Fake News? What About Fake Science?

In 2009, the climate science community was rocked with the release of hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University.  The emails seemed to suggest that there was a concerted effort to manipulate data and suppress deniers.  As Wikipedia reports, committees were set up to examine those claims and their findings were reported as follows:

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests."

Now, fast forward to February 2017.  The prestigious scientific journal Nature announced that it would no longer publish scientific papers unless the conclusions were replicated by independent peers in the same field of science.  The basis of this decision by Nature was a 2016 survey in which scientists claimed that more than 70% of them were unable to reproduce the results of published scientific papers.  This was also the case in climate change science findings.

This also comes on the heals of two other "shocking" disclosures.

Earlier this year, Dr. John Bates -- a recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center -- disclosed that temperature data was manipulated to hide an 18-year hiatus in global warming in advance of the Paris climate summit.  This lead directly to Obama's signature on a climate agreement that would cost this country, and the world, trillions of dollars in spending.

Then, there was the early retirement of well-known climatologist Judith Curry who wrote an essay as to why she was retiring.  Her most poignant reason follows in this quote from that essay:

"A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc."

That brings me to a final point.  In Chinese myth, there is something called the Money Tree.  An ornate holy tree that is supposed to bring good fortune.  Today, given all of the above, the true Money Tree appears to be climate science.  As long as climate research points to climate change as a real problem, those scientists can be reassured that money will keep flowing towards them for additional research.  And, it appears that it doesn't matter if 70% of that research is flawed or not reproducible.  Thank God that Nature has finally stood up to fight this kind of Fake Science, which is another form of Fake News!

References:

Climatic Research Unit email controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

The journal Nature is going to begin requiring reproducibility in submitted papers: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/25/the-journal-nature-is-going-to-begin-requiring-reproducibility-in-submitted-papers/

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers': http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records: https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud? http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/is-global-warming-science-just-a-fraud/

Disenchanted climatologist Judith Curry resigns from Georgia Tech: http://climatechangedispatch.com/disenchanted-climatologist-judith-curry-resigns-from-georgia-tech/

Money Tree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_tree_(myth)

In Frustration, Climate Change Proponents Resort To Childish Tactics

From early on, children learn that they can use name-calling and bullying to diminish an opponent.  So, the smart boy in the class -- the one who may not do well in sports -- is belittled by some dumb bully calling him a "girlie guy" or some other name he perceives as insulting.

Hopefully, as adults, we learn that this is no longer effective when someone else questions your work; such as a scientific paper, a business proposal, or some new legislation.  Your retort must be, instead, logical and convincing. Yet, the climate change proponents of today have decided to revert to these childish defenses in order to diminish the opponents by calling them "Climate Deniers"; itself a form of name calling.

Recently, Secretary of State John Kerry compared "climate deniers" to members of the new "Flat Earth Society." Prince Charles said deniers where a "headless chicken brigade."  Not to be outdone, Al Gore compared them to racists, homophobes, smokers, and drunks; and one only wonders why he stopped there.

Then, there are the bullies.  The President's own Organizing for Action (OFA) group has a website where every member of Congress who is a known "climate denier" is listed.  In Britain, the Green Party is proposing they should lose their government jobs. Then, there's climate scientist Michael Mann who was at the heart of the so-called ClimageGate scandal.  He's suing people like Mark Steyn for  publicly questioning his scientific work.  Of course, if he wins, this will make any denier think twice about making statements that would question any scientific climate change findings.  But, the ultimate in bullying is being floated by a professor with the Rochester Institute of Technology by the name of Lawrence Torcello who is proposing that deniers be silenced through imprisonment because they are threatening public safety. 

Quite simply, all this shows is that the climate change movement is losing in the court of public opinion.  All their wild predictions are simply not happening. In terms of priorities, fighting climate change is either at the bottom or close to the bottom of what Americans believe we, as a country, should be spending our time on.  Thus, the only defense tactics left are the childish ones.

References:

Secretary of State Kerry lashes out at climate change skeptics: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/16/secretary-state-kerry-lashes-out-at-climate-change-skeptics/

Prince Charles: climate change deniers are 'headless chickens': http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10610108/Prince-Charles-climate-change-deniers-are-headless-chickens.html

Al Gore Compares Climate Change Deniers To Racists And Drunks: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/22/al-gore-climate-change_n_3795247.html

Call Out the Climate Change Deniers: http://ofa.barackobama.com/climate-deniers/#/

Greens call for clear-out of 'climate change deniers': http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26187711

Mann vs. Steyn: The Trial of the Century: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/12/mann_vs_steyn_the_trial_of_the_century__121528.html
Professor Calls For Climate Change ‘Deniers’ To Be Imprisoned: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/03/professor-calls-for-climate-change.html

Gallup: Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S.: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

Climate Alarmists Didn't Learn The Lessons of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and "Chicken Little

Recently, I read a news article in the National Journal that focused on the fact that some Senate Democrats are planning to pressure the Sunday news talk shows into having more coverage of  global warming and/or climate change.  This because the media god of all things extremely liberal, Media Matters, reported that only 8 minutes of Sunday talk time was dedicated to the subject in 2012.  Of course, I had to laugh because those Democrats really don't want a "discussion" of "all" the facts regarding climate change -- both pro and con -- but, rather, they want more extreme, alarmist pablum being rammed down the throats of Americans.

