It couldn't have been a better case of worst timing – a long anticipated climate change scare report designed to boost public support for Copenhagen has been released amid a scandal that has destroyed its credibility before it even hit reporters' desks worldwide.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis, a round-up of the latest gut feeling 'science' about global warming, is co-authored by Michael Mann, inventor of the fake hockey stick temperature graph and star of the Climategate emails.
And not just him. Quite a few of the names on the list made an appearance in the emails in some way shape or fashion.
As I mentioned to a commenter in a previous thread, appeals to authority when the authors include anyone associated with Climategate just are not going to work any more:
Thomas, waving any kind of "summary" produced by members of "The Team" or their hangers on at the top echelons of climate science will, from now on, only get you laughed at I'm afraid.
None of these men have credibility, and their "peer reviewed" work is now officially suspect.
Sorry, them's the breaks.
I did ask Naish and Reisinger about the claims in this document (first raised two weeks ago at THAT briefing), particularly in regard to mass loss in Antarctica using GRACE, when to my knowledge GRACE does not give total coverage of the continent, and they decided not to answer.
Sorry. Alarmist studies have become the equivalent of bog paper in the eyes of most people this week. I'm not dismissing them out of hand, but frankly, how do we know we can trust the peer process they went through anymore?
You'd think, for example, that when the advisors to the UN IPCC boldly declared that modern warming was unprecedented, they would have more evidence behind the scenes than just reading chicken entrails and tea leaves. But no – check out Phil Jones' 'gut feeling':
Bottom line - their [sic] is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the
last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C
on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but
years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility. [sic]
Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.
Jones was wrong, incidentally. Despite his stomach churning, a number of studies have shown the MWP was warmer than now.
So how discredited are the men behind RealClimate and CRU?
The Guardian's George Monbiot, long a global warming sock puppet for these boys, has called on CRU director Phil Jones to do the only honourable thing left and resign, after his admission to TGIF last week that he was responsible for the emails.
Monbiot adds, and I quote:
I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely
The journal Scientific American, likewise, regards the conduct of the top climate scientists as a disgrace to science.
Little wonder, when yet another email displays just how casually CRU director Phil Jones sets himself up to "peer review" the work of his close colleagues – a blatant conflict of interest in my view:
From: Phil Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Folland, Chris" <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Wed Jan 7 12:51:51 2009
Apart from contacting Gavin and Mike Mann (just informing them)
you should appeal.
In essence it means that Real Climate is a publication.
If you do go to GRL I wouldn't raise the issue with them. Happy to
be a suggested reviewer if you do go to GRL.
Worth pursuing - even if only GRL.
Possibly worth sending a note to Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate
to say what Nature have used as a refusal!
At 17:01 06/01/2009, you wrote:
How cosy it must be for the elite, knowing they will be favourably peer-reviewed by their friends as long as they keep paying homage to the human caused global warming scam.
Peer-review should be independent and objective. The scientist should never know, let alone be able to nominate, who reviews his or her papers. The lobbying, the schmoozing, the commonality of purpose, the use of their dominant clique to freeze out scientists they didn't agree with – this is why the Copenhagen Diagnosis is now worthless.
How do we even know it is accurate? Even their colleagues no longer trust Michael Mann, Jones and the rest of them:
Hans von Storch, editor at the time of "Climate Research," had his own objections to the paper mentioned by Dr. Mann, and resigned shortly after it was published, citing a breakdown in the peer-review process. But Dr. von Storch, now at the University of Hamburg's Meteorological Institute, said Monday that the behavior outlined in the hacked emails went too far.
East Anglia researchers "violated a fundamental principle of science," he said, by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They built a group to do gatekeeping, which is also totally unacceptable," he added. "They play science as a power game."
If their colleagues don't trust the scientists associated with The Copenhagen Diagnosis, why on earth should anyone else?