With the release of thousands of emails and documents from CRU, how come MSM has not picked this up? I find it chilling that media and investigative reporters have not made this mainstream. They should either prove or disprove the so called Climategate.
what are you speaking about?
I know what you are saying! I found a link to it on FoxNation.com, the most reliable unbiased news blog. http://www.thefoxnation.com/business/2009/11/23/global-warmings-waterloo
Look, currently all that there is are allegations, and some reports say it's sabotage from inter-office drama. There have been no conclusions so don't jump to any. And besides all that it doesn't really negate the arguments pro-climate changers have which is sustainable infrastructure. I really wouldn't get your speedo in a wad over this.
I find it chilling that in spite of the overwhelming proof of climate change, both scientific and anecdotal data abound, you think that private emails, cherry-picked for content, and criminally obtained will somehow allow you to pretend that there is a conspiracy afoot and that life can continue with no thought of consequence. Climate change deniers are at best, fools.
A number of the people have varified that they are indeed their emails and documents. All I'm saying is why hasn't the MSM reported on this. So if they admit that these emails and docs are legit, wouldn't the slightest chance of possible fraud and/or collusion spark the interest of the media.
What overwhelming proof? How can we believe what the so called specialists are telling us if they admit that they changed, deleted, withdrew and lied about the data they were using? How can we trust them when they conspired to defame, discredit and prevent peir reviews or dissenting opinions? We saw that in the tobacco industry and the companies were punished for it.
Climate change deniers are at best, fools.
actually no, many are scientists, and the principle in science is: may the best proof win, no matter the consequences
if 99 guys say that 2+2=5, the one who proves it equals 4 is right , no matter what huge international "consensus" she faces ....
similarly, if some of the weak proofs for warming and/or human causality don't stand up to examination, then out with them
Dave W I like your analogy.
"The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself. There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence. But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/...
Monbiot (from the link at #5 above): The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.
I read, "The Next One Hundred Years", By Jonathan Weiner in 1990. It convinced me at the time and things have only gotten worse. Also, when I worked for Cassiar about 80 miles north of Dawson City, YT in the early '70's we had winter from September 01 until the end of May. Tommorow the temperature in Dawson will be -6 deg. celcius. In 1971 I drove my 3/4/ton truck across the Yukon River on the ice road on the 21st. of September. The book is documentation, the story is anecdotal. Climate change is real. For any that still doubt it, I suggest contacting someone who has lived in the north for a considerable time and seen the very real changes.
A friend posted this to my Facebook page:
excerpt:
I hope we'll look back at the climate denialists and judge them as merely a momentary quirk in human rationality, ultimately not in the least influential. The real danger comes from fossil fuel firms which, like Big Tobacco decades ago, know full well the lethal potential of their product. Their objective is to place a grain of doubt in our minds, and climate denialists are rather useful.
"But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters.
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-...
Media Matters has put together a rather solid rebuttal of the climategate narrative being pushed by the climate change denial crowd:
Thanks, Michael.
Do not feed the trolls.
In 2006 alone, 9.2 million hectares of forest were in an advanced stage of attack from the mountain pine beetle. By the end of 2006, the cumulative outbreak area affected was estimated at 130,000 square kilometres, or close to the total area of England. Timber losses are estimated to be more than 435 million cubic metres, with additional losses outside the commercial forest, according to Natural Resources Canada.The damage done to the trees has the forestry industry in a race to get as much from the pine as it can before the trees die in the aftermath of the beetle attacks. It also has officials concerned as the beetle spreads eastward to northern Alberta, on the doorstep of the jack-pine-dominated boreal forest.
In B.C., the provincial government estimates the beetle's spread will have economic implications for 30 communities and will impact 25,000 families whose livelihood depends on the pulp and paper industry.
The beetle's damage to the forests has even had an impact on the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, according to Natural Resources Canada. The death of trees normally involved in capturing carbon has instead released carbon into the atmosphere, according to a study published in April 2008 in the journal Nature.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/science/beetle.html
Lack wits who have apparently not left their house to have a gaze about....the Rockies are Red there is no green covered mountain sides anymore....
all of the interior of BC looks like those pictures, it is a catastrophe
One must ask the question...
If indeed climate change science is being manipulated,or massaged,to create a certain public opinion,why is it being done and who's behind it?
According to the lacks wits in Canada, that I have read, it is the "liberal" fascists, headed by the UN, and Maurice Strong, all of whom according to them, want a totalitarian world government.
...while they vote for those who really want it and are attempting to achieve it....
"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. " http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece Allowing for the possibility that the emails are taken out of context to state a case, the same can't be said about the leaked source code, "For those who can’t follow what is being stated here is that data after 1960 will be “artificially adjusted” to “hide the decline”. In other words they were hardcoding in the program ways to manipulate the data to hide the decline in temperatures. This is much bigger than the emails and cannot be explained away by “unfortunate wording” or done in a fit of frustration. This is a deliberate attempt to manufacture data to output a predetermined result. This also puts in clear context the meaning of the term “hide the decline” that is found in the emails. It is now clear that all studies that have EVER used data from the CRU is tainted and must be thrown out. This would include the IPCC reports." http://oneutah.org/2009/11/28/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-...
what decline in temps?
we have access to almost a 100 years of globla temps, it would be impossible to hide any decline FFS....lack wits who believe this shit, please have a look at the pine beetle kill...
I moved to north central BC in 1974, and it regularily got down to -55 several times throughout the winter, moved away for a couple of decades, and came back only to find people now think it is cold when it gets to -15-20, for a week or so.
Dave W I like your analogy.
the freer the debate, the better ...
LOL debating...yeah with no facts tremendous job. You do realize that even though we are supppose to be headed towards an ice age the earth has continued to heat up for the last 150 years. Core samples taken from ice from greenland and antarctica confirm this. I guess this is also a cover up. The reason they are working the data hard is we have underestimated the decline in ice and the earth is warming up faster than predicted. It is mission critical now to make sure people understand how serious and yes life changing this will be.
The ice shelf is coming apart a lot faster than they thought. What was thought to be years are turning into months.
Good points thorin, though some say there is a link between global warming and a ice age
"Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU. But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them. Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents leaked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s. Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries? Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. American states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal. And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely. Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB4000142405274870393940457456612425020549...
Do not feed the trolls is right.
"Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU. But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them. Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents leaked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s. Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries? Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. American states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal. And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely. Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB4000142405274870393940457456612425020549...
Thanks...
Always follow the money...
The Wall Street Journal? Yeah, there's a credible source.
Why don't you keep 'following the money' till you bump into the trillions that sociopathic little rag's constituency just hoovered out of the pockets of the American taxpayer to float their greed-busted banks?
Phil Jones has done the right thing and stepped down. Wall Street's elite gave themselves billions in bonuses after overseeing the greatest destruction of wealth since the Great Depression.
Think I'll stick with the scientists on this one. Feel free to keep evolving.
I don't disagree that the public in the U.S. bailed out the very people who propagated the mess we are in...
If indeed the "scientists" manipulated findings to create a crisis,then had a solution in their hip pocket ready to go,would'nt you say something stinks?
And if so,who is pulling the strings from behind the scene and why?
Source code, ";Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions ; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually ; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to ; the real temperatures.FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro ; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series, ; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series. ; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N ; ; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid ; the declineFOIA\documents\harris-tree\calibrate_nhrecon.pro ; ; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid ; the decline that affects tree-ring density records) ;FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon1.pro FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon2.proFOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_jones.pro ; ; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid ; the decline" http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codif...
Taking my advice about not feeding the trolls, this is getting stupid... bye
I don't disagree that the public in the U.S. bailed out the very people who propagated the mess we are in...
If indeed the "scientists" manipulated findings to create a crisis,then had a solution in their hip pocket ready to go,would'nt you say something stinks?
And if so,who is pulling the strings from behind the scene and why?
Eh, to your first my point was that the principle broadsheet of a manifestly criminal elite is perhaps not the best place to go for your news.
As to the scientists, we're talking about one modestly sized institution in one country; do we tar ALL scientists and by association all their work, in ALL institutions in All nations actively studying the matter? Hell, just hike out to the nearest glacier if you want proof, at this point we hardly need the scientists.
Elizabeth May raised an important point: WHY were the emails leaked a few days in advance of the Copenhagen summit? And WHO leaked them? That's where you want to be looking for strings my friend. I suspect there is nothing coincidental about the timing of this; it is a calculated attack on the science of global warming with the specific intent of further impeding ongoing climate talks.
fascist soup, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp4sMasX-_8
.... am sure it is just a coincidence....just as EMay's debate was... ;D
Interesting conversation....
Lord Christopher Monckton makes a serious case in questioning the climate change status quo.
Watch the whole thing...It'll take about an hour...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2zaPCYgovg
Oh, for Christ's sake...
Again, Media Matters has done some very impressive research on this matter, and it completely debunks the allegations the blistered welder is making:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030
There's a simply way to fix all of this then...Especially so my blistered,simpleminded,blue collar brain can understand things better...
Find the missing data and put it all together for everyone to see...
By the way,are suggesting I'm some lunkhead,lunchbucket conservative???
No, I'm suggesting that you should read the Media Matters research that completely debunks the allegations you've been making.
I don't disagree that the public in the U.S. bailed out the very people who propagated the mess we are in...
If indeed the "scientists" manipulated findings to create a crisis,then had a solution in their hip pocket ready to go,would'nt you say something stinks?
And if so,who is pulling the strings from behind the scene and why?
Eh, to your first my point was that the principle broadsheet of a manifestly criminal elite is perhaps not the best place to go for your news.
As to the scientists, we're talking about one modestly sized institution in one country; do we tar ALL scientists and by association all their work, in ALL institutions in All nations actively studying the matter? Hell, just hike out to the nearest glacier if you want proof, at this point we hardly need the scientists.
Elizabeth May raised an important point: WHY were the emails leaked a few days in advance of the Copenhagen summit? And WHO leaked them? That's where you want to be looking for strings my friend. I suspect there is nothing coincidental about the timing of this; it is a calculated attack on the science of global warming with the specific intent of further impeding ongoing climate talks.
No question about the Wall Street elites and there manipulation of financial markets.
As to scientists or the "scientism" around climate change,when I see something that looks like manipulation and ommition of REAL facts,I'm not prepared to give the "scientismists" a pass.If more evidence of this nature comes out,we may be looking at one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind.These people have acted like thugs,not scientists.They have threatened people,had people fired,and,tried to squelch anyone who contradicts them....
It begs the question ,"Why?".Is it not remotely possible that things have been manipulated from behind the scenes by another arm of the elite on the leftas a way to take peoples money under the guise of "Environmental Responsibility"?And why should I take Elizabeth May seriously?Firstly,her political instincts are horrible,and secondly,I suspect her movement is funded by the very people who MIGHT be behind the statistical manipulation.
I agree that it is curious timing that this stuff is leaked right now.It is ,however, entirley possible that someone(or a group of people) finally found the pills to stand up to a potentially conficatory plan by the elite on the left that is interested in the same confiscatory practices as the Wall Street elites you so rightfully rail agianst.Is this not at all possible?I mean Al Gore and George Soros are hardly hurting for money,are they?
I did...It's a predictable response from those who don't like being pushed back.And it does'nt change the fact these so called scientists have acted like thugs.Their actions don't lend a whole lot of creedence to their cause,if one assumes it's a righteous one.
Look,I'm not an ideologue so I'm not prepared to dismiss something out of hand because it's from a different perspective.Ideological debates end up going nowhere in the end.
Yeah, it's a predictable response that destroys the arguments you've put forward.
It's done nothing of the sort...Let's see the missing evidence that is so easily explained away....
The evidence is in the Media Matters research that destroys the arguments that you've put forward.
fortunately, the source code allows for a fairly clear interpretation of the emails sans the mediamatters spin.
Yup. A fairly clear interpretation that completely supports the Media Matters research that destroys your argument.
The evidence is in the Media Matters research that destroys the arguments that you've put forward.
Not yet it has'nt.It says there is an easy way to explain the mising data...Collect that data and show the evidence.It's nothing but one sided quasi-journalism as of right now...
Nope. Once again: http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030
The programmer said it best,
"Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codif...
I've got to go to bed now. For those keeping score, just assume that I'm continuing to respond to the blistered welder's same old arguments with the same old links to the same old Media Matters research that destroys the "climategate" allegations.
