Ocean pH data omission and threats – just another day at Alarmism Central

Models vs real world (click to enlarge)

Models vs real world (click to enlarge)

Why do these quotes sound so drearily familiar?

“It is inappropriate for you to question the motives or quality of our science.”

“You will not last long in your career.”

“I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.”

Because they are the typical response of a climate scientist desperate to avoid sharing data [or avoid being caught out – Ed]. Sounds like the kind of tone you would get from Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann, or our friend from CRU, Phil Jones, who once famously said:

“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Anyway, it seems once again, with so much in the alarmism industry, that getting the right ‘message’ across is more important than letting the data speak for itself. So the latest ‘-gate’ emerges, catchily entitled NOAAgate.

[Read more…]

The Scientific Circle Jerk

Good enough, right?

Good enough, right?

The alarmist line goes like this: peer-review is the process which separates ‘proper’ science from the incoherent rantings of deniers.

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is the gold standard by which climate science should be judged. Hence the alarmists’ obsession with it – almost like the inevitable ad hominem attacks on any sceptical author, this is an ad editionem on the publication.

‘Not peer-reviewed’ is the equivalent of the big oil cheque in the post – you are inferior to us and therefore we don’t need to consider you or your arguments any further. Except of course when that ‘not peer-reviewed’ literature happens to support the alarmist cause, since a sizeable chunk of the IPCC reports are built on press releases and news articles from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc. Who said anything about applying the rules consistently?

Anyway, it is clear that there are numerous opportunities for corruption of the peer-review process. How about a paper written by an AGW believer, and peer-reviewed by three more AGW believers? They are highly unlikely to call out a paper that might be scientifically bogus, but which advances an agenda on which all four agree.

When there is a status quo, which is in the interest of scientists to maintain for financial or business reasons (in climate, the massive funding of climate research which bolsters the consensus), how likely is it that anyone will put his head above the parapet, to get it shot at and blown off?

Well surprise (not), since that is exactly what happens, as the Wall Street Journal reports:

In a July 8, 2004, email, one scientist assured another that the hypothesis they shared would prevail “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Exactly 10 years later, RetractionWatch.com reported that Peter Chen, a researcher at Taiwan’s National Pingtung University of Education, had undertaken such a redefinition. “SAGE Publishers is retracting 60 articles from the Journal of Vibration and Control after an investigation revealed a ‘peer review and citation ring,’ ” noted RetractionWatch’s Ivan Oransky.

According to a statement from SAGE, “it was discovered that the author had created various aliases on SAGE Track, providing different email addresses to set up more than one account. Consequently, SAGE scrutinised further the co-authors of and reviewers selected for Peter Chen’s papers, [and] these names appeared to form part of a peer review ring. The investigation also revealed that on at least one occasion, the author Peter Chen reviewed his own paper under one of the aliases he had created.”

And we all know who is responsible for that quote about redefining peer-review, don’t we? That’s right – Phil Jones of CRU at the University of East Anglia, he of Climategate fame.

Read the rest of the article here, and the original op-ed that prompted it here.

h/t Hockey Schtick

New HadCRUT temperature record makes 2010 hotter than 1998

GISS: Tortured (click to see animation)

My advice: ignore all the surface temperature records full stop. GISS (administered by warmist activist James Hansen), HadCRUT (Phil “Climategate” Jones), they’re all as bad as each other – “homogenised” to within an inch of their lives. So it comes as little surprise that the latest version of the Hadley/CRU temperature database now shows 2010 as being warmer than 1998. How convenient.

And isn’t it amazing that it now better fits the global warming narrative? Just like GISS – it was inconvenient that the 1930s were warmer in that dataset than the present, but never mind, they found a way round it (click the image) – magic!

And oddly, despite massive urbanisation in the 20th century, many of the adjustments make earlier years COOLER, the opposite of what would be expected in order to compensate for modern UHI.

If you torture the data enough, they will surely confess:

Researchers have updated HadCRUT – one of the main global temperate records, which dates back to 1850.

One of the main changes is the inclusion of more data from the Arctic region, which has experienced one of the greatest levels of warming.

The amendments do not change the long-term trend, but the data now lists 2010, rather than 1998, as the warmest year on record.

The update is reported in the published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

HadCRUT is compiled by the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (Cru) at the University of East Anglia, and is one of three global records used extensively by climatologists.

The other two are produced by US-based researchers at Nasa and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa).

Cru’s director, Phil Jones, explained why it was necessary to revise the UK record.

“HadCRUT is underpinned by observations and we’ve previously been clear it may not be fully capturing changes in the Arctic because we have had so little data from the area,” he said.

“For the latest version, we have included observations from more than 400 (observation) stations across the Arctic, Russia and Canada.”

Prof Jones added: “This has led to better representation of what’s going on in the large geographical region.”

Despite the revisions, the overall warming signal has not changed. The scientists say it has remained at about 0.75C (1.4F) since 1900. (BBC)

Oh well, I guess there’s only so much you can do in one hit, but give it time.

Much more at WUWT.

Whitewash: Climategate enquiry papers "endorsed by Phil Jones"

Judge and jury at his own trial

The problems for Phil Jones and UEA/CRU just won’t go away. It has now been revealed that the eleven academic papers supposedly independently chosen for the Oxburgh enquiry were in fact reviewed and approved by Phil Jones himself. Bishop Hill reports:

When the original emails were released I reported on an inquiry made to Lord Oxburgh by Oliver Morton of the Economist about how Oxburgh’s Eleven papers were chosen. When he replied, Oxburgh said in essence that he didn’t know.

What I received was a list from the university which I understand was chosen by the Royal Society The contact with the RS was I believe through [name redacted] but I don’t know who he consulted. [Name redacted], when I asked him, agreed that the original sample was fair.

Well, now we know who the redactions were. The contact through with the Royal Society was through Martin Rees – we knew that already. The other redaction, the other person consulted about whether the sample of papers was reasonable, was…Phil Jones.

Now, whichever way you look at it, this is a funny question to put to the accused if one’s objective is a fair trial. I mean, what could Jones say? “You’ve picked all my bad papers”? And of course Jones must have known that the sample was not representative. (source)

And Anthony Watts again summarises the lunacy of this:

The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. And, to add insult to injury, when you let the accused endorse which pieces of evidence might be a “fair sample”, is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”? (source)

Once again, we see climate alarmists fudging results to achieve a pre-conceived outcome. This is not the way that science, or independent investigations of scientific integrity, should be carried out.

But I’m not complaining – while this goes on, the warmists’ credibility is slowly but surely seeping away.

UPDATE: Even warming-crazed “Non Scientist” magazine calls out the enquiries:

Russell’s team left other stones unturned. They decided against detailed analysis of all the emails in the public domain. They examined just three instances of possible abuse of peer review, and just two cases when CRU researchers may have abused their roles as authors of IPCC reports. There were others. They have not studied hundreds of thousands more unpublished emails from the CRU. Surely openness would require their release.

All this, plus the failure to investigate whether emails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws, makes it harder to accept Russell’s conclusion that the “rigour and honesty” of the scientists concerned “are not in doubt”.

Some will argue it is time to leave climategate behind. But it is difficult to justify the conclusion of Edward Acton, University of East Anglia vice-chancellor, that the CRU has been “completely exonerated”. Openness in sharing data, even with your critics, is a legal requirement.

But what happened to intellectual candour – especially in conceding the shortcomings of these inquiries and discussing the way that science is done. Without candour, public trust in climate science cannot be restored, nor should it be. (source)

Ouch, that must hurt.

VIDEO: Phil Jones at the UK Parliamentary Select Committee

Video of Prof. Phil Jones’ entire appearance at the UK Science and Technology Select Committee on 1 March 2010 (courtesy of live stream from Parliament TV, but converted and uploaded to YouTube by ACM). There are five parts, each of about 9 or 10 minutes. Jones is accompanied by the Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Prof. Edward Acton. Part 1 is here, links to the others follow:

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

They don’t exactly give PJ a tough ride, do they? To quote the former UK Labour Chancellor Denis Healey, it was like being savaged by a dead sheep…

Thanks to reader Pete for the original Parliament link (here) which is highly Mac unfriendly, the rats.

Phil Jones hid data because it was "standard practice"

In the hot seat

And, more importantly, it also shows the peer-review process is meaningless in alarmist climate science. That’s the ludicrous quote from Jones’ appearance before a Parliamentary committee. From The Daily Mail, via WUWT:

The scientist at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ row over global warming hid data ‘because it was standard practice’, it emerged today.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s prestigious climatic research unit, today admitted to MPs that the centre withheld raw station data about global temperatures from around the world.

The world-renowned research unit has been under fire since private emails, which sceptics claimed showed evidence of scientists manipulating climate data, were hacked from the university’s server and posted online.

Now, an independent probe is examining allegations stemming from the emails that scientists hid, manipulated or deleted data to exaggerate the case for man-made global warming.

Prof Jones today said it was not ‘standard practice’ in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.

He also said the scientific journals which had published his papers had never asked to see it.

The journals never asked to see it? Well of course, they wouldn’t would they? The peer-review process for alarmist climate science is non-existent. As long as a paper supports the consensus, it will be waived through without any scrutiny – and now we have the evidence to prove it: journals never asked to see the original data.

So the next time anyone says the peer-review process ensures that only decent research gets published, you know how to respond.

Read it here.

Phil Jones to face UK Parliamentary enquiry today

Tricky questions ahead

AP (via the SMH) reports that Phil Jones and the Met Office head are due to testify at a UK Parliamentary enquiry:

The scientist at the center of the controversy over e-mails stolen from a British climate research center is due to be questioned by lawmakers.

Climatologist Phil Jones is among the experts due to testify before Parliament’s Science and Technology committee.

Jones figured prominently in more than 1,000 e-mails hacked [leaked – Ed] from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit last year.

The e-mails appeared to show [did show – Ed] Jones and colleagues denigrating skeptics of man-made global warming and discussing ways to dodge Freedom of Information requests.

Critics said the e-mails were evidence of a conspiracy to exaggerate the threat of climate change.

Also testifying Monday are other top researchers, including the British weather office’s chief scientist. (source)

%d bloggers like this: