The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)

[nelsondogg]

This just like when Piltdown man disproved evolution years ago.

 

[perry147]

As they say in detective work, follow the money. People who don't want to toe the line on global warming don't get invited to the first class deluxe hotels in Tokyo and Geneva.

Neither do 9/11 "Truthers", or "Birthers", or revisionist historians who believe the Holocaust never happened. But, in large part because of the internet, these guys all write boatloads of stuff that a lot of people avidly read because they want to believe it. The difference with the climate change skeptics is that they have some mighty powerful donors; otherwise, they'd be in the same boat as the rest of these conspiratorial people I've mentioned here. I already tend to classify them there.

I think a lot of theories get dismissed because of their association with other theories.How many of the AGW people are also anti-evolutionist?

 

[Scarpaggio]

more fuel for the fire

 

[Neofight]

I'm curious about climate change, because I think it's genuinely important to determine whether it's a real thing, whether it poses a real threat, and whether we can do anything about it if it does. I don't pretend to know the answer to any of this, so I'm always looking for good, unbiased info.

With this, I got as far as the byline.

Wikipedia:

Timothy Francis Ball, Ph.D., is a retired university professor and global warming skeptic. He heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and is the former head of Friends of Science, a non-profit organization, closely linked to the oil industry...

Typical Wikipedia slime job....This story is just getting out, but there are other sources....One

Two

Three

Four

I can tolerate you going after GW, tough guy, but taking stabs at Wiki?... You've gone too far! I take off my cyber glove and strike you across the cyber cheek.Anyway, thanks for the chuckle. "Typical Wikipedia slime job" is one of the quaintest terms I've read in a while. Well, he may or may not be linked to the oil industry, but he is

at the hockey rinks up in Canada.

 

[datonn]

We are spending millions of dollars to study the problem. Perhaps my rhetoric is a bit over the top, but for 15 years the other side was not covered one bit in the media. Anyone who suggested we were not all going to die in 20 years was the equivalent to a holocaust denier. The models have intentionally been grossly over-estimated the problems and they need to be called to the mat for it. Especially since they are using phony numbers to justify the average family to spend over $1000 per year more on energy. That is theft in my opinion.

Justify the average family to spend over $1,000 per year more on energy?! Can you unpack that statement just a little bit for us...preferably with a link or two?I don't know about you, but in the last ten years my family has probably cut our consumption of fossil fuels by over 40% and has cut our consumption of electricity by over 30%. Don't know what it averages for the entire year, but at least from Oct-Apr, my heating/cooling bill is down by over two-thirds. So for me, it's more like SAVING thousands/year...not spending an extra $1,000/year more on energy.

 

[jon_mx]

We are spending millions of dollars to study the problem. Perhaps my rhetoric is a bit over the top, but for 15 years the other side was not covered one bit in the media. Anyone who suggested we were not all going to die in 20 years was the equivalent to a holocaust denier. The models have intentionally been grossly over-estimated the problems and they need to be called to the mat for it. Especially since they are using phony numbers to justify the average family to spend over $1000 per year more on energy. That is theft in my opinion.

Justify the average family to spend over $1,000 per year more on energy?! Can you unpack that statement just a little bit for us...preferably with a link or two?I don't know about you, but in the last ten years my family has probably cut our consumption of fossil fuels by over 40% and has cut our consumption of electricity by over 30%. Don't know what it averages for the entire year, but at least from Oct-Apr, my heating/cooling bill is down by over two-thirds. So for me, it's more like SAVING thousands/year...not spending an extra $1,000/year more on energy.

Well, I hate to use unreliable source, but according to the Obama Administration.....Cap and Trade to cost Families $1760 per year

 

[datonn]

Well, I hate to use unreliable source, but according to the Obama Administration.....

Cap and Trade to cost Families $1760 per year

Couple questions for you as a follow-up:1. IYHO, is cap and trade only about global warming...or is it also about energy independence?! No schtick, a serious question.

2. The average $$$ per family/household isn't a "flat tax," but is based upon average consumption rates from current/traditional fuel sources, correct? So if the average family were facing an increase in expenditures of $1,760 per year, might there be incentive for at least a good percentage of those families to alter their consumption practices? Might there be incentive for new and/or more-efficient/affordable fuels to be introduced into the marketplace?

I'll shut up and listen.

 

[jon_mx]

Well, I hate to use unreliable source, but according to the Obama Administration.....

Cap and Trade to cost Families $1760 per year

Couple questions for you as a follow-up:1. IYHO, is cap and trade only about global warming...or is it also about energy independence?! No schtick, a serious question.

2. The average $$$ per family/household isn't a "flat tax," but is based upon average consumption rates from current/traditional fuel sources, correct? So if the average family were facing an increase in expenditures of $1,760 per year, might there be incentive for at least a good percentage of those families to alter their consumption practices? Might there be incentive for new and/or more-efficient/affordable fuels to be introduced into the marketplace?

I'll shut up and listen.

It has little to do with global warming, it has everything to do with making everything more expensive and driving consumption down. Liberals have been trying to do this long before they even conceived of global warming. Liberals see growth and development as evil and want to stop it, and the environment is often the tool used to achieve that end. I really can't buy the argument that liberals are driven by energy independence since they fight any and all efforts to get domestic sources of coal, natural gas and oil. And certainly nuclear power is fought every step of the way. So energy independence, I don't think so.

 

[datonn]

Liberals see growth and development as evil and want to stop it, and the environment is often the tool used to achieve that end.

See though, here's where you lose me (and, I assume, a lot of other people). I'm an independent...and my take is that "liberals"/Democrats don't see growth and development as evil. Growth and development equals jobs, and more jobs equal higher standards of living for everyone! Rather, they see growth and development that makes other pay for said growth and development as being inappropriate. An example: asthma. The number of cases of asthma in our country have skyrocketed...at the same time that an ever-growing percentage of our population is living in urban/suburban areas and the parts per million (PPM) of many particles/chemicals believed to be a major contributing factor in asthma and other respiratory illnesses have been on the rise as more and more pollution is deposited into our air/water. Coincidence? Maybe...although most people in the scientific community would seem to attribute these PPM increases directly to the actions of human consumption.So, should the people breathing the air and drinking the water be the ones to pay for our growth and development as a society with their health and skyrocketing health care costs...or should the organizations directly profiting from the building of said products and infrastructure pay for it? If answering that question in the latter makes a person a flaming, bra-burning, pot-smoking liberal (instead of an independent), then I guess pass me the blunt and hand me a lighter.

 

[MasterofOrion]

We are spending millions of dollars to study the problem. Perhaps my rhetoric is a bit over the top, but for 15 years the other side was not covered one bit in the media. Anyone who suggested we were not all going to die in 20 years was the equivalent to a holocaust denier. The models have intentionally been grossly over-estimated the problems and they need to be called to the mat for it. Especially since they are using phony numbers to justify the average family to spend over $1000 per year more on energy. That is theft in my opinion.

Justify the average family to spend over $1,000 per year more on energy?! Can you unpack that statement just a little bit for us...preferably with a link or two?I don't know about you, but in the last ten years my family has probably cut our consumption of fossil fuels by over 40% and has cut our consumption of electricity by over 30%. Don't know what it averages for the entire year, but at least from Oct-Apr, my heating/cooling bill is down by over two-thirds. So for me, it's more like SAVING thousands/year...not spending an extra $1,000/year more on energy.

How did you cut your consumption of fossil fuel and electricity? BTW - good job.

 

[Abashail]

The CRU hack

Filed under:

* Climate Science

— group @ 20 November 2009

As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here. We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.

Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.

Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.

