Carlin: Climategate Will Now Hit the EPA (PJM Exclusive)
The emails and computer files from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in Great Britain may prove to be of some importance to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) current attempts to control greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
This is because the EPA — perhaps at the urging of others in the Obama administration — has proposed to regulate GHG emissions on the basis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports … and reports primarily based on the IPCC reports.
This is highly unusual for the EPA. I cannot think of any instance where the EPA depended so heavily on non-EPA synthesis reports to justify proposed regulatory action in their almost 39 years of existence.
As a result of this EPA decision, the EPA’s fortunes in regard to regulating GHGs are directly tied to the fate of the IPCC reports.
Although it is hard to argue that any one CRU email or computer file notation proves the IPCC conclusions wrong, as a whole they do strongly suggest two conclusions:
1. CRU and many of its associates and email recipients elsewhere (who I will henceforth refer to as “CRU et al“) are very tightly tied to the IPCC — both in influence and belief — and do not appear to be paragons of scientific objectivity and ethics.
2. Their data handling leaves something to be desired in terms of data retention, database documentation, and questionable data manipulation.
CRU et al.’s lack of scientific objectivity
It seems clear to me that if a group (such as the EPA) wanted to get an objective scientific judgment on climate change science, CRU et al — and therefore the IPCC — might be the last place that they would want to rely on.
Each “trick” CRU et al used to torture their data to yield what appears to be their desired conclusions may have fooled a few more readers into thinking that their basic arguments were valid, but has to decrease the overall assessment of their objectivity.
Attempts to manipulate peer reviews and journal acceptances are not acceptable scientific activities. Withholding key scientific data can only make one question their dedication to scientific principles. Hiding their alleged destruction of the basic temperature data that would allow reconstruction of what they have done is almost as bad as discarding such critical data in the first place. Using data that cannot be reproduced is not very useful scientifically, or from a regulatory viewpoint.
Yet despite these now evident problems with the CRU et al’s data and research, the EPA is now stuck with the IPCC reports, and therefore the closely associated CRU et al’s data and research has become central to the EPA’s attempts to regulate GHGs. Given that it currently appears unlikely that the Senate will agree to anything resembling the current cap and trade bill, this EPA decision may well greatly decrease the chances that the U.S. will in the end implement serious regulation of GHGs — since, under the Clean Air Act, EPA regulations must survive judicial review of any regulations that the EPA may promulgate.
Need for a new approach
If the EPA wants to pursue the regulation of GHGs despite the weak scientific basis for it, there is an evident need for a whole new approach based on truly independent and careful review of the problem. The new approach must use the highest standards of scientific integrity, which means it must not rely on what appears to be biased research and sloppy data from CRU et al.
Although I did not know of the recent revelations concerning CRU et al last March, my comments strongly called for such a reappraisal. This problem will not go away, and may indeed get worse if we should learn more about the CRU et al’s work. There exists a possibility that the EPA’s current approach might succeed by some judicial fluke, but the chances seem to be decreasing with each new revelation.
Presumably one of the reasons the EPA decided to rely on the IPCC, and indirectly on the CRU, is that the Obama administration may have felt some urgency to move rapidly on global warming control. But given the downtrend in global temperatures over the past 11 years, and the likelihood that this will continue for some time (see Section 2.4 of my comments) because of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, there would appear to be ample time to start over and do it carefully and thoroughly this time — with full input by everyone that may be interested.
Basic problem remains
Despite the uproar concerning CRU et al’s data and research, the basic problem remains — the UN hypothesis that increases in GHGs/CO2 will result in significant increases in global temperatures has not been confirmed by comparisons with real world data. Unless it is, attempts to decrease GHG/CO2 emissions in order to significantly change global temperatures are very likely to fail. This is the primary question that the EPA and climate scientists need to address before any control efforts are undertaken.
Happily, we appear to have the time to do so, and to do so objectively using reproducible data.
Twelve days after the leak to the internet of decades of emails between the scientists of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, analysts of the emails are pointing to evidence that those scientists to have been discussing, a) manipulating data to get their preferred results; b) methods of subverting the peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication, and c) working to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.
Today, Britain’s University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit, one Phil Jones, is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
To those of us who studied the scientific method prior to its corruption by politics, participation in any of those acts is damning evidence of abandoning science for advocacy. Serious examinations of such behavior must be held, and if necessary those participants should be stripped of their authority as scientists. For it is exactly that authority which has fuelled the movement to impose control by government, or super-government, body over the enterprise and economic activity of freely acting humans, as a restraint to a future global warming trend predicted by those very ‘scientists’.
Argument from authority can lead to disaster, when the authorities violate the very method which generates our respect for their conclusions and predictions. Let in the sunshine, then, and begin full and public investigations of those supporters of economic suppression. Dr. Jones was right to remove himself while an independent investigation into the apparent corruption of the scientific method is conducted. Let the world media remove blindfolds and join with all others who value science, in placing the utmost scrutiny on the process to ensure that the investigation is truly independent – unlike the faux “peer review” process which has led to the investigation in the first place.
The controversy grows in the wrong direction for the Global Warming cult. When is the MSM going to notice? Or is perky Katie Couric too busy dancing to President Obama’s spiel? The spin from the EPA is worthless spittle. The Global Warming science has been proven to be corrupt with these e-mails. Everything about Global Warming is a hoax. The e-mails prove it. Manipulating data for a proposed end is not science but politics. The scientists should all be fired. All of them. And all the so-called “data” is suspect.
Another PJM climate “scientist” — whose degree is in economics. Anyway, here’s a pre-”Climategate” piece about him from the hated New York Times (hated because it still adheres to journalistic principles):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/science/earth/25epa.html
New York Times (hated because it still adheres to journalistic principles):
That is right up there with this fraud. That was good for the big laugh of the day.
If one keeps in mind that Carol Browner’s degree is in English…and that she is a a committed socialist, as are many in the Obama Administration her attemepts to achieve “Cap & Trade” through governmental fiat are a bit more explicable. Since it now seems that the US “Cap & Trade” bill will go down to defeat, just as the Australian version did this morning, Ms. Browner is attempting to seize yet more control over the US economy by this government. That’s what socialists do…they want control, because, after all, they know better how to run…not just the government but your life better than you do.
Keep that in focus, this is another attempt by this administration to seize ever more control of the economy.
Sunspot activity is currently down. What happens when it increases again?
When were sunspots first discovered and their activity accurately recorded?
@3: “here’s a pre-”Climategate” piece about him from the hated New York Times”
In other words, “Time to attack the messenger because we can’t refute his message with facts and logic.” Pretty weak (and predictable) debate-fu, Grasshopper.
Oh, and are those journalistic principles adhered to by the NYT the same ones that dictated that the Times run a purely speculative front-page story about a possible extra-marital affair supposedly engaged in by presidential candidate John McCain (verified by absolutely no one but gosh it was just so possibly damaging to the Republican contender that it just had to be published on the front page) and yet refused to publish a single word about Democrat hopeful John Edwards’ love child brouhaha until after it was verified and could no longer be ignored? You mean THOSE journalistic principles? But of course you do, since you’re sympathetic to the Times’ agenda.
I sound like a broken record but will keep up the drumbeat until every last corrupt scientist and carbon trader is “brought to justice” (had to add that stupid phrase).
Commence the litigation. Remove governmental immunity from all but publicly elected government officials. So that this will not happen again.
I want my country back !!
Don’t think for a minute that the EPA will care about the scandal or if the data they purport to use is corrupt. Their goal is power and control. The only way to stop them will be to sue them barefoot every time they try.
3: “Another PJM climate “scientist” — whose degree is in economics.”
Another well-reasoned warmist response! As a moment’s research would show, Alan Carlin has a Cal Tech degree in Physics, in addition t his advanced degree in Economics. Not too shabby, that Physics Department – Feynman, Murray Gell-Mann and whole long line of heavyweights have called it home. The suggestion that he is unqualified to evaluate the soft-core “science” that permeates climatology is absurd on its face. Small wonder our warmist troll signs himself “anonymous”!
Re: 3. anonymous on Dec 2, 2009 – 10:10 am:
1) “Another PJM climate “scientist” — whose degree is in economics.”
How about dealing with the arguments, Sir? If the definition of ad hominem did not exist, it would have to be invented for your polemical style. What about the discussed EPA problem that must be a real headache for its leadership? Do you have an actual opinion you would like to share?
2) “… New York Times (hated because it still adheres to journalistic principles):”
What principles, Sir? The principle of supporting what you like? OK then.
You proved that English is a very flexible language but that’s about all.
Truth will out.
Now, the raw data, the adjustment tweaks and the computer code will be examined independently – as it should have been since the beginning. My bet – AGW is toast.
One thing that has not been mentioned much in the discussions over the last week or so is the basic integrity of the associates of the folks directly involved with CRU. If I held a degree from the university that hired any of these people I’d certainly need to recheck any of my past associations, directly or indirectly with them. My future earnings are dependent on knowing whether I had or had not been involved with them. Will I receive a lower recommendation for employment/tenure because I’m associated with the CRU folk or their employers? Something to fear perhaps? Will I need to remove any future references to CRU, its work or any associations from my resume?
Only time will tell.
The need for accountability is pushing for a Truth Commission; and therefore NO ONE should be above prosecution, esp elected officials.
CLEAN ENERGY IS A DIRTY LIE, ask me why……..
Al Gore- Weather Whore
The EPA is now left with their “belief” (under the terms of the Church of Global Warming) that there is catastrophic AGW, with is unconstitutional under the “Establishment” clause.
Nice one, anonymous.
If we have learned nothing else in the past two weeks, we at least now know how reliable, principled, and trustworthy climate “scientists” can be.
Anonymous: The head of the IPCC is one of those climate “scientists” too, you know – he’s a railroad engineer.
If you read only the NYT, you wouldn’t have known about Van Jones until he resigned. They didn’t deem that story newsworthy either. Ironically, the smug NYT reader is likely the least well-informed person at the table.
Climategate: The data is garbage. Charts depicting the garbage are hyper-fraudulent. Programmers chart hyper-fraudulent garbage without a grain of integrity or even common sense.
Academics promoting hyper-fraudulent garbage from whole-cloth fabrications are criminals (Monckton), fraudsters blacklisting dissenters (McIntyre), ruining careers, hiding nefarious inputs by every bureaucratic dodge and simple lie available (Pielke Sr. and Jr.).
All this on behalf of nihilistic Luddite sociopaths intent on destroying human populations (DDT and GM bans, murderous healthcare rationing, and so on and on), wrecking post-Enlightenment industrial civilization in favor of medievalist scenarios reflecting Muslump theocrats’ extraordinarily atavistic and regressive biases. Espousing “save the planet” themes by ridding Earth of sentient inhabitants, death-eaters’ policies make Auschwitz, Belsen, and Treblinka look like rehab centers.
Ill-intentioned, irrational, these people are beyond unteachable. Argue as you will, their response uniformly reverts to obscenities, profanities, unworthy of any serious rebuttal. “Great was the rage of Tom Thumb and Hunc-munca,” as Beatrice Potter put it in another context (“Two Bad Mice”). Be warned.
As I have been saying again and again. The data are skewed by the inclusion of the urban data along with the rural data. You can not calculate out the Urban Heat Island Effect. The rural sites are not warming if you find ones that have continuous reading back to about 1910.
I am a scientist and I have to do data analysis on a daily basis. Here is a little YouTube video that explains it, Global Warming Urban Heat Effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI
So simple a sixth grader can understand it.
Cartoon idea:
Graphic of “tortured” data; caption: Torture Obama Approves Of
Anonymous: do you mean the NYT that publicly exposed our covert means of intercepting terrorist communications and interdicting their finance flow, but still refuses to even address the content of the exposed CRU emails, much less quote them? THAT NYT?
Wonderful compilation of problems with the code – http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/23/the-code.html
Excellent summary from the Dude – http://dudewithkeyboard.com/?p=198
I kind of liked that NY Times article on Dr Carlin. I especially liked this part.
It is true that Dr. Carlin’s supervisor refused to accept his comments on a proposed E.P.A. finding, since adopted, that greenhouse gases endangered health and the environment, and that he did so in a dismissive way.
So, his statement about what the EPA did was true. Certainly we wouldn’t want economists rendering an opinion on legislation that will completely upend our economy to correct a problem that is now in doubt.
In the 14th century, the Ming dynasty, to ensure its security, banned the building of any ship with more than two masts. China, which had been exploring and may have reached America, turned inward. Scholars have written that China very nearly began the Industrial Revolution in the 14th century. They were casting iron bells, unknown in Europe until the 19th century. By the 17th century, the memory of that metallurgy was lost.
Why did this happen ? A political decision. Cap & Trade is another momentous decision that is based on weak, and possibly fraudulent, science.
Astronomers have been noting sun spots since the 19th century.
A few videos I recommend that refute the science as “being settled”. The first is a must watch. You won’t be disappointed. The next two are part 1 of multi part vids. When you hit the first one, you’ll easily be able to find the continuing ones.
http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&feature=related
Clearly, the only reasoable thing to do is to repeal and reject all laws and regulations that are based on “climate change” studies.
Starting with “Cap & Trade”.
I called bull$h!t on AGW back in 1991, when Gore the Whore published his first book about it.
Having passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, without crippling capitalism in any meaningful way, the environmental movement needed something to do, and were casting about for some other way to control the economy. AGW filled the bill nicely.
Otherwise, they all would have had to get productive jobs in the private sector.
If anyone had any lingering doubts about relying on non-US sources for law, science or any other guidance, Climategate puts that notion to rest, for good.
10. Materialist: ’3: “Another PJM climate “scientist” — whose degree is in economics.” Another well-reasoned warmist response! As a moment’s research would show, Alan Carlin has a Cal Tech degree in Physics, in addition t his advanced degree in Economics…. Small wonder our warmist troll signs himself “anonymous”!
Well, guy/gal, it’s true the Times ignores his undergrad degree, but it does point out that his grad degree is “not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged….” As for the “troll” remark, it’s just typical name-calling from a-holes. But I do plead guilty for signing my remarks “anonymous”; I guess I just don’t have the guts to use my real name like you do.
]
Yah we know what the EPA did. The same as all the other bogus organizations around the planet. Perpetrated a hoax which is ongoing. Obama will go to Copenhagen and act oblivious to the entire Climategate fiasco. He`ll say it`s good for the environment no matter what the data says, good or bad. The democraps in congress will charge forward full steam ahead. Too many world leaders, politicians and bureaucrats have money invested, not to mention that pyscho-babble creep Algore…..
anonymous, if you’re calling out an economist with regards to AGW, don’t stop there. What about astronomer/ Physicist James Hansen?
Oh, that’s right. He plays for ‘your’ team. My bad.. his ‘work’ is legit.. hahaha
Letalis Maximus, Esq.:Good questions. First question, some knuckleheads are actually suggesting dispersing aerosols to block excess sunlight (so please, don’t suggest to them, any more bad ideas).
Second question: Galileo was the first to notice sunspots, he documented them for the remainder of his life, although I’m fairly certain he did not correlate the suns climatic affect. And I’m fairly certain no one else picked up on his work until the eighteenth century. Then, I believe that was Dr. Hubble who made that observation and correlation about sunspots, auroras and weather affects, around the turn of the (last) century. I believe we have fairly complete sunspot records going back 100 years. But I have no citation for you.
Now AGW can be redefined as a religion, since belief in it is based on faith rather than data.
So how do we start enforcing the separation of church and state that the libs love so much? Not allow statements of AGW in the public arena? Demonize their icons? Insult their holiest premises?
Nah, we’re probably too well-behaved to go down that road…
The very liberal Australian Senate blocks Cap & Trade via Hot Air:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/02/australian-senate-blocks-cap-and-trade-system/
This does not look for Obama trying to force Cap & Trade in our own US Senate. He will continue to live in ObamaLand though & talk out of his rear end to look ever more the fool.
#3, don’t stop there … you will need to include the head of the lying IPCC itself whose academic credentials are those of a mechanical engineer.
One fraud down, a bunch to go. How about Obummer’s birth certificate? Or should we just trust ‘em on that one too?
It was not that long ago, we were able to recognize that science was a non-profit (and non-prophet) enterprise.
Can we please go back to first base and reconsider before the con artists turn everything upside-down with their fire-in-the-pants planet-fever, conclusion first, data later UN-certified Karl-Marx-Memorial home-run?
Its the magnetic field, stupid!
http://www.earthsgeomotor.com/
Relying on the IPCC for science is erroneous. The IPCC’s role is to report on human-caused climate change, so they’re inherently biased away from natural climate change. Would you rely on an organization which is required to report on turtle-caused water pollution to produce reports about whether your water has natural arsenic or other poisons, or only to produce reports related to turtle’s effects?
Let us not forget the incestuous relationship between the IPCC and CRU. It was the University of East Anglia that gave the IPCC chairman, Rajendra K Pachauri, an honorary Doctorate degree.
29. anonymous:
Do you have any idea what the basis of climate science is?
It’s multidisciplinary
My take is that you think it’s a series of courses on which way the wind blows.
All the more reason it should be peer reviewed by outsiders…guys like you and Ed Begley try to ignore the math/physics component of the science. (I almost split my gut when Ed dismissed Prof. Lindzen as being a Physicist and not a climate scientist on Neil Cavuto).
And what about our climate czar…she’s really qualified…
Climatology is like Sociology…alot of theories but not much more
38: This potential contributor to GW was dismissed by climatologists
years ago, but I think it will gain some traction, at least as a driver for variability. Tough to accept something whent you are basically clueless about it.
Time is getting short and it is coming down to the fact, that soon ( December 7 to December 18 ) I will have to pray to the good Lord to maintain our freedoms and not allow our leaders to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, which will take away our liberties, let go and let God-this being a challenge to our Lord and Saviour? However, while there is still time to prevent the loss of a lifetime, perhaps loss of life it’s self – I will do what I am able to fight for our freedoms! The whole Climate Change agenda is a proven fraud and racketeering, but the United Nations and Globalist governments don’t care as that is just the excuse instrument they have used to ensnare us! Has everybody out there become a tree hugger? The tree will be standing 100 years from now, but will you be looking at the tree, from inside the fence of a Concentration Camp? Anyone out there want to fight to maintain their freedom anymore? Please do all you can to preserve freedom in North America!
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
To request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose
their Sovereignty and Freedom email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca
Any lawyers want to help out by filing this Copenhagen Treaty be classified as an illegal Treaty, in order to, help save Freedom in North America? ( Unlimited Promotion Opportunity Here For a Law firm to Gain a favorable high profile credibility! )
Yeah, gee, anonymous, Carlin just doesn’t have the shining scientific creds of Al Gore, I guess.
