You keep repeating the same lies about the hacked emails, but the truth is they were fully investigated and found to not be in any way subversive. There are full explanations available for all of the emails that were held up as "proof" of an elaborate plot.
What lies??
The emails revealed massive fraud.
The emails revealed attempts to discredit scientists
who don't subscribe to AGW theory.
Sample: (and there is plenty plenty more where this
came from so you shouldn't continue to embarrass
yourself by claiming the facts to be lies.)
DailyTech - Climategate: Stunning Deception and Misconduct at UK Warming Research Center Revealed
Writes Phil Jones:
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. Mikes series got
the annual land and marine values while the other
two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter
two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global
estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C
cf. 0.57 for 1998.
The email reads like a flat out confession of academic
misconduct and deception. Obviously hiding data and
doctoring values is the kind of thing that gets you
expelled from graduate school, but here these seasoned
researchers seemed to have engaged in such practices
and gleefully got published.
The emails also contain passages concerning the
center's attempts to hide the Medieval Warm Period
(MWP). Writes a colleague of Mr. Jones:
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 backI 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
.
Still other emails reveal that the Phil Jones and others
at the center engaged in campaigns of trying to silence
skeptics, removing them from the journal peer-review
process. Not all of the researchers at the center seemed
to be onboard with the deceit, though. Some expressed
doubts about the theory of anthropogenic (manmade)
global warming and refused to support some of the
center's actions, putting their own careers in jeopardy.
If lame stream media in the US wasn't so invested
in promoting AGW theory this would have been a
scandal of massive proportions.
More:
Global Epidemic of CRU-like Criminal Climate Conspiracy Strikes NZ Global Warming: A Worn-Out Hoax
There have been strident claims that New Zealand
is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), among other organisations and
scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the
world, we have been heating up for over 100 years.
But now, a simple check of publicly-available information
proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealands
temperature has been remarkably stable for a century
and a half. So whats going on?
New Zealands National Institute of Water & Atmospheric
Research (NIWA) is responsible for New Zealands
National Climate Database. This database, available
online, holds all New Zealands climate data, including
temperature readings, since the 1850s. Anybody can
go and get the data for free. Thats what we did, and
we made our own graph.
------------------------------
Straight away you can see theres no slopeeither up
or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant
way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature
still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level
statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since
1850.
Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see
huge differences. What is going on?
Why does NIWAs graph show strong warming, but
graphing their own raw data looks completely different?
Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature
readings show none whatsoever!
Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been
adjusted?
It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw
data for each station (from NIWAs web site) with
the adjusted official data, which we obtained from
one of Dr Salingers colleagues.
Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself
over the years, by different scientists, have long gone
unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.
Proof of man-made warming
What did we find? First, the station histories are
unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large
corrections. But we were astonished to find that
strong adjustments have indeed been made.
About half the adjustments actually created a warming
trend where none existed; the other half greatly
exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments
increased or even created a warming trend, with only
one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing
the original trend.
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have
been cranked way down and later readings artificially
lifted to give a false impression of warming, as
documented below. There is nothing in the station
histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr
Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.
Ironically, the largest net warmer of the atmosphere is water vapor. So really, one should be concerned at the potential for that positive feedback in warming of the atmosphere.
Carry on with your fart jokes, though.
If you are frightened of what might happen if the
Earth should warm a few degrees then perhaps
your post has merit, otherwise not.
Continue with your droll dour crappola though.
Meanwhile leading global warming alarmist Hansen
of NASA is being sued for failing to answer FOIA
requests.
NASA GISS being sued over FOIA failures | Watts Up With That?
Despite NASA stonewalling CEI has already learned, for example, that NASA does not, contrary to widespread media and pressure group claims, have an independent temperature data set. Instead, as NASA told USA Today in an email, despite its serial, breathless press releases trumpeting some new temperature high, it actually is just a modeling office, which also (for unknown reasons, possibly extra attention and importance, or mere advocacy) cobbles together some US data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) with that of the Climatic Research Units temperature history. You may recall how CRU withdrew its claim to a temperature history data set after ClimateGate led to an admission it actually lost its data.
And the Congressional select committee on energy
indepenence and global warming has been terminated.
BTW, cow farts are no joke, the brain addled morons
that run the EPA wanted to tax cow farts to the tune
of around $80 per head per year!!!
lol:
Seriously?
:lolabove:
When are you going to scientifically refute Lindzen's
statement that computer models overstate the value
of CO2 by six times the amount???
The point was that those, such as yourself, who
support the whole AGW theory have enabled idiotic
policies such as the ethanol mandates to be put in
place with no relief in sight and it can only get worse
as people, such as youself continue to support this
fraud.
