14 days since the East Anglia CRU data leak, 4 days until the beginning of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, and the story continues to grow. By that I mean it is now hitting the mainstream network news, but only after being confirmed as a real story by Jon Stewart. Frank has been all over the climategate story, but he left a few angles for me to explore.

There is still news – Michael Mann, creator and defender of the “hockey stick” graph, pen-pal to disgraced CRU Director Phil Jones, and star of the “hide the decline” YouTube video, is also under investigation by his University.

There is still a mystery – Senator Barbara Boxer disingenuously reminds us that the identity of the whistle blower who released the data is yet to be disclosed. Personally I think the perpetrator is a hero, on the order of Daniel Ellsberg releasing the Pentagon Papers. If I was to take a wild guess, I’d take a hard look at “Harry” the CRU programmer of the now infamous HARRY_READ_ME file. He had the access, he had the means, he had the technical chops, he more than any single person on the planet understood the depth of the deception in the code, and for motive he may simply have decided he did not want to be an accessory to the scientific crime of the century.

Central to understanding the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit kerfuffle is an appreciation of the “scientific method“. The scientific method outlines the rules of the game when competing and contradictory theories vie to explain the world in which we live. McQ at QandO offers a good summary of the methodology and where the CRU comes up short:

True enough. The CRU scientists invested a great deal of time in their models of anthropogenic global warming. They are convinced that they are correct. Their critics believe they have made critical errors with faulty assumptions and the CRU models are projecting scenarios that are the scientific equivalent of GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out). Scientific methodology and observation will ultimately prove the truth or falsity of their models. That is the nature of science.

However, when politics enters the game, the rules change. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and fellow Nobel Prize winner Al Gore) bestowed upon the CRU the imprimatur of absolute truth – of “settled science” – of “overwhelming consensus”. These phrases have nothing to do with science or scientific methodology. Nothing. This is the language of politics, not of science.

The CRU scientists were granted a status where they could, for a time, modify and referee the rules of the game as played by believers and skeptics alike. The consequences can be found in the purloined e-mails.

I have spent some time browsing through the the e-mails, documents, and blog reactions (The complete directory can be downloaded here, and the e-mails searched here). Reading the purloined e-mails and documents and understanding their context provides a greater education on the current state of global warming science than a dozen lectures from Al Gore.

As a service to the Donklephant community, I can now reveal one document that is yet to be found in the leaked CRU data dump. I have reversed engineered the CRU Scientific Methodology from the procedures documented in the e-mails and code. It is clear to me that they have built on the work of maverick chemist Theodore Hapner, who revolutionized thinking about the scientific method in 2006. Standing on Hapner’s shoulders, and with the backing of the IPCC, the CRU forged a new path to scientific truth. The New & Improved CRU Scientific Methodology can now be revealed – it is shown graphically at the top of this post, and amplified with a few examples from the CRU files in the context of their new methodology below:

1) Assert Predetermined Conclusion

2) Select & Massage Data -

(0942777075)
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

3) Align hypothesis, code & data to pre-determined conclusion

From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions.

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1940s 1930s — see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.

4) Confirm hypothesis by plotting carefully weighted and selected data

(1054736277)
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, Tom Crowley, Keith Briffa, Michael Oppenheimer, Jonathan Overpeck
Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003

… Re Figures, what I had in mind were the following two figures: 1) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal and reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature reconstructions around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2 thousand years to convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly regionally variable. Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare this (?). Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…

5) Assess results by comparing to hypothesis predetermined conclusion

“One example from something called a “SOAP-D-15-berlin-d15-jj” document.

A non-native English speaker shows a plot of various proxy reconstructions from which he wanted to “reconstruct millennial [Northern Hemisphere] temperatures.” He said,

“These attempts did not show, however, converge towards a unique millennial history, as shown in Fig. 1. Note that the proxy series have already undergone a linear transformation towards a best estimate to the CRU data (which makes them look more similar, cf. Briffa and Osborn, 2002).”

In other words, direct effort was made to finagle the various reconstructions so that they agreed with preconceptions. Those efforts failed. It’s like being hit in the head with a hockey stick.”

