Posting opinions, letters and correspondence from far and wide. Even some to/from my elected representatives.
Friday, December 04, 2009
You were instrumental in RatherGate. I joined your community as a direct result and I have for years watched your rational approach to life and philosophy unfold. In RatherGate, you took a fabricated story and demolished it with a simple idea that you tested and produced results to prove that is was fake (to wit, you applied scientific method). You had the benefit of the tools needed (scanner) and software (MS word) and the resources (time and a sharp intelligence) to bring together your brilliant result.
Now, various AGW skeptics have been hammering away for years, trying to get at the original data that temperature records have been based upon. They have been blocked for years! Finally, they get the break they need (the ClimateGate files) and they now adequately demonstrate, through carefully applied rational thinking and analysis (the same as yours), that one of the the global temperature records (of which there are only a surprising few) was based on biased, fradulent and obstructionist staff who had a predetermined outcome in mind and they produced that predetermined and false result. They faked lower temperatures in the 1940's and they faked higher temperatures in the 1990's and they hid the lower temperatures in the 2000's.
Does that sound to you like a repeat of RatherGate? I hope so. Because to be quite frank, I am shocked that in your pursuit of criticism of the Right (something that I happen to agree with you about), you unfortunately have been unable to take a rational and informed look at the ClimateGate data, method and results. It just goes to show that literally ANYONE, even those who are hellenistic rationalists such as yourself, can engage in unconscious self delusion. I urge you to look at the actual emails, the actual data, the actual careful skeptical analysis that has been done by brilliant people and understand these basic points.
The temperature record is now revised both down and up! The released ClimateGate graphs now show the period of the 1940's as being much warmer than they were shown to be previously. And, the temperatures of the 1990's have been shown to be much less that those previously reported. The higher 1940's data was fudged out of the released IPCC reports and Tom Wigleys' and other published papers. The lower temperatures of the 1990's and 2000's were also fudged up.
Up until now, many, many studies have been trying to show that natural causes cannot account for these latest decade increases. Study after study makes the claim that "XX% or thereabouts of warming can be attributed to normal natural processes so the other yy% of warming must be caused by human activity". However, with the temperature record now readjusted to be as it actually was and is, these previous studies are made irrelevant and their conclusions are either partially or completely wrong.
As one rational thinker to another, I urge you to carefully investigate this matter for yourself because I would hate to see you discredit yourself as you continue to condemn the scientific evidence that is now on public display for all to see. Man may still cause some global warming but you owe it to yourself to find out how little that might actually be.
Yours absolutely sincerely,
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Dear Congressman Himes,
You may recall (or not) that I had written to you July 17th regarding problems of integrity with the EPA and the highly politicized nature of the way in which global warming or so-called “climate change” studies, reports and information are being handled by that US federal agency. I did not hear from you regarding that particular issue but as I mentioned in that letter, it is quite possible that you may find yourself very soon to be on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the science as the human caused global warming (AGW) scientific community is now quickly becoming exposed as a fraud of epic proportion.By now you must be aware of the release of thousands of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University by what is probably a conscience-stricken insider. The e-mails are to and from some of the leading researchers in the field and key players in the IPCC. The emails and documents clearly demonstrate attempts to manipulate scientific data, control the scientific review process, subvert FOI officers, destroy materials that should have been preserved under FOI regulations to avoid release, and the use of misleading and deceptive information to influence both the public at large and policy makers such as yourself.It is imperative that you get out in front of this issue and take the lead in calling for a congressional inquiry. So far, there has been muted reaction from the press, but you can find interesting articles here:Andrew Revkin, New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hpwKeith Johnson, Wall Street Journal
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/The British Blogger Bishop Hill has an easy-to-read summary of major issues here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.htmlThe Blogger Anthony Watts describes the on-going events here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/Jeff Id, whose The Air Vent blog was the site where the whistle-blower first announced the release of the files on a server in Russia, has a number of posts.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/It is worth noting that Jeff was away on a hunting trip at the time and got back to find a bomb shell sitting on his blog. He removed it, but it had already been discovered by a number of readers.The actual e-mails and documents can be found here, among other places:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.phpI am fully conversant with scientific method and statistical analysis, so I have personally reviewed and examined a large amount of this leaked material myself and I am shocked and disturbed by what I have read and determined. The reality is that the “science” is far from settled and this leaked information confirms that there is no consensus. In fact, it appears from my own analysis of this data, and those of many others whose papers have been suppressed over the years, that our climate remains completely normal and has not been affected by CO2 emissions at all. That is of course a debatable point but it certainly can no longer be claimed be crazy skepticism. What is clear from this released information is that these “scientists” have been pushing their own created falsehood upon us and have used their elite position of trust and implied integrity as a means to pretend that they are unbiased in service to mankind when the truth is that these researchers are as prone to human frailty as the average layman and have deceived and obfuscated and colluded to do so.Whatever their reasoning for having done so, this issue needs to be thoroughly aired in a Congressional Investigation before our nation damages its economy, security and liberty any further.
Acknowledgment: most of this letter was based upon a letter that "Air Vent" pitched to his Congressman found here: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/time-to-do-the-hard-work/
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
It's December 1st and the fall out from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) hack continues. At this point in time, we should hear something soon about how the data was hacked. Meanwhile, it has been interesting watching both sides hammer out the issues since the 160 mega bytes of data became public. On one side, the general consensus is that these "scientists" that contribute reports and studies to the IPCC are a contemptible bunch of crooks while on the other side, the general consensus seems to be that we should all move along, there's nothing to see here and also, all global warming skeptics are scum and shouldn't be hassling these preeminent pious scholars.
Well, but perhaps the ramifications of all this won't be seen in any immediate rush of public announcements from new found skeptical politicians. What seems more likely is that the politics of global warming alarmist's will shift the politicking in subtle ways.