Carlin Economics and Science

Jones Has Conceded a Little, but He Remains Unwilling to Take a More Objective View of Climate Science

One notable aspect of Phil Jones’ responses to the BBC (see BBC news article and Q&As) was the fact that the BBC actually asked some probing questions and Jones actually answered them. But of more significance was that although he was willing to admit some of the more obvious unresolved questions concerning the AGW/warmist position (such as whether the 1975-98 warming is unprecedented, whether global temperatures have been declining recently, and whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer), he remains unwilling to take a broader and more objective view of climate science despite having had ample time to contemplate all that has transpired. In this his views may be representative of many of the committed warmists central to the preparation of the IPCC reports but certainly is not the objective viewpoint that EPA and others should insist on in making multi-trillion dollar regulatory decisions. In particular:

(1) Jones admits that the 1975-98 warming as measured by HadCRUT is similar to earlier warming periods. This is obvious but it is significant that someone so close to the IPCC is willing to admit it given that warmists have so strongly emphasized how unprecedented warming was during this period. He is anxious to point out, however, the extremely recent increase in satellite-measured temperatures, but is unwilling to also consider the implications of the 1978-97 satellite temperature data. This strongly suggests that the global temperature changes prior to 1998 may have been due to natural oscillations related to El Nino (see here). This is a one-sided rather than the objective approach that is more likely to lead to good science and balanced conclusions.
(2) Jones appears to be unable or unwilling to think outside of the framework of the IPCC view of what influences climate. His view that the warming must be man-made unless solar or volcanic forcing can be shown ignores all the research on the indirect effects of solar variability (such as the Svensmark hypothesis) as discussed in Section 2.5 of my Comments and the effects of oceanic climate oscillations (such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) discussed in Section 2.4.
(3) Jones still appears to see nothing wrong with splicing instrumental data on to tree-ring data without extreme care to alert readers to this. This is extraordinary, even if some group asked him to do it, since this does not allow readers to reach reasonable conclusions as to the usefulness of the tree ring data (and hence the claims made on the basis of it), which is so inconsistent with recent instrumental data.

In my view the Emails and computer files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Great Britain may prove to be of some importance to the USEPA’s current attempts to control greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act. This is because EPA, perhaps at the urging of others in the Obama Administration, has proposed to regulate GHG emissions on the basis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and reports primarily based on these reports. This is highly unusual in EPA’s almost 39 year history. I cannot think of any instance where EPA depended so heavily on non-EPA synthesis reports to justify proposed regulatory action.

As a result of this EPA decision, EPA’s fortunes in regulating GHGs are directly tied to the fate of the IPCC reports. Although it is hard to argue that any one CRU Email or computer file notation proves the IPCC conclusions wrong, taken as a whole they do strongly suggest two conclusions: First, the CRU and many of its associates (and Email recipients) elsewhere (henceforth CRU et al.), are very tightly tied to the IPCC both in influence and belief and do not appear to be paragons of scientific objectivity and ethics. Second, their data handling leaves something to be desired in terms of data retention, database documentation, and questionable data manipulation.

CRU et al’s Lack of Scientific Objectivity

It seems clear to me that if a group (such as EPA) wanted to get an objective scientific judgment on climate change science, CRU et al., and therefore the IPCC, might be the last place that they would want to rely on. Each “trick” CRU et al used to torture the data they had to yield what appears to be their desired conclusions may have fooled a few more readers into thinking that their basic arguments were valid, but has to decrease the overall assessment of their objectivity. Attempts to manipulate peer reviews and journal acceptances are not acceptable scientific activities. Withholding key scientific data can only make one question their dedication to scientific principles. Hiding their alleged destruction of the basic temperature data that would allow reconstruction of what they have done is almost as bad as discarding such critical data in the first place. Using data that cannot be reproduced is not very useful scientifically or from a regulatory viewpoint.

Yet despite these now evident problems with the CRU et al’s data and research, EPA is now stuck with the IPCC reports, and therefore the closely associated CRU et al’s data and research has become central to its attempts to regulate GHGs. Given that it currently appears unlikely that the Senate will agree to anything resembling the current cap and trade bill, this EPA decision may well greatly decrease the chances that the US will in the end implement serious regulation of GHGs since EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act must survive judicial review of any regulatons that EPA may promulgate.

Need for New Approach

If EPA wants to pursue the regulation of GHGs despite the weak scientific basis for it, there is an evident need for a whole new approach based on truly independent and careful review of the problem using the highest standards of scientific intergrity which does not rely on what appears to be biased research and sloppy data from CRU et al. Although I did not know of the recent revelations concerning CRU et al last March, my Comments strongly called for such a reappraisal. This problem will not go away and may even get worse if we should learn more about the CRU et al’s work. There exists a possibility that EPA’s current approach might succeed by some judicial fluke, but the chances seem to be decreasing with each new revelation concerning the CRU et al.

Presumably one of the reasons that EPA decided to rely on the IPCC and indirectly on the CRU is that the Obama Administration may have felt some urgency to move rapidly on global warming control. Given the downtrend in global temperatures over the past 11 years and the likelihood that this will continue for some time (see Section 2.4 of my Comments) because of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), there would appear to be ample time to start over and do it carefully and thoroughly this time with full input by everyone that may be interested.

Basic Problem Remains

Despite the uproar concerning CRU et al’s data and research, the basic problem remains that the UN hypothesis that increases in GHGs/CO2 will result in significant increases in global temperatures has not been confirmed by comparisons with real world data. Unless it is, attempts to decrease GHG/CO2 emissions in order to significantly change global temperatures are very likely to fail. This is the primary question that EPA and climate scientists need to address before any control efforts are undertaken. Happily we appear to have the time to do so, and to do so objectively using reproducible data.