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

[fultonfish]

How about the words from one who was within the IPCC

A must read:

WOW!!

Where did you find that?

Fabulous!

 

[kimmielittle]

Here is the top portion of same letter

Dear colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the
part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become
politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC
leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world
that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be
altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an
author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic
of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and
tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the
upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead
Author—Dr. Kevin Trenberth—to provide the writeup for Atlantic
hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I
thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of
what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane
section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a
press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to
warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense
hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The
result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly
connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and
reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is
apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media
sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global
warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press
conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting
hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that
press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor
were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current
research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable,
long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones,
either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and
2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the
hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent
credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon
hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of
Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and
rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even
this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of
the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate,
2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an
unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global
warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible
for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside
of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very
difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the
assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify
themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements
far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the
credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish
our role in public policy.

climatecooling.org/globalcoolingdocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm

Or Here

 

[Callin]

Ok I really donlt feel like going through that whole thing and figuring out what Watts misunderstood about the science got wrong or whatever.

So you didn’t see the link, but you KNOW he must be wrong about whatever he’s saying. :banghead:

The issue like the video said it whether or not tree rings are useful as proxy evidence and of course the term hide. which in my opinion being that this is an email we are talking about was likely just a slightly poor choice of words

Watts would probably agree with you there. If you visited the link, you may have realised this. He says:

First and foremost — contrary to what you’ve likely read elsewhere in the blogosphere or heard from the few policymakers and pundits actually addressing the issue, it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide.

He even says in the link that he’s not a scientific expert, nontheless any lay person should be able to see conflicting information when they see it. You don’t have to be a scientist to see that two graphs from the same group of people showing the same data from two different reports don’t agree with each other.

 

[kimmielittle]

Help to understand the emails: Hide the Decline and what it’s hiding

An easy read:

americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

December 06, 2009 Understanding Climategate’s Hidden Decline

By Marc Sheppard

                                                    Close followers of the Climategate controversy know that much of the mêlée surrounds an e-mail in which Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones wrote about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (MNT) to “hide the decline.” And yet, seventeen days and thousands of almost exclusively on-line op-eds into this scandal, it still seems that very few understand exactly which “decline” was being hidden, what “trick” was used to do so, and why Jones’s words have become the slogan for the greatest scientific fraud in history.

As the mainstream media move from abject denial to dismissive whitewashing, CRU co-conspirators move to Copenhagen for tomorrow’s U.N. climate meeting, intent on changing the world as we know it based primarily on their now-exposed trickery. Add yesterday’s announcement of a U.N. investigation into the matter, which will doubtless be no less corrupt than those being investigated, and public awareness of how and why that trick was performed is now more vital than ever.

So please allow me to explain in what I hope are easily digestible terms.

First and foremost – contrary to what you’ve likely read elsewhere in the blogosphere or heard from the few policymakers and pundits actually addressing the issue, it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide. Certainly, the simple fact that the e-mail was sent in November of 1999 should allay any such confusion.

In fact, the decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists – those determined by proxy reconstructions. As this scandal has attracted new readers to the subject, I ask climate-savvy readers to indulge me while I briefly explain climate proxies, as they are an essential ingredient of this contemptible conspiracy.

Truth be told, even reasonably reliable instrumental readings are a relatively modern convenience, limiting CRU’s global measured temperature database to a start date somewhere in the mid-19th century. That’s why global temperature charts based on actual readings typically use a base year of 1850, or somewhere thereabout.

And yet, most historical temperature charts, including the one Al Gore preached before in An Inconvenient Truth, go way back to 1000 AD. That’s where proxies come in.

While historical documents (e.g., ship’s logs, diaries, court and church records, tax rolls, and even classic literature) certainly provide a glimpse into past temperature trends, such information is far too limited and generalized to be of any statistical value. So climate scientists have devised means to measure variations in such ubiquitous materials as lake sediments, boreholes, ice cores, and tree rings to evaluate past temperature trends.

They then employ complex computer programs to combine such “proxy” data sampled throughout a region and plot that area’s annual relative changes in temperature hundreds or even thousands of years prior. By then combining the data sets, they believe they can accurately reproduce hemispheric and global temperature trends of the previous millennia.

And while reconstructions – as past temperature interpretations from proxy data are called – can differ greatly from one source to another, those generated by the CRU have often been accepted as the de facto temperatures of the past.

This is largely because the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proclaims them to be.

americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

***Warmist Public Enemy Number One: The Medieval Warming Period

---

It’s important to understand that early analyses, and even many contemporary studies, of these “proxies” clearly demonstrate that three radical temperature shifts occurred within the past millennium. Indeed, the years 900-1300 AD were labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the previous Dark Ages to levels several degrees warmer than today. The Little Ice Age, a sudden period of cooling, then followed and lasted until the year 1850. And then began the modern warming period, which is by no means unique and appears to have ended with the millennium itself.

Originally, even the IPCC accepted that pre-20th-century analysis. In fact, the 1990 First Assessment Report used this schematic IPCC 1990 Figure 7c (courtesy of Climate Audit) to represent last millennium’s dramatic temperature swings.

Follow this link…Easy read

americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

 

[Ender]

Ok I really donlt feel like going through that whole thing and figuring out what Watts misunderstood about the science got wrong or whatever.

You didn’t go through any part of it or you would have seen that, while the article was re-posted on Watts’ web site, it was actually written by Marc Sheppard at The American Thinker. Global warmers must feel like they are standing on the shore of the ocean where every wave that recedes back into the sea pulls more and more sand from under their feet. The tide is going out.

Ender

 

[StAnastasia]

You didn’t go through any part of it or you would have seen that, while the article was re-posted on Watts’ web site, it was actually written by Marc Sheppard at The American Thinker. Global warmers must feel like they are standing on the shore of the ocean where every wave that recedes back into the sea pulls more and more sand from under their feet. The tide is going out.Ender

Then why are they meeting in Copenhagen?

 

[kimmielittle]

Then why are they meeting in Copenhagen?

Hmmmmm…to give credence…to an unproven theory?

 

[StAnastasia]

Hmmmmm…to give credence…to an unproven theory?

Sea level rise is not something to play around with.

 

[kimmielittle]

Sea level rise is not something to play around with.

johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

Try this link

 

[Calliso]

You didn’t go through any part of it or you would have seen that, while the article was re-posted on Watts’ web site, it was actually written by Marc Sheppard at The American Thinker. Global warmers must feel like they are standing on the shore of the ocean where every wave that recedes back into the sea pulls more and more sand from under their feet. The tide is going out.

Ender

Ahh well like I said I didn;t really go through it. I read like the first couple paragraphes then stopped to be honest lol. I did see the part about it being from American Thinker later though. And no from what I have seen I have yet to see any scientist that already accept AGW theory falter publically at all. You have to understand that the theory has a very solid foundation and isn;t going to be torn down by a few emails. If I find an actual full rebuttal of Marc Sheppard;s article I will post it though. I did find this little blurb in a comment thread of anoter subject related to it though.

**MartinM, December 6, 2009 at 5:42 PM
That article looks like a fairly shameless hatchet job, to be blunt. The first part basically boils down to ’some temperature proxies might be a bit dodgy, so let’s ignore them all.’ And the second part appears to be just plain wrong. Marc compares an unsourced image he describes as “the original reconstruction” with the cover image for a WMO report, and concludes that the latter is fraudulent. I took the radical step of actually reading the Briffa paper referenced in the WMO image, and the series described there matches the WMO curve pretty well.

In fact, there’s no real discrepancy between the ‘original’ and ‘WMO’ versions of the Briffa series. Both trend sharply downwards around the middle of the 20th century. The only apparent difference is that the ‘original’ series drops by about 0.2 degC, whereas the ‘WMO’ one drops by about 0.1degC, then starts to trend upwards again. I say ‘apparent’ because that’s just an artifact of the endpoints of the two series; most curve-fitting methods are notorious for producing spurious trends near the endpoints, especially polynomial fits. The difference is simply that the WMO version includes more data.**

From cubeantics.com/2009/12/climategate-code-analysis-part-2/

Btw I would recommend reading Lee’s responses to the OP while you are there.

 

[fultonfish]

Another perspective from Cliff Kincaid:

gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2009/ck_12071.shtml

 

[spn82756]

The entire man-made global warming threat is based on fabricated, cherry picked, data.

This is the worst science scandal in history.

But, finally, the information is available.

TREEMOMETERS: A NEW SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL

The Register, 29 September 2009
theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

By Andrew Orlowski

I travel a lot and cannot participate here as much as I would like.

But I guess what has happened is that there is too much data that just contradicts the tree ring proxies for actual temperature data.

www.wattsupwiththat.com and others have been challenging the data record for quite a while and now the chickens have come home to roost.

The falsehood of proxy data has been finally revealed but it needs to be given the widest discussion and dissemination.

Thank you!!! From a meteorologist of 30 years. I definitely didn’t need any convincing since I have been in the camp you are in all along. BTW…I’m a good friend of Joe D’aleo.

 

[fultonfish]

Senator Inhofe on the global warming scandalous fraud:

blog.heritage.org/2009/12/08/sen-inhofe-discusses-climategate-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/

As Sen. Inhofe sat down to speak, he opined that he was just in the Senate trying to convince Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to investigate the subject of the e-mails, instead of the people who uncovered the e-mails. Sen. Inhofe was the leader of the global warming opposition ten years ago when he chaired the EPW Committee; when a blogger asked him what he thought about the emergent news that the science was flawed, the Senator quipped, “Redemption.”

 

[StAnastasia]

johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html Try this link

Unconvincing. I’ll go with the world’s leaders meeting in Copenhagen.

 

[Callin]

I read like the first couple paragraphes then stopped to be honest lol.

[snip]

If I find an actual full rebuttal of Marc Sheppard;s article I will post it though.

What? You plan to refute what another person says without even reading it?

I am amazed. This is a recipe for ignorance, and a fast way to lose credibility. Why should anyone here read the links you post in your responses, when you yourself cannot tell whether or not they address the links you’re responding to?

At least have the courtesy to read what people post to support their views. Then AFTER reading it, if you find problems, say so. Not before.

 

[spn82756]

Ahh well like I said I didn;t really go through it. I read like the first couple paragraphes then stopped to be honest lol. I did see the part about it being from American Thinker later though. And no from what I have seen I have yet to see any scientist that already accept AGW theory falter publically at all. You have to understand that the theory has a very solid foundation and isn;t going to be torn down by a few emails. If I find an actual full rebuttal of Marc Sheppard;s article I will post it though. I did find this little blurb in a comment thread of anoter subject related to it though.

**MartinM, December 6, 2009 at 5:42 PM **
That article looks like a fairly shameless hatchet job, to be blunt. The first part basically boils down to ’some temperature proxies might be a bit dodgy, so let’s ignore them all.’ And the second part appears to be just plain wrong. Marc compares an unsourced image he describes as “the original reconstruction” with the cover image for a WMO report, and concludes that the latter is fraudulent. I took the radical step of actually reading the Briffa paper referenced in the WMO image, and the series described there matches the WMO curve pretty well.

In fact, there’s no real discrepancy between the ‘original’ and ‘WMO’ versions of the Briffa series. Both trend sharply downwards around the middle of the 20th century. The only apparent difference is that the ‘original’ series drops by about 0.2 degC, whereas the ‘WMO’ one drops by about 0.1degC, then starts to trend upwards again. I say ‘apparent’ because that’s just an artifact of the endpoints of the two series; most curve-fitting methods are notorious for producing spurious trends near the endpoints, especially polynomial fits. The difference is simply that the WMO version includes more data.

From cubeantics.com/2009/12/climategate-code-analysis-part-2/

Btw I would recommend reading Lee’s responses to the OP while you are there.

Check out www.icecap.us

 

[kimmielittle]

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN’s negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol

Seems like the Professionals / Leaders are deciding

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations.
The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.
The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol’s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

Hill continued: “It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks.”
The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

 

[Don_L]

There was a consensus when the crowd was asked if they wanted to free Christ or Barabbas and again during the enlightenment that dumped God and eventually immutable truth from the public arena. It pains me to see the spectacle of the Church (European Bishops) joining into what so many learned people consider to be but a political hoax, by ringing their bells 350 times to represent the max limits of CO2.

Just as the Galileo incident (I know the nuances, but those who reject the Church because of it - don’t.) causes lost sheep, so too will the Church lose sheep by the multitude for its un-cautious and un-necessary political marriage with this one-world order, even as its construct is known to be based largely upon falsified data, created by a handful of well reimbursed zealots.

I long for a Church that returns to its mission of salvation of souls and spends less time on worldy "justice and peace"controversies, such as funding through ACORN the election of the most aggressively pro-abortion president in history or honoring him at a supposedly Catholic institution. Hasn’t it learned anything from the spectacle of Jesuits in Nicaragua chosing Uzis as the preferential option for the poor? Liberation theology indeed.

The proper running of the public square is best determined by well Catholicized lay people.

 

[kimmielittle]

Here is what some top American Physical Society Scientist say:

Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:

This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.

By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled “The Climate Science isn’t Settled,” for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at tinyurl.com/lg266u, and a visit to ClimateDepot.com can fill in the details of the scandal, while adding spice.

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)

We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.

None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so.

This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake.

That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.

If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and

should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS ccallan@pr****ton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject line.

That will make it easier for him to count.

openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/open_letter.html

The list of over two hundred APS Members signers

openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Signatures__APS_Council_2007_Statement.html

MSM Coverage

cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/08/taking_liberties/entry5933353.shtml

 

[Garyjohn2]

It’s not a scandal, or a hoax.

First of all, “Global Warming” might be a mis-nomer. We don’t know exactly what will happen in the end, but Global Climate Change in imminent. It’s at least partly man-made.

The data from the last few years, IF manipulated, is irrelevant. Scientists have been studying this since the 1970’s.

As a grad student studying Geography and Environmental Studies, I can tell you that all science is political, not just environmental science. All disciplines have scientists who will stretch the truth and try to outwit or push out the people who disagree with them. It’s sad, but science is not usually a cooperative environment. They all compete for funding. This is true weather you are studying weather, microbiology, pharmeceuticals, computer science, chemistry, or any thing else. This is not new or novel.

However, the media will pick up on this “leak” and magnify it…even if it is not out of the norm. I don’t know much about data in this report specifically, but it is only one of hundreds…perhaps thousands. The overwhelming amount of data that points to Global Climate Change should not be ignored. The 2000’s has been the warmest decade on file. Glaciers are retreating. Ocean chemistry is changing. Storms are increasing. The natural patterns of climate change in the earth are known and measurable. This should not be happening at this time.

Yes, it’s all about “money and power” for some. When people in the 70’s were trying to get people to change their minds about the environment, they encountered resistance from the “powers that be” of the time. They concluded anti-environment attitudes were beacause of the influence of money and power. Now that “green thinking” is more mainstream, the people who oppose it are saying that PRO-environment attitudes are based on money and power. It can’t work both ways, it’s silly.

Base your opinions on more than one “news leak”. Read the data yourself. The studies are available. Check out a college library. BEst of luck!