*DISINFO: “Peer”-Reviewed Climate “Science” & “Scientific” Consensus.
Ignorance Is Futile:
When it comes to climate science, the ‘companion’ definition of ‘peer’ would be the one to use. When a group of radical partisans collude to hijack the peer-review process, in order to squash research and findings that conflicts with their own agenda, the result is conspiratorial disinformation.
These so-called scientists share their data and methods with each other, but then deliberately withhold them from those who might see their flaws. Then they trump up a so-called ‘scientific consensus’ argument using 1. manipulated data inserted into IPCC-type reports, and 2. their self-fulfilling peer-reviewed literature.
First of all, the idea of a ‘scientific’ ‘consensus’ is patently flawed. True science isn’t based on human opinion, but rather replicable math or observation. Neither of those criteria are reliable, despite the claims of Alarmists. So the consensus is the collective opinion of scientists who have an inherent predisposition with environmental ideology, being scientists who work with nature and all.
Opinion is pseudoscience by definition. And what of past scientific consensus? Pre-Eugenicist, post Civil War scientists claimed that ‘negros’ were of a lower species, not even human, which helped justify their harsh treatment, even to the Civil Rights era. In the early 1900’s the consensus was in Eugenics (even Ted Roosevelt supported it), started in the US & UK, their Social Darwinist theories applied to early genetics ideas fueled the Nazi’s forced sterilizations and death camps.
Others like to refer to the large list of scientific councils most of whom agree with the ‘consensus’. The problem is the figureheads that run these bureaucratic organizations typically number less than 20, and their advocacy of the ‘consensus’ represents profit for their existence. And most, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (yes you red correctly), primarily lean on the consensus as declared by our CRU-IPCC conspirators.
A good examples of how these groups operate is as follows from this insider (Eric Berger) account:
I am and have been an AGU member for many decades, and the “leadership” of this “society” has never even asked members what we think about it. The current leadership is an entrenched, isolated bureaucracy that sits in Washington, D.C. and has become an active political actor, need I say more. In contrast, some of the other professional organizations I belong to actually ask members for comments, and form open committees to work on things like this with member input and critique. The AGU is NOT a consensus organization at all, nor a democracy either.
So with the AGU you have less than 20 people making a statement ‘on behalf’ of the 50,000 members, without virtually any input whatsoever. This one example should be good enough to make it obvious that the ‘consensus’ found in statements by these groups is unscientific in attempting to graph a true consensus.
If anything, listening to actual individuals competent in regards to elements of climate science should at least be considered. Yet Alarmists flat out dismiss the ever growing petition of 31,000+ scientists, including over 9,100 Phd’s, whom reject the global warming agenda.
Don’t listen to the individuals, instead listen to the figureheads of these groups who don’t even poll their members before making a statement.
NOTE: WordPress formatting messed up the paragraph breaks with a lot of stuff I pasted in…
Today Timothy Ball helped lay out the framework of our conspirators network:
Tentacles of Climategate will reach far as information is divulged. People will rush to get on or off the bandwagon depending on their involvement. As a first hand observer, I must outline the history, identify the people involved and provide context.
The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate
The Public and Mainstream Media Still Don’t Grasp the Implications.
The “Ad Hoc Committee Report on the ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction commonly known as The Wegman Report said, “Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99 (The infamous hockey stick paper). As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.” Wegman identified most of the people involved with the leaked information from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) – “climategate”.
They are still reinforcing each other and refuse to acknowledge the severity of their actions. Mainstream media helps by downplaying the significance or deliberately closing their eyes. It’s deeply disturbing to learn scientists have deliberately twisted science for social and political ends. I watched it happen, now I can set out the history and identify those involved.
Cabal; A Secret Political Clique or Faction
As recently as June 19th 2009, they gathered and reinforced each other at a Symposium to honor (?) Tom Wigley.
In a measure of bureaucratic involvement Univeristy Corporation of Atmospheric Research (UCAR) President Rick Anthes’ opening slide ridiculed McIntyre and McKitrick who broke the hockey stick. “The reply, by Wigley and Jones, is a monument of obfuscation, irrelevance and spite.” (Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick October 2, 2005). This was followed by a quote that said, “This doesn’t sound like the Tom Wigley we know and love…What’s going on here.” Well, Mr. Anthes the avuncular Wigley fooled most of the world. I know. I watched him.
I’ve written about poor climate science and political machinations. Now disclosure of the scientists involved at the CRU and beyond allows me to describe who and how they did it with the support of Maurice Strong. He established the political framework through formation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scientists provided the science through the IPCC. Strong took their claims to the green movements through the 1992 Rio Conference.
Strong’s powerful connections in Canada were apparently used to involve Environment Canada (EC) in development of the IPCC and CRU connections. These bureaucrats drew in other government agencies who easily convinced politicians desperate to appear green. Gordon McBean, Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) at EC, chaired the 1985 Villach Austria meeting when formation of the IPCC was planned. Here are the two major players in the CRU scandal, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, in Villach in a series shown at Wigley’s career Symposium.
Meet the conspirators:
Figure 1: Phil Jones, Current Director of the CRU and Tom Wigley the power behind the scenes.
Figure 2: Wigley and H.H.Lamb, founder of the CRU
Figure 3: No wonder Prince Charles says we have 100 months left, he has a ‘reliable’ source
Figure 4: Jones, Santer and Wigley at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Figure 5: Major players in early and later days of the IPCC
Figure 6: Critical players in CRU and IPCC
Jones’ innocent look belies his actions. In one email he wrote to Michael Mann: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”…Lamb worked every day almost to the end, but the real power was emerging in the person of Tom Wigley (Figure 2). Lamb knew what was going on because he cryptically writes in his autobiography, “Through all the Changing Scenes of Life: A Meteorologists Tale” how a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation came to grief because of, “…an understandable difference of scientific judgment between me and the scientist, Dr. Tom Wigley, whom we have appointed to take charge of the research.”Wigley is the grandfather figure and in control throughout as the emails illustrate. They seek his advice as in this email, which ends, “I hope these very hasty ramblings are helpful” The originator was seeking ideas for a National Academy of Sciences plan.Other comments are more direct and frightening. Bishop Hill summarizes, “Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too.”In another push to have someone removed Wigley supports Michael Mann’s attack on the journal editor of Geophysical Review Letters (GRL) who published McIntyre’s 2005 paper. Again Hill’s summary, “Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted.) [Note to readers – Saiers was subsequently ousted]” This quote illustrates the problem for the public. Unless you understand the science and the events the comments make little sense. Apart from comments like how to avoid Freedom of Information (FOI) requests it is easy to divert attention.
The IPCC Connection:
The UN’s IPCC, spearheaded by the ‘hacked’ CRU, has been the primary driving source of Global Warming Alarmism. This admission by Keith Briffa about the IPCC’s ethics is ‘alarming’:
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. [from 1177890796.txt]
Wigley is prominent in the IPCC from the start. Graduate students are prominent names in the emails and the IPCC. Phil Jones is the focus as current Director of the CRU, but as Figure 1 shows he was alongside Wigley from the start. Another prominent CRU graduate is Benjamin Santer seen here with Jones and Wigley.
…Santer was lead author of Chapter 8 for the 1995 IPCC Report and involved in the first major controversy. He altered contents of the Chapter so it agreed with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) without consent of other authors. The emails show how the Reports similarly achieved political not scientific objectives.
…The people in Figure 6 are connected with East Anglia or the IPCC. In another photo (Figure 6) they are unsure of source or time but it puts Wigley and Jones together early with leading figures like Syukoru Manabe, whose computer model was the basis of the IPCC models, and Bert Bolin first chairman of the IPCC (now deceased).…All the people in the emails are listed in the various author lists of each of the IPCC Reports. For example, the 2007 list includes these names Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Karl, Keith Briffa, Jonathan Overpeck, Andrew Weaver, Martin Parry among others.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! [from 1089318616.txt]
What about the journals?
We’ll start with a bunch of quotes from the emails of the conspirators discussing their strategies for hijacking the peer-review process. The first example has Grant Foster with a list of reviewers another can count on:
Suggested Reviewers to Include
Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates, collaborators, or family members. (this requires name, email, and institution).
Tom Wigley email@example.com NCAR
Ben Santer <firstname.lastname@example.org> Lawrence Livermore
Mike Wallace <email@example.com> U Washington [May not be most responsive]
Dave Thompson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Col State Univ
Dave Easterling <David.Easterling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> NCDC
Phil Jones and Ben Santer talk about a journal wants to force him to release all of his raw data that he used in his paper:
I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS.
Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I’m really sorry you have to deal with that kind of crap. If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available – raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.
Michael Mann on coercing a different journal:
I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they wanted–the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole.
…There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn’t get published in a reputable journal. This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…[from 1047388489.txt]
In response, Phil Jones writes:
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame — he encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’.
One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.
…Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones.Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.[from 1051190249.txt]
Another chain of emails contained a group discussion about “ousting” a journal editor that they determined to be in the “skeptics camp” for publishing some papers that were contrary to their view:
If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
Other recent news regarding the AGU ‘ousting’ out the contrary:
We developed this session to honor the great tradition of science and scientific inquiry, as exemplified by Galileo when, 400 years ago this year, he first pointed his telescope at the Earth’s moon and at the moons of Jupiter, analyzed his findings, and subsequently challenged the orthodoxy of a geocentric universe. Our proposed session was accepted by the AGU.
In response to its acceptance, we were joined by a highly distinguished group of scientists – including members of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, France and China, as well as recipients of the AGU’s own William Bowie, Charles Whitten and James MacElwane medals. Our participants faithfully submitted abstracts for the session.
…The merger was approved by the AGU Planning Committee. Thus our Galileo session now had grown to a total of 27 papers and was approved as a poster session at the Fall Meeting.
However, a few days later, after first approving our session and after we had assigned time slots for these new papers at AGU’s request, the Planning Committee revoked its approval and summarily dissolved our session.
Tim Ball, et al:
“What you’ve got here is confirmation of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature.” Dr Ball explains.
“So there’s a classic example of the kind of thing that bothered me. About twenty years ago, I started saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’… And now of course we realise it’s because they had control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.”
“On a global scale it’s frightening because this group of people not only control the Hadley Centre, which controls the data on global temperature through the Hadley Climate Research Unit but they also control the IPCC and they’ve manipulated that. And of course the IPCC has become the basis in all governments for the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord and so on….”
Professor Wegman’s ’43’:
The block (cluster) structure is very clear. Michael Mann is a co-author with every one of the other 42. The black squares on the diagonal indicate that the investigators work closely within their group, but not so extensively outside of their group. … However, it is immediately clear that the Mann, Rutherford, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes form a clique, each interacting with all of the others.
A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the clique interacts with every one else in the clique. …The cliques are very clear in this layout. In addition to the Mann-Rutherford-Jones-Osborn-Briffa-Bradley-Hughes clique there are several others that are readily apparent. They are Rind-Shindell-Schmidt-Miller, Cook-D’Arrigo-Jacoby-Wilson, Folland-Vellinga-Allan-Knight, Stahle-Shugart-Therrell-Druckenbrod-Cleveland, Sangoyomi-Moon-Lall-Abarbanel, and Clement-Zebiak-Cane. The last cluster is somewhat of the miscellaneous cluster of people who had published with Michael Mann, but not much if at all with each other.
…The social network analysis of authors’ relations suggests that the “independent reconstructions” are not as independent as one might guess. Indeed, the matrix outlined in Figure 5.8 illustrates the proxies that are used more than one time in twelve major temperature reconstruction papers. The black boxes indicate that the proxy was used in a given paper. It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.
Regardless, what do the journals say?
Much trumpeting has been done over a so-called consensus established by Naomi Oreskes. She reported an analysis of “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ISI database with the keywords ‘global climate change’”. There have been many detailed critiques of her paper, but here I’d like to keep it simple and look at it at face value. Alarmists like to claim that essentially all of the papers support the Global Warming argument. In reality however this is not nearly the case.
Only 20% support anthropogenic (man made) global warming. 55% were papers about climate change itself, covering observed and potential effects of global warming. 25% didn’t apply.
Key Critical: Just because a the abstract of a paper talks about the warming of the 1990’s doesn’t mean it supports a consensus on AGW! In reality only 20% of the paper supported the AGW ‘consensus’, yet Alarmists distort this view and claim that 75% do. Some even attempt to claim that 100% do.
There’s no dispute that the climate warmed during the 90’s. So if you do a search for ‘global climate change’ what results would you expect to get other than papers addressing the current warming trend?
In hindsight, it’s awful convenient that her study ended up ending in 2003, as today we know the earth has cooled since then:
Follow link for the rest of the interview.