Dyret i Åbenbaringen

Diverse — Drokles on January 5, 2010 at 8:53 am

Terence Corcoran har i National Post en glimrende gennemgang af de lækkede emails fra East Anglia Climate Research Institute der så tydeligt viser, hvor farligt det er at blande politik og videnskab sammen. Ganske almindelige forskere bliver gjort ansvarlige for menneskehedens fremtid, et ansvar politikerne gladeligt lægger fra sig i jagten på mere magt. De stakkels forskere skal pludselig tage stilling til præmisser uden for deres gebet - og fremtiden afhænger af deres svar.

The scientists appear to have been dragged into the economic prediction game by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, in turn assigned by the IPCC to construct economic outlooks for growth and carbon emissions. The exercise ultimately let to the production of one of the IPCC’s long-term climate gimmicks, a range of scenarios or story lines that produced different levels of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2100.


The scientists, who wrangle with this project for a couple of years, were lured into participating in what from the start was a loaded ideological exercise. In March 1998, Mike Hulme at CRU received a draft version of these 100-year forecast scenarios. Four scenarios were developed: A1, B1, A2, and B2. The exercise turns out to be a set-up for a campaign to undermine free markets, globalization and free trade.
In the 1998 draft, the A1 scenario is called the Golden Economic Age. It describes a period of “rapid and successful economic development,” brought on by the economic structures that have been successful in the past: free markets, global free trade, innovation. “Free trade enables each region to access knowledge, technology, and capital to best deploy its respective comparative economic and human advantages.” By 2100, it said, the developed world under free global trade, would have annual per capita income approaching $100,000 and the developing world $70,000.

The trouble with this Golden Economic Age, a name that was dropped in the final IPCC report on scenarios in 2001, is that it produced a lot of carbon emissions — thus making free trade, open markets and globalization a non-starter. The alternatives were variations on slower growth. Scenario B1, called Sustainable Development, involved “high levels of environmental and social consciousness” along with reductions in income and social inequality. Average per capita income would rise only to $40,000 by 2100. But the good news, from the IPCC perspective, is that carbon emissions were a lot lower.

The upshot of these scenarios, based on IPCC objectives of reducing carbon emission, is a deck stacked against free markets and globalization. In the emails, the scenarios make their way through a barrage of comment from scientists who, for the most part, balk at the process.


In the end, Mike Hulme appeared as one of the contributing authors for the IPCC’s 2001 Synthesis Report, including various 100-year scenarios. It concluded that carbon concentration in the atmosphere could rise to 1,250% above the pre-industrial year of 1750 under the free market A1 scenario, with temperatures rising as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius. Capitalism clearly ruins everything.

Under devisen at føre politik efter den højeste sagkundskab, skaber man grundlæggende rationalismens svar på Mullahernes øverste råd i Iran. Artiklen (set via Climate Debate Daily) er rimelig lang og fra midt i december, men den antyder et drama, som jeg ville købe filmrettighederne til havde jeg blot pengene. Den indholder endda personificeringen af forræderi og fortabelse. For når der er arbejde, der skal gøre vil der også være nogle til at gøre det og mens, der internt i gruppen er tvivl og forbehold overfor deres faglige arbejde så kalder opgaven “to find the hand of man” på en bestemt løsning. Og Michael Mann var manden, der kunne feje tvivl til side og præsentere politikerne for det de kunne og skulle forstå. Således sagde Mann Ja Tak til at træde ind i arbejdsfælleskabet

Dear Phil,
Of course I’ll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority. It sounds like it would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal of our present funding), etc. by I don’t see a problem with that in the least.
Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to make mine available, though can’t promise its the most user friendly thing in the world.
In short, I like the idea. Include me in, and let me know what you eed from me (cv, etc.).

Her var åbenlyst manden, der forstod politik og kunne samle nogen om en sag. Men man kan ikke tjene to herrer Videnskab og politik og efter en intern strid mellem Kieth Briffa og Michael Mann om netop Michael Manns konklusioner om klimaet de seneste 1000 år, der hverken indbefattede middelalderens varmeperiode eller den Lille Istid var monsteret ude af kontrol, som Anden Del af artiklen fortæller om. Mann havde trods voldsom intern modstand samlet gruppen om en fælles sag

The Mann technique of aggressive intervention in the peer-review process over Mr. Briffa’s work sets the tone for what would become a major strategy as all the scientists within the IPCC loop waged war on any science and papers that contravened or questioned the official view.

The anti-skeptic campaign switched into overdrive with the arrival on the climate science scene of two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. In mid-2003, after many efforts, Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick finally published a paper titled “Corrections to the Mann et al Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series.”

The public battles between Mr. Mann and the two Canadians are already on the record. The emails reinforce the worst of suspicions that the official scientific community did all they could to smear Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick, prevent publication of the work of skeptics, manipulate the peer-review process and isolate all skeptics as cranks. On May 31, 2004,  Phil Jones, head of the IPCC-designated Climatic Research Unit, wrote to Mr. Mann: “Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised…”

Mr. Mann meddled in other ways. In January 2005, he called the editor of Geophysical Research Letters, the official science publication of the American Geophysical Union, to try to head off a paper by Mr. McIntyre. The editor, Steve Mackwell,  defends the decision to publish and tells Mr. Mann that the McIntyre paper has been thoroughly peer reviewed by four scientists. “You would not in general be asked to look it over,” Mr. Mackwell told Mr. Mann. Later in 2005, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones on their troubles with the GRL journal after Mr. Mackwell’s term as editor was up: “The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership.”


The emails take another turn against the IPCC scientists after Mr. McIntyre got his hands on some of the tree-ring data collected by Russian scientists in Yamal in Siberia. It appeared to Mr. McIntyre that Mr. Briffa, in producing another hockey-stick like result in 2007, cherry-picked tree rings. Mr. Briffa, once at war with Mr. Mann over climate records, now found himself aligned with Mr. Mann in defending the hockey stick.

Læs dem begge for det er et sand drama på så mange planer. Og jeg vil også anbefale Clive James muntre skepticisme på BBC 4.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress