Everyone has forgotten about Climategate –
Scientific collusion, chicanery and conspiracy
There is no public accountability for anything that science chooses to do, in other words those who run the dog-and-pony-show can do what the hell they like and this includes misleading all of those who pay their salaries – all of us!. This peculiar state of affairs is achieved by a simple slight of hand – telling us all that we would not understand what they are doing. This is no different from what we tell our children and we have all allowed ourselves to become childlike-like for the benefit of science and encouraged the very real possibility of abuse, which is exactly what we got. However, after a double coat of whitewash and ever more BS everyone was patting these charlatans on the back and blaming the Internet.
A hacking incident was revealed in November 2009, when thousands of e-mails and files ( 61 megabytes) were hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England. The contents of the e-mails and files were disseminated via the Internet, exposing data that has been doctored to give support to the theory of climate change caused by human CO2 pollution. The hacker was revealing the true state of the art for the benefit of all those who are gullible enough to cling to every word uttered by politically motivated scientists.
en.wiki: “The subsequent dissemination of the material caused a controversy, dubbed “Climategate”, regarding whether or not the e-mails indicated misconduct by climate scientists. The University of East Anglia has announced that an independent review of the allegations will be carried out by Sir Muir Russell (Fellow of the Royal Society) and that the CRU’s director, Professor Phil Jones, would stand aside from his post during the review… (As is the custom, academic violation is investigated by academics)
In the United Kingdom and United States, there were calls for official inquiries into issues raised by the documents. The British Conservative politician Lord Lawson said, “The integrity of the scientific evidence… has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident
The link below is an insightful look into the whole affair:
http://davidpratt.info/climategate.htm
The link below has a full list of the files:
http://www.climate-gate.org/
See also: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8pjd9xpp
James Delingpole of The Telegraph.co.uk gives extracts from e-mails:
Manipulation of evidence:
Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. Hes not in at the moment minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I dont have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, Ill be tempted to bea the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to contain the putative MWP, even if we dont yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to that take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board What do others think?
I will be emailing the journal to tell them Im having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. Ive had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
The question that is of interest to me and others is: is this the way that all of science does business? If it is, then it’s hard to justify with the fact that we, the public, are paying these people to feed us misinformation. Clinging religiously to a theory for which there is little or no evidence is not unusual.
Even if it is proved that climate change is a fact, this does not prove that the cause of the climate change is man-made. The two, that are presented as one are completely separate issues. The two can only be presented as one if both have been proven and then further proof presented that they are linked. This has not been done.
newscientist.com: Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP, c. 900-1400), and also the earlier Roman Warm Period
(c. 200 BC – 600 AD).
(MWP) mentioned in an E-mail above was a time when Greenland had much less ice than it has today, in fact there is evidence to show that the Vikings successfully farmed the region during this period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Also gleaned from the e-mails is the revelation that there has, in fact, been no warming over the past two decades. I’m thinking about all the school kids who have been misled into supporting anti-warming campaigns and the number of businesses that will go bust as a result of the scam. Not to mention the utility companies who use global warming to justify the ramping up of energy charges
Smithsonian Scientists Return from Strange Arctic Exploration.
“On the coast of Greenland are found the long-abandoned ruins of many buildings erected by the ancient Norsemen, of rock, and very substantial. According to tradition, a Norse navigator named Gunnibiorn landed in the country in the year 872 A. D. The Norsemen certainly went as far as 75 degrees north latitude, which cannot be reached by the stoutest modern ship without serious risk. These voyages were accomplished, too, in half-decked, open boats. A stone found near Upernavik,
in latitude 72 degrees and 30 minutes, bears an inscription in Runic dated 1135. In the old sagas and chronicles there is little mention of ice as an obstruction to navigation, and it is evident that the climate in those days was much warmer than it is now. …”
http://ku-prism.org/polarscientist/losttribes/Jan131897Boston.htm
An almost religious confusion and guilt from the academic scientific priesthood.
Climate change is the scientific equivalent of original sin and of a fallen humanity. But science offers no answers, just blame:
scientificamerican.com: Scientific American, February 21, 2005
How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?