There are of course lessons to be learned. Clearly no-one would have gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating habits of European butterflies. That community’s internal discussions are probably safe from the public eye. But it is important to remember that emails do seem to exist forever, and that there is always a chance that they will be inadvertently released. Most people do not act as if this is true, but they probably should.

It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not have been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really be happy to have all of their email made public?

Let he who is without PIN cast the the first stone.

Update: The official UEA statement is as follows:

“We are aware that information from a server used for research information

in one area of the university has been made available on public websites,”

the spokesman stated.

“Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm

that all of this material is genuine.

“This information has been obtained and published without our permission

and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from

operation.

“We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved

the police in this enquiry.”

linkETA: there is some good additional discussion in the comments.

How did this thread not end right here? Too much to read?

 

[datonn]

How did you cut your consumption of fossil fuel and electricity? BTW - good job.

On electricity, my wife and I worked very hard to identify all the "vampire load" that existed in our house, then changed the way things like computers, televisions, printers, etc. are accessing said electricity. If things don't have to be on overnight, they are unplugged (not just turned off). We also upgraded the wiring in our 1913 home and upgraded our 2nd/3rd floor panel from fuses to circuit breakers...which helps a bit. Finally, we insulated the HECK out of the home! It's 3,400 square feet...and when we moved in, it had a strip of burlap in the attic under the floor boards as the only, ahem, "insulation" to be found in the entire home! February 2003, our heating bill was $630! February 2009, our heating bill was well under $200. And that also has to factor in the increased costs per therm/unit over the past six years too. Part of that is also due to our upgrading to a new boiler (steam heat) that is roughly 25% more efficient than the previous unit. Other than that, we've been slowly replacing older appliances, light bulbs/fixtures, etc. with new high-efficiency units as the need (and our budget) has allowed.Related to fossil fuels, a lot of that reduction has come from me religiously pursuing new and creative ways to NOT have to drive to meet face-to-face with clients and partners for my business. I ride my bike or walk to pretty much any/all meetings within two miles of my home unless it is extremely cold or icy during Winter months...and I've been using VoIP, web cams and any number of other technologies to avoid having to spend hours in the car in uncomfortable clothes, just to have a handshake and make small talk with clients. When I can't get out of those in-person meetings though, I make sure to make a day of it...scheduling as many meetings in that city/area as I possibly can while I'm in town (with people who I know might eventually request a meeting with me)...to reduce the overall quantity of total trips required in a year. I was joking with my wife on Thursday, after I got back from a meeting in New Ulm, MN. I asked her: "When was the last time I actually had to leave the house for a meeting?" She told me it was the first week of October...about five weeks earlier. I hadn't put ONE MILE on our car in over five weeks...while continuing to make sure our small firm of 12 designers remained 100% operational.

A long reply! Sorry. However, that's some ideas of how my wife and I have been able to slash our consumption of electricity and fossil fuels by quite a bit over the past decade or so. Hope that helps!

 

[3C's]

Jesus.

Look at what is happening to the coral reefs. Look at what is happening to the arctic ice cap. Look is what happening to plant/animal growth and migration patterns.

Do you yahoos really want to say that all of this is just great, business as usual because you can find some PhD somewhere to say that it is?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...e-warmists.html

 

[timschochet]

How did this thread not end right here? Too much to read?

Because some people don't want to accept the truth.

 

[adamjw2]

Let's look at only the facts of what occurred here:

1. The information was retrieved, but without their consent.

2. All of the information has not yet been released, only small samples which help the skeptics' anti-global warming view.

3. The small portion of information that has been released to the public contains multiple emails attempting to hide information that would hurt the Global Warming agenda.

One of the emails written in 1999 by Dr. Phil Jones actually says:

"just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline".

Dr. Jones confirmed the email is genuine.

Hopefully more details will help provide a clearer picture, but for now there seems to be, at the least, something fishy here.

