2009年12月8日火曜日

Climategate 露愛国大学生関与か

Climategateは、露愛国大学生関与かもしれないとのこと。
 「クライメット(気候)ゲート」と呼ばれるこの疑惑は先月中旬に
発覚。米下院で、懐疑派の議員は「気候変動に関する科学すべてに疑問が
及ぶ」と批判。
温暖化対策で石油の消費量が減るのを恐れる米石油メジャーは巨額資金
を提供して懐疑派を支援している。

温暖化資料概略経緯
1999年Dr.Mann
ホッケースティックグラフ公開。

2003年McIntyreとProf.McKitrick
米西域 ヒッコリー松年輪をより、中世期の温暖化時代はなく、20世紀
後半の温度が急上昇と示す。

2006年Dr.JonesとDr.Briffa
シベリアのまったく異なる木の年輪より、ホッケースティックグラフの
確証を示す。

2007年IPCC(Dr.Briffaも担当)
McIntyreが、シベリアYamal半島で調査した年輪データの開示を拒否した
ため、IPCCは、McIntyre説を否定

2009年Tomsk学生(?)
関係者Emailを窃盗し、20世紀後半の温度減少隠蔽画策を暴露。
1999年の段階でYamal半島の年輪データのとおり、温度減少を把握して
いた。

Lucy Skywalker graphs
シベリアの一部地域で、過去50年に渡り温度上昇が見られないこと
を示す。

社会心理学や宗教等の手段を用いて、金銭を得る者が多い。
宗教的操作
・進化論の否定
商業的心理操作
・使い捨てが富の象徴
・哺乳類である鯨はいずれ立って歩く(Super Whale伝説)

根本には、原油開発関係と原油使用関係者の対立があるようだ。
科学は絶対で万能だとは思わない。政治が絡むとさらに複雑になる。
中世期欧州の気象現象について納得できる説明をまだ聞いたことがない。

Yamal treering proxy temperature reconstructions don’t match local thermometer records
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/


UN Climate Chief Calls for 'Ambitious Commitments' in Copenhagen EUX.TV


Ice Break: Top scientist resigns over 'Climate Hoax' scandal RT


『地球温暖化=破滅?違う!』 ハイライト/クリストファー・モンクトン

---英で気温変動データ改ざん疑惑温暖化懐疑派が巻き返し?---
2009.12.6 21:49
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/europe/091206/erp0912062151007-n1.htm

 【ロンドン=木村正人】コペンハーゲンで7日から始まる国連気候変動枠組み条約第15回締約国会議(COP15)を前に、国連の気候変動に関する政府間パネル(IPCC)が「温暖化の根拠」とした気温変動データを英国の研究者が改竄(かいざん)していた疑惑が浮上。波紋は世界中に広がり、COP15で目指す政治合意に影響を及ぼす懸念も出ている。
 米史上最大の政治スキャンダル、ウォーターゲート事件にちなみ「クライメット(気候)ゲート」と呼ばれるこの疑惑は先月中旬に発覚。世界的な研究機関、英イーストアングリア大学気候研究ユニット(CRU)のコンピューターにハッカーが侵入し、研究者たちが書いた大量の電子メールが盗まれてネット上で公開されたのがきっかけだった。
 2001年のIPCC第3次評価報告書で注目された過去1世紀の気温変動グラフは20世紀後半に気温が急上昇したことを如実に物語っていた。しかし、漏洩(ろうえい)した電子メールから、報告書作成者の1人、フィル・ジョーンズCRU所長がサンゴなどの分析から復元した昔の気温と実際に温度計で測定したデータをつなぎ合わせるときに気温上昇を誇張するように操作した疑いがあることが判明した。
 欧米では人類が温暖化の原因とする説への懐疑論も根強くあり、「気候変動は深刻な問題」と受け止める人は米世論調査で昨年4月の44%から今年10月には35%に低下。最近の英紙タイムズの世論調査でも25%にとどまった。
 データ改竄問題は米下院で3日に取り上げられ、懐疑派の議員は「気候変動に関する科学すべてに疑問が及ぶ」と批判した。
 温暖化対策で石油の消費量が減るのを恐れる米石油メジャーは巨額資金を提供して懐疑派を支援している。その1人で英保守党のクリストファー・モンクトン上院議員は本紙に「摂氏1度の気温上昇を防ぐには40年間、世界の経済活動を止める必要がある。(温室効果ガス削減の)温暖化対策を進めるより、どんな技術が必要かを自由市場経済に決めさせた方がはるかに安くすむ」と語った。


---なぜ多くの人が気候変動の脅威から目を背けるのか?---
2009年12月04日 15:16 発信地:パリ/フランス
http://www.afpbb.com/article/environment-science-it/environment/2671040/4993731

【12月4日 AFP】人類の活動が原因で気候変動が進み、地球規模の災厄が降りかかろうとしていることを示す証拠が次々と示されている一方、気候変動の脅威は誇張されているとか、まったくのうそだと言う人も相変わらず多い。
 例えば、英国で11月14日に発表された世論調査結果では、人類の活動が地球温暖化の原因になっていると回答したのは41%だけだった。
なぜだろうか。

■快適な生活を捨てたくない
 ロンドン大学(University of London)の哲学教授で著書も多いアンソニー・グレーリング(Anthony Grayling)氏は、「現在の快適な生活をあきらめたくないという気持ちがある」と指摘する。このような傾向は欧米だけでなく、近年中間所得層が増えた中国、インド、ブラジルのような国々にもみられるという。
 米イリノイ(Illinois)州のノックス大学(Knox College)のティム・カッサー(Tim Kasser)教授(心理学)は、気候変動という現実はわれわれのアイデンティティと衝突すると話す。
「わたしたちは1日に何千回も、主に広告を通して、幸福で有意義な人生を送る秘訣は消費することだと聞かされてきた。ところが最近になって科学者や環境活動家が、過剰な消費や間違った消費が温暖化の原因の一部だと言い始めた」

■恐怖から目をそらしたい
 別の説明もある。世界は破滅に向かっているという恐ろしい真実から目をそらしたり、脅威を和らげて理解しようとするのは人間の本性だというのだ。
 パリ(Paris)のエコール・ポリテクニーク(Ecole Polytechnique)のジャンピーエル・ドュピュイ(Jean-Pierre Dupuy)教授(社会心理学)は、「破滅に際して、人間は自分が知っていることを信じようとしない」と語る。
 前述のグレーリング教授も「だれもが現実を否定し――あるいは否定したいと思い――あまり大きな責任を負わされたくないと思っている。ここに一種の断絶がある」と説明する。
 オーストラリア国立大学(Australian National University)のクリーブ・ハミルトン(Clive Hamilton)教授(公共倫理学)は、9月に英オックスフォード(Oxford)で開かれた気候変動の会議に出席したとき、科学者同士の会話を聞いて驚いたという。
 この会議のテーマは気温が4度上昇した場合に世界にどのような影響が出るかという問題だったが、科学者同士のフランクな会話では科学者が果たすべき役割についてなどではなく、「怖いだとか、最近眠れなくなったとか、そんなことを話していた」

■いつまで目をそらせるか
 脅威を感じた人間は、安心したり、脅威から目をそらすために、実にすぐれた才覚を示す。
 例えば、環境によい小さな行動をことさら強調する人もいる。「白熱電球を電球型の蛍光灯に替えて、自分の義務は果たしたと言う人もいる」(カッサー教授)。このような態度は米国でよく見られるという。
 温室効果ガスの排出削減に消極的な中国やインドをことさら非難したり、個人の力ではどうしようもないとため息をついてみせるのも、恐ろしい現実から目をそらしたいという心の働きの現れだ。
 しかし、いずれ現実は襲ってくる。
 オーストラリアの議会選に立候補している上述のハミルトン教授は、気候変動が現実であることを物語るショッキングな出来事を目の当たりにして、気候変動が現実だと認める人が増えていると話す。
「気候変動の現実を理性ではなく感情に訴えるような出来事は、今後数年間でますます増えていくでしょう」
 国家が破綻したり、バングラデシュのような温暖化に脆弱な国で大災害が起きたりするなどの衝撃的な事態が2、3発生しないと、現実を認めないかもしれないとグレーリング教授は言う。「しかし、一度そうなれば『これは現実ではない』とか『科学的に解決できる、そのうち過ぎ去る』などと言うことはできなくなる」。


---Is Russia behind the Climategate hackers?---
December 7, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6946385.ece

The Russian connection to the controversy over the leaked e-mails raises suspicions of a state-sanctioned attempt to discredit the Copenhagen summit involving secret service espionage. But it could as easily have been the work of freelance hackers hired by climate-change sceptics.

Hackers for hire are a common phenomenon in Russia, where programming skills are high and many under-employed computer experts are eager to make money. A shadowy organisation called the Russian Business Network is notorious as a provider of internet services for global cyber-crime.

Unscrupulous businesses hire hackers to attack the websites of rivals, while criminal gangs make use of their skills in credit card fraud and identity theft.

A third possibility is that disgruntled or mischievous students involved in the climate-change debate accessed the servers after a suggestion that the files hacked from the University of East Anglia had been uploaded from a server in Tomsk. The formerly closed Siberian city is now one of Russia’s leading centres for studying climate change and hosted an international conference on the subject last year for young scientists.

Tomsk students were involved in an attack on a website sympathetic to Chechen militants in 2002 that drew praise from the Federal Security Service (FSB), the successor to the Soviet-era KGB.

The Kremlin was blamed when government websites in Estonia and Georgia were crippled by so-called distributed-denial-of- service attacks launched by computer hackers.

Security experts in Russia say that the FSB routinely makes use of “hacker-patriots” when it wants to break into computer systems or damage websites belonging to groups critical of the state. This allows it to deny the involvement of its own computer experts at the FSB’s Centre for Information Security.


---Climategate: was Russian secret service behind email hacking plot?---
Published: 10:34PM GMT 06 Dec 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6746370/Climategate-was-Russian-secret-service-behind-email-hacking-plot.html

There was growing speculation on Sunday that hackers working for the Russian secret service were responsible for the theft of controversial emails in the ‘Climategate’ scandal.

Thousands of emails, from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were first published on a small server in the city of Tomsk in Siberia.

So-called ‘patriot hackers’ from Tomsk have been used in the past by the Russian secret service, the FSB, to attack websites disliked by the Kremlin, such as the “denial of service” campaign launched against the Kavkaz-Tsentr website, over its reports about the war in Chechnya, in 2002.

Russia, a major oil exporter, may be trying to undermine calls to reduce carbon emissions ahead of the Copenhagen summit on global warming. The CRU emails included remarks which some claim show scientists had manipulated the figures to make them fit the theory that humans are causing global warming.

Achim Steiner, the director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said the theft of emails from CRU, which is a world-renowned centre for climate research, had similarities with the Watergate scandal which brought down US President Richard Nixon.

But he said: “This is not climategate, it’s hackergate. Let’s not forget the word ‘gate’ refers to a place [the Watergate building] where data was stolen by people who were paid to do so.

“So the media should direct its investigations into that.”

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he believed the theft of the emails was not the work of amateur climate sceptics.

“It’s very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services,” he told The Times.

“If you look at that mass of emails a lot of work was done, not only to download the data but it’s a carefully made selection of emails and documents that’s not random at all.

“This is 13 years of data and it’s not a job of amateurs.”

Mr van Ypersele said the expose was making it more difficult to persuade the 192 countries going to Copenhagen of the need to cut carbon emissions.

“One effect of this is to make scientists lose lots of time checking things. We are spending a lot of useless time discussing this rather than spending time preparing information for the negotiators,” he said.

However he insisted the emails did not change the science. “It doesn’t change anything in the IPCC’s conclusions. It’s only one line of evidence out of dozens of lines of evidence,” he said.

A Russian hacking specialist told the Mail on Sunday: “There is no hard evidence that the hacking was done from Tomsk, though it might have been. There has been speculation the hackers were Russian.

“It appears to have been a sophisticated and well-run operation, that had a political motive given the timing in relation to Copenhagen.”


---Republicans push on 'Climategate'---
LISA LERER | 12/6/09 7:02 AM EST
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30172.html

A series of embarrassing e-mails stolen from a British climate research center last month has wreaked havoc in the obscure academic circles of climate science.

Now Republicans hope the “climategate” scandal will do the same to the Obama administration’s environmental agenda.

Global warming skeptics believe that the correspondence, which shows scientists debating whether to manipulate scientific data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming, is a smoking gun that will change the dynamics of the climate debate. Activists also hope the purloined e-mails will derail Democratic climate negotiations on Capitol Hill and the upcoming international talks in Copenhagen.

“The elephant in the room is the questions raised by the e-mails which have been made public,” said Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) on Wednesday. “Anyone who thinks that the e-mails are insignificant, that they don’t damage the credibility of the entire movement, is naive.”

The controversy has rallied and outraged conservative activists who believe the exchanges stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit prove that climate scientists colluded to suppress data on how humans have affected climate change.

They’re pointing to comments that show scientists using a science journal “trick” to manipulate data, vowing to keep challenging studies out of journals even if “we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is” and deriding questions from climate skeptics as “crap criticisms from the idiots.”

“This is a sea change in our culture,” said Marc Morano, a former Republican staffer turned prominent climate change skeptic. “Wait until January or February; you’re going to see numbers [on belief in global warming] that have dropped through the floor.”

The scandal thus far has not gained significant traction with voters beyond the conservative base, given that a majority of Americans - and most policymakers - still believe global warming to be a scientific fact. But Republicans hope that their ongoing investigation will push the issue into the mainstream.

On Friday, a top official at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change promised to investigate claims that the scientists purposely manipulated their data.

And Republicans know that the issue will continue to energize their base as they move toward the 2010 elections. Support for curbing greenhouse gases has become toxic among conservatives, who have made opposition to cap-and-trade proposals a key tenet of their party purity test. Recent polling has also shown a dramatic drop in the number of Republicans who believe in man-made global warming.

Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina has already jumped on the scandal as a way to attack Sen. Barbara Boxer, her liberal Democratic opponent in environmentally friendly California.

The Fiorina campaign slammed Boxer for focusing on the legal questions surrounding the stolen information instead of the validity of the science.

“While the legal issues in this case merit a full investigation, Americans also deserve to know the truth, especially as Boxer continues to force job-killing ‘cap-and-trade’ legislation through the Senate,” Fiorina’s deputy campaign manager for communications Julie Soderlund said in an e-mail.

Boxer, who’s known as one of the most outspoken environmentalists in Congress, called for the prosecution of the hackers who stole the e-mails on Wednesday.

“You call it climategate; I call it e-mail-theft-gate,” she said Wednesday. “It seems to me they must have been hacking this for years, and just before Copenhagen, they came out with them.”

Boxer’s comments echo those of other Democratic climate supporters, who say that skeptics are taking passages from the more than 1,000 e-mails out of context to undermine public confidence in climate science.

“The key point is, however this particular controversy comes out, the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding about how the climate works or how humans are affecting it,” top White House top science adviser John Holdren said in testimony before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming on Wednesday.

Democrats have largely dismissed the whole controversy; Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse described it Wednesday as a “little e-mail squabble.”

“While I would absolutely agree that these e-mails show a lack of interpersonal skills,” said Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, “I have not heard anything that causes me not to believe that the overwhelming consensus [is] that climate change is happening and that man-made emissions are contributing to it.”

But Democratic dismissals haven’t stopped Republican climate skeptics from hoping that climategate will do everything from kill the cap-and-trade bill to derail the international negotiations in Copenhagen.

Republicans used several congressional hearings this week to question top White House officials about the controversy.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), in a hearing before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said the e-mails could suggest “a massive scientific international fraud.”

“The scientists may be able to change their story and do more research, but once Congress passes a law, it will be as difficult to undo the consequences of that law as putting milk back in the cow,” he said.

In the Senate, Republican members of the Environment and Public Works Committee turned a hearing on the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act into a referendum on the e-mails.

“The allegedly unethical and potentially illegal behavior by climate scientists may undermine the legality of the EPA actions,” said Missouri Sen. Kit Bond.

Republicans in the House and Senate have called for a congressional investigation into the dispute.

Reps. Joe Barton of Texas and Greg Walden of Oregon sent letters to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke on Wednesday asking the administration officials to disclose any role their agencies played in funding or data sharing with the climate scientists exposed in the e-mails.

“Whatever one’s position on the science of global warming,” said Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, the top GOP member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “One cannot deny that the e-mails raised fundamental questions: among other things, transparency and openness in science.”