(1237496573)

To: santer1
Subject: Re: See the link below
Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009

Ben,
… I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS. The paper is about London and its UHI!”

Cheers
Phil

At 16:48 19/03/2009, you wrote:

Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I’m really sorry you have to deal with that kind of crap. If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available – raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.

Cheers,
Ben

—

(1089318616)

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,
…The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Cheers
Phil

7) If false (at variance with pre-determined conclusion) – review, re-select, re-weight data, rinse and repeat.

(1255352257)

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009
Cc: Stephen H Schneider, Myles Allen, peter stott, “Philip D. Jones”, Benjamin Santer, Tom Wigley, Thomas R Karl, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate…

Kevin

(1120593115)
From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

John,

… Also this load of rubbish!

This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

Heh. The computer model is true. The observations from nature are wrong. Everything you need to know about these guys is right there.

++++++++++++++++++
UPDATE (12-5-09):

Commenter Jim S complains that I did not adequately support step number 7 with these examples. I disagree, but suppose it is inherent in the release of embarassing e-mails that the argument will devolve to spin about what was really meant and “Who you gonna believe – me or your lying eyes?” statements from the authors. Still – Jim may have a point, I was getting a bit lazy by the time I got to step #7 of this tongue-in-cheek post about CRU methodology. Still, I strive to satisfy the commentariat, so for Jim’s benefit, I’ll take a long post and make it even longer with another example in this update.

This time, instead of using e-mails, lets go to what is now being refered to as “The Smoking Code”. This is the clearest explanation I could find to an inherently complex and technical subject – looking at the detailed workings of the computer code. It comes from Robert Grenier, a self described “scientist and engineer with an agnostic stand on global warming” blogging at Cube Antics.

This is how he starts:

“Emails prove nothing. Sure, you can look like an unethical a-hole who may have committed a felony using government funded money; but all email is, is talk, and talk is cheap. Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.”

Next he goes line by line through the code showing where factors were added to shape the model into a global warming “hockey stick”. There is too much detail to put here. Go to his blog and read it.

This is what he concludes:

“As you can see, (potentially) valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the “scientists” at the CRU wanted to believe, not what actually occurred… First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce… I tried to write this post in a manner that transcends politics. I really haven’t taken much of an interest in the whole global warming debate and don’t really have a strong opinion on the matter. However, being part of the Science Community and having done scientific research myself makes me very worried when arrogant jerks who call themselves “scientists” work outside of ethics and ignore the truth to fit their pre-conceived notions of the world. That is not science, that is religion with math equations.”

:END UPDATE
++++++++++++++++++++

As statistician William Briggs points out, there is no need to invoke conspiracy to understand their actions. True Believers convinced that they hold the white hot sword of truth with the future of mankind hanging in the balance will not take kindly to scientific criticism or correction:

Mother nature is a bitch. And if the observations of nature do not agree with computer models, the models must go by the wayside. No matter how fervently and how many believe otherwise.

That is the scientific method.

Perhaps now we can get back to it.

^{Version x-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall}

When Big Oil executives “advised” the Bush administration on energy policy, a lot of people were rightfully upset over the obvious conflict of interest. So, should we also be upset that Barack Obama is getting environmental advice from those who stand to profit from increased regulation and green investment? Well, Al Gore is in Chicago to discuss energy and climate change with Obama and Joe Biden. And Gore now stands to substantially profit from the implementation of his ideas.

[Gore has] plunked $35 million into a particular “firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products.” …

Mr. Gore also has a position in a Silicon Valley “green” venture capital outfit — another group of people investing in companies that would be worth real money in an America with Gore-favored environmental policies. The firm sells carbon “offsets,” which are only window dressing at present, but which would be assigned artificial value through artificial scarcity under state-imposed emissions limits.

Gore’s investments by no means invalidate his opinion or diminish his knowledge on the subject. But they do create certain conflicts of interest that Obama and other government officials will have to take into account when seeking Gore’s advice.

