The British Climate Research Unit (CRU) is the science leader for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CRU supplies current and past temperature records and other data used by the IPCC to “prove” that man is the cause of global warming.  The IPCC has repeatedly pronounced their findings as the consensus view.

But several weeks ago, 1000+ internal e-mails and 3000+ sections of computer code from the CRU files were leaked to the world.  We learned that the CRU has systematically manipulated temperature records to make it appear that current times are abnormally warm. They have refused requests under Freedom of Information acts to provide other researchers this data and it looks like they have destroyed the data.  They have conspired to keep opposing views to man-made global warming from being published.  And the leaked files show that their vaunted computer forecasts are programmed to get their desired results of impending disasters (temperatures, floods, melting ice, etc.).  They admit that global temperatures have been in decline this decade and that they don’t understand why. The head of the CRU has been suspended.

The man-made global warming theory is probably a hoax.  So why is President Obama going to attend the December Copenhagen Climate Control meeting where he plans to commit the US to an 85% reduction in use of fossil fuel (gasoline, natural gas, etc.)? This reduction would skyrocket our energy prices and drive our remaining manufacturing jobs to China, India and Russia.

Cbdakota

In view of the ClimateGate scandal,  where we learned that CRU was manipulating temperatures to support the theory of man-made global warming,  it is instructive to see that Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) was also doing similar manipulations.  Last year on a different hosting site, I wrote a blog wondering if GISS was reporting global temperatures on a different basis than the other major reporting agencies. Part of that blog is as follows:

IS GISS OUT OF STEP WITH THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS?

There are several organizations that measure global temperatures, not just GISS.  From  Jennifer Marohasy’s website , we get a summary of 5 primary temperature reporting organizations:

“1. GISS, The Goddard Institute, home of James Hansen,
2. NCDC, The National Climate Data Center, a part of NOAA (as is GISS), the National Oceanographic and Atmosphere Administration.
3. BMO/UEA, The British Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia.
4. UAH, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA and 
5. RSS, Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.

The first three groups use ground based data where possible with a degree of commonality. However since 70% of the surface of the earth is ocean and it is not monitored in a detailed manner, various recipes are followed to fill the ocean gap, if that is the best way of putting it.

The last two groups use satellite data to probe the atmosphere and with the exception of the Polar Regions which are less than 10% of the globe, they get comprehensive coverage.”

Marohasy further notes that for the last 8 years (2001-08),  GISS shows a temperature anomaly of +0.1C, NCDC shows no change,  BMO/UEA has a -0.9C, RSS has -1.1C and UAH has -0.6C.  Only GISS shows an increasing temperature through the 8 year period.

HOW ACCURATE ARE GROUND BASED TEMPERATURE MEASURING STATIONS?

GISS relies on ground based stations.  That should cause one to pick up one’s ears,  when we know the world is about 70% ocean.

The United States is said to have one of the best ground based measuring systems in the world.  Standards have been written so that these stations can be sited to achieve accurate results not influenced by such things as being located in a blacktopped parking lot or in the path of the exhaust from an air-conditioning compressor.  SurfaceStations.org, has so far surveyed 534 of the 1221 United States stations, and have found that:

“Meeting Class 1 Standards (the best)              4%

Meeting Class 2 Standards (acceptable)           9%

Meeting Class 3 Standards (Error of 1C)         18%

Meeting Class 4 Standards (Error of >= 2C)    56%!!!!!

Meeting Class 5 Standards (Error of >+5C)     13%!!!!!”

This work says that 87% of the total have an error of 1C or more.  Moreover, 69% of the total are inaccurate in excess of 2C.   SurfaceStations.org plan on surveying all 1221 stations. (The work has continued to progress since the time of my original blog and it will soon be published.  Essentially the entire network of monitoring station have been surveyed and the results are not far different from that reported in my original blog)

A way around this is to measure temperature change (anomaly), rather than absolute temperature.  But this requires that some one put in adjustments for each site to correct the error.

TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENTS (AND MANIPULATION)

If the actual temperature measurements are adjusted,  how often does this happen?  In GISS’s case very often.  So often that one wonders if that group is trying justify its point of view about global warming.

Steve Goddard, in his Entry  “Is the Earth getting warmer or cooler?”  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/ shows us two versions of US temperature put out by GISS:

NASA’s original data: 1999

NASA’s reworked data: 2007

Focus on two points.  Estimate where 1934 is on both charts.  The annual mean on the 1999 report is about +1.5C and the 5 year mean is about + 0.75C.  Those same  points on the 2007 report are +1.25C and +0.6C. Temperatures in the thirties are lower as a result of adjustments in the 2007 chart.

Estimate where 1998 annual mean and 5 year mean are on each report.  Annual mean +0.9C vs. +1.25C  and the 5 year mean +0.2C vs. +0.5C. The temperatures in the nineties are  higher as a result of adjustments in the 2007 chart.

Goddard goes on to say:

“NASA staff have done some recent bookkeeping and refined the data from 1930-1999. The issues has been discussed extensively at science blog Climate Audit. So what is the probability of this effort consistently increasing recent temperatures and decreasing older temperatures? From a statistical viewpoint, data recalculation should cause each year to have a 50/50 probability of going either up or down – thus the odds of all 70 adjusted years working in concert to increase the slope of the graph (as seen in the combined version) are an astronomical 2 raised to the power of 70. That is one-thousand-billion-billion to one. This isn’t an exact representation of the odds because for some of the years (less than 15) the revisions went against the trend – but even a 55/15 split is about as likely as a room full of chimpanzees eventually typing Hamlet.”

Want to guess what way favors those that believe in man-made global warming?

IS GISS THE GOLD STANDARD?

It is hard to believe that GISS data is the gold standard.  Their data is suspect and the way they use it seems shameful.

Their top man,  James Hansen appears to be somewhat out of control at this time, e.g. he writes to publishers telling them they can not publish science books that even suggest there are two sides to the global warming story. I think he is acting like a man threatened.   His legacy is that of “the man who woke the world up to the coming catastrophe called run-away global warming”. Right now that legacy is coming apart at the seams.

GISS appears to be on a mission with an agenda that is designed to prove their belief that man is the cause of global warming and there is going to be hell to pay  if we don’t mend our ways.

Cbdakota

So, from the hacked CRU email, what has Team Hockey Stick* been up to.  The emails have been posted several places and some dedicated folks have been plowing through them.  Early on, some conclusions are being drawn about Team Hockey Stick’s activities over the past 10 or so years. One posting by Ian Murray on the Pajamamedia.com blog pretty concisely gives us a view of the three things that everyone should know about Team Hockey Sticks’ activities.  From his blog,

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.

Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.

To read Ian Murray’s full posting click here

How much hot water might Team Hockey Stick be in?  Right off the top we are hearing from prominent scientists saying that they should resign their positions, should not be allowed to work on any future UN climate study work, etc.  We also know that they may be in legal jeopardy as well.  Senator Inhofe is planning investigations.  A friend told me he believes that Representative Joe Barton may do so,too.   The English are considering a Panel of experts to investigate.

A lawyer provided the Wall Street Journal several lines of legal inquiry.

Tortious interference. For researchers and academicians, publication in peer-reviewed journals is important to advancement, raises, grant funding, etc. Wrongful interference with the ability to publish has monetary and reputational damages. If that interference is based not on editorial judgment of worthiness for publication, but rather on protecting reputations, scientific positions, political goals or “places in history” (as mentioned in one email), then it could give rise to liability in tort for the individual scientist and possibly for the university or organization for which he works.

Breach of faculty ethics standards or contracts. Most universities and research organizations have ethics clauses in their faculty/employee manuals and in their contracts with faculty/researchers. If (as suggested by the purloined emails) these individuals cooked data or manipulated assumptions to achieve preferred outcomes, or denied others access to data essential for replication of result that is essential to the scientific method, they could have violated university or organizational ethics standards.

State-chartered universities. Some of these individuals appear to work for state-chartered and state-funded institutions, and might well be classified as state employees (and thereby eligible for generous state benefits). The conduct suggested by the purloined emails might violate state ethics or funding policies. State governments and legislatures therefore might have a basis for inquiry and oversight.

Federal grants. Federal grants typically have ethics/integrity clauses to assure that the research funded by the grant is credible and reliable (and to assure that the agency can avoid accountability if it isn’t). As noted, the purloined emails suggest that data might have been cooked and assumptions might have been manipulated to generate a predetermined outcome. If true, and if the work in question was funded by federal grant, the researchers in question might well have violated their federal grant contracts–for which there are legal consequences. Inspectors general of the grant agencies should be in position to make inquiry if the data/assumptions in question could be linked in time and topic to a contemporaneous federal grant to the researchers in question.

To read the full WSJ article click here

In my trip through the blogs, I think there is a consensus that Dr Phil Jones is very likely in trouble for violating English Freedom of Information law.

Keep tuned, I think, and hope the scope of this inquiry continues to grow.

*  Team Hockey Stick–I wish that I had coined that name, but I saw it somewhere on the web and can not find that site again.  Sorry .  Team Hockey Stick includes Phil Jones, Michael Mann,  Tom Wigley, and the usual suspects.

Cbdakota