Fake Global Warmings

[I Am Right]

For all you Warmers:

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.


But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.

WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.

"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.

[GottaHavePride]

The other side of this:
http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/1654



In keeping with the amount of virtual ink this item deserves, we're going to try and keep this short. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine held a press conference this morning to announce that 31,000 "scientists" have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming.

According to OISM officials, the purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that "the claim of 'settled science' and an overwhelming 'consensus' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong."

So what does it take to be included among the 31,000 "experts" on the petition? Well, according to the OISM criteria, any undergraduate science degree will do just fine. Bet you never thought that BS you earned 20 years ago made you a qualified climatologist. Congratulations!

OISM also wants to let you know that 9,021 of the signers hold PhDs. They don't specify what the doctorates are in, but they repeat that figure quite a bit, as if it means something. Since the group was nice enough to list all 31,000 signers, including the dead people, let's take a look at the qualifications of three randomly-selected "climate experts."

W. Kline Bolton, M.D. is a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia. Nephrology deals with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney.

Zhonggang Zeng is one of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled "Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials."

Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year.

[I Am Right]

Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to "hide the decline," apparently in temperatures.

The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the theft of 61MB of confidential data.

Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."

In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.

"It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago," he told the magazine, noting that the center has yet to contact the police about the data breach.

TGIF Edition asked Jones about the controversial "hide the decline" comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999. He told the magazine that there was no intention to mislead, but he had "no idea" what he meant by those words.

"That was an e-mail from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?" he said.

The Telegraph has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails, which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming, though the much of the scientific language in the e-mails is esoteric and hard to interpret.

Others suggest the comments are simply "scientists talking about science." In an interview with Wired, Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, points out that "if you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists."

Related StoriesRust Belt Residents Uneasy Over Climate Change Bill
U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy
Still, one notable e-mail from the hacked files clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process:

"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

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Shaddup and pay those carbon taxes, mofos!

[KC//CRIMSON]

Gotta love it when RLIMC starts a thread as his alter-ego and then turns around and post's in it as himself.

Classic.

[Breadburner]

Who's gives a ****....Global Warming/Climate Crisis is a bunch of ****.....

[soonerhubs]

I'm actually one who disagrees with all the legislation based off of this, but I also find it ironic to give cyber criminals so much credibility.

[GottaHavePride]

See, I couldn't give two ****s about whether global warming is real or not. I think humans should be trying to find ways to lessen our impact on the environment just because it's the right thing to do.

[Collier11]

^ THIS, I think it is mostly BS but why not make the world a better place

[GottaHavePride]

I mean, seriously, is there any sort of good argument against recycling other than "I'm a lazy ****"?

[Boarder]

I mean, seriously, is there any sort of good argument against recycling other than "I'm a lazy ****"?
Yes, there's the "this is 'Merica and I am free to do what I want to do" excuse.

[GottaHavePride]

See, that translates as "I'm a lazy ****" to me. ;)

[Scott D]

I can't believe your post GHP, because you actually know how to use the quote feature.

[Veritas]

I mean, seriously, is there any sort of good argument against recycling other than "I'm a lazy ****"?
There's the argument that some forms of recycling, when all factors are considered, have a net negative environmental impact.

Doesn't really wash though because even if it is a net negative, it's worth it to not have non-biodegradables sitting in landfills.

[SCOUT]

I mean, seriously, is there any sort of good argument against recycling other than "I'm a lazy ****"?

I had started to respond to your first post in this by saying that I was in complete agreement, but I was too lazy to follow through :) so I am totally on board with what you are saying.

However, there is an encroachment issue that has started to surface that does have me a bit concerned. For example, in my neighborhood we switched to those giant green bins for recycling. If your net weight of regular trash didn't go down by a certain percentage then your garbage collection fee went up. In principle this is a good idea, but what if you were already recycling through any of the numerous private avenues? You should get taxed because you were doing what they are trying to encourage?

More distressing is a story I read about an area of Fort Worth. They actually have employees whose job it is to go through the trash of everyday Joe's to make sure there are no recyclables in their trash cans. If they find anything, they assess a fine. After all, once it hits the curb, it is public property!

With all that said, the reasons against recycling are pretty well summed up by "lazy ***." I just don't like some of the crazy big brother ideas that inevitably pop into the heads of government beureaucrats.

[Fraggle145]

What is wrong with efficiency in use of resources?

I'm not sure about how I feel about cap and trade as a solution...

that said something needs to be done.

Our society has gotten so far away from being intellectual especially as it pertains to math and science. Part of pulling up the bootstraps was learning to be more efficient and effective.

[JohnnyMack]

I kinda hope this Hadley CRU thing is for real. I think it would be beyond hilarious.

[GottaHavePride]

More distressing is a story I read about an area of Fort Worth. They actually have employees whose job it is to go through the trash of everyday Joe's to make sure there are no recyclables in their trash cans. If they find anything, they assess a fine. After all, once it hits the curb, it is public property!

They do that in NYC, too. But they aren't employees - they're convicts.

[GrapevineSooner]

I mean, seriously, is there any sort of good argument against recycling other than "I'm a lazy ****"?

