WWW.BOOK.DISLIB.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Books, dissertations, abstract
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 || 3 | 4 |   ...   | 33 |

«Edited and Annotated by John Costella The Lavoisier Group March 2010 About the Author John Costella was born in East Melbourne in 1966. After being ...»

-- [ Page 2 ] --

The Climategate emails show that these self-regulating mechanisms simply failed to work in the case of climate science—perhaps because “climate science” is itself an aggregation of many different and disparate scientific disciplines. Those component disciplines are extremely challenging. For example, it would be wonderful if NASA were able to invent a time machine, and go back over the past hundred thousand years and set up temperature and carbon dioxide measurement probes across the breadth of the globe. Unfortunately, we don’t have this. Instead, we need to infer these measurements, by counting tree rings, or digging up tubes of ice. The science vi of each of these disciplines is well-defined and rigorous, and there are many good scientists working in these fields. But the real difficulty is the “stitching together” of all of these results in a way that allows answers to the fundamental questions: How much effect has mankind had on the temperature of the planet? And how much difference would it make if we did things differently?

It is at this “stitching together” layer of science—one could call it a “meta-discipline” —that the principles of the scientific method have broken down. Reading through the Climategate emails, one can see members of that community—usually those with slightly different experience and wisdom than the power-brokers—questioning (as they should) this “stitching together” process, particularly with regard to the extremely subtle mathematical methods that need to be used to try to extract answers.

Now, these mathematical and statistical methods are completely within my own domain of expertise; and I can testify that the criticisms are sensible, carefully thoughtout, and completely valid; these are good scientists, asking the right questions.

So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge— thanking them for their experience (no-one knows everything about everything) and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the leaders—have used. And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists within their own camps, not the “skeptics” which they dismiss out of hand.

This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.

It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists.

–  –  –

vii viii The Climategate Emails and What they Mean Climategate began on 19 November 2009, when a whistle-blower leaked thousands of emails and documents central to a Freedom of Information request placed with the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.

This institution has played a central role in the “climate change” debate. Its scientists, together with their international colleagues, quite literally put the “warming” into Global Warming: they were responsible for analysing and collating the various measurements of temperature from around the globe and that, going back for many years, collectively underpinned the central scientific argument that mankind’s liberation of “greenhouse” gases—particularly carbon dioxide—was leading to a relentless, unprecedented and ultimately catastrophic warming of the entire planet.

The key phrase here, from a scientific point of view, is that it is “unprecedented” warming. There is absolutely no doubt that mankind has liberated substantial quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the past two centuries. But mankind did not “create” this carbon dioxide out of nothing. It was released by the burning of “fossil fuels”, which were created over millions of years from the remains of plants and animals (who themselves ultimately obtained their nutrition from those plants). So where did those plants get their energy and carbon dioxide from?

They absorbed the radiant energy of the Sun, and breathed in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as plants continue to do today. In other words, when we burn fossil fuels, we are utilizing a small part of the solar energy that had been collected and stored by plants over millions of years, and in the process we are liberating into the atmosphere the carbon dioxide that those plants had absorbed from the atmosphere in the first place.

This may sound like a fairly benign sort of natural cycle, until you realize that a couple of hundred years is a mere blink of an eye compared with the millions of years it took for the planet to build up those resources. It is right for scientists to worry about whether that massive and almost instantaneous “kick” to the planet may throw the equilibrium of the biota into complete chaos. It is a valid question, of ultimate global importance—one that most people would have thought would have demanded the most careful, exacting and rigorous scientific analyses that mankind could muster.

Climategate has shattered that myth. It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating arguably the most important issue ever to face mankind.

Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent scientists; abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fence around themselves and their fellow activists, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their “research”. Most people find it impossible to believe that this could have happened; and it is only because “climate science” exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a hugely funded industry in a matter of a few years that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long.





But, as wisely noted by both P. T. Barnum and Abraham Lincoln, You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.

An increasing number of highly qualified scientists slowly began to realize that the “climate science” community was a façade—and that the vitriolic attacks upon the sensible arguments of mathematicians, statisticians, and indeed of scientists using plain common sense were not the product of scientific rigour at all, but merely attempts at self-protection at any cost. At this point the veil began to lift on what has arguably become one of the greatest scientific frauds in the history of mankind.

This is one of the darker periods in the history of science. Those who love science, and all it stands for, will be pained by what they read below. However, the crisis is here, and cannot be avoided.

For simplicity, I have maintained the numerical and chronological order of the emails, as they appear in the Climategate files. I considered reorganizing them by topic, but quickly realized that this would require the replication of large numbers of excerpts—which would lengthen what is already a long document. Thus, the various issues involved in this scandal are explored chronologically, in parallel.

To assist the reader in getting acquainted with the various characters in this saga, I have colour-coded their emails, as described below. To make the emails understandable to any normal person, I have edited out scientific jargon, expanded acronyms where appropriate, and inserted explanatory comments where I thought it necessary. All of my comments, and the editing that I have done to the excerpts, are in black.

Unlike the Climategate perpetrators themselves, however, I have made all the raw data—the emails themselves, in unredacted raw text format—available through the Lavoisier Group website in an online version of this hard copy document. Simply go to the website at www.lavoisier.com.au, follow the obvious link to the PDF version, and you will find that the corresponding heading for each email contains a hyperlink to that original Climategate email. Thus, if you believe that I have excerpted from the email unfairly, or out of context, then you can simply read the original email to determine if that is the case.

So let us begin.

Cast of colourful characters Mike Mann: lead player in the United States Phil Jones: lead player in the United Kingdom Tom Wigley: older player who becomes increasingly worried about the unfolding scandal Keith Briffa: older player whose blunders lead the others to all but abandon him Ben Santer: dangerously arrogant and naive young player in the United States Other players: of varying degrees of complicity and integrity Skeptics and other unrelated parties March 6, 1996: email 0826209667 This earliest email of note in the Climategate collection reminds us that—as with many things in life—money plays a key role in this saga. Let me emphasize that Climategate is not riddled with financial scandals of Madoff magnitude. Rather, we are reminded of the fact that the entire industry of “climate science” was created out of virtually nothing, by means of a massive influx of funding that was almost universally one-sided in its requirement that its recipients find evidence for man-made climate change—rather than investigate whether or how much mankind had caused climate change.

In contrast to the trillions of dollars of global expenditure which these scientists urged world leaders to spend by the end of 2009, the amounts involved in funding their research appear trifling—typically measured in “mere” millions of dollars. But many “climate scientists” built their entire careers on this funding, and so it is not surprising that they became so completely dependent on this conditional lifeline that they singlemindedly focused on achieving the ends for which they were commissioned—and attacked any intruders who threatened it.

In this unfortunate case, a scientist in the former Soviet Union appears to descend to the level of tax evasion, in order to maximize the amount of money available. As

Stepan Shiyatov writes to Keith Briffa:

Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the … money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 United States Dollars. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes … Unfortunately, all other emails relating to these cash transfers have either been lost, deleted, or withheld by the Climategate whistle-blower, so we don’t know whether Keith Briffa complied with this request or not.

I believe that this level of financial impropriety would be a rare occurrence—although it does highlight the fact that some of the people involved in this research were prepared to “bend the rules” in order to achieve their goals. It also reminds us that scientists in general are often ignorant of the requirements of the law; but, most of the time, this does not lead to any significant ramifications. Therefore, although there are other examples of low-level financial impropriety and misappropriation sprinkled throughout the Climategate emails, I do not believe that they are of any significance over and above the general comments that I have made here, and I will not explicitly list them in the following.

July 11, 1996: email 0837094033 In the next email we are introduced to a number of key aspects of Climategate, which run throughout the saga. The writer is Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. The recipient is Alan Robock, a climate scientist who was, at the time, at the University of Maryland.

Phil Jones has apparently become aware of a climate skeptic in the United Kingdom—

seemingly the first, from his words:

Britain seems to have found its Pat Michaels / Fred Singer / Bob Balling / Dick Lindzen (American climate skeptics). Our population is only 25% of yours so we only get 1 for every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment.

Robock requires a translation into American English:

Could you please define “utter prat” for me? Sometimes I think we speak the same language, and sometimes I’m not so sure.



Pages:     | 1 || 3 | 4 |   ...   | 33 |


Similar works:

«Evolve Bedienungsanleitung Laufband Inhaltsverzeichnis Sicherheitshinweise.. 3 Zusammenklappen.. 6 Transport / Verstauen.. 7 Standposition, Strom und Sicherheitsstopp.. 8 Abbildung Laufband.. 9 Schnellstart... 10 Anzeige... 11 Programme.. 12 Fehlersuche.. 13 Häufig gestellte Fragen.. 15 Wartung und Pflege.. 17 Trainingsgrundlagen.. 18 Aufwärmen und Abkühlen.. 19 Trainingsziele.. 20 Wochenplan.. 21 Monatsplan.. 22 Garantiebestimmungen.. 23 ! ACHTUNG! ACHTUNG Lesen Sie die komplette...»

«Benutzerinformation gemäß der Vergabegrundlage für das Umweltzeichen Blauer Engel (RAL-UZ171) Informationen zum Umweltzeichen „Blauer Engel“ Dell™ C7765dn Color Multifunction Printer This document is only valid in Germany. Dieses Dokument hat nur in Deutschland Gültigkeit. Ce document est uniquement valable en Allemagne. Dit document is alleen van toepassing in Duitsland. Questo documento è valido solo in Germania. Bewahren Sie diese Informationen für spätere Referenzzwecke mit der...»