A lot of people find ways to profit from the field in which they work. And there is nothing wrong with investing in technologies and companies that are advancing a cause in which you believe. But there is a difference between an advocate and a lobbyist. If Gore is promoting government action that would directly profit him, it’s hard to say he’s not a lobbyist. And if he’s lobbyist, we have to treat him with increased skepticism.

Right now, there’s no indication that Gore is trying to use his access and authority to generate a big payday. Nor do we know if Obama is turning to Gore just to be considerate or if he plans to turn to Gore repeatedly. But there’s reason for the rest of us to pay attention. Nothing pollutes public policy as quickly as conflicts of interest. That’s true whether we’re talking about Big Oil or clean-energy technology.

Get off fossil fuels by 2018. That’s Gore’s completely unrealistic charge to our nation.

Here’s more…

Mr. Gore called for the kind of concerted national effort that enabled Americans to walk on the moon 39 years ago this month, just eight years after President John F. Kennedy famously embraced that goal. He said the goal of producing all of the nation’s electricity from “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” within 10 years is not some farfetched vision, although he said it would require fundamental changes in political thinking and personal expectations.

“This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative,” Mr. Gore said in remarks prepared for the conference. “It represents a challenge to all Americans, in every walk of life — to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.”

And do note how Obama doesn’t endorse Gore’s explicit challenge, but he definitely agrees with the long term spirit of it…as do I…

For decades, Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat. I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as President. It’s a strategy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced, and one that will leave our children a world that is cleaner and safer.

Again, I’m all for weening ourselves completely off of fossil fuels, but Gore is out of his mind with a 10 year time table. The gasoline infrastructure switchover alone would take a decade at least. Unless the government mandates that all infrastructure and autos need to support hydrogen fuel cell tech. But then we’d have to subsidize the HELL out of it. Think that’ll happen? Not unless the numbers make sense and oil hits $400 a barrel. Then you may be able to convince the nation…maybe.

In short, it may be sexy to call for a massive amount of change so quickly, but the reality puts the lie to it and Gore is well aware I’m sure.

In any event, nice speech Al.

Yesterday, Al Gore told NPR that the Myanmar cyclone was a consequence of global warming. Gore has previously alluded to Hurricane Katrina being a result of global warming as well. The problem is, there is no good scientific proof that global warming is influencing the destructiveness of these storms. Gore is making a conjecture and turning a tragedy into a political tool.

I’m no global warming denialist. I believe human action is causing the Earth to warm and our climates to change. I am an avid conservationist. But I am also appropriately skeptical of the global warming doomsayers such as Gore. I don’t take on faith that every change in temperature, every climate shift and every catastrophic weather event is repayment for our sins of carbon emission. Our climate and weather are far too complicated and naturally volatile for me to think there isn’t more affecting these systems than simple human action.

That’s why I cringe when I hear Gore and others connect horrible tragedies to global warming. Sure, these events make the problem seem very real and very immediate, but it’s scientifically dishonest not to admit that there is no hard proof that recent big storms are the result of our carbon emissions. You can’t one moment stand behind the banner of science and then the other moment conveniently leave out facts because those facts are inconvenient to your political objectives.

If we are going to rally the world to combat the human-caused elements of global warming, we have to stick to the scientific facts and resist the urge to inappropriately use weather-related tragedies to frighten people into action.

For the last several months I’ve read multiple columns suggesting that Democrats solve their nomination problems by choosing Al Gore. Today, there’s yet another pro-Gore column, this time from the Boston Phoenix. I won’t bore you with a quote. The gist is simple: Gore is well-liked and isn’t as damaged/fundamentally flawed as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

That is, of course, nonsense. He only looks good because no one’s been beating him up for the last few months. Obama and Clinton are both still very viable. The licks they’ve taken during the primary campaign are no different than the licks they would have taken if either were already the presumptive nominee. No candidate can get through a presidential campaign without some damage to their image, particularly in this age of ubiquitous cameras and gotcha-style journalism.

A lot of people are fretting that the Democratic party looks bad because they can’t seem to wrap up their nomination process. That’s just silly. If they REALLY want to look bad, they can decide to throw out the last four months of elections and choose a guy whose name hasn’t appeared on a single ballot. Picking Gore is a maneuver that would have worked just fine in the nineteenth century. But in 2008, it would look ridiculously undemocratic.

Once again, I advise Democrats to chill. The party is going to end up with a competitive candidate. Neither Obama nor Clinton are going to be ruined by a long primary campaign. Heck, if they can’t survive a little intramural sparing, they’ll never survive the real contest anyway. They’ll be fine. Leave Gore on the shelf.

That’s the word from The Scotsman…

DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president.

Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.

Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.

“They’re in discussions,” a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. “Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence.”

Personally, I think she should stay in as long as she wants, but if the Dem establishment is going to line up behind the unlikely juggernaut that Obama has become, I won’t cry too much.

The most coveted endorsement out there has to be that of former Vice President Al Gore. Not only is he an important member of the party establishment but he’s popular with the base as well. That’s why this story is interesting:

A woman at a town hall asked the Illinois senator if elected president would he consider tapping the former vice president for his Cabinet, or an even higher level office, to address global warming.

“I would,” Obama said. “Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He’s somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I’m already consulting with him in terms of these issues, but climate change is real. It is something we have to deal with now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now.”

There’s probably no arrangement between Obama and Gore but Obama sure isn’t being shy here. He’s pretty much saying Gore can have what he wants in an Obama administration. I wonder if Hillary Clinton would be willing to extend Gore the same level of praise and respect.

Taegan Goddard asks the question and suggests its a possibility.

Here’s my answer: jeezus h…

Sometimes blogging can really go off into the weeds. This “Gore as the savior” meme is beyond weird. Come on bloggers, get back on your game!

By the way, does anybody here go to Political Wire anymore? It was a daily read for me, but now I’m not a very big fan. TPM Election Central is SO much better.

FYI Taegan.

Interesting new blog called WalkingThinkTank popped up recently and the author sent me a post about the similarities between the titular three.

Here are some excerpts:

In his latest book, Assault on Reason, former Vice President Gore wrote: “Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.” [...]

Former House Speaker Gingrich, in an op-ed written in February with former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, called for a different kind of presidential campaign – one involving “more thought, more creativity, more substance, more solutions–and a whole lot less rhetoric.” [...]

And New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, in announcing this summer that he was leaving the Republican Party and becoming an independent, took a shot at the way the two parties in Washington have governed.

“I am particularly upset that the big issues of the time keep getting pushed to the back and we focus on small things that only inside the Beltway are important,” Bloomberg said. “Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology. Working together, there’s no
limit to what we can do.”

Good observations by WTT, but I think the ultimate conclusion that these guys need to set a voluntary contribution limit of $500 doesn’t really address the problem. But the idea that these guys need to run on the idea of political reform is significant. Because I believe that a lot of independents don’t think this is just a change election…it’s also a reform election. People are looking to reshape the political landscape and how we cooperate with one another, not just switch an R to a D.

Of all the actual candidates who are running I’ve heard so far, Ron Paul and Barack Obama have picked this meme up the most. Obama is fond of saying that there’s not a liberal America or a conservative America, but a United States of America. It’s a good line, and it resonated with me. Paul talks about broad reform based around respecting the Constitution, and that’s radical enough to give rise to a viable third party movement, and I wish he’d consider that more closely and possibly embrace the Unity 08 movement so he wouldn’t have to do all the leg work to get on the ballot in the 50 states.

And yet with all this talk about reform…the polls suggest that Giuliani and Hillary are the front runners. Sure, Barack is up there with Hill, but Paul trails far, far behind. There is no candidate talking about reform in the first tier of the GOP field.

The question then is do we really have a shot at reform in 2008 or is this merely a change election? And if the Dems were to win, are we really ready for another Clinton and thereby ushering in at least 24 years where a Clinton or a Bush has held the Oval Office?

If nothing else in this next election, I’m looking for the “change” to come with a heavy dose of reform. And if not…well, I just may sit this one out.