AN OPEN RESPONSE TO HIS GLOBAL WARMER ATTACKERS FROM BURT RUTAN

Friends,
After catching a bunch of further attacks from the climate scientists and other CAGW alarmists in the "Open letter to Burt Rutan"
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/ I found that, even though it is a site that attracts big groups of alarmists, I should have some closing remarks before moving on. Yea, I know......leaving me open to more punishment. My remarks are primarily on the behavior of the scientists, but they also include some climate data at the end. They can be found at the link (comment #150), and are repeated below for those who do not want to wade through 149 flames.
I trust you will enjoy the comments; they represent an opportunity to focus on the real problem and I think a way to move ahead in the task of avoiding the damage we are seeing from this attack on our energy sources.
burt

Rutan Feb 1, 2012 post at Scholars and Rogues
Checking back in, for a good reason. My study on CAGW initially focused on a very specific aspect - data presentation bias/fraud in the climate data as presented by climate scientists to the public, the media and the policy makers. That was a "target-rich" environment for sure and it quickly became repetitive and boring by itself. I moved on to looking at the "why" - why a professional scientist would place ethics aside in his defense of a theory that continued to look indefensible. The why is a much more complex area of study and one that represented a totally different area of research. Why do climate scientists behave like politicians and lawyers when most other scientists enjoy the search for answers about our physical world and are not so largely distracted by things outside their field of study?
Likely those who have posted comments to this story have not been aware that it has produced some new data for me on the tactics of the alarmist. For example, the attack on me 'wanting to live with the dinosaurs'. What you fail to understand is my reference to that period is to shed a bit of light on the fraud that has led the media and public to believe that the recent carbon increase is "unprecedented" and the recent warming is "unprecedented". Now, I know you will answer that you did not really say that, but I should not have to remind you that it is your ethical duty as a professional, to correct those statements when you see them in the public and policy-maker discourse. Why is it that an engineer, in a completely different field of work, be the one to have to correct mis-information about climate? Of course you can say that it is not your duty, when your focus is on your science. Ordinary logic tells us that anything out there that supports your hopes and goals will go unchallenged. Reading the comments by Brian Angliss at http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/ (See preceeding article for the link.) it forces one to remember the tactics of the O J Simpson team of lawyers - ignore the evidence and win at all costs in spite of it. I now see the basis of his rage; I am one of those "libertarian engineers" he works with who know that "data matters even more than ideology". His argument that "the 1100 emails represent no more than 0.1% of the entire email record" is sad indeed. His post #80 on the climategate email comment list is an attempt to distract from the email's context by submitting a complex engineering/scientific analysis of the numerics of the emails! Frankly the public at large, using basic human logic, knows the context and cares less how the context is discussed within the band of alarmists, fighting for their reputations and against the conclusion that history will show they gave all of science a black eye. It has taken behavior like that to allow the public to finally recognize the fraud, moving CAGW from its major concern to near the bottom of the list.
As far as your comment that my company would be embarrassed if its emails were released - do you really think they would include destruction of data as important as that which would get in the way of a goal to force increases in global energy costs? Do you really think they would reveal a conspiracy to overstate the certainty of things as serious as climate disruption, conceal evidence to the contrary, and a willingness to manipulate the peer-review system? The scientists known as ‘The Team’ (Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa), hid evidence that their presentation for politicians and policy makers was not as strong as they wanted to make it appear, downplaying the very real uncertainties present in climate reconstruction. I guess when you live within your world, you just conclude that everybody does. Sad.
In my business we recognize that when our pals review and comment on our work, it is not significant. We do not call it "Peer Review", like you trumpet.
There is sufficient context within the emails themselves to prove that several climate scientists had deleted “inconvenient data” regarding tree rings in service of a political end, namely the removal of a “potential distraction.”
The mails clearly demonstrate that the scientists were concerned about “diluting” the message. They were not concerned with telling the whole truth, but rather a version of the truth that was packaged according to their agenda.
The leaked files showed that The Team had done this by hiding how they presented data, and ruthlessly suppressing dissent by insuring that contrary papers were never published and that editors who didn’t follow their party line were forced out of their position.
Phil Jones lied to Parliament when he said it was standard practice to not share data. It is clear that The Team withheld data from other scientists, destroyed data and emails they knew would incriminate them and fought the FOIA process. This is the behavior of criminals, not scientists.
I find it hard to believe that you guys can still defend Mann/Briffa on their attempt to formulate a hockey stick with the tree ring data. When others were finally allowed access to their data it was clearly found that it did not support their intended HS goal, without some laughable cherry picking. They withheld their analysis/presentation code too. When it was finally released it was found that it generated a hockey stick even when fed random numbers for tree ring data! - Cute.
Of course, logic and ethics had no chance when you were faced with defending it, since the Hockey Stick graph (the only one reproduced multiple times in color in any IPCC summary) was the primary basis for convincing the Media and Policy Makers that immediate action was needed to offset unprecedented warming, obviously caused by unprecedented increase in CO2. Backing down from that would throw Gore under the bus and would show that the scientists were agenda driven from the start. I predict that you will still support your heroism in saving the planet after the hoax goes mainstream, just like you did in the ozone hole scare.
Several of the commenters seem to think that I am a climate scientist, and should know their field. I am very up-front with the fact that I do not have that expertise and cannot critique the atmospheric analysis within the computer models that theorize the coming catastrophe. I do have a 46-year background in data analysis and presentation and that has enabled me to see much of the problem with verifying the carbon GHG caused warming theory. What I present is not always liked by the alarmists and some of it is attacked vigorously, because it leads to a conclusion that is unacceptable to them. I accept that, and understand it but it does not force me to join the echo chamber of those still selling the theory when the data says it is suspect.
I have been accused of not using the best data to use in my presentations. So, I will now use only the "best" data, as defined by the alarmists (HadCRUT) in presenting the following observations:
Breaking down the last hundred years into two halves; the first half, 1912 to 1961 and the last half 1962 to 2011. The alarmists claim the human sinning (CO2-pollution) was primarily during the last half.
Increase in CO2 /Increase in global temperature
1st half +18 ppm /+0.52 deg C
2nd half +74 ppm/ +0.39 deg C
Another period; 1997 to 2012, the recent 15 years. CO2 increased 15 ppm while global temperatures showed essentially no increase.
Looking at only these data would indicate that adding CO2 cools the planet - not true of course, but it makes the point that your theory is not supported by the most basic data, requiring you to look elsewhere (ocean bottoms?) to find the heat. I suspect that you look there (even though the rate of sea level rise has significantly diminished) because you refuse to accept that your model assumptions on feedbacks are wrong.
OK, flame away, you scientists……..get me some more behavior data.
Burt