Dr.House
Lives on in syndication!
And searchable... Thanks...
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Warmergate Scandal
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
And searchable... Thanks...
Didn't stop them when they published the Pentagon Papers.The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they wont be posted here.
How dare you accuse the NYT of cherry-picking principles!!!!
Inconceivable!!!!
Do you think they will publish anything like this?
US Senate Minority Report
Ame®icano;1745851 said:
Didn't stop them when they published the Pentagon Papers.
How dare you accuse the NYT of cherry-picking principles!!!!
Inconceivable!!!!
Do you think they will publish anything like this?
US Senate Minority Report
Hey - don't you know 90% of scientists believe in global warming????
How dare you link such rubbish!!!!
Where is Chris when you need him?
Old Rocks??
Ame®icano;1745851 said:How dare you accuse the NYT of cherry-picking principles!!!!
Inconceivable!!!!
Do you think they will publish anything like this?
US Senate Minority Report
Hey - don't you know 90% of scientists believe in global warming????
How dare you link such rubbish!!!!
Where is Chris when you need him?
Old Rocks??
Why would anyone need those two Carbonites? They keep blabbering about things they have no knowledge about and when you ask them a question they ignore you or turn to insults. They never answer your question, but they insist you answer theirs. I call them Carbonites, which is similar to the Canaanites. Only difference between those two is that Canaanites sacrificed humans to the gods, and the Carbonites want to sacrifice our hard earned dollars to the Carbon gods. They probably followed Al Gore example and invested a pile of money in carbon trading stocks, expecting to get in on the ground floor and all they got a bath in red ink. No wonder why they are supporting Cap & Trade...
Global Warmer issues apology...
___
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.
Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology « Watts Up With That?
___
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.
Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology « Watts Up With That?
eots
no fly list
this is huge dude...
Ravi
Diamond Member
People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:
function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
“these will be artificially adjusted” « Climate Audit – mirror site
sorry if this info has already been posted. it is pretty blatant proof of dishonesty
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Ame®icano;1745851 said:
Didn't stop them when they published the Pentagon Papers.
How dare you accuse the NYT of cherry-picking principles!!!!
Inconceivable!!!!
Do you think they will publish anything like this?
US Senate Minority Report
Why should anyone care to read what that bunch of liars claim?
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Ame®icano;1745851 said:How dare you accuse the NYT of cherry-picking principles!!!!
Inconceivable!!!!
Do you think they will publish anything like this?
US Senate Minority Report
Hey - don't you know 90% of scientists believe in global warming????
How dare you link such rubbish!!!!
Where is Chris when you need him?
Old Rocks??
OK, dingbat, even if 700 real scientists, the number is doubtful, considering the source, state that global warming is not happening, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that global Warming is a fact, is a clear and present danger, and that we are the primary cause of it.
Now that is well over 90% of the scientists in the world.
Now pull some more rubbish out of your ass.
Ame®icano;1745851 said:How dare you accuse the NYT of cherry-picking principles!!!!
Inconceivable!!!!
Do you think they will publish anything like this?
US Senate Minority Report
Why should anyone care to read what that bunch of liars claim?
Apologist says what?
One of the more scathing reports on the climate scandal from a (sorta) mainstream media source...
____
EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global coolingRate this story
Junk science exposed among climate-change believers
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.
It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.
...In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"
At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.
Full article here:
EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling - Washington Times
____
EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global coolingRate this story
Junk science exposed among climate-change believers
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.
It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.
...In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"
At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.
Full article here:
EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling - Washington Times
Last edited:
Unbelievable...
___
From: Keith Briffa To: [email protected] Subject: Re: quick note on TAR Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007
Mike
your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan*. I am happy to pass the mantle on to someone else next time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes
small dead animals: The Sound Of All Hell Breaking Loose: Now Searchable!
___
From: Keith Briffa To: [email protected] Subject: Re: quick note on TAR Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007
Mike
your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan*. I am happy to pass the mantle on to someone else next time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes
small dead animals: The Sound Of All Hell Breaking Loose: Now Searchable!
'The ClimateGate scandal exposes man-made global warming fears as quite simply the best science that agenda driven activists can manufacture. Claims that the UN IPCC is the 'gold standard' of scientific research have been forever tarnished.'
Saturday, November 21, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3954/Statement-by-Marc-Morano-of-Climate-Depot
Saturday, November 21, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3954/Statement-by-Marc-Morano-of-Climate-Depot
Ravi
Diamond Member
hjmick
Platinum Member
yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?
No, it's always been a hoax as described by it's supporters. These e-mails simply prove this fact.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #260
My question exactly......Why should anyone pay attention to anyone associated with CRU, right up to and including IPCC?Ame®icano;1745851 said:How dare you accuse the NYT of cherry-picking principles!!!!
Inconceivable!!!!
Do you think they will publish anything like this?
US Senate Minority Report
Why should anyone care to read what that bunch of liars claim?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 122
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 176
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 439
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 133
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 512
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 196
- Replies
- 153
- Views
- 858
- Replies
- 54
- Views
- 324
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8511
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-