Climategate

Deep Easterly

The paranoia is in bloom, the PR
The transmissions will resume
They'll try to push drugs
Keep us all dumbed down and hope that
We will never see the truth around
(So come on!)

Another promise, another scene, another
A package not to keep us trapped in greed
With all the green belts wrapped around our minds
And endless red tape to keep the truth confined


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsylT6aFtcs

There is this old expression that "you cant polish a turd"

well Mythbusters have....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI

What has this to do with "climategate"... well the AGW supporters clains are well polished!

silverharp

Man Gets ClimateGate Out On CBC

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=538_1259608217

Deep Easterly

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Just been watching a "Climate Change" expert, a one Kieran Hickey from NUIG on Primetime. Blaming the recent heavy rain on Global Warming. I find this both insulting to me and to the people who have suffered terribly over the last week with flooding. He is just exploiting people's misery to push this concept further in my opinion. What these people want and need is help, not to have Climate Change rammed down their throats.

I wonder were the drier than average months of both September and October down to Climate Change? Were the frontal waves that passed over Ireland last week directly attributed to climate change? They can be easily explained from a meteorological perspective, so I would be interested to know how Global warming actually caused the conditions to occur?

Anyone?

Remnants of Tropical Storm Ida, so freak conditions which pulled up air from the tropics caused this rather than air being this turbulent and energised around these parts of the world

asdasd

The gulf stream, eh?

I thought that was doomed....


(Thats not a animation of anomalies, just surface temp, so in itself nothing it proves).

bobblepuzzle

2,500 best scientists with the same agenda, a world economy worth billions of dollars investigating the myth of man made global warming... not one of these "best" scientists is ever going to turn around and say "well actually, we may not have a problem here...." and Global Warming Correspondants in the press are not going to mention it either.... this is an absolute scam on a global scale... humans are not reponsible for global warming, and never were!

Deep Easterly

That is a great chart Blindjustice.

Pa ElGrande

There was a stage during the 1970s when climate change alarmists were predicting another ice age as a result of industrial output, out of this developed the nuclear winter scenario. Once the nuclear war threat stood down with the Communist bloc collapse in the 1980s, the global warming theory as a result of mans activity became dominant, they could not put it down to industrialisation in the west as a lot of heavy polluting industry moved to China since the 70s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lZUhz3Ss4U

If you want to correlate warm and cool periods with what we know about history, warmer times have been times of human flourishing, expanding economic activity, scientific progress, and cultural expression. And cooler times have been times of starvation, disease, and the collapse of civilisation. The real problem for scientists who engage in this practice of fudging data, however, may be that — one day — scientists will cry wolf to a public that has learned to ignore them.


The other aspect that many people overlook about the push for carbon legislation is the massive involvement of the banks, some people are going to become very, very rich in monetary terms as a result of this (Some already are). Carbon credits are becoming the next Ponzi scheme as another financial derivatives bubble is created.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uFm8obBBO0

Unfortunately, the banks control the money, and they influence the politicians who pass laws granting them favourable outcomes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8389727.stm

Scientist in climate change data row steps down

Professor Phil Jones has stepped down as director of the CRU
The research director at the centre of a row over climate change data said he would stand down from the post while there is an independent review.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Norwich-based University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU), has said he stands by his data.

Sceptics claim the e-mails, leaked after a UEA server was hacked into, showed data was being manipulated.

Climategate's second victim!

nilhg

Good ould ding dong on Pat Kenny's show ATM, be worth having a listen later on if ya didn't catch it live.

Min

nilhg wrote: »

Good ould ding dong on Pat Kenny's show ATM, be worth having a listen later on if ya didn't catch it live.

Yes, I second that.

It was certainly no holds barred.

The BBC have opened up a debate on Climategate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm

'Show Your Working': What 'ClimateGate' means


VIEWPOINT
Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz


The "ClimateGate" affair - the publication of e-mails and documents hacked or leaked from one of the world's leading climate research institutions - is being intensely debated on the web. But what does it imply for climate science? Here, Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz say it shows that we need a more concerted effort to explain and engage the public in understanding the processes and practices of science and scientists.

Discodog

The Pat Kenny bitchfest debate is here - well worth a listen.

feed://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_patkenny.xml


It is quite a thought as to how the eminent scientific community, governments etc could cope if it did turn out to be load of rubbish. Would the public ever believe again ?

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

Thats baffling ^^ and amazing. What conclusions can come from this?
A) CO2 increases have been totally natural? and our emissions completely neglible?!
or
As the earth warms the capacity to absorb CO2 increases?

?? what the hell!

Redsunset

Poo!!!


http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=28984389001&title=Michael Mann Responds to Climategate Allegations

Am tempted to start a new thread with this

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091205.html

Release of global-average temperature data
05 December 2009


The Met Office has announced plans to release, early next week, station temperature records for over one thousand of the stations that make up the global land surface temperature record.


This data is a subset of the full HadCRUT record of global temperatures, which is one of the global temperature records that have underpinned IPCC assessment reports and numerous scientific studies. The data subset will consist of a network of individual stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organisation for use in climate monitoring. The subset of stations is evenly distributed across the globe and provides a fair representation of changes in mean temperature on a global scale over land.

This subset is not a new global temperature record and it does not replace the HadCRUT, NASA GISS and NCDC global temperature records, all of which have been fully peer reviewed. We are confident this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years.


This subset release will continue the policy of putting as much of the station temperature record as possible into the public domain.


We intend that as soon as possible we will also publish the specific computer code that aggregates the individual station temperatures into the global land temperature record.


As soon as we have all permissions in place we will release the remaining station records - around 5000 in total - that make up the full land temperature record. We are dependant on international approvals to enable this final step and cannot guarantee that we will get permission from all data owners.


UEA fully supports the Met Office in making this data publicly available and is continuing to work with the Met Office to seek the necessary permission from national data owners to publish, as soon as possible as much of the data that we can gain permission for.

Will be interesting to see what others think of the raw data.

Min

Deleted User wrote: »

Am tempted to start a new thread with this

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091205.html





Will be interesting to see what others think of the raw data.

Lets hope they are not using shoddy equipment or corrupt software.

mike65

Whoops

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm

The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

"Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035," the report said.

It suggested three quarters of a billion people who depend on glacier melt for water supplies in Asia could be affected.

But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

"The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates - its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350," Mr Kotlyakov's report said.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and "misread 2350 as 2035".

Starting to sound like the misplaced decimal point against the iron content of spinach cockup, only not so ammusing.;)

http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&source=hp&q=i+have+never+witnessed+a+more+disturbing+corruption+of+the+peer+review+process+than+the+events+that+led+to+this+IPCC+report&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=i+have+never+witnessed+a+more+disturbing+corruption+of+the+peer+review+process+than+the+events+that+led+to+this+IPCC+report&fp=1&cad=b



^^ as far back as 1996 people have been saying the IPCC were corrupt!!
A few years ago I watched both "An inconvenient truth" and "the great global warming swindle". Being honest the Al Gore movie tended to sway me more.

Just watch The great global warming swindle now and google all the points they make and see the evidence for yourself !!!!!

We already know that Gores movie has been in the UK High court for being misleading!! :mad:

mike65

UK Met Office to re-examine all data since 1840s

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html

The latest:

Although McIntyre's exposure of the "hockey stick" was upheld in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress, the small group of scientists at the top of the IPCC brushed this aside by pointing at a hugely influential series of graphs originating from the CRU, from Jones and Briffa. These appeared to confirm the rewriting of climate history in the "hockey stick", by using quite different tree ring data from Siberia. Briffa was put in charge of the key chapter of the IPCC's fourth report, in 2007, which dismissed all McIntyre's criticisms.

for years the CRU refused to disclose the data used to construct them. This breached a basic rule of scientific procedure. But last summer the Royal Society insisted on the rule being obeyed, and two months ago Briffa accordingly published on his website some of the data McIntyre had been after.

