Här i Sverige är vi helt undernärda på saklig nformation i klimatfrågan. Det gäller även den största skandalen i vetenskapens historia som nu går under namnet Climategate. Därför kommer här en kort sammanfattning av vad det är som hänt och varför det är så viktigt att känna till:
Tack vare en läcka vid University of East Anglia, som huserar världens mest tongivande klimatforskningsavdelning Climatic Research Unit (CRU), har en stor mängd programkod från klimatmodeller, e-mail mellan forskare och andra filer lagts ut på nätet. En grupp klimatforskare har på så sätt blivit påkomna med att agera som aktivister istället för oberoende forskare för att få sin tes om mänsklig klimatpåverkan bekräftad. När inte rådatan visat rätt siffror har man justerat presentationen av den, klippt och klistrat med statistik och gått till andra ytterligheter får att bekräfta sin redan förutbestämda mening om att temperaturen gått upp dramatiskt under de senaste decennierna och att det bara kan vara människan som ligger bakom.
Dessutom har det framkommit genom deras email-konversationer att de samarbetat inbördes och med andra tongivande klimatforskare, dels för att slippa lämna ut sina rådata – som är grundläggande för att arbetet skall kunna verifieras av utomstående – dels för att få bort rapporter som inte kommit fram till “rätt” slutsats ur vetenskapliga journaler. Den för vetenskapen så viktiga peer review-processen har med andra ord korrumperats och i praktiken ersatts med en klubb för inbördes beundran.
Men vad som är ännu viktigare är att de här forskarna inte är vilka som helst, utan utgör hjärtat i klimatpanelen IPCC och dess processer. Huvudpersonerna i den här gruppen har som medförfattare orimligt stort inflytande över hur slutsatserna av IPCC:s rapporter ser ut – de som utgör grund för de policyrekommendationer som skickas ut till beslutsfattare världen över.
Slutsatsen de obönhörligen kommer fram till är att världen står inför en katastrof till följd av den extra koldioxid (CO2) som människan släpper ut i atmosfären, och att vi måsta agera snarast och göra av med enorma pengar för att stoppa de här utsläppen.
Några obekväma sanningar från e-posten:
From: Tom Wigley, Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important [anm: se surfacestations.org].
From: Kevin Trenberth, before Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:01:24 -0600
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
From: Michael Mann Date: 27/10/2009, 16:54
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
From: Keith Briffa, Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan.
From: Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:44:19 -0700
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
From: Tom Wigley, Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these).
From: Tom Crowley, Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:13:28 -0400
I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval warm period [anm: period omkr. år 1000 med högre temperaturer än dagens] – the attached plot has eight sites that go from 946-1960
From: Gary Funkhouser, Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. (…) I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian.
From: Keith Briffa, Date: Wed Sep 22 16:19:06 1999
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming.
From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP” [anm: medieval warm period], even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back
From: Phil Jones, Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated ! Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg [anm: Anders Moberg “intervjuas” i DN av Karin Bojs som gör sitt bästa för att vifta bort kritiken] updated series ! Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH. The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate!
From: Phil Jones, 2/2/2005 09:41 AM
The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act [anm: motsv. offentlighetsprincip] now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please ! I’m trying to redress the balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the kettle black – Christian doesn’t make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian message so you don’t get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get more advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal. PLEASE DELETE – just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm
From: Phil Jones, Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
From: Phil Jones, Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [anm: bloggen Realclimate.org] in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to:
(…) But basically, you’ll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case–its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can’t seem to dig them up. (…) p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…
From: Phil Jones, Date:Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM
You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn’t changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Mon Feb 9 09:23:43 2004
I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from individuals and not directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through GCOS.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008
Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond – advice they got from the Information Commissioner. (…) The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI – the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.
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.
From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
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: Edward Cook, Date: 6/4/03 09:50 AM -0400
I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. (…) If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (…) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting – to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please
From: Tom Wigley, Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600
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: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009
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.
From: Benjamin D. Santer, Date: 19/03/2009 16:48
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.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
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!
Resterande e-mail finns att läsa på eastangliaemails.com.
Nu bevisar inte det här att hela teorin om mänskligt orsakad global uppvärmning (AGW) är en bluff, men den bevisar bortom allt rimligt tvivel att det inte är öppen och opartisk vetenskap som de här “vetenskapsmännen” bedriver utan en alarmistisk agenda. Att IPCC driver på och stöder den här agendan har redan framkommit i andra sammanhang och nu blir det tydligt bekräftat ytterligare en gång hur politiserad och korrupt klimatforskningen blivit.
Läs mer på engelska (svenska länkar i högerspalten):