More climate fraud being exposed... [Archive] - The Orange Mane

Taco John

12-09-2009, 12:41 AM

The Nixonian scandal of our generation unfolds even more profoundly...

James Delingpole:

Climategate: another smoking gun…

Despite the Al-Gore-Kool-Aid-drinkers’ best efforts to suppress it, the Climategate scandal continues to blossom and flourish. (Or should that be putresce and pullulate?)

I think my favourite comic detail this week just has to be the one about the amazing not-so-fast-shrinking glaciers. As you’ll know if you’ve been reading reports like this scare stories about glaciers retreating “faster than predicted” are a central plank of the IPCC’s case that we should carbon-tax ourselves back to the Dark Ages NOW. According to the IPCC, the Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035.

Or should that be 2350? Yep it seems those scientific experts who make the IPCC’s reports so famously reliable and trustworthy have a bad case of numerical dyslexia. The mistake was spotted by a Canadian academic:

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035″.

In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.

“Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035,” the report said.

It suggested three quarters of a billion people who depend on glacier melt for water supplies in Asia could be affected.

But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

“The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350,” Mr Kotlyakov’s report said.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and “misread 2350 as 2035″.

“I do suggest that the glaciological community might consider advising the IPCC about ways to avoid such egregious errors as the 2035 versus 2350 confusion in the future,” says Mr Cogley.

Well quite.

But just when you think it can’t get any better, along comes this cracker of an expose at Watts Up With That, courtesy of scientist Willis Eschenbach.

Eschenbach has been looking more closely into one of the big unanswered questions of the great Climate Wars: how reliable is the climate data used by the IPCC?

He focuses on just one country, Australia, and on one weather station – at Darwin Airport – and compares the raw temperature data recorded at the station with the “adjusted” version of the data.

Here’s what he found:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2009/12/DARWIN7.png

Notice the anomaly? It’s not exactly difficult. The blue line is the trend on the raw data, showing a slight cooling. The red line is the data once it has been adjusted by scientists at the Global Historical Climate Network – which is one of the main sources of temperature data used by the IPCC. Eschenbach finds the extremity of this “homogenization” adjustment rather shocking:

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.

But just how shocking is this discovery. We-e-ll – as Eschenbach reminds us, it is only one weather station. Also, he points out, it is quite normal for scientists to make these homogeneity adjustments, as he explains quoting the GHCN:

Most long-term climate stations have undergone changes that make a time series of their observations inhomogeneous. There are many causes for the discontinuities, including changes in instruments, shelters, the environment around the shelter, the location of the station, the time of observation, and the method used to calculate mean temperature. Often several of these occur at the same time, as is often the case with the introduction of automatic weather stations that is occurring in many parts of the world. Before one can reliably use such climate data for analysis of longterm climate change, adjustments are needed to compensate for the nonclimatic discontinuities.

What he can’t fathom at all, though, is the mind-boggling scale of these adjustments. They can only be explained in terms of scientists with a very particular agenda.

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

Do read the full piece (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/). Its wonderfully revealing of the dirty tricks used by the scientists pushing AGW to exaggerate their case. And what’s particularly damning is that it shows how the Climategate scandal extends far, far beyond those so far implicated at the Climatic Research Institute at the University of East Anglia.

Here is the GHCN in context:

There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data.

In other words the most important temperature data record in the world – even more important than CRU – has been found cheating. Here is Eschenbach’s conclusion:

Now, I want to be clear here. The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station does NOT mean that the earth is not warming. It also does NOT mean that the three records (CRU, GISS, and GHCN) are generally wrong either. This may be an isolated incident, we don’t know. But every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. Now GISS does their own adjustments. However, as they keep telling us, they get the same answer as GHCN gets … which makes their numbers suspicious as well.

And CRU? Who knows what they use? We’re still waiting on that one, no data yet …

What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling. In addition, the average raw data for Northern Australia is quite different from the adjusted, so there must be a number of … mmm … let me say “interesting” adjustments in Northern Australia other than just Darwin.

And with the Latin saying “Falsus in unum, falsus in omis” (false in one, false in all) as our guide, until all of the station “adjustments” are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS alike, we can’t trust anyone using homogenized numbers.

Still feel confident, do you, all you warmists who’ve been gloating about all that data allegedly proving that we’re living through times of quite unprecedented hotness?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019301/climategate-another-smoking-gun/

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 12:50 AM

^ Hilarious!

Up next on Fox & Friends:

Heliocentric model of solar system a hoax - despite Galileo Kool-Aid drinkers' efforts to prop it up.

Taco John

12-09-2009, 01:01 AM

^ Hilarious!

Up next on Fox & Friends:

Heliocentric model of solar system a hoax - despite Galileo Kool-Aid drinkers' efforts to prop it up.

Does that work around these parts? I don't post in these political parts very often, but on the politics forums I do frequent, people would wonder why you didn't have an actual rebuttal.

Here's the link to the science:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 01:03 AM

I've found that actual rebuttals don't work any better with the global climate change denialists than they do with the religious loons who believe the universe is only 6,000 years old.

Taco John

12-09-2009, 01:06 AM

I've found that actual rebuttals don't work any better with the global climate change denialists than they do with the religious loons who believe the universe is only 6,000 years old.

Hmmm... well if what just transpired here is any indicator, your belief in AGW rivals their religious dedication. You didn't even pause for a second to ponder the data.

Keep the faith, brother. Keep the faith.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 01:07 AM

Yep, don't usually pause for "data" that has been bought and paid for by Exxon.

Taco John

12-09-2009, 01:07 AM

By the way, have you read about the Danish text leak yet at Copenhagen? I've read a little about this brilliant proposal. It reads like something Bush, Cheney, and Haliburton would sit in a room and cobble together behind closed doors. Obama and Gordon are supposed to come in and muscle it through next week.

Taco John

12-09-2009, 01:09 AM

Yep, don't usually pause for "data" that has been bought and paid for by Exxon.

Exxon? I didn't see the correlation? Was that just an empty jab, or was there any substance behind your charge?

Taco John

12-09-2009, 01:13 AM

In any case, empty jabs aside, Cap and Trade is practically dead... and for that matter, global warming legislation in America is virtually dead too. They'll still run it up the flag pole, but it's going to go absolutely nowhere here. Democrats have lost 15% points in their own ranks on the issue over the last three years (according to Pew). Climategate is the final nail in the coffin.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 01:17 AM

Re: actual rebuttals:

Maybe the first (or second or third) time, but eventually, after the denialists (like the shills for the tobacco industry) have been caught peddling junk science often enough, the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome kicks in.

Bronco Yoda

12-09-2009, 01:17 AM

That is VERY interesting. We need to get to the bottom of this. The implications are very serious indeed.

Bronco Yoda

12-09-2009, 01:20 AM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 01:30 AM

cutthemdown

12-09-2009, 01:30 AM

Taco John

12-09-2009, 01:37 AM

Problem is, the right and the denialists have such a horrible track record when it comes to truth-telling.

How many times have the denialists tried some stunt like this - only to be exposed as liars and frauds peddling junk science again and again?

Eventually people stop listening to them.

Which people stop listening to who? I haven't seen you offer a single thing of substance in this discussion tonight but empty hyperbole.

Taco John

12-09-2009, 01:42 AM

Fair disclosure: I used to believe in AGW, but have been converted in the last three years after an examination of the issue. I don't believe that industry has a "right to pollute," but that's a different issue with me. What I really don't believe in is this global carbon pennance scheme. In this regard, I defer to climatologist James Hansen, heads the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and is noted as the scientist who put Global Warming on the world map:

"This is analagous to the indulgences that the Catholic church sold in the middle ages. The bishops collected lots of money and the sinners got redemption. Both parties liked that arrangement despite its absurdity. That is exactly what's happening," he said. "We've got the developed countries who want to continue more or less business as usual and then these developing countries who want money and that is what they can get through offsets [sold through the carbon markets]."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/02/copenhagen-climate-change-james-hansen

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 01:44 AM

<script type="text/javascript">modifyNavigationDisplay();</script>  <script type="text/javascript"> function pr_swfver(){ var osf,osfd,i,axo=1,v=0,nv=navigator; if(nv.plugins&&nv.mimeTypes.length){osf=nv.plugins["Shockwave Flash"];if(osf&&osf.description){osfd=osf.description;v=parseInt(o sfd.substring(osfd.indexOf(".")-2))}} else{try{for(i=5;axo!=null;i++){axo=new ActiveXObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash."+i);v=i}}catch(e){}} return v; } var pr_d=new Date();pr_d=pr_d.getDay()+"|"+pr_d.getHours()+":"+pr_d.getMinutes()+"|"+-pr_d.getTimezoneOffset()/60; var pr_redir="$CTURL$"; var pr_nua=navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase(); var pr_pos="",pr_inif=(window!=top); if(pr_inif){try{pr_pos=(typeof(parent.document)!="unknown")?(((typeof(inDapIF)!="undefined")&&(inDapIF))||(parent.document.domain==document.doma in))?"&pos=s":"&pos=x":"&pos=x";} catch(e){pr_pos="&pos=x";}if(pr_pos=="&pos=x"){var pr_u=new RegExp("[A-Za-z]+:[/][/][A-Za-z0-9.-]+");var pr_t=this.window.document.referrer; var pr_m=pr_t.match(pr_u);if(pr_m!=null){pr_pos+="&dom="+pr_m[0];}}else{if(((typeof(inDapMgrIf)!="undefined")&&(inDapMgrIf))||((typeof(isAJAX)!="undefined")&&(isAJAX))){pr_pos+="&ajx=1"}}} var pr_s="ads.pointroll.com/PortalServe/?pid=918543V39420091202202222&flash="+pr_swfver()+"&time="+pr_d+"&redir="+pr_redir+pr_pos+"&r="+Math.random(); document.write("<scr"+"ipt type='text/javascript' src='http://"+pr_s+"'></scr"+"ipt>"); </script> <noscript>http://ads.pointroll.com/PortalServe/?pid=918543V39420091202202222&pos=i&r=[RANDOM] (http://ads.pointroll.com/PortalServe/?pid=918543V39420091202202222&pos=c&r=[RANDOM])</noscript>
 <nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" "> No Slowdown of Global Warming, Agency Says </nyt_headline>

COPENHAGEN — The decade of 2000 to 2009 appears to be the warmest one in the modern record, the World Meteorological Organization reported in a new analysis on Tuesday.

The announcement is likely to be viewed as a rejoinder to a renewed challenge from skeptics to the scientific evidence for global warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), as international negotiators here seek to devise a global response to climate change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 01:47 AM

Which people stop listening to who?

The '08 election results should be your first clue.

I haven't seen you offer a single thing of substance in this discussion tonight but empty hyperbole.

Whereas almost everything people on the right like you have "offered" hitherto has been exposed as junk science that's been bought and paid for by polluting industries.

In light of that track record, why should anyone take you seriously now?

Taco John

12-09-2009, 02:03 AM

The '08 election results should be your first clue.

Really? This is the "substance?" You're hardly worth having a discussion with. I should save my energy for someone who at least makes points.

Whereas almost everything people on the right like you have "offered" hitherto has been exposed as junk science that's been bought and paid for by polluting industries.

In light of that track record, why should anyone take you seriously now?

I have no idea what you're talking about here. What have I offered that can be linked to being "bought and paid for by polluting industries?" As far as I can tell, this is just something you "say" in order to make my point disappear in your head without having to assimilate it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 02:09 AM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 02:10 AM

Another useful series of videos to show to your favorite climate denialists: Climate Denial Crock of the Week (there's several but this one nails the issue succinctly)
<object height="350" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Sf_UIQYc20" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>

Sure enough, the Saudis are up to their usual crap and trying to use the CRU hack to blow off the agenda of the conference ... meanwhile, arctic ice is still diminshing, Pacific islands are sinking, and global warming continues as a long-term trend even if interrupted by short-term cycles.

There is no "climategate" but your friends the Saudis want the world to believe there is one.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30291.html

Taco John

12-09-2009, 02:13 AM

^ And as for those hacked emails from the CRU? As usual, the best place to understand the no-spin science behind all this is RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -cru-hack/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/)

The CRU is just one lab of dozens all over the world gathering data ... and taking a bunch of their e-mails out of context does not change the overwhelming climate consensus.

This point was already really well addressed in the original post, which you clearly didn't read. You should actually read the materials before stuttering in tongues about your professed faith. That way, these embarassing gaffes don't happen.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 02:15 AM

You should actually read the materials before stuttering in tongues about your professed faith.

You should watch the video in my last post - it shoots your denialist propaganda down in flames.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 02:23 AM

NASA presents a scary picture on global warming

Paul Krugman in his blog in the New York Times posted two photos from NASA showing the Arctic Ice cap in summer, 1979 and back in 2007. However, there is evidence that this year, we may set a new record for Arctic ice melt.

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epkrugman/sea-ice.png

Another recent story:

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Trending Below Record 2007 Melt (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/arctic-sea-ice-47061201)

The annual melting of Arctic sea ice is trending toward another record-low.

barryr

12-09-2009, 05:33 AM

As one can see, the global warmists have their beliefs and they are sticking to them regardless of the lies and distortions their so-called scientists are caught telling.

peacepipe

12-09-2009, 05:47 AM

It's no surprise that a conservative website(torygraph as its called in the UK)will take this position.

Garcia Bronco

12-09-2009, 07:20 AM

It's a gamechanger. There is no such thing as climate science. It doesn't exist. Now there is climate research, but it ain't science. There are only 4 scientific disciplines.

Spider

12-09-2009, 07:35 AM

It's a gamechanger. There is no such thing as climate science. It doesn't exist. Now there is climate research, but it ain't science. There are only 4 scientific disciplines.

Meh .......splitting hairs now ........... scientific methods are still used ......

Rohirrim

12-09-2009, 07:57 AM

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/

Eschenbach is a construction manager in Fiji who publishes only in Energy and Environment, a trade journal which is not considered an academic journal and is published for the sole purpose of disputing AGW. It often posts the writings of Sen. James Inhofe, and others, whose chief claim to fame seems to be that AGW is a hoax. It's funding cannot be traced online.

Here's a fun discussion of Eschenbach attempting to take on James Hansen.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/rtfwr-or.html

TheDave

12-09-2009, 09:14 AM

Despite the Al-Gore-Kool-Aid-drinkers’ best efforts to suppress it...

LOL Gotta give this guy credit... Most of these hatchet jobs try to slip their bias in somewhere in the middle of the paper. Not this guy, he shot his wad in the first sentence.

Nice...

Garcia Bronco

12-09-2009, 09:15 AM

Meh .......splitting hairs now ........... scientific methods are still used ......

Then its research.

W*GS

12-09-2009, 09:57 AM

WTFWT isn't a credible source for any information on the science.

Watts' mission is to smear and slur. Nothing more. He doesn't give a **** about the science.

gyldenlove

12-09-2009, 10:41 AM

As one can see, the global warmists have their beliefs and they are sticking to them regardless of the lies and distortions their so-called scientists are caught telling.

What lies?

Using actual measured temperatures is a lie now? That is the what they did in the email we have all heard spewed from media mouthpieces every da for the last 3 weeks. They replaced approximated data with real meassured data and that is considered a lie?

Is it a lie that you have to correct for local circumstances to compared measurements taken at different times and places? that is how all science is done. The only way you can compare measurements taken at different points is if local phenomena are cleaned out, if you don't have a standard way of measuring you can't compare results it is that simple.

Fact is that the temperature is going up, if you bothered reading the literature you would know that, there is no source in the world, that claims temperatures haven't gone up, hell 2009 is a top 10 all time year for heat. Do you want to tell me that the world is cooling?

Arkie

12-09-2009, 10:48 AM

TheDave

12-09-2009, 10:54 AM

Climate change is not a hoax. The Vikings settled Greenland during a period warmer than today. They left Greenland when the little cold period started freezing it in 1400. It's warming up again. These little time periods and temp changes are tiny compared to the earth's historical relationship with the sun. Now I can see how the elite manipulate people to think that humans have the power to change this relationship. Little humans are arrogant.
http://sungrazer.nrl.navy.mil/images/sun_earth.jpg

Someone needs to explain this line of thinking to me. Man has a significant impact on our environment. Always have, always will... For example look at how quickly we screwed up the ozone layer in a relitively short period of time. Was that "arrogance" to push for ozone friendly refigerants and propellents?

Was it arrogance when we saw that our cities were being choked to death with smog and pushed for tougher regulations?

How is this any different?

TailgateNut

12-09-2009, 11:39 AM

I have one comment: Anyone who subscribes to the notion that humans have not affected the planets' temps is ****ing clueless. Just the hot air escaping from those mouthbreathers is enough to raise the global temperature by a couple of degrees.

Rohirrim

12-09-2009, 12:09 PM

For some reason, what we do affects the ozone, but not the atmosphere. Weird, eh?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 12:36 PM

LOL Gotta give this guy credit... Most of these hatchet jobs try to slip their bias in somewhere in the middle of the paper. Not this guy, he shot his wad in the first sentence.

Nice...

Ha!

I guess I probably should have stopped reading here:

The Nixonian scandal of our generation unfolds even more profoundly...

TailgateNut

12-09-2009, 12:39 PM

For some reason, what we do affects the ozone, but not the atmosphere. Weird, eh?

