Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 9 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
jshell
333 posts

Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Nov 20, 2009, 08:42
If this is true (obviously there're reservations), it's utterly, utterly explosive. It purports to prove that climatologists have been falsifying data in order to cover declining global temperatures....

It's either a fantastic hoax, OR a complete 'climate change' game-changer!

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked


Make up your own minds!
PMM
PMM
3109 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Nov 20, 2009, 14:58
It makes no sense. Why would the scientists of a respected and august body deliberately try to show the opposite of what's true? Stake their professional reputations and future careers on some easy to expose lie - the Hadley centre aren't the only ones collecting data and modelling the climate - for what end? Generally, most of us quite enjoy the benefits of civilisation. I know I do.
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Nov 20, 2009, 16:41
PMM wrote:
the Hadley centre aren't the only ones collecting data and modelling the climate


Exactly. 99% of climatologists and meteorologists are in on the conspiracy too. Don't you SEE? It's all a hoax and the more scientists that provide this so-called 'evidence', the bigger a hoax we know it must be.

That, or Jshell posting climate denier horseshit again under the guise of not having their mind made up. This stuff throws more mud at the 'hockey stick graph' of global temperatures; this was 'debunked' by the stuff Jshell posted last time. Except, as I pointed out then with a link, the graph has been vindicated.

Cos really, there's no warming and it's all about sketchy data manipulation and cherry-picking. Anything that did it straightforwardly and over a long period - such as a listing of global average temperature since 1850 - would show this.

Oh, no, hang on a minute....
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html
jshell
333 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Nov 20, 2009, 16:44
They're the only ones that have modelled as such and would never release their data for peer review. I'm not sure why, unless like the recent furore over drugs, the lack of climate change doesn't suit the Govt's plans for green mega-tax.

It's explosive though!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/


I'm still cautious though, is it a mega-elaborate hoax? Have some scientists got fed up of lying about climate change and 'leaked' the info.

I'm watching closely, but either way, one side is gonna get a VERY bloody nose.
jshell
333 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Nov 20, 2009, 16:50
Merrick wrote:
PMM wrote:
the Hadley centre aren't the only ones collecting data and modelling the climate


Exactly. 99% of climatologists and meteorologists are in on the conspiracy too. Don't you SEE? It's all a hoax and the more scientists that provide this so-called 'evidence', the bigger a hoax we know it must be.

That, or Jshell posting climate denier horseshit again under the guise of not having their mind made up. This stuff throws more mud at the 'hockey stick graph' of global temperatures; this was 'debunked' by the stuff Jshell posted last time. Except, as I pointed out then with a link, the graph has been vindicated.

Cos really, there's no warming and it's all about sketchy data manipulation and cherry-picking. Anything that did it straightforwardly and over a long period - such as a listing of global average temperature since 1850 - would show this.

Oh, no, hang on a minute....
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html



I've not really made up my mind though, as I do know that if we don't take it seriously, and it is real, then the results are horrific. But, and it's a big 'but', if this is true it will damage the case for CO2 controls and, well, just about everything to curb temperature rises.

However, whichever side you're on, or sitting on the fence, you have to read the info released last night and make up your own mind.

If you ignore links to this revalation, then it's just sitting in the dark and believing in something with blind faith...a bit like religion.

I'll say it again, make up your own mind.

Me, I'm waiting for the dust to settle on this one!
jshell
333 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Nov 20, 2009, 16:52
I should have said Merrick, that your posts last time made me go off and read more on it for myself...as I said at the time You don't see me trying to convince one way or the other, or would you rather I didn't post anything about the 'other' side?
PMM
PMM
3109 posts

Edited Nov 20, 2009, 21:41
Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Nov 20, 2009, 18:16
jshell wrote:
They're the only ones that have modelled as such


No they're not. A good place to find further information about this is Mark Lynas' book, Six degrees. It collates the research from hundreds of studies and models from all over the world. Hundreds of them.

jshell wrote:
and would never release their data for peer review.


Why do you say that? Here's a list of their publications: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/search-all-publications As you can see, this list is full of peer review submissions.

So how does the FACT that they DO submit their research for peer review, and the FACT that the Tindall centre are not the only research body to be investigating climate change fir with the government's plans for green mega tax?
jshell
333 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Nov 21, 2009, 09:50
PMM wrote:
jshell wrote:
They're the only ones that have modelled as such


No they're not. A good place to find further information about this is Mark Lynas' book, Six degrees. It collates the research from hundreds of studies and models from all over the world. Hundreds of them.

jshell wrote:
and would never release their data for peer review.


Why do you say that? Here's a list of their publications: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/search-all-publications As you can see, this list is full of peer review submissions.

So how does the FACT that they DO submit their research for peer review, and the FACT that the Tindall centre are not the only research body to be investigating climate change fir with the government's plans for green mega tax?



They DON'T release data and they are at the centre of the whole thing. I've spent the night trawling through a lot of the stuff, and this from Phil Jones at the UAE is utterly, utterly damning:

---------------
""Mike,

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.

We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !""
------------------------

So, there is Phil Jones saying that he'd rather ditch data than let people see or review it. This is seriously fucked up!


Also this, where they're talking about manipulating temperatures within models to suit their own needs and hiding a warming 'blip':

""From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
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 theland 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 – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom."
-------------

What the fucking, fuck is going on here????
ron
ron
706 posts

Edited Nov 22, 2009, 05:19
Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Nov 22, 2009, 04:42
jshell wrote:
Make up your own minds!


fucking al gore piece of shit muther fucker... first he invents the inyernet... then this global warming shite... four daze before thanksgiving and i'm spent the day mowing my yard... son of a bytch... should be undera foot o' snow by now...

jcope wrote:
'Cause your lying to me was your first mistake,
Trusting in me was your major mistake,
Pristeen. Pristeen
How much can you take?

x
x
x
PMM
PMM
3109 posts

Edited Nov 22, 2009, 12:52
Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Nov 22, 2009, 11:53
Well what the fuck IS going on? First of all, apologies for getting the Hadley centre and the Tyndall centre mixed up. Just seeing if you're awake :) Nice to see that you failed to pick up on it! But I'm not the only one to have conflated the Hadley Centre with something else. Your original links did too. The Climate Research Unit and the Hadley Centre are two seperate bodies, as far as I'm aware. A minor quibble of course, but there you go.

Certainly an interesting state of affairs, if the mails are genuine - and they certainly appear to be.

Probably the best rebuttal/analysis I've seen comes from the site, realclimate.org

realclimate.or wrote:
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.


Or, as the BBC puts it,

The BBC wrote:
...it is also clear that the unit has been dragged down by what it considers to be nit-picking and unreasonable demands for data - and that there is personal animus against their intellectual rivals.

Now this sort of hostility is nothing new in academia - but the revelations come at a sensitive time as the world's nations gather for the climate meeting in Copenhagen.

My CRU source points out that its unpublished full data set is almost identical to the ones at the National Climatic Data Center and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

Both of these are in the US, where there are no restrictions on publication. The CRU view is that when the sceptics see the full data in due course they will be very disappointed.

The scientific establishment is likely to support the CRU. Despite continuing uncertainties in some areas of climate science, they say officially that their overall confidence that humans are warming the climate is now more than 90%.

One leading figure told me unofficially that confidence was now at 99%.


So your original assertion that this was a choice between hoax and total game changer was a bit oversimplistic perhaps?
Pages: 9 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index