Hihomumio 168 Report post Posted November 27, 2009 However this information came out, I am mad as hell that it appears once again that we have been manipulated almost into a frenzy about the global warming crap!! I really hope that any action that was to be taken by the US or any other country at the Copenhagen summit comes to a screeching halt until this business is investigated thoroughly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TubaGirl 7 Report post Posted November 28, 2009 Climategate, Sen. Inhofe, Stuart Varney and Ed Begley Jr. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TubaGirl 7 Report post Posted November 28, 2009 Climate-gate gets worse Here is part of an editorial at the Washington Times: The story has gotten worse since the global-cooling cover-up was exposed through a treasure trove of leaked e-mails a week ago. The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia has been incredibly influential in the global-warming debate. The CRU claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 report. Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU and contributing author to the United Nation's IPCC report chapter titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes," says he "accidentally" deleted some raw temperature data used to construct the aggregate temperature data CRU distributed. If you believe that, you're probably watching too many Al Gore videos. Mr. Jones is the same professor who warned that global-warming skeptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." Other revelations hit at the very core of the global-warming debate. The leaked e-mails indicate that the people at the CRU can't even figure out how their aggregate data was put together. CRU activists claimed that they took individual temperature readings at individual stations and averaged the information out to produce temperature readings over larger areas. One of the leaked documents states that their aggregation procedure "renders the station counts totally meaningless." The benefit: "So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!" Academics around the world who have spent years working on papers using this data must be in full panic mode. By the admission of the global-warming theocracy's own self-appointed experts, the data they have been using is simply "garbage." . . . The entire piece is worth reading here. A previous piece in the Washington Times on this topic is here. Even the American Academy of Arts and Sciences has this post up. Computer World adds this note to the discussion: As someone with a background both in IT and in science (I participated in particle physics experiments as a physics PhD student), I would also add the following lesson to the folks writing scientific code: Don't make stuff up. The released document HARRY_READ_ME.txt contains examples in which the coder, supremely frustrated with the poor quality of his data, simply creates some. Even if the underlying science is sound, "created" data taints the integrity of the entire process. Don't do it, no matter how tempting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted November 29, 2009 Source. Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker. By Christopher Booker Published: 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009 A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed. The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it. Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history. Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement. Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case. The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself. There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence. But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand. In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU. What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results. The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports. Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU. The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted November 29, 2009 However this information came out, I am mad as hell that it appears once again that we have been manipulated almost into a frenzy about the global warming crap!! I really hope that any action that was to be taken by the US or any other country at the Copenhagen summit comes to a screeching halt until this business is investigated thoroughly. I would have thought that the Copenhagen summit would have been cancelled after this news but apparently not. They're still trying to ignore this. Obama still wants to introduce legislation to reduce carbon emissions substantially. Does he not read the news? You see, this "the sky is falling" alarm helps a certain faction pass legislation that gives them more control over "the people". Their science has to be correct and their hypothesis needs to be frightening enough that we'll feel good about paying taxes for heating our homes, for driving SUV's (if you can still find one), and for a myriad of other things they have in store. GE is positioned to make a fortune if manmade global warming is "real" ) or perceived to be real. NBC (owned by GE) is carrying the water! Al Gore has already made a fortune from this panic and is poised to make even more. My god, the man got a Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award for something that is based on forged science! None of this means that we should stop trying to save energy if we want to. I just replaced all of the bulbs in my house with compact fluorescents. I also think it's important for us to recycle things that can be used again. There are ways we can take care of our environment that are still important. It's just this Co2 panic (and therefore control) that needs to be stopped. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
esherk 0 Report post Posted November 30, 2009 However this information came out, I am mad as hell that it appears once again that we have been manipulated almost into a frenzy about the global warming crap!! I really hope that any action that was to be taken by the US or any other country at the Copenhagen summit comes to a screeching halt until this business is investigated thoroughly. I would have thought that the Copenhagen summit would have been cancelled after this news but apparently not. They're still trying to ignore this. Obama still wants to introduce legislation to reduce carbon emissions substantially. Does he not read the news? You see, this "the sky is falling" alarm helps a certain faction pass legislation that gives them more control over "the people". Their science has to be correct and their hypothesis needs to be frightening enough that we'll feel good about paying taxes for heating our homes, for driving SUV's (if you can still find one), and for a myriad of other things they have in store. GE is positioned to make a fortune if manmade global warming is "real" ) or perceived to be real. NBC (owned by GE) is carrying the water! Al Gore has already made a fortune from this panic and is poised to make even more. My god, the man got a Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award for something that is based on forged science! None of this means that we should stop trying to save energy if we want to. I just replaced all of the bulbs in my house with compact fluorescents. I also think it's important for us to recycle things that can be used again. There are ways we can take care of our environment that are still important. It's just this Co2 panic (and therefore control) that needs to be stopped. You mean like how the Republicans used people's fears of terrorism and used the Department of Homland Security for their own political gains by increasing the security threat close to elections. Not to mention using people's fear to influence them to hand over their civil liberties with the PATRIOT act and go to a needless war with Iraq. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted November 30, 2009 However this information came out, I am mad as hell that it appears once again that we have been manipulated almost into a frenzy about the global warming crap!! I really hope that any action that was to be taken by the US or any other country at the Copenhagen summit comes to a screeching halt until this business is investigated thoroughly. I would have thought that the Copenhagen summit would have been cancelled after this news but apparently not. They're still trying to ignore this. Obama still wants to introduce legislation to reduce carbon emissions substantially. Does he not read the news? You see, this "the sky is falling" alarm helps a certain faction pass legislation that gives them more control over "the people". Their science has to be correct and their hypothesis needs to be frightening enough that we'll feel good about paying taxes for heating our homes, for driving SUV's (if you can still find one), and for a myriad of other things they have in store. GE is positioned to make a fortune if manmade global warming is "real" ) or perceived to be real. NBC (owned by GE) is carrying the water! Al Gore has already made a fortune from this panic and is poised to make even more. My god, the man got a Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award for something that is based on forged science! None of this means that we should stop trying to save energy if we want to. I just replaced all of the bulbs in my house with compact fluorescents. I also think it's important for us to recycle things that can be used again. There are ways we can take care of our environment that are still important. It's just this Co2 panic (and therefore control) that needs to be stopped. You mean like how the Republicans used people's fears of terrorism and used the Department of Homland Security for their own political gains by increasing the security threat close to elections. Not to mention using people's fear to influence them to hand over their civil liberties with the PATRIOT act and go to a needless war with Iraq. Look, this is the climate thread. It's not about republicans vs. democrats. This is a serious matter and we've just found out that all of the hysteria is based on manufactured data - for a purpose. We should ALL be outraged. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
esherk 0 Report post Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) However this information came out, I am mad as hell that it appears once again that we have been manipulated almost into a frenzy about the global warming crap!! I really hope that any action that was to be taken by the US or any other country at the Copenhagen summit comes to a screeching halt until this business is investigated thoroughly. I would have thought that the Copenhagen summit would have been cancelled after this news but apparently not. They're still trying to ignore this. Obama still wants to introduce legislation to reduce carbon emissions substantially. Does he not read the news? You see, this "the sky is falling" alarm helps a certain faction pass legislation that gives them more control over "the people". Their science has to be correct and their hypothesis needs to be frightening enough that we'll feel good about paying taxes for heating our homes, for driving SUV's (if you can still find one), and for a myriad of other things they have in store. GE is positioned to make a fortune if manmade global warming is "real" ) or perceived to be real. NBC (owned by GE) is carrying the water! Al Gore has already made a fortune from this panic and is poised to make even more. My god, the man got a Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award for something that is based on forged science! None of this means that we should stop trying to save energy if we want to. I just replaced all of the bulbs in my house with compact fluorescents. I also think it's important for us to recycle things that can be used again. There are ways we can take care of our environment that are still important. It's just this Co2 panic (and therefore control) that needs to be stopped. You mean like how the Republicans used people's fears of terrorism and used the Department of Homland Security for their own political gains by increasing the security threat close to elections. Not to mention using people's fear to influence them to hand over their civil liberties with the PATRIOT act and go to a needless war with Iraq. Look, this is the climate thread. It's not about republicans vs. democrats. This is a serious matter and we've just found out that all of the hysteria is based on manufactured data - for a purpose. We should ALL be outraged. Yet, how can someone not look at ice-caps melting in the Arctic, major polution in China, India, etc and not think that we have some responsibility for our environment? Edited November 30, 2009 by esherk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted November 30, 2009 However this information came out, I am mad as hell that it appears once again that we have been manipulated almost into a frenzy about the global warming crap!! I really hope that any action that was to be taken by the US or any other country at the Copenhagen summit comes to a screeching halt until this business is investigated thoroughly. I would have thought that the Copenhagen summit would have been cancelled after this news but apparently not. They're still trying to ignore this. Obama still wants to introduce legislation to reduce carbon emissions substantially. Does he not read the news? You see, this "the sky is falling" alarm helps a certain faction pass legislation that gives them more control over "the people". Their science has to be correct and their hypothesis needs to be frightening enough that we'll feel good about paying taxes for heating our homes, for driving SUV's (if you can still find one), and for a myriad of other things they have in store. GE is positioned to make a fortune if manmade global warming is "real" ) or perceived to be real. NBC (owned by GE) is carrying the water! Al Gore has already made a fortune from this panic and is poised to make even more. My god, the man got a Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award for something that is based on forged science! None of this means that we should stop trying to save energy if we want to. I just replaced all of the bulbs in my house with compact fluorescents. I also think it's important for us to recycle things that can be used again. There are ways we can take care of our environment that are still important. It's just this Co2 panic (and therefore control) that needs to be stopped. You mean like how the Republicans used people's fears of terrorism and used the Department of Homland Security for their own political gains by increasing the security threat close to elections. Not to mention using people's fear to influence them to hand over their civil liberties with the PATRIOT act and go to a needless war with Iraq. Look, this is the climate thread. It's not about republicans vs. democrats. This is a serious matter and we've just found out that all of the hysteria is based on manufactured data - for a purpose. We should ALL be outraged. Yet, how can someone not look at ice-caps melting in the Arctic, major polution in China, India, etc and not think that we have some responsibility for our environment? One only has to look at history to know that any warming isn't due to anything we are doing! These scientists FAKED the numbers to further an agenda. That's wrong on every level. Major policy changes that effect industries (including killing the car industry in the USA) are made because of this phoney science. If carbon emissions have nothing to do with "global warming" (and they don't!) then we can drive SUV's and trucks! Car companies could actually make cars that we want to buy (instead of going broke having to retool to build cars we don't want). That's just one issue. Of course, we all should feel some responsibility to take care of our environment. However, if "global warming" is a lie (which it obviously is based on this damning information!!!), then what motivation could they use to get us all to conform to something? These scientists celebrated the death of the professor who first introduced Al Gore to the "global warming" concept at the University of Hawaii. Why did they celebrate his death? Because he had come out and said he was WRONG about everything he thought was true, that Co2 didn't do any harm, that man wasn't causing anything, and that he wanted this new message to get out. Of course they were glad he died. THEY WERE GLAD HE DIED! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted November 30, 2009 Source. ‘Climategate’: Good News World! A Crisis of Faith is Ended by Adam Baldwin “[Marxist theories provide] a set of slogans that were supposed to justify and glorify communism and the slavery that inevitably goes with it… [although] the ideological fantasies of this movement … were no more than a nonsensical expression of the whims of spoilt middle-class children… the movement did without doubt express a profound crisis of faith.”– Leszek Kolakowski We live in interesting times, as goes the ancient Chinese curse, wherein vainglorious environmentalist addicts to “the self-deification of mankind” are now desperately clinging to Nietzsche’s “God is dead” raft because humans are, according to their pseudo-science, “killing the planet.” Yet, as the self-serving rats abandon the sinking ship of fools, the band of “Green Freak” true believers plays on… For example, an actor cum environmental activist intolerantly agitates the slogans “Read peer-reviewed studies!”, “You should have an energy audit in your home!” & “You can’t destroy the commons!” on Fox News. As if using incandescent light bulbs could destroy the commons. In response to the good news that anthropogenic ‘global climate change’ has now, at long last, been irrefutably exposed by the infamous CRU emails as a gigantic hoax and fraud — shouldn’t Green Freaks be happy, or at least somewhat relieved for earth’s sake? Apparently, not… Which would indicate the whole charade was never an ethical scientific endeavor at all, but an ideological-financial-political bamboozle. Replete with its very own crypto-religious dogma, and indulgence purchases: t’s no secret that many of the ideological refugees from the Soviet socialist collapse retrenched within the environmental movement. This was an easy and obvious choice for them to make, in that one of the main currents of the socialist vanguard, historically, had been the divide-and-conquer exploitation of under-class groups as their surrogate agents for their (hopelessly unsustainable) utopian revolution. However, during WWI the working class thankfully abandoned the revolution in favor of capitalism’s Liberty, thus debunking Marxist theory and forcing its totalitarian vanguard to scrounge around for other groups to exploit. This is reflected in what we witness as race/gender/sexual-preference groups being agitated to heighten tensions and divisions in what would otherwise be a generally peaceful, coexisting majority in America and elsewhere. “Never let a crisis you’ve created go to waste… or allow a surrogate mascot to escape its dependency on the statist savior…” or something. Within the irrational cult of indiscriminate environmentalism, statists found perfect surrogate-mascots for their failed revolution: animals, plants, rocks, water, even the very air we all breathe. Of course, these un-sentient mascots have no voice, and therefore no choice as to who should speak on their behalf according to their needs. So, the “Save the Planet!” statists expediently leapt at the chance to again (once and for all) subvert capitalism and individual Liberty by brandishing these creatures and inanimate objects as their moral-do-gooder swords and shields. Epic fail! One can perhaps muster some sympathy for ignorant useful idiot global warm-mongers that were simply acting with misguided ‘good-intentions’ and are now suffering the anguish of losing their religion. But, derision and criminal charges are certainly due the unscrupulous racketeers that intentionally cooked the data, or selfishly looked the other way as a means to amassing personal profits in the fraudulent Green racket. Algore, Carol Browner, call your office. As America and the world rejoices in the Good News of Climategate’s revelations, does President Obama really want to seem like such an obvious tool of the climate-change hoax crowd by letting his ideology override his fading political instincts? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
esherk 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002 "Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus 2 hours and 40 minutes ago Since the reported theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, conservative media figures have aggressively claimed that those emails undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change, dubbing the supposed scandal "Climategate." But these critics have largely rested their claims on outlandish distortions and misrepresentations of the contents of the stolen emails, greatly undermining their dubious smears. CLAIM: Email reveals that Jones used "trick" to distort data and hide decline in temperatures BECK: How about Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia? "I have just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline." Yes, he's talking about a trick that another scientist previously used in a peer-reviewed journal to apparently hide the decline in temperatures -- incredible. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 11/23/09] In a November 23 editorial, Investor's Business Daily stated: "In one e-mail sent to Michael Mann, director of Penn State University's Earth System Science Center, Raymond Bradley, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, a professor of dendrochronology at the University of Arizona's Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research, Jones speaks of the 'trick' of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline." REALITY: "Decline" refers to unreliable tree-ring data, not instrumental temperatures. In a November 26 article, The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, reported that Penn State scientist Michael Mann -- whose "trick" was referenced in Jones' email -- "said his trick, or 'trick of the trade,' for the Nature chart was to combine data from tree-ring measurements, which record world temperatures from 1,000 years ago until 1960, with actual temperature readings for 1961 through 1998" because "scientists have discovered that, for temperatures since 1960, tree rings have not been a reliable indicator." Jones has also stated that it is "well known" that tree ring data "does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960," and the CRU has said that "[t]he 'decline' in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data." In a November 20 post, RealClimate.org's staff, which is comprised of several working climate scientists, including Mann, similarly stated: As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens. Several scientists have stated that the word "trick" is being misinterpreted. The (UK) Guardian reported in a November 20 article that Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something -- a short cut can be a trick." RealClimate also explained that "the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to ... 'a good way to deal with a problem', rather than something that is 'secret', and so there is nothing problematic in this at all." CLAIM: Trenberth's "travesty" email exposes private doubts about whether global warming is occurring BECK: But first, let's start with the science that has been so settled for all these years. What are these guys saying behind closed doors about their so-called bullet-proof consensus? Well, Kevin Trenberth, he's a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He wrote, quote: "The fact is, we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't." Incorrect data? Inadequate systems? Yeah. Travesty, pretty good word for it. [Glenn Beck, 11/23/09] In a November 24 Human Events post, James Delingpole asserted that the Trenberth email reveals a scientist "[c]oncealing private doubts about whether the world is really heating up." Citing the Trenberth email, Robert Tracinski wrote in a November 24 commentary at RealClearPolitics.com that "[t]hese e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, 'where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.'" REALITY: Trenberth's email referred to "inadequate" system of observing short-term variability, not long-term trend. In the October 12 email, Trenberth cited "my own article on where the heck is global warming" and wrote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate" [emphasis added]. Trenberth published similar comments in the journal article he cited. Wired's Threat Level blog reported that Trenberth "says bloggers are missing the point he's making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article -- An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) -- actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise." RealClimate.org similarly stated in a November 23 post that "[y]ou need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth's energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes." Indeed, the Trenberth article referred to what he called an "incomplete explanation" of short-term climate variations, and maintained that "global warming is unequivocally happening." CLAIM: Scientists conspired against academic journal because it published dissenting research In a December 1 editorial, The Washington Times claimed that Mann "threatened journals that had the gall to publish academic research at odds with the global-warming theocracy. Upset that the journal Climate Research had published such a paper, Mr. Mann wrote: 'I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.'" In a November 27 editorial, The Wall Street Journal wrote: Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that -- take over a journal!" Mr. Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views. REALITY: Mann's email cited specific paper that Climate Research editors and publisher conceded should not have been published. In the March 11, 2003, email, Mann wrote that the paper by astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas "couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility -- that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board." The New York Times reported on August 5, 2003, that the Soon-Baliunas paper "has been heavily criticized by many scientists, including several of the journal editors. The editors said last week that whether or not the conclusions were correct, that analysis was deeply flawed." The Times further noted that the "publisher of the journal, Dr. Otto Kinne, and an editor who recently became editor in chief, Dr. Hans von Storch, both said that in retrospect the paper should not have been published as written" and that von Storch resigned, "saying he disagreed with the peer-review policies": Advocates for cuts in emissions and scientists who hold the prevailing view on warming said the hearing backfired. It proved more convincingly, they said, that the skeptical scientists were a fringe element that had to rely increasingly on industry money and peripheral scientific journals to promote their work. The hearing featured Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a co-author of a study, with Dr. Sallie Baliunas, also an astrophysicist at the center, that said the 20th-century warming trend was unremarkable compared with other climate shifts over the last 1,000 years. But the Soon-Baliunas paper, published in the journal Climate Research this year, has been heavily criticized by many scientists, including several of the journal editors. The editors said last week that whether or not the conclusions were correct, the analysis was deeply flawed. The publisher of the journal, Dr. Otto Kinne, and an editor who recently became editor in chief, Dr. Hans von Storch, both said that in retrospect the paper should not have been published as written. Dr. Kinne defended the journal and its process of peer review, but distanced himself from the paper. "I have not stood behind the paper by Soon and Baliunas," he wrote in an e-mail message. "Indeed: the reviewers failed to detect methodological flaws." Dr. von Storch, who was not involved in overseeing the paper, resigned last week, saying he disagreed with the peer-review policies. The Senate hearing also focused new scrutiny on Dr. Soon and Dr. Baliunas's and ties to advocacy groups. The scientists also receive income as senior scientists for the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington group that has long fought limits on gas emissions. The study in Climate Research was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry. Mann: "I support the publication of 'skeptical' papers that meet the basic standards of scientific quality and merit." In response to the controversy surrounding the emails, Mann said that his email "[w]as in response to a very specific incident regarding a paper by Soon and Baliunas published in the journal 'Climate Research.' " Mann further stated: "I support the publication of 'skeptical' papers that meet the basic standards of scientific quality and merit. I myself have published scientific work that has been considered by some as representing a skeptical point of view on matters relating to climate change." CLAIM: Email reveals Mann tried to obscure Medieval Warm Period Discussing the reportedly stolen emails on ABC News' This Week, George Will claimed that in an email, Mann "said he wished he could delete, get rid of, the medieval warming period. That lasted 600 years." [ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 11/29/09] In his November 24 Human Events article, Delingpole claimed that the "emails reveal a variety of dubious practices, quite contrary to what might reasonably be expected of a world-renowned climate research institution lavishly funded by the UK government." One "practice" Delingpole cited included "[a]ttempting to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (ie the period from about 900 to about 1200 when global mean temperatures were considerably warmer than they are now): '......Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back -- I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back....' " REALITY: Mann said he wanted to identify when MWP began, not "delete, get rid of" it. Mann wrote in the June 4, 2003, email [emphasis added]: Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back -- I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back. Moreover, according to the November 26 Morning Call article, Mann explained that his email regarding MWP "reflected his desire to identify exactly when the Medieval Warm Period began." From the article: Mann also said his 2003 e-mail saying ''it would nice to 'contain' the putative 'MWP''' was not a call for scientists to deny the Earth warmed naturally 1,000 years ago. He said it reflected his desire to identify exactly when the Medieval Warm Period began. CLAIM: Emails were obtained through legitimate means On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that the emails "may be from a whistleblower inside the organization who is just unhappy with what's going on," adding that "the bottom line is, the whole global warming -- manmade global warming movement is a fraud. It is a hoax. It's made-up lies." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/23/09] In his Wall Street Journal column, L. Gordon Crovitz claimed that the "emails, released by an apparent whistle-blower who used the name 'FOI,' were written by scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England. Its scientists are high-profile campaigners for the theory of global warming." [The Wall Street Journal, 11/30/09] REALITY: CRU officials have stated that emails were obtained through "a criminal breach of our security systems." In its initial response to the reported theft, officials at the University of East Anglia stated: "Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various sites on the web." In a statement about the controversy, CRU vice chancellor of research Trevor Davies stated: "We are committed to furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the publication of personal information." Davies further stated, "Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also learned this to their cost." CLAIM: Emails undermine global warming consensus In a November 24 editorial titled, "Hiding evidence of global cooling," The Washington Times claimed that the reportedly stolen CRU emails show that "these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory." Internet gossip Matt Drudge linked to the Times editorial on the Drudge Report using the headline: "Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers." Using the headline, "Global Warming's Waterloo?" the Fox Nation linked to a November 23 Gateway Pundit post asserting that "Senator James Inhofe [R-OK] will call for an investigation into" the emails. On his Fox News show, Sean Hannity stated: "This climate change hoax, now we find out that this institute, in fact, was hiding from the people of Great Britain and the world that, in fact, climate change is a hoax, something I've been saying for a long time." [Fox News' Hannity, 11/24/09] On his radio show, Limbaugh claimed that the "whole thing's made up" and that "it looks like substantial fraud -- a lot of evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the evidence on global warming." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/20/09] REALITY: Distortions of illegally obtained documents from one group of scientists do not undermine overwhelming consensus. In a statement on the reported theft of the emails, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated that "no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an I.P.C.C. assessment." From Pachauri's statement: In summary, no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an I.P.C.C. assessment. Likewise, individuals and small groups have no ability to emphasize a result that is not consistent with a range of studies, investigations, and approaches. Every layer in the process (including large author teams, extensive review, independent monitoring of review compliance, and plenary approval by governments) plays a major role in keeping I.P.C.C. assessments comprehensive, unbiased, open to the identification of new literature, and policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. The unfortunate incident that has taken place through illegal hacking of the private communications of individual scientists only highlights the importance of I.P.C.C. procedures and practices and the thoroughness by which the Panel carries out its assessment. This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental. NASA's Gavin Schmidt: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [united Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate. NYT: "Hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument." The New York Times' Andrew Revkin reported on November 20 that "[t]he evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists." UCS: Our understanding of climate science is based "on the rigorous accumulation, testing and synthesis of knowledge." Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and an IPCC author stated, "We should keep in mind that our understanding of climate science is based not on private correspondence, but on the rigorous accumulation, testing and synthesis of knowledge often represented in the dry and factual prose of peer-reviewed literature. The scientific community is united in calling on U.S. policymakers to recognize that emissions of heat-trapping gases must be dramatically reduced if we are to avoid the worst consequences of human-induced climate change." Yale Project on Climate Change director: "[T]here's no smoking gun in the e-mails from what I've seen." Reuters stated that Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change said, "It shows that the process of science is not always pristine ... But there's no smoking gun in the e-mails from what I've seen." The Reuters article further noted that "the researchers involved were only a handful out of thousands across the world that have contributed to a vast convergence of data that shows the world has warmed." The article also quoted Piers Forster, an environment professor at the University of Leeds stating, "Whilst some of the e-mails show scientists to be all too human, nothing I have read makes me doubt the veracity of the peer review process or the general warming trend in the global temperature recorded." Edited December 1, 2009 by esherk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted December 1, 2009 Sorry, but that is just everyone covering their asses. Their credibility is shot, their scientific futures are on the line, their life's work questionable. Of course they're going to try damage control. HISTORY shows that the middle ages were hotter than today. How is that possible if man and his carbon emissions are responsible for warming? That's a simple question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
esherk 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2009 Sorry, but that is just everyone covering their asses. Their credibility is shot, their scientific futures are on the line, their life's work questionable. Of course they're going to try damage control. HISTORY shows that the middle ages were hotter than today. How is that possible if man and his carbon emissions are responsible for warming? That's a simple question. Myth 1) "The Medieval Warming Period". This is a commonly repeated canard referencing a supposed warmer global climate in the Middle ages. This is now known to be a misinterpretation of incomplete data. According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the "Warm Period" was in fact an illusion created by "sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records", and, "the idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today ... has turned out to be incorrect." (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted December 1, 2009 Sorry, but that is just everyone covering their asses. Their credibility is shot, their scientific futures are on the line, their life's work questionable. Of course they're going to try damage control. HISTORY shows that the middle ages were hotter than today. How is that possible if man and his carbon emissions are responsible for warming? That's a simple question. Myth 1) "The Medieval Warming Period". This is a commonly repeated canard referencing a supposed warmer global climate in the Middle ages. This is now known to be a misinterpretation of incomplete data. According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the "Warm Period" was in fact an illusion created by "sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records", and, "the idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today ... has turned out to be incorrect." (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html) Okay, for once please take your mind out of the "party-line" boondoggle and think about this issue in terms other than "us vs. them". There's a lot of data. The scientific community is alarmed. Here's a good article for you: The Green Agenda. It talks about how Greenland wasn't covered with ice 950 years ago. For starters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted December 1, 2009 An excellent collection of the research into the Medieval Warm Period (Global) The 'Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science. The Medievel Warming Period "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
esherk 0 Report post Posted December 1, 2009 Sorry, but that is just everyone covering their asses. Their credibility is shot, their scientific futures are on the line, their life's work questionable. Of course they're going to try damage control. HISTORY shows that the middle ages were hotter than today. How is that possible if man and his carbon emissions are responsible for warming? That's a simple question. Myth 1) "The Medieval Warming Period". This is a commonly repeated canard referencing a supposed warmer global climate in the Middle ages. This is now known to be a misinterpretation of incomplete data. According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the "Warm Period" was in fact an illusion created by "sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records", and, "the idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today ... has turned out to be incorrect." (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html) Okay, for once please take your mind out of the "party-line" boondoggle and think about this issue in terms other than "us vs. them". There's a lot of data. The scientific community is alarmed. Here's a good article for you: The Green Agenda. It talks about how Greenland wasn't covered with ice 950 years ago. For starters. Look, I am not with either party on this issue and think it is a real shame it has become so politicized. I think it is really nieve to think that we do not have an effect on our environment. I will point once again to the pollution in China and other countries. Is that what we want here in the US? On the other hand, I do not agree with some of the solutions that have been put forward such as cap and trade. The stuff about Greenland is interesting: http://www.eh-resources.org/climate1.html Another such myth is the claim that Greenland used to be green. The accuracy of this historical claim is questionable, firstly, because much of the rhetoric in the Nordic sagas about a Greenland appears to be propaganda in order to lure colonists to settle in the newly discovered lands. Secondly, scientific research has shown that Greenland's ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old and has covered over 80 percent of the island since that period of time. The overwhelming majority of land not covered by the ice sheet is rock and permafrost and unsuitable for forest vegetation or large scale agriculture. It is unlikely that this was very different during the Middle Ages and that Greenland looked then much greener than today.2 Here is the link to the research they mention: http://www.glaciology.gfy.ku.dk/ngrip/index_eng.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted December 1, 2009 Look, I am not with either party on this issue and think it is a real shame it has become so politicized. I think it is really nieve to think that we do not have an effect on our environment. I will point once again to the pollution in China and other countries. Is that what we want here in the US? On the other hand, I do not agree with some of the solutions that have been put forward such as cap and trade. This isn't about us polluting our environment. This is about whether or not MAN and his CARBON EMISSIONS is heating up the Earth to the point that it is going to flood. This is about the "sky is falling" people who follow Al Gore and in doing so, make him (and many others) rich, and allow governments to tell us how to live. Of course, we should protect our environment. I'm all for cleaner water and recycling. The Global Warming thing is something different and it has just been found out that the scientists who are responsible for "world opinion" and the UN's policies... were lying and then conspiring to cover it up! It's BIG news. So if our carbon emissions aren't going to mean we are destroying our planet. Then what? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted December 1, 2009 Source. UK climate scientist to temporarily step down Dec 1 01:29 PM US/Eastern LONDON (AP) - Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change. The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented. The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month. The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted December 1, 2009 Source. Penn State Will Investigate 'Climategate' November 30, 2009 02:40 PM ET Among other things, the Watergate scandal of the 1970s gave us a great naming convention for future scandals. Take "Climategate" at Penn State. That's what people are calling the controversy surrounding leaked E-mails among climate change researchers that climate change opponents say expose the researchers' falsification of data. One Penn State professor is involved in the scandal. The Penn State administration plans to investigate Climategate and determine if it needs to take further action, the Daily Collegian reports. A little more than a week ago, E-mails exchanged among an English university's climate change researchers were illegally obtained from a server and posted online, the report says. Climate change opponents say the E-mails indicate that climate change researchers—including Penn State Prof. Michael Mann—exaggerated or fabricated global warming data. And, according to the report, some E-mails indicate that the director of the research unit in question may have contacted researchers and asked them to "delete certain E-mails." Penn State officials, who will not discuss the matter, are investigating the controversy. If anything requires further inspection, the school will handle it, a spokesman tells the Daily Collegian. A panel will read every E-mail leaked and determine if climate change critics have any ground for their accusations, the report says. "I would be disappointed if the university wasn't doing all [it] can to get as much information as possible" about the controversy, Mann tells the Daily Collegian. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted December 2, 2009 Source. Inhofe Asks Boxer to Investigate Possible Scientific ‘Conspiracy’ in ‘Climategate’ Tuesday, December 01, 2009 By Melanie Hunter-Omar (CNSNews.com) – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling on Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming. Inhofe said the recent disclosure of emails between several prominent climatologists reveal “possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program” and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” He suggested “a possible conspiracy by scientists, some of whom receive or have received US taxpayer funds, to stifle open, transparent debate on the most pressing issues of climate science.” Inhofe also noted that there appeared to be “a campaign to vilify scientists who question global warming alarmism.” “For instance,” Inhofe wrote, “one scientist wrote of a ‘trick he employed to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature trends, as well as discussed attempts to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’ to prevent papers raising questions about anthropogenic global warming from appearing in IPCC reports. “Another scientist stated, ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t.’ Still another wrote, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same,’” Inhofe added. The controversy “could have far-reaching policy implications,” Inhofe wrote,” affecting everything from (to name a few) cap-and-trade legislation, state and regional climate change programs,” and the Section 202 (a) of the EPA’s Clean Air Act – policies that “will lead to a torrent of new federal regulations that will destroy thousands of jobs and make electricity and gasoline more expensive for consumers and small businesses.” Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted December 2, 2009 Poor Al Gore, global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. - Jon Stewart CLICK HERE TO SEE HIS SHORT VIDEO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted December 2, 2009 Source. UK NEWS CLIMATE CHANGE 'FRAUD' CLIMATE CHANGE: Many experts claim man-made global warming is melting sea ice Wednesday December 2,2009 By John Ingham THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”. Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going. In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes. He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of years. Prof Plimer - author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science - told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.” His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place. Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now. “In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time.” He cited periods of warming during the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages – when Vikings grew crops on Greenland – and cooler phases such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850. And he predicted that the next phase would cool the planet. Climate change is widely blamed on the burning of fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the atmosphere, where they trap the sun’s heat. The talks at Copenhagen are expected to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally. But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes to the Earth’s orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.” The CRU’s Professor Jones has admitted some of the emails may have had “poorly chosen words” and were sent in the “heat of the moment”. But he has categorically denied manipulating data and said he stood by the science. And yesterday he dismissed suggestions of a conspiracy to alter evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming as “complete rubbish”. But mining geology professor Plimer said there was a huge momentum behind the climate-change lobby. He suggested many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research. He said: “The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets. “The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.” But Vicky Pope, head of Met Office Climate Change Advice, said: “We are seeing changes in climate on a timescale we have not seen before. “There clearly are natural variations. But the only way we can explain these trends is when we include both man-made and natural changes to the climate. “We have also seen declines in summer sea ice over the past 30 years, glaciers retreating for 150 years, changing rainfall patterns and increases in subsurface and surface ocean temperatures.” And as the war of words between the rival camps intensified, leading economist Lord Stern dismissed the sceptics as “muddled”. Lord Stern, who produced a detailed report on the issue for the Government, said evidence of climate change was “overwhelming”. He accepted that all views should be heard but said the degree of scepticism among “real scientists” was very small. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted December 2, 2009 Source. Obama science officials defend warming research Dec 2 03:18 PM US/Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) - Top White House science officials defended the validity of global warming research against repeated Republican attacks Wednesday that cited leaked e-mails from some climate researchers. The e-mails from a British university's climate center were obtained by computer hackers and released last month. Climate change skeptics contend the messages reveal that researchers manipulated and suppressed data and stifled dissent. At a Capitol Hill hearing, the president's science adviser and the chief of the agency in charge of climate research said the e-mails did nothing to undermine scientific consensus on climate change. Some Republicans said they showed a "culture of corruption" among scientists. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted December 2, 2009 Source. Lord Monckton’s summary of Climategate and its issues Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate scandal by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley | November 30, 2009 THE WHISTLE BLOWS FOR TRUTH The whistleblower deep in the basement of one of the ugly, modern tower-blocks of the dismal, windswept University of East Anglia could scarcely have timed it better. In less than three weeks, the world’s governing class – its classe politique – would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade “global warming”. The unnamed hero of ‘Climategate’, after months of work gathering emails, computer code, and data, quietly sent a 61-megabyte compressed file from one of the university’s servers to an obscure public message-board on the internet, with a short covering note to the effect that the climate was too important to keep the material secret, and that the data from the University would be available for a short time only. He had caught the world’s politico-scientific establishment green-handed. Yet his first attempts to reveal the highly-profitable fraud and systematic corruption at the very heart of the UN’s climate panel and among the scientists most prominent in influencing it’s prejudiced and absurdly doom-laden reports had failed. He had made the mistake of sending the data-file to the mainstream news media, which had also profited for decades by fostering the “global warming” scare, and by generally denying anyone who disagreed with the official viewpoint any platform. The whistleblower’s data file revealed, for the first time, the innermost workings of the tiny international clique of climate scientists, centered on the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, that has been the prime mover in telling the world that it is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that humankind is responsible. REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere. His crime? He had revealed what many had long suspected: - A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research. The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities. The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons. The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report. They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors. They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate. They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled. They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers. They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint. They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes. They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created. Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent. THE NATURE ‘TRICK’ TO ‘HIDE THE DECLINE’ IN TEMPERATURES Among the most revealing of the emails released to the world by the whistleblower was one dated November 1999. In that email, Professor “Phil” Jones of the CRU wrote to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, the authors of the infamous “hockey stick” graph that falsely abolished the medieval warm period: Almost immediately after the news of Climategate broke, Professor Jones told Investigative Magazine’s TGIF Edition that he “had no idea” what he might have meant by the words “hide the decline”. He said: “They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.” A few hours later, the science hate-crime website created by the Team cobbled together a jumbled, snivelingly self-serving, and entirely different pretext: “The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction [the ‘hockey-stick’ graph of pre-instrumental temperatures over the past 1000 years in the Northern Hemisphere], and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s [another prominent member of the Team] maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem” … and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al. in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so, while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.” Enter Steve McIntyre, the one who had first realized that the UN’s climate panel in 2001 had used a corrupt graph that had falsely abolished the medieval warm period with the aim of pretending that today’s global temperatures are unprecedented in at least 1000 years. Later that day his website, www.climateaudit.org, revealed the truth about the conspirators’ “trick”. In order to smooth a data series over a given time period, one must pad it with artificial data beyond the endpoint of the real series. However, when Mann, Bradley, and Hughes plotted instrumental data against their reconstructions based on the varying widths of tree-rings from ancient trees, their favourite form of proxy or pre-instrumental reconstructed temperature, no smoothing method could conceal the fact that after 1960 the tree-ring data series trended downward, while the instrumental series trended upward. This was the Team’s “divergence”: “So Mann’s solution [‘Mike’s Nature trick’] was to use the instrumental record for padding [both the proxy and the instrumental data series], which changes the smoothed series to point upwards.” Accordingly, though the author of the original email had said that the “trick” was to add instrumental measurements for years beyond available proxy data, his conspirators at the science-hate website admitted it was actually a replacement of proxy data owing to a known but unexplained post-1960 “divergence” between the proxy data and the instrumental data. In fact, it was a fabrication. The next day, in a statement issued by the University of East Anglia’s press office, Professor Jones fumblingly tried to recover the position: “The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.” As we shall see, Professor Jones was not telling the truth. BREAKING THE BROKEN CODE: DISSECTING THE DODGY DATA The “Documents” folder in the enormous data-file released by the whistleblower contains many segments of computer program code used by Jones and the Team in contriving the Climate Research Unit’s global temperature series. The data-file also contained a 15,000-line commentary by programmers concerned that the code and the data used by the Team were suspect, were fabricated, and were not fit for their purpose. Looking at the seldom-tidy code, the sheer number of programs which subject the raw data to various degrees of filtering, processing, and tampering is disconcerting. Some of these alterations were blatant and unacceptable, notably those which removed proxy data that correlate poorly with measured regional temperature, or even replaced proxy data altogether with measured data to conceal a discrepancy between what the proxy data actually showed and what the Team wanted it to show. The Team’s programmers even admitted, in comments within the code, that they were artificially adjusting or “correcting” the proxy data from tree-rings. In Fortran, the high-level computer language long in use at universities for programming, a programmer’s comment is usually preceded by the statement “REM” for “remark”, indicating that the text on the line following the word “REM” should be ignored by the compiler program that translates the Fortran code that humans can understand into executable machine language that the computer can understand. One of the commonest remarks included in the program fragments disclosed by the whistleblower is as follows: “These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.” There could scarcely be a plainer admission that the data are being regularly, routinely, materially tampered with, for the sake of making it appear that the proxy data are sufficiently reliable to appear close to the instrumental temperatures. This is no mere debating point. The UN’s climate panel had issued specific warnings against using proxy data (MXD) from tree-rings, because warmer weather is not the only reason why tree-rings become wider in some years than in others. There are at least two other prominent reasons, both of which can – and do – distort the tree-ring data beyond the point where they are useful as indicators of (or proxies for) pre-instrumental temperatures. First, the tree-rings become wider whenever the weather becomes wetter. Secondly, and of still greater concern, the tree-rings widen when there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And there is 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was in 1750. Yet, as McIntyre and McKitrick had established originally in 2003, and had published in a leading journal in 2005, the majority of the data on the basis of which Mann, Bradley and Hughes, and later other members of the Team, had attempted to pretend that there had been no medieval warm period were tree-ring series. Take out the suspect tree-ring series, together with just one other rogue series, and all the remaining data series establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Middle Ages were truly, materially, and globally warmer than the present. Scientists with programming knowledge have already begun to examine the computer code that Professor Jones and his colleagues had attempted to hide for so long. Here is Marc Sheppard’s selection of three examples of the tortuous sequences of deliberate data tampering that are evident within the program code. Read the complete report from SPPI HERE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC 1 Report post Posted December 2, 2009 But it wasn't a crime when Sarah Palin's emails were hacked and leaked? Poor Boxer. *cough* Senator Boxer. Source. Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate' By Michael O'Brien - 12/02/09 03:26 PM ET Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon. Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime. "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting. "Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I'm looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public." The e-mails, from scientists at the University of East Anglia, were obtained through hacking. The messages showed the director of the university's Climate Research Unit discussing ways to strengthen the unit's case for global warming. Climate change skeptics have seized on the e-mails, arguing that they demonstrate manipulation in environmental science. Boxer said her committee may hold hearings into the matter as its top Republican, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), has asked for, but that a criminal probe would be part of any such hearings. "We may well have a hearing on this, we may not. We may have a briefing for senators, we may not," Boxer said. "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated. "This is a crime," Boxer said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
