View Full Version : Climate Change Study Shenanigans

02-25-2010, 03:14 PM
The decision of a scientific journal to retract a climate change study, and accusations that a highly-placed government official is biased regarding climate change or global warming, fuel on-going skepticism regarding the whole IPCC theory by Thomas Karl and Roger Pielke. by James Heiser

Climate Change Study Shenanigans (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/6019-climate-change-study-shenanigans)

James Heiser | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
25 February 2010

The steady drip of Climategate eroding the theory of manmade climate change has now become a flood of revelations washing away more and more of the foundation of the ideologically-driven agenda of the Internationalists and environmental fringe. Even as the theory was unraveling in the public square, bureaucrats squabbled in Copenhagen and the U.S. Senate stalled at the edge of the “cap and trade” precipice, there were some who tried to press on with the global warming agenda as if nothing had happened.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s “endangerment finding” against carbon dioxide was a measure of the desperation; appearances of popular support are an important part of legitimizing the radical agenda (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5765-counting-the-costs-in-copenhagen) at work behind the proposed solutions. After all, one wants to at least have the appearance of the ‘consent of the governed’ if one is going to shovel hundreds of billions of dollars of their wealth into a redistribution of wealth (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5731-copenhagen-conference-comes-down-to-cash-not-science) from the industrialized world to the third world.

With several states now pushing back (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5996-states-corporations-resist-climate-change-nonsense) against the EPA’s politically-driven agenda, and even some members of the Senate (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5887-senators-try-to-regain-legislative-authority-over-epa) finding enough backbone to defend their constitutional role in governing this nation, there are signs that the theory underlying the ideological agenda is continuing to collapse.

One of the most recent developments is the undoubtedly embarrassing revelation that the journal Nature Geoscience is retracting a paper on the ‘danger’ of sea levels rising due to climate change. Mind you, they are retracting the paper — not ‘revising’ or ‘correcting’ it. Peer review is normally supposed to prevent such an development. But apparently this paper was so badly flawed it could not be fixed by any less dramatic of a solution. According to FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/scientist-retracts-paper-rising-sea-levels-errors/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Te xt+-+SciTech%2529):

The study was published in Nature Geoscience and predicted that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century.

The paper also highlighted that it reinforced the conclusions of the U.N.'s controversial Fourth Assessment report, which warned of the dangerous of man-made climate change.

However, mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied statistics have forced the authors to retract their paper -- the first official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, notes the Guardian. In an officially published retraction of their paper, the authors acknowledged these mistakes as factors that compromised the results.

"We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark.

Yes, you read that right: “...pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900...” In other words, not only does the paper appear to lack valid predictive value, it apparently cannot even get the past right.

Of course, there will be some that will say it’s “only one study.” But the past few months have seen a whole series of studies (e.g., the IPCC’s 2007 claims (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2816-ipccs-bogus-claims-about-melting-glaciers) regarding the Himalayan glaciers) and entire institutions (the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, the British Met Office, NASA (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5747-climategate-qscientific-fascismq-and-copenhagen) and NOAA (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2930-noaa-and-the-new-qclimategateq-scandal), for starters) have found themselves embroiled in scandal because of a whole host of scandals.

And, while we’re counting the scandals, here’s yet another one which adds yet another agency of the federal government to the mix: Thomas Karl and the National Climatic Data Center at the Commerce Department.

An article at FOXNews.com (“New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/tom-karl-tried-to-suppress-data-critics-charge/?test=latestnews)”) reports that Mr. Karl may have a problem with a history of suppressing inconvenient facts:

Karl, who has played a pivotal role in key climate decisions over the past decade, has kept a low profile as director of National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) since 1998, and he has led all of the NOAA climate services since 2009. His name surfaced numerous times in leaked "climate-gate" e-mails from the University of East Anglia, but there was little in the e-mails that tied him to playing politics with climate data. Mostly, the e-mails show he was in the center of the politics of climate change decisions.

But the problem isn’t simply that Climategate revealed Karl to be in the middle of the politics of climate change; it’s that a contributor to the IPCC’s report claims Karl suppressed data. The accusation comes from climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado. Pielke believes that global warming is taking place — but he maintains that Karl suppressed his data which would detract from the notion that such climate change is manmade.

In his resignation letter [from the IPCC], Pielke wrote that he had completed the assessment of current knowledge for his chapter of the report, when Karl abruptly took control of the final draft. He said the chapter he had nearly completed was then rewritten with a too-narrow focus.

One of the key areas of dispute, he said, was in describing "recent regional trends in surface and tropospheric temperatures," and the impact of land use on temperatures. It is the interpretation of this data on which the intellectual basis of the idea of global warming hangs.

In an interview, Pielke reiterated that Karl "has actively opposed views different from his own." And on his Web site last week, he said Karl's appointment "assures that policy makers will continue to receive an inappropriately narrow view of our actual knowledge with respect to climate science."

He said the people who run the agencies in charge of climate monitoring are too narrowly focused, and he worries that the creation of the new office "would give the same small group of people the chance to speak on the issue and exclude others" whose views might diverge from theirs.

Responding to the criticism, Karl told the Washington Post, "the literature doesn't show [Pielke's] ideas about the importance of land use are correct."

(Pielke’s views with regard to global warming can be found in several papers at his website (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/).)

It should be obvious by now that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is falling apart because of far more than ‘a few emails.’ Patterns and allegations of hubris, cherry picking data, and suppressing studies are swirling around many of the institutions which once enjoyed the public’s trust when it came to the scientific study of the environment. The loss of such trust is not something which is easily restored—a fact which climate change theory advocates are now finding out the hard way.