Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part One)
In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).
I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.
NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately.
On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with the documents I requested in August 2007.
The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise. The emails show NASA making off with enormous sums of taxpayer funding doing precisely what they claim only a “skeptic” would do. The emails show NASA attempting to scrub their website of their own documents, and indeed they quietly pulled down numerous press releases grounded in the proven-wrong data. The emails show NASA claiming that their own temperature errors (which they have been caught making and in uncorrected form aggressively promoting) are merely trivial, after years of hysterically trumpeting much smaller warming anomalies.
As you examine the email excerpts below, as well as those which I will discuss in the upcoming three parts of this series, bear in mind that the contents of these emails were intended to prop up the argument for the biggest regulatory intervention in history: the restricting of carbon emissions from all human activity. NASA’s activist scientists leave no doubt in their emails that this was indeed their objective. Also, please note that these documents were responsive to a specific FOIA request from two years ago. Recent developments — combined with admissions contained in these documents — beg further requests, which have both been already filed and with more forthcoming.
Furthermore, on January 29, 2010, CEI filed our appeal of NASA continuing to improperly withhold other documents responsive to our FOIA requests. In this appeal we informed NASA that if they do not comply by the twentieth day, as required by law, we shall exercise our appellate rights in court immediately.
________________________________
Under Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA shepherds a continuing public campaign claiming clear evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) — climate change induced by human beings. The documents released via the FOIA request, however, contain admissions of data unreliability that are staggering, particularly in light of NASA’s claims to know temperatures and anomalies within hundredths of a degree, and the alarm they helped raise over a mere one degree of claimed warming over more than an entire century.
Dr. Reto Ruedy, a Hansen colleague at GISS, complains in his August 3, 2007, email to his co-worker at GISS and RealClimate blogger Gavin Schmidt:
[The United States Historical Climate Network] data are not routinely kept up-to-date (at this point the (sic) seem to end in 2002).
This lapse led to wild differences in data claimed to be from the same ground stations by USHCN and the Global Climate Network (GHCN). NASA later trumpeted the “adjustments” they made to this data (upward only, of course) in extremely minor amounts — adjustments they are now seen admitting are well within any uncertainty, a fact that received significantly less emphasis in their public media campaign claiming anomalous, man-made warming.
GISS’s Ruedy then wrote:
[NASA’s] assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data … may not have been correct. … Indeed, in 490 of the 1057 stations the USHCN data were up to 1C colder than the corresponding GHCN data, in 77 stations the data were the same, and in the remaining 490 stations the USHCN data were warmer than the GHCN data.
Ruedy claimed this introduced an estimated warming into the record of 0.1 deg C. Ruedy then described an alternate way of manipulating the temperature data, “a more careful method” they might consider using, instead.
———————————————-
How can global warming data loss be such a problem? Hasn’t the data been peer reviewed by the vast majority of the finest scientific minds the world has? Did ALL those thousands of scientists around the planet all lose the most important data in human history simultaneously?
Either they’re telling the truth and the majority of scientists are idiots, or they’re corrupt. I don’t see any other options. they either lied about reviewing the data. Or they’re part of the coverup.
Because most real scientists keep and control data series in order to demonstrate their work, the consistently lost data concerning climate ‘change,’ is way more than suspicious. I do wonder, though, why so many people are willing to turn a blind eye to all the questionable practices of the AGW crowd and vociferously defend the case for global warming. It almost seems as if they want to be idiots.
Still waiting for them- or screechicks, for that matter- to explain to us why they have dropped over 75% of temperature stations from their calculations, since 1995.
Can we start by firing Hanson? I’ve had enough of paying this guy with my taxes.
Why was NASA ever given funding for this nonsense? Their job was supposed to be getting us into space, not junk science advocacy.
It is one thing to be a “scientist” who believes in a hypothesis and doggedly pursues it through trial and error.
It is quite another thing to come across hurdles and obstacles…and deliberately hide them from public view, change the data to make your hypothesis appear to be something it is not, invade the province of peer review by blockading information and legitimate inquiry (often by slandering and smearing those making inquiry) and then declaring that the matter is “settled”…and anyone who doesn’t genuflect at your altar is a member of the flat earth society or equivalent to those who deny evolution.
(the latter, a coded leftist slam against faith-based folks…who are portrayed repeatedly as mouth breathing morons, incapable of grasping even basic information…which, apparently…is why that very information needs to be fraudulent, “for their own good”)
The criminal enterprise is the stifling of the debate through means that are often vicious and slanderous. Moreover, the total control of the principled debate that should have taken place on this subject, prior to the creation of schemes so vast and involving taxpayer expenditures in the trillions of dollars…is a part of a grander scheme related to a variety of subjects.
The “wealth redistribution” via environmental “cover” is but one tentacle in the creeping soft socialism that invades Western pocketbooks and purses.
Stealth legislation is not always the brutish taking of money from the “rich”…which is always paraded as only impacting “1%” of the population. When you boil down all the ways that “wealth redistribution” is being attempted to get into Western pockets, really dig into it and unravel the plans, intentions, and costs to taxpayers…this is nothing less than a RICO scheme.
Our lovely entrenched media are silent co-conspirators. They bury stories and cover the tracks of those who mean to install soft socialism and wealth redistribution.
The scientists who push this agenda are no less conspiratorial. It is beneath contempt for them to only provide information to “friendly” entrenched media types…knowing full well that legitimate inquiry could not be possible in such a redacted form.
Worse, smearing and slandering anyone who persists in obtaining access to legitimate inquiry is an affirmative act of deceit.
When we are deprived of facts, when the information we receive is utterly devoid of serious inquiry and inspection…when virtually every issue is clouded with the heavily shaded soft socialism taint of “false but accurate”, “truthiness” and “hidden items not included”…we are being ripped off in a way so nefarious and so septic…that we are wholly incapable of self-governing this land of ours.
Our information stream is so full of lies, distortions and hidden key elements we are being deprived of the very oxygen of democracy.
And, if that isn’t a crime…then we should throw out the criminal justice system and start over. We deserve better. Democracy deserves better. And, we aren’t ever going to get it, unless we understand this fraud…and demand that it cease immediately.
It’s a lot of data that takes up a lot of space. They don’t have room to keep it. Once they analyze the data, they delete/destroy it.
“The emails show NASA making off with enormous sums of taxpayer funding doing precisely what they claim only a “skeptic” would do.”
Remember Deep Throat’s advice to Bernstein and Woodward? “Follow the money”? That’s where the story is. General Electric anyone? Campaign cash to lefty politicians? The whole “man made global warming” thing is a giant shell game designed to rip off the taxpayers and make wealthy individuals (Al Gore, George Soros etc.)and corporations even more wealthy. Remember that when cap and trade passes and you have to choose between paying your heating bill or eating!
Oh kayyyy, for one thing, I have yet to see *anything* from the Competitive Enterprise Institute that wasn’t total BS. Despite its depiction as a “think tank,” it’s never been more than a lobbying group for corporate and right wing interests.
Now that’s out of they way, one of the few bits of substantial news that came out of the CRU email hack was how FOIA requests have been misused as a form of harassment by anti-environmental groups and right wing nutcases in general, and the CEI has been part of that. As one Lawrence Livermore National Lab scientist, Ben Santer, noted, …he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics that are designed to “tie-up government-funded scientists.”
Hanzi: First, we are now learning more about the “peers” who reviewed such findings. When the peer review group become co-conspiritors, we have a problem. After reading the East Anglia emails, such is clearly the case. It’s not thousands of scientists, it’s the gatekeepers of a particular magazine.
Second, the practice of not keeping raw data is beyond suspicious. In fact, it prevents peer review altogether. Why would a scientist assume that their current paper would be the only one to need a given dataset — ever? Such that, when a particular study would need to be updated, it would have to start again from scratch? Consider the data claimed to be lost and it’s a real head-scratcher.
Nobody runs out of disk space anymore, and the datasets in question are small by any standard. It takes an act of the will to delete data — it can’t be “lost” anymore, especially at a place like NASA.
This certainly confirms that the fabricated global warming science is not just limited to the UK’s climate center. I bookmarked this page several months ago about NASA and its temperature “adjustments.”
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/11/fabricating-phoney-global-warming-evidence-of-manipulating-us-temperature-data-to-prove-human-co2-warming.html
You know – I had a link to NASA atmospheric data that I first looked at years ago. The heat flow was actually backwards to global warming – global cooling anyone? I do recall it quickly diverting to one of NASA’s AGW propaganda sites. I’ll dig into my bookmarks and find it.
Scientists, the witch doctors of the 21st century.
I know for a fact why they cannot use the data from satelitte temperature data because the satelitte was not calibrated right in the 1990′s. According to someone I know personnally who was put in charge of global warming research in the 1990′s, he said that when he went to a conference on global warming in Birminghan, Al that the manufacturer of the satelitte Redstone Arsenel’s representative came in furious with NASA because the satelitte was not calibrated right and the temperature data was wrong.
Well dang! That whole peer review thingie flopped again…
Courtesy of Watts Up With That: Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%…
‘Several errors have been recently uncovered in the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These include problems with Himalayan glaciers, African agriculture, Amazon rainforests, Dutch geography, and attribution of damages from extreme weather events. More seem to turn up daily. Most of these errors stem from the IPCC’s reliance on non-peer reviewed sources‘…
I don’t know if I can maintain my same level of fist-clenched, trembling outrage through all these revelations of guilt, shame and fraud, but so far, so good. Not tired of being outraged yet.
I have to say, if a so called climate scientist were within arm’s length of me I”d have a hard time restraining myself from beating him black and blue.
Or her.
This fraud is the worst kind… an attempt to convince the public of the moral requirement for major sacrifices of freedom and control over all our lives, ‘for the sake of the planet’, for the shared environment which can support us all or kill us all.. they KNEW the moral hold they could have over us, they KNEW how much Stalinism they could jam down on us, while we worried about being morally guilty for ruining the environment of people who never had any kind of choice in this matter. The guilt of the well-off, carefully nurtured and manipulated by cynical little dweebs covering their shameful behavior with the shield of ‘the great neutrality of fact based science’. Don’t bother us, boy, we’re serious scientists doing serious science stuff, no politics here, we’re above that. Move along.
I wonder who among them dreams of being an Eichmann or a Goebbels, at the right hand of whatever Fuhrer they come up with. I’m sure Obama sees himself in that role. But these ‘scientists’ want the world a certain way, and that usually involves some self interest… Mann gets $500k from the US govt. Wonder how much Jones has got from Britain. Rachauri is deeply invested in many green-related businesses and routinely gets flown around the world and paid well for lectures, treated like a man of influence.
It’s ideological AND personal with these dweebs, these narrow shouldered effeminate Beta males with dreams of personal glory, much like the same Beta males who know occupy administrative and cabinet positions in the O admin.
BLoody frightening. Thank God the veil, and the wheels, are off.
The goal never was to control the climate, it was always about controlling the population and their money. The self-appointed elites know better than the masses, and must, will-they or nill-they force the masses to do the right thing, don’t you know.
Given that a disaffected, quiescent public has let this tidal wave of GIGO wash over it for decades, destroying global energy economies, frustrating any attempts to prepare for an impending end to Earth’s current Holocene Interglacial Epoch, how do we individually and collectively root out these vile Luddite sociopaths for good and all? Parenthetically, we note that in the months since Climategate first exploded last November, none of the Climate Cultists’ Green Gang of Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. has published anything of substance… since everything they’ve ever floated is prima facie fabricated, manipulated, skewed beyond belief, no serious researcher will ever credit their abusive scams again.
Thank you Mr. Horner. Your work has been critical as Climategate unfolds and will continue to be critical with emphasis on misdeeds in the USA. You deserve at least a presidential commendation.
Why aren’t there Congressional hearings on this? Why aren’t fraud charges being brought for those who obtained grants under false pretenses?
The attempted fraud represented by these researchers would have resulted in damages an order of magnitude (or two) greater than any of the financial frauds uncovered over the past decade. They need to be treated as the criminals they are.
In addition to the financial damages, how many deaths would be caused by misdirection of government resources away from medical research, clean water programs in Africa etc. to addressing this fraudulent AGW?
If someone attempted, but failed to consummate, a fraud that could have resulted in the loss of hundreds of billions and thousands of deaths, they would be jailed for life. These researchers who knowingly attempted such a fraud deserve the same treatment. If they had simply proposed and argued for such a theory honestly, they would not be in violation of any laws, but they obviously knew they were hiding data in reckless disregard of the potential damage.
Hanzie, your analysis is juvenile. Just as there never was any “vast, right-wing conspiracy”, there is no vast leftist conspiracy, and no, the “majority of scientists” are not idiots. I know senior research scientists (not in climatology) who believe devoutly in the AGW conjecture– at least until a few months ago; haven’t checked since all of this blew up. Their tendency is to believe in the infallibility of other scientists and supposedly unbiased sources like the NOAA.
As Horner is demonstrating, there clearly was a non-vast yet powerful conspiracy at the center of the AGW silliness, and it was able to provide cover for the multitude of Gore-like fools who exploited it.
I lok forward to the next installments in this series. I have been closely following this story since I first heard of the Hypothesis in the early 90′s. I thought it was an interesting hypothesis at the time but it definitely needed more study. As I learned more I found that there was an active effort to silence any contray evidence or research and this proved to me that this was not science but politics just masking as science. Bad methodology and an unwillingness to share data are just the tip of the iceberg.
Chris, Thank you so very much for your relentless pursuit for the truth.Hanzie,#1 Their ideology is corrupt these people will do anything to move their agenda forward.
All climate science that supports AGW is just as bad as Phil Jones’ work. All of it is cherry picked data, some eaten by the dog, and none of it provides unequivocal support for the AGW hypothesis. In addition, as this article shows, either climate scientists never had integrity or they lost it over global warming. In the case of Hansen, he has always been an advocate rather than a scientist. He should never have been in his present position and he should be removed at once. The new NOAA website, climate.gov, makes claims that are hopelessly compromised and should be shut down at once.
Conclusion: You can’t trust climate analysis results unless it was funded by Exxon or Chevron.
Actually Hanzie, lying about reviewing the data and being part of the cover up are the same thing. Phil Jones is already taking the “I’m stupid defense (or should it be Defence?)” which is another way of saying “I am not a crook”
Yes, you are.
“Did ALL those thousands of scientists around the planet all lose the most important data in human history simultaneously?”
Evidently.
I think the really important knowledge to be gleaned from 20 years of climate study is going to be in the area of sociology, not climatology. It’s all here: mass hysteria, rationalization, totalitarian politics. We haven’t had a laboratory for studying human frailty like this since the Inquisition.
“Either they’re telling the truth and the majority of scientists are idiots, or they’re corrupt. I don’t see any other options. they either lied about reviewing the data. Or they’re part of the coverup.”
Part of the problem with this whole climate change debacle has been the fact that people don’t really understand how science works and climate change scientists have made no effort to enlighten them. It’s much easier to proclaim your infallibility and assert that the science is settled than explain how the sausage is made. That is what has most irritated me about climate change scientists: their science is not “settled” in the way that general relativity or evolution is settled. It reminds me more of the theory of dark energy. There is a general consensus in the astronomical field that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and that some “dark energy” must be causing it. However, this consensus is about ten years old and while it is a useful model to explain the data we are seeing, we don’t really understand it and new data could easily turn everything on its head.
The climate change scientists (leaving aside public blowhards like Hansen) are not idiots or corrupt. Scientific data always have noise and there are choices that have to be made in how to analyze and interpret them. Because they are human, there is a tendency to be influenced by expectation and “consensus”, especially once you add in the fact that you have to request research funding and your proposal is reviewed by your peers. A good scientist tries to make sure that their work is as objective as possible but there is still a herd effect in play. Then you add in theorists (the ones whose models are predicting how bad global warming will be in the future) and they tend to have a lot of flexibility to tailor their results to fit the current data without necessarily constraining their models very well and they have a tendency to favor dramatic results. Who will get funding: the theorist whose model says that global warming will have minor effects on the planet or the one who predicts disaster?
To me, the whole climate change story has illustrated the effects (again) of the danger to scientific credibility when it intersects with politics. I personally suspect that the planet is warming but I am not convinced by the predictions of what that will mean down the road, nor do I think driving a prius or planting a tree will mean a damn thing in the end.
I can’t really blame the eggheads for trying to help the global elite take control of Western Society. They fully believe that the planet can not much longer support laissez faire capitalism. Given that the elite capitalists are mostly pirates today one is tempted to sympathize.
A society truly needs something to keep it at least somewhat cohesive and in the West there just isn’t anything left. Fractured is what we are. Thanks to the Left and their subversive efforts over the past 100 years. Their success rate is truly phenomenal.
That they have never come up with anything other than a police state to replace what they destroy is regrettable. For folks who have managed such a far reaching and successful campaign of infiltration involving all of academia and most of the media and now over half the worlds scientists and it seems most of the captains of industry … it is anomalous that they seemingly have nothing to offer as regards a new organizing principle for society.
Maybe this is because what they actually want is chaos. A good population purge. Personally I sense a huge evil presence behind their actions.
The hoaxers beat on … Does it matter to anyone that physics proves CO2 cannot do what the alarmist say it is doing? And yes it’s been verified. The American Thinker’s Gary Thompson has an article on it today http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html
The AGW scam, the scammers paradise, because it is the plausible aspects of it that allow the uninformed to believe.
Sad to see NASA become just another useful idiot for the enviro-whacko leftwing.
As disappointing to me as the political career of John Glenn, my childhood hero, who sold his support for Bill Clinton for one more trip into space.
Hero no more.
Great analysis.
It’s past time to seriously reduce the funds of NASA-GISS that are used to research “climate change,” if not eliminate it altogether.
While I do support research in altnerative forms of energy…I also strenuously advocate exploiting those natural resources have on our own soil, rather than sending our money to OPEC.
Hanzie (1):
… Hasn’t the data been peer reviewed by the vast majority of the finest scientific minds the world has?
No, that’s the problem. The original data was never released. Only the analyses were released.
Thank you, Christopher. My belief is that GISS is going to continue its policy of adjusting historical temperatures downward, which is the only way that they can continue to get higher highs in GIStemp. Without higher highs, the bull market in AGW is basically dead, and that means no more sensational publicity, which is something that Hansen, Ruedy and crew cannot live without.
All they have to do is to continue to make the past cooler and cooler and AGW will take care of itself. Look for new peer-reviewed papers that justify the new adjustments. This is the cover that they need to establish in order to make this happen. Examples include the death of UHI in 1990 (courtesy of Dr. Phil).
Hanzie, when you peer review a paper, they don’t give you the data and make you re-run the analysis. You read the paper itself to see if it’s intelligible, if the reasoning appears sound, and if it’s original, that is, does it report something that hasn’t been covered sufficiently before.
Like so many other inept and corrupt U.S. Government bureaucracies — the CIA comes immediately to mind — NASA should be disbanded. The few functions that are really needed — and they are few — should be turned over to the military. Hanson and Schmidt should go to jail.
Astra writes:
“Because they are human, there is a tendency to be influenced by expectation and “consensus”, especially once you add in the fact that you have to request research funding and your proposal is reviewed by your peers.”
Why is it that scientists no longer can make their reputations by being critics of bad science? In other words, why are scientists beaten to death with the club of Consensus? Why is it that Professor Lindzen has not been recognized as a critic of AGW whose contributions are incredibly valuable? Why is it that Phil Jones and crew try to freeze out Lindzen? Climategate is not a collection of small human errors.
5. cfbleachers:
agreed
they should be doing hard time …not the soft fed. prison.
Conclusion: You can’t trust climate analysis results unless it was funded by Exxon or Chevron.
Try this:
Conclusion: You can’t trust climate analysis results unless they are robustly confirmed by the evidence.
Just a thought.
When research is used to inform policy that will affect every aspect of our lives ALL of the data should be made available. It is not unreasonable for people to want to review the data before submitting to such radical changes. In fact, such a review is the responsible thing to do.
Too bad more states don’t have the stones that Texas does:
“DALLAS — Texas became the first state to challenge the federal government’s finding that greenhouse gases are dangerous to people, claiming Tuesday that the ruling is based on flawed science and would wreck the state’s economy.”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/DN-epasuit_17tex.ART.State.Edition2.4bb1e87.html
“Why is it that scientists no longer can make their reputations by being critics of bad science? In other words, why are scientists beaten to death with the club of Consensus?”
They can. It helps to have tenure. The tendency to ignore those swimming against the current is hardly new, though. Galileo had as much trouble with the academic community of his time as he did with the church. He was vindicated in the end. (Which is my other complaint about the “consensus” argument. Real scientific consensus takes time.)
9. Ui2: Nobody runs out of disk space anymore, and the datasets in question are small by any standard. It takes an act of the will to delete data — it can’t be “lost” anymore, especially at a place like NASA.
Ui, this is the same NASA that lost the plans for the Saturn V launch vehicle. They don’t have them and cannot find them.
We could no longer today build the machine that was built more than 40 years ago. Does that tell you anything?
Those inquiring minds that would have gone into science and real ‘things’ rather than law and the manipulation of things rather than creation, were lured by the piles of money on Wall St, and the enticing words from their leftward professors… IMO
GAIA == Good. Human == Bad The luddites just want to turn everything off. Period. Last week, last year, last decade, last century – any of them are ‘better’ than today… cuz there were less huuumans.
tom
Now that’s out of they way, one of the few bits of substantial news that came out of the CRU email hack was how FOIA requests have been misused as a form of harassment by anti-environmental groups and right wing nutcases in general, and the CEI has been part of that. As one Lawrence Livermore National Lab scientist, Ben Santer, noted, …he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics that are designed to “tie-up government-funded scientists.”
Remember here that 1) Phil Jones stepped down from the CRU because of these emails and other data. The emails imply that the CRU was breaking UK law by obstructing legal FOIA requests. 2) the “harassment” accusation is just an opinion, not based on fact. 3) The only way for critics to get the information needed to debate the research’s merits was via FOIA requests. Given that these FOIA requests were denied on dubious, often unspecified grounds and given that the FOIA request was the only tool available, then it made sense to generate new FOIA requests to get at the details of why the original FOIA request was denied.
My view is that there was systematic and illegal effort to deny climate data to the skeptic side. As a result, the flood of FOIA requests was justified in order to break down this obstruction. Even worse, if the CRU leak had not occurred, it is likely that the CRU would have succeeded at denying these FOIA requests. At some point, they would have argued that the FOIA requests were “vexatious” and hence, they no longer needed to comply with them. There apparently is legal precedent for such an action.
I wonder if Al Gore will escape the scrutiny.
“The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU.”
Well, big “duh!” there chief.
If you had any idea just how corrupt the entire system is, well… as some wag once said…”We were in the jungle, there were too many of us, we had access to too much money, too much equipment, and little by little we went insane…”
Such corruption is not only a national problem, it is a global problem. Science, education, corporations, manufacturing, Wall Street, banking and finance, politics…left, right, center, everywhere you look, at every level of society, the corruption is systemic.
It isn’t a matter of conspiracy theories. It’s a simple matter of following the money. At best, the entire system is a ponzi scheme.
Here are my views:
My experience from developing and validating computer models
Analysis of the CO2 greenhouse effect
I wonder if Al Gore will escape the country.
I’m not the Jay in #26 but concur that this controversy is of interest primarily as a sociological phenomenon. My own position is close to that of Astra in #27. Yeah, there’s probably some AGW going on. Mid-21st-century technology will easily be powerful and cheap enough to deal with it — the streets of Manhattan aren’t ten feet deep in horse manure, either.
Released documents FOI request:
Can a file containing all this data be provided for everyone to see?
Many minds might find additional dishonesty.
The machinations of the Left are truly breath-taking. For example, for years, AGW alarmists have sought to discredit skeptics arguments on the grounds that they haven’t been published in reputable scientific journals. Now, the ClimateGate scandal has exposed the truth as to WHY they haven’t been published. Because the very same AGW alarmists have been working behind the scenes to pressure those scientific journals into not publishing skeptical arguments!
FACT: Leading AGW alarmists like Phil Jones spent the past 15 years a) manipulating, falsifying, and hiding data and 2) pressuring scientific publications to refuse publication of dissenting viewpoints.
Real, valid science is based in open and honest inquiry…not manipulated data and character-assassination.
You Leftists can spin…and spew…and cast as many aspersions as you want. Americans are beginning to see through your lies and, more and more, are simply tuning you out. Want proof? FOX News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh? Growing, growing, growing. Network news, CNN, MSNBC, NYT? Going, going, going…
@ 42. tomw: Lost in Space, by NASA
NASA took a perfectly good Saturn V stack and
turned it into the world’s largest lawn ornament.
Symington had Northrop’s prototype Flying Wing
bombers chopped up into little tiny pieces.
Why would anyone do such things ?
A Phd does not turn one into a Philosopher King;
Scientists work for the ones who pay them, and
that is not us, it is Those Other People.
Or, as NASA put it when ignoring their own
safe launch rules in order to get Challenger
up on schedule:
“It is time to take off your engineering hat
and put on your management hat.”
@ Charlei martin: the point is, the data used to arrive at the conclusions cited in the paper has to be available for others to analyze, challenge, or confirm. Otherwise it’s not science. Thirty years ago, there was a spoof science publication called “The Journal of Irreproducible Results”. Get it? GET IT?
QED.
@ BC: Santer doesn’t get to decide who or what is frivolous. Jones at the CRU made the same arrogant claim, and already the UK authorities agree that he did not have the authority under the law to be gatekeeper. A court reviewing a FOIA request gets to do that. If you, or Santer, would like to supply court cases supporting your/Santer’s claim, please do so.
What Hansen and NASA are doing with the AGW data merely demonstrates the modern American perversion of what Lincoln said long ago. That government of the thief, by the thief and for the thief, shall not perish from the Earth.
I’m so sick of hearing that the scientists didn’t have enough storage space for all of their information. This is a complete and total lie. If you assume that even in the 90′s a university research department would have had access to at least 100 gigabytes of storage space, that means that they could have stored the equivalent of almost 68 million pages of information in text format. Even if each of the 6,000 stations which they started with produced a full page of information each day, which they did not, you would still be able to store almost 30 years worth of the data. That’s not even considering the simple solution of adding more storage space. On my meager income I could have easily afforded enough storage space for 1,000 times that much information in the last 20 years if I needed it. Certainly, their multimillion dollar budgets could have made room for this cost considering the global ramifications which their research has had.
Karl and Anna:
It is no use attempting to engage BC in rational argument. He is just some free lance progressive troll who provides comic relief. Unfortunately, there are other characters of BC’s ilk who cannot be ignored because they have a platform like the NYT to push their agenda. As example here is s column by the well know neo-Fascist columnist Thomas Friedman who says the same things that BC does:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html
And yes Friedman can be described as a neo-Fascist for statements like this:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Tom-Friedman-hails-China_s-one-party-autocracy-8229077-59075192.html
Of course it’s a lie…they’re Leftists.
This is what they’d have you believe:
Scientist: We need a computer with the computational/memory capacity to create data models that can predict climate changes in a system as dynamic as the earth’s.
University Official: No problem. Hey, you want us to throw in a CD/Rom drive for creating backups of your data?
Scientist: …nah.
8. BC:
BC
Yes, Ben Santer was busy doing real peer reviewed science
and did not have the time to respond to FOIA requests.
We don’t want to “tie-up government-funded scientists.” and keep
them from manipulating our kids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7zMQII8qOo
BC,
Ah, ever penny wise and pound foolish, eh? The cover up doesn’t merit a response from you. Neither does the smoking gun proof of data manipulation (and conjuration). Nope, what bugs comrade BC is the many FOIA reqs these poor poli-scientists are getting! You are a statist, pure and simple.
#8 B[roken] C[ranium] introduces us to (from Wiki):
“Dr. Benjamin D. Santer (June 3, 1955 in Washington, DC, United States) is a climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He specializes mainly in statistical analysis of climate data sets, and detection/attribution of climate change forcings. He was the convening Lead Author of Chapter 8 of 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, which addressed the global warming issue.”
Ah yes, a truly objective scientist after all the corrupt ones have been exposed. Sure, sure. Climate change “forcings”. A good word forcings. Forcings of data to fit the hypotheses. Forcings of faked data into the shreders of the IPCC at the UN and at NASA and LLNL?
#52 Anna: Go have a look at the sidebar on the right and see if I’m really arguing what you think I’m arguing.
We must continue to study and anaylize the data and methods until we are 100% certain that the earth (including oceans) are warming due to our massive use of fossil fuel resource (at least during our lifetimes that is).
When there is NO doubt this is happening we(I mean our children, grad -children that is) will be able to rapidly transform our socieites over to a non-carbon based economy ovenight.
This is the responsible course of action to take not to disrupt our economies at this fragile time of recession.
Boy, are we cleaver!
6. rrbs:
It’s a lot of data that takes up a lot of space. They don’t have room to keep it. Once they analyze the data, they delete/destroy it.
No data = No Science
No or “selective” release of “materials and methods, including code” = No Science
“Peer Reviewed” Publications = Not “Given Truth”
IPCC Climate Science = Propaganda Operation = Not Science
Hadley CRU, NASA, GISS, NOAA = Corruption
[etc.]
Chris good work,
Thanks for doing this. Those of us at Climateaudit who have been following Steve McIntyre greatly appreciate
your efforts. There is another potential treasure trove of information that you may want to go after, I’m busy with the UEA inquiry right now so drop me a line if you get a chance and I’ll point you toward the dead bodies.
Mr. Horner,
Thank you for the read. I too look forward to your upcoming pieces.
wattsupwiththat.com addressed the GISS, NOAA shenanigans as well recently.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/22/american-thinker-on-cru-giss-and-climategate/#more-15521
BC, you run from one forum but to post someone else’ OPINION in another. If that’s how you roll..
‘RealClimate.org’ – The ultimate oxymoron..
What is technically legal is too often not fair. If you were a government scientist and you kept getting FOIA requests from people you consider to be right wing, anti-science nutcases, what do you suppose your reaction would be? Scientists are people too, and if you personally were in the position to deal with folks you consider to be no more than a deliberate, hostile, pain in the butt nuisances, would you not do as little as you can get away with to help them out? Why should you expect scientists to be any different?
And as far as data storage issues go, as I posted in another PJM article, you guys really have no idea of the computational and data storage needs of *serious* climate research.
Sorry, 1 last thing BC. LLNL is another unabashed groupie of the DOE.
They’d received $3 million stimuless money that I’ve read about and had a great article some months back about ‘more atmospheric moisture due to humans’ in essence ‘making it hotter’ – Wait. Don’t they mean ‘cool’?
https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2009/NR-09-08-01.html
BC, the AGW adherents have been hiding data and methodology from years, in violation of journals’ policies, government grant requirements and the general process of science. Mann even refused to release data in a congressional hearing.
Name calling like you do, is how they’ve justified hiding data from people to avoid having their conclusions challenged. It is not science, just as your comments are not serious.
Tarpon (#29) and others relying on the American Thinker link posted- be careful, there are issues with the Lindzen feedback paper. Roy Spencer, one of the best and highest integrity scientists around, who totally agrees with the principle that GHG feedbacks are not strongly positive (and in fact are probably negative due to poorly understood and non-modelable cloud effects) disagrees with the methods and conclusions of Lindzen-Choi; so does Lubos Motl of Reference Frame, and he is also very much an anti-panic skeptic.: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
Horner, of course, is correct here, and I can’t wait for one of these lawsuits to go to trial. Injunctive relief will be the obvious remedy pending trial to hold up any cap and trade or EPA regulation activities, and the discovery process will kill any remaining credibility of the CAGW “science” hordes. Then, Christy’s “wiki review” process with on-line posting of all data and methodologies will turn the science panel into an honest broker.
‘If you were a Government Scientist..’ – Lemme see. I’d probably be dangerously overweight. Questioning myself why I’d gotten into a do-nothing-creatively institution whereas my pay/raises is due to my time in grade/step rather than the achievements/advancements I made. And why my lazy, Krispy Kreme loving compadre makes the same amount of money though I do a majority of the workload.
That no matter if we make advancements or are counterproductive for that matter, we’ll still receive financial backing no matter the consequences.
Yeah, I envision a very ‘rewarding’ life.
The point of FOIA is the RIGHT to receive aforementioned information. It’s not pick and choose to your liking.
BTW, these ‘supercomputers’, how many megawatts of energy are they using to retrieve/store their data? Seems counterproductive to ‘going green’.. JMO.
BC, you do realize that you’re arguing that people should be able to ignore FOIA requests if they find them inconvenient? So, does that mean Bush and Cheney should have ignored the thousands of FOIA requests during the Bush Administration?
Yes BC, it’s so unfair that a “scientist” be forced to show data to others so they can validate his results. That’s called science, a subject an epsilon minus semi-moron like you fails to understand. In real science results have to be reproducible and falsifiable before they can be considered valid. Your last two posts demonstrate that when you call us anti-science that you are merely projecting your own anti-scientific beliefs on us. You have no idea what science is and undoubtedly have never taken a science course beyond rocks for jocks in your life. Your idea of science is same as T. D. Lysenko’s
BC, science requires peer review. It requires that hypotheses are reproducible. It requires that the data and algorithms be available for inquiry.
Withholding data and algorithms is equal to “settled” science in that it is not science at all, it is politics. Hansen at NASA and Jones at East Anglia have shown themselves to not be scientists.
@ #6, rrbs, You state that it is a lot of data that takes up space so they destroy it post analysis. While you may have made that statement with your tongue buried deeply in you cheek, I am responding in the event that some may take it seriously. I can buy a 1 terabyte external hard drive with a form factor equal to that of a small paperback book for $99.00 at a local computer store and probably for less on-line. Data storage isn’t an issue. One archives and makes data available to others so that the data can be scrutinized. One also makes models, code, analyses, etc. available for the same reason. Failure to do so means that one is not practicing science since there would be no method for others to test the hypothesis and comment, correct, improve or disprove it.
Thank you Chris Horner for turning the spotlight of public attention on NASA.
And thank you, Hanzie, for pointing out, “Either they’re telling the truth and the majority of scientists are idiots, or they’re corrupt.”
As a former Principal Investigator for NASA’s Apollo Mission, let me assure you “they’re corrupt.”
NASA has been corrupt since the 1969 Apollo Mission returned with lunar samples.
Analysis of solar-wind implanted elements in those samples showed:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm
That Earth’s heat source is not a ball of Hydrogen, as NASA claimed, but a giant plasma diffuser that selectively moves lightweight elements (Hydrogen and Helium) lightweight isotopes of each element to the solar surface.
“Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun”, Energy and Environment: volume 20 (2009) pp. 131-144
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
A lot more filth will be exposed as the Climategate iceberg melts.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former NASA PI for Apollo
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
The jig, as they say, is up.
AGW has been revealed to be the leftist wet-dream that it always was.
Time to move on.
BC – Your fancy climate computer does not impress. Every Fortune 500 company stores that much data – and doesn’t lose it. If they did lose it, the IRS, SEC, and attorney general would be all over them.
As someone else wrote earlier – if it can’t be repeated it’s not science.
BC, you left out the sentence that immediately follows:
Chris,
How about an FOI of RC records? Time stamps clearly show Gavin spending his day on his activist duties.
Why hasn’t James Hansen been shown the door the way Phil Jones was?
Hard Drive Data Storage Cost/Mbyte in 1995: ~ $0.80
1985 ~ $85, 1980 ~ $200
You youngsters need to get a little perspective.
In 1956 it was $10,000/Mbyte; Before that, they
used tape drives, also not cheap.
http://www.alts.net/ns1625/winchest.html
BC= Flat Earther.
How dare we challenge his beliefs with real scientific methodology.
BC @ #8: The problem here is that the when the raw data have been (as in the case of Australia and NZ) what they show has been odds with what the processed data show. So, ex ante, what might seem as frivoulous FOI requests, ex post, are not. Moreover, in this case, the stakes are just too large not to have others look at the data to validate (or invalidate) the findings. We have been very fortunate that someone leaked the e-mails and computer programs so that the whole climate thing is in the process of unraveling.
Jack:
You have treated BC as if he is a rational and intelligent person. He is neither and only deserves ridicule and contempt.
Avery direction we turn seeking the truth … from our one Govt. the UN , EPA , IIPP in England , 4 of our Colleges and now NASA are selling paid for Lies as Science .
Life has taught if your telling the truth it need not be hidden or embolden either way .
He who is not sceptic of Al Gore and religious flock should never again use the words Right wing nuts or look in their own Mirrors of life .
BC; when you are on the public dime you don’t get to decide what is just. The material is owned by the people and if someone wants to see it they need to follow the law.
BTW what is your science degree in?
Hide the decline! (Well, go with what you know.)
Anyone ever notice that Gavin’s responses on Real Climate are time stamped? Many of his posts and responses to comments are posted during business hours, assuming NASA keeps regular business hours.
I want to know why my tax payer dollars are being used to run a Pro AGW blog?
The time stamps probably need to be screen captured before Gavin changes or deletes them.
These are criminal acts if data were altered to obtain public funds. Criminal prosecutions are needed.
#81: M Report: What’s the point? Since when did the government have limited funds to buy anything? Or what did anyone do before megabytes, gigabytes and terebytes? Heaven forbid, record data on…. paper? And store the data in….file cabinets? The dog ate the data? NASA burned down? Call Russia on the old dial phone and ask them what the hell the temperature was last Friday? Or did I just misunderstand your point?
BC and M Report: The University of Wisconsin at Madison had a two terrabyte optical drive system (with a robot arm shuffling cartridges – very cool) installed in the physics department in 1986. It cost approximately $2 million, at the time; peanuts for federal grant.
I worked in the Dept of Agricultural Economics and we routinely run datasets in the gigabyte range (small, today, but that’s one heck of a stack of 9-track tapes on a VAX and weeks of calendar time shuffling them).
Data storage is not, and has not been, an issue.
On the storage vs. cost argument. Assume the absurdity if you are a scientist that has just completed computations that indicate an asteroid is on a collision course and the world as we know it is going to end. You start screaming to anyone that will listen- the entire world- about the disaster that is at hand, but just to save space on your hard drive you destroy any data that indicates the position and trajectory of the asteroid.
Does it make sense that the scientists who have devoted their lives to saving the world from climatic tragedy would discard the source documents?
bc, I’ve given up on you…you’re a dolt!
Thank you Mr. Martin, and I look forward to your next piece.
Has anyone read Eisenhower’s farewell address in which he warns of the “military industrial complex” that libiots like to cite so often? He also speaks of the politicizing of the scientific community.
“In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity…The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
He was pretty prescient, huh?
The storage argument is laughable. These guys were proposing changes to our economy that would have cost hundreds of billions of dollars per year, but they couldn’t afford to store data?
Bold claims require bold proof
It appears that NASA, the EPA, NOAA, and the new U.S. Climate Agency could promote and regulate based on AGW research without relying on the IPCC. This bypasses India and China’s opinions, plus anyone else who doesn’t agree, and eliminates the current IPCC credibility problems. Three of the four agencies listed above are suspected of manipulating data and facts, the U.S. Climate Agency is clean as it doesn’t exist yet.
