How arguably "the worst scientific scandal of our generation " was constructed.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... dle&hl=en#
Recommended viewing
FORCES Tavern: We welcome you to The Tavern, you are welcome to browse and read, but please register to post.
- Board index ‹ Discussions From Within Your Reigon of the World ‹ Rose's Garden
- Change font size
- Print view
Midnight Garden
by Rose » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:42 am
Peter Lilley on Climategate: 'Scientists would rather change facts than their theories'
"Forgive me if you’ve already seen it, but this interview with former cabinet minister Peter Lilley about Climategate is pretty compelling viewing. I had no idea that so many mainstream politicians entertained doubts about the AGW thesis."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damia ... -theories/
Climategate: it's all unravelling now
"So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it’s not like you’re going to find much of this reported in the MSM."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... lling-now/?
"Forgive me if you’ve already seen it, but this interview with former cabinet minister Peter Lilley about Climategate is pretty compelling viewing. I had no idea that so many mainstream politicians entertained doubts about the AGW thesis."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damia ... -theories/
Climategate: it's all unravelling now
"So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it’s not like you’re going to find much of this reported in the MSM."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... lling-now/?
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:00 am
All very reminiscent of the Telegraph's excellent coverage of passive smoking .
When Scientific Fashion Goes Up in Smoke
http://old.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/suntel10b.html
When Scientific Fashion Goes Up in Smoke
http://old.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/suntel10b.html
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:08 am
Climategate: Michael 'Piltdown' Mann throws Phil Jones out of the sleigh as panic grows
"When a pending investigation provokes panic among suspected wrongdoers, the first thing to collapse is any sense of solidarity in their ranks. A week ago you could not have put a fag paper between Michael “Piltdown” Mann, of hockey stick notoriety, and Phil Jones, the then director of the Creative Research Unit at the “University” of East Anglia. In those confident days, the communal line was that some hackers had stolen university property, Plod would soon be on the case, so move on, please, nothing to see here.
What a difference a week makes. The news that Phil Jones has “stood aside” from the CRU while he is investigated, however sympathetically, has earned him leper status in AGW circles. The disgraced director has the smell of death about his career: the other goats in the herd sense that he is the one marked for sacrifice and are turning away, bleating, to distance themselves from the doomed scapegoat."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... nic-grows/?
Piltdown Man: Britain's Greatest Hoax
"The story of Piltdown Man came out at just the time when scientists were in a desperate race to find the missing link in the theory of evolution. Since Charles Darwin had published his theory on the origin of species in 1859, the hunt had been on for clues to the ancient ancestor that linked apes to humans.
Sensational finds of fossil ancestors, named Neanderthals, had already occurred in Germany and France. British Scientists, however, were desperate to prove that Britain had also played its part in the story of human evolution, and Piltdown Man was the answer to their prayers - because of him, Britain could claim to be the birthplace of mankind."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeolog ... n_01.shtml
"When a pending investigation provokes panic among suspected wrongdoers, the first thing to collapse is any sense of solidarity in their ranks. A week ago you could not have put a fag paper between Michael “Piltdown” Mann, of hockey stick notoriety, and Phil Jones, the then director of the Creative Research Unit at the “University” of East Anglia. In those confident days, the communal line was that some hackers had stolen university property, Plod would soon be on the case, so move on, please, nothing to see here.
What a difference a week makes. The news that Phil Jones has “stood aside” from the CRU while he is investigated, however sympathetically, has earned him leper status in AGW circles. The disgraced director has the smell of death about his career: the other goats in the herd sense that he is the one marked for sacrifice and are turning away, bleating, to distance themselves from the doomed scapegoat."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... nic-grows/?
Piltdown Man: Britain's Greatest Hoax
"The story of Piltdown Man came out at just the time when scientists were in a desperate race to find the missing link in the theory of evolution. Since Charles Darwin had published his theory on the origin of species in 1859, the hunt had been on for clues to the ancient ancestor that linked apes to humans.
Sensational finds of fossil ancestors, named Neanderthals, had already occurred in Germany and France. British Scientists, however, were desperate to prove that Britain had also played its part in the story of human evolution, and Piltdown Man was the answer to their prayers - because of him, Britain could claim to be the birthplace of mankind."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeolog ... n_01.shtml
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:34 pm
Climategate goes uber-viral, Gore flees leaving evil henchmen to defend crumbling citadel
Comment
"A devastating response to “There’s nothing to see here, move along”
4
12
2009
Guest post by John A
"The usual armwaving denial that we should not trust our own lying eyes was delivered by a Harvard Professor in the Boston Globe:
James McCarthy, a respected Harvard professor who was a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) today stressing that e-mails stolen from climate scientists do not undermine the evidenc[e] for manmade global warming.
McCarthy is board chair of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
The letter reads “The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process. The body of evidence that human activity is prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming. The content of these a few personal emails has no impact what-so-ever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.”
In the words of Frank Drebin: “Nothing to see here, move along!”
And then comes this response (comment 13) to which I’ve added a few paragraph breaks and one piece of emphasis:
I am a climate scientist, and it is clear that the evidence that “human activity is prominent [sic] agent in global warming” is NOT overwhelming. The repeated statement that it is does not make it so. Further, even if we accepted the hypothesis, cap-and-trade legislation does not do anything about it.
Here are the facts. We have known for years that the Mann hockey stick model was wrong, and we know why it was wrong (Mann used only selected data to normalize the principal component analysis, not all of it). He retracted the model. We have known for years that the Medieval Warm period occurred, where the temperatures were higher than they are now (Chaucer spoke of vineyards in northern England).
Long before ClimateGate it was known that the IPCC people were trying to fudge the data to get rid of the MWP. And for good reason. If the MWP is “allowed” to exist, this means that temperatures higher than today did not then create a “runaway greenhouse” in the Middle Ages with methane released from the Arctic tundra, ice cap albedo lost, sea levels rising to flood London, etc. etc.), and means that Jim Hansen’s runaway greenhouse that posits only amplifying feedbacks (and no damping feedbacks) will not happen now. We now know that the models on which the IPCC alarms are based to not do clouds, they do not do the biosphere, they do not explain the Pliocene warming, and they have never predicted anything, ever, correctly.
As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm (not that the models are poor approximations for reality); the underpredictions (where are the storms? Why “hide the decline”?) are ignored or hidden.
As for CO2, we have known for years that CO2 increases have never in the past 300,000 years caused temperature rise (CO2 rise trails temperature increase). IPCC scientists know this too (see their “Copenhagen Diagnosis”); we know that their mathematical fudges that dismiss the fact that CO2 has not been historically causative of temperature rise are incorrect as well. We have also known for years that the alleged one degree temperature rise from 1880 vanishes if sites exposed to urban heat islands are not considered.
We have long known that Jones’s paper dismissing this explanation (Jones, et al. 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172) is wrong and potentially fraudulent (see the same data used to confirm urban heat islands in Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380). Everyone except Briffa knows that the Briffa conclusions are wrong, and why they are wrong; groups in Finland, Canada (lots of places actually) show cooling by this proxy, not warming; the IPCC even printed the Finn’s plot upside down to convert the fact (cooling) into the dogma (warming).
Prof. McCarthy is, of course, part of the IPCC that has suppressed dissenting viewpoints based on solid climate science. His claim to support by “peer review” is nonsense; he has helped corrupt the peer review process. We now have documentary evidence that Jones, Mann, and the other IPCC scientists have been gaming peer review and blackballing opponents. On this point, the entire IPCC staff, including Prof. McCarthy, neither have nor deserve our trust.
We have tolerated years of the refusal of Mann and Jones to release data. Now, we learn that much of these data were discarded (one of about 4 data sets that exist), something that would in any other field of science lead to disbarment. We have been annoyed by Al Gore, who declared this science “settled”, refused to debate, and demonized skeptics (this is anti-science: debate and skepticism are the core of real science, which is never settled). The very fact that Prof. McCarthy attempts to bluff Congress by asserting the existence of fictional “overwhelming evidence” continues this anti-science activity.
All of this was known before Climategate. What was not known until now was the extent to which Jones and Mann were simply deceiving themselves (which happens often in science) or fraudently attempting to deceive others. I am not willing to crucify Jones on the word “trick”. Nor, for that matter, on the loss of primary data, keeping only “value added” data (which is hopelessly bad science, but still conceivably not fraud).
But the computer code is transparently fraudulent. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it.
If, as Prof. McCarthy insists, “peer review” was functioning, and the IPCC reports are rigorously peer reviewed, why was this not caught? When placing it in context made it highly likely that this type of fraud was occurring?
The second question is: Will this revelation be enough to cause the “global warming believers” to abandon their crusade, and for people to return to sensible environmental science (water use, habitat destruction, land use, this kind of thing)? Perhaps it will.
Contrary to Prof. McCarthy’s assertion, we have not lost just one research project amid dozens of others that survive. A huge set of primary data are apparently gone. Satellite data are scarcely 40 years old. Everything is interconnected, and anchored on these few studies. Even without the corruption of the peer review process, this is as big a change as quantum mechanics was in physics a century ago.
But now we know that peer review was corrupted, and that no “consensus” exists. The “2500 scientists agree” number is fiction (God knows who they are counting, but to get to this number, they must be including referees, spouses, and pets).
The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.
Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains “overwhelming support” for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.
Posted by Sean December 2, 09 11:26 PM
Wowza! I can only hope that more people in the climate field stick their heads above the parapet and tell it like it is.
Our government, our ‘opposition’ & the media continue to demonstrate an orchestrated response to the recent revelations of which CLIMATEGATE is just one.
An orchestrated conspiracy to present lies as truth. 2 + 2 = 5.
This truth embargo even extends to Google in the auto suggest censoring.
I know for many this will be as shocking as the content of the source code & emails.
The BBC’s coverage continues to present the actions of the CRU as incompetent rather than a conscious, sustained & orchestrated attempt to make the data fit the requirements of the politicians & the UN.
Every day more evidence emerges as brave people speak out against this crime against humanity & all ’stonewalled’ by a complicit media.
Conspiracy theory?
This term has been used as a way of ridiculing any attempt to show that a small number of powerful people can act in orchestrated ways to fulfill an agenda & use that power to set the terms of the debate & stifle, marginalise & denigrate people who point out that people have always linked up with others who share the same aims to achieve a desired outcome.
I would be very interested in people struggling with this right now, or people that aren’t struggling & their interpretation on what is unfolding right now.
I’m also thinking about the good guys on the inside of government / media / corporations that are really fighting for the truth & feeling extremely bad about what is being carried out by criminals responsible for attempting to impose this ‘new world order’ they have all been speaking about.
I’m never going to forget what I see happening here. This is fascism. A Neo-Feudal tyranny & I am going to oppose it. "
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... g-citadel/?
Comment
"A devastating response to “There’s nothing to see here, move along”
4
12
2009
Guest post by John A
"The usual armwaving denial that we should not trust our own lying eyes was delivered by a Harvard Professor in the Boston Globe:
James McCarthy, a respected Harvard professor who was a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) today stressing that e-mails stolen from climate scientists do not undermine the evidenc[e] for manmade global warming.
McCarthy is board chair of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
The letter reads “The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process. The body of evidence that human activity is prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming. The content of these a few personal emails has no impact what-so-ever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.”
In the words of Frank Drebin: “Nothing to see here, move along!”
And then comes this response (comment 13) to which I’ve added a few paragraph breaks and one piece of emphasis:
I am a climate scientist, and it is clear that the evidence that “human activity is prominent [sic] agent in global warming” is NOT overwhelming. The repeated statement that it is does not make it so. Further, even if we accepted the hypothesis, cap-and-trade legislation does not do anything about it.
Here are the facts. We have known for years that the Mann hockey stick model was wrong, and we know why it was wrong (Mann used only selected data to normalize the principal component analysis, not all of it). He retracted the model. We have known for years that the Medieval Warm period occurred, where the temperatures were higher than they are now (Chaucer spoke of vineyards in northern England).
Long before ClimateGate it was known that the IPCC people were trying to fudge the data to get rid of the MWP. And for good reason. If the MWP is “allowed” to exist, this means that temperatures higher than today did not then create a “runaway greenhouse” in the Middle Ages with methane released from the Arctic tundra, ice cap albedo lost, sea levels rising to flood London, etc. etc.), and means that Jim Hansen’s runaway greenhouse that posits only amplifying feedbacks (and no damping feedbacks) will not happen now. We now know that the models on which the IPCC alarms are based to not do clouds, they do not do the biosphere, they do not explain the Pliocene warming, and they have never predicted anything, ever, correctly.
As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm (not that the models are poor approximations for reality); the underpredictions (where are the storms? Why “hide the decline”?) are ignored or hidden.
As for CO2, we have known for years that CO2 increases have never in the past 300,000 years caused temperature rise (CO2 rise trails temperature increase). IPCC scientists know this too (see their “Copenhagen Diagnosis”); we know that their mathematical fudges that dismiss the fact that CO2 has not been historically causative of temperature rise are incorrect as well. We have also known for years that the alleged one degree temperature rise from 1880 vanishes if sites exposed to urban heat islands are not considered.
