http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...tery-reprieve/

Terence Corcoran July 8, 2010 - 3:21 pm

Review provides plenty of evidence that climate science has been and remains an uncertain shambles

The last of three British investigations into the notorious Climategate emails, the Independent
Climate Change Email Review, landed yesterday and left behind enough cherry-pickable material to
give all sides an opportunity to claim modest vindication.

Defenders of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, the source of the
emails, will be able to spin the 168-page review as proof that the CRU did little wrong. For
climate skeptics and others, the review provides plenty of evidence that climate science has been
and remains an uncertain shambles.

Before we begin our own cherry-picking, the words of Sir Muir Russell, who headed the review, will
undoubtedly carry the day for the global community that is rock-solid behind the climate scientists
at CRU and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt," he said. "We have not found any
evidence of behaviour that might undermine the IPCC processes and hence call into question the
conclusions of the IPCC assessments in this area."

That said, let's move on to the review itself, which actually does quite a bit to undermine the
science of climate change. While protective of CRU, the Russell review is far from a whitewash. It
provides enough cover to allow the scientists to hang around and claim that the gods are on their
side. But it mostly raises serious questions about the process by which official IPCC science was
turned into a "consensus" that climate science is settled.

For all the defence it runs for CRU and the IPCC, the Russell review portrays climate science as a
field filled with uncertainty, debate, lack of openness, data hoarding and ill-will. Modern
science, especially climate science, it says, deserves better. "There needs to be better
communication, as well as greater openness enabling more scientific debate."

The Climategate emails, made public last November, have already rocked the climate science world,
and climate science - even in the wake of this review - will never be the same.

The popular launch pad for the consensus proof that man-made climate science is a crisis was the
famed Michael Mann 1999 hockey stick graphic that purported to show that temperatures in the
Northern Hemisphere in the last half century were the hottest in 1,000 years. The Russell review,
tip-toeing through the landmines in the emails about the "trick" of "hiding the decline," ends up
with the watery conclusion that the hockey stick graph was indeed "misleading." In magic, being
misleading via sleight of hand to hide something is pretty much the heart of a trick, but the
Russell review twists itself around to downplay the trick element. "When used by scientists,
[trick] can mean for example a mathematical approach brought to bear to solve a problem."

But in the hockey stick graph, no such math was involved. The creators of the hockey stick took a
thousand years worth of tree ring temperature data, eliminated some of the data from 1960 forward
that didn't support the 1,000-year claim, and then spliced on actual temperature data, without
telling anybody what they had done. Then they magically announced they had found a smoking climate
graphic that became a global icon for the climate crusade.

Since the 1999 hockey stick achieved that "iconic significance" and was used later in IPCC
documents, the Russell review says, the presentation of the hockey stick was "misleading." The
misleading element was not the graph itself, but the fact that the trick was not disclosed. The
review, therefore, has no problem with the later 2007 IPCC report on climate science that used a
similar hockey stick graph but explicitly spelled out the use of a mixture of historical
temperature sources.

The 2007 version, blending a slew of temperature data sets, was not technically misleading, says
the review. But was it good science? It says "the depiction of uncertainty is quite apparent to any
reader." There are clear temperature trend divergences and discussion of uncertainty is
"extensive." Not extensive enough, however.

Ross McKitrick, the University of Guelph professor who with Steve McIntyre broke the hockey stick
story, says the Russell review still misses the point. The 2007 version, for all its disclosure of
uncertainty and the blending of unblendable temperature records, did not explain that key
contradictory Siberian tree-ring data was deleted for the post-1960 period.

The story behind all this and other issues does not make for comfortable reading for IPCC
supporters. On IPCC science, the Russell review takes a side shot at the official risk-rating
system. The IPCC typically issues statements such as "the present is likely warmer than in the
past." What does this mean? The review has doubts. To issue such assessments "as objectively as
possible would require a complex (and difficult) study to perform hypothesis resting in a
mathematically rigorous way . We are not aware that this has been done in the producing of IPCC
reports to date." Is it therefore highly likely that the IPCC risk assessments are not based on
good science and math?

There are scores of other highlights in the review that point to a science community in need of
openness and reform, and as many that point to areas where the Russell review either evaded certain
facts or fell into stiff technical treatment of instances where somebody obviously engaged in
thuggish suppression of papers, but the evidence pointed no fingers - despite the emails. "Emails,"
said the review, "are rarely definitive evidence of what actually happened."

True, in one sense, but tell that to Wall Street bankers who have gone to criminal trial on the
basis of a few lines of email.

On Jul 8, 4:53*pm, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...coran-climate-...

But in the hockey stick graph, no such math was involved. The creators of the hockey stick took a
thousand years worth of tree ring temperature data, eliminated some of the data from 1960 forward
that didn't support the 1,000-year claim, and then spliced on actual temperature data, without
telling anybody what they had done. Then they magically announced they had found a smoking climate
graphic that became a global icon for the climate crusade.


A long time ago, Time Magazine perfected the technique of manipulating
the x-y scales on graphs to achieve a greater or lesser "look" to a
line, to make the slope of the line seem steeper or shallower. But
the scales still contained the correct data. Hacking out data to get
a completely different result is LYING to prove a point which is the
what the climate kooks did. Mann should be investigated. I'm sure
there is some falsified or plagiarized grad work that would cost him
dearly. I'd love to see him raked over the coals.

On 7/8/2010 1:53 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:

Terence Corcoran July 8, 2010 - 3:21 pm

Review provides plenty of evidence that climate science has been and
remains an uncertain shambles

I didn't know bachelor degrees in journalism qualified one as an expert
in climate cience...

we didn't know, you could read it!... hey, but i agree;
there should be no specialized degree in "writing one's observations"
about stuff, even if paid to do it.

yeah, that is quite an even-handed article, and it appears that
the British establishment is puprosely undermining the GCMers.

I didn't know bachelor degrees in journalism qualified one as an expert
in climate cience...

thus&so:
are they still using the passive albedo & evapotranspiration,
ignoring the burning of "fossilized fuels" and nuclear power?

there is a longstanding anomaly, not described by any model
or GCM, that the nights & winters are warmer
than the days & summers; so, do the math!

Cities are just "not well designed to release that summertime heat," said
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...EAT_ISLANDS?SI...

thus&so:
arctic ice isn't stable; it's all floating, won't change sea-level
if it should melt. (we must take into acount *all* human actions,
where possible, not just mere emmssions from Al Gore's footprints .-)

here's another thing that I've never seen considered about it,
when I read of Buzz Aldrin and company's picnic at the N.Pole:
750K-horsepower Soviet ice-breaker to get there. now,
get the schedule for that turkey & do the math of angular momentum!

thus&so:
the elephant in the water is Waxman's '91 bill on SO2 and NOX,
which supposedly was very effective, and it is cap&trade. so,
why does the Wall St. J. call his current bill, that's passed,
"cap&tax" -- did they refer to Kyoto as cap&tax, also, then?

while sequestration probably will not work,
there is one way of making fuel out of CO2 from coalplants,
combining it with methane to make methyl alcohol,
developed by a Nobelist, and used commercially for busses
in Europe and Asia, already, along with a further transformation
into another fuel.

thus&so:
Waxman's '91 bill on NOX and SO2 was cap™
Kyoto was cap&trade & Dubya "ought" to have signed it,
by his lights as an MBA;
Kerry-Lieberman's and Waxman's passed bill are nothing,
but "freer trade," cap&trade.

so, why can't we just have a simple, small carbon tax?... well,
it'd be a lot like a VAT, it'd be so all-encompassing,
which Waxman doesn't seem to realize, and is certainly
being played-down by the "yeah" and "neigh" sides
of this political debate; eh?

thus&so:
Oilgate is, Californians the #1 consumers of Gulf and Alaska,
with Beyond Phossilized Phuels the largest producer --
I think, unless Shell is, in Alaska (but, it's half British).
sure, partly because we have the biggest population, but ...

thus&so:
it easily could have been leaked on purpose, because
the "mainstream" is so hegemonic with their rough-edged GCMs,
which simply cannot predict weather with any great fidelity,
for any length of time & given approximation
to "initializing conditions."
the funding for the old "cooling" paradigm
of the last two million years (Quaternary preiod),
went out the door to "warming," with a mid-'70s meeting
of the NSF, at which Oliver "Buck" Revelle laid-out the matter
-- he, later to be an unindicted co-conspirator
of George HW Bush in Iran-contra! (of course,
HW was also not indicted, just like for Watergate;
see http://tarpley.net).

thus&so: took just one of your exempli gratia; let's dyscuss it!
Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three
explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and
tower two started to come down.

thus&so:
to prove that the redshift was due to velocity,
would be some thing. similarly, to prove that
half of the stars in the visible universe were not antimatter,
would be nothing ... if you could do it!

thus&so:
so, you believe in the corpuscle, discredited by Young (well,
it was never a theory *per se*, from mister Fig "hypothesis non fingo"
Knewtonne; that is, he asserted that light goes faster
in denser media, which was already (I believe) out of whack
with Snell's law of refraction, proven by Fermat).
of course, the most important milestone, aside
from Roemer's proof of the non-instanteity of light
(waves, he didn't know), was the elucidation of the "path
of least-time" by Leibniz and Bernoulli -- although,
that is just "ray-tracing," which is often interpreted
to be the path of a rock o'light!

--my broker says to call your broker about cap&trade, and
I'll tell you what happens.
http://wlym.com

There's another part of this story that has gone totally unreported.
These emails were hacked in to and cherry picked to skew the messages in
them.

This was like having your mail stolen. To date, I have not heard of
anyone being arrested for mail theft or even a mention of an
investigation in to it. Why?

If you want to know about climate change, look out your window or watch
the events on television. There are record floods and heat waves and
there is a rush to claim the Arctic as the ice melts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ernationalnews

How ever you want to spin this and try to make a political statement,
the facts are there for everyone to see.




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Jul 8, 10:06*pm, Tom P wrote:
There's another part of this story that has gone totally unreported.
These emails were hacked in to and cherry picked to skew the messages in
them.


I agree. The email where the one idiot threatens to beat up the
dissenter should have been followed by the one where he says he loves
all God's children.

On 7/8/2010 9:54 PM, Liberals are vermin wrote:
On Jul 8, 10:06 pm, Tom wrote:
There's another part of this story that has gone totally unreported.
These emails were hacked in to and cherry picked to skew the messages in
them.


I agree. The email where the one idiot threatens to beat up the
dissenter should have been followed by the one where he says he loves
all God's children.

What has that to do with the climate change theory?


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Jul 9, 6:13*am, E. Barry Bruyea wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 23:01:44 GMT, Chom Noamsky
wrote:

On 7/8/2010 1:53 PM, Eric Gisin wrote:

Terence Corcoran July 8, 2010 - 3:21 pm

Review provides plenty of evidence that climate science has been and
remains an uncertain shambles

I didn't know bachelor degrees in journalism qualified one as an expert
in climate cience...

But being a former V.P. of the U.S. seems to.

One reports what scientists say; the other seems to think he knows
more than the scientists.

I'm sure a 5th grader could see the difference. Are you smarter than
a 5th grader?

On Jul 8, 10:06*pm, Tom PussyTard wrote:
There's another part of this story that has gone totally unreported.
These emails were hacked in to and cherry picked to skew the messages in
them.

This was like having your mail stolen. To date, I have not heard of
anyone being arrested for mail theft or even a mention of an
investigation in to it. Why?

Obviously, because no crime was committed.
You lib-turd-****-eaters just make stuff up and spread lies.

[drool]

dood misread your meaning. as I sated, above, it appears that
the British establishment is ditching the GCM people, and
giving it an even-handed, glossy cover (say,
in *The [Holy] Economist*, like, with the Skeptical Staitistician .-)

thus&so:
I think, he means that most of the turnover of carbon is natural,
although there is huge amount released by deforestation etc., and
the oceans seem to suck-up much-more than is accounted for.

now, FUI, BP et al's wonderful product has supposedly never
been carbon-dated (C14/C12), although all of the data is there,
from "fingerprinting" adjacent wells ... time,
for another retospective metastudy, Fred !?!

thus&so:
so, how about Fred Singer's retrospective metastudy
of glaciers, probably 20 years old -- are there not unkown knowns
and vise-versa, with repsect to individuals?

thus&so:
I'd argue with the idea, that "cosmic expansion is observed,"
although you may interpret redshifting as such. have you never
heard of Alfven waves, or does everything have to conform
to the Department of Einsteinmania, the Musical Dept.??

thus&so:
even to contrast the outre formalities of the Big Bang,
with the masses of data from Hubble e.g., is to fall
directly into the "problem" of Olber's paradox. just caveat,
that Hubble's name does not have to always attach
to any interpretation of the redshifting!... I mean,
ain't no *really* good vacuum, a la Pascal!

thus&so:
Gamow (and LeMaitre) was a crackpot, on this issue; see
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ar...umbuggery.html
it was predicted to be about 3 degrees long before Hubble redshift
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V02N3ASS.PDF

thus&so:
see, you forget that no-one has *ever* questioned the canonical
stringtheory of Kaluza, and that the "string" part, the "compactified
spaces," was a metaphor that was applied by Klein, not reuired.

thus&so:
it's easy to show redshifting of waves, propogated in the lab,
via the refractive index of some transparent material. so,
the burden of proof is upon those, who believe
in an absolute vacuum, through which "photons" must
be aimed at the rods & cones of one's retina.

thus&so:
Pascal experimentally discovered the perfect vacuum
basically with a barometer (he also showed the heighth-limit
of a suction pump (stage) so, there), but he didn't know
of "partial pressures" ... he called it, the Plenum.
aether seems to be a paradigm that was brought
into being by the barely-understood phenomena of atoms
-- the real heresy of Galileo, not ye olde Copernicusism --
to wit the electromagnetic properties of the medium of space,
permitivity & permeability (becauseth,
ain't no a b s o l u t e v a c u u m .-)

thus&so:
I repeat myself to Norton's God-am bot:
"Time is not a dimension; or, it's the only dimension,
whereby we perceive any others," Bucky saith, compared
to Minkowski's ridiculous slogan about a mere phase-space
(then, he died).

thus&so:
the thing about the "inverse" of cosines of multiple angles,
was cool; does it work with sines, trivially?
http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/...phi.htm#chemie

thus&so:
are they still using just urban albedo & evapotranspiration,
ignoring the burning of "fossilized fuels" and nuclear power?
there is a longstanding anomaly, not described by any model =
or GCM, that the nights & winters are warmer =
than the days & summers; so, do the math!

thus&so:
arctic ice isn't stable; it's all floating, won't change sea-level
if it should melt. (we must take into acount *all* human actions,
where possible, not just mere emmssions from Al Gore's footprints .-)
here's another thing that I've never seen considered about it,
when I read of Buzz Aldrin and company's picnic at the N.Pole:
750K-horsepower Soviet ice-breaker to get there. now,
get the schedule for that turkey & do the math of angular momentum!

thus&so:
the elephant in the water is Waxman's '91 bill on SO2 and NOX,
which supposedly was very effective, and it is cap&trade. so,
why does the Wall St. J. call his current bill, that's passed,
"cap&tax" -- did they refer to Kyoto as cap&tax, also, then?
while sequestration probably will not work,
there is one way of making fuel out of CO2 from coalplants,
combining it with methane to make methyl alcohol,
developed by a Nobelist, and used commercially for busses
in Europe and Asia, already, along with a further transformation
into another fuel.

thus&so:
Waxman's '91 bill on NOX and SO2 was cap&trade ...
Kyoto was cap&trade & Dubya "ought" to have signed it,
by his lights as an MBA ...
Kerry-Lieberman's and Waxman's passed bill are nothing,
but "freer trade," cap&trade.
so, why can't we just have a simple, small carbon tax,
thatt'd be a lot like a VAT, it's so all-encompassing --
which Waxman doesn't seem to realize, and is certainly
being played-down by the "yeah" and "neigh" sides
of this political debate; eh?

thus&so:
Oilgate is, Californians be #1 consumers of Gulf and Alaskan,
with Beyond Phossilized Phuels the largest producer --
I think, unless Shell is, in Alaska (but, it's half British).
sure, partly because we have the biggest population but,
another example of British perfidy (*prefide Albion*), that
Climategate could have purposely been leaked, because
the "mainstream" is so hegemonic with their rough-hewn GCMs,
which simply cannot predict weather with much fidelity,
for any length of time & given approximation
to "initializing-the-model conditions."
the funding for the old "cooling" paradigm
of the last two million years (Quaternary preiod),
went out the door to "warming," with a mid-'70s meeting
of the NSF, at which Oliver "Buck" Revelle laid-out the matter
-- he, later to be an unindicted co-conspirator
of George HW Bush in Iran-contra! (of course,
HW was also not indicted, just like for Watergate;
see http://tarpley.net).

thus&so: took just one of your exempli gratia; dyscuss!
Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three
explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and
tower two started to come down.

thus&so:
so, you believe in the corpuscle, discredited by Young (well,
it was never a theory *per se*, from mister Fig "hypothesis non fingo"
Knewtonne; that is, he asserted that light goes faster
in denser media, which was already (I believe) out of whack
with Snell's law of refraction, proven by Fermat).
of course, the most important milestone, aside
from Roemer's proof of the non-instanteity of light
(waves, he didn't know), was the elucidation of the "path
of least-time" by Leibniz and Bernoulli -- although,
that is just "ray-tracing," which is often interpreted
to be the path of a rock o'light!

--my broker says to call your broker about cap&trade, and
I'll tell you what happens.
http://wlym.com