Global Warming: Man or Myth?

Scientists can also wear their citizen hats

Climate Group Hack

with 8 comments

This post has was moved over here from a blog that I use for teaching.  This location is a more appropriate one.

Update 12/20/09: Further reading of stolen emails reveals scientists searching for the truth
Update 12/14/09: Climate Crock of the Week Video: Smacking the Hack Attack Part 2
Update 12/09/09: Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails & Analysis of the Emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit
Update 12/07/09: Climate Crock of the Week Video: Smacking the Hack Attack
Update: 12/06/09: Watch this video which debunks the Climate Gate Myth

Some of you may have heard or will hear about a computer hack of the Climate Research Unit in England. This is one of the world’s major sources for climate data and research.

The news varies depending on the political views of the organization but some blogs and newspapers/television claim that this hack has revealed that human caused global warming has been faked. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is my opinion:

To date, there has not been a single credible journal article that shows a natural cause for the modern day warming while also showing how record high greenhouse gas concentrations are not significant.


Do people really believe that the scientists at CRU are able to squelch every scientist on the planet who tried to publish this landmark anti-AGW paper? Is there no sense of the low probability and the large scale of this conspiracy for this to be true?

If one throws out the HadCRU data and all papers by these folks, there is still a mountain of evidence for AGW.

Do the rapidly melting ice sheets and glaciers have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

Do the various climate models that show GHGs as the dominant forcing mechanism have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

Do the GISS, UAH, RSS data that show global warming of approximately 0.2C per decade over the past 30 years have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy? Certainly Spencer and Christy who run UAH and are well-known skeptics of AGW would not align themselves with AGW and yet their satellite-derived measurements track reasonably with GISS, RSS, and HadCRU. (BTW, 2009 will likely end up being a Top 10 or Top 5 warmest year since 1850)

Does the ocean read these emails and magically increase its heat content?

Does the cooling stratosphere (even accounting for ozone loss) read the emails and join in on the hoax?

Do the plants and animals read these emails and decide to die off and/or change their migratory habits so that they can support the conspiracy?

I could go on ad infinitum.

For quite a long time, we have known that a doubling of CO2 will warm the climate at least 1C and there is fairly good certainty that the resulting feedbacks will produce at least 2C additional warming with 3C more likely. We are also measuring CO2 increases of 2 ppm and climbing (except last year where there was a slight decrease due to the global recession) and we have levels that have not been seen in the past 15 million years.

Are we to conclude that these emails deny all of this evidence?

There are many scientists from many fields that have published data that show the effects of global warming and why humans are the primary drivers of this warming. These scientists include some of the obvious: climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, modelers, and oceanographers. Some less obvious include: biologists, marine biologists, zoologists, chemists, astrophysicists, economists, environmental politics researchers, and others. I am quite confident that MANY of these folks have NEVER spoken to the CRU folks nor emailed them.

It is obvious that pre-Copenhagen, the tried and true method of “if one does not like the message then attack the messenger or redirect the conversation” practiced by Big Tobacco and now ExxonMobil and their front groups (Heartland Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc.) is alive and well.

Written by Scott Mandia

November 24, 2009 at 11:26 am

Posted in Uncategorized

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Over the past four weeks, we have covered the story of ClimateGate at with caution and prudence, trying to stay as objective as possible. The editors and staff at Rhodes News have done diligent research to bring my readers the raw, unbiased facts regarding this story. This has been a steep challenge, since almost all news sources today report their news from an unabashedly biased viewpoint, and very few outlets now even claim to be unbiased.

    The daily events of the Climate Change Summit at Copenhagen unfolded simultaneously as each new fragment of an unsubstantiated scientific claim came unravelled. While we are still not in a position to declare the world-wide scientific community of Atmospheric Global Warming (AGW) to be a global cabal, it is safe to say at this time that a substantial number of scientists, especially those most closely associated with the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University in the UK, have at the very least, been dishonest and have approached their research from a biased position, have tainted their raw data, have sullied their peer review process with an incestuously small pool of peer scientists who agree only with their position on AGW, and attempted to cover up their corrupt practices by deleting evidence of their email communications, and even their raw research data, normally sacrosanct to any serious scientist.

    This is no small finding, and it may turn out to be the most monumental scientific error of our lifetimes. Such an error in science is no less significant than the debunking of the Ptolemic Universe from the Middle Ages. Further, this corrupted research has resulted in billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded grants, and billions have been spent in research and development on green industries for a global crisis that might not even exist. Before any global treaty has yet to be signed, billions of dollars have already been traded in carbon credits. And while we know that much of those funds were pocketed by wealthy traders, industrial conglomerates cloaked under a green veil of innocence and other corrupt interests, so far the AGW advocates have nothing to show in tangible results for these expenditures.

    On the other hand, some AGW doubters have made outrageous claims to which there is no evidence whatsoever: That the protesters at Copenhagen were on the UN payroll, or that the entire science behind AGW is a complete “hoax,” a “scam,” or that global warming is somehow a global Islamic plot to take over the world. That last claim, by the way, is hard to swallow considering the number of influential muslim nations that are sitting on massive reserves of oil.

    And while we had had fun posting a video that spoofed the idea of a global scam, seriously, we are not ready to go that far. But we ARE ready to declare that there is sufficient evidence at this time to name specific climatologists who have been unscrupulous with their procedures and their publishing, and that they deserve to have their careers ruined. Specifically, these climatologists are Phil Jones, former director of the East Anglia CRU, Keith Briffa, his assistant, Tom Wigley, Phil Jones’ predecessor, both Raymond S. Bradley and Tim Osborn, also of the CRU, Malcolm Hughes, professor at University of Arizona, Caspar Ammann, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research of Boulder Colorado, Michael Mann from Penn State University, and the work of Hubert Lamb, now deceased.

    Other climatologists’ work is still in doubt, but from my research thus far, only these scientists, whose work is now severely tainted, can we declare that with a fair degree of certainty. And we would be remiss if not to mention Al Gore’s name, whose utterances have been proven grossly incorrect, repeatedly disproven by scientists, by disinterested third parties, cinematographers, high courts of the the Unite Kingdom, and even by the climatologists whom Gore himself cites.

    Likewise, there is now enough doubt behind the integrity of the entire world-wide climatology community, that it is not imprudent at this time to take a step back and reevaluate all the findings of other climatologists not directly associated with the scandal. William Connolley, who wrote over 5,000 articles for Wikipedia was dismissed in September for pushing his personal agenda on global warming and attempted to ban 2,000 authors who disagreed with him.

    Unfortunately for the proponents of AGW, they will have to show their work on the board in front of the class, once again. People whom we need to listen to are scientists who have long held a healthy skepticism of these climatologists’ work, such as Tim Ball, formerly of the University of Winnipeg, and Hans von Storch from the University of Hamburg (who by the way, has long believed in man-made global warming, just not the brand Jones and his gang are hustling).

    In today’s world of micro-information, websites spring up like weeds. One such site has covered this story since the beginning on November 19th. They have covered the story thoroughly and responsibly, and we at Rhodes News are now prepared to endorse this site to our own audience. Don’t let the sensational title of the site fool you. These guys carefully vet their content and only put up responsible, and non-bombastic content. We feel so confident about this site that we are now listing the site in our resources section:

    Mandia: Research? I would love to see your research that proves what you state above in bold (emphasis mine). The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan often said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” I am surprised that you did not cite any facts to support your thesis.

    Tim Ball? Is this the best you can do? See my Global Warming Denial Machine and scroll about 1/2 way down the page to see Tim Ball.

    Ted Rhodes

    December 27, 2009 at 4:01 am

  2. Here is perhaps the best analysis of the so-called ClimateGate non-scandal:

    Scott Mandia

    January 2, 2010 at 11:32 am

  3. A great summary:

    A Response to Climate Change Denialism by Richard Somerville, a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego

    Scott Mandia

    January 24, 2010 at 7:32 am

  4. Another great blog post. This one related to how FOI requests were being used:

    Scott Mandia

    March 7, 2010 at 6:54 pm

  5. […] attempt to subvert the UN Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen a few weeks later and I blogged on the CRU Hack on November 24 to show why these stolen emails did not undermine the integrity of climate […]

  6. […] we all know, it was about one week later (November 19th) that the e-mail hack referred to as Climategate was the top news story.  And, as we all know, those that refute the scientific consensus tried to […]

  7. Peter Sinclair of Climate Denial Crock of the Week has a new video titled: Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack: The Wrap. Check it out.

    Scott Mandia

    June 19, 2010 at 10:04 pm

  8. […] that humans are now driving climate change.  Much of this trash talk has been centered around stolen email messages from the Climate Research Unit regarding the hockey stick temperature reconstruction that Drs. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: