Search This Blog

Friday, October 26, 2012

Climate Gate: EcoNazis Look like Common Crooks and Liars and Not ‘Scientists’ We Find. Are they Common Political Parasites?





Climate Gate: EcoNazis Look like Common Crooks and Liars and Not ‘Scientists’ We Find. Are they Common Political Parasites?

11.24.2009

Abstract: Science has apparently been corrupted by some who chose to fabricate data or bury interfering results in an effort to ‘prove’ that Global Warming is real. This is a disgrace to science and humanity.  In some FOIA effort, some e-mails of some prominent researchers were compiled and left on some server [deliberately or not—we do not know] and the documents were retrieved from the Internet and promulgated. I have looked at a few and the methods used, in my professional scientific view, are disgusting and abhorrent to any known forms of science and a process that demands resignations from many so-called ‘researchers.’ I include here an essay on proper science and proper scientific conduct with respect to data sharing, review and communication and cite some ugly alleged examples of this fraud. This process reminds me of Bernie Madoff, Carl Sagan’s work on Nuclear Winter, the Limits to Growth and other pyramid schemes.

My Background in Science:

I am a retired Senior Research Scientist in chemistry from a major chemical company and in Pharmacology at an Ivy League institution with a solid background in electronics, inorganic chemistry, biomedical separations processes and product development and have 25 peer-reviewed research papers with  have 6 patents and 12 successful products to my credit.[1][2] Two of these products sold for a total of $60,000,000. I offer my comments on these alleged acts. If they are true, we should soon witness numerous resignations for this corruption of the basic tenets of science.

On Science:

In science, there is a compact and durable scientific method that requires one to begin any investigation with a comprehensive survey of what has been learned before and the need for new data derived from experimentation and also a supporting initial theory or hypothesis [or guess] to advance the quest. Experiments and calculations are based on these metrics and thus performed in a quest to verify, confirm or obviate the elements of the hypothesis.  In nearly every case, the hypothesis is continually refined with more experiments are usually designed to guide the researcher through a more structured experimental scenario to focus in on the governing factors. If there are no convincing data or an insufficient set of observations or measurements to support a given “accepted” strong theory then what remains is merely a guess and that just might be accepted by some or by all.  That is fine and acceptable science. The hypothesis is always open to criticism, comment and other views and suggestions in science are always welcomed until a law is found—and that usually settles the matter. It is incumbent upon those in science to fairly and openly address criticisms and questions about data, experiments and hypotheses and such suggestions are to be regarded as an aid to progress by the scientific community and may even influence the occasional modification of any given hypothesis. This process thusly proceeds for millennia if necessary until the point is moot or some law is established. Once the scientist can accurately calculate or predict an outcome of interest then there is no need for a ‘consensus’ about what is going on in that particular area or how to proceed or not proceed. This hypothesis is then elevated to the status of law if it accurately describes the results. Newton’s laws of motion were originally guesses [no proof exists even today for f=ma] and he happened to guess correctly except for the singular cases at the atomic scale, which were beyond his reach or imagination. We can now calculate the outcome of any kinetics or kinematics experiment at any time and get a precise answer. We can circumnavigate the moon thanks to Newton, who guessed correctly but gave no mathematical proof.
Some others, presumably to further some political goal, insist that a ‘consensus’ has been reached on some hot  subject like Global Warming—now demoted to the embarrassing title ‘Climate Change’ or whatever because their predictions were backward and this naive view corrupts the scientific process. There are those whose scientific conclusions strangely coincide precisely with their political views such as the late Carl Sagan. A famous computer study by MIT is offered as an  other example. This  famous and phony ‘computer study’ was conducted by MIT in 1970  and published in a book title: Limits to Growth [3] whose sophistical computer models clearly predicted, with ringing praise from the ‘scientists,’  that we would run out of oil, copper and lead by 1992 by and natural gas reservoirs by 1993.  Apparently, they missed a few inputs as their GIGO[4] reward is all they have left as material results. I confronted the original authors in person in the 90s in an ‘innovation conference’ attended by many scientists from some major corporations where they proudly announced that they were working on a second book. They could not seem to apologize, in public, for the implausible predictions in the first book and refused to admit that they were scientifically foolish, at best, so I failed to buy and read this second essay on the extended political corruption of science and dropped the matter.  Here, we get a peek into the inner sanctum of the politically driven ‘scientist’ of the leftist persuasion: they carry a mandate to compel the findings of any scientific study conform to their sleazy, left-wing political prejudices.  Thus, they can make weightless cars that run on cold fusion or other magical propellants and prevent the rest of us from greedily destroying our planet during our sordid lust for money. They know what Nature wants for us. They are wonderful.[5]

The problem here is this is not science—it is politics. Pseudo science types like Carl Sagan have an outstanding history of having their ‘scientific conclusions’ magically coincide with their political views to the wild applause of political activists and their associated druggies. That is one way you can tell the phonies from the common radical Marxist fluff. Sagan (big time pot smoker) was the guy who was twice refused AAAS membership because of his sloppy, inaccurate, sophomoric and juvenile articles about the “Nuclear Winter” he submitted in the respected scientific journal Science. His ‘computer model’ was analyzed and show to be a farce by respected scientists. Any high school algebra student could have defeated Sagan’s phony hypothesis. It was found that very small changes in parameters and numbers into his math model would convert the winter into an instant sauna. It went hot and cold like a flopping fish on the pier. It is numerically unstable. Any undergrad math student would be given an F on this rubbish by any respectable university except, perhaps, for Cornell and Harvard. There was a political point to be made so they could afford to neglect the defects.[6]
We must be aware that politics is a decision making process in groups and is not necessarily governed by truth but by the quest for power.  The best example of this is the ugly pseudoscience of Lysenko and now known as Lysenkoism.[7] Lysenko was a fraud and gained political power with his lies about his ‘new’ technique of vernalization that would enhance crop yields. It did not; he lied. He failed to demonstrate this folly and those who disagreed with him were sometimes shot. Some of our politicians seem to hold views similar to Lysenko’s:
“According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.”[8]-- Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. By Richard S. Lindzen Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 A.M. EDT

 Al Gore insists that this Global Warming is a ‘moral’ problem and lacking any visible morality he mandates that Global Warming is a fact by some ‘consensus.’ I call such thuggish tactics EcoNazism.[9] Fellow scientists are belittled and ignored and not promoted by the dedicated that place politics above morality and science. Some corrupt the process of science and establish nostrums and guesses as ‘fact’ and ‘law’ and state flatly that while some agree then this must be fact. Nothing could corrupt science than a statement like this by Al Gore.

Those who openly question laws are not scientists and considered heretics unless they can show exceptions to laws--then they really have a breakthrough to present and scrutinize. If a hypothesis cannot explain all observations then it may not be viewed as a law in science.  These are not closed matters. The quality of science is thus enhanced by such a process that openly inspects hypotheses and laws. Those who go all-out to create ‘laws’ with political techniques give violence to reason and practice and spread sleaze among the scientific community and, unfortunately, some ‘scientists’ themselves practice this perversion of this noble discipline. They should find different work.
EcoNazism is a small sector in ‘science’ where certain criminal operations are more similar to prostitution or selling drugs. Much of this differs little from back alley operations except only for the hokum and fluff and phony ‘science’ that are used to decorate their mangy quest for public monies.  Many people who work in various government agencies and are labeled scientists and practice ‘science’ are apparently frauds. Their activities are little different from the kind of operation that Bernie Madoff ran: a scam.  They spend their time scaring little children with sob stories about dying polar bears for profit and public fame and the potential to make billions from the Cap and Trade Fraud[10] and for the adoration of leftist politicians.

E-mails detailing all sorts of interesting ‘fixes’ and ‘embarrassing’ results have recently been placed in  the public domain. These documents appear to show wide-spread data manipulation, suppression of certain data, outright data manufacture, plots to circumvent legitimate criticisms and other unscientific methods. If these are true, then many who hold these positions of trust should resign.

The chatter and bias observed in private comments by now  tainted ‘researchers’ claim that their private e-mails were “hacked,” but they were actually obtained by Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] as we learn from Steven J. Milloy  who runs JunkScience.com  and is exemplified as we see in  this example of alleged misconduct by a professor from the SUNY Albany[11]. Milloy has an index of FOIA documents at this location for search and downloading[12] Much of the e-mail content is shocking:

“At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.”[13]-- EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling Junk science exposed among climate-change [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]believers

The lie:

“By now just about everyone following climate will be aware that CRU has suffered what is, at the very least, data theft. The content of some of the personal communications released has been authenticated although this does not mean all the product is genuine and everyone must be mindful of the possibility there has been some editing to alter the intent or context of documents. There are also ethical considerations involved in release of what are essentially stolen goods.”—quoted by  Steven J. Milloy  of Junkscience.com[14]

This is contemptible and childishly attempts to shift blame and gives us a clear picture of what kind of a claque we pay for in some academic circles.

The Facts:

“Update: It has become fairly obvious this archive was not "hacked" or "stolen" but rather is a file assembled by CRU staff in preparation for complying with a freedom of information request. Whether it was carelessly left in a publicly accessible portion of the CRU computer system or was "leaked" by staff believing the FOIA request was improperly rejected may never be known but is not really that important. What is important is that:”-- Steven J. Milloy  [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

[1] There was no "security breach" at CRU that "stole" these files
[2]The files appear genuine and to have been prepared by CRU staff, not edited by malicious hackers
[3]The information was accidentally or deliberately released by CRU staff
[4]Selection criteria appears to be compliance with an or several FOIA request(s)

With some reluctance[15] we have decided to host compressed archives of the hacked files and uncompressed directories you can browse online. Both are linked from the menu or you can simply point your browser to http://junkscience.com/FOIA/”-- Steven J. Milloy 

I selected some of these to comment on and the reader can skip this part as it gets deep into some very technical details. They appear below and offer some interesting insights on how progressive science functions in our world today.

This is disgusting.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com


__________________________________________
Here is but one example of alleged fraud by one Wei-Chyung Wang Professor
Atmospheric Sciences Research Center State University of New York at Albany: [16]


Title: Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research Of Wei-Chyung Wang

ABSTRACT

“Wei-Chyung Wang has been a respected researcher in global warming studies for
decades. I have formally alleged that he committed fraud in some of his research,
including research cited by the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (2007) on
“urban heat islands” (a critical issue). Herein, the allegation is reviewed, and some
of its implications are explicated.”-- Douglas J. Keenan The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK; doug.keenan@informath.org [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

“3  Briefly, the main evidence is as follows. The two papers relied on data from 84 weather stations in China that were required to have very few significant moves. Of the stations, 42 were classified as rural and 42 as urban. For 40 of the rural stations, no histories exist (hence moves cannot be determined); the other 2 stations had substantial moves. For 9 of the urban stations, no histories exist; most of the other 33 had substantial moves.”— Douglas J. Keenan footnote 3 in this report.

The theory:

“This issue has been a concern in global warming studies, because many
thermometers used by weather stations are in areas that have undergone increased
urbanization. Such thermometers might show that temperatures were going up, even if
the global climate was unchanging. It is widely accepted that some of the increase in
measured temperatures during the past century is due to many weather stations being
located in areas where urbanization has increased. A critical question is this: how
much of perceived global warming is due to such urbanization effects?”-- Douglas J. Keenan

The complaint:

“On 19 June 2007, I e-mailed Jones about this, saying “this proves that you knew
there were serious problems with Wang’s claims back in 2001; yet some of your work
since then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report from
the IPCC”. I politely requested an explanation. I have not received a reply.”-- Douglas J. Keenan


Here are e-mails now in the public domain:[17]

Here is an apology from George Monbiot [18][19] [“The Guardian’s George Monbiot, a climate change zealot and a staunch defender of the faith, concedes that the science now needs “reanalyising” and that CRU Director Phil Jones should resign.]”[20]

“Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.”-- George Monbiot 

Data juggling? Take a look at the language here and we can wonder.

Dear Bob, Hugh, Naki and John, http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=60&filename=.txt

Mike Hulme has told me something that is quite alarming about the
soon-to-be-released 'IPCC' CO2 emissions scenarios. If this is correct,
you/IPCC should try to remedy it as a matter of some urgency. He said
that the new 'IPCC' CO2 emissions scenarios will still begin in 1990 and
will not use observed (Marland) emissions for the 1990s.

You may either not realize, or not remember, that during the preparation
of the SAR and (especially) TPs 2 and 4, IPCC was frequently criticized
for using out-of-date emissions data that were manifestly wrong during the
1990s. It would be extremely embarrassing to be subject to the same
criticism with the TAR. Indeed, since the criticism is a justifiable one,
it would be inexcusable not to have responded to it.

Equally embarrassing should be the fact that, in the published literature
(my 1997 Nature and 1998 GRL papers), this 'error' has already been
avoided.

How can you get around this problem? Ideally, the energy-economics models
need to be revised to begin in or around 2000 instead of 1990. Indeed, in
talking to Rich Richels about this issue, as well as echoing my concern,
he noted that his model (MERGE) is currently being updated in just this
way. He also pointed out that beginning an energy-economics model run in
1990 leads to considerable 'flexibility' in 2000 emissions; when, in fact,
the 2000 emissions will already be fixed and known by the time the TAR
comes out.

It is probably impossible to make this ideal type of 'fix', but a 'fix'
can still be made. What you could do is just what I have done in the above
two papers. This is a simple procedure that CAN be used since it is in the
published literature. All I did was use observed emissions to 1996 (as far
as data were available), linearly extrapolate these to 2000 (under the
assumption that this was a better projection than the corresponding IS92a
projection), and then use IS92a CHANGES from 2000. You may be able to
improve on the second step, but this is unimportant. The crucial thing is
to get the beginning years of the record to match observed emissions as
far as such data are available.

The above, by the way, does not have to be applied to emissions from
land-use change because of the way we deal with initialization with the
carbon cycle models. We do not use historical land-use- change emissions.

You may argue that, in terms of projected CO2 concentrations, incorrect
1990s emissions have only a minor effect. This is such an obviously
specious argument that I won't bother to discuss it. Not least, it will
not satisfy the critics.

A parallel issue does, however, arise with the CO2 concentration
stabilization profiles. The 'S' profiles are already ludicrous, since
their concentrations and implied emissions already diverge markedly from
observations. The WRE profiles diverge less, but still enough for me to
deem that they need revising. I have, in fact, already done this. I would
be happy to pass the new profiles on to IPCC.

Best wishes,
Tom e-mail http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=776&filename=1170724434.txt

And from a critic:

Christopher Monckton [21] wrote:

Dear Mr. Covey - Many thanks for coming back to me so quickly. You mention Hansen's recent
papers. I have recently been looking at an (attached) earlier projection of his - the
projection of temperature increase which he made to the US Congress in 1988, effectively
starting the "global-warming" scare. Updating his graph shows that annual global mean landand sea surface air temperature is not rising anything like as fast as his
attention-grabbing but now manifestly-misconceived Scenario A suggested. Indeed, it isbeginning to look as though temperature is beginning to fall below his estimate based on CO2 having been stabilized in 1988. Morner, the world's leading authority on sea level, has been very clear in saying there is very little evidence to justify the IPCC's sea-level
projections. The IPCC itself forecast up to 0.94m sea level rise in a century in its 1996
report; up to 0.88m in its 2001 report; and now 0.43m in its 2007 report. If one loosely
defines whatever t he IPCC says as the "consensus", then not only does the "consensus" not
agree with itself: it is galloping in the direction of the formerly-derided sceptics.

This is a disgrace and an expensive one.

[3] The Limits to Growth in 1972. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_Growth.
[6] Phony (Political) Science from the Left
Posted by rycK on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 12:46:13 PM
http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2006/10/24/phony_political_science_from_the_left.thtml

[7] Lysenkoism was a set of repressive political and social campaigns in science and agriculture by the powerful Stalinist director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and his followers, which began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyssenkoism

[8] Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming. By RICHARD S. LINDZEN Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 A.M. EDT http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth
[9] EcoNazi[9]programs
[13] EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling Junk science exposed among climate-change believers http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/
[15] Strike outs in the original.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)