We have long known that Jones’s paper dismissing this explanation (Jones, et al. 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172) is wrong and potentially fraudulent (see the same data used to confirm urban heat islands in Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380). Everyone except Briffa knows that the Briffa conclusions are wrong, and why they are wrong; groups in Finland, Canada (lots of places actually) show cooling by this proxy, not warming; the IPCC even printed the Finn’s plot upside down to convert the fact (cooling) into the dogma (warming).
Prof. McCarthy is, of course, part of the IPCC that has suppressed dissenting viewpoints based on solid climate science. His claim to support by “peer review” is nonsense; he has helped corrupt the peer review process. We now have documentary evidence that Jones, Mann, and the other IPCC scientists have been gaming peer review and blackballing opponents. On this point, the entire IPCC staff, including Prof. McCarthy, neither have nor deserve our trust.
We have tolerated years of the refusal of Mann and Jones to release data. Now, we learn that much of these data were discarded (one of about 4 data sets that exist), something that would in any other field of science lead to disbarment. We have been annoyed by Al Gore, who declared this science “settled”, refused to debate, and demonized skeptics (this is anti-science: debate and skepticism are the core of real science, which is never settled). The very fact that Prof. McCarthy attempts to bluff Congress by asserting the existence of fictional “overwhelming evidence” continues this anti-science activity.
All of this was known before Climategate. What was not known until now was the extent to which Jones and Mann were simply deceiving themselves (which happens often in science) or fraudently attempting to deceive others. I am not willing to crucify Jones on the word “trick”. Nor, for that matter, on the loss of primary data, keeping only “value added” data (which is hopelessly bad science, but still conceivably not fraud).
But the computer code is transparently fraudulent. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it.
If, as Prof. McCarthy insists, “peer review” was functioning, and the IPCC reports are rigorously peer reviewed, why was this not caught? When placing it in context made it highly likely that this type of fraud was occurring?
The second question is: Will this revelation be enough to cause the “global warming believers” to abandon their crusade, and for people to return to sensible environmental science (water use, habitat destruction, land use, this kind of thing)? Perhaps it will.
Contrary to Prof. McCarthy’s assertion, we have not lost just one research project amid dozens of others that survive. A huge set of primary data are apparently gone. Satellite data are scarcely 40 years old. Everything is interconnected, and anchored on these few studies. Even without the corruption of the peer review process, this is as big a change as quantum mechanics was in physics a century ago.
But now we know that peer review was corrupted, and that no “consensus” exists. The “2500 scientists agree” number is fiction (God knows who they are counting, but to get to this number, they must be including referees, spouses, and pets).
The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.
Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains “overwhelming support” for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.
Posted by Sean December 2, 09 11:26 PM
Wowza! I can only hope that more people in the climate field stick their heads above the parapet and tell it like it is.
Our government, our ‘opposition’ & the media continue to demonstrate an orchestrated response to the recent revelations of which CLIMATEGATE is just one.
An orchestrated conspiracy to present lies as truth. 2 + 2 = 5.
This truth embargo even extends to Google in the auto suggest censoring.
I know for many this will be as shocking as the content of the source code & emails.
The BBC’s coverage continues to present the actions of the CRU as incompetent rather than a conscious, sustained & orchestrated attempt to make the data fit the requirements of the politicians & the UN.
Every day more evidence emerges as brave people speak out against this crime against humanity & all ’stonewalled’ by a complicit media.
Conspiracy theory?
This term has been used as a way of ridiculing any attempt to show that a small number of powerful people can act in orchestrated ways to fulfill an agenda & use that power to set the terms of the debate & stifle, marginalise & denigrate people who point out that people have always linked up with others who share the same aims to achieve a desired outcome.
I would be very interested in people struggling with this right now, or people that aren’t struggling & their interpretation on what is unfolding right now.
I’m also thinking about the good guys on the inside of government / media / corporations that are really fighting for the truth & feeling extremely bad about what is being carried out by criminals responsible for attempting to impose this ‘new world order’ they have all been speaking about.
I’m never going to forget what I see happening here. This is fascism. A Neo-Feudal tyranny & I am going to oppose it. "
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... g-citadel/?
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:16 pm
Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world'
"Right at the heart of the sound and fury of "Climategate" – the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – is one story of scientific chicanery, overlooked by the media, whose implications dwarf all the rest.
If all those thousands of emails and other documents were leaked by an angry whistle-blower, as now seems likely, it was this story more than any other that he or she wanted the world to see."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... world.html
"Right at the heart of the sound and fury of "Climategate" – the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – is one story of scientific chicanery, overlooked by the media, whose implications dwarf all the rest.
If all those thousands of emails and other documents were leaked by an angry whistle-blower, as now seems likely, it was this story more than any other that he or she wanted the world to see."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... world.html
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:10 am
Climategate: how the Copenhagen Grinches stole Christmas
"First they try to steal $45 trillion of our hard-earned cash in the name of ‘combatting climate change”. Now they steal our holidays too: the organisers of the Copenhagen Summit – COP 15 to use its snappy official name – have banned Christmas.
Here’s Copenhagen Post Online:
Participants in the COP15 climate summit should not be subject to Christmas symbols such as fir trees, says the foreign ministry.
Although the COP15 climate conference is set to take place during the Christmas season, the Foreign Ministry believes the holiday and all its symbols should be kept well clear of the summit."
‘We have to remember that this is a UN conference and, as the centre then becomes UN territory, there can be no Christmas trees in the decor, because the UN wishes to maintain neutrality,’ said Olling."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... christmas/?
"First they try to steal $45 trillion of our hard-earned cash in the name of ‘combatting climate change”. Now they steal our holidays too: the organisers of the Copenhagen Summit – COP 15 to use its snappy official name – have banned Christmas.
Here’s Copenhagen Post Online:
Participants in the COP15 climate summit should not be subject to Christmas symbols such as fir trees, says the foreign ministry.
Although the COP15 climate conference is set to take place during the Christmas season, the Foreign Ministry believes the holiday and all its symbols should be kept well clear of the summit."
‘We have to remember that this is a UN conference and, as the centre then becomes UN territory, there can be no Christmas trees in the decor, because the UN wishes to maintain neutrality,’ said Olling."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... christmas/?
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:50 am
Climategate controversy has echoes of Watergate, UN says !
But read on....
"UN officials likened the Climategate controversy to Watergate today, claiming that computer hackers who stole thousands of e-mails sent by a senior climate scientist were probably paid to do it by people intent on undermining the Copenhagen summit.
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the theft from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was not the work of amateur climate sceptics but a sophisticated and well-funded attempt to destroy public confidence in the science of man-made climate change.
He said the fact that the e-mails were first uploaded to a sceptic website from a computer in Russia was an indication that the culprit was paid.
"It's very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 946281.ece
The posters don't appear to be convinced.
But read on....
"UN officials likened the Climategate controversy to Watergate today, claiming that computer hackers who stole thousands of e-mails sent by a senior climate scientist were probably paid to do it by people intent on undermining the Copenhagen summit.
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the theft from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was not the work of amateur climate sceptics but a sophisticated and well-funded attempt to destroy public confidence in the science of man-made climate change.
He said the fact that the e-mails were first uploaded to a sceptic website from a computer in Russia was an indication that the culprit was paid.
"It's very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 946281.ece
The posters don't appear to be convinced.
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:07 am
Climategate: the Russian distraction
"Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is blaming Climategate on a fiendish Russian plot. Well he would, wouldn’t he?"
"Richard North has another theory: the story is utter bilge.
First, he argues, there is absolutely no significance that the leaked Climatic Research Unit (CRU) files were deposited on a server in the Siberian city of Tomsk.
From the very start, then, the crucial issue is that this is a publicly-accessible server which can be reached from anywhere in the world. Furthermore, Russian servers are particularly attractive to people who wish to lodge material on the internet anonymously, as the Russian authorities are distinctly unhelpful when it comes to revealing the addresses of computers used to upload material onto servers in their territory.
Thus, the fact that the material was placed on a Russian server gives no clue whatsoever as to the identity of the person (or persons) who uploaded the material, or of their location."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... straction/
THE DAY THE EARTH CAUGHT FIRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZI4N5HyCUo
"The Day the Earth Caught Fire is an apocalyptic British science fiction film starring Edward Judd, Leo McKern and Janet Munro.It was directed by Val Guest and released in 1961.
The movie, which was filmed on location in London and Brighton, also used matte painting to create images of abandoned cities and desolate landscapes. The production featured the Daily Express newspaper, using the paper's real headquarters, the Daily Express Building, in Fleet Street, London."
"Meanwhile, after the Soviet Union and USA detonated nearly-simultaneous nuclear bomb tests, strange meteorological events begin to affect the globe. Due to his unpopularity in the newsroom, Stenning is sent to the British Met Office to get some facts and figures on mean temperatures."
"It soon becomes clear that the earth has been shifted from its orbit and is moving closer to the sun; increasing heat has caused water to evaporate and mists to cover Britain"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_th ... aught_Fire
Manmade Global Warming
They used to show these old black and white films on TV.
"Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is blaming Climategate on a fiendish Russian plot. Well he would, wouldn’t he?"
"Richard North has another theory: the story is utter bilge.
First, he argues, there is absolutely no significance that the leaked Climatic Research Unit (CRU) files were deposited on a server in the Siberian city of Tomsk.
From the very start, then, the crucial issue is that this is a publicly-accessible server which can be reached from anywhere in the world. Furthermore, Russian servers are particularly attractive to people who wish to lodge material on the internet anonymously, as the Russian authorities are distinctly unhelpful when it comes to revealing the addresses of computers used to upload material onto servers in their territory.
Thus, the fact that the material was placed on a Russian server gives no clue whatsoever as to the identity of the person (or persons) who uploaded the material, or of their location."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... straction/
THE DAY THE EARTH CAUGHT FIRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZI4N5HyCUo
"The Day the Earth Caught Fire is an apocalyptic British science fiction film starring Edward Judd, Leo McKern and Janet Munro.It was directed by Val Guest and released in 1961.
The movie, which was filmed on location in London and Brighton, also used matte painting to create images of abandoned cities and desolate landscapes. The production featured the Daily Express newspaper, using the paper's real headquarters, the Daily Express Building, in Fleet Street, London."
"Meanwhile, after the Soviet Union and USA detonated nearly-simultaneous nuclear bomb tests, strange meteorological events begin to affect the globe. Due to his unpopularity in the newsroom, Stenning is sent to the British Met Office to get some facts and figures on mean temperatures."
"It soon becomes clear that the earth has been shifted from its orbit and is moving closer to the sun; increasing heat has caused water to evaporate and mists to cover Britain"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_th ... aught_Fire
Manmade Global Warming
They used to show these old black and white films on TV.
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:26 am
"But what is of compelling interest on this side of the pond is the way in which the bullets to shoot down American democracy were made in Britain. The trail is not hard to follow. When the EPA published its “Endangerment Finding” on greenhouse gases and proposed rule, back in April, almost every paragraph of the text (Federal Register, April 24, 2009, pp 18886-18910) cited as authority the IPCC’s 2007 Report, which the Agency acknowledges it “relies on most heavily”. And whence came the main input on climate change to that report?
Yes, that’s right! You’ve got it: from Phil Jones, Michael Mann and the rest of the lads at the CRU, East Anglia. From the innovative, creative “scientists” who wanted to “beat the crap” out of a climate change sceptic; who “just completed Mike’s Nature trick”; who “can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”; who deleted e-mails in the interests of science; who tried to prevent publication of dissenters’ views; who coined the historic phrase “hide the decline”.
Those jokers are the main authority for the extravagant claims in the IPCC report and, by extension, for the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding”. That is the authority that is being invoked to overturn the principles of 1776 in the United States."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... n-britain/?
Monday, May 15, 2000
"Environmental tobacco smoke, generated from sidestream and exhaled mainstream smoke of cigarettes, pipes, and cigars is listed as a "known human carcinogen."
The Report indicates this listing is based on the observed causal relationship between passive exposure to tobacco smoke and human lung cancer"
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2000/niehs-15.htm
Yes, that’s right! You’ve got it: from Phil Jones, Michael Mann and the rest of the lads at the CRU, East Anglia. From the innovative, creative “scientists” who wanted to “beat the crap” out of a climate change sceptic; who “just completed Mike’s Nature trick”; who “can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”; who deleted e-mails in the interests of science; who tried to prevent publication of dissenters’ views; who coined the historic phrase “hide the decline”.
Those jokers are the main authority for the extravagant claims in the IPCC report and, by extension, for the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding”. That is the authority that is being invoked to overturn the principles of 1776 in the United States."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... n-britain/?
Monday, May 15, 2000
"Environmental tobacco smoke, generated from sidestream and exhaled mainstream smoke of cigarettes, pipes, and cigars is listed as a "known human carcinogen."
The Report indicates this listing is based on the observed causal relationship between passive exposure to tobacco smoke and human lung cancer"
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2000/niehs-15.htm
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:34 am
"THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.
