Climategate, what gives?

[nsxotic911]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...n-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”​

 

[Dtrigg]

Interesting that you have to read about this stuff on Drudge Report. Why isn't this a major news story?

 

[jond]

Why isn't this a major news story?

Probably because the main stream media are some of the biggest champions of the theory. But it is real. Congress is going to look into it.
Apparently they even found source code to some programs that have comments to the various functions and some of the comments say things like how it leaves out post 19xx data to make the trend go up.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10404533-38.html

 

[Dtrigg]

Probably because the main stream media are some of the biggest champions of the theory. But it is real. Congress is going to look into it.
Apparently they even found source code to some programs that have comments to the various functions and some of the comments say things like how it leaves out post 19xx data to make the trend go up.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10404533-38.html

Would be kind of nice for Congress to look into this before we do the "Cap and Trade" and spend another couple of trillion dollars.

 

[Sig]

Interesting that you have to read about this stuff on Drudge Report. Why isn't this a major news story?

It will only be a major news story in circles not beholden to the green fascism movement... which eliminates 80% of televised & print news. Those outlets will eventually mention it, but in the context of a story that minimizes the legitimacy of the contrary data. It's not just the news outlets though. The overwhelming majority of the researchers involved in various global warming 'studies' begin their work with their conclusion already formed. Then their grant dollars are buttered about for years while they search for data arrangements that support their conclusion that was formed prior to the actual field work. Further, the variables chosen for these studies are often selected with the specific intent on demonstrating the pre-conceived conclusion. This is not editorial, it comes from firsthand experience as a grunt worker in some of these studies during the mid-late 90's. Talk about an eye opening experience. This whole racquet reminds of steroids in baseball throughout the late-80's and 90's. Everybody in the 'community' knows it is going on and it puts enormous pressure on their 'community' to keep pace with their peers. The casual use of these substances was socially accepted inside the community as everyone had an interest in continuing the rocket fueled numbers they were putting on the board. This same exact thing plays out with global warming scientists whose work is funded by grants to find evidence of global warming. They are under tremendous pressure to keep up and even one-up their peers to ensure the faucet of funding stays on. The pressure comes from all angles too... some of them would surprise you (maybe not).

Ironically, I am one of the more environmentally conscious people amongst my friends... and many of them fall into the green fascist camp. My reasons for being so are driven by another agenda though, not because I think we can save Greenland's glaciers.

Any industry that is paid BILLIONS of dollars to find evidence of a given phenomenon.... will find a way to collect said evidence. Throw in the fact that $ spent on these types of things is increasing exponentially every year... the incentive to stay on the 'good side' of the funding originators is incredibly strong. I can't emphasize that last point enough.

I still can't figure out why people are so freaked out by the concept of global warming aside from the fantastical warnings thrown about by those whose agenda is fueled by this panic. The Earth is and has always been in constant state of flux. The planet has cycled between cooling and warming millions of time in its history. Is this pattern just supposed to stop because humans are now sophisticated enough to record data as it occurs? It really makes me laugh... and I don't mean to sound too glib about that, but it really is funny.

The forces affecting the planet's overall climate are so enormous that our (human) impact is almost meaningless in the big picture of actual global warming. Planetary tilt, axial wobbles, magnetic field shifts, a moon that is steadily drifting away, solar energy output, earth orbital flexing, super volcanoes, asteroids/comets, continental arrangement, etc... are all things that have a far more profound impact on global warming than humans ever could.

Now the impact of humanity's dirty ways on our quality of life (food, water, air) is significant. This is what drives my personal efforts of environmental consciousness.

Now if global cooling starts in earnest, that will scare me!

 

[Dtrigg]

Nice post Jason. Thank you.

 

[Cragar]

Interesting that you have to read about this stuff on Drudge Report. Why isn't this a major news story?

Shhhhh ....... If this gets onto too many mainstream media outlets -THAT- could be an Inconvenient Truth for Algore

Maybe the POTUS should tell every one not to listen to Fox news - Wait a minute we already did that ..........


Time to find a another dog to wag ..... lol :wink:

 

[jond]

Would be kind of nice for Congress to look into this before we do the "Cap and Trade" and spend another couple of trillion dollars.

The only people to benefit from cap and trade is wallstreet.
The super elite.
They will get a whole new commodities market selling contracts on carbon credits. Where is the money from this come from? From inflation, our governments favorite form of taxation.

Basically, the way I see it, the working people pay more for EVERYTHING(inflation) and wallstreet makes more money.

Then again, I could be wrong....

 

[Dtrigg]

The only people to benefit from cap and trade is wallstreet.
The super elite.
They will get a whole new commodities market selling contracts on carbon credits. Where is the money from this come from? From inflation, our governments favorite form of taxation.

Basically, the way I see it, the working people pay more for EVERYTHING(inflation) and wallstreet makes more money.

Then again, I could be wrong....

As a former broker myself, I think you're spot on. I am in a very fortunate position. I live in a two bedroom condo in San Francisco. I don't have air conditioning like everyone else in San Francisco. I rarely use my heating and my elictricity bill is around $25 per month. That being said, my previous home was in a four seasons location and my heating/air conditioning bill could be $400 or $500 per month.

In my mind, this will hit EVERYONE. That usually means it will have a huge impact on those that can least afford an increase in their utility bills.

Overall, I just think we as a country are out of control...

 

[NSX-Stalker]

Well the MSM is on it to an extent. Probably the reason it isn't in the on the first page of CNN for example is because they are hard core AGW believers. As a matter of fact they ran a main page story about sea levels rising and killing economies on Monday morning.

The discussion is rampant though and it's a hell of an interesting story. The left's stance is basically they are "hacked and stolen private emails" therefore they should be discounted.

What it boils down to is the CRU basically drives the IPCC. Al Gore's movie was based around their research. The whole "hockey stick" graph has been referenced in 1000's of articles. The CRU is essentially the recognized experts in the field. Now it turns out they were fudging data, suppressing and threatening any research that disagreed with them (the skeptics) and have admitted their models did not predict the cooling that has been going on for over 20 years or so.

It's truly classic. I have debated global warming or now as they call it climate change for years and now all I have to do is refer to the internal discussions in the CRU as a defense for my arguments.

I expect their may be some possible criminal charges, certainly many investigations relative to them avoiding responding to requests under the FOIA. At the very least their reputation is going to be so damaged it's going to cause a massive collapse of the AGW house of cards.

Now all this came to light with Copenhagen coming up. I doubt it's coincidence but I really don't care.

I'm waiting for more to come out about this. There are thousands of emails and data to look at. I expect they'll be many people spilling their guts soon.

It's amazing. All it's missing is a few murders and some hot sex.

 

[Cragar]

It's amazing. All it's missing is a few murders and some hot sex.

It's funny , but true. Good quote.





" Create the panic , garner control and tax them for a solution "


Simple. Very simple.


I have heard recently that Algore is close to becoming the world's first carbon billionaire.

 

[sahtt]

I think my views on this subject are already understood for those who have cared to listen over the last couple years. This is fairly substantial news among those who actually seek out real news, which should be a discovery to some extent, not mindless entertainment, not a profit scheme, not an agenda.

 

[alum04org]

:tongue: If Al Gore was a Republican, there would be hundreds of urinalists camped outside his mansion and seeking him out for comment(s). Since accurate reporting (previously known as journalism) is no longer practiced in the USA, no media outlets I know of have even a passing thought of pursuing him for comment(s). Very, very sad, indeed.

 

[NSXGMS]

Wow, thank god everyone in this thread is sane. There's hope for humanity yet.

 

[Juice]

Wow, thank god everyone in this thread is sane. There's hope for humanity yet.

You really shouldn't be surprised. The majority of people don't believe or care about "climate change". The media simply supports this myth because it makes a compelling story and there is nothing out there to prove or disprove their so-called reporting.

Global Warming, i.e. climate change is the liberals' closest thing to God as they dare believe in - It is an intangible entity that they religiously refer to and have started a crusade over.

 

[nsxotic911]

Here's a recent good overview by, who woulda thunk, CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml

 

[nsxotic911]

I think my views on this subject are already understood for those who have cared to listen over the last couple years. This is fairly substantial news among those who actually seek out real news, which should be a discovery to some extent, not mindless entertainment, not a profit scheme, not an agenda.

Sahtt - please be more specific. I do value your input. I find it often along the same line of thinking as mine, just less nutty and better said :biggrin:

 

[NSXGMS]

You really shouldn't be surprised. The majority of people don't believe or care about "climate change". The media simply supports this myth because it makes a compelling story and there is nothing out there to prove or disprove their so-called reporting.

Global Warming, i.e. climate change is the liberals' closest thing to God as they dare believe in - It is an intangible entity that they religiously refer to and have started a crusade over.

I know, I'm not really surprised. There's a reason I hang around this forum. Informed people are refreshing.

As far as people believing in it I just saw some poll where somewhere north of 60% of people under 18 believe GW is "an issue" or something like that...I definitely agree that most people don't think it's serious or care about it that much but I definitely think the majority of people would agree that there's "something" wrong or that we should be taking certain measures that we are not now taking; in other words it's likely the environment is deteriorating in some way to some degree. And this perception is based on virtually no solid data. Amazing when you think about it.

And that's all the politicians need. When the majority believe something is likely or even feasible they can be led down any path towards its "solution" without much overt objection. For example the cap and trade is ridiculous legislation yet until yesterday I'd say it was a lock to pass. It still likely will despite the immense negative consequences and total lack of data supporting its premise or effectiveness.

 

[Sig]

Interesting article yesterday in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

"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).


Related Articles
'Climategate' university performs data U-turn
Climategate won't make global warming go away
Climate emails sweep America 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. "

 

[sahtt]

Sahtt - please be more specific. I do value your input. I find it often along the same line of thinking as mine, just less nutty and better said :biggrin:

Well I'm not sure about the latter, but without getting into the excruciating detail as I'm trained to do, there is no evidence-from anyone-that human induced global warming exists. Note I didn't say there isn't some evidence, whether conclusive or not is arguable, of global warming to some degree in some places some of the time. Not sounding like the sort of concrete thesis needed to crush the global growth responsible for bringing billions-yes with a B-of people from the brink of starvation into a fairly decent existence. They worry about saving for their child's education or how to build some savings, not whether 5 or 4 of their 7 kids will be dead before 10 years old.

Some of the major points of the global warming argument are so horribly flawed to such an extent that anyone using these arguments cannot be trusted with a subway sandwich, muchless global economic policy. Did you now that up to 80% of all increases in global temperatures can/could be traced solely to urban heat output as cities grow?

If you are truly interested and or bored, you could search my name on these topics, I've written some lengthy replies.

 

[jond]

Looks like the 'scientists' threw out the data so no one can review their work.
Amazing....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

 

[NSX-Stalker]

Looks like the 'scientists' threw out the data so no one can review their work.
Amazing....

The science was settled so I guess there was no reason to keep the raw data. Hopefully they kept the pictures of those poor cute and cuddly drowning polar bears.

 

[NSXGMS]

Ha ha, even Al Gore is running for the hills:

http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Bal...ls-force-Al-Gore-to-cancel-talk-at-Copenhagen

I hope that this whole episode brings to light the fact that nearly ALL govt-funded research operates like this--including university grants. When the teat of the state is brought out even normally honest and well-intentioned people can't bring themselves to stop sucking on it.

None of these scientists can really be expected to call up the govt and tell them, "you know what, analysis after analysis is showing that this MMGW thing really isn't occuring and we don't want to take any more of the taxpayer's money to keep banging our heads against the wall. Even though we have PhDs that cost a fortune and are accustomed to living a very comfy lifestyle not producing anything of value and probably be out of work for some time before finding a research project that people actually demand since there are a million unproductive PhDs floating around we are going to end this GW research."

The most disheartening example is medical research where there is an incredible amount of pressure to only select research projects that will likely produce very small, virtually insignificant gains which guarantee no cure will be found anytime soon and will insure more grants will come in hopes of "eventually" finding a cure. The philosophy is to produce just enough gains in the field to justify enough progress to get more money, rinse, repeat.

And because the general public assumes that the govt is paying for this kind of research for "us" that they don't have to. Statistics show that when the perception of govt funding of any given sector is prevalent charity and donations decline among the populace in those respective sectors. Not to mention they have less disposable income to donate due to the subsequent inflation & taxes which fund the sectors.

Climategate illustrates all of the worst aspects of this. Not only is the entire GW realm something that the private sector never wanted to pay for in the first place but the nature of this research itself is almost always corrupt and inefficient.