Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 25th, 2009 #41
Anne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,760
Anne
Default

Global warming is based on junk science. It's an opportunity for the gov't to get more control of your life.

http://greenhellblog.com/ A recent book that exposes the scam.
__________________
Momma tried to raise me better.
 
Old August 25th, 2009 #42
Anne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,760
Anne
Default

Whites are encouraged to embrace the Global Warming religion, because then they'll be more willing to make sacrifices in their lifestyles instead of fighting against the third world invasion and the NWO.
__________________
Momma tried to raise me better.
 
Old October 11th, 2009 #43
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News


Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.


Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.


In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
 
Old October 20th, 2009 #44
Fuzzy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 155
Default

If Global Warming exists why are the Antarctic Ice sheets getting thicker?

If the myth of Global Warming was true, the Antarctic ice sheets would be reducing in depth.
 
Old October 26th, 2009 #45
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Global-Warming Crusade

by George Giles

The Global-Warming Crusade has been prosecuted vociferously for more than 20 years. Far too many scientists have jumped on this politically hot topic and its corollary public-grant-funding potential. An intragovernmental body has been created for this. This entity called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been created to lend legitimacy to this fraud. Taxpayers from all over the globe have been, and will continue to be bilked to put up this large and slick monument to questionable science. The site has made copious amounts of material available for free. By all means download it, don't buy any of these ponderous tomes; save some trees.

I have been a critic of this effort for almost 20 years. Global Warming is a massive threat to humanity, so the story goes, such that only massive and dramatic government intervention can save us from its "effects." This intervention would come as socialist policies designed to cripple the economies of capitalist countries whose carbon dioxide emissions (it is alleged) are turning the planet in a pressure cooker.

My criticism takes two fronts of argument: firstly what mankind can do with all our technological wizardry is next to nothing compared to the immense forces of the natural world and secondly because I actually have some expertise in these types of mathematical models. I was critical of Al Gore's award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth before it was even released. I have offered a criticism that is both elementary to understand, and very simple that easily shows basic flaws in the data.

Ironically the world's foremost expert on Atmospheric Physics, MIT Professor Dr. Richard Lindzen has not participated in this charade (IPCC). He is a vigorous and vocal critic of this IPCC hype. Many others have realized that this farce was nothing more than a crude attempt to implement socialism and control of the economy via environmental regulation based on mendacious, uncritical, and fundamentally wrong interpretations of this "science."

I eschewed these models based upon years spent performing mathematical modeling on a variety of topics, one of them being, atmospheric physics. Lots of people are now recognizing that Global Warming does not exist. The temperature peaked in 1998 and things have been getting colder in the intervening years.

A bold theory has emerged from Dr. Henrik Svensmark that is actually experimentally verifiable. Dr. Svensmark's thesis is that cloud formation is a much more important climate driver for temperature change than carbon dioxide–type "greenhouse gases" whose concentrations change in the parts per million. It is bold because it is simple and easily verified.

Almost every human being has experience with temperature changes on a cloudy day. Cloudy days are inevitably cooler than sunny days. The answer is obvious: less of the sun's heat radiation gets to the surface. Clouds also serve to reflect significant amounts of the sun's radiation back into space.

What controls cloud formation? Global-warming advocates will say it is evaporation from the surface and the oceans. Any school boy can demonstrate the flaw in this argument. Pour water on your skin on a warm day and the evaporation cools the skin as it removes the heat of vaporization from the surface of the body. Humans depend on this (sweating) heat removal mechanism to survive. Thus warm temperatures will serve as a buffer for average temperature change if evaporation is considered as a forcing function.

Dr. Svensmark's excellent book The Chilling Stars exposits that ionized and high-energy particle absorption in the atmosphere is the pre-dominant mechanism for cloud formation. He has an impressive amount of detailed scientific evidence to prove this fact. It is based on literally hundreds, if not thousands, of independent experiments.

If you only buy one book on the global-warming/climate-change debate this is the one to procure. The science he lays out is compelling and is valid over time frames of hundreds of millions of years. Most of the global-warming debate centers on ice core experiments that look back in time for only a few hundred thousand years. This model has many flaws because the results are very sensitive to the mechanism of specimen collection and the particular gas analysis tools chosen.

High-Energy Physics is one of the most accurate scientific theories to date. A primary tool in this endeavor is the cloud chamber. The cloud chamber is a controlled volume of water vapor such that high-energy particles enter the chamber and leave trails characteristic of the type of particle and the energy of the particle. Cloud chambers have been used for more than a century and their physics is long-established and well-understood. Most detectors in high-energy physics derive much of their design from cloud change–type measurements. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator have detectors based upon these types of scattering principles.

The trail of high-energy particles in the cloud chamber show, unequivocally that high-energy particles streaming (what physicist's call flux) into the atmosphere form clouds in greater and lesser amounts corresponding to hotter and colder epochs of the planet's history.

What is the source of this particle flux? Threefold mainly, some stream from the sun (spaceweather.com), some from inside our galaxy the Milky Way, and the rest come from outside of the Milky Way from the myriad and incredibly violent events like black hole formation, accretion disk acceleration, magnetic flux tube formation and destruction, magnetar and quasar jets, etc. We live in a very docile and calm neighborhood in an immense volume of conditions very hostile to life as we understand it.

There is nothing that can be done about any of these three sources (except perhaps to call out the Oh-Oh-Squad); they stream down from all directions around the earth as they will. Most of these were created billions of years ago and are just now reaching the Earth. The conclusion then is that if Dr. Svensmark's theory is correct than global-warming/cooling is just another of Nature's characteristics that man can do little to control, so a debate and policy changes based upon this are feckless. The most rational thing we can do about climate change is to stop wasting taxpayer's money on dubious scientific programs that produce questionable data that lead to a foregone conclusion: socialism.

In closing let's review some unpleasant, but accepted historical facts. Some 600 million years ago the Earth was completely covered in ice that was a mile thick on average, No life existed here. The sun then, was about 10% younger than it is now so it was still on the same stellar evolutionary rung as currently. Only 100 million years later the snowball planet melted and life became abundant. This tells us that the planet can freeze, and the freeze can kill everything. Just 50 years ago the scientific consensus was that global cooling was the expected trend for the future not warming. An ice age on the scale of the one just 20,000 years ago caused glaciers to form as far south as Tennessee. Canada was completely smothered as were much of Russia and the northern half of Europe.

This most recent ice age would have dramatic effects on the human population; billions would die as food production plummeted. The planet can support less than 10% of the current population with subsistence farming as the technology of the day. Not to mention the fact that the most productive farmland on the planet would now be glaciated exacerbating this trend.

On the other hand what does a slight amount of global warming portend? The North Pole might completely melt. A significant part of the Antarctic ice shelf might also melt. This would raise average sea levels slightly. Oceans cover 2/3 of the planet's surface; the average depth of the ocean is about a mile. A rise in sea level of say 10 feet (much larger than expected) would change the shoreline for a lot of real estate that was put too close to the water anyway. It would not make much difference to mankind's ability to survive. Cropland would not be massively destroyed. Florida real estate would take a beating, but then it was never a good idea to overpopulate what is essentially a large sand bar.

If you go to a farm that is more than 100 years old you will almost never find that the farmhouse is in the valley or on the shoreline. Farmers were much too smart to make that mistake. They built on hilltops! Why? They learned the hard way about shifting shorelines, water and what it can do to your life and livelihood.

In closing let's just stop wasting breath on global warming, the science is of such poor a quality that it should be ignored. It is at its heart a mendacious attempt designed to strip prosperity from millions that have it and billions more that want it.

"Global-warming Political Science" is the product of an affluent society that allows a spoiled rich brat like Al Gore to get a Nobel Prize for telling un-truths. The American people fired him! He is currently unemployed and for a good reason; he has no job skills of any value, as would many of the "scientists" prosecuting the global-warming crusade if the market were free to choose.

We cannot predict weather accurately for more than a week, why should we allow the same predictions to be accepted for all of the future? The answer is we should not.

October 26, 2009

George Giles [send him mail] is the founder of the Gonzo School of Economics, the radical branch of Austrian Economic Theory. He was the youngest Republican ever elected in 1972 at age 17. You could be elected at age 17 if the office was not assumed until after age 18. It only took 3 months of local GOP meetings to become a virulent Libertarian ever after.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/giles/giles36.1.html
 
Old November 5th, 2009 #46
Tom McReen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,544
Tom McReen
Default Jew Monbiot throws hissy fit, jews jewily

Quote:
Clive James isn't a climate change sceptic, he's a sucker - but this may be the reason

George Monbiot
guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 November 2009 21.30 GMT

My fiercest opponents on global warming tend to be in their 60s and 70s. This offers a fascinating, if chilling, insight into human psychology.

There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.

A survey last month by the Pew Research Centre suggests that the proportion of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the world has been warming over the last few decades has fallen from 71% to 57% in just 18 months. Another survey, conducted in January by Rasmussen Reports, suggests that, due to a sharp rise since 2006, US voters who believe global warming has natural causes (44%) outnumber those who believe it is the result of human action (41%).

A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that man-made global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled last year. The Science Museum's Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they've seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1,006 people had endorsed it and 6,110 had rejected it. On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in the global warming category. Never mind that they've been torn to shreds by scientists and reviewers, they are beating the scientific books by miles. What is going on?

It certainly doesn't reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don't believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming that's raging on the internet and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals.

An American scientist I know suggests that these books and websites cater to a new literary market: people with room-temperature IQs. He didn't say whether he meant fahrenheit or centigrade. But this can't be the whole story. Plenty of intelligent people have also declared themselves sceptics.

One such is the critic Clive James. You could accuse him of purveying trite received wisdom, but not of being dumb. On Radio 4 a few days ago he delivered an essay about the importance of scepticism, during which he maintained that "the number of scientists who voice scepticism [about climate change] has lately been increasing". He presented no evidence to support this statement and, as far as I can tell, none exists. But he used this contention to argue that "either side might well be right, but I think that if you have a division on that scale, you can't call it a consensus. Nobody can meaningfully say that the science is in."

Had he bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing armies – climate scientists on one side, rightwing bloggers on the other – he too might have realised that the science is in. In, at any rate, to the extent that science can ever be, which is to say that the evidence for man-made global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer. I am constantly struck by the way in which people like James, who proclaim themselves sceptics, will believe any old claptrap that suits their views. Their position was perfectly summarised by a supporter of Ian Plimer (author of a marvellous concatenation of gibberish called Heaven and Earth), commenting on a recent article in the Spectator: "Whether Plimer is a charlatan or not, he speaks for many of us." These people aren't sceptics; they're suckers.

Such beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age. The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it's caused by humans, or that it's a serious problem. This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?

There are some obvious answers: they won't be around to see the results; they were brought up in a period of technological optimism; they feel entitled, having worked all their lives, to fly or cruise to wherever they wish. But there might also be a less intuitive reason, which shines a light into a fascinating corner of human psychology.

In 1973 the cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker proposed that the fear of death drives us to protect ourselves with "vital lies" or "the armour of character". We defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortality projects, which boost our self-esteem and grant us meaning that extends beyond death. More than 300 studies conducted in 15 countries appear to confirm Becker's thesis. When people are confronted with images or words or questions that remind them of death they respond by shoring up their worldview, rejecting people and ideas that threaten it, and increasing their striving for self-esteem.

One of the most arresting findings is that immortality projects can bring death closer. In seeking to defend the symbolic, heroic self that we create to suppress thoughts of death, we might expose the physical self to greater danger. For example, researchers at Bar-Ilan University in Israel found that people who reported that driving boosted their self-esteem drove faster and took greater risks after they had been exposed to reminders of death.

A recent paper by the biologist Janis L Dickinson, published in the journal Ecology and Society, proposes that constant news and discussion about global warming makes it difficult to repress thoughts of death, and that people might respond to the terrifying prospect of climate breakdown in ways that strengthen their character armour but diminish our chances of survival. There is already experimental evidence that some people respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption. Dickinson proposes that growing evidence of climate change might boost this tendency, as well as raising antagonism towards scientists and environmentalists. Our message, after all, presents a lethal threat to the central immortality project of western society: perpetual economic growth, supported by an ideology of entitlement and exceptionalism.

If Dickinson is correct, is it fanciful to suppose that those who are closer to the end of their lives might react more strongly against reminders of death? I haven't been able to find any experiments testing this proposition, but it is surely worth investigating. And could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the last two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence? If so, how the hell do we confront it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...al-clive-james
__________________
'We live in a world defined by the jewish media' - Geoff Beck, TTIND.

'Gentiles are supernal garbage' - Rabbi Schneur Zalman, founder of Chabad-Lubavitch.
 
Old November 6th, 2009 #47
Tom McReen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,544
Tom McReen
Default



Quote:
The rage of stupid

The passion displayed by The Age of Stupid is no substitute for the intelligence that effective propaganda requires

Posted by David Cox Monday 23 March 2009 10.49 GMT guardian.co.uk

Who'd go to see a film that's out to prove that most of us are stupid? Not, it must be feared, the supposedly stupid themselves. They'd be too stupid, wouldn't they?

Sadly, such an exercise seems more likely to attract the elect few already blessed with the wisdom that their fellows are deemed to lack. For them, however, the price of a ticket won't buy much-needed enlightenment, but only big-screen authentication for a pre-existing sense of self-righteous superiority.

This may help to explain the enthusiasm that The Age of Stupid seems to inspire in its patrons. The film's website invites them to provide their own reviews of the climate change sci-fi-documentary-sermon. A contributor called Chris A sums up the prevailing sentiment in just one word: "Unbef*ckinglievable."

Nonetheless, the site's managers are taking no chances. Their comment box carries a legend that somewhat undermines this apparently glowing feedback. It reads: "Any comments from climate deniers/sceptics will be deleted."

Suppose, however, that some of the stupids thus excluded bothered to see the film. Suppose they were then permitted to post their responses. Would they be renouncing their past obtuseness and committing themselves henceforth to the climate campaign? Such must be the hope of the film's makers, but it's hard to see it actually being fulfilled.

Even the dimmest of cinemagoers might balk at The Age of Stupid's central conceit. It's 2055, and global warming's done its damnedest. Pete Postlethwaite plays one of the few human survivors. He's busy assembling a video to warn alien civilisations that they mustn't repeat the errors of the Earthlings.

It consists of graphic reportage of the woeful ways of the naughty noughties and the insouciant attitudes of those who indulged in them. Cheap flights, intensive farming, bottled water, throwaway trainers and outboard motors spawn melting glaciers, heatwaves, floods, Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war (it was of course all about oil). Meanwhile, greedy shoppers carry on shopping, nimbys block wind farms and self-satisfied petroleum executives boast of their achievements.

Throughout all this, Pete manages to maintain exactly the same expression. It's one of pained disbelief. These people knew what the consequences of their actions would be. How could they have been so stupid?

Well, if Pete had actually watched his footage, instead of fine-tuning his grimace, he might have realised he was asking the wrong question. The delinquents being depicted may have been selfish, but they weren't actually stupid.

They launched new airlines, turned up the gas and bought unnecessary stuff because they wanted to do these things. Though some may have professed scepticism about climate change, the unfortunate truth is that most didn't really care that much what might or might not happen in 2055. In any case, they knew that whatever they did as individuals would make no real difference to a problem that confronted them collectively, if at all.

The Age of Stupid's neglect of these realities could have a perverse impact on the yet-to-be-persuaded filmgoer. He or she might conclude that if a film like this could point no way past such difficulties, then they must surely be insurmountable. The situation must therefore be hopeless: we might as well enjoy ourselves as best we can till doomsday arrives, which, after all, it may never do, since this film offers little more than noisy assertion to prove that it will.

The remedy that The Age of Stupid advances could well compound this effect. The film peddles the climate lobby's politically loaded orthodoxy, namely that what's required is "the total reordering of western society".

Asians must be allowed to increase their emissions, even though the no-frills airline featured is Indian and we're told that China's building a new coal-fired power station every four days. As Asia goes carbon crazier, America and Europe must make momentous sacrifices, though the film observes that governments can only do what their peoples want.

Population policy goes politely unmentioned. So do nuclear power, geo-engineering and environmental adaptation. Presumably, our stupids might conclude, there's no hope to be found in these directions either, if even the doomsters see no call to mention them. Let's all party on, while we've still got the chance.

Fans of The Age of Stupid claim that its passion and verve easily eclipse the plodding exposition of An Inconvenient Truth. God knows, Al Gore's slideshowfest was a dreary watch. Nonetheless, he did try to offer filmgoers a properly argued case. He may not have done too much for the climate cause, but at least he probably didn't set it back.

Memo to future cinematic propagandists: don't assume that those who disagree with you must be stupid; and try to avoid stupidity yourself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmb...-age-of-stupid
__________________
'We live in a world defined by the jewish media' - Geoff Beck, TTIND.

'Gentiles are supernal garbage' - Rabbi Schneur Zalman, founder of Chabad-Lubavitch.
 
Old November 20th, 2009 #48
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

'scientists' conspire to misrepresent and mislead

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p...39#post1074639
 
Old November 21st, 2009 #49
Tom McReen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,544
Tom McReen
Default Laughable apologism from the Grauniad

Quote:
This climate email-hacking episode is generating more heat than light

Another skirmish has broken out in the long-running battle between climate scientists and so-called sceptics, and this one is likely to lead to more public confusion.

Bob Ward guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 November 2009 20.40 GMT

Another skirmish has broken out in the long-running battle between climate scientists and so-called sceptics, with the hacking of email messages between some of the world's leading researchers on global temperature trends. But as usually happens in the blogosphere, this episode is generating more heat than light and is likely to lead to more public confusion over the causes of climate change.

For the past few years, a small group of climate change 'sceptics' have been poring over scientific journal papers that report historical trends in temperatures from around the world, as recorded by directly by thermometers and other instruments, and by 'proxies', such as tree rings. Their primary objective has been to seek out evidence that global warming has been invented by climate researchers who fake their data.

Among their main targets have been papers published by research teams led by Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University and Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, and particularly those featuring the famous 'hockey stick' graph, showing that average temperature in the northern hemisphere was relatively stable and constant for most of the last couple of millennia, but rose dramatically upwards in the last 100 years. This graph appeared prominently in the landmark Third Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001, which concluded that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".

The attacks on the hockey stick graph led the United States National Academy of Sciences to carry out an investigation, concluding in 2006 that although there had been no improper conduct by the researchers, they may have expressed higher levels of confidence in their main conclusions than was warranted by the evidence.

The 'sceptics' believe they have been vindicated and have presented the hockey stick graph as proof that global warming is not occurring. In doing so, they have ignored the academy's other conclusion that "surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence".

More importantly, these skeptics have not overturned the well-established basic physics of the greenhouse effect, namely that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and increasing its concentration in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm. They also have not managed to make melting glaciers and rising sea levels, or any other evidence of warming, disappear into thin air. But they have managed to confuse some of the public about the causes of climate change.

Over the past five years, Mann and Jones in particular have been subjected not only to legitimate scrutiny by other researchers, but also to a co-ordinated campaign of personal attacks on their reputation by 'sceptics'. If the hacked e-mails are genuine, they only show that climate researchers are human, and that they speak badly in private about 'sceptics' who accuse them of fraud.

It is inevitable as we approach the crucial meeting in conference in Copenhagen in December that the sceptics would try some stunt to try to undermine a global agreement on climate change. There is no smoking gun, but just a lot of smoke without fire.

• Bob Ward is Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-email-hacking
__________________
'We live in a world defined by the jewish media' - Geoff Beck, TTIND.

'Gentiles are supernal garbage' - Rabbi Schneur Zalman, founder of Chabad-Lubavitch.
 
Old November 21st, 2009 #50
Tom McReen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,544
Tom McReen
jewsign Jew Monbiot instigates campaign against 'deniers'

Monbiot's royal flush: Cut out and keep climate change denier cards

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-monbiot-cards

Quote:
His fifth book, The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order, was published in 2003. The book is an attempt to set out a positive manifesto for change for the global justice movement. Monbiot criticises anarchism and Marxism, arguing that any possible solution to the world's inequalities must be rooted in a democratic parliamentary system. The four main changes to global governance which Monbiot argues for are a democratically-elected world parliament which would pass resolutions on international issues; a democratised United Nations General Assembly to replace the unelected UN Security Council; the proposed International Clearing Union which would automatically discharge trade deficits and prevent the accumulation of debt; and a fair trade organisation which would regulate world trade in a way that protects the economies of poorer countries.
George_Monbiot George_Monbiot
__________________
'We live in a world defined by the jewish media' - Geoff Beck, TTIND.

'Gentiles are supernal garbage' - Rabbi Schneur Zalman, founder of Chabad-Lubavitch.
 
Old November 21st, 2009 #51
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120...091120issues01

The Day Global Warming Stood Still

Fri Nov 20, 6:40 pm ET

As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. Maybe Al Gore can Photoshop something before December.

It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria.

The collapse of the talks coupled with the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put off the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, the Senate's version of Waxman-Markey, until the spring thaw has led Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to declare victory over Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and the triumph of observable fact over junk science.

"I proudly declare 2009 as the 'Year of the Skeptic,' the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard," Inhofe said to Boxer in a Senate speech. "Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked."

Inhofe added: "Today I have been vindicated."

The Ada (Oklahoma) Evening News quotes Inhofe: "So when Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and all the left get up there and say, 'Yes. We're going to pass a global warming bill,' I will be able to stand up and say, 'No, it's over. Get a life. You lost. I won,'" Inhofe said.

Now we have the German publication Der Spiegel, which is rapidly becoming the house organ for climate hysteria, weighing in again with the sad news that the earth does not have a fever so we really don't have to throw out the baby with the rising bath water.

In an article titled, "Climatologists Baffled By Global Warming Time-Out," author Gerald Traufetter leads off with the observation: "Climatologists are baffled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years." They better figure it out, Der Spiegel warns, because "billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations."

We are told in sad tones that "not much is happening with global warming at the moment" and that "it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year." But how can it be that the earth isn't following all those computer models? Is the earth goddess Gaia herself a climate change "denier"?

The article gloomily notes that a few weeks ago Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research pointed out that the earth had in fact only warmed 0.07 degree Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degree Celsius predicted by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

An even more inconvenient truth, according to the British experts, is that when their figures are adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Nino and La Nina, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degree Celsius. No, that's not a typo.

As if that weren't enough, it seems hackers broke into the computer network run by the Hadley Climate Research Unit, removing 61 megabytes of e-mails and data.

While we don't condone theft, the hacked data and e-mails have spilled onto the Web and reveal something startling: The scientists at Hadley, one of the world's leading climate change study centers, aren't scientifically objective at all.

Indeed, in e-mails, they boast of twisting scientific data to suit their views and to "hide" the truth. At one point, a scientist actually gloats over the death of global warming skeptic John L. Daly, saying, "In an odd way, this is cheering news."

If true, this is massive scientific fraud.

To add to the warm-mongers' woes, patron saint Al Gore, the man who claimed to have invented the Internet, might also have claimed the discovery of Photoshop. Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, formerly with NASA, has taken a look at the pictures used to illustrate Gore's new book, "Our Choice: A Plan To Solve the Climate Crisis."

Gore Photoshopped NASA imagery of the earth for the fold-out cover photo, adding four hurricanes at once, including one spinning in the wrong direction next to Florida and, in a physical impossibility, one on the equator next to Peru. Somewhere in the process, the island of Cuba was deleted.

It is the warm-mongers who are spinning in the wrong direction. We win. You lose. Get a life.
 
Old November 21st, 2009 #52
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

Quote:
• Bob Ward is Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science
Even The Slimes is more honest than this hack.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...e.html?_r=1&hp

Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: November 20, 2009

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.

The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

The cache of e-mail messages also includes references to journalists, including this reporter, and queries from journalists related to articles they were reporting.

Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach. They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.

But several scientists and others contacted by The New York Times confirmed that they were the authors or recipients of specific e-mail messages included in the file. The revelations are bound to inflame the public debate as hundreds of negotiators prepare to negotiate an international climate accord at meetings in Copenhagen next month, and at least one scientist speculated that the timing was not coincidental.

Dr. Trenberth said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-mail messages.

But he added that he thought the revelations might backfire against climate skeptics. He said that he thought that the messages showed “the integrity of scientists.” Still, some of the comments might lend themselves to being interpreted as sinister.

In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”

At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years.

Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.

Dr. Mann explained that the reliability of the tree-ring data was called into question, so they were no longer used to track temperature fluctuations. But he said dropping the use of the tree rings was never something that was hidden, and had been in the scientific literature for more than a decade. “It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there,” Dr. Mann said.

In addition, other independent but indirect measurements of temperature fluctuations in the studies broadly agreed with the thermometer data showing rising temperatures.

Dr. Jones, writing in an e-mail message, declined to be interviewed.

Stephen McIntyre, a blogger who on his Web site, climateaudit.org, has for years been challenging data used to chart climate patterns, and who came in for heated criticism in some e-mail messages, called the revelations “quite breathtaking.”

But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the body of research on global warming. “Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of climate studies were in the cache. “Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”

He said the breach at the University of East Anglia was discovered after hackers who had gained access to the correspondence sought Tuesday to hack into a different server supporting realclimate.org, a blog unrelated to NASA that he runs with several other scientists pressing the case that global warming is true.

The intruders sought to create a mock blog post there and to upload the full batch of files from Britain. That effort was thwarted, Dr. Schmidt said, and scientists immediately notified colleagues at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. The first posts that revealed details from the files appeared Thursday at The Air Vent, a Web site devoted to skeptics’ arguments.

At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.”

But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review.

He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong. “This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways,” he said.

Spencer R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as “great material for historians.”
 
Old November 21st, 2009 #53
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,961
George Witzgall
Default

it's not unusual for the global average temperature, even time-averaged over five years, to plateau or even fall (see for example the dips in the early eighties and early nineties):


it's not about winning or losing. it's about making the wisest decisions based on the available evidence. based on the evidence, would you say global warming or global cooling is more likely over the next century?
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old November 21st, 2009 #54
Hugo Böse
Jeunesse Dorée
 
Hugo Böse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Four Seasons Jalalabad
Posts: 8,649
Hugo Böse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Witzgall View Post
it's not about winning or losing. it's about making the wisest decisions based on the available evidence. based on the evidence, would you say global warming or global cooling is more likely over the next century?
I say there is nothing man can do about it, man is not the cause of warming or cooling, the mere suggestion that we can affect the temperature of the entire Earth is preposterous.

Did you read the entire thread?
__________________
_______
Political correctness is an intellectual gulag.
 
Old November 22nd, 2009 #55
Sándor Petőfi
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In your head
Posts: 5,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Witzgall View Post
it's not unusual for the global average temperature, even time-averaged over five years, to plateau or even fall
on the available evidence.
I don't care, because your "global average temperature" is a physically meaningless number. Do I really need to explain why?

If you want to talk about melting ice in the Arctic, or shorter winters in Italy, or warmer Summers in California, or crop failure in Ethiopia, or flooding in Bangladesh, and how whatever consequences of these actual happenings might be averted, then you can do so without recourse to some mathematical hocus pocus of rhetoric. However, if you want to preach a religion of sin, apocalypse, miracle and redemption to make a fast buck from your converts, you can't.

Quote:
based on the evidence, would you say global warming or global cooling is more likely over the next century?
What's a probability, George? It's the fraction of similarly prepared systems allowed to evolve under similar conditions being found in a similar state. That's its physical meaning.

So, to answer your question, there is no basis upon which to define a probability here.
 
Old November 26th, 2009 #56
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gla...-harder-msm-ig

Climategate: White House Involvement in Scandal Will Make It Harder for MSM to Ignore
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
November 26, 2009 - 08:16 ET

Yesterday Brian Williams delivered an NBC Nightly News report about President Obama attending the Copenhagen global warming summit. Guess what hot topic was left untouched? If you had guessed Climategate you would have been correct. Not only Williams but also the other TV networks, with the exception of FOX News, have completely ignored what is considered to be the biggest scientific scandal in history. However, new Climategate revelations made by the Canada Free Press about a White House connection to the scandal will soon make it much more difficult (and ridiculous) for the networks to ignore.



Canada Free Press editor Judi McLeod and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball reveal the involvement of White House Science Czar John Holdren (photo) in the Climategate Scandal. The picture presented of Holdren is not a pretty one:

Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.
 
Old November 29th, 2009 #57
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[As always, leftist is a synonym for liar. Jew, leftist, liar, communist - all the same thing.]

New Zealand climate agency accused of data manipulation
November 25,

Climate scientists in New Zealand today accused the foremost climate-research institution in New Zealand of data manipulation of the same type as the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute (CRU) is alleged to have done.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition today issued this paper saying that a graph published by the New Zealand National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is not only wrong but is the result of painstaking and unjustified adjustment of raw temperature data covering the period from 1853 through 2008, Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room announced today.

At issue is a claim by NIWA that the average temperature over New Zealand declined from 1853 to 1909 and then began to rise, and has been rising ever since, at an average rate of +0.92 degree (Celsius) per century.

However, unlike the case with the CRU, NIWA's raw data remain readily available, at least to climate scientists. Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conversation Group, and his colleagues requested and obtained the data used to produce the NIWA graph. Using these data, they produced a graph of their own. Their graph, shown here, displays no such decline from 1853 to 1909 and consequently no such steep increase from 1909 through 2008 as that shown on the NIWA graph. Instead, according to the CSC, the linear trend is a negligibly gentle +0.06 degree per century since 1853.

Treadgold's group alleges that the NIWA graph was produced, not from the raw data that NIWA supplied, but rather from temperature readings that had been adjusted. The CSC scientists were able to obtain the adjusted dataset from an un-named associate of Dr. M. James Salinger, formerly of NIWA and, before that, of CRU. Comparison of the two datasets shows significant upward adjustments of the post-1909 data and equally significant downward adjustments of the pre-1909 data, thus producing a downtrend and then an uptrend, instead of the nearly flat trend that Treadgold's group found.

Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room, and also of Investigate magazine, asked Dr. David Wratt, the chief climatologist at NIWA, for comment. Wratt said only that NIWA would issue a press release later that day; none has been forthcoming at the time of this writing.

The CSC scientists, in their paper, conclude that the New Zealand government is relying on an untenable conclusion from the data at hand, and now openly question the need for any cap-and-trade system such as that which Treadgold and his colleagues presume will be under consideration in Copenhagen beginning next Tuesday.

UPDATE: The Climate Change Examiner reports today that NIWA has now issued this press release in answer to their critics, and also supplied this link to further information as to the placement of their weather stations and why, they said, the numbers required adjustment.

NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.

Exactly how the CSC has "misled" the public or their colleagues is far from clear from the NIWA statement. NIWA are now claiming that some of the weather stations were moved, and thus the adjustments become necessary to account for such movement. This begs the question of why the stations had to be moved to begin with, why they were moved to different elevations, and why NIWA did not simply reconfigure their indices to make sure that tney always based their average on the same mix of weather stations at various elevations as existed before the movement of any given site or sites.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Esse...a-manipulation
 
Old November 29th, 2009 #58
Roy
Perception Manager
 
Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,794
Roy
Default

Even if you believed the bogus data, who cares about 2 degrees warmer temperatures? It would give us lower heating bills, a longer growing season (and therefore cheaper food) and more time can be spent comfortably outdoors. With the right spin, we should be celebrating that things are getting warmer, not fear-mongered into submission.
 
Old November 29th, 2009 #59
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,961
George Witzgall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy View Post
Even if you believed the bogus data, who cares about 2 degrees warmer temperatures? It would give us lower heating bills, a longer growing season (and therefore cheaper food) and more time can be spent comfortably outdoors. With the right spin, we should be celebrating that things are getting warmer, not fear-mongered into submission.
oh roy, how quaint. and your lizard man santa claus is simply darling.
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old November 29th, 2009 #60
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4100/U...dible-any-more

UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf 'should be barred from the IPCC process' -- They are 'not credible any more'

UN IPCC's Eduardo Zorita: 'By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication'

Friday, November 27, 2009
By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues "should be barred from the IPCC process." In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: "CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process."

Zorita writes: "Short answer: Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore."

Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita candidly admits, a reference to the ClimateGate emails discussing how to suppress data and scientific studies that do not agree with the UN IPCC views.

Zorita was a UN IPCC Contributing Author of the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Since 2003, Zorita has headed the Department of Paleoclimate and has been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Germany. Zorita has published more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Zorita's stunning candor continued, noting that scientists who disagreed with the UN IPCC climate view were "bullied and subtly blackmailed."

"In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research," Zorita explained. [Zorita's full statement is reprinted below.]

Continuing fallout of ClimateGate

Zorita's revelations are the latest in a series of continuing fallout to the global warming establishment and to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), since the email and data scandal dubbed "ClimateGate" broke earlier this month.


Zorita's defection from the global warming establishment comes after the shocking news today that one of the scientists employed at ground zero of what has been termed "ClimateGate" has suggested disbanding the United Nations climate panel, the IPCC. See: Pressure Mounts From Inside: Disband IPCC? Scientist from U. of East Anglia Suggests 'UN IPCC has run its course...politicizes climate science...authoritarian, exclusive form of knowledge production' - Mike Hulme Excerpt: ClimateGate reveals science has become 'too partisan, too centralized...more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures." Other UN scientists are weighing in as well. See: Yet Another UN IPCC Scientist -- Dr. Vincent Gray -- speaks out on ClimateGate: 'I long ago realized that they were faking the whole exercise' – Nov. 27, 2009

In addition, scientists from around the world are now demanding that the "ClimateGate" scientists be banned from future UN IPCC climate work. See: More ClimateGate Fallout: Prominent German Scientist Declares 'Compromised' UN Scientists should be excluded from IPCC and Peer-Review Process - November 24, 2009 and see: Meanwhile, pressure to fire or resign continues to increase for the man at the center of the ClimateGate scandal, Phil Jones. See: Phil Jones, the Fall Guy? Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit - UK Daily Mail - Nov. 25, 2009

Caught in Another Untruth? THEN: UN IPCC's Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008: 'About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all' - NOW: UN IPCC's Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009: 'We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU'

The New 'Deniers': UK Greenie George Monbiot: 'Most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial' -- 'Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away' - Monbiot: 'There is no helping it; Phil Jones has to go, and the longer he leaves it, the worse it will get' – UK Daily Mail – Nov. 25, 2009

More Defections! Center for Env. Journalism's Tom Yulsman: 'I'm standing with George Monbiot on this' - Nov. 25, 2009 - 'I believe the CRU (Climate Research Unit) should agree to an independent examination of what happened...to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again'

Shock -- Et Tu, DeSmogBlog?: Climate Alarmists at DeSmogBlog Call for Phil Jones to Offer his Resignation! - Nov. 25, 2009 - 'It would be savvy for Jones to at least offer to step aside before someone in authority makes a move to give him a push'

Et tu? Head of UN IPCC Pachauri Now throwing global warming under the bus?! There is a 'larger problem' than climate fears?! - Nov. 23, 2009 - Urges 'time and space to look at the larger problem of unsustainable development, of which climate change is at best a symptom'

As the UN IPCC's ClimateGate scandal unfolds, it appears New Zealand may have their similar type scandal involving manipulation of temperature data by a government agency. See: More Warmist Woes: New Zealand: Government agency accused of 'cooking the books to create a warming trend where none exists' – Nov. 26, 2009


Scientists from around the world now are questioning the propriety of a UN climate conference during all of this unraveling controversy surrounding the credibility of top UN scientists. See: UK Scientist: 'Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed' - Nov. 26, 2009

All of this has caused skepticism of man-made global warming to become the new political expediency. See: Losing Their Religion: 2009 officially declared year the media lost their faith in man-made global warming fears – Oct. 13, 2009 and see: 'Welcome to the delayers': Obama's 'half-hearted climate efforts' welcomed by skeptics - Nov. 17, 2009 [Editor's Note: ClimateGate may have prompted President Obama to attend the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen. There is such a sense of panic in the global warming establishment that they now feel it is "all hands on deck" time to help save the movement. See: 'Series of inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made global warming fears continue unabated' – August 25, 2009]

New Political Reality: Five Australian MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax - November 26, 2009

NASA Warming Scientist James Hansen says Gore 'deceiving' himself - Nov. 26, 2009 -- Hansen: "What really worries me is that Gore sounds optimistic that we're now on a track to solve this problem. Hansen lets out an incredulous chuckle. "We're not, however, on a track, and that's clear."

#


Complete Statement of UN IPCC Scientists Dr. Eduardo Zorita on the UN IPCC's "ClimateGate" scandal.


CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.


A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research 'soldiers'. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.

To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later. I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.

I thank explicitly Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it distills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.

Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a lawyer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the 'hockey stick graph' or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior. [End Eduardo Zorita's full statement regarding ClimateGate.]
 
Reply

Tags
global warming hoax, global warming scam, hoax of the 21st century

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:20 AM.
Page generated in 0.23239 seconds.