-
Global Warming on 15-Year Hold
April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
-
Suddenly This Summer
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
-
FakeGate: Just Another Day at Team Green
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
-
“Climate” and the Campaign
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Germany’s Green Bubble Follows Spain’s; Will Congress Waste More Billions on Ours?
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal - for nearly three years - to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “ClimateGate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.
All of that material and that sought for years by CEI go to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, “cap-and-trade” legislation and the EPA’s threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.
CEI sought the following documents, among others, NASA’s failure to provide which within thirty days will prompt CEI to file suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:
- internal discussions about NASA’s quiet correction of its false historical U.S. temperature records after two Canadian researchers discovered a key statistical error, specifically discussion about whether and why to correct certain records, how to do so, the impact or wisdom or potential (or real) fallout therefrom or reaction to doing so (requested August 2007);
- internal discussions relating to the emails sent to James Hansen and/or Reto A. Ruedy from Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre calling their attention to the errors in NASA/GISS online temperature data (August 2007);
- those relating to the content, importance or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or “blog” RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked “Hockey Stick” that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files, expressly offered as a tool to be used “in any way you think would be helpful” to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt’s active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by “skeptics” attempting to comment on claims made on the website.
This and the related political activism engaged in are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents.
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 10:06AM
Holdren Implicated in Warmaquiddick links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bill Capron | 11.24.09 @ 10:47AM
Over the past three years I’ve written multiple times to the editors of Science, DailyScience, Science New and Scientific American about their quasi-religious zeal for Global Warming and its potential for harm to the scientific community. If they “blew this one,” there is the risk of people saying, “Science? No, I don’t go to that church,” and science will be reduced to opinion and politics; and for the worst reason of all, because it is true. I love science, and these people have broken my heart!
L. Ross| 11.24.09 @ 11:24AM
I had to give up on Scientific American years ago. They seem to have become another advocacy arm of the democratic party. Try Sky and Telescope instead. Way to nerdy to be political.
Brian Macker| 11.24.09 @ 12:53PM
I was shocked to see an article in SciAm back around 1999 that lauded Karl Marx as a great economist. More like great pseudo-scientist.
D. Nelson| 11.24.09 @ 1:55PM
I too had to stop reading SciAm. Thanks for the recommendations.
West Houston| 11.24.09 @ 8:29PM
Quoting: L. Ross| 11.24.09 @ 11:24AM
"I had to give up on Scientific American years ago."
Commenting: Likewise. I kept my Astronomy and signed up for Analog again. They - unlike SA- label fiction as fiction.
I put this on the main thread instead of relying, so please excuse the double post when you see it later. Thanx
Pyeatte| 11.24.09 @ 11:27PM
I too used to be a loyal subscriber to Scientific American for many years and gave up on them several years ago when it seemed they were pushing an agenda instead of scientific inquiry.
Galleleo| 11.27.09 @ 10:24PM
I stopped reading Scientific American after their article proposing safety zones in Polar Bear habitats.
btw...drudge just posted new hacked emails from CRE. Those bastards cooked the books worse than initially thought.
UFGator| 12.3.09 @ 7:59AM
It still will take ages to get the information requested under FOI act. What needs to happen at this time is for the general media to print those e-mails that document this cooking of the books. People need to understand the root of this and instead the media feeds discussion about it. The people need to see the facts and they then decide.
john rabb| 11.24.09 @ 2:45PM
bill i know where youre coming from i dropped Scientific American a decade ago and all the rest as time progressed, my clue was the "scare the rubes death to movement". Apparently to get more molla, geez global warming was so transparent that i never warmed to it. But all my years of respect for science is gone.
Joe Olson| 11.24.09 @ 8:00PM
Please add Popular Science, Nature and Discover magazines to this list of discredited hoax promoters....
John| 11.25.09 @ 2:39AM
Not even remotely discredited. Sorry guys, but what is the data falsified in these emails? Foolishly prettied up to try to get through your thick skulls, but by all accounts, there has been no apparent falsification.
And then there are those pesky poles that keep on melting, and every single major scientific body on the planet in consensus on the subject.
But you go ahead and believe what you want, and sue NASA. Please tell me one thing though... where do you buy your crack, because you retards clearly are getting the good stuff.
JGreen| 11.25.09 @ 7:55AM
The IPCC has been caught red handed and exposed as liars and your typical liberal response is the usual personal insults. Once you people find something that potentially can rob people of their freedoms and income you hang on to it no matter what evidence to the contrary presents itself. Not very scientific, is it?
Grrr| 11.25.09 @ 9:06AM
Thank you for a light hearted response. We could all do with a laugh. Last I heard the South pole - the one at the bottom, duh - was growing well, as was the other one. Polar bears are up in numbers and have you really contacted every single scientific body on the planet? Wow, what a commendable effort. Your command of all the World's languages is astounding. Oh, but I forgot, you believe what the politicians say and have no need to check your sources. Oh what a good little boy you are, blonde hair and blue eyes n all. Do not worry we will tuck you up in COT 15 and give you your meds on time.
Douglas | 11.25.09 @ 10:25AM
Anyone who can use language like "every single major scientific body" cannot be taken seriously. John doesn't even know of every major scientific body so he merely doing what so many people are in this case, believing.
I assure you the climate is changing because it always does. People are so self important they believe 50 years is a long time in geological terms. 10,000 years ago there was a mile of ice above where I sit. It melted for some reason. Why? The climate changed!
Sylia| 11.25.09 @ 11:09AM
Stop trying to obfuscate while trying to engage in misdirection. The e-mails point to 'data diddling', but the proof is in the code.
If you actually had the ability to read and follow fully commented FORTRAN, you would be able to see what was done, and how it was done. I don't know what you studied, but it obviously couldn't have been either science or computer programming.
Francis| 11.25.09 @ 11:41AM
Add also the Skeptical Inquirer to the list. They were perhaps less guilty because at least, they let Bjorn Lornstrom respond to their papers on GW. However, I was nonetheless very disappointed when they decided some years to jump into the area of politically-debated science, and they naively fell head first into the trap.
I suppose that they have too much faith in the peer-review process, and that they failed to see that this process, too, is driven by humans.
Harvard Scholar| 11.27.09 @ 10:26PM
Rancid liberals coming here to post their crap theories. Go back to Kos you socialist monger retard. The science and the FACTS are on our side!!!!!!!
peter oneil| 12.13.09 @ 4:49PM
when you are in the right, you can afford to keep your temper and when you are in the wrong, you can't afford to lose it. Calm down
Joe Olson| 11.25.09 @ 3:10PM
Dear John
Ignorance is bliss, and you must quite blistfull. The 'manmade global warming hoax' is a century old arguement by the Progressives for their program of eugenics. Please read my articles "Strange Tale of Green House G as Gang" for this valuable history. The REAL cause of climate change is the variable Geo-nuclear energy as explained in my article "Motive Force Behind All Climate Change" and has nothing to do with CO2. The aberrant behavior of those in control of the IPCC has at last opened the door to real debate and removed the onerous gag placed by the deceitful and powerfull. As FIOA requests and more objective research is presented you will witness this fraud take it's rightfull place. This is the worst abuse of science in history. A full posting of articles on the Geo-nuclear climate forcing factor is available at ClimateRealist.com.
Dan R.| 11.30.09 @ 4:29PM
You're right, John. It's not "remotely discredited". It's now "totally discredited". It's now obvious to anyone with even a high school education that the very data and predictive models that have served as the basis for AGW theory are hopelessly corrupted and full of holes. By the time independent analysts are through crawling through the files at the CRU, there won't be a shred of credibility left to anything they've produced.
Oh, and by the way, the size of the Antarctic's ice sheet in INCREASING, not decreasing:
http://economictimes.indiatime.....418558.cms
Also, the ice sheet between Greenland and Canada is now thicker than it's been at any time in the last 15 years:
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....3250/posts
Facts can be such inconvenient things, can they not?
Netizen Kane | 12.1.09 @ 3:06PM
The Religious Zealots at the Church of Green will continue to believe in their pagen political god, but for those still attached to reality, new evidence shows cooling at the poles and thickening of the ice. Just one of many reports:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n....._freezing/
Since the Greenies believe that CO2 is a pollutant, and since they exhale said CO2, I would request that they be consistent - not hypocritical - and off themselves for the good of their god-planet. One less carbon footprint for the god-planet (and Al Gore), and one less leftist moron breeder for the rest of us....
L.J.| 12.5.09 @ 6:53AM
Make your point John. But don't use offensive terms.
ted| 12.17.09 @ 6:50PM
Well if you haven't noticed, science is already a religion. Many people have no evidence what so ever of what ever and they still believe that it is true. (I.E. the ancient civilizations thought that flint and steel was a gift from the “fire gods”). So how do we know that there are subatomic particles? Or how the universe was created? Or how some water in the oceans with a lightning bolt or two created DNA in a single celled organism? I will admit that Galileo and Newton might have been on the right track but the science that is being researched today is just faith in the unlikely and unknown (aka religion).
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 10:59AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : "Climate Gate" Developm links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Blane Burns| 11.24.09 @ 11:10AM
Thank You. I have been wondering when folks would wakeup. Only those who have no scientific education in mutidisciplinary fields would ever believe the hoax that has been propagated. I have been a skeptic from the start. Nice to know I am not as alone was I was. So many otherwise intelligent people have been dupes. I guess we believe what we want to believe.
American Infidel| 11.24.09 @ 2:35PM
I'm just an ordinary citizen with no degrees in science or related fields but I thought it was a hoax from the beginning. I remember all too well the "global cooling" of 30 years ago that never materialized and I figured "global warming/climate change" was the same sort of hoax. Turns out it was.
SoCon| 11.24.09 @ 10:48PM
Blane, just remember--malicious liberal "Scientists" are the ones propagating this heinous hoax. It makes science look very bad. I don't trust any of you anymore.
Bill| 11.24.09 @ 11:20AM
The Clinton Administration (i.e. Al Gore) implemented a revised measurement system of weather temps. They stated it would slightly increase the stated temps but, not to worry, all historical temp records would be updated (converted to) the new scale. If that did not happen, then all recorded temps since that time in the mid-90's would be higher than "comparable" earlier scale temps even if they were not.
Any "scientists" checking this out? I have had zero response over the years on this from Congress, NASA, Weather Service, etc.
Mick| 11.24.09 @ 11:37AM
I say, since the Global warming advocates (spelled l-i-a-r) seem to love the hot in everything we load them on a spaceship and shoot them into the sun...AlBore can pilot!
John - TMF| 11.24.09 @ 11:54AM
If the Global Warming "Science" were turned into my High School Chemistry teacher as a "project", she'd have handed me an 'F' with a stern warning about lack of raw data, notes on method and consistent instrumentation. She'd have clobbered me on a total lack of qualitative supporting data (instrumentation, certification, measurement methods, degree of accuracy declaration, etc.)
Of course none of that all seems to have been necessary in this case. Even the hypothesis is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" induced gratuitous assertion.
AGW has been, is, and always will be a hoax. The science is non-existant, non-qualitative, and non-quantitative. The policy demanded is fradulent.
Western Civilization has suffered from a base form of Paganism that emotionally ties the civilization to nature worship.
Gary Larson's dig was the cartoon of the slugs worshiping at the giant shaker of salt. The greenies are worshiping their goddess Mother Earth, again.
We can no more change the climate than we can alter the orbit of the Earth, but we sure can suffer the hubris of thinking that we can.
A sad waste of time, intellect, and energy.
r/Then Mighty Fahvaag
RET| 11.24.09 @ 10:41PM
While I certainly admit that some skepticism is warranted by the behavior of the AGW community, I think you are making a grossly shallow judgment to brand it a "hoax". Why don't you first try reading the 1/4 GB of material on the science and methods from the IPCC. I'm just getting started.
Grrr| 11.25.09 @ 9:18AM
Unbelievable! CRU data corrupted. GIGO. But they produced the garbage. Hoax is a tame word for what has been perpetrated in the name of science. IPCC summary methodology - science to be obfuscated, method to be tricky, data to be developed in model until gives required result then discarded to avoid FOI request. Whose running the book on which schmuck falls for it first? Oh, you didn't comment on that, sorry. What are you on mate, it's doing you no good.
Pyeatte| 11.24.09 @ 11:40PM
Perhaps this scandal will wakeup the people. I guess it was just a matter of time until the beans would be spilled. This should short-circuit the insanity pulsing through Congress known as cap-n-trade. Same for the UN. We cannot let up - criminal acts have been done.
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 12:05PM
CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA GISS « Watts Up With That? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Lawson | 11.24.09 @ 12:14PM
Regrettable that they resisted FoI request, but his is a storm in a teacup. Scientists have been shown to have human failings. The physics of infra red retention in Earth's atmosphere remains as an established fact.
Jeff the thinker| 11.24.09 @ 2:58PM
You are correct but that was never the question. That is just what people on the far left of this issue want you to think about the other side. The physics of infared retention is science but assuming that a small warming of possibly 1.2 degrees C from infared warming will be amplified by long term dominate positive feedback is not. The logarethmic and decreasing nature of infared retention is also well established. It could easily be the case that water vapour, clouds, and none other than simple evaporation could reduce the effect. I believe most of the so called greenhouse effect is just the circulation of water vapour. To give numbers it could mean that 90% of the 30 degrees C often atributed to the greenhouse could be the effects of water only allowing 3 degrees for CO2 infa red retention (and maybe others combined) of which the logarithmic nature of its declining effect means that most is already done leaving the 0.5-2.0 C that might occur from doubling CO2.
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 12:19PM
Competitive Enterprise Institute: “We’ll sue” « ClimateMedia links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Robinson| 11.24.09 @ 12:34PM
"The physics of infra red retention in Earth's atmosphere remains as an established fact. "
I don't think so. If you're talking about absorption and emission spectra, then yes. If you're talking about forcings and feedbacks, then no, it most certainly is not.
Hunter Pasalman| 11.24.09 @ 12:37PM
This argument is a similar to that about Theism vs. Atheism. The true believers have their hypothetical models, with their distortions and imperfections, that provide a glimpse of the planet's thermal future as planned for us by GAIA. The non-believers don't buy the mumbo-jumbo, the glitzy media hard sell and the self serving profiteering of Her high-priests.
I come down as a skeptic, once instructed by one of the best, Richard Feynman, physics Nobel laureate from Caltech, who said, "Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion." One such expert is Al Gore, who recently said that the center of the earth has a temperature of over a million degrees. Other experts, funded by government labs and the IPCC, have recently been exposed in hacked e-mails as small minded partisans, secretly excluding contrary views from the scientific, peer reviewed journal media.
Uriel| 11.24.09 @ 12:40PM
You might start with the HADCRUt database, still available online at the IPCC website. No need for discovery there.
The HADCRUt database is THE temperature record, created by Phil Jones upon which ALL of Global Warming arguments/theories/hoaxes are based. This has always been available and has always PROVEN that there never was any Global Warming.
Simply go to the data for January of 1860 in the HADCRUt database. Compare what it IS, to what it purports to be - which is, a "Global" "Average" Temperature.
Please, when will someone ... anyone merely LOOK at this data? It's been open and available for 30+ years and definitively shows that the temperature record upon which ALL of Global Warming was based is PHONY. Just look.
Please, just LOOK at it.
Sylia| 11.25.09 @ 11:18AM
Given that the database to which you are referring is the construct of individuals who are currently under scrutiny for data massaging practices which may be, in even the most charitable of interpretations, suspect, are you really prepared to believe that what is posted is credible?
These individuals misplaced/destroyed raw data required for independent verification of this database. As a consequence, it can no longer be viewed with anything but suspicion. The foundation of science is INDEPENDENT replication/verification. In this case, unless the raw data magically reappears, this verification is now impossible.
Charlie Martin| 11.24.09 @ 12:47PM
Richard, that's a red herring. While the physics of the greenhouse is well established, the notion of anthropogenesis of global temperature increase is entirely based on these very studies we now know were not properly peer reviewed and for which the data was manipulated in questionable ways.
Richard Lawson | 11.26.09 @ 12:37PM
The question of whether Price and Trenberth's remarks show that they were manipulating data is not proven. The context of Trenberth's remark was of upper atmosphere readings. However, I do think the papers should be reviewed in order to abolish the doubt that has been created.
The central science of AGW remains robust, and supported by the overwhelming majority of qualified climate scientists. The facts are that that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that it has increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution to a level that has not been seen for many thousands of years, and that the planet has been warming for the last 150 years.
We must face that fact and act acordingly.
NO MORE LIBERAL LIES| 11.27.09 @ 4:45PM
If your bogus science was 'fact' you morons wouldn't have to lie about your assertions and threaten others who challenge your arguments.
The only thing we 'must' do is destroy you lying, power-mad pieces of human excrement-- and we will.
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 12:50PM
[WUWT]CRU has apparently been hacked hundreds of files released - Page 15 - Overcl links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 12:52PM
[WUWT]CRU has apparently been hacked hundreds of files released - Page 15 - Overcl links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 1:26PM
NASA Lawsuit Over Climate Gate links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tish | 11.24.09 @ 1:28PM
My 7th grade science teacher taught me something about scientific research which has held up well over the intervening half-century: a 99% probability is still a 100% uncertainty.
Rob z| 11.24.09 @ 1:53PM
Richard, you need to spend some time searching the emails. In them you will find they actively hide their findings on the role of the solar cycle. They hid the conclusions that the hockey stick is flawed. More regrettable is the assertion that you make about green house gases. Sure, they absorb radiation but they don't contribute to a perceived green house effect. Infra red radiation not absorbed by a molecule in the air is absorbed on the ground both will re-emit the thermal energy in some form. big deal. net zero operation. If you honestly believe going from 300ppm co2 to 330ppm co2 causes a 1 degree increase in temperature, I have some icebergs I'd like to sell you. Keep in mind these same losers are promoting a hydrogen economy. ANY IDEA what would happen if you introduced more WATER VAPOR into the air. Here's a clue, check the physics out on the absorption profile for water vs co2. Then check out the relative percentages in the air for the two. Convince yourself that a 30ppm increase in co2 is the major contributor. Oh yeah...and when you're done....check the emails out for the following words, "delete, fraud, solar cycle, journal, hide, " or any other word associated with you global warming proponents. The real science and real issue is settled. AGW has been a fraud and the people who believed it were stupid for precisely the same reasons you point out. The physics doesn't support it.
Stuart| 11.28.09 @ 2:39AM
"Infra red radiation not absorbed by a molecule in the air is absorbed on the ground both will re-emit the thermal energy in some form."
You've completely missed the science behind the greenhouse effect, as do most denialists.
It's the absorption of infrared radiation FROM the earth that contributes to a net heating effect. Most of the incident radiation is actually visible, not infrared, whereas the blackbody spectrum of the much cooler (than the sun) earth is deep into the longer-wavelength infrared where CO2 absorption is far more significant.
In other words, radiation that is on its way out of the atmosphere and that would otherwise contribute to cooling instead just heats the atmosphere again. This means the planet must heat up to restore the balance of "heat in" to "heat out".
It's not difficult.
Jeff| 11.29.09 @ 7:06PM
Rob Z, what night is warmer clear sky or cloudy. C02 has little to do with any warming, more would make plants grow faster. The emails speak for themselves. Criminal trials for the global warming fraudsters and charges of crimes against humanity (for starving millions) at the world court would be a fitting ironic end to this scam of monstrous proportions.
Kai| 11.24.09 @ 2:07PM
A collegial troll here.
With the no-nothings' incredible grasp of science, nuance, and, clearly, trickle-down economics I propose this:
Since virtually all climate scientists the world over (remember, there would be no data without corroborating scientists in other countries), let's have a "Scopes Monkey" type-trial...TODAY.
Co2-driven climate change deniers, feel free to bring your "preponderance of evidence" and we will verify the data against the other side. Good luck, and let's get it done.
NO MORE LIBERAL LIES!| 11.27.09 @ 5:03PM
Kai, you talk tough about transparency now; where were you when your fellow liberal scammers were obstructing legitimate challenges to your bogus, BS climate change arguments?
It's too late now--you liberal liars are screwed. LOL!
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 2:08PM
Memo to Copenhagen: Shove Climate Change Back Up Your Ass! | PAUL WILL PREVAIL links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nicholas Wind | 11.24.09 @ 2:16PM
Yep ,The Biggest Scam ever put upon the world.
I am in Toronto Canada and I only see our temperatures dropping for the last decade.Espsecially the last 5 years.I am a pond hockey player since my serious hockey playing days are behind me, so I look for ice every winter.
I grew up skating near Oshawa Ontario in the 60's as a young guy.What's interesting is that the pond we learned to skate on dried up in the 80's and 90's and no one played there in those decades.
What's more interesting is kids are now skating there again starting about 5 years ago.
This tells me what I thought and learned by reading the facts. Our climate is in constant flux and changes it's cycles constantly.
The garbage science and lies are now a fact as far as the U.N. is concerned and they will not even look at the other side.
This stuff is scare mongering and is fraud and fake crap.
My link I've left is written by a PHD and he gives some facts and allowed me to share on my blog.
This is all being done by a bunch of displaced communists who have climate change as their agenda to help them move toward a one world government.
This people should be arrested and put in jail for their lies.
How do ass---------s like Al Gore keep their credibilty ?
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 2:29PM
Climategate - Global Warming Junk Science Exposed - Marijuana.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ran / Si Vis Pacem | 11.24.09 @ 2:29PM
Mr Horner,
Thanks. Good on ya, mate! Linked you here. More shameless schadenfreude here... This may yet take down the Left in many other ways, and that includes "environmentally aware" "moderates" pretending to be Conservatives.
AlGoreScam| 11.24.09 @ 2:35PM
Awesome! This is what needs to be done. We can't rely on government, the media or the scientific community to expose these frauds. We need to take them on with the legal system.
spawn44| 11.24.09 @ 2:42PM
The emails point out that a group of radical environmental socialists took the necessary steps to arrive at the desired conclusion that man was causing global warming. The implications which would result in the global socialists agenda of cap & trade, pollution restitution between countries, etc. . The hacker should be given a medal for uncovering this fraud. We must investigate over 70 billion in grants given to these frauds who can not predict the climate any better than the farmers almanac.
Chief1942| 11.24.09 @ 3:26PM
It's a sad day when those that we have a general trusting regard for, are exposed as frauds at worst, ernest decievers at best. As a typical lay person with no specific training in the regimines of science and peer review, I will now be sceptical of much that "science" has professed for all my 67 years. I certainly am not painting with too large a brush, but now must look with suspicion as opposed to trust, in whatever comes at me from the scientific community. Sad!
Jeffery Pyle| 11.24.09 @ 3:56PM
Please also request the working source code for GISSTemp, if you have not done so.
GISSTemp is used to perpetrate this fraud. How can we trust the results of GISSTemp is we don't know the input or the processing?
A scientific experiment isn't valid unless proper procedures are followed and the methodology is not only documented but also followed. The documentation must be explicit enough for others to reproduce the results. The GISSTemp source code should be considered documentation and should belong to the taxpayers.
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 4:01PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : "Climate Gate" Development … « Work4Real | Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
John| 11.24.09 @ 4:12PM
We all looked down on the nazi's for using science for political gain.. finding a german chicken bone that 10 000 years old and claiming they are just returning home.. and not invading..
Leftism and the activism that goes along with it has broken science beyond repair.. It belongs in the fiction section of the library..
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 4:20PM
Bombshell Climate Update: CEI Files Notice Of Intent To Sue NASA « American Political links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 4:30PM
ClimateGate. Another Liberal Lie Exposed links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 5:29PM
Government Weakens Car Makers To Take Them Over | Aktiebloggar.se links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Lawson | 11.24.09 @ 6:39PM
I see several replies to my message . Can I save time by asking you to take a look at the case for AGW over here please?
http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/AGW Nutshell.htm
I have set out the case in a brief two pager. Better sometimes to have the case organised instead of piecemeal.
Jeff the thinker| 11.24.09 @ 8:57PM
No problem: in fact the site you refer to gets the infared part from here: http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....asy-steps/
Read it closely and check the links. Then check this site: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006.....orial.html and check the links. I like to throw out real numbers so someone has something to work with. I don't say my numbers are perfect just if we don't use any than it gets difficult to qualify remarks.
Starting from the bottom of the realclimate page and working up you will notice all of the .7 C increase in the last 100 years is claimed as CO2 related: "(so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining 0.5 ºC is ‘in the pipeline’." The problem of that is the average temperature of the last 1000 years or so would intersect the century through the middle so why count from a low point. Also ignores any other changes including a solar increase in the century that could contribute at least .1 of that and some argue more like .4. Urban heat could also be .1. All you have to do is say maybe humans effect is only .4 in the century than you get what you might expect from a 30% increase in CO2. .5 in the pipeline becomes .3. Currently the surface temperature has gone sideways for 10 years and since the ARGO the best ocean measuring system was introduced it essentially had a flat ocean temperature for 5 years. Using my math if the natural forces accounted for .3 of the rise then they are capable of flattening out the rise by offsetting the .3 in the pipeline. A oversimplified model that explains the temperature flux but does not require strong postive feedbacks. Thus the assumed range from 2-5 degrees C may very well be .5-2 c. The challenge with the smaller range for climate alarmist is that increase in temperature may only bring us up to the glory days of the Medevil Warm Period or even better the high the Holocene Climate Optimum. Both within this interglacial and neither with catastrophic results.
Andy| 11.25.09 @ 3:44AM
jeez, I don't know how you know this stuff, but it is damned impressive to a layman. I would like to hear your thoughts as to the finacial fallout. In fact, I have a number of questions. Perhaps you could help ( nothing scientific - I don't know beans about models, testing methods or feedback.)
Jeff the Thinker| 11.25.09 @ 9:11AM
My background is Financial. Like Steve McIntyre the science of Climate Change is a hobby. I understand economics very well and picking apart graphs is easy. Most advocates of Climate Change science are completely out of their league on economics and used old anti-capitalist rhetoric. I would rather be debating Stern or Krugman as most of what they say on the intersection of climate and economics is skewed. To be sure, it is easy to beat up on a few hippies, but I knew there were always nitwits on both sides of any debate and I wanted to go to the core of the science which is: How can we prove that Mankind is warming the climate and will it be catastrophic?
For those that might read this and think I'm locked into some ideological opinion, I am not. In fact I have always advocated taxing stuff not transactions. So shift taxes to extraction (royalties) and carbon taxes and away from income. Simplify the tax code. Cap and Trade is so horribly flawed and uninforcible that it if ever pases it will make Income Taxes look as simple as PayPal. Because I knew Cap & Trade and Koyoto & Copenhagen and all these things would fail I really wanted to find out for sure how dangerous carbon loading of the atmosphere would be.
Thinker the Hut| 11.25.09 @ 11:19AM
Pretty easy actually. You have to do is look at the numbers as the alarmists present them and understand that they are the product of every favorable assumption that can be applied. Historical temperature records are ABSOLUTELY NOT accurate records of validated data. Rather they are loosey goosey, laden with assumption and yet even at that paint only lukewarm doom scenarios. Simply by applying RATIONAL assumptions Jeff is able to discern what we all know to be true: net warming over the last century is almost negligible.
Jeff I'm glad you did leave "positive feedbacks" out of the conversation. Clearly you are due more credit that "the world's leading scientists" for understanding that there is no such thing as a perpetual energy machine. Perhaps it is possible to claim positive feedbacks based on how you balance your energy equations. But that is just bookkeeping. However using this bait and switch to try to claim some NET positive energy at the end of the day is the greatest lie ever told. Unless you are rewriting the laws of thermodynamics of course. You obviously didn't drink that Kool-Aid.
Thanks to both of you for a realistic perspective...
Jeff the Thinker| 11.25.09 @ 1:32PM
I often allow for a possible positive feedback of ice albedo because one can easily make the case that when the glaciers reached the 49th Parallel they had the capacity to reflect a lot more of suns rays because of the angle with the sun also the sun has to pass through less atmosphere then at the sharper angel at the polls. Infared essentially works the same way whether at the poles or equator. But seasonal ice at the polls will be the case as long as the sun don't shine for several months. This would be an explanation for why climate shifts could be more dramatic at lower temperatures than high ones. However, having the assumption that water creates a positive feedback loop means you have to explain why through all of history with CO2 levels 10 times higher than today why did the earth not tip and spiral out of control. The more positive feedbacks you put in the tougher that arguement gets. You are exactly right that over and over again, the so called consensus scientist continue to take whatever end of the range that makes their case so that the end product becomes virtually impossible.
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 6:40PM
Climate Change Proven a Hoax - Leaked emails say 'Doctor the Data' | The Telecrap Uri links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 6:59PM
Do We Get Our Money Back? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Joseph A Olson, PE| 11.24.09 @ 7:55PM
It is very important to put the century old carbon warming fraud in perspective....please read "Strange Tale of Green House Gas Gang" and "One Pleasant Day in Runnymede"....now that enough dots are visible it is easy to extrapolate the AGW position to it's ultimate goal....destruction of freedom and euginics for ALL.....
West Houston| 11.24.09 @ 8:15PM
Quoting: L. Ross| 11.24.09 @ 11:24AM
"I had to give up on Scientific American years ago."
Commenting: Likewise. I kept my Astronomy and signed up for Analog again. They - unlike SA- label fiction as fiction.
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 9:03PM
AGW Twofer: CBS Reports The CRU Scandal Truthfully and CEI Files Papers To Sue NASA « links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
oracle2world| 11.24.09 @ 10:59PM
I like warm weather.
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 11:54PM
ClimateGate Blasts Open! | Be John Galt links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
HOAX!| 11.25.09 @ 12:23AM
Suing is not good enough. Al Gore and the whole IPCC panel should be thrown in jail for perpetrating the biggest hoax since War of the Worlds. TREASON!
Jeff| 11.29.09 @ 6:49PM
Ed, I saw the same pattern and did the same. It was a great publication that I subscribe to for more than ten years.
Jeff| 11.29.09 @ 6:54PM
Hoax!, no give them due process then toss in jail paint Alcatraz green. Should also include the NASA bunch, "science czar" Holdren, Al Gore and fellow travelers should be be criminally prosecuted as well.
George Kimball| 11.25.09 @ 1:28AM
I'm glad to see there are people in this world who have not swallowed the swill generated by the GW crowd.
This link is more technical about the science, but is also full of rancorous, gung-ho liberal promoters. If any of y'all take a stroll over there do the world a favor and leave a few shots at the offenders. People from this blog will be appalled at the level of authoritarianism passed off as science.
http://www.amazon.com/tag/scie.....tagsDetail
Pingback| 11.25.09 @ 6:26AM
Climate Gate – Last News For 11/25/2009 | Renewable Energy Sources - Photovoltaic, Ge links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.25.09 @ 6:49AM
Gateway Pundit links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.25.09 @ 7:01AM
Climategate May Spur Lawsuit Against NASA for Denied Information Requests links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Mike the Skeptic | 11.25.09 @ 7:45AM
I also am a steadfast disciple of the Denialist religion. No amount of scientific evidence will ever convince me that humans are causing this supposed 'global warming'. I simply do not want to believe it. Nothing shall shake my faith.
DublDs| 11.25.09 @ 11:01AM
Been there, done that Mike.
To deny means to willingly refuse to honor a request, opinion or assertion. A good example of this is when you ask someone proposing an end of the world theory to disclose their data and methods, and that person chooses to hide behind bureaucracy, attack the requestor, and skirt the law to DENY you the opportunity to verify that their theory isn't a total fabrication. That is denial. We call that other part that we do scientific integrity. Its a little more complex. It involves experimentation, disclosure, valid data collection, reproducibility and the ability to separate computer simulations from planets. And demanding the same from others of course.
But I understand this is a a lot to wrap your pea brain around. Stick to the sloganeering if it helps you get through your life uninjured...
Artruen| 11.29.09 @ 12:12AM
Uh, Mike, uh, unlike the True Believers such as yourself, people who never bought in to the GW hoax have no faith to shake. Mull that over in your giant brain.
Pingback| 11.25.09 @ 8:56AM
Birds of a feather? – Counting Cats in Zanzibar links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Doug Hayden | 11.25.09 @ 9:05AM
AL GORE debates ClimateGate.....
...well, what it MIGHT look like if he actually DID! LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2iXYyYljmE
Enjoy!
Insanity Island -
Leaders in the Conservative Cartoon REVOLUTION!
Pingback| 11.25.09 @ 10:23AM
Hacked Emails from GW Advocacy Group; "Hide the Decline" - Politics and Other Controv links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.25.09 @ 10:29AM
What Do Climate Change and Health Policy Scholarship Have in Common? Nothing, We Hope links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.25.09 @ 10:32AM
hahahahaha *pause* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA - Page 3 - My Les Paul Forums links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
DublDs| 11.25.09 @ 10:42AM
Have Booker and Milloy no pity. I was checking out RealClimate last night, and Gavin is clearly on suicide watch. He's still there playing the game but his comments comments clearly indicate a man whose entire world has caved in on top of him.
I asked him why modeling climate to predict temperatures was preferable to modeling TEMPERATURES to predict temperatures, being as how modeling climate is much more complicated and not verifiably more accurate. Swear to god, his only response was to aske me to cite my sources. Clearly he has fully retreated to a safe place in his mind.
But I'm sure this lawsuit won't stick. I mean what is wrong with manipulating publicly funded data then advocating the manipulation on your blog from work while censoring dissenting opinions in order to divert money and public opinion to a anti-capitalist agenda? Do the fun police have to ruin EVERYTHING.
Guys like this can't have enough bad shit happen to them. They are leeches...
Pingback| 11.25.09 @ 12:04PM
Your Trusty Guide To Climategate | Right Soup links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
JLK| 11.25.09 @ 1:39PM
Just another kudo to Jeff.
I am also steeped in economics and as opposed to science have studied history and psychology as important adjuncts to the "Dismal Science". I became a skeptic when I closely observed who were pushing the "Science" of AGW and what were their motivations.
When BO became POTUS and "Cap and Trade" had an outside chance of becoming relity I began to tick off who was behind the legislation and who wasn't. When I saw the likes of GE and Goldman Sachs lining up I knew the fix was in. (GE was in line to become the Cap and Trade market makers for some reason) And this on top of the geopolitical wealth transfers being pushed by the hucksters at UN IPCC , Al Gore making multi-millions, the Hollywood idiots posing in their Prius' on their way to private jets et. al.
The pity is that these "Scientists" while smart guys were political naifs with no understanding of the kind of political whirlwind they would create by sewing cooked data. This scientific black eye is a travesty for all the ethical and hard working people out there whose integrity will be called into question whenever they publish or posit findings.
JLK
Ed| 11.25.09 @ 1:42PM
I used to like to read Science News. This is a weekly publication that summarizes the current goings-on in science; good for keeping up on new advances in science. But I noticed, and this was several years ago, that they too had began to politicize their reporting, especially as it related to global warming. I stopped taking the publication after the trial subscription ran out because of that. It used to be a good publication.
Pingback| 11.25.09 @ 4:51PM
Climate change scam uncovered? - Page 5 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Douglas Watts | 11.26.09 @ 2:05AM
It is axiomatic that you cannot rely upon the exact same temperature dataset that you declare is fraudulent as proof that the planet is cooling.
Or to put it as a theorem:
1. The right wing has been swearing up and down for the past 10 years that all of the data shows the planet is cooling.
2. The right wing is now swearing up and down that a vast worldwide conspiracy of scientists have deliberately falsified this same set data to show planet is warming.
If no. 1 is true, then no. 2 cannot be true.
If no. 2 is true, then no. 1 cannot be true.
Which is it?
Artruen| 11.29.09 @ 12:22AM
Is the debate in regards to the GW Hoax between the "right wing" and "scientists". Are you saying it is political? Well, gee whiz, who would of thought that?
Bart Verheggen | 11.26.09 @ 9:47AM
Only those whose ideological glasses are a few inches thick will get their predetermined notion of widespread fraud confirmed.
What do you do if you don’t agree with the science (or with the perceived political implications thereof), but don’t have any real evidence to back up your position?
You could try breaking in the computer system of a renowned institute, to then release the stolen emails and documents via internet. If your catch is big enough, there will surely be something that could be spun to embarrass the scientists in question (and, by extension, discredit the whole field). Especially emails written before they had their morning coffee serve that purpose really well.
Janice| 11.27.09 @ 4:57PM
Waaah, waaah, waaah! More liberal whining. Beta males like you sicken me.
Artruen| 11.29.09 @ 12:26AM
It did not expect to find the dumbest post of the thread so far down, but Bart, you exceed expectations! Go have some morning coffee!
Jim Steele| 11.26.09 @ 11:48AM
Is this Godfather III: "The higher I go, the crookeder it becomes.” ?
Several years ago for personal interest I was searching journal articles for paleoclimate studies that addressed changes in solar activity. I remember reading 2 articles(I hope to find them again) with abstracts that strongly suggested there was an AGW gatekeeper effect for that journal.
Abstracts concisely summarize the study and list the important findings. That’s it. But at the end of these abstracts they would include a disclaimer saying that their study did not contradict the attribution of CO2 for the current warming trend. This was highly unusual. Their studies had nothing to do with CO2 and the editor should have eliminated that last disclaimer.
I would try to have discussions with the scientists at RealClimate but they would selectively delete any posts that they couldn’t dismiss. I was astounded. If these scientists would manipulate a public website (that I mistakenly thought was to help all people understand climate science) where such manipulation was more visible, what would they do behind closed doors.
Later at the AAAS meetings in San Francisco, either the editor of Science and/or the president of AAAS got up and said “there is no more debate” regards AGW. I was becoming more deeply concerned that the very foundation of science -the debating of methodology, results and conclusions -was being discarded and abused because science had become so politicized.
I wonder how high this whole climate gate will go. There is a strong effort to play this down as if nothing has happened but clearly there have been attempts by the major players in climate science to exert tyrannical control over the scientific process. The orchestrated attempts to spread the memes of “the consensus agreement” and “there is no more debate” is not only revealed in the hacked emails, but in the words of editors and abstracts that have disclaimers.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Phil Jones quickly becomes the sacrificial pig, to try and avoid further investigations. They have shown obvious disdain for the scientific process and an important tenet of democracy the Freedom of Information acts. I suspect the “higher we look the crookeder it becomes”. I would bet any journal that allowed (required?) an abstract disclaimer, can be linked to these Climate Gate manipulators. I hope Monbiot calls further investigation and not just Jones’ resignation.
Pingback| 11.26.09 @ 7:10PM
Uwe’s weblog » Blog Archive » Our Global Crisis is Politics not Climate Change links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.27.09 @ 2:47AM
Cimategate in the News 27-Nov-2009 « Aude Sapere links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.27.09 @ 7:57AM
high fashion accessories Wholesalesarong.com by wholesales on You … | Accessories Bea links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Swiss Bob | 11.27.09 @ 10:07AM
Good stuff.
Sadly, it's almost impossible to sue people like this in the UK, if you can, make sure to add the UK researchers to any lawsuits. We have a nice new extradition treaty that should make it easy.
We also follow developments in this field and have recently posted on CERN's experiments related to Cosmic Rays and cloud formation, the new experiment should be conclusive, no new legislation should be passed until these results are known.
Pingback| 11.27.09 @ 12:17PM
Climategate update: The Whitewash « StasiNation links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Gordon Chamberlain| 11.27.09 @ 1:28PM
With the Chinese, Indians, and Russians now colluding with the democrats to fool people that GHG are having an effect on our planets climate the conservatives must be feeling quite lonely and paranoid. Maybe your should look in the mirror about the lies George W told you about WMD in Iraq. A nation addicted to oil by the once great Global Menacing Corporation GMC was fooled millions that squandering the world oil supply, pumping our more toxins and greenhouse gases was economically, environmentally, ethically and emotionally sustainable. I imagine many conservatives still believe corporations don’t need to be regulated and peak oil productions is also a communist, socialist, liberal, democratic threat to the gluttonous unsustainable, unethical values they hold dear. Boy are you in for a surprise
Lanie| 11.27.09 @ 4:54PM
Geez, dude, I knew some liberal would try to blame this stupid leftist climate-change hoax/scandal on the evil Boooosh! You people are insane; there aren't enough rubber rooms to hold all of you lunatics. What losers! Hahaha!
Artruen| 11.29.09 @ 12:33AM
Gordo, my, uh, man? You dumb enough to think the Chinese are going to give up fossil fuels because it makes you feel good? Yeah. That will happen. It may be politically expedient for them to encourage us to do so, kind of eliminates a whole lot of global competition, now doesn't it? You wanna go live in a grass hut, go ahead, truth is we live about 40% longer than we did a hundred years ago.
Pingback| 11.28.09 @ 3:31AM
Paul Murphy mobile edition links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jack| 11.28.09 @ 5:58AM
I never paid much attention to the Warming theory.
I thought it was a distraction to keep weaker minds out of trouble. Yes I went to a public university, there was a lot of odd behavior there.
When I learned that our politicians were going to do something about it with the money they take from me, then I started paying attention.
God bless the hackers that did this. Ideally this will prevent our neophyte president from doing anything rash in Denmark.
Forrest| 11.28.09 @ 8:24AM
You couldn’t beat this scandal with a hockey stick, or maybe you could.
I’m collecting data to create a model, to predict just how the dominoes are going to fall; of course I’ll be fair and eliminate any inconvenient data to insure an inconvenient outcome.
Did the wheels come off the BIO-FUEL bus or did Al Gore just throw someone under it?
Not many jobs out there for discredited global warming scientist are there?
Thank you Al Gore, for inventing the internet and it’s incriminating E-MAILS.
Just sayin!
Pingback| 11.28.09 @ 4:32PM
Steynian 399 « Free Canuckistan! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
M Btok| 11.29.09 @ 4:32PM
By now most of us in the alternative media are aware of the some 61 megabytes of global warming research data of emails, documents, and computer code released by whistleblowers (or hackers), that have exposed climate scientists, at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain, as the frauds they’ve proven themselves to be.
This decade of emails and documents clearly concludes that global warming scientists have manipulated scientific data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures; and the fact that, there has been no statistically significant global warming for fifteen years, but our world has experienced a rapid and significant cooling for nine years.
So breath-taking has been this leaked data, to date, it has produced some startling headlines in the alternative media!
Now, these global warming scientists, who have been so severely exposed for the frauds they are, are crying, “Persecution!”. While their own emails prove they have been very busy planning how best to get tenured professors fired, who will not shallow the rotten fish of anthropogenic global warming, how to black-ball them from scientific journals, and prevent them from participating in the peer-review process.
Persecution? No, prosecution in a criminal court of law is what they deserve.
Even Obama’s Climate Czar, John P. Holdren has been exposed, by these emails, for the fraud he is, proving Holdren’s avid global warming advocacy has been more driven by politics than science.
http://www.infowars.com/climat.....ate-media/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
jeff| 11.29.09 @ 6:36PM
Add Science News and New scientist to the list of global warming promoters. I dropped my subscription after seeing a long string of BS articles. Unfortunate as so may good science are offered as well. Criminal prosecution for the lead scientist, Al gore and followers, paint Alcatraz green and put them in it.
Dan| 11.30.09 @ 4:22PM
Outstanding! Go get 'em, Chris! The lid needs to be blown off this whole sorry scam, not only to save the US economy from the imposition of billions of dollars in totally unnecessary costs, but also as an object lesson to future generations of how the scientific process can be hijacked and perverted in order to advance pre-set political agendas.
Trackback| 12.1.09 @ 1:30AM
fix bad credit, on fix bad credit, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lara| 12.1.09 @ 12:28PM
NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) are paid for with the money and lagesse of the citizens of the US. The data does not belong to NASA, it belongs to the citizens of the United States. If Nasa does not wish to share data we should de-fund them and look for a legal approach to forcing the data out of them. QAfter that is done, NASA needs new management. The people who are running NASA now are pushing global warming because it brings them more money, making NASA essentially a whore. I don't trust them on this matter, they are complices. Somebody needs to go to jail. They have lied, manipulated data, propogated lies about their data, schemed to control the data, threatened anyone who disagrees with them. This is a nasty bunch of people. Theese so-called "scientists" who destroyed data, fudged data and outright lied. This is the biggest fraud of all times . The amount of money spent on this endevour is absolutley assinine.Somebody needs to go to jail.
Patrick| 12.1.09 @ 2:33PM
Hi
Yes the program analysing the data are modified to ignore any decline.
I have 0 years of programming as a professional and this shows forgery!
I downloaded the eMails and the various programs hacked from the university read the eMails and started to analyze the programs used to produce the temperature analysis results. It appears that these programs have been purposedly modified to hide cooling periods!
Here are some extracts of these programs with the comments put by these 'scientists' in the source code:
------
; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
loadct,39
def_1color,20,color='red'
plot,[0,1]
multi_plot,nrow=4,layout='large'
if !d.name eq 'X' then begin
Note: Here we see that clearly an artificial correction is applied.
Here is the result of a search for the occurrence of 'decline' in all the source code available. The line containing the word decline is preceded by
the file name of the Fortran (Fortan is the programming language used by thee guys) module. These programs are used to analyse the series of data produced b temperature probes from all over the world and produce human readable result especially temperature curves. All the programs are modified so any decline of temperature becomes invisible. I personally find it very choking as the carbon taxes are voted in the belief of global warming and I intend to show that in fact it is a scam, ran by scientist, who do it to get the credits for their own benefit.
File harris-tree\briffa_sep98_e.pro:
7 ;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
File harris-tree\calibrate_nhrecon.pro:
6 ; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
File harris-tree\recon1.pro:
7 ; the decline
File harris-tree\recon2.pro:
8 ; the decline
File harris-tree\recon_esper.pro:
7 ; the decline
File harris-tree\recon_jones.pro:
8 ; the decline
File harris-tree\recon_mann.pro:
12 ; the decline
File harris-tree\recon_overpeck.pro:
9 ; the decline
File harris-tree\recon_tornyamataim.pro:
8 ; the decline
File osborn-tree3\nature_comb.pro:
238 ; title='!5Ring density decline!3'
419 ; title='!5Ring width decline!3'
File osborn-tree3\nature_comb_large.pro:
237 ; title='!5Ring density decline!3'
429 ; title='!5Ring width decline!3'
File osborn-tree5\briffa_fellow1.pro:
198 ; Now overlay instrumental curve to show the decline
File osborn-tree5\pages_fig3.pro:
187 ; Now overlay instrumental curve to show the decline
File osborn-tree5\recon1.pro:
6 ; the decline
File osborn-tree6\analyse_mxdmoncorr.pro:
7 ; ALSO computes correlations after smoothing (to identify the decline).
File osborn-tree6\analyse_trwmoncorr.pro:
17 ; ALSO computes correlations after smoothing (to identify the decline).
File osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro:
32 ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
52 ; 'Northern Hemisphere MXD corrected for decline'],$
File osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_decline1.pro:
7 ; Results are then saved for briffa_sep98_decline2.pro to perform rotated PCA
8 ; on, to obtain the 'decline' signal!
146 save,filename='briffa_sep98_decline1.idlsave',$
File osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_decline2.pro:
3 ; correctly normalised etc. Rotated PCA is performed to obtain the 'decline'
8 restore,filename='briffa_sep98_decline1.idlsave'
File osborn-tree6\combined_wavelet.pro:
18 ; Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)
File osborn-tree6\combined_wavelet_col.pro:
18 ; Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)
File osborn-tree6\mann\mxdgrid2ascii.pro:
103 printf,1,'NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY'
File osborn-tree6\mann\mxd_eof_rotate.pro:
3 ; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
12 usedecline=1 ; 0=uncorrected 1=decline-corrected
21 if usedecline eq 1 then fdcalibu=fdcalibc
91 if usedecline eq 0 then ttt='' else ttt=' (corrected)'
145 if usedecline eq 0 then fn=fn+'una' else fn=fn+'adj'
154 usedecline,useper,usecorr,nretain,userot
File osborn-tree6\mann\mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro:
7 ; since they won't be used due to the decline/correction problem.
44 ; usedecline,useper,userot
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\calibrate_correctmxd.pro:
5 ; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
74 ; should be identical prior to 1920 or 1930 or whenever the decline
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\calibrate_mxd.pro:
7 ; Due to the decline, all time series are first high-pass filter with a
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\funct_decline.pro:
1 pro funct_decline,x,a,f,pder
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.pro:
10 if yrstart gt 1937 then message,'Plotting into the decline period!'
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.pro:
10 if yrstart gt 1937 then message,'Plotting into the decline period!'
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro:
10 if yrstart gt 1937 then message,'Plotting into the decline period!'
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\mxd_eof_rotate.pro:
3 ; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
12 usedecline=1 ; 0=uncorrected 1=decline-corrected
21 if usedecline eq 1 then fdcalibu=fdcalibc
91 if usedecline eq 0 then ttt='' else ttt=' (corrected)'
145 if usedecline eq 0 then fn=fn+'una' else fn=fn+'adj'
154 usedecline,useper,usecorr,nretain,userot
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro:
7 ; since they won't be used due to the decline/correction problem.
42 ; usedecline,useper,userot
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\mxd_pcr_modesslp.pro:
45 ; mxdyear,nretain,usefilt,usecorr,usedecline,useper,userot,thalf
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\mxd_stp_modes.pro:
14 ; usedecline,useper,userot
85 ; Leading mode is contaminated by decline, so pre-filter it (but not
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\olat_stp_modes.pro:
87 ; Leading mode is contaminated by decline, so pre-filter it (but not
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\pl_calibmxd4.pro:
3 ; calibmxd4 has calibration done on both decline-corrected and uncorrected
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\pl_decline.pro:
2 ; Plots density 'decline' as a time series of the difference between
85 ; Now fit a 2nd degree polynomial to the decline series, and then extend
92 declinets=fltarr(mxdnyr)*!values.f_nan
99 declinets(kkk)=cval
105 function_name='funct_decline')
107 declinets(kkk)=vval(*)
109 oplot,mxdyear,declinets,thick=5
174 ; Now apply I completely artificial adjustment for the decline
177 tfac=declinets-cval
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\pl_mxd_stp_modes.pro:
20 ; usedecline,useper,userot
File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\testeof.pro:
3 ; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
12 usedecline=1 ; 0=uncorrected 1=decline-corrected
21 if usedecline eq 1 then fdcalibu=fdcalibc
93 if usedecline eq 0 then ttt='' else ttt=' (corrected)'
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\brambatti_f6ab.pro:
2 ; Plots density 'decline' as a time series of the difference between
104 ; Now fit a 2nd degree polynomial to the decline series, and then extend
111 declinets=fltarr(mxdnyr)*!values.f_nan
118 declinets(kkk)=cval
124 function_name='funct_decline')
126 declinets(kkk)=vval(*)
128 ;oplot,mxdyear,declinets,thick=5
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\calibrate_correctmxd.pro:
5 ; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
76 ; should be identical prior to 1920 or 1930 or whenever the decline
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\calibrate_mxd.pro:
7 ; Due to the decline, all time series are first high-pass filter with a
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4alps.pro:
72 printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
74 printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro:
65 printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
67 printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\funct_decline_matchvar.pro:
1 pro funct_decline_matchvar,x,a,f,pder
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\funct_decline_regress.pro:
1 pro funct_decline_regress,x,a,f,pder
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\maps12.pro:
10 if yrstart gt 1937 then message,'Plotting into the decline period!'
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\maps15.pro:
14 if doyr[0] gt 1937 then message,'Plotting into the decline period!'
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\maps24.pro:
13 if yrstart gt 1937 then message,'Plotting into the decline period!'
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\maps_general.pro:
59 if ndec gt 0 then message,'Plotting into the decline period!'
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\mxd_eof_rotate.pro:
3 ; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
12 usedecline=1 ; 0=uncorrected 1=decline-corrected
21 if usedecline eq 1 then fdcalibu=fdcalibc
91 if usedecline eq 0 then ttt='' else ttt=' (corrected)'
145 if usedecline eq 0 then fn=fn+'una' else fn=fn+'adj'
154 usedecline,useper,usecorr,nretain,userot
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro:
7 ; since they won't be used due to the decline/correction problem.
44 ; usedecline,useper,userot
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\mxd_pcr_modesslp.pro:
66 ; mxdyear,nretain,usefilt,usecorr,usedecline,useper,userot,thalf
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\mxd_stp_modes.pro:
16 ; usedecline,useper,userot
91 ; Leading mode is contaminated by decline, so pre-filter it (but not
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\olat_stp_modes.pro:
87 ; Leading mode is contaminated by decline, so pre-filter it (but not
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\pl_calibmxd4.pro:
3 ; calibmxd4 has calibration done on both decline-corrected and uncorrected
146 title=panlab[jpan]+'Verification RE (decline-adjusted)'
259 title=panlab[jpan]+slopetit+' (decline-adjusted & infilled)'
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\pl_decline.pro:
2 ; Plots density 'decline' as a time series of the difference between
10 ;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
11 ; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***
16 ; 2=do go on and produce a new data set with adjustment for decline
200 ; Now fit a 2nd degree polynomial to the decline series, and then extend
207 declinets=fltarr(mxdnyr)*!values.f_nan
214 declinets(kkk)=cval
222 function_name='funct_decline'+funcadd)
224 declinets(kkk)=vval(*)
226 oplot,mxdyear,declinets,thick=5
300 ; Now apply a completely artificial adjustment for the decline
303 tfac=declinets-cval
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\pl_mxd_stp_modes.pro:
23 ; usedecline,useper,userot
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\testeof.pro:
3 ; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
12 usedecline=1 ; 0=uncorrected 1=decline-corrected
21 if usedecline eq 1 then fdcalibu=fdcalibc
93 if usedecline eq 0 then ttt='' else ttt=' (corrected)'
File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\old\calibrate_mxd.pro:
7 ; Due to the decline, all time series are first high-pass filter with a
Pingback| 12.3.09 @ 6:20PM
Climatgate. It's on now. - Page 14 - Benzworld.org - Mercedes-Benz Discussion Forum links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.3.09 @ 6:28PM
Hacked Emails from GW Advocacy Group; "Hide the Decline" - Politics and Other Controv links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.3.09 @ 6:34PM
Man-Made Global Warming, I don't go to that church. - Page 22 - Christian Forums links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.3.09 @ 6:38PM
Climatgate. It's on now. - Page 14 - Benzworld.org - Mercedes-Benz Discussion Forum links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
ClimageGate Czar| 12.3.09 @ 11:42PM
The email climategate scandal has peeled open an insightful view into the strange and criminal world that so called scientists manipulating climate data have inhabited for nearly half of my lifetime. The email tells a sordid tale of corruption and racketeering and alone is damning enough. But of the contents that were leaked on the server, 95% of the materials were source code. Source code that can be analyzed and evaluated for discrepancies and oddities.
And the tale the source tells is even worse. It isn't just clear that criminal activity exists, it is without a doubt. No hack programmer that is worth his salt can ignore this outrageous attempt to code their way into the biggest global scam in history. Check out the source, it's on many sites, but this one describes it quite nicely:
http://www.americanthinker.com.....ate_r.html
That, my friends, is a smoking gun... and is more than enough evidence to put the whole lot of the culprits in any one of a number of nation prisons for quite some time.
Now onto the next logical step. Who in the current administration, house of representatives, senate and other federal institutions had a hand in this. Their email needs to be peeled open as well. We need to see the publicly paid for servants email to determine if they were in on this collusion. Any organization that has anything to do with global warming, climate change or environmental studies needs to open up their servers and materials for full evaluation so an audit can be conducted to find out who is responsible for this horrific crime against humanity. Trillions of dollars have been spent, lifetimes of opportunities have been forgone, and continuous harassment of the general population has been all a part of this farce and the individuals responsible need to be held in account for it.
Contact everyone you know and let them know that this we need to get our public servants to start serving the public.
Pingback| 12.4.09 @ 5:35AM
Climategate Jumps the Pond: NASA Continues to Stonewall on FOIA Requests « NewsReal B links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.4.09 @ 1:37PM
Climategate: Links & Videos « Infoblog Media links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.5.09 @ 2:41AM
Climate Alarmists Are Lying | We Are Change Utah links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.5.09 @ 2:30PM
Chris Horner Sues NASA? NASA Hidden Data: ClimateGate NASA FOIA « Daily News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.5.09 @ 3:48PM
NASA Faces FOI Lawsuit Over Climate Data - Pelican Parts Technical BBS links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
ACE65| 12.5.09 @ 7:18PM
Our government funded entities (outside of national security) should post all information for public review or lose funding. The fact that they have been operating in secrete and releasing only cherry picked data is not in the public's interest. This is how corruption continues to grow.
Pingback| 12.6.09 @ 12:37PM
Is Global Warming Unstoppable? - Page 15 - PriusChat Forums links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.7.09 @ 9:45AM
30,000 scientists sue Al Gore! - Political Forum links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
andrew| 12.7.09 @ 5:06PM
Go get the raw information! I hope it is a crime in the US (as it is in the UK) to destroy information after a FOIA request.
As someone wisely said, it is the continual drip drip which will bring the whole thing crashing down (like Watergate).
The electorate may not understand detailed scientific arguments but they do understand skulduggery, forgery, lying to obtain money, suppression of the truth and suppression of adverse criticism.
The Australian Senate have thrown out their cap and tax bill. I believe a similar measure is before the US Senate; will they throw it out? I also believe anything Obama signs up to in Copenhagen has to be ratified by the US Senate as a foreign treaty? Will your Senate refuse to ratify it?
Just to say you are not alone - people all round the world think in similar terms.
I have asked the UK Met Office if they plan to redo the whole research all over again from the raw data so catastrophically handled by the University of East Anglia. I have received an acknowledgement but no full reply. One article in the UK press indicated they had resolved to do this (taking 3 years!) but were receiving political pressure not to.
If you are interested you ccan e-mail them- the e-mail address is on their website.
Pingback| 12.9.09 @ 8:11PM
Climategate: Wiki Distortion and Censorship? | LILA RAJIVA: The Mind-Body Politic links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bill Ostby| 12.10.09 @ 9:40AM
GLACIERS, Check http://www.bre.museum.no
Jostedalsbreen in Norway is the largest i Europe with an area of 487 km2 and about 80 km long. In many areas the ice is over 500 m thick.
The museum at the site showed the results of research into it's history. The glacier dissappeared completely sometime between the ice age and year 1700 when it started to form again and destroyed farms in the valley. When I wisited in the 1990ies it was still growing.
>Cars and power plants caused this before year 1700??!!
Pingback| 12.12.09 @ 4:13PM
Climate-gate: Science not faked, but not pretty - Politics and Other Controversies - links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.13.09 @ 11:14AM
Climate-gate: Science not faked, but not pretty - Politics and Other Controversies - links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.13.09 @ 11:16AM
Climate-gate: Science not faked, but not pretty - Politics and Other Controversies - links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 2.4.10 @ 7:02PM
acai berry power, on acai berry power, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Vehicle trackers | 2.8.10 @ 4:30AM
Thanks for the information, we should all mind about this.
Pingback| 2.10.10 @ 1:36PM
Where are the snows of yesteryear? | NewsReal Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.18.10 @ 7:51PM
CEI’s Horner: NASA, GISS Just As Corrupt As CRU « SOYLENT GREEN links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.29.10 @ 11:20PM
Climate? How Things Have Changed… Part III « The Simple Facts links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.29.10 @ 11:37PM
Climate? How Things Have Changed… Part III at The Simple Facts links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
pamela| 4.13.10 @ 11:31PM
Just to say you are not alone - people all round the world think in similar terms. monkeybriefs
pamela| 4.21.10 @ 2:59AM
I had to give up on Scientific American years ago. They seem to have become another advocacy arm of the democratic party. Try Sky and Telescope instead. Way to nerdy to be political. Download ludacris mp3
makita | 4.23.10 @ 1:50PM
makita cordless drillsmakita drill
pamela| 4.23.10 @ 11:42PM
However, having the assumption that water creates a positive feedback loop means you have to explain why through all of history with CO2 levels 10 times higher than today why did the earth not tip and spiral out of control. The more positive feedbacks you put in the tougher that arguement gets. online fax review
pricila| 4.26.10 @ 1:18AM
Vermont because talking to the 3 stooges representing us is useless. Amazing that the show "V" happened to come out at this time. Wake up America, the lizards want you for breakfast. ecommerce
jane| 4.26.10 @ 11:20PM
They are the trendy products of nike,and they are loved by most people internet fax
ugg online | 7.22.10 @ 4:19AM
thanks for sharing this web information.
auckland hotel | 12.7.10 @ 3:31AM
Great post..loving it
dff | 4.5.11 @ 9:53PM
Create astonishing iCal-like calendars with jQuery Similar to the iPhone Calendar application, with event description that shows up on
mouse hover. The trickiest part is making your images ghd seamless and using a
single image for all the graphics whenever possible to decrease download time. Check out the demo here.