific literature to explain global warming and its effects.  Except when its not. You may recall reading on this blog (Jan. 23, 2010) the story of how the IPCC cut and pasted a ridiculous claim that the ice would melt in the Himalayas by 2035 from a fundraising document from the World Wildlife Federation.  One would think they would have been more careful in the future.

Except they have done it again. The IPCC’s recent claim that, by 2050, 80% of the world’s energy could be provided by renewables (not including nuclear) came straight from Greenpeace. As usual, the mainstream media printed the IPCC’s claim without question (an excellent essay on that topic here). It took the amazing Steve McIntyre to uncover the truth. In a posting about the IPCC singing Greenpeace karaoke Steve laid out his case.

Unlike the past, however, IPCC defenders are pealing off. Please read this outstanding essay from Mark Lynas. And, from Judith Curry. And, Richard Tol. But, far too many global warming advocates respond with versions of, “move along, nothing to see here.”

Mark Lynas offers this thought exercise regarding the IPCC and the news media:

Here’s the scenario. An Exxon-Mobil employee – admittedly an energy specialist with an engineering background – serves as a lead author on an important IPCC report looking into the future of fossil fuels. The Exxon guy and his fellow lead authors assess a whole variety of literature, but select for special treatment four particular papers – one produced by Exxon-Mobil. This paper heralds great things for the future of fossil fuels, suggesting they can supply 80% of the world’s energy in 2050, and this headline is the first sentence of the ensuing IPCC press release, which is picked up and repeated uncritically the world’s media. Pleased, the Exxon employee issues a self-congratulatory press release boasting that his paper had been central to the IPCC effort, and urging the world’s governments to get on with opening up new areas to oil drilling for the benefit of us all…

How is the Exxon scenario different from what has just happened with the IPCC’s renewables report? And why – when confronted with this egregious conflict of interest and abuse of scientific independence – has the response of the world’s green campaigners been to circle the wagons and cry foul against the whistle-blowers themselves? That this was spotted at all is a tribute to the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre. Yet I am told that he is a ‘denier’, that all his deeds are evil, and that I have been naively led astray by him. Well, if the ‘deniers’ are the only ones standing up for the integrity of the scientific process, and the independence of the IPCC, then I too am a ‘denier’.
[emphasis mine]

Well said, Mark. 


Without strict adherence to the scientific method and to scientific ethics, scientists and scientific organizations quickly lose their way. Sadly, that is the case with the IPCC.

Nothing Like Terrible Suffering to Bring the Climate Hucksters Out

I was asked yesterday why I had not posted “Think Progress’” (a liberal, pro-global warming group) unscientific attempt to tie Wednesday’s tragedy to ‘global warming’ on this blog. I replied that I was so disgusted by it that I didn’t want to give them the publicity.

This morning, I heard from Al Gore in the form of this ad in my email:

Without reproducing the whole thing, there is the clear implication that global warming causes worse storms. So, while I’m at it, here is Think Progress’ vile pitch:

Aside from being in horrible taste, is there any substance to their contention that global warming caused these storms?  No.

Scroll down three postings and you will find a graph I created (using data from the pro-global warming British Climate Research Unit or CRU) that compares global temperatures during the previous worst two tornado outbreaks in the South and the similar “Superoutbreak” of tornadoes in 1974 that affected the South and Midwest. You’ll see that temperatures during these similar outbreaks were cooler than today’s. If warm global temperatures were required to spawn Wednesday’s tornadoes, these earlier tornado outbreaks could not have occurred. 

If that graph does not convince you there is no linkage between the tornadoes and ‘global warming,’ allow me to point out that earth’s atmospheric temperatures, according to the latest measurements, are colder than the 1981-2010 average! 

So let me state it again: There is no link between ‘global warming’ and the recent tornadoes. 

Because there are more than 5,000 new readers of this blog this week, I want to briefly state my position on global warming: It is probably a net small problem. I say “net” because there are positive aspects of a warmer climate that, to an extent, balance the negatives (i.e., more global food production due to longer growing seasons and more atmospheric CO2).

I do not rule out the possibility that Al Gore and the IPCC might be correct that it is a major problem. However, temperatures are running below their projections, apparently due to the La Nina, a change in ocean status known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the last few years of an unusually quiet sun. The IPCC, in its reports, claims that the warming effect of carbon dioxide would overwhelm those other factors. So far, they are incorrect. If the cooling trend continues another 2-4 years, I believe it is fair to judge that IPCC’s hypothesis is falsified.

However, if temperatures rise back (in spite of the factors listed above) to the levels predicted by the IPCC, then there is cause for real worry. At that point, I would join those calling for major mitigating measures. I also agree with my friend Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. that finding much less expensive de-carboned energy sources makes a lot of sense. I agree that using the atmosphere as a sewer may lead to other negatives that we cannot anticipate at this time. Developing those sources will take time.

In the meantime, since temperatures have been more or less flat for the past dozen years, there is no ‘climate crisis.’ We can afford to see how this plays out the next several years before spending — literally — trillions of dollars.

A Meteorologist Discusses the Numerous Problems with the IPCC

An insightful review of the recently ended climate meeting in South Africa and its impact on the IPCC.

After the U.N. packed up yet another global climate conference earlier this month, the perpetual state of fearful climate science came to mind. The fear this time is based on the current talking points from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that human-induced climate change is manifested in “extreme weather events.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is already exploiting this alarming message in a creative way. The EPA is preparing guidelines on reducing indoor air pollutants because people are expected to spend more time indoors due to the increased amount of severe weather resulting from climate change.
The pushing of this atmospheric angst is like operating a shady business or practicing an earth-first religion. An “authoritative” consortium such as the U.N.’s IPCC identifies an urgent condition (severe weather is caused by anthropogenic global warming), solutions are proposed (altering lifestyles, shuttering coal-fired power plants), services are offered (education, research, consulting, trading-companies for carbon credits), and oversight/enforcement is “required” (national and international bureaucracies).
Everyone seems to be cashing in on the doomsday predictions, from private companies and academic institutions to governments with their expanding power and work force.
Everybody wins … well, not quite. The big losers are, as usual, the ones stuck paying the bill — the middle-class taxpayers, plus the world’s poor, who manage to get by-passed in massive wealth-transfer schemes. And certainly scientific practice itself ultimately loses.

and,

For an excellent, in-depth example of this, see the just-released IPCC expose by investigative journalist Donna Laframboise titled, “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.”
Laframboise notes that it is “both peculiar and ironic that an organization that so vigorously claims to represent a worldwide scientific consensus has systematically ‘disappeared’ so many consensus views held by so many different kinds of researchers.”
She discovered that the IPCC “ignores the consensus among hurricane experts that there is no discernible link to global warming. It ignores the consensus among those who study natural disasters that there is no relationship between human greenhouse gas emissions and the rising cost of these disasters.
It ignores the consensus among bona fide malaria experts that global warming has not caused malaria to spread.” Laframboise concludes that in each case “the IPCC substitutes its own version of reality.” A version that “makes global warming appear more frightening than genuine experts believe the available evidence indicates.”
To prop-up this IPCC science-by-committee fear-mongering, those who know nothing about atmospheric science (like politicians, actors and PR spin doctors), but fawn over IPCC proclamations are unleashed to push the human climate change hypothesis, while those who are intimate with the field (like workaday practitioners in climatology and meteorology), but skeptical of IPCC assertions are ridiculed for being “global-warming deniers.”

Please read the whole thing.

Judith Curry on How We Got into This Mess

I have previously referred to Dr. Judith Curry as a “rock star” of climate science. Her superb qualifications include IPCC authorship.

Today she has posted another essay on her web site explaining how we got into the global warming mess, i.e., the overselling of what we know about about the climate and its future state. I refer to the situation as a “mess” because so many in the media and politics approach the subject, about which there are huge uncertainties, with near-religious zeal.

While I strongly recommend reading the entire piece, here are some highlights…

Nevertheless, the policy cart was put before the scientific horse, justified by the precautionary principle.  Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. 
…at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC.  These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy.  Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced  and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.
When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC…
Especially in the renascent subfields such as econology and public health, these publications and the media attention help steer money in the direction of these scientists, which buys them loyalty from their institutions, who appreciate the publicity and the dollars.

On two other occasions, I have posted an excerpt of President Eisenhower’s farewell address (the one where he warned of the “military-industrial complex”) that pertains to the global warming mess three decades before “global warning” entered the vernacular. In view of Judy’s comments above, Eisenhower’s warning rings especially true:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. 


Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.


Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Bingo!

Where do we go from here?

It is my hope that the next IPCC report is considerably more balanced than previous versions.

In the meantime, I wish to reiterate that global warming is hardly “settled science.” In July, I posted a piece on the “wisdom of inaction.” I stand by that advice.

Genuinely Good News About the IPCC Process — If Followed

As Meteorological Musings readers know, I am not a fan of the IPCC. It has functioned too much like a high school clique where only scientists with the “right” views (i.e., pro- catastrophic manmade global warming) need apply.

The group investigating the IPCC process has released its report and, if this story in The Wall Street Journal is correct, the next round of the IPCC’s work could be considerably more valuable than previous efforts. 
Among other things, the story states…
The investigation by the InterAcademy Council, a consortium of national academies of science, said the IPCC has been “successful overall” but called for the widely watched organization to enforce its existing procedures more, and to ensure that “genuine controversies” about climate science are reflected in the IPCC reports.

The reforms would aid in seeing that “due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views,” according to a news release about the report issued Monday morning.

It also called for measures to insure against conflicts-of-interest among IPCC investigators. 
I support each of these goals.

UPDATE: 1:30PM Monday, What others are saying about the report here, here, and here.

Why The Burst of ‘Hottest Year’ News?

UPDATE: August 2nd:  This burst of publicity just before an apparent cooling has prompted a posting at WattsUpWithThat.

If you have been reading the popular media the last few days you have seen a burst of ‘hot’ news from NASA…

from treehugger.com

…and from NOAA.

Other than the obvious question (“since they only have six months of 2010 data, how can they know it is the ‘hottest ever’?”), what might account for this sudden burst of publicity?

Here’s an idea:  Temperatures are headed down. As I explain in the “Wisdom of Inaction” post below, solar and oceanic temperature influences seem to be converging to cause a period, perhaps an extended period, of significant cooling. There is the possibility that these influences will falsify the IPCC’s hypothesis that CO2 is the driving force in climate.

Lower atmosphere temperatures as sensed by satellite indicate atmospheric cooling is occurring at the present time. 
Courtesy, University of Alabama

So, I suspect that some of the activist-scientists wanted to get in a “last shot” while temperatures are still relatively high.

To be clear, I do believe we are running a risk pouring CO2 into our atmosphere and smart decarbonization makes sense. As I say in the “inaction” post, we’ll likely have the scientific answers within five years. If the IPCC’s hypothesis turns out to be correct, I’ll be the first to say we need to take major action.

UPDATE: Fixed poor grammar.

Arctic Ice Back to Normal

Since presenting a class on ‘global warming’ at Wichita State last week, I was challenged then and have since received emails questioning whether the Arctic ice is really recovering.  The answer is an emphatic yes as these graphs (from two different scientific sources) valid March 31, 2010 demonstrate. Click on graphic to enlarge, click on the colored link to see the raw data.

From the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

From the Japanese satellite visualization center:

Contrary to popular impression, the ice cover is growing (back to normal*) at the present time.

The ice has shrunk in summer primarily because of unusual wind currents (2007) and because of soot from Asia’s industrialization being carried into the Arctic and darkening the snow and ice which causes it to melt much more quickly.  The ice recovers in winter (when it is dark 24 hours a day) because the soot factor doesn’t apply in darkness.

It is possible that the weakening world economy caused less soot = less darkening last summer, but that is just a guess on my part.

In any case, the news is good.

* “Normal” here may be misleading and likely overstates the amount of ice that is “normal” in the Arctic. Why? Because this data set only goes back to 1979 when satellite data became available, which is at the nadir of world temperatures due to the cooling that occurred from about 1947 to 1977 (see graph below). We know that in the 50′s there were times when the North Pole was free of ice.  


At Last: A Balanced Story on ‘Global Warning’

While there are factual errors in this story (the world is not currently warming, ocean heat content is down, Arctic ice is growing, not shrinking) about the state of climate science, it is a model of fairness and balance and, for that, I salute them.  Remember, reporters are not scientists and so pretty much have to interpret what scientists tell them. Please read the whole thing.

Here are some quotes from the article (which is balanced, not anti-GW) that need to be proclaimed in every media report on the subject:

“Fearmongering is the wrong way to go about it,” says Storch. “Climate change isn’t going to happen overnight. We still have enough time to react.”
“Scientists should never be as wedded to their theories that they are no longer capable of refuting them in the light of new findings,” he says. Scientific research, Hüttl adds, is all about results, not beliefs. Unfortunately, he says, there are more and more scientists who want to be politicians.
“Unfortunately, some of my colleagues behave like pastors, who present their results in precisely such a way that they’ll fit to their sermons,” says Storch. “It’s certainly no coincidence that all the mistakes that became public always tended in the direction of exaggeration and alarmism.”

But, please, read the whole thing.

The Climategate Hearings

As mentioned in the previous post, the equivalent of U.S. Congressional hearings have been taking place in Great Britain with regard to Climategate.

Video can be viewed here.

A summary of what the British media, both liberal and conservative, has reported is available here.

By far the most shocking testimony from Dr. Phil Jones (the most central ‘scientist’ in the Climategate scandal) was that he admitted hiding data and stated that not sharing data is “standard practice” in science!

To their great credit, the Royal societies of chemistry and statistics have weighed in that in true science data must be shared. Data sharing and independent testing is the very heart of the scientific method.

The comments to these posts are highly recommended.  This comment from a Mr. Ken Hall seems right on the money:

I think this sets out a definite difference between science and “climate science”. Clearly “climate science” does not adhere to the normal, standard expectation of science, that all data, methods, materials, data, etc., be open and shareable so that it can be fully tested, by people who support AND people who are skeptical.


Climate science is a unique scientific discipline where research begins at the conclusion and works backwards, selectively adopting (and manipulating) evidence to fit the conclusion. Where the hypothesis never changes, but the evidence changes instead to fit the hypothesis.

Al Gore’s Op-Ed

I have been asked, several times, why I have not blogged about Al Gore’s Op-Ed in Sunday’s New York Times.  The reason was that there are so many things wrong with it, I hardly knew where to start. However, because so many have asked, let me offer a few comments on the “science” aspect of his editorial.

Mr. Gore appeals to ‘science’ early in his piece,


We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.
I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Two errors?

Here is a list of the errors (courtesy Hot Air ):

But more important to me is that his argument is one of ‘religion,’ not science.

We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings …


…From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption…

“Redemption” is a religious concept, not a scientific one.  That is all that needs to be said.

Climategate = Enron?

I found this post at Steve McIntryre’s blog fascinating. It compares climate science in the wake of Climategate to Enron once it started to unravel. I have read the book about Enron, Conspiracy of Fools, discussed in the post (note: for a time, WeatherData did business with Enron, long before it fell apart) and I find the comparison surprisingly apt.

In the now 28-year history of WeatherData, Enron was one of only three companies that I would not continue to do business with.  Something struck me as very wrong with them. Before going any further let me unequivocally state there are honest, excellent scientists in climate science.  That said, the IPCC-related climate enterprise reminds me, at times, of Enron’s “creative” accounting. Enron set up hugely complicated “off balance sheet” transfers of assets that generated “profits.”  They also creatively used “mark to market” asset valuations in ways that no outsider could understand. 
How does this relate to climate science? An example: Climate scientists putting their faith in small numbers of trees that can somehow accurately discern the climate 500 to 1,000 years ago but fail to accurately discern the climate of the last 75 years.  I have read several of the published papers and even though I have a degree in meteorology and a minor in mathematics, I don’t understand either the data or the methodology.  That might be OK except believing the tree records takes a huge “act of faith.” Why? There are written records of the settlements in Greenland and Newfoundland that contradict the climatic picture tree records paint. Second, believing the tree ring data means humans would have had to bore through tens of feet of ice in hopes of finding a cave in which to leave artifacts to be found if and when the glacier retreated. Isn’t it far more likely the glacier didn’t block the entrance to a cave in the year 1,200 when artifacts were left and that the tree data is wrong? 

The paleo-climatologists say, “trust us, we know what we are doing.”  Well, consider this excerpt from “Time” magazine’s coverage of Enron:

The questions that followed veered toward the trivial–the Christmas party, parking privileges–until one persistent energy trader started drilling for details about Enron’s myriad, murky off-the-books enterprises.

The trader, Jim Schwieger, challenged Lay. Why, he asked, was chief financial officer Andrew Fastow sharing the stage–and gainfully employed–considering that he had just blown half a billion dollars mismanaging several Enron partnerships and earned $30 million doing it? [CEO Kenneth] Lay put his arm around Fastow and proclaimed his “unequivocal trust” in the CFO. The partnership accounting was complex stuff, Lay explained, but Fastow was on top of it…

Rob Bradley’s post at McIntyre’s blog is compelling and I highly recommend it.

The question is will climate science learn from Climategate and the related scandals and make the imperative changes in its mode of operation?

"Fraud"

Earlier today, I posted about how foreign newspapers are doing a far better job of covering the various climate scandals than the U.S. media. Here a followup from Germany delivered by a German climate scientist.