This is getting very interesting.
The programming code for the climate models at CRU have been released, and now the geeks are tearing into the models, and seeing how the models manipulate the data to force a result the modelers want.
It's unreal. They literally just add a data series to the actual temperature record to force the line on the resulting graph to go up in the 20th century. Take a look here and here.
This isn't just emails that "read badly." It is outright fraud.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Phil Jones - head of the Climate Research Unit
Draft Contributing Author to the Summary for Policy Makers, and Coordinating Lead Author of Ch3 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4 wrote these emails (bold added, (email ID#); [commented]):
16 Nov 1999: 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. ( 942777075.txt) [Note this is an extremely important admission since the “decline” he is hiding is the temperature decline since 1961, in the tree ring data. The existence of this decline suggests that tree ring data can’t be trusted for any period, since it deviates from measured temperatures in one period (after 1961.) This is crucial as much of the IPCC case rests on tree rings.]
----------------------
Jul 5 15:51:55 2005: The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant. (1120593115.txt) [in 2009 it is now11 years of cooling.]
-------------------------------
11 Mar 2003: 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. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch. (1047390562.txt)
It's good to see Kremer fully grasping the magnitude and severity of this unprescedented global fraud.
His having picked up on it many years ago demonstrates his savvy.
Unlike the loons like RR and Appell whop pop in here who won't pick up on it ever.
This is a very good display of the fraud.
Look at this string of graphs someone put together and see how fraudulent and preposterous the AGW alarm is.
Graph by graph, each expanding the time frame and a marvelous display of the historical temperature.
The first one is the one used by warmers. The subsequent graphs expand incrementally further back in time with the current temperature on the right in each graph.
To get a clear perspective it seems best to look for the left edge of the graph line in the graph directly below. And repeat with each.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/#comment-255161
Calling David Appell!!
Hey David!!
How do you spin these emails from your GODs at the IPCC & RealClimate?
Or have you finally realized that you have been a sucker for years? And you missed your chance to pop their fraud bubble last year!
Its time for you to apologize for all your name calling and insults.
David hasn't been a sucker. He's been a willing and deliberate participant in the fraud.
Despite David's blatant lies forever there's been abundant evidence of wrongdoing, falsified data, fatal flaws long before ClimateGate.
David repeatedly told people these expert skeptic scientists and their work did not exist.
When cornered with their obvious exisitence he would then shift his pitch to claim they were paid by fossil fuel interests.
Other times he attempted to discredit them by falsely claiming none had been peer reviewed and published.
David peddled every lie produced by Schmidt, Mann, Jones and Hansen.
David lectured that no MWP existed, that the CO2 physics and warming was conclusive, that Katrina was caused by AGW and he defended every baseless fabrication made by warmers in academia.
He was following and adocating the worst science while parotting that it was the best science available and conclusive by consensus.
David knowingly lied repeatedly.
Even those of us who aren't statisticians or scientists or economists can draw a solid conclusion from what is known and what clearly isn't.
- Climate change has not been linked to human activity
- The numbers were fudged
- As an American, I have freedom of religion. I choose not to follow climate change and the lifestyle it presses on it's believers.
http://www.salon.com/news/global_warming/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2009/12/16/stupidity
Ex-beauty contestants, drive-time DJs, TV sports announcers, hairstylists, newspaper columnists -- basically anybody whose math skills topped out in the 10th grade -- rarely have anything substantive to add to the sum of technical and scientific knowledge. That's what they most resent about it.
It's not impossible that such persons could educate themselves sufficiently to have an informed opinion, but it's rare. Most of us, most of the time, are like historian and blogger Josh Marshall: "The fact that the vast majority of people with specialized knowledge in the field think there's a problem is good enough for me," he wrote. "I can't be knowledgeable about everything. And I'm comfortable with the modern system in which the opinions of really knowledgeable people with expertise counts more in cases like this than people who know nothing at all."
Yes, I'll trust Rob and Rush and Ted P. and Lars Sarah over the vast majority of people who have studied the issue and say that there's a problem and human activity is causing it. Sure, that makes sense.
RR,
On October 5, 2009, Phil Jones was discussing data manipulation: And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons -- but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
It appears that you've not been paying much attention to the verified documentation. It doesn't come from Rob, nor Rush. It comes straight from a leading Warmer scientist who has been obliged to step down as investigations proceed.
Now, what exactly ex-beauty contestants, drive-time DJs have to do with conversation here is really unclear. Looks to me as though you're just tossing things out and hoping something will stick long enough to distract - which, it must be admitted, is your usual approach.
I don't think you have any experience with the scientific process, peer review, and all that. Which means that, unlike you, I actually have a foundation for my views, because I've been there and you have not.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that; my impression of you, however, is that you're simply a Leftist troll with little if any actual knowledge of the topics that you attempt to disrupt.
Post a Comment