THE Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) continues raising serious concerns for policy makers and the public as to whether the “adjustments” that government-funded employees continue making to raw surface and ocean temperature data sets can be trusted. In a new collaborative paper, Is The Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?, Dr. Dave Evans has gathered substantial evidence that corruption has become endemic within government-sponsored climate units. Dr. Evans finds that, “The Western Climate Establishment has allowed egregious mistakes, major errors and obvious biases to accumulate — each factor on its own might be hard to pin down, but the pattern is undeniable.” Evans asks, “How many excuses does it take?”
Continues Dr. Evans, “These photos speak for themselves. The corruption of climate science has become so blatant, so obvious, that even non-scientists can no longer throw their hands in the air, and say ‘I don’t know’. You don’t need a PhD to know it is cheating to place thermometers near artificial heat sources and call it ‘global warming’.”
Key findings of the paper include:
* Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, asphalt, and even fermenting vats of warm sludge.
* Officials hide the modern ARGO data which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.
* They ignore hundreds of thousands of weather balloon results that show the climate models overestimate future warming by at least 300%.
* Officials frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming. But almost never mention the full story: that the planet started the current global warming trend before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2.
* Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme designed to imitate the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating?
* Their adjustments blatantly transform the original raw data from thermometers, often creating rising trends. They also selectively ignore thousands of other thermometers.
* Researchers repeatedly go out of their way to hide their records, and dodge FOIs.
* The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western financial establishment, are all skeptical. As are scientists from other branches of science, as well as many older or retired climate scientists (who have nothing to lose by speaking their minds).
Concludes Dr. Evans, “Once one or two major news outlets start printing these photos of official thermometers near artificial heating sources, and points out the deception, the rush will be on for our elected representatives to abandon the Global Warming Crusade. No one would want to be seen to be taken in by half-truths and shameless deception. Who wants to look gullible because they didn’t ask the obvious burning questions? Those who support conclusions based on corrupt behaviour will be seen as negligent for not having considered the serious evidence here.
Observes SPPI President, Robert Ferguson, “For years, non-government scientists and researchers have expressed the urgent need to have the validity of government temperature adjustments audited. Dr. Evans’ findings exhibit ongoing revelations surrounding the shoddy, often enigmatic science and data handling practices at government funded institutions like the CRU, GISS, NOAA and the IPCC. A growing body of such findings only enhances the urgency for unbiased Congressional oversight investigations. The policy implications are far too dire to allow government scientists to persist in stonewalling a full investigative audit into their surface and ocean temperature data handling practices and computer programs.”
Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering.
The full report can be read here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.html
*******
Text from Robert Ferguson
www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
You never know Jen, but following your complaint to the ABC, Robyn W might balance the debate by inviting Dr Dave E onto the Science show to let the world know all about that.
But don’t hold your breath.
He probably wouldn’t even get an invite to Counterpoint.
But who is the SPPI – and how do we know what their objectivity level might be? Could they be biased? Nah – they wouldn’t be – would they?
Like funny that when it’s all hosed and dusted that Evansy reckons it’s warming – but how does he know if the climate records are crook. Sounds like circuitous logic.
Wouldn’t the correct position be that he neither knows nor unknows what the temperature trend is.
And funny that two ocean temperate data sets and satellite series all show the same warming story. And the boreholes. And those cave stalactites. And the 22,000 species phenology studies. Funny that didn’t get a mention eh?
And as the internet is full of all sorts of stories depending on your POV – I enjoyed this one on the Argo floats.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm
Gee it’s all enough to make you head spin.
It’s almost as if there’s a big conspiracy out there trying desperately to convince you they’re right?
Cook is the poison of choice of the flibbertigibbets of AGW; luke’s link, again, is just terrible; AGW wouldn’t have a clue what is going on in the ocean, from volcanic activity to mermaids, not a clue; OHC, just another dog’s breakfast; it is going down quicker than gore’s Chicago carbon trading share portfolio: see what a real graph says not the utter garbage Cook pedals:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2vhsta8.jpg
Ya just gotta believe me bleats Cohenite …..
And he’s more believable too.
But then you’ve always got the Arctic ice retreat standby, or the Hokey Stick, or even Al’s fave, the Vostok ice cores.
Where’s your PETM excuse been lately, Luke? We’ve really missed that.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo578.html
Well there’s a reason you’re a self-confessed drongo isn’t there – read the fine 2009 article – which a silly billy like you obviously has not. That’s why you’re called deniers. Polly wanna deny. Polly wanna deny. ARK !
(Come in spinner)
Maybe you weren’t paying attention:
“As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels”
That’s about the same increase in CO2 we’ve had for 0.7c temp increase.
Even a drongo can see that CO2 was not responsible for the PETM.
So what does that make you?
Hasn’t read the paper and hasn’t thought about it. It’s a threshold test for drongoism.
Maybe you haven’t been paying attention. A nice little paper widely quoted by the denier movement. Perhaps Robyn Williams should discuss it?
Anyway what twaddle from Evans on India, Russia and China.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
More denial.
I quite enjoyed the link Luke recommended at skepticalscience.com. Lovely piece of rhetoric about how the planet’s largest heat sink has little or nothing to do with temperature trends.
‘The transformation of energy technologies for a low carbon future’ based on a flimsy theory.
In the UK they are experiencing a return to a darker age. A majority of Councils are going to reduce street lighting and all because some ratbag said CO2 leads to global warming and we are all doomed, unless we make sacrifices for the common good.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328243/Up-75-cent-councils-dimming-street-lights-save-money.html
The Russians, Chinese and Indians must all be amused by this poetic justice.
Luke,
You have always quoted the PETM as the “I rest my case” example of the likely result due to current ACO2e emissions.
This paper virtually says that anyone who relies on a little known and never repeated, 55 million year ago single event where the atmospheric CO2 did not even double, as a likely future scenario for BAU, is really urinating into a strong breeze.
Schiller says “planet’s largest heat sink has little or nothing to do with temperature trends.” – HELLO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Try turning your monitor on and reading the article again.
Spanglers – well try – http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/page6122.html and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/petm-weirdness/
‘Crucially, such temperature surges show the earth behaving in a non-linear fashion when reacting to environmental stress: that is, it tends to ‘flip’ from one quasi-stable state to another, and this kind of behaviour is inherently difficult to model or to predict.’
Abrupt climate change happens on a regular basis, without any help from increased CO2, because the earth’s atmosphere behaves in non-linear fashion.
On a smaller scale, flipping from a warm mode to a cool mode is not difficult to predict, its just that the models are inherently flawed.
Reading the Richard Zeebe et al abstract the authors state that ‘in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.’
A substantial portion of the PETM warming had nothing to do with CO2, yet without more funds they can’t possibly say what those feedbacks are.
Dr David Evans said ‘those who support conclusions based on corrupt behaviour will be seen as negligent for not having considered the serious evidence here.’
Not an easy task, the politicians and journalists will plead ignorance and be humiliated, but will squirm away to reinvent themselves. The CAGW scientists will not be so lucky, when the people realize they are paying higher energy bills because of subsidies to renewable energy which is technically inefficient, heads will roll.
I have a point of procedure that needs clarification.
If one discovers that they are labeled a “denier” in a field other than CAGW as well as CAGW does one present the decorations as
“Denier and Bar”
as with some other awards earned twice?
Is western Climate Establishment corrupt?
Dont know…
But they are certainly incompetent, and beholden to the highly manipulative greenoids and their various NGO’s, as well as a whole army of beureaucrats who now have a self surviving monster, that allows them to fly around the world doing business with themselves.
Dont believe me, then just read the DCC briefing document put together for the new Gillard non Government.
Add to that, the fact that the BOM is studiously avoiding responding to the independant checks done on Temperature data bases by Barham and Stewart, which clearly show that the BOM has a case to answer ( and the public has a right know )… but as usual they will retreat behind their cowards canard of saying it is not peer reviewed..when most of their own processes and procedures havnt been done so.
When has been the case that common sense and applications of basic arithmetic needs to be PR’d