Climategate - All your emails are belong to us !

Want to know more ? Put "climategate" or "cru emails" or "climate change fraud" into your favorite search engine. "bing" at http://www.bing.com will return nearly over FOUR times the results that "google" does ... and with less bias towards the side of Climate Change Alarmism ! The short of it all is that thanks to a whistleblower who released 1000s of emails and documents into the internut, CRU (Climate Research Unit) scientists who have had the ear of the IPCC have been caught out colluding in quite the criminal manner in order to help promote the lie of Anthropogenic Global Warming in order to no doubt protect their public funding and reputations. More to follow ... but in the mean time, I'll let the moving pictures do the talking. regarDS

Indulging my carbon offset nipples !

"Today I ...", in the "offline world", got to share a social occasion at "Little Creatures" in Freo with somebody who (if I understood the job title correctly) earns their bread and butter by not only supporting and promoting the Grand Lie of AGW/MMCC (Anthropogenic Global Warming / Man Made Climate Change), but also via the Great Fraud/Scam of our era, "Carbon Trading".

We had only known each other for prolly less than 5 minutes when The Discussion got underway, and all because LSCP ("LifeStyle Choices Partner" for those who have come in late) asked him what he did for a living and he foolishly answered "Carbon Management".

Can you image my glee and the tingle induced to my erogenous zones upon hearing such a thing ?

At one stage we had to turn things back down to about 11 (refer to The Amp on "This is Spinal Tap" ) coz he didn't like me talking about public funded professional scare-mongerers Karoly and Flim-Flannery in disparaging terms.

By the time I got to drop the name "Andrew Bolt" at our drinking table (the great names of James Delingpole and the award winning science blog "wattsupwiththat.com" already having been mentioned), my warmista drinking companion was calling me "satan" and I was calling him "gullible". :-) 

LSCP's take on the evening is that this poor fellow just simply could not believe that I was serious in my rejection of the mythical "consensus" he Truly Believed in, along with the utterly failed hypothesis of global climate change being caused by levels of atmospheric CO2, let alone mankind's pitiful contributions to the near to starvation (for flora) levels of atmospheric CO2.

To be fair and on the flip side, I just simply could not believe he was serious when he suggested that the quality of life I was enjoying thanks to relatively cheap energy generated by plant-food creating coal, could not possible be making me happy and that I would actually prefer to live without all those wonderful things cheap energy brings me.

My LSCP's view was that he thought I musta been just taking the p!ss, even though I said I had been part of a grass-roots letter writing movement that produced over 400,000 items of corro to pollies about the nation and that in turn helped see Malcolm Turncoat ousted as Liberal Party leader which in turn saw KRudd, Killard (so renamed because of her "roll out the red carpet to queue jumping economic opportunists" border control policies that has seen who knows how many wannabe illegal immigrants drown at sea), Turncoat, and Penny Wrong's ETS/CPRS stopped in its tracks.

Anyhoo, twas all fun (well, from my POV), nobody lost an eye, and I just had to LOL at his end of the evening compliment to me of "they say satan always takes an appealing guise".

I told him to put "derspatz" into google or "Hitler" + "AGW" into youtube. ;)

Actually, it has been a while, so here again is my take on Hitler's reaction to Briffa's Yamal tree ring data and all it implied.

I'll only include the youtube link because for some strange reason embedding mucks up the captions.

See: http://www.youtube.com/embed/cTGLpqFGyYM

... and for good measure, here is a favorite youtube of mine from the "JollyGreenWatchman":  http://www.youtube.com/embed/-esLrrqGKkE (linked coz of caption issues when embedding)

Anyhoo, cheers, ummm, "Gullible" (name changed to protect the identity of a modern day peddler of what is akin to the useless Roman Catholic "Indulgences" ala "permissions to sin" system of old :-)), it was all fun, and I'm sure that lump of cow you ate for dinner was raised a vegetarian.  :-) :-) :-)

Oh, and on the subject of carbon trading, here is an idea that might even tempt this little so called "satan":

OTOH, going to bed for money is called prostitution isn't it ?

Oh, and here is yet another youtube I found interesting. All about the Bias of the BBC (much like Oz's "ABC") and "The Guardian" (much like Oz's "The Age"), particularly in relation to the Big Lie of our era, "Man Made Climate Change".

Enjoy. :-)

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO63oWe6XXo

My parting comment today is something I informed a iPad carrying drone for Bono's "One" activist/fake charity group at a 360 degrees concert late last year.

"Left wing politics is the problem, not the solution"

Something which painfully apparent here in Oz at the moment.

regarDS

It's the Peppered moths, all over again ...

See http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/butterflies-linked-to-climate-change-20100317-qfm4.html (with the utterly misleading and inaccurate headline of "Butterflies fly early as planet warms" ... since when is Melbourne "the planet" ?) for how Melbourne Uni's AGW alarmist and publicly funded MMGCC (man made global climate change) advocate and lobbyist, David Karoly, has boldy attached his name to the gob-smacking latest lunacy being used to prop up the AGW religion.

Yes, if you visited the link, you just read how butterflies in Melbourne are to deemed a direct proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Yep, David Karoly basically wants you to believe that Melboreds Urban Heat Island Effect (thanks to it being a growing city) equals Man-Made Global Climate Change.

ffs, the study revolves around studing creatures in A CITY, you know, a place where populations, buildings and roads increase and spread, and the UHI effect generally increases, ... so should any of us be surprised that the growth and changes of/in a city should have an effect on the flora and fauna found within ... and who would deny that it happens anyway ?

Sheesh, what next ... another look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth ("The Peppered Moth") and a revision to say it wasn't the amount of evil coal dust around that determined which colour varieties were "the fittest" for survival re: predation, but actually the amount of CO2 in the local atmosphere ?

Anyhoo, I've heard that Melboredites like to see themselves as the whole world, but isn't it getting a bit ridiculous to claim that the city's UHI equals Man-Made Global Climate Change ala Anthropogenic Global Warming ?

Aside from that, can you also now think of a better way your taxes should be spent than on the likes of Karoly and Co ?

Oh, and how is the collecting of data on breeding cycle of butterflys OUTSIDE Melbored's UHI going ?

Did the so called "scientists" bother to study that, or where they all just too busy pushing a barrow (one that also serves to carry the grant funding back to the lab) and providing Karoly with the subject matter for his next bit of advocacy and lobbying on his chosen religion, AGW ?
Hmmmm, let's look at that article provided in the link again. Oh, here we are:

"Dr Kearney said the study, which relates specifically to Melbourne, would prove a practical tool to forecast the impact of climate change on the city's biodiversity."

Nope, just Melbourne.

But it gets worse (or better, depending on which side of reason you are).

Look what has happened to the news item once it made its way out of Oz and on to the rest of the world.

Whatever happened to this being a study of the life cycle of butterflies in MELBOURNE !?

Spun wilder than a common brown butterfly's cocoon found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7464687/Butterflies-emerging-earlier-due-to-climate-change.html

But let's quote a bit here and lock it in.

Butterflies emerging earlier due to climate change
Published: 7:20AM GMT 17 Mar 2010

Butterflies are emerging from their cocoons ten days earlier than 65 years ago because of climate change, experts warn.

The finding represents the first concrete evidence of a link between greenhouse gases and the timing of a natural event, according to researchers.

The team found that on average, the Common Brown butterfly (Heteronympha merope) has emerged earlier and earlier over the last half century, with an average of 1.6 days per decade over a 65 year span.

Researchers from the University of Melbourne said that the findings tally with a corresponding increase in temperature of 0.14 degrees Celsius per decade over the same period.

This warming is shown to be human-induced, researchers say.

Lead author of the study Dr Michael Kearney, from the Department of Zoology, said the findings could help our ability to forecast future impacts of climate change on biodiversity.

He said: "Shifts in these seasonal life cycle events represent a challenge to species, altering the food and competition present at the time of hatching. Studies such as ours will allow better forecasting of these shifts and help us understand more about their consequences."

The study, funded by an Australian Research Council grant to Monash, Melbourne and Wisconsin Universities, is due to be published in Royal Society journal Biology Letters.

The team looked at catterpillars raised in the lab and compared their development to increases in temperature and climate change models.

Professor David Karoly said: "Scientists have previously observed that biological events are happening progressively earlier in spring over the past few decades.

"This new work has tied the earlier emergence of butterflies directly to a regional temperature increase, and has tied the temperature increase very strongly to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations caused by humans."

If you hadn't already read the original report that specifically says the study was limited to Melbourne, a city, would it be fair to suggest that the above article would tend to have you think that researchers from the three listed universities had studied "the common brown butterfly" all around the world, and determined that all around the world, where ever it was found, it was hatching out 10 days earlier than it did around 65 years ago ?

For an additional collection of points of view on the topic, also see: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/could_more_concrete_asphalt_and_industry_have_made_laverton_warmer/ which also includes arial photos that show how the lay of the land where the temperatures were gathered from has changed over the period of the butterfly study.

Now ask yourself, why are the likes of Karoly and the Telegraph so keen for the natural cycle of climate change to be seen as being man made, global, ... and bad ?

[edit] About a month later now, and here is something else on the topic, this time from the award winning science blog "Watts Up With That" and commenting on "Confirmation Bias".  See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/23/butterfly-study-a-case-study-in-confirmation-bias/#more-18856

[edit++] Tis now June 2010, and here is the latest on the topic, this time from the Royal Society Publishing. See: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/07/rsbl.2010.0053.short/reply ... and wonder if Karoly et al should be subjected to a rigorous public conducted enquiry in relation to grant funding, etc.

The long and short of the Royal Society published article is that both Kearney and Karoly are just plain wrong, wrong, wrong, and probably fraudulently so.

Anyone really surprised that this would prove to be the case ?

regarDS

Climategate - "I am a climate scientist ..."

Above image from:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/#more-13698 It shows the Real Story of the climate cycle as opposed to the one Michael Mann fraudulently wanted the IPCC (et al) to believe in ... one with no prior warmer-than-now time called "The Medieval Warm Period" that helps prove that humankind is NOT the cause of global climate change.

I recently found the following on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#more-13710 and AFAIC, it is worthy of as much mirrored blogspace as it can get ... so here it is:

I am a climate scientist, and it is clear that the evidence that “human activity is prominent [sic] agent in global warming” is NOT overwhelming. The repeated statement that it is does not make it so. Further, even if we accepted the hypothesis, cap-and-trade legislation does not do anything about it.

Here are the facts. We have known for years that the Mann hockey stick model was wrong, and we know why it was wrong (Mann used only selected data to normalize the principal component analysis, not all of it). He retracted the model. We have known for years that the Medieval Warm period occurred, where the temperatures were higher than they are now (Chaucer spoke of vineyards in northern England).

Long before ClimateGate it was known that the IPCC people were trying to fudge the data to get rid of the MWP. And for good reason. If the MWP is “allowed” to exist, this means that temperatures higher than today did not then create a “runaway greenhouse” in the Middle Ages with methane released from the Arctic tundra, ice cap albedo lost, sea levels rising to flood London, etc. etc.), and means that Jim Hansen’s runaway greenhouse that posits only amplifying feedbacks (and no damping feedbacks) will not happen now. We now know that the models on which the IPCC alarms are based to not do clouds, they do not do the biosphere, they do not explain the Pliocene warming, and they have never predicted anything, ever, correctly.

As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm (not that the models are poor approximations for reality); the underpredictions (where are the storms? Why “hide the decline”?) are ignored or hidden.

As for CO2, we have known for years that CO2 increases have never in the past 300,000 years caused temperature rise (CO2 rise trails temperature increase). IPCC scientists know this too (see their “Copenhagen Diagnosis”); we know that their mathematical fudges that dismiss the fact that CO2 has not been historically causative of temperature rise are incorrect as well. We have also known for years that the alleged one degree temperature rise from 1880 vanishes if sites exposed to urban heat islands are not considered.

We have long known that Jones’s paper dismissing this explanation (Jones, et al. 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172) is wrong and potentially fraudulent (see the same data used to confirm urban heat islands in Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380). Everyone except Briffa knows that the Briffa conclusions are wrong, and why they are wrong; groups in Finland, Canada (lots of places actually) show cooling by this proxy, not warming; the IPCC even printed the Finn’s plot upside down to convert the fact (cooling) into the dogma (warming).

Prof. McCarthy is, of course, part of the IPCC that has suppressed dissenting viewpoints based on solid climate science. His claim to support by “peer review” is nonsense; he has helped corrupt the peer review process. We now have documentary evidence that Jones, Mann, and the other IPCC scientists have been gaming peer review and blackballing opponents. On this point, the entire IPCC staff, including Prof. McCarthy, neither have nor deserve our trust.

We have tolerated years of the refusal of Mann and Jones to release data. Now, we learn that much of these data were discarded (one of about 4 data sets that exist), something that would in any other field of science lead to disbarment. We have been annoyed by Al Gore, who declared this science “settled”, refused to debate, and demonized skeptics (this is anti-science: debate and skepticism are the core of real science, which is never settled). The very fact that Prof. McCarthy attempts to bluff Congress by asserting the existence of fictional “overwhelming evidence” continues this anti-science activity.

All of this was known before Climategate. What was not known until now was the extent to which Jones and Mann were simply deceiving themselves (which happens often in science) or fraudently attempting to deceive others. I am not willing to crucify Jones on the word “trick”. Nor, for that matter, on the loss of primary data, keeping only “value added” data (which is hopelessly bad science, but still conceivably not fraud).

But the computer code is transparently fraudulent. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it.

If, as Prof. McCarthy insists, “peer review” was functioning, and the IPCC reports are rigorously peer reviewed, why was this not caught? When placing it in context made it highly likely that this type of fraud was occurring?

The second question is: Will this revelation be enough to cause the “global warming believers” to abandon their crusade, and for people to return to sensible environmental science (water use, habitat destruction, land use, this kind of thing)? Perhaps it will.

Contrary to Prof. McCarthy’s assertion, we have not lost just one research project amid dozens of others that survive. A huge set of primary data are apparently gone. Satellite data are scarcely 40 years old. Everything is interconnected, and anchored on these few studies. Even without the corruption of the peer review process, this is as big a change as quantum mechanics was in physics a century ago.

But now we know that peer review was corrupted, and that no “consensus” exists. The “2500 scientists agree” number is fiction (God knows who they are counting, but to get to this number, they must be including referees, spouses, and pets).

The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.

Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains “overwhelming support” for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.

Posted by Sean December 2, 09 11:26 PM

And for an example of the kind of code cooking going on that shows what fraudulent mischief the CRU crew were up to, go here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/

And how is this from an Oz newspaper found here: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-email-mess-hits-australia-20091204-kb39.html ?

What the hell was Phil Jones and the rest of his colluding CRU crew using for raw data anyway ?

... The Australian data comes in for particular criticism as the programmer discovers World Meteorological Organisation codes are missing, station names overlap and many co-ordinates are incorrect.

At one point the programmer writes about his attempts to make sense of the data. "What a bloody mess," he concludes.

In another case, 30 years of data is attributed to a site at Cobar Airport but the frustrated programmer writes: "Now looking at the dates. something bad has happened ... COBAR AIRPORT AWS [automatic weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!"

In another he says: "Getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data ... so many false references ... so many changes ... bewildering." ...

Wow, weather station data from a weather station not established until 32 years later ... now THERE is a "trick" !

Seems to me that the only thing holding up AGW now is religious blind faith and wishful thinking ... and why would anyone want it to be true anyway, hmmm ?

regarDS