Or opting for paperless bills when you know damn well how to use a f***ing computer? ;)

I'll give those that aren't quite up to speed with the 21st century a pass. But only until next year.

[SoonerBorn68]

Global warming is just an excuse to give more power and control to the government. It's also an excellent way to redistribute wealth.

[CORNholio]

Global warming is just an excuse to give more power and control to the government. It's also an excellent way to redistribute wealth.

What he said. Oh and I refuse to recycle out of principle.

[GottaHavePride]

What he said. Oh and I refuse to recycle out of principle.

What principle is that?

[Fraggle145]

What he said. Oh and I refuse to recycle out of principle.

This is just ridiculous. :rolleyes:

[Curly Bill]

I'd really like to recycle more, but it's not even remotely convenient. For me to recycle, I'd use more energy and pollute more getting the recyclables to a pick up spot than I'd save by recycling.

[King Barry's Back]

My gosh, this thread raises so many points, which shall I address?

I once saw a beautiful but brainless little starlet on one of those award shows. Because of global warming, she said, if you owned a big SUV, would you please buy a second smaller car for driving when you don't need the big machine? Did she ever consider how much air pollution/carbon dioxide is going to be released by manufacturing AN ENTIRE SECOND AUTOMOBILE? No, she didn't, end of story.

Last month, the cover of a prestigious journal (I think it was Foreign Affairs) carried a headline that basically read "Climate Change Legislation: Is It Too Little Too Late?"

NOT "Is it necessary?" "Will it benefit us at all?" "Is global warming actually even happening?" "If so, why did we have to stop calling it 'global warming' and start calling it 'climate change'?"

No, the only question for their editors is does this legislation do enough? (Doesn't matter as the legislation is going nowhere.) But the point is that there is just a serious lack of rigor on this question. I am a skeptic, but am very open to being convinced when presented with evidence. But I am never presented with evidence, I am just denounced for not already believing that global warming will destroy mankind or something.

RECYCLING -- Many people view this as simply a virtue, but it's not. Let's say you've got some empty two litre Pepsi bottles in your kitchen. You want to get rid of them. To recycle, you have to gather them up, put them in your car, and drive them to a collection point. There, they will be sorted by folks who DROVE THERE in their own cars. The bottles due for recycling will then be shipped cross country to huge industrial sites where massive electricity will be consumed in cleaning, shredding, melting, reassembling (hell, I have no idea what they actually do just bear with me) until eventually a new bottle comes out. It will then be shipped to a Pepsi bottler and refilled.

MAYBE that is "good for the earth," and MAYBE NOT. Not enough information to say.

MAYBE the electricity generated by "clean energy" windmills is "good for the earth," and maybe the huge industrial factories manufacturing scores of such windmills are "bad for the earth." Not enough information to say. Even T Boone needs BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in subsidies to make wind power work, and he's one of the biggest supporters.

What about the new "environmentally friendly" light bulbs? They are full of mercury that will, someday, have to be disposed of.

Point is that in modern, industrial, energy-intensive society, there are no easy answers only painful and uncertain trade offs.

Honestly, if you want to limit carbon dioxide emissions, I think a law declaring no televisions above 28 inches and only one computer per home would do wonders for limiting electricity consumption. New telecomm and info technologies are going to make electricity consumption explode -- around the world in all societies -- in the next decade.

[olevetonahill]

I'd really like to recycle more, but it's not even remotely convenient. For me to recycle, I'd use more energy and pollute more getting the recyclables to a pick up spot than I'd save by recycling.

This is My case also

[CORNholio]

What principle is that?

I don't subscribe to the notion that humans are capable of destroying the earth. Its a fairytail and a tool used by govts across the world.

[olevetonahill]

I don't subscribe to the notion that humans are capable of destroying the earth. Its a fairytail and a tool used by govts across the world.

http://www.pa.msu.edu/~yang/NuclearBomb.jpg

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

http://www.pa.msu.edu/~yang/NuclearBomb.jpgBlowing up the earth should be outlawed. That is, if you blow up the earth, you should get life without parole, maybe in the formerly Cuban jail system.

[I Am Right]

Global Warming’s Blue Dress Moment? The CRU EMail Hack Scandal
November 20th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The recent hacking of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system has led to the release of hundreds, if not thousands, of e-mails which — if real — reveal the tactics and motivations of some of the top Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists. I hesitate to name names, but there are several websites now buzzing with all of the details and sample e-mails. The e-mails I have seen appear genuine, with obscure scientific details and language that would take considerable effort to create as part of a hoax. A few of the sites covering this unfolding story are:

Climate Depot

Anthony Watts: Watts Up With That?

Herald Sun: Andrew Bolt

Lubos Motl: The Reference Frame

While it is too early to tell just yet, there seems to be considerable damning evidence that data have been hidden or destroyed to avoid Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data requests; data have been manipulated in order to get results that best suit the pro-anthropogenic global warming agenda of the IPCC; e-mails that contain incriminating discussions are being deleted. And, on the bright side, we skeptics seem to be quite a thorn in the side of the IPCC.

In reading these e-mails from the ‘other side’ of the scientific debate I am particularly amazed at the mindset of a few of these scientists. I exchange e-mails with other like-minded (read ‘skeptical’) scientists, as do the IPCC scientists with their peers. But never do I hear of anyone manipulating climate data to achieve a certain end. I must say that I am pleased to see that NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth admits that it is a “travesty” that no one can explain the lack of global warming in recent years.

I think there is a good chance that this was an inside job…either a disgruntled employee at CRU, or someone who is simply getting fed up with the politicization of the IPCC’s science and wanted to reveal some of the inner workings of the IPCC process. I’m sure that further revelations will arise in the coming days.

As of this writing, the BBC is the first mainstream news source to cover the story. But instead of discussing the content of any of the e-mails, the BBC is focusing on the illegal nature of the computer system breach. An expert was quoted who alluded to the contentious nature of the global warming debate, and how both sides would resort to tricks to help their side.

That’s pretty rich. If the hacked e-mails — with incriminating content — just happened to be Sarah Palin’s, does ANYONE believe that news reports would avoid disclosing the content of those e-mails?

[I Am Right]

Blowing up the earth should be outlawed. That is, if you blow up the earth, you should get life without parole, maybe in the formerly Cuban jail system.

and use the cuban internet.

[King Barry's Back]

Regarding the main-stream press and the recently discovered emails -- the Washington Post today has a pretty good first article on this.

They talk to some of the people whose emails were exposed, and ask them to explain what they meant. They also talk to people mentioned in the emails about what's been going on.

Short-story: The emails are real. I don't think that anybody is denying them.

I will link this story after I get home if somebody doesn't beat me to it.

[I Am Right]

Honestly, if you want to limit carbon dioxide emissions, I think a law declaring no televisions above 28 inches and only one computer per home would do wonders for limiting electricity consumption. New telecomm and info technologies are going to make electricity consumption explode -- around the world in all societies -- in the next decade.

Honestly, that is awful stalinist of you

[1890MilesToNorman]

My hand held calculator is solar powered so I'm doing my part.

[Collier11]

what about your vibrator? :eek:

[1890MilesToNorman]

what about your vibrator? :eek:

Don't go there Collier! that's kind of personal. ;)

[Fraggle145]

If they have proof of falsified data then I want to see it... And by that I mean what was falsified, it should all be traceable and the results of the manipulation reproduceable.

If true, I will be incredibly angry.

[Collier11]

not necessarily falsified but def overdone

[OklahomaTuba]

If they have proof of falsified data then I want to see it...So NOW you require proof??? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[jkjsooner]

I don't subscribe to the notion that humans are capable of destroying the earth. Its a fairytail and a tool used by govts across the world.

We won't destroy the earth. The earth will be fine without us. We may just force ourselves into extinction.

[GottaHavePride]

I don't subscribe to the notion that humans are capable of destroying the earth. Its a fairytail and a tool used by govts across the world.

Heh. It's not about "destroying the earth" for me. I just don't see any reason we should bury lumps of metal and plastic in landfills where it will just sit for hundreds of years, when we could melt it all down and re-use it instead.

Similarly, why do we need to use sources of energy that dump harmful, unnatural chemicals into the air and water when there's a ridiculous amount of unused energy around if we just find the correct way to harness it?

Part of it's a health issue, too. If we keep the weird chemicals out of our food water and air, we'll have less health problems and lower healthcare costs.

[OklahomaTuba]

I would find the Global Warming nuts somewhat more credible if any of them were open to an option other than the destruction of the world's economy and limits on personal freedom.

The saying "Green on the Outside, Red on the Inside" comes to mind with many of these folks.

[King Barry's Back]

Honestly, that is awful stalinist of you

It's stalinist of me to suggest that fewer electronics would reduce electricity consumption? Stalinism is torturing people for years for political expediency, and having your best friends murdered to set examples. Not really equal.

And I didn't endorse a law limiting TV size. I don't believe in global warming. But if you DO believe in global warming, then you might want to think about starting a movement to limit TV size, and computer screens, becasue baby those things are going to consume a lot of power. And I mean ALOT in the coming years.

I chose this example on a FOOTBALL BOARD specifically to make a point. Behavior changes that would massively reduce electricity consumption are everywhere, but the Politically Corrent left-wing crowd doesn't endorse those -- because they are afraid that people won't give them up and the crusade would seem too costly.

If the world was really about to end, don't you think people would not buy anymore big screen TVs?

[I Am Right]

It's stalinist of me to suggest that fewer electronics would reduce electricity consumption? Stalinism is torturing people for years for political expediency, and having your best friends murdered to set examples. Not really equal.

And I didn't endorse a law limiting TV size. I don't believe in global warming. But if you DO believe in global warming, then you might want to think about starting a movement to limit TV size, and computer screens, becasue baby those things are going to consume a lot of power. And I mean ALOT in the coming years.

I chose this example on a FOOTBALL BOARD specifically to make a point. Behavior changes that would massively reduce electricity consumption are everywhere, but the Politically Corrent left-wing crowd doesn't endorse those -- because they are afraid that people won't give them up and the crusade would seem too costly.

If the world was really about to end, don't you think people would not buy anymore big screen TVs?

Yes it is stalinist- look it up. Freedom works every time it is tried.

