“Climategate” Comes Back To Bite The University of Arizona

“The University of Arizona has been ordered to surrender emails by two UA scientists that a group claims will help prove that theories about human-caused climate change are false and part of a conspiracy.” (Arizona Daily Star) The professors involved are Malcolm Hughes, who is still with the UA, and Jonathan Overpeck, who left earlier this year.

The backstory begins in 2009:

In 2009, it was revealed that someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia, in England. The CRU has been a major proponent of anthropogenic global warming and a principal in report preparation for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

More than 1,000 internal emails and several reports from CRU have been posted on the internet and the blogosphere had gone wild with the implications of the revealed messages. Dr. Phil Jones, head of CRU, confirmed that his organization has been hacked and that the emails are accurate. Emails held at other institutions such as Penn State and the University of Arizona were not part of this disclosure.

The emails reveal a concerted effort on the part of a small group of scientists to manipulate data, suppress dissent, and foil the dissemination of the information by “losing” data and skirting Britain’s Freedom of Information Act. The emails reveal that the contention of dangerous human-induced global warming is not supported by the data, that those supporting that contention knew it, and sought to control the discussion so as to hide the unreliable nature of what they were claiming.

Part of the controversy involved the infamous “hock stick” graph devised by Michael Mann of Penn State and subsequently adopted by the IPCC.

“battle of the graphs” the bottom panel shows temperatures based on proxy data and measurements. It shows that the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago was much warmer than now. Mann’s hockey stick did away with the Medieval Warm Period and showed only a large spike of recent warming – hence the name “hockey stick”. The “hockey stick” made its debut in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in 1999 in a paper by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes that built upon a 1998 paper by the same authors in the journal Nature which detailed the methodology for creating a proxy temperature reconstruction.

There are problems with the Hockey Stick according to Canadian researchers Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. “The first mistake made by Mann et al. and copied by the UN in 2001 lay in the choice of proxy data. The UN’s 1996 report had recommended against reliance upon bristlecone pines as proxies for reconstructing temperature because 20th-century carbon-dioxide fertilization accelerated annual growth and caused a false appearance of exceptional recent warming. Notwithstanding the warning against reliance upon bristlecones in UN 1996, Mann et al. had relied chiefly upon a series of bristlecone-pine datasets for their reconstruction of medieval temperatures. Worse, their statistical model had given the bristlecone-pine datasets 390 times more prominence than the other datasets they had used.

Furthermore, the statistical algorithms in Mann et al. where shown to be flawed. McIntyre ran the Mann’s algorithm 10,000 times, having replaced all palaeoclimatological data with randomly-generated, electronic “red noise”. They found that, even with this entirely random data, altogether unconnected with the temperature record, the model nearly always constructed a “hockey stick” curve similar to that in the UN’s 2001 report.” (See their detailed report)

Mann had another problem. Their proxy data began to rise, but then took a plunge into cooler temperatures. They hid this decline by truncating the proxy data and substituting rising measured temperatures without telling anyone. This became known as “Mike’s Nature Trick”. (Read more)

One other incident: In my article A Simple Question for Climate Alarmists I posed this question: “What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?” In a public forum, I had the opportunity to pose this question to then UofA professor Jonathan Overpeck. He could not cite any supporting physical evidence.

Note to readers:

If you like murder mysteries, type the name Lonni Lees (my wife) into Amazon or Barnes & Noble sites to see her novels, a book of short stories, and reviews. For synopses and more reviews of her books see: https://wryheat.wordpress.com/lonnis-murder-mysteries/

9 Comments on "“Climategate” Comes Back To Bite The University of Arizona"

  1. Just one more example of the extremes that “scientists” will go to. They need to prove that the humans and society are evil and unless we change, we basically all burn in hell. What a pathetic bunch of “scientists” whose work gets debunked more and more each year. Computer models that have no relevance to this day and age and yet they are used as the gospel. I simply remember in my old chemistry and physics days that you can put numbers into almost anything and come up with the expected outcome whether it was right or wrong, and most of the time I was wrong. SSDD for the liberal institutions that hate us and our society and want us to pay for our “mistakes.” And that kids is what it is all about. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor. You don’t think so, do some research on carbon credits, etc.

  2. I don’t understand why any parent would send their children to UA. It has become a cesspool of liberal indoctrination and corruption. And to think that young people will be financially enslaved to the federal government for it.

  3. Jonathan thank you for your articles that expose the false data. For me it is just easier to know that this has been a ploy by leftist atheists for population control, just like Planned Parenthood is.
    I believe we climate deniers need to set up a Go-Fund Me account for these loons to go to Mars and leave us alone here on this one and only Planet Created to sustain human life.

  4. Hi BS. The term “climate deniers” is a pejorative. Most skeptics realize that climate is always changing. The real argument is the cause of the change. “Climate deniers” are really climate realists.

  5. Global warming is caused by grant money.

  6. Hasn’t Overpeck already fled to another Gaalaxy? Or was that Michigan?

  7. Elliot, Tucson | December 11, 2017 at 9:31 am | Reply

    Grant money (and lawsuits)also created the Asbestos Racket.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.