Pay Pal Donation
Index of Editorials
Political Issues Climategate

All Editorials for


Antarctic Warming
 Skepticism [2]

 Review [2]

Climate Change
 CO2 Emissions [1]

Climate Models
 Uncertainty [2]

Climate Science
 Climate Cycles [1]
 Climate Sensitivity [1]
 Holes [1]
 Thermal History [1]
 Unsolved Problems [1]

Energy Issues
 American Power Act [1]
 Clean and Sustainable [1]
 Nuclear Waste Storage [1]
 Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) [1]

 Surrogate Religion [1]

 Energy Primer for Kids [1]

 Applications [2]

Global Climate - International
 French Academy [1]

Global Warming
 Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) [6]
 Confusion [1]
 Economics [1]
 General [2]
 Greenhouse Gases [1]
 Hockeystick [4]
 Ice Cores [1]
 Junkscience [9]
 Oceans' Role [2]
 Skepticism [1]
 Sun's Role [2]

Health Issues
 Second Hand Smoke [1]

 Arctic Sea Ice [1]
 Atmospheric Temperature Data [2]
 Sea Surface Temperature [1]
 Surface Data [2]

 Statistics Misuse [1]

Modern Empirical Science
 v. Medieval Science [1]

 China [1]

Nuclear Fuel
 Supplies [1]

 Climate Research Unit (CRU) [1]
 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2]
 Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) [1]
 UK Met Office [1]
 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) [1]

Political Issues
 Climate Realism [1]
 Climategate [3]
 Independent Cross Check of Temperature Data [1]

 IPCC Assessment Report [2]
 NOAA State of the Climate 2009 [1]
 NRC-NAS Advancing the Science of Climate Change [1]

Sea-Level Rise
  West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)  [1]
 Alarmism [1]

Types of Energy
 Nuclear Energy [1]
  • 29-May-10 ClimateGate Reconsidered
  • 03-Apr-10 ClimateGate Whitewash
  • 13-Mar-10 Junkscience #10 . ClimateGate (CG) and other Gates undermine the credibility of the IPCC and of AGW
    (in TWTW May 29, 2010)

    S. Fred Singer, Chairman and President , Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

    ClimateGate Reconsidered

    May 29, 2010

    An Open Letter to Prof Edward Acton, Vice Chancellor, University of East Anglia, UK

    Dear Prof. Acton

    After careful study, I have reached the conclusion that the CRU temperature trends published by Prof. Phil Jones of UEA (and used by the IPCC) are spurious and should be corrected. Instead of the major warming that's been claimed between 1979 and 1996 (the crucial period), the actual warming seems to be minor or even close to zero.

    This matter is of extreme importance since international policies concerning climate change are based on the Jones analysis-and equivalent analyses in the US. I base my conclusion on the following evidence:

    **Weather satellites are the most reliable source of global temperature observations, with all data analysis and corrections fully transparent. They show essentially a zero rise in atmospheric temperatures during most of the crucial period (1979-1996). And basic atmospheric physics tells us that the temperature trends at the earth's surface must be less, roughly only half of the atmospheric trends.

    **Furthermore, all proxy data I have seen show no significant temperature rise during this same period. Recall that Michael Mann's multi-proxy analysis suddenly stops in 1979.

    As a scientist, I am mainly concerned with the truth of the data and the consequences for future climate change. Of course, as a member of the public, I cannot ignore the policy consequences - nor should any citizen/voter.

    It seems to me that it is your responsibility to investigate whether and to what extent Dr. Jones' judgment in the selection and in the correction of the raw data was influenced by any desire to see a particular outcome - namely, a strong warming.

    In other words, the selection process (i.e., which data to use and which to reject) involved setting explicit or implicit criteria, based on judgment. Similarly, deciding on the type and degree of correction (for example, for urban heat island effects or other kinds of contamination) involved setting certain criteria based on the judgment of the analyst.

    [Analysts can make different choices in the complex process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding procedures.]

    On this matter, I confess to certain sympathies for Dr Jones, who has devoted his lifetime career to this important task. Yet the search for scientific truth must be paramount.

    I hope you will enlist credible experts to help you and I wish you much success as you undertake this daunting task.


    S. Fred Singer

    Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
    Former Director of the US Weather Satellite Service

    View The Week That Was in which this editorial appeared.

    Return to Top of Page

    (in TWTW Apr 3, 2010)

    S. Fred Singer, Chairman and President , Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

    ClimateGate Whitewash

    Apr 3, 2010

    There is now a desperate effort afoot by assorted climate alarmists to explain away the revelations of the incriminating e-mails leaked last year from the University of East Anglia (UAE). But the ongoing investigations so far have avoided the real problem, namely whether the reported warming is genuine or simply the manufactured result of manipulation of temperature data by scientists in England and the United States.

    The latest report is by the British House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee, which largely absolved Philip Jones, head of UEA's Climate Research Unit and author of most of the e-mails. How can we tell that it's a whitewash? Here are some telltale signs:

  • It refers to the e-mails as "stolen"
  • It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics
  • Yet it derives the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the basic science and that warming is human caused - essentially endorsing the IPCC

    None of the investigations have gone into any detail on how the data might have been manipulated. But this is really the most important task for any investigation, since it deals directly with the central issue: Is there an appreciable human influence on climate change in the past decades?

    Instead, much of the attention of newspapers, and of the public, has focused on secondary issues: the melting of Himalayan glaciers, the possible inundation of the Netherlands, deforestation of the Amazon, crop failures in Africa, etc. While these issues demonstrate the sloppiness of the IPCC process, they don't tell anything about the cause of the warming: natural or anthropogenic.

    So what do the e-mails really reveal? We know that Jones and his gang tried and largely succeeded in hiding the decline" of temperature by using what he termed Mike's [Mann] Nature trick. Most people think it refers to CRU tree ring data after 1960, which do show a decline in temperature. However, I believe that it refers to Michael Mann's "trick" in hiding the fact that his multi-proxy data did not show the expected warming after 1979. So he abruptly cut off his analysis in 1979 and simply inserted the thermometer data supplied by Jones, which do claim a strong temperature increase. Hence the hockeystick, suggesting a sudden major warming during the past century.

    Only a thorough scientific investigation will be able to document that there was no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented warming record is based on data manipulation, involving the selection of certain weather stations, [and the de-selection of others that showed no warming], plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating.

    View The Week That Was in which this editorial appeared.

    Return to Top of Page

    (in TWTW Mar 13, 2010)

    S. Fred Singer, Chairman and President , Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

    Junkscience #10 . ClimateGate (CG) and other Gates undermine the credibility of the IPCC and of AGW

    Mar 13, 2010

    If I were to submit comments to the British House of Commons panel on Climategate, I would focus on the science:

    1. We have yet to discover just how Jones et al managed to produce a substantial surface warming [between 1979 and 1997] when satellites showed practically none in the troposphere -- in conflict with all GH models.

    2. I suspect that it had to do both with the SELECTION of weather stations and with the applied CORRECTIONS to the trends

    3. Further, I had noticed that the Mann analysis of proxy data [Nature 1998] conveniently stops in 1979. When I questioned him on this matter, I got the very unsatisfactory reply that there were no suitable data available -- suggesting to me that he was hiding such information.

    4. Accordingly, one needs to procure and analyze post-1980 proxy data to see if they support CRU (and NCDC and GISS) or the MSU satellite results.

    View The Week That Was in which this editorial appeared.

    Return to Top of Page

  • Free use is granted for non-commercial purposes of all materials on this Website.
    Acknowledgement would be appreciated.
    SEPP is funded through the generous contributions of individuals such as yourself. Pay Pal Donation
    (c) Copyright 2010 Science and Environmental Policy Project