Memorandum submitted by Clive Menzies
(CRU 19)
I am a director of Clive Menzies & Associates
Limited, an ICT support and services company specialising in the
use of free and open source software.
I am also a director of Fund Building Limited
which provides marketing services for fund managers, helping them
to build relationships with professional investment intermediaries
and institutions. My experience includes investment and economic
research in the context of fund management. I have no pecuniary
interest on either side of the global warming debate.
My interest in climate change has developed
within the last year. Previously, I was persuaded to the view
that man-made CO2 emissions were causing global warming and climate
catastrophe inevitable unless action was taken to avoid it. I
viewed sceptics with suspicion and as environmental philistines.
However, people, who's views I respect, raised doubts which prompted
me to arm myself with information to refute their challenges to
the man-made global warming hypothesis.
Contrary to my expectation, the more I investigated,
the more sceptical of the hypothesis I became.
Following several months of investigation, I
can only conclude that structural incentives, to promote the global
warming agenda and obscure the truth, exist and have prevailed
hitherto. The contents of the documents and emails, leaked from
the CRU, confirmed what was already becoming apparent, the man-made
global warming hypothesis is founded on bad (politicised) science.
My submission seeks to inform the Committee of the results of
my research.
1. SCOPE OF
THE INQUIRY
1.1 The leaking of climate data from the
Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia provided
further evidence that the paleoclimatic science community had
manipulated data and programs to make climate models fit the anthropogenic
global warming (AGW) hypothesis. Furthermore, the revelation by
the Information Commissioner, that the University of East Anglia
had contravened the Freedom of Information Act, exposes the practices
adopted to frustrate the independent peer review process.
1.2 There is however, a much larger issue:
there are many international scientists who dissent from the AGW
hypothesis and yet their views and research have been consistently
suppressed by the IPCC, the media and politicians.
1.3 There exists a perverse structural incentive
to promote the AGW agenda and anyone questioning the science has
been subject to ridicule and hostility.
1.4 In December 2007, the US Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee published a report detailing submissions
from more than 400 prominent international scientists, many of
whom were current and past participants in the UN IPCC, criticising
the climate claims made by the IPCC and former Vice President
Al Gore. In March 2009, the report was updated to include submissions
from an additional 300 international scientists bringing the total
to over 700.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
1.5 The Science and Technology Committee
will have received submissions analysing the content of the leaked
documents and emails. The emails offer at least circumstantial
evidence of collusion to manipulate data and suppress dissent.
Some of the documents demonstrate the woeful lack of rigour in
the processes to create the climate models resulting in the now
discredited hockeystick graph. The document, HARRY_READ_ME.txt,
contains programmer's comments clearly exposing the haphazard
approach to data storage, maintenance and record keeping. It shows
the frustration of the programmer trying to obtain suitable data
and code to produce the required result. Exposing these data,
assumptions and methodologies to independent scrutiny would have
undermined the AGW hypothesis.
1.6 This submission addresses the following
issues:
MBH98, the paper which produced the hockeystick
graph.
Available temperature records.
CO2's contribution to global warming.
Claims of climate catastrophe.
Structural incentives to suppress the truth and
the misuse of public funds.
2. MBH98 AND
THE HOCKEYSTICK
GRAPH
2.1 The 1990 IPCC Report contained a graphical
representation of global temperatures during the second millennium,
produced by H H Lamb (IPCC 1990 Figure 7c), which clearly shows
the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) and
that the then current temperatures fell short of those of the
MWP. This accords with historical evidence of the Vikings settling
and farming in Greenland from around 980AD to 1400. The onset
of the LIA caused the collapse of the settlements (Jared Diamond,
Collapse. ISBN-10: 0670033375) and Greenland has been gripped
in permafrost ever since. Further confirmation of the LIA is provided
by Samuel Pepys who wrote of ice skating on the Thames with Nell
Gwynne in 1683 when the river and surrounding coastline froze
for two months. That the globe has been warming since is neither
surprising nor alarming.
http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/
2.2 The 2001 IPCC Report, Summary for Policymakers,
contained the hockeystick graph which showed a very different
pattern of global temperatures during the same period as the HH
Lamb graph in the 1990 report. This graph was output from the
MBH98 study by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes
(Mann et al). The graph showed global temperatures oscillating
within a 0.5°C range throughout the second millennium before
breaking out upwards in the closing decades and trending to go
much higher. There was no evidence of the MWP or LIA.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/¥rmckitri/research/trc.html
2.3 Steve McIntyre, a retired geologist
with a mathematics degree, and Ross McKitrick, an economist and
statistician, sought to obtain the data and methodology, used
to produce the hockeystick, from Mann et al but were met
with obfuscation and hostility. However, over time they were able
to piece together a critique of the study and demonstrate that
the hockeystick graph was unsupported by the evidence.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/¥rmckitri/research/trc.html
2.4 In 2005, the US House of Representatives
commissioned a report from a committee led by Edward Wegman, comprising
three academics, to investigate and adjudicate between the work
of Mann et al and that of McIntyre and McKitrick. The Wegman Report
concluded: "It is important to note the isolation of the
paleoclimatic community; even though they rely heavily on statistical
methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical
community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research
materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done.
In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer
review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work
has been sufficiently politicised that this community can hardly
reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall
our committee believes that Dr Mann's assessments that the decade
of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium, cannot
be supported by his analysis." In the body of the report,
it notes of the review process: "at least 43 authors have
direct connections to Dr Mann by virtue of coauthoring papers
with him".
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
3. TEMPERATURE
RECORDS
3.1 There are limited data sources available
for global temperatures and each has their flaws requiring adjustment
or context. There are surface temperature data for the last 150
years and earlier records are limited to the northern hemisphere.
The temperature recording stations aren't evenly sited around
the globe. Inconsistencies arose, such as in the former USSR,
where cold weather subsidies created a downwards bias; once the
USSR fragmented, records suffered further. The data are also affected
by urban heating effects. Originally temperature recording stations
were in remote locations away from centres of civilisation. Increasing
urbanisation has created a warmer local environment leading to
distortion of temperature records. The effect can be quite significant.
Recorded differences, between Reno and its airport some way out
of the city, can be as much as 10°F.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/reno_virginiastreet_transect_s2n_102808.jpg
3.2 Proxy data for temperature such as ice
cores, tree rings, fossil pollen and coral reefs give us a much
longer perspective on global temperatures but these are similarly
flawed in various ways. Ice cores only show temperatures where
there is deep ice. The width and density of tree rings vary with
humidity as well as temperature (and possibly CO2 concentrations
too). All these proxy data are location specific and can't provide
a comprehensive record of global temperatures.
3.3 Radiosonde (weather balloons) provide
reasonably accurate data at the specific height at which they
are set to record but again they are location specific.
3.4 Satellite data provide comprehensive
global coverage and are probably the most reliable. Adjustments
need to be made for orbital decay. Satellites have a limited lifespan
and records from successive satellites are spliced together which
can produce distortions.
3.5 History provides us with evidence of
the environment in which people lived enabling us to make broad
assumptions about relative temperatures.
3.6 Temperature recording is improving and
becoming more reliable. On the basis of current evidence, warming
over the 20th century was due to natural variability following
the LIA. Global temperatures have increased since the end of the
last ice age (c 16,000 years ago). Within that long term trend
there are shorter cycles (MWP 1000-1400AD, LIA 1400-1800). Satellite
data show the last two years as being significantly cooler than
1998.
4. CO2 AS A
GLOBAL WARMING
INFLUENCE
4.1 The UK Met Office describes the AGW
hypothesis as follows: "It is now clear that man-made
greenhouse gases are causing climate change. The rate of change
began as significant, has becoming alarming and is simply unsustainable
in the long term." For the theory to hold true, the observable
rate of temperature increase would be higher in the troposphere
than at the earth's surface. The rate of temperature increase
would be most noticeable in the tropics because that is where
the surface would be radiating the most heat. This is what the
AGW climate models predict. Yet observations, from weather balloons
and satellites since 1958, have consistently shown this is not
the case.
4.2 Both sides of the global warming debate
agree that there is a close correlation, over the last 800,000
years, of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere with global temperatures.
Furthermore it is generally agreed that hitherto, the rise in
temperatures preceded the rise in CO2 levels by around 800 years.
However, the IPCC and the pro-global warming lobby insist that
it is now CO2 which is driving the rise in temperature with no
hard evidence to support this illogical premise. On the contrary,
temperatures rose fairly rapidly from about 1900 to 1940 but then
declined until the late 1970s during a period when CO2 emissions
were rising in the post-war industrial boom. 95% of greenhouse
gas is water vapour, CO2 is a relatively minor constituent making
a marginal contribution to the greenhouse system. Some studies
acknowledge that rises in CO2 concentrations have a warming influence
but that it is logarithmic, ie. the first 20 parts per million
have the most effect but thereafter the influence wanes to negligible
by the time the current 388 parts per million are reached. CO2
concentrations have been much higher in the past but apparently
not within the last 800,000 years.
4.3 Man-made CO2 accounts for approximately
3% of total CO2 emissions.
4.4 Most studies indicate that CO2's life
in the atmosphere, prior being absorbed, is less than 10 years.
The IPCC claims however, that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for
100 years.
4.5 CO2 is beneficial for promoting plant
growth which is important if we are to feed the growing global
human population without destroying our environment. Dutch growers
buy CO2 to raise concentrations in their greenhouses to increase
crop yields.
5. CLAIMS OF
CLIMATE CATASTROPHE
5.1 Some of the most lurid claims of global
warming relate to extreme weather events. Chris Landsea, of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Hurricane
Research Division in Miami, resigned from the IPCC in protest
over claims that extreme weather events are a direct consequence
of global warming. His studies show improved monitoring in recent
years is responsible for most, if not all, of the observed trend
in increasing frequency of tropical cyclones. A 2007 paper by
Gabe Vecchi, another climate scientist at NOAA, concluded increased
wind shear from rising sea surface temperatures make it more difficult
for hurricanes to form and grow.
5.2 Footage of the ice shelf crashing into
Arctic Ocean makes good television but polar ice undergoes significant
expansion and contraction through winter and summer. On the basis
of satellite data, although there is some correlation of polar
ice with global temperature, the data are inconclusive. In the
last couple of years the polar ice in the Arctic has expanded.
In the southern hemisphere, there is evidence of Antarctic cooling
from 1966-2000.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/geol/eaes102/Doran.pdf
5.3 Glacial erosion in the Himalayas has
been overstated by the IPCC (as indicated by the recent reversal
of the claim that Himalayan glaciers will have disappeared by
2035). The most recent studies by researchers at ETH Zurich show
that in the 1940s Swiss glaciers were melting at an even-faster
pace than at present. The rapid erosion is ascribed to solar radiation
rather than global warming.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040789.shtml
6. SUPPRESSION
OF DISSENT
6.1 The leaked emails show how the website
www.realclimate.org is used to promote the AGW hypothesis and
suppress dissent. The site is registered to Environmental Media
Services which is associated with Fenton Communications, a media
strategy group. Regular contributors include Michael Mann and
Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS. Should publicly funded scientists
be blogging on a political lobbying site?
6.2 William Connelly, starting in 2003,
is reported to have rewritten Wikipedia's articles on global warming,
on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record,
on the urban heat island, on climate models and on global cooling.
On 14 February, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on 11 August,
the Medieval Warm Period. All told, Connolley created or rewrote
5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was
greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia
as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual
impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain
article, he removed it—more than 500 articles of various
descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the
arguments that others were making, he often had them barred—over
2,000 Wikipedia contributors found themselves blocked from making
further contributions.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx
6.3 The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers,
produced from the climate scientists' submissions to the IPCC
reports, is a political document agreed between IPCC and officials
representing the participating governments. As a result there
are inconsistencies between the science and the claims in the
Summary.
6.4 The IPCC implies that some 2,500 climate
scientists support its claims. This paper by John McLean contains
analysis of the number of contributors to the AR4 (2007) report:
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
Just because someone's name is on the IPCC report
as a contributor or reviewer doesn't mean they are a climate scientist
nor does it mean they endorse the Summary for Policy Makers' conclusions.
As it says in the paper: "Fifty-three authors and five
reviewers are all that might generously be said to have explicitly
supported the claim of a significant human influence on climate."
6.5 The US Senate Minority Report in 1.4
contains references to scientists being intimidated to discourage
them from speaking out publicly.
6.6 The mainstream media have failed, yet
again, to hold those responsible to account. With a few notable
exceptions, they participate in promoting the AGW hypothesis while
ignoring, ridiculing or maligning "climate deniers".
7. STRUCTURAL
INCENTIVES FOR
FRAUD AND
MISUSE OF
PUBLIC FUNDS
7.1 The IPCC was specifically set up to
"asses the scientific basis of risk of human induced climate
change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
If there is no AGW, the IPCC has no raison d'etre and many of
those involved will lose credibility and their livelihoods. $50
billion has been spent by governments over the last 20 years exploring
and promoting global warming. Some of this money was well spent
on science which improved our understanding of the climate. However,
a significant proportion has been wasted by selectively funding
research to support the AGW theory whilst failing to fund studies
of alternative causes of climate change.
7.2 Prof Stephen Schneider, Professor of
Climatology at Stanford University, lead author of many IPCC reports
is reported to have said: "We need to get some broad based
support, to capture the public's imagination ... So we have to
offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts ... Each of us has to decide
what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
7.3 Structural incentives weigh the science
in favour of the AGW hypothesis. However, one individual has been
a significant factor in the momentum behind the hypothesis. In
addition to the opportunity to influence the establishment and
promotion of the IPCC, Al Gore has a significant interest in perpetuating
the AGW myth. Not least, having invested so much emotional, political
and monetary capital into the project, it is almost impossible
for him to reverse his position. He is Chairman of Generation
Investment Management which holds 2.63% of Chicago Climate Exchange
which owns the European Climate Exchange and is seeking to dominate
carbon trading globally. Carbon trading amounted to some $140
billion in 2008; should the US adopt cap and trade policies this
will be a multi-trillion dollar industry. Kleiner Perkins, in
which he's a partner, has some $1Bn invested in stocks related
to the global warming agenda.
7.4 Rachendra Pachauri, Chairman of the
IPCC, is similarly afflicted with conflicts of interest. Everyone
who has a stake in this agenda stands to lose should the AGW hypothesis
be exposed as a myth: the carbon trading and investment industry,
local council climate change officers, climate change journalists
etc.
7.5 Governments have poured $billions into
the climate change agenda which, if the AGW hypothesis is based
on a flawed process, is misuse of public funds. For example, the
UK Met Office included the discredited hockeystick graph in their
Climate Change booklet widely distributed in November 2009.
8. SUMMARY
The leaked emails and documents from the CRU
merely confirmed what was already evident, that temperature data
and the methodology were manipulated to fit the AGW hypothesis.
Further there was resistance to sharing information for peer review.
The hockeystick graph is discredited and yet continues to be promoted
by the UK Met Office. The CRU leak is tangential to the main issue;
the man-made global warming hypothesis does not stand up to scientific
scrutiny. There is a structural bias supporting AGW in much the
same way as there existed a structural bias in the sub-prime mortgage
market. We are in grave danger of making significant policy errors
nationally and globally which will prejudice the lives of millions.
We need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, protect our environment
and build sustainable economies but CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2
is a fundamental building block of life on earth. There are many
ecological problems which we can mitigate and relieve; those are
where we should focus our attention and resources.
February 2010
| 
