*Beyond Climategate: Virtually all climate ‘science’ temp. data is irrelevant and/or PHONY.

Posted: November 26, 2009 in 2009, Exclusives, Timeless
Tags: ,

“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” -Phil Jones, leading climate ‘scientist’
[from
Climategate document 1120593115.txt]

Ignorance Is Futile:

In the wake of Climategate, a new study of raw surface temperature data in New Zealand proves that the official government  manipulated the 150 year temperature data to show warming in recent decades, when there wasn’t. These two developments underscore the reality that virtually all forms of historical and even present day methods of recording temperature, for projecting global warming, fall somewhere in between irrelevant and fraudulent.

Problems with long count historical proxies such as tree rings and ice cores, to faulty land surface data, to even satellite data are numerous and sobering despite these datasets being used to in an orchestrated ongoing fearmongering campaign to justify global government and global taxes as found in the Copenhagen Treaty.

The first item of interest is the new report that exposes official data manipulation in New Zealand’s land temperature data record. The raw data shows virtually no warming trend in 150 years, but the government graph shows IPCC style warming:


[Report here, and more perspective here.]

The method used to generate the official graph, like all NASA graphs, involves “correcting” the data. Shocking revelations from the recent Climategate scandal includes quotes from leading (and Nobel Prize winning) climate ‘scientists’  usage of phrases such as “hide the decline” & “artificially adjusted” in tandem with “corrected” & “reconstructed”, in their hacked / leaked emails & programming source code.

The issue of “corrected” data is already prompting a renewed push for the release of raw surface temperature data by many within the scientific community and general public. This Climategate revelation obtained from programming source code notes gives some perspective:

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

[more excerpts from Climategate source code]

Government institutions such as NASA-GISS have a long history of refusing to release ‘uncorrected’ data, while recent insights into the Climategate scandal shows top UN-IPCC ‘scientists’ collaborating to delete data in order to prevent freedom of information request releases of their raw data.

Yet the real issue here is the validity of any and all of the data itself. The now infamous Climategate “hide the decline” quote is claimed torefer to modern era declines in proxy data measurements. Proxy data would include tree ring & ice core data, opposed to ‘real’ measurement such as surface station thermometer & satellite measurements.

The “decline” in question is likely rooted in the fact that proxy data is considered (by the Alarmist ‘scientists’ even) as accurate, until the modern era. They call it a ‘phenomenon’ as their own proxy data shows a decline in temperature starting in 1940, 1960 and so on. Despite their ‘scholarly’ ‘peer-reviewed’ papers claiming that humans are “causing” global warming, in truth they typically only use the proxies up to more modern times, and then they overlay surface and satellite data over the proxy data, which results in the warming you’ll typically note when viewing Alarmist graphs.

>other’s). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less
>reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern
>calibrations that include them and when we don’t know the precise role of
>particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains
>problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer
>timescales.
[Keith Briffa, 938018124.txt]

So the issue becomes the accuracy of the ‘real’ temperature data, but first lets consider a key form of proxy data.

In contemplating the idea of using tree ring data to measure historical temperature data the everyday gardener could see its flaws, especially one operating a container garden. I currently have a massive container garden, with at least one hundred containers of different sizes, all the way up to 35 gallons, containing all different types and amounts of vegetable and perennial food plants. I’ve been gathering different soils here and there throughout the year. Beyond the obvious already said, different plants planted together can stunt or increase growth.

The potential for different results in identical temperature and moisture under these conditions is astounding. Yet beyond that, a look at Wikipedia reveals one single paragraph covering the advantages of tree ring data, while there are 9 separate sections on the disadvantages.

This is ‘alarming’ considering tree ring data was the primary source of the “Hockey Stick” graph, a key graph in Global Warming Alarmist mythology. It single handedly ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), it is a key piece of material used in Global Warming Alarmism, and was mainly authored by Michael Mann, one of the most damned in the Climategate scandal.

Here we see Mann discussing the intent to”contain” the MWP:

I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back
[from 1054736277.txt]

More from Mann:

thanks Phil,
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to  the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new
page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,
[from 1256735067.txt]

Meanwhile, an email by Phil Jones shows that Keith Briffa manipulated tree ring data:

Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
Cheers
Phil
[from 1256747199.txt]

Here Gary Funkhouser admits to manipulating tree data:

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk
something out of that.
It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm
what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating
the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought
at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation
even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle
the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just
are what they are
(that does sound Graybillian).
[from 0843161829.txt]

Another email shows even more manipulation:

There are also issues with ice cores, although not as profound as tree ring data, in my view.

>Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better
>on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed.
>Glacier mass balance is driven by the difference mainly in winter
>accumulation and summer ablation , filtered in a complex non-linear way to
>give variously lagged tongue advance/retreat .Simple inference on the
>precidence of modern day snout positions does not translate easily into
>absolute (or relative) temperature levels now or in the past.
[Keith Briffa, 938018124.txt]

None-the-less, ice cores along with other proxies still show a decline in the modern era, as discussed in Climategate emails and source code. Kevin Trenberth:

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. …
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

So let’s get “real”. The “increased temperature” that the Climategate documents discuss, that they “know” is there despite it not existing in their own data, is based on surface station and satellite data. Yet surface data is perhaps the most flawed, while satellites don’t actually measure direct temperature and require math modeling in attempts to derive temperature data.

The  “hide the decline” phrase refers to proxy data. The fact that New Zealand temperatures have hardly risen, would seem to explain why it is remote-based proxy data would show a decline when surface temp station data has risen since the 1940’s & 60’s (when urbanization has been rapidly expanding to this day).

‘Check me out, I know the temperature of my roof!’

Which brings us to the issue of unscientific surface station locations & methods, including instruments located near blacktop pavement and air conditioning unit exhausts, while already counting on humans to walk outside and record the high and low temps, daily, decade after decade.

To understand this issue you must first comprehend Urban Heat Island Effect. UHIE is the reality that urban modernization skews surface temperatures, and it turns out that most US based surface stations are located in urban or at least semi-urban locations. SurfaceStations.org is an open database project to visit and photo each of the over 1200 station sites in the US. So far they’ve visited over 80% of US sites, and the results are ‘alarming’:

Global Warming Hoax

The results thus far show that about 10% of U.S. based surface stations are what we’d consider scientific. The rest are what we’d consider real data as far as our daily lives are concerned, as being in the city you’d want city temperatures reported to you each day.

Here is an example of a scientific station, and its 100 year data graph:

And an unscientific one:



[more surface station & UHIE info is found here]

So in assessing global climate change you’d want to check if ocean temperatures have risen. Tom Wigley to Phil Jones:

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since
1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might
claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
[from 1257546975.txt]

In any case, it’s clear and obvious that surface station data is completely irrelevant in attempting to assess global climate change, which brings us to satellite data…

Wikipedia:

Satellites do not measure temperature as such. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data to calculate temperature trends have obtained a range of values.

Kevin Trenberth, in October 2009, admits that NASA’s CERES satellite data is “lacking”:

At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
[from 1255523796.txt]

However, today Global Warming skeptic Dr. John Christy suggests satellites today have about 95% accuracy. The problem still is that they have only been in existence since 1978, and we’ve already seen what we have to go by historically.

No recent warming in the tropics worth discussing (satellite data):

No long term warming in Denmark worth discussing (remote land stations):

In fact that graph shows actual cooling after 1940 and even more after 1960, much like the “hide the decline” computer code highlighted earlier that is claimed to be in reference to the proxy data. This stuff becomes more damning the more you look at it. The following IPCC 20th Century graph with future projection doesn’t show the post-1940 decline as seen above (described by WIgley as a “blip” here):

The UN’s IPCC, along with the ‘hacked’ CRU, has been the primary driving source of Global Warming Alarmism. This admission by Keith Briffa about the IPCC’s ethics is ‘alarming’:

I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.
[from 1177890796.txt]

More heart-felt doubts by Alarmist Keith Briffa:

> There is still a potential problem with non-linear responses in the
>very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation
>through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a
>nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand
>years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite
>so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and
>those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some
>unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do
>not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
> For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate.
[Keith Briffa, 938018124.txt]

So in closing, “Global Warming” ‘science’ is in effect baseless. But what we do know is that life supporting plants breath in CO2, which means more food for the world and a better vegetable garden for me.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. humanbeingsfirst says:

    Hi,

    The following is excerpted from: Letter to a ‘co-conspiracy theorist’: Reflections on Modernity, Climategate, Peer Review, and Science in the Service of Empire

    print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/let-co-conspiracy-theorist-climategate.html

    “In any event, as the political science thesis contained in my aforementioned Letter to Editor argues, there is indeed a prime reason for “cooking that science”. And that is to fabricate plausible sounding justifications for legally ushering in the architecture of ‘carbon credit’, regardless of whether there is global warming, global cooling, or no significant temperature change.

    That is the real heart of the matter and the focus of heated debates for the past ten years being whether or not there is global climate change, as now in the climategate that there isn’t, is a gigantic red herring.

    The point of focus shouldn’t be the unraveling of the deception, but the unraveling of the crucial agendas behind the deception for which mantras are so painstakingly fabricated and consent manufactured.”

    And thank you for finding that lede quote which in itself is a red herring: “If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” -Phil Jones, leading climate ’scientist’ [from Climategate document 1120593115.txt]

    It is a red herring because this is not about science, good science or bad science, good scientists or bad scientists.

    It is entirely about political science, and power will harness whatever it can, wherever it can, to pursue its agenda. As Francis Bacon had put it: “Human knowledge and human power meet in one”. Climategate is merely an expresssion of that sentiment, albeit a tortuous one. And instead of focussing on its “human knowledge” component, the wisdom ought to be on the “human power” component and in understanding the forces which drives it.

    Thanks.

    Zahir Ebrahim
    Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

  2. hoboduke says:

    Thank you for the analysis with commentary! I plan on setting up my monitoring station close to a pizza oven. I will ask for a grant of 1.5 million that should be good for about 100,000 pizza pies.

  3. Huw says:

    Trying to start claiming that all scientists that show increases in temperatures are data manipulating liars and conspiring liberals or communists is not good science. If all increase in temperatures produced by scientists have been manipulated then how do we explain the year on year increase in the melting of polar ice, which is a clear and factual occurrence, no body claiming climate change is all one big fraud has yet to address this issue, what have scientists been paid lots of money so that they can install giants heaters in the north pole to melt all the ice, just to prove a point!!! Polar regions are melting and this is a matter of fact and one can also conclude from that fact that if these areas are warming other areas of the planet are also increasing in temperature. Concluding that all scientists are lying if you do not happen to like their conclusions is taking an ideological stand point not a scientific one.

  4. ignoranceisntbliss says:

    The argument is that ‘virtually’ all temp data is irrelevant or phony. I provided many examples of it being deeply flawed, or phony.

    With satellites, like with temp monitoring, ice sheet monitoring goes back to about 1979. Not a very long record. Meanwhile, even in recent years with summer reports of record ice sheet melting, typically we find record ice growth during the winter. At the same time, ice surplus in Antarctica is greater than the deficit in the Arctic:
    http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051412

    But yes, ‘scientists’ screaming about Catastrophic Global Warming are either misguided or lying. In the article I demonstrated that the upper echelon of Alarmist scientists are manipulating data. I do hope to get some debate on the specifics of my examples…

  5. Huw says:

    The CNN article that you posted from the 14 May 2009 was very interesting and I think it certainly does add to the debate. I have just found the latest article from CNN regarding Antarctic ice which was posted a few days ago and it has now been confirmed that the ice sheet are in fact shrinking.

    http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1943136,00.html

    I think this is such an important issue to establish what the truth is and then what do we need to or not need to do because of what is really happening. Considering how difficult it can sometimes be to predict tomorrow’s weather, it’s even more difficult to predict what the weather will be like in 20 years.

    It was not that long ago say back in the 1950’s when the medical fact that smoking causes considerable damage to the human body was unproven and it was only through rigorous medical & scientific investigation that this was then established as being true and we now see it as somewhat unbelievable that people were not aware of the serious damage smoking does to the body. I think this is relevent in regard to the issue of whether polluting an environment does any harm to an environment and then are the consequences of the pollution.

  6. ignoranceisntbliss says:

    It would be ‘shrinking’ right now as its entering into the summer in that hemisphere. Right now its likely you’ll find ‘deniers’ posting articles about the ice sheets in the Arctic expanding.

  7. Huw says:

    Not sure if you had a chance to read the article I posted prior to your last post but it staights that they believe that the changes began in 2006.
    Not sure if you had a chance to read the article I posted prior to your last post but it states that they have identified that the changes started to occur in 2006 and I think the scientists had taken into account seasonal variations in order to validate their findings.

    I think the most important thing in this whole debate that should not get lost is a search for the truth. Members of the scientific community have up until now, not been ridiculed as liars or conspirators on other scientific issues.

    I don’t think it should be seen as whether members of the scientific community are ‘believers’ or ‘deniers’ as this is a scientific issue not an ideological one. The scientific facts with regard to what is actually happening or not happening are what ultimately matters.

  8. Huw says:

    I think an important question no one is asking at present is who is hacking into climatologist personal emails, stealing the correspondents and what is their agenda. If there is an agreement in Copenhagen concerning reducing pollution due to manmade climate change, there are extremely powerful and wealthy organizations that make a huge profit through the burning of fossil fuels that stand to lose billions. I think they have the power, resources and motivation to hack into climate scientist private email accounts and then deliberately make their findings public via the Russian website a matter of weeks prior to the Copenhagen summit in a targeted attempt to sabotage any deal that might happen so as maintain their present position of power and ability to generate wealth. If there is a any type of conspiracy occurring then that sounds more plausible to me.

  9. ignoranceisntbliss says:

    Who did what is still an issue. In many ways it looks like a leak. The last email chain is the day before the release, and with the contents its unlikely that any old random hacker was able to assemble that archive in one day. The oil firms are also huge investors in alternative energy (does anyone think they’ll be left out of a ‘sea change’ in energy), and Cap N Trade was designed by Enron’s Ken Lay (with AL Gore, who already makes MILLIONS off “Global Warming”). Dont trust anyone.

  10. Huw says:

    5 weeks prior to the emails being dumped onto a Russian server a bbc climate correspondent was approached about whether or not he wanted access to the information, so I think this was a well planned operation. I think the person or people that stole the emails were well organized enough to hack the accounts and download everything they wanted and needed. I’m thinking that they could gain access to the information at any time that they chose to and take what they wanted when they wanted; again high quality I.T. hacking capability is always purchasable for the right price. Not sure what leads you to presume that it looks like a leak, can’t see the evidence for that statement especially considering BBC were contacted 5 weeks prior to info being leaked in Russia. This has been a well coordinated PR campaign. I agree with you that it is certainly not some old random hacker. Oil companies tend to put adverts on TV to suppress the masses by boasting about how green they are but I think such adverts are not a reflection of reality. Vast majority of oil companies just want to make money out of black gold and there is an article in Reuters from yesterday highlighting this very point.

    Oil and Gas at Risk From Climate Change But The Industry is Not Prepared

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/mnCorporateResponsibility/idUK185951620091125

  11. Hello IIB,

    Thank you for your work. In Comment by ignoranceisntbliss: “I do hope to get some debate on the specifics of my examples…”

    dear friend in common cause, your work is really outstanding – but why do you persist in wasting valuable effort in pursuing red herrings when there is a higher order bit still pending?