Last Sunday, dutiful to the will of the Democrats, all three of the major network Sunday shows had climate change discussions.  The most laughable of them was NBC's Meet the Press where Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, with a degree in home economics, was matched up with Bill Nye, the Science Guy, a mechanical engineer. Obviously, NBC was unable to scrape up a couple of experts in either meteorology or climatology to debate the issue.  I'm also assuming that Daffy Duck and Mickey Mouse must have turned down their invitations as well.

What Democrats don't seem to understand is that America has "tuned out" the subject, and, the "tune out" is simply the result of people not buying into the extreme and dire predictions that clearly aren't happening.  It's as if the likes of Al Gore and other alarmists completely ignored the wisdom of the two children's fables: The Boy Who Cried Wolf and Chicken Little.  This is why, the latest Pew Poll on priorities, placed global warming at the bottom; second only to dealing with global trade.

Then, of course, there was "ClimateGate" revealing that some critical data was being falsified in order to push the global warming theory.  That again weakened trust among Americans regarding the reality of this so called crisis.

Lastly,  the believability factor isn't helped when every time there is some severe weather event,  some politician, not a scientist or climatologist,  trips all over themselves to proclaim it a direct result of global warming. People understand that bad weather occurs all the time.  More often that not, the event being hyped was not as severe as some similar event in the past.  For example, when a deadly tornado hit Moore, Oklahoma in May of last year, Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island gave an impassioned speech blaming climate change.  Yet, after the tornado season was all said and done, we learned that 2013 broke the all-time record for the fewest tornadoes.

References:

 'Meet The Press' Shows Us Exactly How Not To Cover Climate Change: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/15/meet-the-press-climate-change_n_4794206.html

National Journal: Democrats Plan To Pressure TV Networks Into Covering Climate Change: http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114

Pew Research: Public Priorities: http://www.people-press.org/interactives/top-priorities/

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Oklahoma Tornado: Proof that politics and climate change are linked: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/21/moore-oklahoma-tornado-climate-change

2013 shatters the record for fewest U.S. tornadoes: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/27/2013-shatters-the-record-for-fewest-tornadoes-15-lower-than-previous-record/

Another Blow To Global Warming Alarmists

In a new study, using NASA's satellite sensing data from the years 2000 to 2011, co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, has determined that far less heat than previously modeled is actually being trapped in the earth's atmosphere as a result of CO2's presence. An article covering this study can be read at Forbes.com (Click here to See Story).

My Blog On Temperature Distortions Revisited

On December 19, 2009 I wrote this posting in my blog:

How Temperature Monitoring Is Being Distorted

I used to live in Chicago. In 1980, the official weather monitoring station there was moved from Chicago's near-lakeside location at Midway Airport to the far inland location of O'Hare Airport. In the blink of an eye, the actual recorded temperatures for the city went up because, no longer, would the new temperature monitoring location at O'Hare be subject to the cooling lake breezes that had once affected the Midway location. Automatically, Chicagoans saw a local climate change without there actually having been one.

Where I live right now, Las Vegas, the temperature monitoring is being heavily influenced by the "mass" of concrete buildings and the heat absorption of the many blacktopped roads that have been increasing since it became a city; some 100 years ago. Buildings and roads are added structures that hold and retain heat. So, as a consequence, and through no actual change in climate, Las Vegas' official temperatures have had to inch upwards because of the shear expansion and growth of the area. I actually live only 7 miles north of the Strip and the temps here are between 5 and 7 degrees cooler; partly because of being at a higher elevation, but also, because there is less consolidated mass to retain the heat.

This same kind of thing has probably happened all over the world -- especially in the desert areas where light colored reflective sands and tan dirt have been replaced with black tarred roofs and asphalt roadways and the heat retaining mass of modern buildings.

This is why weather monitoring, using city data, in support of climate change is flawed. The fact that the heavier populated areas of the world are warmer may have little to do with CO2 and a lot more to do with growth and the relocation of official weather monitoring stations. Something that I thought you might want to think about when you hear those "stories" about how much warmer it is getting in all the major metropolitan cities throughout the world.

With the above in mind, please take the time to read this news article that was just published in the U.K. Times Online (Click to See Full Story: World may not be warming, say scientists).

