A guest post by Douglas J. Keenan
I was glad to see your post about my allegation against Wang. Following is a summary and update on that pertaining to Climategate, and a comment on something related.
In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The e-mails show that Tom Wigley, one of the most highly-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate, thought my paper was “valid”. They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to get the journal editor to not publish my paper.
After my paper was published, the State University of New York, where the research was conducted, carried out an investigation. During the investigation, I was not interviewed: contrary to the university’s policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report’s release, but I was not allowed to see the report: truly Kafkaesque.
The report apparently concluded that there was no fraud. The leaked files contain the defense against my allegation. The defense is obviously and strongly contradicted by the documentary record. It is no surprise, then, that the university still refuses to release the report. More details on all this, including source documents are, here.
Relatedly, my paper (§2.4) demonstrates that, by 2001, Jones knew there were severe problems with the urbanization research. Yet Jones continued to rely on that research in his work, including in his work for the latest report of the IPCC.
The biggest concern with global warming is, arguably, that warming itself will cause further warming. For example, the polar ice caps reflect sunlight back into space (thereby cooling Earth); if the caps shrink, due to warming, then they will reflect less sunlight, and so Earth will warm further. It is possible that Earth warms so much that it reaches what is called a “tipping point”, where the global climate system is seriously and permanently disrupted—like when a glass of water has been tipped over, and the water cannot realistically be put back into the glass.
There is much scientific debate over how much Earth has to warm before it reaches a tipping point. No one knows for sure. About a thousand years ago, though, there was a time known as the “Medieval Warm Period”, when much of Earth appears to have been unusually warm. It is not currently known just how warm the Medieval Warm Period was. Clearly, though, the warmth then was below the tipping point, because Earth’s climate continued without problem.
Suppose that during the Medieval Warm Period, Earth was 1°C warmer than today. That would imply that the tipping point is more than 1°C higher than today’s temperature. For Earth’s temperature to increase 1°C might take roughly a century (at the rate of increase believed to be currently underway). So we would not have to be concerned about an imminent disruption of the climate system. Finding out how warm the Medieval Warm Period was is thus of enormous importance for the study of global warming.
It turns out that global (or at least hemispheric) temperatures are reflected by the climate in western Ireland; for a short explanation of that, see here. Trees grow in western Ireland, of course, and each year, those trees grow an annual ring. Rings that are thick indicate years that were good for the trees; rings that are thin indicate the opposite. If many trees in western Ireland had thick rings in some particular years, then climatic conditions in those years were presumably good. Tree rings have been used in this way to learn about the climate centuries ago.
Queen’s University Belfast has data on tree rings that goes back millennia, in particular, to the Medieval Warm Period. QUB researchers have not analyzed the data (because they lack the expertise to do so). They also refuse to release the data. I have been trying to obtain the data, via the UK Freedom of Information Act, since April 2007. The story is scandalous.
In light of all the slander going around, maybe I should add this: I used to do mathematical research and financial trading on Wall Street and in the City of London; since 1995, I have been studying independently (for more details, please see my web site); I have received no payment of any kind from any entity for any work that I have done since 1995.
Douglas J. Keenan
http://www.informath.org
Lord Monkton discussed Obama signing this treaty and even though it may be rejected by the American Congress it would still be binding in many ways under his signature alone. As a person who has written policy and designed many treaties and documents for Thatcher and others Monkton believes this treaty is unique in many ways. It is the only one he has ever seen that mentions the word “government” i.e. in setting up a world government where money would be taken up front from countries and used to fund this world governing body, pretty scary stuff.
As Lorrie Goldstein stated the fix is in, the science means nothing and in his view, never did.
As Lorrie Goldstein stated the fix is in, the science means nothing and in his view, never did.
~Dave
As far as the politicians go, Goldstein is probably correct, but if citizens see a major drop in their quality of life the science is going to matter to those citizens.
ron in kelowna:
You’re quite right. In the area of the environment that does not touch directly on genetics, David Suzuki’s opinions are no more valid than what someone sitting at the end of the bar might have to say. In the case of Keenan, it is a service to us that he pointed out the fraud of Wang. I’m more than with him to that point and congratulate him for his efforts. He lost me though when he started proposing theories of his own. I would suggest that whether or not there would be a temp spiral, that cold equals ice, which equals more cold which equals more ice etc, etc, that this would more properly fall to the expertise of other scientific disciplines that deal with the physical interactions of things. That is beyond a straight mathmatical background. Clearly, that ice ages and warm periods come to an end seems to argue against a self reinforcing temp spiral.
If we have locomotive engineers running the IPCC then I have no problem with Wall Street financiers challenging climate sciences. Many of us have hobbies and interests that are not related to our occupations, but the expertise and knowledge we obtain in a lifetime provide valuable tools when we pursue other activities.
Steve McIntyre was a mining engineer. Bjorn Lumborg is a statistician. Suggesting that these people and the many Keenans should not contribute in the the scientific advancement of knowledge is how we got into this mess in the first place. Suggesting science is the bastion of academics is akin to making journalists the sole reporters for all media.
The Keenan hypothesis of a “Tipping Point” may appear ludicrous on the face, but scientific hypotheses are meant to be challenged. Part of the challenge would be to produce data that would destroy his hypothesis, which is all he wanted in the first place. Subtle, that.
One further thought. I have been recently working with neighbors in my community with the installation of green energy projects. Collectively we look like a bunch of country hicks, but individually, we include a senior scientist(retired) from a major power utility, landowners with intimate and hands on knowledge of the local ecology, a long serving big city councilor(retired) with political connections throughout the province, and several enthusiastic housewives whose singular expertise is to know everyone in the community. Working together is a humbling experience. (And the email exchanges between us often include the writng of Lorrie Goldstein, David Warren, Anthony Watts, SDA, and others)
It is all what you know, and who you know.
It is all what you know, and who you know.
~john
Nah.
It isn’t who you know or what you know, it’s who you blow.
Proof of that is the CRU peer review gatekeeper conspiracy.
Oz, just got my smart meter installed here in Toronto and I know from reading and listening to people who have them I expect a huge rise in my electricity costs. To get the rate I now have to cook our dinner I will have to begin using the stove after 9 o’clock.
McGuinty has brought in all sorts of taxes and will bring the HST next year along with carbon taxes yet do we see people marching in the streets. No, we see the Liberals reelected easily in recent by-elections in Toronto as some ridings had a 13% voting rate. Unemployment in the private sector continues to rise.
McGuinty’s policies drove Ontario into its first have-not status in its history.
There has been a significant drop in our quality of life yet as usual Canadians mumble but do nothing. We preach to the converted here at SDA, without a doubt one of sthe best blogs in NA, yet even though I hope I am wrong even climategate it may be too little too late.
if citizens see a major drop in their quality of life the science is going to matter to those citizens.
~Oz
There has been a significant drop in our quality of life yet as usual Canadians mumble but do nothing.
~Dave
I won’t begin to argue the difference between the words “major’ and significant” with you, Dave, but let me point out that I said that the science is going to matter to citizens and they don’t yet know that there is no scientific justification for a significant or major drop or change in their quality of life.
When citizens do find out, and they will, then we can talk about marching in the streets.
This story is how the corruption gets to NASA and NOAA.
They pretend that it is safe to ignore UHI based on the fraudulent paper.
Looks to me like the New World Order is going ahead with this and will tolerate no interference from anyone. Last time I heard of this was with Hitler and the world mobilized.
Is it time again?
John:
You didn’t read my posts carefully if you think I was saying that mathmeticians should have nothing to do with this issue. Their work is vital in terms of checking the calculations of climate scientists and determining whether the conclusions they reach are based on good or bad math. Once they start advancing their own theories though, theories that are outside their area of expertise, they are on very shakey ground.
One example that comes to mind; a friend of mine is an architect. I asked him whether he makes use of mathmeticians to check his numbers and he said absolutely. When I asked whether that meant that a math expert was therefore capable of constructing a building, the answer was an emphatic NO.
Same thing applies to the person in an operating room who administers the medicine to you during an operation. Without him or her, you’re going to wind up dead. That does not mean however that you should be trusting him to wield the scalpel. That is what the surgeon is for.
I would suggest to you that whether such a thing as a temp spiral exists or not, it would be far more in line with the expertise of a someone trained in phyics, a qualification to which Keenan laid no claim.
So thanks to Keenan for using his math training and exposing Wang as a fraud. Beyond that though, I’ll take his other opinions witha grain of salt.
Bob C said, “He is unqualified to do more in this field than check the mathmatical work of others, a line he crossed when he conned himself into thinking that that ability made him a climate scientist.”
Normally, I would agree with you. However, a “science” based on computer modelling is not a science in my book. It is more akin to glorified palm reading which I believe that anyone can try so have at er!! Let’s all predict what the climate will do in, say, 50 years because the truth is that anyone could be right.
An interesting tidbit:
Maurice Strong was President, Chairman and CEO of Petro-Canada from 1976-1978.