Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Discuss world politics in relation to Islam and Muslims.
Post Reply
planck
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:16 pm
Location: Retired from FFI

Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by planck »

Turns out that global warming is completely bunk. Lying to promote a felonious agenda........ :nono1:

It's so unlike the left to blatantly lie like this about a pet cause, personally go after their opponents, and collude with mainstream journalists in order to promulgate their political beliefs.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

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 !”
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.
There's a lot of libruls eating crow about this. One of the conspirators identified in the emails is Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. The poor bastard had to write the following article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/scien ... imate.html

And the left-wing UK newspaper, the Guardian, was also a key actor. They too are doing chaos-control.

Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see

But look at the subtitle of the guardian article:
The leaked exchanges are disturbing, but it would take a conspiracy of a very different order to justify sceptics' claims
Sorry libruls......but YOU ARE BUSTED. :tomato:
Upward and onward in the fight against Islamic tyranny
User avatar
Mindstorm
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:54 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by Mindstorm »

Monbiot -- one of the greenest greens.

Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology – calls for Jones resignation
From Andrew Bolt, my “mate” down under at the Herald Sun, comes this surprise. I’ll have to say, it is to George Monbiot’s credit to do this. I embrace his first statement, because it succinctly sums up the situation:
It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them. -- George Monbiot on his personal blog
From Andrew Bolt:

Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:
It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.


Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet…

If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:
I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.
Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.
planck
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:16 pm
Location: Retired from FFI

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by planck »

Ahhh....Monbiot. That's the guy I linked to with the guardian. Good for him.

I love intellectual honesty.
Upward and onward in the fight against Islamic tyranny
User avatar
mrcommonsensenow
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:13 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by mrcommonsensenow »

Now we just need to find out how these propagandists are melting glaciers all over the world.

Glaciers Are Melting Faster Than Expected, UN Reports
ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2008) — The world's glaciers are continuing to melt away with the latest official figures showing record losses, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) announced today.

Data from close to 30 reference glaciers in nine mountain ranges indicate that between the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 the average rate of melting and thinning more than doubled.

The findings come from the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS), a centre based at the University of Zurich in Switzerland and that is supported by UNEP.

It has been tracking the fate of glaciers for over a century. Continuous data series of annual mass balance, expressed as thickness change, are available for 30 reference glaciers since 1980.

Prof. Dr. Wilfried Haeberli, Director of the Service said: "The latest figures are part of what appears to be an accelerating trend with no apparent end in sight."

The Service calculates thickening and thinning of glaciers in terms of 'water equivalent'. The estimates for the year 2006 indicate that further shrinking took place equal to around 1.4 metres of water equivalent compared to losses of half a metre in 2005.

"This continues the trend in accelerated ice loss during the past two and a half decades and brings the total loss since 1980 to more than 10.5 metres of water equivalent," said Professor Haberli. During 1980-1999, average loss rates had been 0.3 metres per year. Since the turn of the millennium, this rate had increased to about half a metre per year.

The record loss during these two decades – 0.7 metres in 1998 – has now been exceeded by three out of the past six years: 2003, 2004 and 2006.

On average, one metre water equivalent corresponds to 1.1 metres in ice thickness indicating a further shrinking in 2006 of 1.5 actual metres and since 1980 a total reduction in thickness of ice of just over 11.5 metres or almost 38 feet.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said: "Millions if not billions of people depend directly or indirectly on these natural water storage facilities for drinking water, agriculture, industry and power generation during key parts of the year," said Mr Steiner.

"There are many canaries emerging in the climate change coal mine. The glaciers are perhaps among those making the most noise and it is absolutely essential that everyone sits up and takes notice," he said.

"To an important and significant extent that is already happening—indeed the elements of a Green Economy are already emerging from the more than $100 billion being invested in renewable energies to the responsible investment principles endorsed by 300 financial institutions with $13 trillion-worth of assets," said Mr Steiner.

"The litmus test will come in late 2009 at the climate convention meeting in Copenhagen. Here governments must agree on a decisive new emissions reduction and adaptation-focused regime. Otherwise, and like the glaciers, our room for man oeuvre and the opportunity to act may simply melt away," he added.

The WGMS findings also contain figures from around 100 glaciers, of which 30 form the core assessment, found in Antarctica, Asia, Europe, North America, Latin America and the Pacific.

Some of the most dramatic shrinking has taken place in Europe with Norway's Breidalblikkbrea glacier thinning by close to 3.1 metres (2.9 metre water equivalent) during 2006 compared with a thinning of 0.3 metres (0.28 metres water equivalent) in the year 2005.

Other dramatic shrinking has been registered at Austria's Grosser Goldbergkees glacier, 1.2 metres in 2006 versus 0.3 in 2005; France's Ossoue glacier, nearly 3 metres versus around 2.7 metres in 2005; Italy's Malavalle glacier 1.4 metres versus around 0.9 metres in 2005; Spain's Maladeta glacier, nearly 2 metres versus 1.6 metres in 2005; Sweden's Storglaciaeren glacier, 1.8 metres versus close to 0.080 metres in 2005 and Switzerland's Findelen glacier, 1.3 metres versus 0.22 metres in 2005.

Not all of the close to 100 glaciers monitored posted losses with some thickening during the same period including Chile's Echaurren Norte glacier while others, such as Bolivia's Chacaltaya glacier; Canada's Place glacier; India's Hamtah glacier and the Daniels and Yawning glaciers in the Untied States shrank less in 2006 than they did in 2005.

However, for the close to 30 reference glaciers only one (Echaurren Norte in Chile) thickened over the same period.

Melting glaciers and water needs


Himalayan glaciers are receding in a similar way as glaciers in other mountain ranges at low latitudes. Many glaciers in these areas could, at current rates of global warming, disappear within the coming decades.

Half a billion people in the Himalaya-Hindu-Kush region and a quarter billion downstream who rely on glacial melt waters could be seriously affected.

The current trends in glacial melt suggest that the Ganga, Indus, Brahmaputra and other rivers that criss-cross the northern Indian plain may become seasonal rivers in the near future as a consequence of climate change with important ramifications for poverty and the economies in the region.

North America: "Heavily-utilized water systems of the western US and Canada, such as the Columbia River, that rely on capturing snowmelt runoff will be especially vulnerable," says the Fourth report of IPCC Working Group II.

A two degree C warming by the 2040s is likely to lead to sharply reduced summer flows coinciding with sharply rising demand.

The report estimates that Portland, Oregon will by then require over 26 million additional cubic meters of water as a result of climate change and population growth. This will coincide with a fall in summer supplies from the Columbia River by an estimated five million cubic meters.

Meanwhile, just over 40 per cent of the supply to southern California is likely to be vulnerable by the 2020s due to warming triggering losses of the Sierra Nevada and Colorado River basin snow pack.

In Latin America, the IPCC warns of a melting of most tropical glaciers in the near future (2020-2030).

The glacier retreat trend reported in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC is continuing and reaching critical conditions in Bolivia, Peru, Colombia and Ecuador.

Recent studies indicate that most of the South American glaciers from Colombia to Chile and Argentina (up to 25ºS) are drastically reducing their volume at an accelerated rate. Changes in temperature and humidity are the primary cause for the observed glacier retreat during the 2nd half of the 20th century in the tropical Andes. In the next 15 years inter-tropical glaciers are very likely to disappear, affecting water availability and hydropower generation.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 154235.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is not logical to believe that the same God who has allegedly endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
User avatar
RichardTheLionheart
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by RichardTheLionheart »

planck wrote:Ahhh....Monbiot. That's the guy I linked to with the guardian. Good for him.

I love intellectual honesty.
George Moonbat... sorry :oops: Monbiot is one of those "greens" who in reality is a hypocrite.
flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable, in terms of its impact on human well-being, as child abuse’.[20] Later he conceded that he did himself fly 'hypocritically or paradoxically, depending on your point of view'
the former, George. ;)

If he was really concerned he would set an example and not preach while doing the opposite.
Ex-Muslims needed to answer my questions: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4519 Serious posts only.
User avatar
Mindstorm
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:54 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by Mindstorm »

The tree people just found out AGW has been a hoax. Many people have known it for years.

So the tree people said their good-byes.



A bunch of frigging freaks.
User avatar
Mindstorm
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:54 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by Mindstorm »

A lot of people in the comment section don't like that Glenn Beck is talking about it. And a lot of people, like me, say who cares. This just brings it to a wider audience. Beck has about 2.6 + million viewers a day on TV. He has 8 million listeners on his radio show. Not only that -- Fox News is reporting this quite heavily. Rush talked about the doctoring of papers, by that science community, on his show on Friday and Monday. He has three or four time the listeners than Beck has.

This, one way of the other, will be brought before Congress.

Before the release to those documents the people of North America already stated in polls that the majority didn't believe in AGW. This should wake up a few more people.

I should add the doctoring and hiding the methodology has been going on for a while now.

From Watts Up With That.

Fox News Glenn Beck on Climategate



Also, from the comment section.



And also from the comment section, Tim Ball speaking to James Corbett.

User avatar
mrcommonsensenow
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:13 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by mrcommonsensenow »

Warming's impacts sped up, worsened since Kyoto
By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP) 11/23/09

WASHINGTON — Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated — beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then.

As the world has talked for a dozen years about what to do next, new ship passages opened through the once frozen summer sea ice of the Arctic. In Greenland and Antarctica, ice sheets have lost trillions of tons of ice. Mountain glaciers in Europe, South America, Asia and Africa are shrinking faster than before.

And it's not just the frozen parts of the world that have felt the heat in the dozen years leading up to next month's climate summit in Copenhagen:

_ The world's oceans have risen by about an inch and a half.

_Droughts and wildfires have turned more severe worldwide, from the U.S. West to Australia to the Sahel desert of North Africa.

_Species now in trouble because of changing climate include, not just the lumbering polar bear which has become a symbol of global warming, but also fragile butterflies, colorful frogs and entire stands of North American pine forests.

_Temperatures over the past 12 years are 0.4 of a degree warmer than the dozen years leading up to 1997.

Even the gloomiest climate models back in the 1990s didn't forecast results quite this bad so fast.

"The latest science is telling us we are in more trouble than we thought," Janos Pasztor, climate adviser to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

And here's why: Since an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas pollution was signed in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, the level of carbon dioxide in the air has increased 6.5 percent. Officials from across the world will convene in Copenhagen next month to seek a follow-up pact, one that President Barack Obama says "has immediate operational effect ... an important step forward in the effort to rally the world around a solution."

The last effort didn't quite get the anticipated results.

From 1997 to 2008, world carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased 31 percent; U.S. emissions of this greenhouse gas rose 3.7 percent. Emissions from China, now the biggest producer of this pollution, have more than doubled in that time period. When the U.S. Senate balked at the accord and President George W. Bush withdrew from it, that meant that the top three carbon polluters — the U.S., China and India — were not part of the pact's emission reductions. Developing countries were not covered by the Kyoto Protocol and that is a major issue in Copenhagen.

And the effects of greenhouse gases are more powerful and happening sooner than predicted, scientists said.

"Back in 1997, the impacts (of climate change) were underestimated; the rate of change has been faster," said Virginia Burkett, chief scientist for global change research at the U.S. Geological Survey.

That last part alarms former Vice President Al Gore, who helped broker a last-minute deal in Kyoto.

"By far the most serious differences that we've had is an acceleration of the crisis itself," Gore said in an interview this month with The Associated Press.

In 1997, global warming was an issue for climate scientists, environmentalists and policy wonks. Now biologists, lawyers, economists, engineers, insurance analysts, risk managers, disaster professionals, commodity traders, nutritionists, ethicists and even psychologists are working on global warming.

"We've come from a time in 1997 where this was some abstract problem working its way around scientific circles to now when the problem is in everyone's face," said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate scientist.

The changes in the last 12 years that have the scientists most alarmed are happening in the Arctic with melting summer sea ice and around the world with the loss of key land-based ice masses. It's all happening far faster than predicted.

Back in 1997 "nobody in their wildest expectations," would have forecast the dramatic sudden loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic that started about five years ago, Weaver said. From 1993 to 1997, sea ice would shrink on average in the summer to about 2.7 million square miles. The average for the last five years is less than 2 million square miles. What's been lost is the size of Alaska.

Antarctica had a slight increase in sea ice, mostly because of the cooling effect of the ozone hole, according to the British Antarctic Survey. At the same time, large chunks of ice shelves — adding up to the size of Delaware — came off the Antarctic peninsula.

While melting Arctic ocean ice doesn't raise sea levels, the melting of giant land-based ice sheets and glaciers that drain into the seas do. Those are shrinking dramatically at both poles.

Measurements show that since 2000, Greenland has lost more than 1.5 trillion tons of ice, while Antarctica has lost about 1 trillion tons since 2002, according to two scientific studies published this fall. In multiple reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, scientists didn't anticipate ice sheet loss in Antarctica, Weaver said. And the rate of those losses is accelerating, so that Greenland's ice sheets are melting twice as fast now as they were just seven years ago, increasing sea level rise.

Worldwide glaciers are shrinking three times faster than in the 1970s and the average glacier has lost 25 feet of ice since 1997, said Michael Zemp, a researcher at World Glacier Monitoring Service at the University of Zurich.

"Glaciers are a good climate indicator," Zemp said. "What we see is an accelerated loss of ice."

Also, permafrost — the frozen northern ground that oil pipelines are built upon and which traps the potent greenhouse gas methane — is thawing at an alarming rate, Burkett said.

Another new post-1997 impact of global warming has scientists very concerned. The oceans are getting more acidic because more of the carbon dioxide in the air is being absorbed into the water. That causes acidification, an issue that didn't even merit a name until the past few years.

More acidic water harms coral, oysters and plankton and ultimately threatens the ocean food chain, biologists say.

In 1997, "there was no interest in plants and animals" and how they are hampered by climate change, said Stanford University biologist Terry Root. Now scientists are talking about which species can be saved from extinction and which are goners. The polar bear became the first species put on the federal list of threatened species and the small rabbit-like American pika may be joining it.

More than 37 million acres of Canadian and U.S. pine forests have been damaged by beetles that don't die in warmer winters. And in the U.S. West, the average number of acres burned per fire has more than doubled.

The Colorado River reservoirs, major water suppliers for the U.S. West, were nearly full in 1999, but by 2007 half the water was gone after the region endured the worst multiyear drought in 100 years of record-keeping.

Insurance losses and blackouts have soared and experts say global warming is partly to blame. The number of major U.S. weather-related blackouts from 2004-2008 were more than seven times higher than from 1993-1997, said Evan Mills, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.

"The message on the science is that we know a lot more than we did in 1997 and it's all negative," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "Things are much worse than the models predicted."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9C51DV01" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is not logical to believe that the same God who has allegedly endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
User avatar
Mindstorm
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:54 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by Mindstorm »

ScienceMag.org published an article noting that deleting e-mail messages to hide them from a FOI request is a crime in the United Kingdom. George Monbiot, a U.K. activist and journalist who previously called for dramatic action to deal with global warming, wrote: "It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging."
This is slowly getting into the MSM. I see no one is able to challenge those leaked messages and emails. Not a very good week for the leftists (of course not all AGW are leftists), but with Obama's numbers going in the tank, with the left attacking Obama, with the Independents leaving the Obama camp in droves and now this.
Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails

Posted by Declan McCullagh
CBS
A few days after leaked e-mail messages appeared on the Internet, the U.S. Congress may probe whether prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories misrepresented the truth about climate change.

Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said on Monday the leaked correspondence suggested researchers "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not," according to a transcript of a radio interview posted on his Web site. Aides for Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, are also looking into the disclosure.

The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it "relies on most heavily" when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

Last week's leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field's most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data ("have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots"), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

One e-mail message, apparently from CRU director Phil Jones, references the U.K.'s Freedom of Information Act when asking another researcher to delete correspondence that might be disclosed in response to public records law: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise." Another, also apparently from Jones: global warming skeptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Jones was a contributing author to the chapter of the U.N.'s IPCC report titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.")

In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:
I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?...
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.

more ...
User avatar
mrcommonsensenow
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:13 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by mrcommonsensenow »

Mindstorm wrote: I see no one is able to challenge those leaked messages and emails. Not a very good week for the leftists
So you see the emails as proof that global warming is not real?
It is not logical to believe that the same God who has allegedly endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
User avatar
Mindstorm
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:54 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by Mindstorm »

mrcommonsensenow wrote:
Mindstorm wrote: I see no one is able to challenge those leaked messages and emails. Not a very good week for the leftists
So you see the emails as proof that global warming is not real?
Eight years of lies by the AGW people. Longer actually, but that has been about as long as I have been following it. This is just one more (and I think the finale nail in your coffin) time that they have been caught cheating, doctoring info, hiding info, threatening those who disagree with them.

Read all the information. It is available for download.
User avatar
mrcommonsensenow
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:13 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by mrcommonsensenow »

It does appear the AGW has been manipulating data and there will be hell to pay :whipper: but you did not answer my question.
It is not logical to believe that the same God who has allegedly endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
User avatar
Mindstorm
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:54 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by Mindstorm »

I have never believed in AGW. And I did answer your question.

This proves once again they went out to doctor the facts to give them numbers to prove their case. It is outright fraud.

Have you read all the information? Or any part of it?
User avatar
mrcommonsensenow
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:13 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by mrcommonsensenow »

Mindstorm wrote:I have never believed in AGW.
I see. :roll:
It is not logical to believe that the same God who has allegedly endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
User avatar
Mindstorm
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:54 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by Mindstorm »

I asked "Have you read all the information? Or any part of it?"

Since you didn't answer then I take it that is a no that you haven't bothered checking out any of the emails or text.
User avatar
mrcommonsensenow
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:13 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by mrcommonsensenow »

I read most of it. If there’s anything that contradicts the data on world glaciers feel free to point it out for me.
It is not logical to believe that the same God who has allegedly endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
User avatar
Mindstorm
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:54 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by Mindstorm »

mrcommonsensenow wrote:I read most of it. If there’s anything that contradicts the data on world glaciers feel free to point it out for me.
Good for you. So do you have a problem with those clowns lying? After all, if the science is so clear cut then why do they have the need to make the data conform to their notions rather than let science play out?

Why do they have to threaten publishers to post their information even when the publishers can see the they are light on facts and that pieces of the methodology are missing?

Why do the need to destroy information when it is requested through the freedom of information act?

This list goes on -- can you answer these questions? Why the need to doctor the information if science was truly in your court?

As an aside -- there is lots of information that contradicts your claim that glaciers -- oh wait you didn't make a claim. You didn't even say what glaciers are doing. If you want to discuss glaciers then there are other threads to do so. Whatever your glacier claim many be.
User avatar
Sten
Posts: 3205
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:19 am

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by Sten »

No no mindstorm, you're absolutely right - we should keep expanding our population into the tens of billions, burning fossil fuels, cutting down old growth forests, and polluting the atmosphere, because there's nothing wrong with it and nothing bad will happen at all. Your position is so sensible and rational. :lol:
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.
- Carl Sagan
User avatar
Chiclets
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:19 pm

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by Chiclets »

Image

:lol:
gupsfu wrote:When someone uses the "taken out of context" argument without explaining what it's really supposed to mean, you know he's lying.
Muslims are so secure in their faith that they need to kill those who don’t share it.
planck
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:16 pm
Location: Retired from FFI

Re: Global warming propagandists....BUSTED!!!

Post by planck »

The enviro-alarmists are literally frothing at the mouth over this. Now that dorothy pulled the curtain on this scam, it's now turned into a salvage operation.



mrcommonsensenow wrote:I read most of it.
Does anyone believe that mrnonsense read any of the original post? I think the only part you read was the title.

Because, let me recap the argument so far.

planck posts:
Hey, global warming propagandists have been caught lying and manipulating the data on climate change. The science is all bunk and even they're own evidence shows that the earth has not been warming in the past 10 years.

Mrnonsense posts:
THE EARTH IS GETTING WARMER since......KYOTO!!!! (in customary blue)

You do realize that the science on this whole "global warming" scam is utterly tainted and there is NO reliable evidence on proving that atmospheric temperatures are rising because people in malibu are driving Chevy Suburbans. I'm sorry, but the propagandists have shot themselves in the foot. Now if any one of these people provide research that the earth is going to burn itself out in 2 weeks---no one is going to believe them. It's the boy who cried wolf, 6856 times.

And if you enviro-alarmists were so concerned about the environment, then why didn't you support nuclear energy? It's one of the cleanest and efficient sources of energy out there.

This is what happens when science gets politicized.

BTW, I've always wondered where all this "powerful, secret, technology" exists, that can magically manipulate the global climate. I didn't realize that our civilization has reached Type 1 status yet. Because the earth is long overdue for a magnetic polarity swap......just wondering if there's anything that us hairless primates with opposable thumbs can do about that.
Upward and onward in the fight against Islamic tyranny
Post Reply