JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Announcing the timeline: “ClimateGate: 30 years in the making”

UPDATE: The newer edition has been released here.


Here’s a Spectacular Poster of ClimateGate Covering 3 Decades

You have to see this to believe it. Look up close and admire the detail while you despair at how long science has been going off the rails. To better appreciate the past and what was exposed by the CRU emails, the Timeline chart consolidates and chronologically organizes the information uncovered and published about the CRU emails by many researchers along with some related contextual events. That the chart exists at all is yet another example of how skilled experts are flocking in to the skeptics’ position and dedicating hours of time pro bono because they are passionately motivated to fight against those who try to deceive us.

ClimateGate Timeline

Click on the image to see it enlarged, but download the full PDF to see the detail.

Download The PDF (788k)

Mohib Ebrahim has created this amazing document. I’ve produced a permanent Home page for this beautiful poster that will host the latest updates as a PDF. There are also printable versions in A4, A3, A2, US Letter and US Tabloid for those of you (like me) who need printed versions on which scribble, and scrawl exclamation marks.

Timeline home page

Thanks also to Curt, an editor who has been dedicated behind the scenes with some of my recent posts, and also with the introduction and lists here. But, if you see an editorial error, blame me :-)

Here are a few select screen shots so you have some idea of what this document shows. Click on the images just to pop-up readable close-ups.

Climatologists had no idea what the temperature would be in the year 2000


ClimateGate Timeline

Looking back in 1981, the world had just barely started warming, despite years of rising CO2 levels.


ClimateGate Timeline

Three decades later they still admit privately that they don’t understand the climate


ClimateGate Timeline

It’s hard to do the full Timeline justice on a small screen. One day, in historical exhibitions, I hope this chart will be exhibited to help people dissect just how the global warming scam grew, and to help teach children what to look for, to minimize the damage from the next exaggerated claim of catastrophe before it grows so large.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Announcing the timeline: "ClimateGate: 30 years in the making", 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yhl994d

208 comments to Announcing the timeline: “ClimateGate: 30 years in the making”

  • #
    Ed

    The PDF downlink is not working – does not download a working pdf file.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    It will take some effort to digest all the details, but Mohib Ebrahim is to be commended for this spectacular and amazing piece of work.

    And thank you too for posting it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ed

    Now it downloads ok. Thank you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Great Work,

    I do hope the code from the model is there somewhere.

    Merry Xmas and New Year Everyone


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Editor of Energy & the Environment speaks out against the BBC, Climategate the chart – read up close how the abandonment of science created the biggest fraud the world has seen! A defining moment in Australian non-journalism, Who is speaking out about [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Oh a handful of cherry-picked emails taken out of context.

    This doesn’t change anything.

    :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I hardly think over a thousand emails and files on top of that is a handful! And when those files demonstrate collusion, suppression, discrimination, manipulation of data etc then it changes a huge amount. Look at the graph that’s what its there for!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    An immense amount of labour has been expended to produce this, and my sincere admiration to those who put it together.

    I see no picture of a water closet as the terminal destination of all this?

    Seriously, the “admitting” they “don’t understand” the “climate” is a quite shallow means of saying that a lot of people looked no deeper than a very tenuous hypothesis about greenhouse gases. That’s the real tragedy of the whole thing: they got hold of some hypothesis, banged on it, sawed it, shaped it, forced it to make it fit the real world and doing everything they could to try to ignore the poor fit

    Or start a badmouth campaign against anyone who pointed who pointed out the obvious.

    These people and their programme are done, you can stick a fork in them, you can fool so many people for so long.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Warwick Hughes

    A mighty effort by Mohib Ebrahim and all thanks to him. I hope a later edition might include the Jones et al 1986 papers and documentation books that birthed IPCC GW as we know it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Maybe this should be published in a Newspaper somewhere?

    Oh, that’s right, the mainstream media is irrelevant as are anyone working for them who is arrogant enough to call themselves a journalist.

    This thing should be plastered all over Ms Wongs’ Car (so people inside can read it).


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The US Letter size .pdf, http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate/history2009.12.23_climategate_timeline-us_letter_2p.pdf seems missing. I tried changing the URL to …21p.pdf too (since it’s 21 pages) but no luck. :-(


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BJM

    ‘Oh a handful of cherry-picked emails taken out of context’.

    Cherry picked, banana picked, apple picked. It makes no difference. The words in the emails speak for themselves.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Joanne,

    how many hours of work went into this… It is amazing, I would love to print it and open a museum just for it.

    Keep on the good work.

    Simon from Québec, Canada


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    I’ll have to download it tomorrow… With all the streaming video, looking at clips etc, I’ve done this month, I’ve used up my 12 gig allocation and I’ve been shaped two days short!… Might print it out, put it together an’ hang it on the wall;-)

    There certainly is a lot of info on the internet about this climategate fiasco. Nobody with internet access can plead ignorance of the problems surrounding the AGW hypothesis now.

    I don’t think the Mainstream media can escape reporting the problems with the AGW hypothesis either…

    There is no escaping from this for them, after the new year this is all going to come back again as the Abbott lead opposition start attacking Rudd on his CPRS, The Great Green Tax on Everything and the Copenhagen farce. Whilst MP’s and Senators like Dennis Jensen, Barnaby Joyce, Ron Boswell, etc, can point out the shortcomings of the AGW hypothesis itself and refresh the Climategate scandal in everyones minds again… 2010 is going to be an interesting year in Australian politics…. Damn interesting.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Tel,

    LOL yeah, just a “blip” really according to the reporters of capengrabem, a Blip which is giving my printer a hernia at the moment.

    This is a work of art. Thanks for the Xmas Prezzy Jo.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Hi Jo,
    Something bothers me about Figure 7 c from the Hubert Lamb paper – I have seen this graph before (MWP), and LIA. This graph does not have a temperature scale. I can’t find the paper or the IPCC report from 1990 online anywhere. I wonder if any of the readers here can post a link to either the paper from Lamb, or the IPPC Report which includes the Figure 7 c?

    Thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    anon

    McIntyre has a whole article about it:

    … Now that we’ve established that IPCC 1990 Figure 7c is derived from the Lamb 1965 CET, …

    Steve McIntyre, posted on
    May 9, 2008 at 6:55 AM
    Where did IPCC 1990 Figure 7c Come From?
    http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Lyndsay Farlow, Climate scam. Climate scam said: ClimateGate: 30 years in the making http://bit.ly/4Ta7Uw #climategate [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Thanks very much, Anon. I smelt a rat when the IPCC reports for 1990 are not available on their website, and was pondering that question. Now I can have my lunch.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    What a mighty task so well done.
    We need a ditty to go with it. Sing to the tune of Gilligans Isle…..

    Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale,
    A tale of a fateful trick.
    That started from the UEA port,
    Aboard the CRU ship.

    Jones was a data spinning man,
    James Hansen stout and sure.
    Five passengers that sailed that day,
    For a three decade tour,
    A three decade tour.

    The weather started getting cool,
    The mighty ship was tossed.
    If not for the tricks of the deceitful crew,
    The CRU would be lost,
    The CRU would be lost.

    The ship aground on the pages of,
    This mighty detailed chart.
    With Phillip Jo’oones
    And James Hansen too,
    A millionaire and his lies.
    A tee vee star,
    Proffesor Briffa and Michael Mann,
    Here on Phillip Jone’s Isle

    merry christmas everybody. Special greetings and thankyou to Jo :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    George M

    Jo:

    In the June 1988 box, the name Hansen appears as well as the misspelling Hanson in the title. Could we get that corrected?
    Thanks for all the work, Mohib Ebrahim and Jo.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard

    That timeline contains one error so far as I can see. He says, quoting from the American Thinker methinks, that grapes were grown in Greenland at the time of the Vikings. From the Smithsonian site linked I couldn’t find this claim. Grapes were grown in “Vinland”, most probably Newfoundland, and they cannot be grown there today. So maybe that’s what he is referring to. But there are other more solid pieces of evidence that Greenland, at least, was warmer than today during the Medieval period, and the most solid one is in the ice cores.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    I must say an excellent piece of work. I like to see it peer reviewed by various well recognised climate scientists on both sides to see their reaction.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard

    Thumbnail: December 24th, 2009 at 11:00 am
    Hi Jo,
    Something bothers me about Figure 7 c from the Hubert Lamb paper – I have seen this graph before (MWP), and LIA. This graph does not have a temperature scale. I can’t find the paper or the IPCC report from 1990 online anywhere. I wonder if any of the readers here can post a link to either the paper from Lamb, or the IPPC Report which includes the Figure 7 c?

    That graph is indeed authentic from the 1990 IPCC report but has been removed by them now (the report has). That was the “consensus” opinion in 1990. It may have been derived from the Central England Temperatures. It could be argued that CET reconstruction temps may not be representative of world temperatures but

    1. They are far more representative than Mann’s hockey stick reconstruction, which depended mainly on select trees, from a select grove in the Rockies, or Briffa’s later “independent” reconstruction which depended on just one tree with its unique history, in Siberia!

    2. The MWP and LIA have been independently plotted by the very accurate glacier ice core temps reconstructions taken from the tropical Andes and the Alps, and many, many other places.
    Polissar, P.J., M.B. Abbott, A.P.Wolfe, M. Bezada, V. Rull, and R.S. Bradley, Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sc. USA 103, 24, 89378942 (2006),

    and Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karl´en, Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data, Nature 433, 613–618 (2005).

    and (Alps) Mangini, A., C. Sp¨otl, P.Verdes, Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a 18O stalagmite record, Earth and Planet. Sci. Lett. 235, 741–751 (2005).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard

    Peter of Sydney: December 24th, 2009 at 1:38 pm I like to see it peer reviewed by various well recognised climate scientists on both sides to see their reaction.

    It can be peer reviewed by the best, most open, and most honest place that there is today – the internet


    Report this

    00

  • #

    WOW! And to think I had silently wondered why you had made no mention here of (my fellow Canadian) Corcoran’s opus :-) This is absolutely brilliant (and I haven’t even read it all yet!) Gives a whole new meaning to .pdf … Positively Damning Formulation!

    It is so accessible, so postable, so portable. Or, in the immortal word of Mary Poppins, it is the epitome of “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”!

    Even the most obtuse politician should be able to understand this! At the risk of repeating myself, “Brilliant, absolutely brilliant”!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Jo I’m assuming you are in the process of emailing this to all our pollies?

    Wouldn’t it be good if Joyce or Bernardi tabled it into Hansard?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’ve updated the links on the US letter and US tabloid page. Thanks for pointing out the missing “/” html.

    Can people see the Booker Quote on the Home Page for the Chart? It should appear inside a grey background box…

    Great to hear people taking the time to get into this chart, I’m sure if you find important points or quotes that are not included, Mohib will be able to update the chart.

    I’m curious to know if there was a point when the activities shift from wishful exaggeration to criminal…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    R Taylor

    Great work. If you are correcting typos, it is Gallup, not Gallop.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard

    “I’m curious to know if there was a point when the activities shift from wishful exaggeration to criminal…”

    From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxx
    To: jan.goudriaan@xxx, grassl_h@xxx, Klaus Hasselmann , Jill Jaeger , rector@xxx, oriordan@xxx, uctpa84@xxx, john@xxx, mparry@xxx, pier.vellinga@xxx
    Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
    Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)
    Reply-to: Tom Wigley
    Cc: Mike Hulme , t.mitchell@xxx

    Dear Eleven,

    I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” In contrast to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3 review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting arguments in support of both “immediate control” and the spectrum of more cost-effective options. It is not IPCC’s role to make “convincing cases” for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your statement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard

    or this
    1241415427.txt

    “From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: [Fwd: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?]-FROM TOM W
    Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 01:37:07 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer

    Phil,

    Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are …

    “Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for
    nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally,
    there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997)
    explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report
    was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide
    Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program.”

    and

    “Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available.
    I was able to get the data by requiring Wang’s co-worker to release it, under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud.”

    You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it wasnot possible to select stations on the basis of …
    Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start?
    Perhaps it’s not too late?”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mohib

    Thank you all for the kind words and appreciation. This chart was really just a personal project that sort of grew out of hand! Back in November, when all the REAL researchers started reporting on the CRU e-mails as they dug through them, there was so much coming out at one go, and there were so many e-mails that were quoted over and over, I got very confused about who said what and when, so I just started charting them out and organizing according to the themes that had been discovered. And the chart just grew and grew, so I thought I might as well polish it up with a little history and sprinkling of other relevant facts, as I thought others might find it useful.

    The real heroes of this whole AGW affair are the several dozen people who run these blogs we all rely on. Having worked with Joanne over the past couple of weeks, I’ve come to appreciate just how much of their lives they give up, so they are the ones who really deserve our gratitude and thanks. They live this issue day and day out, and sacrifice so much to keep their blogs going and keep the world informed. I’m just a small nobody who had an idea which seems to have given me the proverbial 15 minutes in the spotlight, when really all I have done is piggyback and package everyone else’s very hard work and research.

    As for factual errors, obviously I’d like the chart to be as accurate as possible so it is reliable and of value to anyone who chooses to use it. However, I’m just a lay person, and tried to use as much as I could find that was widely quoted in the main blogs and news sites. I’m sure for some facts, there are experts who could argue both sides of a point for years to come. And so in the end, some facts may just end up being “some say this and some say that,” as I obviously can’t become an expert on the nuances of every controversial detail. However, I hope there are not too many such facts.

    Some facts I thought were well known, as I read them over and over, so I didn’t source them–perhaps I should have, looking back. Sometimes I just forgot to put a source in because I was juggling so many articles and event boxes at once. I will try to fix as many of these I spot in an update, because in the end, every fact on the chart is one I read somewhere.

    Therefore, I welcome all feedback on improvements, glaring omissions, or factual errors, grammatical or other silly errors (like mixing up a source), and/or rewording that would make a point more accurate or less open to misinterpretation, etc. etc. Being a one-man show trying to keep some 35 pages of densely packed facts and text accurate (yes, that’s how much is actually on the chart, although two-thirds is probably quotations), I’m sure there are many typos and grammatical errors. I plan to do an update to fix mistakes, and then after that, to look at new facts, as my time permits, since trying to nail each fact is a tiring task.

    On the Greenland ice cores and vineyards point that was raised by Richard, I just was looking for something other than temperatures from tree-rings, ice-cores, and such, as the scientists seem to be forever debating the accuracy of them. The vines just seemed independent of all the debate and modern science; it was is if they were a witness from the time, and so gave an irrefutable fact. If American Thinker is wrong on the point, fine. I’ll fix it. But, I haven’t yet checked the Smithsonian reference it cited, or done any other research on case others may have come to conclusions on (one way or another) regarding vines in Greenland.

    Thanks once again for all your kind words, and I hope the chart helps others grasp the truth, at least as I understand it to be.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard

    Mohib: You have done an outstanding Job. No doubt more of the saga in the emails will unfold as they are studied in context. The prize catch is Mann. He has to be nailed and nailed good and proper,
    This was when he was being cautioned by Phil Jones about Briffa’s graph and how they should respond “I never acknowledge emails from people I don’t know, ABOUT TOPICS THAT ARE IN ANYWAY SENSITIVE. this is a perfect example of something that goes right to the trash bin,” He is cautious, but will be caught because of the stuff he has done.

    In the meantime we have to be careful not to make any errors like grapes being grown in Greenland (they were along Hadrian’s wall in Northern England, that should be enough for effect and that the Viking graves are today in permafrost, which they couldnt have been when first dug). These will be pounced upon by the alarmists to try and dismiss the rest of the 99.99% of the story in the emails. I havent gone along the timeline very far as yet. But from what I have seen – outstanding.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Good points, Richard.

    I work at the DOE, and now I feel bad, when I think back,

    WHY DIDN’T I SPEAK UP MORE AT THE TIME

    I admit, now sheepishly, that I thought this would go away, that it would never gain momentum, and I knew what was what to come …

    Could I have personally and single handedly “averted a disaster?”

    No, it was far out of anything I could control I suppose, this took on a life of its own after Gore made a movie.

    Dr William Happer, of Princeton, was Director of Basic Science at the DOE at the time, Dr Happer perceived the direction the climate programme was headed, he rejected it, and was fired for it, by Gore through a flunky


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard

    Brian G Valentine: Could I have personally and single handedly “averted a disaster?” – No you couldn’t have so don’t feel bad about it. It was and is just too big.

    Even now it will take a huge battle to beat this. Look at Copenhagen – Western leaders predictably, consistently and blindly accepted the claim human CO2 is causing climate change, ignored all evidence to the contrary, silenced any debate, and ignored evidence that the science was deliberately and criminally falsified.

