And though most of our media here in the US ignores this fact. The bbc is finally starting to shift its coverage.

 

 

I guess facts hurt fake science.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

 

Breaking news, 98% of the earths warmth comes from the sun... Wow, who would have guessed. Common sense rules again.

JUST by the title, I instantly knew it was FE.

http://canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm - http://canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html

 

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641 - http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history

 

I'm sure I can find more.  Pressed for time right now...

FreeEnterprise wrote: And though most of our media here in the US ignores this fact.

 

Talk about a smoking gun.

 

Here is the link to them if you missed it.

 

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/ - http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

 

 

 

Look at this email.

 

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1050&filename=1255477545.txt - http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1050&filename=1255477545.txt

 

 

yeah, someone wrote something that makes them look bad, so what do they do?...

 

"Dear folks,

You may be interesting in this snippet of information about
Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to
open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels,
PhD needs re-assessing?"

 

 

yup, they want to pull his PhD! All because they disagree with his science. That children is called hardball, in most industries that is also called being blacklisted!

 

Nice!

 

I am surprised it took you so long to post this...

 

But I will wait until we see some more of these emails.  The ones that have been trotted out so far aren't particularly impressive.

 

 

 

I waited to see if one of you guys would post about it...

 

I got tired of waiting.

 

 

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1071&filename=.txt - http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1071&filename=.txt

 

Gotta make the data say what you "need" it to say...

 

 

 

"The hourly data from the Weather

Generator have discontinuities at each

midnight join. The e.g. temperature

jumps, may be as high as 9�C. "

 

 

 

 

and more...

 

"Could the Weather Generator be altered

to produce more realistic hourly data

by fitting from Tmax to Tmin the

following day, please?"

 

 

 

Heh, heh, heh

 

 

EDIT - ah, those are the beginning and the end of the same single email.  Reading the entire email I am even less certain why you are excited about this email.  Seems pretty obviously a suggestion for tweaking a weather simulator to make it behave more like actual weather.

 

 

 

Want a smoking gun?

 

 

Here you go... I just found a juicy one.

 

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=791&filename=.txt - http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=791&filename=.txt

 

"Dear Dr. Wang,
> Regarding the Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al.
> [GRL, 1990] and Jones et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that
> there are severe problems. In particular, the data was obtained from
> 84 meteorological stations that can be classified as follows.
> 49 have no histories 08 have inconsistent histories 18 have
> substantial relocations 02 have single-year relocations 07 have
> no relocations Furthermore, some of the relocations are very
> distant--over 20 km.
> Others are to greatly different environments, as illustrated here:
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970
>
> The above contradicts the published claim to have considered the
> histories of the stations, especially for the 49 stations that have no
> histories. Yet the claim is crucial for the research conclusions.
>
> I e-mailed you about this on April 11th. I also phoned you on April
> 13th: you said that you were in a meeting and would get back to me. I
> have received no response.
>
> I ask you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the
> claims made in Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I
> intend to publicly submit an allegation of research misconduct to your
> university at Albany.
>
>
> Douglas J. Keenan
> http://www.informath.org
> phone + 44 20 7537 4122
> The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, UK"

 

 

 

In the first reply...

 

"GHCN and NCAR don't have source codes either. It does
> all come from the NMSs - well mostly, but some from
> scientists."

 

 

 

Oh, so the NMSs makes up data that fits the global warming thoughts... Interesting. At least SOME is from scientists...

 

 

and finally the main part.

 

 

"Hi Phil,

This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking
for one thing they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the
facts might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They
can't take on the whole of the science, so they look for one little
thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalize that the science is
entirely compromised. Of course, as nicely shown in the SPM, every
landmass is independently warming, and much as the models predict. So
they can harp all they want on one Chinese data set, it couldn't
possibly change the big picture (let alone even the trends for China). The

So they are simply hoping to blow this up to something that looks like a
legitimate controversy. The last thing you want to do is help them by
feeding the fire. Best thing is to ignore them completely. They no
longer have their friends in power here in the U.S., and the media has become entirely unsympathetic to the rants of the contrarians at least in the U.S.--the Wall Street Journal editorial page are about the only
place they can broadcast their disinformation. So in other words, for
contrarians the environment appears to have become very unfavorable for
development. I would advise Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be
bluffing, but if he tries this I believe that British law would make it
easy for Wang to win a defamation suit against him (the burden is much
tougher in the states),

mike"

It doesn't say what you think it says...

