You may have heard about Google’s committee to help re-spin and further spread the ‘climate’ message, presumably in support of expensive and intrusive policies it also advocates—which depend on widespread acceptance of this very same ‘message’—and Goggle’s various various projects of the variety that are otherwise uneconomic without said policies.

For a search engine, of all things, Google’s homework was lacking. Or, it is telling.

In addition to consciously selecting Andrew Dessler as one of their advisors—whose track record includes curious insistence about non-facts and that there was nothing to that ClimateGate thing—Google has chosen a lady who pops up with some frequency in those very same ClimateGate emails, Julia Cole of University of Arizona.

At Arizona, Cole is a colleague of Jonathan Overpeck, to whom the infamous “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” instruction and similar sentiments have been attributed, and Hockey Stick-co-author Malcolm Hughes.

We can be pretty sure the email address popping up in the ClimateGate emails, coleje@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (search eastangliaemails.com for ‘cole’ is the same Julia E. Cole (her AU address begins jecole@). And of course she’s directly cited in a few mails as an Overpeck colleague, and expressly cited as copied in others.

In the ClimateGate emails, Cole is e.g., cited by Caspar Ammann as a ‘human disturbance’ type, to Phil Jones a project partner for purpose of tweaking the IPCC’s high-profile work “Working Group I” (WG1), by Hockey Stick co-author Keith Briffa as a collaborator, as well as by Hockey Stick lead author Michael Mann, and was one of an apparently like-minded crowd copied about the looming rollout of RealClimate, among other communications including or citing her.

She’s also a fave of the not overly measured Union of Concerned Scientists.

Quickly searching the emails for the names was the first thing that came to my mind when seeing Goggle’s roster. I presume it wasn’t one of their considerations.

The illustrative part about this involves the issue of Google skewing search terms, the propriety of which I fully endorse—however one seeks to skew them—so long as they do not pretend that they are doing otherwise. Sort of like how it’s perfectly fine with me for partisan UK papers the Guardian to be as left-wing (or right) as they want, so long as they’re largely open about it and don’t play cutesy like the New York Times or Washington Post, denying it.

Somewhere between Google denying its advocacy and publicly, openly promoting their algorithm-and-sifting-as-advocacy (and telling readers why, their stake in the matter), we should find the marketplace getting the information out there. So you know what you’re dealing with.

So that,if you are so inclined, you might conclude, as Willis Eschenbach writes in his Open Letter to Google on Watts Up With That:

The problem is, now Google has a dog in the fight. You’ve clearly declared that you’re not waiting until the null climate hypothesis gets falsified. You’re not waiting for a climate anomaly to appear, something that’s unlike the historical climate. You have made up your mind and picked your side in the discussion. Here’s what that does. Next time I look up something that is climate science related, I will no longer trust that you are impartial. No way.

So, Google is an advocate of global warming policies and alarmism. This is reflected, it seems, in their product. This assemblage of climatism cheerleaders further affirms this activism and what the worldview is that underlies it. PDF with hyperlinks.

See also this Russell Cook post on Google on American Thinker “Google to fight global warming ‘ignorance’”.

NOTE: Since we posted this story about Google advocacy, a Google search on ‘Icecap’ now comes with a warning “This site may be compromised”. BTW, Yahoo, AOL, Bing, Dogpile and other searches do not give the same warning. Update: There are some indications there was some issues with site being briefly compromised 10 or 11 days ago. We are investigating.

See Chris’s follow-up on this google flagging our website in The Evil Empire Strikes Back.

Science published one of the first spaghetti graphs (in Briffa and Osborn 1999 here) as part of an invited comment on the Mann et al 1000-year reconstruction, then hot off the press with its supposed proof that 1998 was the “warmest year” of the millennium. Jones et al 1999, discussed recently here, contained a different spaghetti graph.

Referring to this figure, Briffa and Osborn stated that none of the reconstructions covering the MWP reach modern warmth, and thus the MBH conclusion must “surely be accepted”.

The temperature histories that extend through the medieval period do indicate general warmth (see the figure), although with different maxima (in the 9th, 10th, and 11th centuries). Clearly none of these reach the levels of warmth seen today [although the confidence ranges (not shown here) approach them]. On the basis of their analysis, Mann et al. conclude that the 20th century is anomalously warm. Even with the very limited data available and the problems associated with interpreting many of them as unambiguous measures of hemispheric temperature change, this conclusion must surely be accepted.
The figure from Briffa and Osborn 1999 is shown below with the original caption. It stated that the Briffa version came from Briffa et al 1998 (Nature) and Briffa et al 1998 (Pr Roy Soc London), “processed to retain low-frequency signals”.

Enlarged. Original Caption: Records of past climate....Comparison of NH temperature reconstructions, all recalibrated with linear regression against the 1881-1960 mean April-September instrumental temperatures averaged over land areas north of 20ºN. All series have been smoothed with a 50-year Gaussian-weighted filter and are anomalies from the 1961-90 mean. Instrumental temperatures (1871-1997) are in black, circum-Arctic temperature proxies [1600-1990, from (2 - Overpeck)] are in yellow, northern NH tree-ring densities [1550-1960, from (3 - Briffa et al 1998(Nature); Briffa et al 1998 (Proc Roy Soc London)), processed to retain low-frequency signals] are in pale blue, NH temperature proxies [1000-1992, from (4 - Jones et al 1998)] are in red, global climate proxies [1000-1980, from (5, 6 - MBH99)] are in purple, and an average of three northern Eurasian tree-ring width chronologies [1-1993, from (10 - Briffa et al 2000)] is in green. Although representing a much more restricted spatial coverage than the other series, the last of these (also processed to maintain low-frequency climate information) is included here because of its extended length and because it suggests relatively cooler summer temperatures (at least across northern Eurasia) before A.D. 1000.

The Briffa and Osborn 1999 version of the Briffa MXD reconstruction doesn’t match the version of Briffa et al 1998 or the subsequent version of Briffa et al 2001, both of which were archived. Oddly enough, it does match (after truncation) a version archived at NCDC in December 1998 in connection with Jones et al 1998 (though not used in that article), where it occurs in the second sheet of an Excel file here. To my knowledge, this particular version of the Briffa reconstruction was not otherwise published. (The Briffa reconstruction seems to have been very fluid in this period, as the versions in IPCC TAR Zero Order Draft and First Order Draft appear to be different again and still unaccounted for.)

The following figure overlays a 50-year Gaussian smooth of the digital version at the Jones et al 1998 archive (mean padding after truncation) with approximate rescaling to match the graphic on an excerpt of the figure in Science, proving that the Science figure derives from this version.

Figure 2. Enlarged. Emulation of Briffa and Osborn 1999 Figure 1. The Briffa version is in light blue and is overprinted (thin black) with the Briffa version in the NCDC Jones et al 1998 archive, with 50-year gaussian smooth after truncation to 1960.

As previously reported, this figure, together with Jones et al 1999, are the first two bites of the poison apple of hide the decline. This is what the figure would have looked like, had all the data been shown.

Figure 3. Enlarged.Briffa and Osborn 1999 Figure 1 Excerpt showing the decline (in red).

One can reasonably wonder whether the key conclusion of Briffa and Osborn 1999 - “[despite] the problems associated with interpreting many of them as unambiguous measures of hemispheric temperature change, this conclusion [MBH] must surely be accepted” - would have stood up if the decline had been shown.

As opposed to the other possible conclusion: the “problems associated with interpreting many of them as unambiguous measures of hemispheric temperature change” remain an unsurmounted obstacle and the reason why the Mann reconstruction goes up so sharply when the Briffa reconstruction based on a very large population of temperature sensitive sites goes down remains unexplained and a critical problem within the field.

Briffa and Osborn 1999 contains a very sly reference to the divergence problem:

A number of tree-ring chronologies have displayed anomalous growth or changed responses to climate forcing on different time scales in very recent decades (3 - Briffa et al 1998 (Nature), 9 - Jacoby and D’Arrigo 1995). Understanding the reasons for these changes is important for understanding the causes and limits on past tree growth. Paradoxically, therefore, more work in the recent period is required to better interpret the early proxies. Few of the proxy series run up to the present, however, and updating these will involve considerable effort.

Climategate scientists were well aware of the importance of figures. Briffa and Osborn knew that the graphic with the deletion of the decline would leave a different impression than one that disclosed the decline. The sly wording of the running text compounds the problem. Yes, there are proxies that need updating, but the MXD data used in the Briffa reconstruction came right up to the early 1990s. Unavailability of data is not the reason why the Briffa reconstruction ends in 1960.

Briffa and Osborn 1999 contain a number of sensible caveats about the Mann and other reconstructions, raising caution about the role of bristlecones ( the “amplitude series relating to the first principal component of a group of high-elevation tree-ring chronologies in the western United States") in the Mann reconstruction and readers are referred to the original here.

These sensible caveats occasioned a flurry of Climategate correspondence among the Team in April and May 1999 ( see 98. 0924120405.txt; 99. 0924532891.txt; 100. 0924613924.txt; 105. 0925829267.txt; 106. 0926010576.txt; 107. 0926012905.txt; 108. 0926026654.txt; 109. 0926031061.txt; 111. 0926681134.txt ) in which Mann objected vociferously to even these reasonable caveats. Even Bradley was nonplussed by Mann’s conduct. In 99. 0924532891.txt on Apr 19, 1999, entitled CENSORED!!!!!, Bradley observed:

As for thinking that it is “Better that nothing appear, than something unnacceptable to us”...as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant.

A few weeks later, Bradley commented on Mann’s effort to smooth the waters: “Excuse me while I puke...”

Needless to say, a few years later, when our criticisms appeared, Bradley adopted the attitude that he criticized here: Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us.

An auroral and unusually big ‘supermoon’ was seen lighting up the sky on Saturday, offering a visual treat to an enthusiastic audience of curious sky-gazers.

The phenomenon was special, as the moon came closest to the earth in 18 years, becoming the biggest and brightest full moon of the year. The moon was around 14 per cent bigger and 30 per cent brighter than the other full moons, Nehru Planetarium Director N. Rathnasree said.

“The ‘supermoon’ is the biggest and brightest of 2011,” C.B. Devgun, director of the Science Popularisation Association of Communicators and Educators (SPACE), told PTI.

The moon was only 3,56,577 km away. The phenomenon occurred in 1955, 1974, 1992 and 2005.

Full moons coinciding with the moon’s closest point to the earth in fact happen after every one year, one month and 18 days when it is about 3,63,104 km from the earth, Mr. Devgun said. “This is because the moon’s orbit is an ellipse, with one side 50,000 km closer to the earth than the other. In astronomy, the two extremes are called ‘apogee’ [far away] and ‘perigee’ [nearby].”

A public sky-watch with telescopes and a live show with full dome visuals were organised by the Nehru Planetarium on Saturday evening for sky-gazers to have a better view of the perigee full moon, Ms. Rathnasree said. Hundreds of people thronged the planetarium to see the earth’s natural satellite, she said, adding it was totally safe to watch the moon with naked eyes.

Dispelling reports that a correlation existed between the moon and earthquakes, she said the data for the past 100 years and more showed no correlation.

See post here.

NASA adds:

A perigee full Moon brings with it extra-high “perigean tides,” but this is nothing to worry about, according to NOAA. In most places, lunar gravity at perigee pulls tide waters only a few centimeters (an inch or so) higher than usual. Local geography can amplify the effect to about 15 centimeters (six inches)--not exactly a great flood.

The Moon looks extra-big when it is beaming through foreground objects--a.k.a. “the Moon illusion.” Indeed, contrary to some reports circulating the Internet, perigee Moons do not trigger natural disasters. The “super moon” of March 1983, for instance, passed without incident. And an almost-super Moon in Dec. 2008 also proved harmless.

Okay, the Moon is 14% bigger than usual, but can you really tell the difference? It’s tricky. There are no rulers floating in the sky to measure lunar diameters. Hanging high overhead with no reference points to provide a sense of scale, one full Moon can seem much like any other.

Spaceweather has some reader views. See also this iconic solar promience view.

Google has announced plans to battle skeptics. In a story ”Google Takes on Climate Change Skeptics with New Technology Effort”, Maria Galucci announced the search giant has brought together a team of 21 climate researchers to improve the way the science of global warming is communicated using new media”. She continues:

Kelly Levin, a senior research associate at the World Resources Institute, a conservation group, said she hoped the Google program could tackle that challenge by engaging wider audiences in the scientific discussion.

“If the scientists understand [data] in a different way than the public does, it is impossible to see how this information is going to be integrated in the way it needs to be to make policy and management decisions,” she said.

What they don’t get is that they have predetermined that climate change is real and is bad without looking at the facts or consulting groups other that conservation or environmental groups or scientists riding the global warming gravy train.

ICECAP offers to debate the Google 21 scientists using the 18 points in our letter to the EPA signed by 35 scientists who are in the skeptic camp. Our choice of format. Their choice of time or place. Perhaps their June conference would be ideal. I am especially distressed to see the AMS involved in the Google effort. The formerly great professional society has become nothing but a public ploicy advocacy group for the liberal agenda.

If there is no movement or change, I will use other search engines and sell my google stock. You should consider the same. They have no business working to push an agenda and affect public policy. I won’t cancel my AMS membership, where I worked hard to achieve a CCM and Fellow designation, but attempt to work from within to oust the leadership and make the society advocates for good science not a political green agenda or public policy.

Galucci is a biased writer (hack). In her story on NH looking at repealing RGGI, she only spoke to democrats opposing the bill and had a release from a group blaming AFP for the repeal bill. I and 3 other scientists provided testimony at the public hearing. There was no evidence of AFP and we paid for our own travel and expenses.

--------

Al Gore’s Google Goes ‘Full Monty’ On Global Warming; The Google Billionaires’ Sanity Questioned

Read here. Who can forget Googlegate, (likely prompted by Google board member, Al Gore) during the Climategate e-mail scandal of pro-AGW scientists? Now, Google the business has decided to take sides on the science debate of global warming and Al Gore is still a Google board member - coincidence?

In an open letter to Google by Willis Eschenbach, Al Gore’s billionaire Google friends are shredded by Willis regarding their partisan hack attempt to sway public opinion. As Willis succinctly points out, this is extreme Googlian stupidity.

“Recently, you have decided to take sides in a scientific debate. That in itself is very foolish. Why would Google want to take either side when there is a disagreement between scientists? I thought your motto was “Do No Evil.” For the 900-pound gorilla to take sides in any tempestuous politically charged scientific discussion is an extremely stupid thing to do.....So what did you guys do? You’re now providing money to 21 supporters of the CO2 hypothesis, funding them as “Google Fellows” to go and flog their scientific claims in the marketplace of ideas. Is this the new face of Google, advocating for a partisan idea?.....Supporting either side in the debate involves Google in a high-stakes, multi-billion dollar, long-festering, dog-ugly political/scientific battle, with passions running high on both sides, accusations thrown, reputations attacked ... and putting your head in this buzz-saw, jumping into this decades-old scientific Balkan war, this is a good idea for Google exactly how?...Truly, are you off your collective meds or something?”

The fact that Google has decided to piss off some 50% of the American populace is a true revelation of how lame the pathetic UN/IPCC AGW science actually is.

Right on as usual Willis. See C3 headlines post.

This is a very disturbing note. Already the government and these alleged ‘environmentalists’ have far too much control over the education system from teachers to curriculum. You need to stop further intrusions in your local areas by government and environmentalists which have left behind a trail of brainwashed youth and programs with unintended consequences or worse.

Across the country, states are busy setting goals for environmental literacy, including here in Wisconsin, where the state’s first Environmental Literacy Plan is being drafted by a new group, the Wisconsin chapter of the No Child Left Inside Coalition. State Superintendent Tony Evers asked the group, whose members represent key environmental education organizations, for the plan and has called for educators statewide to “renew our commitment to teaching students about environmental responsibility.”

This year, funding was restored for a long-vacant environmental education consultant position within the Department of Public Instruction. Among this staff member’s duties: making sure teachers are properly trained for environmental education, and providing districts with resources and technical assistance to help meet the state’s goals for environmental literacy.

The flurry of activity is partly due to rumors that the Obama administration is leaning toward including environmental education initiatives in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (previously known as the No Child Left Behind Act). The legislation may open up funding for states with strong environmental education programs and goals.

Certainly ‘environmental literacy’ will prepare student better than just plain old literacy when it comes to dealing with an increasingly unstable Earth.

After all, the important thing is to “blur racial and income disparities.” The Center for Ecoliteracy in Berkeley, California says so.

--------

Global warming as ‘cargo cult science’
By James Wanliss, Ph.D.

During World War II, remote Pacific islands like Vanuatu became involved in war efforts when they became part of supply lines. To the natives the arrival of noisy “birds” was almost miraculous, bringing delicious foods and wondrous cargo.

After the war the birds left. Into the uncertain vacuum returned old terrors of hunger and sickness, and an angry Earth. Superstitious natives copied what they had seen. They made model planes and runways. They had the form right - the outward form of religion - but lacked power. As they had seen so they, and their priests, did. But no airplanes landed. Anthropologists call this religion a “cargo cult.”

Likewise cargo cult “science” can arise, noted physicist Richard Feynman, when researchers go through the motions of scientific rituals without actually doing science. Experiment first, conclusions later is the basis of scientific inquiry. Cargo cult science predetermines conclusions and reverses the order. This is a conscious perversion of normal scientific practice. It can be called post-normal science because power over other people, not truth, is the goal. Post-normal science is a deformed bloom in which the search to explain our physical world is less significant than the quest to use scientific authority to achieve political goals.

Global-warming federal-scientific partnerships form the basis for several cargo cults. Many billions of dollars are thrown at studying global warming, and recent Climategate scandals reveal prominent scientists failing (or forbidding) to ask critical questions that might challenge cherished beliefs, or threaten gravy trains. Annual federal funding to study global warming is around $4 billion and rising.

Mike Hulme, a professor of climate change and priest in this cargo cult, explains: “The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved....It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change...to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”

So global warming is not essentially about science, but essentially about politics. Then science becomes not about seeking to understand our world, but about activism and influencing public opinion. Much more.