ClimateGate

[fizzissist]

In case you've been sequestered in a lonely CMM room or grinding chalet somewhere without news...There is breaking news of the release of emails and code previously hidden from a core group of scientists who are now shown to have been actively suppressing data and scientific discourse regarding climate change (formerly known as Global Warming).

The world is about to undergo a dramatic financial change, as Copenhagen is set to do, based on the so called science of climate change as presented by the IPCC. If we are to face a global scenario of this historical magnitude, then it is only proper that we subject that science to an historical level of scrutiny. The IPCC has thwarted that effort, as we now see.

It turns out that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) just might be Mann Made after all.

ClimateGate Who's Who

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE"]YouTube- ClimateGate Who's Who

Note Micahel Mann's reference to RealClimate.org, a supposedly "neutral" website, where he states that he and Gavin (Gavin Schmidt) will screen submissions, and squelch dissent.

If you read the 1st and 2nd order drafts comments for AR4 you can clearly see the bias built into the IPCC process. Take special note of Chapters 3 and 6. Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones were lead authors of 3. Look carefully at what is rejected, with the explanation, and contrast that with opposing views that are summarily accepted.

http://hcl.harvard.edu/collections/ipcc/

In total, the IPCC's scientific basis is shown to biased and flawed, and should therefore be the singulare reason that any and all political action based on their work should be instantly halted pending a thorough and independent investigation. An investigation not of the legality of the emails or their aquisition, but their content and significance.

While there is much good science contained in AR4, there is, sadly, more than just a drop of vinegar in the wine.

[KIMFAB]

Fizzy
Good to see you are still on the trail. I haven't been following this too well and I'm sure the media will do their best to downplay this.
I felt that our now fearless leader and former junior Illinois senator's fiddling with medicare and health care needed more immediate attention.
I'm sure wanker-from-down-under will have an opinion tho.

[Wade]

Back when global warming was added as a topic, on here. I used to come on here and argue with a few individuals about global warming. And, how it doesn't make any sense.

Well, the first thing I thought of, when I read about the emails, was I should log back into cnczone, and remind a few people, THEY WHERE PREACHING THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE. Hook, line, sinker. I remember the big talk, the purposefully grandiose wording. It was all a lie.

Oh, I believe in global warming, and man made global warming. But, my intellect put man's contribution at trivial, and any solutions, as infinitely small.

This is one huge political move to gain control and power and wealth.

Congress needs to pass legislation that funds "equal time" for major political based research.

Let's start by funding people, who do not have an economic incentive to prove global warming exists.

Let's fund groups that prove that polar bears aren't going extinct.

Let's fund groups that prove the spotted owl doesn't benefit from shutting down logging, quite the contrary actually. hint: it's the barred owl.

Let's fund groups that prove that motorized recreation on public land is beneficial.

Let's fund groups that prove that socialized health care will hurt the productive, and not improve the unproductive members of our country.

I could go on.

This entire global warming scam has done more harm to people's belief in science, that some sort of retribution is in order.

I forget the names, but they know who they are. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, just had to do this.

[fizzissist]

• Mann et al., misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman’s analysis concludes that Mann’s work cannot support claim that the1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium.

Report: “Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis. As mentioned earlier in our background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.”

• Authors of policy-related science assessments should not assess their own work.

Report: “Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.”

http://republicans.energycommerce.ho...fact_sheet.pdf

(emphasis added : mine)

[fizzissist]

Dr. Judith Curry has recently commented about how to deal with skeptics.

What we can see from the following guest post on WattsUpWithThat by Willis Eschenbach is the method used has been simple.

1. Control the data
2. Hide the data
3. Misuse the data
4. Lie about the data
5. Label as wrong anyone who questions the data

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...esults-go-bad/

We're seeing over and over in the mainstream press, (what precious little we're seeing, that is) comments saying that although the scientist's behavior was bad, the results are the same...the earth is warming due to man.

Who are those saying that the results are still valid? The very people at the core of the scandal, the very scientists who have skewed the data to support their cause.

This Dr. Wibjorn Karlen isn't some fringe scientist, and neither are his peers. He's amongst many other very well qualified scientists who, because they question the IPCC's "results" are labeled skeptics.

Let's not forget the letter of 2006 to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

http://www.desmogblog.com/denying-cl...rging-inaction

(special thanks to desmogblog.com for archiving this letter. I love irony)

[Wade]

Looks like some of these Hockey Stick idiots destroyed data, in the face of freedom of information acts. HA.

They'll be lucky if a bunch of them don't end up in jail.


I hope this is a lesson to everyone. No matter what the political claim, never, ever, take people's word for it. You can't even trust the Main Media these days, look, their not even reporting this world wide scandal. Trust but Verify!


Now, who feels brave enough to tell me, we don't need to see Barack Obama's Birth Certificate. Oh, we should just trust him.

[fizzissist]

I mentioned in other posts the IPCC AR4 Chapter 6 comments. Here, for yourself you can see how the reviewers squelched McIntyre's pointing to the incredulous use of data, or rather, lacking data in what the final report was to be.

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.c...hedecline1.gif

At issue is Briffa's real data (tree ring proxies used to infer temperature) from 1960 forward being replaced with real world observed temperatures being spliced onto the end, giving the "temperatures" from 1960 forward an artificial increase (That's what the Hide The Decline" issue is all about). The use of Briffa's post-1960 tree ring data showed a DECLINE IN TEMPERATURE.

The .gif above, along with the emails we now possess which show Mann lying and Phil Jones admitting to the procedure, or "trick", are clear and conclusive evidence that the global warming trend is at best, subject to question, and very likely false altogether.

[fizzissist]

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr has more damning proof.

Take note that Thomas Karl, along with Bubu Yallow and Sir Dr. Brian were the people who decided what would, or in this case would NOT go into Chapter 3 of the IPCC's AR4........

E-mail Documentation Of The Successful Attempt By Thomas Karl Director Of the U.S. National Climate Data Center To Suppress Biases and Uncertainties In the Assessment Surface Temperature Trends

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...rature-trends/

If you'll take the time to read through this and understand what the serious implications are...remember that Pieke Sr is a peer.....this is serious on a global scale, especially with Copenhagen right around the corner.

[fizzissist]

The AGW camp is slowly acknowledging the Medieval Warm Period, but are now brushing it off as a localized, northern hemisphere blip only.....

They're not going to want to see this:

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MW...d1024x768.html

Just one more example of an independent analysis of global temps...

CRU Raw Temp Data Shows No Significant Warming Over Most Of The World
75% of the globe has not seen significant peak warming or cooling changes between the period prior to 1960 and the 2000’s which rise above a 0.5°C threshold, which is well within the CRU’s own stated measurement uncertainties o +/- 1°C or worse.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11582

[fizzissist]

....And Mulder said "Neener, neener. The truth is out there."

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

[fizzissist]

No, they're not. Climategate comes to Albany...

From Douglas J. Keenan ( http://www.informath.org/ )

Some of the emails leaked in Climategate discuss my work. Following is a comment on that, and on something more important.

In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper [1] alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The emails show that Tom Wigley — one of the most oft-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate — thought my paper was valid [2]. They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to convince the journal editor not to publish my paper.

After my paper was published, the State University of New York — where the research discussed in my paper was conducted — carried out an investigation. During the investigation, I was not interviewed — contrary to the university’s policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report’s release.

But I was not allowed to see the report. Truly Kafkaesque.
The report apparently concluded that there was no fraud. The leaked files contain the defense used against my allegation, a defense obviously and strongly contradicted by the documentary record. It is no surprise then that the university still refuses to release the report. (More details on all of this — including source documents — are on my site [3].)

My paper demonstrates that by 2001, Jones knew there were severe problems with the urbanization research. Yet Jones continued to rely on that research in his work, including in his work for the latest report of the IPCC.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...-institutions/

[fizzissist]

From the Purloined emails....this little gem regarding tree rings as temperature proxies...The Richard is extremely likely to be Richard Alley, glaciologist and hardcore AGW promoter (at least when he's on TV).

Note that there's even questioning in the ranks of Biffa and Mann's tree ring proxy validity!!!

-------------------------------
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: divergence
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 15:18:54 -0700
Cc: ralley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bette Otto-Bleisner <ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hi gang - Richard is raising important issues, and Keith is going to
respond in some detail on Friday when he gets back. I am cc'ing this
to a broader group of IPCC Chap 6 folks so that we make sure we (chap
6) deal with the issues correctly. I'm hoping that Keith will cc to
us all, and we'll go from there.

For those just in on the issue raised by Richard. There is a paper
written by Rosanne D'Arrigo that apparently casts serious doubt on
the ability of tree ring data to reconstruct the full range of past
temperature change - particularly temperatures above mid-20th century
levels. Chap 6 obviously has to deal with this more in the next
draft, so Eystein and I would like to get on top of it starting this
week.

Keith or Richard - do you have a copy of this paper? Is it accepted?

Thanks, Peck

>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:55:46 -0500 (EST)
>From: <ralley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>To: jto@u.arizona.edu
>Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Subject: divergence
>
>Peck--Thanks. The big issue may be that you don't just have to convince me
>now; if the NRC committee comes out as being strongly negative on the
>hockey stick owing to RD'A's talk, then the divergence between IPCC and NRC
>will be a big deal in the future regardless. The NRC committee is accepting
>comments now (I don't know for how long)... As I noted, my observations
>of the NRC committee members suggest rather strongly to me that they now
>have serious doubts about tree-rings as paleothermometers (and I do,
>too...at least until someone shows me why this divergence problem really
>doesn't matter). --Richard

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emai...1141849134.txt

....yes, it is Richard B. Alley, and according to those arguing in favor of the dendro/temp link, there's no confidence that the temps can be reconstructed within .5deg C.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emai...1142108839.txt