 

 

 

 

Look at what else they said about this, looks like these guys take a page from the playbook here too!

 

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=790&filename=.txt - http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=790&filename=.txt

 

"Hi Phil
I am sure you know that this is not about the science. It is an attack to
undermine the science in some way. In that regard I don't think you can
ignore it all, as Mike suggests as one option, but the response should try
to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the
huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed
technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything
was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their
motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with
nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do.

How about "I tried to get some data from McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but
I was unable because he doesn't have such a paper because he has not done
any constructive work!"

There is no basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan's message. One
may have to offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct
if it claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental
data are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the
metadata do not exist. It doesn't mean they are worthless and can not be
used. Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a
trivial manner will undermine his case.

Kevin"

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is pretty obvious that numbers have been "massaged" to get people to buy into the hype...

 

 

The paper, that is often used to cite how global warming is man made... Had data that was supposed to be from locations that were factual.

 

The part that you quoted was proving they are not factual, but made up in many cases.

 

Hence...

 

49 have no histories

 

 

 

 

 

Comprehension... Now that is a different story...

 

This is your smoking gun?

 

Yay for old news...  Keenan published his paper accusing Dr. Wang of wrongdoing two years ago, shortly after this email exchange.  This is all very public, and has been for two years.

 

 

fix'd 

 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657 - http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657

 

 

And the death march begins... Good thing this stuff came out BEFORE they passed cap and tax...

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2188feb3-802a-23ad-4de4-3fbc0a92e126&Issue_id - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2188feb3-802a-23ad-4de4-3fbc0a92e126&Issue_id

 

 

"science"...

 

 

 

Its funny how you try to discredit this huge slam agains the integrity of the "science" of global warming.

 

Yes, this happened. But, no one knew that they had all these discussions in the background, many of which prove they are "massaging" the data to make it say what they need it to say for the money to keep rolling in...

 

They got busted, these emails (if true) destroy their house of cards. I'm sure you can see that, but as usual, you can't admit you were bamboozled.

 

Its OK, it happens.

 

You realize that pretending like this isn't a big deal, just hurts your personal credibility again, right?...

 

Aligning yourself with corrupt "scientists" and stating that the did nothing wrong, when I posted examples that I found myself, just makes you look petty.

 

But, whatever, its your reputation.

 

 

 

 

I also think its funny that I was right, and yet no one wants to admit it.

 

Typical.

 

 

"Oh, I won't read your post because you used bold and font tricks... Waaaa!"...

 

Lols!

 

 

 

 

 

 

And video of Glenn Beck talking about it, because I know you guys HATE him...

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

 

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

 

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/ - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

 

"We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory."

 

What a story! And the lawsuits begin!

 

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f -  

"Hi, I'm Michelle Malkin (Pic of Michelle Malkin)

I read Spectator.org

It's a GREAT resource for conservatives.

Spectator.org needs our support.

CLICK HERE and Donate"

 

I am not discrediting anything - I just think you are confused about what constitutes a "smoking gun."

 

That term typically refers to the discovery of new and conclusive evidence of something.  These emails about the Wang research are neither new or conclusive. 

 

They are not new, not because they themselves are old, but because everything in them (and more) was publicized in great detail in papers two years ago.  Nothing new is learned from these emails - they are merely a prequel to the more thorough publications.

 

The emails are also not conclusive - they consist only of accusations.  These accusations, of course, were explained in more detail in the subsequent papers, but even then they were just accusations. 

 

 

 

 

more examples of the lamestream media...

 

Interesting lawsuit, of course - but I think this is pretty much completely unrelated to the hacked emails...?

 

 

Its funny how you are still trying to discredit this stuff...

 

 

Reminds me of your take on ACORN....

 

 

Hey, the media ignored that story too!

 

Which emails are those?  Not the ones you posted.  

Despite your protestations, I am not trying to discredit anything.  I just haven't seen any emails yet that are particularly damning.  Some are rude and/or obnoxious, but I see none so far that bring anything new to the table in terms of the validity of the underlying science.

 

If you have emails that do this, please post them.

 

 

Reminds me of your take on ACORN....

 

What is/was my take on ACORN? 

 

Peter Parker wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote:   Acorn is bad.     The data isn't all in on this, but there are certainly a significant amount of very bad incidents.  Of course, we should also consider the good that this organization has done.  Mack's link was an interesting read, and I am sure there is more.   Based on available data, I am in agreement that Acorn at a minimum needs a fundamental overhaul.  Whether Acorn is "bad" or not is a bit too fuzzy for me, but there are certainly very real problems there.     Obama supported community organization specifically Acorn, he helped train them, and served as their lawyer...     Obama has been very clear that he has supported, and continues to support, community organizations of this type.  As he should - many of these groups do great good and we should be thankful for their existence.   As to his involvement with Acorn, it is a little less clear - both in terms of his involvement and whether the involvement is a bad thing.    First off, everybody gets to have a lawyer.  That's part of the fundamental structure of our society.  If you condemn the lawyer for his clients, then you condemn our entire system.   Second, isn't providing training a good thing?  From what I can see, these people could use the training.  Maybe we should send Obama back to hold some more training seminars.  Having participated in a few corporate training events myself (as the outside attorney providing training for corporate clients), I can assure you that many organizations need "training" on very simple things.  Here again, even if Acorn is evil (which I am not ready to conclude), then I don't see how providing management training is anything but a good thing.     Based on that, he should have distanced himself from them already. His waiting to do so until later is "troubling", and a strike to his character.   Or maybe he knows more about Acorn than you or I.  Maybe he is as troubled by the Acorn Youtube videos as we are, but knows that the group continues to do good work, and just needs to clean house.  Or something.   And, for that matter, his reluctance to distance himself from everybody and everything that looks like a political liability is to me a sign of STRONG character.  I continue to be disappointed that he buckled last spring and "distanced himself" from Rev. Wright.  I thought that was weak.  Similarly, if Obama in fact has strong ties to Acorn, I would specifically expect him NOT to distances himself from the group just because of a handful of bad facts.  Get involved and try to fix, yes.  Give up and wash hands of the connection, no.   I always found the willingness of politicians to disclaim disadvantageous connections to be distasteful and disappointing.  I would generally not view a public disavowal as anything other than a sop to the electorate.

 

The ball is rolling now.

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2188feb3-802a-23ad-4de4-3fbc0a92e126&Issue_id - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2188feb3-802a-23ad-4de4-3fbc0a92e126&Issue_id

 

Senator Inhofe: Well, on this thing, it is pretty serious. And since, you know, Barabara Boxer is the Chairman and I’m the Ranking Member on Environment and Public Works, if nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation.  ‘Cause this thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with.

Melanie Morgan: So what will you be calling for an investigation of?

Senator Inhofe: On the IPCC and on the United Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not. 

 

 

"

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t 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, I’ll be tempted to beat
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 don’t 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 I’m 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. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/ - form in this regard . In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC."

 

 

 

 

 

Slacker, until you pay me that $5.00 you owe me, your opinion is moot.

The first two are the scientific process in work - scientists discussing data, data anomalies, and statistical analysis.  There is nothing sinister about them.

 

The third is rather cleverly named - "evidence" indeed.  This isn't a crime scene.  I tell people to delete emails on a regular basis, and there is nothing sinister about it.  Could there be something here?  Maybe - but I wouldn't assume so based on this email.

 

The fourth - unfortunate, of course, but I have certainly said worse things about people in casual conversation.  We all have, ever since second grade.  Including this juvenile email on the list is, well, juvenile.

 

The fifth email is more discussion of data analysis.  This is what collaborative science looks like in action, folks.

 

Now, the last set does bother me, and I have certainly seen a fair amount of this type of politicization going one, which is very bad.  I understand the emotional involvement, but it is still important not to turn to the dark side.  The way to fight misinformation is not suppression but better information.

 

And nuclear waste can be handled as it is now, with local storage, or we could do centralized storage.  Either way is fine.

 

And we absolutely do need more nuclear, and lots of it, if we are serious about going off coal in the next 50 years.

 

 

Doesn't matter.  On a plant-by-plant basis, it still isn't even close.

 

Whether you count worker deaths/injuries or secondary effect deaths, nuclear energy is one of the absolute safest forms of energy generation we have - it certainly beats out the fossil fuels by a rather large margin.

 

(And, of course, we shouldn't be comparing nukes to oil rigs, but to coal plants.  Oil rigs are mining operations, not power plants.)

 

It only works at really, really high temperatures.  Like "center of the sun" high temperatures.

 

Scientists have been trying to figure out "cold fusion," which would be controllable fusion at merely "really high" temperatures.

 

They have been working on this for 50 years, and it is always "about 5 years away" - I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

But, at least the american thinker was paying attention...

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html - http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html

 

 "Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they're dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it's forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.