The Dance Of The Climate Scientists

If you listen to what little debate is actually allowed over the ClimateGate scandal, the consistent defense used by scientists who are locked into the theory of man-made climate change, is that "no one can deny that global temperatures have risen in the last century". And, yes, they are right. It is warmer than it was 100 years ago. But, they are dancing around the obvious issue. It is a dance that side-steps the basic claim of whether or not mankind has caused the current warming trend.

The fact is that there was a time -- 1000 years ago while people were still riding horses and chopping wood to stay warm -- when the temperatures were about as warm as they are now. That period is called the Medieval Warm Period. It lasted about 500 years; and was followed up with a mini ice age.

The reason that most of the United Nations climate change scientists seem to skip over those 500 years of climate history with such absolute ease is that it doesn't fit into their weak theory that man-produced CO2 creates global warming.

Certainly, 1000 years ago, North America was dominated by deer and antelope and some indigenous Indian tribes; and, those tribes were quite insignificant in both their size and impact on the world. In fact, the world population was a mere iota of what it is today. Yet, it was quite warm.

So, the bottom line is: Yes, there currently is global warming and climatic change. But -- and it is a big 'but' -- is man the cause? Or, are we merely seeing a replication of what naturally caused the Medieval Warm Period? And, is this current "natural" event being used as a cover to effect social change for political or monetary reasons?

Those are the real questions that have to be answered. ClimateGate has finally shed a light on the fact that the scientific data of anthropogenic climate change might be at least flawed; if not completely fraudulent. That's why there should be a big "whoa" regarding all of these destructive plans for society until the full truth is revealed. The truth can't be found by 2500 IPCC scientists whose very livelihood and future grant money depend on man-made global warming being real.

We need to finally hear out the dissenters of that theory. The dissenters who have been hushed by the IPCC scientists who seem to have all the clout due to their political backing. The dissenters who outnumber the 2500 IPCC scientists by a factor of 10 to 1. The dissenters who want to give a "second opinion" to the work of the IPCC group; if they only had access to it. Instead, these dissenters have been inable to look at the base data, the assumptions, and the mathematics because the IPCC scientists have ignored those requests made to them under the "Freedom of Information" act, and have blocked any access to that data. If we are expected to siphon off trillions of dollars from the world's richest economies in order to fight this "modern plague", it should be done on a basis of a firm, scientific footing. Not just a theoretical view that is held by a few who are being prejudiced by grant money and a cushy job environment at NASA or East Anglia University.

The FDA would never approve the use of a new drug unless there were valid clinical trials that took place outside of the drug maker's laboratories. In similar fashion, having an expanded scientific community review the facts and conclusions -- far beyond the IPCC scientific community's protected 2500 -- is the only way the science of global warming can and should gain world public approval.

What really disturbs me about this current warming science is all the secrecy. In the past, scientists were so typically proud of their work, that they would beg others in the scientific community to prove them wrong. But, today, that challenge seems to be nonexistent with the underpinnings of the IPCC science remaining behind closed doors and hidden deep within computer databases. The secrecy says a lot about what is really going on. It suggests nothing but deceit and, I think, that is driving the concern.

Let's stop the dancing; open the books; and get an international consensus on whether or not man-made global warming is real! All of mankind is owed that honesty!

pab

Global Warming Is Man made!

Finally, I concur that global warming and climate change is absolutely man made. Those ClimateGate emails have proven that men, masquerading as ethical scientists, have made the whole damn thing up.

It appears that money can buy anything. It even bought global warming. Al Gore got millions, an Oscar, and a Nobel Peace Prize for his fraudulent movie on global warming. He went to the bank by giving hundreds of well-paid speaking engagements. He is also due to gain handsomely from his financial interests in companies throughout the world that would grow and benefit from any enactment of carbon reduction legislation.

Those "warming scare" scientists, too, got much needed research money to live off of. Literally, millions of dollars in grants. All together, the so-called science of global warming was just men acting badly for their own personal enrichment and financial gains.

Yes, indeed, global warming was absolutely caused by man. For this reason, I would hope that the climate change summit in Copenhagen will be nothing more than anti climactic; since, apparently, their meeting is totally based on a scientific community that was hell bent on being so anti climatic!

Does Anyone Remember Alan Carlin?

If you don't recall Alan Carlin, all you have to do is read my blog post of July 5th of this year: The EPA Report Obama Doesn't Want You To See.

When I wrote that blog, it had just been learned that Obama's new EPA head had tossed Alan Carlin's 98-page report under the bus because it dared to question the science and premise of global warming. Just like the e-mail suppression by the scientific thugs associated with ClimateGate at the University of East Anglia and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Mr. Carlin's very scientific and extremely thorough report was being suppressed. This time by Obama and his science thugs in the EPA.

Like ClimateGate, it just proves that Obama and his people aren't interested in the truth; especially when that "Truth" is so "Inconvenient" to their radical agenda. This was reinforced on Wednesday when the following article appeared in the news headlines: "Obama science officials defend warming research". Obviously, the cover-up continues.

ClimateGate: A Crime Or Whistleblowing

All weekend, I've listened to people on the political left describe the hacking into those climate change emails at East Anglia University's database as a crime. In the U.K., the BBC is actually calling for a criminal investigation.

That's pretty funny to me. Whenever confidential data was exposed about any suspected wrong- doing in the Bush Administration or any other Republicans, it was never seen as a crime to the political left. Instead, it was described as the highly respectable act of "whistle-blowing".

Simply speaking, the exposure of ClimateGate is whistle-blowing and should be protected. There were numerous requests for access to these files before the hacking; yet, no access was ever granted. This was despite the fact that all of the climate data collection and studies were primarily paid for by Federal and U.K. government grants. In fact, some of the emails that were uncovered actually talked about how to avoid public scrutiny due to any "Freedom of Information Act" requests. That does not sound like scientists participating in "ethical" behavior.

All of this reminds me of those ACORN videos showing ACORN personnel ready and willing to advise the two young filmmakers on how to skirt the law for what was obviously underage prostitution. In the liberal cities, the District Attorneys wanted to prosecute the filmmakers; rather than go after ACORN. To them, the filmmakers, not ACORN, were the law breakers because they broke privacy laws. Isn't it funny how the left conveniently embraces the "whistleblower" laws when it is to their benefit, and are so quick to call up the "privacy laws" when caught in wrongdoing.

Like it or not, the cat is out of the bag on ClimateGate. How that happened is less important than what was being exposed. Every whistleblower in the world is in violation of privacy and secrecy laws. However, in America, we have developed whistleblower laws because we value the truth more than privacy when there is illegal or unethical behavior involved. And, that is the way ClimateGate should be handled.

Update: Barbara Boxer calls for a "criminal probe" over ClimateGate: (Click to See Full Story).

ClimateGate and Its Parallels To RatherGate

Dan Rather was hell bent on destroying the character and, possibly, any historical legacy of the George W. Bush presidency. So much so, that he was willing to use falsified documents as the basis of his attack. In the RatherGate scandal, Dan Rather aired documents on the 60 Minutes II news program that showed that George W. Bush was being reprimanded by his then-Air National Guard Commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, for his poor performance as a National Guard pilot. Other documents implied that Bush failed to get his annual physical and that Killian had been pressured by Bush Senior to sugarcoat Bush the younger's poor performance. However, good internet-driven detective work ultimately proved that all the documents were concocted years later on a PC and that they were never hand typed on a typewriter; the only text producing mechanism of that era. Yet, to this day, Rather still says he was right about Bush's substandard National Guard service; although he has no valid facts to support his belief. Killian, himself, died long before the airing of the "60 Minutes" piece and conveniently couldn't verify the supposed truth of those documents.

In a similar vein, we now have ClimateGate where thousands of previously secreted emails are showing that a core group of scientists have been manipulating data and suppressing peer review for almost two decades in order to substantiate the alarm over global warming. But, it appears, the science behind global warming is just as flawed as those documents in RatherGate. And, just as in the case of Dan Rather having never denied his actions, the political left is still in denial by saying that anthropogenic global warming is real; regardless of what those emails seem to clearly imply.

Just last Friday, Carol Browner, Obama's Climate Czar, in a Dan Rather-esk moment, said that all those damning e-mails "change little" (Click to See Full Story: "Climate czar says e-mails change little"). She, instead, said she is sticking with the 2500 scientists who believe global warming is caused by mankind. However, Ms. Browner appears to be ignoring the near 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition that rejects the current science over global warming (Click to See "Petition Project" website). It also ignores the 650+ scientists who abandoned the global warming consortium of scientists because it was a "lie" (Click to See this December 2008 Story: "650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference to abandon global warming “lie”). Many of whom were once part of Browner's 2500. One of the most prophetic dissenting statements of a year ago came from the award winning U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh -- a very prominent one of Browner's supposed "2500" -- who said: "Warming fears are the...worst scientific scandal in history... When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” Now, we actually have the emails that support his claim.

Science, like journalism, is supposed to be a search for truth and understanding. But, today, it appears that both science and journalism have been hijacked by left-wing ideology. This attitude is firmly reinforced by the fact that the left-wing, main stream media of this country have completely ignored this ClimateGate scandal. The only true news agencies that are even reporting on this are Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

ClimateGate

After posting the blog entry below, I ran into this entertaining video that nicely compliments that same topic. I hope you enjoy it.