Wednesday, December 09, 2009

The Global Warming Hoax

You wouldn't know if from any coverage in the main stream media, the UN, or Al Gore, but man-made global warming has been exposed as a hoax. At the very least it no longer qualifies as "settled science" and there is question there was ever consensus outside of activists and four or five politically motivated scientist. If you haven't followed the news, I will give you a quick summary, the bad news and the good news (the last two intended for global warming believers).

For background, I have written about my position on man-made global warming here. I have read alot about global warming since I wrote that post, but my position hasn't changed dramatically since that writing.

What Happened?

A few weeks ago a series of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the East Anglia University became public. It is uncertain if they emails were leaked from inside, or hacked from outside the university. Either way, the CRU did not intend the emails to become public, and they contain some very damning information. The emails suggest that climate scientist at the CRU and in the United States have colluded together to hide evidence that contradicts the theory of man made global warming, to prevent papers that dispute global warming from being published, and to redefine the very word "peer-review" to protect their agenda and to prevent any dissenting papers from coming forward. A number of investigations have been called for in the UK, and the scientist who headed CRU has stepped down. On top of this, there is a possibility the scientists at CRU broke the law by destroying data that should have been made available under Freedom of Information laws in England and the United States. At the very least, all scientific research that has come out of the CRU is now suspect. Much of this research is used in the UN's own global warming reports.

There is far more than this. If you want more details, do a google search for "climategate". These are just the highlights. One important note. So far, this is only receiving media coverage in the United States through the "new media" of radio and the internet. That isn't the case in Canada and the UK. In both of these areas, it is front and center in many major papers as well.

The Bad News

If you are a global warming believer, these revelations are a true doomsday scenario. It means all of the science that has been used to predict catastrophic global warming is inaccurate. The scientists at the CRU were particularly worried about how to hide the cooling trends of the last ten years. They were also worried about keeping their data away from the public, and away from scientist who disagreed with them.

This isn't science, it's activism. In the scientific process, once you have performed an experiment, you release the data to anyone to see if they can collaborate or recreate your experiment. These scientists were doing everything in their power to avoid that. This disqualifies this as science even if the rest of the emails never surfaced.

The Good News

As devastating as this is to the global warming believers, there is a silver lining. There is no evidence we are heading towards a climate doomsday. If you previously thought man was destroying the planet by driving SUV's and using standard light bulbs, you don't have to worry about that any longer. Global warming believers can still work towards conservation, but not with the threat of Armageddon if we don't stop driving SUV's. This is an important point. I, and many others who have doubted the science behind this hoax, believe in conservation. However, Al Gore and others don't want conservation, they want laws that would destroy our entire economy. I think it is wrong to destroy our economy based on a vague theory that has failed to meet any projections, and that has no real science to back it up.


Anonymous said...

This approach to research is ethically bankrupt, and is a pathetic display of political self-preservation. Many of us smelled a rat, and we found it.

It is pathetic that Al Gore is out there saying the emails from CRU are more than 10 years old, when they are actually as recent as November 2009. The administration is covering this up as quickly as they can too.

Climate change could be a problem for all I know. But we don't have research that is worth of public trust, and we don't need social engineers to shove a potentially unnecessary solution down our throat.

Your Kept-Keeper said...

Damn! I was looking forward to a catastrophic climate apocalypse--where we would all asphyxsiate on greenhouse gasses or be eaten by starving polar bears. Sigh. I suppose I still have the zombie apocalypse to dream of. Thank God for biological weapons!

Brains, baby, brains...

Andy D said...

Anon, you are correct. I think the social engineering aspect was what this was about from the beginning.

Kept-Keeper, I am already studying my zombie guides and readying my family with an emergency plan for the zombie hoard.

the anonymous guy said...

Andy, you read emails about as carefully as you do the polar icecaps.

The emails show that scientists were thinking about how climate deniers would use their data. And posts like yours simply prove them correct: you people will keep denying reality and spinning any information you get even when the ships float across the north pole and our Western forests have burned down.

You'll blame it all on gay people, or Bill Clinton, or welfare moms, or the earth itself.

See if you can actually finish the article I linked above. And then try to connect the claims of your first hysterical paragraph to what these emails actually were.

In fact, the current decade is the hottest decade in recorded history.

People denied the holocaust, bro. Even as it happened. And that's a shameful past to hand on to your kids.

Andy D said...

It's interesting that supports of global warming always bring out the "Holocaust denier" label. One would think they wouldn't need it if their argument was as air tight as they claim...

The last decade isn't the hottest decade in recorded history in the United States. It's not conclusive what the global temperature has been doing since 1998. Those two facts come from global warming supporters, not deniers. The hottest year on record in the United States is 1938, not 1998. It appears the global temperature since 1998 has been cooling. Though it really depends on what data source you look at. I would hardly call the temperature record conclusive at this point.

These emails represent a much larger problem with the man mad global warming debate. The top scientist who support global warming are no longer scientist, they are politicians. Mann has repeatedly hid his data from scientist trying to examine his work. The Hockey stick that Al Gore used to display "global warming" was debunked before his movie even aired. Al Gore admitted that there were fabrications and distortions in his movie, but he felt it was OK to "make a point".

The science is far from conclusive on global warming. I have spent a number of years following this debate. I believe there are natural temperature cycles, and that any contribution made by man is insignificant.

the anonymous guy said...

Andy, that is pitiful.

You went from proclaiming that the emails show that "all of the science that has been used to predict catastrophic global warming is inaccurate" to a bland broadside against Al Gore and a proclamation of ignorance about what temperatures really are doing.

You couldn't dispute a single piece of actual analysis of those emails. Because facing reality would interfere with your foregone conclusions.

And you just flat out denied reality: the 2000s are in fact the hottest decade in human history.

Why anyone would compare that to holocaust denial completely eludes me...

pack04 said...

The earth is about 4 billion years old. Thermometers are about a 1000 years old. So recorded history is 0.000025% of the age of the earth. How sure are we that this is not something that the Earth does?

I have no doubt that some of the emails were taken out of context. Hell everything now is. The thing that greatly concerns me as a person that understands science is the erasure of original data. That is not good science.

Also, anonymous guy that was way over the line and ignorant with your generalization about who people blame things on.

One comment on CFL bulbs. Mercury in tuna bad but mercury in light good. huh?

Andy D said...

Anonymous, I am starting to wonder if you read your own AP article. Here are a few points, from the article you cite:

Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

"Generous interpretations" is a far cry from a consensus. Remember, science is about what we can prove or disprove. If you can only arrive at your preconceived conclusion from "generous interpretations", then it isn't science.

Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.

These doubts and questions about why models don't match were intentionally hid from the public (as expressed in the emails). While these scientist were claiming settled science, they couldn't explain why the temperatures weren't matching up with their models.

One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.

I want to add to this a quote from the UK times online from the same time as climategate was breaking:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

You can not claim to have science if you are unwilling to share your data to prove your work, and destroy the research your work was based on. In the emails, the scientist specifically look for ways to avoid complying with Freedom of Information requests. If this were George Bush, you would show it as evidence of a vast right wing coverup.

The truth is global warming is far from settled. Global warming supporters claim the global temperature record shows the current decade as the hottest on record. In the United States, it isn't. Yet we are told it is because of the United States that global warming is occurring. It is also important to note that temperature records have only been kept since the 1850's, and there is some question as to how accurate those are. So the "hottest decade" in human history, can only accurately be called the "hottest decade in the last 150 years or so."

With the Holocaust, you can point to eye witness testimony, you can point to the camps, and the remains of the victims. With man-made global warming, you can only point to computer models that don't accurately predict global temperatures. The two are not the same, and for you to compare the two is an insult to families who were victims of the Holocaust.

Andy D said...

One quick note: I meant to include a hyperlink for the Times UK story. That link is here.

the anonymous guy said...

Andy wrote: "With the Holocaust, you can point to eye witness testimony, you can point to the camps, and the remains of the victims. With man-made global warming, you can only point to computer models that don't accurately predict global temperatures. The two are not the same, and for you to compare the two is an insult to families who were victims of the Holocaust."

In short: "With man-made global warming, you can only point to computer models."

Yeah, if you ignore the melting glaciers, burning forests, rising seas, belching permafrost, earlier spring, later fall, spread of tropical disease, open seas at the North Pole, rising levels of CO2 and methane, drying rivers... then all we've got are computer models. the computer model Svante Arrhenius (Nobel Prize in Chemistry) must have used... back in 1896. Wonder if he was PC or Mac?

And Pack: mercury is indeed not our friend. But there's more mercury in a watch battery than in a CFL.

And an old-fashioned light bulb produces much more mercury (from burning coal) than is in a CFL. Plus CFLs are being developed now that are mercury free.

Bottom line: don't like mercury in your fish? Stop burning coal. That's where almost all of it comes from. Look it up.

Andy D said...

Yeah, if you ignore the melting glaciers, burning forests, rising seas, belching permafrost, earlier spring, later fall, spread of tropical disease, open seas at the North Pole, rising levels of CO2 and methane, drying rivers... then all we've got are computer models.

You assume all of these are man made issues. More importantly, you assume you can legislate an end to them.

Let's pretend each of them is every bit as catastrophic as you claim. If the computer models don't predict accurate future temperatures, and don't predict accurate current temperatures using historical data, then the computer models are wrong, and they show a lack of understanding of some part of the process on the part of scientist. Where this any other field of study they would be discarded.

On the Mercury issue: to the best of my knowledge, there is no hazardous warning that comes along with a watch battery similar to the warnings on the CFL's. The EPA has a series of cleanup steps on its website regarding CFL's.

Andy D said...

Also thought you might find this interesting. Turns out Al Gore was caught playing loose with the facts about the ice caps.

pack04 said...

So just a quick look came back with this results.
Watch batteries contain 5mg of mercury. CFL contain somewhere between 3-5 mg with some as low as 1 mg of mercury.

So Anonymous guy you are correct. A watch battery does contain more mercury than a CFL light bulb. One question. How many CFL's do you have in your house compared to watch batteries?

check out this website. 7% reduction in mercury release is not what I would consider "much more."

Are the ice caps melting in the north pole, sure. Is the water level rising, yes (the melted ice has to go some where). Has it all happened before? Yes.

I sometimes get the feeling that the global warming the earth is going to end push is nothing more than a sales pitch. We are polluting our environment for sure. That is easy to see, just look at any major city on a warm summer day, or walk along a water way. To stop that the push needed to be big. Like the CFC's and the ozone layer. People did not see the effect of daily CFC use. Start talking about a penguin with a sunburn and people got fired up enough to stop using them. I think the same thing is being tried now. Scare the hell out of people to get them to stop polluting. The problem is the result of scaring the hell out of people has snowballed into a potentially economic bomb and the possible need to keep hiding and or falsifying data.

The two main problems I have with the global warming debate are these:
1) the statement that the earth's climate is changing rapidly could be true. The problem that I have is that the only reason for that happening that I have seen is because of human actions. No mention of other things either being proven or disproven. It appears to be that scientists and activist want it to be humans fault and will do what it takes to show that.
2) right now money is handed out to scientist to prove that climate change is happening because of human actions. Not to research the earth's climate. If you prove the human action cause to climate change you get more money. scientist are human. Money means food on the table. If the research money was handed out to research regardless of the findings I would feel better about the results.

the anonymous guy said...

From popular mechanics:

"Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lighting equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb)."

So for mercury emissions, incandescent bulbs are responsible for 375% more mercury emissions into the air (and water, etc.).

CFLs are to be recycled (check out for a recycling center near you), and thus should normally have zero mercury emissions from the bulb itself. But even if you went outside and smashed all your burned out CFLs on your driveway, you'd still be emitting less mercury than with old fashioned incandenscents.

Preview: new LED lights being developed are much more efficient than even CFLs and have zero mercury.

Andy D said...

My biggest problem with CFL's is that I don't think I should be required by law to install them in my home. The incandescent lights will be outlawed in a couple of years and that makes me want to smash a number of the CFL's.

saint said...

I saw where Al Gor said the polar ice cap will be gone potentially as early as 2014. If we (humans globally) suddenly stopped emitting all green house gases, what would the recovery time be? How long before the earth starts "cooling" again and we save the ice caps?

the anonymous guy said...

Yes, Andy, incandescent light bulbs will indeed largely go the way of leaded gasoline, open sewers, and ungrounded electrical appliances.

Don't ya hate that government intervention?

Andy D said...

It's also interesting to note that China now emits more CO2 than the US. India is expected to meet and pass us in the next few years. I wouldn't expect either of these countries to sign any binding agreement from Copenhagen. If the US stops emitting ALL CO2, India and China will be able to replace our CO2 in just a few short years.

the anonymous guy said...


Sadly, we are probably going to lose the Arctic ice cap, regardless of what we do now with emissions.

Along with all of the glaciers in Glacier National Park, etc.

But if we don't turn our emissions around now, we'll lose much, much more, including everything that's 10 - 20 feet above sea level.

And billions of people depend on the snows of the Himalayas as their source for year-round water. If that melts away...

saint said...

what will the loss of the artic circle and other irreversible damage do to current sea levels?

pack04 said...

Just to be a smart ass, the snow in the Himalayas has to melt in order for people to get and use the water...

Now to be for real, anonymous guy how do you propose that we stop man made global warming? What is the plan?

As for the government intervention on ungrounded appliances and open sewers the results/dangers of having ungrounded appliances and open sewers is well known and documented. There seems to be lots of questions on this global warming issue. Anonymous Guy and Andy just go back and forth quoting things that make there point of view true. It is like one of you saying the way to heaven is to follow the Koran and the others says to follow the Bible. Your only proof of who is correct comes from those books you are promoting. Is it possible that the Jews know the way to heaven too? To finish the analogy are human actions the absolutely only reason the Earth is currently warming? If not how much effect do human actions have on it?

If those two final questions cannot be conclusively answered how can we act definitively one way or another on this issue? Should we not act cautiously until we know for sure. Cautiously acting would be to persue efforts to actually get all CFL lightbulbs recycled, or even work to develop new technologies for light. How about getting people to turn off lights when they leave a room? Which makes me wonder what ever happened to those stickers we use to put on switch plate covers?

Putting curbs on emissions does not solve the problem. Getting more cfls does not solve the problem. What saves more energy than a 25 W light bulb? A turned off light.

Whatever happened to the attitude of "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"?

Andy D said...

Actually, Pack, you have an excellent point. I think I will make the answer to that a new post.