Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[SuBe]

Para, are you saying that the Global Warming movement is Agenda driven? You DON'T SAY?!?!? [/sarcastic]

 

[Paradoxium]

No worries, lets forge some data, some photoshoping, and get it into some legit academic institution to confound all this nonsense. All hail to the Chuch of Gaia!

I dub theee Climategate.

 

[SuBe]

Don't forget, let's also "dump" $6 TRILLION into this nonsense to curb fake data. Not Agenda Driven at all.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-ga...eady-pay-your-6-trillion-climate-justice-bill

 

[Marx]

Is it really such a bad thing to be concerned about the environment and the effect we have on it? I don't think so.

 

[SuBe]

It is not. It's one thing to want to have clean water, clean air and clean Dirt. It's a whole other thing to falsify data to push an agenda of wealth re-distribution.

 

[Paradoxium]

I notice that people love the notion of taxing emissions and tobacco to curb them, but do not fuss over this same effect on productivity when you tax investments and work efforts. Especially in the middle of a ****ing giant recession. t:

 

[Handsome Rob]

I notice that people love the notion of taxing emissions and tobacco to curb them, but do not fuss over this same effect on productivity when you tax investments and work efforts. Especially in the middle of a ****ing giant recession. t:

Hmmm . . . hadn't thought of it that way. Spot on.

 

[SuBe]

Brilliant!

 

[Carcharodon]

Is it really such a bad thing to be concerned about the environment and the effect we have on it? I don't think so.

No, but...

It is not. It's one thing to want to have clean water, clean air and clean Dirt. It's a whole other thing to falsify data to push an agenda of wealth re-distribution.

This.

On the other hand, as I have said countless times now, regardless of whether our carbon emissions are contributing to a warming trend, they are still having a large and measurably profound impact on the environment.

...but that doesn't make falsifying data ethically acceptable.

By the way, which organizations are implicated directly?

It should also be noted that, from what I can read, the conclusions being drawn by the author of the article posted by 'Dox don't line up with the material presented. There's a skew. This isn't necessarily as damning as some would like to believe.

 

[Paradoxium]

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94 the Hadley CRU Files
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/ the emails online

Obviously there is a slant, because the other MSM won't report and the only ones who would jump it's balls are the conservative ones (I.e. Fox). Who are we trying to kid. If this was Sarah Palin's email and features her having an affair with someone, the MSM would be all over it like blood hounds. Even if it was a fake.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

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 [email protected]
NR4 7TJ
UK

From: Gary Funkhouser
To: [email protected]
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: [email protected]

 

[Paradoxium]

Moar

Interesting that this document describes methods of convincing the public of the “crisis”.

Excerpt:

a new way of thinking

Once we’ve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging from behaviour change modeling for sustainable development:

5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works
Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise (or remember) that climate change relates to them.

6. Use both peripheral and central processing Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to public transport.

7. Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are all worth investigating.

8. Use transmitters and social learning People learn through social interaction, and some people are better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are transmitted more effectively.

9. Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change their attitude than their actions.

From: "D.J. Keenan"
To: "Steve McIntyre"
Cc: "Phil Jones"
Subject: Wang fabrications
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:45:15 +0100
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO

Steve,

I thought that I should summarize what has happened with the Wang case.

First, I concluded that the claims made about Chinese stations by Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] and Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] were very probably fabricated. (You very likely came to the same conclusion.)

Second, some investigation showed that Phil Jones was wholly blameless and that responsibility almost certainly lay with Wang.

Third, I contacted Wang, told him that I had caught him, and asked him to retract his fabricated claims. My e-mails were addressed to him only, and I told no one about them. In Wang's reply, though, Jones, Karl, Zeng, etc. were Cc'd.

Fourth, I explained to Wang that I would publicly accuse him of fraud if he did not retract. Wang seemed to not take me seriously. So I drafted what would be the text of a formal accusation and sent it to him. Wang replied that if I wanted to make the accusation, that was up to me.

Fifth, I put a draft on my web site--
http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm
--and e-mailed a few people, asking if they had any recommendations for improvement.

I intend to send the final version to Wang's university, and to demand a formal investigation into fraud. I will also notify the media. Separately, I have had a preliminary discussion with the FBI--because Wang likely used government funds to commit his fraud; it seems that it might be possible to prosecute Wang under the same statute as was used in the Eric Poehlman case. The simplicity of the case makes this easier--no scientific knowledge is required to understand things.

I saw that you have now e-mailed Phil (Cc'd above), asking Phil to publish a retraction of Wang's claims: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#comment-115879
There could be a couple problems with that. One problem is that it would be difficult for Phil to publish anything without the agreement of Wang and the other co-authors (Nature would simply say "no").

Another problem is that your e-mail says that you presume Phil was "unaware of the incorrectness" of Wang's work. I do not see how that could be true. Although the evidence that Phil was innocent in 1990 seems entirely conclusive, there is also the paper of Yan et al. [Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 18: 309 (2001)], which is cited on my web page. Phil is a co-author of that paper.

Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with Wang's claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation for this. Phil?

Kind wishes, Doug

 

[Carcharodon]

There's so much to cover here by way of refutation that I don't know where to begin. I guess I could point out the very obvious: there is very, very little context with which to evaluate these conversations.

For instance, the first bit you posted (about "real temps") sounds pretty alarming until you read beyond the conveniently bolded portion, where they begin to talk about estimated temperatures. The reader is supposed to assume that "real" is meant as the opposite of "fake," implying data fabrication, whereas the context of real vs. estimated puts that particular conversation in a completely different light. Secondly, none of us know what decline they're talking about. I'd love to get a little more background, and it seems awfully suspicious that for all of this supposed damning evidence, these conversations seem to be picked in a way that hides context.

The second one (referring to "milking" data) is far from incriminating. I mean seriously, have you ever worked with data in a scientific context? You basically have a heaping mess of data, and from said data you're supposed to find and characterize as many trends as possible (or at least as much as is necessary for a study). That quote can too easily be taken to mean that the data has no more trends to reveal.

Let's continue with this nonsense.

Interesting that this document describes methods of convincing the public of the “crisis”.

No, ******. That document outlines methods of public education in a context directly related to helping make the problem go away. It has far less to do with convincing people there is a problem than it does with persuading people to take action. Bit of a difference.

The fourth is actually the best in terms of incrimination. I'd love to see more about that one, so I'm exploring the links.

Still, if these are the most incriminating examples he can come up with, I'm actually less convinced of fraud than I was when I first heard about the release of these files. He actually pushed me the other way on that. Kudos to him.

 

[Paradoxium]

That was a copy and paste, not my words.

It looks like it might not be a hacker who accessed these files, but rather someone within the place who leaked it out.

 

[Paradoxium]

That was a copy and paste, not my words.

It looks like it might not be a hacker who accessed these files, but rather someone within the place who leaked it out.

 

[Carcharodon]

That was a copy and paste, not my words.

Oh, I know that. I certainly wasn't calling YOU a ******.

EDIT: I guess I switched from addressing you to addressing the "narrator" of those quotes a little abruptly, now that I read the post again. Sorry for the confusion. I've edited the post a bit.

It looks like it might not be a hacker who accessed these files, but rather someone within the place who leaked it out.

I'll stay tuned.

 

[Paradoxium]

The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

 

[Carcharodon]

....if that's true, then it's wrong. I have a hard time believing these guys would so blatantly and openly damage their credibility, but damn...what a moron.

 

[Heretic]

Wow...the nutty conspiracy theorists have been saying all along that global warming is a fraud meant to tax us to our knees...then they started talking about a tax...and now it seems it is a fraud. Those wacky conspiracy theorists...facts always coming out to prove them right.

 

[Paradoxium]

Telegraph quotes some of the emails and gives a brief critique (sorry if some of these are doubled from previous posts).

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.

From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."

The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work.

I notice how the MSM is try to assert it is a hacker and not an insider leak. Probably because hacker sounds like bad guys and whistleblower/leak sounds like good guys. At the very least if there are misconceptions, the MSM could step in to refute some of the claims or provide the other side of the story. They basically made no serious attempt to do so. The Copenhagen Accord is coming up soon too..

A skeptic made this point:

Hadley Center which controls the global data on temperatures, so that the global temperature record is in their hands, they also control the IPCC. The IPCC is the basis in all governments for the Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord

 

[Paradoxium]

Barack Obama ready to offer target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions

 

[Paradoxium]

From Market Ticker. Probably 95% of you guys are probably not going to read it, but maybe some 5% might. Dude is a bit long winded.

Ok, having spent a fair bit of tme sifting through the files referenced in my original Ticker on this subject, I have some additional observations.

Please note - in my "past life" I ran an ISP, and am a qualified expert in these matters. I write spam filtering software commercially and have since 1995, being the author of the first ISP-centered spam interdiction package. As such when it comes to issues like Internet mail transport I can easily speak to what is supposed to be present - and what is not.

Further, I want to note that my interest in this has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying claim - "Is Man-Made Global Warming Real?" Rather, my interest in this is whether or not the alleged scientific process has been followed - or subverted.

There is one axiom that I believe we can all agree on:

The climate is always in flux - that is, it is always changing. It has done so over the millions of years in the past, and will in the millions of years in the future.
​

Science is the process by which we take a question and:

• Form a hypothesis.
• Design an experiment to test that hypothesis.
• Perform the experiment and collect the data thus generated.
• Analyze the resulting data.
• Form a conclusion from the data thus collected.

That's "The Scientific Method."
To the extent that method is corrupted on purpose one does not have science. To the extent that it is corrupted out of necessity (e.g. missing data that one requires, and thus one "guesses") this is accepted provided one discloses one's guess and how it was derived - that is, provided there is no material concealment.

In the "Big Science World" the check and balance on concealment - and outright fraud - is peer review and post-publication duplication. To be able to duplicate the results claimed, however, the algorithms, code, methods and data sets must be made publicly available so that anyone who desires to do so can validate the claimed experimental results.

In the spirit of science, I will note that I fully expect others to try to validate (or dispute) my observations below. As such you can find the original archive at Wikileaks should you decide you would like to do so, and I encourage all other independent investigation.

Now, on to the observations, after spending an evening and morning with the data (and no, I haven't gone through it all yet - there's a hell of a lot here folks.)

There are apparently 1073 emails, each with a sequence number but those numbers are not sequential. That is, there are a lot of sequence numbers missing. However, the dates in the files appear to be ordinal (that is, increasing from earliest to latest) with the last entry being November 12th of this year.

This strongly implies this is a partial data set intercept of email from some point. The same person does not appear as a "to" or "from" in each email (although there is a lot of commonality), which belies the general idea that this was someone's "saved storage" - at least at first blush.

The intercept, wherever it happened, does not appear to have been done at the system or transport level. Specifically, the "Received:" and "Message-ID:" lines that are part of all internet-transported email are missing. This strongly implies that wherever these emails came from, they were saved/stored by one or more user(s) and were not an automated process that was maintaining archival (or forensic) logs.

The emails themselves, however, look authentic. That is, the formatting is consistent with character mode operation in many of the messages (Unix) and Windows or MAC format programs in others. The quoting is consistent - and correct for the time period in question. Attachments are missing, again implying that this is someone's "saved copy" and NOT from a system-level stream. The early emails contain a fairly significant number of messages that are consistent with the user being on a character-mode terminal (e.g. ELM, MUTT or similar on a Unix system), including the quoting and line formatting. The message content shift toward "desktop email programs" - that is, appearing to be more and more programs such as Eudora, Thunderbird, Outlook and the like is also apparent as time goes on.

My conclusions on the email data set itself are that this is very likely to be either (1) someone's "private email" storage of things they wanted to save, or (2) it was a working directory of someone who was in the process of putting forward a response to an FOI request or internal inquiry of some sort. The messages are not the entire email stream to or from any specific set of users, but rather are a set selected in some fashion - either by the person saving them as "important" or by someone collating messages for the purpose of responding to some sort of request. The majority of the messages themselves are what appear to be ordinary and reasonable discourse between scientists and researchers with an occasional "revealing glance" at the various defensive (and offensive!) approaches to those who question their premise and conclusions. Wikileaks concurs with the latter assessment.

In short, I see nothing in that data set that implies that the messages have been tampered with, but there is also no reasonable way to prove their provenance as the necessary information to do so (routing and message-id information) is missing. A well-place FOI request should resolve that problem, if anyone is particularly interested in doing so.

The data sets included in the archive are also interesting. Again, a reasonably-detailed look through them shows nothing implying that they have been tampered with, and they include data and computer code (source program code) from a wide variety of time periods. It appears authentic.

Comments within, however, disclose an extraordinary amount of extrapolation and "curve fitting" - that is, fitting data to produce desired results, not the other way around as it should be that appears to have been going on in the process of so-called "analysis." Worse, there are plenty of comments that make clear that the researchers are literally making things up as they go along - much of the data sets are claimed to be incomplete, inaccurate in terms of their time frames .vs. what is claimed in the headers and titles, and containing junk values.

There is some real trouble here, in that if you're not sure what you've got (that is, you're not sure what the data is!) or worse, you're knowingly missing pieces that you need to perform an analysis, what are you "analyzing"?

Worse, there are comments in the files that make clear that there are observations that are outside of what has been published - and worse, some of those observations are ten times outside the alleged "resolution" of claimed results. Uh, that's a major problem, and goes back to what I have repeatedly said about so-called "climate science" for a very long time, specifically (from Musings):

It is, however, entirely possible that we will find that indeed man is responsible for some of the warming that is taking place, but that this contribution is extremely small - say, 5%. That is, if the global temperature is due to rise by 10 degrees F in the next 100 years, we are responsible for only 0.5F of that rise! Thus, were we to completely cut off CO2 emissions, we'd STILL see a 9.5F rise in temperature. Obviously, if this is the case, then the data does not support taking any sort of drastic action at this time.

The problem with the current political-speak coming from these so-called "scientists" is that it contains no real data and no ranges of uncertainty on their alleged measurements.
That's not science folks - its politics - and we must, as a nation and people, refuse to be cowed by bald claims without the presence of facts behind them.
​

I have long argued that the major problem with so-called "published papers" on global warming is that it is rare to see find measurement uncertainties reported in the alleged findings, and competing studies have cited wildly different values for the same thing (e.g. atmospheric CO2 emitted by man per year.)

I believe we can now deduce why those uncertainties are missing - they are not being carried through the computational process as is required for any scientific calculation and this omission is in fact intentional.
This is, quite literally, first-semester college physics (or chemistry, or any other "hard" science.) If you turn in an answer to the question "How long is that ruler?" that reads "12 inches" you get a zero.

The scientist says "12 inches +/- 0.1 inch", reflecting the limits of his measurement. The carrying through of uncertainties is essential to hard science, as only from that process can one compute the statistical bands of probability that the result reported is actually the result in the real world.
Uncertainties in measurement are additive - that is, if I measure two rulers and each is reported as "12 inches +/- 0.1 inch" then the total length of the two rulers is 24 inches +/- 0.2 inch - because it is possible that both errors were on the same side.

When one performs complex mathematical functions on input data uncertainties must also be carried through the mathematical functions. Without that we know nothing about the quality of the result - it is entirely possible, given data with enough noise in it, to produce what looks like a perfectly valid answer but have it be absolute trash and of no value at all.

The only way to know if that is possible is for all measurements to be reported with their uncertainties attached, and for all uncertainties to be carried through all computational processes.

It is quite clear, from the data sets I have looked at, that this is simply not being done. Instead computations are being "fudged" to fit data to expected previously claimed results and/or data sets simply discarded or modified that do not fit with either previously-published numbers or desired outcomes. Here's just one example from the comments in the files:

ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?

OH F**K THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
​

This, by the way, is exactly the (intentional) "error" that was made by the "ratings agencies" and banks when it came to securitized debt that had "less than fully-verified income and assets" as a component. Uncertainties on the reported income and assets were never determined from experimental sampling and carried through the computational process. If they had been then the outcomes that we have actually seen would have been predicted within the range of possible outcomes for this debt. Instead, the issued securities were rated "AAA" because the agencies did not apply an uncertainty to each of the alleged reported numbers. That's what happens when you ignore the scientific method - you put garbage into a computation, you get garbage back out and it is impossible for an outside observer to detect that you did so because you refuse to give him the uncertainties associated with your claimed "measurements"!

Some of the guys working on this stuff appear to be genuinely trying to clean up other people's trash. But trash in produces trash out, and if you can't successfully defend the statistical integrity of the data going into your computational models you have nothing.

This leaves me with one final question: since we have emails now apparently documenting an attempt to "paper over" temperature decreases in recent years, and we also have claims of "lost" data, one wonders - was the data really lost, or was it intentionally deleted or withheld from other researchers who asked for it, as providing it would show that measurement uncertainties were not carried through computationally - and if they were, the claimed results in the so-called "peer reviewed" paper would be impossible to validate?

Without hard proof of whatever answer is propounded to that question we as the people of this planet must insist on a full stop for all purported "climate amelioration" efforts, as there is every possibility that the entirety of this so-called science in fact proves exactly nothing, except that the so-called "researchers" have added much CO2 to the atmosphere producing the electricity required to power their computers!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and from the released set of data that proof is, quite simply, not present and accounted for.

 

[Paradoxium]

Climate Audit

People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:

function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;

pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;

;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-harry_read_me-file/

The hacked e-mails were damning, but the problems they had handling their own data at CRU are a dagger to the heart of the global warming “theory.” There is a large file of comments by a programmer at CRU called HARRY_READ_ME documenting that their data processing and modeling functions were completely out of control.

They fudged so much that NOTHING that came out of CRU can have ANY believability. If the word can be gotten out on this and understood it is the end of the global warming myth. This much bigger than the e-mails. For techie takes on this see:

http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13

http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421

To base a re-making of the global economy (i.e. cap-and-trade)on disastrously and hopelessly messed up data like this would be insanity.

Looks like the smoking gun is in the programming.

 

[Paradyme]

Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research

The publication of more than 1,000 private e-mails that climate change skeptics say proves the threat is exaggerated has prompted one key Republican senator to call for an investigation into their research.

In an interview with The Washington Times on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced he would probe whether the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."

"[T]his thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with," Inhofe, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said during the interview.


He added that it was "interesting" that the e-mails surfaced only weeks before an important climate change summit would bring world leaders to Copenhagen.


...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...r-hearing-into-cru-un-climate-change-research

I'm happy to see this farce finally crumbling down.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

See, wasting money on this green peace **** was a waste...of money. Knew it all along.

 

[SuBe]

Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)
November 23, 2009 - by Christopher Monckton

This is what they did — these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights.

The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up. Unfortunately, the British researchers have been acting closely in league with their U.S. counterparts who compile the other terrestrial temperature dataset — the GISS/NCDC dataset. That dataset too contains numerous biases intended artificially to inflate the natural warming of the 20th century.

Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and “global warming” profiteers — for that is what they are — have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be.

Page 1 of 2 Next -> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscou...rminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/2/