You are not connected. Please login or register

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling on Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:08 pm

rosco 357


Veteran
MY WORDS: i think this is going to be big news possibly, where i get my news the first top 3 lastest news article from 3 seperate new places are devoted to this information being discovered or rather uncovered, and one said there will be a congresssional investigation. on that article i may just post the utube, of the senator talking, so i will including this post , and 2 more, , the last 2 will be a reply, the second one has blog in the url but i will not post any comment in a blog but only the topic, then ppl commented under it which i will not post, then i will go to the third article and post the utube of the senator .. i dont know how damning this is but its may be big,or not we shall see.

Originally published 05:45 a.m., November 24, 2009, updated 12:58 p.m., November 24, 2009
EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.' " Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming "to hide the decline." Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann's past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.

There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "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" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "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!"

At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.

We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.

rosco 357


Veteran
my words : i think this article actually has parts from some of the hacked emails,again this is just the article, u can go to the url to check, i did not post ppls comments which were under it...

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?


By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

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.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” - CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.

rosco 357


Veteran
Interview on Washington Times America's Morning Show


Guest


Guest
Do you remember a guy at the IYT boards who called himself the "Dark Lord"? He is an old retired guy like me with a background in oil geology/exploration. He infrequently posted but his posts were long,detailed,thoughtful, and eminently sane. The liberals hated him,of course. He was convinced that the "scientific consensus" did not exist for global warming. He made a good case and I agreed with him and have that point of view now. BUT...I also believe that it is imperitive that we reduce energy use if that use keeps us a slave to ay-rab oil. I don't care if it takes wind power,alcohol, solar farms, or cow fart capture,we need to employ it,subsidise it, and insist on it. It is a security issue. I DO NOT think that this "cap and trade" plan being promoted is the answer. It is simply "feel good" liberalism not supported by any science and ultimately harmful to poor people and the economy in general. It will also be a huge windfall (not incidentally) for General Elctric. This plan to drastically raise energy costs per family while promising to subsidise energy costs for low income people will just be a huge enforced "energy tax" on industry and the middle class. And just another liberal redistribution of the wealth scheme with the governent holding every pot. If you think the financing on this Obamacare scam is weird, just wait to you see the barrel o'shit this scheme is. Did you see Al Gore saying the Earth is an unlimited source of energy because it is "millions of degrees hot" below the crust? Utter nonsense but typical of phoney liberals like Gore.

rosco 357


Veteran
no i dont remember Dark Lord, but i did not post on the board much or even go there till close to the end,, i agree on getting off foreign oil ,, that chevy volt makes my mouth water, its good looking as a camry, or cars like that, and i think its a tad over 200 miles per gallon as the small engine only kicks in to not power the car but generate elecricity, i know this sounds out of bounds, but i heard or read, they are guaranteeing the batteries for 10 years, they are lithium i think, the problem for me is the cost, its over 40,000 bucks a car, but chevy said it will not work on batteries once released but work on getting the price down, i think it will go 40 miles till the small engine kicks in to generate electricity, to run the car till u get to where ur going, but its the looks i like, not the usual dog , like some look.. i posted somewhere here obama is putting cap and trade on the back burner, he has to save some money and cap and trade is one of the ways he is going about it, it was in the news and i posted on it. take care

Guest


Guest
rosco 357 wrote:no i dont remember Dark Lord, but i did not post on the board much or even go there till close to the end,, i agree on getting off foreign oil ,, that chevy volt makes my mouth water, its good looking as a camry, or cars like that, and i think its a tad over 200 miles per gallon as the small engine only kicks in to not power the car but generate elecricity, i know this sounds out of bounds, but i heard or read, they are guaranteeing the batteries for 10 years, they are lithium i think, the problem for me is the cost, its over 40,000 bucks a car, but chevy said it will not work on batteries once released but work on getting the price down, i think it will go 40 miles till the small engine kicks in to generate electricity, to run the car till u get to where ur going, but its the looks i like, not the usual dog , like some look.. i posted somewhere here obama is putting cap and trade on the back burner, he has to save some money and cap and trade is one of the ways he is going about it, it was in the news and i posted on it. take care
Just some contrary (what else?) notes: The Volt is an excellent design and I too, love it. BUT...any idea that it will get 200 mpg is illusory. There is no claim that one can put a gallon of gas in it and drive,at normal speeds, 200 miles, and there probably never will be such a claim. To take an object weighing a total of 3500 pounds and move it at an average speed of 40 mph for 200 miles with the usual stops and starts simply takes more energy than a gallon of gas contains. All the big mpg projections include some re-charging from an outlet and THAT energy doesn't just appear magically. It mostly comes from coal/oil/gas fired power plants. We will be using gasoline/diesel for many decades and that's a fact of life. Nuclear fusion is the answer and the need is so critical we need another "Manhatten Project" to attain it. That energy is virtually free. BTW, "cap and trade" will NOT cost the government anything. Look it up. On the contrary,it as planned will allow the government to make HUGE sums in the sales of carbon credits. Nope,in my opinion, Obama has dropped it because he knows the sorry fact that the American people aren't willing to shell out the big increases in their electricity bills and we know that the huge $$$ generated for the government will be wasted on stupid social programs like.....universal government healthcare, gazebos for geese, and free beauty parlors for indigent Guatamalans. Remember this: The liberals don't want you freely driving around having fun or making money. They want you home,suffering in the cold, and listening to them tell you on your hand-cranked radio how awful you are.

SSC


Admin
Another black-eye for the team Obama, global warming bullshit, no wonder the great one is delaying his trip to the sumit meeting, with this large snafu and his whole little package out the window, maybe he should just skip the meeting and pick up his wonderful peace prize, the one no one has figured what he has done to earn it yet...
I love it that Gore has been asked to return his Oscar for his little farce on global warming..I hope the committee agrees but chances are slim on that.
It is a little hard to believe in warming when we had snow and sleet last night and it is 28 degrees right now..

8 Point to Ponder on Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:48 pm

SSC


Admin
What an interesting observation , isn't it funny how a person is placed on ignore but every post is countered...LMAO..could this mean the ignorer is so fucking nosey they just can't stand not knowing what the posts of the ignored are about....

runawayhorses


Owner
I'm trying to find what you mean here in this topic, the logic. The reality is no one has posted in this topic that claims to have you on ignore. It's only been rosco and Moon who have posted here in this topic. So I don't get it. You don't think they have you on ignore, do you?

I read all the posts here in this topic and I don't understand the relevance.

Please explain..

rosco 357


Veteran
meemoon wrote:any idea that it will get 200 mpg is illusory. There is no claim that one can put a gallon of gas in it and drive,at normal speeds, 200 miles, and there probably never will be such a claim.
i thought that sounded high, it was actually quoted at 205 mpg, im not sure how they arrived at that, maybe some kind of average they came up with, because it could run without any gas, the very small engine just kicks in to generate elec. when the batteries are low, and only generates elec. but i think the range is 40 miles before the batteries need anything, so if i had one i would drive 25 mile to work, charge it at work then drive home and never use any gas. it would all hinge on how far u drive before needing to charge the batteries or even need to use the gas engine, so everyones mileage would be different, , still im not sure how they arrived at what i read,,, and i understand the power company coal use or whatever, but i think i paid attention to it because it looks like a real car and its pretty,, but i did not mean that it would go 200 miles straight on a gallon of gas, i think thats what is an estimate of ppl useing some gas, but mostly just batteries and some gas. which seems hard to predict,,, i guess they have some way of arriving at the figure, but i will be glad to see it on the road, an learn more about it, its to expensive for me anyway.. the 10 year battery guarantee seemed high to me but i read it .. but it will be fun to watch and see,, i hope for GM the car is a hit, take care

gypsy


Moderator
it is funny/we post what is exposed/opinionated with actually no knowledge of what is real
so we are lost

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum