Monthly Archives: November 2009

Legal Action Against Team Hockey Stick?


So, from the hacked CRU email, what has Team Hockey Stick* been up to.  The emails have been posted several places and some dedicated folks have been plowing through them.  Early on, some conclusions are being drawn about Team Hockey Stick’s activities over the past 10 or so years. One posting by Ian Murray on the Pajamamedia.com blog pretty concisely gives us a view of the three things that everyone should know about Team Hockey Sticks’ activities.  From his blog,

First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.

Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication.

Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.

To read Ian Murray’s full posting click here

How much hot water might Team Hockey Stick be in?  Right off the top we are hearing from prominent scientists saying that they should resign their positions, should not be allowed to work on any future UN climate study work, etc.  We also know that they may be in legal jeopardy as well.  Senator Inhofe is planning investigations.  A friend told me he believes that Representative Joe Barton may do so,too.   The English are considering a Panel of experts to investigate.

A lawyer provided the Wall Street Journal several lines of legal inquiry.

Tortious interference. For researchers and academicians, publication in peer-reviewed journals is important to advancement, raises, grant funding, etc. Wrongful interference with the ability to publish has monetary and reputational damages. If that interference is based not on editorial judgment of worthiness for publication, but rather on protecting reputations, scientific positions, political goals or “places in history” (as mentioned in one email), then it could give rise to liability in tort for the individual scientist and possibly for the university or organization for which he works.

Breach of faculty ethics standards or contracts. Most universities and research organizations have ethics clauses in their faculty/employee manuals and in their contracts with faculty/researchers. If (as suggested by the purloined emails) these individuals cooked data or manipulated assumptions to achieve preferred outcomes, or denied others access to data essential for replication of result that is essential to the scientific method, they could have violated university or organizational ethics standards.

State-chartered universities. Some of these individuals appear to work for state-chartered and state-funded institutions, and might well be classified as state employees (and thereby eligible for generous state benefits). The conduct suggested by the purloined emails might violate state ethics or funding policies. State governments and legislatures therefore might have a basis for inquiry and oversight.

Federal grants. Federal grants typically have ethics/integrity clauses to assure that the research funded by the grant is credible and reliable (and to assure that the agency can avoid accountability if it isn’t). As noted, the purloined emails suggest that data might have been cooked and assumptions might have been manipulated to generate a predetermined outcome. If true, and if the work in question was funded by federal grant, the researchers in question might well have violated their federal grant contracts–for which there are legal consequences. Inspectors general of the grant agencies should be in position to make inquiry if the data/assumptions in question could be linked in time and topic to a contemporaneous federal grant to the researchers in question.

To read the full WSJ article click here

In my trip through the blogs, I think there is a consensus that Dr Phil Jones is very likely in trouble for violating English Freedom of Information law.

Keep tuned, I think, and hope the scope of this inquiry continues to grow.

*  Team Hockey Stick–I wish that I had coined that name, but I saw it somewhere on the web and can not find that site again.  Sorry .  Team Hockey Stick includes Phil Jones, Michael Mann,  Tom Wigley, and the usual suspects.

Cbdakota

Advertisements

Stop Copenhagen


Why did President Obama change his mind about attending the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen?  For several weeks he and his spokespeople have been saying that there was little benefit to be had for him to attend.  In fact it was widely acknowledged that very few if any of the World leaders would attend because there was little likelihood of achieving anything substantial.  Further it was expected that the meeting would be postponed until sometime in the spring of 2010.

Well your guess is probably as good as mine but it looks like Climategate may be the reason.   One would think that in view of the serious questions about the validity of man-made global warming based upon reading the email hacked from Climate Research Unit (CRU) files, a prudent person would not attend.   Rather, the leader would wont a through review of the man-made global warming theory before committing their country to huge taxes and vast new levels of regulation of fossil fuels.

Ah, but there’s the rub.   These leaders love the man-made global warming theory.    It is the road to more tax revenue and more regulation.  It has nothing to do with science.  What Obama will attempt is a cover up; to see that the only story is about the 17% cut in US emissions that he plans commit and take Climategate off the radar screen.

We know the mainstream media will be happy to support Obama’s plan.  But let’s hope you don’t let Climategate be forgotten.   Call your Congresspersons.   Tell them about Climategate.    Write letters to the editor.   Be proactive.

Cbdakota

 

 

Why Climategate Won’t Stop The Greens


Lorrie Goldstein posted “Why Climategate Won’t Stop Greens” on the Toronto Sun Website with the lead-in paragraph as follows:

If you’re wondering how the robot-like march of the world’s politicians towards Copenhagen can possibly continue in the face of the scientific scandal dubbed “climategate,” it’s because Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don’t give a s*** about “the science.”

They never have.

Goldstein paints a gloomy picture and, unfortunately, she may be spot on.   We have all said that the politicians don’t really care about the science.  They are simply using the man-made global warming theory as a vehicle to tax and regulate.

Goldstein urges us to contact your political representatives and say that we want no part of Copenhagen.   Lets do it.

To read more of the blog,  click here.

Cbdakota

Why Oh Why Oh, Why Did I Ever Leave Ohio?


Off to see my son, his wife and their several week old baby.  Wont do any blogging for about a week.  If you want to read a really good political blog,  read my son’s blog here

Cbdakota

 

Kerry and Gore Going for Nobel Prizes


John Kerry apparently wants to compete with Al Gore to see who can come up with the  biggest whoper!!     Kerry is going to have to go some based upon Al’s recent defining discovery of the temperature at the Earth’s core.   Al seems to be in line for another Nobel Prize, perhaps in Physics this time.    See this.

Now Kerry wants one too, and his will undoubtedly come as the Nobel Prize in Economics based upon his grasp of  figures.   He said that US greenhouse gas emissions, over past eight years, went up four times faster than in the 1990’s.  The people at the Institute for Energy Research show that Kerry is high by a factor of 32. You can read about this gaff and see it on video by clicking here.

Cbdakota

Alglore:Center of Earth Several Million Degrees.


Does it surprise you that Al Gore thinks the  temperature at the center of the Earth is several millions of degrees.    He did not specify the scale of the several millions of degrees,  but it maters not.

Click here to see Gore on TV announcing this previously unknown “fact”.

Cbdakota

 

Another Maunder Minimum Underway?


The Maunder Minimum was a period of low solar activity characterized by few sunspots.  During the roughly 75 years of this Minimum,  global temperatures were well below normal.

David Archibald figures that the time between  Cycle 23 and Cycle 24 Solar Maximum will be 15 years.  The time between Solar Maximums is typically 11 years.

Archibald conclude based on the longer period of time between Maximums that:

“Activity and timing of the current minimum, as well as the timing of the Solar Cycle 24 maximum in 2015, is paralleling the start of the Maunder Minimum.  There is no data to date which diverges from the pattern of the start of the Maunder Minimum.”

sporerslawchart-2009

Dr Lief Svalgaard presented this chart at Solar Analogs II,  September 22, 2009. This chart plots sunspot locations across the face of the Sun during cycles 21, 22, 23 and the new cycle 24.  Svalgaard overlaid a green arrow on the trail of the sunspots toward the Equator. This movement is called Sporer’s Law and it is chacterized by this statement from Wikipedia:

“At the start of a sunspot cycle, sunspots tend to appear around 30° to 45° latitude on the Sun‘s surface. As the cycle progresses, sunspots appear at lower and lower latitudes, until they average 15° at solar maximum. The average latitude of sunspots then continues to drift lower, down to about 7° and then while the old sunspot cycle fades, sunspots of the new cycle start appearing at high latitudes.

Archibald  overlaid a yellow bar that is a measure of years between the cycle 23 and the developing cycle 24 and gets 15 years.    This is technique is consistent with the measured 10 years between the former Cycles 22 and 23.   The Solar cycles during the Maunder Minimum period averaged 20 years.

You can read all of David Archibald’s posting by clicking here.

Lief Svalgaard’s presentation at Solar Analogs II can be seen by clicking here.

Svalgaard is a little more reticent than Archibald  about predicting solar cycles,as you will see if you read his presentation.

While I am not a big leaguer like Svalgaard and Archibald,  it seems to me to be a little early to call a new Maunder Minimum.

Cbdakota