The Truth Matters

Global Warming

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling

This is for you AGW apologists that think the CRU emails are a non-issue. This is from some of the actual code contained in the data files. \FOIA\documents\os born-tree6\s ummer_modes\data4s weden.pro printf,1,’IMPORTAN T NOTE:’ printf,1,’The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density’ printf,1,’records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer’ printf,1,’temperat ure in many high-latitude locations. In this data set’ printf,1,’this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way , and’ printf,1,’this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring printf,1,’density variations, but have been modified to look more like the printf,1,’observed temperatures.‘ - BUT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO LOOK MORE LIKE THE OBSERVED TEMPERATURES (in other words, GIGO, made up data). There are a number of other similar examples in the actual code that expose this fraud. Game over.  (9 hrs ago | post #12)

Global Warming

Breaking News Story: Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked – hu...

This is for you AGW apologists that think the CRU emails are a non-issue. This is from some of the actual code contained in the data files. \FOIA\documents\os born-tree6\summer_ modes\data4sweden. pro printf,1,’IMPORTAN T NOTE:’ printf,1,’The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density’ printf,1,’records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer’ printf,1,’temperat ure in many high-latitude locations. In this data set’ printf,1,’this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way , and’ printf,1,’this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring printf,1,’density variations, but have been modified to look more like the printf,1,’observed temperatures.‘ - BUT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO LOOK MORE LIKE THE OBSERVED TEMPERATURES Game over.  (10 hrs ago | post #62)

Global Warming

Breaking News Story: Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked – hu...

As a poster on Wattsup aptly said, "Regarding the data itself, it has been commented that the interesting part is that there is no sign of any great conspiracy. I never thought there was one. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, and all that. What has happened shouldn’t surprise anyone. With sharply expanding budgets during the late 80:s, the climate orgs started to attract those who had a very ideological agenda rather than a scientific mindset. These people were all ready to bend the truth they found by simply asking only the questions they wanted. The IPCC goals are clear: Find support for AGW. After that, the people starting their careers in climate science found that they could only get funding if their research supported AGW. It became extremely important to people to stick to the approved road. Eventually, the politicians found AGW useful for adding huge new taxes and regulations, and they threw in their support, but on condition that further interior weeding progressed so as not to be criticized. From the politicians, they got their major two gifts: Keeping the raw data secret, and a media advantage compared to the critics. In short: You don’t need a conspiracy to turn an entire field of science into an ideological church of kumbayah. You only need money and human nature, as always."  (Saturday Nov 21 | post #49)

Global Warming

Breaking News Story: Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked – hu...

It seems that Unfair Game must rely on deceit because he can't refute the fact of the damage that has been done to his beloved AGW belief system and to his money-grubbing, so-called "scientists " by the release of these emails. Suck it up, as the latest article in Investors Business Daily says, "It is the warm-mongers who are spinning in the wrong direction. We win. You lose. Get a life."  (Saturday Nov 21 | post #45)

Global Warming

Breaking News Story: Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked – hu...

You have no credibility with your blind faith (the scientists concerned have already admitted the validity of these emails) and neither do these so-called 'scientists'. Here's the real conspiracy: geo said (12:54:19): I see two conspiracies here, one that may in fact be criminal. One is to subvert the peer-reviewed literature in a knowing, systematic, organized manner. Probably not against the law, but it should be enough to wreck careers to try it. The second, which may surely be against the law, is a conspiracy to delete data that is protected by law, and to deny access to it that is protected under law through a series of concerted actions. Also, IMNSHO, Phil Jones needs to be frog-marched out of his office today, with a guard on either side of him, the keys and access to anything and everything having to do with this area removed permanently. By offering that he would rather see the raw temp data deleted than let Steve McIntyre have it, in my mind he implicitly made a threat that is both criminal in law and would also be a huge crime against science to actually do so or look the other way while others did so. Such a man can not be allowed to be left in a position where he might be able to carry out that threat in the future.  (Friday Nov 20 | post #33)

Global Warming

Breaking News Story: Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked – hu...

You kids always believe the scary stories that the other kids tell you even though they are just that - stories. It's just like the scary stories told by the campfire or by flashlight to see who can tell the scariest story. Kids are gullible because they haven't learned enough to reason critically - the same goes for most of the AGW zealots. Anyway you look at these emails, these “scientists” worked hard to prevent any paper that did not toe their line from appearing in the peer-reviewed journals. They pressured editors, asked referees specifically to reject these papers for any supposed reason, while AT THE SAME TIME gleefully commenting in public on the lack of publications on the side of climate skeptics. Fraud is too kind a word for their machinations.  (Friday Nov 20 | post #31)

Global Warming

Breaking News Story: Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked – hu...

How about the following from the UK Telegraph? http://blogs.teleg raph.co.uk/news/ja mesdelingpole/1000 17393/climategate- the-final-nail-in- the-coffin-of-anth ropogenic-global-w arming/ 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 !”  (Friday Nov 20 | post #27)

Global Warming

Breaking News Story: Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked – hu...

Included in this data dump are emails detailing the corruption of the peer review process by the warmists. Here's just one of the tamer examples (it gets worse): From: Ben S*nter To: P.J*nes Subject: Re: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript] Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:56:40 -0700 >> Dear folks, >> >> I just returned from my trip to Australia – I had a great time there. >> Now (sadly) it’s back to the reality of Douglass et al. I’m forwarding >> the second set of comments from the two Reviewers. As you’ll see, >> Reviewer 1 was very happy with the revisions we’ve made to the paper. >> Reviewer 2 was somewhat crankier. The good news is that the editor >> (Glenn McGregor) will not send the paper back to Reviewer 2, and is >> requesting only minor changes in response to the Reviewer’s comments. >> >> Once again, Reviewer 2 gets hung up on the issue of fitting higher-order >> autoregressive models to the temperature time series used in our paper.  (Friday Nov 20 | post #26)

Global Warming

Breaking News Story: Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked – hu...

It seems that those with a religious belief in AGW are jumping to defend the alleged fraudsters before all the facts are known. You can tell that they are religious zealots by the invective spewed against the "non-believer s and questioners" of the dogma - it's the sure sign of a zealot.  (Friday Nov 20 | post #16)

Global Warming

Breaking News Story: Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked – hu...

It seems that the alarmists have gone strangely silent. What's up with that? Dumbstruck? Perhaps they're at a loss for words or just plotting their strategy to deal with this potential bombshell revelation?  (Friday Nov 20 | post #9)

Guns

Let's consider mandatory gun ownership

The Swiss are still required to have their own firearm [government provided]in their home and to be proficient with it. They keep their firearm when they leave the militia. Some households have generations of military firearms in their homes from the older ex-militia members. Check out the video here: http://www.ignatiu s-piazza-front-sig ht.com/2009/11/12/ ignatius-piazza-th e-swiss-and-israel is-must-think-were -idiots/#video  (Wednesday Nov 18 | post #7)

Global Warming

Multiyear Arctic ice is effectively gone: expert

Where did you learn economics? Businesses ALWAYS pass along their cost of doing business on to the clients, otherwise they would go out of business. You pay those costs in the final price you pay for any product. Profit margin is the difference between costs of doing business and the final price that you pay for any product - whether it is the food you buy in a restaurant or grocery store or the price you pay for your house or car or even a pack of gum.  (Wednesday Nov 4 | post #82)

Global Warming

Sea level on accelerated rise

More AGW alarmist crap for the run-up to the propaganda production at Copenhagen [and timed precisely for that reason alone]. However, this piece is directly contradicted by the facts - something of which the AGW alarmists are ignorant. Sea level rise has been essentially flat for the last almost 4 years as per this graph from the Jason satellite: http://wattsupwith that.files.wordpre ss.com/2009/04/uc_ seallevel_2009r2.p ng Prior to the latest period, sea level rise during the 20th century has varied from about 3-3.5 mm per year - i.e. no increase in sea level rise. Meanwhile, the tidal gauges in the NC area also directly contradict the claims of an accelerated sea level rise: http://wattsupwith that.files.wordpre ss.com/2009/10/alb emarle_sea_level_p lot.png and http://wattsupwith that.files.wordpre ss.com/2009/10/alb emarle_35n76w_sea_ level_plot.png When are you lemmings who have swallowed every alarmist prediction of future catastrophe going to admit that no one has any idea and these speculations are based on absolutely nothing?  (Tuesday Nov 3 | post #2)

Global Warming

Kilimanjaro ice is melting fast. Global warming it here and real.

Frank, do you have a reading comprehension problem as well as being bipolar? I was agreeing with you that deforestation, urban heat islands and other land use changes are causing the vast majority of the warming trends [as well as changes in precipitation patterns] we are seeing in the land-based temperature records. Cities are known to change precipitation patterns hundreds of miles away from the cities themselves as well as warming a large area surrounding the cities and still considered rural [40-50 miles away]. This puts the question to what the actual temperature trends are when a town as small as 5000 people generates a noticeable heat island effect - without blaming any increase in CO2 levels. It is increasingly doubtful that CO2 increases are actually causing any substantial amount of the warming that we have seen. How can we blame man's CO2 emissions and curtail people's lives through more taxation when we can't even attribute the current warming to the proper cause? We are better to concentrate our resources on reforestation and other greening projects while trying to find ways to minimize the UHI effect [and shifting to alternative fuel sources when economically feasible] rather than to piss away our money on the CO2 AGW bogeyman with little to no reduction in warming to show for the effort and vast expense.  (Tuesday Nov 3 | post #23)