Climate Emergency Public Meeting 26 Nov

by Wooley Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:08

I don't know what will happen at Copenhagen!

What I hope will happen is a broader view of the issues that face us - not the crazy hype focussing on CO2 alone.

Face it - the science re CO2 is flawed - the truth is all over the place.

Do you really think that it can be business as usual for the believers?

by Clive Spanner Thu Nov 26, 2009 09:04

China and the US etc. etc. wont be at Copenhagen in a couple of weeks pledging massive cuts in CO2 output then according to you?

by Wooley Thu Nov 26, 2009 06:38

All these reports you cut and paste are tainted with the exact spin the hacker exposed!

Just shouting even louder is not going to make much diference now.

The genie is out of the bottle.

by Mell O Wed Nov 25, 2009 19:50

New Report - Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science

The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Climate Science Report.

Get your free copy of the report in full here: http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagn...H.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the executive summary:

The most significant recent climate change findings are:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present –day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2ºC. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2ºC warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19ºC per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas inccreases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying
warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as – 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental icesheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty
could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2ºC above pre-industrial global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society – with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-95% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

by Wooley Wed Nov 25, 2009 18:57

"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of
adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie,
from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the
fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the
meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.
Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine
what the peer-review literature is!"

The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The
scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view
that global warming is genuine and man-made.

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research).
To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"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... Our observing system is
inadequate"

Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming
sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over
the past 10 years.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“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.”

Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of
Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers
downplaying climate change.

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith
will do likewise."

Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to
obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The
scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be
made public.

From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of
Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from
the idiots in the near future."

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

Yes I think they will.

Happy to be an "idiot" if that means I still have my integrity

by Clive Wed Nov 25, 2009 17:33

"Trick" and "Hide" seems to be at the heart of this desperate last puff of hot air from the denialist lunatic fringe, not only do they not understand the science, they cannot understand the terminolgy, jargon or nomenclature!

One of the supposedly most damning quotes from the CRU Hack “scandal” is:

“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.”

Phil Jones

which the Deneirs are citing as “proof positive” or data alteration , falsification, etc.

I suggested that, as with all of the other quotes, as they stood it didn’t actually say anything one way or another. Having worked in the sciences I said that to me it sounded like someone discussing a clever technique from the journal Nature for dealing with statistical noise or something of that sort.

Since then we learn that:

Mann said the “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,” Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center

and that:
The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?

Every profession evolves it’s own way of speaking as well as a specialised vocabulary. A soldier listening to soldiers speaking will understand much more about what is being said and meant than someone else, even if that other person knows all of the vocabulary. Ditto pizza cooks, day care workers, court clerks or brick layers.

Which is why scientists are spectacularly unimpressed with the emails being evidence of anything much at all. It’’s not that they are “circling the wagons” and “protecting their own” (as I have seen some suggest). They just “understand the language.” Not simply the words, but the structure and patterns that make up the “scientific dialect.” Even Denier Patrick Michaels said the emails were “just the way scientists talk”

(although he has apparently now gotten “on message” with the rest of the Denier choir).

by Clive Wed Nov 25, 2009 16:48

2009 "in top five warmest years"

While attempting to get to the bottom of this CRU / hacking of emails thingy, I read Michael Harrabins piece on the subject on the BBC News website, among others naturally.

Then the very next page of the beebs website shows this:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377128.stm

So it appears that we have the capitalist - denialists telling us that Climate science is fake on the one hand, (and therefore presumably there is no such thing as AGW), and the Meteorological office telling us that the exact opposite is true?

Who to trust?

This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office.

The UK's weather service projects that, unless there is an exceptionally cold spell before the end of the year, temperatures will be up on last year.

Climate sceptics had pointed out that the temperature rise appeared to have stalled in the last decade or so.

That was caused in part by the Pacific La Nina current, which cools the Earth.

But the influence of La Nina declined in the spring and the Met Office project that, barring a very cold December, this year will be the fifth warmest on record.

Other sources say it could even be the third warmest.

The last ten years have been in the top 15 warmest on record. And this summer the UK enjoyed temperatures higher than the long-term average.

Although the Met Office was pilloried after forecasting a "barbecue summer", it was their rainfall forecast, not the projected temperatures, that was wrong.

Next year we will see the influence of the warming El Nino current, and the Met Office says there is a 50% chance that global temperatures will hit an all-time high.

So, nothing is over, in spite of what the denialist 'business as usual - never mind the environment' tell us.

And also, breaking news is that the US President will be going to COP15 in Copenhagen in a couple of weeks: Barack Obama 'vows major greenhouse gas emissions cuts'

President Barack Obama is to pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the US in several stages, beginning with a 17% cut by 2020, US officials say.

The offer will be made at December's UN climate talks in Copenhagen, which Mr Obama will attend. He does not plan to be there for the crucial last days.

The talks will try to draw up a new global climate treaty to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said his attendance could be vital for a deal.

"It's critical that President Obama attends the climate change summit in Copenhagen," he told journalists.

So far more than 60 world leaders have said they will attend the summit.

Then on another page of the same BBC News website we find this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8369236.stm

Tale of two cities - Rising sea levels in two very different cities: Rotterdam and Maputo.

If one person dies as a result of man-made climate change, it is murder, if thousands die every year, then in my books it is Genocide .......... Genocide by capitalists.

by Chap Wed Nov 25, 2009 16:11

If it is true that AGW - or man made climate destabilisation was never anything but a hoax - put out by scientists just trying to get whatever funding they could, and by anti-capitalist activists after some kind of global revolution, then I imagine there is no need for the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen next month, I assume its been cancelled? Last news was that at least 60 heads of state would be in attendance - including Barack Obama, no need for all that nonsense now hopefully.

by Anarchist606 Wed Nov 25, 2009 15:23

Meanwhile - the truth is getting told AT LAST!!!!!

Sadly it is not. The leaked emails don't change the physical reality. As I noted above we are already seeing changes in biological distribution and weather patterns. How is this explained? Denialists don't have any evidence to say why these things are happening - sure, they have a few tin-pot theories (from the Sun to God) but how does that help us in reality? It don't.

The denialists are also committing the creationism logical fallacy that 'if I can prove you wrong, then by default I am right' whereby creationists go for evolution on the basis that if they disprove it, then their pet theory must be right - but even if you could prove it is wrong - what is to say that God created the world? Why not Zeus? So even if you could prove that the mainstream AGW theory is incorrect (which a few emails out of context do not) you'll still have to explain all the real-world effects we are seeing all around us (record floods, again, anyone? Changes in disease patterns, the drowning of Balgladesh, melting glaciers, the changes in weather patterns that led to Darfur crisis and so on).

On the subject of the emails - 13 years worth of email and all I've seen so far is a handful of cherry-picked quotes between climate scientists that without context look bad - but why are denialists making assumptions without putting them into context (or indeed what means they even understand the context?) Where is the communication with politicians to keep them on-message (or is it vica-versa)? Where is the emails from the New World Order telling the scientists what to say? Where are the emails basking in the glow of all the million$ of research funds they've been earning? For such an all encompassing conspiracy it seems to be a bit, well flaky.

As for secrets... http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2009/05..._warm

by Wooley Wed Nov 25, 2009 14:55

How neat and simple to think that scientists could not possibly do what they did (although it is interesting to note that the believers now seem to accept that the scientists implicated DID fiddle the science - but that they did not do it for money so that is alright?) for money?

No they did it for the kudos, the limelight the funded worldwide trips, the grants.

This is the tip of the iceberg (pun most definitely intended) and watch this space - now that it has started - Pandora’s box has been opened.

Fair play to Monbiot in that despite my opinion of him as a manipulative conman - even he can see that very real DAMAGE this hacker has caused. And just like the fallout after the MP's expenses scandal - those who thought they were in control can bleat and whine all they want about the legality - but just as some (including myself) believe that a higher truth CAN be used to justify actions against machines of war, then so to can a higher truth be the justification for routing out the lie that has be perpetrated in the name of Science.

Sit back - it isn't over yet - more to come.

by wossinaname Wed Nov 25, 2009 14:05

How many scientists are involved with this 'tinkering' or 'spinning'?

by Comrade Hammond. Wed Nov 25, 2009 13:23

I suspect that this is all just a bit of an over-reaction by a handful of scientists struggling to counter the tens of millions of $$$$ that the oil-corporations paid into the denialism industry, at least the scientists did not do it for the money .......

by Clive Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:43

What fantastically good timing that this should flare up just before the COP-15 summit in Kobenhavn, its almost enough to make me wonder what is going on?

Amost.

by Wooley Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:35

For the science does NOT stand up. It never did - unless you fiddled the results that is.

Monbiot is worried - that is obvious.

Running for shelter he clearly is.

Meanwhile - the truth is getting told AT LAST!!!!!

by At last Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:31

Well done mate!

It is all just starting to get noticed.

Should blow the arrogant spin mongers into oblivion.

Notice the same old names leap to the defence of their religion.

As for it being SPAM! - can anyone take such a comment seriously?????

by George monbiot. Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:28

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian, 23rd November 2009

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-...onic/

Yes, the hacked climate emails are damaging.

But here’s the one you’d need to see if you wanted to show that manmade global warming is a scam.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian, 23rd November 2009

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.

“From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29th October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called “the ordering of men’s affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man”, which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master’s initial thesis - that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere - had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master’s rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to “demonstrate” the Master’s thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

More resistence was encountered (and swiftly despatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master’s second grand law - that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet’s atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.

Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.

The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the ten warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001(10). From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.

Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world’s glaciers.

Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world’s biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.

The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W. Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly-capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master’s third grand law has been accepted: world government will be established under the guise of controlling manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.

Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse’s head turned up in James Hansen’s bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus?

Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.

Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.”

This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that manmade climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/

2. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=914&fi...2.txt

3. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=490&fi...6.txt

4. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=891&fi...2.txt

5. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=307&fi...9.txt

6. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=484&fi...0.txt

7. http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=419&fi...6.txt

8. eg http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/10001...ming/

9. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116882

10. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/....html

by Denialista blista sista Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:10

COP-15 will no doubt be cancelled now then!
Hooray!
Nothing to worry about any more is there!
Those dastardly poor people in Bangladesh and the Pacific and Africa etc. etc. have been telling porkies all this time!
Lets celebrate!
Those lovely capitalists at EXXON were right all along!

by Anarchist606 Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:06

Another whole thread of hot air. This CRU hack is just spam. Shock horror - climate experts are human, get pissed off, argue and also talk shop. What the emails don't explain is the impacts of global warming we are already seeing.

- Warming drives off Cape Cod's namesake, other fish.
http://www.physorg.com/news177225403.html

- Ravaged by drought, Madagascar feels the full effect of climate change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/23/madagascar-...ought

- Kashmir's main glacier "melting at alarming speed".
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5...91012

- The Spread of New Diseases: The Climate Connection.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2199

There is also good coverage of the hack here;
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/cru-hack-time...hard/

Plus - remember there is supposed to be 13 years of emails here - we are told by the flat earth society they are the key lynch pin of organising a vast global conspiracy of scientific fraud - yet nothing has emerged around that? Just the typical backwards-forwards of work. There is a good article exploring the letters of Isaac Newton that shows the same thing;
http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-t...king/

by Wooley Wed Nov 25, 2009 09:48

The Death Blow to Climate Science
Dr. Tim Ball
Saturday, November 21 2009 09:43

Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.

Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.

Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists
Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.

Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.

Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.

Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.

Total Control
These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.

CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”

by Wooley Wed Nov 25, 2009 08:55

CRU hacked emails taint global warming researchers

November 24, 3:43

The emails hacked from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia look extremely damning. Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun states that “ . . . the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science.”

In one particularly jaw-dropping email, Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, purportedly wrote the following to Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame

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

While a layperson may see the use of the words “trick” and “hide” as eyebrow-raising, Jones has another explanation. In a statement quoted in the journal Nature, Jones said, "The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward."

The Skeptical Science website tries to further explain that “Mike’s nature trick” is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. And, “hiding the decline” refers to “the method of reconciling the divergence problem where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960.” Most laypeople, however, will not know if this explanation is reasonable or fair. (Read more here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-emails-hacked.htm )

But, the man-made global warming proponents have not yet explained away everything. The Wall Street Journal highlights this email purportedly between Phil Jones and Michael Mann:

“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. 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 also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

The Wall Street Journal notes that the “two MMs” are Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who spent years and years seeking the raw data used in climate graphs. A brief history of Stephen McIntyre’s tireless research was highlighted here last month.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page concludes that “. . . we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics.”

With all that is at stake -- one way or the other -- politicians and citizens need to rely on scientists who follow an unbiased scientific method. These leaked emails raise unsettling questions about the practices of these man-made global warming scientists.

by Wooley Wed Nov 25, 2009 08:48

Hackers 'expose global warming con': Sceptics claim that leaked emails reveal research centre massaged temperature data
By Fiona Macrae

Last updated at 6:50 PM on 21st November 2009

Comments (195) - See later

One of the world’s leading climate change research centres has been accused of manipulating data on global warming after thousands of private emails and documents were leaked.

Hackers targeted the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and published the files, including some personal messages, on the internet. Among the most damaging is one which appears to suggest using a ‘trick’ to massage years of temperature data to ‘hide the decline’.

The CRU, which plays a leading role in compiling UN reports and tracks long-term changes in temperature, has repeatedly refused to provide detailed information about the data underlying the temperature records. It is thought that this could have triggered the theft. Climate change sceptics claim that some of the leaked messages discuss ways of manipulating data that fails to comply with the establishment view that climate change is real and is being driven by man.

The email suggesting ‘hiding the decline’ is purported to be from Phil Jones, the unit’s director. He denied trying to mislead, telling the TGIF digital newspaper he had no idea what he meant by the phrase.

‘That was an email from ten years ago,’ he said. ‘Can you remember the exact context of an email you wrote ten years ago?’

Another message has been interpreted as an attempt to control the publication of research carried out by sceptical scientists.
One way of doing this would be by loading the panel of researchers who review papers ahead of publication with experts who are ‘on-message’. Talk of a figure being ‘shoehorned’ into a report from the UN’s International Panel of Climate Change appears in another of the documents.

Although the data was stored on the university’s computer system, the email exchanges also involve experts from other institutions around the world. A spokesman for the University of East Anglia said: ‘We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. ‘Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.

‘This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. ‘We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the
police in this inquiry.’

The Met Office collaborates with the East Anglia unit on a variety of research projects, including global temperature records.

Spokesman Dave Britton said the two organisations had to turn down numerous Freedom of Information requests because they did not hold the copyright to the data.

‘There is a feeling we are hiding something,’ he said. ‘But we are not, we just can’t release the data.’ He said that is was unclear whether some of the documents had been tampered with, adding: ‘We are not concerned about the robustness of the science we are pushing but we are worried about it being interpreted out of context.’

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

This is another example of why data should not be protected by law in the way that it is and at the ridiculous cost of having a quango "army" try and implement it. This University has now not only lost credibility by what has been published on the net, but worse by it's continued refusal to publish data.
- alan, warks UK, 21/11/2009 13:55
Click to rate Rating 657 Report abuse

Dr Phil Jones must RESIGN. There is evidence of data manipulation and collusion to control the peer review process in order to manipulate "accepted" science.

The emails are proof of scientific fraud on a massive scale. They lament the fact that it isn't getting warmer despite all the predictions and discuss ways to "hide" these facts.

These are UK Government Employees are perpetrating fraud: alarmist man-made global warming that never existed. No doubt self-serving notoriety and billions in taxpayer research grants are the motives for their lies.

Another Bernard Madoff ponzi type scam that has been quietly falsifying data and manipulating science journals for decades.
- Jeremy, Calgary, Canada, 21/11/2009 13:45
Click to rate Rating 753 Report abuse

"'This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. "

The network equivilent of shredding the documents?

Too late if it's already on the Internet.
- Wayland, Braintree Essex, 21/11/2009 13:45
Click to rate Rating 595 Report abuse

Now we discover that the "man-made" global warming was indeed made, as in made up, invented. This con has fraudulent proportions and is ripe for a juicy lawsuit from an enterprising group of people who have had enough of this tax rip off and environmental bullying. Throw the lot into prison. The University of East Anglia has disgraced itself. You call this gang of liars scientists? You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

- Simon, Bath, 21/11/2009 13:44

by Water lover Tue Nov 24, 2009 19:50

Why do they use CO2 in fizzy drinks?

There are a number of reasons for this. One of them is that carbon dioxide dissolves really quite well.

Carbon dioxide does dissolve very well - that is because it is not a poison as some people try to make out. It is a natural gas born of respiration and photosynthesis. Plants require CO2 to live.

The other thing that carbon dioxide does when it goes into water and one of the reasons it dissolves quite well is it reacts with water to make carbonic acid. So CO2 plus H2O goes to H2CO3, that’s carbonic acid and that dissociates into H+ (that’s the acid bit, the hydrogen ions) plus HCO3- bicarbonate.

When you have acids in a liquid acids taste "liquidy" So you get this very nice lemony flavour added to the drink so the carbon dioxide not only dissolves well so you can get your drinks really fizzy and get your gasses in it also means it tastes nicer and you can get lots of gas dissolving so it comes out gently in the drink.

It stays fizzier for longer. Also it’s free. You can get it from the brewing industry, yeast produces it and you don’t even have to purify it. You can just get it off the yeast.

CO2 is a minuscule percentage of the atmosphere - Rounded off; the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.038%. It has risen over the past few years but it is not higher now than it has been in the history of our planet. Yes it would be a good idea to restrict emissions of harmful pollutants - but to focus of CO2 is a crock of sh*t.

This is only done by those "on a mission" as a way of attacking an economic and political system that works for the majority but which they hate.

True environmentalists will work at solving the problem. The cuckoos in the nest will try to bully you into their way of thinking.

Make your own mind up - look at the evidence and work it out for yourself. Start with asking a so called "expert" why they are drinking a pint or fizzy drink or any alcoholic beverage if they are that concerned about CO2!

Because the pint they drink is releasing CO2 and the fermentation process required to produce it releases tonnes of it - so much in fact that ALL fizzy drinks are full of this "devils gas"

If it was not so pathetic it would be funny.

So lets all go down the Pub, have a piss up to release CO2 so we can lecture everyone else on how to save the planet.

by Mell O Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:47

Where do greenhouse gas emissions come from?

by Water lover Tue Nov 24, 2009 08:36

Make sure you do not drink a fizzy drink (the gas bubbles are CO2) and please abstain from the beer and wine and any other alcoholic beverage. The fermentation process all release CO2.

Try to sit in the cold as burning fossil fuels destroys the planet.

And make sure wherever you come from you walk there. Transport is a no no.

Oh and try not to breathe - we horrible planet destroying humans respire so that means we take in O2 and excrete CO2.

But then so does most living things apart from the anerobes.

My God! - all life should all be put down at birth so the planet can survive!

Enjoy your pint.