Exposing the Global Warming Lie

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pagePin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

By Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D.

Thou­sands of highly com­pro­mising emails and doc­u­ments, some shocking, were hacked or leaked in late November from the British Cli­matic Research Unit Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia (CRU). The CRU is one of the world’s leading research cen­ters on cli­mate change as well as the repos­i­tory of all sur­face tem­per­a­ture data world­wide. It played a key role in the IPCC’s fourth Assess­ment Report in 2007. The IPCC Assess­ment pro­vided the sci­en­tific basis of policy nego­ti­a­tions at the Copen­hagen Cli­mate Con­fer­ence last December and the cur­rent cap and trade leg­is­la­tion in the U.S. Senate. The gen­eral pic­ture of the series of emails is one of col­lu­sion, exag­ger­a­tion of warming data, manip­u­la­tion of data, con­spiracy, pos­sible illegal destruc­tion of data and embar­rassing infor­ma­tion, and orga­nized resis­tance to anyone who defies them.

Skep­tics of man-caused global warming have long sus­pected that top-level alarmist sci­en­tists were cooking the books to pro­vide the “proof” man was causing global warming. The only way that the integrity of the data could be ver­i­fied is to use the raw data and dupli­cate the sum­ma­riza­tion process. That data is only housed in Britain’s Cli­mate Research Unit (CRU). For years, dozens of requests by well qual­i­fied sci­en­tists to obtain a copy of the data have been refused by the CRU because of alleged con­fi­den­tiality agree­ments. The only data the CRU gave the sci­en­tific world was sum­ma­rized, har­mo­nized for con­ti­nuity and cleaned of out­lier data (data out­side normal error limits). The shocking rev­e­la­tions of these emails and doc­u­ments written by sci­en­tists asso­ci­ated with gave proof that skep­tical sci­en­tists were par­tially, if not totally cor­rect in their suspicions

Allegedly Inde­pen­dent Data Sources Use Same Source

Data to “prove” that major global warming has occurred over the last half of the twen­tieth cen­tury came from four sources, the British CRU (including the Hadley Center),  the U.S.’s NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmos­pheric Agency) and NASA (National Air and Space Admin­is­tra­tion), and Japan’s JMA (Japan Mete­o­ro­log­ical Agency).

There is good agree­ment (Figure 1) between the four data sources. Alarmists and main­stream media have repeat­edly assured us that even if the CRU data has been cor­rupted, the other three data sources have not and there­fore can be used as sub­sti­tutes. Since they show the same dra­matic rise in tem­per­a­ture starting in the 1970s, what hap­pened to the CRU data is irrelevant.

Therein lays the first major decep­tion. Dr. Roger Pielke, one the leading cli­ma­tol­o­gists in the U.S., pro­vides strong evi­dence that 90 to 95 per­cent of the NOAA, NASA, and JMA data sets are derived from the same CRU sum­ma­rized data set. If the sum­ma­rized CRU data is cor­rupted, all data sources are cor­rupted in exactly the same way. This also explains why there is such tight agree­ment between the four sources, and why skep­tical sci­en­tists repeat­edly requested only the CRU raw data and not the others.

Stonewalling FOI Requests for Data

For years the CRU stonewalled any request by skep­tics to obtain the CRU raw data to val­i­date its sum­ma­rized data set. This is one of the foun­da­tions of sci­ence. Other sci­en­tists, espe­cially skep­tical sci­en­tists, must be able to dupli­cate results using the same data. That the man-caused global warming hypoth­esis was accepted as accepted theory without this val­i­da­tion is highly unusual.

In 2000 the British Par­lia­ment passed a freedom of infor­ma­tion act that took effect in 2005. This caused all kinds of panic within the CRU group as evi­denced in this Feb­ruary 2, 2005 email from Phil Jones, the head of CRU and Michael Mann, prin­ciple author of the totally dis­cred­ited hockey stick curve:

“Just sent loads of sta­tion data to Scott. Make sure he doc­u­ments every­thing better this time! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites — you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [Stephen McIn­tyre and Ross McK­itrick, who proved Michael Mann’s hockey stick curve was bogus] have been after the CRU sta­tion data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Infor­ma­tion Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your sim­ilar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? — our does ! The UK works on prece­dents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data pro­tec­tion act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a wor­ried email when he heard about it — thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired offi­cially from UEA so he can hide behind that….”

Phil Jones’ email to Michael Mann clearly shows a pat­tern of delib­erate stonewalling. If Jones did delib­er­ately delete the raw data, it would be a crim­inal act. The CRU’s fears were real­ized in sub­se­quent years when Stephen McIn­tyre and others repeat­edly tried to use the freedom of infor­ma­tion act to obtain the raw data. Their attempts proved fruit­less, how­ever, when Jones stonewalled them. Finally, in 2009 Jones noti­fied McIn­tyre that the raw data was somehow “accidently deleted.” When that cre­ated a firestorm of con­tro­versy, Jones changed the story, now claiming the dele­tion of the raw data was nec­es­sary because they “needed the com­puter space.” Again, after a firestorm of con­tro­versy, Jones said that they found it wasn’t all deleted. The CRU, he said, would shortly release the data that still existed. As of this writing, mas­sive con­fu­sion still reigns. All these machi­na­tions sug­gest that Phil Jones may have deleted that part of the raw data that blows their man-caused theory apart, just like he said he would do in his 2005 email to Michael Mann.

This is extremely serious. Raw data is never deleted in sci­ence because it would pre­vent research results from ever being ver­i­fied and dupli­cated using the orig­inal data. This is at the core of the sci­en­tific method. This entire affair tends to dis­credit every research study that used the CRU sum­ma­rized data. It may mean that there is no longer any orig­inal empir­ical sci­en­tific data that even sug­gests that man is respon­sible for the twen­tieth cen­tury warming. Even the com­puter models used to prove man-caused global warming are made invalid because they all use CRU data in their models.

Jones may be facing crim­inal charges if it is shown he did delete the data. Amaz­ingly, rather than resigning to pro­tect the CRU from being dragged through a polit­ical and legal night­mare, Jones has refused guilt in doing any­thing wrong and has pro­claimed his inno­cence by yet another email. He was finally forced to step down the first of December pending an investigation.

There are over 50 emails dating back to the 1990s that clearly show a con­tin­uing pat­tern of col­lu­sion, con­spiracy, vicious attackson promi­nent skep­tical sci­en­tists. Any sci­ence that dis­agrees with their man-caused dogma was auto­mat­i­cally declared as “crap” and “junk science.” This is laugh­able. It was this same CRU group, lead by Michael Mann, who pub­lished the infa­mous Hockey Stick paper.

The Hockey Stick curve became the cen­ter­piece of the 2001 IPCC report. The paper and its respec­tive curve derived from tree rings were later exposed as fraud­u­lent because inap­pro­priate sta­tis­tics were applied. Then, after years of stonewalling, the Hockey Stick authors were forced to release the raw data they used to con­struct the curve. Just like their emails implied, key data were delib­er­ately left out and CRU sur­face tem­per­a­ture data sub­sti­tuted when the tree ring data did not show warming after 1960. When the missing tree ring data was included in the curve com­pu­ta­tion, the late 20th cen­tury tem­per­a­ture spike dis­ap­peared (Figure 2).

The CRU group even attack peer-reviewed sci­ence pub­li­ca­tions that pub­lish a skeptic’s article. In another series of emails they dis­cussed the need to get rid of an editor they didn’t like from Geo­phys­ical Research Let­ters, one of the pre­mier pub­li­ca­tions pub­lishing sci­en­tific papers on global warming. They even­tu­ally suc­ceeded. In another email an editor asked for sug­ges­tions as to which reviewers to send a skep­tics paper to in order to get it rejected. Jones responded with a list of reviewers saying “All of them know the sorts of things to say…without any prompting.”

In one case Michael Man and Phil Jones threat­ened to actu­ally dis­credit Cli­mate Research, a sci­ence pub­li­ca­tion that pub­lished sev­eral of the skeptic’s papers. In another, Jones told Michael Mann that he was going to make sure none of the skep­tics peer reviewed papers were used in the 2007 IPCC Assess­ment Report (AR-4). True to his word, the arti­cles were not used and Jones requested that all emails con­cerning this effort be deleted from the com­puter of everyone who was involved. Again, this is against the law. In yet another email, Jones admitted using Michael Mann’s approach of using CRU tem­per­a­ture data after 1960 “to hide the decline” of global tem­per­a­ture shown by tree ring data.

In an October 2009 email by Kevin Tren­berth, the CRU group even admits to itself that, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a trav­esty that we can’t.” But how can they when Tren­berth also admits that “we are not close to bal­ancing the energy budget…and whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter.” Yet, the same group of sci­en­tists con­tinues to insist that It was com­monly under­stood within the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity for the past 50 years that as cities grew and expanded that the city’s sur­face tem­per­a­ture would increase. As grass­land and forests were replaced by asphalt roofs and streets, more of the sun’s energy is absorbed and released in urban areas. This is called the urban heat island effect and can raise tem­per­a­tures by 8oC. The heat island effect is highly local­ized and has nothing to do with the ambient tem­per­a­ture of the region.  warming will resume with a vengeance. This same email also sug­gests putting pres­sure on the BBC not to print sto­ries that even hint that this is not a set­tled science.

The Urban Heat Island Effect

Sus­pi­cions by skep­tical scientist’s go back to the very first days of the global warming con­tro­versy in the late 1980s. This is a crit­ical issue as pas­sage of cap and trade leg­is­la­tion in Con­gress or the rat­i­fi­ca­tion of any inter­na­tional treaty will pro­foundly affect every person in a very neg­a­tive way.

It was com­monly under­stood within the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity for the past 50 years that as cities grew and expanded that the city’s sur­face tem­per­a­ture would increase. As grass­land and forests were replaced by asphalt roofs and streets, more of the sun’s energy is absorbed and released in urban areas. This is called the urban heat island effect and can raise tem­per­a­tures by 8oC. The heat island effect is highly local­ized and has nothing to do with the ambient tem­per­a­ture of the region.

Four global sur­face tem­per­a­ture data­bases exist at the All show very steep global tem­per­a­ture increases in the last half of the twen­tieth cen­tury, which allegedly “proves” man is causing global warming. Skep­tics sus­pect that all four tem­per­a­ture data sources (CRU, NOAA, NASA, and the JMA) likely con­tain sig­nif­i­cant cor­rup­tion from the heat island effect. Yet, most of this data has not had the heat island effect removed. Why? Because a series of ques­tion­able research studies allegedly showed the heat island effect was not sig­nif­i­cant. This led the IPCC to say in their 2007 report; “Thus, the global land warming trend dis­cussed is very unlikely to be influ­enced sig­nif­i­cantly by increasing urbanization.” It was this report that the IPCC claimed a 90 per­cent cer­tainty that man is causing global warming.

Dis­counting urban heat island effect so totally has never passed the smell test to skep­tical sci­en­tists. Although some attempts have been made to remove this source of error from the global tem­per­a­ture record; most of it has been in the United States’ NOAA and NASA data sets. When the cor­rected NOAA and NASA U.S. sur­face tem­per­a­ture data are used, the resulting graph (Figure 3) does not show the same late twen­tieth cen­tury record-breaking increase in tem­per­a­tures as found in the global tem­per­a­tures. In com­plete con­trast to the global tem­per­a­ture data, the cor­rected U.S. data show the 1930s and 40s to be warmer than the 1980s to 2000s. It is very unlikely the U.S. data could be so strik­ingly dif­ferent than the global data, espe­cially since the U.S. data is admit­tedly much more accu­rate than the global temperatures.

Even more alarming, when the allegedly “corrected” U.S. data since 1880 from urban weather sta­tions is com­pared to rural data
(Figure 4), the urban data still show much more warming than the rural data after 1950 when U.S. urban­iza­tion kicked into high gear. This strongly sug­gests that the heat island effect is still cor­rupting the “corrected” U.S. data.

This con­clu­sion is sup­ported by U.S. satel­lite tem­per­a­ture data (satel­lite tem­per­a­tures are not affected by heat island) which does not show extra urban warming when com­paring urban areas to rural areas. It is also sup­ported by com­paring 120 year ocean vs. land data sets. While the ocean data set is admit­tedly very sparse, it obvi­ously is not affected by the urban heat island effect. This tem­per­a­ture data shows the same widening tem­per­a­ture dis­parity since the late 1960s as Figure 4.

Another peer-reviewed global study in 2005 com­pared pop­u­la­tion growth, eco­nomic devel­op­ment, coal con­sump­tion and other socio-economic indi­ca­tors with the tem­per­a­ture trends for the respec­tive areas. If there were no urban heat island effect, there should be no dif­fer­ence between high growth and low growth areas around the world. Instead, they found a large and sig­nif­i­cantly cor­re­lated rela­tion­ship between pop­u­la­tion growth (i.e. land use) and tem­per­a­ture as mea­sured by sur­face sta­tions in the area. Like the U.S. urban vs. rural areas, there was no cor­re­la­tion when sur­face satel­lite tem­per­a­tures were used for the same areas. When the sur­face sta­tion data was cor­rected for the heat island effect they found, the warming since 1989 would be reduced by half

There is other evi­dence the global tem­per­a­ture data is badly con­t­a­m­i­nated with urban heat island effect. One study sup­porting the mantra that global tem­per­a­ture data is not con­t­a­m­i­nated was chal­lenged by Dr. Dou­glas Keenen in a scathing peer-reviewed paper pub­lished in Energy and Envi­ron­ment in 2007. Keenen even accused the work as fraud. While Phil Jones, the head of the CRU mocked Keenen’s work, the internal emails that were released by a whistle­blower or hacked in November 2009, clearly showed that Dr. Tim­othy Wigley (arguably the leader of the CRU alarmist group of CRU sci­en­tists) admitted Keenen’s attack was valid, “Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point…someone must have known at the time that they were incorrect.” Yet, Phil Jones still dis­counted this com­pelling evi­dence for the urban heat island effect in sub­se­quent reports.

This is not sci­ence; it is pos­sibly the greatest polit­ical fraud in the his­tory of the world; sup­ported by an extremely polit­ical IPCC claiming it is a sci­en­tific insti­tu­tion; and led by extremely biased sci­en­tists with a “take no pris­on­ers” men­tality. It is readily apparent their own arro­gance has blinded them to any con­clu­sion that dis­agrees with theirs.

The release of the CRU emails clearly show that most of CRU’s work and input into the IPCC process should be seri­ously ques­tioned. With NASA’s data also being seri­ously chal­lenged under the Freedom of Infor­ma­tion Act, there is suf­fi­cient cause not to ratify any Copen­hagen Agree­ment, nor pass any cap and trade legislation.

The cap and trade leg­is­la­tion (H. R. 2454) in the U.S. House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives was based entirely on the results from all the research done using CRU data. This even includes the com­puter cli­mate models. The same is true for the pending Senate cap and trade bill; S. 1733. Years of nego­ti­ating for the Copen­hagen Agree­ment were also based on this data. The entire house of cards sup­porting man-caused global warming is col­lapsing. Yet, this did not stop the scare­mon­gering coming out the December Copen­hagen Cli­mate Meeting. Other than some periph­eral skir­mishes, the agenda ground on as if these rev­e­la­tions never occurred. This meeting and the par­allel U.S. cap and trade leg­is­la­tion are too crit­ical to the cre­ation of world gov­ern­ment for it to fail.

It is crit­ical that we all demand that our Sen­a­tors do not pass S. 1733, nor ratify any­thing coming out of Copen­hagen. Go to www.nocapandtrade.us and become edu­cated. Pass along the link (espe­cially the page having the YouTube videos) on to your email list. The United States will lose its free market system and free­doms that have made America the wealth­iest and most pow­erful nation on earth if either the cap and trade leg­is­la­tion or the treaty is signed into law.

Note: These and all 3000 emails can be found at www.eastangliaemails.com.  A growing sum­mary and links to the respec­tive email can be found at http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

Dr. Michael Coffman is Pres­i­dent of Envi­ron­mental Per­spec­tives, Inc. and CEO of Sov­er­eignty Inter­na­tional, a non-profit edu­ca­tion orga­ni­za­tion. He has led a mul­ti­mil­lion research effort in global warming and has authored sev­eral books. He has pro­duced two DVDs, Global Warming, Emerging Sci­ence and Under­standing (emergingscience.us) and Global warming or Global Gov­er­nance (warmingDVD.com)

, , , ,

Powered by Patriot's Web