Climate Gate Strikes Again

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/02/climate-researchers-manipulated-hid-data/

Climate-gate has struck again: A new investigation reveals crucial flaws in data about climate change, as well as attempts by leading researchers to cover up their own mistakes.

The study by London paper The Guardian relies upon e-mails leaked by hackers from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit (CRU). The paper found serious flaws in measurements from Chinese weather stations, noting that documents from them could not be produced.

The leaked e-mails revealed that those monitoring stations were moved several times, meaning data from them may be unreliable. This data was key evidence behind the claim that the growth of cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn’t a factor in global warming and was cited by the U.N.'s embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to bolster statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

Worse, adds The Guardian, CRU chief scientist Phil Jones withheld information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones’s collaborator, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany-SUNY, had “screwed up,” adds the paper.

The story points out that of 105 freedom of information requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU), which Jones headed up to the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.

Revelations on the inadequacies of this global warming data do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate-change science and are certainly embarrassing for Jones.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the e-mail scandal and the U.N.'s embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades, explains The Guardian.

For more on this story, read the full investigation on The Guardian.

2

It’s a little ironic as another poster here claimed the great care that he felt these climate researchers took with correction for urban effects as a basis for trusting them on another matter that looked highly fishy, which he could not account for by any means other than by expressing this trust.

Jones himself wound up refuting the IPCC’s claims and his own earlier claims, though still he at the same time appears to be claiming honesty for his previous, to put it kindly, BS:

"Wang’s defence to the university inquiry says that he had got the Chinese temperature data from a Chinese colleague, although she is not an author on the 1990 Nature paper.

"Wang’s defence explains that the colleague had lost her notes on many station locations during a series of office moves. Nonetheless, “based on her recollections”, she could provide information on 41 of the 49 stations.

"In all, that meant that no fewer than 51 of the 84 stations had been moved during the 30-year study period, 25 had not moved, and eight she could not recollect.

"Wang, however, maintained to the university that the 1990 paper’s claim that “few, if any” stations had moved was true. The inquiry apparently agreed.

"Wigley, in his May 2009 email to Jones, said of Wang: “I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy scientist. I would not be surprised if he screwed up here. Were you taking W-C W on trust? Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start? Perhaps it’s not too late.” There is no evidence of any doubts being raised over Wang’s previous work.

"Jones told the Guardian he was not able to comment on the allegations. Wang said: “I have been exonerated by my university on all the charges. When we started on the paper we had all the station location details in order to identify our network, but we cannot find them any more. Some of the location changes were probably only a few metres, and where they were more we corrected for them.”

“The story has a startling postscript. In 2008, Jones prepared a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research re-examining temperatures in eastern China. It found that, far from being negligible, the urban heat phenomenon was responsible for 40% of the warming seen in eastern China between 1951 and 2004.”

So: from “negligible” to 40%, and from “few if any” stations moved to at least 51 out of 84.

Frankly, your average politician is probably more accurate and honest.

3

And of course, honest scientists are just ALWAYS e-mailing their colleauges asking them to delete all e-mails on a given topic that they had discussed and to pass the word on to others to do the same.

Always a sign of integrity there.

4

I know I have said this numerous other places, but it always feels relevent when this topic comes up…

How can any scientist claim to know we have increased 0.25 of a degree and its due to man made CO2 when weather people cant tell me withing 5 degrees what the temp tomorrow will be…?

5

I think this author hits the nail on the head.

"Simply stated, we’ve been swindled. We’ve been set up as marks by a gang of opportunistic hucksters who have exploited the naïvely altruistic intentions of the environmental movement in an effort to control international energy consumption while redistributing global wealth and (in many cases) greedily lining their own pockets in the process.

Perhaps now, more people will finally understand what many have known for years: Man-made climate change was never really a problem – but rather, a solution."

6

World may not be warming, say scientists

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was â??unequivocalâ??.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

â??The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,â?? said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

…

â??The story is the same for each one,â?? he said. â??The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.â??

Full Story:

QUICK!! QUICK!! Pass new laws, restrictions, and taxes!!! Anthropogenic Global Warming is REAL and unequivocal!! JUST DEAL WITH IT!!!

7

When you’ve lost Phil Jones…I mean what’s the point in keeping up the Global Warming Charade.

8

[quote]He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.[/quote]

Hmm, let’s see.

It’s unfortunately always arbitrary to pick a given number of years, but I think we will all agree that 100 years is a round number and I am not cherry-picking in using that figure for discussion.

So:

From 1910 to the start of 2010, we have 31 years (1910-1940, inclusive) plus 24 years (1975-1998 inclusive) that don’t count because he has natural explanations.

And the last 15 years don’t count because they are a blip.

This totals to 70 years out of 100 that we should pay no mind to for one reason or another. Only 30 years tell us the true story, which of course is AGW.

Ok I think I got it…

Except that I’m a little confused by the part about how the warming from 1975-1998 could be explained by natural phenomena but “more recent warming could not,” while simultaneously saying there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years – which would date back prior to 1998.

“Jones math” has been interesting for a while.

9

“The planet has a fever,” Gore said. “If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘Well, I read a science-fiction novel that tells me it’s not a problem.’”

10

Global Warming is only a small part of CLIMATE CHANGE. I believe climate change is very real. I won’t make a statement about whether or not Carbon emissions affect climate, as it seems that those that doubt this are unmoving in their opinion, regardless of evidence.

11

Hmm, also:

[quote]Professor Jones departed from this [the AGW] consensus when he said: 'There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

'For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’[/quote]

So let me see if I’ve got it straight.

If it happened before – available records show warming but there are other parts of the world for which there are no or too few records – then the current warming is not unprecedented.

But if it didn’t happen before, then it is unprecedented (or at least within the last 1000 years – though certainly not relative to greater lengths of time.)

Wow!

This is some kind of advanced science. If it happened before, it’s not unprecendented; if it didn’t, then it’s unprecedented, but we don’t know which way it is.

Who’da thunk???

12

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Global Warming is only a small part of CLIMATE CHANGE. I believe climate change is very real. I won’t make a statement about whether or not Carbon emissions affect climate, as it seems that those that doubt this are unmoving in their opinion, regardless of evidence.[/quote]

The climate changes all the time doesn’t mean we are causing any of it. All this evidence that is now being shown to be a lie. Please tell me you have been keeping up with climate gate, if not then it is you who has an opinion regardless of the evidence.

Your elietist attitude is annoying

13

Ok, you’re right. It’s all a lie.

14

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Ok, you’re right. It’s all a lie.
[/quote]

No its a hyped up, politically convenient hypothesis that might or might not be true.

15

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Hmm, also:

[quote]Professor Jones departed from this [the AGW] consensus when he said: 'There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

'For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’[/quote]

So let me see if I’ve got it straight.

If it happened before – available records show warming but there are other parts of the world for which there are no or too few records – then the current warming is not unprecedented.

But if it didn’t happen before, then it is unprecedented (or at least within the last 1000 years – though certainly not relative to greater lengths of time.)

Wow!

This is some kind of advanced science. If it happened before, it’s not unprecendented; if it didn’t, then it’s unprecedented, but we don’t know which way it is.

Who’da thunk???[/quote]

That sounds like Obama speak.

16

[quote]hedo wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Hmm, also:

[quote]Professor Jones departed from this [the AGW] consensus when he said: 'There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

'For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’[/quote]

So let me see if I’ve got it straight.

If it happened before – available records show warming but there are other parts of the world for which there are no or too few records – then the current warming is not unprecedented.

But if it didn’t happen before, then it is unprecedented (or at least within the last 1000 years – though certainly not relative to greater lengths of time.)

Wow!

This is some kind of advanced science. If it happened before, it’s not unprecendented; if it didn’t, then it’s unprecedented, but we don’t know which way it is.

Who’da thunk???[/quote]

That sounds like Obama speak. [/quote]

Don’t you get it? Even the coming Ice Age will be seen as incontrovertible evidence that the earth is warming. I mean changing. Whatever.

17
18

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/the-billion-dollar-hoax/story-e6frfhqf-1225823736564

Furthermore…

19

Some choice excerpts from that article:

(Note: where I don’t have ellipses (…) but yet the text doesn’t seem to flow, it is because there was a paragraph heading indicating change of topic and I omitted the heading.)

… One of the scientists, CRU boss Phil Jones, even boasted of having found a “trick” to “hide the decline” in recent temperature records.

… Take this claim from its 2007 report: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”

… [b]But why did the IPCC run this mad claim in the first place?

The IPCC’s Dr Murari Lal, the co-ordinating lead author responsible, says he knew all along there was no peer-reviewed research to back it up.

"(But) we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians … "[/b]

… But what smells just as much is how IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, a former railway engineer, first tried to defend this “mistake” by accusing sceptical scientists of practising “voodoo science”.

Deny and abuse. That’s the IPCC way.

… We’ve seen how the IPCC just copied its false claims about the Himalayas from a report by WWF, a green activist group which earn donations by preaching such doom.

In fact, the IPCC’s 2007 report cites WWF documents as “evidence” at least another 15 times.

Elsewhere it cites a non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed paper from another activist body, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, as its sole proof that global warming could devastate African agriculture.

Whose agenda is the IPCC pushing?

This week came more evidence that the IPCC sexed up its 2007 report, this time when it claimed the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s”, thanks to global warming.

In fact, the claim was picked out of an unpublished report by a London risk consultant, who later changed his mind and said “the idea that catastrophes are rising in cost because of climate change is completely misleading”.

At least four new papers by top scientists cast doubt on the IPCC claim that our carbon dioxide emissions are strongly linked to global warming.

One, published in Nature, shows the world had ice age activity even when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level of our pre-industrial times.

Another, by NASA medallist John Christy and David Douglass, shows global temperatures did not go up as much as expected from man-made emissions over the past three decades.

James Cook University researcher Peter Ridd says Australian scientists have cried wolf over the threat to the Great Barrier Reef from global warming, and the reef was actually in “bloody brilliant shape”. The alarmist CSIRO this month also backed away from blaming global warming for a drought in Tasmania and in the Murray-Darling basin, saying “the jury is still out”. A new paper by another Australian academic, Assoc Prof Stewart Franks, says the Murray-Darling drought is natural, and has nothing to do with man-made warming.

… Even professional alarmist Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, admits “we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend” and “the computer modelling and the real world data disagree”.

20

How much longer can the MSM ignore this?