ClimateGate busts things wide open

[WBU ALUM]

ClimateGate: The Fix is In

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

"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."

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

Well, I'll be ...

[nevket240]

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

the IPCC will be out in force. the propaganda machine that steamrolled any intial doubting Thomases will be bankrolled to the hilt. Rudd & Obummer are their lynchpins and they will deny any knowledge.
the scum
regards

[nevket240]

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

regards =D>

[WBU ALUM]

My, oh, my. This just doesn't look good at all. A conspiracy?

Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit

The leak has been a huge embarrassment to the climate unit at the University of East Anglia, which is a global leader in its field.

Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real, the emails appear to show researchers manipulating raw data and discussing how to dodge Freedom of Information requests.

Yesterday, Mr Monbiot, who writes on green issues, said the emails could scarcely be more damaging.

[nevket240]

Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real,

I love the self-serving arrogance in that statement. The climate realists have all along argued that climate change was a cyclical, natural event. It was the scammers who stole the name when they realised the AGW fraud was under challenge so what better way than a "bob each way"
Now, if the scammers can actually prove the increase in CO2 is a problem. We have been warming for over several centuries. Nothing but prosperity has been the result. Better crops, better holiday weather.....
If you are an investor you would appreciate that the climate has not moved outside of the "Bollinger bands" even with CO2 levels rising. simple. CO2 is a follower not a leader. Its release from soil & water is dependant on solar influence more than anything else. We emit a pittance of the stuff when compared with natural levels. Besides its helping to feed people & animals.
AH Ha.. thats the issue. Why would rich, white Marxist Hippie trash want to share a diminishing resource base with all those low-life peky Asians, Africans, Sth Americans. They don't, so to stop them they stop development in its tracks with a CC tax. All done by our loving, moral Goldman Sachs.
regtards

[TJ]

This scandle give some stark insight into the validity of AGW peer reviews - they stink.

Here's one summarization of some of the damning evidence of cooking AGW data and messing with peer review.

■Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
■Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
■Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
■Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)
■Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
■Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
■Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
■Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
■Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
■Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)
■Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
■Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
■Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
■Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
■Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
■Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
■Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
■Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913

There's more at http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/ ... gs-33.html

and http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/ ... osion.html

[nevket240]

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/

Sad reading from a very intelligent man. The slime is getting deeper but why no mainstream media interest??? Was Orwell 25 years late??
regards

[jackspratt]

7 posts - 4 climate-change skeptics.

This looks like being a really interesting thread

[JR]

Why have the mainstream channels not brought this up in a big way?
This could have evolved into a new Watergate only in a much larger scale. If not. If not most global marketing companies, news programmes, -papers, etc had not for long time cemented themselves within this scam about global warming. Catching on the new evidence about the scam would make them look really silly and incompetent, which of course they are. The same goes sfor most politicians in the western hemisphere.
And as news are not News any more, but business, they decide to try and kill it by ignoring it. Like people do in Thailand and other countries. Put the trash under the house. If you cannot see the problem, it does not exist.

[WBU ALUM]

JR, you hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Everyone involved with it is scrambling.

Some media types, one on CNBC (sitting in for Kudlow from the London bureau), tried to explain it away and actually lied saying that no science was manipulated. His guest quickly refuted that statement. The host seems to want to just blow off the whole issue as a witch hunt. Convenient.

CNBC Video

[WBU ALUM]

Here comes the spin. And the media still doesn't cover it.

It's so much fun watching them try to insult our intelligence some more.

NewsBusters Link

[nevket240]

from The Telegraph. a good wrapup.

Jacks right this time, where are all the warmers and their high moral purpose??? The "models" that are supposed to be 95% right used this fraudlent data as the base line. WoW !! Al Gore- the Lord of Fraud.


Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009

Comments 108 | Comment on this article

CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December Photo: Getty
A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

regards

[nevket240]

It gets worse. If Nixon was impeached for WaterGate, will OBummer get the same treatment. Rudd & Wong will of course deny any knowledge. I did not have AGW with that woman..

from Icecap.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog ... armer_yet/
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Are we feeling warmer yet?
Study by New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

There have been strident claims that New Zealand is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organisations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years.

But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on?

New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is responsible for New Zealand’s National Climate Database. This database, available online, holds all New Zealand’s climate data, including temperature readings, since the 1850s. Anybody can go and get the data for free. That’s what we did, and we made our own graph. Before we see that, let’s look at the official temperature record. This is NIWA’s graph of temperatures covering the last 156 years: From NIWA’s web site -


The official version enlarged here.Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 - 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92C/100 years).

This graph is the centrepiece of NIWA’s temperature claims. It contributes to global temperature statistics and the IPCC reports. It is partly why our government is insisting on introducing an ETS scheme and participating in the climate conference in Copenhagen. But it’s an illusion.

Dr Jim Salinger (who no longer works for NIWA) started this graph in the 1980s when he was at CRU (Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK) and it has been updated with the most recent data. It’s published on NIWA’s website and in their climate-related publications.

The actual thermometer readings

To get the original New Zealand temperature readings, you register on NIWA’s web site, download what you want and make your own graph. We did that, but the result looked nothing like the official graph. Instead, we were surprised to get this:


here.

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 0.06C 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.

Proof of man-made warming

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made. About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.


Enlarged here

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

Enlarged here

See much more of this detailed analysis here. NIWA responds to the charges here but Anthony Watts uses instrument photo located at NIWA headquarters to cast doubt on their claims here.

May I suggest those of you capable of extracting and doing the same kind of analysis for other regions try the same approach. Note back in 2007, an Icecap post inspired Steve McIntyre story “Central Park: Will the real Slim Shady please stand up?” on Central Park data raw versus adjusted here. Read the comments. As one poster noted could this be a ‘smoking gun’ on data manipulation”.


Posted on 11/25 at 11:43 AM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

regards

[BobHelm]

Uumm, for a rather different view of the above piece.....try here...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11 ... nce_co.php

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn't made up of climate scientists, but is just a group of global warming skeptics who gave themselves a fancy title. And they just got caught combining temperature data from different places to get rid of the inconvenient warming trend in New Zealand. If you want to know what the science really says, please read the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

So i guess, going by the logic displayed in the thread so far, being caught out in his deliberate lie automatically refutes all arguments that the 'anti-global warming skeptics' have does it????

[BKKSTAN]

I don't have a clue if the argument is true that we are causing the Global warming or not!Who do you believe?
Two points that I do believe are:

1.)If the argument for is centered around the ''Hockey Stick'' warming chart,the actions reported about the hiding of any scientific findings ,by the theorist and his supporters,that challenges that theory,certainly gives question to their motive,purpose and credibility!

2.)The idea that the World gov'ts and populace will ever come together as one force to prevent further Global warming,is absurd,ridiculous and a waste of time!

I am sure their many people that see it as a cause for various reasons,some might even believe that their clamoring about is altruistic humanitarism,but the majority of people,maybe even all people,act on their own self interests and fight to not lose any of their ''position of power''in the World!

I would predict that the focus will be on technology for adaptation to the changes,even if it means leaving the planet!

Take a look at how the World ''comes together'' to fight disease and famine in Africa and elsewhere

[nevket240]

[quote="BobHelm"]Uumm, for a rather different view of the above piece.....try here...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11 ... nce_co.php

[quote]The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn't made up of climate scientists, but is just a group of global warming skeptics who gave themselves a fancy title. And they just got caught combining temperature data from different places to get rid of the inconvenient warming trend in New Zealand. If you want to know what the science really says, please read the Copenhagen Diagnosis.[/quote]

So i guess, going by the logic displayed in the thread so far, being caught out in his deliberate lie automatically refutes all arguments that the 'anti-global warming skeptics' have does it???? [/quote]

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?o ... &Itemid=45
Hardly "just a group of warming skeptics" BH.
Besides the site your quoting are so far from Earth at times its a wonder they can even comment on it. They have been amonst the most vicious & vocal of all scammer sites since day one. Like RealClimate only waaaayyyyy left.
regards

[BobHelm]

NIWA Media Release 26 November 2009

Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.

NIWA's analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.

NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA's Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he's very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.

NIWA scientists are committed to providing robust information to help all New Zealanders make good decisions.

[WBU ALUM]

Times Online
29 Nov 2009
The great climate change science scandal

** This is not the entire article**

There is unease even among researchers who strongly support the idea that humans are changing the climate. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said: “Over the last decade there has been a very political battle between the climate sceptics and activist scientists.

“It seems to me that the scientists have lost touch with what they were up to. They saw themselves as in a battle with the sceptics rather than advancing scientific knowledge.”

Professor Mike Hulme, a fellow researcher of Jones at the University of East Anglia and author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change, said: “The attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organisation within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”

There could, however, be another reason why the unit rejected requests to see its data.

This weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites ... We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world’s understanding of climate change is based can never be revisited or checked. Pielke said: “Can this be serious? It is now impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. [The unit] is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.”

So now we find that all of the original data, upon which the hoax is based, is no longer available. Very convenient.

[Texpat]

New tax -- pay for your sins.

Does anything ever change? Even if the sins are imaginary?

[BKKSTAN]

You mean there are no WMD's? Oh ,that's different,right?One is a conspiracy,this isn't!Sure,right,OK