Skeptics Exaggerating Science Scandal to Derail Copenhagen Climate Talks
by Stacy Feldman - Nov 25th, 2009
Three leading scientists who yesterday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen.
"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.
The comments were made in a conference call for reporters.
The scientists—Somerville, Michael Mann of Penn State and Eric Steig of University of Washington—were supposed to be discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a dismal update of the UN IPCC's 2007 climate data by 26 scientists from eight nations.
Instead they spent much of the time defusing the hacker controversy, known in the media as "Climate Gate."
The scandal began on November 20, when an unknown hacker stole at least 169 megabytes of emails from computers at the prominent Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and put them online for the world to see.
CRU is considered one of the world's leading institutions concerned with human-caused global warming. The leaked emails contain private correspondence on climate science dating back to 1996.
Skeptics of global warming say these messages are filled with evidence of manipulated data from lead authors of the UN's highly influential IPCC reports.
U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma, pictured here), a climate skeptic, said he would launch an inquiry into UN climate change research in response.
In an interview with the Washington Times radio show, Inhofe explained the investigation would look into "the way [the UN and the IPCC] 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."
CRU Vice-Chancellor of Research Trevor Davies responded in an official statement:
"There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation."
Michael Mann, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis and lead author of the UN IPCC Third Assessment Report, blamed skeptics for taking the personal emails out of context.
"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world. Suddenly, all these are subject to cherry picking," he said.
They've turned "something innocent into something nefarious," Mann added.
The vital point being left out, he said, is that "regardless of how cherry-picked," there is "absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change."
This is a "smear campaign to distract the public," said Mann. "Those opposed to climate action, simply don’t have the science on their side," he added.
Professor Davies called the stolen data "the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign" designed "to distract from reasoned debate" about urgent action governments must take to reverse climate change.
According to Somerville, the comments in the emails "have nothing to do with the scientific case" for climate change.
It is "desperate" to launch this right before Copenhagen, Eric Steig, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, said on the call.
Sen. Inhofe, meanwhile, lauded the timing of the incident.
"The interesting part of this is it's happening right before Copenhagen. And, so, the timing couldn't be better. Whoever is on the ball in Great Britain, their timing was good," he said.
Science Can't Silence Skeptics, Still
The fallout from the scandal is putting some of the world's leading climate scientists on the defensive and underlining the influence of skeptics, even as the case for human-caused warming gets stronger.
According to the Copenhagen Diagnosis report, climate change has rapidly accelerated beyond all previous predictions and humans are to blame.
The findings are a synthesis of 200 peer-reviewed papers that continued to pour in from all over the world after the the UN IPCC issued its 2007 analysis. Somerville described the report as an "authoritative assessment" of the newest climate change data.
The results reveal that global warming emissions in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Further, sea level rise is 80 percent above past IPCC predictions.
If 2 degree Celsius warming is to be avoided—the point at which catastrophic damage is predicted to occur—fossil fuel emissions must peak between 2015 and 2020, "and then decline rapidly," the authors warn.
"There's an urgency to this that is not politically or ideological driven," said Somerville. This is "objective scientific reality," he added, and we're "running out of time," to stop the problem.
On Tuesday, three of the UK's leading science organizations—the Met Office, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society—issued an unusually strong statement in advance of Copenhagen. They wrote:
"The scientific evidence which underpins calls for action at Copenhagen is very strong. Without co-ordinated international action on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts on climate and civilisation could be severe."
See also:
Latest Science Shows Climate Change Outpacing Previous Projections
In Congressional Hearings, Amateurs Invited to Confuse Climate Science
A Climate Deception Revisited: What's Behind the Signatures of 31,478 Skeptical "Scientists"
Scientists Call on Obama, Congress to Take Stronger Climate Action
NY Times Invents a Climate Science War
Is Prominent Media Coverage of the Climate Deniers Conference Warranted?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
United Nations and Elite Globalists Want To Ignore Climate Fraud
Time is getting short and it is coming down to the fact, that soon I will have to pray to Jesus, to maintain our freedoms an not allow our leaders to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, which will take away our liberties, let go and let God-this being a challenge to our Lord and Saviour? However, while there is still time to prevent the loss of a lifetime, perhaps loss of life it's self - I will do what I am able to fight for our freedoms! The whole Climate change agenda is a proven fraud but the United Nations and Globalist governments don't care as that is just the excuse instrument they have used to ensnare us! Has everybody out there become a tree hugger? Anyone out there want to fight and maintain their freedom anymore? Please do all you can to preserve freedom in North America!
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: www.youtube.com /watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
To request that PM Harper doesn't sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca
The Gr8 Carbon Con
Carbon is not the BIG problem : Down on NZ Farm's in particular Dairy Farms. It's what they are doing or not to their soil that should be of more concern . Read The Southland Times Artical 10 Nov 09 "Underground Dwellers", there is finally a Senior soil scientist who believes that using Earthworms and other soil dwelling invertebrates could give Farmers significant Benefits to their Pastures.
Great NEWS!
Well we need to be looking at why there is a shortage of Earth Worms and other Soil Dwellers. This all leads back to the OVER use of Nitrogen (UREA).The Air we breathe is 79% Nitrogen, adding more to the pasture makes grass grow .But with No Guts and in the mean time Pasture Clover slows down it's Natural process of converting NO2 from the Air into Nitrogen which is fixed onto the Clover Roots were plants can take it up. This added Nitrogen in the form of UREA is also Poisoning off the Earth Worms and Soil Bacteria which is changing what happens Naturally in our Soil (ORGANICS) that word that Main stream Farmers don't like to hear.
Wake up NZ we are not Clean and Green down on the Farm .
The Lack of Earth Worms and the Huge increase of Dairy Farms/Dairy Cows and there effluent has lead to a Huge increase of E-Coli and Nitrates in our Drinking Water this is mainly due to the Loss of the Humble Earth Worm who Digests E-Coli and Builds up soils so they retain Nutrients 3 Times more than if there are no Worms ,Soil retains Water a Lot better with Worms in it also and if we Stop using Urea we will get rid of the Nitrates in our Water.
A lot of this added Nitrogen is ending up in our Atmosphere as Nitrous Oxide which is 310 Times a worse Green House Gas than CO2. Therefore NZ’s Problem is not CO2 Carbon,But its defiantly UREA and the over use of Nitrogen in our Soils Which is affecting the Worms and Waterways, Also Possibly in the air we Breathe.
Has this ever been Looked at by our Scientists?
Stop the UREA PLANT
Carbon and CO2 is not New Zealand Farmers worry as our Atmosphere we Breathe has only .038% of CO2 where as there is 79% of NO2 Nitrous Oxide in the Air . The Problem in NZ on our 1000's of Dairy Farms is the use of Nitrogen in the Form of "UREA" Which is Killing Natures Helpers The Soils Bacteria and Earth Worms. The Government doesn't want to recognize this problem because the Fertiliser Industry is Making Millions $$$$$ from this Man Made Poison. Yes and I read today in a Southland Business review called (b2b)Business 2 Business . Where Tax Payer Owned Solid Energy with a Joint venture with Ravensdown Fertiliser will turn poor grade Lignite coal into "UREA" the only good news for Mataura and Gore is it will employ 500 staff from mine to the processing plant. So how many Million Tonnes of this form of Nitrogen "UREA" is going to be released into our already 79% loaded Atmosphere ,Plus leached into our Drinking Waterways as Nitrate, as our Soil is over supplied with this "UREA" now we need to STOP this Lignite to UREA Plant from even getting the go ahead. UREA kills off Earth Worms and Slows down Clover Growth this is not Good for our Farms. If your Farm is more Natural and has heaps of Earth Worms eg: 30-60 per cu/ft of Soil you have it Right . This soil will have 300% more Mineral Content Giving you 36kg of FREE Nitrogen/ha, plus 15kg/ha of FREE Phosphorus, Potassium + Sulphur. No Need for any Chemical Fertilisers to be used, These Soils will have a 17% rise in Water retention needing less Irrigation and are 66% more Aerated giving 4-10 Times faster Drainage without coursing Leaching as the Soil Retains the Nutrients in the root zones of the Pasture Plants.
So John Key Tell us the Truth, New Zealand is hiding from Copenhagen because if this was to get out about Nitrous Oxide "UREA" the NZ Govt would have to Stop NZ Farmers from using UREA! More Earth Worms==No E-Coli in our Water!
Karl Barkley Email sdsfarmsupplies@hotmail.com
Data, Data and More Data
Deniers and skeptics need to deal with the data, even though no amount of empirical, peer-reviewed data will ever be enough for them.
Here it is.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/
"Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that has clear resonance far beyond the people who are actually interested in analysing data themselves. However, many of the people raising this issue are not aware of what and how much data is actually available.
Therefore, we have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc...."
"The climate science community fully understands how important it is that data sources are made as open and transparent as possible, for research purposes as well as for other interested parties, and is actively working to increase accessibility and usability of the data. We encourage people to investigate the various graphical portals to get a feel for the data and what can be done with it. The providers of these online resources are very interested in getting feedback on any of these sites and so don’t hesitate to contact them if you want to see improvements."
Liar.
Just because those with a vested interest in keeping the now-proven lie of "Global Warm...er, I mean "Climate Change" alive (the name change necessary when the mean temps of the world for the past five years and counting are COOLER than normal, perpetuating the lie further) have put up a website filled with "unbiased" data is in itself a lie as those same people are very biased towards the hoax and government sponsored extortion of the American people through fraudulent ideologies such as the now terminally ill "Cap & Tax" bill, for all intents and purposes now considered dead.
The very fact that the CRU emails had to be STOLEN goes to the fact that they're filled with "smoking gun" revelations of deciet, outright lying, personal and public attacks (and you have the balls, with a straight face no less, to say that those who've proven the lie are the real one doing the "smear" campaign) or they would have been public record, because really now - why try to hide the lie if you've nothing to hide, especially when you claim it's all nothing but pure, unfiltered truth?
You people really need to give it up. You've all done your part to lie for so long, you've forgotten the early lies necessary to cover up the main lie (of "GW/CC") and so on, to the point where you all are so spun around you can't remember half the lies you've told and are now looking more and more pathetic, EXACTLY like the criminal who's been caught and is in a state of sheer panic at the thought.
Oh, and for the record, Copenhagen is dead. Sure there will still be meetings, but the fact of the matter is, not only have the other world leaders come out and said that they will not discuss anything related to "GW/CC" because of the massive imbalance of spending from the other countries invovled vs. the cost coming from the U.S., not to mention that Obama's OWN ADMINISTRATION has said there will be no "GW/CC" discussions. But as is always the case with pathalogical liars, when confronted with the truth they continue the lie, looking extremely sad and utterly pathetic.
You really shoud try getting your news from sources other than the sycophant, Obama administration lapdog "news" outlets here in America, reminding me of a quote from Thomas Jefferson in 1789: "A man who reads nothing is far smarter than a man who reads nothing but newspapers." A true visionary, making the "inventor" of the internet, ALGORACLE a pathetic snake-oil salesman and a pretty sorry one at that.
Oh, and one more thing: in light of the now proven lie of "GW/CC", ALGORACLE'S "sci-fi fantasy" movie (so many lies were proven, it's no longer catagorized as a "documentary" but now deemed as "fiction") "An Inconvenient Truth" is deliciously ironic, isn't it?
Give up the ghost. You've all been proven to be lying liars lying for the surpreme liars of current note - Pelosi, Reid and the entire administration of The Chosen One, now a laughable king without a stick of clothing.
Pathetic. Sad. But oh so VERY true.
Below are a few quotes that are very relevent in light of the growing number of base similarities between the governments of Hitler and Obama:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Joseph Goebbels, Chief NAZI Propagandist
“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” – Joseph Goebbels, Chief NAZI Propagandist
"I'm a big believer in technology and openness when it comes to the flow of information. Then citizens can hold their own government accountable and they can begin to think for themselves." - Barack Obama
"Democracy requires accountability and accountability requires transparency and I promise as President to operate with a level of transparency not seen in our lifetime." - Barack Obama
Rant, Rant and More Rant
The data wins.
Knucklehead. The past 5
Knucklehead. The past 5 years haven't been cooler than normal. The last decade was the warmest on record. it's only that the last 5 years weren't quite as hot as the hottest year on record, 1998. That doesn't constitute cooling.
These scientist have been
These scientist have been caught red handed commiting fraud. Everyone on this planet should be enraged, especially those who bought into their lies. Instead, these people are attempting to dismiss the blatent truth in order to cling to their beliefs.
For all those still trying to cling to the global warming hoax, suck it up and move on.
your outrage is misplaced...
and it is a shame that you would be more willing to swallow gallons of liquified corporate bull manure, than think.
Here's a way to think about it, that will probably benefit you greatly.
How it all ends
By the way are you like most gullible climate parrots - interested in just two areas of scientific enquiry - climate, cloning and evolution - prompted solely by the evangelicly crippled GOP? Or does your interest in science constitute no more than the flapping but soft and fuzzy gums of a sock puppet?
Climate change
This website is a den of hardcore neo-communist delusion. EXTREME DENIAL here which is ironic given that this is one of the key attack words used in order to shut down rational discussion and debate.
Try reading before reacting
Check your premises, Damian. If you study the history of Communism (it's always wise to understand the motivations of the opposition, just as it's wise to actually read some of what you're attacking), you won't find news reporting that clearly marks the sources of its figures and gives a voices to those who are under attack. You will instead find denigration of scientists and the educated, efforts to keep the masses uninformed, and threats to anyone who strays from what they're told by a few powerful talking heads to think and say.
Emissions Targets
The US and China have finally announced real numbers for their targets to reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately these numbers, especially from the US, are far too weak. We need a strong agreement at Copenhagen, but this won't get us there. In many ways, a weak agreement at Copenhagen could be even worse than no agreement, as it would lock in targets too small to make a significant difference.
http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/11/emissions-targets.html
From the Horse's Mouth
This article should be of interest to anyone seeking to truly understand the e-mails. It is an interview with one of authors.
There's a mob that has already issued a final verdict, and the vehemence of their response ought to give all of us pause. Why listen to one of the people actually involved?
Here's Michael Mann in his own words on the stolen CRU emails:
http://www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-his-own-words-stolen-cru-emails
No doubt the mob will jump all of over Mann's words, and make more jeering noise.
Alas.
Joke of the Year
You can't be serious.
Desmogblog as a source of reality??
HaHa. keep smokin dude.
The data from RealCrimate is now so suspect that its value is near that of the $US.
The truth is that the biggest criminal fraud in human history is coming undone. Watch more Real scientists come out and unite. The reputation of their society is now open to question. For Steig & Mann to issue another hysterical paper & in the same breath complain that the timing of the hack is to do with the BS in CopenHagen beggars belief. ( hey, Eric, hows Antarctica???)
regards
Caught with their lying pants down...
So we finally see the inner "workings" of the alarmists. The skulduggery, the manipulation, the intimidation. And why? Didn't Al "Inventor of the Internet" Gore tell us the so-called "scientific debate" is over? Isn't AGW a "proven" fact? But then I'm confused - why have the alarmists scurried away from AGW and now hang their hat on "climate change" moniker instead? Perhaps the Truth is the real "inconvenient" truth...
What You Need to Know
The SwiftHack Scandal: What You Need to Know
First of all, this story should never have been called ClimateGate. Given the similarities between this smear job and the Swift Boat attacks on Senator John Kerry, SwiftHack is a far more appropriate name.
I’ve attempted to cover the major points of interest in this story. Consider this post a perpetual work in progress. It will be continually updated.
For your convenience, the following 6 points each links to the corresponding section of this post:
The scientific consensus on climate change remains strong.
The impacts of catastrophic climate change continue to rear their ugly head.
Hacking into private computer files is illegal.
All of the emails were taken out of context.
The story is being pushed by far-right conspiracy theorists.
Scientists are human beings and they talk frankly amongst themselves.
Read the rest here:
http://enviroknow.com/2009/11/25/climategate-the-swifthack-scandal-what-...
What everyone should know
The funds provided to these self espoused unbiased scientists have come out of the pockets of the people. As such, the denials to access information represent censoreship. Indeed the repeated references to maintaining secrecy that can be discerned by any that read through their unholy diatribes, is in itself a crime against the truth.
The consensus is not strong amongst the many millions of politically aware and well informed people that have been hoodwinked by this global agenda.
The impacts of the present cooling that is occuring across the globe as the sun remains quiet, presents a far more ugly picture of the future, especially for the millions of people suffering lower income levels thanks to the crooked dealings of the financial cabals that are nested within the same ponzy gangs.
Taking money from the public purse to forward a political agenda towards the imposition of taxes is a crime. Inciting others to block the publication of opposing views is a crime against science.
I've read through many of these emails and no where can I find evidence that anything has been taken out of context.
The story is not being pushed by right wing extremists, but environmentalists like me that see the simultaneous continued destruction of the environment by the same crooks as have perpetrated this fraud.
I have been working with living ecologies & water resource management for more than 25 years and employ climatic data sets. Oddly, NONE of them show the warming claimed.
The solutions for autonomy in energy & food production are all around us, but people are prevented from their implementation through the restrictions imposed by fictitious dead entities (corporations) that regard humans as nothing more than one more resource to be used and abused at will.
The levels of corruption that we see manifest in academia are destroying human health and the environment. When academia becomes the property of the controlling forces, especially those that will gain huge dividends, then it becomes worthless.
This winter has already broken records for extreme cold & early snowfall across three continents and I will happily and confidently predict that it will continue to get colder.
We are witnessing the not so covert geo-engineering & manipulation of the electromagnetism of the atmosphere along with the deployment of large scale weather modification. At the same time, the deployment of biological weapons with complimentary vaccinations, designed to sicken & deplete human resistence.
If these self appointed globalists were intent on solving these psuedoscientific problems, then what we should see, is the aggressive promotion of alternative energy along with equally forceful restrictions of genetically modified organisms. But no, as ever, their solution requires the punishment of the very people they are supposed to serve.
I for one, have had enough of these Al Gore ithms. The man is a scoundrel & gangster along with the likes of Maurice Strong.
Here's some more "facts"
Here's some more "facts" which match yours on just about every level:
Galileo was wrong because the "consensus" then was that the world is flat.
Bad weather continues to rear its ugly head, and it's still our fault for having dissed "mother earth."
Hacking computer files is wrong -- unless the hackee happens to be conservative or considered "bad" or "mean" by "progressives" like you.
Hitler was taken out of context when he said "we must solve the Jewish question once and for all."
Liberals shouldn't have been believed about Watergate.
Those documents seized from the Nazis after World War II meant nothing because "Nazis are human beings and they talk frankly among themselves."
-- Spare me the claims of the moral high ground, Sparky. Your pals have been caught here and their asses aren't talking their way out of this one.
Right, this is all one Vast
Right, this is all one Vast Right Wing Conspiracy against you and the rest of the followers of International Socialism.
You're being "swift boated" by your own scientists' own words.
How terrible, that someone would actually take your OWN WORDS, and hold them against you.
Oh, the humanity!
Oh, what a tangled web we
Oh, what a tangled web we weave
Not a Gamechanger
Reuters ANALYSIS-
Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer
Criminal
The simple fact is that they clearly attempted to conspire to obstruct and hide information that was specifically requested via the UK's Freedom Of Information Act. Which is a specific crime.
It is also clear that they conspired to contaminate the Peer review process by bullying journals to keep them from publishing even slightly critical material from people who otherwise agree about Anthropogenic Global Warming. Not to mention those that disagree about AGW. This is a "criminal" corruption of the scientific process which allows them to keep repeating that those who disagree do not publish in peer review journals.
It is also clear they modified data and altered the code in their computer models to at least amplify the apparent warming effect in order to make themselves seem more credible.
It is also clear that they did much of this in order to justify further exorbitant funding from various government and non-government agencies, which is a crime in nearly every case.
It is hard to overstate the level of damage they have caused and it is surprising that serious criminal investigations have not already started. The appropriate government prosecutors should have already raided the offices of these "scientists" and seised files, computers and related evidence for the criminal prosecution.
"fact ... clear ... hard ..."
Every single paragraph you write begins with strong declaratory words that do not, certainly not at this time, stand up to any rationale discussion. It is not "a simple fact", it is not "clear" on any of your points, and it is quite easy "to overstate the level of damage that they have caused".
See below
Take a look at my reply to Lina below. This stuff is very obvious if you simply read through some of the files.
Gee, David G, where's your evidence to back up your allegations?
IT sure is easy to keep saying "the simple fact" and "it's also clear," but you don't provide any facts to support your allegations. The violation of a law, particularly criminal law, requires proof. So, what specific facts do you have that a crime was committed, and which criminal law was violated?
The evidence is what we are talking about
Sorry if I didn't state it directly site the source files, but I assumed that we were all familiar with the files in question (download your own copy you can search them at your leisure) the clear evidence is in the emails and source code that have already been stipulated by the scientists in question as valid.
So here is just one reference for each of my allegations. Though if you look at the emails yourself you will find that there are several. The fact that you asked for this shows that you are not familiar with the content of the files in question:
1) The conspiracy to hide information subject to Freedom Of Information act requests:
the phrase "freedom of information act" appears in several of the email exchanges. Each in reference to how to avoid compliance for example this quote from Phil Jones of CRU to Micheal Mann:
"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. "
- the fact is that the file in question was already subject to several Freedom of information act requests.
2a) Corrupting the Peer Review Process there are several references to the peer review process in the correspondence and supporting documents. Several appear to be legitimate concern over ensuring that people use the process properly (that would be good science) however there are a few cases where they have pressured publications to fire editors who publish papers that contradict their preconcieved ideas. In fact they attempt to black ball one publication all together here is an example of a response to a paper that disagrees (that was published in Climate Research):
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...
The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
later they attempt to blackball the publication rather than presenting papers that contradict 'Soon & Baliunas' which would have been good science they simply try to blackball them.
2b) While holding back conflicting information because it has not been peer reviewed even though they have already corrupted that process to ensure that it can't be properly reviewed to their acceptance. there is this from Micheal Mann to Edward Cook, an apparently neutral scientist at Columbia who has some valid data which conflicts with that of Micheal Mann and others:
(after a note about how they are working to get new numbers from tree core data which sounds like it is what we later find out is manipulated to just three trees which agree with their models)
>I'm just a bit concerned that the result is getting used publically(sp), by
>some, before it has gone through the gauntlet of peer review.
>Especially because it is, whether you condone it or not, being used as
>we speak to discredit the work of us, and Phil et al, this is dangerous.
Ed Cook apparently didn't know how much the review process had been manipulated as he agrees to hold up the release of his data.
3) they altered their the code of their computer models to cover up data which conflicts with their view.
This has been addressed by others in this thread. Andrew (below) has posted one of the key files. Fortran is not that difficult if you just read it closely you can see the array of values that are hard coded to alter the data. Even if you don't know fortan (That is the very large majority of the public and scientists alike) you can clearly read the comments by the programmer who appears to disagree with the cover up he has been asked to apply in the code.... I do know fortran and if you like I can do a complete break down the pertinent sections of code.
4) they did this to justify their grants from government and other orgs.
If this isn't obvious enough, The files include several grant applications read through them and you see that their claims of past accuracy are key to their requests for new grant funds. In short if they were to get repeatedly proven wrong they might not (better not) get the same level of grant money.
Falsifying information to justify grant requests is illegal!
All of you anonymous and
All of you anonymous and oddly named individuals suddenly commenting here are welcome to post your comments, as well as those of you who have provided a full name.
The amateur science on display in them is patently prejudiced and not worth very much, and perhaps I do it overmuch compliment even calling it science. Coming as it does in a loud and noisy pack, it coerces undeserved attention, but in the end it speaks for itself with the hollow and repetitive sound of an echo of no substance.
It is worth noting that because human beings were using a man-made propellant to spray deodorant into their armpits for a few decades, a hole the size of a continent opened up in the ozone layer over the Antarctic, and Ronald Reagan saw fit to sign a treaty which the Senate ratified called the Montreal Protocol. It is doing its job, and has already phased out more than 95 dangerous chemicals from release into the atmosphere.
Trained and expert scientists are warning us that a problem of even greater magnitude is upon us called global warming -- not because we are spraying our armpits with deodorant, but because we are annually releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere with no end in sight, in a great and constant unseen conflagration.
Unless the scientific community corrects itself through a skeptical process of incessant verification -- which is the nut of the scientific method -- the warning will stand, and it is the best knowledge available for guiding our actions.
But as I said, you are welcome to post your objections, accusations, insults and comments here for all to see, even if under cover of easy anonymity, even if with the bullying force of gang, and even if it isn't really science.
After all, this sudden arrival of new readers of uniform opinion serves only to verify our story. It lends credence to the scientists who believe this whole affair is above all else a "smear campaign."
(And "smear" is too kind a word to apply to the effort to equate the fine reporter who wrote this accurate story with a Nazi mastermind. Mr. Huettner, have you no shame?)
No anonymosity here!
Amatuer science!
I have worked professionally with landscape & water resource management for more than two decades, so I'll dispense with any accusations of the like.
I have a challenge for you.
Since I utilise weather data for the purposes of prediction & mitigation within a real world design process and CANNOT find any corelation between the claims made by the IPCC & CRU in relation to the rates of warming, are you seriously suggesting that I should adjust my designs to suit their deceptions (for that is exactly how I have come to see them after extensive research).
Many of my projects involve the deployment of capital plant & machinery, so the weather plays an extremly important role in the efficiency with which I complete the projects. Due to the shameful performance of weather prediction from the UK's Met Office, I took the conscious decision to begin to look elsewhere a number of years ago. Thankfully I found others that monitor solar activity & was able atlast to reliably plan & execute projects with considerably less risk.
Next we should move onto to the culpability of the human in all of this. What are the forces that drive consumerism & the abject neglect of this place? The answer is really very simple, through the imposition of control from vested interests into all aspects of the human experience, we find that the human has been hoodwinked & blinkered into following behavioural patterns designed to ensure their blind ignorance & subservience to fictional dead entities (corporations).
It is clearly evident that it is the activity of these corporations along with their supporting vested interests (especially the central & global banking system) that are the truly culpable within all areas where we see harm. This extends even to the administration of justice, education, healthcare, agriculture & wars. All of which are presenting serious threat to all life forms that we share this place with.
The only smear campaigns that I have seen evidence of, are embedded within the emails & other collaborative players in this deception. Those of us that hold the view that climate change is a constant & ever changing phenomena outside the influence or control of the human being, have been called any number of insulting terms.
The shame should lay with those that regard population reduction as the goal, and we KNOW EXACTLY WHO these demonically minded psychopaths are.
Real environmentalism
One more point here:
I am concerned about clearcutting of old-growth and rainforests. I am concerned about the fouling and pollution of our environment where unbridled capitalism is allowed to run amok (as in the Pacific Rim these days). I'm concerned that right now there's an enormous sea of trash floating in the Pacific. I'm concerned that some species are being hunted to extinction to satisfy the desire for aphrodisiacs or holistic cures or shark fin soup. I'm concerned about REAL pollutants like Mercury, Chromates, Lead and other waste products fouling our environment and making life miserable for all living things.
What I have zero tolerance for is scientific chicanery, fraud, and socialist agendas covered with a patina of environmentalism. I have zero tolerance for people who's real object is money, power and advancing "the cause" of international socialism, rather than the cause of truth and science.
The fact is, what these documents show is that the Hadley CRU people and their cronies are despicable. One email describes a "scientist's" discomfort with falling temps over the past few years because it could harm his chances of landing a big contract with Siemens. Other emails describe concerted efforts to destroy documents in the face of FOIA requests. Still others talk about "fudge factors," and other efforts to "hide the decline" in recent annual temps and to bury medieval warming. And there's more, much more, if you even bother reading this stuff.
Computer code reveals seemingly arbitrary additions to temp data after 1980, while "forcing" and "smoothing" and data grafting "tricks" are used to hide the fact that the decade of the 1930s was at least as warm as the dreaded 1990s, and that the average temps have been falling over the past few years. Fortunately for those of us who care about truth, honor and scientific integrity, the programmers left their comments in the code, demonstrating exactly how the fraud worked. As an added bonus, one programmer's comments reveal utter frustration at trying to reconcile reality with the garbage he's being supplied as "data." He couldn't even make their garbage software run, and yet we are being asked to hand over our sovereignty and our money to an unaccountable international body based on this junk science.
So, spare me your Alinskyite rage. You can't "smear" someone with their own phrases, and there's no way to take phrases like "hide the decline" in temperature out of context, just like there's no way to take phrases like "final solution to the Jewish problem" out of context. The words mean exactly what they say, these frauds meant exactly what they said when they used them, and so long as you defend this fraud, you are part of the problem; not the solution.
"you are welcome to post
"you are welcome to post your objections, accusations, insults and comments here for all to see, even if under cover of easy anonymity, even if with the bullying force of gang, and even if it isn't really science."
The "bullying force of a gang" in the defense of something that "isn't really science" is exactly what the CRU has been doing for years.
Amateur science
Of course, you can't address the real issues here, so you just attack the messenger. Saul Alinsky and Dr. Goebbels would be proud.
In fact, the entire focus of this article is to trumpet the "objections, accusations, insults and comments" of the warmist cabal without -- of course -- telling any of the readers what was actually in these emails and other files.
Sorry, pal, there's no way to misinterpret phrases like "hide the decline" or to misunderstand calls for the blatant destruction of emails and other communications.
You're the one with no shame, pal. You're the one defending the biggest scientific fraud in history as somehow being a "fact." Well, pal, it was a "fact" in Nazi Germany that Jews were inferior, because loser nabobs were too afraid to question what they were being told.
I'll wear my "shame" here as a badge of pride. So, again, ta for now! See you at the Congressional hearings and, hopefully, the criminal trials of these liars.
Beyond shame
Your comments are beyond shameful and it sad that the website allow them to remain.
Sure, censorship -- just
Sure, censorship -- just like these hacks were practicing by jigging the peer review process -- is the way to go, isn't it.
Keep talking, Dr. Goebbels. Some day, you may achieve your perfect world; once your political enemies have all been silenced.
Going Nazi
Doesn't really matter what your point is. Once you go Nazi you have changed the subject so severely that your point is ignored.
It would be like a liberal quote Robert Byrd to help prove an argument. Once you've held the title Exalted Cyclops in the KKK you loose the right to be taken at face value.
You know, if you're going to
You know, if you're going to make a comment, it ought to be sensical.
Stop frothing and start thinking about who the real liars and national (international?) socialists are here.
Chill
If you didn't have such a reflexive reaction (which most people will claim that they expect from someone who brings Nazis into the debate) you'd see that for the most part I agree with you, but your point gets lost on the rest of the world when you bring in the Nazis.
I agree that my slam of Robert Byrd is out of context, but I was using that as a hat tip that I agreed with you and that the Left wing has their protected crazies as well.
All the kings horses
Gee, Stacy, it appears from the comments here (the ones which haven't been deleted yet) that the general public would beg to differ with you on this one.
As a career attorney, I can't wait for the indictments to start being handed up to these alchemist court jesters at Hadley and elsewhere, who've been actively defrauding all of us for years.
You can claim whatever you want. Lefty progressives always pitch a tent over the "right to privacy" when a leak affects them; even though they're always for "full disclosure" and the "right to know" when some evil conservative is the target of the leak. The data and emails say what they say, and no amount of journalistic legerdemain is going to change that.
So far, I've seen strong evidence of conspiracy, spoliation, fraud, destruction of evidence, defamation, conflict of interest and assorted other crimes and torts here; not to mention whatever criminal penalties come with actively thwarting FOIA requests by purposely destroying data and emails.
Whether or not this slime is brought to justice, you can bet there's going to be ZERO support for AGW theories from here on in unless there is a thorough, open, public audit of all AGW research by REAL scientists; not just a cabal of 50 lefty "experts" whose dedication to "the cause" and lining their own pockets clearly trumps any commitment they might have had to truth or the scientific method.
Perhaps you should actually read the emails, program code (and comments) and other files generated by the people you're so actively and obviously defending here. My only question is, exactly how do people like you sleep at night? I'd rather quit my job rather than flak for guilty fraudsters. Goebbels would be proud. There's not an inch of difference between the techniques you used in your artice and the ones he pioneered in the 1930s.
Is it just that "the cause" (as one of these charlatans openly referred to it in an email) is more important to those of you who are hip, in the know, and couldn't care less about the truth? If so, then there's truly no difference between you and Dr. Goebbels.
Congrats! You've really "made it."
lol, you're one helluva lawyer...
I had difficulty getting past your first sentence:
A handful of comments, some from anonymous users, is what you call the "general public"? Cripes, a handful does not constitute the general public, not even a representative sample of the general public.
Yep, true Alinskyite here.
Yep, true Alinskyite here. Diminish, marginalize, change the subject, ridicule... never address the real charges.
Your BFFs are the ones with the 'splaining to do here, not me, pal.
Forget about the 'personal emails'. Look the code
I realize that most of you are not programmers but I think most people understand
the meaning of the terms "ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION" and "fudge factor".
This is from the source code that was in the leaked information. It is its own context.
It is an unambiguous set of directions to a computer to perform some operations.
It can only be interpreted by the computer in one way, the way the author wrote it!
Computers do not tell the truth, they only say what they have been told to say.
Forget the emails, look at the code, note the ‘fudge factor’
From FOI2009/FOIA/documents/harris-treebriffa_sep98_e.pro
; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
Some code removed here for brevity.
;
; Now normalise w.r.t. 1881-1960
;
mknormal,densadj,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
Some code removed here for brevity.
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
;
And you know this is the correct interpretation how?
Seriously - how do you know that this isn't a note that this section needs to be cleaned up? I put notes like this in electrical models when I can't get them working right but I know that the correction is accurate. The note is there to remind me to take a look at it again. Without asking the scientists who wrote it, there's no way to know the context of this comment
Harry is buggy working code, not final model code. And the final code is publicly available at GISS. Oh, and Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate addresses this one specifically in the comment threads to the two main CRU posts.
I realize that you, and most of your fellow "skeptics," are hunting for smoking guns. Be aware that human beings have a psychological need to find patterns, even where none exist.
At this point, the only potentially damaging real pattern is the FOI stuff, and that's only a real problem if emails actually were deleted. We don't know that yet.
I'll tell you what...
How about we subject this "final code" (sans "fudge factors" and other artificial corrections) to an open, formal, and thorough design review process (including objective researchers and software engineers), publicly review the measurements to be used as input, apply those inputs to the compiled code, and see if all the prior results are duplicated.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Formal design reviews are standard procedure in the software development world, having been used extensively - regardless of problem domain - for decades. Without a doubt, such a process would ferret out any inconsistencies and expose any potential fraud.
What the media doesn't seem to understand is that you don't want to p!ss of the software development community by simply trying to deny, rationalize, and attempt to discredit their concerns. They know what they are talking about. Research scientists may be experts in their domain of specialty but programmers know more about programming than any climate scientist, I assure you.
This will not go away like some two-bit politician unable to withstand the heat of public humiliation. Programmers will not be diverted from their concerns by mere rhetoric. You better have REAL, substantiated facts in your arsenal before you go to war with these people!
Just a thought!
Um, because some of us who
Um, because some of us who understand Fortran know how the code will run.
Sorry if it's beyond your level of understanding; but that's your problem.
Theories, models and Mann, et al
refer:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
=====
data4alps.pro
IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.
…and:
mxdgrid2ascii.pro
NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).
=====
iow, if the techniques and data support Mann’s little theory, it’s good data…until it doesn’t support his theory, then he’ll keep the stuff that supports his theory and ignore what doesn’t, even if it’s from the same data set using the same techniques.
IOW, the theory – the computer model isn’t predictive. iow, The theory fails utterly according to common – and global – scientific practices. When the data must be ignored or manipulated in order to validate the theory, the theory – the model – is wrong.
see also:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091117/jsp/nation/story_11748791.jsp
“Cold water on UN monsoon forecast models”
G.S. MUDUR
====
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206
Go. Read, Learn. Don't take anyone else's word for granted, not even mine. Do your own research. Think for yourself.
Excellent advice
I'd also add "understand the context" to your "Do your own research."
And the context of the "decline" has been well known in academic circles since 1998. In other words, this particular line of attack has already been disproven.
FORTRAN
leading bit is sign of #
sum of squares is large negative?
lol
Any real scientist should be
Any real scientist should be outraged by the attempts to suppress dissenting views, and the refusals to share data and methodologies. Perhaps it's too much to expect the vast majority of the population who have no scientific or engineering training to understand this. It is clearly too much to expect most journalists to understand this.
Watch the wheels fall off
Watching this fall apart will be most enjoyable. Arrogant elitists exposed for what they are....liars.
PLEASE!! YOUR CAUGHT!! DEAL
PLEASE!!
YOUR CAUGHT!! DEAL WITH IT!
instead of capping trade and a carbon tax on breathing.
we should be focusing on real environmental problems like GMO foods, spills,
genetically modified animals.
by the way climate change is happening... it's happening naturally NOT entirely made by man as you would lead us to believe.
which is exactly what these scientists have done.
artificial manipulation of the data to make you believe it's only caused by man.
AAAAAAAH!!!
unbelievable.
really? if you think that climate change is happening now...
regardless of causation, how can you possibly say that we should ignore cap and trade as a remedy and focus on "real environmental problems like GMO foods, spills, genetically modified animals"?
If you don't like cap and trade, then propose another remedy for the climate change happening now. Because that climate change happening now is causing impacts and the nature, frequency and gravity of impacts will only worsen over time.
IT makes no sense to say that you agree that climate change is happening now but you refuse to try to address with remedies because you think the causation is something other than what has been determined by scientists around the world.
Europe and the USA can waltz to the music all they want
China is fully aware that man made climate warming is a hoax.
The game is over.
Post new comment