Patiently waiting for a response from the mouthbreathers....................still waiting.................

TheDave

12-09-2009, 12:39 PM

Ha!

I guess I probably should have stopped reading here:

Yeah, the whole credibility thing went out the door after the first couple of sentences.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 12:42 PM

As one can see, the global warmists have their beliefs and they are sticking to them regardless of the lies and distortions their so-called scientists are caught telling.

As one can see, barryr doesn't know the difference between fact and belief.

Onward Murdoch soldiers!

TailgateNut

12-09-2009, 12:46 PM

As one can see, barryr doesn't know the difference between fact and belief.

Onward Murdoch soldiers!

You could have stopped right there.:thanku:

Garcia Bronco

12-09-2009, 12:47 PM

Someone needs to explain this line of thinking to me. Man has a significant impact on our environment. Always have, always will... For example look at how quickly we screwed up the ozone layer in a relitively short period of time. Was that "arrogance" to push for ozone friendly refigerants and propellents?

Was it arrogance when we saw that our cities were being choked to death with smog and pushed for tougher regulations?

How is this any different?

TD...that's really an unknown. Man has little impact on the overall global climate. The Sun is the biggest factor and always will be.

TailgateNut

12-09-2009, 12:52 PM

TD...that's really an unknown. Man has little impact on the overall global climate. The Sun is the biggest factor and always will be.

Hilarious!

http://images.google.com/images?q=Air+pollution&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLR_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=ZA0gS9i4L9WUtgfF8airCg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=7&ved=0CDIQsAQwBg

I guess you're right. Man only pollutes the air by farting and smoking.ROFL!

TheDave

12-09-2009, 12:53 PM

TD...that's really an unknown. Man has little impact on the overall global climate. The Sun is the biggest factor and always will be.

What's an unknown?

TailgateNut

12-09-2009, 12:57 PM

What's an unknown?

Who knows!:rofl:

TheDave

12-09-2009, 01:01 PM

Who knows!:rofl:

His post went right by me...

1st sentence states something is an unknown

2nd sentences states that man has "little" impact (meaning even he admits their is some impact)

3rd sentence blames it all on the sun.

WTF ???

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 01:05 PM

His post went right by me...

1st sentence states something is an unknown

2nd sentences states that man has "little" impact (meaning even he admits their is some impact)

3rd sentence blames it all on the sun.

WTF ???

Ha!

Couldn't help noticing this GB gem quoted in your last post:

Man has little impact on the overall global climate.

I think the phrase is supposed to end with "'cause the Bible tells me so." ;)

TailgateNut

12-09-2009, 01:11 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 01:17 PM

Not mentioned in the "news" here at home...

On 24 October, people at over 5200 events in 181 countries came together for the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet's history. See all 22,000+ photos from 24 Oct on Flickr » (http://www.flickr.com/photos/350org/sets/)

http://www.350.org/

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 01:47 PM

Inhofe’s climate change-denying Copenhagen ‘truth squad’ expands to a ‘truth squad of three.’ (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/22/inhofe-truth-squad/)

Last month, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) announced that he would travel to Copenhagen in December to act as a climate skeptic “truth squad” (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/inhofe-climate-skeptic-roadshow) during international climate change treaty negotiations. “I think somebody has to be there — a one-man truth squad (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/25/inhofe-god-cycles/),” Inhofe said on CSPAN. Today, on Bill Bennett’s radio show, Inhofe revealed that his delegation has expanded to “a truth squad of three”:BENNETT: And John Barrasso’s going with you, right? John Barrasso?
INHOFE: Yeah, Barrasso and there’s another secret person going with me. We’re going to have a team of three, a truth squad of three.
Listen here:
<center><object height="60" width="320">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hsA3pDuoPOc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="60" width="320">[/URL]</object></center> When Inhofe first announced his plans for a “truth squad,” TPM’s Eric Kleefeld remarked, “It’s nice to see how seriously foreign policy is taken these days — when a member of the political minority will send his own delegation to an international conference, [URL="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/inhofe-leading-truth-squad-to-climate-change-conference-will-say-that-us-senate-wont-pass-a-bill.php"]in order to undermine the government (http://www.youtube.com/v/hsA3pDuoPOc&hl=en&fs=1&) and tell other countries that they can’t work with the United States.” Now it’s at least two members of the political minority.

http://bartblog.bartcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/cartoon-gopland.gif

Garcia Bronco

12-09-2009, 02:21 PM

His post went right by me...

1st sentence states something is an unknown

2nd sentences states that man has "little" impact (meaning even he admits their is some impact)

3rd sentence blames it all on the sun.

WTF ???

The Ozone layer is the unknown. For all we know it was always there.

The Sun is the biggest contributing factor to the global temperature. Has to be.

We do have some impact...but it miniscule

TheDave

12-09-2009, 02:33 PM

The Ozone layer is the unknown. For all we know it was always there.

Ah... so your just being a jackass again.

Have fun with that.

Garcia Bronco

12-09-2009, 02:43 PM

Ha!

Couldn't help noticing this GB gem quoted in your last post:

I think the phrase is supposed to end with "'cause the Bible tells me so." ;)

God still loves you LABF.

Fedaykin

12-09-2009, 02:58 PM

His post went right by me...

1st sentence states something is an unknown

2nd sentences states that man has "little" impact (meaning even he admits their is some impact)

3rd sentence blames it all on the sun.

WTF ???

You are expecting coherence, rationality, consistency and intelligence where there is, demonstrably, none.

Garcia Bronco

12-09-2009, 03:05 PM

You are expecting coherence, rationality, consistency and intelligence where there is, demonstrably, none.

LOL.

Look warmist crowd...you've been had. It's not happening because of man and even if it was...you can't prove it. You guys couldn't sell a bucket of water to guy that was on fire.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 03:08 PM

You are expecting coherence, rationality, consistency and intelligence where there is, demonstrably, none.

:yep:

W*GS

12-09-2009, 03:28 PM

God will take care of it all. This idiot says so!

Garcia and the other denialists just love this complete and total moron...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_7h08RDYA5E&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_7h08RDYA5E&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Rohirrim

12-09-2009, 03:57 PM

That reminds me of this:
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zrzMhU_4m-g&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zrzMhU_4m-g&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

barryr

12-09-2009, 03:58 PM

Let's see these global warmists go after China and India. Hasn't happened yet, but oh, so serious about global warming. Right, that's why it's just the U.S. they target, but has nothing to do with politics though. Keep believing that nonsense fools.

epicSocialism4tw

12-09-2009, 04:31 PM

Does that work around these parts? I don't post in these political parts very often, but on the politics forums I do frequent, people would wonder why you didn't have an actual rebuttal.

Here's the link to the science:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Welcome to the world of LA Bpropaganda Fmachine. All the dude does is troll threads that say anything that could be potentially damaging to the public opinion of democrats and post propagandistic images and specious propagandistic articles until the thread dies.

He's a mark, and no different than any other disrupting troll. He's worse than that bible guy "Robb" that used to troll these parts.

Arkie

12-09-2009, 04:42 PM

Hacked or possibly leaked emails appear to indicate that a lot of what passes for climate-change science is propaganda. Data appears to have been filtered, altered, or falsified, in order to deny the obvious: the earth is not continuing to warm up in accordance with climate change models; global temperature has been fluctuating for hundreds of thousands of years due to natural variation; and the earth is no warmer nowadays than it has been at several prior times in history.

The black mark earned by alarmists during the 1970s, for predicting continued global cooling, may be replicated for global-warming alarmists. The real tragedy, however, may be that -- one day -- scientists will cry wolf to a public that has learned to ignore them.

By now, anybody who is serious about the possibility of global warming knows that the "hockey-stick" theory promulgated by the UN a few years ago is bunk.

This theory held that there was no meaningful variation in global temperature during the past several thousand years until recently, when capitalism began to harness industrial power. That this theory was advanced by a scientist who was a socialist might raise a question about its validity.

"Science" is not, as some people imagine, memorizing a list of facts (such as the names of the planets). Nor is the progress of science determined by laboratory experiments. This is because, at the edge of our knowledge, accepted laboratory experiments don't exist and, in certain fields, laboratory experiments might not even be possible. Rather, the progress of science is determined by free inquiry, open discussion, and transparency among those engaged in a discipline.

There should be no pretense that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an unbiased organization. It was formed by the United Nations specifically to study "the risk of human-induced climate change." The guilty party is, thus, pre-identified and all that remains is to collect the evidence. Periodic reports of the IPCC proclaimed, ever more authoritatively, that the trend of global warming that was occurring at the time was due to human activity. The second report, in 1996, said "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate change."

The third, in 2001, presented "new and stronger evidence." This report included the hockey stick and the whacky idea that the trend of rising global temperature over the prior three centuries (or, since the so-called "Little Ice Age") was due to human activity. The fourth, in 2007, which dropped the most embarrassing claims, nevertheless claimed that "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

This all seemed plausible at the time because of the warming trend. But, recently, global temperatures have been moderating and, besides, as the emails show, scientists were altering the evidence all the while.

Now You See It
Below I have a chart with the history of global temperature as it was known at the time of the 2001 report. As the chart makes clear, global temperature began to recover from the Little Ice Age about three hundred years ago. Juxtaposed against the rising trend are several cycles of 30 to 40 years length, including the one I show in red, which caused a lot of alarmists during the 1970s to say that industrial activity was causing global cooling.
http://mises.org/images/3899/Figure1.png

Now You Don't
Publishing the actual history of global temperature would question the hypothesis that human activity was causing it to rise. Or, to quote an email of one of the supposedly esteemed scientists promoting the UN climate change agenda, it would provide "fodder" for the "skeptics." So, here is the chart that they published.
http://mises.org/images/3899/Figure2.png

When, following its publication by the UN, the hockey-stick theory was reviewed by the National Academy of Science, it was found to be "not inconsistent" with the data available at the time. This is a fancy way of saying that no more than the usual amount of subjective interpretation was involved. A scientist who is a socialist will of course tend to stop investigating when he has "proved" that capitalism, by enabling a growing population to live at increasingly higher standards of living, is actually a bad thing. Contrariwise, a scientist who is a capitalist will have the opposite tendency.

In spite of these prejudices, there is hope for progress in science because, as long as we have free inquiry, the data will eventually have its turn to speak. This kind of give-and-take goes on all the time in scientific disciplines. But hiding evidence, as we now know was being done, is academic fraud. It should cause the National Academy of Sciences to reconsider its exoneration of the errors in the hockey-stick theory.

So What Do the Data Say?
A great deal of data has been gathered since the UN began its "bum rush" on free enterprise. First, we have much more evidence of natural variation from the past, based on a wide variety of proxies for temperature. During the past few thousand years, there were two periods during which global temperature was as high or higher than it now is.

Correlating warm and cool periods with what we know about history, warmer times have been times of human flourishing, expanding economic activity, scientific progress, and cultural expression. And cooler times have been times of starvation, disease, and the collapse of civilization. If we could control global temperature, our focus would be more on avoiding global cooling than it would be on avoiding global warming.

Second, we know that, at least thus far, we really don't know much about the causes of climate change. The computer models that incorporate the greenhouse-gas theory are being massively contradicted by current readings. That is, CO2 is continuing to build up in the atmosphere, and yet global temperature is moderating rather than continuing to rise.

"The computer models that incorporate the greenhouse-gas theory are being massively contradicted by current readings."
It might be, as the historical evidence can be interpreted as suggesting, that variation of CO2 in the atmosphere is an effect rather than a cause of global temperature, since CO2 levels appear to lag variation in global temperature. The issue is certainly deserving of continuing study.

Third, we know that the scaremongers associated with the IPCC cannot be trusted. As important as the planet is, we need a community of climatologists that is not precommitted to a theory or -- worse yet -- to a policy prescription. The UN agenda is obviously driven by the many despotic nations of the world that seek to use climate change to shake down the wealthy nations of the world, in concert with an intellectual elite that favors socialism over capitalism and with special-interest groups seeking massive government subsidies. The Kyoto Treaty, which imposes limits only on certain nations (the wealthier ones), could never work, since it will only shift industrial activity to nations without limits (the poorer ones), with no net reduction in carbon emissions.

Finally, we know that, with regard to all scarce resources, a market approach is to be preferred to a socialist approach, especially a one-world-government socialist approach.

A market approach to environmental policy would not only achieve whatever goals are set efficiently, given the technologies currently available; it will induce the discovery of new technologies, making what seems costly and maybe even impossible today achievable with increasingly higher standards of living tomorrow.

http://mises.org/daily/3899

watermock

12-09-2009, 05:06 PM

What people don't understand is this a world government plan to place CO2 as a poision and regulate and tax it as a GLOBAL issue.

It's not global warming the globalists are concerned about, it's taxes and feudal and reproductive control.

Soon, cows will be taxed, then Humans. The world isn't going anywhere except for nuclear war, yet with all these weapons, we still have no peace treaty for safe nuclear power.

It's ludicrous.

Arkie

12-09-2009, 05:06 PM

The Ozone layer is the unknown. For all we know it was always there.

The Sun is the biggest contributing factor to the global temperature. Has to be.

We do have some impact...but it miniscule

Scientists should have a public debate about the impact, if any, the 0.4% part of the atmosphere caused by human produced gases have on the global temperature. Instead, it's all about receiving grants from governments expecting certain results. Dissenters are bullied, and journals refuse to publish them.

watermock

12-09-2009, 05:21 PM

Graphs mean nothing Arkie, they won't convince anyone.

We are sitting on enough plutonium to destroy the planet.

Yet, we argue about CO.

http://mises.org/images/3899/Figure2.png

http://mises.org/images/3899/Figure2.png

The funnist thing on this graph is the scale. 1 degree?

In tha age of the dinos it was 95F and 10x the CO2.

Go look at banks since the bailout, the look great.

I's all scale.

Of couse the earth is a balanced ecosystem...duh...it's also resiliant.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2009, 05:23 PM

Welcome to the world of LA Bpropaganda Fmachine. All the dude does is troll threads that say anything that could be potentially damaging to the public opinion of democrats and post propagandistic images and specious propagandistic articles until the thread dies.

He's a mark, and no different than any other disrupting troll. He's worse than that bible guy "Robb" that used to troll these parts.

:stupid:

Wow - way to bolster your denialist arguments.

I know I'm convinced! Ha!

watermock

12-09-2009, 05:31 PM

The real point is whoever disputes these calls for cap and trade are "insensitive to the environment" and claims the wold will suffer major flooding.

Guess what?

In a nuclear winter, not only will there be destruction

Taco John

12-09-2009, 08:34 PM

Well the discussion is a practice in debate at best. This is going nowhere in America.

watermock

12-09-2009, 09:44 PM

Rohirrim

12-10-2009, 03:31 AM

Pretty soon, we'll be able to sail right across the North Pole. So we've got that going for us.

watermock

12-10-2009, 04:06 AM

At least Hudson had a car named after him.

Bronx33

12-10-2009, 12:04 PM

Bronx33

12-10-2009, 12:11 PM

^ And as for those hacked emails from the CRU? As usual, the best place to understand the no-spin science behind all this is RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -cru-hack/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/)

The CRU is just one lab of dozens all over the world gathering data ... and taking a bunch of their e-mails out of context does not change the overwhelming climate consensus.

Realclimate is a puppet might as well call it CRU climate.com ( the emails prove it) but please don't read the emails just keep posting meaningless crap with a couple cartoons and no facts.

Fedaykin

12-10-2009, 12:44 PM

Realclimate is a puppet might as well call it CRU climate.com ( the emails prove it) but please don't read the emails just keep posting meaningless crap with a couple cartoons and no facts.

Take your own advice. Read the emails, research the information in them (and the context) and then draw a conclusion. You can't just skip that second step, pronounce your pre-determined conclusion and call it good -- at least not if you are trying to be intellectually honest with yourself and others.

I'll say it again, it'd be great news if GCC were a fraud -- and I would welcome that news for the fact that it would make my life and my childrens' lives easier. However, I've yet to see anything remotely supportive of that conclusion.

W*GS

12-10-2009, 01:03 PM

As per usual, Eschenbach screwed up:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

W*GS

12-10-2009, 01:04 PM

Bronx33

12-10-2009, 07:22 PM

Take your own advice. Read the emails, research the information in them (and the context) and then draw a conclusion. You can't just skip that second step, pronounce your pre-determined conclusion and call it good -- at least not if you are trying to be intellectually honest with yourself and others.

I'll say it again, it'd be great news if GCC were a fraud -- and I would welcome that news for the fact that it would make my life and my childrens' lives easier. However, I've yet to see anything remotely supportive of that conclusion.

I have been reading them i have posted the link numerous times so others can read them and thats alot more than some around here have done.

At 14:16 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:

Hi Tim,
Just checking if there are any further developments here, i.e. some more info from
either Tom or Keith.
Gavin and I feel we need to do something on RealClimate on this quickly, probably by
later today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go
there personally, but so I'm informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd
like us to include.

You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone...

mike

--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

:thumbs:

Bronx33

12-10-2009, 08:58 PM

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.

I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

talk to you later,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> 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.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK

Bronx33

12-10-2009, 09:06 PM

MWP= Medevil warm period

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal and
reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature reconstructions
around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2 thousand years to
convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly regionally variable.
Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare this (?). 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 [Phil and I have one in
review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put in an inquiry to Judy
Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we could do this the way certain plots
were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it 1990?) in which a spatial map was
provided in the center (this would show the locations of the proxies), with "rays"
radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to rectanges showing the different
timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to convey both the spatial and
temporal information at the same time.

Bronx33

12-10-2009, 09:19 PM

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: reconstruction errors
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400

Tim,
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks
back to:
AD 1000
AD 1400
AD 1600
I can't find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you'll see that the
residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd
case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig them
up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600--its pretty clear that key
predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably
larger uncertainties farther back...
You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files.
I can't even remember what the other columns are!
Let me know if that helps. Thanks,
mike
p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on
this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So
please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of
"dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try
to distort things...

Bronx33

12-10-2009, 09:22 PM

From: Gary Funkhouser <gary@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700

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
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
phone: (520) 621-2946
fax: (520) 621-8229
e-mail: gary@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Bronx33

12-11-2009, 03:10 PM

I here crickets

epicSocialism4tw

12-11-2009, 03:13 PM

I here crickets

I think you knocked 'em out cold with truth. :thumbsup:

sisterhellfyre

12-11-2009, 03:28 PM

I still say you can't throw all this crap up into the air and not expect repercussions. And we still need to divorce ourselves from middle east oil. But we also need to know the truth and what is really what.

Ditto *and* QFT, Yoda.

I'm not a scientist, and don't even play one on TV, but I'm concerned about the homogenization and possible falsification of all this data. A theory built on a bad foundation makes a lousy basis for sweeping law and international reform.

I'm following with a great deal of interest.

epicSocialism4tw

12-11-2009, 03:30 PM

Ditto *and* QFT, Yoda.

I'm not a scientist, and don't even play one on TV, but I'm concerned about the homogenization and possible falsification of all this data. A theory built on a bad foundation makes a lousy foundation for sweeping law and international reform.

I'm following with a great deal of interest.

rep

Bronx33

12-11-2009, 03:40 PM

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice - YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!
Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004

Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please ! I'm trying to redress the
balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the
kettle
black - Christian doesn't make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian
message
so you don't get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get
more
advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE - just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm

Cheers
Phil

Bronx33

12-11-2009, 03:50 PM

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
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.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-11-2009, 04:24 PM

It's no surprise that a conservative website(torygraph as its called in the UK)will take this position.

And the Exxon-Mobil shills eat it right up. Ha!

Bronx33

12-11-2009, 05:43 PM

From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.”

Bronx33

12-11-2009, 06:00 PM

http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg

This cracked me up

Bronx33

12-11-2009, 06:03 PM

At 06:25 28/09/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:

"REDUCE THE OCEAN BLIP"

Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.

W*GS

12-11-2009, 07:21 PM

Bronx33 is being led around by the dick by Big Oil/Gas/Coal and he thinks he's getting a handjob.

watermock

12-11-2009, 07:33 PM

I didn't know big oil got their e-mails hacked.

Bronx33

12-11-2009, 07:38 PM

Bronx33 is being led around by the dick by Big Oil/Gas/Coal and he thinks he's getting a handjob.

I know i know you don't want to even try to address the emails heck if i were you i would just pretend they didn't exist and run around throwing useless kiddie comments like they are actually some kind of retort to the subject at hand. ( ohhhhhhh wait you already are) :thumbs:

Bronx33

12-11-2009, 07:53 PM

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawlingthem. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
sendto anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the
main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems
the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.
Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert
by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil

W*GS

12-11-2009, 08:02 PM

I know i know you don't want to even try to address the emails

There's not much to address.

You're being a good beeatch to the denialists and their big fossil fuel paymasters.

You and their ilk will trash the planet for a few bucks. That's contemptible.

Bronx33

12-11-2009, 08:05 PM

yawn

W*GS

12-11-2009, 08:08 PM

Throw out CRU.

Throw out Mann, Briffa, Trenberth, Wigley, et.al.

What do you have left?

Manmade climate change that poses a significant threat.

But denialists like Bronx33 will never get that, because the science is over their heads.

TheDave

12-11-2009, 08:22 PM

In all seriousnes... how many guys are involved in these emails?

Just from a quick count I've seen 4 names. Is that about right?

Bronx33

12-11-2009, 08:44 PM

In all seriousnes... how many guys are involved in these emails?

Just from a quick count I've seen 4 names. Is that about right?

Roughly...:~ohyah!:

214 messages from: p.jones
171 from: michael e. mann
144 from: k. briffa
103 from: jto
80 from: t.osborn
60 from: santer1
45 from: wigley
31 from: m.hulme
21 from: eystein.jansen
19 from: trenbert
18 from: steve mcintyre
16 from: wahl, eugene r
14 from: drdendro
11 from: rahmstorf
10 from: narasimha d. rao; ra****
9 from: thomas.c.peterson; tim osborn
8 from: d.j. keenan; drind; naki; peiser, benny; tcrowley
7 from: gschmidt; mhughes; raymond s. bradley; stepan g. shiyatov;
tatiana m. dedkova
6 from: c.goodess; ipcc-wg1; kevin trenberth; mmaccrac;
peter.thorne; valerie.masson
5 from: john.christy; jonathan overpeck; joos; mick kelly;
susan.solomon; t.d.davies

Bronx33

12-11-2009, 08:47 PM

watermock

12-11-2009, 09:03 PM

Again, evidence the cap and trade has allready produced billions of dollars/euros of fraud should in addition to questionable motives by the NWO as well as the seemingly relentless attack on this economy from all sides, leave with 1 conclusion.

The NWO wants the US to install a NWO militarily then fail and surrender to the UN/NWO.

Obushma

12-11-2009, 09:45 PM

Bronx33

12-11-2009, 09:47 PM

Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml)

epicSocialism4tw

12-11-2009, 10:48 PM

Bronx33 is being led around by the dick by Big Oil/Gas/Coal and he thinks he's getting a handjob.

You're getting pimpslapped around so hard by Bronx that this is all you can muster? Ha!

watermock

12-11-2009, 10:49 PM

Question for someone in the know.

If Cap and Trade is passed everywhere in the world except for China and India, where does all that tax money go? Does one single man, or a couple of men, own the rights to that money? Is it given to the UN?

Hard to ay, noone is sure, currently there is absolutely no rules on carbon trading, however, certain interest are certainly interested, i.e. Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, Ken Lay, and various NWO suspects.

China and India have allready withdrawn after finding out the was no cash cow.

The only thing that has happened is the EPA declared CO2 a poisionous gas.

TheDave

12-11-2009, 11:30 PM

Roughly...:~ohyah!:

214 messages from: p.jones
171 from: michael e. mann
144 from: k. briffa
103 from: jto
80 from: t.osborn
60 from: santer1
45 from: wigley
31 from: m.hulme
21 from: eystein.jansen
19 from: trenbert
18 from: steve mcintyre
16 from: wahl, eugene r
14 from: drdendro
11 from: rahmstorf
10 from: narasimha d. rao; ra****
9 from: thomas.c.peterson; tim osborn
8 from: d.j. keenan; drind; naki; peiser, benny; tcrowley
7 from: gschmidt; mhughes; raymond s. bradley; stepan g. shiyatov;
tatiana m. dedkova
6 from: c.goodess; ipcc-wg1; kevin trenberth; mmaccrac;
peter.thorne; valerie.masson
5 from: john.christy; jonathan overpeck; joos; mick kelly;
susan.solomon; t.d.davies

OK, lets try it this way how many are implicated in this conspiracy... or is everyone guilty by association?

watermock

12-12-2009, 12:34 AM

Anyone who uses faulty data, knowingly or not IMO.

Being an unknown consirator only absolves you to a point. Just like Germans in WW2.

Regardless, this is ultimately about cap and trade, and it's consequences.

W*GS

12-12-2009, 07:33 AM

i just want the truth wags is that to much to ask for?

You don't want the truth.

Denialists aren't interested in the truth, just obfuscating, spinning, and twisting it. They'll smear, slur, and defame scientists and others along the way.

W*GS

12-12-2009, 07:35 AM

Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml)

Yet another bogus petition.

These morons don't have the science backing them, so they manufacture doubt. One of the guys passing around this request to the APS is "Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil".

'Nuff said.

Bronco Bob

12-12-2009, 07:59 AM

As one can see, the global warmists have their beliefs and they are sticking to them regardless of the lies and distortions their so-called scientists are caught telling.

As one can see, the Denialists have their beliefs and they are sticking to them regardless of the lies and distortions their so-called scientists are caught telling.

Bronco Bob

12-12-2009, 08:06 AM

The Ozone layer is the unknown. For all we know it was always there.

Well for you people, that may be all you know. But for the scientist that
actually measure this sort of stuff, they know exactly what is going on
with the ozone layer and what sort of things affect it, and what to do
about it. See, that's the difference between educated people and the
mouth breathers on the right. Knowledge.

Bronco Bob

12-12-2009, 08:18 AM

Question for someone in the know.

If Cap and Trade is passed everywhere in the world except for China and India, where does all that tax money go? Does one single man, or a couple of men, own the rights to that money? Is it given to the UN?

You misunderstand what cap and trade is. It isn't a tax. So there is no tax
money to go anywhere.
The way cap and trade works is am emission level is set. This is the Cap,
Those companies that exceed this level buy credits from companies that
are under this level. This is the Trade.
Now if companies in China and India were to build low pollution factories,
yes they could trade the emission credits to higher polluting companies
elsewhere. But why would low pollution factories in China and India
be a bad idea?

Obushma

12-12-2009, 04:44 PM

You misunderstand what cap and trade is. It isn't a tax. So there is no tax
money to go anywhere.
The way cap and trade works is am emission level is set. This is the Cap,
Those companies that exceed this level buy credits from companies that
are under this level. This is the Trade.
Now if companies in China and India were to build low pollution factories,
yes they could trade the emission credits to higher polluting companies
elsewhere. But why would low pollution factories in China and India
be a bad idea?

Wouldn't that be a tax? If a company exceeds the cap level set by a group of chosen people they are charged. I'm taking it there is some type of of currency moving around whether physical or electronic.

So your telling me that Cap and Trade only effects companies, not everyday people like you and me? I won't be taxed any additional money for driving my car?

Bronx33

12-12-2009, 04:55 PM

OK, lets try it this way how many are implicated in this conspiracy... or is everyone guilty by association?

Too early to tell at this point.

Bronx33

12-12-2009, 04:59 PM

You don't want the truth.

Denialists aren't interested in the truth, just obfuscating, spinning, and twisting it. They'll smear, slur, and defame scientists and others along the way.

What a completely stupid comment are you even remotely in this thread or do these comments come automatically? really dude i do want the truth and just because you say it's all good isn't enough you sir can't be trusted.

Bronx33

12-12-2009, 05:01 PM

Yet another bogus petition.

These morons don't have the science backing them, so they manufacture doubt. One of the guys passing around this request to the APS is "Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil".

'Nuff said.

damn! and it was from cbs news i thought for sure it was real. :spit:

W*GS

12-12-2009, 06:19 PM

What a completely stupid comment are you even remotely in this thread or do these comments come automatically? really dude i do want the truth and just because you say it's all good isn't enough you sir can't be trusted.

Don't trust me, then.

Go to the data - it's all out there. Write your own analysis.

Otherwise, you're just a gutless pussy.

TheDave

12-12-2009, 06:20 PM

Too early to tell at this point.

Heh?

It's too early to tell how big this "conspiracy" is... but it's not too early to damn all of climatology?

Bronco Yoda

12-12-2009, 06:27 PM

Review: E-mails show pettiness, not fraud
Climate experts, AP reporters go through 1,000 exchanges\

LONDON - E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press....

full story http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment//

So what's everyones reaction to this?

mhgaffney

12-12-2009, 06:34 PM

Cap and trade is bull****.

If you want cleaner air -- then let's take steps in that direction -- to achieve that.

Cap and Trade is a bankster idea. By and for banksters.

It's sheer speculation -- for the purpose of exploiting the continuing destruction of the planet.

The banksters hope to get even richer as we destroy the earth.

Talk about a cynical world view. (me, me, me, me...)

Bronx33

12-15-2009, 04:05 PM

wags favorite place (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/)

People keep saying “Yes, the Climategate scientists behaved badly. But that doesn’t mean the data is bad. That doesn’t mean the earth is not warming.”

me start with the second objection first. The earth has generally been warming since the Little Ice Age, around 1650. There is general agreement that the earth has warmed since then. See e.g. Akasofu . Climategate doesn’t affect that.

The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People say “Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists’ papers out of the journals … but that doesn’t affect the data, the data is still good.” Which sounds reasonable.

There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data.

So I’m still on my multi-year quest to understand the climate data. You never know where this data chase will lead. This time, it has ended me up in Australia. I got to thinking about Professor Wibjorn Karlen’s statement about Australia that I quoted here: (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad)

Another example is Australia. NASA [GHCN] only presents 3 stations covering the period 1897-1992. What kind of data is the IPCC Australia diagram based on?

If any trend it is a slight cooling. However, if a shorter period (1949-2005) is used, the temperature has increased substantially. The Australians have many stations and have published more detailed maps of changes and trends.

The folks at CRU told Wibjorn that he was just plain wrong. Here’s what they said is right, the record that Wibjorn was talking about, Fig. 9.12 in the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, showing Northern Australia:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero1.png?w=505&h=393

Figure 1. Temperature trends and model results in Northern Australia. Black line is observations (From Fig. 9.12 from the UN IPCC Fourth Annual Report). Covers the area from 110E to 155E, and from 30S to 11S. Based on the CRU land temperature.) Data from the CRU.

One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU basically uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) dataset for its raw data. So I looked at the GHCN dataset. There, I find three stations in North Australia as Wibjorn had said, and nine stations in all of Australia, that cover the period 1900-2000. Here is the average of the GHCN unadjusted data for those three Northern stations, from AIS:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero2.png?w=509&h=396

Figure 2. GHCN Raw Data, All 100-yr stations in IPCC area above.

So once again Wibjorn is correct, this looks nothing like the corresponding IPCC temperature record for Australia. But it’s too soon to tell. Professor Karlen is only showing 3 stations. Three is not a lot of stations, but that’s all of the century-long Australian records we have in the IPCC specified region. OK, we’ve seen the longest stations record, so lets throw more records into the mix. Here’s every station in the UN IPCC specified region which contains temperature records that extend up to the year 2000 no matter when they started, which is 30 stations.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero3.png?w=510&h=395

Figure 3. GHCN Raw Data, All stations extending to 2000 in IPCC area above.

Still no similarity with IPCC. So I looked at every station in the area. That’s 222 stations. Here’s that result:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero4.png?w=510&h=395

Figure 4. GHCN Raw Data, All stations extending to 2000 in IPCC area above.

So you can see why Wibjorn was concerned. This looks nothing like the UN IPCC data, which came from the CRU, which was based on the GHCN data. Why the difference?

The answer is, these graphs all use the raw GHCN data. But the IPCC uses the “adjusted” data. GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls “inhomogeneities”. So on a whim I thought I’d take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home. And I could find out how large the GHCN adjustment for Darwin inhomogeneities was.

First, what is an “inhomogeneity”? I can do no better than quote from GHCN:

Most long-term climate stations have undergone changes that make a time series of their observations inhomogeneous. There are many causes for the discontinuities, including changes in instruments, shelters, the environment around the shelter, the location of the station, the time of observation, and the method used to calculate mean temperature. Often several of these occur at the same time, as is often the case with the introduction of automatic weather stations that is occurring in many parts of the world. Before one can reliably use such climate data for analysis of longterm climate change, adjustments are needed to compensate for the nonclimatic discontinuities.
That makes sense. The raw data will have jumps from station moves and the like. We don’t want to think it’s warming just because the thermometer was moved to a warmer location. Unpleasant as it may seem, we have to adjust for those as best we can.

I always like to start with the rawest data, so I can understand the adjustments. At Darwin there are five separate individual station records that are combined to make up the final Darwin record. These are the individual records of stations in the area, which are numbered from zero to four:

DATA SOURCE (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=darwin)

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero5.png?w=510&h=325

Bronx33

12-15-2009, 04:09 PM

Figure 5. Five individual temperature records for Darwin, plus station count (green line). This raw data is downloaded from GISS, but GISS use the GHCN raw data as the starting point for their analysis.

Darwin does have a few advantages over other stations with multiple records. There is a continuous record from 1941 to the present (Station 1). There is also a continuous record covering a century. finally, the stations are in very close agreement over the entire period of the record. In fact, where there are multiple stations in operation they are so close that you can’t see the records behind Station Zero.

This is an ideal station, because it also illustrates many of the problems with the raw temperature station data.

There is no one record that covers the whole period.
The shortest record is only nine years long.
There are gaps of a month and more in almost all of the records.
It looks like there are problems with the data at around 1941.
Most of the datasets are missing months.
For most of the period there are few nearby stations.
There is no one year covered by all five records.
The temperature dropped over a six year period, from a high in 1936 to a low in 1941. The station did move in 1941 … but what happened in the previous six years?
In resolving station records, it’s a judgment call. First off, you have to decide if what you are looking at needs any changes at all. In Darwin’s case, it’s a close call. The record seems to be screwed up around 1941, but not in the year of the move.

Also, although the 1941 temperature shift seems large, I see a similar sized shift from 1992 to 1999. Looking at the whole picture, I think I’d vote to leave it as it is, that’s always the best option when you don’t have other evidence. First do no harm.

However, there’s a case to be made for adjusting it, particularly given the 1941 station move. If I decided to adjust Darwin, I’d do it like this:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero6.png?w=510&h=398

Figure 6 A possible adjustment for Darwin. Black line shows the total amount of the adjustment, on the right scale, and shows the timing of the change.

I shifted the pre-1941 data down by about 0.6C. We end up with little change end to end in my “adjusted” data (shown in red), it’s neither warming nor cooling. However, it reduces the apparent cooling in the raw data. Post-1941, where the other records overlap, they are very close, so I wouldn’t adjust them in any way. Why should we adjust those, they all show exactly the same thing.

OK, so that’s how I’d homogenize the data if I had to, but I vote against adjusting it at all. It only changes one station record (Darwin Zero), and the rest are left untouched.

Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN removes the “in-homogeneities” to “adjust” the data. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN discards two, likely because they are short and duplicate existing longer records. The three remaining records are first “homogenized” and then averaged to give the “GHCN Adjusted” temperature record for Darwin.

To my great surprise, here’s what I found. To explain the full effect, I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown).

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-averages.jpg?w=510&h=295

Figure 7. GHCN homogeneity adjustments to Darwin Airport combined record

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.

Of course, that led me to look at exactly how the GHCN “adjusts” the temperature data. Here’s what they say in An Overview of the GHCN Database:

GHCN temperature data include two different datasets: the original data and a homogeneity- adjusted dataset. All homogeneity testing was done on annual time series. The homogeneity- adjustment technique used two steps.

The first step was creating a homogeneous reference series for each station (Peterson and Easterling 1994). Building a completely homogeneous reference series using data with unknown inhomogeneities may be impossible, but we used several techniques to minimize any potential inhomogeneities in the reference series.

In creating each year’s first difference reference series, we used the five most highly correlated neighboring stations that had enough data to accurately model the candidate station.

…

The final technique we used to minimize inhomogeneities in the reference series used the mean of the central three values (of the five neighboring station values) to create the first difference reference series.

Fair enough, that all sounds good. They pick five neighboring stations, and average them. Then they compare the average to the station in question. If it looks wonky compared to the average of the reference five, they check any historical records for changes, and if necessary, they homogenize the poor data mercilessly. I have some problems with what they do to homogenize it, but that’s how they identify the inhomogeneous stations.

OK … but given the scarcity of stations in Australia, I wondered how they would find five “neighboring stations” in 1941 …

So I looked it up. The nearest station that covers the year 1941 is 500 km away from Darwin. Not only is it 500 km away, it is the only station within 750 km of Darwin that covers the 1941 time period. (It’s also a pub, Daly Waters Pub to be exact, but hey, it’s Australia, good on ya.) So there simply aren’t five stations to make a “reference series” out of to check the 1936-1941 drop at Darwin.

Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized Darwin records, I then went to see how they had homogenized each of the individual station records. What made up that strange average shown in Fig. 7? I started at zero with the earliest record. Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized versions.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjusted-and-un-w-adjustment.jpg?w=510&h=489

Figure 8 Darwin Zero Homogeneity Adjustments. Black line shows amount and timing of adjustments.

Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.

So once again, I’m left with an unsolved mystery. How and why did the GHCN “adjust” Darwin’s historical temperature to show radical warming? Why did they adjust it stepwise? Do Phil Jones and the CRU folks use the “adjusted” or the raw GHCN dataset? My guess is the adjusted one since it shows warming, but of course we still don’t know … because despite all of this, the CRU still hasn’t released the list of data that they actually use, just the station list.

Another odd fact, the GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 (which covers much of the same period, and as per Fig. 5 is in excellent agreement with Station Zero and Station 1) totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them.

That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it “hides the decline”.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? Well, they only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way of neatly avoiding the question … and also a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941. It’s likely a better choice than the GHCN monstrosity, but it’s a hard one to justify.

Now, I want to be clear here. The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station does NOT mean that the earth is not warming. It also does NOT mean that the three records (CRU, GISS, and GHCN) are generally wrong either. This may be an isolated incident, we don’t know. But every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. Now GISS does their own adjustments. However, as they keep telling us, they get the same answer as GHCN gets … which makes their numbers suspicious as well.

And CRU? Who knows what they use? We’re still waiting on that one, no data yet …

What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling. In addition, the average raw data for Northern Australia is quite different from the adjusted, so there must be a number of … mmm … let me say “interesting” adjustments in Northern Australia other than just Darwin.

And with the Latin saying “Falsus in unum, falsus in omis” (false in one, false in all) as our guide, until all of the station “adjustments” are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS alike, we can’t trust anyone using homogenized numbers.

CHECK THIS OUT! (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/07/rel18e.pdf)

Bronx33

12-15-2009, 05:20 PM

This email went to roughly 8000 people...

December 14, 2009

DOE Litigation Hold Notice

DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”

As a reminder, this Litigation Hold preservation obligation supersedes any existing statutory or regulatory document retention period or destructive schedule. The determination of what information may be potentially relevant is based upon content and substance and generally does not depend on the type of medium on which the information exists. The information requested may exist in various forms, including paper records, hand-written notes, telephone log entries, email, and other electronic communication (including voicemail), word processing documents (including drafts, spreadsheets, databases, and calendars), telephone logs, electronic address books, PDAs (like Palm Pilots and Blackberries), internet usage files, systems manuals, and network access information in their original format. All ESI should be preserved in its originally-created, or “native” format, along with related metadata. Relevant backup tapes and all indexes for those tapes should also be preserved. Further, information that is reasonably accessible must nonetheless be preserved, because such sources will, at the very least, need to be identified and, under compelling circumstances, may need to be produced.

If you have any doubts as to whether specific information is responsive, err on the side of preserving that information.

Any employee who has information covered by this Litigation Hold is requested to contact Madeline Screven, Paralegal, SRNS Office of General Council, 5-4634, for additional instructions.

Michael L. Wamsted
Associate General Council”

Bronx33

12-15-2009, 05:35 PM

Dr Mann no soup FOR YOU!! (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mann_piccola_letter1.jpg)

OR CRACKERS!!! (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mann_piccola_letter2.jpg)

Bronx33

12-15-2009, 05:58 PM

GHCN Antarctic data is suspect as well...

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: HadCRUT2v
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:16:28 -0700
Cc: Tim Osborn , Ben Santer

Phil,

Why is there so much missing data for the South Pole? The period Jan 75 thru
Dec 90 is all missing except Dec 81, July & Dec 85, Apr 87, Apr & Sept 88,
Apr 89. Also, from and including Aug 2003 is missing.

Also — more seriously but correctable. The S Pole is just represented
by a single
box at 87.5S (N Pole ditto I suspect). This screws up area averaging. It
would be
better to put the S Pole value in ALL boxes at 87.5S.

I have had to do this in my code — but you really should fix the ‘raw’
gridded data.

For area averages, the difference is between having the S Pole represent
the whole
region south of 85S, and having (as now) it represent one 72nd of this
region. It
is pretty obvious to me what is better.

This affects the impression of missing data too of course.

Tom.

analysis of that DATA (http://savecapitalism.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/ghcn-antarctica-careful-selection-of-data/)

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/ghcn-antarctic-warming-eight-times-actual/

Bronx33

12-15-2009, 07:29 PM

Bronx33

12-15-2009, 07:53 PM

Testing station placements as well as the Rothera Point has the single highest trend of any of the adjusted station data ( but was submitted anyways) ohhhh and its a tourist site. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/13/frigid-folly-uhi-siting-issues-and-adjustments-in-antarctic-ghcn-data/)

cutthemdown

12-15-2009, 10:47 PM

ZONA

12-15-2009, 11:58 PM

Fossil Fuels (also known as non-renewable fuels, because once they are used up, that's it, there is no more) is so old school, just like the Republican party. Renewable energy sources (such as solar, wind, etc.) and ways to make them more efficient will be the future energy sources. So the Republicans would rather turn their cheek to cleaner more abundant energy sources of the future (and all of the possible economic gains for being the first to develop them) and continue to focus on paying trillions of dollars to the middle east for energy (that will someday run out) and then trillions more to fight terrorism that much of the oil money helps to finance.

Our Sun alone puts out energy at the rate of around 4 billion atomic bombs going off..........every second. Seems most illogical not to learn something from nature and figure out how to better use the Sun as a source of renewable energy.

barryr

12-16-2009, 06:06 AM

Yeah, wind is a great source, but then again, Ted Kennedy didn't seem to like that idea when it was going to be going into his neighborhood. The dimwits really believe our career politicians are for protecting the planet and aren't in it just to get votes and kickbacks. Wake sometime today.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-16-2009, 07:04 AM

I here(sic) crickets

That would be the sound of all thinking people sitting slack-jawed at your "logic."

And as for those hacked emails from the CRU? As usual, the best place to understand the no-spin science behind all this is RealClimate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -cru-hack/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/)

The CRU is just one lab of dozens all over the world gathering data ... and taking a bunch of their emails out of context does not change the overwhelming climate consensus.

It's happening, and human-generated greenhouse gasses are to some degree responsible.

Another useful series of videos to show to your favorite climate denialists: Climate Denial Crock of the Week (there's several but this one nails the issue succinctly)
<object height="350" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Sf_UIQYc20" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>

Sure enough, the Saudis are up to their usual crap and trying to use the CRU hack to blow off the agenda of the conference ... meanwhile, arctic ice is still diminshing, Pacific islands are sinking, and global warming continues as a long-term trend even if interrupted by short-term cycles.

There is no "climategate," but your friends the Saudis want the world to believe there is one.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30291.html

W*GS

12-16-2009, 07:21 AM

I see Bronx33 is sucking off Watts, Eschenbach, et.al.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/the-smoking-gun-darwin-station-temperature-adjustments

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/climate_manipulation_gun_still

gyldenlove

12-16-2009, 07:55 AM

W*GS

12-16-2009, 08:01 AM

The true face of denialism:

Bronx33

12-16-2009, 12:19 PM

That would be the sound of all thinking people sitting slack-jawed at your "logic."

Realclimate is no longer to be trusted for reasons proven earlier now run along and post some cartoons.

Bronx33

12-16-2009, 12:24 PM

W*GS

12-16-2009, 12:32 PM

Realclimate is no longer to be trusted for reasons proven earlier now run along and post some cartoons.

You wouldn't know how to deal with RealClimate anyway.

Much too much thinking involved.

W*GS

12-16-2009, 12:40 PM

Ahhhhh wags rosen was talking about your hero Trenberth this morning and how he refused to come on and prove his points. ( wonder why?) since there is nothing to hide you would think he could come on and own rosen but sadly he choose to stay silent ( probably a wise decision)

I don't particularly like Trenberth - but that doesn't mean his science is wrong.

Rosen is just being the rightard ass he is. The work that Trenberth does would be so over Rosen's head that wouldn't know what the heck is going on.

A corrective to Hayward's piece:

http://www.desmogblog.com/climatespin-using-stolen-emails-cripple-policy

The Right is leaping all over this thing, and the only outcome is that they're revealing how truly ignorant they are. I've seen numerous basic errors in their "commentary" on the science. The Right is way wrong on this issue, just as they are on so many issues.

Doesn't mean you won't slurp up Rosen's spooge anyway, Bronx33.

Bronx33

12-16-2009, 03:49 PM

I don't particularly like Trenberth - but that doesn't mean his science is wrong.

Rosen is just being the rightard ass he is. The work that Trenberth does would be so over Rosen's head that wouldn't know what the heck is going on.

A corrective to Hayward's piece:

http://www.desmogblog.com/climatespin-using-stolen-emails-cripple-policy

The Right is leaping all over this thing, and the only outcome is that they're revealing how truly ignorant they are. I've seen numerous basic errors in their "commentary" on the science. The Right is way wrong on this issue, just as they are on so many issues.

Doesn't mean you won't slurp up Rosen's spooge anyway, Bronx33.

Seriously how old are you? Hilarious! it's really hard to take you serious when the end of every post looks like an out take from a jr high discussion at lunch time. All i know is ( Trenberth avoided rosen after a request to come on the show).

W*GS

12-16-2009, 04:13 PM

Seriously how old are you? Hilarious! it's really hard to take you serious when the end of every post looks like an out take from a jr high discussion at lunch time.

I'm doing you a favor - aiming just a few miles over your head.

All i know is ( Trenberth avoided rosen after a request to come on the show).

Trenberth (and all other scientists) don't need the aggravations of a moron like Rosen.

Bronx33

12-16-2009, 04:33 PM

I'm doing you a favor - aiming just a few miles over your head.

Trenberth (and all other scientists) don't need the aggravations of a moron like Rosen.

Keep pretending they are better than everybody else they will be answering questions just like any other scmuck pretty soon.

W*GS

12-16-2009, 07:28 PM

Keep pretending they are better than everybody else they will be answering questions just like any other scmuck pretty soon.

No.

If you don't even have the courtesy to inform yourself before you start criticizing the science, then they don't have any obligation to take you (and the other denialists) seriously.

Honestly, when I read many of the denialist talking-points, it's very clear that they have no ****ing clue as to what they're saying.

epicSocialism4tw

12-16-2009, 08:43 PM

Seriously how old are you? Hilarious! it's really hard to take you serious when the end of every post looks like an out take from a jr high discussion at lunch time. All i know is ( Trenberth avoided rosen after a request to come on the show).

He's obviously a wounded dog backed into a corner. He has nothing left but to snap.

gyldenlove

12-17-2009, 11:01 AM

Bronx33

12-17-2009, 11:02 AM

No.

If you don't even have the courtesy to inform yourself before you start criticizing the science, then they don't have any obligation to take you (and the other denialists) seriously.

Honestly, when I read many of the denialist talking-points, it's very clear that they have no ****ing clue as to what they're saying.

If my tax dollars are funding that science then yes they have a obligation to me even more so when that research effects policy now quit pretending you live in a special world where you make the rules nd also quit pretending you know what other scientists are up too in england ( you don't know shyt) about their intentions and motives.

Bronx33

12-17-2009, 11:06 AM

If one thing has become more than abundantly clear it is that you can not debate science and the merits of science with people who have no scientific training. That is the reason scientific articles are not published in the Denver Post, it would do no good.

Reading emails is fairly unscientific and can been done by mortals and is the topic of this thread ( try and keep up) read em and see how you enterpret them then post.

broncocalijohn

12-17-2009, 11:42 AM

You wouldn't know how to deal with RealClimate anyway.

Much too much bull****ting involved.

fixed for ya. Wigs. Bronx laid out a huge discussion (possibly a discussion) on the 15th. Very interesting how these numbers are inaccurate and/or using made up methods to calculate an average temperature in a given area. Wouldnt it be better to explain where this info is wrong instead of going the LABS route and redirect the posts?

broncocalijohn

12-17-2009, 11:45 AM

If one thing has become more than abundantly clear it is that you can not debate science and the merits of science with people who have no scientific training. That is the reason scientific articles are not published in the Denver Post, it would do no good.

true but when these "experts" are pulling a fast one on the general public that affects everyone including governments and businesses, it is time to try to explain it in basic terms. These emails that were recovered do not need a major decoder ring to figure out that something is seriously wrong with the global warming industry.

W*GS

12-17-2009, 11:57 AM

If my tax dollars are funding that science then yes they have a obligation to me even more so when that research effects policy now quit pretending you live in a special world where you make the rules nd also quit pretending you know what other scientists are up too in england ( you don't know shyt) about their intentions and motives.

Let's take the denialists at their word and accept their claim that CRU has manipulated the data.

So why do the independent analyses by other groups match the CRU work so well?

Explain.

broncocalijohn

12-17-2009, 12:08 PM

Let's take the denialists at their word and accept their claim that CRU has manipulated the data.

So why do the independent analyses by other groups match the CRU work so well?

Explain.

why dont you show us those independent analyses compared to the exact data that CRU is being questioned on? Shouldnt it be completely off since CRU squewed the numbers in those instances?

TailgateNut

12-17-2009, 12:11 PM

why dont you show us those independent analyses compared to the exact data that CRU is being questioned on? Shouldnt it be completely off since CRU squewed the numbers in those instances?

Could it be that they "skewed" their numbers to mirror those of the rest of the scientific data published. Copycats exist in every profession.

Spider

12-17-2009, 12:17 PM

If my tax dollars are funding that science then yes they have a obligation to me even more so when that research effects policy now quit pretending you live in a special world where you make the rules nd also quit pretending you know what other scientists are up too in england ( you don't know shyt) about their intentions and motives.

arrogant ass .........they dont have to inform you ,you have inform yourself ,no way will they hold up a study this important in hopes you will understand .....I got an IQ near 130 ,and hell I dont even understand the **** ......

Bronx33

12-17-2009, 12:20 PM

Let's take the denialists at their word and accept their claim that CRU has manipulated the data.

So why do the independent analyses by other groups match the CRU work so well?

Explain.

What independent analyses? ( post em) also include what data sets they used ALSO why all of a sudden do you care about independents outside of the peer review inner circle? ( lots of variables dude) and just so you know iam only interested in the analyses that our goverment is using too make policy and that would be CRU. ( lets get back to the emails that you refuse to even comment on or even read) thats the point of this thread.

Very interesting exchange involving briffa (http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11861#more-11861) i await your thoughts wags.

Spider

12-17-2009, 12:20 PM

Ok maybe that post sent the wrong message ,let me put it differently ........... your tax dollars also goes for child hood disease study , should they hold off all all of those disease studys untill YOU understand them ? .............
Cancer ? .....
How about safe nuclear storage ?
clean coal ?
Should all of these things be put on hold for someone to understand , when they dont have the common courtesy to loook at bothsides of the picture ?

TailgateNut

12-17-2009, 12:25 PM

Spider

12-17-2009, 12:28 PM

Don't you know that if Bronx were to withhold his tax dollars the world would collapse within days.:~ohyah!:

:D I just wish Bronx would open up his purse strings and fill in for the banks ...... after all he pays alot in taxes He has to have some serious coin , :D

TailgateNut

12-17-2009, 12:30 PM

:D I just wish Bronx would open up his purse strings and fill in for the banks ...... after all he pays alot in taxes He has to have some serious coin , :D

Maybe then we could afford some REAL scientist to perform the tests and studies properly and issue daily updates to the public.

Spider

12-17-2009, 01:03 PM

Maybe then we could afford some REAL scientist to perform the tests and studies properly and issue daily updates to the public.

;D every hour on the hour ........... we can make it like Monday football , get an opening theme song , dancin gurls ......... we will call it the Bronx 33 feel good happy hour ...

Rohirrim

12-17-2009, 01:05 PM

I like's me some dancin gurls...

broncocalijohn

12-17-2009, 01:07 PM

Could it be that they "skewed" their numbers to mirror those of the rest of the scientific data published. Copycats exist in every profession.

that is what i am afraid of. Seems so many trust others (as you think you could as it should be accurate) and make themselves look even worse. Just think of all those that used Wikipedia for term papers (or maybe even at the Mane in the football forums).

broncocalijohn

12-17-2009, 01:09 PM

Don't you know that if Bronx were to withhold his tax dollars the world would collapse within days.:~ohyah!:

i think you are confusing bronx with broncofan7.

Spider

12-17-2009, 01:10 PM

broncocalijohn

12-17-2009, 01:19 PM

we can start the show out like this ....nothing wrong with the climate folks , no global warmin , nothing to see here, be well , think happy , happy thoughts , ............. hell could even do hand picked guest callers , Like Hannity , Rush , Coulter , Savage , let em use fake names .........

what if the global warming is happening but not at the alarming rate published? What if it is happening but nothing short of living like we were in the stone age would help it be reversed? Is the steps being asked by cities, governments and its citizens worth that? There is no way you can get a big enough majority to agree on it. Hell, you wouldnt be going into New Town since you couldnt drive a rig. GW could be happening, but can we do anything to actually stop it? Go separate trash, ride your bike to the store, dont litter are easy things we can all do, but what really needs to be done would never be accepted except from Nye the Science Guy and Ed Begley jr.

W*GS

12-17-2009, 01:19 PM

why dont you show us those independent analyses compared to the exact data that CRU is being questioned on?

Take a look at NASA GISS.

Or NCDC.

Or JMA.

Or UAH.

All of the above are readily available via

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources

Read all those groups' data, make your own plots.

That's the transparency and the data you want. Go for it!

W*GS

12-17-2009, 01:23 PM

I don't speculate on breathless blog posts insisting on conspiracy.

So take that and shove it, Bronx33.

Bronx33

12-17-2009, 01:51 PM

I don't speculate on breathless blog posts insisting on conspiracy.

So take that and shove it, Bronx33.

You're are missing the point wags ( go figure) the emails tell a story i understand why you're afraid to read the emails and your refusal to do so tells me volumes you don't want to get to the bottom of this mistery, so just go back to the jr high kiddie comments ( it's your forte).

ps: again realclimate has been proven untrustworthy but it does explain why you keep bringing them up over and over ( it's all you have)

Bronx33

12-17-2009, 02:38 PM

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.

Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

As Richard North says: This is serial.

UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil

And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent

And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:

The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.\

One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.

Not, of course, dear readers that I’m in any way tempted to crow about these latest revelations. After all, so many of my colleagues, junior and senior, have been backing me on this one to the hilt….

Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report.

THE EMAILS ABOUT RUSSIA: HARRY_READ_ME file

So.. should I really go to town (again) and allow the Master database to be ‘fixed’ by this program? Quite honestly I don’t have time – but it just shows the state our data holdings have drifted into. Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally.

It’s the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately – meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it’s restricted to Russia!!

…

Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ’supposed’, I can make it up. So I have

…

You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).

…

This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option – to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ‘em, and it’s the main reason the project is nearly a year late.

TheDave

12-17-2009, 02:52 PM

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/124669/original.jpg

There is just something extra funny about people who make up numbers to
create a story about people making up numbers ;D

W*GS

12-17-2009, 02:52 PM

Ahh yes, the Russian equivalent of CEI (IEA) makes an ass of itself.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php

When are you gonna learn that I'm so far ahead of you that it's futile to challenge me on this subject?

W*GS

12-17-2009, 02:59 PM

You're are missing the point wags ( go figure) the emails tell a story i understand why you're afraid to read the emails

I've read the emails, dope.

They're a cherry-picked selection designed to make a few scientists look bad. Here's what one of the scientists harassed and targeted has to say:

As spoken at the AGU 2009 Fall Meeting, reprinted with permission

These remarks reflect the personal opinions of B.D. Santer. They do not represent the official views of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or the U.S. Department of Energy.

We live in extraordinary scientific and political times.

Over the course of less than a dozen generations, humanity has transitioned from a passive bystander to an active agent of change in the climate system. We are now aware of this fundamental change in our role in the world. We can no longer plead ignorance.

As climate scientists, this is what we know with great confidence:

* We know that human activities have changed the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

* We know that these changes in the composition of the atmosphere have had profound effects on Earth’s climate.

* We know that the human “fingerprint” on climate will become ever more visible over the next few decades, and will impact many aspects of our lives.

* We know that we are at a crossroads in human history. The decisions our political leaders reach in Copenhagen – or fail to reach – will shape the world inherited by future generations.

Our political leadership must have access to the best-available scientific information. Without this information, they will be unable to reach wise decisions on how to respond to the problem of human-caused climate change.

The clearest, most complete assessment of the science is contained in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in the Synthesis and Assessment Products of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, and in the scientific assessments of the U.S. National Academy and the Science Academies of other nations. These assessments all underscore the reality of a “discernible human influence” on global climate.

As scientists, we must be free to contribute to such assessments. We must be free to follow the science wherever it leads us, without fear of interference when we “speak truth to power”.

Sadly, climate scientists now see and feel interference from political and economic interests. This interference is pervasive. Powerful forces are using a criminal act – the theft of over a thousand emails from the U.K.’s Climatic Research Unit – to advance their own agendas.

These “forces of unreason” seek to constrain our ability to speak truth to power. They seek to skew and distort what we know about the nature and causes of climate change. Having failed to undermine climate science itself, they seek to destroy the reputations of individual climate scientists. They seek to destroy men like Phil Jones and Mike Mann, who have devoted their entire careers to the pursuit of scientific knowledge and understanding.

We must not let this stand.

We no longer have the luxury of remaining silent on these issues. We all have voices. We need to use them.

Benjamin D. Santer
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow

San Ramon, California
December 14, 2009

Reflect on what he says.

This "Climategate" bull**** is nothing more than a concerted, evil campaign designed to manufacture doubt, attack scientists, and forestall any action on global warming so that Big Oil/Coal/Gas and their friends in Saudi Arabia et.al. can continue to rake in billions in profits at our planet's expense. It's a smear job, nothing more.

ps: again realclimate has been proven untrustworthy but it does explain why you keep bringing them up over and over ( it's all you have)

You're such a ****ing clueless git.

The link I provided from RC is nothing more than links to the relevant data sites:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu

http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

Do your own ****ing work, asshole.

W*GS

12-17-2009, 03:00 PM

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/124669/original.jpg

There is just something extra funny about people who make up numbers to
create a story about people making up numbers ;D

I'll bet Bronx33 can't even tell what's wrong with those numbers.

Spider

12-17-2009, 03:36 PM

what if the global warming is happening but not at the alarming rate published? What if it is happening but nothing short of living like we were in the stone age would help it be reversed? Is the steps being asked by cities, governments and its citizens worth that? There is no way you can get a big enough majority to agree on it. Hell, you wouldnt be going into New Town since you couldnt drive a rig. GW could be happening, but can we do anything to actually stop it? Go separate trash, ride your bike to the store, dont litter are easy things we can all do, but what really needs to be done would never be accepted except from Nye the Science Guy and Ed Begley jr.

So what bad happens if we clean up the planet ? whats the downside ?

Arkie

12-17-2009, 04:58 PM

So what bad happens if we clean up the planet ? whats the downside ?

a global police system forcing the world to live like Californians ???

Bronx33

12-17-2009, 05:18 PM

pretty cool interactive NOAA-15 satellite stuff....

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/daily-monitoring-of-global-average-temperatures/

Bronx33

12-17-2009, 05:52 PM

Hey wags do you know this guy? iam going to guess you will say hes full of shyt.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Alaska_Climate.pdf

Richard Keen at the University of Colorado was the first to notice the changes. On December 5, he published this report (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Alaska_Climate.pdf)comparing his own research into the climate of Alaska with the official version of the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). He found no evidence of warming in Alaska over the past three decades, and no substantial difference in average temperature between 1935-1944 and the present time. Overall he found a warming trend of 0.69 Kelvin per century over the span of the twentieth century--while the GHCN dataset projects a warming trend of 2.83 K/century. (The Kelvin is the International System equivalent of a Celsius degree.)

Keen published his findings at icecap.us. They were little noticed until three days later, when Willis Eschenbach published this entry (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/)at WattsUpWithThat, containing an analysis of the raw data at the weather stations in and around Darwin Airport in Australia, and the data as adjusted by GHCN. Eschenbach charged that the Darwin data had been distorted, not adjusted, and suggested that the data ought to have been left alone, or else given one single adjustment, downward by 0.6 Kelvin, of the temperature record of 1941 and prior. The result of the official adjustments was a linear warming trend of 1.2 K/century, whereas the raw data showed a cooling trend of 0.7 K/century. Had the data received the single adjustment proposed by Eschenbach, the trend might have been nearly flat.

Worse yet, says Eschenbach, the data from just one station, identified as Station Zero or Darwin Zero, received an adjustment giving it a warming trend of 6 K/century.

W*GS

12-17-2009, 09:15 PM

Here we go with the "one station" crapola again.

Eschenbach has had hisself a new one since he started prattling about Darwin.

The dude has no cred. I've already pointed out where he's gone wrong.

TailgateNut

12-18-2009, 06:36 AM

I'll bet Bronx33 can't even tell what's wrong with those numbers.

That would require elementary level math skills.

gyldenlove

12-18-2009, 11:45 AM

Bronx33

12-18-2009, 12:24 PM

Here we go with the "one station" crapola again.

Eschenbach has had hisself a new one since he started prattling about Darwin.

The dude has no cred. I've already pointed out where he's gone wrong.

Well it would be fairly simple for the elite ( peer review) scientist that won't show their data to address this now wouldn't it but all we can get is ( the science is settled) as ridiculous a statement that is if you really look at it.

After the emails climate science has no cred you arrogant fool and you havent pointed out shyt.

Bronx33

12-18-2009, 12:29 PM

So I am sure Dr. Keen has verified that all measurement equipment and techniques have stayed identical as well as measurement locations are the same over the last 100 years. He doesn't state it, so we must make that assumption, which frankly doesn't seem all that likely to me, but maybe it is easier to believe that assumption if you want him to be right.

Well since the elites won't release any info how does one replicate the process? ( thats the problem) they won't let anybody verifiy their findings they just say take our word for it, iam not sure how you shop for a new car but iam sure as hell not going to take the salesmans word without doing some research.

W*GS

12-18-2009, 12:52 PM

Well it would be fairly simple for the elite ( peer review) scientist that won't show their data

If the data is unavailable, how come I can make this plot?

After the emails climate science has no cred you arrogant fool and you havent pointed out shyt.

The denialists' piss and **** taste like lemonade and chocolate to you.

Eat and drink up!

W*GS

12-18-2009, 12:54 PM

Well since the elites won't release any info

Bull****.

how does one replicate the process?

You couldn't replicate "1 + 1" even given 100 chances to do it.

Yes, you're that ****ing stupid.

Bronx33

12-18-2009, 01:20 PM

If the data is unavailable, how come I can make this plot?

The denialists' piss and **** taste like lemonade and chocolate to you.

Eat and drink up!

GREAT! now can i see your data? ohhhhh wait you wont show it.

You obviously have some data wags but the question is (what data) so you have proven absolutely squat so quit trying until you open up the files.

Ohhhh look i can post a graph too!! i wonder what data i used? and i wonder what happens after 2008 on your graph wags??

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/images/april2008/040408graph.jpg

W*GS

12-18-2009, 01:32 PM

GREAT! now can i see your data? ohhhhh wait you wont show it.

El-wrongo:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2679865&postcount=171

Go to those links, ****wad.

Bronx33

12-18-2009, 01:47 PM

El-wrongo:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2679865&postcount=171

Go to those links, ****wad.

And i will say one more ****ing time ARE THOSE DATA SETS CORRECT? NON OF THE SCIENTISTS WILL COOPERATE ON HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THE NUMBERS SO HOW CAN WE DETERMINE IF THEY A GOOD? see thats where the sharing information thing comes in and thats where the elites fail. I simply want transparency from elite scientists ( and they have failed)

also the one iam interested in says:

The CRU Website is currently unavailable, but we're working on it!

i wonder whats being fixed? ;) i await your next childish remark and a graph that shows what happens from 2008 on.

W*GS

12-18-2009, 01:56 PM

And i will say one more ****ing time ARE THOSE DATA SETS CORRECT? NON OF THE SCIENTISTS WILL COOPERATE ON HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THE NUMBERS SO HOW CAN WE DETERMINE IF THEY A GOOD?

Bull.

All the code for the GISS data is online.

See

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/GISTEMP_sources.tar.gz

moron.

Bronx33

12-18-2009, 01:59 PM

sigh you cherry pick posts like you cherry pick data sets.

W*GS

12-18-2009, 02:14 PM

sigh you cherry pick posts like you cherry pick data sets.

Jesus Effing Christ.

I point you to the data.

I point you to the code.

I provide a plot.

You still want more.

Until you can prove that you've accessed what I've provided you, shut the **** up.

Bronx33

12-18-2009, 02:44 PM

Your saying what every other dip stick that holds all the info is saying ( here is the data check for yourself) thats the point wags (your data sources can't be trusted thats the point) there is a difference between homogenized data and raw data as you well know. Also the record keepers are not willing to be fully transparent with their work or their methods so what good is it to provide links to info that isn't shared? ( iam not taking your word for it) get used to being questioned dude i can tell it's something new to you (i really can't think of a better way to explain this too you without getting a ****ing chalkboard out) now quit pretending you have a point when you really don't.

Smiling Assassin27

12-18-2009, 02:54 PM

Everybody just calm down. Our President just saved the world and all of our ever-temperate asses. We have a 'meaningful' agreement in place from Copenhagen, apparently.

Wait, what? It's non-binding? And China gets to self-report their own results? Never mind. You may go back to tearing W*GS a new one.

Bronx33

12-18-2009, 03:14 PM

Read ALL of this wags you just might learn something ( but i doubt it)

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2009/12/harvard_professor_weighs_in_on.html

James McCarthy, a respected Harvard professor who was a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) today stressing that e-mails stolen from climate scientists do not undermine the evidenc for manmade global warming.

McCarthy is board chair of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

The letter reads "The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process. The body of evidence that human activity is prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming. The content of these a few personal emails has no impact what-so-ever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.”

The professors response:

I am a climate scientist, and it is clear that the evidence that “human activity is prominent [sic] agent in global warming” is NOT overwhelming. The repeated statement that it is does not make it so. Further, even if we accepted the hypothesis, cap-and-trade legislation does not do anything about it.

Here are the facts. We have known for years that the Mann hockey stick model was wrong, and we know why it was wrong (Mann used only selected data to normalize the principal component analysis, not all of it). He retracted the model. We have known for years that the Medieval Warm period occurred, where the temperatures were higher than they are now (Chaucer spoke of vineyards in northern England).

Long before ClimateGate it was known that the IPCC people were trying to fudge the data to get rid of the MWP. And for good reason. If the MWP is “allowed” to exist, this means that temperatures higher than today did not then create a “runaway greenhouse” in the Middle Ages with methane released from the Arctic tundra, ice cap albedo lost, sea levels rising to flood London, etc. etc.), and means that Jim Hansen’s runaway greenhouse that posits only amplifying feedbacks (and no damping feedbacks) will not happen now. We now know that the models on which the IPCC alarms are based do not do clouds, they do not do the biosphere, they do not explain the Pliocene warming, and they have never predicted anything, ever, correctly.

As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm (not that the models are poor approximations for reality); the underpredictions (where are the storms? Why “hide the decline”?) are ignored or hidden.

As for CO2, we have known for years that CO2 increases have never in the past 300,000 years caused temperature rise (CO2 rise trails temperature increase). IPCC scientists know this too (see their “Copenhagen Diagnosis”); we know that their mathematical fudges that dismiss the fact that CO2 has not been historically causative of temperature rise are incorrect as well. We have also known for years that the alleged one degree temperature rise from 1880 vanishes if sites exposed to urban heat islands are not considered.

We have long known that Jones’s paper dismissing this explanation (Jones, et al. 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172) is wrong and potentially fraudulent (see the same data used to confirm urban heat islands in Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380). Everyone except Briffa knows that the Briffa conclusions are wrong, and why they are wrong; groups in Finland, Canada (lots of places actually) show cooling by this proxy, not warming; the IPCC even printed the Finn’s plot upside down to convert the fact (cooling) into the dogma (warming).

Prof. McCarthy is, of course, part of the IPCC that has suppressed dissenting viewpoints based on solid climate science. His claim to support by “peer review” is nonsense; he has helped corrupt the peer review process. We now have documentary evidence that Jones, Mann, and the other IPCC scientists have been gaming peer review and blackballing opponents. On this point, the entire IPCC staff, including Prof. McCarthy, neither have nor deserve our trust.

We have tolerated years of the refusal of Mann and Jones to release data. Now, we learn that much of these data were discarded (one of about 4 data sets that exist), something that would in any other field of science lead to disbarment. We have been annoyed by Al Gore, who declared this science “settled”, refused to debate, and demonized skeptics (this is anti-science: debate and skepticism are the core of real science, which is never settled). The very fact that Prof. McCarthy attempts to bluff Congress by asserting the existence of fictional “overwhelming evidence” continues this anti-science activity.

All of this was known before Climategate. What was not known until now was the extent to which Jones and Mann were simply deceiving themselves (which happens often in science) or fraudently attempting to deceive others. I am not willing to crucify Jones on the word “trick”. Nor, for that matter, on the loss of primary data, keeping only “value added” data (which is hopelessly bad science, but still conceivably not fraud).

But the computer code is transparently fraudulent [or at the very least, transparent evidence of intention to commit fraud - Ed]. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it.

If, as Prof. McCarthy insists, “peer review” was functioning, and the IPCC reports are rigorously peer reviewed, why was this not caught? When placing it in context made it highly likely that this type of fraud was occurring?

The second question is: Will this revelation be enough to cause the “global warming believers” to abandon their crusade, and for people to return to sensible environmental science (water use, habitat destruction, land use, this kind of thing)? Perhaps it will.

Contrary to Prof. McCarthy’s assertion, we have not lost just one research project amid dozens of others that survive. A huge set of primary data are apparently gone. Satellite data are scarcely 40 years old. Everything is interconnected, and anchored on these few studies. Even without the corruption of the peer review process, this is as big a change as quantum mechanics was in physics a century ago.

But now we know that peer review was corrupted, and that no “consensus” exists. The “2500 scientists agree” number is fiction (God knows who they are counting, but to get to this number, they must be including referees, spouses, and pets).

The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.

Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains “overwhelming support” for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.

Posted by Sean December 2, 09 11:26 PM

watermock

12-18-2009, 03:45 PM

It's all a cap and trade emerging market for the elite.

I'll explain it for the masses in simple terms.

The oceans and lakes have abvsorbed trendous amounts of CO2 and methane, along with Hydrocarons, i.e. oil, gas coal and shale.

The real danger is a cascade event, releasing the polar cap and melting the enormous methane stored under siberia.

Methane is 20x more greenhouse tjhan co2.

In fact, CO2 is not a greenhouse element, it's building up because of fossil fuels, humans, livestock and deforestation.

CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTION. It's been around in thousands of times in higher concentrations.

The problem is it may be a cascade event.

Stop destruction of the Amazon and try to stop the acidity of tho ocean.

It appears the ocean is about maxed out in it's ability to absorb CO@, and id methane from perma frost melts and bubbles up, we have a chain reaction.

Let us remember tho, we remain under a nuclear war nightmare much more serious.

Climate change is a long term issue.

War in it's full glory can wipe us out in an hour.

BTW, the soutions argued in Denmark are guided by the NWO, which want global reduction

It has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with globilization, bankrupting the US and creating a world where every cent is under computer control.

Only 2% now is free money. They want that 2%.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-18-2009, 04:22 PM

Looks like another defeat for the blowjobs for Exxon crowd on the right...

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20091218/capt.6bbdce41c1604c01a804c836ff64efa9.denmark_clim ate_summit_obama_cop801.jpg?x=108&y=130&q=85&sig=Odh_gNBI8zNWEhPrw.x4YA-- (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTI4cHI5amZ0BF9TAzM5ODMwMTA0MQRnc3RhdGUDM wRwb3MDMQRzZWMDbndfdG9wc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDaW1nBHRhcgN uZXdzLnlhaG9vLmNvbQ--/SIG=13c9u1bit/**http%3A//us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091218/ap_on_sc/climate) Obama says 'unprecedented' deal reached on climate (AP) (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJhZ2dhMmgxBF9TAzM5ODMwMTA0MQRnc3RhdGUDM wRwb3MDMgRzZWMDbndfdG9wc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDdGl0bGUEdGF yA25ld3MueWFob28uY29t/SIG=13c9u1bit/**http%3A//us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091218/ap_on_sc/climate)

AP - President Barack Obama said the United States, China and several other countries reached an "unprecedented breakthrough" Friday to curb greenhouse gas emissions — including a mechanism to verify compliance — after a frenzied day of diplomacy at the U.N. climate talks.

W*GS

12-18-2009, 04:32 PM

W*GS

12-18-2009, 04:35 PM

Your saying what every other dip stick that holds all the info is saying ( here is the data check for yourself) thats the point wags (your data sources can't be trusted thats the point)

How do you know?

If CRU is all fraudulent, then all GISS is fraudulent, all NCDC is a fraud, all JMA is a fraud, and even the satellite data (UAH) is a fraud.

You're up to hundreds of scientists, all working together to manipulate data.

You're in gaff-o 9/11 troofer territory, dickhead.

Bronx33

12-18-2009, 04:40 PM

How do you know?

If CRU is all fraudulent, then all GISS is fraudulent, all NCDC is a fraud, all JMA is a fraud, and even the satellite data (UAH) is a fraud.

You're up to hundreds of scientists, all working together to manipulate data.

You're in gaff-o 9/11 troofer territory, dickhead.

How do you know? you defended the scientists at CRU and didn't have a clue what they do from day to day you can comment on what happens a NCAR and absolutely nothing else.

Bronx33

12-18-2009, 04:44 PM

Ummmm, McCarthy didn't write the screed that follows.

Some dude named "Sean" did. Who the **** is "Sean"?

Sean appears to be a very educated person that made a very good case it really doesn't matter who he is really but i can understand your need to discredit everything.

Bronx33

12-18-2009, 04:59 PM

So whats your thoughts on John Daly wags?

W*GS

12-18-2009, 07:22 PM

How do you know? you defended the scientists at CRU and didn't have a clue what they do from day to day you can comment on what happens a NCAR and absolutely nothing else.

You still don't get it. If Jones et.al. at CRU were wreaking havoc with the "raw data", manipulating the **** out of it to "create" global warming, then all the other scientists, programmers, analysts and others at every single other institution that uses observed data would have to be doing the exact same thing, otherwise, CRU's analysis would be very different.

It is not.

Unless you're ready to claim that the folks at NASA, at the NCDC, in Japan, and Spencer and Christy and the other satellite folks at UAH and elsewhere, are all in on it.

You're in the same boat as gaff-o - to make his troofer bull**** happen, he needs a cast of thousands all part of the plan. To make your denialist bull**** stick, you need to impugn scientists and others all over the planet.

You haven't done so - not even close.

W*GS

12-18-2009, 07:22 PM

So whats your thoughts on John Daly wags?

John Daly is dead.

W*GS

12-18-2009, 07:26 PM

Sean appears to be a very educated person that made a very good case it really doesn't matter who he is really but i can understand your need to discredit everything.

"Sean" has drunk the same piss and eaten the same **** you have.

Satellite data goes back only 30 years, not 40 as he claims.

If he's really a grad student, then it's no wonder - grad students are some of the most arrogantly ignorant folks around. Think teenager times ten.

If he's not willing to use his full name when he makes the serious accusations he does, he doesn't have balls.

watermock

12-18-2009, 08:39 PM

JJJ

12-19-2009, 02:44 AM

And what is your solution?

Billions to 3rd world countries like the agreement?

Or building safe nuclear and clean coal?

Idiot Obama talks alot about a new grid.

He never talks about new energy, REAL ENERGY.

10 Thorium reators we would have a grid and energy for a new manfacturing sector.

That is not what the globalists want.

IT'S UP TO US.

Exactly. Time to build some friggin nuclear plants. We have let the French become the world leaders in building modern nuclear plants.

The same people who were against nuclear were
the same people against off-shore drilling who were
the same people who don' let any modern refinaries be built who were
the same people who demanded the use of biofuels that are now starving the third world who were
the same people who took jumbo jets to Copenhagen to levy taxes to encourage us not to produce things.

Yeah, lets keep listening to these people.

peacepipe

12-19-2009, 08:04 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/18/inhofe-youre-ridiculous/

Inhofe did travel to Copenhagen however — with a single staffer and when he got there, all he could muster was an “impromptu” press conference and spent a grand total of two hours in the Danish capital. But even during the press conference, few reporters showed up and the Oklahoma senator wasn’t very well received by the ones who did:

A reporter asked: “If there’s a hoax, then who’s putting on this hoax, and what’s the motive?”

“It started in the United Nations,” Inhofe said, “and the ones in the United States who really grab ahold of this is the Hollywood elite.”

One reporter asked Inhofe if he was referring to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another reporter — this one from Der Spiegel — told the senator: “You’re ridiculous

What a jackass

mhgaffney

12-19-2009, 09:26 PM

You supporters of nuclear are lemmings headed over the cliff. You never learn -- just keep repeating the same stupid mistakes over and over.

There is no safe nuclear.

Even if it were safe - nuclear is the wrong way to make electricity.It would be like using a chain saw to cut butter.

The energy solution is all around us. The sun.

The sun is the source of clean and unlimited electricity. There's more than we can ever use -- in the ionosphere. We just have to learn to bring it down to earth -- safely.

With unlimited cheap electricity we can make all the liquid fuels we need. Unlimited cheap electricity is the key to turning this planet into a paradise.

MHG

ghwk

12-19-2009, 09:36 PM

Seriously we can start building more nuke plants as soon as JJJ and Mock give the thumbs up to bury the waste in their backyard. :thumbs::thumbs:

broncocalijohn

12-19-2009, 10:24 PM

Seriously we can start building more nuke plants as soon as JJJ and Mock give the thumbs up to bury the waste in their backyard. :thumbs::thumbs:

What the hell do you think we went to war with Iraq for? Mass deserts for storage. The problem with nuclear is that we havent had a new one since 1976 and I would like to know if any of those workers are still around to be able to teach how to run and keep them conditioned. The word nuclear scares the hell out of people. Too many think of it as the bomb instead of energy.

JJJ

12-20-2009, 12:33 AM

Seriously we can start building more nuke plants as soon as JJJ and Mock give the thumbs up to bury the waste in their backyard. :thumbs::thumbs:

Hilarious! We have already spent $9B on a half-completed Yucca Mountain, what would be the world's safest nuclear waste repository Bush authorized.

Thanks to Harry Reid work has been suspended (nice jobs program Harry) and now everything has to be stored locally in concrete casks at the site of the plants themselves.

I have lived about 10 miles away from a nuclear facility for half of my adult life and therefore didn't even have the luxury of knowing the waste was properly buried. That being said I am quite comfortable living not far from the facility and benefiting from the power generated within.

Let's be realistic the reactor itself is far more dangerous than the waste. For a country with so much isolated space (unlike France that has 3 times the number of reactors we have) the waste is not such a real threat or problem.

It makes much more sense to have to one well-researched proper location for burial than 30 sites spread out nationwide don't you think? Yucca is the most studied piece of geology on the planet.

Since the early 1960s, the U.S. has safely conducted more than 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel without any harmful release of radioactive material.

Nuclear energy is the cleanest most environmentally friendly source of energy there is.

Taco John

12-20-2009, 01:03 AM

Nuclear energy is the cleanest most environmentally friendly source of energy there is.

That's a ridiculous statement. Whatever you want to say about nuclear, it's not more clean or environmentally friendly than solar energy.

JJJ

12-20-2009, 02:30 AM

That's a ridiculous statement. Whatever you want to say about nuclear, it's not more clean or environmentally friendly than solar energy.

Really?

Do you know how much acreage a solar facility needs to produce an equivalent amount of energy?

San Onofre in SoCal produces about 2000 MW 24hrs a day and about 17204 GW-hrs per year on 84 acres.

The Mojave Solar park which will be the biggest in the world using the most modern technology when it is finished in 2011 will deliver 550 MW but due to its only working half time generates 1388 GW-hrs per year on 6000 acres (that is nine square miles).

So this solar park will produce about 8% of the energy San Onofre produces but needs over 70x more land to do it.

You would need 74,000 acres of land (111 square miles) filled with solar panels to match the nuclear facility. Now that is something I wouldn't want in my backyard.

You think laying out 111 square miles of crap on the desert floor is environmentally friendly?

Is my statement really so ridiculous?

And the energy generated will be at least twice the cost per kw-hr.

To replace the existing nuclear capacity in the US with solar you would need a solar plant of 5200 square miles (over 75 x 75 miles), roughly the size of Delaware.

Solar is a supplementary technology for at least another 10-15 years.

Bronx33

12-20-2009, 09:19 AM

John Daly is dead.

ok whats your thoughts on his work..

W*GS

12-20-2009, 10:08 AM

ok whats your thoughts on his work..

I don't take him seriously.

Here's something you may want to purchase, to help you understand:

http://www.thamesandkosmos.com/products/gw/gw.html

Bronx33

12-20-2009, 12:50 PM

=W*GS;2681963 I don't take him seriously[/B]

Here's something you may want to purchase, to help you understand:

http://www.thamesandkosmos.com/products/gw/gw.html

Go figure.

mhgaffney

12-21-2009, 07:44 PM

Really?

Do you know how much acreage a solar facility needs to produce an equivalent amount of energy?

San Onofre in SoCal produces about 2000 MW 24hrs a day and about 17204 GW-hrs per year on 84 acres.

The Mojave Solar park which will be the biggest in the world using the most modern technology when it is finished in 2011 will deliver 550 MW but due to its only working half time generates 1388 GW-hrs per year on 6000 acres (that is nine square miles).

So this solar park will produce about 8% of the energy San Onofre produces but needs over 70x more land to do it.

You would need 74,000 acres of land (111 square miles) filled with solar panels to match the nuclear facility. Now that is something I wouldn't want in my backyard.

You think laying out 111 square miles of crap on the desert floor is environmentally friendly?

Is my statement really so ridiculous?

And the energy generated will be at least twice the cost per kw-hr.

To replace the existing nuclear capacity in the US with solar you would need a solar plant of 5200 square miles (over 75 x 75 miles), roughly the size of Delaware.

Solar is a supplementary technology for at least another 10-15 years.

You are thinking about solar in the wrong way.

The key idea is that the sun is an electrical furnace. We don't have to collect this energy in the form of light with panels -- and convert it to electricity.

We can down load the electricity in a much more direct way -- from the ionosphere.

One small facility could down load a vast amount of electricity - with no environmental impact -- and with zero pollution.

Tesla had this problem figured out -=- but got shut down by the banksters before he was able to demonstrate the full promise of this approach.

To get the right answer you must first ask the right questions.

The best place for a nuclear furnace is 93 million miles away. Not here on the earth's surface.

broncocalijohn

12-21-2009, 10:49 PM

Tesla was a ****ty band in the 80s.

mhgaffney

12-22-2009, 01:00 AM

The fact of lightning is physical evidence that vast amounts of electricity exist in the upper atmosphere.

As I've posted before -- several years ago one of the top experts in the lightning field admitted in a paper in Scientific American that the leading theory -- static charging -- cannot explain the phenomenon. Static charging falls short by several orders of magnitude.

Also -- it is known that vast lightning bolts also occur ion the atmosphere of the planet Venus. For many years scientists refused to believe this -- because the atmosphere of Venus is extremely dense -- and is dead calm. With no movement of "air" there is no wind -- hence no static charging. How then to explain the lightning bolts?

The top scientist conceded that we are back to square one -- about at the level of understanding that existed at the time of Ben Franklin -- who also studied lightning.

What is clear is that lightning is NOT generated in storm clouds. It works its way down through the atmosphere from high above -- and ultimately must come from the sun.

Tesla understood this -- and planned to down load this energy to the surface of earth -- but was blocked before he could finish. Scientists who are serious about solving the energy problem should revisit Tesla's research -- and duplicate his work.

Learn to tap the ionosphere -- and we could transform earth into a garden of plenty for everyone -- not good news for the banksters and their allies. But good news nonetheless for 99% of humanity.

cutthemdown

12-22-2009, 12:41 PM

We have over a 100 yr supply of natural gas. It burns cleaner, about 50% over coal. We should use all of it up over next century.

cutthemdown

12-22-2009, 12:45 PM

So gaffs idea is to tap the ionosphere to solve all our problems. Yeah that's a solution that is practical. I mean relying on unproven technology that doesn't exist is always the way to go.

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 12:45 PM

We have over a 100 yr supply of natural gas. It burns cleaner, about 50% over coal. We should use all of it up over next century.

Thats not as profitable for the goverment and all those countries waiting for a free hand outs though. ROFL!

cutthemdown

12-22-2009, 12:46 PM

We need to use up all the fossil fuels, learn how to sequester the co2 from the burning of them. That technology is emerging and should be used.

I agree in some area solar generation makes since, but it won't solve our problems just yet.

sisterhellfyre

12-22-2009, 12:47 PM

We have over a 100 yr supply of natural gas. It burns cleaner, about 50% over coal. We should use all of it up over next century.

At some point, then, I suppose we'd reach "peak gas" as we depleted the supply?

I wonder if this is the time to invest in bean futures...

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 12:48 PM

So gaffs idea is to tap the ionosphere to solve all our problems. Yeah that's a solution that is practical. I mean relying on unproven technology that doesn't exist is always the way to go.

Gaff hasent put the word viability into the equation yet.

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 01:45 PM

June 4, 2003 Briffa to Cook 1054748574
On June 4, 2003, Briffa, apparently acting as editor (presumably for Holocene), contacted his friend Ed Cook of Lamont-Doherty in the U.S. who was acting as a reviewer telling him that “confidentially” he needed a “hard and if required extensive case for rejecting”, in the process advising Cook of the identity and recommendation of the other reviewer. There are obviously many issues involved in the following as an editor instruction:

From: Keith Briffa
To: Edward Cook
Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
Date: Wed Jun 4 13:42:54 2003

I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please
Keith

Cook to Briffa, June 4, 2003
In a reply the same day, Cook told Briffa about a review for Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences of a paper which, if not rejected, could “really do some damage”. Cook goes on to say that it is an “ugly” paper to review because it is “rather mathematical” and it “won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically”. Here is the complete email:

Hi Keith,
Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper. Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).
Cheers,
Ed

A couple of observations

1.For guys who supposedly represent the consensus science of tens of thousands of scientists, these guys sure have a bunker mentality
2.I would love an explanation of how math can have theoretical deficiencies but be better in a practical sense. In the practical sense of … giving the answer one wants?
3.The general whitewash answer to all the FOIA obstructionism is that these are scientists doing important work not to be bothered by nutcases trying to waste their time. But here is exactly the hypocrisy: The email author says that some third party’s study is deficient because he can’t demonstrate how his mathematical approach might change the answer the hockey team is getting. But no third party can do this because the hockey team won’t release the data needed for replication. This kind of data - to check the mathematical methodologies behind the hockey stick regressions - is exactly what Steve McIntyre et al have been trying to get. Ed Cook is explaining here, effectively, why release of this data is indeed important
4.At the very same time these guys are saying to the world not to listen to critics because they are not peer-reviewed, they are working as hard as they can back-channel to keep their critics out of peer-reviewed literature they control.
5.For years I have said that one problem with the hockey team is not just that the team is insular, but he reviewers of their work are the same guys doing the work. And now we see that these same guys are asked to review the critics of their work.
6. It is completely unethical for a reviewer to contact a colleague to ask for advice to assist the reviewer in rejecting a submitted manuscript.

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 02:03 PM

Well well well wags it seems your hate for the oil monsters isn't shared by Mick Kelly

From: "Mick Kelly" <m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: t.oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.o'riordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell's name came up at the TC meeting. I'm ccing this to Tim
who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
I'm talking to Shell International's climate change team but this approach
will do equally for the new foundation as it's only one step or so off
Shell's equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it's
within the remit.
Regards
Mick

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 02:06 PM

From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Simon.Shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: industrial and commercial contacts
Date: Mon Jan 10 17:01:32 2000

Simon,

I have talked with Tim O'Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:

- Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
- Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
- Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
- ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.

And then Simon Gerrard here in our Risk Unit suggested the following personal contacts:

- ??, someone senior at AMEC Engineering in Yarmouth (involved with North Sea industry and wind energy)
- Richard Powell, Director of the East of England Development Board

You can add these to your list and I can ensure that Tim and Simon feed the right material through once finalised.

I will phone tomorrow re. the texts.

Cheers,

Mike

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 02:08 PM

But wait that’s not all!

Further down in that email, look at who else they were looking to for money. Oh, this is horrible, it just can’t be, they wouldn’t. They were looking to not only BP but, but EXXON in its Esso incarnation:

At 20:30 07/01/00 BST, you wrote:
>dear colleagues
>
>re: List of Industrial and Commercial Contacts to Elicit Support
>from for the Tyndall Centre
>
>This is the list so far. Our contact person is given in brackets
>afterwards. There is some discussion on whether we
>should restict ourselves to board level contacts - hence Dlugolecki
>is not board level but highly knowledgeable about climate change.
>I think people such as that, who are well known for their climate
>change interests, are worth writing to for support. There may be
>less value in writing to lesser known personnel at a non-board level.
>
>SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
>sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom
>contact the same as Nick Jenkin's below? Also, do you have a BP
>Amoco contact? The name I've come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
>engineer, but he is not a personal contact]
>
>We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
>Does anyone know any investment bankers?
>
>Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
>finalise the list.
>
>I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
>support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
>used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
>in brackets).
>
>Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
>Shepherd]
>Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
>[Mike Hulme]
>Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
>Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
>Shackley]
>Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
>Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
>Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
>
>
>Possibles:
>Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
>[Nick Jenkins]
>Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
>Cannell]
>Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
>
>With kind regards
>
>Simon Shackley

Now who is the shill for Big Oil again? wags?

W*GS

12-22-2009, 02:09 PM

Keep up the circle jerk with your "partners" at climatefraudit and WTFWT...

All your spooge does nothing to change the science.

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 03:08 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies, Christopher Booker and Richard North write

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

Related Articles
Climate summit ends in chaos and 'toothless' deal
Climategate: UN to investigate sceptics claims
Climate change chicanery
Eat less meat to combat climate change, warns UN
Nobody listens to the real climate change experts
Barack Obama faces 'revolution' if he imposes tough carbon targets, warns IPCCWhat has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’.

It is remarkable how only very recently has the staggering scale of Dr Pachauri’s links to so many of these concerns come to light, inevitably raising questions as to how the world’s leading ‘climate official’ can also be personally involved in so many organisations which stand to benefit from the IPCC’s recommendations.

The issue of Dr Pachauri’s potential conflict of interest was first publicly raised last Tuesday when, after giving a lecture at Copenhagen University, he was handed a letter by two eminent ‘climate sceptics’. One was the Stephen Fielding, the Australian Senator who sparked the revolt which recently led to the defeat of his government’s ‘cap and trade scheme’. The other, from Britain, was Lord Monckton, a longtime critic of the IPCC’s science, who has recently played a key part in stiffening opposition to a cap and trade bill in the US Senate.

Their open letter first challenged the scientific honesty of a graph prominently used in the IPCC’s 2007 report, and shown again by Pachauri in his lecture, demanding that he should withdraw it. But they went on to question why the report had not declared Pachauri’s personal interest in so many organisations which seemingly stood to profit from its findings.

The letter, which included information first disclosed in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, was circulated to all the 192 national conference delegations, calling on them to dismiss Dr Pachauri as IPCC chairman because of recent revelations of his conflicting interests.

The original power base from which Dr Pachauri has built up his worldwide network of influence over the past decade is the Delhi-based Tata Energy Research Institute, of which he became director in 1981 and director-general in 2001. Now renamed The Energy Research Institute, TERI was set up in 1974 by India’s largest privately-owned business empire, the Tata Group, with interests ranging from steel, cars and energy to chemicals, telecommunications and insurance (and now best-known in the UK as the owner of Jaguar, Land Rover, Tetley Tea and Corus, Britain’s largest steel company).

Although TERI has extended its sponsorship since the name change, the two concerns are still closely linked.

In India, Tata exercises enormous political power, shown not least in the way it has managed to displace hundreds of thousands of poor tribal villagers in the eastern states of Orissa and Jarkhand to make way for large-scale iron mining and steelmaking projects.

Initially, when Dr Pachauri took over the running of TERI in the 1980s, his interests centred on the oil and coal industries, which may now seem odd for a man who has since become best known for his opposition to fossil fuels. He was, for instance, a director until 2003 of India Oil, the country’s largest commercial enterprise, and until this year remained as a director of the National Thermal Power Generating Corporation, its largest electricity producer.

In 2005, he set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life.

However, since Pachauri became a vice-chairman of the IPCC in 1997, TERI has vastly expanded its interest in every kind of renewable or sustainable technology, in many of which the various divisions of the Tata Group have also become heavily involved, such as its project to invest $1.5 billion (£930 million) in vast wind farms.

Dr Pachauri’s TERI empire has also extended worldwide, with branches in the US, the EU and several countries in Asia. TERI Europe, based in London, of which he is a trustee (along with Sir John Houghton, one of the key players in the early days of the IPCC and formerly head of the UK Met Office) is currently running a project on bio-energy, financed by the EU.

Another project, co-financed by our own Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the German insurance firm Munich Re, is studying how India’s insurance industry, including Tata, can benefit from exploiting the supposed risks of exposure to climate change. Quite why Defra and UK taxpayers should fund a project to increase the profits of Indian insurance firms is not explained.

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 03:09 PM

Even odder is the role of TERI’s Washington-based North American offshoot, a non-profit organisation, of which Dr Pachauri is president. Conveniently sited on Pennsylvania Avenue, midway between the White House and the Capitol, this body unashamedly sets out its stall as a lobbying organisation, to “sensitise decision-makers in North America to developing countries’ concerns about energy and the environment”.

TERI-NA is funded by a galaxy of official and corporate sponsors, including four branches of the UN bureaucracy; four US government agencies; oil giants such as Amoco; two of the leading US defence contractors; Monsanto, the world’s largest GM producer; the WWF (the environmentalist campaigning group which derives much of its own funding from the EU) and two world leaders in the international ‘carbon market’, between them managing more than $1 trillion (£620 billion) worth of assets.

All of this is doubtless useful to the interests of Tata back in India, which is heavily involved not just in bio-energy, renewables and insurance but also in ‘carbon trading’, the worldwide market in buying and selling the right to emit CO2. Much of this is administered at a profit by the UN under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) set up under the Kyoto Protocol, which the Copenhagen treaty was designed to replace with an even more lucrative successor.

Under the CDM, firms and consumers in the developed world pay for the right to exceed their ‘carbon limits’ by buying certificates from those firms in countries such as India and China which rack up ‘carbon credits’ for every renewable energy source they develop – or by showing that they have in some way reduced their own ‘carbon emissions’.

It is one of these deals, reported in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, which is enabling Tata to transfer three million tonnes of steel production from its Corus plant in Redcar to a new plant in Orissa, thus gaining a potential £1.2 billion in ‘carbon credits’ (and putting 1,700 people on Teesside out of work).

More than three-quarters of the world ‘carbon’ market benefits India and China in this way. India alone has 1,455 CDM projects in operation, worth $33 billion (£20 billion), many of them facilitated by Tata – and it is perhaps unsurprising that Dr Pachauri also serves on the advisory board of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the largest and most lucrative carbon-trading exchange in the world, which was also assisted by TERI in setting up India’s own carbon exchange.

But this is peanuts compared to the numerous other posts to which Dr Pachauri has been appointed in the years since the UN chose him to become the world’s top ‘climate-change official’.

In 2007, for instance, he was appointed to the advisory board of Siderian, a San Francisco-based venture capital firm specialising in ‘sustainable technologies’, where he was expected to provide the Fund with ‘access, standing and industrial exposure at the highest level’,

In 2008 he was made an adviser on renewable and sustainable energy to the Credit Suisse bank and the Rockefeller Foundation. He joined the board of the Nordic Glitnir Bank, as it launched its Sustainable Future Fund, looking to raise funding of £4 billion. He became chairman of the Indochina Sustainable Infrastructure Fund, whose CEO was confident it could soon raise £100 billion.

In the same year he became a director of the International Risk Governance Council in Geneva, set up by EDF and E.On, two of Europe’s largest electricity firms, to promote ‘bio-energy’. This year Dr Pachauri joined the New York investment fund Pegasus as a ‘strategic adviser’, and was made chairman of the advisory board to the Asian Development Bank, strongly supportive of CDM trading, whose CEO warned that failure to agree a treaty at Copenhagen would lead to a collapse of the carbon market.

The list of posts now held by Dr Pachauri as a result of his new-found world status goes on and on. He has become head of Yale University’s Climate and Energy Institute, which enjoys millions of dollars of US state and corporate funding. He is on the climate change advisory board of Deutsche Bank. He is Director of the Japanese Institute for Global Environmental Strategies and was until recently an adviser to Toyota Motors. Recalling his origins as a railway engineer, he is even a policy adviser to SNCF, France’s state-owned railway company.

Meanwhile, back home in India, he serves on an array of influential government bodies, including the Economic Advisory Committee to the prime minister, holds various academic posts and has somehow found time in his busy life to publish 22 books.

Dr Pachauri never shrinks from giving the world frank advice on all matters relating to the menace of global warming. The latest edition of TERI News quotes him as telling the US Environmental Protection Agency that it must go ahead with regulating US carbon emissions without waiting for Congress to pass its cap and trade bill.

It reports how, in the days before Copenhagen, he called on the developing nations which had been historically responsible for the global warming crisis to make ‘concrete commitments’ to aiding developing countries such as India with funding and technology – while insisting that India could not agree to binding emissions targets. India, he said, must bargain for large-scale subsidies from the West for developing solar power, and Western funds must be made available for geo-engineering projects to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

As a vegetarian Hindu, Dr Pachauri repeated his call for the world to eat less meat to cut down on methane emissions (as usual he made no mention of what was to be done about India’s 400 million sacred cows). He further called for a ban on serving ice in restaurants and for meters to be fitted to all hotel rooms, so that guests could be charged a carbon tax on their use of heating and air-conditioning.

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 03:09 PM

One subject the talkative Dr Pachauri remains silent on, however, is how much money he is paid for all these important posts, which must run into millions of dollars. Not one of the bodies for which he works publishes his salary or fees, and this notably includes the UN, which refuses to reveal how much we all pay him as one of its most senior officials.

As for TERI itself, Dr Pachauri’s main job for nearly 30 years, it is so coy about money that it does not even publish its accounts – the financial statement amounts to two income and expenditure pie charts which contain no detailed figures.

Dr Pachauri is equally coy about TERI’s links with Tata, the company which set it up in the 1970s and whose name it continued to bear until 2002, when it was changed to just The Energy Research Institute. A spokesman at the time said ‘we have not severed our past relationship with the Tatas, the change is only for convenience’.

But the real question mark over TERI’s director-general remains over the relationship between his highly lucrative commercial jobs and his role as chairman of the IPCC.

TERI have, for example, become a preferred bidder for Kuwaiti contracts to clean up the mess left by Saddam Hussein in their oilfields in 1991. The $3 billion (£1.9 billion) cost of the contracts has been provided by the UN. If successful, this would be tenth time TERI have benefited from a contract financed by the UN.

Certainly no one values the services of TERI more than the EU, which has included Dr Pachauri’s institute as a partner in no fewer than 12 projects designed to assist in devising the EU’s policies on mitigating the effects of the global warming predicted by the IPCC.

But whether those 1,700 Corus workers on Teesside will next month be so happy to lose their jobs to India, thanks to the workings of that international ‘carbon market’ about which Dr Pachauri is so enthusiastic, is quite another matter.

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 03:55 PM

Captain hockey sticks feeble attempt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html)

ps: all the comments are killer (fyi: those are the readers wags) and they are not buying it.

The hacked e-mails have been mined for words and phrases that can be distorted to misrepresent what the scientists were discussing (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=347&filename=1059762275.txt)

Ohhhhhhhh realllllllly....

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 04:18 PM

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/6451/091206beelertoonc.jpg

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 04:27 PM

The CRU e-mails have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised by a team* of global warming scientists, with the willing cooperation of the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), Glenn McGregor. The team spent nearly a year preparing and publishing a paper that attempted to rebut a previously published paper in IJC by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer (DCPS). The DCPS paper, reviewed and accepted in the traditional manner, had shown that the IPCC models that predicted significant "global warming" in fact largely disagreed with the observational data.

We will let the reader judge whether this team effort, revealed in dozens of e-mails and taking nearly a year, involves inappropriate behavior, including (a) unusual cooperation between authors and editor, (b) misstatement of known facts, (c) character assassination, (d) avoidance of traditional scientific give-and-take, (e) using confidential information, (f) misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the scientific question posed by DCPS, (g) withholding data, and more.

*The team is a group of climate scientists who frequently collaborate and publish papers which often support the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. For this essay, the leading team members include Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Timothy Osborn, and Tom Wigley, with lesser roles for several others.

Introduction

This story involves the publication of:

Douglass et al. 2007 (DCPS)

31 May 2007 submitted to IJC

11 Oct accepted

1 Nov page proofs accepted

5 Dec 2007 published online

15 Nov 2008 print version (11+ months after on-line publication)

[reference in appendix B]

and the subsequent publication of

Santer and 17 team members
25 Mar 2008 submitted to IJC

18 July revised

20 July accepted

10 Oct published on-line

15 Nov print version (36 days after on-line publication)

[reference in appendix B]

This story uses various "CRU e-mails" and our own personal knowledge of events and issues. References will be made to items in an appendix that are arranged chronologically. The e-mails have an index number which comes from a compilation at http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php.

2. The story

Our record of this story begins when Andrew Revkin, a reporter for the New York Times, sends three team members an e-mail [30 Nov 2007] with the page proofs of the DCPS paper. This is a week before the online publication. The subject of Revkin's email --

sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of singer/christy/etc effort

-- implies prior correspondence.

Team member Mears quickly responds with an e-mail to fellow team members Jones, Santer, Thorne, Sherwood, Lanzante, Taylor, Seidel, Free, and Wentz [4 Dec 2007]. Santer replies to all:

I'm forwarding this to you in confidence. We all knew that some journal, somewhere, would eventually publish this stuff. Turns out that it was the International Journal of Climatology.
Santer knows this because he reviewed and rejected the DCPS paper when it was previously submitted to another journal. Phil Jones responds to Santer:

It sure does! Have read briefly -- the surface arguments are wrong. I know editors have difficulty finding reviewers, but letting this one pass is awful -- and IJC was improving.

This exchange provides the first reference to the International Journal of Climatology.

The next day (5 Dec 2007 -- the day the DCPS paper appeared on-line), Santer sends an e-mail to Peter Thorne with copies to Carl Mears , Leopold Haimberger, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, Phil Jones, Steve Sherwood, John Lanzante, Dian Seidel, Melissa Free, Frank Wentz, and Steve Klein. Santer says,

Peter, I think you've done a nice job in capturing some of my concerns about the Douglass et al. paper ... I don't think it's a good strategy to submit a response to the Douglass et al. paper to the International Journal of Climatology (IJC). As Phil [Jones] pointed out, IJC has a large backlog, so it might take some time to get a response published. Furthermore, Douglass et al. probably would be given the final word. [TL1]

The most critical point throughout these emails is the goal of preventing DCPS from providing what is considered normal in the peer-reviewed literature: an opportunity to respond to their critique, or as they put it, "be given the final word." One wonders if there is ever a "final word" in science, as the authors here seem to imply.

The next day (6 Dec 2007), Melissa Free responds with a cautious note, evidently because she had presented a paper with Lanzante and Seidel at an American Meteorological Society conference (18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change) acknowledging the existence of a discrepancy between observations and models -- the basic conclusion of the DCPS paper.

What about the implications of a real model-observation difference for upper-air trends? Is this really so dire?

Santer responds (6 Dec 2007) with the key reason for attacking DCPS:

What is dire is Douglass et al.'s willful neglect of any observational datasets that do not support their arguments.

This "willful neglect" of "observational datasets" refers to the absence of two balloon datasets, RAOBCORE v1.3 and v1.4. (DCPS explain in an addendum that these data sets are faulty. See below.)

A further e-mail from Jones (6 Dec 2007) discusses options to beat DCPS into print. Wigley enters (10 Dec 2007) to accuse DCPS of "fraud" and that under "normal circumstances," this would "cause him [Douglass] to lose his job." We remind the reader that DCPS went through traditional, anonymous peer review with iterations to satisfy the reviewers and without communicating outside proper channels with the editor and reviewers.

Tim Osborn, a colleague of Jones at CRU and a member of the editorial board of IJC, inserts himself into the process, declaring a bias on the issue and stating that Douglass's previous papers "appear to have serious problems." Santer responds with gratitude for the "heads up," again making the claim that DCPS ignored certain balloon datasets. As noted below, DCPS did not use these datasets because they were known to be faulty.

On this day (12 Dec 2007), an unsigned report appeared on RealClimate.org attacking DCPS, especially about not using RAOBCORE 1.4. This prompted the DCPS authors to submit an Addendum to IJC on 3 Jan 2008 to explain in one page two issues: (1) the reason for not using RAOBCORE 1.4 and (2) explaining the experimental design to show why using the full spread of model results to compare with observations (as Santer et al. would do) would lead to wrong conclusions about the relationship between trends in the upper air temperature versus the surface -- see Appendix A. (A copy of the addendum may be found at http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass.)

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 04:28 PM

Osborn (10 Jan 2008), writing to Santer and Jones, then discusses the "downside" of the normal comment-reply process, in which DCPS would be given an "opportunity to have a response." He explains that he has contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to "see what he can do." According to Osborn, McGregor "promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick turn-around." He also says:

(and please treat this in confidence, which is why I emailed to you and Phil only) that he [McGregor] may be able to hold back the hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could appear alongside it.

He [McGregor] also intends to "correct the scientific record" and to identify in "advance reviewers who are both suitable and available," perhaps including "someone on the email list you've been using." Given the bias of Osborn and McGregor as expressed in the emails, one could wonder what it means to be a "suitable" reviewer of the Santer paper.

Santer responds with his conditions, highlighting the intent that he must have the "last word".

1) Our paper should be regarded as an independent contribution, not as a
comment on Douglass et al. ...
2) If IJC agrees to 1), then Douglass et al. should have the opportunity
to respond to our contribution, and we should be given the chance to
reply. Any response and reply should be published side-by-side, in the
same issue of IJC.

I'd be grateful if you and Phil could provide me with some guidance on
1) and 2), and on whether you think we should submit to IJC. Feel free
to forward my email to Glenn McGregor.

This Osborn e-mail and response by Santer essentially lays out the publication strategy apparently agreed to by Santer, Jones, Osborn, and editor McGregor. Santer accepts Osborn as a conduit and defines the conditions (having the "last word"). This is exactly what he seeks to deny for DCPS, who published the original paper in this sequence in IJC.

DCPS are never informed of this process, which specifically addresses our paper, nor are we contacted for an explanation on any point raised in these negotiations. Santer's allegations regarding DCPS and his conditions for publication are simply accepted. One wonders that if the results of DCPS were so obviously and demonstrably in error, why would anyone fear a response by DCPS? See Appendix A.

A new development occurs on this day (10 Jan 2008) as Jones tells the team (Wigley, K. Taylor, Lanzante, Mears, Bader, Zwiers, Wentz, Haimberger, Free, MacCracken, Jones, Sherwood, Klein, Solomon, Thorne, Osborn, Schmidt, and Hack) a "secret" he learns from Osborn: that one of the recipients on the Santer e-mail list is one of the original reviewers of DCPS who did not reject the article.

The problem !! The person who said they would leave it to the editor's discretion is on your email list! I don't know who it is - Tim does - maybe they have told you? I don't want to put pressure on Tim. He doesn't know I'm sending this. It isn't me by the way - nor Tim ! Tim said it was someone who hasn't contributed to the discussion - which does narrow the possibilities down!

Does Santer start wondering who the original reviewer is? Does Osborn reveal this part of McGregor's secret?

Then, on the matter of paying for expensive color plots, Jones adds, "I'm sure I can lean on Glenn [McGregor]" to evidently deal with the costs. Obviously, this was not offered to DCPS.

The final approval of the strategy (Santer's conditions) to deny DCPS an opportunity to respond in the normal way is acknowledged by Osborn to Santer and Jones (11 Jan 2008) in that Osborn writes that McGregor, as editor, is "prepared to treat it as a new submission rather than a comment on Douglass et al." and "my [McGregor's] offer of a quick turn around time etc. still stands." Osborn also reminds Santer and Jones of the potential impropriety of this situation:

... the only thing I didn't want to make more generally known was the suggestion that print publication of Douglass et al. might be delayed... all other aspects of this discussion are unrestricted ...

Santer now informs the team that the strategy has been agreed to (11 Jan 2008). DCPS were never notified of these machinations, and it is clear that Santer's story of the situation was never investigated independently. In this long e-mail, the issues of radiosonde errors is discussed and the fact one dataset, RAOBCORE v1.4, is missing from DCPS. To explain briefly, Sakamoto and Christy (SC09, accepted in 2008 and appearing in 2009) looked closely at the ERA-40 Reanlayses on which RAOBCORE v1.3 and v1.4 were based. SC09 demonstrated that a spurious warming shift occurred in 1991 (a problem with a satellite channel: HIRS 11), which was then assimilated into RAOBCORE, producing spurious positive trends in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. SC09 had been working on this since 2006 when they first met, so they were aware of the problems at that time. Sherwood later comments (27 May 2008) on this evidence during the deliberations of Santer's publication, so the team was aware of the problem, too. Even though Santer had seen the DCPS addendum (sent to him by McGregor) with the explanation of the RAOBCORE problems as early as 10 Apr 2008, their published paper contains the statement:

Although DCPS07 had access to all three RAOBCORE versions, they presented results from v1.2 only ...

Another interesting comment here is that Santer does "NOT" want to "show the most recent radiosonde results" from Hadley Center and Sherwood's IUK (i.e., withholding data that does not support his view). The reason is likely that these two datasets, extended out in time, provide even stronger evidence in favor of DCPS. The final paper cuts off these datasets in 1999.

Douglass becomes concerned that he has not heard a response from McGregor on the Addendum sent on 3 Jan 2008. He writes on 1 Apr 2008 as to the status of the Addendum. On 10 April 2008, McGregor responds that he has "great difficulty locating [the] addendum." Douglass responds with the file number sent back to Douglass from IJC defining the event on 3 Jan but attaches the Addendum again. This was obviously successful because that very day (10 Apr 2008), McGregor sends the Addendum to Santer to "learn your views." Santer is afforded the opportunity to comment on the DCPS Addendum. DCPS never hear from McGregor again concerning the Addendum.

McGregor informs Santer that he has received one set of comments (24 Apr 2008) and though he

... would normally wait for all comments to come in before providing them to you, I thought in this case I would give you a head start in your preparation of revisions.

-- Santer informs the team of the situation (24 Apr 2008). One wonders if there was any possibility that Santer's paper could have been rejected, given the many favors already extended to this submission. McGregor now knows in the Addendum what the core response to Santer et al. might be, yet he evidently drops it from consideration. At this point, DCPS are unaware of a response by Santer, as they were dealing with the RealClimate.org blog with this matter.

Santer is worried about the lack of "urgency" in receiving the remaining reviews and complains to McGregor (5 May 2008). He reminds McGregor that Osborn had agreed to the strategy that the "process would be handled as expeditiously as possible." McGregor hopes that the further comments will come within "2 weeks" or so. Osborn writes to McGregor on the next day (6 May 2008) that Santer's ninety-page article was much more than anticipated, implying that Santer is being rather demanding, considering how much has been done to aid him. One wonders why it should take ten months and ninety pages to show that any paper contained a "serious flaw" and why Santer et al. needed to be protected from a response.

A paper by Thorne now appears in Nature Geosciences which referenced the as-yet-unpublished paper by Santer et al.(including Thorne). Douglass writes to Thorne (26 May 2008) asking for a copy and is told (27 May 2008_A) that he cannot do so because Santer is the first author. Douglass (27 May 2008_B) points out to Thorne Nature's ethics policy --

NATURE JOURNALS' POLICIES ON PUBLICATION ETHICS

Availability of data and materials

"An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors' published claims. Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols available .."

-- and asks again for a copy of the paper. At the same time, Douglass asks Santer for a copy (27 May 2008_C). Santer responds by saying, "I see no conceivable reason why I should now send you an advance copy of my IJoC paper." From the e-mails, we now know that the Santer et al. manucsript had not been accepted at this point, though it was cited in a Nature Geosciences article. What is very curious is that in the e-mail, Santer claims that Douglass did

... not have the professional courtesy to provide me with any advance information about your 2007 IJoC paper ...

In fact, Santer had been a reviewer of this paper when it had been submitted earlier, so he was in possession of the material (only slightly changed) for at least a year. Additionally, Santer received a copy of the DCPS page proofs about a week before it even appeared online.

In further e-mail exchanges the next day (28 May 2008) the author team discusses this uncomfortable situation of having a citation in Nature Geosciences and being unable to provide the paper to the public before "a final decision on the paper has been reached." Santer states they should "resubmit our revised manuscript to IJoC as soon as possible," which implies that Douglass's point about the ethics policies of Nature, which likely requires the availability of cited literature, may put them in jeopardy.

Santer writes to Jones (10 July 2008) that the two subsequent reviews are in, but reviewer number two was "somewhat crankier." Santer indicates that McGregor has told him that he will not resend the coming revised manuscript to the "crankier" reviewer in another apparent effort by McGregor to accommodate Santer.

Conclusion

On 21 July 2008, Santer hears that his paper is formally accepted and expresses his sincere gratitude to Osborn for "all your help with the tricky job of brokering the submission of the paper to IJoC." Osborn responds that "I'm not sure that I did all that much."

On 10 Oct 2008, the Santer et al. paper is published online. Thirty-six days later Santer et al. appears in print, immediately following DCPS, who have waited now over eleven months for their paper to appear in print. The strategy of delaying DCPS and not allowing DCPS to have a simultaneous response to Santer et al. has been achieved.

David H. Douglass is Professor of Physics, University of Rochester. John R. Christy is Distinguished Professor, Atmospheric Science, the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Appendix A (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climate_conspiracy_appendix_a.html) A scientific discussion of the DCPS paper

Appendix B (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climate_conspiracy_appendix_b.html) E-mail chronology.
52 Comments on "A Climatology Conspiracy?"

[B]By David H. Douglass and John R. Christy
The CRU emails have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised by a team* of global warming scientists, with the willing cooperation of the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), Glenn McGregor. The team spent nearly a year preparing and publishing a paper that attempted to rebut a previously published paper in IJC by Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer (DCPS). The DCPS paper, reviewed and accepted in the traditional manner, had shown that the IPCC models that predicted significant "global warming" in fact... (Read Full Article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html))

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 05:02 PM

TailgateNut

12-22-2009, 05:09 PM

When do we get to see the complete copy of "War and Peace" .

Grow up.

Bronx33

12-22-2009, 05:36 PM

Siberian temperatures are an interesting case study in CRU gatekeeping. As reported a few days ago here (http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/climategatekeeping/), in an email of Mar 31, 2004, Jones advised (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=407&filename=1080742144.txt) Climategate correspondent Michael Mann that he had “gone to town” in his rejection reviews of submissions criticizing CRU’s handling of Siberian temperatures.

Today, in a Climate Audit exclusive, we provide you with the rejected paper (by Lars Kamél), one which seems like it would have been a useful contribution to the peerreviewedlitchurchur.

Jones’ Climategate statement was:

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

In the subsequent comments, Lars Kamél reported that his 2004 submission to GRL on Siberian temperatures was almost certainly one of the two articles on Siberia where Jones’ adverse reviews had prevented publication.

Kamél sent me a copy of the 2004 submission which I’ve placed online here (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/kamel1.pdf).

Kamél applied the homogenization technique of Vincent (1998) – used for Canadian station data – to a network of stations in southern Siberia around Lake Baikal (90−130 E; 40−75 N). Kamél reported that in the innermost portion of this region (100−120 E, 50−65 N):

the number of stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present. Only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

Relative to CRU, he found that the trend in his results for the period 1901−2002 was 0.33−0.62 K/century less for calendar year data relative to CRU.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/kamel-e1261415148804.jpg?w=480&h=257

He speculated that the reason for the difference was that CRU contained “too little correction for urban warming”:

The reason for the differences, compared to the CRU calculation, is not known, but probably it is because the CRU compilation contains too little correction for urban warming. It is unlikely that the small modifications made to Vincent’s method could have created any non−climate cooling trend. There is at least one further reason to believe that the mean region had a very small warming in this period. There is one “rural” location (< 10,000 inhabitants), Kirensk, that have a record which covers the entire period. This record shows no significant temperature change at all.

From this spot check, Kamél recommended that the surface record be checked “in more regions and even globally”:

The result presented here does, however, suggest that the surface record should be checked in more regions and even globally.

Kamél said in his email that he no longer had the reviews, but still had his response to review comments here (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/kamelreview.pdf)).

On Dec 15 2009, after noting the availability of new data from the UK Hadley Center in the wake of Climategate, IEA in Russia reported (http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/iearussia-hadley-center-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/) that CRU’s selection of Siberian stations “exaggerated” warming and recommended recalculation of CRU results:

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations… The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

CRU’s handling of Siberian temperatures had been questioned a number of years ago by Warwick Hughes e.g. here (http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/ussr1.htm). Hughes’ request for station data was infamously rebuffed by Jones as follows (http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/15/we-have-25-years-invested-in-this-work/):

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

As I’ve noted on other occasions, it seems evident to me that temperatures have warmed since the 19th century. Personally I’m more interested in the comparison to the 11th century. However, as a matter of craftsmanship, it seems to me that one can reasonably inquire into the allocation of 20th century warming between the period leading up to the 1930s and the modern period.

CRU’s policies of obstructing critical articles in the peer-reviewed literature and withholding data from critics have unfortunately placed issues into play that might otherwise have been settled long ago.

In this case, as with interference torts, it’s hard to assess the precise damage of the interference. In the case of another paper (Aufhammer et al ), obstruction has delayed publication of the paper by six years but the authors are still endeavouring to get the paper into print. This was not the case with the Kamél paper; Kamél himself had abandoned the field.

Perhaps publication of Kamél’s paper would have inspired others to critically examine the CRU temperature data. And perhaps no problems would have been encountered.

However, as long as obstruction and withholding incidents mar the research record, it’s premature to claim, as Allen and von Storch did recently in a prominent trade journal (http://www.nature.com/news/2009/012345/full/news.2009.1155.html)that there are “no grounds” to question the validity of the CRU temperature history.