Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

[qui_est_ce]

With the consensus of mainstream climate scientists. “Climategate” is a diversion based on hysteria, and doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the scientific research.

StAnastasia

The fundamental natures of scientific research is exactly what the researchers at CRU did not follow. From the leaked emails, it is evident the mainstream researchers were in consensus to alter the models to what they thought the results should be. It appears the consensus of mainstream climate scientists has lost its credibility:

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

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

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

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

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

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

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

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the/B] pages of IPCC reports.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=6679201

 

[buffalo]

With the consensus of mainstream climate scientists. “Climategate” is a diversion based on hysteria, and doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the scientific research.

StAnastasia

It seems the current fundamental nature is to fit observations to a priori ideologies and then impose them on the public.

That is not the way science is supposed to work and it tremendously undermines the communities credibility and funding for such nonsense should be put to an end.

 

[qui_est_ce]

From the WSJ

Rigging a Climate ‘Consensus’

The climatologists at the center of the leaked email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science. They’re ignoring the damage they’ve done to public confidence in the arbiters of climate science

The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It seems the current fundamental nature is to fit observations to a priori ideologies and then impose them on the public.

That is not the way science is supposed to work and it tremendously undermines the communities credibility and funding for such nonsense should be put to an end.

And from those very mouths, we’re supposed to accept that the emails are a “hysterical diversion.”

The unmitigating arrogance.

 

[VitaminC]

Interesting televised news report on alleged manipulation of Russia’s weather data by British scientists of Hadley (UK MET).

Click here to watch video.

 

[StAnastasia]

The fundamental natures of scientific research is exactly what the researchers at CRU did not follow. From the leaked emails, it is evident the mainstream researchers were in consensus to alter the models to what they thought the results should be. It appears the consensus of mainstream climate scientists has lost its credibilityl]

No, climate science has not lost its credibility. Certainly, cheating on tests and fudging data is obviously wrong at the most basic level. But the problem emails in the exchange at the University of East Anglia were only a small proportion of all emails sent by scientistsm and the university of East Anglia is only one university in the world studying the problem of global warming. The work of the vast majority of scientists, universities, laboratories, and scientific communities continues unsullied.

StAnastasia

 

[qui_est_ce]

No, climate science has not lost its credibility. Certainly, cheating on tests and fudging data is obviously wrong at the most basic level. But the problem emails in the exchange at the University of East Anglia were only a small proportion of all emails sent by scientistsm and the university of East Anglia is only one university in the world studying the problem of global warming. The work of the vast majority of scientists, universities, laboratories, and scientific communities continues unsullied.

StAnastasia

The size of the portion of emails is irrelevant. The Harry Read Me file is enough to make my hairs stand on end.

East Anglia is not the only university studying climate change, it’s a major one. I find it interesting that anywone would trivialize the significance of this scandal. Just off–hand dismiss it with denials. No explanations except to demonize those who question the science as “hysterical” and “distracting.”

(from my post below)

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

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

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

Climate Change alarmists have lost all credibility for many, many persons who seek truth.

 

[paully]

Being young I am trying to understand and learn from these posts. There is one thing that I’ve noticed and it seems as though a lot of the other posters have come to the same conclusion. StAnastasia discounts any posts or scientists that disagree with her view. I have not seen her accept a single bit of science that others have shown that disagree with her. In a lot of cases StAnastasia just blows off any scientist or articles that she disagrees with as being inconsequential. I just wish that StAnastasia would comment on some of what people have asked her to comment on. John doesn’t seem to have gotten any answers to the sites that he posted. I looked at the website www.icecap.us and there is a lot to think about there. I know that StAnastasia seems very intelligent to me, but can’t understand why she doesn’t look at sites that have been posted. Kimmielittle listed quite a number of climate scientists that do not think that there is AGCC. I wish StAnastasia would address some of this with an open mind instead of just writing it off as people that are not in the same class of scientists as those that support her view. My teacher says that that’s how science works.

StAnastasia, please check these out. I am very interested in what you have to say, but I want it to be sincere.

God bless everyone.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Their work is not unsullied. Their work is largely funded by the Climate Change industry and therefore comes with a huge asterisk.

Thankfully the nonsense if being exposed now and truth is coming out as it always does in time. The climate is relatively stable now and has been for about a decade. Even the zealots cannot explain away that simple fact.

 

[StAnastasia]

Climate Change alarmists have lost all credibility for many, many persons who seek truth.

That’s fine, I certainly understand. For the rest of us who seek truth, climate science and scientists have not lost credibility.

 

[qui_est_ce]

That’s fine, I certainly understand. For the rest of us who seek truth, climate science and scientists have not lost credibility.

So you have no problem with the deceit, bullying, falsifying, and agenda driven “science” because…“It’s not that big a deal, it’s only a few emails, not everybody did it?”

 

[paully]

That’s fine, I certainly understand. For the rest of us who seek truth, climate science and scientists have not lost credibility.

StAnastasia, don’t you think that people that disagree with you are also seeking the truth?

 

[StAnastasia]

I wish StAnastasia would address some of this with an open mind instead of just writing it off as people that are not in the same class of scientists as those that support her view. My teacher says that that’s how science works.

Paully, I appreciate your perspective; if you have an AGW professor I can understand where she/he is coming from.

Now try to appreciate my perspective. This thread begins with an absurdly tendentious claim – that an email scandal exposes the whole global warming thesis as fabricated. Try to imagine how climate scientists would feel about such a claim, if it figured on their radar screen at all. It would probably be as annoying to them as Richard Dawkins’ mindless attacks on religion are to theologians such as myself.

Steven Newton just contacted me after delivering his paper (mentioned earlier in this thread) at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco. I asked him how many global warming deniers were present, and he said there were none that he knew of. On the other hand there were hundreds of people discussing the research presented in dozens of sessions on AGW.

It probably would be best for you to contact and communicate directly with climate scientists (e.g., at your local university), rather than merely listening to the recycled rhetoric of AGW deniers, who will tell you exactly what you expect to hear. Ask scientists themselves why they accept the evidence, and why they are concerned about the future of earth’s climate. Talk to numerous scientists rather than ones cherry picked by the AGW denial movement. See what the consensus is – that’s all I can do myself.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia, don’t you think that people that disagree with you are also seeking the truth?

Of course I do. Do you think that yourself? Or do you think that any one who accept the evidence for global warming is not seeking the truth?

 

[StAnastasia]

So you have no problem with the deceit, bullying, falsifying, and agenda driven “science” because…“It’s not that big a deal, it’s only a few emails, not everybody did it?”

Of course not, as I already made clear in post # 686.

 

[paully]

Paully, I appreciate your perspective; if you have an AGW professor I can understand where she/he is coming from.

Now try to appreciate my perspective. This thread begins with an absurdly tendentious claim – that an email scandal exposes the whole global warming thesis as fabricated. Try to imagine how climate scientists would feel about such a claim, if it figured on their radar screen at all. It would probably be as annoying to them as Richard Dawkins’ mindless attacks on religion are to theologians such as myself.

Steven Newton just contacted me after delivering his paper (mentioned earlier in this thread) at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco. I asked him how many global warming deniers were present, and he said there were none that he knew of. On the other hand there were hundreds of people discussing the research presented in dozens of sessions on AGW.

It probably would be best for you to contact and communicate directly with climate scientists (e.g., at your local university), rather than merely listening to the recycled rhetoric of AGW deniers, who will tell you exactly what you expect to hear. Ask scientists themselves why they accept the evidence, and why they are concerned about the future of earth’s climate. Talk to numerous scientists rather than ones cherry picked by the AGW denial movement. See what the consensus is – that’s all I can do myself.

StAnastasia

But I am sincerely hoping that you have enough confidence in what you believe to be able to look at the sites that are scientific and discuss them. If I told you that my professor does not believe in AGCC would you tell me that he is misguided?

Please look at those sites. Then let us know what you think. You can’t as a scientist comment on those if you just discredit them out of hand. It appears as though that is what you are doing by refusing to read them honestly. How can you expect me or others to take you seriously if you don’t take them seriously. Some of the comments you’ve made regarding those that disagree with you really border on insulting. I hope that’s not where you’re coming from.

God bless

 

[qui_est_ce]

Now try to appreciate my perspective. This thread begins with an absurdly tendentious claim – that an email scandal exposes the whole global warming thesis as fabricated. Try to imagine how climate scientists would feel about such a claim, if it figured on their radar screen at all.

If I were an honest scientist, I would be mortified by the scandal.

Steven Newton just contacted me after delivering his paper (mentioned earlier in this thread) at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco. I asked him how many global warming deniers were present, and he said there were none that he knew of. On the other hand there were hundreds of people discussing the research presented in dozens of sessions on AGW.

Herein lies a basic misconception: Deniers DO discuss the research!!

It probably would be best for you to contact and communicate directly with climate scientists (e.g., at your local university), rather than merely listening to the recycled rhetoric of AGW deniers, who will tell you exactly what you expect to hear. Ask scientists themselves why they accept the evidence, and why they are concerned about the future of earth’s climate. Talk to numerous scientists rather than ones cherry picked by the AGW denial movement.

You assume we haven’t?

See what the consensus is – that’s all I can do myself.

StAnastasia

Even if the consensus has been caught destroying evidence and lying about it?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Of course not, as I already made clear in post # 686.

In post 686 you made it clear that the science has not lost any credibility in spite of the deceit. You dismissed the problem as " East Anglia is only one university in the world studying the problem of global warming. The work of the vast majority of scientists, universities, laboratories, and scientific communities continues unsullied." When in fact East Anglia and Dr. Jones are the source the most of the important studies for the rest of the “vast majority of scientists.”

How do you answer that? Do you only surround yourself with scientists who agree with you?

 

[sidbrown]

In post 686 you made it clear that the science has not lost any credibility in spite of the deceit. You dismissed the problem as " East Anglia is only one university in the world studying the problem of global warming. The work of the vast majority of scientists, universities, laboratories, and scientific communities continues unsullied." When in fact East Anglia and Dr. Jones are the source the most of the important studies for the rest of the “vast majority of scientists.”

How do you answer that? Do you only surround yourself with scientists who agree with you?

Photos don’t lie.
Here are photos of glaciers before and after proving that global warming is a fact.
We can argue all day long about whether or not the earth is flat, but the satellite phots prove that the earth is round, even though some scientist may have sent an email saying he doubts it. Similarly these phots prove that the global warming is real.
livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=626&gid=42&index=0

 

[paully]

Of course I do. Do you think that yourself? Or do you think that any one who accept the evidence for global warming is not seeking the truth?

No…I didn’t say that you aren’t looking for the truth at all. Some of your posts strongly imply that people that don’t believe in AGCC are not looking for the truth and are not even looking at what a large number of scientists believe.

I really wish you would take some time and check the sites that people that are not in your corner have suggested. It seems that you refuse to do that? Or at least you haven’t posted any responses to those articles and scientists.

PLEASE, will you do that for me??? My teacher told me about www.icecap.us also. Please check it out. By the way, he has not told us where he stands. He wants us to figure out where we stand based on facts. If he doesn’t tell us where he stands, it’s because he wants us to investigate arguments even if he disagrees with them. Because of his objectiveness, he has all the respect in the world from me.

God bless