Climategate scandal growing

[jimpeel]

It seems that politicians on both sides of the pond are calling for investigations into these e-mails.

SOURCE

Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'
Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.

By Matthew Moore
Published: 8:45AM GMT 23 Nov 2009

Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

This morning Lord Lawson, who has reinvented himself as a prominent climate change sceptic since leaving front line politics, demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated.

He claimed that the credibility of the university's world-renowned Climatic Research Unit - and British science - were under threat.

"They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth," he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme.

"If there's an explanation for what's going on they can make that explanation."

[more]

SOURCE

Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research
By Tony Romm - 11/23/09 01:23 PM ET

The publication of more than 1,000 private e-mails that climate change skeptics say proves the threat is exaggerated has prompted one key Republican senator to call for an investigation into their research.

In an interview with The Washington Times on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced he would probe whether the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."

"[T]his thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with," Inhofe, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said during the interview.

He added that it was "interesting" that the e-mails surfaced only weeks before an important climate change summit would bring world leaders to Copenhagen.

[more]

 

[ResearchMonkey]

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

It's the damn equipment, global warming is real!

 

[jimpeel]

Climategate already spawning parody songs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

 

[jimpeel]

It's the damn equipment, global warming is real!

The climate models, when modified to "predict" events which have already occurred, cannot "predict" those events. Yet the AWG adherents still believe the models to be accurate.

This equipment is accurate.

http://solarcycle24.com/

Days since last "official" sunspot: 4

From the Space Weather Prediction Center

Updated 2009 Nov 25 2201 UTC

Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity

SDF Number 329 Issued at 2200Z on 25 Nov 2009

Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 24/2100Z to 25/2100Z: Solar Activity was very low. No flares occurred during the past 24 hours.

Solar Activity Forecast: Solar Activity is expected to be very low.

Geophysical Activity Summary 24/2100Z to 25/2100Z: The geomagnetic field was mostly quiet with two isolated unsettled periods, 25/0000-0600Z. A secondary solar wind data source, SOHO/MTOF, indicated the earth is currently in a high speed stream, preceded by a co-rotating interaction region detected by the ACE spacecraft early yesterday. Wind speeds, as measured by SOHO/MTOF, averaged 430-470 km/sec during the past 24 hours.

Geophysical Activity Forecast: The geomagnetic field is expected to be quiet to unsettled on day one (26 Nov) based on recurrence. Quiet conditions are expected to return on days two and three (27-28 Nov).

 

[ResearchMonkey]

That's just plain silly, what would the Sun have to do with man-made-global-warming? People are taking the science out of context.

Lack of faith in Global warming is offensive and dangerous to humaity. This guy say so.

 

[MrBishop]

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4506A18E60798509

Far better...longer, but better

 

[Winky]

rose by any other name, still has thorns

Oddly enough the fact that we are at solar minimum
has not a thing to do with the temperature of the earth.

That is about high energy physics and why would we
concern ourselves with such scientific thing?
THe smartest man alive;
Algore tells us the sky is falling
so we all need to be taxed back into 3rd world poverty
and that’s good enough for me!

 

[ResearchMonkey]

I don't know about you, I'm going put all my money into green-tech. I'll make millions from the guvmint pumping monies into my pocket.

 

[MrBishop]

Still a while away... you'd be better to invest in plastics for a bit.
Itron nasdaq: ITRI is a good stock for green.

For plastics, look to recycling companies first..then manufacturers of high-temp resistant and low-friction plastics first. They're being used to replace oil on heavy machinery with moving parts. I worked for a manufacturer recently... huge profit potential for PTFE uses.

 

[Winky]

Global cooling as result of the death of the American economy

Nah the future is in real estate. Once the banks have
thrown everyone out of their homes cuz they have all
lost their jobs due to the Obamanation.

You’ll be able to buy it all up, pennies on the dollar.

stick a fork innit!

 

[jimpeel]

SOURCE

Nets That Touted 'Deniers' 'Conspiracy,' Now Mum on Left's Global Warming Distortions
By: Rich Noyes
November 24, 2009 11:34 ET

As of Tuesday morning, the broadcast networks still haven’t uttered a single word about the revelations late last week of e-mails showing scientists on the left-wing side of the global warming debate plotting to hide data and silence those on the other side in an effort prop up the notion of a “consensus” on the issue. But when the liberal side of the debate charged that their opponents were involved in a “conspiracy” to tilt the debate in their favor, those same networks eagerly jumped on the story and castigated the evil “deniers.”

In 2007, as Brent Baker chronicled at the time in the MRC's CyberAlert, the broadcast network evening newscasts jumped to hype a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing meant to publicize a report from two far-left groups about how the Bush administration supposedly suppressed science about the dire threat of global warming — as if that view wasn’t getting plenty of play in the mainstream media

"The question in Washington today was this," anchor Brian Williams intoned in leading the January 30, 2007 NBC Nightly News: "Did the Bush administration in any way try to cook the books on the topic of global warming? Government scientists were called before a congressional committee today and asked if the White House or anyone else ever tried to stifle or squelch or silence the evidence that climate change is taking place around the globe." Andrea Mitchell refused to properly label the groups as she trumpeted: "With Democrats holding the gavel in both houses, advocacy groups were given the chance to present a new study revealing unprecedented and widespread interference with scientific reports, largely by a former oil industry lobbyist working for the White House."

The next morning on NBC’s Today, Matt Lauer hyped: "A controversy in Washington over what literally could be the end of the world as we know it. Did the Bush administration freeze out scientists trying to sound the alarm on global warming?"

Writing at her “Couric & Co.” blog a few weeks later (February 26, 2007), CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric suggested that the only experts who disagreed with Al Gore’s fear-mongering were paid off by special interests: "It seems like we’re reaching critical mass when it comes to this issue. And all the experts agree. Well, almost every expert. (There are a handful of scientists — many of them on the payroll of big oil companies — who wonder if global warming is a reality.)"

In an August 13, 2007 cover story, Newsweek targeted the “well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change.” Correspondent Sharon Begley impugned: “Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.”

Less than a week before the 2004 presidential election, on the October 27, 2004 CBS Evening News, Dan Rather trotted out the claims of a leading scientist on the liberal side of the debate: “A top government scientist is accusing President Bush of suppressing evidence that human activities contribute to dangerous global warming. NASA's James Hansen says scientific findings on the environment are, quote, 'screened and controlled' by the Bush administration.”

In 2003, liberals yelped when the Bush administration changed the wording of an EPA report on warming. The June 19, 2003 New York Times ran a front-page story highlighting the concerns of rabid environmentalists; that night, all three networks pushed the story (with the exact same spin) on their evening broadcasts.

Barry Serafin intoned on ABC's World News Tonight: “Environmentalists are angry about what they regard as science pushed aside by politics. A number of studies have concluded that global warming is increasing and can be partly attributed to emissions from smokestacks and tail pipes.”

CBS's Dan Rather announced: "President Bush has been criticized at home and abroad for pulling out of the international treaty to curb global warming, the Kyoto Treaty. Now, CBS's John Roberts reports, conservationists, environmentalists and some others are taking the President to task for what they say was the cynical changing of a major report on global warming. They say it was altered to put hardball partisan politics over hard independent science."

John Roberts began, over video of a couple dozen people with tape over mouths: "Gagged and angry, environmentalists today denounced the Bush administration for censoring the scientific evidence on global warming.”

Over on the NBC Nightly News, Tom Brokaw warned: “Taken out were sections dealing with the implications of climate change. The Bush administration claims they didn’t contain sound science. All of this is raising questions on Capitol Hill for a White House that’s already been criticized for bailing out of the Kyoto global warming treaty.”

On Monday, the New York Times ran a front-page story about the exposure of the censorious tactics of left-wing climate scientists, but that night the networks refused to notice. Double standard, anyone?

—Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center.

 

[jimpeel]

Here is a searchable database of all of the e-mails and documents.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959. NAVSOURCE

Seadragon (SSN-584), foreground, and her sister Skate (SSN-578) during a rendezvous at the North Pole in August 1962. Note the men on the ice beyond the submarines. NAVSOURCE

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Indeed, the scandal of AGW is growing. Now we are getting reports form New Zealand about manipulated data being passed as science.

BREAKING: NZ’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking UPDATE 15:49 NZDT

NIWA's news release in response to this story appears to have been delayed, and according to a radio news report a few minutes ago Rodney Hide, leader of the minority Act Party and a minister in the National Government, is now calling on his Cabinet colleague, Climate Change Minister Nick Smith, to "please explain" [normal transmission now resumes] The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre.

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the...-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html

Straight away you can see there's no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.

Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?

Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?

It is relatively easy to find out. We compared raw data for each station (from NIWA's web site) with the adjusted official data, which we obtained from one of Dr Salinger's colleagues.

Requests for this information from Dr Salinger himself over the years, by different scientists, have long gone unanswered, but now we might discover the truth.

Proof of man-made warming

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there's no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It's a disgrace.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition .org.nz

Sweet Mother Gaia, how did this happen?

We MUST act now to pass captive-trade before anyone notices WTF is really going on!

 

[Gonz]

The ad on the bottom of this page is to sign a petition to make Obama sign an International Climate Treaty.

 

[Winky]

Yes Gonz Obamacare, Crap on trade, amnesty for illegals
the repeal of the second amendment
all coming to the theatre near you.

It used to be United we stand
now it's United we serve (the One).

Have a nice decade

 

[jimpeel]

Indeed, the scandal of AGW is growing. Now we are getting reports form New Zealand about manipulated data being passed as science.

SHE'S BREAKING UP! SHE'S BREAKING UP!

MAN THE LIFEBOATS!

EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!

SHE'S GOING DOWN FAST BY THE BOW!

 

[jimpeel]

Good series:

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

PART 5

 

[Gotholic]

Good series:

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

PART 5

I like this one: Climategate For Dummies.

 

[jimpeel]

The hits they just keep comin' !!

I get the feeling that some people may end up in prison over this.

Making up a far-fetched theory ... billions.

Receiving funding to continue your prevarications ... $22.5 million.

Getting caught conspiring to change the political landscape and economic future of an entire planet ... priceless.

SOURCE

Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data

Monday, November 30, 2009

Scientists at the University of East Anglia 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.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data."

The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.


Continue reading at The Times of London