My word, there are so many reports of “errors” and “omissions” in calculation of global temperature data, or in official reports of the supposedly catastrophic consequences of global warming (sorry, climate change). Naturally every public announcement by the IPCC reiterates that their science is sound, and that “this isolated incident” in no way invalidates their main message that we must all take urgent action (and pay big money) to avert Armageddon. The same line is taken by the politicians who are counting on our meek acceptance of our collective guilt (and the taxes they shall levy as penance).
But worse than that, almost all of the supposedly impartial mainstream media follow the same route. Their reports usually end with prominent attention to a disclaimer. Methinks they protest too much.
Here’s but one example, from “The Guardian”. Reading this, one can almost hear old Bing Crosby accentuating the positive:
“This dramatic revision of the estimated impact of urbanization on temperatures in China does not change the global picture of temperature trends.” (Source: Fred Pearce, published on guardian.co.uk at 21.00 GMT on Monday 1 February 2010.
Oh, good grief! Of course an analysis revealing a cover-up in one area of a report does not invalidate other areas of the report. Not scientifically at any rate. But it is yet another instance of incorrect official information from the climate change experts. Phil Jones, with assistance from a Chinese colleague, had asserted that the Urban Heat Island effect on reported temperature rise in China is “an order of magnitude” less than other factors. And that was a key finding of the IPCC 2007 report. That’s right – information published by the IPCC and used to influence leaders. And which Jones himself changed as quietly as possible in 2008, hoping nobody would notice. Changed, that is, from “an order of magnitude less” to “at least 40%”!
Here are some other instances:
- Himalayan glaciers to disappear by 2035 – a key finding in the IPCC 2007 report, since vigorously defended by the head of the IPCC and then retracted with an assurance that it is “an isolated failure”.
- Distortions of records and concealment of sources by Mann, Hansen, Briffa, NASA, GISS and the IPCC
- email-documented collusion between the major players to continue their concealment of their sources
- Continuous attacks on the motives of sceptics (funny, real science thrives on scepticism). Climate change scientists cast sceptics as the enemy and hence attempt to justify keeping them in the dark.
Now, can you still hear Bing Crosby? I can’t. I hear Monty Python’s “Bright Side”, with Penn & Teller in the chorus.
In isolation, each instance is bad. Put them together and they demonstrate that we should view all communications from these parties with suspicion. They have relinquished any authority in this field. Their calls for urgent action are beginning to sound very hollow.
So here’s a Grumpy Old Man’s call for action. I call for assessment and formal review of the men and the institutions they serve, their research and conclusions, and all the reports they have produced. By scientific enquiry, as soon as possible. The terms of reference must be defined by scientific institutions, and the panel that defines them must exclude all politicians, all academic or other bodies connected with the the IPCC, NASA, NOAA or any affiliated group, and in particular, all organisations whose charters involve climate change. The enquirers themselves would have to be similarly uncontaminated.
I do not need to call for prosecutions. Given the likely outcome of a scientific enquiry as defined above, they would follow.