    I hope you don’t mind if I reproduce a fuller extended excerpt from my little note on Global Warming: print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/12/nb-on-global-warming.html

    Feel free to condense the excerpt if you wish. I hope we can collectively address the higest order bit of the matter with more efficacy NOW – because the iron is hot, the topic is in the mainstream limelight, and to waste this opportunity in debates on measurements, instead of attempting to unravel the real agenda and fleshing out the multifacted dimensions because of which this fraud was/is/and-will-continue-to-be perpetuated, is, imho, being more enamoured by the science, then with the devilish purpose it is being put to.

    Excerpt

    The following is the real fact of the matter. I only illustrate the principle. One can chase it down from then on. In order to keep things straight in the head in the obfuscating space of social sciences laden with deception and political motivations, I tend to rely a lot on thought processes borrowed from computer science and electrical engineering. You may have seen my description of the ‘bit’ for example. Here is a passage from one of my recent essays on monetary stuff:

    ‘It is also very convenient for the learned to mix up the ‘highest order bit’ with ‘lower order bits’ of a complex matter – irrespective of deliberately or inadvertently – for the plebes can hardly tell the difference. And that’s just wonderful for creating clever red herrings when the latter are emphasized, and the former is ignored! Surely whatever one comes up with is always a solution to something, and that’s just as undeniable as any pathetic tautology. But is it a solution to the ‘most significant bit’? Has the problem itself been accurately diagnosed, and the systemic multi-lateral illness accurately mapped out to its very DNA? Not when the sacred-cow axioms remain untouchable! And this is indeed how one wins a Nobel Prize and lucrative appointments. [a30] In some cases, even stays alive.

    To explain the commonsense concept of ‘bit’ drawn from electrical engineering, it’s like having a “one” in the 7th decimal place, and also in the 2nd decimal place, to create the total amount One million and Ten dollars, $1,000,010, and while auditing the books, focussing on the digit position which identifies the Ten dollars and not the one which identifies the Million! The significance of this is not lost to the banksters! ‘

    Applying that prioritizing, or weightage if you will, principle to this topic of “Global Warming”, one observes that the coefficient, or the bit position, or weightage occupied by the planetary level changes in the solar system due to sun’s activity is actually a higher order bit position, than the contribution to the measurements from human activity.

    Now, whether there is planetary-level (solar-system level) global warming, or global cooling, is also an entirely orthogonal issue from human contribution to despoiling its environment. Both the former two factors, if they are dominant, tend to occupy the higher order bit relative to human contribution. Wit the Ice-age, followed by the Holocene age. No factories and polluting industries were present then. Unless we explode 10 hydrogen bombs in geostrategic locations to usher in a manmade nuclear winter (and I exaggerate, a smaller number will surely do it), the contribution from coal and cow’s emissions (the latter, believe it or not, is also apportioned carbon-credit as I have humorously read somewhere) remain in the lower order bits. They are surely non-zero, and if planetary-level climactic changes in the solar system become normal, as they do between their cyclic extremes, then these lower order bits will become the new higher order bits for management. That’s just common sense.

    So there are two real issues. First is the following scientific measurement – which can be fairly objective – what is the temperature activity in the solar system. For instance, is Mars cooling down or heating up in the past decades. Since there is no known life or industry on Mars, that can readily answer the question quite accurately for earth too. But better and longer running data is available for earth as well, which is why scientists are dissenting as noted in the Senate Minority Report …

    The second real issue is the sociological one that you have alluded to, such as oil consumption, human activity, etc. Please apply those concerns to the Western world first, and specifically to the Americans, not to the entire world, as the affluent Global North is, and has been, the biggest pig. In the Global South, people can hardly make ends meet, they barely subsist on dollar a day wage. And 2/3rd of all humanity lives there. They are routinely harvested of not only what’s under their soil, but also what’s above it, trees! Thus notice how Rachman has employed the mantra of Global Warming. Even if one assumes for the sake of making the following point that it is the man-made coefficient which is dominant – Gideon Rachman does not advocate that the Western world create a protocol to reduce their gluttonous consumption, but jumps straight to world government! And as everyone knows, the biggest violators of Kyoto, were indeed the Americans themselves. They refused to ratify it! And that, is indeed the second real issue.

    am a scientist. I look at data and reach conclusions. I further look at data forensically, and even look at forces that remain hidden, as well as those which are apparent. My writings are testimony of that. I have no reason to obfuscate or deny any of these factors. Whereas those who are pushing them, have a politically motivated agenda, as has already been shown. Just as the scientists at NIST fudged the reports on how the towers fell, and Popular Mechanics dished out disinformation on how it could have happened, it is already in ample evidence that science is permeated with politics, like every other human endeavor! So before looking at the scientists’ results and reading their papers, look at their motivation. Whom do they shill for?

    I would be happy to address further questions from anyone. This topic does require doing substantial due diligence before forming opinions. Remember that the subject matter is no less laden with deception, than any other topic which relates to world government, from ‘war on terror’ to ‘money as debt’ to the Federal Reserve System. You can’t simply pick up a text-book (or 10 books) on any of these topics and assume what you are reading is entirely correct, as one normally does at a university in a typical science curriculum. There, the measurement of learning is often how accurately one has understood what the books are teaching, and one gets an ‘A’ for perfect recollection and/or solving problems based on the axioms in the books which are rarely if ever challenged. The axioms are taken on faith and assumed correct. One takes F=MA for granted.

    Here, you have to assume that the text-books/articles/literature/Nobel-Prizes could also be lying, telling half-truths through omissions and distortions, or spinning politically motivated mantras as axioms upon which all further discussions are being based. Just like 911 and the ‘war on terror’. That is quite a difference in approach to studying! It requires one being a Sherlock Holmes trying to solve a complex puzzle laden with deliberate red herrings more than being a naïve grad-student!

    Hope this fleshes out all the dimensions of the question. For the simple reason that Global Warming mantra is to be Machiavellianly employed to control humanity, and we have even seen a glimpse of that in the Financial Times editorial, I oppose it. If it turns out that the human emissions are the most significant bit, let the affluent nations bring themselves down to the level of poor nations before demanding from them to do anything. After all, the ruling-elite are pitching that we are one ship of humanity and global control is necessary. Let not the upper-deck live in plunderous wealth while the lower decks are thrown to the sea! That is only fair for something as intimately shared as the environment!

    Zahir Ebrahim

    Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

  12. Huw says:

    Zahir you use a large amount of words to say absolutely nothing. I have attempted in good faith to listen to the views with regard to some very important issues being explored. I am an open minded person, but what you have just typed is a joke. I have studied international economics and politics, so I am not ignorant to issues happening in the world so don’t try to make yourself out to be some kind of political guru who is doing us all a favors by spouting out that rubbish that you have just typed.

    This issue is being hijacked by right wing intellectuals (if that not an oxymoron in itself!) who have a politically motivated agenda to confuse and distort the truth with no thought for the consequences of their thoughts or actions, thank god the future of this planet is no longer in the hands of such narrow minded, rightwing extremists who are too busy fabricating conspiracies’ rather than attempting to stay in touch with reality.

  13. Voodoo says:

    Dr Jones, it looks like the penalty for treason is now only to imprisonment for life, not being hanged from the neck, the removal of one’s bowels, and quartering.

    Lucky!
    ___________________________________________________

    Treason Act 1814 (c.146)

    Treason Act 1814
    1814 c.146 54_Geo_3

    An Act to alter the Punishment in certain Cases of High Treason.
    [27th July 1814]

    Whereas in certain cases of high treason, as the law now stands, the sentence or judgement required by law to be pronounced or awarded against persons convicted or adjudged guilty of the said crime in such cases is that they should be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution and there be hanged by the neck, but not until they are dead, but that they should be taken down again, and that when they are yet alive their bowels should be taken out and burnt before their faces, and that afterwards their heads should be severed from their bodies, and their bodies be divided into four quarters, and their heads and quarters to be at the King’s disposal:And whereas it is expedient in the said cases of high treason to alter the sentence or judgement now required by law:

    Form of sentence in case of high treason.

    Form of sentence in case of high treason.
    In all cases of high treason in which as the law now stands the sentence or judgement ordained by law is as aforesaid, the sentence or judgement to be pronounced or awarded from and after the passing of this Act against any person convicted or adjudged guilty shall be, that such person shall be liable to imprisonment for life.

  14. Huw says:

    Write now I feel like an intellectual punch bag. I have been discussing this issue with environmentalist and also people that disagree with the environmental analysis and naturally have been being criticised from both sides.

    Here is a good post that a person has just posted on the guardian website if anyone is interested in reading it you can find the discussion area here.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/27/climate-email-hackers-access-month?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

    Here is the post

    The “hockey stick” curve of Mann has not been discredited
    This is a very objective statistical piece on the peak of the furore:

    http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf

    It discusses the original statistical problems but it clearly shows that the hockey stick was not “discredited”. Since then the evidence for warming has hardened and the 5 year averages keep going up.

    This shows the hockey stick with the original hockey stick criticisms dealt with. Spot the difference…. you can’t.
    This is a very clear description of the temperature trend:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

    It deals with the criticisms and even gives a magnitude to the negligible difference that recalculation leads to.
    This is the thing with deniers. They grab onto any criticism or area that neads further work and repeat it endlessly while ignoring the subsequent analysis that deals with the problem. This is the sort of brainless tactic, together with repeated attempts to discredit climate scientists, that lead Jones to make the unwise statements that he did.

    Don’t forget, 97.4% of publishing climate scientists agree on the fact of man-made climate change.

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    As it now appears that there is movement towards an agreement at Copenhagen, despite the fact that this will only make big-business’ and governments’ lives more difficult, it is obvious that acceptance of the reality is growing. It is now a matter of the hard work of education to facilitate the politicians’ jobs in making their policies more acceptable to their populaces. No doubt “climategate” will make this more difficult in the short-term but as time goes by, I think it will become increasingly obvious that this was climate-denial’s last hoorah, its best and dirtiest last shot whose failure to actually change anything will illuminate the paucity, inconsistency and scientific baselesness of their arguments.

  15. ignoranceisntbliss says:

    Huw, from your original article:
    “Exactly how much isn’t clear: the best guess is about 57 billion tons per year, but with a huge uncertainty of plus or minus 52 billion. … “There’s large uncertainty in the models of PGR,” says Chen, so there’s a corresponding uncertainty in how much ice is being lost.”

    Speculation, it is.

    ANYTHING put out by “RealClimate” is now discredited. It has now been PROVEN that Mann & friends manipulated data and then deleted all conflicting records before 1980 to cover their tracks. The tree ring data has long been suspected of using trees from different areas than they were supposed to be, and now the emails have proven that to be true and that at least 3 of them including Mann & Jones knew about it. Check out manipulation compilation here:
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread522467/pg1

    And if you want impartial hockey stick specifics wikipedia is probably more well rounded than any one sided alarmist or denier commentary:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
    (both sides surely check it for accuracy daily)

    Besides, it appears Mann might be trying to come clean:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mann-has-a-new-paper-he-apparently-discovers-the-medieval-warm-period/

    The “peer-review” issue is at major odds, and the specifics of names and journals will be well known soon. In the emails they discuss their effective strategy of hijacking the peer-review process. I intend to start a good thread there at ATS to get a discussion going to hammer out these specifics. For nor check this out:
    http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=28054
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/video-dr-tim-ball-on-the-cru-emails/

  16. Huw says:

    ‘Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it’ Alber Einstein

    German born American Physicist who developed the special and general theories of relativity.

  17. Huw says:

    They just announced on the radio on the BBC that they now know that the South Pole is not shrinking due to a hole in the ozone above it. Not sure how many years it took them to scientifically confirm and calculate that fact, luckily managed to work it out in time for Copenhagen. no doubt it has been verified with due diligence and then peer reviewed for conformation.

    I think when it comes to climate change i would presently describe myself as an agnostic, I do want to believe!

  18. rogerthesurf says:

    There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.

    There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.

    I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.

    In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.

    Cheers

    Roger

    PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s