Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Climategate:
The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, also known as Climategate began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England, in the United Kingdom. An unknown individual stole and anonymously disseminated over a thousand e-mails and other documents. The university confirmed that a "criminal breach" of their security systems took place, but could not confirm the authenticity of the material at short notice, and expressed concern "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised." Details of the incident have been reported to the police, who are investigating. Later, Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, confirmed that all of the leaked emails that had provoked heated debate appeared to be genuine.
Climate change sceptics have asserted that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.
Unidentified persons allegedly hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit, posting online copies of e-mails and documents that they found. The incident is being investigated by Norfolk police and involved the theft of more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 other documents, consisting of 160 MB of data in total.
Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider," Graham said.
The breach was first discovered after someone hacked the server of the RealClimate website on 17 November and uploaded a copy of the stolen files. According to Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate, "At around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file FOIA.zip to our server." A link to the file on the RealClimate server was posted from a Russian IP address to the Climate Audit blog at 7.24 am (EST) with the comment "A miracle just happened". The hack was discovered by Schmidt only a couple of minutes after it had occurred. He temporarily shut down the website and deleted the uploaded file. RealClimate notified the University of East Anglia of the incident.
On 19 November the files were uploaded to a Russian server before being copied to numerous locations across the Internet. An anonymous statement accompanying the e-mails defended the hacking, on the grounds that climate science is "too important to be kept under wraps" and describing the material as "a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents." The stolen material was first publicised on 19 November on The Air Vent, a climate-sceptic blog.
Later the emails/documents were confirmed to be real. And some of the major scientists behing the Global Warming Scandal are currently looking for lawyers to represent them if they are put on trial for their crimes.
You can view the emails and documents proving that the Global Warming Science is a fraud and that the people behind it were emailing eachother and discussing how to keep the fraud going at the following website:
The Reference Frame: Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
CNBC anchor is totally clueless and pales before Inhofe’s presentation of the truth:
YouTube - Epic Fail - CNBC Shill vs Senator Inhofe on Climategate Conspiracy
YouTube - Epic Fail - CNBC Shill vs Senator Inhofe on Climategate Conspiracy
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Have you actually read any of the emails and such,, yet?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
In general, the corporate media has ignored the climategate story. In Europe, Britain, Australia, and elsewhere the corporate media has reported on this important story, but here in the United States it has met mostly with a stony silence.
In Canada, a determined activist interrupted a CBC broadcast with a message demanding the news network report on the climategate story. His message and act should be repeated here in the United States and around the world.
The corporate media cannot be allowed to bury this important story.
Man Gets Climategate Story Out on CBC:
YouTube - 2009-11-27-RDI-Climate-Gate-Wont-Go-Away-Report-It.wmv
In Canada, a determined activist interrupted a CBC broadcast with a message demanding the news network report on the climategate story. His message and act should be repeated here in the United States and around the world.
The corporate media cannot be allowed to bury this important story.
Man Gets Climategate Story Out on CBC:
YouTube - 2009-11-27-RDI-Climate-Gate-Wont-Go-Away-Report-It.wmv
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
LarsMac;1267432 wrote: Have you actually read any of the emails and such,, yet?
Yes. That's why I posted the link to that website as well for everyone else to read them. In the first post. Here it is again though:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacke ... .html#more
Those are the actual official emails that were obtained from the hacking incident.
Yes. That's why I posted the link to that website as well for everyone else to read them. In the first post. Here it is again though:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacke ... .html#more
Those are the actual official emails that were obtained from the hacking incident.
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
A respected British scientist has admitted that emails taken from his inbox, calling into question many of the accepted truths of global warming, were genuine.
Hot ‘Climategate’ debate: Scientists clash LIVE on RT:
YouTube - Hot 'Climategate' debate: Scientists clash LIVE on RT
Hot ‘Climategate’ debate: Scientists clash LIVE on RT:
YouTube - Hot 'Climategate' debate: Scientists clash LIVE on RT
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1267436 wrote: Yes. That's why I posted the link to that website as well for everyone else to read them. In the first post. Here it is again though:
The Reference Frame: Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files
Those are the actual official emails that were obtained from the hacking incident.
OK, thanks.
The Reference Frame: Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files
Those are the actual official emails that were obtained from the hacking incident.
OK, thanks.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
LarsMac;1267440 wrote: OK, thanks.
You're very welcome. =)
You're very welcome. =)
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
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 — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph
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 — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Climategate: The Silence is Deafening from the Corporate Media
Who said, “Breakin’ news is always bad!�
By now most of us in the alternative media are aware of the some 61 megabytes of global warming research data of emails, documents, and computer code released by whistleblowers (or hackers), that have exposed climate scientists, at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain, as the frauds they’ve proven themselves to be.
This decade of emails and documents clearly concludes that global warming scientists have manipulated scientific data to “hide the decline†in global temperatures; and the fact that, there has been no statistically significant global warming for fifteen years, but our world has experienced a rapid and significant cooling for nine years.
So breath-taking has been this leaked data, to date, it has produced some startling headlines in the alternative media:
(1) Climategate: Greatest Scandal in Modern Science!â€
(2) “Climategate? Smoking Gun? Blood in the Water?â€
(3) “Global Warming Scientists Seek to Protect Their Government Funding by Corrupting the
Peer-review Process.â€
(4) “Climate Bombshell: Hackers {or Whistleblowers] Leak Emails Showing Conspiracy.â€
(5) “Email Leaks Turn Up Heat on Global Warming Advocates.â€
(6) “Climategate Scientists Caught Red-handed in Monumental Fraud.â€
(7) “Bad Scientists? No Criminals!â€
Now, these global warming scientists, who have been so severely exposed for the frauds they are, are crying, “Persecution!â€. While their own emails prove they have been very busy planning how best to get tenured professors fired, who will not shallow the rotten fish of anthropogenic global warming, how to black-ball them from scientific journals, and prevent them from participating in the peer-review process.
Persecution? No, prosecution in a criminal court of law is what they deserve.
Even Obama’s Climate Czar, John P. Holdren has been exposed, by these emails, for the fraud he is, proving Holdren’s avid global warming advocacy has been more driven by politics than science.
Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is no stranger to extremist views: In a 1977 book, Holdren co-authored (Ecoscience – Population, Resources, Environment), he campaigned for compulsory abortion, mass sterilization, involuntary infertility, a one-child policy, and global governance.
In another of Holdren’s books (Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions), he even argued that babies were not human beings.
Mr. Holdren, there’s no question babies are human. The real question is are you a human being?
These academic and governments fraudsters, along with their corporate media counterparts, account for the fact that many people have been denied the truth regarding the man-made global warming myths.
The so-called “consensus†establishing the validity of the man-made global warming theories does not exist; the mainstream, corporately owned media merely tell us it does; and, do not expect “our†media to widely broadcast anything about these email exposures; many people will never hear of them.
When caught red-handed in their lies, the corporate media always has but one response: Utter silence, waiting for the smoking gun to cool, and then be forgotten. But if the red-hot pistol doesn’t cool quickly enough, the whole corrupted system of the controlled press goes into over-drive, preparing for a workable gambit: Which is usually their tried and true method of creating controversy, something relatively easy for them to do. And once an issue enters the world of controversy, the Establishment usually wins the info wars of public opinion, because they get the most words, the loudest words, and the last words. And after all, they represent authority.
Trial and error is employed to find the kindling that will ignite the fires of controversy. Usually the first maneuver is tested with some secondary official, from some secondary country, to gage the effectiveness of the ploy. This process has already begun with Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer.
Ms. Cramer has claimed that the East Anglia University whistleblowers, or hackers, altered 61 metabytes of computer data before leaking the files, in spite of the fact such a statement, has to date, never been made by the man-made global warming advocates, who wrote it all .
If Ms. Cramer’s allegations gain traction, expect to hear more about how the whistle-blowers falsified the data. We may even hear of innocent people coming to trial, falsely confessing they were the ones who “altered†all the emails, before releasing them. But, with enough mind control, I could be convinced, I was the one who falsified them, even though I know so little about computers, I can hardly use my Apple program to write this sentence.
Ms. Cramer, in her outrage, screamed, “This is just criminal. It’s unacceptable.â€
What is acceptable Ms. Cramer, the death of a billion starving people, and the guaranteed poverty of the rest of us, due to the pending Cap and Trade legislation in Washington, and the coming international laws, directives, regulations, and more laws, that will inhibit the farming of food and the means to get it to market, with few of us having enough money to buy food if it were available?
Am I exaggerating? I hope so, but believe not.
Climategate: The Silence is Deafening from the Corporate Media
Who said, “Breakin’ news is always bad!�
By now most of us in the alternative media are aware of the some 61 megabytes of global warming research data of emails, documents, and computer code released by whistleblowers (or hackers), that have exposed climate scientists, at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain, as the frauds they’ve proven themselves to be.
This decade of emails and documents clearly concludes that global warming scientists have manipulated scientific data to “hide the decline†in global temperatures; and the fact that, there has been no statistically significant global warming for fifteen years, but our world has experienced a rapid and significant cooling for nine years.
So breath-taking has been this leaked data, to date, it has produced some startling headlines in the alternative media:
(1) Climategate: Greatest Scandal in Modern Science!â€
(2) “Climategate? Smoking Gun? Blood in the Water?â€
(3) “Global Warming Scientists Seek to Protect Their Government Funding by Corrupting the
Peer-review Process.â€
(4) “Climate Bombshell: Hackers {or Whistleblowers] Leak Emails Showing Conspiracy.â€
(5) “Email Leaks Turn Up Heat on Global Warming Advocates.â€
(6) “Climategate Scientists Caught Red-handed in Monumental Fraud.â€
(7) “Bad Scientists? No Criminals!â€
Now, these global warming scientists, who have been so severely exposed for the frauds they are, are crying, “Persecution!â€. While their own emails prove they have been very busy planning how best to get tenured professors fired, who will not shallow the rotten fish of anthropogenic global warming, how to black-ball them from scientific journals, and prevent them from participating in the peer-review process.
Persecution? No, prosecution in a criminal court of law is what they deserve.
Even Obama’s Climate Czar, John P. Holdren has been exposed, by these emails, for the fraud he is, proving Holdren’s avid global warming advocacy has been more driven by politics than science.
Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is no stranger to extremist views: In a 1977 book, Holdren co-authored (Ecoscience – Population, Resources, Environment), he campaigned for compulsory abortion, mass sterilization, involuntary infertility, a one-child policy, and global governance.
In another of Holdren’s books (Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions), he even argued that babies were not human beings.
Mr. Holdren, there’s no question babies are human. The real question is are you a human being?
These academic and governments fraudsters, along with their corporate media counterparts, account for the fact that many people have been denied the truth regarding the man-made global warming myths.
The so-called “consensus†establishing the validity of the man-made global warming theories does not exist; the mainstream, corporately owned media merely tell us it does; and, do not expect “our†media to widely broadcast anything about these email exposures; many people will never hear of them.
When caught red-handed in their lies, the corporate media always has but one response: Utter silence, waiting for the smoking gun to cool, and then be forgotten. But if the red-hot pistol doesn’t cool quickly enough, the whole corrupted system of the controlled press goes into over-drive, preparing for a workable gambit: Which is usually their tried and true method of creating controversy, something relatively easy for them to do. And once an issue enters the world of controversy, the Establishment usually wins the info wars of public opinion, because they get the most words, the loudest words, and the last words. And after all, they represent authority.
Trial and error is employed to find the kindling that will ignite the fires of controversy. Usually the first maneuver is tested with some secondary official, from some secondary country, to gage the effectiveness of the ploy. This process has already begun with Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer.
Ms. Cramer has claimed that the East Anglia University whistleblowers, or hackers, altered 61 metabytes of computer data before leaking the files, in spite of the fact such a statement, has to date, never been made by the man-made global warming advocates, who wrote it all .
If Ms. Cramer’s allegations gain traction, expect to hear more about how the whistle-blowers falsified the data. We may even hear of innocent people coming to trial, falsely confessing they were the ones who “altered†all the emails, before releasing them. But, with enough mind control, I could be convinced, I was the one who falsified them, even though I know so little about computers, I can hardly use my Apple program to write this sentence.
Ms. Cramer, in her outrage, screamed, “This is just criminal. It’s unacceptable.â€
What is acceptable Ms. Cramer, the death of a billion starving people, and the guaranteed poverty of the rest of us, due to the pending Cap and Trade legislation in Washington, and the coming international laws, directives, regulations, and more laws, that will inhibit the farming of food and the means to get it to market, with few of us having enough money to buy food if it were available?
Am I exaggerating? I hope so, but believe not.
Climategate: The Silence is Deafening from the Corporate Media
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Climategate Master Criminal Phil Jones Collected $22.6 Million in Grants:
Excerpts from a post by Michael Shedlock – “It’s now official. Much of the hype about global warming is nothing but a complete scam. The global warming thesis was completely fabricated.
“Inquiring minds are reading Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files on The Reference Frame by Luboš Motl, a physicist from the Czech Republic.
“So far, the most interesting file I found in the “documents” directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.
“Phil Jones, the main criminal according to this correspondence, has personally confirmed that the website was hacked and that the documents are authentic.
“He says that he “can’t remember” what he meant by “hiding the decline.” Well, let me teach him some English. First, dictionaries say that hide means
1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered: Where
did she hide her jewels?
2. to obstruct the view of; cover up: The sun was hidden by the clouds.
3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret: to hide one’s feelings.
4. to conceal oneself; lie concealed: He hid in the closet.
5. British. a place of concealment for hunting or observing wildlife; hunting blind.
6. hide out, to go into or remain in hiding: After breaking out of jail, he hid out in a deserted farmhouse.
I wonder if Phil remembers the $22.6 million in grants. I wonder if he “remembers” only those things that the IPCC wants him to remember.
See entire great article, entitled “Beware The Ice Age Cometh: Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam"
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Beware The Ice Age Cometh: Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam
See also Hacked files expose massive global warming con
Hacked files expose massive global warming con
Excerpts from a post by Michael Shedlock – “It’s now official. Much of the hype about global warming is nothing but a complete scam. The global warming thesis was completely fabricated.
“Inquiring minds are reading Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files on The Reference Frame by Luboš Motl, a physicist from the Czech Republic.
“So far, the most interesting file I found in the “documents” directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.
“Phil Jones, the main criminal according to this correspondence, has personally confirmed that the website was hacked and that the documents are authentic.
“He says that he “can’t remember” what he meant by “hiding the decline.” Well, let me teach him some English. First, dictionaries say that hide means
1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered: Where
did she hide her jewels?
2. to obstruct the view of; cover up: The sun was hidden by the clouds.
3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret: to hide one’s feelings.
4. to conceal oneself; lie concealed: He hid in the closet.
5. British. a place of concealment for hunting or observing wildlife; hunting blind.
6. hide out, to go into or remain in hiding: After breaking out of jail, he hid out in a deserted farmhouse.
I wonder if Phil remembers the $22.6 million in grants. I wonder if he “remembers” only those things that the IPCC wants him to remember.
See entire great article, entitled “Beware The Ice Age Cometh: Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam"
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Beware The Ice Age Cometh: Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam
See also Hacked files expose massive global warming con
Hacked files expose massive global warming con
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Lord Monckton: Shut Down The UN, Arrest Al Gore
Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Lord Christopher Monckton went further than ever before in his vehement opposition to the elitists running the climate change scam, calling for the UN to be shut down and for fraudulent peddlers of global warming propaganda like Al Gore to be arrested and criminally prosecuted.
Monckton said that those who are threatening to shut down economies, bankrupt nations, and deepen the problems of the third world by implementing draconian policies in the name of global warming should be indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned “for a very long timeâ€.
“The fraudsters and racketeers from Al Gore to the people at the University of East Anglia who have been making their fortune at the expense of taxpayers and the little guy,†should be criminally charged, said Monckton, in response to the climategate scandal.
“We the people have got to rise up worldwide, found a party in every country which stands for freedom and make sure we fight this bureaucratic communistic world government monster to a standstill – they shall not pass,†he added.
Monckton said that the United Nations should be “closed down,†adding that he talked to a senior UN ambassador in Canada who told him that he no longer saw any purpose in the UN and it exists “only to enrich itself at the expense of the nations it claims to serve, it’s time it was brought to an end.â€
“We would all save billions if we shut down the UN and just about all of its hideous bureaucracy,†said Monckton.
Lord Monckton emphasized how the emails released as a result of climategate prove that global warming alarmism was still prevalent in public but behind closed doors, warmist scientist are admitting that the “deniers†as they label people like Monckton are correct.
“Publicly they’re saying the science is settled, we’re all doomed unless you close down the economies of the west, whereas privately they’re saying to each other ‘we’ve got it wrong, none of this adds up and it’s a travesty that we can’t explain it’.â€
Monckton also slammed Obama’s science czar John P. Holdren, who in his 1977 book Ecoscience called for draconian population measures to be enforced by a “planetary regime†in the name of saving the earth, as an “openly admitted communistâ€.
Monckton pointed out how Holdren had been once of the most prominent alarmists in the 70’s warning about the onset of rapid “global coolingâ€.
“Now with seamless mendacity he says that what we’re now facing is global warming,†said Monckton.
“How can anyone like Holdren stand up with a straight face and expect anyone to believe it,†he added.
Monckton said that the agenda behind the global warming movement was to set up a communistic world government which will be run by people who “do not care how many people they kill with their policies†and that their goal is to “do away with democracy forever by stealth using the excuse to save the planet.â€
Monckton said that the people running the scam had a “deliberate desire to control population by killing people in large numbers deliberately if necessary.â€
The former advisor to Margaret Thatcher said that the warmists were sounding more and more desperate and knew that they had been rumbled as a result of climategate, which would only make it more urgent for them to try and force through a binding treaty in Copenhagen.
Monckton said that the answer to combating the move towards neo-feudalism and global government was to form a worldwide “freedom party†that would operate nationally in every country in order to defend freedom, democracy and prosperity while routing out every aspect of the communistic takeover.
“Every time these people try to take it away, we in the freedom party will stop them, and I think now is the time,†said Monckton.
Watch the interview in full below:
YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv 1/5:Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate
YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv 2/5:Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate
YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv 3/5:Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate
YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv 4/5:Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate
YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv 5/5:Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate
Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Lord Christopher Monckton went further than ever before in his vehement opposition to the elitists running the climate change scam, calling for the UN to be shut down and for fraudulent peddlers of global warming propaganda like Al Gore to be arrested and criminally prosecuted.
Monckton said that those who are threatening to shut down economies, bankrupt nations, and deepen the problems of the third world by implementing draconian policies in the name of global warming should be indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned “for a very long timeâ€.
“The fraudsters and racketeers from Al Gore to the people at the University of East Anglia who have been making their fortune at the expense of taxpayers and the little guy,†should be criminally charged, said Monckton, in response to the climategate scandal.
“We the people have got to rise up worldwide, found a party in every country which stands for freedom and make sure we fight this bureaucratic communistic world government monster to a standstill – they shall not pass,†he added.
Monckton said that the United Nations should be “closed down,†adding that he talked to a senior UN ambassador in Canada who told him that he no longer saw any purpose in the UN and it exists “only to enrich itself at the expense of the nations it claims to serve, it’s time it was brought to an end.â€
“We would all save billions if we shut down the UN and just about all of its hideous bureaucracy,†said Monckton.
Lord Monckton emphasized how the emails released as a result of climategate prove that global warming alarmism was still prevalent in public but behind closed doors, warmist scientist are admitting that the “deniers†as they label people like Monckton are correct.
“Publicly they’re saying the science is settled, we’re all doomed unless you close down the economies of the west, whereas privately they’re saying to each other ‘we’ve got it wrong, none of this adds up and it’s a travesty that we can’t explain it’.â€
Monckton also slammed Obama’s science czar John P. Holdren, who in his 1977 book Ecoscience called for draconian population measures to be enforced by a “planetary regime†in the name of saving the earth, as an “openly admitted communistâ€.
Monckton pointed out how Holdren had been once of the most prominent alarmists in the 70’s warning about the onset of rapid “global coolingâ€.
“Now with seamless mendacity he says that what we’re now facing is global warming,†said Monckton.
“How can anyone like Holdren stand up with a straight face and expect anyone to believe it,†he added.
Monckton said that the agenda behind the global warming movement was to set up a communistic world government which will be run by people who “do not care how many people they kill with their policies†and that their goal is to “do away with democracy forever by stealth using the excuse to save the planet.â€
Monckton said that the people running the scam had a “deliberate desire to control population by killing people in large numbers deliberately if necessary.â€
The former advisor to Margaret Thatcher said that the warmists were sounding more and more desperate and knew that they had been rumbled as a result of climategate, which would only make it more urgent for them to try and force through a binding treaty in Copenhagen.
Monckton said that the answer to combating the move towards neo-feudalism and global government was to form a worldwide “freedom party†that would operate nationally in every country in order to defend freedom, democracy and prosperity while routing out every aspect of the communistic takeover.
“Every time these people try to take it away, we in the freedom party will stop them, and I think now is the time,†said Monckton.
Watch the interview in full below:
YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv 1/5:Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate
YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv 2/5:Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate
YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv 3/5:Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate
YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv 4/5:Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate
YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv 5/5:Lord Monckton Talks About Climategate
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Firstly, what authority does being a former economic advisor confer to make him an expert in climate change?
Secondly, how does impropriety by some members of one research establishment (if that is what it is) prove that the science behind clobal warming is false any more than the manipulation of the data by the "scientists" who made the Great Global Warming Swindle proved that the science was true - neither assumption holds water.
Secondly, how does impropriety by some members of one research establishment (if that is what it is) prove that the science behind clobal warming is false any more than the manipulation of the data by the "scientists" who made the Great Global Warming Swindle proved that the science was true - neither assumption holds water.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Bryn Mawr;1267483 wrote: Firstly, what authority does being a former economic advisor confer to make him an expert in climate change?
Secondly, how does impropriety by some members of one research establishment (if that is what it is) prove that the science behind clobal warming is false any more than the manipulation of the data by the "scientists" who made the Great Global Warming Swindle proved that the science was true - neither assumption holds water.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt my friend.
Secondly, how does impropriety by some members of one research establishment (if that is what it is) prove that the science behind clobal warming is false any more than the manipulation of the data by the "scientists" who made the Great Global Warming Swindle proved that the science was true - neither assumption holds water.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt my friend.
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1267487 wrote: Denial ain't just a river in Egypt my friend.
And what you've been doing hasn't been denial?
Address the points instead of gloating - it's far more productive.
And what you've been doing hasn't been denial?
Address the points instead of gloating - it's far more productive.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
It's too late for you in this country anyway. Most of the British public are now pretty convinced there's something wrong with the weather. Often, they hold that opinion for reasons which are not scientifically valid, but they are not now easily going to accept that a few out of context emails disprove what they are experiencing in the real world.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Clodhopper;1267490 wrote: It's too late for you in this country anyway. Most of the British public are now pretty convinced there's something wrong with the weather. Often, they hold that opinion for reasons which are not scientifically valid, but they are not now easily going to accept that a few out of context emails disprove what they are experiencing in the real world.
Well hopefully the crooks will just keep on adding up and then we can put the whole puzzle together to show how the whole thing was orchestrated by a few in order to control the masses and to make money and then we will shut the whole thing down.
It's already been proven that there are crooks running the show and that it is a fraud. Now we just need to bring down the whole house of cards.
Well hopefully the crooks will just keep on adding up and then we can put the whole puzzle together to show how the whole thing was orchestrated by a few in order to control the masses and to make money and then we will shut the whole thing down.
It's already been proven that there are crooks running the show and that it is a fraud. Now we just need to bring down the whole house of cards.
Link removed by moderator
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
The climate has changed, and is changing.
The questions are,
IS the change a temporary one, is it a trend, or part of natural cycles?
Has human activity been a significant factor?
Can humans do anything to significantly affect the change in a positive manner?
Will it be beneficial to humans in general to do what is necessary to affect a change?
Should we be more concerned with adapting to the changes, than trying to affect them?
And then, even if the changes are not caused by human activity, is it wise to continue burning up all the remaining fossil fuel, dumping pollutants and greenhouse gases into the air with abandon, until we actually DO affect a significant change?
The questions are,
IS the change a temporary one, is it a trend, or part of natural cycles?
Has human activity been a significant factor?
Can humans do anything to significantly affect the change in a positive manner?
Will it be beneficial to humans in general to do what is necessary to affect a change?
Should we be more concerned with adapting to the changes, than trying to affect them?
And then, even if the changes are not caused by human activity, is it wise to continue burning up all the remaining fossil fuel, dumping pollutants and greenhouse gases into the air with abandon, until we actually DO affect a significant change?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
LarsMac;1267534 wrote: The climate has changed, and is changing.
The questions are,
IS the change a temporary one, is it a trend, or part of natural cycles?
Has human activity been a significant factor?
Can humans do anything to significantly affect the change in a positive manner?
Will it be beneficial to humans in general to do what is necessary to affect a change?
Should we be more concerned with adapting to the changes, than trying to affect them?
And then, even if the changes are not caused by human activity, is it wise to continue burning up all the remaining fossil fuel, dumping pollutants and greenhouse gases into the air with abandon, until we actually DO affect a significant change?
Great post, this should be what we are debating.
I don't think anyone here including myself has the education or the background to give a definitive account of what these emails actually mean. I can't imagine that anyone that has studied this at all could deny that the climate is changing. Just look at the governments scrambling to secure shipping rights through the northwest passage. The ice caps are shrinking, to deny that is just lunacy.
The questions are,
IS the change a temporary one, is it a trend, or part of natural cycles?
Has human activity been a significant factor?
Can humans do anything to significantly affect the change in a positive manner?
Will it be beneficial to humans in general to do what is necessary to affect a change?
Should we be more concerned with adapting to the changes, than trying to affect them?
And then, even if the changes are not caused by human activity, is it wise to continue burning up all the remaining fossil fuel, dumping pollutants and greenhouse gases into the air with abandon, until we actually DO affect a significant change?
Great post, this should be what we are debating.
I don't think anyone here including myself has the education or the background to give a definitive account of what these emails actually mean. I can't imagine that anyone that has studied this at all could deny that the climate is changing. Just look at the governments scrambling to secure shipping rights through the northwest passage. The ice caps are shrinking, to deny that is just lunacy.
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
filmnazi;1267545 wrote: Great post, this should be what we are debating.
I don't think anyone here including myself has the education or the background to give a definitive account of what these emails actually mean. I can't imagine that anyone that has studied this at all could deny that the climate is changing. Just look at the governments scrambling to secure shipping rights through the northwest passage. The ice caps are shrinking, to deny that is just lunacy.
It's what we should have been debating all along rather than the sidetracks into US politics and conspiracy theories that the deniers have been forcing us down in thread after thread.
The only one here with qualifications in the subject (as far as I know) is Galbally - unfortunately, he's been far to busy recently working to play in the Garden
I don't think anyone here including myself has the education or the background to give a definitive account of what these emails actually mean. I can't imagine that anyone that has studied this at all could deny that the climate is changing. Just look at the governments scrambling to secure shipping rights through the northwest passage. The ice caps are shrinking, to deny that is just lunacy.
It's what we should have been debating all along rather than the sidetracks into US politics and conspiracy theories that the deniers have been forcing us down in thread after thread.
The only one here with qualifications in the subject (as far as I know) is Galbally - unfortunately, he's been far to busy recently working to play in the Garden
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
The climate is always changing. Always has been. Humans are not the cause of that.
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1267578 wrote: The climate is always changing. Always has been. Humans are not the cause of that.
No, but there has not been the current rate of change since the age of volcanoes - millions of years ago.
No-one doubts that the climate changes, always has and always will. What is unprecidented it the rate of change and that is linked to the rise of industrial output.
No, but there has not been the current rate of change since the age of volcanoes - millions of years ago.
No-one doubts that the climate changes, always has and always will. What is unprecidented it the rate of change and that is linked to the rise of industrial output.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Didn't the world heat up just before the ice age?
we've been told that a couple of towns on the coast will be under water within 50 to a hundred years. and I just found out to my horror that Victorians are the guinea pigs in a world wide science experiment. Because we are directly under the ozone layer hole, scientists are sitting back and watching how many of us will eventually die of skin cancers .............nice eh?
we've been told that a couple of towns on the coast will be under water within 50 to a hundred years. and I just found out to my horror that Victorians are the guinea pigs in a world wide science experiment. Because we are directly under the ozone layer hole, scientists are sitting back and watching how many of us will eventually die of skin cancers .............nice eh?
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
So the issue is all wrapped up then?
TruthBringer;1267578 wrote: The climate is always changing. Always has been. Humans are not the cause of that.
Humans werent polluting the atmosphere with tanker exhaust, saturating the ozone with fluorocarbons, we didnt have space junk orbiting the Earth, industry dumping poisons in the water supply or 6 billion people farting a million years ago either.
Do you really believe we can get away with all of it sans repercussions?
TruthBringer;1267578 wrote: The climate is always changing. Always has been. Humans are not the cause of that.
Humans werent polluting the atmosphere with tanker exhaust, saturating the ozone with fluorocarbons, we didnt have space junk orbiting the Earth, industry dumping poisons in the water supply or 6 billion people farting a million years ago either.
Do you really believe we can get away with all of it sans repercussions?
I AM AWESOME MAN
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1267428 wrote: The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, also known as Climategate began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England, in the United Kingdom. An unknown individual stole and anonymously disseminated over a thousand e-mails and other documents. The university confirmed that a "criminal breach" of their security systems took place, but could not confirm the authenticity of the material at short notice, and expressed concern "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised." Details of the incident have been reported to the police, who are investigating. Later, Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, confirmed that all of the leaked emails that had provoked heated debate appeared to be genuine.
That's funny because if the Climatic Research Unit's computer system was hacked into then how could those emails have an ounce of credibility given,..well,..they were hacked into!?!
That's funny because if the Climatic Research Unit's computer system was hacked into then how could those emails have an ounce of credibility given,..well,..they were hacked into!?!
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Perhaps you should all read the following, carefully -
Global warming? Don't wait up! The Earth has her own tricks to keep the carbon count in control | Mail Online
Global warming? Don't wait up! The Earth has her own tricks to keep the carbon count in control | Mail Online
I'm a Saga-lout, growing old disgracefully
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
K.Snyder;1267683 wrote: That's funny because if the Climatic Research Unit's computer system was hacked into then how could those emails have an ounce of credibility given,..well,..they were hacked into!?!
Well that might be true, except for the fact that Phil Jones, the main criminal according to this correspondence, has personally confirmed that the documents are authentic. Meaning real. Not forged.
Now why he would go ahead and choose to tell the truth about that part, is beyond me. You would have expected him to lie about it, right?
Maybe he just knew that the evidence was against him and that lying about it all would have just dug him into a deeper hole. I don't know. We'll find out I guess.
Well that might be true, except for the fact that Phil Jones, the main criminal according to this correspondence, has personally confirmed that the documents are authentic. Meaning real. Not forged.
Now why he would go ahead and choose to tell the truth about that part, is beyond me. You would have expected him to lie about it, right?
Maybe he just knew that the evidence was against him and that lying about it all would have just dug him into a deeper hole. I don't know. We'll find out I guess.
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Hello, I am off sick today, so lets play!
This is a commentary on the article from the "New Scientist" which is a well respected British magazine on current affairs in science. (or a stooge of lefty tree hugging conspiracists perhaps if your inclined to think that way)
Hacked archive provides fodder for climate sceptics
Climate scientists are reeling this week from the discovery that someone has hacked into the email archive of one of their most prestigious research centres, the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, UK, custodian of the most respected global temperature record.
Climate sceptics have gleefully blogged that the emails, now widely published on the internet, reveal extensive data manipulation and expose a conspiracy behind global warming research. An analysis by New Scientist finds scant evidence of data abuse, but does show persistent efforts to suppress work by climate sceptics.
Mostly the researchers are exposed as doing what they are supposed to do: engaging in an often adversarial process to arrive at the truth. One long exchange ends: "This is ultimately about science, it's not personal."
Those contacted by New Scientist by and large had simple explanations for their statements. One 1999 email by Phil Jones, director of the CRU, has been the focus of media coverage since news of the leak broke last Thursday. In it, Jones discusses using "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. "Mike" Mann, of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, told New Scientist the "trick" was simply a published device to extend to the present a graph of temperatures derived from the analysis of tree ring data. This is done using real thermometer data.
Ostracising critics
What will prove more damaging is evidence that the researchers, who often attack their critics for not publishing in peer-reviewed journals, have sought to ostracise journals that did publish them.
In a 2003 email, Mann discusses encouraging colleagues to "no longer submit [papers] to, or cite papers in" Climate Research, after it published papers by known sceptics "that couldn't get published in a reputable journal". Mann says his complaint was that the peer-review process had been distorted to allow "extremely poor papers" to be published and points out that the journal's editor-in-chief and half the editorial board had resigned in protest.
But other comments are more difficult to justify. In 2004, Jones said of two published papers he regards as flawed: "I can't see either… being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
"Let me assure you there was no attempt to keep any material out of the IPCC assessments," Trenberth, of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told New Scientist.
The correspondence also shows researchers trying to prevent critics gaining access to raw data, notably the CRU's temperature data. Publicly, they say that much of the data is covered by confidentiality agreements that prevent them sharing it. For instance, an agreement with the UK's Met Office seen by New Scientist limits access to "bona fide researchers working on agreed scientific programmes".
But equally the emails reveal researchers adamantly opposed to releasing hard-earned data to critics, to avert what they see as time-consuming harassment. This week's events suggest those decisions were ill-advised.
My own view is that it was a stupid policy to try and suppress work by climate change skeptics (by disowning journals, even if they were badly run) as the science should always, always speak for itself, and in my own opinion the evidence for man made climate change is overwhelming, so there was no need to do such a thing, and of course it totally plays into the hands of those that want to discredit science itself in pursuit of a political or economic agenda.
I can understand the frustration of these scientists in having to come up with ways to deal with the tsunami of BS being spouted by the anti-climate change and anti-science lobby in the US; and their anger on the repeated attacks on science that have been orchestrated in recent years. But if they were going to refuse to publish in Journals because they disagreed with their editorial policies, they should have said that clearly and publicly.
This is a commentary on the article from the "New Scientist" which is a well respected British magazine on current affairs in science. (or a stooge of lefty tree hugging conspiracists perhaps if your inclined to think that way)
Hacked archive provides fodder for climate sceptics
Climate scientists are reeling this week from the discovery that someone has hacked into the email archive of one of their most prestigious research centres, the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, UK, custodian of the most respected global temperature record.
Climate sceptics have gleefully blogged that the emails, now widely published on the internet, reveal extensive data manipulation and expose a conspiracy behind global warming research. An analysis by New Scientist finds scant evidence of data abuse, but does show persistent efforts to suppress work by climate sceptics.
Mostly the researchers are exposed as doing what they are supposed to do: engaging in an often adversarial process to arrive at the truth. One long exchange ends: "This is ultimately about science, it's not personal."
Those contacted by New Scientist by and large had simple explanations for their statements. One 1999 email by Phil Jones, director of the CRU, has been the focus of media coverage since news of the leak broke last Thursday. In it, Jones discusses using "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. "Mike" Mann, of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, told New Scientist the "trick" was simply a published device to extend to the present a graph of temperatures derived from the analysis of tree ring data. This is done using real thermometer data.
Ostracising critics
What will prove more damaging is evidence that the researchers, who often attack their critics for not publishing in peer-reviewed journals, have sought to ostracise journals that did publish them.
In a 2003 email, Mann discusses encouraging colleagues to "no longer submit [papers] to, or cite papers in" Climate Research, after it published papers by known sceptics "that couldn't get published in a reputable journal". Mann says his complaint was that the peer-review process had been distorted to allow "extremely poor papers" to be published and points out that the journal's editor-in-chief and half the editorial board had resigned in protest.
But other comments are more difficult to justify. In 2004, Jones said of two published papers he regards as flawed: "I can't see either… being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
"Let me assure you there was no attempt to keep any material out of the IPCC assessments," Trenberth, of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told New Scientist.
The correspondence also shows researchers trying to prevent critics gaining access to raw data, notably the CRU's temperature data. Publicly, they say that much of the data is covered by confidentiality agreements that prevent them sharing it. For instance, an agreement with the UK's Met Office seen by New Scientist limits access to "bona fide researchers working on agreed scientific programmes".
But equally the emails reveal researchers adamantly opposed to releasing hard-earned data to critics, to avert what they see as time-consuming harassment. This week's events suggest those decisions were ill-advised.
My own view is that it was a stupid policy to try and suppress work by climate change skeptics (by disowning journals, even if they were badly run) as the science should always, always speak for itself, and in my own opinion the evidence for man made climate change is overwhelming, so there was no need to do such a thing, and of course it totally plays into the hands of those that want to discredit science itself in pursuit of a political or economic agenda.
I can understand the frustration of these scientists in having to come up with ways to deal with the tsunami of BS being spouted by the anti-climate change and anti-science lobby in the US; and their anger on the repeated attacks on science that have been orchestrated in recent years. But if they were going to refuse to publish in Journals because they disagreed with their editorial policies, they should have said that clearly and publicly.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
You forgot to mention the part about Phil Jones stating that he forgot what he meant when he talked about "Hiding the decline":
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxx.edu, mhughes@xxxxx.edu
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@uxxxxx.uk,t.osborn@uxxxx.uk
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 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. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Now by "hiding the decline", logic would tell you of course that Phil Jones was referring to the fact that average Global temperatures fell from 1998 and then on for the next 8 years after that, and that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
So......it's interesting to me how he can remember everything else except for what he meant by "hiding the decline".
You also forgot about this email written by scientist Gary Funkhouser - gary@xxxxxxx.edu> -:
From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@uxxxx.uk
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.
There is also scientist Phil Jones's email in there where he writes to John Christy and where he states that he hopes that Global Warming one day happens (thereby stating that he already knows that their Global Warming science is not real):
...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish. Cheers, Phil
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxx.edu, mhughes@xxxxx.edu
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@uxxxxx.uk,t.osborn@uxxxx.uk
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 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. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Now by "hiding the decline", logic would tell you of course that Phil Jones was referring to the fact that average Global temperatures fell from 1998 and then on for the next 8 years after that, and that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
So......it's interesting to me how he can remember everything else except for what he meant by "hiding the decline".
You also forgot about this email written by scientist Gary Funkhouser - gary@xxxxxxx.edu> -:
From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@uxxxx.uk
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.
There is also scientist Phil Jones's email in there where he writes to John Christy and where he states that he hopes that Global Warming one day happens (thereby stating that he already knows that their Global Warming science is not real):
...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish. Cheers, Phil
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1267578 wrote: The climate is always changing. Always has been. Humans are not the cause of that.
I live near TWO coal-fired powerplants. Every morning I see a dark haze where there used to be clean air. I've seen weather patterns part like the Red Sea around this area. I've even seen it snow black snow that leaves little ash particles on everything when it melts.
Nobody, but nobody, can tell me that that kind of pollution is not having an adverse effect on the planet. (See: Minimata Japan):-5
Attached files
I live near TWO coal-fired powerplants. Every morning I see a dark haze where there used to be clean air. I've seen weather patterns part like the Red Sea around this area. I've even seen it snow black snow that leaves little ash particles on everything when it melts.
Nobody, but nobody, can tell me that that kind of pollution is not having an adverse effect on the planet. (See: Minimata Japan):-5
Attached files
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Saint_;1267755 wrote: I live near TWO coal-fired powerplants. Every morning I see a dark haze where there used to be clean air. I've seen weather patterns part like the Red Sea around this area. I've even seen it snow black snow that leaves little ash particles on everything when it melts.
Nobody, but nobody, can tell me that that kind of pollution is not having an adverse effect on the planet. (See: Minimata Japan):-5
They should have 'Scrubbers' installed, or doesn't your government bother?
Nobody, but nobody, can tell me that that kind of pollution is not having an adverse effect on the planet. (See: Minimata Japan):-5
They should have 'Scrubbers' installed, or doesn't your government bother?
I'm a Saga-lout, growing old disgracefully
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Saint_;1267755 wrote: I live near TWO coal-fired powerplants. Every morning I see a dark haze where there used to be clean air. I've seen weather patterns part like the Red Sea around this area. I've even seen it snow black snow that leaves little ash particles on everything when it melts.
Nobody, but nobody, can tell me that that kind of pollution is not having an adverse effect on the planet. (See: Minimata Japan):-5
I've never said Human beings weren't polluting the planet. We are. Oil spills are a disgrace as well. Trash, etc.
What I am arguing is that we are changing the climate of our entire planet by doing such things. I don't believe so. I think the Sun has alot more to do with it, and I think the natural cycles of the planet have to do with it. I also believe that mother nature knows how to "right her own ship" so to speak. And when things get out of hand, as she is a living breathing planet, she will react to it and correct the situation. IE - Pole Shifts, etc.
Is the planet alive? Not in the sense that you and me are, maybe not. But it is alive in the same type of sense that a tree is alive. Only it is WAY more active.
Nobody, but nobody, can tell me that that kind of pollution is not having an adverse effect on the planet. (See: Minimata Japan):-5
I've never said Human beings weren't polluting the planet. We are. Oil spills are a disgrace as well. Trash, etc.
What I am arguing is that we are changing the climate of our entire planet by doing such things. I don't believe so. I think the Sun has alot more to do with it, and I think the natural cycles of the planet have to do with it. I also believe that mother nature knows how to "right her own ship" so to speak. And when things get out of hand, as she is a living breathing planet, she will react to it and correct the situation. IE - Pole Shifts, etc.
Is the planet alive? Not in the sense that you and me are, maybe not. But it is alive in the same type of sense that a tree is alive. Only it is WAY more active.
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
G#Gill;1267712 wrote: Perhaps you should all read the following, carefully -
Global warming? Don't wait up! The Earth has her own tricks to keep the carbon count in control | Mail Online
Problem is, those tricks have their limits and when the limit is reached the action is reversed - known as a tipping point.
An example of a tipping point is the Amazon rain forest. As the global temperature rises the rain forest grows more, converting more CO2 to O2 and sequestering more carbon into the trunks of trees. That is, until you reach the point where the belt containing the rain forest become too hot and the water supply dries up - then the trees start to die and, in rotting, give back all of the CO2 they are storing.
Another example? The warmer it gets the more the sea can hold dissolved CO2 that it duely takes out of the atmosphere - part of this CO2 is then deposited in the sea bed as crystallised methyl hydrate. That is until the sea temperature exceeds about 10C when the dissolved methyl hydrates break down, releasing their CO2 load back into the atmosphere.
Another tipping point would be the breakdown of the mid-Atlantic conveyor. This generally happens when large volumes of fresh water are dumped into the Arctic ocean in a short space of time.
We are very close to reaching the second of those tipping points which would probably melt sufficient of the remaining polar ice cap to trigger the third.
Gaia is good but does need help from us.
The ultimate trick in the Gaian armoury is to stop the source of the pollution and I don't think we'd like that.
Global warming? Don't wait up! The Earth has her own tricks to keep the carbon count in control | Mail Online
Problem is, those tricks have their limits and when the limit is reached the action is reversed - known as a tipping point.
An example of a tipping point is the Amazon rain forest. As the global temperature rises the rain forest grows more, converting more CO2 to O2 and sequestering more carbon into the trunks of trees. That is, until you reach the point where the belt containing the rain forest become too hot and the water supply dries up - then the trees start to die and, in rotting, give back all of the CO2 they are storing.
Another example? The warmer it gets the more the sea can hold dissolved CO2 that it duely takes out of the atmosphere - part of this CO2 is then deposited in the sea bed as crystallised methyl hydrate. That is until the sea temperature exceeds about 10C when the dissolved methyl hydrates break down, releasing their CO2 load back into the atmosphere.
Another tipping point would be the breakdown of the mid-Atlantic conveyor. This generally happens when large volumes of fresh water are dumped into the Arctic ocean in a short space of time.
We are very close to reaching the second of those tipping points which would probably melt sufficient of the remaining polar ice cap to trigger the third.
Gaia is good but does need help from us.
The ultimate trick in the Gaian armoury is to stop the source of the pollution and I don't think we'd like that.
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1267766 wrote: I've never said Human beings weren't polluting the planet. We are. Oil spills are a disgrace as well. Trash, etc.
Well..OK then.
What I am arguing is that we are changing the climate of our entire planet by doing such things. I don't believe so. I think the Sun has alot more to do with it, and I think the natural cycles of the planet have to do with it.
But we have a perfect model of runaway carbon dioxide warming....it's called the planet "Venus." No life exists there.
I also believe that mother nature knows how to "right her own ship" so to speak. And when things get out of hand, as she is a living breathing planet, she will react to it and correct the situation. IE - Pole Shifts, etc.
Be careful what you wish for. (See: Pandemics and Plagues)
Is the planet alive? Not in the sense that you and me are, maybe not. But it is alive in the same type of sense that a tree is alive. Only it is WAY more active.
Don't trees die?
Well..OK then.
What I am arguing is that we are changing the climate of our entire planet by doing such things. I don't believe so. I think the Sun has alot more to do with it, and I think the natural cycles of the planet have to do with it.
But we have a perfect model of runaway carbon dioxide warming....it's called the planet "Venus." No life exists there.
I also believe that mother nature knows how to "right her own ship" so to speak. And when things get out of hand, as she is a living breathing planet, she will react to it and correct the situation. IE - Pole Shifts, etc.
Be careful what you wish for. (See: Pandemics and Plagues)
Is the planet alive? Not in the sense that you and me are, maybe not. But it is alive in the same type of sense that a tree is alive. Only it is WAY more active.
Don't trees die?
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
G#Gill;1267762 wrote: They should have 'Scrubbers' installed, or doesn't your government bother?
Nope. What we do here is "trade credits." Every power producng facility has a certain number of pollution credits they can use. That means, if one plant, say a nuclear power plant, doesn't use hardly any, they can "trade" their credits to another filthy, highly polluting plant and then they are both in compliance.
Stupidity, huh?:-5
Nope. What we do here is "trade credits." Every power producng facility has a certain number of pollution credits they can use. That means, if one plant, say a nuclear power plant, doesn't use hardly any, they can "trade" their credits to another filthy, highly polluting plant and then they are both in compliance.
Stupidity, huh?:-5
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Bryn Mawr;1267768 wrote: Problem is, those tricks have their limits and when the limit is reached the action is reversed - known as a tipping point..
Another tipping point is the permafrost layer. All the CO2 that is trapped from the millions of years of plant life frozen there will be released as it melts as well.
There really aren't any respectable scientists on the planet anymore that will refute or argue with Global Warming (Changed to "Climate Change" because of misinformation and propaganda tactics by Global Warming-deniers). They are only fighting now over "How long have we got?"
Another tipping point is the permafrost layer. All the CO2 that is trapped from the millions of years of plant life frozen there will be released as it melts as well.
There really aren't any respectable scientists on the planet anymore that will refute or argue with Global Warming (Changed to "Climate Change" because of misinformation and propaganda tactics by Global Warming-deniers). They are only fighting now over "How long have we got?"
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Saint_;1267774 wrote:
There really aren't any respectable scientists on the planet anymore that will refute or argue with Global Warming (Changed to "Climate Change
That's simply not true.
And for the ones that do, for some reason those who think Human Beings are entirely responsible for Global Warming, which is crazy in my opinion, refer to those scientists who have other theories as to what might be raising global temperatures as "not respectable". For whatever reason.
This whole thing is turning into another political spectrum scam. Right vs Left. Two wings of the same bird. Those who oppose global warming science and those who embrace it. Ultimately, who is running the show for the solutions to both subjects (On one side putting corrupt politicians and scientists to be in charge of the so called "Movement to change the World" - and on the other installing the same old type of Democrat or Republican into the office of the presidency of the United States)? Ironically, it's the very same people who have corrupted our political system who keep thinking of clever new ways to continue creating new arguements for the continuation of their ultimate agenda. And the Global Warming movement is one of them.
You didn't think it wasn't possible to use a good idea to do a bad thing did you? I sure hope not.
Ask yourself who the Global Warming Movement originated from? Who was/were the most influential person/people for the entire movement? Then ask yourself how that person/people is/are planning to line their pockets with the proceeds from it, then, ask yourself who that person/people are connected to. Then, ask yourself who those people that they are connected to are connected to. Then follow the money trail that leads directly to the bigger picture. Then look at the bigger picture and ask yourself if that is really the kind of system you want to find yourself under.
There really aren't any respectable scientists on the planet anymore that will refute or argue with Global Warming (Changed to "Climate Change
That's simply not true.
And for the ones that do, for some reason those who think Human Beings are entirely responsible for Global Warming, which is crazy in my opinion, refer to those scientists who have other theories as to what might be raising global temperatures as "not respectable". For whatever reason.
This whole thing is turning into another political spectrum scam. Right vs Left. Two wings of the same bird. Those who oppose global warming science and those who embrace it. Ultimately, who is running the show for the solutions to both subjects (On one side putting corrupt politicians and scientists to be in charge of the so called "Movement to change the World" - and on the other installing the same old type of Democrat or Republican into the office of the presidency of the United States)? Ironically, it's the very same people who have corrupted our political system who keep thinking of clever new ways to continue creating new arguements for the continuation of their ultimate agenda. And the Global Warming movement is one of them.
You didn't think it wasn't possible to use a good idea to do a bad thing did you? I sure hope not.
Ask yourself who the Global Warming Movement originated from? Who was/were the most influential person/people for the entire movement? Then ask yourself how that person/people is/are planning to line their pockets with the proceeds from it, then, ask yourself who that person/people are connected to. Then, ask yourself who those people that they are connected to are connected to. Then follow the money trail that leads directly to the bigger picture. Then look at the bigger picture and ask yourself if that is really the kind of system you want to find yourself under.
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1267802 wrote: That's simply not true.
And for the ones that do, for some reason those who think Human Beings are entirely responsible for Global Warming, which is crazy in my opinion, refer to those scientists who have other theories as to what might be raising global temperatures as "not respectable". For whatever reason.
This whole thing is turning into another political spectrum scam. Right vs Left. Two wings of the same bird. Those who oppose global warming science and those who embrace it. Ultimately, who is running the show for the solutions to both subjects (On one side putting corrupt politicians and scientists to be in charge of the so called "Movement to change the World" - and on the other installing a the same old type of Democrat or a Republican into the office of the presidency of the United States)? Ironically, it's the very same people who have corrupted our political system who keep thinking of clever new ways to continue creating new arguements for the continuation of their ultimate agenda. And the Global Warming movement is one of them.
You didn't think it wasn't possible to use a good idea to do a bad thing did you? I hope not.
Care to name a few climatologists (as opposed to economics advisors who spout off about climatology) who claim that humans have no involvement? (BTW, no-one claims that "Human Beings are entirely responsible for Global Warming").
The only people I can see who are trying to turn this into a right vs left political fight (more correctly a Republican vs Democrat fight as this does not happen anywhere outside the US) are those trying to stop us doing anything about it.
And for the ones that do, for some reason those who think Human Beings are entirely responsible for Global Warming, which is crazy in my opinion, refer to those scientists who have other theories as to what might be raising global temperatures as "not respectable". For whatever reason.
This whole thing is turning into another political spectrum scam. Right vs Left. Two wings of the same bird. Those who oppose global warming science and those who embrace it. Ultimately, who is running the show for the solutions to both subjects (On one side putting corrupt politicians and scientists to be in charge of the so called "Movement to change the World" - and on the other installing a the same old type of Democrat or a Republican into the office of the presidency of the United States)? Ironically, it's the very same people who have corrupted our political system who keep thinking of clever new ways to continue creating new arguements for the continuation of their ultimate agenda. And the Global Warming movement is one of them.
You didn't think it wasn't possible to use a good idea to do a bad thing did you? I hope not.
Care to name a few climatologists (as opposed to economics advisors who spout off about climatology) who claim that humans have no involvement? (BTW, no-one claims that "Human Beings are entirely responsible for Global Warming").
The only people I can see who are trying to turn this into a right vs left political fight (more correctly a Republican vs Democrat fight as this does not happen anywhere outside the US) are those trying to stop us doing anything about it.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Bryn Mawr;1267807 wrote: Care to name a few climatologists (as opposed to economics advisors who spout off about climatology) who claim that humans have no involvement? (BTW, no-one claims that "Human Beings are entirely responsible for Global Warming").
The only people I can see who are trying to turn this into a right vs left political fight (more correctly a Republican vs Democrat fight as this does not happen anywhere outside the US) are those trying to stop us doing anything about it.
There are many scientists who oppose the Global Warming theory as it is currently hypothesized. You don't need to be a climatologist to weigh in on the arguement. Especially if you still have the qualifications and credentials to know what you are talking about. Although I will say that there are probably some climatologists as well who oppose the idea. I'm not going to hold your hand for you. Just go to any google search engine and type in Scientist opposes global warming theory. And see what you come up with.
The only people I can see who are trying to turn this into a right vs left political fight (more correctly a Republican vs Democrat fight as this does not happen anywhere outside the US) are those trying to stop us doing anything about it.
There are many scientists who oppose the Global Warming theory as it is currently hypothesized. You don't need to be a climatologist to weigh in on the arguement. Especially if you still have the qualifications and credentials to know what you are talking about. Although I will say that there are probably some climatologists as well who oppose the idea. I'm not going to hold your hand for you. Just go to any google search engine and type in Scientist opposes global warming theory. And see what you come up with.
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Bryn Mawr;1267807 wrote: Care to name a few climatologists (as opposed to economics advisors who spout off about climatology) who claim that humans have no involvement? (BTW, no-one claims that "Human Beings are entirely responsible for Global Warming").
The only people I can see who are trying to turn this into a right vs left political fight (more correctly a Republican vs Democrat fight as this does not happen anywhere outside the US) are those trying to stop us doing anything about it.
Ask yourself who the Global Warming Movement originated from? Who was/were the most influential person/people for the entire movement? Then ask yourself how that person/people is/are planning to line their pockets with the proceeds from it, then, ask yourself who that person/people are connected to. Then, ask yourself who those people that they are connected to are connected to. Then follow the money trail that leads directly to the bigger picture. Then look at the bigger picture and ask yourself if that is really the kind of system you want to find yourself under.
After you have discovered how much money they are planning to make off of the movement, then you should ask yourself how much money they already have. Then ask yourself why profit was so important to them in the first place. Then ask yourself what their true motives might have really been for their so called loving nurturing attitudes toward the World.
The only people I can see who are trying to turn this into a right vs left political fight (more correctly a Republican vs Democrat fight as this does not happen anywhere outside the US) are those trying to stop us doing anything about it.
Ask yourself who the Global Warming Movement originated from? Who was/were the most influential person/people for the entire movement? Then ask yourself how that person/people is/are planning to line their pockets with the proceeds from it, then, ask yourself who that person/people are connected to. Then, ask yourself who those people that they are connected to are connected to. Then follow the money trail that leads directly to the bigger picture. Then look at the bigger picture and ask yourself if that is really the kind of system you want to find yourself under.
After you have discovered how much money they are planning to make off of the movement, then you should ask yourself how much money they already have. Then ask yourself why profit was so important to them in the first place. Then ask yourself what their true motives might have really been for their so called loving nurturing attitudes toward the World.
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1267809 wrote: There are many scientists who oppose the Global Warming theory as it is currently hypothesized. You don't need to be a climatologist to weigh in on the arguement. Especially if you still have the qualifications and credentials to know what you are talking about. Although I will say that there are probably some climatologists as well who oppose the idea. I'm not going to hold your hand for you. Just go to any google search engine and type in Scientist opposes global warming theory. And see what you come up with.
I've used that get-out occasionally myself :wah:
I've used that get-out occasionally myself :wah:
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Bryn Mawr;1267811 wrote: I've used that get-out occasionally myself :wah:
I'm not quite sure if that was insult or if you were joking. So I'll let you wonder the same thing when I write,
Get out of this:
scientist opposed global warming theory - Yahoo! Search Results
I'm not quite sure if that was insult or if you were joking. So I'll let you wonder the same thing when I write,
Get out of this:
scientist opposed global warming theory - Yahoo! Search Results
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
31,486 American scientists have signed this petition against the Global Warming hypothesis,
including 9,029 with PhDs:
Global Warming Petition Project
including 9,029 with PhDs:
Global Warming Petition Project
Link removed by moderator
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1267813 wrote: I'm not quite sure if that was insult or if you were joking. So I'll let you wonder the same thing when I write,
Get out of this:
scientist opposed global warming theory - Yahoo! Search Results
OK. Taking class (1) and (3) as being those who argue that Climate Change is not occurring or is not affected by man's actions let's see what we find. (the other classes appear to be arguing the details rather than denying the existence)
Class (1) Three members, a geographer, a geologist and a chemist working for the coal industry. The geographer and the geologist might have relevant specialisations but where does the coal chemist come in - score two.
Class (3) Twenty two members, this is more like it. Of those :-
Three work in the energy industry so I'll discount them due to conflict of interests.
Three are engaging in wishful thinking (variations on "it can't be true" with no reasoning)
Seven believe it to be natural causes
Five believe it to be solar
One doesn't know what but believes it not to be due to CO2
Two agree that it's happening and that man is partly responsible but disagree with the extent (wrong category)
The last one agrees that it's happening and might well be man made but believes that it's a good thing.
So I'll allow you thirteen scientists out of that lot.
Of those thirteen only four work in areas related to climatology (two meteorologists, an oceanographer and a paleoclimatologist). I'm not convinced that solid-state physics or engineering qualify you to pontificate on climate change but that's just quibbling.
So that's fifteen scientists against.
Now, how many "for"s are there?
Get out of this:
scientist opposed global warming theory - Yahoo! Search Results
OK. Taking class (1) and (3) as being those who argue that Climate Change is not occurring or is not affected by man's actions let's see what we find. (the other classes appear to be arguing the details rather than denying the existence)
Class (1) Three members, a geographer, a geologist and a chemist working for the coal industry. The geographer and the geologist might have relevant specialisations but where does the coal chemist come in - score two.
Class (3) Twenty two members, this is more like it. Of those :-
Three work in the energy industry so I'll discount them due to conflict of interests.
Three are engaging in wishful thinking (variations on "it can't be true" with no reasoning)
Seven believe it to be natural causes
Five believe it to be solar
One doesn't know what but believes it not to be due to CO2
Two agree that it's happening and that man is partly responsible but disagree with the extent (wrong category)
The last one agrees that it's happening and might well be man made but believes that it's a good thing.
So I'll allow you thirteen scientists out of that lot.
Of those thirteen only four work in areas related to climatology (two meteorologists, an oceanographer and a paleoclimatologist). I'm not convinced that solid-state physics or engineering qualify you to pontificate on climate change but that's just quibbling.
So that's fifteen scientists against.
Now, how many "for"s are there?
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Could I ask a simple question? the earth moves closer to the sun little by little every few hundred years or so. could this be the cause? I believe for the earth to move more than 6 inches towards the sun the whole earth would just burn up.
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
fuzzywuzzy;1267840 wrote: Could I ask a simple question? the earth moves closer to the sun little by little every few hundred years or so. could this be the cause? I believe for the earth to move more than 6 inches towards the sun the whole earth would just burn up.
I think you'll find that the Earth is moving farther from the sun with each passing century rather than closer. On the other hand, the sun is getting warmer with time.
Both of these trends, however, are so gradual as to have no effect on Earth's energy input over recorded history and are far less important than cyclic changes to solar output or changes to Earth's albedo.
I think you'll find that the Earth is moving farther from the sun with each passing century rather than closer. On the other hand, the sun is getting warmer with time.
Both of these trends, however, are so gradual as to have no effect on Earth's energy input over recorded history and are far less important than cyclic changes to solar output or changes to Earth's albedo.
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
TruthBringer;1267749 wrote: You forgot to mention the part about Phil Jones stating that he forgot what he meant when he talked about "Hiding the decline":
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxx.edu, mhughes@xxxxx.edu
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@uxxxxx.uk,t.osborn@uxxxx.uk
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 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. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Now by "hiding the decline", logic would tell you of course that Phil Jones was referring to the fact that average Global temperatures fell from 1998 and then on for the next 8 years after that, and that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
So......it's interesting to me how he can remember everything else except for what he meant by "hiding the decline".
You also forgot about this email written by scientist Gary Funkhouser - gary@xxxxxxx.edu> -:
From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@uxxxx.uk
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.
There is also scientist Phil Jones's email in there where he writes to John Christy and where he states that he hopes that Global Warming one day happens (thereby stating that he already knows that their Global Warming science is not real):
...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish. Cheers, Phil
Just got through reading a little bit of your massive thread about psychics and the end of the world. That is just plain crazy talk. If I'd known about your lunacy I wouldn't have even responded to this in the first place.
Have a nice day!
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxx.edu, mhughes@xxxxx.edu
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@uxxxxx.uk,t.osborn@uxxxx.uk
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 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. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Now by "hiding the decline", logic would tell you of course that Phil Jones was referring to the fact that average Global temperatures fell from 1998 and then on for the next 8 years after that, and that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
So......it's interesting to me how he can remember everything else except for what he meant by "hiding the decline".
You also forgot about this email written by scientist Gary Funkhouser - gary@xxxxxxx.edu> -:
From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@uxxxx.uk
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.
There is also scientist Phil Jones's email in there where he writes to John Christy and where he states that he hopes that Global Warming one day happens (thereby stating that he already knows that their Global Warming science is not real):
...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish. Cheers, Phil
Just got through reading a little bit of your massive thread about psychics and the end of the world. That is just plain crazy talk. If I'd known about your lunacy I wouldn't have even responded to this in the first place.
Have a nice day!
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
filmnazi;1267861 wrote: Just got through reading a little bit of your massive thread about psychics and the end of the world. That is just plain crazy talk. If I'd known about your lunacy I wouldn't have even responded to this in the first place.
Have a nice day!Don't leave FN, its nice to meet you. There are a few reasonably minded people on this forum. Give more of us a shot.
Have a nice day!Don't leave FN, its nice to meet you. There are a few reasonably minded people on this forum. Give more of us a shot.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Global Warming Science Proven As Fraud
Bryn Mawr;1267807 wrote:
The only people I can see who are trying to turn this into a right vs left political fight are those trying to stop us doing anything about it.
Dead straight.
And let's look on the bright side, even if you think Climate Change isn't real, the kinds of things we are doing to help that, cutting carbon emissions, finding alternative power sources, and recycling, are all things we should be doing ANYWAY!:-6
The only people I can see who are trying to turn this into a right vs left political fight are those trying to stop us doing anything about it.
Dead straight.
And let's look on the bright side, even if you think Climate Change isn't real, the kinds of things we are doing to help that, cutting carbon emissions, finding alternative power sources, and recycling, are all things we should be doing ANYWAY!:-6