The Inconvenient Truth....about.... :: Twin Peaks Gazette Message Board

The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.

.....But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

.....

The reason Al Gore commanded that " The debate is over." Sound familiar? hurry up, no time to wait- sounds like the push to pass the healthcare Bill to me.

'Fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, by prominent scientists and throughout the media'

Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970's global cooling fears were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Despite the fact that there was no UN IPCC organization created to promote global cooling in the 1970s and despite the fact that there was nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars in funding spent today to promote man-made global warming, fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media.

Newsweek Magazine even used the climate “tipping point” argument in 1975. Newsweek wrote April 28, 1975 article: "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

But on October 24, 2006, Newsweek admitted it erred in predicting a coming ice age in the 1970's. (NYT: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 – September 29, 2009 & also see: NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007 and also see: 1975 New York Times: "Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing, Major Cooling May Be Ahead", May 21, 1975 and see: 1974 Time Magazine: "Another Ice Age," June 24, 1974

A Small Sampling of 1970's Reports Warning of Global Cooling:

National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975

Excerpt: “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” - Newsweek - April 28, 1975 “The Cooling World”

NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007

Excerpt: “The world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: "In the next 50 years" — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas." If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

New York Times: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 – September 29, 2009 – By John Tierney – Excerpt: In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren't the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can't think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. (See also: Obama Science 'Czar' John Holdren's 1971 warning: A 'New Ice Age' likely – September 23, 2009)

1977 book “The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age" - CIA Feared Global Cooling - Excerpt: In the early 1970s, top CIA thinkers concluded that changing weather was “perhaps the greatest single challenge that America will face in coming years”. As a result they ordered several studies of the world's climate, the likely changes to come and their probably effect on America and the rest of the world. The studies conclude that the world is entering a difficult period during which major climate change (further cooling) is likely to occur. That is the consensus of the Central intelligence Agency, which highlights the fact that we are overdue for a new ice age. Many climatologists believe that since the 1960s, the world has been slipping towards a new ice age. ....the evidence suggests that change will be a return to a climate that was dominant from the seventeenth century to about 1850. Soviet weatherman Mikhail Budyko believes that 1 2.8F drop in the average global temperature would start glaciers on the march. If the temperature should fall by another 0.7F, it could usher in a ninety-thousand year tyranny if ice and snow.

1975 Newsweek: "The Cooling World," Newsweek. April 28, 1975 By Peter Gwynne

Excerpt: The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. [...] The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” [...] Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.

Professor Stephen Schneider converted from warning of a coming ice age in the 1970s to promoting of man-made global warming fears today. In the 1970s Professor Stephen Schneider was one of the leading voices warning the Earth was going to experience a catastrophic man made ice-age. However he is now a member of the UN IPCC and is a leading advocate warning that the Earth is facing catastrophic global warming. In 1971, Schneider co-authored a paper warning of a man-made “ice age.” See: Rasool S., & Schneider S."Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141 – Excerpt: 'The rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” Schneider was still promoting the coming “ice age” in 1978. (See: Unearthed 1970's video: Global warming activist Stephen Schneider caught on 1978 TV show 'In Search Of...The Coming Ice Age' – September 20, 2009) By the 1980's, Schneider reversed himself and began touting man-made global warming. See: "The rate of [global warming] change is so fast that I don't hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems,” Schneider said on UK TV in 1990.

1975 New York Times: "Climate Changes Called Ominous,", June 19, 1975 - Harold M. Schmeck, - p. 31. Excerpt: “The most drastic potential change considered in the new report is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that governed the planet's climate for the past 10,000 years. [...] The report also noted that periods of benign climate comparable to the present are unusual and have existed for about 8 percent of the last 700,000 years.”

1974 New York Times: "Climate Changes Endanger World's Food Output,", August 8, 1974 – Harold M. Schmeck - p. 35. Excerpt: A recent meeting of climate experts in Bonn, West Germany, produced the unanimous conclusion that the change in global weather patterns pose a severe threat to agriculture that could lead to major crop failures and mass starvation. [...] The drop [in global temps] since the 1940s has only been half a degree, but some scientists believe this is enough to trigger changes that could have important effects on the world's weather and agriculture.

1975 New York Times: "Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing, Major Cooling May Be Ahead", May 21, 1975 – By Walter Sullivan - Excerpt: Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable. Hints that is may already begun are evident. The drop in mean temperatures since 1950 in the Northern Hemisphere has been sufficient, for example, to shorten Britain's growing season for crops by two weeks.

1974 Time Magazine: "Another Ice Age," June 24, 1974 - Excerpt: However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. [...] Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth. [...] Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

Newsweek admitted it erred in reporting on predictions of a coming ice age in the 1970's – October 24, 2006 - Excerpt: It took 31 years, but Newsweek magazine admitted it was incorrect about climate change. In a nearly 1,000-word correction, Senior Editor Jerry Adler finally agreed that a 1975 piece on global cooling “was so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future.” Even then, Adler wasn't quite willing to blame Newsweek for the incredible failure. “In fact, the story wasn't 'wrong' in the journalistic sense of 'inaccurate,'” he claimed. “Some scientists indeed thought the Earth might be cooling in the 1970s, and some laymen – even one as sophisticated and well-educated as Isaac Asimov – saw potentially dire implications for climate and food production,” Adler added. However, the story admitted both Time magazine and Newsweek were wrong on the subject – Newsweek as recently as 1992.

Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, a prominent critic of the man-made global warming fears today, recalls how pervasive the coming ice age scare was when he was in graduate school. "When I was going to graduate school, it was gospel that the Ice Age was about to start. I had trouble warming up to that one too. This (greenhouse) is not the first climate apocalypse, but it's certainly the loudest,” Michaels said.

1970: First Earth Day Promoted Ice Age Fears – Excerpt: At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

1976 Book: "The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun" By Lowell Ponte - Excerpt: "This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000."

Earth Day 1970: Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."...... continued

Climate change data dumped

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

quote:

Scientist: Consensus withstands climate e-mail flap

The debate about the significance of hundreds of leaked personal e-mails between a handful of top climate scientists, which were stolen off a British Web server and posted online about two weeks ago, rages on. Although most scientists agree that the contents of the e-mails do not invalidate the scientific consensus that human activities are changing the climate, the e-mails have raised troubling questions about how climate science is being conducted, such as whether researchers are stifling dissent and manipulating research results.

I've been conducting a series of interviews that shed light on the e-mail controversy and the effects it may have on both climate science and the public's perceptions of that science. Today, I bring you an interview with Gerald North, a distinguished professor of atmospheric sciences and oceanography at Texas A&M University.

But first, here's a brief recap of how the debate has been shaping up thus far...

Those who doubt the established scientific evidence that Earth has been warming due to human activities have viewed the e-mails as conclusive evidence that the books have been cooked, and that scientists with an agenda are distorting their findings.

Those who subscribe to the mainstream science on climate change have downplayed the scientific significance of the e-mails, but many have expressed concerns that they may cause the public to be less trusting of climate science findings anyway.

Somewhere in the middle are some prominent scientists, such as Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who have said the e-mails demonstrate that climate science needs to be conducted in a more transparent manner to increase public understanding. I recommend reading Curry's comments on Andrew Revkin's DotEarth blog.

Now, on to Professor North, a physicist who specializes in investigating the causes of climate change through the use of various types of computer models, among other techniques. He is especially well-qualified to comment on this controversy because of his role in investigating the work of one of the key players in the e-mail flap, Michael Mann of Penn State University.

In 2006, North chaired a National Academy of Sciences panel on "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 Years," which examined Mann's controversial study, known as the "Hockey Stick," which traced Earth's recent climate history. While the panel found some flaws with the study, it largely affirmed Mann's conclusions that late 20th century surface temperatures were higher than they had been in at least four centuries, and possibly far longer than that.

(In the interview, North discusses the work of Stephen McIntyre, who runs the blog ClimateAudit. McIntyre has been writing extensively about the leaked emails. North also refers to a specific leaked e-mail from Phil Jones, who is the director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, in which Jones referred to a "trick" used in a study).

Andrew Freedman: What are your thoughts on the significance of this scandal, both in terms of what it may mean scientifically and for public perceptions of climate science?

Gerald North: Scientifically, it means little. All scientists know that this kind of language and kidding goes on verbally all the time. Some of us forget that email has the potential to become public at any time. The public perception is another matter. There may be some people who do not know any scientist personally and think they are lily pure, dedicated (do-gooder) nerds. These private comments might lead to less confidence in science. It is a shame, since our country is so scientifically illiterate and is easily swayed by perceptions that have little to do with scientific method and culture. They have very little influence on my opinion.

AF: Do these hacked e-mails make you question the "consensus" on climate change at all, or to a greater extent perhaps than you did before?

GN: I accept the IPCC [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] procedure of assessment. It is not perfect, but it is probably the best we can do in learning the state of the science at an instant in time. It employs people who work actively in the field. Sometimes they are assessing their own work - egos clash. They are drawn together in workshops; then they separate to write the chapters of the report. There is a huge amount of anonymous refereeing of the reports. Monitors check that every complaint is at least discussed (in writing but not necessarily in the final report). There is a tendency to make the report reflect the mainstream view and de-emphasize some things that contradict it.

This is the way science works. People follow an established paradigm. They stay with it until it becomes uninteresting or stagnant. A paradigm can fall by an internal inconsistency that cannot be reconciled, or it may face an insurmountable contradiction with observed data. This latter does not happen overnight. Usually, with long standing paradigms, the data or its interpretation turn out to be wrong.

?Climategate' [the nickname of the email controversy] is not even close to causing active researchers to abandon the anthropogenic [manmade] global warming hypothesis. This hypothesis (Anthropogenic GW) fits in the climate science paradigm that 1) Data can be collected and assembled in ways that are sensible. 2) These data can be used to test and or recalibrate climate simulation models. 3) These same models can be used to predict future and past climates. It is understood that this is a complicated goal to reach with any precision. The models are not yet perfect, but there is no reason to think the approach is wrong.

Was data manipulated? I do not think so. In the NAS 2006 Report on Reconstruction of Surface Temperatures for the last 2000 Years (I was Chairman of that committee, and it took a different approach to assessment: a panel of experts who are not directly involved in the controversy - note the difference from the IPCC approach), we constructed our own hockey stick curve. We put the tree ring record on the graph and stuck the instrument record on for the last 50 years in exactly the way [Phil] Jones in his [leaked] email referred to as a ?trick'.

We did not know of his email (it was happening at the same time and we were careful not to have any contact with the IPCC process going on at that time), and we did precisely the same thing because it was the natural thing to do. The tree rings follow the observed temperatures pretty well but those in high northern latitudes ?diverge' starting about 1960. The exact cause of it is not known but there are several ideas floating around. We devoted several paragraphs and a number of references to it in our report. There is nothing dishonest going on. A prominent skeptic, John Christy, was on our committee.

AF: A number of researchers, including Judith Curry at Georgia Tech, have raised concerns about the transparency of climate science and the "circling the wagons" behavior exhibited by some of the scientists involved, in which they resisted requests for information/data from climate skeptics and sought to exclude certain studies from publication in scientific journals. Do you agree with the assessment that climate scientists should take this opportunity to increase transparency, in order to prevent a future scandal like this from eroding public confidence in their work? Why or why not?

GN: First, I do not think this is a scandal. I normally do not read the blogs, neither ClimateAudit nor RealClimate. But I did dial up ClimateAudit and by chance come upon Curry's statement. She has some respect for Steve McIntyre's contributions, and so do I. He was treated respectfully throughout our NAS hearings and deliberations in 2006.

I believe McIntyre is very sincere and is not doing any of this for money, etc. I think he has the conviction that we are rushing to judgment about the interpretation of the surface temperature data. His very popular blog makes fun of scientists in a way that unnerves them, since they cannot make fun of him in return without appearing ?unprofessional'. Many find this frustrating to the point of exasperation. It's like asking a government official to speak publicly like a radio talk show host.

Before addressing the issue of transparency, let me try to tell you some history as it related to the hockey stick controversy, which is what our committee was all about.

McIntyre entered the fray by asking for data from Mann and his coauthors in about 2000. As I understand it they complied, but the more they complied the more he wanted. He began to make requests of others. He sometimes not only wanted data, but computer programs. When he could not figure out how the programs worked he wanted help. From what they tell me this became so irritating that they stopped answering his emails.

He (or his supporters) went to Congress. A Congressional Committee wanted copies of all emails exchanged between coauthors. In my long career I have never heard of anything like this. It is easy to get the feeling that McIntyre is really trying to shut down scientific operations, rather than wanting to get to the truth. It is probably not so, but after a while one begins to feel that way. So McIntyre has generated lots of irritation in the science community.

I did read Curry's piece on McIntyre's blog. She is a highly respected friend of mine. It seems to be her first encounter with these folks. Of course, transparency is good -- no one would disagree. But science is a very competitive enterprise. Teams (?tribes') do get very territorial and there is competition between groups, and not just for funds. Priority of discovery is the holy grail. Over my long career, I have observed this behavior in many different fields in physics and climate science. The experience Judith recalls from her own experience is between two different scientific groups pushing different hypotheses (about hurricane genesis).

It got pretty heated. But it's all part of the game. I testified later in 2006 to another NAS committee on transparency. I am for it. But it is easier said than done. If you make things more transparent, you might eliminate competition - imagine giving away trade secrets in the private sector (who gets the holy grail?). Another issue is whether there is enough funding to put such a bureaucratic burden on the scientific investigator. Many believe that more well documented archival of data and computer programs could be done if the funding is there, but this costs lots of money. Do we cut out science to maintain flat budgets?

Finally, I would like to comment on McIntyre and his actions. I do think he has had an overall positive effect. He has made us re-examine the basis for our assertions. In my opinion this sorts itself out in the due course of the scientific process, but perhaps he has made a community of science not used to scrutiny take a second look from time to time. But I am not sure he has ever uncovered anything that has turned out to be significant.

AF: What might you say to the layperson who has not heard much about this scandal, and is wondering whether it means that climate change is no longer such a big problem?

GN: Again it is not a scandal. But perhaps the media can actually construct a scandal out of whole cloth if it wants to. After all, it is hard to get the public in a democracy to do uncomfortable things that have only long-range implications. One's instincts simply do not work that way. Hence, it only takes a dozen or so persons with scientific credentials to spoil what might be a sensible policy.

I recently looked online at the Journal of Climate, the leading climate science journal in the world. It had about 2000 authors in 2008. The smaller international journal Climate Dynamics had 2400 pages in 2009. Both journals have very high standards. There are also the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Journal of Geophysical Research and many others. Where are these guys? Most are in the trenches following the paradigm. Grinding out data, model simulations and interpretations. They are not going to throw away their careers on something that is stupid or wrong.

Science has a way of correcting itself over time. Because of the policy relevance (and political sensitivity) of it, we do not always have the time for the normal process to work itself through. Obviously this can lead to the kind of false flaps we are seeing here.

(interview ends here)

You can read my previous interviews with geoscientist Thomas Crowley and science historian Spencer Weart. I am planning at least one more interview, with someone on the more 'skeptical' side of the climate debate.

Related link: A BBC News column that discusses the different views of whether and how the IPCC should be reformed in the wake of the climate email flap.

The views expressed here are the author's and interview subject's alone and do not represent any position of the Washington Post, its news staff or the Capital Weather Gang.?

How to Forge a Consensus

The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.

Leaked emails won't harm UN climate body, says chairman

Climate change data dumped

quote:

How to Forge a Consensus

The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.

Leaked emails won't harm UN climate body, says chairman

Climate change data dumped

Related Links

quote: