UK CLIMATE MINISTER GAFFES ON CLIMATEGATE
I wish to share with our readers the ongoing correspondence I am having with the British Minister of State for Climate, Joan Ruddock. I contacted the Minister early last December via my Member of Parliament to express my concerns about the lies and misinformation propagated by the UK government on the climate debate.
I urged the Right Honourable Member to study the facts and see there is no pressing policy consideration to justify imposing a huge new tax burden on voters during the current global economic recession. Indeed, wiser heads would caution doing anything right now, preferring to see a full public investigation of the Climategate scandal first. We are due to have a general election next Spring so these are important times in British politics. But as I show below, the omens for an independent investigation into this farce are not good.
For context, let me advise non-UK readers that all the three main UK political parties are squarely warmist in their policies. This is no easy nut to crack but I thought it would be entertaining, and hopefully enlightening, to share with our readers my latest offering to the Minister of Madness. (BTW: thanks to commentators on my ‘cold’ weather stations article – your analysis of the data is proving invaluable – please keep it coming).
The current Labour Government faces no dissent on climate issues in Parliament and blithely goes its merry way hugging trees and patronising polar bears. The fact that the science behind the fakery has been exposed since Climategate cuts no ice. So needless to say, the Minister tries to fob me off. But anyone who has read my articles knows I have really gotten my teeth into the controversy. So have a read and enjoy:
Dear Minister of State,
Re: The Climategate Scandal at the University of East Anglia (CRU)
Thank you for your letter of December 21, 2009 clarifying your position on the above matter. I feel compelled to reply to point out the lies, subterfuge and misinformation in your correspondence. There is too much there for me to challenge robustly in one letter. Instead I shall for the moment confine myself to three basic issues; (1.) the use of ‘private’ unaccountable police in the CRU investigation; (2.) the deceitful dropping of 806 ‘cold’ weather stations from the 6000 global set in one year and (3.) the facts on sea level rises that conflict with your assertion that “severe impacts” of climate change must be dealt with “now.”
First, I wish to register my protest in the strongest possible terms that a privately run secret police unit, the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET), is conducting the criminal investigation into the CRU scandal. NDET is directly answerable to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Because ACPO is not a public body but rather a private limited company, NETCU is exempt from freedom of information laws (FOIA) and other kinds of public accountability, even though they are funded by the Home Office and deploy police officers from regional forces. What further disturbs me is that ACPO cannot be relied upon to handle this investigation when ACPO have a vested interest in the outcome being that their pension fund is invested heavily in environmental stocks. So is this truly your interpretation of an “independent” investigation and will the Labour Government continue to conduct business like this if re-elected at the upcoming general election?
But as to the science, we know, at minimum, from the admissions contained in the leaked emails that the climate data analysis by CRU between 2006-2009 was ‘fudged.’ This has been confirmed by the latest peer-reviewed literature that I shall present further on.
For your information my associates and I contribute to a fast-growing website called http://www.climategate.com. We have been undertaking our own analysis and frankly, Minister, we are deeply shocked at what we have uncovered so far. Firstly, I wish to refer to the leaked emails and the ‘documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt’ files. These files covers CRU’s latest work from 2006-2009 and CRU scientist, ‘Harry’ admits the climate data CRU possesses is unusable:
“getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented… “
‘Harry’ then later adds, “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was.”
Clearly, from the evidence to hand, these climatologists are poor data handlers. When you then go beyond the 1,000+ emails and look deeper at the meta data coding within the rest of the leaked 62MB goldmine things get far worse. ‘Harry’ admits he has no training in FORTRAN. He muddles by attempting to teach himself and gamely trying to analyse so much “poor” and “false” data. As we have read, for Harry matters go from bad to worse.
Frankly, Minister, to use the words of one of your climatologists, this whole charade is a “travesty” and your scientists are incompetent. But from incompetence they plunge the depths into wilfully deceit and unlawful conduct. The proof of a conspiracy grows as we read the ‘hockey teams’’ own words. For over three years they admit to have been deliberately foiling FOIA requests. Now we have reached the farcical position where neither you nor your climatologists will come clean with the truth in the midst of the most severe winter in 30 years when newspapers predict deaths due to cold in the tens of thousands and Britain’s transport network liable to be thrown into chaos with just a few inches of snowfall. It is a total dereliction of your duties to continue to rely and defend secretly concocted junk science for what you say is “an issue of unrivalled public importance.”
I can assure you a cacophony of rage is building online over these matters as more ordinary citizens come to the Internet looking for the facts that you and the mainstream media are reluctant to address. Wise up and uphold the principles of the Freedom of Information Act; expedite the processing and completion of all past and pending FOIA requests so that everyone can see that you value independent analysis within a framework supportive of transparent and honest government.
But as you and your scientists appear to have forgotten, please allow me to remind you how the scientific method works. It is incumbent on the purveyor of any theory of science to provide the proof and permit sceptical testing of it. In fact, scepticism is the birthright of every scientist. But sceptics cannot test your junk theory because every one of your cited data sources denies examination of their methodologies and calculations – we are only presented with conclusions. Frankly, Minister, that’s just not good enough and history will regard you and your ilk with dismay for your hubris and contempt for reason and fair play.
CRU, like NASA and NOAA, want to treat their information as proprietary to them but unlike public corporations, they have no such privileges. Publicly funded repositories of data for use by educational and research institutions are obliged to properly maintain the original data, make it available to anyone who is qualified to work with it, AND document each and every adjustment made and why. But what I must now confront you with is the charge that government- funded scientists have been systematically and cynically dropping ‘cold’ rural ground measuring stations from the global set so as to skew the official government results. We have a list of 806 weather stations that were dropped from the total of 6000 worldwide in a single year with no explanation from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). The only fact in common that we can so far deduce for these sites being dropped is that they exhibit a tendency to be located in rural areas. I attach a copy of those 806 dropped weather stations for your inspection.
The Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) tells us that rural stations are free from the levels of secondary heat contamination generally found in cities, towns and airports. The additional heating within UHI areas increases measured temperatures by a magnitude of several degrees (McKitrick and Michaels 2007). The only possible motive I can infer from our ongoing findings is that your climatologists are dropping ‘cold’ ground weather stations to make the world’s climate appear warmer than it actually is.
So far my colleagues and I are still progressing with our analysis. But already we can report to you is that of the dropped Australian and New Zealand stations most are rural stations (e.g. Port Nelson, Ruttan Lake, Joutel). We shall continue to painstakingly analyze all stations on this list to see if we can substantiate what at the moment, appears to be a conspiracy to omit ‘cold’ rural stations. What we are seeing appears to confirm what peer reviewed papers have found, namely that artificial warming is contaminating 30-50% of the data cited by your sources. In effect, rather than adjusting their calculations to remove the UHI effect, your scientists are actually adding extra weighting to increase the distortion from UHI.
My colleagues have successfully determined that the station count for the U.S. (in the GHCN v2_mean file) dropped from 1177 to 136 in April 2006. We were able to confirm this by importing the data and by doing a simple count of all station ID’s beginning with “425″ for the year 2006. Replication is straightforward. This is a trivial task for any application developer merely – to write the code to import this data and then analyze it. The most significant observation we have noted is that most of the stations left in the U.S. are airports (for the years 2006 and going forward). Please check these facts for yourself and see that a fraud has been committed.
Moreover, the lack of transparency and unlawful conduct exhibited by Professor Phil Jones et al. may allow us to infer that the truth is being deliberately and zealously kept from us. In essence, the conclusions that your cited references provide about the climate are entirely worthless and may be adjudged as GIGO (‘Garbage In, Garbage Out!’).
Also, I cannot conclude without addressing your most absurd assertion made in paragraph five of your letter. Here you state there is a pattern of warming causing “rising sea levels,” and then in paragraph six you attribute this “as a direct result of human activities.” Minister, you are either inadvertently and ignorantly exaggerating the science or you are lying. To put this crazy statement into perspective, even the MET Office does not dispute that the overall rise in temperature is merely less than one degree centigrade since 1860 and with zero additional rises in sea levels on top of natural variation, how can you stand by your statement? Either kindly withdraw it or, alternatively, please quantify and differentiate the amounts of sea level and temperature rise that you attribute to man and to nature. The matter demands clarification.
From my understanding, the debate on current and past sea level rises is non-existent. But, I suspect, that you know we currently face no danger of problematic sea level rises because, like me you are able to check the best oceanographers’ peer-reviewed science that refutes the guesstimates and lies of climatologists on this issue. Sea levels are rising no faster than 2mm per annum – a wholly natural rate for the current Holocene interglacial whereby such an ice melt has been occurring for the past 11,000 years – way before human industrialization. In 2007 Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, produced a history of global sea level from 1904 to 2003 based upon a set of reliable, long-term observations from nine tide gauge stations scattered around the world and he could not find any sea level rises attributable to man-made emissions of CO2. Holgate is renowned as one of the world’s leading oceanographers
But further, may I also suggest you look at what the oceanographers at the University of Colorado have to say on this issue. They rely on the Jason-1 Calibration and TOPEX Calibration and attribute no sea level rises to mankind in any of their work. Their measurements concur neatly with Holgate’s numbers.
Other oceanographers in peer-reviewed papers such as Antonov et al. (2005); Ishii et al. (2005) and Willis et al. (2005) who all report current rises equal to seven inches per century with no human signal whatsoever. These oceanographers have all proved that current sea level rise is entirely consistent with natural Holocene ice melt. Thus the statement that sea levels are rising “as a direct result of human activities” is patently false – please withdraw it or stand accused by your critics as a lying scaremonger.
In paragraph six of your letter you state, “the temporal and spatial pattern of observed warming cannot be explained by natural causes alone.” This is a vacuous non-statement. No one is disputing that human emissions may have ‘some’ impact on climate. But does the one degree centigrade overall rise we have experience since 1860 justify the exorbitantly expensive policy measures of your government? The answer must be a resounding, ’No!’ when we bear in mind that the Earth has shown no warming trend for 15 years, based on analysis of the raw and combined CRU, NASA and NOAA numbers. So with no current decadal warming trend there is no justification in logic for the need to “take action now” as you insist. Look outside you window, Minister, open your eyes and see that after six cooler years in a row we are now in the midst of the worst winter in the northern hemisphere for 30 years. You are off on the wrong track. Your government is being criticised from all quarters for its policy failures to cope with these winter conditions. The travel chaos and rising death toll associated with severe cold proves the hardships of a colder climate outweigh those of the warmer one we lived through in the last quarter of the old century and which ended in 1998.
The scientific community is increasingly turning against the ‘theory’ of man made global warming (AGW) because, unlike the period from 1975-1998 warmer temperatures no longer correlate with rising levels of carbon dioxide. Thus with no correlation it is irrational to argue for causation. The so-called consensus among scientists on man-made climate change has evaporated since Climategate, while the latest peer-reviewed paper by German physicists, Dr’s. Gerlich and Tscheuschner thoroughly debunks the whole greenhouse gas theory. These German scientists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03% so that it is thus impossible for us to witness a greater rate of warming than seen already in the past 150 years. Gerlich and Tscheuschner further disprove that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal ‘forcing’ effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
Minister, please bring an end to this climate farce. I urge you to conduct independent review of the facts I now present to you rather than rely on fraudulent data that has been exposed as such.
Let me finish by commenting on what is truly dear to me – the future for our children. My teenage son and daughter are currently sitting GCSE and ‘A’ Level examinations. They have assured me that what truly constitutes “unrivalled public importance” is the need to remove political climate propaganda from the school curriculum – the real “greatest challenge” you offer them – is deciphering climate fact from fiction.
Children face this problem because, contrary to the High Court ruling made by Mr Justice Burton of 2007, the Al Gore’s film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is still being shown in our schools without clarification or caveat that this so called ‘documentary’ contains nine ‘errors’ that his lordship ruled were in ‘the context of alarmism and exaggeration.’ Just like Mr. Gore, your government has failed to present the facts honestly and with transparency and have turned to falsehoods to claim that climate change, a natural phenomenon is bringing “severe impacts” and it’s our fault. I hope that after the general election we shall see a new government that upholds the truth. But judging by your current climate stance I see little prospect for our youth while their future lies in your hands and they see a future of crippling taxes as a direct consequence of your policies.
Yours most sincerely,