Fear and Loathing in Global Warming

By Nov 21, 2009, 2:38 AM Author's Blog  

There is an old adage: You can never trust the Left.

Fear and Loathing in Global WarmingIt has just been proven true again with Global Warming. Think of all the righteous indignation at skeptics, the mocking and demonization of critics, the strident alarmism, the need for urgent measures, the maudlin fawning over polar bears, and all that. Yet the science is unproven and the world appears to be cooling off, or at least pausing in warming.

What if a small cabal at the center of the data has been perpetrating a huge fraud on the rest of us?

Yesterday the British climate data at the Hadley/CRU climate research unit was hacked and the stolen data posted in Russia then rapidly disseminated on the web. I first thought the story was a hoax, but apparently the CRU center has confirmed the breach. Now the MSM is picking this up. The authenticity of the emails is not disputed. And they are devastating to the credibility of this cabal at the center of the GW case.

The backstory here begins with some brave amateur sleuths led by Steve McIntyre who first debunked the Mann Hockey Stick, the linchpin of the GW argument. Then they debunked the attempt to resurrect the hockey stick. They showed the bad science behind the Steig Antarctic “Pac Man”. A couple of whistle blowers were keeping watch on the whole enterprise, with governments, universities, scientists and Al Gore all arrayed against them. They kept asking for the data behind the GW analysis, and were refused and blocked from getting it. The CRU webpage even claimed it had lost the data!

Now it turns out this was all a load of fraud, misdirection and lies.

The admissions in the emails are so bad these clowns should go to jail for fraud – Fraud of a Bernie Madoff scale. Fraud with a capital F. A whole bunch of the damning emails are excerpted in this article. More are attached or excerpted in the comments to this post of Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit site. Here are some examples:

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.

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.

As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations. [This is from Michael Mann of the Hockey Stick]

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! … The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil

PS 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 !

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. [From the same Phil as above, the director of CRU]

If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean … It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip

I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Enough! There is a lot more in this vein. If you want to read the most entertaining rant on this fraud, read Karl Denninger’s reaction: “it is time to pull the curtain down on this crap and start locking up all of the proponents – starting with AL GORE.” He includes even more smoking gun emails. Here is one more that specifically points out fraudulent use of data in the vaunted IPCC reports:

47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year. The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?

GW always had the potential to be the eco-Vietnam, the quagmire that drags down the whole environmental movement. We have just had its Watergate. Time for the GW Plumbers to go to jail: Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes and Kevin Trenberth. They were the ones circulating the emails, they were the co-conspirators of the fraud, and they deserve to be treated as the self-righteous con men they have been shown to be.

If Al Gore were President, he would have to resign.

  • SHARE:

6 Comments

  1. Poptech says:

    “From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
    Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

    I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

    Cheers
    Phil”

    Here are a “few” of the papers they managed to keep out,

    450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

  2. mitchell porter says:

    This article: “Now it turns out this was all a load of fraud, misdirection and lies.”

    As someone at Climate Audit just commented:

    “All the snippets I have seen (without reading the email file myself) at least indicate that Jones, Mann etc believe the theory they are pushing. I have seen nothing to suggest they are pushing AGW for personal or political reasons. Unfortunately they, like many people, seem to think the end (showing the truth of their theory) justifies the means (pressuring people who are supposed to be independent, concealing data, publishing analysis which are not fully justifiable, etc).

    “Since the emails were (presumably) not written with a view to their publication, we can also be sure that they truly believe Steve is a pest who is usually wrong, not a pest who is usually right. I wish they, or somebody else, would explain why climate science lets them be so sure.”

  3. John says:

    NASA’s Latest Discovery: SUN HEATS THE EARTH (American Thincker, June 05, 2009) – Robert Calahan at NASA’s Goddard Space Center could be in big trouble — for telling the truth. Here is a headline for an article in the Daily Tech: “NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming”… World’s Largest Science Group Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears:
    http://cristiannegureanu.blogspot.com/2009/07/worlds-largest-science-group-rejecting.html

  4. mkurbo says:

    What a wonderful day for humanity !

    The hoax is over, the kids can go back to playing and stop worrying about the polar bears and the criminals who brought this scam upon the world will now be put on trial. The “green” movement was hijacked by socialist progressives and used as a weapon to scare the world into their “vision” of behavior and tax us into oblivion. Now it is over and the revolt back to common sense is on ! Yeah !!

    With all the time, money and effort wasted on AGW, we could have really done some good in the world. Wake-up everyone, time to use that energy on real problems…

  5. If you really doubt that climate change is real, you absolutely must move beyond simple temperature measurements to actual synoptic studies.

    What these proper, genuine synoptic studies show is, in contrast to what temperature studies alone can show, is that there have been quite alarming climate changes dating back to the late 1960s (see “http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/12/tropics_expanding_fast_1.html”). They show that the boundary of the Hadley circulation and the subtropical arid belt has shifted as much as ten degrees poleward over the past forty years – from around 25˚ to around 35˚ either side of the equator.

    It is a grave pity that these studies do not look at Tertiary paleoclimate data that show the boundary of the Hadley circulation to have been around 45˚ to 50˚ of latitude right up until the end of the Miocene. In the case of Australia, that would put the arid belt extending right to South East Cape and the monsoon zone covering the vast interior.

    • John Smith says:

      Climate always changes and CO2 is just not a big factor. This whole thing has been a big hoax where coincidence was turned into scientific fact.

LEAVE A COMMENT

SPY187.83  chart+0.38  chart +0.20%
GOOG525.16  chart-1.78  chart -0.34%
AAPL567.77  chart+43.02  chart +8.20%
TSLA207.86  chart-0.13  chart -0.06%
BBRY7.34  chart-0.02  chart -0.27%
NFLX344.07  chart-9.43  chart -2.67%
FB60.87  chart-0.49  chart -0.80%

DJIA Fut16330.00  chart-9.00  chart -0.06%
Nasdaq Fut3718.00  chart+19.00  chart +0.51%
S&P Fut1872.80  chart+21.80  chart +1.17%
Oil Fut102.15  chart+0.02  chart +0.02%
Gold Fut1311.80  chart+17.1001  chart +1.32%

Nikkei14404.99  chart-141.279  chart -0.97%
Shanghai0.00  chartN/A  chartN/A
UK6703.00  chart+28.26  chart +0.42%
France4479.54  chart+28.46  chart +0.64%
Germany9548.68  chart+4.489  chart +0.05%