Climategate goes to high gear. (veil comes off the hoax??)

[gsvol]

NASA didn't get the memo!!

Climate change researchers stand accused of engaging in conspiracy, collusion, possibly-illegal destruction of embarrassing information, manipulation of data and much more, according to news reports. All in an effort to foist their radical socialist agenda on the American people. All the result of e-mail messages between them being made public.
..................................
One thing NASA officials might want to do at this point is apply a “fiction” label to the climate change information on their web site. If they don’t do that soon, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) might add them to the list of folks subject to his threatened “ClimateGate” Investigation.

James E. Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute:

Hansen Received $250000 from partisan Heinz Foundation & Endorsed Dem. John Kerry for Pres. in 2004.
A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal.

In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.


“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.


Even though our LSM is still hopelessly trying to still pimp Hopenhagen, what part of this do they not get??

 

[gsvol]

Here are three things everyone should know about the Climategate Papers.


Links are provided so that the full context of every quote can be seen by anyone interested.

First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.

................................

Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication.
........................................

Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.
........................................................

In the meantime, all those responsible for political action on global warming should stop the process pending the results of inquiries, investigations, and any criminal proceedings.


What cannot happen is the process carrying on as if nothing has happened.

The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.

Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.

LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
.................

On Tuesday, ABCNews.com's top story was, "Worse Than the Worst: Climate Report Says Even Most Dire Predictions Too Tame"

 

[gsvol]

Climate Con Job

The scientists who have rung over and again the global warming alarm appear to be guilty of fraud. This we long suspected. Now, their own words, exposed by hackers who hijacked their e-mails, seem to confirm our suspicions.

For decades they've told us that the Earth is warming because of a greenhouse effect caused by man's carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. But what they've been telling each other isn't consistent with that story.

The e-mails, more than a thousand of them, use phrases and terms such as "hide the decline," "trick" and "contain" (as in to conceal the Medieval Warm Period, an era in which temperatures might have been higher than today's).

(No might have been about it, Norsemen raised cattle on the east coast of Greenland. )gs

There's also at least one damning admission — "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" — sent by Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

There are attempts to conspire. Phil Jones, head of Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England, wrote that "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

-----------------------------

We knew this was a scam when David Deming was e-mailed the command: “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

 

[IPorange]

I shudder to even respond to this thread...

But who ever got rid of the Medieval Warm Period?

 

[gsvol]

I shudder to even respond to this thread...

But who ever got rid of the Medieval Warm Period?

Congressional Democrats????

The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.


No one is excluded.

Old Butch
—————— -———— -———— —
John was in the fertilized egg business.
He had several hundred young layers (hens), called ‘pullets,’ and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs.

He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced.

This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters.

Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing.

Now, he could sit on the porch And fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.

John’s favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but one morning he noticed old Butch’s bell hadn’t rung at all!

When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for cover.

To John’s amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn’t ring.

He’d sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.

John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making.

Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren’t paying attention.

Vote carefully next year, the bells are not always audible.

Anyone who can hear the alarm bells now is stone cold deaf.

If, horror of all horrors, the cap and tax legislation should ever pass and be signed into law, more power would be centralized in Washington than in Moscow at the apex of the USSR!!! Pretty much the same for the so-called health care reform aka government takeover of health care.

Any citizen moronic enough to support such legislation has to be either an idiot or over educated to the extent they have lost the ability to actually do their own thinking!!! :ermm:

 

[gsvol]

But who ever got rid of the Medieval Warm Period?

I realise you are trying to be funny but here is your answer.

In other words there's oodles of bull hockey
in the global warming hockey stick!!!

And now, thanks to some enterprising, intelligent,
concerned hackers, it has been proven the alarmists
have stepped in their own hockey.

That is for any semi-literate citizen with at least one
workable brain cell that hasn't been brain washed into
total uslelessness.

Shudder no more, now you too understand!

 

[gsvol]

Call it the Domino Effect.

The clowns at Hadley CRU know that they are blown; that one of the four legs on which the great IPCC imposture stands has been broken and will never be repaired.

Manmade global warming is not science, but a religious cult. It is the 21st century’s equivalent of the Fifth Monarchy Men and the Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion. Only a massive collaboration between governments anxious to extend state power, scientists with their mouths clamped to the IPCC teat and entrepreneurs eager to make billions has enabled a superstition to be imposed on the world that will wreck developed nations’ economies, impoverish developing countries and kill their populations and rape the landscape of Europe.

The majority of people now reject this nonsense.

Media organisations like the BBC have betrayed truth and objectivity on this, as so many other issues, so should not be surprised if the public abandons them for open debate online.

I'm lmao at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS et al, this story is too big to cover up and they are presently wringing their hands and sweating bullets about how to spin it so they can hang on to any tiny bit of credibility.

They deserve zero credibility imo.

 

[gsvol]

Crap hits the proverbial fan.

"We may be wrong, but we believe in what we're doing."
Vice-president Rosary Joe Biden espousing his liberal socialist religion.

Now the denials.

Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner on Wednesday rejected claims that e-mails stolen from a British university show climate scientists trumped up global warming numbers, saying she considers the science settled.

Anyone semi literate citizen who barely studies any of the emails can readily see she is either brain dead or is lying through her teeth.

Browner is a lifelong hack political legal mouthpiece who has absolutely zero background in science btw.

Carol evidently is also mathematically challenged, her "very small group" happens to be the majority of the American people.

 

[gsvol]

Inhofe Launches "Climategate" Investigation.

The day global warming stood still.

:dance2::dance2::dance2::dance2::dance2:

 

[gsvol]

Climategate:

White House Involvement in Scandal Will Make It Harder for LSM to Ignore.

Holdren has a long history of seeking total government control. He was involved in the Club of Rome providing Paul Ehrlich with the scientific data in his bet with Julian Simon. Ehrlich lost the bet. Holdren’s behavior in this sorry episode with Soon and Baliunas is too true to form and shows the leopard never changes his spots.

Science czar Holdren is a real piece of work, surely Hitler would be proud of him. Just think a public uproar if GW had employed a man with such radical opinions.

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;

• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;

• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;

• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

In one revealing email to the GRU, Holdren explained he was in the business of joining science and government policy. Some of his half baked science is cooked up in his own little noggin'.

------------------------------------

When Ike issued his farewell address in January 1961:
(a warning)

"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

 

[gsvol]

Left link out to quotes attributed to John Holdren in post above, oops sorry.

Book Holdren co-authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population.

-------------------------

New Zealand climate agency also accused of data manipulation.

Climate scientists in New Zealand today accused the foremost climate-research institution in New Zealand of data manipulation of the same type as the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute (CRU) is alleged to have done.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition today issued this paper saying that a graph published by the New Zealand National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is not only wrong but is the result of painstaking and unjustified adjustment of raw temperature data covering the period from 1853 through 2008, Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room announced today.

At issue is a claim by NIWA that the average temperature over New Zealand declined from 1853 to 1909 and then began to rise, and has been rising ever since, at an average rate of +0.92 degree (Celsius) per century.

However, unlike the case with the CRU, NIWA's raw data remain readily available, at least to climate scientists.

Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conversation Group, and his colleagues requested and obtained the data used to produce the NIWA graph. Using these data, they produced a graph of their own. Their graph, shown here, displays no such decline from 1853 to 1909 and consequently no such steep increase from 1909 through 2008 as that shown on the NIWA graph. Instead, according to the CSC, the linear trend is a negligibly gentle +0.06 degree per century since 1853.

Treadgold's group alleges that the NIWA graph was produced, not from the raw data that NIWA supplied, but rather from temperature readings that had been adjusted.

The CSC scientists were able to obtain the adjusted dataset from an un-named associate of Dr. M. James Salinger, formerly of NIWA and, before that, of CRU.

Comparison of the two datasets shows significant upward adjustments of the post-1909 data and equally significant downward adjustments of the pre-1909 data, thus producing a downtrend and then an uptrend, instead of the nearly flat trend that Treadgold's group found.

Climategate:

The scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…

The alleged villains this time are the climate scientists at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA) – New Zealand’s answer to Britain’s Climate Research Unit. And to judge by this news alert by the Climate Science Coalition of NZ, both institutions share a similarly laissez-faire attitude to scientific accuracy.

Compare and contrast these two graphs and you’ll see .
............................
Can you see the difference? I can – and I know as little about science as Al Gore. But lets allow the experts at Climate Science Coalition of NZ to explain:

Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either 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 NIWA’s 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 NIWA’s web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger’s 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.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature.

It’s a disgrace.

----------------------------------------

For those who still believe the Arctic ocean is melting like an eskimo bar in August and polar bears are drowning etc etc etc ad nauseum as produced on PBS:

Notice May of 2009 has more sea ice than any time in the past ten years, and Nov 2009 is about average for the past ten years.

 

[gsvol]

Hugo Chavez weighs in on global warming.

Fidel Castro said in one of his speeches I read not so long ago, “tomorrow could be too late, let’s do now what we need to do”. I don't believe that this is an exaggeration. The environment is suffering damage that could be irreversible — global warming, the greenhouse effect, the melting of the polar ice caps, the rising sea level, hurricanes — with terrible social occurrences that will shake life on this planet.
-----------------------
It is the moment of offensive, of the masses, of struggle, of battle. It is a new moment we have now and we don't know if we will have another moment later. We don’t know if we will have time.
---------------------------
We spend five days in meetings, hugs meetings, but this world is under threat! We can't spend 50 more years like this; there won't be a world in 50 years if we don't stop in some way the beast that is devouring the planet and life on it.

Obama's climate czar Carol Browner is of the same ilk.

 

[gasguy98]

My god, this is playing out like the Manchurian Candidate. Hollywood could not dream this stuff up.

We are in a lot of trouble.

 

[Oldvol75]

Its all about people creating technology to "clean up" our environment so they can make billions..ie. Al Gore!

For anyone intrested. I will be selling discount carbon credits, half of what Al Gore charges, please send me your money now and get in on the ground floor!

 

[BeecherVol]

My check is in the mail. Just tryin to do my part.

 

[tim]

Al Gore obviously wasn't aware this news was breaking when he was on SNL last weekend trying to be funny and esposing the urgency to do something to save the glaciers. What a TN tool.

 

[gsvol]

Based upon information supplied to it by the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the Securities and Exchange Commission has begun a review of the Obama administration’s carbon trading, ‘emission allowance,’ and climate change permitting programs to insure investors are adequately protected.

According to SSRC Director, John Casey, “The reason for our request to the SEC is straightforward.

Since global warming has ended, there simply is no need to implement a massive government tax or investment/trading programs in a vain attempt to control it.

The natural repeating cycles of the Sun which caused the past global warming have now reversed to a normal though potentially dangerous cold phase.

The unbelievable $646 billion tax on the people paid for through cap and trade programs and spelled out in the proposed 2010 federal budget is the largest environmental tax in the history of the United States.

It is also completely unnecessary. Here we are creating a huge tax and investment system to counteract something that does not exist and yet not spending the first dollar to get our country prepared for the rapidly advancing coldest weather in over 200 years!

As a result, the SSRC in conjunction with its parent company, have asked the SEC to insure that publicly traded companies and their investors are protected from the real prospect of what I believe could be highly risky if not illegal (“worthless securities”) trading in climate change control instruments.

In a March 19, 2009, letter to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, I have asked that she take several definitive steps to protect investors.

The least of these steps is that the SEC needs to insure investors are provided full and accurate disclosure of climate change investment risks.

Investors should be told that there is no global warming and that the coming cold weather may make any such investment vehicles worthless in a few years as the world comes to recognize man made climate change for the failed concept that many experts believe it is. I can see investors, Wall Street firms, and public companies losing tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars because of these climate change control efforts by the Obama administration.”

On whether a political appointee such as Chairman Schapiro will do anything to interrupt the climate change and global warming programs of the Obama administration, Casey voiced optimism saying, “Chairman Schapiro has been given a free hand and wide ranging mandate to revamp the SEC and toughen its investor protections in light of a wave of scandals and other financial crises that have rocked Wall Street over the past two years.

I am hopeful that she will stand up to partisan politics by making all such climate change controlling investment programs contain full disclosure of the risks involved. I would like her to go beyond that as specified in my letter by for example, halting all carbon trading.

I have not announced the SEC’s review previously to allow them sufficient time to look into the matter. Now that the SEC has had the ball in their court for the past three months, I hope we will see a ruling soon, especially with climate legislation now being considered by Congress.”

In looking at the climate change question objectively Casey injected, “The SSRC is the leading independent science research organization in the United States on the science of and planning for the next cold climate era. I was the recipient of heavy and often irrational criticism from all sectors when I first announced my research and the forecast of the next climate change to the media, US government, and the scientific community.

Now that my predictions have come to pass, scientists and prominent leaders from around the world have now joined the fray in the effort to spread the word about the dramatic changes taking place in the Sun and what really causes climate change on Earth.

Accordingly, the SSRC is now the most quoted source on the world wide web on the subject of the climate change to this new cold era. I will continue my efforts to alert the media, our government, and the American people on how this next climate period will unfold and what effects it will have on everyone.

This request to the SEC for investor protection and disclosure of the inherent risks of carbon trading is another logical step in support of that mission. The on going process of the SSRC to speak the truth about climate change will also accelerate as the cold weather gets closer.

This Wednesday for example, the SSRC will issue a new climate forecast, the most important of its kind in over two years. It will provide a more detailed schedule for how soon the deepest cold will arrive and start to create food shortages in the United States because of expected crop damage. In the meantime, let’s hope the SEC does the right thing by protecting investors from the folly that is called ‘man made climate change.’ ”

Letter to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro

Source

---------------------------------

Yep, don't hold your breath, the Securities and Exchange Commission did a bang up job of protecting us from the likes of Bernie and AIG.

 

[gsvol]

The Green Mask Is Being Peeled Away From The CO²mmunists.

Now that we are learning prominent leaders of the global warming movement destroyed the data they claim to have used to construct their climate models, and only the most rabid environmental fraud deniers still cling to the authenticity of their “science”, a serious moment of truth is fast approaching.


That moment is Copenhagen, which has always been about much more than so called “man-made global warming”. Copenhagen has always been about striking a “Global New Deal”.

We are going to learn just how far our leaders are willing to go to continue this “green” charade, despite overwhelming legitimate doubt about the credibility of the source of alarm regarding anthropogenic global warming.

Only people with a political agenda to fulfill would continue to wield the social-moral bludgeon of man-made global warming despite the apparent corruption of its rationale revealed thus far.

Copenhagen should, therefore, provide us with rare insight on the extent of the symbiotic corruption between the scientific and political communities.

The problem with UN IPCC climate change data.

A large collection of e-mails exchanged among weather researchers at the University of East Anglia in England have gotten out and caused a scandal.

The reason that University's climate research unit matters is that it has been heavily relied upon by the United Nations in reaching its alarming conclusions about the threat of global warming. The reason it's a scandal is that the e-mails vividly portray leading scientists there scheming to suppress or discredit data and analysis contrary to their dire predictions.

The whole idea that the Earth is warming dangerously and that man, by burning carbon fuels, is the cause rests on computerized projections of future temperatures based on vast amounts of previously observed climate data.

But there's a huge problem: There has been no apparent increase in global temperatures over the past 11 years and the computerized climate models failed to predict this and the global warming alarmists can't explain it.

The obvious conclusion would be that there is something wrong with the computer models.

Now it has come out that the original raw data used to create these models has been destroyed or otherwise disposed of.

 

[gsvol]

Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths

Their behavior was brought to light when more than 1,000 emails,and some 3,500 additional files were published online, many of which boasted about how they suppressed hard questions about their data.
...............................................
The findings from East Anglia have been at the core of policy reports by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC does not do its own research but compiles information relating to climate change. It has declared the evidence that the globe is warming to be "unequivocal," a claim routinely cited by lawmakers in the U.S. and elsewhere as authoritative.

............................

In one email, the Climate Research Unit's director, Phil Jones, wrote Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, promising to spike studies that cast doubt on the relationship between human activity and global warming. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," he said. He pledged to "keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another email exhange, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones: "This was the danger of always criticizing 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."

Other emails include one in which Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit told Mr. Mann that "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same," and in which Mr. Jones said he had employed Mr. Mann's "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. A May 2008 email from Mr. Jones with the subject line "IPCC & FOI" asked recipients to "delete any emails you may have had" about data submitted for an IPCC report. The British Freedom of Information Act makes it a crime to delete material subject to an FOI request; such a request had been made earlier that month.

...............................
The emails showed how the global-warming group stifled dissent. They controlled the peer-review process, keeping opposing views unpublished, then cited "peer review" as evidence of their "consensus." One of the dissident scientists, Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, wrote on his blog that the emails show the "collusion to suppress other scientifically supported views of the climate system, and the human role within it, is a systemic problem with the climate assessment process."

 

[gsvol]

CRU director Phil Jones steps down.

Surprise, surprise, Washington Post, aka pravda on the potomac, mentions 'climategate', meanwhile trying to smooth things over and enable damage control.

East Anglia's Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton ..........added the university will disclose details of the probe, including who will head it and how long it will last "within days."

Wonder if the NY Slimes will come under fire for their reporters colusion with Jones???????

Penn State U to launch investigation into Michael Mann's involvement in climategate.

Pennsylvania State University announced it was launching an investigation into the academic conduct of Michael Mann, director of the school's Earth System Science Center. Yesterday, it was announced that Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, would step aside while his university conducts an investigation.

There are dozens of researchers at other institutions involved in this scandal surrounding leaked e-mails that discuss covering up evidence of global cooling and destroying research that discounts global warming. For example, in the United States, the National Center for Atmospheric Research is in the thick of the e-mail chain.

Mr. Mann is front and center in the debate over what constitutes unethical research. In the current controversy, he is named in about 270 of the more than 1,000 leaked e-mails, many of which detail disturbing and improper academic behavior.

Inhofe calls on Boxer to hold hearings.

ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling on Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming.

Inhofe said the recent disclosure of emails between several prominent climatologists reveal “possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program” and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

He suggested “a possible conspiracy by scientists, some of whom receive or have received US taxpayer funds, to stifle open, transparent debate on the most pressing issues of climate science.”
..........................................

“Another scientist stated, ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t.’ Still another wrote, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same,’” Inhofe added.

 

[gsvol]

Seeing No Evil On Climate-Gate

The shameless denial with which major newspapers and networks have treated "Climategate" layers even more scandal on top of the original one: Mainstream media now co-conspirators with scientific hacks and big government.

The evolution of America's dominant media from guardians of our freedoms to enablers of government growth has been a decades-long story, their biases copiously chronicled.

But their response to the scientific scandal of the century, since it broke a week and a half ago, bids to become known as history's great unmasking of these supposedly independent journalists.

..................................................

Their purposes were political: to shape data to suit the agenda of international regulators, many of whom will meet next week in Copenhagen to propose draconian emission controls. That, by any old-school journalist's reckoning, would constitute a scandal of global proportions, and you'd expect the terriers of the press to bare their teeth.

Certainly they did so two years ago, when, as the Media Research Center's Rich Noyes reminds us, the networks wouldn't let go of allegations that the Bush administration suppressed global warming science.

So what about their treatment of Climategate?

 

[gsvol]

Lame stream media takes 'head in sand' approach to climate-gate.

If it were up to the Washington Post and the New York Times and the three major teevee broadcast networks, the Climategate scandal would be last week’s news.

Their strategy is clearly to contain and sanitize it.

The “world’s leading climate scientists” and the environmental pressure groups and the mainstream media have all agreed on their talking points.

Their story is: Critics are cherry-picking a few nasty emails and taking them out of context, but the vast edifice of scientific consensus is unshaken. And they’re sticking to it.

But already this cover-up isn’t working. ...

 

[gsvol]

ABC, CBS, NBC Ignore Latest Development in
“Greatest Scandal in Modern Science”

ABC, CBS and NBC’s collective silence on “ClimateGate” has reached ridiculous levels as the broadcast networks continued to ignore the great and growing scandal.

The bias by omission has now become scandalous.

“The networks’ silence on ClimateGate is deafening. Scandal, cover-ups and conspiracy are the bread and butter of the media. Yet they have selectively and deliberately decided not to report this bombshell – or any of the incriminating details surrounding the scandal – because it goes against their left-wing agenda.

“To pretend this story simply doesn’t exist is damning to journalism. The so-called ‘news’ media are protecting scientists because it exposes their underbelly. That’s not journalism. That’s a cover-up. And we will continue to call them out for ignoring these allegations and the mounting, inconvenient evidence against them.”

Could google be involved in the cover-up???
I pass this along from an internet poster:

Despite 19.8 million hits...Google is still suppressing the auto-completion when typing the word ‘climategate’. It registers ‘climate guatemala’ instead. Complicit anyone?

Checking out my basic math;
1. Al Gore invented the internet. (the Orwelian memory hole part perhaps.)

2. Al Gore in an unpaid advisor to Google.

2 + 2 = Duh??

Another posters writes:

okay here are the numbers for those with less time to kill today

current hits:

2,720,000 for “Bill Clinton”.
16,400,000 for “Barack Obama”.
19,300,000 for “Britney Spears”.
21,100,000 for Climategate

Climate-gate to now impact the EPA.

This is because the EPA — perhaps at the urging of others (ie; climate, science, energy czars) in the Obama administration — has proposed to regulate GHG emissions on the basis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports … and reports primarily based on the IPCC reports.

This is highly unusual for the EPA. I cannot think of any instance where the EPA depended so heavily on non-EPA synthesis reports to justify proposed regulatory action in their almost 39 years of existence.

As a result of this EPA decision, the EPA’s fortunes in regard to regulating GHGs are directly tied to the fate of the IPCC reports.
..............................................

Although it is hard to argue that any one CRU email or computer file notation proves the IPCC conclusions wrong, as a whole they do strongly suggest two conclusions:

1. CRU and many of its associates and email recipients elsewhere (who I will henceforth refer to as “CRU et al“) are very tightly tied to the IPCC — both in influence and belief — and do not appear to be paragons of scientific objectivity and ethics.

2. Their data handling leaves something to be desired in terms of data retention, database documentation, and questionable data manipulation.

(not to mention active suppression of other scientific research not supporting their position)gs

It seems clear to me that if a group (such as the EPA) wanted to get an objective scientific judgment on climate change science, CRU et al — and therefore the IPCC — might be the last place that they would want to rely on.

Attempts to manipulate peer reviews and journal acceptances are not acceptable scientific activities.

Withholding key scientific data can only make one question their dedication to scientific principles. Hiding their alleged destruction of the basic temperature data that would allow reconstruction of what they have done is almost as bad as discarding such critical data in the first place. Using data that cannot be reproduced is not very useful scientifically, or from a regulatory viewpoint.

Yet despite these now evident problems with the CRU et al’s data and research, the EPA is now stuck with the IPCC reports, and therefore the closely associated CRU et al’s data and research has become central to the EPA’s attempts to regulate GHGs. Given that it currently appears unlikely that the Senate will agree to anything resembling the current cap and trade bill, this EPA decision may well greatly decrease the chances that the U.S. will in the end implement serious regulation of GHGs — since, under the Clean Air Act, EPA regulations must survive judicial review of any regulations that the EPA may promulgate.

(in other words the EPA can expect a plethora of legal challenges in US courts.)gs

If the EPA wants to pursue the regulation of GHGs despite the weak scientific basis for it, there is an evident need for a whole new approach based on truly independent and careful review of the problem. The new approach must use the highest standards of scientific integrity, which means it must not rely on what appears to be biased research and sloppy data from CRU et al.

.................................

Despite the uproar concerning CRU et al’s data and research, the basic problem remains — the UN hypothesis that increases in GHGs/CO2 will result in significant increases in global temperatures has not been confirmed by comparisons with real world data.

Unless it is, attempts to decrease GHG/CO2 emissions in order to significantly change global temperatures are very likely to fail. This is the primary question that the EPA and climate scientists need to address before any control efforts are undertaken.

Happily, we appear to have the time to do so, and to do so objectively using reproducible data.

A list of other sites worth reading:

"Global Warming" A Debate at Last
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - "Global Warming" A Debate at Last

SPPI Monthly CO2 Reports
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Monthly CO2 Report

CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future

Amazon.com: CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs (9780971484580): Dr. Craig Idso: Books

CO2, Global Warming and Species Extinctions: Prospects for the Future
Amazon.com: idso: Books

Climate Science Corrupted
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Climate Science Corrupted

"'Unequivocal' 'Consensus' on 'Global Warming'"
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - "'Unequivocal' 'Consensus' on 'Global Warming'"

Public Comment to the Environmental Protection Agency
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Public Comment to the Environmental Protection Agency

The Science of Deceit
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - The Science of Deceit

The IPCC can't count its "Expert Scientists": Author and Reviewer Numbers are Wrong
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - The IPCC can't count its "Expert Scientists": Author and Reviewer Numbers are Wrong

Prejudiced Authors, Prejudiced Findings
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Prejudiced Authors, Prejudiced Findings

Why the IPCC Should be Disbanded
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Why the IPCC should be disbanded

Peer Review? What Peer Review?
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Peer review? What peer review?

What is Wrong with the IPCC?
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - What is Wrong with the IPCC?

A Climate Science Brief
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - A Climate Science Brief

Senator Kerry Misfires about Global Warming and National Security
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sen_kerry_misfires.pdf

‘Global Warming’ is No Global Crisis, Major Talking Points
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - ‘Global Warming’ is No Global Crisis, Major Talking Points

Twisted Science, Crooked Policy
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Twisted Science, Crooked Policy

The Dog Ate Global Warming
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - The Dog Ate Global Warming

Hockey Stick? What Hockey Stick?
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Hockey Stick? What Hockey Stick?

Caspar and the Jesus Paper
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/caspar_and_the_jesus_paper.html

What is the 'Hockey Stick' Debate About?
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - What is the 'Hockey Stick' Debate About?

That Famous Consensus
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/that_famous_consensus.html

Why Has "Global Warming" Become Such A Passionate Subject?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/akasofu_cool_it.html

Medieval Warm Period Project
CO2 Science

Climate Change, William Happer testimony to Senate Energy Committee
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html

Cleaning Out the Climate Science Cesspool
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/cleaning_cesspool.html

Scenes from the Climate Inquisition
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/scenes_from_the_climate_inquisition.html

NCAR US Temperature Record Facts or Deception?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/temperature_record_facts_or_deception.html

The Coming Climate Dictatorship
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/the_coming_climate_dictatorship.html

Peer Warns Public About Dangers to Fundamental Freedoms at Forth-Coming UN Copenhagen Summit
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/peers_warns_dangers_of_un_summit.html

Copenhagen Climate Treaty Framework Draft
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/copenhagen_climate_treaty_framework_draft.html

450 Peer Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of AGW-Caused Global Warming
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/450_peer_reviewed_papers.html

 

[gsvol]

Best summary of climate gate so far.

The whistleblower deep in the basement of one of the ugly, modern tower-blocks of the dismal, windswept University of East Anglia could scarcely have timed it better.

In less than three weeks, the world’s governing class – its classe politique – would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade “global warming”.

The unnamed hero of ‘Climategate’, after months of work gathering emails, computer code, and data, quietly sent a 61-megabyte compressed file from one of the university’s servers to an obscure public message-board on the internet, with a short covering note to the effect that the climate was too important to keep the material secret, and that the data from the University would be available for a short time only.

He had caught the world’s politico-scientific establishment green-handed. Yet his first attempts to reveal the highly-profitable fraud and systematic corruption at the very heart of the UN’s climate panel and among the scientists most prominent in influencing it’s prejudiced and absurdly doom-laden reports had failed. He had made the mistake of sending the data-file to the mainstream news media, which had also profited for decades by fostering the “global warming” scare, and by generally denying anyone who disagreed with the official viewpoint any platform.

The whistleblower’s data file revealed, for the first time, the innermost workings of the tiny international clique of climate scientists, centered on the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, that has been the prime mover in telling the world that it is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that humankind is responsible.

The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere.

The “Team”, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.

The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.

The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.

The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.

They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.

They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.

They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.

They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.

They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.

Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent.

Senator Boxer to hold hearings.

Photo of mental tools with "don't call me ma'am, I'm a senator," which has to work.

Boxer said her committee may hold hearings into the matter as its top Republican, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), has asked for, but that a criminal probe would be part of any such hearings.

Babs is catching h e double L all over the internet about her stupid statement.

Where was Babs when the NYTs publish top secret information across it's front page to embarrass Bush while putting Americans in danger???

Where was Babs when a Tennessee congressman's son hacked into Sarah Palin's private email account in order to try to discredit her????

Oh Babs was babbling on about global warming with the basic scientific knoledge that she could rake in huge profits, that's where Babs still is with her head stuck solidly between her own buttocks!

We can only hope such a fool will be run out of office her next election cycle but she comes from a state that think Conan is a republican, so who knows?

I've been scanning one batch of internal emails and here are a few quoted:

As I was examining the vap database, I noticed there was a 'wet' database. Could I not use that to assist with rd0 generation? well.. it's not documented, but then, none of the process is so I might as well bluff my way into it!

One problem is the significant number of stations without names or countries: they are simply 'xxxxxxxxxx' and I'm not sure how mergedb is going to take to that! Well only one way to find out.. so I converted the rain days data:

So.. should I really go to town (again) and allow the Master database to be 'fixed' by this program? Quite honestly I don't have time - but it just shows the state our data holdings have drifted into. Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally.

It's the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately - meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it's restricted to Russia!!

Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have

This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option - to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don't think people care enough to fix 'em, and it's the main reason the project is nearly a year late.

Gotta love the system! Like this is ever going to be a blind bit of use. Modified the code to leave such stations unmolested, but identified in a separate file so they can be 'cleansed', it being a little too risky to auto-cleanse such things.

Hopefully the final attack on 'wet':

I then removed the sole illegal (see above) from wet.0710021341.dtb, which becomes the 'new old'wet/rd0 database.

Simultaneously trying to work out why stncounts.for is apparently ignoring the South Pole station (Amundsen-Scott)

..which is what happened last time. And, again - all synthetics produced, apparently OK. I think it's just the last few empty months of 2006..

Hmmm.. still some problems. In several areas, including a swathe of Russia, the mean values drops around 1991

So, first, we need synthetic-only from 1990 onwards, that can be married with the existing glos from pre-1990.

The word "synthetic" appears about four hundred times in the file, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out synthetic = " data made up out of thin air to fit their purposes."

The really dirty dirt underlying the whole global warming scam.

Not fit reading if you have eaten recently or if you intend to go to bed before long and don't want to have nightmares.

Sandor's company, Climate Exchange PLC, owns the major exchange for these emissions, the ECX. The Isle of Man-based company also owns the voluntary American counterpart, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), where Sandor is listed as chairman and founder, and sits on the board of directors with Maurice Strong.

It is also worth noting that the CCX was originally funded with grant money from the Joyce Foundation, grants which were awarded to Sandor while Barack Obama was still at the Joyce Foundation.

Barack Obama will be in Copenhagen next week at the UNFCCCÕs 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to discuss climate change actions on behalf of the United States, and he has advocated for a mandatory cap and trade system in the US and the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol.

As the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism pollutes water, destroys farmland, poisons people, and displaces entire populations, the money interests behind the possibly soon $10 Trillion emission market are lauding themselves for saving the planet and preventing global warming.

In fact, what they are actually doing is destroying lives and immorally disregarding the human rights of millions of people, people whose carbon footprint isn't 1/1,000 of Al Gore's.

The only people in Gujarat how would consider Richard Sandor the Hero of the Planet are either running a fluorochemical plant or trading on the ECX.

As President Obama meets next week in Copenhagen at the 15th Annual conference on global warming, the truth about the Kyoto Protocol must be broadcast, lest the powerful financial interests continue their rampage over human rights and towards a $10 Trillion emissions casino.

A good read on the 100 wealthiest investors who are investing heavily in envionmentalism.

"For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was anything kept secret, but that it should come abroad."
Mark 4 - 22

"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
Timothy 6-10

 

[gsvol]

Personal anecdote:

Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:

Successful candidates will:

1) Demonstrate AGW.

2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.

3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

Follow the money — perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.

CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered

As the evidence of fraud at the University of East Anglia's prestigious Climatic Research Unit (CRU) continues to mount, those who've been caught green-handed continue to parry their due opprobrium and comeuppance, thanks primarily to a dead-silent mainstream media.

But should the hubris and duplicity evident in the e-mails of those whose millennial temperature charts literally fuel the warming alarmism movement somehow fail to convince the world of the scam that's been perpetrated, certainly these revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will.

The ClimateGate Virus

ClimateGate doesn’t just bring down the scientists who wrote the emails, it brings down all the institutions and organizations that were supposed to have exacting standards and ought to have exposed the crimes years ago. The men whose work was so bogus, were lauded by the IPCC, published in Nature and Science, and defended by the National Academy of Science.

This evidence of collusion, falsification, hiding data, and consistent deceit blows away the infrastructures of the practice of science. It doesn’t hurt the scientific method, but it destroys the premise that the IPCC expert review means anything, that peer review is capable of even picking up outright fraud, and that the National Academy of Science is functional.

Also widespread fraud has been uncovered in carbon trading markets!!!!