climate gate is becoming a serial

Climate Gate is becoming a Serial

February 16th, 2010 By: Orson Buggeigh
| Tags:

Back in the days of silent films, the weekly thrill a minute serial kept audiences on the edge of their seats,ending each week with the heroine or the hero facing looming disaster. For the past three decades, there has been a steady claim that the earth was facing disaster unless the world’s leading economies made substantial changes in how their populations live. A year and a half ago, few people doubted the nature of the problems facing the planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN body, claimed to have all the data to support the theory that man-made climate change was occurring. Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth” was acclaimed to be a masterpiece of science and call to action. A few folks publicly questioned the science the film was based on, but the torrents of praise seemed to rival the Amazon in volume. Who were these critics, anyway?

A year and a half later, and the critics are making points that should have been obvious. The science is NOT settled, no matter what Mr. Gore wants to say to the contrary. In fact, that remark should have had serious scientists reaching for their calculators and checking the figures. According to the media, the few who did question the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings were kooks, and not real scientists at all. But the movie’s been changed. It isn’t quite weekly yet, but the thriller started with the release of documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in November of 2009. It seemed the science behind man-made global warming wasn’t quite so scientific after all. In fact, it looked more like something from one of those B flicks like “Plan Nine From Outer Space.” The lab had not functioned as most people understand science to be done. It appeared to have cooked the books and rigged peer review processes to support the man-made global warming theory, even when substantial evidence suggested this might not be the case.

Since the first release, more and more information came to light. The lack of compliance with Freedom of Information Requests made to the CRU. Evidence that the data that the IPCC study was based on was tainted or not available for examination increased the questions.

Now it is becoming obvious that the real scandal is that climate scientists at the IPCC and environmentalists have behaved like everyday politicians. In other words, they have rigged the results to protect their revenue sources.

The best thing the citizens of the United States can do is demand that the Marky-Waxman cap and trade bill be killed. We should demand that the US refuse to sign on to anything like the Copenhagen protocols. We should demand a proper investigation of the funding of the scientists affiliated with IPCC, and demand to see the data, and allow other, genuinely impartial scientists to see it and evaluate it.

Meanwhile, new releases of the current thriller keep coming to a computer near you. Even some of the British press have discovered what’s going on. The American media are still ignoring the corruption and incompetence at IPCC. Will the Washington Post wake up in time? Will NBC report on Phil Jones, former CRU head, admitting that they were wrong about the Medieval Warming Period? Stay tuned for the next episode!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn’t support JavaScript, or they didn’t load fast enough.


  1. Jeb

    February 16th, 2010 at 17:48

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #1

    The lack of compliance with Freedom of Information Requests made to the CRU.

    1. The information lost by CRU is not the primary data, but a compilation of data. The original source data is still out there and is still available to be recompiled.

    2. The one FOIA request for primary data I am aware of was made by CEI for the GISS data. That data is freely available for download from GISS and has been for quite some time making the FOIA request more than a bit odd.

    Evidence that the data that the IPCC study was based on was tainted or not available for examination increased the questions.

    All or nearly all of the primary data is available for download by anyone so the claim that the data is not available for examination is specious.

    I assume that you are referring to stations pointed out by Watts. Those stations actually pull the trend cooler rather than warmer. Couple this with the broad agreement with satellite data and it looks like this is not a strong challenge to AGW.

    In other words, they have rigged the results to protect their revenue sources.

    A strong statement and one that the evidence does not support.

    For the past three decades, there has been a steady claim that the earth was facing disaster unless the world’s leading economies made substantial changes

    You are off by about a decade. The first studies indicating global climate change (warming) were in the 80s, but the consensus in the scientific community wasn’t built until the 90s and there was virtually no popular support for the theory until the mid to late 90s. (It is a nit and I wouldn’t have bothered with this were it not for the rest.)

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN body, claimed to have all the data to support the theory that man-made climate change was occurring.

    More precisely they claimed to have enough evidence to support a 90% certainty in AGW.

    According to the media, the few who did question the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings were kooks, and not real scientists at all.

    The loudest ones at least were/are. Most of the more rational skeptics questioned degree of change and degree of change caused by humans rather than claiming that there was no warming trend or the more ridiculous humans can’t change the climate.

    It seemed the science behind man-made global warming wasn’t quite so scientific after all. In fact, it looked more like something from one of those B flicks

    A gross exaggeration. There were a few troubling e-mails, but the one that drew the most fire was much ado about nothing. The ‘trick’ e-mail was no smoking gun and was in fact entirely innocent.


  2. monk

    February 16th, 2010 at 19:13

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #2

    Jeb, Perhaps human activity is responsible for climate change and perhaps not. I don’t know, but I really doubt it is. The problem is very basic though. If a compelling case is to be made that human activity is responsible for global warming, then it needs to account for several very fundamental scientific premises. For instance, one of the emails states: [paraphrased] “we don’t know where the warming has gone…” refers to the past 15 years of cooling. Jeb, let’s you and I not “spin” this, Ok? It is a failure to account for Conservation of Energy. Plain and simple. It is not up for interpretation-nor is it taken out of context. It is what it is. That is not something to be ignored. It is huge-and would nearly doom any other scientific thesis. The inability of any hypothesis to account for Conservation of Energy is a deal breaker. (cont)


  3. monk

    February 16th, 2010 at 19:14

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #3

    (cont) Moreover, it has been claimed by AGW apologists that the recent cooling trend of the past 15 years (and most very obviously the past 3) is a result of Global Warming; that their “models” predicted it; and that it is par for the course. Again, the problem with this argument is very basic. It is unscientific because it literally defies the Laws of Thermo-dynamics, which is yet another huge deal breaker. Any hypothesis that fails to account for thermodynamics is flawed. I am not claiming that the over-all conclusion is necessarily wrong-although I suspect that it is. But, I am pointing out that the argued science, as it has been presented thus far, is not compelling in the least. One need not confuse alarmism with settled science. One is temporarily compelling to many, but that is only a bubble. (cont)


  4. monk

    February 16th, 2010 at 19:15

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #4

    (cont) Even if we were to assume that humans are capable of catastrophically influencing the planet’s climate another basic problem is evident: Due to precepts defined by Chaos Theory, such effects would NOT be remotely predictable. This one is also a huge deal breaker.

    Finally, the arguments for AGW also focused on a purported “scientific consensus” — a claim that has turned out to not be true. And this is a crusher-even if there had been a consensus, as scientists, they should know that TRUTH is not established by a show of hands. It wasn’t in Galileo’s day, and it isn’t now. Truth stands or falls on its own merit.


  5. courtenay334

    February 16th, 2010 at 20:34

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #5

    There are two issues related to Climategate that really got my attention. The first is – have human beings learned nothing at all since the dark days of the Third Reich, when people in Germany simply ‘went along’ with orthodoxy of the day? From the level of acceptance of the global warming fraud, the answer is, no, they haven’t learned anything at all. People committed precisely the same errors today as Germans did in the 30’s and 40’s. Blindly accept propaganda as fact; fail to check facts for self; fail to think logically. The moment anyone would have tried to sell me on the idea that Jews were a problem I would have immediately checked the facts. Um. Highest representation in the arts, science, law. Lowest representation among inmates. And these are bad people? But Germans didn’t check the facts. They did as most people today – they ‘went along for the ride’. That’s a travesty.


  6. courtenay334

    February 16th, 2010 at 20:36

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #6

    So, what else is going on? Okay. We now know that a vast army of academics, ‘scientists’, governments, government agencies, ‘environMental’ groups the media, and assorted other hangers-on were in on the global warming fraud. So, what other con jobs have we been subjected to? Ones for which we don’t yet have a Climategate type release of emails? Really? Climategate is the first and only time we’ve been had??? Do you think!!! What I think is that we’ve been had, in the global warming sense, a number of times, mostly on the big ticket items, but we haven’t yet been fortunate enough to get the goods on them.


  7. Climate meltdown continues « TWAWKI

    February 16th, 2010 at 23:06

    #7


  8. Alan

    February 16th, 2010 at 22:00

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #8

    Jeb – “The information lost by CRU is not the primary data, but a compilation of data” – False, Jones has admitted himself he’s conveniently lost the data. More to the point, the FOIA requests were to determine how he came up with the figures and results. Virtually nowhere currently publishes raw temp’ data, it’s ‘corrected’. We want to know what exactly were these “corrections” and why?

    “I assume that you are referring to stations pointed out by Watts. Those stations actually pull the trend cooler rather than warmer” – Not according to Watts!

    “A strong statement and one that the evidence does not support” It’s right there in the source code and emails.


  9. Alan

    February 16th, 2010 at 22:00

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #9

    “You are off by about a decade.” Correct. And a decade previously we were all doomed by a rapidly freezing ice age…

    “More precisely they claimed to have enough evidence to support a 90% certainty in AGW”

    BS. They claim to be able to predict the effects of AGW, yet now you say they weren’t sure if it even existed?

    “The ‘trick’ e-mail was no smoking gun and was in fact entirely innocent”

    Garbage. It’s the smoking gun that proves tree rings are not an accurate measure of temperatures, OR that the Earth was cooling. Pick one? The “trick” was hiding that divurgence by substituting (dodgy, we now know) thermometer data rather than showing the later tree ring data. They then claimed the data, which in the small print they admitted divurged, wasn’t “available”.

    In simple terms, they cherry-picked data to create a fake hocket stick (again!)


  10. Duuuuh

    February 17th, 2010 at 09:37

    LMAO! You just can’t make this stuff up about them making stuff up. The debate just may be over about the debate that was over. Phil Jones and huge host of cohorts seems to have attempted to commit fraud and extortion. At best they are only guilty of incompetence. How big is Bernie Maddoff’s jail cell… move over Bernie!

    But then… Since Phil is a proving to be a compulsive liar and he is now saying that no evidence of warming in the past 15 years, maybe there IS evidence of warming that he is hiding somewhere. Wouldn’t that be a cool twist to the plot. Someone should look into that before all the poor polar bear stories are driven into extinction.


  11. Duuuuh

    February 17th, 2010 at 09:47

    The problem is not that human beings haven’t learned anything… they did learn before it was too late. The problem is that the current generation didn’t pay attention and wouldn’t listen to the lessons. Now they must re-“learn” the lessons the hard way. We can only hope that maybe the next generation will “get it”.


  12. Orson Buggeigh

    February 17th, 2010 at 14:13

    A quick follow up here. Thanks to all for responses. Jeb’s response would have been more compelling to me except so many of the points he brings up are about six months behind the news releases. For starters, there were not one but repeated FOI requests made to the CRU. One of the e-mails specifically notes efforts to avoid responding. When someone says they will destroy data rather than release it, it should raise questions. While it is possible that this was a frustrated man’s outburst, the other e-mails indicate that this was not a frustrated exclamation, but a frustrated group seeking to protect their status and grant funding. Status and grant funding which depended on a specific outcome of their work. So, it appears, they forced the data, manipulated the data, and cherry-piked the data to obtain the desired results.

    As more material has come out, East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit has come under a much more rigorous investigation than the one at Pennsylvania. While Dr. Mann’s defenders have been claiming that he was cleared by it, students are protesting and calling it a whitewash. The students are probably correct on this one. Unlike Dr. Mann, Dr. Jones has been removed – temporarily if he is cleared.

    When the co-author of the IPCC study, Rajendra Pachauri, has been pressed, he has had to admit that he has made mistakes in the IPCC reports. All the mistakes, however, go only in the direction that supports the man-made global warming thesis. These include the claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt into oblivion by 2035. And the fact that he was advised that this was not probably BEFORE the Copenhagen conference only came out afterwards. So Mr. Pachauri’s veracity is highly suspect.

    Unfortunately, I have an early meeting and can’t continue at length just now. In short, since November, 2009 there has been ample evidence of sloppy research, unscientific practices, mishandling data, loss of data, and possible criminal behavior associated with the people most vocally supporting the man-made global warming thesis. There has been equally ample evidence suggesting the critics have been intentionally ignored, that they have been delegitimized (classic Alinsky tactics by the way), and that members of the US media have been remarkably disinterested in something which may make Bernard Madoff’s financial fraud look like pocket change. People should be outraged. And they should be demanding their congresscritters drop any expensive, far-reaching legislation regarding massive economic changes which allege to be in support of the climate. If for no other reason than there is NO credible science to support claims for man-made global warming. They are on a par with cold fusion.







PoliGazette Comments Policy


PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.


(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others’ comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.


(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.


(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.


(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others’ words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter’s own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.


(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. “Obama is a Muslim”) or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.


Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.