Showing posts with label Climategate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climategate. Show all posts

Saturday, March 06, 2010

An Inconvenient Question

I missed this video when it first came out. It is reporter Phelim McAleer asking Stephen Schneider some questions. Check out the totalitarian response to an inconvenient question.

And just who is Stephen Schneider? He is the academic who said:

“To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Ah. So honesty is no longer the best policy. Nice to know where he stands. If he is talking he is lying. Unless conclusively beyond a reasonable doubt proved otherwise.

And Mr. SS has written a book:

Science as a Contact Sport

Evidently the contact has been a bit too much for him.

Schneider is also a member of the Club Of Rome. Here is a bit on The Club of Rome along with a cast of characters.
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller
Well on to the video.



And these folks wonder why there is a Tea Party movement? It seems like a rational response to their plan for world domination.

Tea Party Difference


Click on the above image and learn how to spread it around.


Cross Posted at Classical Values

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Climate Redo

The British Met (Meteorological) Office says it is time for a redo of the world temperature records.

The land-based temperature records collected by the British Meteorological Office form a central plank of the scientific evidence for global warming.

The office has collated global temperature readings back to 1850, and while the raw data have not been freely available, graphs representing it have been.

The office provided details this week of its self-imposed review of global temperature records, announced last month, in an effort to try to regain public trust in climate science in the wake of the East Anglia University debacle.

In a document entitled ''Proposal for a New International Analysis of Land Surface Air Temperature Data'', the office argued that it was time to propose an international effort to reanalyse surface temperature data in collaboration with the World Meteorological Organisation.

The new analysis, which is expected to take three years, aims to test the conclusions reached by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that ''warming of the climate system is unequivocal''.
I'm pretty confidant that if the review is carried out with that goal in mind the results will be reported as: "It is worse than we thought."

What is interesting is that they make no mention of proving that CO2 is the cause. I guess that now a days that is just assumed.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

You Can't Fool Me



Which was brought on by this comment at Watts Up With That?
Doug S (18:35:46) :

Dr. Curry, I think you did a good job in reconstructing the time line of political and scientific consensus coming together to ignite the warming craze. I believe the nut jobs in the progressive political movement latched onto the CO2 warming theory, recognizing that it could be used to further their goals and the climate scientists unwittingly, in some cases, took them on as allies. Once this partnership became apparent to all of us “stupid ordinary taxpaying citizens, the dummies that pay for the data collection” it was only a matter of time before popular opinion turned against the elite scientists and progressives. I don’t think enough credit is given to the average potato farmer with a solid eight grade education; he may not be college educated but he can recognize a con game when he see one.
And then my response:

The key line in the cartoon is about 2:45 in, “You can’t fool me because I’m too stupid.” Or as Orwell preferred: “Some things are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them.”

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Time For A Redo

Fox News is reporting that there is to be a redo of climate data.

At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists, representatives of Britain’s weather office quietly proposed that the world’s climatologists start all over again to produce a new trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and “rigorous” peer review.
Isn't that supposed to be how science is done? Yes it is. Ah. But they still have a few surprises in store. Check this out:
The Hadley stonewall began to crumble after a gusher of leaked e-mails revealed climate scientists, including the center’s chief, Phil Jones, discussing how to keep controversial climate data out of the hands of the skeptics, keep opposing scientific viewpoints out of peer-reviewed scientific journals, and bemoaning that their climate models failed to account for more than a decade of stagnation in global temperatures. Jones later revealed that key temperature datasets used in Hadley’s predictions had been lost, and could not be retrieved for verification.
No data. Well that is bad.

But how about this for a capper:
Then, in a last defense of its old ways, the Met proposals argues says that its old datasets “are adequate for answering the pressing 20th Century questions of whether climate is changing and if so how.
So no data is good enough to make a case in the 20th Century but for the 21st Century such an oversight will just not do. That kind of thinking puts my mind totally at ease.

H/T Watts Up With That

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Trouble In Climate Land



H/T seedload at Talk Polywell

Thursday, February 18, 2010

A New Revelation

We have some new Climate e-mails to peruse. This one is from the fourth pdf. I transcribed it by hand so if you find any errors let me know.

Subject: Re: Fwd: US temperature correction graphic and file
From:Reto Ruedy
Date:Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:30:24 -0400
To:James Hansen
CC:Makiko Sato , gavin@e-mail, klo@e-mail

Jim,

I did make those calculations (I assume you mean using only GHCN and hand-adjusting only St. Helens and Lihue, in both cases decreasing the trend, eliminating a 1C and .8C step, resp., as stated in our 1999 paper, also using our urban adjustment.

I only held them back because bringing in a new analysis at this time would confuse the situation beyond hope.

As far as global means are concerned, the effect of our cleaningis slightly negative for the pre-1950 period, slighly positive thereafter, the biggest deviations are -.01C in 1922, +.01C in 2006; the change in 1900-1999 (lin. trend) is .01C/century (i.e. without cleaning it would decrease by .01C).

The US trend however is a different story though not surprising: In addition to the change caused by the UHCN modifications (+.30C for the 1900-1999 change as noted in our 2001 paper: +.14 TOBS, +.16 station hist.adj), the other modifications added .08C/century to the trend. So the trend would decrease by .38C.

The deviations for the individual years caused by the cleaning range from -.13 in 1922 to +.37 in 2006. The optical impression this creates when you look at the table of data is totally misleading: the 1998 anomaly just happens to fall below 1C (.93C) whereas 1921, 1931, 1934 are above 1C (1.27, 1,20, 1.37C) !

Reto
It would be real nice to find out what this is about. At first glance it appears they adjust things in a way that adds almost .4°C to the US trend. Is this a valid adjustment? We would need to go back to the station data and then all the various adjustments and corrections to find out.

Think of it this way though. If the trend has been incorrectly adjusted by nearly .4°C a century then the temperature trend is almost non-existent.

H/T Author and Commenters at Watts Up With That

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Sunday, February 14, 2010

The Wheels Are Coming Off

Phil Jones admits no statistically significant warming since 1995.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
But what about the steady rise in CO2 since the start of the industrial age? That has got to have caused something. Here is a question and answer - British Style - Between BBC reporter Roger Harrabin (H) and Phil Jones (J) of the University of East Anglia ClimateGate Scandal.
H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

J - The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing...
Well whaddaya know. We couldn't find who dunnit so we're going to pin the rap on you. That kind of injustice is occasionally imposed by the courts. Science is supposed to be better than that. You jerk.

But in fact he did just what he was told to do. You can read the IPCC remit in their charter.
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
You know. That is one of the funniest things I have ever read. In terms of religious history. In times past what we didn't understand we ascribed to the gods, a god, or The God. Now it is all man's fault.

Science IS better than that. About 11 March 2008 sceptic Richard Lindzen said:
There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995. Why bother with the
arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998?
So that is 15 years more or less with no statistically significant warming. While CO2 has been going up. And now Jones agrees.

As they say in the movies - this is a big break in the case.

And as usual Osama is wrong about everything. Maybe Mr. Obama as well.

H/T Author and Commenters at Watts Up With That

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Sunday, February 07, 2010

Mercy Me, Another One

There is trouble brewing in Africa. Climate Trouble. It seems to be another case of a not wholly disinterested party hyping fears based on less than adequate sources. It seems to be a theme over at the IPCC.

Following an investigation by this blog (and with the story also told in The Sunday Times), another major "mistake" in the IPCC's benchmark Fourth Assessment Report has emerged.

Similar in effect to the erroneous "2035" claim – the year the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt – in this instance we find that the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.

At best, this is a wild exaggeration, unsupported by any scientific research, referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.

Unlike the glacier claim, which was confined to a section of the technical Working Group II report, this "50 percent by 2020" claim forms part of the key Synthesis Report, the production of which was the personal responsibility of the chair of the IPCC, Dr R K Pachauri. It has been repeated by him in many public fora. He, therefore, bears a personal responsibility for the error.
What is it now? The third or fifteenth report of major anomalies in the IPCC record? Well what ever the number they are starting to add up.
"Will the overall fall in agricultural production be very large or relatively small?" Conway asked, noting that: "Part of our ignorance comes from a growing but, nevertheless, poor understanding of the drivers of the African climate and their complex interactions."

"Part is due to a severe lack of local weather data, particularly for central Africa," he continued. "This lack of knowledge makes it difficult to validate climate models and hence predict with any degree of accuracy what will happen as a result of climate change at a country, or even sub-regional level in Africa."
What? The models are unvalidated? I have to tell you I am shocked. But wait. Climate is a chaotic system. And in such a system errors can multiply out of control. And because of a lack of data the climate "scientists" can't be sure they have it right. For a continent. And that uncertainty could propagate. It could also mean the other better known areas have their parameters set wrong because of the unknowns. Which could make the models good for predicting the known past and useless for predicting the future. Nice work if you can get it.

H/T Watts Up With That

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Chinese Puzzle

The guardian.co.uk, a paper not noted for its scepticism about Man Made Global Warming, has uncovered what appears to be fraud in the Phil Jones account of Chinese weather stations.

Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue.

Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones's collaborator, Wei-­Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up".
. What amuses me about this is that Climate Audit had made similar claims in 2007 and they had left no mark on the good science of the climate researchers.
Did Jones et al 1990 “fabricate” its quality control claims? This hard-hitting question is asked by Doug Keenan here. He cites the following claims from Jones et al 1990 and Wang et al:
The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times. [Jones et al.]

They were chosen based on station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times…. [Wang et al.]
Keenan observed that those statements are vital for the papers. For many years, no one knew what stations were used in Jones et al 1990. Only after recent FOI actions in the UK publicized here at CA did a list of the stations used in Jones et al 1990 become available in March 2007, after years of obstruction. Since then, Keenan has corresponded recently with both Jones and Wang, seeking a valid explanation of the above claims. His conclusion:
The essential point here is that the quoted statements from Jones et al. and Wang et al. cannot be true and could not be in error by accident. The statements are fabricated.
So far the discrepancies uncovered by McIntyre have proved to be true and the cover ups and obfuscations of the Team have appeared to be false. And it is early days yet. Not even three months into ClimateGate and the IPCC report is falling apart.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Dear God Please Not Another One

James Delingpole appears to have found another hole in the IPCC "science". You can check out his view of the holes in the science of the Amazon rain forest. I'd rather look at personalities.

It gets even better. The two expert authors of the WWF report so casually cited by the IPCC as part of its, ahem, “robust” “peer-reviewed” process weren’t even Amazon specialists. One, Dr PF Moore, is a policy analyst:
My background and experience around the world has required and developed high-level policy and analytical skills. I have a strong understanding of government administration, legislative review, analysis and inquiries generated through involvement in or management of the Australian Regional Forest Agreement process, Parliamentary and Government inquiries, Coronial inquiries and public submissions on water pricing, access and use rights and native vegetation legislation in Australia and fire and natural resources laws, regulations and policies in Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, South Africa and Malaysia.
And the lead author Andy Rowell is a freelance journalist (for the Guardian, natch) and green activist:
Andy Rowell is a freelance writer and Investigative journalist with over 12 years’ experience on environmental, food, health and globalization issues. Rowell has undertaken cutting-edge investigations for, amongst others, Action on Smoking and Health, The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, IFAW, the Pan American Health Organization, Project Underground, the World Health Organization, World in Action and WWF.
But the IPCC’s shamelessness did not end there. Dr North has searched the WWF’s reports high and low but can find no evidence of a statement to support the IPCC’s claim that “40 per cent” of the Amazon is threatened by climate change.
Oh. Dear God No. They are just making shit up.

Here is what I think IPCC now stands for:

IPretend (you) Cough (up the) Coin.

A Disaster Of Biblical Proportions

The UN's IPCC has just taken a few more torpedoes below the water line.

Well it turns out that the WWF is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri’s watch.

A new posting authored by Donna Laframboise, the creator of NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada) shows what one can find in just one day of looking.

Here’s an extensive list of documents created or co-authored by the WWF and cited by this Nobel-winning IPCC AR4 report:
I'm not going to reprise the long list. You can find it at the links provided.

I would like to touch on a few things. First off WWF stands for the World Wildlife Fund. Second I'd like to look at the connection between the WWF and the UK Meteorological Office.
What is not generally realised is that the UK Met Office has been, since 1990, at the very centre of the campaign to convince the world that it faces catastrophe through global warming. (Its website now proclaims it to be "the Met Office for Weather and Climate Change".) Its then-director, Dr John Houghton, was the single most influential figure in setting up the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the chief driver of climate alarmism. Its Hadley Centre for Climate Change, along with the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), was put in charge of the most prestigious of the four official global temperature records. In line with IPCC theory, its computers were programmed to predict that, as CO2 levels rose, temperatures would inevitably follow. From 1990 to 2007, the Department of the Environment gave the Met Office no less than £146 million for its "climate predictions programme".

But in the past three years, with the Met Office chaired by Robert Napier, a former global warming activist and previously head of WWF UK, its pretensions have been exposed as never before. The "Climategate" leak of documents from the CRU, along with further revelations from Russian scientists, have shown the CRU/Met Office alliance systematically manipulating temperature data, past and present, to show the world growing warmer than the evidence justified. And those same computers used to predict temperatures 100 years ahead for the IPCC have also been used to produce those weather forecasts that prove so consistently wrong.

Scientific method has gone out of the window, to support a theory that looks more questionable than ever.
And what is the WWF telling its Internet readers?
The U.K. Met Office says "it is more likely than not that 2010 will be the warmest year in the instrumental record, beating the previous record year which was 1998."

The Met Office said the record temperatures likely will be driven by "a combination of man-made global warming and a moderate warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as El NiƱo." It noted that this year is the fifth warmest year, based on records extending back to 1850.

"Looking further ahead, our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010–2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far — 1998," the Met Office said.
Ah yes the experimental models. What he means is computer programs. Unverified computer programs with dodgy codes and corrupted data.

And about the floods and hurricanes that are supposed to descend on mankind if he doesn't mend his ways? Made up.
THE UN climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to a rise in natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny - and ignored warnings from scientific advisers. The report's author later withdrew the claim because the evidence was too weak.

The link was central to demands at last month's Copenhagen climate summit by African nations for compensation of $US100 billion from the rich nations.

However, the IPCC knew in 2008 that the link could not be proved but did not alert world leaders, who have used weather extremes to bolster the case for action on climate change.
And they knew it was bad and did nothing. You know, that is not the only fraud uncovered. We may now be in possession of tens of them. So far. In fact it is looking like the whole IPCC enterprise is a fraud. And that doesn't even get to the bottom of the CO2 emissions trading fraud.

I'd like to go back to Watts Up With That and look at a few comments on the subject.

Evidently the WWF is removing articles they had formerly posted. That is pretty good evidence on its face that they were fraudulent.
Jer (18:34:30) :

I find that most of the links are now inactive. Wondering if this is happening because of the attention. It seems like IPCC referenced material ought to be available.

Jer
This one is amusing:
PaulH (18:34:53) :

@Patrick Davis: It might be easier to list what the IPCC got right.

Frankly, if the IPCC were to declare that water is wet I would insist on independent verification from a non-UN/non-WWF affiliated organization before believing it.
Another joker.
Halfwise (18:49:58) :

It is easy to get confused between the World Wildlife Fund and World Wrestling Entertainment. Here is how to tell them apart: One gets crowds wildly excited with staged antics, bizarre plot lines and unbelievable hype. The other stages wrestling exhibitions.
Here is one about the fraud connections. It refers to a rather long comment with links up thread.
Andrew30 (19:04:30) :

pat (18:37:29) : ;

Yes, pat I put that there.

This list of documents goes beyond just one carbon trader.

So was the money and influence from more then one carbon trader being channeled through the WWF to both the CRU and the IPCC?

Has the WWF become no more than and money and influence launderer for Big Carbon?
Here is an excerpt from a comment from A Jones.
a jones (19:30:42) :

Yes

As I observed elsewhere this is a great scientific, financial and political fraud. And as with all frauds once the dominoes start to topple the collapse accelerates with terrifying speed.

So fast that I at least can hardly keep up.

And although there is immense inertia in those who have invested so heavily in the fraud, from the political activists to the Meeja to the politicians themselves once there is sufficient impetus in the avalanche they have to give way. The politicians will say they were deceived but acted in good faith, the Meeja never apologises for anything, and the activists will say they were only trying to get a point across, see WWF announcement over glaciers.

Yet possibly for the first time we are seeing what t’internet and the WWW can really do.

The Indian press is hot on the story, something we would have never known even a few years ago.

Isn’t modern technology a wonderful thing?
Yes it is.

Here is a rather long one about conjecture in science.
yonason (19:34:37) :

Shrinking Glaciers, Shrinking Arctic; Science so simple that even Mark Twain could do it.

http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/life_mississippi/18

“Therefore, the Mississippi between Cairo and New Orleans was twelve hundred and fifteen miles long one hundred and seventy-six years ago. It was eleven hundred and eighty after the cut-off of 1722. It was one thousand and forty after the American Bend cut-off. It has lost sixty-seven miles since. Consequently its length is only nine hundred and seventy-three miles at present.
……….
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period,’ just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
I think Mark Twain ia as good a place as any to put a halt to this amusement. It is hard to get more amusing than that. The good news is that the whole fraud is unraveling. It will be interesting to see what the Watermelons try next.

Green is the new Red!



Cross Posted at Classical Values

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Scientist - I Lied

A lead IPCC scientist lied to get political action.

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
And there is some evidence he lied for money.

How can people like that sleep at night?

On a pillow full of twenties I recon.

H/T Watts Up With That

Not Error - Fraud

In my post The Glaciers Are Melting I looked at an an error in the IPCC report that was taken straight out of a popular science magazine, New Scientist. New Scientist did a retraction and the head of the IPCC, railroad engineer Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, defended the "data" despite the retraction. He finally gave in after about a week (weak?) of defense.

The ever lovable Anthony Watts seems to have found out why Pachauri was defending a retracted report.

We’ve covered some of the travails of IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajenda Pachauri here at WUWT in the past couple of weeks. Besides the facts mentioned above, the National Hurricane Center chief scientist Christopher Landsea resigned in 2007 from the IPCC over what he cited as lack of confidence in the science.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
Most notable recently was the bogus claim In the IPCC AR4 that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 that appeared to be based on nothing more than a journalist’s opinion piece, contrary to IPCC rules that reports be based on peer reviewed science.
It gets better. Or worse. Depending on your point of view.
The “IPCC 2035 glacier error” has been used to solicit funds for new projects, and guess where the money goes?

This PDF File is from the EU’s HighNoon website, and shows how the EU set up a project to research the ‘rapid retreat’ of glaciers in the Himalayas based on the bogus IPCC report. Some of the EU taxpayers’ money put into this project has gone to TERI, which is run by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.
That sure looks bad.

But I have something that looks even worse. From the Telegraph.co.uk comes this little gem.
I can report a further dramatic twist to what has inevitably been dubbed "Glaciergate" – the international row surrounding the revelation that the latest report on global warming by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained a wildly alarmist, unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a "poor application" of IPCC procedures.

What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.
How do those people sleep at night? Probably on a pillow stuffed with twenties.

I do think that this kind of corruption will greatly assist the suit filed by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association against the EPA's attempted regulation of CO2 emissions.

I'm sure it will put a hole in the arguments of the Communists at Copenhagen. In fact I have a video of the Communists at Copenhagen. There is a really cute Communist about 1:15 into the video.



Green is the new Red!


Yes it is.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Climategate The Book

Steve Mosher (an online friend of mine) has written a book about the unfolding of the ClimateGate Story. From the first discovery of the files to the world wide reactions to the e-mail and data release.

Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Volume 1)

Here is what Anthony Watts has to say about the book:

I’ve read the book, and it appears to be an accurate and detailed portrayal of the history not only of the Climategate events and the players, but also of the events leading up to it. I’m flattered that this book mentions me and my surfacestations project several times. I was interviewed for the book, and this website is featured prominently–and they borrowed liberally from both the posts and the comments.

For those of you that want to follow a detective story, this one has as the twists and turns of Mickey Spillane with a Hardy Boys approach to a matter of fact story line. I highly recommend it.

This book is being published in electronic downloadable form, and is available for purchase online. You’ll recognize the authors as regulars here and at Climate Audit. Please consider purchasing this book, as it will provide funds to get Mosh out of the flat in San Francisco he shares with Charles The Moderator, who are becoming the climatic odd couple of our time.
Moshpit (as his friends know him) has a wicked sense of humor besides being a real brainiac. His on line writing can be deep (for very technical subjects) or breezy and easy to understand when covering human foibles. Since this book is of the later variety (for the most part) I expect a good read.

I can't wait to get my copy. And Volume 1? Does that mean a sequel? Here is hoping.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Friday, January 15, 2010

For The In Crowd

For those of you following the ClimateGate scandal closely I have a couple of word play jokes:

The enHansen of the data and the Jonesing of the data.



Help me keep blogging at no cost to yourself. Order your Amazon purchases through this link: Amazon.I get a small percentage which helps me buy books and electronic maintenance items (like printer cartridges).

Half A Million For an Investigator Being Investigated

I reported earlier this month that Climate Investigator Michael Mann was under investigation by Penn State University for possible fraud in his climate research. And now I find that the Obama government has given Mr. Mann half a million dollars out of the stimulus package to continue his efforts.

Washington, DC - In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.

"It's outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project.

Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda-driven science. Emails and documents mysteriously released from the previously-prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom revealed discussions of manipulation and destruction of research data, as well as efforts to interfere with the peer review process to stifle opposing views.
If we had honest government (are you joking?) in Washington (here is what George said: Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder) they would at least hold off until the investigation was completed. As frauds go it is not much. About two cents apiece for every man, woman and child in America. It is not about the money, it is the principle of the thing. Well you know, when some one says "it is not about the money" it IS about the money. Michael Mann does not deserve my two cents worth. He and our government do deserve a piece of my mind.

Like to give them a piece of yours? You can start here:

House of Representatives
The Senate

A Scientific Hypothesis Gone Bad

Here is the first segment of the KUSI video with weatherman John Coleman who cofounded The Weather Channel that I mentioned in my post NASA Caught Cooking The Books.

Second Segment

Third Segment

Fourth Segment

Fifth Segment

You can also see a video by a coauthor of several of Willie Soon's climate papers, Sallie Baliunas, at Death To Skeptics. And for those of you who haven't watched the video yet, Willie Soon is one of the scientist discussing the relationship of CO2 to global warming.

H/T Watts Up With That

Cross Posted at Classical Values

===

Help me keep blogging at no cost to yourself. Order your Amazon purchases through this link: Amazon.I get a small percentage which helps me buy books and electronic maintenance items (like printer cartridges).

Diddlin With The Data

In a post at Watts Up With That a commenter looked at the e-mails found at this link [pdf] and had some interesting things to say.

Ira (17:00:53) :

The UK CRU version of Climategate centered around whether the 1990’s were warmer than any time in the past 1000 years. The US GISS version could be about whether 1998 was warmer than 1934!

It seems the temperature readings were adjusted six times after analysis in July 1999 indicated that the temperature anomaly for 1934 was nearly 60% higher than for 1998. I’ve graphed the seven versions to show how GISS systematically adjusted 1934 down and 1998 up until 1998 was warmer than 1934 (the January 2007 analysis) or at least virtually indistinguishable (the March and August 2007 analyses).

And this is just from one email in a treasure trove of 216 pages of them!

In the UK CRU case, the Medieval Warm Period vanished to present a “nice tidy story”. In the US GISS case, a nearly 60% temperature anomaly difference vanished to show that 1998 was as warm as 1934! Are these guys serious scientists or just skilled magicians?
In another comment further up thread:
Walter Cronanty (16:50:08) :

Am I correct when I look at the first, complete e-mail and see that in July 1999, they have 1934 at a plus anomaly of 1.459, and 1998 at a plus anomaly of 0.918? And then, by August 2007, they state that the plus anomaly for 1934 is down to 1.249, while the plus anomaly of 1998 has risen to plus 1.226? Is that what it says?

I’m somewhat familiar with the issues of diddlin’ with the data, and don’t understand the whys and wherefores of most of it, but some of it I understand. But if I am interpreting this e-mail correctly, that’s some heavy- duty diddlin’ of data. Why are historical figures changed this often, and changed to this degree?
I guess they were too embarrassed to make the change all at once.

It seems to me that if you are going to commit a fraud you should be really bold about it. This edging up to the desired results just invites more scrutiny.

It appears that the folks involved are bad at science and worse at fraud. Isn't it about time we had some competent criminals working this scam? It is an outrage that government funds are paying for this level of incompetence.

I like this suggestion:
Michael In Sydney (15:53:58) :

If I was a US citizen and I wanted a cultural change at NASA I’d write to my congressman demanding that NASA’s budget be cut then write to NASA and explain that the manipulation with US/Global temp data evident at GISS is why I’ve taken the action I have. Nothing talks like money.
So here are some useful links towards that end:

House of Representatives
The Senate

Cross Posted at Classical Values

====

Help me keep blogging at no cost to yourself. Order your Amazon purchases through this link: Amazon.I get a small percentage which helps me buy books and electronic maintenance items (like printer cartridges).

Thursday, January 14, 2010

NASA Caught Cooking The Books

Is nothing sacred any more? I guess not. NASA has been caught cooking climate data.

Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com.

In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at Icecap US [pdf]

The report reveals that there were no actual temperatures left in the computer database when NASA/NCDC proclaimed 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." The NCDC deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it changed to a system of global grid points, each of which is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more adjacent weather observation stations. So the NCDC grid map contains only averaged, not real temperatures, giving rise to significant doubt that the result is a valid representation of Earth temperatures.
Say it isn't so. NASA? One of our most respected scientific and engineering establishments. A sad day for America.

The special tonight at 9 PM Pacific time (7PM Central and 05:00 Friday January 15, 2010 GMT) can be found at KUSI * Global Warming - The Other Side

H/T BetrugerTalk Polywell

Cross Posted at Classical Values

==

Help me keep blogging at no cost to yourself. Order your Amazon purchases through this link: Amazon.I get a small percentage which helps me buy books and electronic maintenance items (like printer cartridges).

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

ClimateGate Timeline

Watts Up With That has the timeline (as best as it can be reconstructed) of the ClimateGate story. Climate Audit is also covering the story.

My first inkling of it was between 3:34 am and 4:40am GMT Fri Nov 20, 2009 at Talk Polywell. I started a post on it at 04:29 am GMT (posted within a few minutes of the start of the post).

I contacted a friend who works for the Senate Republican Conference on Thursday, November 19, 2009 11:41 PM Central Time. Which would have been 20 Nov at 05:41 GMT.

By around 06:17 AM GMT I had enough confirmation to do a confirming post. In that post I linked to the Blackboard where I left this comment.

M. Simon (Comment#23855) November 20th, 2009 at 1:16 am

I have already done a couple of posts on this and sent some of the details to my Senate Contact.

True or false (I’m inclined to true) this is going to put a lot of ink in the water and destroy a forest or two.

Also I link back to here.
The time in the comment is Central Time.

Based on that comment Steve Mosher contacted me on 24 November to learn more about my Senate contact. Revised: I contacted Steve on Friday, November 20, 2009 1:19 AM Central Time about my Senate Contact and he got back to me on the 24th.

I stayed up all night that night (I keep programmers hours so it was no hardship) and had one of the most fun nights of my life. Because I knew this was the jenga stick that would bring the whole corrupt Climate "Science" edifice down.

Some more resources:

Telegraph UK on Steve Mosher and breaking the story of ClimateGate.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

 
close