    Merry Christmas. Party tonight and my place is in a mess still.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Derek

    WOW, thank you Mohib Ebrahim for compiling this amazing pdf.
    Thank you to Jo for posting it with such a good introduction.
    AND, thank you to everyone who has commented so well, and informatively.

    There is hope afterall.

    Seasons greetings to all,
    I’ll have a drink or two to celebrate off the back of this.

    yours,
    Derek.

    NB – It is time to expose the FACT there is NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT
    whereever, whenever, and by whomever AGW raises it’s ugly head in 2010.

    Happy 2010 to all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barking toad

    Thank you Mohib for the work you’ve done on this. And thank you Jo for publishing it (and for all your other efforts in exposing the scam).

    I can see hippie heads exploding – or being buried in sand.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    A fantastic piece of work! Please note the web address for reference no. 20 is wrong; it should be:

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/07/lawrence-solomon-numbers-racket.aspx

    The difference seems to be the date. The working address now (above) is the 7/11, whereas the PDF version states the 6/11.

    I am going to enjoy going through this in fine detail!! :)

    Wonderful work. Just wonderful.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    OT but on a lighter note;

    The Goreinch. How Al Gore tried to steal the joy of children everywhere – but failed!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DennisA

    I wonder if Santer will have a good Christmas?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Aqua Fyre

    JoNova Wrote :

    You have to see this to believe it. Look up close and admire the detail while you despair at how long science has been going off the rails.

    Like so many other fraudulent movements in science, the ultimate train wreck of their demise is not without a great deal of cost and pain.

    This one will be counted amongst the greatest of train wrecks.

    Aqua Fyre


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DennisA

    This is a brilliant effort. I commented elsewhere last week that a network diagram of the institutions and links in all of this would take a full wall at the Science Museum in London.

    The other side of this massive coin is the political one, which enabled all the above to happen and take on a life of its own. Check out PachauriGate at eureferundum and look at all the related posts, including today.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/high-noon-for-pachauri.html

    Like they say, follow the money.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    I would just like to say a big thank you, Mohib, for your monumental effort in this. It is fantastic.

    And while I’m at it, thank you also from the bottom of my heart to Joanne and all the work you do – your effort and knowledge are truly amazing. Make sure you get some sleep over the Christmas break ;-)

    And last but by no means least, a very Merry Christmas to everybody who visits this blog – whether you are “lurkers” or “posters” – of whichever persuasion you are …

    May your 2010 be truly blessed and may it be the year in which the AGW deception is finally and unequivocally revealed to all the people of the Earth.

    “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)

    Merry Christmas everyone!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    P Gosselin

    We should make billboards of this and install them everywhere we can.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    P Gosselin

    How about a huge mural on a museum wall?
    This is really an outstanding piece of work by Mr Ebrahim. Some people talk about what needs to be done (I myself plead guilty to that) and others go out a do it. Hats off to you Mr Ebrahim. This is one poster we’re going to see a lot of in the future.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Quiet Farmer

    Wishing everyone a very happy Christmas and a NGW (Non global warmed) New Year. Many thanks Jo, for keeping us informed and congrats on a great site. Hope you get some Jo time in this Christmas.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks for this Jo.
    There are a few other time lines that would be interesting to see, NOAA (GHCN)raw data to homogenised, GISS temperature creep adjustments, Pachauri’s bank account growth relative to UN and EU propaganda statements. Ditto Annan, Brown, Gore, MEP’s and a whole lot more.

    CLIMATE NUT BROWN WILL RUIN BRITAIN
    Daily Express readers showed their distrust of Mr Brown’s sweeping plans this week, with an overwhelming 98 per cent of those taking part in a phone vote agreeing that the nation was being conned over global warming.

    Wonder who the other 2% are?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Beth Cooper

    A valuable user friendly poster, big picture overview and detailed info and data, all in one convenien place. I agree with the comment that it should go to politicians e.g Tony Abbott and even our Prime Minister…
    A Happy Christmas to you all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    dave ward

    “Wonder who the other 2% are?” – Probably this lot:

    http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/

    A word of warning – don’t visit that site unless you have a spare monitor & keyboard!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    What about Dr Tim Mitchell – CRU, East Anglia (1997 – 2004)

    He wrote the code (Harry_Read_me.txt)

    http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-1129-Climate-change-and-the-Christian.htm

    I think this article, and others should be in the timeline?

    Don’t you?

    It give an insightto themindset of ‘climate change’ religion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Navy Bob

    Terrific job. have just scanned it briefly, and noticed what seems to be an error in 1976

    CLIMATOLOGIST SURVEY REVEALS NO CLEAR OUTLOOK

    HANSEN et al publish “Greenhouse effects due to man-made
    perturbations of trace gases” in the journal Science and stated
    “Anthropogenic gases may alter our climate by plugging an
    atmospheric window for escaping tradition.” [11]

    Shouldn’t that be “radiation” at the end? Looks like an overeager spell checker.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Greg, San Diego, CA, USA

    Jo, in the 1976 quote box, the Hansen quote should, I believe, end with the word “radiation” and not “tradition”. I have not yet been able to look up the original quote, but it seems that the word is wrong.

    Merry Christmas to you and all of your readers !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Optimizer

    A great poster!

    Is this a good place to suggest corrections for typos?

    The 1975 New York Times quote has “invertible” instead of “inevitable”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Dr. Tim Mitchell,
    Highbury Baptist Church;
    formerly of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

    Avoiding dangerous climate change
    * In September scientists from the Tyndall Centre (www.tyndall.ac.uk) published a climate road map for the UK. They concluded that immediate action is required to avert dangerous climate change.

    * The research assumed that global warming should be limited to 2¡C since the Industrial Revolution. The UK government has accepted this target, believing that this may avert the worst effects of climate change (Energy White Paper, 2003).

    * To achieve a reasonable-to-high probability of not exceeding 2¡C implies that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are stabilised at 450 ppmv of CO2 equivalent. If each nation is allowed a fair share of that CO2, the UK’s allocation between 2000 and 2050 would be 4.6Gt.

    * None of the three main parties has policies in place that would limit UK emissions to 4.6Gt.

    * Indeed, there has not yet been any sustained fall in UK carbon emissions. Officially, we are on target to achieve domestic CO2 reductions between 1990 and 2010 of between 12% (the Kyoto commitment) and 20% (the government’s voluntary target). However, these figures are misleading. If UK contributions to international shipping and aviation are added, there has been no overall reduction since 1990.

    * To limit UK emissions to 4.6Gt would require us to start a decades-long programme of carbon reduction within the next few years. Annual emissions would have to fall by 70% in just 25 years.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Harry: “So what the hell did Tim do?!! As I keep asking.”

    Dr Tim Mitchell (2000)

    “………Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ’s imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).”

    Tim Mitchell works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park Evangelical Church.”

    Tim Mitchell bio: ( a little bit changed to CAPS by me)
    In 1997 I moved to Norwich to carry out the research for a PhD at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. My subject was the development of climate scenarios for SUBSEQUENT USE BY RESEARCHERS investigating the impacts of climate change. I was supervised by Mike Hulme and by John Mitchell (Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office). The PhD was awarded in April 2001.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timm/personal/index.html – Cached


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Other Tim articles:

    http://www.e-n.org.uk/searchpage.php?term=tim+mitchell

    2004 Dr. Tim Mitchell,
    formerly a scientist, now a student at LTS

    London Theological Seminary
    Evangelical Protestant college for the training of preachers and pastors. Provides degrees up to Masters level. includes course details and resources.

    http://www.ltslondon.org


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I have seen the AGW/Evangelical Christian relation go in both directions.

    Here in the USA, many of the fundamental Christians reject AGW completely and consider it effrontery to their beliefs


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I just could not not post a link to this on the below linked to thread..
    http://www.scottishwebcamslive.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=4247

    “They” seem to have gone rather quiet…
    Well, if you are going to try to defend the realclimate blog and try to play down the CRU emails,
    what should of they expected.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kate

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2009/12/excerpt-obama-on-disappointment-in-copenhagen.html

    Please go to PBS here and post a comment regarding Jim Lehrer’s interview with Obama.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Thanks for all your comments, and wishing you all a Very Merry Christmas, and it is already Christmas in Australia. Cheers!

    Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova writes: You have to see this to believe it. Look up close and admire the detail while you despair at how long science has been going off the rails. To better appreciate the past and what was exposed by the CRU emails, the Timeline chart consolidates and chronologically organizes the information uncovered and published about the CRU emails by many researchers along with some related contextual events. That the chart exists at all is yet another example of how skilled experts are flocking in to the skeptics’ position and dedicating hours of time pro bono because they are passionately motivated to fight against those who try to deceive us. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian George

    Richard 34

    Totally agree. No grapes in Greenland. Leif Erikson and his Viking brethren ate wild grapes in Newfoundland (northern tip). They named the area Vinland for obvious reasons.
    I don’t believe grapes grow there now.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    For all of you here I want to say “Merry Christmas”…and to Joanne, David and Family have the “Best” of Holidays!!! Appreciate so much that you’ve done…there are not enough words to state otherwise…God Bless You All and May Peace Be With You Always…

    Best of Regards,
    Denny


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Wonderful wishes to Denny & Family! from Brian & Louise V

    Washington, DC


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Typo in chart:

    virtually major every scientific journal,

    Regards,
    Todd Marshall
    Plantersville, TX


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    Joanne: It would be wonderful to have a version number or date indicated some way before downloading the chart/pages again, and it might save some traffic as well. But have a Merry Christmas today and enjoy your family and friends.

    And thanks again to Mohib for creating the jewell, and to you for making it available.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Jo what are you doing up at 4:30am on christmas morn?
    Couldn’t wait to get at the presents aye? :)

    Merry christmas, I’m bout to see what sox n jox I got lol


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Jo Anne would have written that at 2:37 AM her time

    She’s up blogging away all night sometimes from what I see


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] worth a thousand words” department, Mohib Ebrahim and Joanne Nova have put together a “Spectacular Poster of ClimateGate Covering 3 Decades” ClimateGate: 30 Years in the Making. See link below to [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    I own a couple of commercial properties, and will consider colour printing, laminating and mounting a 10 metre long chart for all to see. On one property there is no room at all for the poster, but on the other property, there is a very very handy wooden fence.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Who is Mohib Ebrahim?

    Any information would be appreciated.

    His name and his poster might give the erroneous impression of a link between critics of AGW and critics of Western governments.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    May I suggest finding some space to highlight the hypocrisy of these scientists and at the same time putting an end to the accusations aimed at skeptics.

    This should put an end to the oft quoted “Consensus of 4000 scientists.” Email No: 0876437553 From J Alcomo to M Hulme leading up to the Kyoto meeting.

    “Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

    I would like to weigh in on two important questions –

    Distribution for Endorsements —
    I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
    without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
    different story.

    Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
    names!”

    This next one is collusion with Greenpeace who were in hot debate with BP about carbon reduction. from Dr Helen Wallace, senior scientist at greenpeace to M Hulme and Tony McMichael.. Email No: 0872202064

    “Dear Tony and Michael,

    The final draft of the letter to the Times is attached, incorperating your changes (I hope I have combined them in a way that you are both happy with).

    Brian Hoskins and Adrian Jenkins have both decided that they prefer not to sign the letter, although agreeing with its message. I haven’t been able to contact anyone else in the short time available, so I leave it up to you to decide whether you are still both happy to go ahead.

    If so, Mike could you please reply to both Tony and myself and let us know, and Tony could you then send it as agreed?

    Notice how 2 scientists show integrity by refusing to sign. Now heres the letter to the Times editor…

    Letters Editor
    The Times

    Fax: 0171-782-5046
    Email: letters@the-times.co.uk

    21 June 1997
    Dear Sir,

    Without wishing to comment on the dispute between BP and Greenpeace
    (Editorial, 20 August), we would like to remind your readers of the seriousness of the potential threat caused by our continued use of fossil fuels
    ….yada yada yada…

    “Large companies like British Petroleum seem to us to
    be well placed to take an active part in investing in these changes.
    There is no doubt the need for precautionary, preventative action is urgent.

    Yours sincerely,

    Prof. A.J. McMichael
    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
    University of London
    Keppel Street
    London
    WC1E 7HT

    Dr. M. Hulme
    Climatic Research Unit
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich
    NR4 7TJ

    So they don’t wish to comment on the dispute between BP and greenpeace aye? Greenpeace DRAFTED THE LETTER YOU SIGNED YOU CROOKS, FRAUDS.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    This next one is a “CONFIDENTIAL” memo from Tom Wigley to Mike Hulme, setting up a defense for why they used IPCC information on WWF pamphlets. Email No: 0941483736

    “I wish I could explain better what Bob’s problem entails — it is intensely political. My judgement is that, if I tell you more, then this will indirectly help Bob in answering the questions posed of him by Sensenbrenner; particularly should Bob need to get back to you. Please note that this is confidential information”……
    “I have not been authorized by Bob, or anyone associated with IPCC, to divulge this information”.

    This next one, No: 0947541692 is a lengthy one eliciting financial support from Big Oil, Big everything.

    “Four specific ones from Tim are:

    - Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
    - Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
    - Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
    - ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me”.

    So much for skeptics like Jo being on the Big Oil payroll ha?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The only thing that surprises me is that Greenpiece didn’t advise extortion


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Still looking for that Brian lol merry Xmas m8


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    BTW Sensenbrenner is a US congressman in the same skeptical camp as Inhofe. (for those non US citizens)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Did anyone realise Mike Hulme, Director of Tyndall Climate Research Centre was/is somewhat of a climate skeptic? Or at least skeptical of cutting emissions in a hurry?
    Here he is in email no: 0986486371 Apr 5 2001. Replying to a questionaire by the Times Higher Education Supplement, post Kyoto.

    “1: Do you believe human activities are at least in part responsible for driving global climate change?
    YES
    2: Do you feel the evidence for this is sufficiently strong to start reducing emissions?
    NO - to reduce emissions requires more evidence than that humans are altering climate. We need to know something about the potential risks associated with future climate change, whether these risks can be minimised through adaptive action and then have some socially negotiated basis for deciding about the necessity and extent of desirable emissions reductions. On none of these issues do we have a good basis to work from. The precautionary principle, if chosen, would imply start reducing emissions now – but I am not convinced a blind application of the precautionary principle in this case is the most appropriate instrument.

    If you would like to add any comments to this survey as to the implications of the US’s rejection of Kyoto for the planet, what UK can do about it or what role scientists can play in this debacle, please do so.

    In a literal sense the implications for global climate are trivial – what will affect the course of global climate (and only then climate beyond about 2030 – up until then climate is pretty much pre-determined by inertia in the system) in the long-run are the effects of cumulative decisions taken by many, many people/governments/businesses over the next 10-20 years. Let’s not kid ourselves that the USA President is more powerful than he would like to think. The planetary system is much bigger than one 4-year term of a US president.
    The UK is playing a key role both within the negotiating machinery of the FCCC, in pioneering new scientific analyses, and in working out new forms of adapting to climate change. This momentum in the UK is not going to be halted by Bush.
    Scientists need to be there to point out the long-term nature of the problem – it is not a classic political issue where a one-term government can solve or worsen the problem. Scientists need to point out that for long-term planetary management we need new analytical tools, new criteria for investment decisions, a new appreciation of the concept of global citizenship. What climate change forces us to do is to think about the influence we are having on the quality of life for the next generation but one – not our own generation or even our children’s generation. Conventional politics is not a system geared up for this challenge

    mmmm Politicians may like to take note before rushing into implementing an ETS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Iren

    Wonderful chart, thank you so much Mohib and Joanne. I’m deriving a great deal of pleasure from looking through it in detail.

    I did notice one tiny typo which I’m not sure has been mentioned yet – in the green box dated Nov 8, 2009, I think the word “messaged” should be “massaged”.

    Also, (and I think this has already been raised) in the purple 1975 box quoting magazine comments, the last word in the New York times quote, “invertible”, should be “inevitable”.

    Sorry to be nitpicky but this is truly something which deserves to be fully vetted and distributed far and wide.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RES

    Don’t overlook the despicable efforts of the alarmist to control
    Wickipedia. That story has yet to be written.

    Thank you so very much JoNo et al.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    According to Piers Corbyn, USA is set for another severe weather 28-31 Dec. Says it’ll be worse than recent one.
    Brace yourselves.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I admire the Poster of ClimateGate that Mohib Ebrahim provided.

    But I would also like more information on Mohib Ebrahim.

    In the public arena, what you don’t know can quickly turn apparent victory into defeat.

    Any information would be appreciated.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’ve printed the 7×3 US version and mounted the first four “columns” on a piece of foamboard. I think I’ll print another copy of the middle column and do the last four on a second piece.

    In some ways, this is just to get a feel for the full thing, I’m going to talk to a copy shop that might be able to print the whole thing, I’ll wait for the 1st revision.

    I’m 8 miles (13 km) from the New Hampshire State House, I think the foamboard version will be visiting there.

    Thank you, Mohib, amazing work.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Res #82 wrote:

    Don’t overlook the despicable efforts of the alarmist to control
    Wickipedia. That story has yet to be written.

    This story has been written (by another Canuck, I’m proud to say!) See:

    Wikipedia’s climate doctor

    How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles

    The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.

    The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

    The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

    [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Wikipedia also “cooked the books” and erased any mention of empirical facts that have been discovered – but ignored or distorted by the influence peddlers who control research funds and foolishly tried to control scientific truths:

    1. The Sun is the iron-rich remnant of the supernova that ejected all of the material now orbiting it about five (5) billion (10^9) years ago.

    2. The top of the solar atmosphere is covered with Hydrogen – the lightest of all elements – but the Sun is NOT a ball of Hydrogen (H).

    3. Solar energy comes primarily from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the solar core – NOT from H-fusion.

    4. Solar-wind Hydrogen pouring from the solar surface is a waste product (neutron-decay product) from the solar engine.

    5. Solar neutrinos do not oscillate away, although federal research agencies got one hundred and seventy-eight (178) authors from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory to claim that they had confirmed this illusion in 2001.

    6. Earth’s climate is changing, has changed in the past, and will always change because our climate is controlled by the stormy Sun – a variable star centered on an energetic neutron core that moves inside as the Sun is jerked about the center-of-mass of the solar system by gravitational interactions with orbiting planets.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    http://www.omatumr.com


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    I’ve now have a “portable version” of this poster that I can carry in my shirt pocket and show folks. I downloaded the poster size version to an iPod Touch using a free app called PDF Reader. Some of “columns” are a bit wide for normal reading, but it is quite legible and one finger on the screen can easly scroll left and right while reading them.

    It is not difficult to let someone peruse selected parts at any rate, and since I retired long ago and no longer carry papers. (I used to sometimes add 12 inch reels of computer tape in my attache case, and I think my left arm must be longer than the right from the experience!)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Oliver Manuel,

    I’m glad you like the timeline chart, and think it’s important enough to be worth investigating. I realize you are a skeptical scientist and are trying to protect us from the ad hominem attacks that usually come, but I think it’s more important for us to find ways to stop the ad hominem attacks rather than respond to them. When we try to appease ad homs, we dignify their illogical muddy nature.

    Life is too short, and the climate is too complex, for us to play the game of adding unnecessary dead-end points.

    Ad hominem attacks are straight from the stone age. They represent the dark prehistory of civilization. Those who throw ad homs should be embarrassed into an apology rather than answered in seriousness.

    Mohib is a commentator (as I am too) – we merely arrange the data that others collect and store. The “worst” we could do to distort the world is lie (and we would be easily caught out) or cherry-pick (and anyone can provide the omitted parts). Our products rise or fall on their merits.

    Both of us welcome any constructive feedback and will be making corrections.

    If Mohib would like to share his motivations or background, onlookers on the site would find it interesting to know what and why he did it, and for that sake of the skeptical community I’m happy for people to discuss that. It’s irrelevant scientifically, but I acknowledge it is good PR for the public to learn just how skilled and motivated the skeptics are, and how it is a pro bono movement rising up against big-money.

    As a human interest story, it’s worth telling.

    But I will not allow ad hominems to pollute this site, and I would not publish identifying marks (emails or addresses) without someones express permission, and I would not even ask for them to do so. Ad homs (a form of bullying) are everywhere. All the more reason to maintain a small pool of logic and good manners in the only pond under my control.

    A loss of privacy would surely dissuade other skeptics from stepping up to help. One more win for big-bullies and a loss for humanity.

    (So Mohib, if you want to tell us more about you, people are interested, and mostly all with good intentions, but if you’d prefer to keep a low profile I will defend that to the end.)

    Ultimately, I think the best way to stop ad homs is with a question. Throw the ball back in their court. Ask something along the lines of: “If Mohib was ….. (insert ridiculous label: Son of an oil sheik; muslim prince of arabia; gay ballet star)… how exactly does that make the emails from ClimateGate any less damning?

    Let the stone-agers try to wiggle out of that one.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MarcH

    Hi Jo,
    Here’s another timetime, though this one has more holes than a block of swiss cheese. And to think we all helped pay for it!

    http://www.abc.net.au/innovation/environment/cc_timeline.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I can’t help but feel that this current debate about “warming” would have played out exactly the same way if we were debating “cooling.”

    You would essentially have the same players.

    The same politicians would be waving their arms in parliament telling us unless a piece of legistlation is passed, we and our children will be doomed.

    The same carpetbaggers and rent seekers would be taking up positions to make money out of the crisis.

    The same honest businesses will experience an increase in business. Like the printers who print the mountains of reports, or the resort operators who host the conferences etc etc.

    The same people with the genuine belief that we are doomed, and the opinion that we should be doing something, anything, to avert disaster, will be arguing the same case, if only because they can’t think past their current level of knowledge. Polar bears will still be dying, only this time because spring arrives too late, mother bears milk dries up or the feeding grounds are now too far away, they’ll die either way. Species and eco-systems will be damaged and wiped out either way, etc etc

    The same scientists arguing the fors and againsts will argue in the same way. But there is another class of scientist, the ones who argue a position but do so not because they necessarily believe in that position, but because holding that position gains them status or money or power or all of the above. I put these scientists in the same category as the carpetbaggers and rent seekers, they don’t belong among the scientist class.

    I make the above comment because that is what’s happened historically, it’s a statement of fact, it’s been happening ever since man has debated climate.

    A cartoonist could represent this in a drawing of a giant graph. A black line representing temperature snaking and zig zagging on a downward slope, caricatures of the above people milling along the length of the line arguing, waving dollar bills in their hands, waving legistlation around etc etc.
    The black line would eventually bend upwards, snaking and zig zagging it’s way up past the zero line, and the exact same caricatures waving the same dollar bills, the same legistlation papers, the same peer reviewed reports, (only many more of them).

    If the graph was big enough, you could extend it back or forth in time, with the same caricatures. Go back far enough to see witches burned or children sacrificed.

    We may believe we are “smarter” than our predecessors, but in reality, we may have more knowledge, but are none the wiser at all, not even a tiny bit wiser, and that’s the sad part of it all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    The IPCC has been charged with the task of assessing climate change. But have they? In their synthesis report, they say they have been charged….
    “with the mandate to assess scientific information related to climate change, to evaluate the environmental and socio-economic consequences of climate change,
    and to formulate realistic response strategies”.

    So they have produced thousands of pages of reports, graphs, tables and have reached conclusions, these we are aware of.
    Where are the chapters on the BENEFITS of global warming of 2 to 2.5degC? Surely someone somewhere will benefit from warming? Those living in the higher lattitudes, the Russians Canadians northern Europeans. The species of plant and animal life that may/will benefit from warming? Surely it can be seen that the overwhelming majority of species live in the warmer wetter areas of the planet. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that warming may create larger areas of these “ideal” conditions?
    Where are the list of benefits from warming? Who made the decision that warming has more negative consequences than positive? Where are the positive socio-economic impact statements? Where are the comparison charts? Which Working Group of the IPCC studied the positive affects of warming? Where are the studies of past warm periods and how societies benefitted as a result?

    So either the IPCC have to admit they only did half of their job these last 20 years, or they have to admit that their brief, mandate if you will, was/is only to study and assess the negative consequences and should therefore change the statement above to indicate that.

    This begs the question….why?
    Who made the decision to suppress the benefits of warming and why? Justify your decision to only present half of the facts to the people and justify it NOW, before whole economies are turned upside down.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi All,
    My apologies if this has already been linked to, but,
    below is another extemely good “account” of the CRU emails and their appropriate relevances,
    done on a one by one timeline basis.

    http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    We examine the Earth’s energy balance since 1950, identifying results that can be obtained without using global climate models. Important terms that can be constrained using only measurements and radiative transfer models are ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions. We explicitly consider the emission of energy by a warming Earth by using correlations between surface temperature and satellite radiant flux data and show that this term is already quite significant. About 20% of the integrated positive forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation since 1950 has been radiated to space.

    First point, they don’t mention anything about convection carrying heat from the surface to the high atmosphere.

    More significantly, “integrated positive forcing” would surely refer to power integrated over time and space to give a total energy term. If 20% of the energy radiated away into space, that means 80% is still sitting here, since 1950! Scratious me, no wonder these people are frightened… that’s a lot of energy lurking around. I wonder where it is though? Has anyone seen it?

    If these guys seriously believe there can be constant accumulation of significant energy from 1950 to today then their idea of energy balance is substantially different from any concept in my mind.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I was really happy when Barack Obama was elected. I really thought this might be the beginning of a new direction in world politics, and society attitudes in general.

    Hearing his speech in Copenhagen was as stunning (in the negative sense) as it was crushing.

    His popularity must have got to his head. People saying he may be “the saviour” made him believe he really is a saviour.

    How else could he have kept a straight face when telling the world he would adjust the planets temperature by 2deg C? He even said they debated adjusting it by 1.5degC

    So either he is crazy, drunk on the accolades or he is taking the rest of us for fools, thinking we will REALLY believe he is so powerful that he can adjust the planets thermometre.

    The arrogance of it. Who needs royalty when you got the all powerful chosen one who will save us from ourselves.

    This generation did so many good things to be proud of. But Im afraid future generations will remember us for this funny, (yes they will laugh) stupid episode of our times. Just like we view some past generations in a negative light.

    They certainly won’t feel pride when reading about us in their books. Some may even do a theisis on us. “The Arrogance of the Technology Boom (or how a generation conned itself)”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    ooops didn’t finish the by line.

    Arrogance of the Technology Boom (or how a generation conned itself into poverty)”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mohib

    Hi everybody,

    Given the natural interest and Joanne’s invitation above, I’ll just say a few words. Firstly however, I hope you have all had a Merry Christmas and wish you a very happy, peaceful and stress-free New Year. Also thank you all once again for your kind words.

    Joanne was, as always, eloquent, succinct and expressed my own sentiments perfectly. As I mentioned when ClimateGate broke I started the chart for myself to sort out what happened when, but since the public weren’t going to dig up and digest all the nitty gritty details that was coming out on the blogs I thought others might benefit from the chart so I polished it up (and retraced the sources). As for me, I’m not part of any activist group, cause or anything else! I’m just one of 6.499 billion other people on the planet trying to cope with all the pressures of life. However, I think we should all take time out of our personal lives and volunteer something of value, to try and make the world a little better and little saner, when we have the opportunity to do so but without also being obliged to be on public display.

    My degree is in computer science and mathematics, but being an amateur astronomer I have always been an AGW skeptic because I’ve been aware of “global warming” on other planets — you probably saw the boxes related to this — and so for me it seemed fairly obvious that the Sun (along with solar system/galactic effects) were fundamental, if not the primary, root causes of warming/cooling cycles we go through. BTW there’s also been warming on Jupiter and Pluto also but some debate as to their cause. For example, Pluto has been inward bound and getting closer to the Sun, as opposed to being warmed by changes within the Sun itself.

    A couple of years ago I read Chricton’s book “State of Fear” and although I was surprised he didn’t mention the planets, I learned about many other issues (urban heat island, etc.) from him. I think he did more to make the issues assessable than anyone else I’m aware of. Although he’s unrelated to ClimateGate per se, I’ve given him a place of honour on the chart, as suggested, and quoted his outstanding statement on fallacies of consensus science which is at the heart of ClimateGate (and also because I’m exercising a little editorial privilege to appreciate what he taught me!!)

    I’ve done exhibition timelines before and have seen how they create compelling visuals which help people understand certain types of issues and it seems some are planning to print the ClimateGate timeline in full size at commercial printers. From my experience, if you’re planning a mural for public display then print it off at 200% size (leave a 6″ border and also print the page boundary as in the photos) — it will make for an impressive display 5m (16′) long 1.75m (6′) high. The photos show two pro-bono mural timelines (4m x 1m) I did for an international NGO and also a community organization:

    They’ll give you an idea of how impressive they look when printed on a very serious outdoor banner printer like this: http://www.trustexporter.com/upload2/2009-06-30/426841426118697.jpg

    The updated ClimateGate timeline should be available soon and I’ve noted all corrections that have been mentioned. I very much appreciate every one of them. And, given some intend to print it out at full size, I’d hate very much for there to be errors after they spend so much money so please nitpick all you want!!

    I’ve incorporated almost all the other suggestions so far, and in particular:

    a) Thank you T.luxe over on WUWT for pointing me to http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_science_corrupted.pdf . This is a must read for anyone and I’ve added some important history from there. The early years of the IPCC/CRU/UK MET OFFICE/HADLEY triangle is even more incestuous than I ever imagined.

    b) Thank you Joanne for suggesting to add some of the economic aspects of this whole scandal — money is always somewhere in any mess. Her “Climate Money” book is another must read.

    c) Thank you Richard re the Vikings, Greenland and grapes. You were correct and American Thinker had overstated the facts as far as I can tell. So coming back to your comments, and given that you obviously know more about this topic than I do, I have a few questions for you (or anyone else who can help):

    1) Is there a nice solid reference re the grapes on Hadrian’s wall in Northern England? It’s mentioned in many places but a nice “authority” is what I’m looking for — paper, museum website, university project, etc. You know something “peer reviewed” — eeek!

    2) Is there the same for the “Viking graves are today in permafrost, which they couldn’t have been when first dug” you mentioned?

    3) Does anyone know in which of Chaucer’s works he “talks of vineyards in Northern England”? It seems this exact phrase has been copied so many times (yours truly guilty too) and never attributed to a source in his work, or any kind of source for that matter.

    4) Are there any other facts like the graves or the Hadrian grapes or Chaucer which are witness to certain level warming as a factual matter which the public can trust with their own thinking rather than having to put faith in scientists their “proxy reconstructions” — since that debate never ends and is ok within academic circles but does nothing for lay people like myself (especially now that we know these are all open to fiddling/interpretation/human mistakes and so we need another expert to show us the first expert’s wrong for what ever reason).

    Finally I would be interested in feedback from about what facts you found most interesting and/or new that reinforced your own thinking if you are already a skeptic, or what non-skeptics you’ve shown it to moved them to at least reconsider (if not switch) their positions so I can see what seems to be important in people’s minds.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    I agree folks, don’t feed the egos of these clowns.

    Two days before Chrissie, I received written responses to emails sent to NSW Liberal Senators (Heffernan and Payne). I am still bothered by their references to the problem/threat of “climate change”. Is it truly possible that the CRU saga has bypassed them? I tend to think not and that they are still trying to “straddle the fence” . Any opinions?

    I’m wary of sending the .pdf just in case others have done so. Nothing turns a pollie off more than the suggestion of a programmed mass response.

    Seasons greetings to all.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    To Be Fair, That’s A Lot Of Decline To Hide…

    “Climategate Denier Raises Nazi Allusions, Employs Awesome CRU Tactics, Purges Arguments That Prove Him Wrong.” And no, it’s not Al Gore, this time. Related: “The Climategate Timeline: 30 years visualized” The Watt’s…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Arrogance of the Technology Boom (or how a generation conned itself into poverty)

    Yes, we seem to have crossed the Clarke Point where technology has become sufficiently advanced that it turns into magic. What nobody expected was that in the same society we would have both people who understand technology and people who think it is magic mingling amongst each other.

    I regularly have difficulty explaining to people that some projects in the computing world are much more difficult than others, for reasons that appear to make no sense. People say, “well if you can get it to search for a keyword, why not get it to search for sentences that mention the same topic?” Sounds reasonable, unless you understand the mechanisms involved.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mohib,
    Regarding Greenland I did a post a long time ago elsewhere, but I can not remember which thread specifically on the same or very similar subject.
    So, please excuse the complete excerpt below to put the links into context.
    I hope they may be of help.

    Derek.

    Simple, Greenland. OK, here is the indisputable fact, http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/bcolor=red The Fate of Greenland’s Vikings by Dale Mackenzie Brown.[/color][/b].
    1st Excerpt,
    “Some people call it the Farm under the Sand, others Greenland’s Pompeii. Dating to the mid-fourteenth century, it was once the site of a Viking colony founded along the island’s grassy southwestern coast that stretches in a fjord-indented ribbon between the glaciers and the sea. Archaeologists Jette Arneborg of the Danish National Museum, Joel Berglund of the Greenland National Museum, and Claus Andreasen of Greenland University could not have guessed what would be revealed when they excavated the ruins of the five-room, stone-and-turf house in the early 1990s.
    As the archaeologists dug through the permafrost and removed the windblown glacial sand that filled the rooms, they found fragments of looms and cloth.”
    End of excerpt.

    That is the word permafrost, meaning permanently frozen sub soil.

    2nd Excerpt
    “ Of the first 24 boatloads of land-hungry settlers who set out from Iceland in the summer of 986 to colonize new territory explored several years earlier by the vagabond and outlaw, Erik the Red, only 14 made it, the others having been forced back to port or lost at sea. Yet more brave souls, drawn by the promise of a better life for themselves, soon followed. Under the leadership of the red-faced, red-bearded Erik (who had given the island its attractive name, the better to lure settlers there), the colonists developed a little Europe of their own just a few hundred miles from North America, a full 500 years before Columbus set foot on the continent. They established dairy and sheep farms throughout the unglaciated areas of the south and built churches, a monastery, a nunnery, and a cathedral boasting an imported bronze bell and greenish tinted glass windows.”
    End of excerpt.

    So, undeniably it is a lot, lot colder now, than then. Then being roughly between 1100 and 700 years ago.
    This nicely covers the first three hundred years of the HS 1,000.
    IT WAS A LOT WARMER,
    BETWEEN 2 TO 4 DEGREES CELCIUS WARMER THAN THE HS 1,000 SAYS IT WAS.

    Here is another link to Greenland’s Vikings.
    http://saesferd.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/greenland-vikings/ – Antiquarian’s Attic

    Greenland is not exactly a small island, and there is much evidence that it was all effected by the same climate at the time. I believe the “consensus” position is that differences like this to the HS 1,000 must have been only localized……….
    I can see no reasonable explanation why this so called “small” “localized” anomaly can be explained or justified for even a few short years, let alone the 400 years that there is a massive amount of evidence for.
    This same time period also has numerous other lines of evidence (globally) for a very similar climate at the time, most notably, but not exclusively, all over Europe and it’s numerous other human and, archaeological remains.
    It is totally counter intuitive to suggest some pine trees in one small part of America recorded world climate than the whole of the Greenland, European, and global evidence suggests. Surely the only reasonable conclusion is that the Bristlecones recorded a small local variation, not the rest of the world.
    Furthermore the amount of other variables that can equally easily effect tree ring width are not accounted for in the HS 1,000 reconstruction in any reasonable or realistic manner.
    In point of fact, at least one data set (used in the HS 1,000) was deliberately misinterpreted by Mann et al to reach the conclusions they did.
    The other great omission of the HS 1,000 plot was the Little Ice Age.
    http://www.grisda.org/origins/10051.htm – THE LITTLE ICE AGE Richard D. Tkachuck

    Exert,
    “ In 1695 sea ice completely surrounded Iceland except for one port. Even from the highest mountains, open water could not be seen in all directions (Figure 1h) (Lamb 1977, p. 453). This and later sea ice flows resulted in the island getting its present name.”
    Again the HS 1,000 says it was a different at the time, namely far warmer than it must have been for this to have happened.
    The Little Ice Age is only a couple of hundred years ago and much evidence abounds from around the globe that things were definitely a lot colder than than now. This is not what the HS 1,000 says it was. From European documentation of glacier positions, to artists painting they all agree it was a lot colder.
    The HS 1,000, based mainly on a few trees from a small part of America says otherwise.
    Which is the small localized difference, and which is the global record of past climate.
    How Greenland and Iceland got their names, or
    a study that had many other factors that could of created the tree ring width reading going against the global record that were not accounted for (let alone explained – I wonder why not – NOT)…

    So, eadler2 I am very clear about the HS 1,000 it is a fraud.
    The names of Greenland and Iceland, and so much more, are testament to that.
    Just for good measure here is a link to some inuit evidence as well.
    http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=588&art_id=qw1093454287183G654 – Ancient Inuit graves discovered in Greenland
    And, how about this revealed by a retreating glacier in the Ukraine.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/08/ukraine.tomparfitt – Bronze Age pyramid found in Ukraine
    Tom Parfitt in Moscow The Guardian, Friday September 8 2006

    Regarding the HS 2,000 I have little doubt that the same author will produce much of the same again, he did so last time for ideological reasons, and I see no reason why he will not again.
    In the near future I am certain that the “assumptions” behind the statistics that go to make up the HS 2,000 which be unraveled. I doubt they are clear, or open as science is supposed to be. I have no doubt that Steve McIntyre will also expose them for what they really are, again. It is just that this time we will all realize a lot sooner how bad this supposed “science” really is.
    Just as the HS 1,000 threw out virtually all the globally available evidence of what climate and humans HAD ACTUALLY DONE, isn’t it obvious that the HS 2,000 will have to throw out all of Roman history.
    Think about it, vineyards in Southern Britain, nope it was too cold…
    Roman forts on top of Hard knott Pass, nope it was too cold.
    The Roman’s did not mine there says the HS 2,000, the Romans did not live there either says the HS 2,000, etc, etc,
    according to the HS 2,000 “there” was too cold back then.
    NO, “THERE” WAS NOT.
    THE HS 2,000 IS AS MUCH A FRAUD AS THE HS 1,000 WAS, IS, AND WILL ALWAYS REMAIN,
    THE NAMES GREENLAND AND ICELAND TESTIFY TO THAT
    AS DOES MOST OF ROMAN HISTORY.

    Unbelievable, the HS 1,000, the HS 2,000, and anything that use or refer to it / them or the IPCC as proof or justification.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dear Mohib:

    Thank you, thank you for your message (#150) and for constructing the Poster Timeline of ClimateGate events. That is an impressive document!

    I agree that “the Sun (along with solar system/galactic effects)” is the primary cause of warming/cooling cycles (climate change).

    Several studies have shown that Earth’s cycles of warming and cooling are linked with solar cycles of deep-seated magnetic fields that protrude through the photosphere as sunspots [e.g., J. Shirley, “Axial rotation, orbital revolution and solar spin-orbit coupling,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 368 (2006) 280-282].

    Abundance measurements of elements and isotopes in various parts of the solar system (meteorites, planets, the photosphere, solar wind and solar flares) since 1960 [http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509] offer a totally unexpected reason why solar cycles and cycles of global warming and cooling are linked to the Sun’s motion around the center-of-mass of the solar system:

    As the Sun moves around the center-of-mass of the solar system, wobbling around inside the Sun is a dense, energetic solar core that is:

    a.) ~1,000,000,000,000,000 more dense than ordinary matter.

    b.) Highly energized by repulsive forces between neutrons.

    c.) Highly magnetic with a field of ~1,000,000,000,000 Gauss [http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704].

    Again, Mohib, I deeply appreciate all the effort that you put into constructing the Poster Timeline of ClimateGate events. Please send me a copy of the final Poster when completed.

    My experiences suggest that Climategate is but the tip of a very dirty iceberg that will also reveal NAS-gate, NASA-gate, DOE-gate, etc. as it melts under the spotlight of public scrutiny.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mohib

    Oliver,

    I’ve recently read a couple of articles regarding the centre of mass effect and they were very interesting. I was quite surprised despite being an amateur for over 30 years it never occurred to me that the 11 year solar cycle would be connected to Jupiter’s 11 year orbit given that it’s the largest mass in the solar system.

    Climate change by Jupiter
    The alignment of the planets, and especially that of Jupiter and Saturn, control the climate on Earth.
    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bfeddc8e-90d7-4f54-9ca7-1f56fadc7c2b

    I started to research a bit more on this and discovered the following but I have to say I don’t understand everything, but given Saturn’s orbit of 29.7 years (and it being the second largest mass in the solar system) it seems clear to me that it is affecting the +/- 30 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation we observe. And of course Neptune and Uranus must be contributing their effects and the all 4 together creating resonances that enhance or diminish the overall effects. I thought this was very interesting but can’t understand all the math and don’t know whether this paper is even valid or has been improved upon further.

    Orbital Resonance and Solar Cycles
    http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf

    It seems to me there are several issues:

    a) the Sun affects the climate, perhaps as it seems as Henrik Svensmark suggests through its impact on cosmic rays via its magnetic field
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

    b) what is going on in the sun that causes the changes in its magnetic field. I don’t know much about the sun, but found this from NASA very interesting (I assume its correct):

    Long Range Solar Forecast 05.10.2006
    Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

    Using historical sunspot records, Hathaway has succeeded in clocking the conveyor belt as far back as 1890. The numbers are compelling: For more than a century, “the speed of the belt has been a good predictor of future solar activity.” If the trend holds, Solar Cycle 25 in 2022 could be, like the belt itself, “off the bottom of the charts.”

    And this seems to be consistent with other studies showing something seriously “wrong” with the sun:

    Another parallel with the Maunder Minimum
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/12/another-parallel-with-the-maunder-minimum/

    The Sun’s magnetic funk continues
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/04/the-suns-magnetic-funk-continues/

    c) what affects the Sun to have these effects, and that I think comes from the gravitational effects from the solar system as in the “Orbital Resonance and Solar Cycles” above.

    I think the ClimateGate scientists know full well the Sun is responsible for the effects because this CRU e-mail I ran into was VERY revealing (its on the chart, but I’ve not seen it mentioned in any anlaysis:

    SCHNEIDER [1255550975.txt]: As we enter an El Nino year and as
    soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary–presumed–
    vacation
    … there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like
    1992-2000.

    And also this article over on realclimate.org:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

    If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.

    They gave no reason for how the figure 2020 was arrived, but that is 11 years away (ie when Cycle 25 will start up) although if NASA and others are correct, Cycle 25 is going to be very quiet.

    And finally this was very interesting by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (yes that UN) trying to figure out how to accurately predict fish stocks based on the Sun — they also confirmed the Sun’s role in the PDO by 3 independent methods as far as I can understand:

    “Climate change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: the possibility of forecasting”
    http://www.fao.org/documents/pub_dett.asp?pub_id=61004&lang=en

    2. DYNAMICS OF CLIMATIC AND GEOPHYSICAL INDICES
    http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm

    The main objective of this study was to develop a predictive model based on the observable correlation between well-known climate indices and fish production, and forecast the dynamics of the main commercial fish stocks for 5–15 years ahead. Spectral analysis of the time series of the global air surface temperature anomaly (dT), the Atmospheric Circulation Index (ACI), and Length Of Day (LOD) estimated from direct observations (110-150 years) showed a clear 55-65 year periodicity [IE 30 YEARS WARMING, 30 YEARS COOLING]. Spectral analysis also showed similar periodicity for a reconstructed time series of the air surface temperatures for the last 1500 years, a 1600 years long reconstructed time series of sardine and anchovy biomass in Californian upwelling areas, and catch statistics for the main commercial species during the last 50-100 years. These relationships are used as a basis for a stochastic model intended to forecast the long-term fluctuations of catches of the 12 major commercial species for up to 30 years ahead. According to model calculations, total catch of Atlantic and Pacific herring, Atlantic cod, South African sardine, and Peruvian and Japanese anchovy for the period 2000–2015 will increase by approximately two million tons, and will then decrease. During the same period, total catch of Japanese, Peruvian, Californian and European sardine, Pacific salmon, Alaska pollock and Chilean jack mackerel is predicted to decrease by about 4 million tons, and then increase. The probable scenario of climate and biota changes for next 50-60 years is considered.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    As a “supplement” to this fabulous timeline – and considering the current dearth of unbiased/factual MSM (TV) coverage of Climategate – readers might be interested in knowing how they do it in Finland:

    Climate Science … “Finnished”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mohib

    Sorry Oliver … correction to my last post.

    they also confirmed the Sun’s role in the PDO by 3 independent methods as far as I can understand:

    should have been

    they also confirmed the 30 year PDO oscillations by 3 independent methods as far as I can understand:

    Also, thank you for your kind words.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Josh

    Came across a very detailed ‘complete’ analysis of the climategate emails over here: http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/ .. it’s very easy to follow and in chronological order by John Costella, B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross_Brisbane

    Anne-Kit Littler:

    Further to my reasonings, I would defer you to read throughly this web site that also expresses my own views on this most important science since man first walked the earth.

    http://christiansandclimate.org/learn/call-to-action/

    As to the matter of Cornwall Alliance – quite clearly they are very right wing conservative biased in their political outlook on economics.

    As to the matter of the tape – The old arguments are there to hear on the speech. I shall be mainly addressing C02 Linked to Warming Climate papers on this site only as that all I’ll time for.

    Space and context does not permit me in turning this into a theological debate here.

    Ross Brisbane


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Barry Woods

    Hi Mohib

    Please put Tim Mitchell into the timeline, he is in the emails, and wrote the code that ‘harry’ (harry_Read_me.txt) is working on.

    Perhaps a key example of people attracted to ‘climate science’.
    The groupthink, of similar people attracting similar people with the same ideas, (ie we are going to save the planet from human pollution/corruption, redistribute wealth, etc) they never stop to think that he idea itself, may possibly be wrong!

    I’ve seen the emails, and the politicisation of science and the agenda is shocking…

    However for me the code is the most shocking, it looks like a few research phd students and post grads put together a dodgy(fortran!?!) computer model driving a now trillion dollar ‘carbon’ economy.

    I have a BSc Applied Chemistry, MSc Information Systems Eng (CompSci/Cybernetics) What these ‘climate scientists’ were trying to do in modelling a complex poorly understood chaotic system (ie planets earth climate) is such an impossible conceit that it can be even attempted.

    Let alone the shocking state of the code, the handling of the data, ‘lost’ data, version control, just shear awfullness of their work (12 years plus for me in IT/Telecoms/banking systems)

    So for me, just looking at the code Dr Tim Mitchell wrote (1997 – 2004) the earlier versions of what ‘Harry’ (Harry_Read_me.txt – Dr Ian ‘Harry’ Harris) is fixing, the data manipulation, massaging, ‘corrections’, ‘adjustments’, Data integrity (lack of) is particulary galling..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    … this most important science since man first walked the earth …

    My vote stays with Newton.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Josh

    Just a thought, but wouldn’t it be a really helpful to the current investigators in the CRU fraud case, if someone was to supply them with the contributions from the community based efforts so far?
    There’s a lot of content for them to investigate, I’m sure they’d appreciate a reduction in the man hours required to process the data. Does anyone have the contact details for the external chair reviewing the documents, etc?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    All,

    I have gathered a sample of articles and links on why the science is not settled when it come to climate change.

    This could help some see the “light”

    Also, I made the connection between religion and the climate change debate in November on my blog:
    Is the debate on climate change like a religion?

    Cheers from Québec, Canada.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    We all know the isolation one feels when seemingly surrounded by people who are hostile to our ideas (such as I felt writing on the pages of another web log); I am frequently the target of criticism from groups who worry about greenhouse warming)

    I want to emphasize that criticism here is directed at your ideas about AGW and not you the person; we are all human and recognize our limitations for being just that.

    I am sure that you and I Ross would have a wonderful conversation about a lot of things outside of AGW, regrettably that has become so polarizing to people.

    I’m sure you understand, Ross, that all who write on Jo Anne’s pages have Humanity’s interest in mind – I can say exactly how humanity will be harmed if society attempts to address AGW, and your arguments to the contrary do not have so much evidence behind them.

    Exactly none, more precisely, from evidence available in the physical world. You know that’s true, don’t you; Polar regions have always melted and refrozen, droughts come and go, weather changes perpetually since Earth existed


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dear Mohib (Comments 164 & 167)
    _and Barry (Comments 183 & 184)

    I appreciate your comments and your efforts to unravel the intriguing story of Climategate.

    That is the tip of a very dirty iceberg that I have watched grow for five decades from an unholy alliance of scientists and politicians.

    Former President Eisenhower warned of the dangers of an unholy alliance developing between scientists and politicians in his farewell address in January 1961. Despite his warning that is exactly what has happened.

    Near the base of the iceberg of scientific fraud is the President of the National Academy of Sciences (Now Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone – a climatologist and member of the Geophysics Section of NAS) and Congressional politicians with primary responsibility for budgetary oversight over science.

    Decades of fraud and deceit will be exposed in NAS and in the federal research agencies whose budgets have been reviewed by NAS (NASA, DOE, NSF, etc) if the dirty iceberg melts under the spotlight of public scrutiny.

    It is unlikely that President Obama’s Science Advisor, Dr. John Holdren, could be unaware of the Sciencegate time-bomb that he inherited.

    He received the following message on December 15, 2009 from an Emeritus Professor of Nuclear & Space Studies that started research in 1960 on abundances of isotopes and elements in meteorites, planets, the Moon (as a NASA PI for Apollo), the solar photosphere, the solar wind, and solar flares.
    - – - – - -

    “The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a private group that numbers you among its members, has trained scientists with grant funds the way Pavlov trained dogs with dog biscuits – at least since the time when I started my research career in 1960.

    The integrity of publicly financed science has been essentially destroyed.

    Here are a few empirical facts that have been discovered – but ignored or distorted by the influence peddlers who control research funds and foolishly tried to control scientific truths:

    1. The Sun is the iron-rich remnant of the supernova that ejected all of the material now orbiting it about five (5) billion (10^9) years ago.

    2. The top of the solar atmosphere is covered with Hydrogen – the lightest of all elements – but the Sun is NOT a ball of Hydrogen (H).

    3. Solar energy comes primarily from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the solar core – NOT from H-fusion.

    4. Solar-wind Hydrogen pouring from the solar surface is a waste product (neutron-decay product) from the solar engine.

    5. Solar neutrinos do not oscillate away, although one hundred and seventy-eight (178) authors claimed in 2001 that the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory confirmed this illusion.

    6. Earth’s climate is changing, has changed in the past, and will always change because our climate is controlled by the stormy Sun – a variable star.

    The experimental basis for these statements are in four papers and references therein:

    1. “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2002) 197-201;

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1n87370x6685079/

    2. “Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections”, paper #1033, 36th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference (LPSC), Houston, Texas, March 14-18, 2005.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0412502v1

    3. “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass”, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856;

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509

    4. “Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun”, Energy and Environment 20 (2009) 131-144;

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

    Again, I wish you well. Your success will determine whether or not future generations have the opportunity to enjoy a life of continuous discovery.”

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo
    http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09


    Report this

    00

  • #

    co2isnotevil,

    The likes of Ross (aka. true believers of all stripes) rely not on objective evidence, reproducible experiment, and verified natural law. They rely on revealed truth. The bible is but one source of their revealed truth. Revealed truth also comes from various authorities who, according to the given authority, is beyond question. That is because whatever they say is true simply because they say so. To prove it, they will use whatever power they have to prevent you from disagreeing. See the Spanish Inquisition, the Infallibility of the Pope, the Salem Witch Trials and Executions, and the Climate Gate documents for instructive examples.

    Fundamentally, they are at war with reality. They fear that we will discover that fact. Their even greater fear is that THEY will also discover that fact and will have to face reality without benefit of their *sacred* revealed truth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Tim Mitchell should be in the timeline. (wrote the code mentioned in Harry_read_me.txt)

    “…….Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ’s imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of
    corruption (Romans. 19-22).

    Tim Mitchell works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park Evangelical Church.”

    http://www.e-n.org.uk/1129-Climate-change-and-the-christian.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Great work. Really great work. Thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Brian,

    I’ve been affected by censors as well. I spent quite a while trying to get a Stefan-Boltmann derivation of the climate sensitivity on Wikipedia. As fast as I could post something, Conolley or one of his minions would remove it. After trying to justify it on the discussion pages, even the discussion was deleted. Gavin is so afraid of the issues I raise, that he has blocked my IP addresses from being able to post on RC. I can’t even get a message into the moderating queue using a different identity.

    The fact that people like Ross stubbornly hold on to the catastrophic AGW hypothesis is evidence that censoring the truth does work to push an agenda. Of course, like any falsely propped up idea, it’s destined to crash and burn.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeff of Bolta's Blog

    Mohib & Jo;
    How do we get this fantastic document published?
    My vision is of full size posters adorning the front windows of shops owned by AGW sceptics (read: Climate Change Realists) across the entire English speaking world.
    We know that neither most of the media nor many politicians are going to give this the coverage it deserves, so the only way to update the people who don’t have access to the internet is to get this out where they are: Shops, Petrol Stations, Tourist areas, etc.
    I’ve already downloaded the PDF (is there a newer version available?) to forward to my Federal Member of Parliament – a Liberal, but a “Believer” nonetheless.
    I’m going to email it to Barnaby’s Press Secretary as well.
    Jeff of Gembrook


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bobby W

    This is an excellent post!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mohib:

    I’ll have proposed text tonight, I think, for another 1975 climate article from Science News (it was their cover article). I have links to a cover image and the text
    at my webiste link, the text is at http://www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/37739/name/CHILLING_POSSIBILITIES

    It would be nice or have a more science-oriented publication to include with the news magazines.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bit OT I know but for those of you who are animal lovers, here is an excellent anti-AGW argument which does not involve a judgement call by any human(s) whatsover. Like the sensitivity of dogs to impending earthquakes etc it is purely a judgement made by an animal species.

    (1) It is a fact that all around the coast of Antarctica there can be found tens of thousands of the skeletons of the Southern Elephant Seal. Many of those skeletons are of pregnant females, foetuses, babies and young seals proving that many of those sites were breeding colonies.

    (2) Carbon-14 dating has been done on very many of these skeletal remains and show that these colonies came into in existence more than 10,000 years ago around the beginning of the Holocene after the last Ice Age and lasted up until about 1000 years ago. That is, these colonies ended during the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) – most likely towards it’s end. BTW, it is noted that according to the AGW people the MWP didn’t actually exist in the Southern Hemisphere.

    (3) So, since the end of the MWP the Southern Elephant Seal has not bred at all on Antarctica for 1000 years but instead has prefered to breed on a large number of islands in the Southern Ocean e.g. Macquarie Island, Kerguelen etc where sea temperature conditions, although chilly, are certainly warmer than around the coastline of Antarctica.

    (4) The AGW crowd have absolutely no answer for this biologically curious fact in the context that they claim that for the last 100 years conditions in the Southern Ocean and around the coastline of Antarctica have been warming up. Although total numbers of the Southern Elephant Seal declined in the 18th and 19th century due to sealing by Europeans, that stopped before the end of the 19th century and their numbers have since recovered well over the last 120 years or so.

    Southern Elephant seals are amazingly robust animals. It has been proven by tagging that small groups can traverse 1000s km of ocean in a matter of days. They basically roam the entire Southern Ocean at will. They frequently still visit the coastline of Antarctica to feed to this very day.

    Yet they do not breed there!

    It is a simple, undeniable fact that over the last 100 years of supposed 0.6 – 0.8 deg. C of surface warming, also claimed by the AGW lobby to have produced SST conditions warmer than during the MWP (refer Mann et al.) the Southern Elephant Seal has, for its own reasons, chosen NOT to re-commence breeding on the coastline of Antarctica where they had previously bred happily for at least 9000 years up until 1000 years ago!

    What does that tell you about the the Southern Elephant Seal’s view on the supposed unique warming of the modern period?

    Next time you meet a whale-hugging greenie spouting global warming ask them about the pesky contrary Southern Elephant Seal.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mohib, here are the quotes from http://www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/37739/name/CHILLING_POSSIBILITIES :

    I think this is the better:

    SCIENCE NEWS, 1 Mar. 1975:
    “… the weather in the first half of this century has been the warmest and best for world agriculture in over a millenium [sic]…. Since 1940, the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has been steadily falling … and shows no sign of reversal.”

    Another possibility:

    “Climatology, however, is still an infant science, and its practitioners have faced their sudden popularity with the blinking uncertainty of squirrels roused from hibernation: Some have dashed forward with instant pronouncements of impending doom, while others have shyly retired behind the complexities of their arcane studies, refusing even to speculate about what changes may lie ahead….”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    If bloggers like Ross wish to debate science, they need to follow the following “LAWS”

    The Laws

    Langmuir’s Laws of bad science
    1 .The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
    2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.
    3. There are claims of great accuracy.
    4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
    5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
    6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero.

    Parkinson’s Laws
    6) The progress of science is inversely proportional to the number of journals published.

    Maier’s Law
    If the facts don’t conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
    Corollaries:
    1) The bigger the theory, the better.
    2) The experiment may be considered a success if no more than 50% of the observed measurements must be discarded to obtain a correspondence with the theory.

     

    Le Chatelier-Braun Principle
    If any change is imposed on a system in equilibrium, the system will change in such a way as to counteract the imposed change.

    The Bureaucrat’s credo
    I cause change therefore I am.

    The first law of toxicology
    The poison is in the dose.

    Law of unintended consequences
    The actions of people (and especially of governments) always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended. These often outweigh the intended effects.

    Brignell’s Laws

    The law of league tables
    All measures used as the basis of a league table always improve.
    Corollary 1
    All other measures get worse to compensate.
    Corollary 2
    What you measure is what you get.

    The law of scientific consensus:
    At times of high scientific controversy, the consensus is always wrong.

    The law of beneficial developments:
    The intensity of the scaremongering attack on any new development is proportional to the level of benefit that it endows.
    Corollary:
    Alternative therapies do not come under attack.

    The law of computer models
    The results from computer models tend towards the desires and expectations of the modellers.
    Corollary
    The larger the model, the closer the convergence.

    The fundamental law of trends
    If you can’t see it, it ain’t there.

    The law of It
    Whatever it is, someone will find a way of making money out of it.

    The law of scientific equilibrium
    If it is settled, it is not science.
    If it is science, it is not settled.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Most skeptics seem to present themselves in a rather composed manner – maybe its time for me to start hyperventilating when expressing myself in public about what I perceive

    I picture Jim Hansen with a wild-eyed look, waving his arms and yelling about “550 PPM of CO2 in the air and monster storms that will leave nothing standing”

    Or Gore with unconvincing authority pounding his fist and yelling something about “atmosphere as sewer”

    Maybe I should present myself more forcibly; bordering on the maniacal and maybe more people will listen to me


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Hi Eddy and warm wishes for you and yours for the new year.

    The link I can provide for you is that of the late John L Daly from where I got the Laws and many other interesting articles regards AGW. here

    Hey Eddy, can you see some frustrating blog time coming up? I can


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JS

    IPCC (NON) Prediction

    The pro-AGW scientists at Realclimate.org ( Gavin Schmidt et al ) are now [ end 2009 ] attempting to prove the “accuracy and reliability” of their IPCC models by comparing “prediction” with actual temperatures. They give the latest IPCC “prediction” [ just one year away ] of 2010 temperatures (compared to the 1980-1989 average) as a temperature anomaly of between 0.0 to 0.8 degrees Celcius. compared with an actual of 0.3 degrees Celcius for 2009.

    That is, their own IPCC climate models have now had to be be modified to allow the possibility of a Zero increase in temperature over 30 years in order to provide a range that includes the actual temperatures. How are Error bars for a one year prediction of greater than the last 100 years temperature change remotely “accurate”?

    Over at (Skeptic) Wattsupwiththat.com they point out that in 2000, the CRU scientists were declaring that IPCC science proved thast snow in Britain was a thing of the past but now in 2009, the latest headline is “Snow and ice expected to blanket Britain for New Year”

    Personally, I regard the scientific basis of Global Warming as about as plausible as Homeopathy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Nice one JS #222

    These people are known as “Availability Entrepreneurs”

    They look around for any extreme event, then voila’ they link it to our sin…currently CO2.

    In the past it was overpopulation or exhaustion of resources or even global cooling.

    We burned witches, sacrificed our children (or those of others) and threw Jonah overboard etc etc

    As I said on this blog before, we as the human race have not wised-up one iota in the past centuries. Not one little bit, zip, zilch.

    Rather sad isn’t it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Hey mark LMAO Kick the cat instead, less property damage and the little blighters have got a huge carbon pawprint.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Back to the original subject to hand, here we have the confessions to show that the “founders” or the global warming myth created it from whole cloth; if they don’t convince you that AGW is a myth then I don’t think anyone ever will


    Report this

    00

  • #

    You are right Brian (#231).

    Power corrupts, producing arrogance and stupidity.

    The NAS-designed system of proposal reviews favors mental stagnation (constipation) over scientific progress.

    Thus a Professor of Astronomy at Stanford University lectured me recently about the Standard Solar Model, repeating the very information that I myself believed before I started making measurements in 1960!

    Having successful protected the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun against all experimental data to the contrary for the past 50 years, the alliance of politicians and scientists became increasingly arrogant and very foolishly decided that they could also manipulate information about Earth’s climate for their own ends.

    Climategate is only the visible tip of a very dirty iceberg!

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel


    Report this

    00

  • #

    There is an interesting article at Business Day.

    Dr Philip Lloyd Pr Eng, a coordinating lead author, concludes the article by saying:

    It isn’t necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policy makers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.

    What is equally interesting is a comment from someone identified as RW:

    Of course, Dr. Lloyd is right, but he’s hardly suggesting anything that hasn’t been known for years by anyone who’s taken a detached interest in the subject. Moreover: •For AGW propagandists, why is so called “peer review” so important? Who “peer reviewed” Pythagorus, Hippocrates, Galen, Copernicus, Galileo, Versalius, Harvey, Hooke, Newton, Dalton, Priestley, Lavoisier, de Chatelet, Davey, Faraday, Banks, Lyle, Mendel, Darwin, Wallace, Pasteur, Mendeleev, Bohr, Heisenberg, Planck, Eddington, Wegener – to name but a minute sampling? •In what is supposed to be a matter of science, why is consensus important? If consensus had been important throughout the history of science, we would still be subscribing to a Ptolomaic cosmology. In fact, historically, consensus has invariably been an obstacle to knowledge, and let it not be forgotten many died barbaric deaths because of it. AGW is a hypothesis that is intellectually so indefensible, so tawdry, so dishonest, so self-serving, so mean spirited, so corrupting that, quite simply, it cannot be espoused with honourable motivation; it has to be the product either of nefarious purpose or of mental aberration. Any person who describes him/herself as a scientist, who promotes or condones AGW, is a scaremonger, a mountebank, a liar. By virtue of that fact alone he/she is a scoundrel. Period – end of story – nothing more to be said!

    The climate may be cooling but the controversy surrounding AGW Climate Change alarmism is not.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gary

    Lionell #232 “In the case of Ross, it is the archetypal opposite. In that case, one must either deny exposure from the start or addresses the irrational communications to expose them as such.”

    Good luck with your quest! IMHO he’s just a weapon of mass distraction – red herrings, irrational dead end discussions and unfilled promises of substantive material to come. All heat and smoke but no illumination – just like CRU and AGW.

    Cui bono!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sounds rather like the Tim Mitchell who works at the Climate Research Unit (CRU), UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park (yep!!! ;-) Evangelical Church in Norwich. Refer:

    http://www. uea.ac.uk/~f709762/climate/en-article.htm

    Tim is the one who wrote much of the unspeakably awful CRU software and data files as described in the following quote from the poor ‘bottom of the heap’ downtrodden programmer Ian (Harry) Harris (he of the “HARRY_READ_ME.txt” file fame), viz:

    “22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim’s labyrinthine software
    suites – let’s have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the
    definitive failure of the entire project..”

    Amazing isn’t it, when one stops to consider that the West is being held to ransom on the basis of the ‘life’s work’ of people like this? No wonder the Indians, Chinese, Russians etc are all sniggering at us behind their hands.

    Stand by to hear The Word from yet another of the patronisingly dogmatic clowns responsible for the greatest balls up of modern times.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Okay guys, I know it’s not the fashion here, but frankly it’s nearly impossible to pick out the comments relevant to Mohib’s timeline. The best way to silence a troll is to ignore him. Please, please, ignore him.

    Perhaps there’s a way to reclaim the subject – I’m going to start clicking “dislike” on all the posts related to Ross’s trolling. I’m not sure what happens if everyone else who’d like to get back on topic joined in.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross_Brisbane

    My first submission that global warming is caused by humans using hydrocarbon fuels since the industrial age set upon humanity. The culprit is the burning of hydrocarbons with the resultant increased C02 as by product into the atmosphere – a known greenhouse found naturally in our atmosphere. The trend is undeniable. We are warming globally and the computer models hold to be reasonably accurate.

    First Submission: Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat

    Murphy 2009 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml,
    von Schuckmann 2009 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JC005237.shtml Trenberth 2009 http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1&ct=1

    Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008 (Schuckmann 2009) analyses ocean temperature measurements by the Argo network, constructing a map of ocean heat content down to 2000 metres (H/T to Chris for bringing it to my attention). This is significantly deeper than other recent papers that focus on upper ocean heat, only going down to 700 metres. They constructed the following time series of global ocean heat:

    Figure 1: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
    Globally, the oceans have still been steadily accumulating heat right to the end of 2008. Combined with the results of Murphy 2009 who finds the planet accumulating heat right to 2003, we now see a picture of unbroken global warming. Over the last 5 years, the oceans have been absorbing heat at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2.
    The above Murphy Scientific Data Study (NOT MODELING) Paper is elaborated on.
    So what is our planet’s total energy imbalance? Indulge me as I perform some rough back-of-a-napkin calculations. Murphy 2009 found that about 5.6% of the planet’s energy imbalance went into the land and atmosphere. In other words, 94.4% of global warming goes into the oceans. So if the ocean is absorbing 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2, this puts the total energy imbalance at around 0.82 ± 0.12 Wm−2. This is a slight underestimate as Murphy 2009 included ocean heat down to 3000m (remember this is back-of-a-napkin stuff).
    How does this value compare to other estimates of energy imbalance? Hansen 2005, using ocean heat data, calculated the planet’s energy imbalance around 2003 to be 0.85 Wm−2.Trenberth 2009 examined satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation for the March 2000 to May 2004 period and found the planet accumulating energy at a rate of 0.9 ± 0.15 Wm−2.
    All these estimates are consistent with each other. Most importantly, all find a statistically significant positive energy imbalance. The empirical data has spoken. Cancel the global cooling party. Global warming is still happening. http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-global-warming-is-happening-Part-2.html Crook

    This is my first post of applied climate science on this blog.

    What do you think? If feedback is useful and there is genuine skeptic further interest in the science I can post further posts along these lines. Forensic investigations of this kind of data is very time consuming exercise and severely cuts into my time as I am running business as well. I have to audit every single hyperlink and read and re-read the information. I would draw everyone attention to the dating of many of papers – 2009.

    The above is selected from reams of information available. I do not propose to post spamming links of too much information in support of AGW on this site. I think this is appropriate behavior.

    I have begun to keep my promise.

    Ross Brisbane


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Charles Bourbaki_also of Brisbane

    The above were done by alternative authors within the science community, IT calculus professionals…

    Wow! calculus professionals no less. That most definitely counts me out of the debate.

    Lets in a lot of dentists though. I always thought that orthodontists had a better handle on Mie scattering that most professionals.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Oh yeah? Regarding Trenberth 2009:

    Kevin Trenberth has written (in an email to collegaues) earlier this year wrote:

    Hi all
    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We
    are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past
    two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.
    The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
    smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was
    about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
    This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was
    canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
    weather).

    Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
    tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental
    Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf&gt;
    (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

    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.

    That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC
    are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with
    ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real
    PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the
    switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for
    first time since Sept 2007. see

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt

    Kevin

    This from the guy who claims publicly in Trenberth 2009 that he examined satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation for the March 2000 to May 2004 period and found the planet accumulating energy at a rate of 0.9 ± 0.15 Wm−2!

    Get thee behind me Satan.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Charles Bourbaki_also of Brisbane

    I just lost the last post

    Apart from being a total numpty about matters scientific, it looks like you’ll never make your mark at an Anzac Day dawn service either.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Looking at this graph, I am so happy that we all live in this warm period. I hope humanity has time to install those hundred thousands nuclear power station before the next cooling period starts. We will need to hurry before we consume all fossil fuels.

    http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif


    Report this

    00

  • #
    buzz345

    Mohib; congratulations on your time chart; a fantastic work, I posted a link to it on Steve Fielding’s Climate Change Forum yesterday http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/125/P6030/
    also pointing to your post on this site no 150
    I’m called sheepish on that site and here’s a copy of a comment by Pete Ridley (no 6041) on that site which I hope you will find useful

    Sheepish, ref. comment # 6010, thanks for those links. There’s some good stuff there, but I see that Paleo-specialist Professor Richard B Alley, IPCC lead author has been left out of the list of key players. On 11th March 2006 Professor Alley sent an interesting E-mail (Note 1) to Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, et al. expressing his concern about the reaction of a committee of the USA National Research Council to proposed wording of IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 and associated political misinterpretations. QUOTE: My impression is that, for good reasons, the US NRC panel looking at the record of temperatures over the last millennium or two is not going to strongly endorse the ability of proxies to detect warming above the level of a millennium ago, and that a careful re-examination of the Chapter 6 wording and its representation in the TS and SPM would be wise. UNQUOTE. Would you be able to pass this on to Mohib?

    You may also find the http://www.climate-gate.org site very useful because it provides a search facility for all of the E-mails, which is how I found out about Professor Alley’s involvement. He claims (Note 1) that ice sore re-constructions are the “Gold Standard” for determining pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I am presently debating this on Chris Colose’s blog (Note 2). Chris, a confirmed supporter of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis, was involved in debate here for a short time in September then withdrew (comments # 2663, 2670/72/77). You (and Mohib) may be interested in joining in that debate also.

    Cheers and thanks for the time line


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross_Brisbane

    Unfortunately folks it appears some blocking mechanism is at work.

    Whether this is exceeding a character count of whatever I cannot adequately answer or debate as I am hamstrung and feel partly censored.

    I had attempted a 7 point knock blow to Plimer’s book – Heaven and Earth.

    The next attempt was to post Empirical evidence linking C02 increased well mixed gases produced by man’s burning of fossil fuels since the advent industrial age to Global Warming. These were scientific papers of experiments carried out (2008/2009) with data results and is considered empirical and OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE!

    I will no longer post here on this site. I may look at creating a Blog site that will cover and expose the fraudulent anti-AGW campaign being run on this site.

    Ross Brisbane


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dear Joanne and Mohib,

    BEWARE: Geophysics Section of NAS

    In April of 1976 I was ambushed at the AGU Meeting in Washington, DC by a seemingly random selection of chemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers & astrophysicists.

    Many years later I became aware that these were all members of the Geophysics Section of the National Academy of Sciences.

    I do not know if this branch of NAS now includes climatologists, but if so they are probably key players in the Climategate scandal.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel


    Report this

    00

  • #
    buzz345

    did anyone notice the editorial in the Washington Times on 28/12 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/biased-reporting-on-climategate/?feat=article_top10_read
    the editorial refers to an Associated Press ‘investigation’ cited in the Australian’s article of 14/12 Stolen emails reflect the heat in debate, not deception
    The Washington times spoke to all 3 of the scientists cited by the AP article and its editorial concludes Associated Press (AP) was caught misleading readers with biased and inaccurate coverage of the Climategate scandal in an article entitled “Science not faked, but not pretty” that was carried by hundreds of publications (that includes The Australian.)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ric,

    There is little lasting impact upon Ross. That is not the point. How about the other readers of this blog? Especially the silent ones? I would suggest there is a significant impact upon quite a few of them.

    Remember, Ideas are important. Fundamental ideas are the most important. Plant the right ideas and they will grow.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Steve Short

    The late John L Daly started an “Open Review” system a few years back. Cut short due to his untimely death.

    A trip to his website here will show a number of “open reviewed” papers.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks Baa Humbug

    I was broadly familiar with John’s website and particularly this ‘Isle of the Dead’ 1841 mean sea level paper matter (of GRL rejecting his correcting Comment to the John Hunter et al. paper on spurious grounds).

    The weasely comments by the two reviewers of John’s Comment are precisely the sort of thing I was describing – just dissembling, syncophantic statements designed to pervert the truth in the (unacknowledged) name of some sort of tawdry (CSIRO Div. Marine Science Hobart) ‘secret men’s club’. I can even guess the probable name of one of those reviewers. Pathetic. Made me want to puke.

    It takes a lot of good beer to wash away the taste of that sort of exercise in undergraduate sophistry when it arrives on one’s desk in the guise of a so-called ‘peer review’.

    Vale John L Daly – one of the good guys.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Steve Short: @ 308

    > (2) Do you have any good suggestions for improving it? You’ve only had over 7 days to make them.

    I don’t know if it’s a good suggestion, but I assume you saw my note and suggested quotes from a Science News article in 1975. BTW, I referred to that on the Science News blog, and scan of the article may have been done thanks to my comment. Personally, given the Tom Karl (I think it was him) review of the scientific literature from that timeframe and his claims that scientists were not concerned about cooling, I think the SN reference is more worthwhile than the comment Time and Newsweek articles.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Hey Tel, I noticed the numbers of thumbs down you got for #6

    Are you bemused as I am? Irony, parody, black humour folks.
    Now go back to #6 and put the thumbs up you lot, you’ve lost your sense of humour


    Report this

    00

  • #
    blouis79

    I don’t even need a Climategate to show the data has been fudged. The lack of science is clear for all to see.
    * one-eyed reporting in so-called science journals/magazines
    * ignoring long-term historical data
    * unaccounted thermal pollution
    * unaccounted airport heat island effects biasing the global land-based temperature record
    * land based temperature data in disagreement with satellite temperature data
    * Al Gore’s propaganda books pretending to be objective science
    * pro-nuclear warmists pretending to be scientists
    * falsified radiative greenhouse which contravenes laws of physics (second law of thermodynamics)
    * Trenberth (et al) Global Energy Budget (radiative) doesn’t balance at all until the numbers are “adjusted” Using Hansen’s computer model to build in CO2 effect
    * total purported CO2 effect is an order of magnitude smaller than the energy budget out of balance error
    * computer model used to predict future temperatures based on linear relationship with wooly slope as determined by the computer model
    * lack of basic physics basis for energy-temperature relationships used by climatologists
    * unaccounted convection and conduction as methods for heat transfer
    * official web sites manipulated to hide offending data
    * biased publication procedures for warmists in journals
    * conflict of interests of IPCC chair and CRU
    * IPCC researchers publish outcomes of workshop where scientific doubts are documented fully

    Climategate provides clearer proof of the smoking gun, but it is in no way necessary to dismantle the politicized fiasco or manipulative posturing that is AGW.

    The major problem facing the media and politicians and probably rooted in the adversarial legal system and gladatorial spectatorship is the concentration on messengers rather than messages. Presumably, the media thinks we are all so dumb that we would rather watch an argument rather than see the facts and decide for ourselves. “An inconvenient truth” will go down in history as a classic example of political and corporate propaganda. The internet has demonstrated the power of information in the information age. One day we will demand a truly participative democracy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    If you give me an email address I’ll send you what might have been an earlier practice run around this area


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Steve Short writes at post # 310:

    I was broadly familiar with John’s website and particularly this ‘Isle of the Dead’ 1841 mean sea level paper matter (of GRL rejecting his correcting Comment to the John Hunter et al. paper on spurious grounds).

    The weasely comments by the two reviewers of John’s Comment are precisely the sort of thing I was describing – just dissembling, syncophantic statements designed to pervert the truth in the (unacknowledged) name of some sort of tawdry (CSIRO Div. Marine Science Hobart) ’secret men’s club’. I can even guess the probable name of one of those reviewers. Pathetic. Made me want to puke.

    I remember being very angry after I read his fine presentation,that it should have been given a wider exposure.I thought it was decisively effective and that it should have been read by many more people to decide for themselves what is valid.

    I think it should be read again to see how John Daly wrote it and think that a shoddy paper by Mann can slip through,while his gets stopped cold at the gate.

    Grrr…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Jo writes at post # 323:

    Good suggestions all. I will do up a page and I will move these distracting off thread comments out. It’s worth having that discussion, but not here.

    Why not change the like/dislike level to make the post vanish from visibility after just 3 or so dislikes to slow down someone like Ross,by making his stuff invisible?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    OK. I’ve made a new post. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/is-there-any-evidence/ I’ll move over the Off-thread comments. Sigh… In a perfect world I’d have time to delete the repetitious, irrelevant ones…. (anyone want to be an impartial moderator?)

    If I make the “dislike standard” too low, comments that are well thought out, but simply unpopular, get hidden very quickly. People click the “dislike” for all kinds of reasons. If people only used it for rude, offensive, or vexations comments that might work, but I doubt we could enforce that.

    I may well also add an unthreaded line too. That seems like a good idea.

    Yes and regarding Tel at #6 – Baa Humbug is totally right. Give the man ticks. Do it now!

    Yes Ric, I am concerned. I have had little time this week due to other commitments. If you want to unsubscribe from a thread I believe you can manage your own subscriptions-list through your login and untick those threads. (I hope so!) If someone is annoying or offending you, email me offline to point out their posts. Joanne At joannenova.com.au. The manners-test, or the evidence-test can and will be used. We don’t need illmannered or illogical or uninformed people to dominate threads.

    PS: One thing the ticks are useful for is to tell us how many people do make it this far down the thread.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sunsettommy: Why not change the like/dislike level to make the post vanish from visibility after just 3 or so dislikes….

    Suppressing what you don’t like simply because you don’t like it is not the way to discover truth or communicate science. Requiring objectivity, evidence, reproducible experiment, and proof no matter liking or disliking the result is. As long as the poster (aka troll) is making a close to good faith effort to discuss the science approximately on topic, he should be allowed to be visible.

    Alternatively, set the dislike limit to something lower than its current level to trigger the collapse the comment might be helpful. If someone wants to view the comment, it can be made visible with a single click. Perhaps with a defined higher level of dislike, the comment could automatically be moved to a catchall thread and be made fully visible only there. I would also suggest, if it is not now done, hat one like vote should cancel one dislike vote.

    It might help if there were more detailed explicit standards that comments must meet and defined limits to tolerance. Then, moving all posts by the apparent troll to a miscellaneous thread might be warranted. Having the visibility of a poster being controlled by popularity is offensive by any rational standard of discourse. Such an idea is one of the more pernicious things we are fighting.

    The owner of a blog or e-list has a right to service his or her own purpose. The activity of intercepting and giving each post a manual pass, transfer, or fail grade can and often will consume the editor’s entire life and interfere with that purpose. Especially if the rate of comments matches or exceeds the current level on this blog. The primary comment filter should be some kind of automatic or semiautomatic one. Only the rare and especially egregious comments should require manual intervention.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    What surprises me is that after 11,000 comments I have only had to place about 7 or 8 names on the “moderated list”. What also surprises me is that it’s easy to get off that list, but most don’t manage it. I allow anyone on that list to be unmoderated again, if they either apologize, or offer evidence to back up their claims (which are often slanderous). Only about 1/3rd of people manage to do the most basic task of cut n pasting an apology that I have even sent to them with a note saying, “just cut n paste “…” and send this back”. That’s all that is keeping Robin Grant from posting for example. Which is a shame. I’m not asking him to say he was wrong about the science. I’m merely asking him to admit that it’s wrong to call us names that he can’t justify. Or he could “name that paper we deny.”

    I credit Mattb for being one of the few honest posters who was quick to be polite and was taken off the list pretty fast.

    If someone calls us “deniers” they are automatically on that list. Did Ross do that? Did I miss it?

    I believe the bullying is the most insidious form of anti-science, and it must stop before a scientific discussion can really begin. As long as people get away with bullying others, and labelling them as something sub-human, their minds are not even open to new information. Why would listen to a “denier” of evidence?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have moved 178 comments through to http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/unthreaded-1-evangelical-flavour/

    So if you have lost your comments, that’s where to find them. The mental tennis that is unrelated to the Timeline can go there. The illogical thoughts of even uninformed people do occasionally inspire excellent comments in reply, and I guess they inform the rest of us of how some human brains think (or unthink).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    I have no problem with people like Ross spouting their flawed logic. I don’t feel threatened by it and it’s always easy to tell when facts are spun into hot air. In fact, I find such discourse quite useful, as it help me fabricate arguments which deconstructs and destroys the catastrophic AGW rationalizations.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Joanne and Mohib,

    I repeat, Beware the Geophysics Division of the US NAS :

    —They have deceived the public about the Sun for 25 years.

    The late Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu and I were ambushed by them at the 1976 AGU meeting when we presented data that showed the Sun exploded as a supernova ~ 5 x 10^9 years ago and ejected the material that now orbits it.

    Supernova Birth of Solar System: http://www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm

    All primordial Helium was closely linked with “Strange Xenon” (Xe-2), but none was with “Normal Xenon” (Xe-1) at the birth of the solar system.

    “Strange” & “Normal” Xe: http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data.htm

    “Strange Xe” and all He: http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm

    Astrophysicists, chemists, geologists, and physicists – like Professors A.G.W. Cameron, E. Anders, R. Clayton, G. Wasserburg, and R. Walker – offered no other viable explanation for the data. Years later I found their common link.

    In 1976 R. Clayton et al. [Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 30 (1976) 10-18] reported that excess O-16 distinguishes six categories of meteorites and planets.

    O-16 in Meteorites: http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1976Data.htm

    Before mixing, the debris from different stellar regions – with characteristic chemicals and isotopes (including O-16) – condensed into the solids that make up meteorites and planets in our still heterogeneous solar system.

    The current NAS President is a member of the Geophysics Division of NAS. I do not know if other climatologists belong to that private (but publicly financed) club.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09


    Report this

    00

  • #
    blouis79

    The aim of the troll is to bury the facts under so much garbage that the good bits get lost in the noise. This thread of hundreds of posts ends up not being read by the less dedicated explorers. In doing so, they would miss the nuggets here – eg clues to the origins of Climategate.

    The US National Academy of Sciences is a government body, apparently made in the usual manner of government bodies, and littered with people with conflicts of interest.
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Academy_of_Sciences

    (On the other hand, it can be hard to find experts in limited fields who are totally independent and perhaps the best we can do in some circumstances is to find experts with a balanced range of conflicts of interest.)

    I’m curious to know how the NAS ties in with Gore or nuclear interests. CRU is heavily funded by nuclear industry.

    It’s hard to see how the whole science corruption iceberg can melt. There are far to many involved for mud to stick to all of them. A few prominent scapegoats will be paraded in public and the rest of the problem will slide away out of sight. If there are not systemic fixes, the problems will recur somewhere else. The links between government and business are part of the fundamental corruption of the western democracy.

    Just found information that NASA-funded research of moonlight tell us what is happening with cloud cover.
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0528earthshine.html
    “Scientists looked at the ghostly glow of light reflected from Earth onto the moon’s dark side. During the 1980s and 1990s, Earth bounced less sunlight out to space. The trend reversed during the past three years, as the Earth appears to reflect more light toward space.

    Though not fully understood, the shifts may indicate a natural variability of clouds, which can reflect the sun’s heat and light away from Earth. The apparent change in the amount of sunlight reaching Earth in the 1980s and 1990s is comparable to taking the effects of greenhouse gas warming since 1850 and doubling them. Increased reflectance since 2001 suggests change of a similar magnitude in the opposite direction.”

    Surprising this evidence of global cooling is still on NASA’s web site. May not last long.

    (Don’t forget if things on the internet go missing, check the internet archive and download a copy. http://www.archive.org)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    blouis79:
    January 2nd, 2010 at 8:03 am

    “CRU is heavily funded by nuclear industry.”

    This is a totally new one for me. Very hard to imagine given that:

    (1) CRU is a climatological institute with strong links to anti-nuclear NGOs such as Greenpeace etc.

    (2) The nuclear industry in the West has been struggling for years against the anti-nuclear green tide to obtain adequate supply of venture and government capital. It is most definitely not an industry with sufficient funds to dispense in support of non-core work.

    (3) Most funding not explicitly made available for nuclear power plant construction over the last 30 years has been plowed into solving the underground nuclear waste repository design issue (resulting in France, Sweden, Finland and Japan now having excellent repositories with others to follow).

    Please provide a very real proof of your statement.

    Thank you.

    P.S. Total of 13 years in nuclear-related research and project management – 11 years Senior Research Scientist ANSTO, 2 years Uni. Bern, 1 year Senior Project Manager Grimsel Project, NAGRA, Switzerland.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BLouis79

    Steve Short:
    January 2nd, 2010 at 8:23 am
    “Please provide a very real proof of your statement. [re: Nuclear funding for CRU]”

    I read on a blog somewhere – someone mentioned looking at a list of CRU funding sources including nuclear. The funders list on the CRU web site http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/ mentions only the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. I didn’t check the source and I can’t find any other references except to conflicts of interest from renewable energy funding.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html

    There is no question that nuclear industry will benefit from a carbon tax.
    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2009/12/nuclear_news_copenhagens_failu.html
    The question is whether Al Gore’s anti-carbon and nuclear neutral stance is part of the tangled web of climategate.

    Apologies to all for any confusion caused.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is a British government agency which inspects operations and standards at UK nuclear power stations and nuclear research establishments. Part of their brief is the continued acquiring of climatic data (winds, rain, temperature) for impact assessment in the event of a radiation leak etc. By providing funding to CRU they presumably gain preferential access to real time data being fed to CRU.

    “There is no question that nuclear industry will benefit from a carbon tax.
    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2009/12/nuclear_news_copenhagens_failu.html
    The question is whether Al Gore’s anti-carbon and nuclear neutral stance is part of the tangled web of climategate.”

    Your web reference is to Greenpeace. I would seriously question the reliability and impartiality of that source.

    Quite frankly blouis79 I found your 164 post riddled with loose insinuations and attributions (of bias, possible collusion, corruption, conspiracies etc) and it strongly reminded me of the sort of paranoid stuff we have come to expect of the AGW lobby.

    May I respectfully suggest that we, as sceptics, should aim for higher standards than the warmists and not get swept up into the sort of stuff which we well know has long been their ‘stuff of trade’.

    As you can see I have spent 14 years out of my 35+ year career in highly technical, high level jobs in nuclear-related organizations. I can honestly say I have never seen any evidence that the nuclear industry is a powerful lobby with corrupt practices. Quite the contrary in fact – more like downtrodden and ever struggling in the face of decades of anti-nuclear green lobbying by well-funded green NGOs etc..

    Peaceful, well-managed nuclear power is probably a good thing for all humanity – regardless of the AGW theory.

    Sceptics have absolutely no need to entertain, cater for, or jump onto a nuclear industry-based mega-world-conspiracy theory and NOR SHOULD WE, WITHOUT VERY GOOD REASON.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    blouis79

    Steve Short:
    January 2nd, 2010 at 10:15 am
    “Your web reference is to Greenpeace. I would seriously question the reliability and impartiality of that source.”

    Interesting that a steadfastly anti-nuclear group is reporting that failure of anti-carbon policies virogously supported by Greenpeace has hurt nuclear interests. The links to the original source will see it was actually reported in The Times.
    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6965723.ece


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Joanne Nova @ 158:

    > If you want to unsubscribe from a thread I believe you can manage your own subscriptions-list through your login

    Not a big enough problem, I get more Nigerian scam mail. Umm, I have a login? Hmm, it looks like I made no record of it, and I wan’t able to come up with a name or Email address it likes. Even the Email it uses for me isn’t recognized by the lostpassword service. I assume you can investigate. Should I try to register
    with my name and Email in the “Leave a Reply” boxes above?

    > If someone is annoying or offending you, email me offline to point out their posts.

    Not enough to call anyone out. I spent years on USENET dealing with flame wars there. My main concern was that the discussion about the Climategate poster was getting drowned by by thread hijack. It looks like you fixed that with the new thread. Thanks!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Something for the timeline………

    Allthough it hasn’t happened yet….

    The date when the UK Met Office say that 2009 was actually cooler than predicted?!?!

    I don’t see how they can get away with saying it was higher….

    In November (pre copenhagen) they were saying 2009 was going to be highest temps in the UK, barring a cold winter.. they were predicting a mild winter.

    Today, to quote quote:

    “Met Office forecaster Dave Elliott said: ‘This cold spell is here for the foreseeable future. It will certainly stay with us right through this coming week and even then we can’t see an end to it.

    Last month was the coldest December for 13 years and the continued bitter weather could make this the hardest winter since 1979. Severe weather warnings were issued for Wales, the South West, the North East and in Scotland”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239908/Britains-big-freeze-hit-return-work-forecasters-issue-new-ice-alert-drivers.html#ixzz0bS3Z02Ra

    last week they said, they could still be right, because jan feb might be warm, so they have got that wrong again. Of course the mild winter prediction is now forgotten, and now saying extreme cold weather, is just weather, not climate and cold could be an example of ‘climate change’

    of course sun activity is at a minimum

    In one paper, they mention that sun activity is low, and might mask global warming, even mention the little ice age, and frost fairs, but say, it is unsure about what was going on then. (IE it was the sun guys, NO man made CO2 then)

    Anybody have any idea when NASA releases their 2009 ‘results’, wonder if they will provide the raw data?

    Happy (freezing) new year!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    blouis79

    NASA temperature data has always been available. Presently to end Nov 2009 – see “Table Data: Global and Zonal Mean Anomalies dTs”
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ric, OK, You are right, you don’t have a login. (I searched the subscribers list).

    If you did, I think you could manage your subscriptions.

    For those of you who are wondering what the subscriber list means: I manually email the subscribers list to notify them of about 1/2 of the posts (the more significant half). It includes a short note sometimes about how important the post is in the big scheme of things. I may in theory send a manual email out to the list if big news hit (perhaps I should?) No one else gets access to this list. There are no automatic emails, and you won’t receive comments from posts unless you choose too.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    blouis79 @ 171: see “Table Data: Global and Zonal Mean Anomalies dTs

    I would point out that “Global and Zonal Mean Anomalies” do not represent actual raw data. They are nothing but cooked numbers. Raw data MEANS the actual readings as taken along with all the meta-data specifying the conditions under which the readings were taken. ANYTHING else is cooked numbers that may or may not have a valid relationship to the actual data.

    We have two things we can do. The first is trust the source. The second is to start with the actual raw data and follow the cooking process the source claims they used. If you don’t have access to the actual raw data, all you are left with is “trust us”. I don’t always trust myself and check my own results repeatedly so why should I trust anyone else?

    I worked in the high technology industry for most of my life. A part of that was as a software engineer for one of NASA’s premiere flight research and test centers. I have, as a consequence of that experience, absolutely no trust in ANYTHING that NASA publishes. Especially when the interpretation of what they publish leads to a continuation of funding of NASA for any purpose whatsoever. For a public display of the quality of their work see the details of the Challenger “incident”.

    My tenure with NASA was almost a decade after the Challenger “incident”. I saw nothing that indicated any fundamental change in the way NASA functioned. The focus was to produce pretty words and pictures so as to get funded for the next budget cycle. Actual and meaningful results were an optional and often undesired extra effort. I strongly suspect the anomaly numbers were cooked to support the politically correct story so as to continue funding the project. Science and identification of what actually is going on was likely lost in the cooking.

    I say trust, if you wish, but VERIFY as if your life and wealth depend upon it because it does.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Lionell Griffith:
    January 3rd, 2010 at 3:09 am

    “I worked in the high technology industry for most of my life. A part of that was as a software engineer for one of NASA’s premiere flight research and test centers. I have, as a consequence of that experience, absolutely no trust in ANYTHING that NASA publishes. Especially when the interpretation of what they publish leads to a continuation of funding of NASA for any purpose whatsoever. For a public display of the quality of their work see the details of the Challenger “incident”.”

    Damn me, but that is scary, Lionell.

    Whatever happened to the (originally wonderful?) NASA which put men on the Moon and brought them back safely every time (including the Apollo 13 scare)? When I was a teenager one whole wall of my room was Apollo program news clippings.

    Outside the USA we all watched and listened in awe of the brilliance of Yankee ‘can do’ technology.

    What went wrong?

    As someone who later spent 11 years with an Aussie Federal nuclear science agency (82 – 93) I can relate to your words. Some of the braves were individually brilliant but by the time I joined up (following 10 years in heavy industry) cost cutting and spin doctoring was an internal growth industry.

    As I said before, from what I saw, from the late 1970s/early 80s something rotten and smelly began to creep into the ethos of the physical sciences – most especially in government agencies and academia.

    As we now know, the AGW ‘science industry’ is riddled with this same gangrene.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    Lionel, if you worked for NASA and do not trust their numbers because you saw why they made them, how can Tom_Brisbane know so much?

    He explains Republicans, conservatives and has never met one. It appears to me anyone can obtain numbers from NASA if they assure they are planning to use them to push the warmist agenda.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    blouis79

    Lionell Griffith @173

    So granted the unadjusted data are not available. But we do have unsmoothed anomaly data. The published global data says it has been produced from met station data “using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment”. So yes without systematic assessment of the effect of the correction, we don’t know what bias that might introduce.

    Someone with loads of energy and time could assemble the met station data from original sources and compute the adjustments and outlier elimination effects.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    blouis79 @ 176: “using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment”

    I have seen massive mischief both intentional and unintentional from the process of eliminating “outliers”. Even the elimination of 6 sigma “outliers” can get you into trouble depending upon how the data were collected and the excuse used justify the elimination. Most often, the justification is some form “I don’t like the number or data set.” It is proper to eliminate data if and only if the reason is totally independent of the data itself and the desired or expected result. Such as “I dropped the instrument and did not trust its calibration so I recalibrated and acquired new readings.” Otherwise why bother taking the readings? Simply write down the numbers you want to see. Its the same thing. You say, “that is not science”. That’s my point!

    The process of “homogeneity adjustment” is inherently untrustworthy because it is an attempt to smash desperate and possibly incommensurate data sets into one. By its nature and especially when combined with elimination of “outliers”, will introduce bias and inexplicable steps in the apparent data trend. For example the Hockey Stick plots were produced by using both magical incantations to justify their fraudulent appearance. By sly use of the two methods, you can get any result you wish.

    Hence, it is an absolute necessity to acquire the raw data as I defined above and examine them both to replicate their cooked numbers and to discover the underlying truth in the data. If the raw data cannot be acquired and reprocessed or the experiment cannot be replicated, the science is a fraud no matter how good it accidentally might be. This is BECAUSE you cannot know how good or bad the reported science is.

    When someone is saying “trust me”, he is not doing science no matter what words he uses to justify what he is saying.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Henry chance @ 175: how can Tom_Brisbane know so much?

    I don’t know. Does he?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Steve Short (174) and Lionell Griffith (173):

    NASA’s engineering program seems far superior to its corrupt science program.

    Members of the Geophysics Division of the NAS took control of NASA’s science and distorted, manipulated, or hid experimental data:

    To protect the Model of a H-filled Sun against evidence of mass fractionation, and
    To avoid experimental evidence that chemically and isotopically heterogeneous stellar debris formed the solar system.

    NASA and I parted ways after we reported these experimental data on unexpected trends in the Kr and Xe isotopes in solar-wind-implanted material in lunar soils [Proceedings of the Third Lunar Science Conference, vol. 2 (1972) 1927-1945]:

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm

    And in meteorites, the Earth and the Sun [Nature 240 (1972) 99-101]:

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Steve Short @ 174: Damn me, but that is scary, …. What went wrong?

    Its beyond scary, its terrifying. If we could meet in some quiet dark bar someplace, I could spend several hours scaring you even more by telling you what I have experienced. Climate Gate only presents the surface of the crap that goes on. It was at least five years before I overcome the stress that working for NASA caused me. It wasn’t all bad in that I was able to do some good work but the bad parts overwhelmed the good parts in the end.

    My best guess about what when wrong is that the engineers who were doing a good job allowed the power and control second hand mentality types to get to be in charge. The reason was that the engineers really liked doing a good job and didn’t want be become an unhappy mediocre manager. I know this because that is why I refused to become a manager. The managers soon assumed they were gods. They concluded the only important thing was to make decisions and that the only job the engineers had was to make them look good. This was outrageously wasteful of people and money. It often led to disastrous results.

    In a world that actually prized reason, reality, and logic such a thing would not happen. However, we have had several hundred years of constant attack (see Kant for a start) on the efficiency and effectiveness of reason and logic along with an insistence that reality is unknowable (aka post modernism). The ultimate consequence is the collapse of any profession that requires the practitioners to use their minds (ie all of them).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Steve Short: Post 174,

    Whatever happened to the (originally wonderful?) NASA which put men on the Moon and brought them back safely every time (including the Apollo 13 scare)? When I was a teenager one whole wall of my room was Apollo program news clippings.

    Steve, I’ve got three scrap books of newspaper Clippings of Nasa..From the beginning, their research posted in clippings all the way thru Apollo series…America had a goal and competition from the Russians..We were determined to be on the Moon first..And we would have been there earlier if it wasnt’t for the Apollo Fire..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    blouis79

    I don’t doubt that it is possible or even very likely that the NASA GISTEMP data has been massaged. The maximum expected effect would be if well documented airport heat island effect explained the “observed” warming. I read earlier about spatial averaging applied by Hansen over a radius of 100 or 1000km, which has been validated in a published paper.

    Note that Gerlich and Tscheuscher argue the concept of a global “mean” temperature is nonsensical, because random geographical variations in temperature are far smaller than the resolving power of the scattered temperature sensors. In that sense, there is really no good argument for calling any weather station on earth an “outlier”.

    The alternative to recollecting global weather station data is to acquire the raw data from NASA via FOI.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    buzz345

    Hi guys; it’s wonderful to chat with people of like mind and some of us are scientists and physicists; I’m in Australia and here with the mainstream media its business as usual; that is the government proposes to reintroduce its ets legislation shortly; the msm are asleep so far as global warming or climate change is concerned; is there anything you guys think we could do collectively do to influence the future msm debate in Australia and our politicians (I am discounting our current elected representatives) and would you be interested in joining in a group effort to influence the msm and our policiticians; if so perhaps we could start a ground swell of opinion with our different expertises


    Report this

    00

  • #
    blouis79

    Perhaps Jo can start a thread on media strategy for science?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    Well now. Either Ross_brisbane is still recovering from a New Year’s hangover, or he’s not about to make a reappearance until he is permitted to continue reviling us at his leisure. Either way the IQ level of the debate here has Increased.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Blouis, yes good idea. I do have a plan. It would be a good post.

    Otter: Ross has had 58 chances to show he has manners or evidence, or even just the ability to reason. I’m holding his comments. All he has to do is apologise for baseless slander against Richard Courtney, and to promise to stop using the term Denier, and I will let him post again.

    Every garden needs weeding, and I’d rather not moderate anyone, but I’ve tried before to edit the illogical, rude or slanderous comments to try and keep in the “value” but it’s a waste of my time. If someone can’t respond to a friendly request with an honest answer we don’t need them here.

    Still, he may yet return.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    blouis79 @ 182

    > I don’t doubt that it is possible or even very likely that the NASA GISTEMP data has been massaged.

    It’s quite astounding what happens to it. See http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/ for some of the details. My favorite adustment is to refine past missing temperatures. Suppose a temperature for a station is missing for March 1934. It tries to fill in based on the other months of that season (April and May, not February and April!), and also by looking at all other March temperatures. So in March 2010, the March 1934 temperature may change.

    This does wonderful things to people who try to reproduce someones results, not only do you need their methods, you need the GISTEMP data from the same month and year the research copied. GISTEMP doesn’t keep such archives.

    In http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/08/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/ John Goetz says “On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomaly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%.”

    That may be for the global temp, not one station. I’ve lost track of all the changes that goes on and have pretty much given up on the surface records.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    buzz345

    you guys might be interested to know a fraud attorney in the us is seeking climategate whistleblowers in return for millions of dollars in federal reward money; read all about it at
    http://www.climategate.com/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    it is getting bad in the main stream media:

    comments sections manipulated:

    complaint I made, of several:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6924898/The-Met-Office-gives-us-the-warmist-weather.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=6931447

    “David Welch seems to be allowed to reply to individuals about their comments..

    Yet I have tried to do the same, about him three times today, and they have not been published….

    Why is this?
    I was not rude or offensive in any way.
    I was merelyasking him to confirm whether he was or not a media professional, where as he has been rubbishing people and their comments

    Is it because I have pointed out he is a profesional media management professional and questioned his ‘agenda’,
    He posts if he is just any other member of the public.
    I was given a clue, that some people have commented that they bring David out when they get worried.

    Is the Telegraph happy that their PUBLIC comments section is apparently manipulated in this way.

    Please post me earlier comments asking him to identify himself. He has reponded personally to me, amd others in the comments in the past.
    Do we not have this same right to reply?

    Regards

    Barry Woods

    Previous complaint, got someting at least published, not the three about someone spinning it.

    “I have tried to post message 4 times today.
    They have not appeared.

    yet you allow a professonal media management person to attempt to hijack the public comments section, spinning the agw issue.
    I was advised who he was a momth ago:
    http://davidwelchmanagement.com/client.html
    Is he being paid, or just doing people a few favours.

    Of course if he said who he was that would not be a problem.

    But no, a genuine member of the public is not allowed to post, with no explanation.
    This gentleman has in the past, responded to me directly on the telegraph comments section.

    Yet now, I seem to have no right to counter the ‘agenda’ he clearly has.

    Regards

    Barry Woods”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    blouis79 @ 182

    More on massaging the temperature record:

    http://www.theclimateconspiracy.com/?p=180

    This looks at the USHCN data, which I think GISTEMP uses for the US record.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I’d like to bump this thread back onto it’s first message.

    Thank you Mohib Ebrahim for your work.

    Joanne, I wanted to have this printed (at my expense) full size. I had a friend who is in the printing business try to print it full size and he said it is password protected.

    Question then for you or Mohib; Are we allowed to print this full size for public display? Feel free to give Mohib my e-mail if that is easier.

    I would even like to consider raising private funds to pay for a full page newspaper printing of the poster.

    As long as I am asking, is it ok if I pay to have 100 or more copies of the Skeptics Handbook printed to give / mail out?

    Comments?

    Thanks again for all this!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mohib

    Thank you Mark D for comments.

    There should be no problem printing the banner; it is password protected, but only against changes, not against printing. From the comments, I believe many have downloaded and printed it and we’ve not heard of any problems. Perhaps the PDF product your friend was using for printing is sensitive to any PDF passwords. Try Adobe Acrobat version 7 or later.

    Tom Moriarty of climatesanity printed the banner in B&*W at Kinkos for just $17. For more see here:
    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/mohib-ebrahims-climategate-poster-at-nrel/

    Here’s the photo of the banner outside his office cubicle:

    An update is in the works with many corrections and additional information. I’m estimating that it should be ready within +/- 7 days and I would definitely wait until then before spending large sums on printing. WRT to printing it in a newspaper, I’m not sure how well it will print as it’s 8′ x 3′ and if shrunk to fit on a newspaper spread, the type will be very small (if at all readable).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mohib, thanks for the reply. I will wait for the new edition!

    I knew the image was big and undertandably so given the size of the subject. I hoped it would be readable in the newspaper but you are right at 8 feet it would require a lot of folding.

    About the password issue I will pass this along to the printer. Expect to hear about these plastered in windows around my part of the world..

    Thanks again!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Walker

    Mohib,

    Thanks for you amazing work putting putting together the timeline! Should I wait for the update to present it to “believers” or will this first one suffice?

    I’m in awe.

    David


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Meikle

    Someone mentioned evangelical christians in this thread.

    I am an evangelical christian, and I reject human caused global warming.

    I do not know if my faith predisposes me to skepticism about the claims of scientists or not: it probably does.

    But i reject AGW because of history. As a history buff I knew of the medieval warm period years ago. They did not have heavy industry in 800 AD so the warming at that time was not man made. Ergo there is no prima facie reason to believe that current warming was manmade.

    And all the science i have seen done by the likes of Lord Monckton and the rest confirms me in my position


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Walker

    Steve,

    As a Christian there are many reasons, because of your faith and discipline, to disregard the global warming/climate change context:

    At the very least, three of many’s ugliest traits are the true reasons for the context; fear, greed, and ambition.

    The climate change CONtextors realize that people are always apprehensive about the future. Just as the Mayan priests used rituals and human sacrifice to mystify and control the people, the CONtextors have used pseudo-science as a platform to confuse and scare us common folks into believing we’re the reason for everything that’s wrong in their world; and they’re hear to save us. Logic is their enemy.

    The climate change CONtextors know they can’t compete in a free market; they know their products will not survive where performance, effectiveness and raw price dictate outcomes: They prefer separating you from your money BY FORCE! Logic is their enemy. Their love of money is far greater than anything else in their lives, and there are trillions of dollars at stake.

    The climate change CONtextors have dreamed of a one-world order for decades; a world where their whims determine who does what, when and where; for reasons a normal, compassionate person cannot understand. Where law is pre-iminment but logic is the enemy, your rights and your sovereignty will mean nothing. History is full of such monsters, and what follows in their wake is always some horrible chaos. Think Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Nimrod…

    Indeed, their goal is to create the conditions and restriction that will determine who gets rich, and who toils but gains nothing, BY FORCE!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Meikle

    Mr Walker, what is your point?

    I am well aware of everything you post here.

    Indeed the only reason I have to think these things are evil is the Law of God and my own knowledge of sin.

    I thought only I said that I was skeptical of the claims of scientists.

    This does not imply ignorance of the other factors you mention, and my faith would be myopic presumption if it did.

    I am also skeptical of the claims of priests of all sorts, and politicians and bankers

    Man is evil and an inveterate bully who thinks that truth, real or imagined, is a license for bullying


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Walker

    Steve,

    Like you I’ve long been skeptic — the whole scenario never did pass the smell test, or the faith test for that matter.

    In the event you hadn’t extrapolated some of the more severe problems with the CONtextors’ agenda, I submitted some ideas. It’s great knowing more and more people are appreciating the fact that there is very little climate science to it.

    Thanks for sharing. I hope to bludgeon everybody with what it’s really all about; money and power.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    And if there were just one other thing which should makes any decent person very, very sceptical about the validity of the great anthropogenic global warming bandwagon it must surely be the nature and record of it’s principle front man, the Nobel Prize-winning Big Huckster himself, Al Gore.

    Al Gore grew up in a hotel suite (rent-free courtesy of a relative who owned the hotel), ordering breakfast from room service and riding a limousine to his private school for the elite. Like everything else about Gore, this reality clashes with the public myth he promoted of the hard-working, pig shit-shoveling, mule team-plowing farm boy from Carthage, Tennessee.

    A thorough examination of Gore’s 25-year political career clearly shows nothing so much as the slimy rise of a pampered rich boy who had quickly evolved into an absolute moral chameleon.

    From the outset, Gore was a major US Defense Department sycophant. After a politically-motivated short tour of Vietnam as an Army reporter complete with constant bodyguard (noting he was a Senator’s son), Gore, once in Congress (how he got there is another dirt story) became one of the Pentagon’s most trusted water carriers.

    The hawk Gore virtually invented the Midgetman missile, midwifed the MX missile, voted against every effort to cut the Defense budget, backed the invasion of Grenada, supported the Contras and, then in what he called his “finest hour,” voted for the Gulf War – only after shopping his vote on the very day of the debate to each side in order to secure the most favorable TV slot during the debate.

    While in Congress, Al Gore was not only a hawk, but also a voice against homosexuals, whom he called “deviants.” Gore also preposterously claims to this day to have always “supported a woman’s right to choose” when, in fact, he had (and still has) an 84% pro-life rating from National Right to Life, even stating that he believes in “the foetus’ right to life” and voting for the Hyde amendment AND Rep. Mark Siljander’s effort to undercut Roe v Wade. Regardless of one’s personal position on this ethical issue, this is no less than hypocrisy of the highest order.

    There are numerous instances of Gore’s crass use of personal epiphanies to explain his ‘beliefs’. Gore used the death of his sister, Nancy, from smoking-related cancer as a prop, saying in 1996, “that is why until I draw my last breath, I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking.” Yet, seven years after her death, Gore was still on the Big Tobacco dole – accepting tobacco money and accepting government subsidies for the tobacco he still grew on his Tennessee farm. Though Al and Tipper once smoked a lot of pot, Gore opposes its use, even for medical purposes, ignoring how his sister got relief from chemo primarily from the beneficial effects of smoking marijuana!

    Other family events become similar props. A pedestrian/auto accident where his son, Al III, was hit on the streets of Baltimore was similarly milked for political use. After lying that his son (who fully recovered) was down in the street unconscious on the verge of death (two nurses who happened by say Al III had never lost consciousness), Gore claimed that it became yet another of his epiphanies and that he would dedicated himself to being a more present dad. However, he soon after sequestered himself away from Tipper and kids in his family’s old hotel suite to pen “Earth on the Balance.”

    It is in Gore’s faked and hyped reputation as an environmentalist, that his penchant for lying and double-dealing is most obvious. The man who wrote that protection of the environment should be the “organizing principle” of government, in his own political career, did absolutely nothing of the sort.

    It was Green Al who first used opened the door to weakening the Nixon-signed Endangered Species Act by creating the “god squad” in order to advance the Tellico Dam in his home state over concerns about the dam’s effect on the Snail Darter. At the same time he was also a foremost, even fanatical, proponent of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (check Wikipedia).

    In 1992, candidate Gore promised to oppose the WTI hazardous waste burner in East Liverpool, Ohio. Once elected, it became the first environmental promise, written at that, broken by the Clinton/Gore administration. Soon thereafter, Clinton and Gore came to the Pacific Northwest and forced the supine Big Greens, over the objections of local grassroots environmentalists, to drop an injunction against old growth logging that was issued by Reagan-appointee, Judge William Dwyer. Once Green Al left town, the ancient trees were again rolling down to the mills and the Northern spotted owl, the species the injunction was out to protect are now on the brink of extinction.

    The Gore-brokered Northwest Forest Plan called for 50 years of continued cutting of the Ancient Forests. Not satisfied, Clinton, at Gore’s urging, then, in 1995, signed the so-called “Salvage Rider” which delivered millions of acres to the chainsaws unfettered by any ability for citizens to challenge the destruction in court.

    On and on it goes. Al Gore was and still is a man of political expediency. The man who famously “reinvented” government, has been constantly reinventing himself. The fact that Gore is a man who will say anything to advance his own selfish interests (whatever they may really be) has been verified time after time.

    Gore has said famously that he “invented the Internet.” He claims that he and Tipper were the models for Erich Segal’s famous book, “Love Story.” He claims falsely to have “got a bunch of people indicted and sent to jail” when he unethically became part of a police sting while a young reporter for the Tennessean.
    Gore claimed to have authored the earned income tax credit, which was enacted two years, before he was elected to Congress. He even once claimed he did not even know he was “in a Buddhist temple” much less there to collect campaign cash.

    There are a number of good, well researched (and sometimes well referenced books) exposing the rotten-to-the-core Al Gore myth, significantly BOTH from the Right AND from the Left. Any person claiming any moral integrity or religious convictions should recoil from the promotions of this utterly self-interested, ethical troglodyte of a man.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    blouis79

    The Gore stories reveal hypocrisy, self-interest, and lying. A worse dose perhaps of what many politicians suffer and probably a narcissitic personality disorder.

    It there concrete information of his methods and how he uses political connections for personal gain and money?

    Al Gore’s “Our Choice” is the only book I have ever seen where the so-called “author” has a large team of researchers to do the writing and a list of hundreds of acknowledgements of so-called expert contributors to provide a vast illusion of credibility of the uncritical and manipulative writing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mohib

    David Walker: January 13th, 2010 at 12:20 am …

    Thanks for the kind words. We’ve got a team volunteer proof readers lined up and hope to be starting final proofing later today. I think we should be done by the end of the weekend so I would wait, as a few days won’t make much difference at this point. I think the new version is much better (crisper, solidly proof read, finely tuned and edited text as well as more material). The less excuses we can give to people to dismiss anything the better.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks, Mohib, for putting together the 30-year climategate timeline and for keeping the spotlight on this scandal!

    The roots of the climategate iceberg go very deep, probably back to the time 50 years ago when the U.S. government switched its priorities from nuclear to space sciences after the surprise launch of the Sputnik spy spacecraft in 1957.

    NASA was created in 1958 and power shifted:

    From nuclear sciences (The Atomic Energy Commission – AEC, Glenn Seaborg and Robert Oppenheimer) during the nuclear era.

    To space sciences (NASA and the Geophysics Section of the National Academy of Sciences-NAS) during the space age.

    The late Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu and I encountered manipulation and deceit in the Geophysics Section of NAS when we tried to present experimental evidence of the birth of the solar system at the 1976 meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).

    Later we learned that AGU was still part of NAS in 1976.

    One surprising result: A former student of Nobel Laureate Glenn Seaborg – Professor Vic Viola – was in the audience, felt deeply offended by the underhanded actions that he observed, and put me in contact with his mentor, Dr. Glenn Seaborg.

    Glenn and I continued to communicate over the next couple of decades. In fact Glenn was scheduled to co-chair a special ACS Symposium on the “Origin of Elements in the Solar System” in 1999 but he died before the August ACS meeting. The proceedings were published by Kluwer Plenum Publishers, ISBN 0-306-46562-0

    A revolution will occur in astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, solar and space sciences if the spotlight of public attention successfully melts the climategate iceberg. It will be discovered that NAS has long hidden evidence that:

    a.) The Sun is not a ball of Hydrogen (H).
    b.) H-fusion is not the Sun’s main energy source.
    c.) Solar neutrinos do not oscillate away.
    d.) Solar cycles – induced by gravitational interactions of the Sun’s compact energetic core with other cosmic bodies – produce changes in Earth’s climate.
    e.) Nuclear dissociation powers the Sun and the cosmos and fills interstellar space with H, a neutron-decay product.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    blouis79

    Before there was ever Climategate, there was the quiet scientific protest by IPCC scientists.

    This article seems to have slid by most people’s attention, but seems to me to be rather important statement of science by the people on the inside of the IPCC. Note while the author is
    Professor Ann Henderson-Sellars, she is actually reporting a workshop of IPCC lead authors:
    http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/35820

    This article by John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama is compulsory reading – every last word.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    David Walker

    blouis79,

    Professor Ann Henderson-Sellars would have served the world even better by prefacing each of her topics as Christy’s high school physics teacher would have preferred; “At our present level of ignorance, we think we know…”

    Very interesting perspectives. Thank you so much for sharing them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    A frozen Britain turns the heat up on the Met office.

    Paul Hudson BLog: BBC
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/a-frozen-britain-turns-the-hea.shtml

    remeber his article (oct 09)
    whatever Happened to Global warming.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml

    may have prompted the whistle blower in the climategate scandal.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Hi,

    Just to let you know I have created a webpage where you can zoom in and out of the Climtegate poster to your heart’s content.

    It’s located at http://www.andyhcoates.com/climategate

    You may need to install Silverlight into your browser (if you have not already done so).

    Andy.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Read them and weep … for the betrayal of a science for a political ideology. Or … be spurred on by the search for truth and justice with this “Climategate Email Rap” – [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Par ailleurs, si vous voulez approfondir le sujet, je vous recommande le site suivant qui détaille la complexité structurelle élaborée au cours des 30 dernières années du ClimatGate. Le site contient également une affiche grand format merveilleusement bien réalisée et détaillée. http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/climategate-30-years-in-the-making/ [...]


    Report this

    00