A bold new hypothesis suggests that our ancestors’ farming practices kicked off global warming thousands of years before we started burning coal and driving cars.
By William F. Ruddiman
“New evidence suggests that concentrations of CO2 started rising about 8,000 years ago, even though natural trends indicate they should have been dropping. Some 3,000 years later the same thing happened to methane, another heat-trapping gas. The consequences of these surprising rises have been profound. Without them, current temperatures in northern parts of North America and Europe would be cooler by three to four degrees Celsius — enough to make agriculture difficult. In addition, an incipient ice age — marked by the appearance of small ice caps–would probably have begun several thousand years ago in parts of Northeastern Canada. Instead the earth’s climate has remained relatively warm and stable in recent millennia.” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-did-humans-first-alte
The Times March 24, 2010
“Public scepticism prompts Science Museum to rename climate exhibition”
“The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.
The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.
The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7073272.ece
The following correspondence was sent by (Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California) to Curtis G. Callan, Jr. of Princeton University, who serves as current President of the American Physical Society:
Extract: “…It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudo scientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. ( He seems to have forgotten Albert Einstein) Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montfords book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist…”
Read the rest at:
http://gralienreport.com/science-and-technology/professor-resigns-from-american-physical-society-over-global-warming/
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/10/exposing-great-climate-change-fraud.html
For those who only read peer reviewed literature on matters scientific, all of this has a label called ‘conspiracy theory’, something guaranteed to shrivel the hypnotised faithful like salt on a leach.
Medieval Warm Period is only in the North Atlantic Region
Adhikari and Kumon (2001), whilst investigating sediments in Lake Nakatsuna in central Japan, finding a warm period from AD 900 to 1200 that corresponded to the Medieval Warm Period and three cool phases, of which two could be related to the Little Ice Age.[36] Another research in northeastern Japan shows that there is one warm/humid interval from AD 750 to 1200, and two cold/dry intervals from AD 1 to 750 and 1200 to present.[37] Ge et al. studied temperatures in China during the past 2000 years; they found high uncertainty prior to the 16th century but good consistency over the last 500 years, highlighted by the two cold periods 1620s1710s and 1800s1860s, and the warming during the 20th century. They also found that the warming during the 10-14th centuries in some regions might be comparable in magnitude to the warming of the last few decades of the 20th century which was unprecedented within the past 500 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
And then: MWP in Europe matches Japan?
Submitted by davidmhoffer on Wed, 01/06/2010 – 15:59.
In reviewing Aono/Amoto 1994 temperature reconstruction for Kyoto going back to 1000 AD I noticed a major one time temperature change in the graph at the latter part of the 16th century. Upon reviewing their methodology I concluded that they were basing their temperature estimates on blooming dates of cherry blossoms, but had failed to correct for Gregorian calendar implementation in 1582. This drove their pre 1582 temperature estimates downward by 2.6 degrees and diminishing to a downward off set of 1.6 degrees by 1000 AD. I reconstructed their graph to reflect proper calendar correction. The result is that their graph shows a variable but steady climate with a recent sharp uptick, but the corrected graph oscillates almost in tandem with the Scotland Morroco reconstruction above. You can access my paper directly http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/kyoto-cherry-blossom-r… or from my blog http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/category/knowledge-drift-and-the-cli…
This would imply that the MWP was in synch between Europe and Japan.
“Temperatures derived from an 180/160 profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67S, 172.43E) suggested the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75C warmer than the Current Warm Period.”[39] The MWP has also been evidenced in New Zealand by an 1100-year tree-ring record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
More on Warming
In a conversation recently, a friend remarked that the weather was unreliable. I answered that it was the weather forecast that was unreliable. About an hour later he said, “Micro-Climate”, as if to reinforce his rationalisation of weather forecasting and somehow excuse the inaccurate forcast. The sun was still shining in spite of the forecast of rain. In some strange and bizarre way it is thought that to highlight a scientific failure is somehow letting the side down. As if the continuance of civilisation as we know it depends on defending something not quite right or logical.
A reflection on past long-term forecasting seems no better than the toss of a coin and yet we are told in all earnestness that the cause of global warming is CO2 (Carbon dioxide) from the burning of fossil fuels. The atmosphere and weather are highly complex systems, not predictable for more than a few days ahead at best.
By far, the largest, by volume, greenhouse gas is water vapour, not often mentioned and this is coupled with a smaller but still huge reservoir of natural CO2 that is always with us. Within this huge CO2 reservoir is contained the much smaller amount of man-made CO2. We are told that this smaller amount of CO2 is somehow (It’s not known how) acting as a catalyst on all the rest and causing the earth’s temperature to rise – the sworn testimony of those who cannot forecast next weeks weather. In addition, a slight of hand is used to ensure that we all swallow the medicine, this being, the attachment of the man-made CO2 to the complete global warming package. Even if no one was disputing the fact that the earth is warming – all the planets in the Solar System are warming – the problem arises when the warming is linked to man-made emissions as if they were one and the same thing, which they are not.
The psychology behind all of this is one of guilt and the accusation that we are all contributing to our own demise by driving our cars and heating our homes in winter. This is not science but political propaganda and the fact that we have no choice but to do these things because of the total failure of science to produce an alternative clean energy source is never mentioned. Also not mentioned when speaking of these things is the fact that the hot fusion projects that were supposed to give us all the energy we need have failed miserably after something like sixty years of experimentation and huge expenditure from the public purse. Were this a privately funded project it would have been terminated long ago due to lack of progress and the large expenditure.
Global Warming History
Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist who was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infra red absorption capacity of water vapour and carbon dioxide.
Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm#ixzz0bmcUbIHtThe
Rarely mentioned in connection with his genius regarding global warming is that he was a member of Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Racial_biology
See also, Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier 1768 1830 and John Tyndall FRS 1820 1893 for more eugenics madness.
About the same time as our friend Arrhenius was talking about the perils of CO2, another scientist (looking for link) realised that the ice ages, far from being the result of cold weather, required the assistance of heat in large quantities in order to evaporate the water from the oceans and transport megatons of ice to the northern regions. It was said at the time that this process required the equivalent of the heat needed to melt the same quantity of iron.
All such processes require energy and the question is posed: where did, what must have been a prodigious amount of heat come from at a time when temperatures were supposed to be dropping?
In other words, a great deal of heat is required to glaciate the Northern Hemisphere and produce the postulated ice ages of our past, with glaciers creeping south across Europe and North America. Without this extra heat the north can become colder, but cannot form any glaciers or ice sheets larger than those we see today and there can be no ice age. And so, we have the situation where the ice age that ended ten thousand years ago is unexplained in terms of the present climate theory.
How government corrupts science
By Arthur Robinson, Ph.D.
2010
“Recently it was revealed that one “scientific” effort involved the change of more than 5,000 articles and complete erasure of more than 500 in the Web-based encyclopedia Wikipedia. These articles were changed because they made mention of the Medieval Warm Period, a period about 1,000 years ago when Earth temperatures were much higher than they are today and of other research data that contradicted the human-caused global warming agenda. This erasure was done by prominent climate “scientists” who created a web site specifically for the purpose of smearing and suppressing any work that threatened their empire of lavishly government funded human-caused global warming “research,” called Realclimate.org.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126706
North Pole rainfall ‘bizarre’: climatologist
Thursday, April 29, 2010 | 4:22 PM CT
Spring showers are next to non-existent in the High Arctic, so Environment Canada’s senior climatologist says he’s baffled to hear that it rained near the North Pole this week.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/04/29/north-pole-rainfall.html#ixzz0nR5LqW77
My original source:
http://uforeview.tripod.com/conspiracyjournal571.html
Here in Britain, we had a particularly cold winter 2010 due to prevailing north and north easterly winds, that blow yet in May 2010 (the time of writing). I can only logically assume that our usual warm air has been swept up to polar regions in an exchange, but a theory of changing weather patterns probably would not support global warming.
At the beginning of 2010 the Kingdom of Jordan had a fall of snow, the first in thirty years, I know because I was there at the time.
Latest: It seems that the problem is the jet stream… that has slowed, but the overall trend is warmer. What else could it be? – coldest temperatures in Britain since records began, but science is not looking at things like that, but trends – global.
alixus 