|
WHERE IS THE CLIMATE CHANGE DATA?
Environmental article by Harold Hough Dec/Jan 2010
Remember the UN climate change model that “proved” that the world was going to get dramatically warmer in the next few decades? Admittedly, you don’t hear much about it now that the globe appears to be cooling. But, what’s interesting is that the data supporting these models has disappeared. And, that could stop the imposition of draconian environmental regulations that would hurt the coal mining industry.
The data that has gone missing is the cornerstone of the global warming theory. The “Jones and Wigley” data was assembled by the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). It was produced in the 1980s using data from weather stations around the world and was funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency. It became the core data for several studies that claimed that human activity was causing global warming.
The story bean in 2005 when an Australian scientist requested the opportunity to look at the original data so he could try to replicate the conclusions. For those who took science in high school or college, you know that a key part of furthering the frontiers of science is to share data so other scientists can replicate the results and prove that your hypothesis is correct. Consequently, the original scientists should have been happy to share the data in the pursuit of good science.
That, in fact, didn’t happen. When Dr. Warwick Hughes asked Dr. Phil Jones for the data, he was turned down. The reason given by Dr. Jones was, “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Of course, the whole principle behind scientific investigation is to try to find problems with hypotheses. This response was also improper because US Government money was spent to develop this information, and was therefore, in the public domain.
Fast forward to 2009. Dr. Stephen McIntyre decided to use the Freedom of Information Act to get the information for a presentation before the National Academy of Sciences. Jones again refused.
Other scientists have requested the data and also received vague reasons for not releasing the data. At one time Jones insisted there were confidentiality agreements with some nations – only to obfuscate when asked to show the agreements. To others, he replied that they weren’t qualified researchers.
Note that during this time, pro-climate change scientists were given access to the data.
But, the pressure to release the data continued. When Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., the professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado requested the data, the story changed again. Now Jones was saying that he no longer had the original data – even though he had just given the data to a pro-global warming scientist a few months earlier. According to him, the data was destroyed because it took too much storage space.
Fortunately, there may be a silver lining to this story because it may stop the raft of EPA regulations coming out of Washington. Without the data to prove that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that causes global warming, the new EPA regulations can be challenged in court.
In October, 2009 the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) petitioned the EPA to reopen a major global warming proceeding. In a declaration filed with the petition, Cato Institute scholar and climate scientist Patrick Michaels calls CRU’s revelation “a totally new element” that “violates basic scientific principles, and “throws even more doubt” on the claims of global warming alarmists.
The CEI argues that CRU’s disclosure casts a new cloud of doubt on the science behind EPA’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide. EPA stopped accepting public comments in late June but has not yet issued its final decision. As CEI’s petition argues, court rulings make it clear that agencies must consider new facts when those facts change the underlying issues.
“EPA is resting its case on international studies that in turn relied on CRU data,” says CEI counsel Sam Kazman. “But CRU’s suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late date, makes that information totally unreliable. If EPA doesn’t reexamine the implications of this, it’s stumbling blindly into the most important regulatory issue we face.”
Although the battle against carbon dioxide regulation will still be stiff, it appears that one of the key pieces of evidence has disappeared. The mysterious disappearance of the “Jones and Wigley” data will not stop the media from pushing the global warming story, but it will have an impact in courts, where the truth still rules.
|