This was startling enough, as McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because it showed that the CRU studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to leave those that showed the picture that was wanted

You couldnt make this up

Discodog

The opening speaker at Copenhagen has just criticised the "criminals" who "stole" emails !. No mention of the lies.

e04bf099

Hi all,

Listen, I've never cared much about climate change/global warming/AGW. I've never considered it a big deal as people adapt to these things and sure, in the worst case scenario a lot of people might die, but **** it, no point in losing sleep. What I have been concerned about is energy independance. But this stuff is interesting and it coheres pretty well with how I've come to view the world and science and politics and society, etc. So, for my own ability to back myself up at a dinner party, can anybody help me understand the arguments that NASA and NOA (or NOAH or whatever it is) confirm the fabricated data, or at least confirm the data in terms of the extent of the mean increase in global temperature, without the removed decrease in temperature around 41 and 61 (and 81?). Are these other records produced in somewhat similar fashion, so as to create the impression of consensus? Are NASA's records of troposferic temperature data widely accepted as a good counter-argument for AGW, as the documentary stated? With regard to the tree-ring data, if the data for the times when we had accurate records were totally wrong, then how can we trust those records for the few hundred years previously.

One other argument that has been presented to me is the idea of consensus within science. Is it the case that climatologists have a consensus and they cherry-pick the relevant fields to incude as valid experts, thus removing those fields (such as geology) that disagree with the polemic? There was, apparently, a poll done on what percentage of scientists believe in AGW that said that 98% of scientists believe we are the culprits. Has anybody heard of this that can direct me to it so I can assimilate or disregard it accordingly.

Sorry if this seems lazy, but I've really never considered debating this before and I wouldn't know where to look for these things. I always just shut down these conversations before they got started, but this could be too important to be ill-informed about.

And one more thing. I absolutely love the idea that if it cools, we could be doing a fabulous job reducing the rapidity of decrease with our carbon. If that was true, I would totally just import a mustang and start burning tyres all day in my back garden like proper trailer trash. T'would be a hoot!

Deep Easterly

UK Met Office have released the data used:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html

Irish stations used are Belfast Aldergrove; Belmullet; Cork Airport; Dublin Airport; Shannon Airport; Valentia.

Actual data contained within this zip file:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/reference/All.zip

Deep Easterly

Deep Easterly wrote: »

UK Met Office have released the data used:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html

Irish stations used are Belfast Aldergrove; Belmullet; Cork Airport; Dublin Airport; Shannon Airport; Valentia.

Actual data contained within this zip file:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/reference/All.zip

Thanks,I've just downloaded the data, I have found dublin and did a quick squirt into excell, and ther appears to be no major changes over the 160 years of data, but it is clear that recent winters are less severe than those in the middle of the 20th century.

I hope to crunch the spreadsheet some more to get the months i order rather than one trace per month.

The first trace is January(series1) and the last one is December.(series12)

Here is the same data with the monthly temperatures of each year averaged.

Deep Easterly

Will do up Belmullet's data into chart later on. Doland Baker, try adding a linear trend line into the graph, as it usual gives a fairly good indication of what what way data is heading.

e04bf099

Jesus!:eek: 1854 was cold:D

For the record

Warmest years on average

1945 10.63333333
1989 10.61666667
1921 10.53333333
1949 10.46666667
1868 10.44166667
1990 10.43333333
1959 10.325
1934 10.3
1857 10.29166667
2009 10.28888889
1898 10.21666667
1975 10.21666667
1865 10.20833333
2006 10.19166667
1948 10.15833333
1971 10.15833333


Coldest years

1996 8.95
1891 8.933333333
1887 8.933333333
1909 8.933333333
1886 8.8
1986 8.791666667
1881 8.766666667
1919 8.758333333
1888 8.741666667
1895 8.741666667
1962 8.725
1963 8.616666667
1885 8.6
1860 8.516666667
1892 8.391666667
2008 8.158333333
1879 7.95

Warmest Months

July 1921 & 1989 17.5
August 1995, 17.4 & 1947, 16.9

Coldest Months

January 1881 -0.4
February 1895 0.3
December 1878 0.2

PS 1853 & 1854 have duff data and I zero'd them out.

Edit: should discount 2009 as the seriese is incomplete!