 

[Statorama]

I don't hate those that fell for the Global Warming hoax. This isn't an "I told you so" post. You were simply misled, hoodwinked, and bamboozled by scientists that up to this point had seemed legitimate and sincere.

But come on, you've got to come out into the light now. The planet hasn't seen any significant warming trend in the last 10 years. Even these quacks admit that.

 

[pantagrapher]

Let's look at only the facts of what occurred here:

1. The information was retrieved, but without their consent.

2. All of the information has not yet been released, only small samples which help the skeptics' anti-global warming view.

3. The small portion of information that has been released to the public contains multiple emails attempting to hide information that would hurt the Global Warming agenda.

One of the emails written in 1999 by Dr. Phil Jones actually says:

"just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline".

Dr. Jones confirmed the email is genuine.

Hopefully more details will help provide a clearer picture, but for now there seems to be, at the least, something fishy here.

The term "trick" as it's used in math and science is explained in detail in the comments section of the article I posted earlier I highly recommend reading that comment thread. The author responds to hundreds of comments individually.ETA: I tracked down the links to "trick" as it relates to math & science in the comments and here they are.

 

[Sarnoff]

the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.In 1999, Phil Jones, the head of CRU, wrote to activist scientist Michael “Mike” Mann that he has just “completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps … to hide the decline”(0942777075). This refers to a decline in temperatures in recent years revealed by the data he had been reconstructing that conflicted with the observed temperature record. The inconvenient data was therefore hidden under a completely different set of data. Some “trick.”Mann later (2003) announced that “it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP,’ even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back” (1054736277). The MWP is the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures may have been higher than today. Mann’s desire to “contain” this phenomenon even in the absence of any data suggesting that this is possible is a clear indication of a desire to manipulate the science. There are other examples of putting political/presentational considerations before the science throughout the collection.

 

[pantagrapher]

the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.In 1999, Phil Jones, the head of CRU, wrote to activist scientist Michael “Mike” Mann that he has just “completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps … to hide the decline”(0942777075). This refers to a decline in temperatures in recent years revealed by the data he had been reconstructing that conflicted with the observed temperature record. The inconvenient data was therefore hidden under a completely different set of data. Some “trick.”Mann later (2003) announced that “it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP,’ even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back” (1054736277). The MWP is the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures may have been higher than today. Mann’s desire to “contain” this phenomenon even in the absence of any data suggesting that this is possible is a clear indication of a desire to manipulate the science. There are other examples of putting political/presentational considerations before the science throughout the collection.

From the article I posted earlier:

One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

 

[jon_mx]

Let's look at only the facts of what occurred here:1. The information was retrieved, but without their consent.2. All of the information has not yet been released, only small samples which help the skeptics' anti-global warming view.3. The small portion of information that has been released to the public contains multiple emails attempting to hide information that would hurt the Global Warming agenda. One of the emails written in 1999 by Dr. Phil Jones actually says:"just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline".Dr. Jones confirmed the email is genuine. Hopefully more details will help provide a clearer picture, but for now there seems to be, at the least, something fishy here.

The real question is, why is their science so secretive. This information was gathered in response to a freedom of information request, which was eventually denied. But apparently someone wanted to release anyways. This information has already been somewhat scrubbed, so it is surprising it is as damning as it was. If this is such awesome indisputable science, let the data be open for review. Their is no honesty in this debate, it is all spin and there is no reason to believe any of it.

 

[perry147]

the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.In 1999, Phil Jones, the head of CRU, wrote to activist scientist Michael "Mike" Mann that he has just "completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps … to hide the decline"(0942777075). This refers to a decline in temperatures in recent years revealed by the data he had been reconstructing that conflicted with the observed temperature record. The inconvenient data was therefore hidden under a completely different set of data. Some "trick."Mann later (2003) announced that "it would be nice to try to 'contain' the putative 'MWP,' even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back" (1054736277). The MWP is the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures may have been higher than today. Mann's desire to "contain" this phenomenon even in the absence of any data suggesting that this is possible is a clear indication of a desire to manipulate the science. There are other examples of putting political/presentational considerations before the science throughout the collection.

From the article I posted earlier:

One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

So this whole thing is just someone not understanding what they read, then making incorrect conclusions supporting their delusions about fictional conspiracies?WOW, that is going to leave a welt.

 

[jamny]

Jesus.

Look at what is happening to the coral reefs. Look at what is happening to the arctic ice cap. Look is what happening to plant/animal growth and migration patterns.

Do you yahoos really want to say that all of this is just great, business as usual because you can find some PhD somewhere to say that it is?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...e-warmists.html

http://www.examiner.com/x-27872-Miami-Envi...tic-trade-route

bonus!

 

[jon_mx]

Still completely unreported on network news. No bias here.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

Jesus.

Look at what is happening to the coral reefs. Look at what is happening to the arctic ice cap. Look is what happening to plant/animal growth and migration patterns.

Do you yahoos really want to say that all of this is just great, business as usual because you can find some PhD somewhere to say that it is?

Do you yahoos really want to say that everything is caused by human beings as opposed to this wonderfully complex system we call "Earth"?

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

but but but science is infallable

 

[Scarpaggio]

Jesus.

Look at what is happening to the coral reefs. Look at what is happening to the arctic ice cap. Look is what happening to plant/animal growth and migration patterns.

Do you yahoos really want to say that all of this is just great, business as usual because you can find some PhD somewhere to say that it is?

Do you yahoos really want to say that everything is caused by human beings as opposed to this wonderfully complex system we call "Earth"?

So you are suggesting that humans have no impact on earth?

 

[ichris]

Crimes have been committed, lies have been told, science has been politicized, and opposing points of view have been subverted, all at the taxpayers expense.

Let the RICO indictments and transparency tell the real truth about what kind of scam CRU has been running.

more info: Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails

As you read the link, notice the part where some of the leaked emails indicate the CRU computer model is an unreliable hack job. Even if we ignore the email content, the code producing the climate model used by governments and agencies in making policy decisions is complete crap. No wonder these "scientists" are breaking Freedom of Information Act laws and hiding data that doesn't support their claims.

Someone needs to explain to me what makes this scandal irrelevant. Continuing to ignore this stuff won't make it go away.

As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"

 

[Enforcer]

Settled? Thank goodness.

Good game everyone. Well done. Glad we can put this one to bed.

 

[boots11234]

Crimes have been committed, lies have been told, science has been politicized, and opposing points of view have been subverted, all at the taxpayers expense.

Let the RICO indictments and transparency tell the real truth about what kind of scam CRU has been running.

more info: Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails

As you read the link, notice the part where some of the leaked emails indicate the CRU computer model is an unreliable hack job. Even if we ignore the email content, the code producing the climate model used by governments and agencies in making policy decisions is complete crap. No wonder these "scientists" are breaking Freedom of Information Act laws and hiding data that doesn't support their claims.

Someone needs to explain to me what makes this scandal irrelevant. Continuing to ignore this stuff won't make it go away.

As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"

WoW!!!! Let me say that I always believed that GW was a joke in so far as being man made, but as a programmer for 15 years I have to say, THE CODE DOESNT LIE!!! This is way more damning then the emails. Even the poor programmer couldn't account for the errors in data. Sad really that some still believe in the church of GWing.

 

[jafo]

Global Warming believers.

 

[jamny]

We are angering Ra.

 

[tommyboy]

Interesting that the liberals, who usually worship whistleblowers exposing corporate corruption, suddenly have gone all "law and order" on this one. How dare someone hack into a science website?

they thought it was great when someone hacked Palins email.

 

[Big Rocks]

Hello

 

[tommyboy]

The CRU scandal has already ensnared Britain's leading climate "scientist" Phil Jones (whom one principled leftie says has only "a few days left in which to make an honourable exit") and his American counterpart Michael Mann (as in "Mann-made global warming").

Given that these two men and their respective institutions are the leading warm-mongers on the planet, and the guys who dominate the IPCC, Copenhagen et al, it would be most unlikely if the widespread data-raping were confined only to the United Kingdom and the United States. Here's an interesting snippet from my colleagues at Investigate magazine in New Zealand re their National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research:

NIWA’s David Wratt has told Investigate magazine this afternoon his organization denies faking temperature data and he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.

At least they only "altered" the data, unlike the CRU, which managed to lose it.

Upon examination of said "raw data", it seems that the country's temperature increased 0.06° over a century - ie, nada. But by the time Dr James Salinger (a big cheese at NIWA, the CRU and the IPCC), had "adjusted" the data New Zealand was showing an increase of 0.92° - ie, some 15 times greater than the raw data showed. Why?

It might be that "climate change" is an organized criminal conspiracy to defraud the entire developed world. Or there might be a "good explanation". I'd be interested to hear it. Fortunately for NIWA et al, among the massed ranks of "environmental correspondents", plus ça climate change, plus c'est la même chose.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M...WQ2ZTMwNDkxNDc=

 

[3C's]

I smell a Wratt

 

[MasterofOrion]

How did you cut your consumption of fossil fuel and electricity? BTW - good job.

On electricity, my wife and I worked very hard to identify all the "vampire load" that existed in our house, then changed the way things like computers, televisions, printers, etc. are accessing said electricity. If things don't have to be on overnight, they are unplugged (not just turned off). We also upgraded the wiring in our 1913 home and upgraded our 2nd/3rd floor panel from fuses to circuit breakers...which helps a bit. Finally, we insulated the HECK out of the home! It's 3,400 square feet...and when we moved in, it had a strip of burlap in the attic under the floor boards as the only, ahem, "insulation" to be found in the entire home! February 2003, our heating bill was $630! February 2009, our heating bill was well under $200. And that also has to factor in the increased costs per therm/unit over the past six years too. Part of that is also due to our upgrading to a new boiler (steam heat) that is roughly 25% more efficient than the previous unit. Other than that, we've been slowly replacing older appliances, light bulbs/fixtures, etc. with new high-efficiency units as the need (and our budget) has allowed.Related to fossil fuels, a lot of that reduction has come from me religiously pursuing new and creative ways to NOT have to drive to meet face-to-face with clients and partners for my business. I ride my bike or walk to pretty much any/all meetings within two miles of my home unless it is extremely cold or icy during Winter months...and I've been using VoIP, web cams and any number of other technologies to avoid having to spend hours in the car in uncomfortable clothes, just to have a handshake and make small talk with clients. When I can't get out of those in-person meetings though, I make sure to make a day of it...scheduling as many meetings in that city/area as I possibly can while I'm in town (with people who I know might eventually request a meeting with me)...to reduce the overall quantity of total trips required in a year. I was joking with my wife on Thursday, after I got back from a meeting in New Ulm, MN. I asked her: "When was the last time I actually had to leave the house for a meeting?" She told me it was the first week of October...about five weeks earlier. I hadn't put ONE MILE on our car in over five weeks...while continuing to make sure our small firm of 12 designers remained 100% operational.

A long reply! Sorry. However, that's some ideas of how my wife and I have been able to slash our consumption of electricity and fossil fuels by quite a bit over the past decade or so. Hope that helps!

Fantastic post. Very responsible and proactive.

 

[jonessed]

The CRU scandal has already ensnared Britain's leading climate "scientist" Phil Jones (whom one principled leftie says has only "a few days left in which to make an honourable exit") and his American counterpart Michael Mann (as in "Mann-made global warming").

Given that these two men and their respective institutions are the leading warm-mongers on the planet, and the guys who dominate the IPCC, Copenhagen et al, it would be most unlikely if the widespread data-raping were confined only to the United Kingdom and the United States. Here's an interesting snippet from my colleagues at Investigate magazine in New Zealand re their National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research:

NIWA’s David Wratt has told Investigate magazine this afternoon his organization denies faking temperature data and he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.

At least they only "altered" the data, unlike the CRU, which managed to lose it.

Upon examination of said "raw data", it seems that the country's temperature increased 0.06° over a century - ie, nada. But by the time Dr James Salinger (a big cheese at NIWA, the CRU and the IPCC), had "adjusted" the data New Zealand was showing an increase of 0.92° - ie, some 15 times greater than the raw data showed. Why?

It might be that "climate change" is an organized criminal conspiracy to defraud the entire developed world. Or there might be a "good explanation". I'd be interested to hear it. Fortunately for NIWA et al, among the massed ranks of "environmental correspondents", plus ça climate change, plus c'est la même chose.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M...WQ2ZTMwNDkxNDc=

There is never an excuse for altering raw data without making notation (even then it's really only done in extreme cases). This wouldn't even pass high school muster.

 

[jonessed]

Well, I hate to use unreliable source, but according to the Obama Administration.....

Cap and Trade to cost Families $1760 per year

Couple questions for you as a follow-up:1. IYHO, is cap and trade only about global warming...or is it also about energy independence?! No schtick, a serious question.

2. The average $$$ per family/household isn't a "flat tax," but is based upon average consumption rates from current/traditional fuel sources, correct? So if the average family were facing an increase in expenditures of $1,760 per year, might there be incentive for at least a good percentage of those families to alter their consumption practices? Might there be incentive for new and/or more-efficient/affordable fuels to be introduced into the marketplace?

I'll shut up and listen.

Cap and trade hits our coal industry the hardest and coal is one of our most abundant resources.

 

[Gigantomachia]

There are some stupid people in the world.

 

[3C's]

There are some stupid people in the world.

i.e. "scientists" altering data to fit their hypothesis.

 

[Gigantomachia]

There are some stupid people in the world.

i.e. "scientists" altering data to fit their hypothesis.

Sure, or non-scientists thinking they understand an issue as complex as climate change.

 

[Parrothead]

There are some stupid people in the world.

i.e. "scientists" altering data to fit their hypothesis.

Sure, or non-scientists thinking they understand an issue as complex as climate change.

can't ....hold... it.....in..... losing...... the.........battle.... here....it......comes.......................................AL GORE!!!! Couldn't resist that softball!

 

[Gigantomachia]

There are some stupid people in the world.

i.e. "scientists" altering data to fit their hypothesis.

Sure, or non-scientists thinking they understand an issue as complex as climate change.

can't ....hold... it.....in..... losing...... the.........battle.... here....it......comes.......................................AL GORE!!!! Couldn't resist that softball!

Al Gore is the voice, not the argument. Just saying.

 

[jon_mx]

There are some stupid people in the world.

i.e. "scientists" altering data to fit their hypothesis.

Sure, or non-scientists thinking they understand an issue as complex as climate change.

As if global warming scientists understand it. There is so many assumptions and unknowns in their models, it is a joke. I would put more weight in a random number generator predicting the future climate than the global warming 'science' industry. At least a random number generator is not biased towards a predetermined output. It is so easy to tweak assumptions to make it looks catastrophic, which is the least likely of all scenarios. But they have to make it catastrophic to get political action, despite of all the recent data that conflicts with everything they have ever told us.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

Jesus.

Look at what is happening to the coral reefs. Look at what is happening to the arctic ice cap. Look is what happening to plant/animal growth and migration patterns.

Do you yahoos really want to say that all of this is just great, business as usual because you can find some PhD somewhere to say that it is?

Do you yahoos really want to say that everything is caused by human beings as opposed to this wonderfully complex system we call "Earth"?

So you are suggesting that humans have no impact on earth?

Reread the posts above mine and then tell me where your "response" is a non-sequitur. You got 30 minutes.

 

[Phase of the Game]

I love watching the GW supporters getting

 

[jon_mx]

The "settled science" of Climate Change

1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895

1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times

1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912

1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune

1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post

1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924

1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?

1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World

1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933

1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”

1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune

1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post

1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962

1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report

1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine

1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times

1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969

1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)

1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post

1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine

1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post

1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger

1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times

Cassandras are becomingincreasingly apprehensive,for the weatheraberrations they arestudying may be theharbinger of anotherice age

1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975

1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine

1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report

1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times

1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context

1989 -”On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989

1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth

1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report

1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998

2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001

2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003

2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006

Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for two years in a row, which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?

2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” — Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT

2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London

2006 - “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” – Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006

2007- “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007

2008 – “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress” – Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA, see above for Hansen quotes

 

[jon_mx]

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Amazing how raw data shows no warming trend, can end up showing a warming trend. I guess the data is not right, so the 'scientists' correct it. But us non-scientist are not smart enough to question it. I mean taking temperatures and plotting them are just way to complicated...

 

[P Boy]

I'm curious about climate change, because I think it's genuinely important to determine whether it's a real thing, whether it poses a real threat, and whether we can do anything about it if it does. I don't pretend to know the answer to any of this, so I'm always looking for good, unbiased info.With this, I got as far as the byline.

Wikipedia:Timothy Francis Ball, Ph.D., is a retired university professor and global warming skeptic. He heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and is the former head of Friends of Science, a non-profit organization, closely linked to the oil industry...

OMG! I'll bet he appears on FOX News or Hannity, too!

 

[Darth Cheney]

How did you cut your consumption of fossil fuel and electricity? BTW - good job.

On electricity, my wife and I worked very hard to identify all the "vampire load" that existed in our house, then changed the way things like computers, televisions, printers, etc. are accessing said electricity. If things don't have to be on overnight, they are unplugged (not just turned off). We also upgraded the wiring in our 1913 home and upgraded our 2nd/3rd floor panel from fuses to circuit breakers...which helps a bit. Finally, we insulated the HECK out of the home! It's 3,400 square feet...and when we moved in, it had a strip of burlap in the attic under the floor boards as the only, ahem, "insulation" to be found in the entire home! February 2003, our heating bill was $630! February 2009, our heating bill was well under $200. And that also has to factor in the increased costs per therm/unit over the past six years too. Part of that is also due to our upgrading to a new boiler (steam heat) that is roughly 25% more efficient than the previous unit. Other than that, we've been slowly replacing older appliances, light bulbs/fixtures, etc. with new high-efficiency units as the need (and our budget) has allowed.Related to fossil fuels, a lot of that reduction has come from me religiously pursuing new and creative ways to NOT have to drive to meet face-to-face with clients and partners for my business. I ride my bike or walk to pretty much any/all meetings within two miles of my home unless it is extremely cold or icy during Winter months...and I've been using VoIP, web cams and any number of other technologies to avoid having to spend hours in the car in uncomfortable clothes, just to have a handshake and make small talk with clients. When I can't get out of those in-person meetings though, I make sure to make a day of it...scheduling as many meetings in that city/area as I possibly can while I'm in town (with people who I know might eventually request a meeting with me)...to reduce the overall quantity of total trips required in a year. I was joking with my wife on Thursday, after I got back from a meeting in New Ulm, MN. I asked her: "When was the last time I actually had to leave the house for a meeting?" She told me it was the first week of October...about five weeks earlier. I hadn't put ONE MILE on our car in over five weeks...while continuing to make sure our small firm of 12 designers remained 100% operational.

A long reply! Sorry. However, that's some ideas of how my wife and I have been able to slash our consumption of electricity and fossil fuels by quite a bit over the past decade or so. Hope that helps!

You hippie. It's our Patriotic duty as Americans to waste resources.