Is Climate Change really man-made?

QuitTheirClogs · Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:48 pm Post subject:

Is it The Onion? No; it’s plain stupid!

QuitTheirClogs · Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:20 pm Post subject:

Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists

Hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online

Leo Hickman guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 November 2009 15.31 GMT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hac kers-leaked-emails

A spokesperson for the University of East Anglia said: "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine. This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry."

When the Guardian asked Professor Jones [CRU Director] to verify whether these emails were genuine, he refused to comment.

Professor Michael E Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, is another prominent climatologist who features in many of the email exchanges. He said: "I'm simply not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."

--

They’re updating this article as I post: Laughing

Leo Hickman and James Randerson
guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 November 2009 18.15 GMT

In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

This sentence, in particular, has been leapt upon by sceptics as evidence of manipulating data, but as yet, the credibility of the email has not been verified. The scientists who allegedly sent it declined to comment on the email.

"It does look incriminating on the surface but there are lots of single sentences that, taken out of context, can appear incriminating," said Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. "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."

--

I think the expression "to hide the decline" is strongly indicative of intent to deceive.

--

I think they're beginning to panic:

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: "If you looked through any organisation's emails from the last 10 years you'd find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world's leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke."

Laughing

Dogsmilk · Mighty Poster Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1616

I have sometimes popped in to look at this (epic) thread but have never said anything. Why? I am not a climatologist and know basically jack about the subject.

What gets me though is that team item 7 seems solely reliant on just firing out random articles from all kinds of weird and wonderful dusty corners. Without checking back, if memory serves, we've had a range from Melanie 'bitch queen from hell' Phillips to 'Dr' John 'crackpot loony' Coleman. Now I'm sure chek isn't a climatologist either, but he at least appears to have some kind of grasp of the basic scientific opinion - evidenced by his apparent ability to formulate arguments himself based on the evidence as opposed to just posting a constant stream of articles and videos, a feat a chimpanzee trained to type "global warming scam" into google could just as easily accomplish.

What I want to know is why item 7 thinks argumentum ad youtubeium passes for debate. Personally, if I had the time and motivation to get into the climate change issue, the first thing I would do is sit down and study the scientific evidence base. What I would not do is see what 'alternative' tabloid journalist extraordinaire Paul Joseph Watson on Advertising Planet.com is saying and believe that. Possibly clicking on the flashing Are you ready to learn to be rich? Survive and thrive! Here's what you do! or whatever while I'm there.
No offence chief, but you can just copy and paste loads of material saying just about anything you like on any subject - it's the easiest game on the net.

I'd also like to know how people rationalise the concept of a 'scam'. I think this has been covered before, but I'm sure we can all agree the political response to GW is one thing and the underlying science is another. So how politicians choose to address the issue is not the same as the issue itself. Now I remember scientists going on about GW for years - way, way before it was ever taken remotely seriously by politicians. So how can it be a 'scam'? How can politicians, years later, taking some notice of what independent scientists say be a 'scam'?

chek · Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:29 pm Post subject:

chek · Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:32 pm Post subject:

Frank Freedom · Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:28 pm Post subject:

chek · Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:38 pm Post subject:

flamesong · Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:41 pm Post subject:

chek · Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:47 pm Post subject:

flamesong · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:39 am Post subject:

flamesong · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:44 am Post subject:

It seems you edited your post prior to my reply, chek.

I mention this as, for me, the additional material you posted gives my reply a certain prescience.

flamesong · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:48 am Post subject:

Oh, and I forgot to mention scrappage.

Stimulate the sacred economy and build more personal vehicular carbon tax streams. Inspired.

chek · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:57 am Post subject:

chek · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:12 am Post subject:

Geezus kerrang!

One of those emails is already in the wild!

Oh noes!
Watt'l us warmists ever do now?
quake quake.

"Here is an email exchange between Jones and Gore:
----
From: Phil Jones
To: fatal@vxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004

Hail Great Leader of our Great Green Cause,

Your master plan is working excellently. Soon we control all the use of energy in the world, and then we also control the world.

The only ones who can stop us are those pesky climate skeptics, always poking their noses where they dont belong. Shall we start operation "Black Helicopters"?

We await your command, oh Magnificenlty Fat One.

Ever your obedient lackey,

Phil Jones"

From: Al Gore
To: jones@vxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Orders from the leader
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 1998

You must eliminate the medieval warming period!
Use any means you find necessary.
Then humanity can be pushed back to use only medieval technology,
and Great Cthulu shall rise from his house at R'lyeh and the
Deep Ones shall once more rule earth!

Cthulhu fhtagn!

Al Gore, aka Nrd'ungr Shuboth

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/11/450-peer-reviewed-papers-to-su pport.html#comments

flamesong · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:40 am Post subject:

Regardless of my agnosticism, chek, I am an environmentalist and have been for getting on for 30 years. I was responsible for recycling on two out of the three Greenpeace ships I worked on in the late 80/early 90s. When I was back in the UK had to walk about three miles with my recycling in my rucksack. I currently put out about half a black bin bag about once every three weeks. I have significantly reduced my energy footprint - but mainly because I want to reduce my dependence on money. I think that pollution is a sin against life on Earth. Even if global warming is an issue which is caused by mankind and specifically carbon dioxide - there are far more serious environmental issues. Issues which the gummy Environment Agency does next to nothing about.

chek · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:01 am Post subject:

item7 · Moderate Poster Joined: 20 Sep 2008 Posts: 641

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategat e-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

So what's the big deal about this? They have obviously been lying for years. Getting a few e-mails isn't "news". Their lies have been spouted all over the mainstream media for as long as I can remember. Even if every proponent of the Climate Change Scam was to confess to their deceit and admit there is no man-made climate problem you would still get Chek (I wish I was clever enough to think of a name to call him like BanjoChek but I just can't do it) and his like banging on about how there IS a problem and WE are to blame and WE must act as he says. The real surprise about all this is just how long the liars can keep the "debate" going. Its as long as people don't look at the evidence and just trust the mainstream media, something which has stopped happening hence the massive increase in the number of people realising it is a lie.

item7 · Moderate Poster Joined: 20 Sep 2008 Posts: 641

As a reminder why hacked e-mails aren't necessary I post the following article from a baby eating, Holocaust denying, local weatherman banjoboy with the wrong politics. I realise that posting articles is easy and therefore should be condemned as a practice, but I can't help myself. When I see someone telling the truth about the most gigantic fraud in history I just have to spread the word. Terrible I know.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/10/19/none-dare-call-it-fraud/

Mr-Bridger · Validated Poster Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 186

All the documents taken from CRU are available here :

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php

enjoy !

Whitehall_Bin_Men · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:37 pm Post subject:

Exaggeration on both sides.
This debate is not happening.
Can anyone suggest genuinely good UK based speakers on both sides of the debate?

chek · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:55 pm Post subject:

Anthony Watts and his droids are idiots, and possible accessories to cybercrime.
The server that was hacked was the University of East Anglia's, and not that of the Hadley Centre.

But it's another excuse to ramp up the corporate ant-AGW machine pre-Copenhagen

What'll happen is that none of the messenger dogs will read the
emails (just like they didn't read those supposed hundreds of
sceptic climate papers) but will spam the headline everywhere they
can tied to the over-familiar rhetoric and pro business-as-usual
polemics from the usual suspects.

Let the quote-mining and outright fabrication begin and run its course.
As ever, requests for evidence will be ignored.

None of it changes what's happening out in the physical world.

chek · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:11 pm Post subject:

item7 · Moderate Poster Joined: 20 Sep 2008 Posts: 641

chek · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:41 pm Post subject:

item7 · Moderate Poster Joined: 20 Sep 2008 Posts: 641

Another meaningless posting from another Local Weatherman.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/CO2_Re port_Press_Release.pdf

QuitTheirClogs · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:09 pm Post subject:

Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute

By Andrew C. Revkin - New York Times - November 20, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?

The cache of e-mail messages also includes references to journalists, including this reporter, and queries from journalists related to articles they were reporting. ...several scientists and others contacted by The New York Times confirmed that they were the authors or recipients of specific e-mail messages included in the file...

“This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.” But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review.

He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong. “This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways,” he said.

Spencer R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as “great material for historians.”

chek · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:34 pm Post subject:

chek · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:47 pm Post subject:

Mr-Bridger · Validated Poster Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 186

The global warming conspiracy: its silencing of the sceptics
Written by Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun blogs
Saturday, November 21 2009 08:52

This time we’ll focus on the sheer thuggery of the “The Team” - how this conspiracy of powerful alarmist scientists tried to drive sceptics and non-allies out of their jobs, and even succeeded.

Here’s three examples:

Example one is the email from Tom Wigley to IPCC author Timothy Carter about the Climate Research journal, then edited by sceptic Chris de Freitas:

PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame—he encourages the publication of nonsense science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter—50+ people.Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work—must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

Further emails from the team in its successful pursuit of de Freitas’ scalp:

#1047388489
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! So what do we do about this? 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. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?

#1047390562
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor…

It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !

#1051156418

This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on)….

Example two is the blocking of papers by sceptics and the less-alarmed to the IPCC deliberations:

1089318616.txt

Phil
To: “Michael
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,

[personal and extraneous chat snipped]

The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it.

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers

Phil

Example three is the driving out of Professor James Saiers as editor of the Geophysical Research Letters journal, which under him had published a sceptical paper by sceptics Sallie Baliunas and Wille Soon.

Here’s Tom Wigley to Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann:

1106322460 txt

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

Mann writes:

Hi Malcolm,

[snip]

I’m not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest broker in these debates anymore, and it is probably best to do an end run around GRL now where possible. They have published far too many deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so. There is no possible excuse for them publishing all 3 Douglass papers and the Soon et al paper. These were all pure nonsense.

There appears to be a more fundamental problem w/ GRL now, unfortunately…

Mike

Mann again:

Thanks Tom,

Yeah, basically this is just a heads up to people that something might be up here. What a shame that would be. It’s one thing to lose “Climate Research”. We can’t afford to lose GRL. I think it would be useful if people begin to record their experiences w/ both Saiers and potentially Mackwell (I don’t know him–he would seem to be complicit w/what is going on here).

If there is a clear body of evidence that something is amiss, it could be taken through the proper channels. I don’t that the entire AGU hierarchy has yet been compromised!

[snip]

mike

Mann again:

Dear All,

Just a heads up. Apparently, the contrarians now have an “in” with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences that causes m some unease.

I think we now know how the various Douglass et al papers w/ Michaels and Singer, the Soon et al paper, and now this one have gotten published in GRL,

Mike

Saiers was soon gone.

Mr-Bridger · Validated Poster Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 186

The Death Blow to Climate Science
Written by Dr. Tim Ball, Canada Free Press
Saturday, November 21 2009 09:43

Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.

Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.
Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists

Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.

Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.

Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.

Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.
Total Control

These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.

CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35 ... 62, 63, 64 Next
Page 34 of 64