[I Am Right]

It's stalinist of me to suggest that fewer electronics would reduce electricity consumption? Stalinism is torturing people for years for political expediency, and having your best friends murdered to set examples. Not really equal.

And I didn't endorse a law limiting TV size. I don't believe in global warming. But if you DO believe in global warming, then you might want to think about starting a movement to limit TV size, and computer screens, becasue baby those things are going to consume a lot of power. And I mean ALOT in the coming years.

I chose this example on a FOOTBALL BOARD specifically to make a point. Behavior changes that would massively reduce electricity consumption are everywhere, but the Politically Corrent left-wing crowd doesn't endorse those -- because they are afraid that people won't give them up and the crusade would seem too costly.

If the world was really about to end, don't you think people would not buy anymore big screen TVs?

How many TVs do the electronics police let me have.

[Fraggle145]

So NOW you require proof??? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

No, right now all my proof says that humans are affecting the climate.

You are such a buffoon sometimes. :rolleyes:

[Collier11]

I would find the Global Warming nuts somewhat more credible if any of them were open to an option other than the destruction of the world's economy and limits on personal freedom.

The saying "Green on the Outside, Red on the Inside" comes to mind with many of these folks.

I thought it was cream on the inside and clean on the outside, or something like that :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

How many TVs do the electronics police let me have.Just like computers, one per household. Apartment complexes could have just one in the clubhouse, of course.

[OklahomaTuba]

No, right now all my proof says that humans are affecting the climate.

So now the cause is proven beyond a doubt in your mind???

I'm guessing you adhere to the same "scientific process" that CRU was using then???

If so, I really hope you just ignore the whole "fudge the data until you get desired results" step. It didn't really work out well for them, except for landing lots of juicy grant money to help them fudge their spreadsheets.

[OklahomaTuba]

Awesome. Just got this note in my email...

Senator James Inhofe will call for an investigation into the Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails that showed that global warming scientists were deliberately mainpulating and hiding information from the public to further their cause.People should go to jail for this.

[Fraggle145]

So now the cause is proven beyond a doubt in your mind???

I'm guessing you adhere to the same "scientific process" that CRU was using then???

If so, I really hope you just ignore the whole "fudge the data until you get desired results" step. It didn't really work out well for them, except for landing lots of juicy grant money to help them fudge their spreadsheets.

No, I had reached the point of accepting the results until it was disproven, just like everything else I do.

Your disdain for intellectual work aside...Why do you think if it is proven that they fudged the result I would be upset? Because it basically ****s on all of science and makes it impossible to know what results to accept or reject.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I see what you are saying fraggle. Fudging the science in either direction is VERY disappointing be it the CRU bunch or the EPA scientists that did similar things in the previous administration. Science needs to be pure.

[Collier11]

so Frag you believe stuff that hasnt been proven until it has been disproven? Isnt that backwards?

[Crucifax Autumn]

so Frag you believe stuff that hasnt been proven until it has been disproven? Isnt that backwards?

No...He said he accepts the "RESULTS" until they are disproven. Said "results" have already proven something in the context of the information available. Disproof would be offered with the discovery of further evidence. It's a fine line, but it does fit within the scientific method.

[Boarder]

Inhofe does know how it works....


''It seems that Dr. Hansen, once again, is using his government position to promote his own views and political agenda, which is a clear violation of governmental procedure in any administration,'' said Bill Holbrook, a spokesman for Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma

Revkin, A. C. (2006, January 31). Lawmaker Condemns NASA Over Scientist's Accusations of Censorship. The New York Times, Sec A; Col 3; Pg 15.

And, from the same article, some wisdom:


''Political figures ought to be reviewing their public statements to make sure they are consistent with the best available science,'' Mr. Boehlert said. ''Scientists should not be reviewing their statements to make sure they are consistent with the current political orthodoxy.''
chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Sherwood Boehlert, (R) NY

[Fraggle145]

so Frag you believe stuff that hasnt been proven until it has been disproven? Isnt that backwards?

The only things you can know with absolute certainty are those things that have been disproved. It is super difficult to actually prove anything. Usually you have to rule out everything else by disproving it

Alternatively you can try to disprove something a bunch of times and accept it as true until disproven.

So I guess you could say, yes without results I consider everything that hasnt been disproven as a possibility, although if there is evidence to one side or the other It would probably change how much probability I think that one side or the other is true.

[Fraggle145]

No...He said he accepts the "RESULTS" until they are disproven. Said "results" have already proven something in the context of the information available. Disproof would be offered with the discovery of further evidence. It's a fine line, but it does fit within the scientific method.

This too. :D

Except proof of something tends to lead to a whole new set of questions about how, why, etc...

[I Am Right]

No, right now all my proof says that humans are affecting the climate.

You are such a buffoon sometimes. :rolleyes:

Sooo- it is cooling and warmers are upset. I would have thought warmers would have rejoiced.

[I Am Right]

Just like computers, one per household. Apartment complexes could have just one in the clubhouse, of course.

Good Call Comrade.

[KABOOKIE]

Data aquisition, reduction and expansion. It's a bitch.


Nerds lose again.

[Fraggle145]

Good Call Comrade.

It's cute when you talk to yourself.

[SCOUT]

Hey Fraggle, I am curious if these recent events have caused you to rethink the validity of the article I sent you. It seems that the article questioning Mann's hockey stick data may have some legs.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments.

[Fraggle145]

At this point I want to see how this all plays out. I mean there is a lot more data out there pointing to climate change and overall warming of the climate. Also there is data out there showing shifts in species distributions, etc...

Still if this is true it is a sad sad day for science.

[KABOOKIE]

That data is tainted C&CDean style.

[Collier11]

At this point I want to see how this all plays out. I mean there is a lot more data out there pointing to climate change and overall warming of the climate. Also there is data out there showing shifts in species distributions, etc...

Still if this is true it is a sad sad day for science.

all the data points to climate change up and down throughout history, I dont get the big uproar. I also read a report a month or two ago (sorry dont have a link) that said the info regarding the glaciers melting is BS, they are actually gaining mass.

My point is who the fawk knows, at this point I would lean toward it being a natural cycle throughout time and this is just one of them.

[SCOUT]

At this point I want to see how this all plays out. I mean there is a lot more data out there pointing to climate change and overall warming of the climate. Also there is data out there showing shifts in species distributions, etc...

Still if this is true it is a sad sad day for science.

Agreed. I just thought it was interesting timing considering the questioning of Mann's data back in October.

For those interested, here is a link to the article I was referencing. Fraggle was kind enough to give it a read and share his thoughts on the subject.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/iq-test-which-of-these-is-not-upside-down/#more-11784

As you would expect, his response was thought out and measured like the one quoted here.

[olevetonahill]

What he said. Oh and I refuse to recycle out of principle.

I bet you refuse to flush the toilet after ya **** to huh ?

[I Am Right]

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

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:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

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.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

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.

Suppression of evidence:

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.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……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….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“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 !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

[I Am Right]

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]."

Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.' " Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming "to hide the decline." Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann's past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.

There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.

We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.

[I Am Right]

It's cute when you talk to yourself.

you think I'm cute?

[Fraggle145]

Ooh talk dirty to me.

[Collier11]

Boner alert

[I Am Right]

Climate Change: As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. Maybe Al Gore can Photoshop something before December.

It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria.

The collapse of the talks coupled with the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put off the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, the Senate's version of Waxman-Markey, until the spring thaw has led Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to declare victory over Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and the triumph of observable fact over junk science.

"I proudly declare 2009 as the 'Year of the Skeptic,' the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard," Inhofe said to Boxer in a Senate speech. "Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked."

Inhofe added: "Today I have been vindicated."

The Ada (Oklahoma) Evening News quotes Inhofe: "So when Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and all the left get up there and say, 'Yes. We're going to pass a global warming bill,' I will be able to stand up and say, 'No, it's over. Get a life. You lost. I won,'" Inhofe said.

Now we have the German publication Der Spiegel, which is rapidly becoming the house organ for climate hysteria, weighing in again with the sad news that the earth does not have a fever so we really don't have to throw out the baby with the rising bath water.

In an article titled, "Climatologists Baffled By Global Warming Time-Out," author Gerald Traufetter leads off with the observation: "Climatologists are baffled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years." They better figure it out, Der Spiegel warns, because "billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations."

We are told in sad tones that "not much is happening with global warming at the moment" and that "it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year." But how can it be that the earth isn't following all those computer models? Is the earth goddess Gaia herself a climate change "denier"?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Which scientific journal is that article from?

[MrJimBeam]

What he said. Oh and I refuse to recycle out of principle.

I refuse to recycle out of spite.

For years certain people have tried to make me feel bad for not recycling my paper and plastic. I was "killing Mother Earth' or some other horse****. Now come to find out all that recycling only accomplished making Al Gore rich. I'm going home and dumping my Fry Daddy grease in the Verdigris River.

[Scott D]

I swear to SF.com right here and now. If I Am Right ever figures out how to properly quote articles and provide proper links to them as their text, I will give him no fewer than 3 positive reputation bumps.

[KABOOKIE]

Ooooh. Big spender.

[Crucifax Autumn]

If any of you guys on either side start referencing multiple sources to prove your point, from non-partisan websites, I'll raise that 3 to 5. I'll give you 10 if the sources are actually different sources and not the same source quoted in 5 places.

As an example of what I mean, I'd like to see a source as to how the act of recycling made Al Gore rich. I'll buy into he's rich from book sales, inheritance, speaking fees, etc. I just don't know where the concept of dropping **** in the little blue container by the dumpster or taking your cans in for beer money made Gore any money comes from.

[OUHOMER]

I just want to poor my used oil in my driveway again. keeps the dust down and keep the water from making ruts.
But i hear it causes global warming so i stopped.

[Scott D]

Ooooh. Big spender.

hey with as stingy as I am with it, that **** is like platinum these days. ;)

[TUSooner]

I kinda hope this Hadley CRU thing is for real. I think it would be beyond hilarious.

I believe the Hadley CRU people have conceded that the emails are genuine and they were indeed hacked.

