CRU emails: Global Warming and You

Yeah, I can’t keep up with the spam, and don’t currently have time to filter the spam manually. I’m getting hundreds a day. You don’t see them simply because I’ve disabled comments without approval. If I continue I will develop a solution.

A few thoughts. This sucks.

On to the main show. The CRU “hack”. More likely a whistle-blower or placing the FOI corpus on an open server. Indeed reading the CRU’s press release carefully, I conclude the latter. Pro-AGW (people asserting mankind is primarily responsible for global warming, mostly via CO2 emissions) researchers are revealed to be… well… not very decent people. Certainly not scientists.

I used to be roughly of the same view as the IPCC in the ’90’s; I thought that there was about a 50-70% chance that global warming was occurring, and about a 50% chance that humans were largely responsible for it.

Now?

The AGW crowd is producing garbage like this:

Climate Alarmism Horrible Propaganda

This makes me want to vomit. What kind of people produce this? What kind of sick human being thinks this is appropriate?

The following is obviously my opinion.

Reading the emails and supporting corpus, it’s clear to me that there is significant scientific fraud. It’s clear that tens of millions of dollars in grants to individual scientists such as Dr. Phil Jones have been at stake.

There’s more; conspiracy to violate Freedom Of Information Acts in at least the UK and USA; conspiracy to subvert the vaunted peer-review process. “Gentle gloating” at the death of those who oppose you.

At the very heart, there are three problems with the AGW people.

1. They have hidden/destroyed/lost data and torqued the resulting models in ways that are simply not scientific or rational.

For example, they wanted to prove that we are in a period of unprecedented warming. Historians know that there was a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) where, for example, England was known for vineyards. The AGW researchers developed a set of tree core data that they said proxied temperatures. This dataset “proved” the MWP didn’t exist. Err… as a historian, I beg respectfully to differ, but so be it.

The problem with their dataset is that it doesn’t model modern temperatures accurately. A true scientist would say “Gosh, it seems tree core data is not a very good proxy for temperature”. The AGW researchers response? They simply inserted the actual temperatures into their models for everything post 1960.

I know this is a technical and irritating point, but if you are trying to prove something with a mathematical model, you have to be consistent. You can’t simply say “Well, the model is perfect up til 1960, but then it fails.” If the model shows temperatures as being way too low from 1960 on… then maybe it shows temperatures as being way too low in the past. And your model’s vaunted disproving of the MWP is then … well… nonsense.

Whatever it is, this is not science.

2. They’ve worked to destroy the reputations of those who oppose them. This is classic ad-hominem, or playing the man, not the ball.

3. The subversion of the peer-review process.

I’ve deliberately not talked much about most of these; I don’t have time, nor, probably do you.

But I’m happy to discuss it in greater depth when I can.

What’s the biggest tragedy in all this?

The AGW theory could at least be partially correct, if not completely correct. Yet these clownish loons have annihilated their credibility, and that of anyone else promoting the same theory for the time being.

At this stage my view is simply this:
Coal power is very bad. It releases radioactives and all kinds of crap into the atmosphere. Oil from the middle east destabilizes the world. Unless we intend to invade and occupy Saudi Arabia and terminate the virulence of Wahhabism over a multi-generational period that’s at least a 100 years [I don’t recommend this and don’t think we have the stomach for this].

So let’s drastically reduce coal and oil use. Go nuclear, continue to push for breakthrough technologies in everything from space elevators to solar power. Use North American/Russian natural gas, though recognize this also adds CO2.

But no giant subsidies to corporations seeking to feed off the green teat.

-wolfe

Leave a Reply