10 minute video exposing the fraudulent nature of the climate modelling code.
Quote:
The Global Warming Cult insists that their computer models prove that humans are causing global warming. In point of fact a computer model doesn't prove anything. It can validate or disprove the assumptions of the model at best.
Programmers call it GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. If you feed a load of bovine excrement into a computer, what comes out is just as aromatic.
In the case of the Global Warming Cult, comments within the actual source code for their much vaunted computer models, it is clear that the code was being ALTERED to force the results to be in accord with the outcome desired (and paid for) by the promoters of a one-world government.
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:27 pm Post subject: how ironic
How ironic that we are called deniers. Chek opitimises denial - he blathers on and not once does he address the issue at hand, that his heroes have been caught fixing the outcome. These people should be investigated and put on trial. The wheels have come off Chek. It's time to save your honour and face up to facts.
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.
Global warming? Don't wait up! The Earth has her own tricks to keep the carbon count in control
By Ian Plimer, Professor Of Geology At The University Of Adelaide
Last updated at 10:06 PM on 28th November 2009
Perhaps it is comforting to believe that science is an absolute discipline: immune from fads, fanatics and frauds, untroubled by extremists, evangelists, glory-seekers and bigots. But it is not. It is as vulnerable to the vested interests and biases of its practitioners as any corporate entity or political party.
Uncomfortable truths are suppressed and dubious evidence given undue prominence.
Nowhere is this more worryingly obvious than in the science of climate change. As a field of research it has become so heavily politicised that opposing views are spoken of in terms of religion: believers and non-believers, with the accent being on the righteousness of the former and the benighted state of the latter.
Those who believed scientists to be relentless seekers of the truth will have been shocked by the row sparked by a hacker who got hold of emails sent by staff at the University of East Anglia.
It has been claimed that the emails exchanged by members of the university's Climate Research Unit showed statistics had been finessed using 'tricks' and material that didn't fit the computer model of Climate Change presented to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was allegedly suppressed.
In my book Heaven And Earth, I hinted at the existence of this sort of activity and was pilloried by those who have everything to gain from keeping the climate-change gravy train rolling. Because that is what it has become.
Sensationalist theories are generated by scientists who have evolved into professional alarmists who can influence the IPCC and reap rewards in research grants and fame. The trouble is that the only way to protect this position - and transmit their message of doom and gloom - is for the elite little coterie of climate comrades in the UK and United States to ignore geology, archaeology, history, astronomy and solar science. You see, these are the things that don't fit.
The reality is that the Earth has been here before, it has been here through worse and it is still, resolutely, here today. Climate-change theory and the dire prognosis given by its proponents is just wrong.
Look at the facts. Earth is a warm, wet, greenhouse planet. There has been ice on its surface for less than 20 per cent of its history, and in the geological past there have been six great ice ages. Two ice ages were characterised by ice at the Equator, with sea levels rising by up to 5,000ft. That is sea-level change!
Five of the ice ages saw a far higher atmospheric carbon-dioxide content than at present. So carbon dioxide could not have caused past climate changes. Indeed, early Earth had 1,000 times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now - yet there was no runaway greenhouse effect, tipping points or acid oceans.
The initial source of the two main greenhouse gases, water vapour and carbon dioxide, was volcanoes. Water vapour is still the main greenhouse gas. Once oceans formed and life appeared, carbon was then recycled between the oceans, atmosphere, soils, life and rocks. Carbon dioxide is a plant food, not a pollutant.
Human activity produces only three per cent of the world's carbon-dioxide emissions each year. One volcanic belch can emit as much as that in a day. Carbon dioxide has a short life in the atmosphere and is absorbed by natural processes that have been taking place for billions of years.
At the normal past rates of absorption, even if we burned all fossil fuels on Earth, the atmospheric carbon-dioxide content would not double.
Professor Ian Plimer with a geological core sample
In past ages it has been naturally absorbed into everything from limestone reefs to soil, rocks and living things. For example, limestone is a very common rock and contains 44 per cent carbon dioxide.
Dissolving carbon dioxide in ocean water has not created ocean acidity. The constant chemical reactions between ocean water and sediments and rocks on the sea floor have kept the oceans alkaline. When we run out of rocks on the sea floor, then the oceans might become acid. Don't wait up!
We are still in an ice age that started 34million years ago, with the climate driven, among other things, by the Earth's orbit, the Sun, oceans and volcanoes. It is vital to remember that time, in a geological sense, is a far broader canvas than any of the detailed vignettes upon which the prophets of doom would have us focus.
There have been long periods of warm times during this current ice age, yet the ice sheets did not melt. They waxed and they waned, as ice sheets still do today.
Ancient climates can be revealed by drilling deep into the Antarctic ice for samples of what was snow thousands of years ago. These show climate cycles have a temperature peak at least 800 years before the peak in carbon dioxide.
So climate change evangelists who insist that carbon dioxide drives climate change have turned the truth on its head - the rise in atmospheric carbon-dioxide content followed rather than heralded temperature increases.
Climate is cyclical. The current cycles follow a pattern of about 90,000 years of highly variable glacial conditions followed by around 10,000 years of benign interglacial conditions. The current interglacial period started more than 12,000 years ago. We are due another glaciation.
At the end of the last glaciation, temperature fluctuated wildly. At one time there was a 15C natural temperature rise in 20 years. Now THAT is global warming. Yet still, humans thrived.
The peak of the current interglacial was 6,000 years ago when the sea level was almost an inch higher than now and temperatures were 5C higher than at present. The rate and amount of temperature change at present is no different to past times.
Sea levels rose by 2cm per year between 12,000 and 6,000 years ago - still part of the present interglacial - a degree of change far greater than anything observed today.
During the last glaciation, land loaded with ice sank. That land is now rising. For example, Scotland and Wales are rising and eastern England is sinking. During the last glaciation, people walked from Europe to England, from Russia to Alaska and from Papua New Guinea to Tasmania. The English Channel was a river.
During previous interglacials, coral reefs and other life thrived. Each time sea level rose, coral atolls expanded. This may be startling to those fed a diet of climate change by scaremongers, but it is not new: Charles Darwin was writing about it in 1842.
There have been smaller-scale climate changes in the present interglacial. Some are cyclical and driven by solar, ocean, tidal and orbital cycles. Others, such as volcanically driven changes, are random.
Life thrived during warm times and life suffered in cool times. Great civilisations collapsed when it was cool.
It was so hot during the 600-year-long 'Roman warming' that grapes were grown as far north as Hadrian's Wall. Sea levels did not rise and polar ice did not vanish. Some Alpine glaciers disappeared, only to appear later. The cold Dark Ages followed: starvation, rampant disease and massive depopulation occurred.
A 400-year warm period followed. The Vikings grew barley and wheat, and raised cattle and sheep in parts of Greenland that are now uninhabitable. During this 'medieval warming', there was so much excess wealth generated from generations of reliable harvests that the great monasteries, cathedrals and universities were built.
Yet sea levels did not rise and the ice sheets were not lost. And, significantly, humans could not have driven the Roman and medieval warmings by carbon-dioxide emissions, as there was no industry.
The Little Ice Age followed. There was famine, disease and depopulation. Ice fairs were held on the Thames up until the 1820s. The Little Ice Age ended in 1850. It is no wonder that temperature has increased in the past 150 years - this is what happens after a cold period.
The temperature increase was not even. There was warming from 1860 to 1880, cooling from 1880 to 1910, warming from 1910 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1976, warming from 1976 to 1998 and now cooling from 1998.
Each warming period was at the same rate. It was only during the warming from 1976 to 1998 that carbon dioxide increased in parallel with temperature - all other modern warmings and coolings show no relationship to carbon dioxide.
This is the reality, these are the vacillations of the evocative story of our ever-changing planet derived from observation, measurement and experiment.
Why is this story contrary to what we hear? Because sensationalism is so much more lucrative. A climate catastrophe was provided for an anxious public by scientists who had everything to gain by frightening us.
They put forward an ideology that is blind fundamentalism, unrelated to scientific facts. Politicians build new bureaucracies and pose as environmental saviours without having to face the consequences of their actions. Heads must roll. Meanwhile, the planet will do what it has always done: change.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:02 pm Post subject:
The USA’s ex-Vice President, the propagandist Al Gore, got audiences going ‘Aaah!’ by saying the bears had ‘nowhere else to go’. Really? The picture was taken in August, when the Alaskan ice always melts. The polar bears were fine. Think about it.
They can swim and they weren’t far from land. Recent studies show that most polar bear populations are rising.
The world was warmer than it is now in the early Middle Ages, long before industrial activity increased CO2 output, a fact that the warming fanatics have worked very hard to obscure.
Oh, and the most important greenhouse gas by far is not CO2 but water vapour, which is not influenced by human activity at all.
Meanwhile, an English court of law (despite buying the CO2 argument) has identified nine significant errors of fact in Gore’s Oscar-winning alarmist film An Inconvenient Truth, ludicrously being inflicted on children in British schools.
Among these: sea levels are not going to rise by 20ft any time soon; there’s no evidence that atolls in the Pacific have been evacuated because of rising waters; the Gulf Stream is not going to shut down; the drying-up of Lake Chad, the shrinking of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro and Hurricane Katrina were none of them caused by global warming; the only polar bears that have drowned were four that died in a storm.
Booker also reminds us that even if all the measures demanded by the warming zealots were put into action, according to their own calculations this would only delay the effects they fear by six years.
In my experience, people who employ alarmism, and who turn with rage on their critics, do so because they lack confidence in their case. Watch their behaviour at the coming Copenhagen climate conference, a festival of panic and exaggerated woe.
This particular frenzy, if not checked, could end by bankrupting the West and leaving us sitting in the cold and the dark whistling for a wind to power our dead computers – while China and India surge on to growth and prosperity because they have had the sense to ignore the whole stupid thing.
* The Real Global Warming Disaster, by Christopher Booker, Continuum Books, £16.99.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:08 pm Post subject: Re: ****** READERS' POLL *******
I rely on people bringing offensive posts to my attention as you well know Chek. Specially since you do it yourself and got item 7 suspended as a result.
Anybody who posts pathetic self-pitying drivel such as the stuff below and doesn't argue their case politely and to the facts will be suspended.
There I said it again.
chek wrote:
As we know, there are 300 a day of you idle c*** reading this so now's the time to
********* MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD ************.
1) Who thinks that banjoboy v.8.0 really has something this time?
2) Who thinks he's spamming desperately like a spambot or a
$10 whore on crystal meth gone wild?
3) Who thinks it's about time he stopped using this forum for
his spambombing campaign and actually DISCUSSED
THE ISSUES once he's been shown to be mistaken on them?
4) Who thinks all the attention seeking and pulpit-pounding dross he posts
actually just gives him an erection?
5) Who wonders how these morons co-opted the word "truther"
6) Who wonders wattsupwithtony when he ignores stuff like:
item8 wrote:
Why of course you are Tony.
You are the arbiter of fair play here.
Of course you won't "suspend" the liar for his incessant "dumbing down" just slap his wrists.
Its the "truthers" you have to suspend isn't it you ******* weasel!!
What a c***!
I'm hoping to not so much as see a bleedin' computer for the next 2 days so don't be shy - vote vote vote, early and often.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:37 am Post subject: Re: ****** READERS' POLL *******
TonyGosling wrote:
I rely on people bringing offensive posts to my attention as you well know Chek. Specially since you do it yourself and got item 7 suspended as a result.
Anybody who posts pathetic self-pitying drivel such as the stuff below and doesn't argue their case politely and to the facts will be suspended.
There I said it again.
Strange Tony, I thought you were the one who suspended item7, and then turned a blind eye to item8 dissing you, mainly because he speaks for your agenda.
If you want to see how mistaken you are, catch the next post.
And item7/8 hasn't had a single assertion stand up to examination in this entire thread - or didn't you notice that little detail? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:10 am Post subject:
TonyGosling wrote:
Climategate: Have They No Shame?
It is clear that the tip-top scientists implicated in the burgeoning Climategate scandal have no honor, but it is also becoming apparent that they have no sense of shame either. Their strategy is to brazen it out and rely on the great global warming alarmist establishment and the mainstream media to circle the wagons. They have got their talking point and the environmental pressure groups are already repeating it over and over: “The ‘global warming deniers’ are cherry-picking a few unfortunately worded emails and then taking them out of context.” Well, they are some pretty big, juicy cherries and there are a lots of them.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-have-they-no-shame/
So name just one of them.
But while you're thinking about that one, let's take a close look at HARRY_READ_ME.txt, which was the subject of a banjoboy video
HARRY_read_me.txt. is a four year-long work-log of Ian (Harry) Harris who was working to upgrade the documentation, metadata and databases associated with the legacy CRU TS 2.1 product, which is not the same as the HadCRUT data (see http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110494352/abstract
for details).
The wonderful thing about this particular item is, that apart from the tedious and by now predictable sturm und drang that is repeated and repeated around and around and around, nobody can actually point out what the errors are - except Harry himself, who used it as a programer's self aide memoir.
Isn't that strange?
You'd think all the self appointed "experts" would at least be able to show why the code is "wrong" - but they don't!
Not a single one can illustrate a single error!
But boy, can they bluster like they have!
Our alleged Youtube software developer (and there's precious little evidence firmly bordering on none for that - and I checked video number one to be sure. Maybe he once did a pop up window using Visual Basic, although I doubt that too) - continues in what must be the biggest waste of time transcription ever done in the history of transcriptions:
"Hey Youtube I just wanted to provide a status update on the CRU climate model code findings in relation to my previous video.
Since I made that video many additional notations and code functions have been found within the source code
that basically remove all shadow of a doubt as to the fraudulent nature of the climate models in question.
The frauds span several models and basically calls all of the climate model data released by the CRU into question.
These findings are extremely important".
Stirring stuff, Sherlock, Let's have it;
"It is important to remember that a huge amount of published papers on the state of global warming revolve around climate models released by the CRU. Falsifying the CRU data means dozens and quite possibly hundreds of papers that are based on those climate models are now essentially worthless".
My God man, why the consequences of that would be....
"It is also important to note that other centres that have released data that agrees with the CRU models must also be called into question. Since the CRU models are now known to be fraudulent any other model that agrees with the fraudulent data released by the CRU must also be questioned.
I'm not making this up".
What all of them even the independently researched ones using entirely different data sets???
Now I know you're joking.
If anything in reality the correlations shows the integrity of the data, not the reverse - except in your denier dreams.
And he then procedes to read out some of Harry's notes to himself which essentially summarise his frustration with coding data supplied from worldwide sources that have been supplied in non-uniform formats.
(Comments 1, 2)
The Youtuber's preamble is a common form of conman's bluff called 'Bulverism', in which what is meant to be shown as being proved is assumed to already be so, and continues on with that premise.
Anyone with critical faculties at this point goes 'wha....'.
The morons don't notice and continue on for the ride.
It should be also be noted that while this commentary is droning on, random code lines are being displayed on screen - the floating point error being one that brought back fond memories of Intel's Pentium CPU's major flaw which occasionally showed up in the myriad calculations required by 3-D CAD back in the '90's. Hence the existence of 'workarounds' or 'tricks' of the trade to avoid those types of errors.
But we don't actually get to the interesting problems of Harris' travails with with Harry_read_me at all!
Instead we get an in-depth explanation of why Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit (or Climatefraudit, as it's more commonly known) is an imbecile.
"Now I'm going to explain a little bit about what's actually happening within the code itself, what they're talking about with these tricks and stopping the decline. When scientists are constructing these graphs going back you know a thousand years in history obviously they don't have temperature data that goes that far back so they use what they call proxy data which are things like tree rings, ice core samples and what have you and then towards the end of the charts they add in actual temperature graphs.
So I'm going to read this small snippet of information taken from Climate Audit (Steve 'the idiot' McIntyres blog) and they're saying 'when smoothing these time series the team had a problem actual reconstructions diverge from the instrumental series in the last part of the 20th century. For instance in the original hockey stick ending in 1980 the last 30 to 40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth these time series one needs to pad the series beyond the end time and no matter what method one uses this leads to a smooth graph pointing downwards in the end whereas smooth instrumental series is ending upwards - a divergence. So you have the proxy data going down
and the instrument series going up.
So Mann's solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smooth series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC's figure. So what you see with the proxy data is a downward trend and what you see with the instrument series is an upward trend so what this guy did was pad the data to make it point upwards.
Completely fraudulent."
By this stage, one prays for strength.
It's all proxy data.
A thermometer isn't "temperature" itself - the position of the mercury in the tube or the amount of deflection of the thermocouple is a proxy describing temperature, just like the tree rings.
But leaving these conceptual misunderstandings aside, something does appear to be happening with the data after 1960. From 1850 onwards, when instrumental records began, the tree ring proxy data had matched with the thermometer records. So what changed in 1960? We'll get to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#cite_note -GISS-2
"And in fact I'm going to bring up a chart here I'll let you look at and you can see the difference between these two:
'Keith has asked me to send you a time series for the IPCC multi-proxy reconstruction figure to replace the one you currently have. The data are attached to this email. They go from 1402 to 1995 although we usually stop the series at 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree ring data that we use".
We get a suppressed laugh at this point, as though the Mr. Youtube fraudster hopes to paper over this giveaway crucial point in his conjob.
Why, just as if the phrase 'non-temperature signal' isn't relevant at all.
"So you can see the massive difference between the two graphs when they stop using the proxy data going back to
1960 and when they add it in there's a massive massive difference and it's completely fraudulent.
These guys are claiming that somehow they're able to derive 0.1 accuracy in temperature readings using tree ring data going back thousands of years which is a complete joke".
There you go, you evil dendrochronologists you - it's back to the dole queue for you with your whacky pseudo-science. And take your paleoecology and radiocarbon dating with you. We don't need no stinkin' radiocarbon dating.
Some twaat on Youtube just proved it by saying it.
"There's no scientific basis to make that claim".
I say yes there is.
"They have with duh such high level of accuracy it is absolutely ridiculous and we can see towards the end that they don't even use it in the last part of the graph because it doesn't jive with the information they're trying to put out.
What their preconceived ideas of how temperature should be behaving and it should be going up so they adjust the way they use the proxy data to make it so that the temperature does go up in their graphs and that's what they release".
What you have to remember when dealing with morons, is that in their spittle-flecked stream-of-consciousness excuse for the process they like to imagine is 'reasoning', is that they give you all the clues for how they operate.
The preconceived idea here is that Mr. Youtube hasn't the faintest idea of what he's ranting about, and the zero he knows about how trees should behave, as we shall see.
"Now of course the public has no idea this is going on. They just see this thing going up and they don't know that half of this graph is using a different set of data in order to produce it than the last part of the graph ...so what are you to think, you know, if they put a big dividing line in there and say from this period we're using proxy data and from this period we're not using proxy data in fact we're padding it and making it all crazy using non-scientific functions in order to to hide the decline ... what do you think the public would think?
Do you think they'd believe the graph"?
Such thinking proportion of the public as who would take notice of things like a graph showing a thousand year record of temperature might realise that if there were no reliable thermometers hundreds of years ago, conclude that those scientist chaps must be awfully clever to have arrived at the data at all. And indeed they are.
Combining proxy tree temperature records with actual thermometer records to give a continuous picture - bravo Mr. Scientist!
"And they're saying the science is settled on this".
They are. There hasn't been any discussion in the scientific literature for nearly 30 years about CO2 causing climate change at an unprecedented rate.
You hear that banjoboy and The Fellow Travelling Gooseberries?
Not one of your anti-AGW celebrities can put a cogent paper together to argue, let alone disprove the notion.
"This is complete fraud. It's fraud".
... Mr Youtube asserts as if repetition helps, which continues on into a three minute rant featuring - of course - Al Gore.
I suppose we can be thankful that at least he wasn't visibly masturbating during this section.
That's the verdict of some nobody on youtube, and a goodly proportion of sympathisers who will do almost anything but actually research the subject for themselves.
But they do like being spoonfed commentaries, regardless of the source, or that source's motivations.
The judgement of men who have actually spent their professional lives working on the source of the information, differs somewhat to that of the screen warriors.
The reason that the post 1960 tree records diverge is because AGW is stressing them at a rate that has not been seen before in the record.
"The existence of a subset of trees with consistently positive climate-growth relationships within the majority of trees with changing climate growth relationships argues against any radiative explanations, such as “global dimming” or an increase in UV-B radiation as the main causes of the “divergence effect” in northern Alaska, since the impact should be evident in all trees and not just some trees at a site.
Also, our results do not support the hypothesis that the use of
differing temperature variables is the 25 main cause for the
“divergence effect” in northern Alaska.
Instead, our results indicate that rapid climate warming might lead to a break-down of the consistent climate-growth relationship in large parts of the tree population."
Wilmking 2008 -
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/741/2008/cpd-4-741-2008.pdf
"On annual, decadal, and probably even centennial time-scales, tree-ring data are demonstrably reliable palaeoclimate indicators, but where the focus of attention shifts to inferences on century and longer
time-scales, the veracity of inferred change is difficult to establish.
Furthermore, recent analyses of large regional-scale growth patterns and absolute tree growth changes over recent centuries strongly suggest that anthropogenic infuences are increasingly challenging our assumptions of uniformitarianism in tree growth climate responses.
While this clearly represents a problem in interpretation, it also provides challenging opportunities for disentangling different tree-growth signals".
Looks to me that the deniers just gone done shot themselves in the foot, before sticking the still bleeding stump in their mouth.
And not for the first time.
Just ask Mr warming/cooling banjoboy v.8.0.
Next up Tony, how that most ungodly of creations, American Christian Fundamentalism links to running the well-financed man made climate change denial campaign.
Stay tuned.
*edited to add start date of the instrumental record. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us.
Last edited by chek on Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:32 am; edited 1 time in total
More proof of the Climate Liars. Lengthy pdf file at above link.
Quote:
Falsi cation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ects Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse e ect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a ctitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm scienti c foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clari ed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws
between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric green-house eff ects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned di erence of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsi ed.
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern PhysicsB, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scienti c Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Very lengthy article highlighting major scams and deceptions throughout history, culminating in the biggest of them all, the current Man made climate change lie. The following is just a small part.
Quote:
4: What is Global Warming?
Let's get something straight; the climate is supposed to change. In 4 1/2 billion years, there has never been a time when the Earth's climate remained exactly the same. Careful study of the geological and paleontological record shows that the climate is always changing; that the Earth is always getting warmer or colder in long hundred thousand year cycles.
At present the earth is far colder than the Cretaceous but far warmer than the ice ages. Given that the Earth has only recently come out of the Little Ice Age, it stands to reason we should be getting warmer. It is this idea that the Earth can or should be locked into a particular configuration that is artificial and unnatural. And who was to decide what the ideal temperature of earth should be? What is ideal for people living at the equator is hardly ideal for people living in the polar regions.
Global warming cultists like to talk about the balance of nature. This is a very romantic term, and sounds worthy of preservation. But there is no balance of nature. Nature is change. Nature is chaos. Nature is one life form going extinct while another evolves into being. Nature has never been in balance; it is in fact careening through time colliding with the landscape.
Is there really a crisis? Would it really be a bad thing if the Earth were getting warmer?
Warmer temperatures mean longer growing seasons. Longer growing seasons mean more food. And at a time when much of the world's population are going hungry, more food is a good thing.
Is carbon dioxide really such a bad thing? Carbon dioxide occurs naturally. The major sources are volcanoes and respiration from animal life on Earth. As carbon dioxide increases plant life which uses carbon dioxide for photosynthesis will grow more abundantly. Again, producing more food. There are even companies which will install carbon dioxide in enhancement systems for commercial greenhouses because it has been proven that increased carbon dioxide stimulates plant growth and larger crops.
Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? Yes, it is. But it is not the only one. Water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Methane is also a greenhouse gas, more potent than carbon dioxide. But you cannot tax water vapor, and methane is produced by termites and deep-sea microbes, which are far too intelligent life forms to submit to carbon taxes, so the global warming cultists have settled on carbon dioxide as the villain because a portion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can be traced to human activity.
How much atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from human activity? Not including respiration, human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is .28% of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide.
A closer look at the numbers
Now this may not seem like very much, and indeed it isn't. With volcanoes producing far more carbon dioxide than humans, one wonders what all the fuss is about regarding our cars and industry. But the global warming cult has a handy explanation. The global warming cult likes to claim that natural sources of carbon dioxide are already balanced out by natural sinks for carbon dioxide. Volcanoes are offset by treaties. The carbon dioxide emitted by sea life is absorbed by seaweed. By claiming that there is no natural counterpart to human caused carbon dioxide the global warming cult tries to claim that .28% of atmospheric carbon dioxide contributed by human activity is upsetting the balance of nature. But as we pointed out before, there is no balance of nature. It is a romantic notion, but simply not reality.
5: The Global Warming Fraud
So how do we know we are dealing with a fraud? As noted above, climate change is something that is supposed to happen. The world is always getting warmer or colder. The promotion of a change in the climate as a threat to humankind requiring the paying of taxes and submission to authority is a manufactured construct.
How do we know an agenda is involved? Simple. If the global warming alarmists were really only interested in the welfare of the Earth, one would expect them to be delirious with joy that the threat of anthropogenic global warming doesn't really exist after all. But quite to the contrary, those whose paychecks are dependent on the global warming industry are in a total panic to reassure us that, yes, there is a real danger, and it is all our fault!
Another reason we know Anthropocentric Global Warming is a hoax is that Scientific Method is supposed to allow for others to double-check the work leading to the theory. In other words, starting with the same data and applying the same methods, I should get the same results. But in the case of Anthropocentric Global Warming, this is impossible. The CRU, in response to Freedom of Information Requests for the raw data on which they based their dire predictions of doom, first stalled, then admitted they had destroyed the raw data! We mere mortals are expected to simply take their word their conclusions are accurate.
In ancient times rulers ruled by what ever lie would convince the people that they needed to be ruled. One very common dodge was rule by divine right. I am your ruler because God said so. But as mankind has evolved and become more sophisticated, and understands that the idea of God is more a metaphor than reality, rulers intent on using deception to rule their people have had to come up with more convincing myths. Obey me and I will save you from the Communists. Obey me and I'll save you from the terrorists. Obey me and I will save you from global warming. And so forth...
So the push to sell global government on the basis of human caused global warming is just another variation on the theme of I am the ruler because the gods hath decreed it so.
Maybe it's time for humans to evolve past this latest deception.
As for the actual evidence calling into question the claims of human caused global warming, we can start with the very small percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide actually created by human industry. The attempt by the global warming cult to claim that natural carbon dioxide is not a problem because nature balances it out, but human caused carbon dioxide is a threat, betrays the agenda of of taking something that occurs naturally and focusing the blame for it onto humans in order to guilt them out of money and obedience.
Temperature monitor next to incinerator We have previously documented that temperature sensors used to generate the data that supports the claim of human caused global warming have been cited in the outflow of building air conditioners and in one notable instance right next to a trash incinerator. Clearly given that these are all sources of heat, the readings from these temperature sensors cannot be used to assume that we are measuring the temperature of anything other than air-conditioning outflow and the incineration of trash.
It has been documented and ruled in a British court of law that Al Gore's film and inconvenient truth contained numerous factual errors. In one notable case, a film sequence showing the destruction of the polar caps, turned out to be a fake; a computer-generated sequence from the science-fiction movie the "Day after tomorrow".
Much of the sensationalist media coverage of the issue of human-caused global warming has been exposed as a fraud. A story which claimed Polar Bears were drowning because of global warming was exposed as a fraud in which pictures of summer melt were presented as mid-winter scenes, along with the ludicrous claim that polar bears could not swim to shore to save their own lives.
Then there was the recent video-taped admission by the head of Greenpeace that the claim that Green;and would lose its ice in 20 years was merely a propaganda hoax!
The list of problems supposedly caused by human-caused global warming, from Acne to Prostitution, is endless, with more nonsense being added every day!
The major problem that the global warming cultists have faced is that the Earth has actually been cooling for almost 10 years now. The global warming cultists attempted to rebrand by avoiding the term global warming and saying their agenda was to deal with climate change. Not just any climate change of course but sudden climate change, again the fault of humans, again requiring taxes and obedience to a global authority to solve. But rebranding as the climate change cult did not secure the fact that the predictions for a warming globe were simply not panning out. It was at this point that institutions dependent on funding to study human caused global warming began to adjust their data in order to, as CRU put it, "conceal the decline". Otherwise, trust in the climate scientist was going to be undermined by the fact that they had obviously misguessed which way the temperatures of earth were going predicting that it was going out when in fact it was demonstrably going down.
IPCC predictions in yellow/orange, real world in blue/green
In the end, the most obvious evidence that the global warming cultists got it wrong, is to look out your doors and windows this winter. Snow has come early to much of the Northern Hemisphere this winter. Ski resorts have opened early, and it looks to be a very hard winter. The same global warming cultists who would point to temperature extremes 10 years ago as proof of their claims, now insist that early snows and frosts and ice should not be construed as evidence of global cooling. Clearly there is a bias at work here.
6: What is Really at Stake Here?
As I mentioned in the previous section, politicians seek to gain wealth and power and authority by taking something that occurs naturally, transforming it and promoting it as a crisis, and then selling the population a solution in exchange for higher taxes and increased authority over their lives.
Al Gore and his investors have created a crisis called human caused global warming. They have created a product, literally out of thin air, called the carbon credit. This is essentially a license to pollute. And as experience in Europe has already shown, polluters will simply by the license, and pass the cost on to consumers. The pollution will continue, has continued; the only real change is that goods and services cost more than they did before.
These so-called carbon credits will be bought from those who have too many, and resold to those who need more. This will require a brokerage, of which the only one currently in existence is owned by Al Gore and his investors, who stand to make billions of dollars from the trading of carbon credits. This is not unlike the manner in which Enron made billions of dollars off of the people of California by trading imbalances and electricity. It is not a coincidence that Enron's Ken Lay assisted Al Gore in setting up the structure for the trading of carbon credits. Al Gore is doing with carbon dioxide to the world what Ken lay did to California with electricity.
There is a huge amount of money at stake on convincing the people of the world that the Earth is getting warmer, that it is all their fault, and atonement lies with submitting to new taxation.
Those people still supporting AGW (anthropogenic global warming) are dependent on funding to support their current positions. That funding is in turn dependent in the continuation of faith that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is correct. After all, when Galileo proved that the Earth Orbited the Sun, funding for continued research into epicycles vanished abruptly, along with tenures and the value of every degree issued in the field of Epicycles.
The same applies here. With precious rare exception, every academic whose degree and funding is based on AGW is looking at a stark unemployment picture. In their minds, they are not fighting for scientific truth; they are fighting for their livelihood, and the proof is very simple. If their primary concern was really the long term welfare of planet Earth, one would think the Global Warming Cult would be delighted to find out there really is no danger after all. But, as is clearly evident, the goal is to support the orthodoxy even against the revelation that their core scientific foundation is based on a fraud.
Quite a few people, including President Obama, are financially invested in the Global Carbon Credit scheme, in which licenses are issued to pollute, with the surplus units bought and sold through brokerages. Al Gore and his fellow investors have already spent $150 million to "sell" anthropogenic global warming. They will not walk away from that investment easily.
Beyond the researchers whose degrees and funding are dependent on the continuation of a perceived public threat, the media outlets and government officials who signed onto this campaign are now realizing that they have wagered their entire credibility on AGW (anthropogenic global warming) at a time when their credibility was already strained from Saddam's "nookular" bombs, the economy, 9-11, etc. etc. etc. Climategate could well be the final nail in the coffin of the public's trust of media and government.
Just one example, Paul Hudson, BBC weatherman who in October was sent Climategate emails has been gagged by the BBC.
Over and above the financial incentive, there is another agenda at work. There has been a push forward for the emergence of a global government for many years now. The plan to sell this new global oligarchy to the people the world rests on three pillars. The first pillar is human caused global warming, requiring submission to a global environmental authority. The second pillar was the global swine flu pandemic, requiring submission to a global health authority. The third pillar was the global financial crisis, requiring submission to a global banking authority. All three pillars are in serious trouble. If the pillar of human caused global warming collapses, no doubt it will pull the other two down with it.
Clearly there's a tremendous amount of political and financial power behind the selling of anthropogenic global warming to the people of the world. It is this political power which was able to provide Al Gore with an Academy award for his documentary film and inconvenient truth even though that film has already been exposed as containing multiple factual errors. It was this same political power which obtained for Al Gore a Nobel peace prize again for his documentary film and again awarded even though the deceptions had been exposed in a British court of law.
So much money and political power has been invested in the myth of human caused global warming that if human caused global warming becomes exposed to the general population as a lie and a hoax, many well-known institutions of government and media will likely collapse from the scandal. The establishment is literally fighting for its life. And we should expect them to take any and all desperation measures to prolong and preserve their power and prestige and privilege.
7: This is a Street Brawl for Truth and Freedom
It is clear that government, the media, corporatized science, have quite literally bet the farm on selling the illusion of human caused global warming as justification for global taxes and global government. In order to bring about global government simultaneous with creating the illusion of a need they have to destroy the credibility of the regional governments and we have seen a great deal of this lately. Now the oligarchs face an awkward choice. They have set the stage for a collapse of the national governments in the global government they wish to install in its place may be collapsing right along with the myth of global government.
Various governments and the media are so heavily invested in selling the illusion of human caused dglobal warming, that if that hoax is exposed, if the public becomes aware of the monstrous fraud involved, those institutions of government and media could very well be destroyed and by their own hands.
Already we are seeing the organizers and perpetrators of this fraud trying to limit the damage from this exposure in several ways. The media is already hard at work attempting to dump the blame and scandal solely on the climate scientists, who after all were only doing what they were paid to do. This is not to say the scientists are not guilty. Quite the contrary, they deserve to be pilloried publicly and humiliated for their betrayal of the public trust. To say that their careers should be ended is an understatement. But in our haste to punish the scientists who assisted in the lies to the world, we must not forget that the scientists were working for somebody; for politicians such as Al Gore, for an agenda called global government, and for those who wanted to get rich by selling a fictitious product called carbon credit.
Yet another tactic being employed to limit the damage from climate gate, is to insist that even though the scientist responsible for the climate warming data have been exposed as holsters that the validity of the data itself must remain above question above reproach. This of course is nonsense. If you hire a contractor to build a home, and discover afterwards that the contractor has a history of using substandard materials and sloppy workmanship, do you continue to believe the home he has built you is solid and durable and safe? Of course not. And yet the global warming cultists are demanding exactly this kind of naïveté from the public at large.
The latest spin is that if one questions the dogma of Anthropocentric Global Warming, then one must be in favor of destroying the Earth. There is no middle ground. Another common propaganda tactic is to accuse those who question the veracity of the Global Warming Cultists is to accuse them of receiving paychecks from oil companies. When one points out that the proponents of Anthropocentric Global Warming are being paid for their work, one gets a "hurrumph" of indignation. It's apparently acceptable for their side of the argument to be well-funded, because in their eyes they are the "good guys." Finally, there is the much-ballyhooed "Precautionary Principle" which states that one should never take any action that might cause harm even if that potential harm cannot be demonstrated or proven. In theory such a prohibition should extend to any actions undertaken in support of the Precautionary Principle itself, but such suggestions get the usual "Hurrumph" of indignation. The cultists are really good at that.
So is climate gate a fraud? Is climate gate a scientific scandal? No. Climate gate is first and foremost a political scandal. More than that it is a global political scandal that involves governments, media, institutionalize science, the banks, universities, indeed a vast cross-section of our ruling classes. It is more than a scandal; climate gate is a crime against humanity. And this is not an exaggeration. The goal of climategate was to extract money from every human being on planet Earth in exchange for a nonexistent salvation from a nonexistent threat. The goal of climate gate was to trick every human being on planet Earth into accepting the yoke of a global oligarchy with no more legitimate claim to power than those who ruled by divine right.
We are at a watershed moment. We may well see a transition to a new and better political structure for the entire world. But it will not be the one that has been designed for us. If nothing else, the ability for government and media to lie to the population of the world on such a vast scale is forever destroyed. Climategate will relegate all of the official stories of the governments of the United States and Great Britain and indeed every government that took part in the human caused global warming hoax to the same level of credibility as Ramses carvings showing his victory over the Hittites. It will be seen as an historic joke by future generations.
But we are not there yet. The forces that have enslaved us with deception and fraud and hoax are desperate to hang onto their power and authority. They are busy coming up with new hoaxes and frauds to scare us back into obedience. And the media well aware that they cannot report on the lies of climate gate without reporting their own complicity are working hand in glove with government to reassert their ability to control what you think and when you think it.
So, what we, the free people of planet Earth, need to do in the coming weeks is become the new mainstream media. The TV networks and other corporate media have been handed their marching orders to resell the illusion of human caused climate change in any way shape or form that will convince you to accept new taxes and the loss of your freedoms. The only way the rest of the world is going to find out about climate gate is if you tell them. Because the TV and news magazines won't. If it's mentioned at all, it will be to trivialize and dismiss it and assure the world it really doesn't matter. BBC is still reporting climate gate as just another computer crime. This is like reporting Watergate as just another burglary!
We have collected together a vast body of evidence calling into question the legitimacy of the claims of human caused global warming. We have collected together a vast body of evidence proving fraud and deception on the part of the global warming cult. Please forward this information to everybody you know. Time is of the essence. Barack Obama as already indicated that he will not be swayed by the exposure of the fraud in the CRU/NWIA data, and fully intends to go to Copenhagen to sign away our national sovereignty as "penance" for our contribution to global warming.
Other observers have commented that the moment president Obama signs that Copenhagen Treaty his credibility as president of the United States will be destroyed. For him to sign away sovereignty of our nation on the basis of a known lie should enrage all Americans and make it clear that the federal government is not working in the interests of the American people any more, but in service to this emerging globalist socialistic empire. Remember; global government is what Hitler wanted. Global Government is what Napoleon wanted. Global Government is what Alexander the Great wanted. Global Government is what the Roman Caesars wanted.
Climategate may well prove to be the final fight in the war between those who would rule us with lies and those who wish to live with truth. Climategate makes it clear that yes, there really are massive conspiracies between government and the media to mislead the general public. You cannot pretend they don't exist; one is right there before you staked out naked on the ground, exposed for all to marvel at! I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide how many other such deceptions form what we think we know of the world and of history.
There are two paths into the future. Along one lies freedom and truth and prosperity for the people. Along the other lies a socialist dictatorship, born in deception, unable and unwilling to tolerate dissent, and dedicated to robbing the poor to give to the rich.
You need to decide which future you wish to live in.
More lies of the Climate liars exposed. Rest of article at above link.
Quote:
Yet More Stuff We Always Suspected But Its Nice To Have Proof
November 27, 2009, 11:42 pm
Many of us have argued for years that much of the measured surface temperature increase has actually been from manual adjustments made for opaque and largely undisclosed reasons by a few guys back in their offices.
The US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) reports about a 0.6C temperature increase in the lower 48 states since about 1940. There are two steps to reporting these historic temperature numbers. First, actual measurements are taken. Second, adjustments are made after the fact by scientists to the data. Would you like to guess how much of the 0.6C temperature rise is from actual measured temperature increases and how much is due to adjustments of various levels of arbitrariness? Here it is, for the period from 1940 to present in the US:
Actual Measured Temperature Increase: 0.1C
Adjustments and Fudge Factors: 0.5C
Total Reported Warming: 0.6C
Yes, that is correct. Nearly all the reported warming in the USHCN data base, which is used for nearly all global warming studies and models, is from human-added fudge factors, guesstimates, and corrections.
I know what you are thinking – this is some weird skeptic’s urban legend. Well, actually it comes right from the NOAA web page which describes how they maintain the USHCN data set. Below is the key chart from that site showing the sum of all the plug factors and corrections they add to the raw USHCN measurements:
The implicated scientists' strategy is to brazen it out and rely on the global warming alarmist establishment and the mainstream media to circle the wagons.
November 25, 2009 - by Myron Ebell
It is clear that the tip-top scientists implicated in the burgeoning Climategate scandal have no honor, but it is also becoming apparent that they have no sense of shame either. Their strategy is to brazen it out and rely on the great global warming alarmist establishment and the mainstream media to circle the wagons. They have got their talking point and the environmental pressure groups are already repeating it over and over: “The ‘global warming deniers’ are cherry-picking a few unfortunately worded emails and then taking them out of context.” Well, they are some pretty big, juicy cherries and there are a lots of them.
But it isn’t going to work. There is simply too much evidence that “the world’s leading climate scientists” (as they are always described — at least up until a few days ago) at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were cooking the data. For those not up on technical scientific terms, “cooking the data” means manipulating and falsifying it. Here are just two examples from one of the approximately 3000 files that were released — either by a hacker or (more likely in my view) a public-spirited whistleblower at the CRU who just couldn’t stand the fraud any more. These two examples are from the “Harry Read Me” file (which can be found here) and are apparently the ongoing notes of someone charged with trying to fix the problems in one of the CRU’s temperature datasets. The first email:
What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no )’supposed’, I can make it up. So I have … So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option – to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ‘em, and it’s the main reason the project is nearly a year late.
The second email:
OH FU*K THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.
I haven’t found any evidence that anyone in authority at the CRU, such as its director, Professor Phil Jones, cared that the datasets were in a hopeless state. Every year, CRU, in cooperation with the UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre, publishes the global mean temperature for the past year. Hadley/CRU is widely considered to be the most authoritative record of the world’s temperature history and is widely cited in the press. Yet I don’t remember and can’t find any comment by Professor Jones that it is anything less than what it’s been cracked up to be or that there are just a few tiny little problems. It’s now clear why he resisted repeated requests by other scientists to share the raw data and the methodologies used — he would be exposed as a fraud. Releasing raw data and methodologies is standard operating procedure in most fields of scientific research, but not for these tip-top climate scientists, whose motto is: “You can trust us!” When Jones was finally cornered by a Freedom of Information request earlier this year, he said that the data had been lost. Pat Michaels has the whole story here.
Have they no shame?
Myron Ebell is director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Instititute, director of Freedom Action, and chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition.
But its only the "Deniers" who get funding!!! From Big Oil!!! Why, I myself have received ........... nothing.
Quote:
Detroit News: Climategate prof raked in $22.6 million in grants
University of East Anglia Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit that fudged data in order to con people into believing Global Warming, raked in £13.7 million ($22.6 million) in grants, Frank Beckmann of the Detroit News reported.
Beckmann wrote:
As Jones wrote to one-time United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author John Christy in one of his e-mails, “I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
He had 22.6 million reasons to write that.
Jones, Gore and their ilk deserve to be discredited.
But they should join Americans and the world in celebrating the week that claims about manmade global warming — a kind of environmental Berlin Wall — came crashing down.
Beckman is not alone. One of the scientists connected with the IPCC — Eduardo Zorita of Germany’s Institute for Coastal Research — has dumped on Jones, Michael Mann of Penn State, and the other charlatans who deliberately misled the public with their scheme.
Wrote Zorita:
Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ’soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.
To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later.
I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.
Lest the reader thinks Zorita was a skeptic — or as these frauds smeared us: Global Warming Holocaust Deniers — I suggest they read this by Zorita.
He was among the conned, my friends.
If you still believe in Man-made Global Warming, the scientific name for you is fool.
They did it for the money.
Al Gore laughs at his foolish followers as he goes to the bank. How did I know it was a fraud? Gore kept trolloping around the Earth with the biggest carbon footprint imaginable.
Dodgy site with the "wrong" politics offers advice as to how to spread the climate lies.
Quote:
GPs 'should offer climate change advice to patients Doctors should give patients advice on climate change, a leading body of medical experts has claimed.
Nick Britten, Published: 11:53AM GMT 29 Nov 2009
The Climate and Health Council, a collaboration of worldwide health organisations including the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal Society of Medicine, believes there is a direct link between climate change and better health.
Their controversial plan would see GPs and nurses give out advice to their patients on how to lower their carbon footprint.
The Council believes that climate change “threatens to radically undermine the health of all peoples”.
It believes health professionals are ideally placed to promote change because “we have ethical responsibility…..as well as the capacity to influence people and our political representatives to take the necessary action”.
The Council has been recently formed to study the health benefits of tackling climate change and promotes a range of ideas from reducing your carbon footprint by driving less and walking more to eating local, less processed food.
It wants to raise 'health' on the agenda of December's UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen.
They believe that offering patients advice on how to lower their carbon footprint can be just as easy and achievable as helping them to stop smoking or eat a healthier diet.
Other proposals include for all developed nations to pay an extra five dollars a barrel on oil and a tax on airline tickets. This would go into a special fund to develop low-carbon alternatives to existing technologies, they say.
Prof Mike Gill, from the University of Surrey, who co-chairs the Climate and Health Council, outlined the plans for the medical journal The Lancet last week.
He said: "Climate change already affects human health, creating problems that will increase if no action is taken.
"Overall, what is good for tackling climate change is good for health. Who better to spell out this message than health professionals? "We have the evidence, a good story to tell that dramatically shifts the lens through which climate change is perceived, and we have public trust."
He said the health service was often “muted” on the subject of climate change and needed to make its voice heard more.
He added: "To maximise our influence, we must be much clearer than we have been to the public, to patients, and to politicians about the risks of doing nothing and the benefits to individual and global health of effective action."
Vivienne Nathanson, British Medical Association director of professional activities said the report “clearly shows that taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can have positive impacts for health."
She said the BMA was disappointed health had not so far figured significantly on the agenda for the Copenhagen summit and called on world leaders to seek solutions that benefit the environment and individuals.
Andy Burnham, the Health minister, in support of the Lancet report said: "Climate change can seem a distant, impersonal threat [however] the associated costs to health are a very real and present danger. Health ministers across the globe must act now to highlight the risk global warning poses to the health of our communities."
Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Climategate denial foundering on army of Davids
By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Sunday Reflections Contributor, November 29, 2009
Last week a hacker -- or, perhaps more likely, an inside "whistleblower" -- leaked huge amounts of data from the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia in Britain. The leaks demonstrated that many "insider" scientists were conspiring to block publication of dissenting views in peer-reviewed journals, while suggesting that there was data-fudging, and deliberate evasion of Freedom Of Information requests, perhaps even including deliberate destruction of data.
Worse still, the computer models themselves appear to be jerry-rigged and deeply flawed. As Declan McCullagh reported on the CBS News website, independent programmers were appalled:
“As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.
“One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: ‘I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.’
“Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: ‘Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!’ and ‘APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.’ Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: ‘Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!’”
None of this inspires confidence. As Megan McArdle noted on the Atlantic Monthly's website: "The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming. If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-benefit analysis is totally worthless. Obviously, this also casts their reluctance to conform with FOI requests in a slightly different light.”
Yes, they're acting as if they've got something to hide. But the establishment's response has been to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.
Climate Czar Carol Browner responded: "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."
The problem is that the "2,500 scientists" she refers to were relying on data and models that, it now appears, may have been fake. Garbage in, garbage out. Plenty of scientists believed in Piltdown Man, too, for a while.
Big media are downplaying the problem too -- while Declan McCullagh has done great reporting on CBS's website, the network's broadcast coverage has been quite different. Likewise, the New York Times and Washington Post, while covering the matter, have downplayed its significance.
It seems clear that the Obama administration, and the folks in traditional media, think this is a story better ignored.
It won't work. While Big Media folks ignore the story, the alternate media are all over it.
From blogs, to talk radio, to Facebook and Twitter -- and, of course, the Obama administration's bete noire, Fox News -- this story is sweeping the nation and the world (it has already provoked resignations in Australia). With the data made available online, individuals and groups continue to search through the records and find new nuggets of information.
Polls have shown growing public skepticism, both in the U.S. and abroad, even before the Climategate revelations. That is now likely to grow.
For politicians, hitching their wagon to the carbon-control star was already an iffy proposition given widespread economic problems and public skepticism. In light of the Climategate revelations, many of them are likely to view it as something closer to suicide.
My prediction: The Copenhagen global warming conference will feature a lot of pretty words and promises, and no admission that things have changed. But we'll see little or no actual movement, as politicians around the world realize that there's no percentage in pushing these programs on an increasingly wary public.
Examiner contributor Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a University of Tennessee College of Law professor who blogs at InstaPundit.com and hosts "InstaVision" on PJTV.com.
Oh dear. The liars are even being noticed by Senators.!!
Quote:
Significance of “Climategate” Deciphered
Sunday, November 29, 2009, By Senator Pamela Gorman
The story is everywhere on the web and social media. Most who read it are either annoyed to have to deal with it (those in the cap-n-trade camp) or intrigued by it. But, unless you have been following the spoof of science that is the whole global warming debate (now called “climate change”… when it got colder, they had to change the name of the movement), the significance of these pages and pages of emails and document files recently uncovered by hackers may not be apparent.
It all boils down to this.
In order to use the theories of global warming to substantiate sweeping public policy decisions that are unpopular and economy crushing, one must accept one premise to be true. Namely, you must accept that humans in the post-industrial age are to blame for the earth’s changes. Why? Because only in accepting humans are causing it can you possibly extrapolate a theory that humans can fix it. The religion of global warming is based on the idea that it is unethical to NOT fix it, since they “know” we can…(if we would just give up our way of life and prevent 3rd world countries from modernizing, etc.)
So what is all the excitement with the documents that hackers pulled off the computers of the scientists who published the data on which global warming theories are based? The short answer is: the data was corrupt, mismanaged, and manipulated. The bigger issue, though, is the idea that the core people working to prove man-made global warming KNEW this to be true and toiled in their emails to one another about what to do about the fact that the research data was not supporting their theories. That, my friends, is the big deal here. Because if this is all more than just bad science or a hoax, but actually a coordinated effort to deceive millions of people, then the public policy that has followed is an unnecessary burden on the inhabitants of this planet and some very big shot people have a lot of explaining to do.
The bottom line is this.
The naysayers of Gore’s broken science theories have contended from the start that there is no argument that the planet’s climate is, has always, and will continue to change. So, the key for the global warming zealots was to “prove” that man’s contribution to the naturally-occurring warming and cooling periods is so significant that a correlation can be drawn between changing our behavior and stopping the cycle. With this latest exposure of the embarrassing truth that the “movement” got so married to their theories that they falsified the results to support them, then it takes them back to square one with only a theory and nothing more. But, it goes further. Because the real research shows a never-ending cycle of climate change in our earth’s history (the current flux being mild compared to some before industrialization), it would appear our current human lifestyles are not, in fact, “causing it.” If the humans didn’t cause it, and trying to stop it would increase human suffering (likely without any benefit towards stopping what has gone on for millenniums), then no public policy should ever be brought forth based on the old theories of climate change. Ouch.
Posted by Senator Pamela Gorman at 11:57 AM
[Environmentalism is a diversion, designed by the ruling elite to distract the antiwar movement. It is much easier to defend the planet than it is to go after the military-industrial-complex that is destroying it. Any movement that embraces the Pentagon as a leading force for environmental awareness, even though it is the environment’s greatest enemy, is a movement based on hypocrisy.]
ClimateGate – A Comprehensive Archive
STEVE WATSON, PAUL WATSON
On Thursday 19th November 2009, news began to circulate that hacked documents and communications from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) had been published to the internet.
The information revealed how top scientists conspired to falsify data in the face of declining global temperatures in order to prop up the premise that man-made factors are driving climate change.
The documents and emails illustrated how prominent climatologists, affiliated with the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, embarked on a venomous and coordinated campaign to ostracize climate skeptics and use their influence to keep dissenting reports from appearing in peer-reviewed journals, as well as using cronyism to avoid compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests.
Here follows a compendium of articles and videos on what was quickly dubbed as "ClimateGate".
Visit above link for dozens of sites which expose the Climate Liars.
Today we learn that East Anglia's CRU, the world's leading institutuion for "climate science," dumped the raw data for their climate record of temperatures over the past 150 odd years. This from the Times:
Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. . . .
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. . . .
It is difficult to imagine any scientist destroying raw data, irrespective of storage space. That said, one could take this as mere sloppiness tantamount to incompetence on the part of the CRU, but deleting raw data seems to happen with some frequency at that institution. This from Watts Up With That:
Flashback to April 18th…
Dear Tom,
I find it hard to believe that the British Antarctic Survey would permit the deletion of relevant files for two recent publications or that there aren’t any backups for the deleted data on institutional servers. Would you mind inquiring for me? In the mean time, would you please send me the PP format files that you refer to here for the monthly sea ice data for the 20th century models discussed in your GRL article and the 21st century models referred to in your JGR article.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
Then in July… “Unprecedented” Data Purge At CRU
On Monday, July 27, 2009, as reported in a prior thread, CRU deleted three files pertaining to station data from their public directory ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/. The next day, on July 28, Phil Jones deleted data from his public file – see screenshot with timestemp in post here, leaving online a variety of files from the 1990s as shown in the following screenshot taken on July 28, 2009.
This just all seems too much. How much of all this raw data jettisoning is mere gross incompetence and how much is deliberate remains to be seen. What is clear is that CRU data for which no raw data exists and all studies since that have relied upon such CRU data have zero reliablity at the moment. Tigerhawk sums up the ramifications:
So, basically we are being asked to restructure the entire economy of the planet on the say-so of a few "scientists" whose work cannot be verified or even reconstructed. Is there any intellectually honest person who thinks that is a good idea?
The Climate Liars try to prevent the damburst by ignoring the flood waters rising above their lying necks.
Quote:
MSM Still Silent on ClimateGate
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The ClimateGate scandal broke more than a week ago, and as I survey the MSM (i.e. "elite media", "establishment media", "state-controlled media", "dinosaur media" ... take your pick), the top news stories seem to be Tiger Woods' accident and nasty gossip surrounding him, the media whore couple that crashed the Obamas' Thanksgiving dinner, Sarah Palin drawing crowds (much to the dismay of Libs), the requisite collection of dreadful murder-on-Thanksgiving stories, Black Friday reports, and the "gee, we missed Osama bin Laden back in 2001 in Tora Bora." (Why the hell is that news? We know that already. Talk about re-runs!) These stories are all distractions.
But, where are the reports on ClimateGate?!? Why the hell is the press sitting on this?!? I thought the press loved a good scandal! Could it be that our in-bed-with-Obama-and-the-Left media are going to have to eat major crow? I remember, for example, Ann Curry of NBC begging Al Gore to run for president. She personifies our current agenda-driven press.
The scandal is breaking in other parts of the world, but here in the U.S. you only hear about it via the "non-news", such as FoxNews, bloggers, and Glenn Beck. Our press is ignoring what foreign news agencies are reporting, such as this from RT:
(edit: visit site to view video)
In the interview, Peter Lilley, British Tory MP and physicist by training, makes some eye-opening comments about the scandal: that the climate scientists are determined to agree with each other, trying to change facts rather than change their theory, and feel morally superior, because they feel they're on a crusade to save the world. Lilley reminds us, too, of the large government grants the scientists receive. Lilley, though, believes that this scandal will be a big blow to the environmentalist movement and to their credibility; however, he cautions that the momentum and money are so large, it will take much more to derail the theory of climate change.
Here's a valuable exercise: Go to the various news websites and, in the search bar, type "climategate." If that gets no results, which will be the case on most sites, then try "global warming." It seems that most news sites don't even mention the hacked e-mails. Some news sites just continue plowing headlong into promoting the global warming 'crisis' with nary a mention of the "real news."
Here's how Joseph Finlay on American Thinker describes how the story broke in other parts of the world while being blocked here in the U.S. ("ClimateGate: 'the stones cry out'"):
Note carefully the fact that this modern shot heard round the world first found a point of entry through Russia, then Saudi Arabia, and then Turkey - next Europe, and lastly the United States.
In other words, the traditionally supposed intellectual freedom and free speech climate of the West was "stoney ground" in comparison to the accessibility of outlets under the more repressive regimes of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Perhaps the greater story is the truth itself - and its indomitable will to reveal itself through even the most unlikely of conduits and efforts of even one individual arrayed against a worldwide apparatus of dishonesty.
Jesus, in Luke 19:40, when admonished to silence the truth, made a startling claim about the geological record that collided with accepted scientific notions in His day:
And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
It would appear that the repression of truth in the scientic community and the MSM in the west has indeed caused "the stones to cry out."
This will be another scoop the "non-news" entities will have that will undercut, yet again, the establishment media. In the meantime, our Pravda-like press will continue spewing out distractions so the public will go unaware of ClimateGate. The radicals and the Obama administration must pass Cap and Trade, right? The taxpayers be damned! Then entangle the U.S. in Kyoto Treaty nonsense, all to the detriment of America. Full steam ahead!
Posted by KMacGinn at 9:30 AM
Monty Pelerin
The Cardiff Giant, known as "America's Greatest Hoax," has new competition for the title -- Global Warming. Recent revelations of what appear to be doctored data, corrupted scientists and pressured peer reviews have produced terms such as "Climategate," "Climaqquidick," and similar pejoratives. Describing the events of the past week, Senator Jim Inhofe, a consistent critic of the science said: "Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in."
Despite what appears evidence of outright fraud, President Obama refuses to acknowledge, no less investigate, what is increasingly becoming known as "The World's Greatest Hoax." Obama's intentions to go off to Copenhagen, pretending that "the science is settled," is a political gaffe of enormous proportion. It puts whatever is left of his rapidly diminishing credibility at risk, as well as his agenda.
Most political disagreements are ideological and too complex to easily prove anything. Health care is a good example. It is ideological and many-faceted. There is no definitive way to "prove" that one side is right and the other wrong. In health care, this was particularly evident as the objectives ("marketing' to the public?) shifted as required. In situations like this, credibility is all important. "Can I trust what this man says?" becomes the measure that the public uses to support or reject these complex issues.
Obama's position will be devastating because it is counter to science. Science, done properly, is black or white. It does not rest on consensus, it rests on facts. Al Gore tried to cut off debate on the subject by claiming there was a "consensus." Every scientific advance has been made by one or a small minority that conflicted with "the consensus." That Gore has made millions by a form of street-hustling does not help the credibility of climate-change supporters.
The public had serious doubts about the validity of climate-warming before the recent revelations. They know they will suffer from cap and trade legislation. Their lifestyles will be adversely affected by forced legislative changes (lightbulbs, centrally-controlled thermostats, etc.). Their cost of living will be driven up substantially. Industrial growth will slow. America will become less competitive in the world. Additionally, many sense that the plan will include a redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer nations and may be a step toward world government. If the future of mankind were truly at stake, such sacrifices might be worthwhile. Without that, the proposed legislation is viewed as nothing more than masochistic and controlling. It becomes just another way to extract taxes from the American public.
That Obama wants to proceed full-speed ahead without hard science suggests that his objective is to inflate his image in the eyes of the rest of the world. While I don't believe that will happen, the attempt is clearly at the expense of the American people. To those that realize that the science is faulty, Obama loses all credibility. To others, his credibility may merely decrease. Regardless, his ability to pass health care and other parts of his agenda depends on his credibility. He has little left.
An eerie parallel is that the Cardiff Giant was made in Chicago and buried in NY. We may be witnessing another Cardiff Giant made in Chicago, but "buried" in Washington, DC. An earlier post surmised this outcome.
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.
Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 p & p.
Anti-climate cult crusader calls for world to rise up against communistic killers behind global warming fraud
Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com, Saturday, November 28, 2009
Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Lord Christopher Monckton went further than ever before in his vehement opposition to the elitists running the climate change scam, calling for the UN to be shut down and for fraudulent peddlers of global warming propaganda like Al Gore to be arrested and criminally prosecuted.
Monckton said that those who are threatening to shut down economies, bankrupt nations, and deepen the problems of the third world by implementing draconian policies in the name of global warming should be indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned “for a very long time”.
“The fraudsters and racketeers from Al Gore to the people at the University of East Anglia who have been making their fortune at the expense of taxpayers and the little guy,” should be criminally charged, said Monckton, in response to the climategate scandal.
“We the people have got to rise up worldwide, found a party in every country which stands for freedom and make sure we fight this bureaucratic communistic world government monster to a standstill – they shall not pass,” he added.
Monckton said that the United Nations should be “closed down,” adding that he talked to a senior UN ambassador in Canada who told him that he no longer saw any purpose in the UN and it exists “only to enrich itself at the expense of the nations it claims to serve, it’s time it was brought to an end.”
“We would all save billions if we shut down the UN and just about all of its hideous bureaucracy,” said Monckton.
Lord Monckton emphasized how the emails released as a result of climategate prove that global warming alarmism was still prevalent in public but behind closed doors, warmist scientist are admitting that the “deniers” as they label people like Monckton are correct.
“Publicly they’re saying the science is settled, we’re all doomed unless you close down the economies of the west, whereas privately they’re saying to each other ‘we’ve got it wrong, none of this adds up and it’s a travesty that we can’t explain it’.”
Monckton also slammed Obama’s science czar John P. Holdren, who in his 1977 book Ecoscience called for draconian population measures to be enforced by a “planetary regime” in the name of saving the earth, as an “openly admitted communist”.
Monckton pointed out how Holdren had been once of the most prominent alarmists in the 70’s warning about the onset of rapid “global cooling”.
“Now with seamless mendacity he says that what we’re now facing is global warming,” said Monckton.
“How can anyone like Holdren stand up with a straight face and expect anyone to believe it,” he added.
Monckton said that the agenda behind the global warming movement was to set up a communistic world government which will be run by people who “do not care how many people they kill with their policies” and that their goal is to “do away with democracy forever by stealth using the excuse to save the planet.”
Monckton said that the people running the scam had a “deliberate desire to control population by killing people in large numbers deliberately if necessary.”
The former advisor to Margaret Thatcher said that the warmists were sounding more and more desperate and knew that they had been rumbled as a result of climategate, which would only make it more urgent for them to try and force through a binding treaty in Copenhagen.
Monckton said that the answer to combating the move towards neo-feudalism and global government was to form a worldwide “freedom party” that would operate nationally in every country in order to defend freedom, democracy and prosperity while routing out every aspect of the communistic takeover.
“Every time these people try to take it away, we in the freedom party will stop them, and I think now is the time,” said Monckton.
More proof of the Climate Liars. Lengthy pdf file at above link.
Quote:
Falsi cation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ects Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse e ect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a ctitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm scienti c foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clari ed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws
between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric green-house eff ects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned di erence of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsi ed.
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern PhysicsB, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scienti c Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:10 pm Post subject:
Mr-Bridger wrote:
chek wrote:
No such journal listed on the ISI database.
Can't say I'm surprised.
Science, and the understanding of it, isn't a strongpoint of the deniers.
If that science is being bent or distorted to accomplish a goal, then it is null and void.
In your dreams.
There are too many independent science establishments, universities and commercial organisations dependent on actual real science to be in on a big conspiracy. Which any fool can allege with no evidence.
What is being bent and distorted is the work of real honest scientists by an unholy alliance of big business, elements of the US government and Christian fundamentalists using the same reality-denying, faith-based tactics that the creationists use.
Details to follow when I get them organised into a presentable format.
It takes longer when it's not just a copy and paste job, you see. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
