Tuesday, December 08, 2009

The Disinformation Continues

This time via CNN:

One of the world's leading authorities on climate change has dismissed the contents of controversial e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia as nothing more than friends and colleagues "letting off steam."

"Well, I can tell you, privately when I talk to my friends, I use language much worse than that. This was purely private communications between friends, between, colleagues, they were letting off steam. I think we should see it as nothing more than that," Rajendra Pachauri, the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told CNN.


1) This is a little like asking the head of a mafia family to comment about the arrest of one of his underlings.

2) Notice how Dr. Pachauri, who holds no degrees related to climate science, is casually described as "One of the world's leading authorities..." when many research scientists in climate science are merely called "skeptics" or "deniers" by the media when they don't spout the information the media already wants to hear. Just further proof what is being discussed here is politics, not science.

2 comments:

Tully said...

For your amusement.

Someone e-mailed me a bit ago and asked why I'd had so little to say about ClimateGate. Other than time pressure in my current contractual and other obligations, the answer is simple: For everything that has come to light in the HCRU scandal, I've already said it. I've been saying it for eight years. Not from repeating the talking points of the skeptics, mind you, but from having personally crawled through both AR3 and AR4 on spec assignment over the last eight years with an eye on data integrity as relates to stated conclusions, and on robustness of technique and construction.

Bad data, massaged data, hidden data, active suppression of contra research, the complete bully-pulpit hive-mind politicization of the IPCC, gross and invalidating misuse of statistical methods by non-statisticians, poorly designed models built on the shakiest of assumptions (often not just shaky, but demonstrably false) that were destined to produce results only within the pre-programmed "solution" spaces, and so on.

All three of the "value-added" global temperature record databases being used for all climate research -- not just HCRU's, but GISS and GHCN as well -- are completely and utterly compromised, and thus worthless for the purposes used. As far as temperatures go, it's back to Square One and raw data, where it can be had.

We do indeed have some small effects on climate, but the insistence on making mankind THE primary driver of climate change, and on hooking that to the Green's beloved daemon of carbon dioxide, has left us in the dark as to what those effects actually are. Worse yet, it has left us with little knowledge on the "Missing variables" in the natural process of climate change, information that is crucial in predicitng and adjusting to an inevitable process.

But hey, we've always got our epicycles!

The Iconic Midwesterner said...

Yes, it is the fact carbon dioxide can be linked to industrial activity which makes it such a fave with these leftist ideologues. It used to be that old fashioned Marxists wanted to control the means of production (i.e. the industrial economy)through central planning because they believed it was a better way to produce the most wealth for the most people. Well, history proved them wrong on this point.

"No matter!" they now claim. "Really we need to control the means of production through central planning in order to avoid a climatological disaster!"

And, you are exactly right, there is real science that would be worthwhile knowing being, basically, supressed in the current climate.

And, yes, I think the "homogenized" data is hopeless. (I looked at some of the GISS data the other day and compared raw to "improved" for rural areas...for multiple sites the only adjustment made was to take the first 100 years of data and lower it by .5 to .7 degrees (C). Try as I might I cannot think of a single reason why one might do that. These were stations in southern Minnesota or Iowa so you couldnt say it was because they moved the station to a substantially different elevation. It looks like fraud. Maybe it isn't...but it looks it.)