.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/wikileaks-cables-confirm-the-worst-fears-of-climate-skeptics/?singlepage=true
Just a year ago, the Climategate files — a collection of emails, data, and computer source code — were somehow purloined from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit and made public. Pajamas Media was one of the first news organizations to cover them, with the first breaking news story out within hours of their first discovery (“Hacker Releases Data Implicating CRU in Global Warming Fraud“).
The full consequences are not yet clear, but the files’ release probably led to the collapse of the Copenhagen climate conference — to which the Obama administration had committed no little amount of political capital — and certainly contributed to the public’s increasing skepticism about the supposed consensus of climate science.
In some ways, the most surprising part of the Climategate files was how well they confirmed the dark suspicions of climate skeptics: there really were problems with replicating some of the most quoted results, there really had been some questionable manipulations made so the data would present the “right” picture, and there really was a somewhat covert group, composed of scientists on the “human agency” side of the argument and certain “reliable” environmental journalists, who were working together to suppress counter-evidence and assassinate the reputations of the skeptics.
Almost exactly a year later, Julius Assange and the WikiLeaks website revealed another collection of similarly purloined data. This time, the data was a collection of diplomatic cable traffic among American diplomats all over the world, some of it considered very sensitive — classified SECRET. Again, the purloined messages proved very embarrassing to the authors, although in this case the damage wasn’t just to egos and reputations; the cables did damage to American interests, even to national security.
On December 3rd, the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom published one of a series of stories based on the cables, this one titled “WikiLeaks cables reveal how U.S. manipulated climate accord.” The United States really was applying considerable political and diplomatic pressure on other players; the scientific “consensus” had long since been subsumed by the pressure to score a political win. As the Guardian put it:
Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage.
The bribes — sorry, I mean promised aid — was no mean amount of money. The Guardian reports amounts in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. The government of the Maldives set their price at $30 million. With a population of roughly 300,000, that is $100 per person in a country where the average household gets by on $450 a year.
This pressure, however, wasn’t limited to financial transactions: the United States was developing intelligence on the other participants in the conferences.
Seeking negotiating chips, the U.S. State Department sent a secret cable on July 31, 2009, seeking human intelligence from UN diplomats across a range of issues, including climate change. The request originated with the CIA. As well as countries’ negotiating positions for Copenhagen, diplomats were asked to provide evidence of UN environmental “treaty circumvention” and deals between nations.
At the same time, foreign powers — most probably at least including the People’s Republic of China — used sophisticated social engineering and cyberwar methods to get leverage in the upcoming negotiations.
On June 19, 2009, the State Department sent a cable detailing a “spear phishing” attack on the office of the U.S. climate change envoy … while talks with China on emissions took place in Beijing.
“Spear phishing” is an attack in which a carefully customized email message to a particular person, including personal information and promising something sure to be of interest to the recipient, is used to introduce a “Trojan horse” program, and while the cables don’t actually identify the suspects, it’s the same style of attack, and exactly the same exploit, that the Chinese used on Google.
The Guardian article is an amusing exercise in cognitive dissonance. The CIA wanted to collect intelligence on the other participants: CIA, ooh, bad! But it was to push through the global warming treaty. Wait. Global warming treaty, oooh, good! The Guardian writers clearly had some trouble deciding what they really thought.
By the time the Copenhagen conference came around, domestic political considerations inside the Obama administration had far outweighed whatever scientific basis originally drove the negotiations. On the other side of the table, pious public mouthing of global-warming dogma was replaced by straight-out monetary transactions: if you want our agreement, come up with the most cash. And China, South Africa, Brazil, and India were working the process with both politics and less savory means, to make sure they had the leverage to get what they wanted.
The lesson of the WikiLeaks climate cables turns out to be very much like the lesson of the Climategate files last year. The most surprising aspect of this story is how thoroughly the cables confirm the dark suspicions of climate skeptics.
Charlie Martin writes on science and technology for Pajamas Media.
Showing posts with label Climatic Research Unit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climatic Research Unit. Show all posts
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
CRU cleared of wrong doing? NOT: Parliamentary Trickery
.
On March 31, 2010, after one day of hearings in London, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published its report on the disclosure of climate data from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, (CRU). The Committee concluded that there was no basis for accusations of dishonesty and no attempt to mislead on the part of the scientists.
Hogwash.
Steve McIntyre explains why the decision by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee to vindicate Phil Jones and his crew after just one day of inquiry is bogus. Tree Ring data was some of what was hidden and discarded by the Climatic Research Unit.
Steve McIntyre, posted on Mar 31, 2010 at 1:30 AM
"their suggestion that Jones and others were doing nothing more than “discarding data known to be erroneous” is simply absurd. There was no testimony to the Committee (nor has it ever been suggested) that the tree ring data was measured incorrectly or that the data was “erroneous” – the data is what it is. The tree ring data goes down instead of up – but that doesn’t make it “erroneous”. It only means that the data is a bad proxy – something that was concealed from IPCC readers. It is discouraging to read such bilge."
One commenter posted, "….”it was merely the deletion of inconvenient data”….
What a wonderfully powerful technique! Just think of the new horizons this opens up for scientific progress"
Read More http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/31/tricking-the-committee/
.
On March 31, 2010, after one day of hearings in London, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published its report on the disclosure of climate data from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, (CRU). The Committee concluded that there was no basis for accusations of dishonesty and no attempt to mislead on the part of the scientists.
Hogwash.
Steve McIntyre explains why the decision by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee to vindicate Phil Jones and his crew after just one day of inquiry is bogus. Tree Ring data was some of what was hidden and discarded by the Climatic Research Unit.
Steve McIntyre, posted on Mar 31, 2010 at 1:30 AM
"their suggestion that Jones and others were doing nothing more than “discarding data known to be erroneous” is simply absurd. There was no testimony to the Committee (nor has it ever been suggested) that the tree ring data was measured incorrectly or that the data was “erroneous” – the data is what it is. The tree ring data goes down instead of up – but that doesn’t make it “erroneous”. It only means that the data is a bad proxy – something that was concealed from IPCC readers. It is discouraging to read such bilge."
One commenter posted, "….”it was merely the deletion of inconvenient data”….
What a wonderfully powerful technique! Just think of the new horizons this opens up for scientific progress"
Read More http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/31/tricking-the-committee/
.
Monday, July 5, 2010
NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits
.Excerpts From Fox News - March 30, 2010
And the problems with Climate change data continue: NASA put a man on the moon, but it can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are worse than the Climate-gate data.
...NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) - the source of leaked Climate-gate e-mails - and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center...
"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink."
Global warming advocates have argued that minor flaws in "Climate-gate" data aren't important, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion -- Global warming. But skeptics say there's a good reason for that: They all use the same data.
James M. Taylor, senior fellow of environment policy at The Heartland Institute. said,
"There is far too much overlap among the surface temperature data sets to assert with a straight face that they independently verify each other's results."
"The different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise," said Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in the same 2007 e-mail thread. GISS had previously stated that separate analyses by the different agencies "are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations." (Dr. James Hansen is also one of the head scientists that Senator Inhofe has wanted to call in for questioning in relation to falsified data.)
...Corrections are needed, Dr. Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground, said, "since there are only a few thousand surface temperature recording sites with records going back 100+ years." As such, climate agencies estimate temperatures in various ways for areas where there aren't any thermometers, to account for the overall incomplete global picture.
...But NASA is less confident, having quietly decided to tweak its corrections to the climate data... In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, 2010, NASA 'adjusted' raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way.
Wrong placement of the temperature stations is a problem repeatedly underscored by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his SurfaceStations.org Web site. Last month, Watts told FoxNews.com that "90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/
.
And the problems with Climate change data continue: NASA put a man on the moon, but it can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are worse than the Climate-gate data.
...NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) - the source of leaked Climate-gate e-mails - and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center...
"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink."
Global warming advocates have argued that minor flaws in "Climate-gate" data aren't important, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion -- Global warming. But skeptics say there's a good reason for that: They all use the same data.
James M. Taylor, senior fellow of environment policy at The Heartland Institute. said,
"There is far too much overlap among the surface temperature data sets to assert with a straight face that they independently verify each other's results."
"The different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise," said Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in the same 2007 e-mail thread. GISS had previously stated that separate analyses by the different agencies "are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations." (Dr. James Hansen is also one of the head scientists that Senator Inhofe has wanted to call in for questioning in relation to falsified data.)
...Corrections are needed, Dr. Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground, said, "since there are only a few thousand surface temperature recording sites with records going back 100+ years." As such, climate agencies estimate temperatures in various ways for areas where there aren't any thermometers, to account for the overall incomplete global picture.
...But NASA is less confident, having quietly decided to tweak its corrections to the climate data... In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, 2010, NASA 'adjusted' raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way.
Wrong placement of the temperature stations is a problem repeatedly underscored by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his SurfaceStations.org Web site. Last month, Watts told FoxNews.com that "90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/
.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Germans Giving Up on Global Warming
.
Partially from Fox News via Der Spiegel - March 29, 2010
Germans citizens are losing faith in global warming following Climate-gate scandals, according to a new report in Der Spiegel.
The report indicates that just 42 percent of Germans are worried about global warming, down from the 62 percent in 2006.
German news site The Local analyzed the results from the poll. Many people have little faith in the information and prognosis of climate researchers, The Local explained, with a third questioned in the survey not giving them much credence.
This is largely due to mistakes and exaggerations propagated in a report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
- Following a leak of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, an endless catalog of mistakes, lies, coverups, and faulty assumptions by scientists working on the IPCC's report has been detailed in the past few months, all lumped under the name Climategate.
According to The Local, Germany’s Leibniz Community, an umbrella organization including many climate research institutes, broke ranks by calling for the resignation of IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri.
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/29/achtung-germans-giving-global-warming/?test=latestnews
Partially from Fox News via Der Spiegel - March 29, 2010
Germans citizens are losing faith in global warming following Climate-gate scandals, according to a new report in Der Spiegel.
The report indicates that just 42 percent of Germans are worried about global warming, down from the 62 percent in 2006.
German news site The Local analyzed the results from the poll. Many people have little faith in the information and prognosis of climate researchers, The Local explained, with a third questioned in the survey not giving them much credence.
This is largely due to mistakes and exaggerations propagated in a report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
- Following a leak of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, an endless catalog of mistakes, lies, coverups, and faulty assumptions by scientists working on the IPCC's report has been detailed in the past few months, all lumped under the name Climategate.
According to The Local, Germany’s Leibniz Community, an umbrella organization including many climate research institutes, broke ranks by calling for the resignation of IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri.
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/29/achtung-germans-giving-global-warming/?test=latestnews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)