The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report."
http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm
"Mr. Chairman,
I am testifying today in order to report to the Subcommittee the results of my extensive investigation of the EPA's handling of the controversy surrounding environmental tobacco smoke or "ETS".
As you know, in the past the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of this Committee has conducted hearings on EPA's abuses of government contracting requirements. So pervasive is the level of abuse that Chairman Dingell has characterized EPA's pattern of contract mismanagement as a "cesspool".
EPA's Inspector General recently has confirmed that such abuses also have taken place in connection with a number of EPA contracts involving ETS, and the O and I Subcommittee's own investigation is continuing.
In addition to various contractual improprieties, however, my own investigation suggests that in its consideration of ETS, the Agency has deliberately abused and manipulated the scientific data in order to reach a predetermined, politically motivated result."
http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley.html
The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report."
http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm
"Mr. Chairman,
I am testifying today in order to report to the Subcommittee the results of my extensive investigation of the EPA's handling of the controversy surrounding environmental tobacco smoke or "ETS".
As you know, in the past the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of this Committee has conducted hearings on EPA's abuses of government contracting requirements. So pervasive is the level of abuse that Chairman Dingell has characterized EPA's pattern of contract mismanagement as a "cesspool".
EPA's Inspector General recently has confirmed that such abuses also have taken place in connection with a number of EPA contracts involving ETS, and the O and I Subcommittee's own investigation is continuing.
In addition to various contractual improprieties, however, my own investigation suggests that in its consideration of ETS, the Agency has deliberately abused and manipulated the scientific data in order to reach a predetermined, politically motivated result."
http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley.html
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:27 am
Climate of Fear
"As the Institute’s press spokesman, Ward does a fantastic job for his masters by terrifying the living daylights out of people in the media (see Fraser, above) who are even remotely sceptical about AGW. A favoured tactic is to report them to the Press Complaints Commission for the slightest perceived factual error, presumably because he knows that the supine PCC will almost always cave in to bullying rather than stand up to what often turns out to be the most trivial and vexatious nitpicking"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... e-of-fear/
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London
Dear Sir or Madam
Re: Sunday Telegraph reports on passive smoking, 8-15 March 1998
I wish to make a complaint about Sunday Telegraph reporting based on a front page article headlined "Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official" which appeared on 8th March. This story relates to an epidemiological study of the relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoking in the home and in the workplace. The study was conducted by the International Agency for Research into Cancer (IARC) which is part of the WHO. The Sunday Telegraph story was inaccurate, distorted and misleading. There has been no withdrawal or apology.
An accompanying editorial "A setback for nanny" repeats inaccuracies in the front page article and adds a series of assertions suggesting improper motives on behalf of the World Health Organization that are pure conjecture and not grounded in facts or evidence. These assertions, though clearly unsubstantiated, have not been withdrawn and there has been no apology.
Finally, follow-up pieces the next week "No 'significant' risk in passive smoking" and "Behind the smokescreen" rejected the criticisms made of the original article during the week, stood by the story, and made a series of unfounded accusations against those that had criticised it during the week. In an attempt to stand by its original story, the second article restated its case, but in different terms to the first article. It continued, wrongly, to maintain that the study justifies the assertion "you may not like smoke in your face, but it doesn't look as if it will kill you." It played on the word 'significant' which is used in a formal statistical sense, to suggest the risks are insignificant. At no point did it acknowledge, withdraw or apologise for the bold and thoroughly incorrect assertions made the previous week. The three articles and editorial are at Appendix 1.
I have reviewed the PCC Code of Practice and believe the Code has been very clearly violated at paragraphs 1.i, 1.ii, 1.iii and 1.iv - the paragraphs relating to 'Accuracy' in the four related pieces described above. The relevant part of the Code is at Appendix 2."
http://old.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/pcc0.html
"As the Institute’s press spokesman, Ward does a fantastic job for his masters by terrifying the living daylights out of people in the media (see Fraser, above) who are even remotely sceptical about AGW. A favoured tactic is to report them to the Press Complaints Commission for the slightest perceived factual error, presumably because he knows that the supine PCC will almost always cave in to bullying rather than stand up to what often turns out to be the most trivial and vexatious nitpicking"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... e-of-fear/
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London
Dear Sir or Madam
Re: Sunday Telegraph reports on passive smoking, 8-15 March 1998
I wish to make a complaint about Sunday Telegraph reporting based on a front page article headlined "Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official" which appeared on 8th March. This story relates to an epidemiological study of the relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoking in the home and in the workplace. The study was conducted by the International Agency for Research into Cancer (IARC) which is part of the WHO. The Sunday Telegraph story was inaccurate, distorted and misleading. There has been no withdrawal or apology.
An accompanying editorial "A setback for nanny" repeats inaccuracies in the front page article and adds a series of assertions suggesting improper motives on behalf of the World Health Organization that are pure conjecture and not grounded in facts or evidence. These assertions, though clearly unsubstantiated, have not been withdrawn and there has been no apology.
Finally, follow-up pieces the next week "No 'significant' risk in passive smoking" and "Behind the smokescreen" rejected the criticisms made of the original article during the week, stood by the story, and made a series of unfounded accusations against those that had criticised it during the week. In an attempt to stand by its original story, the second article restated its case, but in different terms to the first article. It continued, wrongly, to maintain that the study justifies the assertion "you may not like smoke in your face, but it doesn't look as if it will kill you." It played on the word 'significant' which is used in a formal statistical sense, to suggest the risks are insignificant. At no point did it acknowledge, withdraw or apologise for the bold and thoroughly incorrect assertions made the previous week. The three articles and editorial are at Appendix 1.
I have reviewed the PCC Code of Practice and believe the Code has been very clearly violated at paragraphs 1.i, 1.ii, 1.iii and 1.iv - the paragraphs relating to 'Accuracy' in the four related pieces described above. The relevant part of the Code is at Appendix 2."
http://old.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/pcc0.html
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:55 am
Climategate: Met Office leads the way in recycling – in this instance, discredited climate data
"Now hear the infallible ex cathedra pronouncement of the appropriately named Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, who has proclaimed to the Copenhagen Conclave that “the world continues to see global temperature rise most of which is due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and clearly shows that the argument that global warming has stopped is flawed”. Well, that’s it, then. Vicky locuta, causa finita.
Excuse I, but where does the evidence supporting this decree come from? Why, from figures showing temperature changes over the past 160 years, which rank 2009 as the fifth hottest year. Groovy. And this data was supplied by…? Why, jointly by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the authoritative and internationally respected Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Uh-huh. Does the name of that institution not have a familiar ring to it, or am I confusing it with somewhere else… like Disneyland?
And would the Met Office currently earning rave reviews from the faithful at Copenhagen be any connection of the Met Office that announced just four days ago that it would need three years to rebuild ground-based climate models while recompiling raw data from the past 160 years to replace the data that the University of East Anglia’s CRU destroyed years ago and to review the reliability of CRU-derived conclusions?
Wow, that didn’t take long, after all, did it? Could that be anything to do with reports that the Government was trying to prevent the Met Office carrying out this reassessment, for fear of playing into the hands of global warming sceptics? "
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... mate-data/?
"Now hear the infallible ex cathedra pronouncement of the appropriately named Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, who has proclaimed to the Copenhagen Conclave that “the world continues to see global temperature rise most of which is due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and clearly shows that the argument that global warming has stopped is flawed”. Well, that’s it, then. Vicky locuta, causa finita.
Excuse I, but where does the evidence supporting this decree come from? Why, from figures showing temperature changes over the past 160 years, which rank 2009 as the fifth hottest year. Groovy. And this data was supplied by…? Why, jointly by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the authoritative and internationally respected Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Uh-huh. Does the name of that institution not have a familiar ring to it, or am I confusing it with somewhere else… like Disneyland?
And would the Met Office currently earning rave reviews from the faithful at Copenhagen be any connection of the Met Office that announced just four days ago that it would need three years to rebuild ground-based climate models while recompiling raw data from the past 160 years to replace the data that the University of East Anglia’s CRU destroyed years ago and to review the reliability of CRU-derived conclusions?
Wow, that didn’t take long, after all, did it? Could that be anything to do with reports that the Government was trying to prevent the Met Office carrying out this reassessment, for fear of playing into the hands of global warming sceptics? "
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... mate-data/?
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:54 am
More Climategate
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... f-big-oil/?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... f-big-oil/?
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:00 am
Climategate: the video everyone should see
"Next time you’re in an argument with someone who is totally convinced that global warming is a) man made and b) unprecedented, why not show them this brief video from Watts Up With That? Game over!"
The Ice Core records.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... hould-see/?
"Next time you’re in an argument with someone who is totally convinced that global warming is a) man made and b) unprecedented, why not show them this brief video from Watts Up With That? Game over!"
The Ice Core records.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... hould-see/?
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests