The Warmergate Scandal

[CrusaderFrank]

Carbon Credits 4 Sale -- Cheep!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think, therefore I warm the planet

 

[Sinatra]

Ian Plimer fires off on the climategate subject...

___

Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud

In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant.

...In the 600-year long Roman Warming, it was 4ºC warmer than now. Sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years it was 5ºC warmer. Sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age, which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period.

Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions.

...There was warming from 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1976 to 1998, with intervening periods of cooling. The only time when temperature rise paralleled carbon dioxide emissions was 1976-1998. The other warmings and coolings in the last 150 years were unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions.

Something is seriously wrong. To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.

The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud.

...Data were manipulated to show that the Medieval Warming didn’t occur, and that we are not in a period of cooling. Furthermore, the warming of the 20th century was artificially inflated.

This behavior is that of criminals and all the data from the UK Hadley Centre and the US GISS must now be rejected. These crooks perpetrated these crimes at the expense of the British and U.S. taxpayers.

The same crooks control the IPCC and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world.

You should be angry. Very angry.


Full article here:


Pajamas Media » Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud (PJM Exclusive)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ManMade Global Warming may be a lie, but we know Health Care Reform will save us Billions!

 

[Ame®icano]

Watch all three...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Libruls are fucking lairs, never saw that coming.

 

[JimH52]

" [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.

Yeah....No cover-up to see here!

That's it? You've got to have something else. If Fat Boy Rush ain't jumping all over this, something does not line up...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

" [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.

Yeah....No cover-up to see here!

That's it? You've got to have something else. If Fat Boy Rush ain't jumping all over this, something does not line up...

LOL

That's it? The whole MMGW Industry has been busted as a bigger fraud than Bernie Madoff and that's all you got?

 

[Ame®icano]

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 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 [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while theother two got April-Sept for NH land N of
20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers, Phil

Anyone has any idea what words “hide the decline” means?

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I’ll send it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I’d be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.

Yeah, I doubt I’ll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I’d like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Ravi]

Anyone has any idea what words “hide the decline” means?

Yes, it's been posted on this thread several times. But I understand your reluctance to actually think beyond the drooling, birther mindset.

 

[Oddball]

IOW, you're sticking with the lame-assed "out of context" defense.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

"Gina dreams of running away... She cries in the night - Tommy whispers, 'baby it's okay.... It's ooooh-kay...'

We gotta hold on, to what we got. It doesn't make a difference if we're right or not.
We got Al Gore, and that's alot....
For the planet -- We'll give it a shot!

You live for the fight when that's all that you got!
Woahhhhh, we're halfway there (woah-OHHH, Livin' in dispair) take my hand, we'll make it I swear.... (woah-OHHH, Livin' in dispair)"

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, now that the scientists have had time to start answering the criminal hack of their private e-mails, we will see the e-mails in context.

One thing that this has acheived, other than having braindead denialists having little and big orgasms all over themselves, is to unite the scientific community on this attack on their integrity.

Let’s look at one of the illegally hacked emails in more detail — the one by NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth on “where the heck is global warming?” « Climate Progress

The answer to the question “where the heck is global warming?” is “precisely where you would expect,” as we will see.

Wired has done some excellent reporting on one of the supposed start-dumping-your-clean-energy-stocks e-mails — the one by Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado:

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low….

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.

..........................................................................

But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he’s making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article – An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) — actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.

“It says we don’t have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures — including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators — that global warming is continuing,” he says.

Or, as Gavin Schmidt explains deep in the comments section of RealClimate, when asked “Is Dr Trenberth correct in his claim that we can’t explain why the planet hasn’t been warming as expected?”

[Response: It is the level of explanation that is the issue. The zero-th order explanation is that 'natural variation' and possible structural issues in the surface data sets are plenty large enough. But it would be good to know exactly what form that natural variation has taken and why exactly it has the impact on the global mean temperatures it has. It is this second-order explanation that Trenberth is discussing. - gavin]

I would urge people to read Trenberth’s article, which asks:

The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest since about 2000 (Fig. 1). Given that there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Fig. 1) and other greenhouses due to human activities, why isn’t the temperature continuing to go up? The stock answer is that natural variability plays a key role1 and there was a major La Niña event early in 2008 that led to the month of January having the lowest anomaly in global temperature since 2000. While this is true, it is an incomplete explanation. In particular, what are the physical processes? From an energy standpoint, there should be an explanation that accounts for where the radiative forcing has gone. Was it compensated for temporarily by changes in clouds or aerosols, or other changes in atmospheric circulation that allowed more radiation to escape to space? Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers? Was it because the heat was buried in the ocean and sequestered, perhaps well below the surface? Was it because the La Niña led to a change in tropical ocean currents and rearranged the configuration of ocean heat? Perhaps all of these things are going on? But surely we have an adequate system to track whether this is the case or not, don’t we?

 

[Oddball]

"Illegally hacked e-mails" is nothing more than a talking point by a bunch of hacks who got caught with the goods. No surprise, though, coming from an offshoot of the far-leftist Center for American Progress.

Getting past the ad hom, the rationalizing away of one e-mail or thread hardly puts a dent in the overwhelming stack of evidence that the CRU has been gaming the statistics, burying or destroying others, evading FOIA and blackballing skeptics.

Pretty flaccid effort, old man. But I gotta give you credit for being the only one who has put even half of an effort into it.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Well, now that the scientists have had time to start answering the criminal hack of their private e-mails, we will see the e-mails in context.

You mean, "Now that they have had time to come up with a spin that their sycophant idiots out there will believe and regurgitate..."

"We will accentuate the "hacking" part even though we know it's not true. Since when did we care about truth anyway? Because the unwashed hordes out there hate "hackers" far more than they hate scientists who lie, pull shit out of their asses, and fudge numbers. (pardon the pun)

So we will ride this "hacker" deal because we really want people talking about these criminals that don't exist, rather than having them actually look at and read the emails."

 

[Ame®icano]

Anyone has any idea what words “hide the decline” means?

Yes, it's been posted on this thread several times. But I understand your reluctance to actually think beyond the drooling, birther mindset.

First, you run around screaming that the sky is falling, but calling us the conspiracy nuts. That was a good one. Now, even better one is, we're talking about "warming" and you still talking about birthers. There are, you know... drugs for your condition.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, now that the scientists have had time to start answering the criminal hack of their private e-mails, we will see the e-mails in context.

One thing that this has acheived, other than having braindead denialists having little and big orgasms all over themselves, is to unite the scientific community on this attack on their integrity.

Let’s look at one of the illegally hacked emails in more detail — the one by NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth on “where the heck is global warming?” « Climate Progress

The answer to the question “where the heck is global warming?” is “precisely where you would expect,” as we will see.

Wired has done some excellent reporting on one of the supposed start-dumping-your-clean-energy-stocks e-mails — the one by Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado:

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low….

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.

..........................................................................

But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he’s making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article – An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) — actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.

“It says we don’t have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures — including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators — that global warming is continuing,” he says.

Or, as Gavin Schmidt explains deep in the comments section of RealClimate, when asked “Is Dr Trenberth correct in his claim that we can’t explain why the planet hasn’t been warming as expected?”

[Response: It is the level of explanation that is the issue. The zero-th order explanation is that 'natural variation' and possible structural issues in the surface data sets are plenty large enough. But it would be good to know exactly what form that natural variation has taken and why exactly it has the impact on the global mean temperatures it has. It is this second-order explanation that Trenberth is discussing. - gavin]

I would urge people to read Trenberth’s article, which asks:

The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest since about 2000 (Fig. 1). Given that there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Fig. 1) and other greenhouses due to human activities, why isn’t the temperature continuing to go up? The stock answer is that natural variability plays a key role1 and there was a major La Niña event early in 2008 that led to the month of January having the lowest anomaly in global temperature since 2000. While this is true, it is an incomplete explanation. In particular, what are the physical processes? From an energy standpoint, there should be an explanation that accounts for where the radiative forcing has gone. Was it compensated for temporarily by changes in clouds or aerosols, or other changes in atmospheric circulation that allowed more radiation to escape to space? Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers? Was it because the heat was buried in the ocean and sequestered, perhaps well below the surface? Was it because the La Niña led to a change in tropical ocean currents and rearranged the configuration of ocean heat? Perhaps all of these things are going on? But surely we have an adequate system to track whether this is the case or not, don’t we?

Why do Libruls Hate Science?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"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."

So, we'll just make shit up.

 

[Ame®icano]

"Illegally hacked e-mails" is nothing more than a talking point by a bunch of hacks who got caught with the goods. No surprise, though, coming from an offshoot of the far-leftist Center for American Progress.

Getting past the ad hom, the rationalizing away of one e-mail or thread hardly puts a dent in the overwhelming stack of evidence that the CRU has been gaming the statistics, burying or destroying others, evading FOIA and blackballing skeptics.

Pretty flaccid effort, old man. But I gotta give you credit for being the only one who has put even half of an effort into it.

Would they ever let those emails in the open if they were asked for them, legally?