Thread: WSJ:The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths

OPINION: INFORMATION AGE
NOVEMBER 29, 2009, 9:46 P.M. ET

The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths

The world cannot trust scientists who abuse their power.

By L. Gordon Crovitz

For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws. Their behavior was brought to light when more than 1,000 emails,and some 3,500 additional files were published online, many of which boasted about how they suppressed hard questions about their data.

The emails, released by an apparent whistle-blower who used the name "FOI," were written by scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England. Its scientists are high-profile campaigners for the theory of global warming.

The findings from East Anglia have been at the core of policy reports by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC does not do its own research but compiles information relating to climate change. It has declared the evidence that the globe is warming to be "unequivocal," a claim routinely cited by lawmakers in the U.S. and elsewhere as authoritative.

The IPCC stresses honest science. According to its Web site, its goal is to "assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

The panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, now faces the inconvenient truth that it relied on scientists who violated scientific process. In one email, the Climate Research Unit's director, Phil Jones, wrote Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, promising to spike studies that cast doubt on the relationship between human activity and global warming. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," he said. He pledged to "keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another email exhange, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones: "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature.' Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Other emails include one in which Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit told Mr. Mann that "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same," and in which Mr. Jones said he had employed Mr. Mann's "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. A May 2008 email from Mr. Jones with the subject line "IPCC & FOI" asked recipients to "delete any emails you may have had" about data submitted for an IPCC report. The British Freedom of Information Act makes it a crime to delete material subject to an FOI request; such a request had been made earlier that month.

Over the weekend, East Anglia officials disclosed they had disposed years ago of the historic weather data underlying their analysis. This may be one reason they've fought information requests. They say they'll release the data they still have some time next year.

The emails showed how the global-warming group stifled dissent. They controlled the peer-review process, keeping opposing views unpublished, then cited "peer review" as evidence of their "consensus." One of the dissident scientists, Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, wrote on his blog that the emails show the "collusion to suppress other scientifically supported views of the climate system, and the human role within it, is a systemic problem with the climate assessment process."

These disclosures have led to some soul-searching. "Opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science," wrote George Monbriot, a leading British environmentalist. "There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific." Demetris Koutsoyiannis, a hydraulic engineer who has written on climate change, wrote that scientists who suppressed others "must have felt that this secrecy was their best weapon: to censor differing opinions, to develop 'trick' procedures, to 'balance' the needs of the IPCC, and even to 'redefine' peer review."

This unseemly business reveals another flaw. Why are scholars who review papers allowed to remain anonymous? Reforming scientists and lawmakers might put the question more concretely: How many of the anonymous reviewers who spiked skeptical scientific papers over the years are the people who wrote these emails detailing how they abused peer review to block contrary evidence?

Science was one of the first disciplines to insist on transparency in order to foster competition in data and ideas. In the case of global warming, transparency is better late than never, as policy makers now have the chance to review the facts. Facing up to high-profile flaws is hard for any profession, but honest scientists will cheer how in our digital era eventually the truth will out, and will accept that no scientific hypothesis can be viewed as sacred or can be proved in secret.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 47578.html

Gore: We are threatened by a six foot shark
Limbaugh: There is no threat there is no shark
Moncton: There is something in there only six inches, I think it is a minnow
Smithsonian: That is only six inches it is not a minnow There is a shark
Gore: What happens when you ignore the problem of a six inch shark

Gore: We are threatened by a six foot shark
Limbaugh: There is no threat there is no shark
Moncton: There is something in there only six inches, I think it is a minnow
Smithsonian: That is only six inches it is not a minnow There is a shark
Gore: What happens when you ignore the problem of a six inch shark

Roundabout: You get a speargun and go fishing.
Gore:You can't kill my Billion dollar six inch shark!
Limbaugh: Billion dollar minnow? I am in the wrong business!
Moncton: Not even the Chinese would pay that for a full grown shark.
Roundabout: Not gonna sell it, use it for chum, for the chumps!

OK alright I give up you must be right lets just ignore science and pump pollution into the air forever from more sources in ever increasing amounts and expect no consequences. yeah right

I got into the front page news of the New York Times regarding a coal mining deal I encouraged, my grandfather was a coal executive. I still understand the difference between exagerating a real problem like Gore and making one up.

Well it's all fine and dandy if we want to change the way we do things here, but if other countries don't like China and India, as they've already said they won't abide by the next round of enviornmental efforts, we're just tryin' to take a leak into the wind.

I'm all for being a good custodian for the sake of posterity. I have taught my kids to be consevationists when hunting and fishing, but how many people ignore those principles? If I teach my kids that's fine, but if others don't, then it's moot.

Richard I applaud you for your concern for our environment. I was brought up on a farm, I was taught that good land stewardship was not only the right thing, but profitable long term.

I also studied science as a hobby in a related area, started before Anthropogenic Global Warming/Cooling/Changing was even in vogue. I could not help but to have found interesting pieces of what was to be a puzzle, the puzzle of today. I still find it very interesting. Now I wish the research in these areas would continue, with SCIENCE, taking the lead, not politics or monied grants leading the way.

And by the way, I am an equall opportunity basher of the politicians that wave this mantra for the sheer benefit of the greed factor. Republican or Democrat I will kick.

Palaeoclimatology is a fascinating subject. As stated ealier in another post, we are in a interstadial period according to top scientist in their field. The information has been accumulating for the last 100 yrs! Enough patience will reward you with a desire to move south someday.

Also, all of the lists of scientists that were circulating in the years past with the supporters of Antropogenic Global
ClimateWarming/Cooling/Changing were scientist of many different disciplines and no Palaeoclimatologist mentioned. I believe that given their chosen profession is past climate history, they refuse to sell out for political expediency, also their science will not tell the story that the hucksters need to sell this farce. Even in a interstadial, the weather will fluctuate from decade to decade, as a decade ain't diddly squat in the bigger scheme.

Alligators were present in Missouri 20,000 years ago. A pennsylvania shrew was in North Carolina approx. 10,000 years ago. It is found in PA today, not NC. I could go on and on, plants, pollens, animals, ice core samples, palaeo soils.

I will take the research with the least politics involved. Besides, my wallet feels safer when the politicians are not around.

What I was told by the scientist from the Smithsonian is that we will not reach a tipping point for another generation or two but if we do not change our current pattern it will come upon them very fast. Gore is exgerating and insulting to people who do not give it his level of priority but he is not totally wrong either.

Richard, If you are looking for stability in the weather, hang around for 6-8 thousand years. As the world approaches the next glacial period everything south of the ice sheets, as fas as weather is concerned will become very "equitable." Only time in the northern hemisphere, in the temperant zones when scientists, palaeoclimatologist have somewhat of a conundrum trying to describe an "equitable" climate as no region today really works for a comparison.

During an interstadial (which we are currently in) the weather patterns will swing, and can swing radically, concerning changes measured in centuries of time, with more problematic predictions concerning decades. Hard to fine tune that close when they are working on such a large time scale.

Not to knock your scientist from the Smithsonian, but keep in mind that institution is large and realies on federal funding aswell as contributions. No need to go against the grain or the sentiments of the greenies.

Asfore Gore, he is a huckster placed out in public as a front man for profit motivated concerns. He was the idiot that stepped forward and took on the role he currently plays, and time and science (provided the media will allow) will prove him to be a corupt crooked politician. JMHO

Originally Posted by Richard

OK alright I give up you must be right lets just ignore science and pump pollution into the air forever from more sources in ever increasing amounts and expect no consequences. yeah right

I got into the front page news of the New York Times regarding a coal mining deal I encouraged, my grandfather was a coal executive. I still understand the difference between exagerating a real problem like Gore and making one up.

What a great response!! I am a person that believes that global warming is a natural event, yet humans are speeding up the process. How can we think we can unleash pollution with NO consequences? It's like the head of the EPA during the Bush years who said, "It doesn't matter what we do to the planet, Jesus is coming so we shouldn't care." If that doesn't scare you I don't know what would.

DaveMor wrote,

Jesus is coming so we shouldn't care." If that doesn't scare you I don't know what would.

Does Jesus scare you?