But not all Republicans see the e-mails as quite as big a crisis for climate science.

Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) dismissed the controversy as more of a public relations problem than a serious scientific meltdown.

“There’s always been some skepticism about some of that,” he said. “I think that from a public relations view, that’s not really the best way to go to Copenhagen, very frankly.”


---Climategate: Green activist attacks half the electorate as lunatic Right-wing conspiracy theorists---
By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: December 6th, 2009
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100019024/climategate-green-activist-attacks-half-the-electorate-as-lunatic-right-wing-conspiracy-theorists/

Joss Garman, who co-founded the pressure group Plane Stupid, rails at the “undiluted lunacy” of the conservative movement. We Rightists, he says, have concocted a conspiracy theory that is imperilling the planet. We apparently believe that scientists and governments are deliberately, maliciously and secretly falsifying climate change data.

“I find it extraordinary that the Conservatives Andrew Tyrie and Daniel Hannan, James Delingpole of The Daily Telegraph and Fraser Nelson of The Spectator have gambled their reputations on a conspiracy theory supported by the flimsiest of evidence.”

The others he names will, no doubt, speak for themselves. My own views on climate change are summarised here. As you will see, far from alleging a conspiracy, I wrote the following:

“It isn’t a conspiracy. Reading the leaked emails, it seems pretty clear that their authors genuinely believe that the world is getting hotter as a result of human activity.”

I went on to say that I, too, thought that the world was warming, and that human activity might well be playing a part in the process. I simply wondered whether there were cheaper and more effective strategies than spending hundreds of billions of pounds on a scheme which, even according to its most evangelical supporters, will slow the heating process only slightly. “It ought to be possible,” I concluded, “to accept the case for global warming - and, indeed, for an anthropogenic component therein - while still believing that the Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen agenda represents a misallocation of resources.”

This, in Garman’s eyes, makes me a “denier”, the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier. You don’t think that’s his implication? Then read the next bit of his article: “The Daily Express front page last week, headlined ‘The Big Climate Change Fraud’… will appear in exhibitions in years to come alongside the Daily Mail headline of the Thirties - ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’”.

But what exactly am I supposed to be denying? That the world is warming? No. That we are over-dependent on fossil fuels? No. That we ought to reduce the pollutants we pump into the air - including carbon dioxide? No. All I deny is that supporters of the proposed emissions targets have a monopoly of wisdom.

If Garman’s purpose is simply to attack the Right, fair enough. But if he wants to win people over on the issue of climate change, he’s going about it in a very strange way. I mean, when I see that he’s fibbing about me, I’m commensurately less likley to believe what he says about, say, Arctic sea ice.

No wonder so few voters are persuaded: most people can spot self-serving, contradictory and hysterical arguments when they hear them. Attacking the unconvinced, rather than coming up with better arguments, isn’t just bad tactics; it’s plain stupid.


---Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world'---
By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:41PM GMT 05 Dec 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html

Leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit show how the world's weightiest climate data has been distorted, says Christopher Booker

Coming to light in recent days has been one of the most extraordinary scientific detective stories of our time, bizarrely centred on a single tree in Siberia dubbed "the most influential tree in the world". On this astonishing tale, it is no exaggeration to say, could hang in considerable part the future shape of our civilisation. Right at the heart of the sound and fury of "Climategate" - the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - is one story of scientific chicanery, overlooked by the media, whose implications dwarf all the rest. If all those thousands of emails and other documents were leaked by an angry whistle-blower, as now seems likely, it was this story more than any other that he or she wanted the world to see.

To appreciate its significance, as I observed last week, it is first necessary to understand that the people these incriminating documents relate to are not just any group of scientists. Professor Philip Jones of the CRU, his colleague Dr Keith Briffa, the US computer modeller Dr Michael Mann, of "hockey stick" fame, and several more make up a tightly-knit group who have been right at the centre of the last two reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On their account, as we shall see at this week's Copenhagen conference, the world faces by far the largest bill proposed by any group of politicians in history, amounting to many trillions of dollars.

It is therefore vitally important that we should trust the methods by which these men have made their case. The supreme prize that they have been working for so long has been to establish that the world is warmer today than ever before in recorded history. To do this it has been necessary to eliminate a wealth of evidence that the world 1,000 years ago was, for entirely natural reasons, warmer than today (the so-called Medieval Warm Period).

The most celebrated attempt to demonstrate this was the "hockey stick" graph produced by Dr Mann in 1999, which instantly became the chief icon of the IPCC and the global warming lobby all over the world. But in 2003 a Canadian statistician, Steve McIntyre, with his colleague Professor Ross McKitrick, showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced "hockey stick" graphs whatever random data were fed into it. A wholly unrepresentative sample of tree rings from bristlecone pines in the western USA had been made to stand as "proxies" to show that there was no Medieval Warm Period, and that late 20th-century temperatures had soared to unprecedented levels.

Although McIntyre's exposure of the "hockey stick" was upheld in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress, the small group of scientists at the top of the IPCC brushed this aside by pointing at a hugely influential series of graphs originating from the CRU, from Jones and Briffa. These appeared to confirm the rewriting of climate history in the "hockey stick", by using quite different tree ring data from Siberia. Briffa was put in charge of the key chapter of the IPCC's fourth report, in 2007, which dismissed all McIntyre's criticisms.

At the forefront of those who found suspicious the graphs based on tree rings from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia was McIntyre himself, not least because for years the CRU refused to disclose the data used to construct them. This breached a basic rule of scientific procedure. But last summer the Royal Society insisted on the rule being obeyed, and two months ago Briffa accordingly published on his website some of the data McIntyre had been after.

This was startling enough, as McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because it showed that the CRU studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to leave those that showed the picture that was wanted. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU's studies, which led McIntyre to dub it "the most influential tree in the world".

But more dramatic still has been the new evidence from the CRU's leaked documents, showing just how the evidence was finally rigged. The most quoted remark in those emails has been one from Prof Jones in 1999, reporting that he had used "Mike [Mann]'s Nature trick of adding in the real temps" to "Keith's" graph, in order to "hide the decline". Invariably this has been quoted out of context. Its true significance, we can now see, is that what they intended to hide was the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree, the Yamal data showed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century but declining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann's procedure for the "hockey stick" (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ring data after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted - without explanation - with a line based on the quite different data of measured global temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up.

A further devastating blow has now been dealt to the CRU graphs by an expert contributor to McIntyre's Climate Audit, known only as "Lucy Skywalker". She has cross-checked with the actual temperature records for that part of Siberia, showing that in the past 50 years temperatures have not risen at all. (For further details see the science blog Watts Up With That.)

In other words, what has become arguably the most influential set of evidence used to support the case that the world faces unprecedented global warming, developed, copied and promoted hundreds of times, has now been as definitively kicked into touch as was Mann's "hockey stick" before it. Yet it is on a blind acceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500 politicians, officials, scientists and environmental activists will be gathering in Copenhagen to discuss measures which, if adopted, would require us all in the West to cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions by anything up to 80 per cent, utterly transforming the world economy.

Little of this extraordinary story been reported by the BBC or most of our mass-media, so possessed by groupthink that they are unable to see the mountain of evidence now staring them in the face. Not for nothing was Copenhagen the city in which Hans Andersen wrote his story about the Emperor whose people were brainwashed into believing that he was wearing a beautiful suit of clothes. But today there are a great many more than just one little boy ready to point out that this particular Emperor is wearing nothing at all.

I will only add two footnotes to this real-life new version of the old story. One is that, as we can see from the CRU's website, the largest single source of funding for all its projects has been the European Union, which at Copenhagen will be more insistent than anyone that the world should sign up to what amounts to the most costly economic suicide note in history.

The other is that the ugly, drum-like concrete building at the University of East Anglia which houses the CRU is named after its founder, the late Hubert Lamb, the doyen of historical climate experts. It was Professor Lamb whose most famous contribution to climatology was his documenting and naming of what he called the Medieval Warm Epoch, that glaring contradiction of modern global warming theory which his successors have devoted untold efforts to demolishing. If only they had looked at the evidence of those Siberian trees in the spirit of true science, they might have told us that all their efforts to show otherwise were in vain, and that their very much more distinguished predecessor was right after all.

0 コメント: