Re: CLIMATEGATE

Nick, Smokestack, Jojo, and other climate skeptics,

I was just wondering if any of you were also young earthers. ie planet earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Hi Spidey,

Why do you beat your wife?

Huh, SS? Is that humor?

Spidey, I'd guess that jojo is a young Earther.

No need to guess boys....yes the earth is not millions or billions of years old. And guess what else....the earth is not moving.  Go ahead and laugh.

Jojo,

"Arrogant puny men do not have the power or ability to change the climate."

What about the ozone hole? We didn't do that? Do we, or do we not have the power to change the climate?

Just pulling this back "on-topic" of ClimateGate.

A scientist called Willis Eschenbah has been doing some careful analysis - and has found another smoking gun!

The red-series are the figures released by the CRU. The blue figures are the actual station figures without any homogenized data. With some very detailed reanalysis a more accurate presentation of data can remove the "adjustments" made by the CRU and other Climate Change Science establishments. If you really want to understand the facts and dispense with the spin, try reading this from Watts Up With That.

Willis sums up the graph in this way:

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.

It just goes to prove the Mark Twain saying that there are "three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics".

Nick

So, how do climate activists advocate for a world treaty limiting C02 emissions? ..... by global jet-setting followed by launching fiery objects into the atmosphere.

They would have been better off staying at home and burning a tire.

Factcheck.org has weighed-in on the subject now:

"Climategate"

December 10, 2009

Summary

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

* The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there's still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.

* Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.

* E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn't talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

factcheck.org/.../climategate

Oh.....so "Factcheck" says so.....so it must be true

Not all scientists are Climate Change Believers. Here's Professor David J. Bellamy, an excellent enthusiastic nature broadcaster, some would argue, a little closer to the nutty professor stereo-type.

Al Gore used this ice core data to claim that carbon dioxide made the temperature of the world rise, threatening life on earth, because there was a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and the world’s average temperature. Yet the data from the much-celebrated Vostok ice cores paints a very different picture: Up goes the temperature,  followed by a rise in carbon dioxide.

Effectively flattening Gore’s dreams of hedging his funds.

More troubles lie ahead for the warmists. Independent researchers have pointed out that crucially important pieces of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) evidence were based on false statistical analysis. For starters, take a look at historical evidence from the last 1,000 years. There was a worldwide Medieval Warm Period — no, not just in Europe — and a few centuries prior to that period it was warm enough for the Romans to produce red wine on the borders of Scotland.

It used to be a whole lot warmer than it is today - and it has nothing to do with CO₂! Really, this is one of the easiest to read and effective destructions of the Climate Warming lies being pedaled and endorsed by the mainstream press. Do read it please.

Oh, but they don't like to be asked tough questions.

This is what happens to a journalist asking the wrong questions - call armed UN security. When they do this, you really know they've lost the argument.

A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions”  during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.

Nick

Nick H

Not all scientists are Climate Change Believers. Here's Professor David J. Bellamy,

Here is a quote from him in 1989...  "The profligate demands of humankind are causing far reaching changes to the atmosphere of planet Earth, of this there is no doubt. Earth's temperature is showing an upward swing, the so-called greenhouse effect, now a subject of international concern. The greenhouse effect may melt the glaciers and ice caps of the world causing the sea to rise and flood many of our great cities and much of our best farmland."

So in '89, he said there is no doubt. Now... he is changing his tune? based on missinformation like this ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article527565.ece    whereas he had to withdraw his argument after it was found to be baseless.

Next, your gonna start telling me that you think SEPP has the people of the worlds best interest in mind.

What is amazing to me is that people will take the word of an obvious self promotor than is not a climatologist and has changed his position more times than a racecar driver over a huge body of climate scientists that have overwhelmingly stated they believe the data and resulting predictions. Do us all a favor and referrence some real climate scientists and not someone that loves to be infront of the camera. Oh that's right, you cant because there are none...  except the crackpots and the ones being paid for by big dirty energy.  

This is just a lip-smackingly, brilliantly clear, delivery of real FACTS to a Greenpeace supporter.

Facts, not Global Warming spin:

1. We've had global COOLING for 9 years.
2. Less Hurricane landfall for the last 30 years.
3. There has been significant change in global sea ice for 30 years.

Hat Tip Maggie's Farm

One of our Weekend Sunday Papers, the Mail on Sunday does some excellent drilling into (they call it) "Warmergate". They reveal climate change scientists who have manipulated data to provide the answers they wanted. Here's an extract which refers to the infamous 'hockey stick':

(From the above link)

Take the now-notorious email that the CRU’s currently suspended director, Dr Phil Jones, sent to his IPCC colleagues on November 16, 1999, when he wrote he had ‘just completed Mike’s Nature trick’ and had so managed to ‘hide the decline.

The CRU’s supporters have protested bitterly about the attention paid to this message. In the course of an extraordinary BBC interview in which he called an American critic an ‘****hole’ live on air, Jones’s colleague Professor Andrew Watson insisted that the fuss was completely unjustified, because all Jones had been talking about was ‘tweaking a diagram’.

Davies told me that the email had been ‘taken out of context’ adding: ‘One definition of the word “trick” is “the best way of doing something”. What Phil did was standard practice and the facts are out there in the peer-reviewed literature.’

However, the full context of that ‘trick’ email, as shown by a new and until now unreported analysis by the Canadian climate statistician Steve McIntyre, is extremely troubling.Derived from close examination of some of the thousands of other leaked emails, he says it suggests the ‘trick’ undermines not only the CRU but the IPCC.

There is a widespread misconception that the ‘decline’ Jones was referring to is the fall in global temperatures from their peak in 1998, which probably was the hottest year for a long time. In fact, its subject was more technical - and much more significant. It is true that, in Watson’s phrase, in the autumn of 1999 Jones and his colleagues were trying to ‘tweak’ a diagram. But it wasn’t just any old diagram.

It was the chart displayed on the first page of the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ of the 2001 IPCC report - the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph that has been endlessly reproduced in everything from newspapers to primary-school textbooks ever since, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a dizzying, almost vertical rise in the late 20th Century. There could be no simpler or more dramatic representation of global warming, and if the origin of worldwide concern over climate change could be traced to a single image, it would be the hockey stick. Drawing a diagram such as this is far from straightforward.

Gabriel Fahrenheit did not invent the mercury thermometer until 1724, so scientists who want to reconstruct earlier climate history have to use ‘proxy data’ - measurements derived from records such as ice cores, tree-rings and growing season dates. However, different proxies give very different results. For example, some suggest that the ‘medieval warm period’, the 350-year era that started around 1000, when red wine grapes flourished in southern England and the Vikings tilled now-frozen farms in Greenland, was considerably warmer than even 1998. Of course, this is inconvenient to climate change believers because there were no cars or factories pumping out greenhouse gases in 1000AD - yet the Earth still warmed.

(End of Snippet)

Read the rest from the Mail on Sunday.

Nick

The Russians have just dropped a bombshell.

The London Telegraph just reported a news release from Rionovosta, via  Ria Novosti

The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issues a report claiming the Hadley Center for Climatic Change had probably tampered with Russian-climate change data. The IEA believves that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global warming theory.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

Sure, there's all sorts of politics wrapped-up within national self-interest, but isn't everyone now thinking there's something seriously flawed in the bent-science coming out of the global warming camp. Copenhagen - good timing eh!

Nick

forgivenjojo

What anybody with any common sense already knew:  Arrogant puny men do not have the power or ability to change the climate. 

To paraphrase my namesake: "What often is called 'Common Sense' is usually neither."

That some folks were not as careful or ethical as they should have been can not be argued.

OTOH, it is a logical fallacy to generalize from that specific that therefore all climate change research is similarly flawed.

Climate change is not just about Global Warming.  Nor does a long term trend become discredited just because there are short term effects opposite that trend.

Fact= The world's average CO2 levels have been going up exponentially since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in a manner unprecedented by any measurements we've got going back to before we existed as a species.

Fact= The polar ice caps are shrinking.  And they are doing it at rates that are unprecedented by any measurements we've got going back 100's of thousands, even millions of years.

Fact= Other environmental effects like the thinning of the ozone layer, Acid Rain, radioactive isotopes like Sr-90 in mother's milk in remote locales like the Andes or Himalaya's, etc, are all well documented at this point.

Man Made Climate Change is a well documented reality.

Conjecture as to how serious the effects of it are, or as to how steeply those effects will ramp up, is just that.  Conjecture.

In Science, such evidence and logic based conjecture is called "hypothesis".  And like any conjecture, a hypothesis can be more or less accurate compared to competing ones.

So far, the historical evidence and everything we know about physical law suggests that we should the more negative Climate Change scenarios very, very seriously.

...and let's bear in mind that this is not an area we have much margin of error in on the downside.  If we are not cautious enough, we risk our survival as a species.  Maybe even the survival of most species on this planet.

Here is a great site.  This program was aired just this week.  John Coleman’s hourlong news special “Global Warming – The Other Side” now online, all five parts here wattsupwiththat.com/.../john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here.  Well worth looking at the whole thing.

Loved it BOOMER.

I can only take a few minutes for this, since my free time is short - especially to address things that are so absurd....

Nick H

This is just a lip-smackingly, brilliantly clear, delivery of real FACTS to a Greenpeace supporter.

Facts, not Global Warming spin:

1. We've had global COOLING for 9 years.
2. Less Hurricane landfall for the last 30 years.
3. There has been significant change in global sea ice for 30 years.

1. We have had localized cooling and localized warming forever. The problem with many people's attempts to understand climate change is that they think that looking at local temperatures at one spot tells the whole story (thus, every time we get a rash of cold weather here, letters to the editor start showing up from people claiming that it somehow disproves global warming, because gosh darnit it's cold out!). Irrespective of everything else, there will always be natural variations due to solar activity, volcanic activity, and other factors. The Global Climate Change issue is that additional CO2 in the atmospehere can ONLY result in more heat retention, and therefore a rise in global AVERAGE temperatures. The AVERAGE is a key here. Natural fluctuations will themselves result in some places being colder one year than the previous (or the other way around). Further, as temperatures warm, the great ocean conveyors that regulate global temperatures start to shut down. For example, it has already been observed that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet is slowing the Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor that brings thermal energy out of the Gulf of Mexico, delivering it to the eastern US and western Europe. Thus, this effect can result in cooling of some regions, while other regions warm considerably more than the average.

Further, the build-up of particulate emissions in our atmosphere causes a global dimming effect, reducing sunlight levels, effectively fighting against the warming caused by built up CO2. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) Take away the global dimming over the last few decades, and the warming due to CO2 buildup would have been considerably greater (which is one of the things that climate scientists try to correct for, which naysayers are viewing as intentional skewing of the data. It is not that. It is attempting to look at what the climate would do if not for the buildup of particulate emissions. Since particulate emissions bring their own problems (acid rain, asthma, etc. etc.), we want to reduce those - which will reduce the cooling that has been offsetting warming due to CO2 buildup. So, we need to understand what the impact of the CO2 itself would be, without the offsetting global dimming due to particulates.

One of our Weekend Sunday Papers, the Mail on Sunday does some excellent drilling into (they call it) "Warmergate". They reveal climate change scientists who have manipulated data to provide the answers they wanted. Here's an extract which refers to the infamous 'hockey stick':

(From the above link)

Take the now-notorious email that the CRU’s currently suspended director, Dr Phil Jones, sent to his IPCC colleagues on November 16, 1999, when he wrote he had ‘just completed Mike’s Nature trick’ and had so managed to ‘hide the decline.

The CRU’s supporters have protested bitterly about the attention paid to this message.

Not the attention paid to it, but how it has been distorted and misrepresented. FIrst, the term "trick" is used in math and science in a completely different context from how people are interpreting it. A "trick" is a mathematical method for solving a problem. For example, when trying to solve a particularly difficult integral, it is common to refer to the proper substitution needed to make the integral solvable as a "trick", because without figuring out that one special substitution, the integral can not be done analytically. This is the context in which the term "trick" was used - it refers explicitly to a scientific/mathematical "trick" used to make the warming in recent decades clearer when looking at temperature data over millenia. It is not a "trick" in the sense of a means of deceiving people - which is how naysayers are interpreting it.

In the course of an extraordinary BBC interview in which he called an American critic an ‘****hole’ live on air, Jones’s colleague Professor Andrew Watson insisted that the fuss was completely unjustified, because all Jones had been talking about was ‘tweaking a diagram’.

Davies told me that the email had been ‘taken out of context’ adding: ‘One definition of the word “trick” is “the best way of doing something”. What Phil did was standard practice and the facts are out there in the peer-reviewed literature.’

However, the full context of that ‘trick’ email, as shown by a new and until now unreported analysis by the Canadian climate statistician Steve McIntyre, is extremely troubling.Derived from close examination of some of the thousands of other leaked emails, he says it suggests the ‘trick’ undermines not only the CRU but the IPCC.

Uh, no.

There is a widespread misconception that the ‘decline’ Jones was referring to is the fall in global temperatures from their peak in 1998, which probably was the hottest year for a long time. In fact, its subject was more technical - and much more significant. It is true that, in Watson’s phrase, in the autumn of 1999 Jones and his colleagues were trying to ‘tweak’ a diagram. But it wasn’t just any old diagram.

It was the chart displayed on the first page of the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ of the 2001 IPCC report - the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph that has been endlessly reproduced in everything from newspapers to primary-school textbooks ever since, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a dizzying, almost vertical rise in the late 20th Century. There could be no simpler or more dramatic representation of global warming, and if the origin of worldwide concern over climate change could be traced to a single image, it would be the hockey stick. Drawing a diagram such as this is far from straightforward.

This is what is so dumb-founding about GCC skeptics. They point to natural causes of climate change as the sole reason for varying temperatures, but they seem to forget all about that (and other variables affecting global temperatures) when it suits them. Global average temperatures dropped at that point on the graph due to a rise in the global dimming effect from particulate emissions (due in particular to the rapid industrialization of China and India), and due to natural fluctuations in the solar cycle (1960 was a very "hot" year for the sun, with it peaking in its solar cycle. COmbine that with the '63-'64 eruptions of Mt. Agung, and you have significant natural pushing towards cooling, that more than offset the warming from CO2).

Anyway, as amusing as it is watching non-scientists pretend they know what they're talking about, that's as much time as I can spend on arguing against this trash for now.

Wait....first we had global cooling, then global warming, then climate change, and now GLOBAL DIMMING....wait a minute.....hold em up....I got dibs on "Climate Dimming"

Global dimming? You mean the dumbing down of America by folks like Faux News?

How is it that MSM refuses to report on the Climate corruption as well as the BBC.  Could it be that they have a vested interest in Global Climate Change Dimming bla bla hysteria.  The BBC for one has invested millions of British pounds in carbon credit companies.  GE (wind turbines) owns NBC.  At least FOX ( which I disagree with on most issues ) is willing to look at the science.