Climategate: Consensus of a hoax exposed

Status
Not open for further replies.
ResearchMonkey

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
Looks like the AGW hoax is unraveling. Fraud, deceit and bad science is all coming to light. It's a disgraceful exhibition of scientific fraud for political gain.

The paper trail goes all the way up to into Obama administration.

Science Czar John Holdren is involved at some level. How deeply he is involved we just don't know yet. There are many dox that need to be examined and reviewed (and finally peer reviewed).

Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal
By Dr. Tim Ball and Judi McLeod Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge. Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

.....more at CanadaFreePress
Click to expand...

The lefty's are in a tizzy doing damage control. The NYT reporter says he won't post the emails becuase they were never intended to be seen by the public..... he also happens to have emails in the leak. :laugh3:

The timing is perfect, just in time to put a stop to cap-n-trade and hopefully shut down Copenhagen.

I watch the aussies Senate debates the last few days. They were close to a vote much like our cap-n-trade. Looks bad for the AGW hoaxers now. :laugh3:

:hippy:
 
meh, they'll just shift um around, to get um out of the spotlight.
Probably not much power, or money loss.
 
Fear mongering by the AGW hoaxers at their finest. Algore's new book is perfectly molded for the cult of flat-earth globalist.

191109top3.jpg
191109top4.jpg

A midget Southern Hemisphere cyclone is off the coast of Florida, another hurricane is sitting on the equator off the coast of Peru -- and the Arctic Ice is gone. The Florida Peninsula is half gone, Cuba is missing entirely. The majority of the US and western Canukistan is a scorched wasteland with no crops and little forest

OMG! global disaster, we only have months to save it!!1

The tortuous thought that only ~1/3 of the emails have been leaked must have the AGW crowd nervous.

gorebullwarming.jpg


:laugh3:
 
Having read through the sensationalist article from that conservative rag twice I gotta notice first that there's actually nothing substantial to it. Nothing incriminating and nothiing that disproves AGW. Just a boring discussion between two people.

The Best Reason to Ignore ‘Climategate’: The Climate Really Is Changing
By AARON WIENER 11/24/09 12:43 PM
Yesterday, I picked apart the “Climategate” scandal, arguing that climate change skeptics’ position — that the leaked emails proved the science behind global warming was fraudulent — didn’t hold water, simply because the emails just weren’t that incriminating. Well, there’s another, far more important reason why their argument is flawed, and that’s the overwhelming evidence that global warming is, in fact, slowly (or not so slowly) changing our planet as we know it.

Case in point: a study released today by 26 leading climatologists, which finds that the climate situation is actually far more dire than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had led us to believe.

The new report, dubbed “The Copenhagen Diagnosis,” seeks to fill in the gaps since the last IPCC assessment, published in 2007 but drafted earlier. Its authors include 14 members of the IPCC, the world’s top climate change authority.

Jonathan Hiskes, who’s compared the two reports in greater depth than I have, writes:

The new diagnosis finds that arctic sea ice is melting 40 percent faster than the panel estimated just a few years ago. Another startling finding: Satellites have found that the global average for rising sea levels was 3.4 millimeters per year from 1993-2008. The IPCC estimated it would be 1.9 mm for that period—short by 80 percent.

Here’s a summary of the new report’s key findings:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present –day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2oC. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2oC warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as – 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2oC above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society – with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-90% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.
Click to expand...

http://washingtonindependent.com/68...re-climategate-the-climate-really-is-changing

It's a failure at an attempt to create some drama. Oh well.
 
I guess A Wiener doesn't understand the false premise that AGW is based on, faked data.

Another lefty commie who has difficulty with good science and truth.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
That probably is what he believes. He, like many others, cannot understand pain English. The data was falsified, everything that follows is junk.
Click to expand...

The data wasn't falsified. But the lobbyists do give false data so by your logic everything the deniers say is bunk.
 
Here's a bit of truth to help you with your problem. It's like the deniers are as bad as some of the evangelicals.

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

ADDITIONAL DOWNLOAD(S): ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science | Exxon - Appendix C-Key Documents Part I | Exxon - Appendix C-Key Documents Part II | Exxon - Appendix C-Key Documents Part III
WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming
ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.

Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.

"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit," said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about global warming."

ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific understanding of global warming—under the guise of "sound science"—for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.

"As a scientist, I like to think that facts will prevail, and they do eventually," said Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on climate change impacts. "It's shameful that ExxonMobil has sought to obscure the facts for so long when the future of our planet depends on the steps we take now and in the coming years."

The burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional atmospheric carbon dioxide that blankets the Earth and traps heat. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Though solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change.

"ExxonMobil needs to be held accountable for its cynical disinformation campaign on global warming," said Meyer. "Consumers, shareholders and Congress should let the company know loud and clear that its behavior on this issue is unacceptable and must change."
Click to expand...

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
 
You're not quite getting it, you keep pointing to red herrings. What you should understand the problem is being exposed by their own words being leaked. Wait, there are even more emails and data coming out.

:hippy:
 
You're not getting it. The emails are a red herring. They actually don't disprove anything.

They're kinda boring really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top