Man, this climategate thing gets better and better every day. The Aussies killed their version of Cap and Trade yesterday, which makes me do the happy dance. It’s even more fun watching the trolls get dumber and dumber as they cling desperately to their religion.
I agree with Exactly. I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!
We join Al Gore, once again, aboard his 100-foot yacht, the “BS-1.” Honey Buns, his Administrative Assistant, and Al Gore are lounging in the hot tub while watching the moonrise.
“Al Gore,” Honey pouts, “this is just getting out of control. I mean, the gig is up, so to speak.” She takes a gulp of Chablis.
Al Gore ponders her generous chest, which appears genuinely magical in the moonlight.
“Sweetie,” Al Gore calmly replies as he puffs on a Cuban cigar, “money talks. I have a degree in Political Science, I’ve been behind the AGW hoax for the last twenty years; I’ve funneled millions and millions in grants to fund AGW ‘research.’”
“AGW,” Al Gore continues, “is now a fact. And, there’s just too much money in it for it go away.”
Honey slides over and wraps her arms around Al Gore, sighs. “Oh Al Gore, I hope you’re right.”
Al Gore blows a perfect smoke ring, laughs. “Babe, you ever been to Antarctica? You should see it, it’s growing like crazy. Come on, we’ll stop at Patagonia on the way there.”
Honey presses against Al Gore, content.
There is a very convincing theory proposed by an well published geophysist in a book called, Heaven and Earth. Filled with fact and citations to published research, it is not for the faint hearted, but well worth even a skim.
Briefly, the sun goes through eleven year cycles of sunspot activity caused by its 22 year rotation around the center of gravity of the solar system. When the suspot activity is high, the solar wind of highly energized particles is high and sweeps out beyond the orbit of Mars. A sort of protective shell is formed around the inner solar system. This wind protects the inner solar system, including earth, by reducing the onslaught of cosmic rays. which impact the earth’s atmosphere.
Higher density cosmic rays are correlated with increased cloud cover, so more solar wind (high suspot activity) leads to less cloud cover. This means the earth is less reflective and therfore adsorbs more heat at the surface (global warming). Global warming leads to increased release of CO2 from the oceans, increased vegetation cover, algae density, etc. (more atmospheric CO2).
Conversely, lower solar wind (low suspot activity) shrinks the protective shell to within the orbit of venus, leaving the earth relatively unprotected. Higher cosmic ray density stricking the outer atmosphere leads to increased cloud cover, more reflectivity, and therefore lower temperatures at the surface. CO2 is adsorbed into the ocean, vegetation decreases, deserts increase.
Why, you ask, does the sun rotate around some central point of the solar system? That isn’t what I learned in Earth Science. The three gas giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune, together , outweigh the sun and exert the dominant gravitional force in the solar system. When they are lined up so that their gravitational forces add, they pull the sun even farther from its normal rotational distance to the center point. About every 1100 years. This creates the most sunspot activity. When they balance each other off, as they do now, the sun approaches its closest point to the true solar system center, and enters an extremely quiet phase.
Isn’t that clear as mud? Complicating these cycles are the effect of the large planets on the angle at which the earth rotates relative to the sun, very long term periodic changes in cosmic ray flux depending on whether the solar system is in a dust rich or dust poor section of the galaxy as it rotates around the galaxy’s center, and “Local” supernovas.
Not to mention vocanic activity. A major eruption spews more CO2 qnd methane into the atmosphere that the combined efforts of humanity since the industrial revolution. yet the climate changes inferred from studies of tree rings, lake sediments and other arcane measurements are little disturbed by these events and much more strongly correlated with the sunspot cycle.
Boiling this down? We are entering a period of global cooling, perhaps reaching the level of cooling that Europe experienced in 900- 1050 AD. Scary that.
I’ll come back and give the citation when I get home.
Dr. Carlin, I read your paper the EPA would not let you publish officially. It was quite good.
To anonymous at various places: It is not for nothing Michelle Malkin calls the NYT, Fishwrap. Ever since Pinch Sulzberger became the publisher it has gone steadily downhill. Its logo should be changed to All the news that’s fit to harm the US, or to All the news that’s fit to bury. If you can, find Dr. Carlin’s paper and read it (if you can).
Of course, the problem now with any paper on climatology is that it will depend on one of four data sets, all of which are inextricably linked and contaminated. Because the data are contaminated, we have no idea whether, over the last century, surface temperatures have been cooling, have been warming, or have been stable. We have got to start this whole scientific endeavor over again, but exclude the like of Hansen, Mann, Jones, Holdren, etc. Please see Lord Monckton’s summary at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/
and please read the paper in the PDF file attached to it.
Dr. Carlin, I read your paper the EPA would not let you publish officially. It was quite good.
To anonymous at various places: It is not for nothing Michelle Malkin calls the NYT, Fishwrap. Ever since Pinch Sulzberger became the publisher it has gone steadily downhill. It’s logo should be changed to All the news thats fit to harm the US, or to All the news thats fit to bury. Anonymous, if you can, find Dr. Carlin’s paper online and read it (if you can).
Of course, the problem now with any scholarly paper that has been published on climatology is that it invariably depends on one of four data sets, all of which are inextricably linked and contaminated. Because the data sets are contaminated, we have no idea whether surface temperatures over the last century have been cooling, have been warming, or have been stable. We have got to start this whole scientific endeavor over again, but exclude the likes of Hansen, Mann, Jones, Holdren, etc. Please see Lord Monckton’s summary at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/
and please read the paper in the PDF file attached to it.
@ MaDr:
Wow, that first vid is really a must watch/read. Excellent. I also noticed that it was put up before climategate but contains a lot of the same information which is nice.
Sunspot activity is currently down. What happens when it increases again?
When were sunspots first discovered and their activity accurately recorded?
Sunspots were discovered in 1610 by Galileo. Accurate counting dates back to the 17th century, but there were few sunspots during the Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715. There is a correlation between sunspot minima and cold weather here on Earth.
It’s a good article, but I have to cringe every time I read something suggesting that we should question whether the emails themselves are sufficient stand-alone proof of anything. It’s not as though no controversy or evidence of fraud existed before the emails were exposed. The emails merely confirm what was already known and prove that the conspirators were actively and intentionally conspiring. They nail the issue of whether their acts were criminal rather than that they were just wrong. (And how could we not think they were acting criminally when they lied so much – so very, very much – and the extent of the money involved.)
I think it would be a positive step in journalism stop referring with such consistency and regularity to people who have presented counter-arguments and exposed the fraud as “skeptics” while referring to conspirators politely as “climate scientists.” I realize that CEI is not a group of scientists, but we all need to be sensitive to the fact that this sort of labeling has always been part of the fraudulent propaganda – calling the scare-mongers scientists and any opposition part of some other less knowledgeable group with their own agenda. That element of the propaganda connected to the conspiracy is also clearly exposed in the emails.
Well, now we know that the EPA operates on the principle of Garbage In – Garbage Out. The IPCC is a publishers clearing house that doesn’t even offer discounts, no surprise gift boxes, and that Phil Jones’ “legitimacy” held up for about 4 days as the CRU papers spread. Looks like that hockey stick has turned into the proverbial 10 ft pole.
To add to the coverup, on 30 November the IPPC web site was archived at the Way back Machine (Internet Archives – http://web.archive.org). On 1 December th archives were removed. So if anyone wants to compare the current IPCC reports http://ipcc.ch with the past ones, good luck.
As for the troll references to the NYT, we should give credit where it is due. The NYT is a major contributor…… to unemployment.
It’s difficult to run a country when the other party (democRATS) does everything they can to undermine it’s rules, laws and people. They will give everyone’s hard earned money away to stay in power. Nothing applies to them or sticks to them. They make up new rules as they go along if they don’t get their way. What do they want? The country to break up? Sold off? It’s pathetic. The country is well on it’s way to insolvency, it’s unfunded and underfunded programs are breathtaking.
Sure transfer our riches to the UN and the litany of underperforming and corrupt developing countries based on science filled with fraud and lies. Take over the healthcare system, put thousands of people out of work, close insurance companies. Bail out the newspapers who do nothing but give cover and fail to investigate. They are more concerned with Tiger’s philandering and Palin’s kid’s pregnancy. Fire and silence critics. Please more bailouts, why not. Nancy says that last one wasn’t enough and we need another one. No Harry the war isn’t lost the country is thanks to jerks like yourself.
Wow!! The trolls are getting more hysterical all the time. . . More and more evidence of the fraud of AGW is emerging. . . Could anon. really be Baghdad Bob incognito?I think the “o” will try to push Crap and Trade through no matter what. . it will take a massive protest by us, the concerned citizens, to stop the madness. . . I don’t think there are any politicans out there with the balls to fight for us( except maybe DeMint and a handful more).
I guess I just don’t have the guts to use my real name like you do.
Gassers are like that.
“Sunspot activity is currently down. What happens when it increases again?”
Al Gore sells the sun carbon credits?
Okay…
PJM is now getting quoted in the Paper Press,?
Gratz, Mr. Carlin
I don’t know why anyone bothers with facts these days. They are irrelevant to this administrations agenda. What I dont’ get is how so very many people don’t see how this will affect our country. When Obaba said transparent-he meant it. It’s all out there up front and center for all to see.
How do so many people remain bamboozled? We are in deep shit. I will be at every protest from here to the end of this administration. We must all be heard….
I am afraid these discoveries of fraudulent science may not matter. The AGW forces are more powerful than a religion and more powerful than a political movement – because they are both rolled into one.
Our best estimates of the percentage of CO2 produced annually by man is about 3% of the total produced – the other 97% coming from natural sources like oceans, trees, etc. So you have to ask how anyone could think it would matter even if we ceased all industry, all driving and all breathing. As has been observed over and over – it’s not about reason or reality – it’s about the elitists of the GW movement gaining control and power over the rest of us.
So AGW is a fraud not a hoax; there generally being a humorous component to a hoax. Ergo, EVERYONE advocating, promoting, producing regulation, benefitting from the “green” agenda is complicit in perpetrating a fraud on US taxpayers. I realize it’s a global deal, a cabal of gov’t regulators, but we need to start here at home, where it’s RICO-worthy.
Seems thousands of US politicians, scientists, bureaucrats, policy-makers, reviewers, grant recipients, tax-exempt special interests, NGOs/lobbyists/ foundations,,,, all living off the gov’t, have all been working in concert to defraud the citizenry, by maintaining a lie they knew was a lie.
Same goes for the officers of all those alternative energy startups. New, improved, yada yada yada. Without subsidy, they’ve no chance to break even. End of story. Investors are dupes, or planning to profit from the green scam.
BTW, today’s methods of oil capture make it the most efficient means of extracting BTUs from the earth ever developed, leaving the smallest footprint and the least residual effect. And oil has more “portability” in delivery and use, than any alternative. US has many 100s of billions invested in its specific distribution infrastructure. But, let’s not use it?
I think it’s safe to assume that any rational person (especially a taxpayer) must conclude that prohibiting by law and regulation the exploitation of extant national energy resources, in favor of encouraging the worldwide threat we’re facing, can only be explained by corruption. Maybe about money, maybe not.
Don’t matter; it must be eradicated soon. Take the EPA…please. It’s raison d’etre is the greening of US. 100,000+ gov’t workers who’s sole purpose is to discover something wrong with our “environment.” Tasked to overlook the “greatest ever” in search of the perfect, on our dime. Sweet duty. It needs dismantling with its approach ridiculed, all of its edicts retracted and its regulations abolished.
Then we can start vetting the mission statements of every other gov’t department/agency/bureau/committee/ NGO/lobby, et al to cull “green” from their funding justifications. Could get very un-PC, but it should keep the entire gov’t from enacting any new laws for a while, as they redact all their previous RFPs.
I find it ridiculous that people now claim global warming is all a ‘hoax’. Wow, if that’s true, I guess not the US but the WHOLE world is in on it. This is not something that the US discovered or ‘cooked up’. For decades scientists all around the world are warning about this problem and they have SOLID proof to back it up. People prefer to turn a blind eye to the science and the proof and shout foul at the slightest chance so they can continue living their comfortable life while species are going extinct every day and icebergs are spotted in regions never seen before. I mean the fact that people can see all these signs and then wonder what they’re about as stupid as unearthing fossils and then claiming evolution never happened. Wait – people do that, too!
Wake up, people and smell the coffee. Climate change is real and it is happening while you are concerned about your hummers. Yes, you are contributing to it and trying to stifle the concerned voices by pointing at criminals like this is just ridiculous. Whether you get it or not, whether you ‘believe’ it or not is irrelevant, it is happening and we will all face the consequences together. Questioning climate change is about as smart as questioning gravity. I mean you can rant about it but we all know you are not going to dive down the window to make your point because you KNOW the science is solid – you just want an excuse to continue your lifestyle no matter what impact it has on others.
Tina,
The issue here is that trusted scientists LIED and FABRICATED false “evidence”. The issue is not what you “believe”, it is about information. Information was tampered with, “lost”, changed, and used for nefarious purposes. How can you debate from the position that has been proven to be sullied with inaccurate and biased science? You will not be taken seriously. A new debate (on climate change) could take place, but it would have to be from a place of FACTS and TRANSPARENCY.
How anyone can see all of this and not question the dogma is beyond me. If you find out your Idol is false, do you still bow down to worship? Or do you stand up and ask some questions???
Shawna,
I think you should reread my post – I am not defending the scientists who did this scam. But if you read the posts above you will see that most people take the crime of a group of people as an indication that the whole issue was a hoax to begin with. And I for one have enough knowledge about the issue that I’m very confident new researches and numbers will back me up on it. So on the contrary, Shawna, I’m all for questioning the dogma. Let’s bring it all out into the open and let’s take a hard look at the facts. I see where this issue is going and how it will be used by oil companies and all the other power players out there to continue the trend and I refuse to be misguided and fooled – unlike the vast majority of the American people.
I don’t need to re-read your post. I understood it perfectly well the first time.
You are implying that global warming is still real and still a threat even though there is no scientific (unbiased, real, untainted) evidence to prove it.
While perhaps you mean “climate change” and not the politically incorrect term “global warming”…what will people think when the dogma changes to the “coming ice age”? If they’ve read about climategate, they will say “yeah, right.” Climate change is real. Global warming due to driving a Hummer might not be real. it might not be. It might be an outright lie. Are you willing to admit that? Is anyone who has been misguided and fooled by Al Gore and company willing to admit that they might be wrong??
I know you’re concerned about all the bad guys saying “global warming isn’t real, let’s go throw radio active waste at day care centers and pollute rivers with tampons!”, but I don’t think that will happen. Anyone with half a brain knows we need to keep our air and water clean. It’s the people that tell you the “science is settled” that you have to watch out for–on either side.
I am concerned that this mess will deprive reasonable and useful environmental and scientific efforts of funds and popular support. We’ve already diverted enormous funds from the biotech, space exploration, and medical sectors, to energy research. All because some jokers needed to prove that carbon dioxide, a minor greenhouse gas that is essential to life on this planet, is a pollutant. If carbon dioxide is a pollutant, then so is pure, clean water, not to mention the oceans!
Let me clarify:
Tina, the claim, that “global warming is all a ‘hoax’,” is shorthand for “the claim that human activity has caused global warming is a hoax,” which happens to be a true statement. Now, we’ve found not only that the scientists that didn’t buy into the theory were correct, but that the proponents of the theory are frauds. This fraud should be particularly offensive to people who care about both the environment and the people who live in it. The fraud is important and consequential.
For example, Iraq is just emerging from a war. At one time, their representatives were being pressured to adopt some very expensive laws to govern carbon dioxide output. People who know better urged them to do something different: to adopt good manufacturing procedures, to carefully regulate sewage treatment and water usage, and to regulate the disposal of used solvents, metals, and industrial byproducts. The Iraqi people adopted the more sensible approach. And so, they didn’t throw away their valuable resources (money) on something foolish.
Tina @ #62:
There are a variety of problems with the current climate data, whether original, unprocessed or processed. Hence, whatever climatologists have said can no longer be taken as valid.
Problem #1: All contemporary data are contaminated (see my post @ #49 above). Indeed, we don’t know how much the earth has been warming or cooling over the last 150 years. Anthony Watts who (with some stonewalling by NOAA) finally acquired a list of weather stations across the US found that 75% are at places near artificial heating sources, and the NOAA/GISS corrections have adjusted those temperatures up (!) rather than down. That should not give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about the accuracy of those data.
Problem #2: Even if current temperatures are increasing, is the increase abnormally large? Mann, et al., claim it is by using tree ring data that provide incorrect data about the present; they show a decline while the temperature is going up, which is what hiding the decline was about. That means the Mann et al. estimates for the medieval warm period (MWP) which showed no warming are probably in error. Prior to their shenanigans, other temperature estimates showed far higher temperatures in the MWP than currently exist, suggesting the current increase is not abnormal. Finally, I might point out, recently a glacier completely melted in Switzerland, and guess what were found? Roman mines – that means the glacier had melted once before, and so it was as warm or warmer in the Roman period (about the 1st century) than today.
Problem #3: You said that scientists have been warning about warming for decades. I remember when they were warning about the coming ice age, and that was just about 3 decades ago. So, decades is an overstatement.
Problem #4: If the earth is warming (which is now an open question) we don’t know what’s causing it. Some say CO2, but CO2 has a nasty habit of following warming, not preceding it. Moreover, I might remind you that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s, yet CO2 concentrations were greater in the 1990s than the 1930s. How is it possible then for CO2 to be the cause of the warming? Also, over the last ten years, the earth has either cooled or not had any significant temperature change. Yet there is more CO2 today in the atmosphere than ten years ago. Again, how is that possible if CO2 is causing warming?
Problem #5: Finally, if there is warming, and if it is CO2, and human activity is contributing substantially to CO2 (also something that needs to be tested), what would the cost and benefits be of reducing the costs?
RE: Anonymous,
Thanks for confirming that the AGW crowd is a bunch clueless thugs.
The more I read of the alarmists reaction, the more they come off like a little kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Or, they add credence to the point that climate alarm is a religion – they are exquisite mimics of the Church of Rome in regards every facet of the Inquisition.
EVERY…SINGLE…FACET!
If someone is willing to represent me I am all willing to proceed forth with corruption charges for the epa, congress and any and all institutions who where involed in the manipulation of Data. If not by myself then in a class action lawsuit for all americans. Because this can also lead to mis-appropriation of funds. So i we have a chance there is no better time like the Present.
If someone is willing to represent me I am all willing to proceed forth with corruption charges for the epa, congress and any and all institutions who where involed in the manipulation of Data. If not by myself then in a class action lawsuit for all americans. Because this can also lead to mis-appropriation of funds. So if we have a chance there is no better time like the Present.