The End for the Global Warming Hoaxsters?

[Sigma]

yes, thank you.  I just wonder how much more of this has been occurring?  Where there is smoke, there certainly is fire.  But how big do you think this blaze is?

[jandar]

lol

This is part of the scientific process guys.

False and faulty data is tried and found wanting.

And working with suppositions and hunches is built into it.  Every now and then it comes up with better answers no matter how many crazy failures you try out.  But keep at it.  Im sure scooby and the gang are going to trump all those evil science guys.

I notice that Jandar decided not to post a link to his information.

I wonder why?

Which? The graphs?
Fine, read up dude.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/

Ok, so if the science is sound, then why did they manipulate data? Why prevent others from using their data sets to verify?
Sorry, but this shows how much a religion AGW has become.

BTW, follow up to the New Zealand sketchy data:

Tell me what is wrong with using this weather station?

Also Stephen, read up on this site about the poor placement of weather stations around the US with rise in temps.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=552
Notice the nicely maintained weather site, no encroachment, temp spike not seen.

Compared to another weather site ~ as the crow flies miles away
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831
Notice the poor location since the built up around it.
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=901
Notice the temp rise due to parking lot, ac air exchange....

Too much "iffy" data to call it a sound science.

[jandar]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Climate Change Data Dumped.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals â€" stored on paper and magnetic tape â€" were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

[Sigma]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html

Climategate: Follow the Money

Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God. By BRET STEPHENS

Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was calledâ€"without ironyâ€"the climate change "consensus."

To read some of the press accounts of these giftsâ€"amounting to about 0.00027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billionâ€"you might think you'd hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.

Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature dataâ€"facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with Californiaâ€"apparently not feeling bankrupt enoughâ€"devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"â€"largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemesâ€"of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.

Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they representâ€"including the thousands of jobs they provideâ€"vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.

[copperfiend]

So is the WSJ also published by a psycho cult leader?  

Yes.

[Sigma]

Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro

The Netherlands is afire today over a Dutch study concluding Mount Kilimanjaro's snow melt â€" used as a symbol of AGW by Al Gore â€" is entirely natural.

December 3, 2009 - by Leon de Winter

Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste â€" a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize â€" about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming.

Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) â€" a governmental body â€" shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.

The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of  “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

Professor Damste studied organic biomarker molecules in the sediment record of Lake Challa, near Mount Kilimanjaro, and reconstructed the changes and intensity of precipitation in this part of Africa over the last 25,000 years. They observed an 11,500 year cycle of intense monsoon precipitation.

In the dry period between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago, Kilimanjaro was ice-free.

At the end of this period, a dramatic climate change from very dry to very wet took place â€" driven by changes in solar radiation â€" resulting in the creation of an icecap. At the moment, this part of Africa seems to be at the end of a similar dry period, resulting in the disappearance of the famous icecap.

DOSR calls Al Gore’s iconic use of the melting cap of Kilimanjaro “unfortunate” â€" since it now seems to be mainly the result of “natural climate variations.”

The journal Nature published the highly technical article by Professor Sinninghe Damste’s team.

The website of Elsevier magazine â€" the Netherlands’ most circulated political weekly â€" broke the news as follows: “Dutchman discredits Al Gore’s climate evidence.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wrong-on-snows-of-kilimanjaro/

Everyone should try their best to take care of your environment.  However, I've said many times that the global warming hysteria is all political designed for control and wealth (example, looters such as Al Gore).

[Sigma]

Beyond the emails - read for yourself as the "codes" are being studied.  This author has a good analysis.

Climategate: The Smoking Code Part 1
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/

The Smoking Code, part 2
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/05/the-smoking-code-part-2/

[midnightblackrx]

Sigma - that can not be true. You must have faith in Al Gore. If there is no faith there is nothing. 

[Johnny]

Interesting read...
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/962/Scientist-There-is-no-possible-global-warming-threat-for-at-least-next-193-years--Predicts-possible-COOLING

[Sigma]

Interesting Johnny.  I like the link within the article to

Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

Reading some of the non-fact based hysteria of some the GW promoters, there is only like 2 or 3 scientists who are calling all of this poppy-cock. 

[Sigma]

Sigma - that can not be true. You must have faith in Al Gore. If there is no faith there is nothing. 

Yes, agreed.  after all he did predict that if we didn't start following his religion and buying his carbon credits, then we'd all melt within 10 years (or something like that).  That was a few years ago.  I guess we've only got about 5 years left. 

[Johnny]

http://pjtv.com/v/2889

a valid request, regardless of which side of the debate you are on...

[Sigma]

excellent find Johnny

[Bostech]

It's too cold outside to talk about global warming.Let's leave it for spring.