My problem is using dodgy science not as an incentive to be good stewards of resources, but to impose massive and unnecessary burdens on the ability of ordinary people to improve their basic quality of life. If the Hadley emails indicate how other Anthropogenic Global Warming proponents approach their "science," then nothing is sacred. When scientists completely give up the quest for objectivity and truth, we're ****ed. Al Gore needs to be exposed as the Les Miles of global warming science, a simpleton of dubious reliability, as most people already know he is. But ideologues rule while rationalists drool.

The Earth may well be in a warming cycle -- or not -- but I seriously doubt, now more than ever, that the chief cause or even a significant cause of this warming is man made.

[SoonerBorn68]

Global warming is just an excuse to give more power and control to the government. It's also an excellent way to redistribute wealth.

I thought this guy made a good point that's been largely ignored in this thread. ;)

[Chuck Bao]

Global warming is just an excuse to give more power and control to the government. It's also an excellent way to redistribute wealth.

I'll respond to this nonsensical statement. I really do not think the vast majority of scientists are involved in some conspiracy to give control to the government. I think the numbers are still fairly irrefutable that humans are changing the climate and the consequences will be catastrophic unless we do something about it. Yeah, there could be a super volcano erupt and the end result would be equally catastrophic, or worse. But really, should that be the point?

My point is that waiting for catastrophe would be humankind’s ultimate folly. “Cap and trade” seems like a reasonable market solution to reducing emissions. This at least is a market solution, unless you really want government controls and standards to be imposed uniformly. How else could a country fairly and equitably reduce greenhouse emissions?

How many of you trust big government? Not a lot, I’m sure. But, how many of you trust big business? I don’t know much about science, but I get a chance to look at big business and those listed on the US stock markets. These CEOs will sell out their mother to get their bonuses. Many of them have already sold out America. The fact that many and especially energy companies are financing research to contradict legitimate scientists and evidence of greenhouse being produced should give some clue. And, you guys are getting excited about hacked private emails?

Just visit Picher Oklahoma if you think that a little government intervention into private business is not sometimes necessary.

We cannot be talking out of both sides of our mouth and imports from China have to be held to the same standards. Either that, or I will flip sides and join the rest of you.

[I Am Right]

Global Warmists Caught Red-Handed
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 11.25.09 @ 11:03PM

WASHINGTON -- I assume all readers of this column are aware of polite society's theory of Global Warming. According to the theory, anthropogenic (once known as "man-made") gases waft into the atmosphere, causing worldwide temperatures to soar and our imminent doom.

Yet, how many of you are familiar with my theory of Kultursmog? According to it, our culture is polluted by political ideas, prejudices, and false pieties advocated by the soi-disant liberals or progressives or People of Conscience or whatever the hell they are calling themselves nowadays. They keep changing their designations, and every designation they opt for becomes an honorific, at least for them. Liberal, indeed -- they actually favor government coercion and regimentation. Progressive, indeed -- they are for a political system that was recognized as archaic late in the last century when socialism was found to be obsolete even by the Indians and the Chinese.

At any rate, my theory of Kultursmog has just been buttressed by some 3,000 emails of cold probative evidence that Kultursmog is real. That the emails come from the Global Warmists is most gratifying. I have always suspected that they are leading contributors to the smog. That is to say, they are leading polluters of our culture. The Environmental Protection Agency should take note.

The way the Kultursmog works, liberal elites through their undemocratic dominance of cultural institutions -- the media, the universities, government bureaucracies -- create beliefs, problems, and bugaboos, by studiously ignoring disagreement and by ceaselessly repeating deceits and distortions. Last week hackers -- I think of them as selfless public-spirited hackers -- broke into the electronic files of one of the leading Global Warmist research centers, the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK, and posted some 3,000 of the Warmists' conspiratorial emails for all the world to see. To my ineffable gratification, the emails displayed the Global Warmists sedulously engaging in just what you would expect in the Kultursmog: deceits, distortions and the suppression of dissenting points of view. Here we have a comprehensive view of Kultursmog in the making.

Our friends in the editorial sanctum sanctorum of the Wall Street Journal pored over all the damning emails. They found dissenting scientists (Global Warming skeptics, as they are called) being blacklisted and suppressed. For instance, Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, emailed likeminded Global Warmists advising them to isolate and ignore scientists and scientific journals that publish the views of the skeptics. "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," he wrote, going on to urge the encouragement of "our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Now that is how Kultursmog taints the debate.

Then there was Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia project. He emailed Mr. Mann and others to "delete any emails you may have had with Keith" regarding indelicate references to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report. Another email from Jones to a co-conspirator asked that he "...change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with." The Journal also quotes an unnamed scientist emailing "hide the decline" of temperatures in data that might cast doubt on Global Warming.

Well, I can understand. The fact is that for almost a decade there has been no Global Warming, contrary to the Global Warmists' computer predictions. In fact, since 2005 there has been Global Cooling.

Well, as I say, thanks to the work of these patriotic hackers we now have plenty of evidence that the Global Warmists are dishonest bullies. Moreover, I now have a perfect educational model to demonstrate how Kultursmog works. But this discovery is not without its melancholy aspects too. There once was a day when scientists were empiricists believing in reason and fair play. Those who have been exposed in the Global Warming hoax are mere propagandists

[StoopTroup]

I didn't read any of that either.

[Scott D]

lol patriotic hackers.

[StoopTroup]

OK...I went back and read the last paragraph...thanks Scott! :D

[I Am Right]

Inhofe Asks Boxer to Investigate Possible Scientific ‘Conspiracy’ in ‘Climategate’
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
By Melanie Hunter-Omar




U.N. Undersecretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Sha Zukang, back to camera, talks to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, right, as Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed, left, and Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, second from left, look on at an international conference on technology and climate change in New Delhi, India, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup)(CNSNews.com) – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling on Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming.

Inhofe said the recent disclosure of emails between several prominent climatologists reveal “possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program” and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

He suggested “a possible conspiracy by scientists, some of whom receive or have received US taxpayer funds, to stifle open, transparent debate on the most pressing issues of climate science.”

Inhofe also noted that there appeared to be “a campaign to vilify scientists who question global warming alarmism.”

“For instance,” Inhofe wrote, “one scientist wrote of a ‘trick he employed to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature trends, as well as discussed attempts to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’ to prevent papers raising questions about anthropogenic global warming from appearing in IPCC reports.

“Another scientist stated, ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t.’ Still another wrote, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same,’” Inhofe added.

The controversy “could have far-reaching policy implications,” Inhofe wrote,” affecting everything from (to name a few) cap-and-trade legislation, state and regional climate change programs,” and the Section 202 (a) of the EPA’s Clean Air Act – policies that “will lead to a torrent of new federal regulations that will destroy thousands of jobs and make electricity and gasoline more expensive for consumers and small businesses.”

[okiewaker]

At this point, I have no clue to what is truth and what is false. All I get is what I read and hear from media, as do many of you folks. The Global Warming situation has plenty of, fact and fiction on both sides. It is a convoluted bunch of fact and fiction that I cannot decipher. At this point, I will wait to see, maybe some sense will be made, what the facts are that finally come out.

[Scott D]

At least I know I was justified with my other post since I won't have to worry about ever fulfilling that obligation.

[KABOOKIE]

Climate change is falling down, falling down, falling down.
Climate change is falling down, my falisified data.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578486,00.html


The director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

In a statement posted to its Web site, the University of East Anglia says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

Professor Jones said, "What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support."

Details of the independent review will be releasd in the next few days, according to the statement.

Matt Dempsey, spokesman for Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., thinks more is still to come from the scandal coming to be known as Climategate. “It certainly shows that there’s more to the investigation and there’s more to come, and we’re only at the beginning stages of learning about climate-gate," he told FoxNews.com.

Dempsey added that Inhofe plans to request a hearing on the topic formally from Enivornment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer in a letter later today.

Jones's biography page, published on the CRU's servers, notes his research interest "in instrumental climate change, palæoclimatology, detection of climate change and the extension of riverflow records in the UK using long rainfall records. I am principally known for the time series of hemispheric and global surface temperatures, which I update on a monthly basis. I have numerous research papers over the last 20 years and these are available in the CRU Publications List."

The controversy spun from a collection of e-mails stolen from the CRU and leaked onto the Internet. The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent. And the trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool is being called into question as the scandal over doctored data continues to unfold.

The loss of the data prevents other scientists from checking it to determine whether, in fact, there has been a long-term rise in global temperatures during the past century and a half.

"They are making scientific progress more difficult now," says Willie Soon, a physicist, astronomer and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "This is a shameful, dark day for science," he said in an interview with FoxNews.com.

[Scott D]

I can't believe your post is legitimate Kabookie, you know how to use the quote feature.

[KABOOKIE]

Don't forget linking and highlighting items of interest in bold!

[I Am Right]

DO SMOKING GUNS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, TOO?
December 2, 2009


As we now know (and by "we" I mean "everyone with access to the Internet"), the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has just been caught ferociously manipulating the data about the Earth's temperature.

Recently leaked e-mails from the "scientists" at CRU show that, when talking among themselves, they forthrightly admit to using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in the Earth's temperature since 1960 -- as one e-mail says. Still another describes their manipulation of the data thus: "[W]e can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

Am I just crazy from the heat or were they trying to deceive us?

Global warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words "trick," "hide the decline" and "garbage" do not mean "trick," "hide the decline" and "garbage." These words actually mean "onion soup," "sexual submissive" and "Gary, Ind."

(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)

Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed "in context" -- the words' check was in the mail, and they'd like to spend more time with their families.

I have placed the words in context and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.

The leaked e-mail exchanges also show the vaunted "scientists" engaging in a possibly criminal effort to delete their own smoking-gun e-mails in response to a Freedom of Information request. Next, the fanatics will be telling us that "among scientists," this behavior does not indicate knowledge of guilt.

If I recall correctly, their next move should be to fire the special prosecutor late Saturday night.

These e-mails aren't a tempest in a teapot. They are evidence of pervasive fraud by a massively influential institution that has dominated news coverage of global warming.

CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on "global climate analysis" -- including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.

Having claimed to have collected the most complete data on the Earth's temperature for the last half century, the CRU's summary of that data was used by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its 2007 report demanding that we adopt a few modest lifestyle changes, such as abolishing modern technology, reverting to hunter/gatherer status and taxing ourselves into servitude.

But then last weekend -- in the middle of the "Let's Cook the Books!" e-mail scandal -- the CRU said that all its data on the Earth's temperature since 1960 had been irretrievably "lost." (Although I suspect "overcooked" might be a more apt term.)

The way this episode is unfolding, the environmentalists may be forced to drop their phantom threat of global warming and go back to the phantom threat of global cooling.

Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated "scientists" were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.

This sabotage of global warming dissenters may be more galling than their manipulation of the data. Until now, the global warming cult's sole argument has been to demand that everyone shut up in response to the "scientific consensus" that human activity was causing global warming.

That's their idea of a free and open debate.

It's always the same thing with primitive people -- voodoo practitioners, rain dancers and liberals. In lieu of facts, debate and a weighing of the evidence, religious fanatics respond to all counterarguments by invoking a higher authority: the witch doctor, a "scientific consensus," "the Constitution" or "historians are agreed."

Liberals won't tell us why Congress passed a law outlawing incandescent lightbulbs by 2014 -- a bill solemnly delivered to the president in a Prius hybrid (making it the slowest-moving bill in U.S. history). Instead, they tell us there's a "scientific consensus" that we have to use fluorescent lightbulbs or we'll all die.

They won't tell us why Ten Commandments monuments must be stripped from every public space in America. Instead, they tell us "the Constitution" says so (according to the high priests who interpret it to mean things the document doesn't remotely say).

They won't tell us what Sen. Joe McCarthy lied about. They say: Historians are agreed that McCarthy was a liar. (These are the same historians who also stated as fact that "few American Communists were spies" -- until decrypted Soviet cables proved that the Communist Party was awash with Soviet spies.)

This is precisely what liberals accuse Christians of doing, but which Christians never do. We don't cite the Bible as authority -- and then refuse to let anyone read it. We certainly don't claim to have "lost" it, so you can't check for yourself. But that's exactly what the CRU has done with its secret data allegedly showing a warming Earth.

Also, biblical data on the great flood and Noah's ark have held up remarkably well.

Even if the Earth were warming -- which apparently it is not -- the idea that humans using energy-efficient lightbulbs would alter the temperature of the globe is approximately as plausible as the Aztecs' belief that they were required to wrench the beating heart out of living, breathing humans in order to keep the sun on its path.

Sadly, the "human sacrifice deniers" lost the argument to Aztec CRU scientists, who explained that there was a "scientific consensus" on the benefits of ritual murder.

But at least the Aztecs only slaughtered tens of thousands of humans in the name of "climate change." The global warming cultists want us all dead.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

[I Am Right]

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

[Ardmore_Sooner]

I am dangerously close to utilizing the ignore feature. The copy and pasting has got to stop. My iPhone takes extra time to scroll through the crap that NO ONE reads, from either side of the arguement.

[OklahomaTuba]

Since global warming has been proven to be a fraud now, does this mean Algore doesn't have to feel so bad about flying around the world in his private jet or leaving his lights on all night at his mansions now???

[hellogoodbye]

The only things you can know with absolute certainty are those things that have been disproved. It is super difficult to actually prove anything. Usually you have to rule out everything else by disproving it

Alternatively you can try to disprove something a bunch of times and accept it as true until disproven.

So I guess you could say, yes without results I consider everything that hasnt been disproven as a possibility, although if there is evidence to one side or the other It would probably change how much probability I think that one side or the other is true.

I wont argue that there is a lot of good data being collected out there, but still not convinced that correlation=causation.

[49r]

I am dangerously close to utilizing the ignore feature. The copy and pasting has got to stop. My iPhone takes extra time to scroll through the crap that NO ONE reads, from either side of the arguement.

Hear hear.

[Boarder]

Use it. It's awesome.

I do have a worry, though. First, if there is no man-made climate change, I wouldn't be mad that I "lost" the argument, I'd be overjoyed that there is no man-made climate change. I could not, in good conscience, ask someone who didn't believe in it to change over if I were only doing for a personal type of satisfaction. The whole goal would be for no man-made cloimate change. If the scandal thing actually means there is none, it's a win in my book. For the Earth.

As to the worry, I fear that most who were on the fence will take this as a sign that recycling, using less, and generally being green was all for climate change and not for increased sustainability, as I feel it is. This could set the sustainability movement back 20 years. Although they have similar goals, the greenhouse gas reduction and sustainability movements are not the same. I just fear that the former may hurt the latter badly.

Also, I put the blame squarely on the scientists' shoulders. How dare they falsify stuff like that. It is beyond ridiculous the way they have put a large number of legitimate scholars and researchers into question by doing such a thing.

[beer4me]

Since global warming has been proven to be a fraud now, does this mean Algore doesn't have to feel so bad about flying around the world in his private jet or leaving his lights on all night at his mansions now???


Yea and he has to give back the Nobel also :D

[hellogoodbye]

. This could set the sustainability movement back 20 years. Although they have similar goals, the greenhouse gas reduction and sustainability movements are not the same. I just fear that the former may hurt the latter badly.


Agreed. Saw this coming from a mile away (years ago). Pity..