Science and Culture Today | Page 1285 | Discovering Design in Nature

The Investor’s Business Daily gets it:

The CRU’s Criminal Conspiracy

ClimateGate: Britain’s Climate Research Unit now says it will release all its data. Does that include the data that have been shredded, deleted and denied publication?

Peter Hannaford has a great essay in Human Events on Obama’s Science Advisor John Holdren and ClimateGate. As you may recall, eco-activist Holdren has a long history of advocacy for coercive measures to reduce human population, and in the 1970’s he advocated forced sterilizations and even putting sterilants in public drinking water. His policies in support of forced sterilization were put into practice by India and China several decades ago, and millions of people were involuntarily sterilized. Holdren has also said that he was open to criminal prosecution of people who disagree with some of his eco-policies.

Hannaford’s essay:

Meet the White House’s Alarmist in Chief

If you had devoted your entire scientific career to predicting the end of the world, what do you think would be the symbol of success with which to crown that career? Why, to be President Obama’s choice as White House Director of Science and Technology. That’s his formal title, but what John Holdren is, in fact, is the nation’s Alarmist in Chief.

Al Gore thinks he invented global alarmism, but he’s a Johnny-come-lately compared with Mr. Holdren who, back in 1971 edited (with population alarmist Paul Ehrlich) a book titled Global Ecology. Also, he supplied one of its essays, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide” in which he predicted that such human-caused phenomena as agricultural dust, jet exhaust and smog would cause a new ice age. Thus, he wrote, “…a sudden slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”

Nowadays, of course, the giant tidal wave will be caused by melting ice caps, not growing ones. One must move with the times.

Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal has a fine essay on the financial roots of global warming fraud:

Climategate: Follow the Money

Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called–without irony–the climate change “consensus.”

To read some of the press accounts of these gifts–amounting to about 0.0027% of Exxon’s 2008 profits of $45 billion–you might think you’d hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.

Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world’s leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data–facts that were laid bare by last week’s disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists’ follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.

Real climate scientists are sifting out the details of the data to which CRU director and warmist Phil Jones applied fellow warmist Michael Mann’s ‘Nature trick…to hide the decline…’.

The hidden data is that of Keith Briffa, a fellow climate scientist (and warmist) at East Anglia. Briffa compiled tree-ring data to obtain global temperature estimates back to 1400. But there was a problem with the tree-ring data, from the warmist perspective. The tree ring data showed pronounced cooling beginning in the mid-20th century. This was at variance with some ground temperature measurements (so we are told- the actual raw data from the ground stations was ‘accidently’ thrown in the garbage in the 1980’s, and all we have are ‘modified’ data from the CRU scientists themselves.)

So the method that the warmist climate scientists used to estimate temperatures over the past millenium or so (tree ring data) did not show warming that correlated with rising CO2. This leaves a couple of possibilities, neither favorable to the warmist hypothesis. Either the tree ring data in the 20th century that was inconsistent with temperature recordings meant that the older tree ring data was unreliable (eliminating the argument that the warming was unprecedented) or the temperature recordings were inaccurate (perhaps from the heat island effect, in which sensors situated near growing urban areas give spurriously high readings) and rising CO2 didn’t cause warming.

What to do?

Simple. Delete the tree rign data beginning in the mid-20th century, when the cooling became pronounced, and use (already CRU ‘modified’) ground station data more supportive of the warmist hypothesis in it’s place.

Climate scientist and skeptic Steve McIntyre:

Senior Editor of Atlantic Monthly Clive Crook is revising his earlier sanguine view of ClimateGate. What happened? He read the emails.

In a post on ClimateGate that Crook wrote before he had read the emails carefully, he observed:

…nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much.

Over the weekend, he read the documents more carefully:

Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back..The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And… this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu. It goes to the core of that process.

You can often tell who won a debate by the plausibility of an account. In that regard, Donald Prothero made many dubious claims about his debate yesterday with Michael Shermer against Steve Meyer and Richard Sternberg. Let’s hone in on a couple short comments. Prothero writes: “I know I caught [Meyer] off-guard, since I have degrees in both biology and geology, and know most of their arguments better than they do.” Prothero later felt it was appropriate to boast about his following question: “I asked Meyer if he needed the ‘Designer’ to make every glop of mud.” Of course anyone with a cursory knowledge of ID would be aware that ID fully allows for the action of natural processes, and Read More ›

This is not a parody. I swear this is not a parody. From the NEWS.scotsman.com; date November 30, 2009 (post-ClimateGate):

Warming will ‘wipe out billions’

MOST of the world’s population will be wiped out if political leaders fail to agree a method of stopping current rates of global warming, one of the UK’s most senior climate scientists has warned.

Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, believes only around 10 per cent of the planet’s population — around half a billion people — will survive if global temperatures rise by 4C.

I’m speechless. I’m really trying to think of something to say.

From the Sunday Times in London:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.