First, is peer review required for publications or reports from these agencies?
Second, how can we insure that raw data from publicly funded research is made available in a timely manner? Should this data be available even without a FOIA request? Is there any legal action available to terminate or recover funding?
Third, how can we insure, or even expect, unbiased research when entire agency budgets are allocated by a government that may want to use the data to A) produce tax revenue or B) promote an ulterior agenda?
I cannot believe that there is a dispute about the responsibility of the scientist to share his raw data. Each scientist has the moral responsibility to publish his experiments in a form that makes them repeatable. The experiment without the raw data is incomplete and, for that reason, a misrepresentation of the truth and, in this case, an outright lie. There is a moral duty to share the raw data. If some scientists do not do it and some peer reviewed journals do not require it, they are morally wrong.
So-called scientists who work for the profits are not required to share their data. But only the confused would think that they are actually scientists.
tdiinva @ #84: While you and I may disagree with bc, there is no reason to be disagreeable in our disagreement. If bc wants to be disagreeable, that is bc’s prerogative. We should be above that.
Jack:
I have no problem with his idiocy when he comments on subjective issues but science is different matter. He has nothing to say except to repeat out of date talking points.
regarding comment number 3.
Most station data is not collected automatically but is collected periodically (usually at fairly long time intervals). When that data is collected it will be added to the existing station data. So in a decade or so the number of stations measured for this period will be quite higher than it is now.
It is my understanding (though you could test this for yourself) that if you take the set of stations for which data is currently available and compare that the expanded set of stations that you would see very little difference.
(calculating of course for a date where more stations are available).
Danni: (99)
Why is it collected over such long intervals? Why are some station data from over 20 years ago not included yet? Why is Wunderground able to give up to the minute temperature data, and NASA not even have data from the same stations from years ago?
The excuses (or lack thereof) simply don’t wash.
Can anyone tell me how this set of NASA email correspondence is different from the set of NASA emails obtained by Judicial Watch, which have been explored by Steve McIntyre and others at ClimateAudit, WUWT and elsewhere?
Okayyyy, so the arguments by right wing numbnuts seems to amount to:
1) Any scientist with any government funding is suspect.
2) Anybody with Internet access can be a scientist.
3) There is no excuse for logical behavior.
4) There is nothing wrong with being totally clueless when making accusations.
5) When being the equivalent of a flat-earther, accuse others of being flat-earthers.
6) Always invoke the “right to know” or the “rights of the people” laughably out of context, the more so the better.
7) Dumb is good, but dumber is better.
As of course opposed to the Progressive left wing moonbats hey BC
LIE ABOUT THE POLAR ICECAPS
THEY
1) FALSIFY THE DATA
2) MANIPULATE THE DATA
3) HIDE THE DECLINE
4) IGNORE THE MEDIEVAL WARMING
5) VILIFY DERIDE AND IGNORE DISSENTERS
6) LIE ABOUT THE HIMALAYAN GLACIERS
7) LIE ABOUT THE POLAR BEARS
9) COLLUDE WITH LIKE MINDED LIARS
10) HIDE OR DESTROY DATA SO IT CANT BE CHECKED
11) ALWAYS TALK OF PROVEN SCIENCE WHEN IT IS NOT AT ALL
12) RELY ON MOONBTAS LIKE BC WHO STILL BLINDLY BELIEVE EVEN WHEN HE IS SHOWN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SCAM.
80. Jack in Silver Spring:
Why hasn’t James Hansen been shown the door the way Phil Jones was?
Because they’d have to straightjacket him? No, NASA itself has a very big institutional problem, so they’re probably hoping against massive odds to somehow get lucky, this being the Age of Post Normal Science and all.
The archiving of data doesn’t require it to be on a hard drive. Running it on an old dot-matrix printer would probably be a better choice, IMHO.
The worst of it all? If one day, in living memory of the Great Global Warming Swindle, some group of scientists should discover something genuninely potentially catastrophic for humanity, nobody will believe them.
If this current batch of “scientists” are to be flayed and drawn and quartered for anything, it should be this.
This talk about scientists getting tied up over frivolous FOIA requests is just idiotic. Make the data accessible and the requests will go away.
I have a website that presents information to people. If I get a bunch of requests for the same information, I post that information on the website so that I don’t get those emails anymore.
If someone publishes a paper that says something is going to destroy the world… it shouldn’t take that person more than a few seconds thought to realize that they might get asked to produce the exact data and mathematical code I used to analyze the data.
If I were one of these scientists, the day after it is published my data and code would be on a website anticipating the requests that will soon follow. THAT is how you do away with annoying emails and FOIA requests for data, put everything online and available to the public. You DO NOT keep the data for yourself, repeatedly reference your (publicly funded) data and then get annoyed that people keep asking for your (publicly funded) data.
If all the data and codes are freely available on the Internet and skeptics were constantly sending FOIA requests for that data or other stupid reasons then I might have some sympathy. But keeping the data to yourself by not letting anyone else have it and then getting annoyed that people keep asking for it is extremely dumb for a supposedly smart scientist.
Okayyyy, so the argument by the communist troll BC seems to amount to:
1) Nothing.
BC – I’m impressed by your adherence to the party line, and the party techniques of ridicule and sorry attempts at humor. You forgot to use the term “denier,” though.
It’s incredible, the arrogance and gall of the profiteering bozos like Gore and the other leading AGW-zealots, who dismiss any arguments and evidence that conflict with their views as those of mavericks and nutjobs, not to mention “deniers,” with that word’s heavy-connotations of holocaust-denial.
If the AGW (now “climate change,” but it’s the same thing) doom-mongers were really so sure all the evidence was on their side, would they still be so keen to stifle any arguments which threaten to prove them wrong? I think not. They would welcome debate and examination of the evidence, so as to convince more people, especially the hundreds of scientists who have expressed their disdain for the misguided theory.
I’ve been trying to educate people about this scam for years. I can’t tell you how gratifying it is, to finally see the AGW-myth being exploded once and for all. The death-throes will be epic, as there are billions of dollars at stake in the carbon-trading market, and all the taxpayer-funded research grants. Trillions, really. The bastards aren’t going to give up easily.
Keep on them, Chris!
Just one angle on the control issue: it isn’t about “controlling the people and their money”. It’s about controlling the people and taking their money. Always remember: the government doesn’t have any money. That’s why they keep taking ours. And that applies as well to the liars are in bed with government.
Hi!
In the mails, date 16 aug 2007, time 18:16:22 “Gavin” mail to “Rruedy”
…It may still be worth putting up a CLEAN version of the ADJUSTMENT program on the website in order to have something to point to..
(My capitalization !)
Is there a “dirty” version???
so why the hell isn’t anyone talking JAIL time?
or factor in the deaths directly attributable to worldwide economic catastrophe and talk about death penalties.
how can upright citizens who’ve followed the rules all their lives, and who have worked hard and honestly, get screwed every day by the IRS and the traffic cops or you-name-it police state minions in the USA and Al Gore and the rest skate totally free? Huh? HOW?
CRU email hack was how FOIA requests have been misused as a form of harassment
….
Two things wrong w/ this half-sentence:
1) No evidence of a hack. More likely carelessness or a whistleblower
2) FOIA was not used as a form of harassment. The reason that there were so many requests is that CRU had something to hide (as, apparently did NASA) and scientists realized it. A large number of FOIA requests for the same thing is not harassment, since all CRU had to do was put the data on line (not thier manipiulated data). They refused, and we now know why: it was a fraud chasing grant money. Remember Phil Jones alone got $22 mn in grants and he threw inconvenient data away.
Great article and I’m sure your Senator Inhofe will be very intersted in the rest of them. I sure am.
BC @ #102 – Why must you use epithets when you disagree with those commenting here? You were OK at @ #8, but at @ #102 you were back to your usual name calling.
I feel sorry for BC. He doesn’t even understand the logical thought process, much less employ it. Therefore the more we logically point out that his accusations have no basis or foundation, the more he retreats into illogic and insult in order to try to win his point.
It would be amusing if it weren’t so sad.
I don’t know what they teach people in schools today. I suppose I should be thankful that I attended schools which taught things like logic (as well as the difference between sound and faulty logic), critical thinking, and other important skills of that nature.
So, in spite of the futility of explaining it to BC, the following is a description of the scientific method:
1. Scientist observes some potential phenomenon that he wishes to explain.
2. Scientist forms an hypothesis in an attempt to explain said phenomenon.
3. Scientist designs an experiment to test said hypothesis.
4. Scientist collects data by performing said experiment.
5. Scientist analyzes said data to evaluate whether the hypothesis is POTENTIALLY confirmed, or is rejected.
6. If hypothesis is rejected, scientist returns to step 2.
7. If hypothesis is POTENTIALLY confirmed, scientist provides hypothesis, experimental design, raw data, and data analysis parameters to other scientists, who then attempt to duplicate both the experiment and the results.
8. Other scientists help determine if the experimental design was good, if the data was valid, and if the analytical parameters were within the realm of reason. If any of these things (experimental design, raw data, or analytical parameters) are shown to be faulty, the original scientist goes back to the drawing board starting at step 3 (or even step 2 on some occasions).
9. Even if all things come out looking good, and the original scientist publishes a paper with his findings, his hypothesis is still not PROVEN. An hypothesis is NEVER provable, it is only falsifiable. Therefore, even though the experiment, raw data, and analysis all look good, this does not become the New Gospel, it merely becomes the current Best Available Hypothesis to describe the observed phenomenon. It might be tomorrow, or it might be 1000 years from now, but eventually, a better hypothesis will come along and supplant this one, even though it APPEARS to be the best answer to us today.
I am sure that completely went over BC’s head, but hopefully some of the rest of you understand “science” a little bit better after that
Climategate: The Mother of All Deceptions
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — H.L. Mencken (1918)
“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”
– Richard Salent, Former President CBS News.
The recent exposures of fraud coming from the Hadley Climate Research Unit, then followed by similar exposures at New Zealand’s NWIA, Australia’s climate center, and NOAA have only confirmed the doubts arising from the obviously NON-scientific methods employed by the Anthropogenic Global Warming supporters, hereinafter called the “Global Warming Cult”. I call them a cult because of the abandonment of scientific method by many of the acolytes, together with a recent British Court decision that declared belief in Global Warming was accorded the status of a religion.
Human Caused Global Warming is not being researched; it is being promoted. Al Gore and his fellow investors have spent over a hundred million dollars in creating a crisis of human-caused global warming out of (quite literally) thin air. They are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They expect to reap billions in profits from the trading of Carbon Credits, a “license to pollute” available for a price and subject to brokerage fees. One of the people Al Gore relied on to create this scheme was Ken Lay, late of ENRON, aka the Crooked “E”. Al Gore plans to use Carbon Dioxide to do to the world what Ken Lay did to California using electricity; loot the people!
Coincident with the desire to reap huge profits from the general population of the world is the agenda to promote a global government. Currently, the push for a global government rests on three pillars, Global Warming is one of them, leading to a surrendering of national sovereignty scheduled to occur at the Copenhagen Conference December 7th, 2009. The other two pillars exploited to create the “need” for a global government are a global swine-flu pandemic, requiring a global health organization, and a global financial crisis, requiring a global bank. The political power behind this push for global government is immense; enough to win Al Gore an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize for his film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, despite a court ruling pointing out the numerous provable lies and distortions in it.
To any real objective observer, the methods employed by the Cult are not those of science and research but of salesmanship and propaganda. Scare tactics are well in evidence. To anyone of an age enough to recall previous scare campaigns, the hue and cry for Anthropogenic Global Warming is reminiscent of “Killer Bees” and Y2K scares of yesteryear.
To put it bluntly, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a load of government-sponsored bovine excrement. Its purpose is to trick you out of money and into obedience. And despite the shrill cries of those who insist that government would never conceive or let along execute such a monstrous fraud upon the people, the fact is that Anthropogenic Global Warming has a very long pedigree of deception behind it.
Deception Vs. Truth and Freedom
It is clear that government, the media, corporatized science, have quite literally bet the farm on selling the illusion of human caused global warming as justification for global taxes and global government. In order to bring about global government simultaneous with creating the illusion of a need they have to destroy the credibility of the regional governments and we have seen a great deal of this lately. Now the oligarchs face an awkward choice. They have set the stage for a collapse of the national governments in the global government they wish to install in its place may be collapsing right along with the myth of global government.
Various governments and the media are so heavily invested in selling the illusion of human caused global warming, that if that hoax is exposed, if the public becomes aware of the monstrous fraud involved, those institutions of government and media could very well be destroyed and by their own hands.
Already we are seeing the organizers and perpetrators of this fraud trying to limit the damage from this exposure in several ways. The media is already hard at work attempting to dump the blame and scandal solely on the climate scientists, who after all were only doing what they were paid to do. This is not to say the scientists are not guilty. Quite the contrary, they deserve to be pilloried publicly and humiliated for their betrayal of the public trust. To say that their careers should be ended is an understatement. But in our haste to punish the scientists who assisted in the lies to the world, we must not forget that the scientists were working for somebody; for politicians such as Al Gore, for an agenda called global government, and for those who wanted to get rich by selling a fictitious product called carbon credit.
Yet another tactic being employed to limit the damage from climate gate, is to insist that even though the scientist responsible for the climate warming data have been exposed as holsters that the validity of the data itself must remain above question above reproach. This of course is nonsense. If you hire a contractor to build a home, and discover afterwards that the contractor has a history of using substandard materials and sloppy workmanship, do you continue to believe the home he has built you is solid and durable and safe? Of course not. And yet the global warming cultists are demanding exactly this kind of naïveté from the public at large.
The latest spin is that if one questions the dogma of Anthropocentric Global Warming, then one must be in favor of destroying the Earth. There is no middle ground. Another common propaganda tactic is to accuse those who question the veracity of the Global Warming Cultists is to accuse them of receiving paychecks from oil companies. When one points out that the proponents of Anthropocentric Global Warming are being paid for their work, one gets a “hurrumph” of indignation. It’s apparently acceptable for their side of the argument to be well-funded, because in their eyes they are the “good guys.” Finally, there is the much-ballyhooed “Precautionary Principle” which states that one should never take any action that might cause harm even if that potential harm cannot be demonstrated or proven. In theory such a prohibition should extend to any actions undertaken in support of the Precautionary Principle itself, but such suggestions get the usual “Hurrumph” of indignation. The cultists are really good at that.
So is climate gate a fraud? Is climate gate a scientific scandal? No. Climate gate is first and foremost a political scandal. More than that it is a global political scandal that involves governments, media, institutionalize science, the banks, universities, indeed a vast cross-section of our ruling classes. It is more than a scandal; climate gate is a crime against humanity. And this is not an exaggeration. The goal of climategate was to extract money from every human being on planet Earth in exchange for a nonexistent salvation from a nonexistent threat. The goal of climate gate was to trick every human being on planet Earth into accepting the yoke of a global oligarchy with no more legitimate claim to power than those who ruled by divine right.
We are at a watershed moment. We may well see a transition to a new and better political structure for the entire world. But it will not be the one that has been designed for us. If nothing else, the ability for government and media to lie to the population of the world on such a vast scale is forever destroyed. Climategate will relegate all of the official stories of the governments of the United States and Great Britain and indeed every government that took part in the human caused global warming hoax to the same level of credibility as Ramses carvings showing his victory over the Hittites. It will be seen as an historic joke by future generations.
But we are not there yet. The forces that have enslaved us with deception and fraud and hoax are desperate to hang onto their power and authority. They are busy coming up with new hoaxes and frauds to scare us back into obedience. And the media well aware that they cannot report on the lies of climate gate without reporting their own complicity are working hand in glove with government to reassert their ability to control what you think and when you think it.
So, what we, the free people of planet Earth, need to do in the coming weeks is become the new mainstream media. The TV networks and other corporate media have been handed their marching orders to resell the illusion of human caused climate change in any way shape or form that will convince you to accept new taxes and the loss of your freedoms. The only way the rest of the world is going to find out about climate gate is if you tell them. Because the TV and news magazines won’t. If it’s mentioned at all, it will be to trivialize and dismiss it and assure the world it really doesn’t matter. BBC is still reporting climate gate as just another computer crime. This is like reporting Watergate as just another burglary!
We have collected together a vast body of evidence calling into question the legitimacy of the claims of human caused global warming. We have collected together a vast body of evidence proving fraud and deception on the part of the global warming cult. Please forward this information to everybody you know. Time is of the essence. Barack Obama as already indicated that he will not be swayed by the exposure of the fraud in the CRU/NWIA data, and fully intends to go to Copenhagen to sign away our national sovereignty as “penance” for our contribution to global warming.
Other observers have commented that the moment president Obama signs that Copenhagen Treaty his credibility as president of the United States will be destroyed. For him to sign away sovereignty of our nation on the basis of a known lie should enrage all Americans and make it clear that the federal government is not working in the interests of the American people any more, but in service to this emerging globalist socialistic empire. Remember; global government is what Hitler wanted. Global Government is what Napoleon wanted. Global Government is what Alexander the Great wanted. Global Government is what the Roman Caesars wanted.
Climategate may well prove to be the final fight in the war between those who would rule us with lies and those who wish to live with truth. Climategate makes it clear that yes, there really are massive conspiracies between government and the media to mislead the general public. You cannot pretend they don’t exist; one is right there before you staked out naked on the ground, exposed for all to marvel at! I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide how many other such deceptions form what we think we know of the world and of history.
There are two paths into the future. Along one lies freedom and truth and prosperity for the people. Along the other lies a socialist dictatorship, born in deception, unable and unwilling to tolerate dissent, and dedicated to robbing the poor to give to the rich.
You need to decide which future you wish to live in.
And you need to decide what you will do about it.
PeterB in Indianapolis,
IMO your explanation was thorough.
All this hubris of East Anglia ‘not able to make space for the hard data’ – is ridiculous.
Thomas Edison saved EVERY piece of data he’d accrued from his 1,000 + patents. As well as his innovations. Both successful and unreliable data.
So a CLIMATE FOCUSED INSTITUTION of 100′s of Scientists, professionals just tossed the hard data due to ‘no space’?
These HAVE to be the same mindset of guys who get a girl’s phone number, albeit the girl’s number is a fake, and are ‘stunned’ she didn’t write the number down correctly.
The sky is NOT falling. We have enough natural gas to last us a century at current growth rates. If we do the smart thing and take all polluting (coal, garbage) burning and take all aging nukes (many already past retirement date) offline and replace them with natural gas we still have 5 to 6 decades of natural gas. Check out the massive deposits of shale gas now available due to technology improvements. Staggering.
So here is what you get: 100% reduction in mercury, 99% reduction in nitrous, 40% reduction in sulfur and we’ll even through in a 33% reduction in CO2 if that is a concern of yours.
Over the next 5-6 decades work on making renewable energy cost efficient. I think we can solve that one in 1 or 2 decades at most.
That is if you are truly concerned about the environment. If you don’t like that plan which is proven, here today and working already, please explain how carbon taxes will work for anything other than being wasted away in a bureaucracy?
If Pachuri must step down then Hansen must step down! Actually fire the crook would be more to my liking. Way past time that we the tax payer began to clean house.
@karlm #61
We sure are!
The Beav
(Sorry to interrupt this discussion which I found highly entertaining and enlightening [even if I could'nt understand part of it], but I teach school and I just couldn’t help myself.)
I don’t know what they teach people in schools today. I suppose I should be thankful that I attended schools which taught things like logic (as well as the difference between sound and faulty logic), critical thinking, and other important skills of that nature.
Congratulations and a big Thankyou Chris Horner and CEI. Well done, and keep up the pressure. I look forward to further revelations and watching the cockroaches run for cover.
I think it’s a lot simpler to understand this AGM fiasco than is made out in a lot of the posts here. Doesn’t have much to do with “right wing” or left wing” although it certainly involves politics. Basically it’s “follow the currency”. It just depends on what currency. The currency for environmental activists is “power” and organizations like the NWF, the WWF, Greenpeace etc. are totally culpable in this deception. This is really evident from the IPCC “gates” and AR4′s referencing speculative or just plain “made up” advocacy group publications.
Basically, the scientific misconduct behind AGM has been stimulated by environmental groups fueled by lust for power and egged on by banker board members motivated by naked greed, desparate for revenues from brokering carbon trading. I think it’s really quite that simple. And, incidentally, it’s obvious that cabon-based energy companies are happy to play along. They know that, with no real alternative so-called “clean energy solutions” in sight, the price of their product being inflated by carbon trading can only help them make more money. In the meantime they are happy to cash in on government clean energy grants. From the climategate e-mails we see that UEA was trying to negotiate funding from Shell. And they say that anyone who is sceptical is a shill for “Big Oil”.
I’ve stopped donating to the WWF, the NWF and Greenpeace and the UN Aid agencies. Yes, I gave for Haiti but channeled my money through other NGOs, not through the UN. I won’t be giving to any UN Agency or Environmental Group until they get back to honest advocacy to solve real environmental problems and, especially until they stop abusing science, the scientific method and people that practice science it honestly.
See any of these stories in television news after two decades of relentless press coverage of Global Warming with no questions asked? The national media’s continued silence on ClimateGate and increasing revelations of outright fraud and wrongdoing at all levels of government, academia and the media itself, tells the truth of the tail. That truth is there’s a lot more to this ClimateGate story than what little is being reported. The small (2 to 3 dozen) international cabal of climate scientists could not have possibly gotten to this point without extraordinary funding, political support at virtually all levels of government, especially at the national level and unparalleled cooperation from the national and world media. This wide-spread networked support continues even as we-the-people puzzle over what this is all about. I ask you, “What are you seeing and hearing from our national media on the subject?” Anything? What are you seeing and hearing from all levels of our government, local and regional newspapers and media outlets? Anything of substance? At all of these levels the chatter has remained remarkably quite on the subject, wouldn’t you say? Why? What points and positions are you beginning to hear on the radio and see on the television? This cabal of scientists has an unprecedented level of support given the revelations contained in the emails, documented in the computer software code and elaborated in the associated programmer remarks (REM) within the code. And —- this has gone on for years, AND continues even in the presence of the most damning evidence one could imagine, or even hope for. Watergate pales in comparison, given the trillions of dollars in carbon offset taxes, cap & trade fees hanging in the balance and the unimaginable political control over people’s lives this all implies. The mainstream media’s conspiracy of silence proves the point. Their continued cover-up is as much a part of this crime as the actual scientific fraud. ABC, CBS and NBC are simply co-conspirators exercising their 5th Amendment rights.
Pay a tax, change the climate??? Are you angry about this obvious RICO Act fraud and the national media’s complicity in the cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue and the related “carbon derivatives” market Obama’s Administration is spinning up? Why pay for propaganda? Take responsibility and take action. STOP all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. STOP donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The World Wildlife Fund. DEMAND they take you off their donors’ mailing list. They have violated the public trust. KEEP donations local, close to home. MAKE donations to Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, the only politician to stand firmly against this obvious government/media coordinated information operation (propaganda) targeted at its own people. Senator Inhofe, the only politician to refuse the GREEN KOOL AID. Senator Inhofe, the only senator to stand between us and the collective insanity of the ruling class of elitist hucksters led by Al Gore. WRITE your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. WRITE your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. Carbon is the stuff of life. He (Obama) who controls carbon, especially CO2, controls the world. Think of the consequences if you do nothing! For one, the UK is becoming the poster child for George Orwell’s “1984”. The mendacity of UK’s John Beddington, Robert Watson and Ed Miliband prove the point. The US government’s sponsorship of this worldwide Global Warming propaganda campaign puts it in a class with the failed Soviet Union’s relentless violation of the basic human right to truthful government generated information. Given ClimateGate’s burgeoning revelations of outrageous government misconduct and massive covert misinformation, what are the chances that this Administration’s National Health Care sales campaign is anywhere near the truth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdneX1djD
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=0b32ab55-8d8a-4d0f-acf2-3aefddf5e261
“In an August 14, 2007, email from GISS’s Makiko Sato to Hansen, Sato wrote that his analysis of a one degree warming between 1934 and 1998 might in reality be half that amount:
I am sure I had 1998 warmer than 1934 at least once because on my own temperature web page (which most people never look at), I have [image/information not visible in document]. … I didn’t keep all the data, but some of them are (some data are then listed, with 1934 0.5 deg C warmer than 1998)”
Were they or were they not talking about data for the 48 contiguous states only, not global temperatures, which you are clearly attempting to conflate in your audience’s minds?
“As AGW proponents only claim a one degree warming over the past century, the magnitude of a .5 degree Celsius problem in their calculations is tremendous.”
Do you understand the distinction between annual data points and a century-long trend, or do you not care?
“In an August 15, 2007, email from Ruedy to Brazilian journalist Leticia Francisco Sorg, responding to Sorg’s request for Ruedy to say if warming is accelerating, Ruedy replied:
“To observe that the warming accelerates would take even longer observation times” than the past 25 years. In fact, it would take “another 50-100 years.”
This is a damning admission that NASA has been complicit in UN alarmism.”
Do you understand the difference between a warming rate and a warming acceleration (1st and 2nd derivatives), or do you not care?
Sheesh!
103. Pragmatist
Would you like to share with us about “3) HIDE THE DECLINE”
Where was the “Decline” hidden and how and when was it hidden?
I took the 4 PDF’s and ran them through Adobe OCR and saved them back. So What you get are the same 4 PDF files with everything in it but searchable and copyable.
You can get the file from here:
http://fichierforum.iservio.ca/NASA_GISS_FOIA/
Hopefully it will not kill my bandwidth
Enjoy
In response to Amoeba at #129.
Hide the Decline is one of the most widely misunderstood aspects of the whole climategate story. Many conservative commentators (Rush, Glenn Beck, etc.) have WRONGLY said that Hide the Decline means that the AGW “scientists” were attempting to hide the decline in temperatures from 1998 to present. That is actually NOT the case at all, and unfortunately shows that Rush, Glenn Beck, and other conservative commentators either do not understand the much more disturbing nature of “Hide the Decline” and are just using it as a convenient sound-byte to rile their listeners. Their listeners are generally smart enough to understand the real nature of “hide the decline” and really should have been told the actual story from the beginning, which is as follows:
Michael Mann made a “hockey-stick” graph to show that throughout history, temperature had (SUPPOSEDLY) been extremely stable for the past thousand years, but then temperature had shot up alarmingly quickly over the past 50 years, which could only be attributed to CO2-induced (and therefore caused by man) global warming.
The proxy which Mann used for Global Temperature were the rings of trees in old-growth forests. Supposedly the width of a tree ring gives a good correlation for temperature.
The problem with this is that the tree rings correlated FAIRLY well with temperature (or at least to what Mann thought the temperature should be) from 1000 years ago until about 1960. After 1960, the actual temperature record showed rising temperatures, but THE TREE RING SERIES SHOWED A DECLINE IN TEMPERATURES which was not supported by the actual data.
What Mann then did was substitute the land-based temperature record from 1960-1998 at the end of his hockey-stick graph so as to show the actual rise in temperature, rather than the “faulty” decline that would have been shown if he had simply used the entire tree-ring series.
The reason that this is so scandalous is that if the tree-ring series showed no agreement whatsoever with temperature data from 1960-1998, then WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT TREE RINGS WERE A GOOD PROXY FOR TEMPERATURE PRIOR TO THOSE DATES?
Answer: It looks like the width of tree rings is actually more highly influenced by drought vs. high moisture, forest fire events, available sunlight, availability of soil nitrogen (fertilizer) and several other factors. HOWEVER, tree ring width DOES NOT CORRELATE especially well with temperature.
The fact that Mann had to “Hide the Decline” which would have been shown by the tree ring data basically indicates that trees make terrible thermometers, and the basis for the whole study is essentially invalid.
That is much more damning to the world of AGW then most pundits current mis-interpretation of the phenomenon known as “Hide the Decline”.
PeterB in Indy — thanks for that very clear and succinct explanation of “Hide The Decline.” I was going to tackle it earlier, but ran out of steam, had to take a nap. Now it’s done, as if by elves in the night. Just like the disappearance of scads of data, from the doom-mongers’ lair…
Where is Al Gore, to combat all this heresy? I can’t wait for his fire-breathing denunciations of all us deniers. Ooh, scary!
103. Pragmatist: You make a lot of BIG claims, but you cite no evidence. How do YOU know you are correct? How do we know you’re not mistaken or even lying? Since you offer no proof. Let’s have a look!
You accuse an unspecified group of Progressive left wing moonbats.
Who are these ‘Progressive left wing moonbats’?
How do you know you know they are left wing?
What precisely is a ‘moonbat’?
Whoever ‘these ‘Progressive left wing moonbats’ are, you accuse them of a great deal. Since you bring politics into science, I would seem, you are attempting to imply that climate change is a politically influenced conspiracy. It seems that your reasons are not scientific – you cite none, but in reality, they are political!
What isn’t clear is whether you believe
a) The Earth isn’t warming, and the scam is related in some way to pretending it’s warming when it isn’t. If this is the case, I cite the enormous amount of science that shows clearly it is warming [see IPCC for details]. Perhaps you can explain to me why contemporary phenology, and related biological responses, are not good indicators of climate change. http://tinyurl.com/yf462w5
Alternatively:
b) You might believe the Earth is warming, and the scam is related in some way to pretending the warming is man-made when it isn’t. If this is the case, I cite the evidence that indicates unequivocally that natural forcing isn’t responsible and that CO2 and other GHGs are the cause. The isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere point clearly and unmistakeably to a man-made origin.
http://tinyurl.com/ybe8jn9
If abject cluelessness about scientific research was only limited to right wing blog sites, I wouldn’t mind it so much, but you have government leaders like pro-rapist David Vitter (as well as potential ones) showing the same disdain for science, logic and fairness.
The current overall scientifically accepted theory that human activity is the primary cause for the current round of global warming was over a hundred years in the making, with the usual bits of observation, questioning what was observed, hypothesizing explanations, and then testing out those hypotheses to reach some sort of conclusion or at least workable theory. And coming up with crackpot alternate explanations by mining the Internet for random factoids and/or being your own self-made climate scientist, dissing real scientists and/or hassling them to explain things to hostile critics, and/or being suckered by bad media coverage and cynically numbnutted politicians is not going to change any of this, except to maybe spread more ignorance.
103. Pragmatist:
1) ‘They’ FALSIFY THE DATA – Would you share us the evidence or is it a bogus claim?
2) ‘They’ MANIPULATE THE DATA – Would you share us the evidence or is it a bogus claim?
3) ‘They’ HIDE THE DECLINEi – Either you do not understand what you’re talking about or you are peddling nonsense, which says a great deal about you and your motives. The reality is not what you imply, and is subtly different from what another poster has suggested.
See: http://tinyurl.com/yeehjkw and http://tinyurl.com/divproblem
4) ‘They’ IGNORE THE MEDIEVAL WARMING – There was warming during the medieval period ii but it has not been ignored in-fact, there is an extensive literature concerning this [http://tinyurl.com/ybd8all], the important question is whether it was globally synchronous and warmer than now. The scientific evidence that has accumulated suggests increasingly strongly it was neither globally synchronous, nor warmer than now. The existence of the MWP has become totemic to AGW deniers as somehow proving that modern warming isn’t man-made. This is flawed logic, it is an implied straw man argument. CO2 is not the only cause of warming, but deniers often claim falsely that this is claimed by AGW proponents [yes that is what I meant! It is a contorted argument deliberately intended to confuse the public.].
Example: A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record – Huang, Pollack and Shen 2008
Abstract – ‘We present a suite of new 20,000 year reconstructions that integrate three types of geothermal information: a global database of terrestrial heat flux measurements, another database of temperature versus depth observations, and the 20th century instrumental record of temperature, all referenced to the 1961–1990 mean of the instrumental record. These reconstructions show the warming from the last glacial maximum, the occurrence of a mid-Holocene warm episode, a Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a Little Ice Age (LIA), and the rapid warming of the 20th century. The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1-2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level.’
http://tinyurl.com/yknp5uz
For more: http://tinyurl.com/yezmxn3
THE TRUTH:
The climate change context is about creating the conditions and restrictions that define who makes money (the rich, the statist and the corporatist) and who pays (the poor, the humble, the consumer) by FORCE!
It’s time for the crisis constructors to be outed, to be castigated, to be prosecuted for all the frauds they keep pushing. Surely, there are MILLIONS of taxpayers and consumer damn tired of the outright lies and distortions.
* * If an elected official would request a copy of the Sierra Research SR 2007-04-01 and all communication about the report from CARB, DCA/BAR, IMRC & Sierra Research it might help improve performance of Smog Check.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvB3em82Lkw
* * The Tom & Tom show: http://cbs5.com/video/?id=61255
* * http://cbs5.com/local/smog.check.study.2.1468806.html
* * A random ‘Smog Check’ inspection & repair ‘secret shopper’ audit, ethanol cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFE credit can cut California car impact over 50% in 2010. (Prevent Over 2000 tons per day of sulfur, PM, HC, O3, NOx, CO & CO2.) Improved performance of AB32 at reduced cost. (support H.R. 1207
* * * CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie@earthlink.net
103. Pragmatist:
5) ‘They’ VILIFY DERIDE AND IGNORE DISSENTERS
If you mean working scientists who do not support the consensus, attempt to publish in the peer-reviewed literature, but are prevented by some kind of conspiracy. This is a completely bogus claim. There are numerous examples, but the existence of just one proves your claim is false: Lindzen & Choi (2009), there are quite a few others. [You could also look for papers by Roy Spencer; John Christy; there's even one with Fred Singer as a co-author.] You really should check your facts!
The real reason why papers are rejected from scientific journals, or never even submitted for robust peer-review, is because their ‘quality’ is such that they would never pass. This is why so much junk is published in Energy & Environment, [I believe the proportion of bad to good in E&E is ~100%]. If the papers published in E&E were as good as the hype, then why not submit them for publication in a reputable premier scientific journal? Anyone who has looked at E&E and Nature will know the answer. There’s no conspiracy, the stuff in E&E is utter dross and should be ignored, unless you need a good laugh!
Of course, it’s notable that you chose to ignore the hate campaign, stirred-up against leading scientists of studies that are found unacceptable to the funders of the denial industry. Which has been spread by the likes of liars and drivel-mongers such as Rush Limbaugh; Glenn Beck and Alex Jones. i http://tinyurl.com/ylnec8j
6) ‘They’ LIE ABOUT THE HIMALAYAN GLACIERS
The IPCC clearly made a mistake about the 2035 date ii, but the underlying science is sound and remains unchallenged. The IPCC’s review process doesn’t come out of this smelling of roses, but the biased, incompetent journalism and deceitful & dishonest blogging surrounding the story doesn’t either.
I believe that ‘Anatomy of IPCC’s Mistake on Himalayan Glaciers and Year 2035‘ is the most reliable account of what probably happened.
To claim that a some trivial errors negate the science, is a completely bogus argument and a sign of extreme desperation among AGW deniers. How many reports with >3000 pages can you cite that are completely free of error? Individuals who make such claims have highly questionable motives.
Himalayan glaciers: how the IPPC erred and what the science says iii – http://tinyurl.com/yjyurof
It is noticeable that the IPCC’s errors can go either way, whereas the ‘errors‘ made by Ian Plimer in his book ‘Heaven & Earth – The Missing Science’, always mysteriously seem to go only one way! Which is suggestive of a bias that is highly indicative of dishonesty. iv
What I found
All seven Himalayan glaciers monitored for mass balance demonstrate a decreasing mass balance.
The full data for the Himalayan glaciers is here. http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_inventory/browse.html
Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
Global glacier changes 5 v – http://tinyurl.com/ya5tdbg
Central Asia 6.9 vi – http://tinyurl.com/ybj8fdn
Worldwide Glacier Information
Preliminary glacier mass balance data 2007/2008 – 1 Summary of the balance year 2007/08
‘The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to decrease, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.5 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2007/08. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at about 12 m w.e. (see Figures 1 and 2). All so far reported mass balance values, given in Table 3, are tentative.’ vii – http://tinyurl.com/yzz4vve
From http://tinyurl.com/ygbn89a you can see that almost all reported glaciers studied are in retreat and that those which are growing, are only growing slightly compared with the typical shrinkage.
From http://tinyurl.com/ydevqfa you can see that the Mean cumulative mass balance of all reported glaciers is in major decline.
7) ‘They’ LIE ABOUT THE POLAR BEARS – Yet another vague, unsourced and certainly bogus claim. It’s likely that you are referring to reports like this one that appeared on the Fox News Web site: “In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it’s 20 to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent.” [this was repeated on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/09/
Or this:
'The London telegraph reports Canadian biologist Mitchell Taylor has more than thirty years of experience with polar bears. But his belief that global warming is caused by nature not man. Let officials to bar him from this week's polar bear specialist group meeting in Denmark. Taylor says the polar bear population has actually increased. Over the last thirty years' - http://tinyurl.com/Fox-News-Polar-Bears1 viii
Rebuttal - The PBSG chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, stated: '....Dr. Taylor retired from the Nunavut government last year and was replaced on the Polar Bear Specialist Group by Dr. Lily Peacock. Further, Dr. Taylor was not re-appointed to the the PBSG by the Canadian government that decided to appoint 3 other people to the PBSG meeting here in Copenhagen. Involvement with the PBSG is restricted to those active in polar bear research and management and Dr. Taylor no longer fits within our guidelines of involvement....' another case of Fox News spreading a falsehood!
Fox News is not a reliable source of facts of any kind! The reality is quite different!
Polar Bears Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting of the IUCN - SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group
Summary - http://tinyurl.com/ykjxvth
Full report - http://tinyurl.com/ycw8xwc Summary Table [pages 34-35]
Arctic Sea Ice Extent (Area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice) ix http://tinyurl.com/ydxc4xn
Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent January 1970 to 2010 x http://tinyurl.com/yhq2mot
Antarctica – is far too complicated for here, see: http://tinyurl.com/yknr5xg
If the science is too complex, perhaps time-lapse and repeat photography xi will show you [and others] that this claim is false. http://tinyurl.com/yzn3qgu
Extreme Ice Survey – http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/ – James Balog
Extreme Ice Survey – Video & Timelapse xv – http://tinyurl.com/ExtremeIceSurvey-VIDEO
Or perhaps you believe this was all done with plasticine like Wallace & Gromit or CGI?
10) ‘They’ HIDE OR DESTROY DATA SO IT CANT BE CHECKED – Would you share your evidence for your unsubstantiated claim with us? Provide details of exactly what data was hidden or destroyed? Where did you come to learn about it? Do you have evidence that it really was destroyed?
http://a-sceptical-mind.com
has the best references to the falsify/corrupted data truth.
The Global Historical Climatology Network which represents most of the data uses an opaque data adjuestment system- measurements are changed without good justification. Yes adjustment is necessary because of many reasons including the atrocious site and measuring station management and local thermal effects. By the way, local thermal effects are more than thermal urban heat island, its also nighttime raised temperatures due to cities causing mixing surface and troposphere air and fields are cooler than forests due to reflection.