The Warmergate Scandal

[Oddball]

Do you think they will publish anything like this?

US Senate Minority Report

Hey - don't you know 90% of scientists believe in global warming????

How dare you link such rubbish!!!!

Where is Chris when you need him?

Old Rocks??

OK, dingbat, even if 700 real scientists, the number is doubtful, considering the source, state that global warming is not happening, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that global Warming is a fact, is a clear and present danger, and that we are the primary cause of it.

Now that is well over 90% of the scientists in the world.

Now pull some more rubbish out of your ass.

IOW, you have no hard and independently verifiable data to back up your ridiculous 90% claim...Like we didn't already know that.

 

[Sinatra]

Maybe he gets confused and means to say 09% of scientists...

 

[Oddball]

People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:

function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;

pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;

;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

“these will be artificially adjusted” « Climate Audit – mirror site


sorry if this info has already been posted. it is pretty blatant proof of dishonesty

No, it hadn't...Thank you.

 

[mal]

so hacked e-mails are proof a of a conspiracy? .....right! - snore....next.

^Wouldn't Believe it if New York was Buried in Ice...

Which Scientists say is a Natural Cycle that is Coming in Thousands of Years REGARDLESS of what we do...



peace...

 

[Ravi]

People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:

function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;

pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;

;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

“these will be artificially adjusted” « Climate Audit – mirror site


sorry if this info has already been posted. it is pretty blatant proof of dishonesty

Yes, and it was debunked earlier in the thread.

 

[Oddball]

If the argument isn’t going your way, close it down. This was ever the way of liberal-left. Criticize the European Socialist Superstate and you’re a “Little Englander”; object to wind farms spoiling your view and you’re a “NIMBY”; demand curbs on immigration and you’re “a racist”; desire better education for your kids and you’re “elitist”; question the current majority scientific view on AGW and you’re a “Denier” who deserves only to be scorned, vilified and preferably silenced.

We have seen plenty examples of that last kind of bullying in the Climategate scandal (Warmergate, as Mark Steyn has wittily christened it: damn! Wish I’d thought of that): scientists ganging up to shut scientists who disagree with them out of the peer-review process; scientists actually gloating over their opponents’ deaths.

Climategate reminds us of the liberal-left’s visceral loathing of open debate – Telegraph Blogs

 

[mal]

If the argument isn’t going your way, close it down. This was ever the way of liberal-left. Criticize the European Socialist Superstate and you’re a “Little Englander”; object to wind farms spoiling your view and you’re a “NIMBY”; demand curbs on immigration and you’re “a racist”; desire better education for your kids and you’re “elitist”; question the current majority scientific view on AGW and you’re a “Denier” who deserves only to be scorned, vilified and preferably silenced.

We have seen plenty examples of that last kind of bullying in the Climategate scandal (Warmergate, as Mark Steyn has wittily christened it: damn! Wish I’d thought of that): scientists ganging up to shut scientists who disagree with them out of the peer-review process; scientists actually gloating over their opponents’ deaths.

Climategate reminds us of the liberal-left’s visceral loathing of open debate – Telegraph Blogs

Why do you want Everyone to Die, Dude?...

Why do you Hate the Planet?...



peace...

 

[Sinatra]

And the attacks against Global Warming keep coming...

___

November 24, 2009
ClimateGate: The Fix is In
By Robert Tracinski

In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."

...But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

...The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.


Full article here:


RealClearPolitics - ClimateGate: The Fix is In

 

[Oddball]

Lawsuits are already in the works, for evasion of FOIA requests:

"Climate Gate" Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA

Posted by Chris Horner on 11.24.09 @ 9:46AM

Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies' refusal - for nearly three years - to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding "ClimateGate" scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries' freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK's East Anglia University.

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog

 

[Zoom-boing]

Word? The jig is up.

 

[Jay Canuck]

yep I read that part... and that makes man made climate change a hoax?

No, it's always been a hoax as described by it's supporters. These e-mails simply prove this fact.

conspiracy nut huh? - good for you.

 

[Jay Canuck]

so hacked e-mails are proof a of a conspiracy? .....right! - snore....next.

^Wouldn't Believe it if New York was Buried in Ice...

Which Scientists say is a Natural Cycle that is Coming in Thousands of Years REGARDLESS of what we do...



peace...

I'm sorry you are a ******* hack but can we see a link?

 

[sitarro]

So......... How's that peer review working for all of you smug science people?

Rejoice! The whole thing was a hoax, Rush was right! The earth isn't being destroyed by mankind! It was all a load of crap that greedy people and their pet "scientist" have shit on the whole world!


Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs


By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009


If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

continued at link


EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling - Washington Times


EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling

Junk science exposed among climate-change believers
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

continued at link

 

[Jay Canuck]

Junk science exposed among climate-change believers -
and there is no junk science on the deniers side of course!..... What are the majority of the worlds credible scientists in agreement about again?

 

[Oddball]

Chrissy?...Is that you?

 

[Jay Canuck]

Threads like this just are an example of how desperate the man-made climate change deniers have become....... they have nothing scientific on their side except for the scientists they can buy off so all they are left with is conspiracy theories and media inuendo - sooo sad.

 

[Oddball]

This thread is demonstration of how the "science" has been faked and that the "deniers", who can't come up with hard and verifiable numbers (like that oft-parroted 90% myth), are the GlobalClimateCoolerWarmering scaremonger cargo cultists, like you.

 

[Sinatra]

Threads like this just are an example of how desperate the man-made climate change deniers have become....... they have nothing scientific on their side except for the scientists they can buy off so all they are left with is conspiracy theories and media inuendo - sooo sad.

Tough times for you Jay - you can always go back to your days supporting Britney...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc[/ame]

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The debate is now over.

 

[Sinatra]

Time for Jay, Chris, and Old Rocks to hit the road...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRYISoCY7z8&feature=related[/ame]