«Conceptualizing Critical Feminist Theory and Emancipatory Education Jennifer de Saxe University of Washington, USA Abstract This theoretical paper analyzes the relationship between critical feminist theory and emancipatory education as it relates to transformative educational practices. The first section will discuss how the author understands critical feminist theory by looking to Chela Sandoval’s theoretical framework of oppositional resistance. The author discusses Sandoval’s framework...»

«Verzeichnis der wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen Prof. Dr. Tobias Hochscherf Dissertation (Ph.D.) 2007 ‘German-speaking Émigrés in British Cinema, 1927-1949’. University of Liverpool. School of Cultures, Languages and Area Studies. Monografien 2011 The Continental Connection: German-speaking Émigrés and British Cinema, 1927-1949. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Mitherausgeber von akademischen Zeitschriften und Büchern 2011 (zusammen mit Cheryl Buckley) Visual Culture in...»

«SC|M Studies in Communication | Media FULL PAPER Facebook-Nutzung in Abhängigkeit depressiver Tendenzen Influence of depressive symptoms on the use of Facebook Antonia Brunet & Sebastian Scherr 74 SCM, 5. Jg., 1/2016, S. 74–104, DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-1-74 Antonia Brunet, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft und Medienforschung, Oettingenstr. 67, 80538 München; Kontakt: antonia. brunet(at)campus.lmu.de Sebastian Scherr,...»

«IEHC 2006 Helsinki session 110 Bridging the gap: the hanseatic merchants’ variable strategies in heterogeneous mercantile environments* by Ulf Christian Ewert** & Stephan Selzer++ Abstract: The merchants of the German Hanse in the 14th–16th centuries were confronted with a great deal of heterogeneity: Not only were they, in having not been specialised in the trade of particular goods only, acquainted with the exchange of a wide range of products, and had to act within the different...»

«1 Publikationen von Chefarzt Dr. Michael Naundorf – Klinik für vaskuläre und endovaskuläre Chirurgie und des Gefäßzentrums der DRK Kliniken Berlin | Köpenick Naundorf, M. Femoro-popliteale Gefäßverschlüsse in: Kompaktwissen Gefäßchirurgie (Herausg. B. Luther) Springer-Verlag 2011; S. 261-281 Lessel, J.; Rubach, K.; Marcus, M.; Naundorf, M.; Pross, M.: Laparoskopische Therapie des Truncus-coeliacus-Kompressionssyndroms – Fallbericht eines 25-jährigen Patienten Zbl Chir 2011; 136:...»

«Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum VERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN DER SENCKENBERGISCHEN WISSENSCHAFTLERINNEN UND WISSENSCHAFTLER SOWIE MITARBEITERINNEN UND MITARBEITER DER JAHRE 2007 UND 2008 ABANG, F., TREADAWAY, C.G., SCHROEDER, H.G. (2007): Butterflies on offshore islands of Sabah, North Borneo, Malaysia (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). – Nachr. d. Entomol. Ver. Apollo, 28 (1-2): 15ABUZINADA, A.H., BARTH, H.-J., KRUPP, F., BÖER, B., ABDELSALAAM, T. [Eds.] (2007): Protecting the Gulf’s...»

«Globians Doc Fest Stuttgart 2010 Globians welt & kultur Dokumentarfilm Festival Stuttgart 2010 12. 14. November 2010 im Linden-Museum Stuttgart www.globians.com — www.lindenmuseum.de Dokumentation Globians Doc Fest Stuttgart 2010 Globians welt & kultur Dokumentarfilm Festival Stuttgart 2010 12. 14. November 2010 im Linden-Museum Stuttgart Hegelplatz, Wanner-Saal (Veranstaltungssaal) 22 Dokumentarfilme in drei Tagen Die Themenschwerpunkte: 1. Indiens Himalaya und Tibet 2. Europas Bürger in...»

«Attending to Early Modern Women, 21–23 June 2012 Workshop: Transfer and Translation: Recovering/Representing/Rephrasing Early Modern Texts on and by Women Gerhild Scholz Williams, Washington University in St. Louis Rebecca A. Giselbrecht, University of Zurich, Switzerland Table of Contents Theory and Method? 1 Gerhold Scholz Williams: Bibliography.. 2 On the Inconstancy of Witches.. 3 Pierre Lancre: Tableau de I’inconstance.. 6 Johanees Praetorius: Mothering Baby. 9 Rebecca A. Giselbrecht:...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.book.dislib.info - Free e-library - Books, dissertations, abstract

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.