jump to navigation

Climategate: those defending it are damned themselves December 12, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,

Climategate: those defending it are damned themselves

By Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun, December 12, 2009

How loudly would these carpetbaggers scream if the review was held instead by a sceptic funded by ExxonMobil?

As the science scandal known as ClimateGate grows, the largest U.S. physicists’ association is finding itself roiled by internal dissent and allegations of conflict of interest over a forthcoming review of its position statement on man-made global warming.

The scientist who will head the American Physical Society’s review of its 2007 statement calling for immediate reductions of carbon dioxide is Princeton’s Robert Socolow, a prominent supporter of the link between CO2 and global warming who has warned of possible “catastrophic consequences” of climate change.

Socolow’s research institute at Princeton has received well over $20 million in grants dealing with climate change and carbon reduction…

It is Socolow whose entire research funding stream, well over a million dollars a year, depends on continued alarm over global warming,” says William Happer, a fellow Princeton University professor and head of the Happer physics lab who has raised the question of a conflict of interest…

Happer and other members of the APS have been urging the society to take a second look at the 2007 statement… Their letter circulated last month says: “By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen… We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done.”…

Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara who has been an APS member for 65 years, says that he asked both the current and incoming APS presidents to require that Socolow recuse himself from a review of this subject, and both refused.

That means the review will be “chaired by a guy who is hip deep in conflicts of interest, running a million-dollar program that is utterly dependent on global warming funding,” Lewis says.

Professor Will Alexander, who argues that temperature rises are driven more by solar activity and will be beneficial, says those who dismiss the Climategate scandal are damned by it:

The most recent development is that on 4 December Working Group 1 of the IPCC issued a statement that it firmly stands behind the conclusions reached in its 2007 assessment reports, “The key finding that the warming in the climate system is unequivocal.” This is still a long way from proving human causality. The only proof that they can offer is manipulated deductions from limited tree ring measurements in remote areas of the globe that show that present global temperatures are higher than any experienced in the past thousands of years. Therefore the increases must be due to human activities. I repeat my question. Why did they not base their conclusions on solid analyses of rainfall and river flow measurements during the past 100 years?

Their statement also defends the integrity of the individual scientists involved in the climategate affair. I share the view that the individuals should not become the scapegoats for the scientifically corrupt system. I have personal experience of the extent to which climate alarmists are prepared to go to silence the opposition.

An unforeseen consequence of the working group’s proclaimed support for the individuals and their tactics in particular, now places the whole IPCC structure in the same boat. If the investigations confirm serious shortfalls in procedures used in the two institutions, then by its own admission, the same criticisms must apply to the IPCC itself.

Read the rest here



1. Dr. Ross Taylor - December 12, 2009

Update on non-warming in Copenhagen: As emergency AGW conference continues, it is perhaps ironic to calmly study some weather information readily available on the internet. I apologize that the figures are not absolutely precise because they are taken from graphs at weatheronline.co.uk. Anyone can check my calculations, which took about 20 minutes and were not taxpayer funded.

In the last 28 years (as far as the online records go back), the highest December temperature in Copenhagen was 11 degrees C and that was back in 1983. Over these years, the average highest December temperature was around 7 C.

First day: a high of 7 C, exactly the same as the average high of the last 28 years and 4 degrees COOLER than the high of the last 28 years.

Second day: a high of 7 C, the same.

Third day: a high of 6 C, 5 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.

Fourth day: a high of 6 C

Fifth day: a high of 5 C, 6 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.

Can someone please point this out to the Met, the BBC and all the eminent and learned delegates?

2. david - December 12, 2009

Science itself is at stake. and Science is the only thing we have as humans that we could truly trust

3. Tawanda W. Johnson - December 14, 2009

Dr. Duncan Moore, not Dr. Robert Socolow is overseeing the review of the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change for possible issues of clarity and tone. Please see the official statement on this matter below.

APS Comments on Stolen CRU Climate Files

Begins Examination of Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change for Possible Issues of Clarity and Tone

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Following the release of climate files stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, some APS members have asked the Society to comment on the issues surrounding the matter. The CRU maintains the repository for temperature measurements used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The APS leadership has concerns about both the improper release of private e-mails and any premature rush to judgment regarding scientific integrity at the CRU. The CRU is in the process of investigating the matter. Once the full range of information is made available, the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) will examine the case and recommend how APS should act.

Meanwhile, the process to examine the APS 2007 Statement on Climate Change for possible issues of clarity and tone is under way. The APS Council has tasked POPA to examine the statement, and Dr. Duncan Moore, the current chair of POPA, will convene a subcommittee to carry out the task. Dr. Moore is professor of Optical Engineering, Biomedical Engineering and Business Administration at the University of Rochester. The subcommittee, which Dr. Moore is also chairing, will report its recommendations to POPA in early February, and shortly thereafter, POPA will post the text for a three-week APS member comment period. Dr. Moore’s subcommittee will use the comments it receives to finalize the wording before the April Council meeting. As POPA carries out its review of the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change, it will consider any new information provided by the CRU investigation.

4. sister of physics brothers - December 21, 2009

But Socolow is Chair-Elect on the committee and depending on how long this takes, he will be leading it. In any case, it is not fair to act like Socolow is an innocent bystander…


(Note: I do believe that we are affecting the climate/planet in a negative way but there needs to be truth in studying the matter.)

Could someone let us know when Moore’s term is due up?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: