The Climategate scandal erupted on November 19, 2009, when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory. The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade, revealed by more than a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists. The released information is evidence of deceit by climate scientists, which was kept a secret or hidden from the public until the data was leaked from the CRU. The CRU’s apparent obstruction of freedom-of-information requests, as revealed by the leaks, was only the tip of the iceberg. Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific hoax in world history as the worst scandal of this generation.
The Climategate emails and climate data became the subject of intense debate, calling to question assumptions on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. The legitimacy of climate science, and the charges leveled by the CRU and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which claim humans cause climate change, was severely shaken by Climategate. Evidence revealed told the truth about man-made global warming: it’s a fraud.
Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on the theory suggesting humans cause climate change, in a profoundly bizarre situation the Mainstream media attempted to bury the Climategate story. At the same time, liberal Wikipedia quickly censored Climategate and referred to it as an illegal “incident,” as the work of computer hackers stealing data — contrary to Freedom of Information Act requests. In spite of the liberal media’s bias attempt to hide the scandal, news of Climategate quickly spread because many other more notable sources of media covered the story. Commentators and others in the media covered news on Climategate, many of which outlined important takeaways about specific information valuable to the public.
Climate science was troubled after news reports of the Climategate scandal went public, after the release of a thousand email messages and a collection of data and data processing programs from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. The trustworthiness of the scientific community’s global warming data pool was called into question. On November 29, with the publication of a report by The Sunday Times of London, it was reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded. The admittance occurred following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. Michelle Malkin detailed one of the many problems that will occur as a result of such data loss at the University of East Anglia, the research institution at the center of Climategate. She reported, “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 Climategate scandal revealed that corruption of climate science is a worldwide problem and is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. For instance, it was discovered that the reported warming trend in New Zealand over the past 156 years (from 1853 to 2008) was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature data. The centerpiece of New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric research temperature claims were proven false. This data contributes to global temperature statistics and the climate science reports by the IPCC. The false data was used by the Obama administration as a reason for remaining insistently stubborn on participating in the climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009-10.
The CRU scientists deliberately falsified data, and then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. This is criminal fraud under English Law. Because of the worldwide fraud revealed from Climategate and the burden it caused to the global scientific community, on December 1, 2009, Phil Jones, the director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom stepped down pending investigations into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change. On January 28, 2010, from the London Times, inquiry over the Climategate emails found Phil Jones broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny. Michael Mann was investigated by Penn State University.
Climategate fraud also extended to the United States, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) had their attorneys file three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA. Chris Horner, representing CEI, said the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act for over three years. The Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers worldwide, including NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did. NASA’s two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, “systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations.”
- The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today.
- The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.
Stations in places such as the Andes and Bolivia were revealed to have virtually vanished, and temperatures from these areas became “determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon.” Average temperatures were extrapolated from readings in other cities across the world. This selectivity of locations made NASA’s data and climate change conclusions skewed to advance the global warming agenda rather than create data based on scientific facts. The Climategate emails showed that climatologists had conspired to suppress research that challenged the global warming orthodoxy.
The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a criminal intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a cap and trade scheme as part of a Global Warming movement. Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a FOIA request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable university.
The CBC’s Rex Murphy discussed Climategate in an editorial on December 3, 2009.
…Climate science has shown to be, in part, a sub-branch of climate politics. It is a situation intolerable even to serious minds who are on side with Global warming. Such as Clive Crook, who wrote in Atlantic magazine about this scandal as follows: ‘the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering’. Climate science needs its own reset button. And Climategate should be seen not primarily as a set-back, but as an opportunity to cleanse scientific method, to take science away from politics, good causes and alarmists. And vest climate science in bodies of guaranteed neutrality, openness, real in vigorous debate; and away from the lobbyists, the advocates, the Gore’s, and professional environmentalists of all kinds. Too many of the current leadership on Global warming are more players than observers, gatekeepers and not investigators, angry partisans of some global engineering, rather than the humble servants of the facts of the case. Read the e-mails, you’ll never think of climate science quite the same way again.
Iain Murray at Pajamas Media pointed out three takeaways that people must know about Climategate.
- First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.
- Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, complained that paleoclimatologist Hans von Storch was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” (1051190249) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).
- Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.
On December 10, 2009, Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D., showed the potential effects of sunspot activity on climate, detailing solar geomagnetic to earth climate connections. On the subject of solar activity affecting climate variations, the geomagnetic modulation of cloudiness has about 10 times the effect on the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth as does the solar cycle’s direct modulation of the sun’s output. It also rivals the level of forcing due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but with way more variability from year to year and decade to decade. (Can anyone say, “natural climate variability”?)
The primary issue from Climategate is the data manipulation. Science requires data, and inadequacy of the climate record was always a problem even before Climategate became known to the public. Dr. Tim Ball wrote in the Canada Free Press on the primary issue from Climategate:
Climatology recognizes three distinct periods: The very recent instrumental period; the historical period to 3000 years, and the geologic [and] biologic for the rest. The [Climatic Research Unit scientists] manipulated data in all three but the first is critical because it is the source of material for the computer models, the vehicle of their deception. […] They claim [the emails] are taken out of context. In context the fullness of their criminality is exposed. They claim there’s nothing of consequence in the emails, but [the emails show] a litany of manipulation of, the data, the process, publications, peer review, and personal attacks.
Climategate shows strong evidence of fraud, and may show smoking-gun proof of a cover-up by CRU scientists to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming. From Cube Antics, by Robert Greiner, who is a scientist and engineer “with an agnostic stand on global warming,” he offered a statement about the research methods of the CRU scientists, attempting to show proof that they had the means and intent to falsify data. Greiner pointed out that the Climategate emails alone do not provide sufficient proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. What the Climategate emails do show is that climate scientists may have committed a felony using government funded money; moreover, within the collection of data and data processing programs revealed from Climategate, code from the CRU shows proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the “scientists” wanted to believe, not what actually occurred. Analysis of the CRU’s code revealed the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. Greiner reiterated his findings:
First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce. This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing. If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.
On December 5, 2009, Robert Greiner pointed out the four most frequent concerns dealing with the CRU’s source code uncovered from Climategate:
- The source code that actually printed the graph was commented out and, therefore, is not valid proof.
- No proof exists that shows this code was used in publishing results.
- Interpolation is a normal part of dealing with large data sets, this is no different.
- You need the raw climate data to prove that foul play occurred.
After further analysis, his first concern pointed out that the source code that printed the graph was commented out and thus is not valid proof. On the second concern, Greiner clarified that, “Enough proof exists that the CRU had both the means and intent to intentionally falsify data. This means that all of their research results cannot be trusted until they are verified. Period.” The third concern as pointed out by Greiner is not about the fact that the CRU researchers used interpolation; the issue is the weight of the “valadj” array with respect to the raw data. Greiner said, “valadj simply introduces too large of an influence to the original data to do anything productive with it.” Fourthly, Greiner said that raw climate data is needed to prove that foul play has actually occurred. He said, “It simply doesn’t matter if the raw climate data are correct or not to demonstrate the extreme bias the valadj array forces on the raw data. So, the raw data could actually be temperature data or corporate sales figures, the result is the same; a severe manipulation of data.”
Integrity of Data
Climategate has jeopardized the integrity of worldwide scientific data on climate change. There are two objections that question the validity of temperature data from the IPCC report released in 2007, one of which Climategate does not effect. The earth has generally been warming since the Little Ice Age, around AD 1650 (Akasofu, 2007). The second objection has questioned the integrity of the data, as pointed out from Watts Up With That? in an article written by Willis Eschenbach. There are three main global temperature datasets, as clarified by Eschenbach.
- One is at the CRU, Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.
- Another one is at NOAA (GHCN), the Global Historical Climate Network.
- The final one is at NASA (GISS), the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove temperature discrepancies that occur when a station is moved to a warmer or colder location. One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU basically uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) dataset for its raw data. This raw data is downloaded from GISS, but GISS uses the GHCN raw data as the starting point for their analysis. Both GISS and CRU get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. But the IPCC uses the “adjusted” data; GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls “inhomogeneities.”
At Darwin Airport there are five separate individual station records that are combined to make up the final Darwin record. In 1941, a station was moved to Darwin Airport. The GHCN then removed the inhomogeneities to adjust the data. Of the five raw datasets at Darwin, the GHCN discarded two. The three remaining records were first homogenized and then averaged to give the “GHCN Adjusted” temperature record for Darwin. Before the GHCN homogenized the data, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celsius per century. After the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celsius per century.
Willis Eschenbach investigated it and started with the earliest record, “Station Zero” at Darwin. The five different station records (raw data) covering Darwin from 1941 on all agreed almost exactly. What Eschenbach found was that there is “indisputable evidence that the ‘homogenized’ data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.” The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station shows that at least one part of the data is bad at Darwin Zero.
They’ve just added a huge, artificial, totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! A six degree per century trend? What’s up with that? […] The GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them. That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it ‘hides the decline.’ […] Care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? They only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941. Every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling.
Separate from GHCN, GISS takes the raw temperature data and does their own adjustments. However, GISS verified that their adjusted, homogenized data is the same as GHCN. The data is questionable because the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) manipulates the data prior to its use by others; this process was described as homogenizing. The CRU apparently “lost” their data. Scientists at the CRU, who produce global annual average temperatures, select stations that create the results they want, and then adjust the data again for fraudulent purposes. Climategate revealed a fact that, until all of the station “adjustments” are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS cannot be trusted if using homogenized numbers.
8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps. Dr. Roy Spencer in June 2009 announced on his blog that June’s anomaly globally using the Aqua satellite dropped to 0.001C. This continued downtrend started after 2001, and is another indicator Global Warming alarmists have certainly embodied a hoax. It was also reported: Sea Level Rise; A Major Non-existent Threat Exploited by Alarmists: Truth about sea level is a major casualty of the war to implement whatever is deemed necessary to implement legislation to increase Big Government power and control, including Socialist Income redistribution ideologies. (Source)
Continued on next page…