Skip to content

Climategate heating up again

February 2, 2010

Top scientist knew data was flawed

Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN’s embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

The IPCC’s 2007 report used the study to justify the claim that “any urban-related trend” in global temperatures was small. Jones was one of two “coordinating lead authors” for the relevant chapter.

The leaked emails from the CRU reveal that the former director of the unit, Tom Wigley, harboured grave doubts about the cover-up of the shortcomings in Jones and Wang’s work. Wigley was in charge of CRU when the original paper was published. “Were you taking W-CW [Wang] on trust?” he asked Jones. He continued: “Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?”

The article also states that this data doesn’t undermine the overwhelming evidence of man-caused global-warming, but I have a hard time seeing how that could be. If the data is bad the conclusions based on the data is bad. If there is a claim that most global warming is actually an urban heat island effect and you counter that with data that shows there isn’t an urban heat island effect and that data is wrong then it seems to me your conclusion that there is no urban heat island effect is also wrong. I’m sure there is some elaborate explanation about how this data never really mattered, but they have said that about every piece of data that has been collected and then questioned so far. At what point does the data matter? Does it matter at all or has this degenerated into just making numbers up.

and more

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

How about some actual measurements guys? That would be helpful.

-elsewhere-

Fish caught evolving into three distinct species. Don’t ask me how they know?

Megyn Kelly takes on Gloria Allred. Actually calls her on her assertions. It’s about time someone does.

Obama and Paul Volcker are mucking up financial regulatory reform. No surprise there.

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s proposals to tax and curb the activities of Wall Street have thrown an unpredictable element into the debate over financial regulatory reform. They also have touched off an intensive new round of lobbying and raised questions in Congress over whether his plan will add urgency or merely bog things down.

(…)

Republicans on the committee said Mr. Obama’s call for a bank tax was a political response to the unexpected loss of a Massachusetts Senate seat. And Democrats, although more positive about the president’s remarks, were slow to embrace the specifics, like the tax, of his proposals.

“There is no question that this was presented to stoke and jump in front of a lot of populist furor,” said Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who is working with Senator Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, on the problem of securities firms being so big and interconnected that their collapse could bring down the financial system.

“I think everybody watching understands that this was a political undertaking and not necessarily a substance undertaking,” he said. “This is a soak-the-rich populist grab.”

Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who is working with Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, on regulation of derivatives and credit rating agencies, offered a similar assessment of the president’s intervention.

“I think it’s confused the issue considerably, because he’s basically fanned the fires of populism and in a lot of instances, populism doesn’t give you either good regulatory activity or strong markets,” Mr. Gregg said. “It undermines both, in many instances.”

Advertisements
3 Comments leave one →
  1. Mr. Xyz permalink
    February 2, 2010 11:41 am

    This spoof of climate science may be of interest:

    • jenn1964 permalink*
      February 2, 2010 12:17 pm

      Thanks I will try and watch it this evening

Trackbacks

  1. dustbury.com » The evolution will not be televised

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: