Where is the confession?

[Crick]

The deniers on this board have claimed over and over and over again that climate scientists have manipulated data - falsified the numbers - with the aim of creating or exaggerating global warming. If this were true, someone would have spilled the beans long ago. It is simply not realistic to think that hundreds if not thousands of individuals could have carried on a deception of this magnitude and duration without either fumbling their work and giving it away or simply choosing to confess.

Yet, they have NOTHING. The only evidence deniers can provide to support their charges is that the data has been adjusted and SOME (the minority) of those adjustment have made global warming look worse than before. That's it. They have no evidence whatsoever indicating from a scientific perspective that any adjustment made by the major data holders was unjustified and, even more tellling, NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL HAS EVER ADMITTED HAVING FALSIFIED THE DATA AS THEY CLAIM. Not a single fucking soul.

What are the odds?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

But but but the deniers don't need, want or understand science so it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[westwall]

The deniers on this board have claimed over and over and over again that climate scientists have manipulated data - falsified the numbers - with the aim of creating or exaggerating global warming. If this were true, someone would have spilled the beans long ago. It is simply not realistic to think that hundreds if not thousands of individuals could have carried on a deception of this magnitude and duration without either fumbling their work and giving it away or simply choosing to confess.

Yet, they have NOTHING. The only evidence deniers can provide to support their charges is that the data has been adjusted and SOME (the minority) of those adjustment have made global warming look worse than before. That's it. They have no evidence whatsoever indicating from a scientific perspective that any adjustment made by the major data holders was unjustified and, even more tellling, NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL HAS EVER ADMITTED HAVING FALSIFIED THE DATA AS THEY CLAIM. Not a single fucking soul.

What are the odds?

Geee, let me think about this... do criminals admit to their crimes????? Why no, no they don't. Though the CLIMATEGATE emails were pretty damning weren't they? Your response wasn't "they're not real!" No, your response was "they obtained those illegally!"..

 

[Crick]

Are you actually going to claim the stolen CRU emails confess data manipulation? You realize, that's one RCH above flat Earth.
My response to hide the decline was the explanations and confirmations provided by numerous climate scientists and the FACT that the procedure was openly discussed in other emails (including more stolen ones) and was widely known in the field of dendrochronology.

God are you STUPID.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC admitted AGW was a wealth redistribution scheme

 

[westwall]

Are you actually going to claim the stolen CRU emails confess data manipulation? You realize, that's one RCH above flat Earth.
My response to hide the decline was the explanations and confirmations provided by numerous climate scientists and the FACT that the procedure was openly discussed in other emails (including more stolen ones) and was widely known in the field of dendrochronology.

God are you STUPID.

Why yes, yes they do.... And yes...I was stupid because at one time I actually "believed" in AGW. I allowed my brain to go into idle and didn't question the physics, or more importantly the lack therof in the theory.

 

[Crick]

IPCC admitted AGW was a wealth redistribution scheme

No, they did not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The deniers on this board have claimed over and over and over again that climate scientists have manipulated data - falsified the numbers - with the aim of creating or exaggerating global warming."

No, they're doing it to destroy America, create a one world commie government, where everyone will be forced to give up his car, give up air conditioning, and live in a multifamily compound.

It's about delusional paranoia, fear mongering, and ridiculous lies from the right, having nothing to do with facts and science.

 

[Crick]

Why yes, yes they do.... And yes...I was stupid because at one time I actually "believed" in AGW. I allowed my brain to go into idle and didn't question the physics, or more importantly the lack therof in the theory.

Brass tacks. Specifically what text in whose emails do you believe admit data manipulation to create or exaggerate global warming?

 

[westwall]

IPCC admitted AGW was a wealth redistribution scheme

No, they did not.

Actually, they did...

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer

 

[westwall]

Why yes, yes they do.... And yes...I was stupid because at one time I actually "believed" in AGW. I allowed my brain to go into idle and didn't question the physics, or more importantly the lack therof in the theory.

Brass tacks. Specifically what text in whose emails do you believe admit data manipulation to create or exaggerate global warming?

Here are a few of the over 250 that call into question their ethics, proves beyond doubt their dishonesty, and shows the collaboration to manipulate the data.

Bet you didn't think i could come up with any this fast. Did ya!

You are right that all the GSIC [glaciers and small ice caps] will melt even for zero warming from today. Our old model was better in that regard because it had a different eventual melt for different warmings. But this is a tricky thing for me even to conceptualize. My intuition says that if we stabilized temperature at today's level then not all of the GSIC ice would melt -- but how much would remain? It also seems reasonable that there is some warming amount that would ensure that virtually all the GSIC ice would melt --- 3degC, 5degC, ???

So the next step would be to try to get some realism here, but I really have no idea what would be realistic.


Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering. Granted, many of these "alterations" run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g., omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g., estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding). But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line).

In fact, workarounds for the post-1960 "divergence problem," as described by both RealClimate and Climate Audit, can be found throughout the source code. So much so that perhaps the most ubiquitous programmer's comment (REM) I ran across warns that the particular module "Uses 'corrected' MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

... But oddly enough, the series doesn’t begin its "decline adjustment" in 1960 -- the supposed year of the enigmatic "divergence."In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to "correction."


I think the notion of telling the public to prepare for both global warming and an ice age at the same creates a real public relations problem for us....The message regarding the lesson of the THC should NOT be "global warming will cause an ice age." The message should be one about year to year or

decadal variability, and the way alternation of cold years/decades/centurys with very hot ones will exacerbate the problem of adaptation. Imagine a decade of torrid heat, thirty years of pretty good climate, fifty years of early frosts, a century of drought, twenty years of flood -- that's the kind of thing we need to worry about, not the simple "icebergs in the Thames" scenario. [Ray Pierrehumbert?]

subject: RE: UEA involvement in the CCRA tender
...We should be very cautious of increasing further...i.e. don't even think about it...agreement of these (common range of) rates for different levels was my suggestion because we are competing with consultancies, these are the level of rates that they have and if you go higher then your bid is both expensive and stands no hope of passing the value for money tests - for example, we lost a bid for us and Geoff Darch at Atkins because costs were too high for a few of the Tyndall members and could/would not reduce them by the 20% asked of us by the Environment Agency - result - they gave it to someone else when we were the preferred bidder...greed loses you the prize

...my recommendation is to stick with where they are and if you really have increase anything - increase the days and just do it in a shorter time -this still makes your bid more expensive overall but at least it looks better in the value for money tests.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL HAS EVER ADMITTED HAVING FALSIFIED THE DATA AS THEY CLAIM.

Capone never admitted cooking the books either.

 

[SSDD]

Are you actually going to claim the stolen CRU emails confess data manipulation? You realize, that's one RCH above flat Earth.

How quickly you forget...

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.

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith’s series in the graph, and can ask Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the graph he has been preparing (nobody liked my own color and graphing conventions so I’ve given up doing this myself). e key thing is making sure the lines are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the rst half of the 20th century with the corresponding average values of the other lines, due to the late 20th century decline.

Alpine glaciers also started to retreat in many regions around 1850, with one-third to one-half of their full retreat occurring before the warming that commenced about 1920.

...
So, are you sure that some carbon dioxide e ect is responsible for this?

May we not actually be seeing a warming?

I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that although a direct carbon dioxide e ect is still the best candidate to explain this e ect, it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

 

[Crick]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32]John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

Wikipedia: Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

33) Tierney, John. "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science." The New York Times. 1 December 2009.
34) Randerson, James (31 March 2010). "Climate researchers 'secrecy' criticised – but MPs say science remains intact". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 26 July 2010.
35) Foley, Henry C.; Scaroni, Alan W.; Yekel, Candice A. (3 February 2010). "RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University"(PDF). The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved7 February 2010.
36) "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change". United States Environmental Protection Agency. 29 September 2010. pp. 1.1.4. Retrieved 26 October 2010.

 

[Crick]

NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL HAS EVER ADMITTED HAVING FALSIFIED THE DATA AS THEY CLAIM.

Capone never admitted cooking the books either.

Capone admitted numerous crimes to numerous individuals. And Capone was one man. The Grand Conspiracy requires the perfect silence of thousands of individuals for decades. Try again.

 

[Freewill]

Sigh once again the GW fear mongers use one of their favoite tricks. They make a pronouncement, such as those who are not fearful of a 1 degree rise in temperature never have posted on the manipulation of data. That is it, that is the sum total of their statement. Regardless of the truth. MANY posts have been made concerning the data, MANY. So the OP starts out, innocently enough, repeating the misrepresentation of fact and the rest of the GW fear mongers join in. Sad really.

NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

So what will happen now is that GW fear mongers will once again get their asses handed to them then they will go silent for a month or so then again post the same BS, over and over again.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL HAS EVER ADMITTED HAVING FALSIFIED THE DATA AS THEY CLAIM.

Capone never admitted cooking the books either.

Capone admitted numerous crimes to numerous individuals. And Capone was one man. The Grand Conspiracy requires the perfect silence of thousands of individuals for decades. Try again.

Oh my, you ARE out there, aren't you.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Crick is not at all 'out there'. It is you fools that deny reality that are 'out there'. Nations all over the world reporting record breaking heat, and talking about the hottest year on record, and all you people do is squawk about 'adjusted data'.

 

[westwall]

No, Crick is not at all 'out there'. It is you fools that deny reality that are 'out there'. Nations all over the world reporting record breaking heat, and talking about the hottest year on record, and all you people do is squawk about 'adjusted data'.

Weather is not climate, junior. How many times do you have to be reminded....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC admitted AGW was a wealth redistribution scheme

No, they did not.

"Pathological lying (also called pseudologia fantastica and mythomania), is a behavior of habitual or compulsive lying.[1][2] It was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck.[2] Although it is a controversial topic,[2] pathological lying has been defined as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime".[1] The individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth, being unaware that they are relating fantasies."

Are you aware, Crick?

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, - See more at: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'