Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize partly for dealing with climate change. It wasn’t deserved for that, or any other reason. In his public reaction, he cited the same climate misinformation used in his September 22, 2010 UN speech. Worse, the misinformation was part of the claim that humans are causing climate change, which is among the biggest falsities in history.
A small group of scientists – mostly associated with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia – have consciously withheld data and methods to place global progress, development, economies and peoples lives in jeopardy. Lord Monckton calls it a global fraud. It is that, but much more – and raises the question of accountability.
There’s a scientific responsibility to establish validity and credibility of new work. When the work is presented in the public arena as fact a different set of responsibilities emerge. This group bypassed or controlled climate science in the scientific and public arenas primarily through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Deception is unacceptable but as always the cover up compounds and exposes the culpability.
Their ‘science’ supposedly proved current world temperatures are the highest ever, and that human CO2 was the cause. Working Groups II and III of IPCC extrapolated the claims into hypothetical doom and gloom scenarios. Then, through the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), they controlled the flow of misinformation to the public. Political leaders including Obama, eager to jump on the green wagon or assert more government control, used their work to make frightening claims of doom. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said “Human-induced global warming poses as much danger to the world as war”. Sir David King, UK government Science Advisor said, “Climate change is a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism.” King almost got it right. Climate change is not a greater threat, but false promotion of climate change as a threat is greater than international terrorism.
Two pieces of evidence were central to the influential 2001 IPCC Report. First the “hockey stick” which showed that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from 900 to 1200 AD did not exist, and that current warming was the highest ever. We know attempts to eliminate it were deliberate. Professor Deming told us about the email from Jonathan Overpeck, an IPCC lead author that said, “We must get rid of the MWP.” Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH98) produced the graph that was to appear in the Summary for Policymakers of the 2001 report. As Roger Peilke Jr. notes,
So the IPCC was in effect saying, “We’ve looked carefully at all of the evidence of climate change and from all of those studies and reports the best example that we’d like to share with you policy makers of changes in the earth’s climate is represented with this graph.”
Hockey stick production involved scientific shortcomings, but possibly due to genuine incompetence. Their detection required a competent peer-review process. However, they controlled the peer review system as Professor Wegman identified. They co-authored and peer-reviewed each others work. They had friendly editors like IPCC lead author Andrew Weaver, editor of the Journal of Climate. The Journal lists Michael Mann as Editor Emeritus among others.
Or biased editors like Donald Kennedy of Science who editorialized,
The scientific consensus on global warming is so strong that it leaves little room for the defensive assertions that keep emerging from … a shrinking coterie of scientific skeptics.
I am very grateful to the editors of Phil Trans B (Roy Soc) – at long last, a journal editor stood up to CRU, requiring Briffa to archive supporting data.
Even then it took 10 months before the information was provided.
Up to this point Mann, Briffa, and others all refused to disclose their data and method. They even involved the University of East Anglia and the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO). It is incredible because in most cases taxpayers paid for the raw data and the research while the output was used to determine global energy and economic policies that negatively affects their lives.
The second piece of evidence was the claim that global temperatures increased 0.6°C (1°F) in the last approximately 130 years. They said this was faster and larger than any ‘natural’ increase and clear proof of human causes. It supported the hockey stick claim of unprecedented late 20th century warming. Phil Jones, contributing author to the 2001 IPCC Report and currently director of the CRU, produced the number. Australian researcher Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method and was told,
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?
Outrageously, he continues to refuse the information to anyone. So does the UKMO. As Anthony Watts explains,
The Met Office (UKMO) refuses to release data and methodology for their HadCRUT global temperature dataset after being asked repeatedly. Without the data and procedures there is no possibility of replication, and without replication the Hadley climate data is not scientifically valid.
So the data and method for the two major pieces of evidence for human induced global warming and climate change in IPCC 2001 Report were deliberately withheld. There is only one explanation – it wouldn’t bear peer review. This was confirmed when the data and method for the hockey stick was grudgingly released. But the complicity doesn’t end there. All the people involved in this debacle were involved in producing and controlling the crucial claims of the IPCC Reports and the SPM.
For example, McIntyre raised the problems with the hockey stick as an official IPCC Review Editor:
The seemingly biased selection of Yamal over Polar Urals has been a longstanding concern of mine and was the theme of numerous of my AR4 Review Comments, all of which were repudiated by Briffa, the IPCC author responsible for this section.
Briffa was also author of major hockey stick papers. This problem caused Professor Wegman to make his first recommendation,
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.
They’re shouting fire to panic the world, an action not protected by free speech even in the US. But here there is no fire except the one they kindled. Of this situation, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote,
…the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done… The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.
Now they obfuscate, bluster and attack those who dare to even ask questions let alone expose the problems. Tolstoi said,
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.
But this is much more than not admitting falsity of conclusions. It’s now clear they could not admit the falsity because they were contrived. Their falsity was built into the political, social, and economic fabric of the entire world.