Changes

Climategate (view source)

Revision as of 20:59, December 15, 2009

236 bytes added , 20:59, December 15, 2009

m

better word use

Line 1: Line 1: −

'''Climategate''' refers to the scandal over exposed emails showing fraud and manipulations by scientists concerning the [[Global Warming Controversy]], a theory which asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures and thus [[climate change]]. On November 19, 2009, climate [[science]] was severely shaken by the release of a collection of [[e-mail|email messages]], together with a collection of data and data processing programs, that were hacked or revealed by a whistle blower from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the [[United Kingdom|UK]], one of the key centers of [[global warming]] research.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/ Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released], ''Watts Up With That?'', November 19, 2009.</ref> ~~These~~ emails and ~~text files~~ have been the subject of intense debate, calling to question assumptions on [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic (man-made) global warming]]; evidence revealed told the truth about man-made [[global warming]]: it's a [[fraud]].<ref>James Delingpole. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018246/climategate-how-the-greatest-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation-got-its-name/ Climategate: how the 'greatest scientific scandal of our generation' got its name], Telegraph.co.uk, November 29, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125109.guest.html Universe of Lies: Big Warmers Try to Whitewash ClimateGate Fraud], RushLimbaugh.com, November 30, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered], ''American Thinker'', November 25, 2009.</ref><ref>Steve McIntyre. [http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem], climateaudit.org, September 27, 2009.</ref><ref>Andrew Orlowski. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/one-of-the-frauds-behind-the-cru One Of The Scandals In The CRU Emails], ''Sweetness & Light'', September 29, 2009.</ref>

+

'''Climategate''' refers to the scandal over exposed emails showing fraud and manipulations by scientists concerning the [[Global Warming Controversy]], a theory which asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures and thus [[climate change]]. On November 19, 2009, climate [[science]] was severely shaken by the release of a collection of [[e-mail|email messages]], together with a collection of data and data processing programs, that were hacked or revealed by a whistle blower from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the [[United Kingdom|UK]], one of the key centers of [[global warming]] research.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/ Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released], ''Watts Up With That?'', November 19, 2009.</ref> The Climategate emails and climate data have been the subject of intense debate, calling to question assumptions on [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic (man-made) global warming]]; evidence revealed told the truth about man-made [[global warming]]: it's a [[fraud]].<ref>James Delingpole. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018246/climategate-how-the-greatest-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation-got-its-name/ Climategate: how the 'greatest scientific scandal of our generation' got its name], Telegraph.co.uk, November 29, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125109.guest.html Universe of Lies: Big Warmers Try to Whitewash ClimateGate Fraud], RushLimbaugh.com, November 30, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered], ''American Thinker'', November 25, 2009.</ref><ref>Steve McIntyre. [http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem], climateaudit.org, September 27, 2009.</ref><ref>Andrew Orlowski. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/one-of-the-frauds-behind-the-cru One Of The Scandals In The CRU Emails], ''Sweetness & Light'', September 29, 2009.</ref>

The scandal that the suffix –'''gate''' implies is the state of climate science over the past decade revealed by a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists released following the leaked data from the Climate Research Unit.<ref name=3things>Iain Murray. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/ Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref> Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific [[hoax]] in world history as the worst [[scandal]] of this [[generation]].<ref>Christopher Booker. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation], Telegraph.co.uk, November 28, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/videos/?uri=channels/338017/667734 The Biggest Scam In History (Video)], ''The Glenn Beck Program'', December 01, 2009.</ref>

Line 34: Line 34:

===Data Manipulation===

[[Image:Orange sun large.jpg|thumb|right|300px|On December 10, 2009, Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D., showed the potential effects of sunspot activity on climate, detailing [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/geomagnetic-forcing-of-earth%E2%80%99s-cloud-cover-during-2000-2008/ solar geomagnetic to earth climate connections]. On the subject of solar activity affecting climate variations, the geomagnetic modulation of cloudiness has about 10 times the effect on the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth as does the solar cycle’s direct modulation of the sun’s output. It also rivals the level of forcing due to [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic]] [[Greenhouse effect|greenhouse gas emissions]], but with way more variability from year to year and decade to decade. (Can anyone say, “natural climate variability”?)]]

−

Climategate shows strong evidence of fraud, and may show smoking-gun proof of a cover-up by CRU scientists to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails], FOXNews.com, November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html The Evidence of Climate Fraud], ''American Thinker'', November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 25, 2009.</ref> From ''Cube Antics'', by Robert Greiner, who is a scientist and engineer "with an agnostic stand on global warming," he offered a statement about the research methods of the CRU, attempting to show proof that they had the means and intent to falsify data. Greiner pointed out that the ~~CRU~~ emails alone do not provide sufficient proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. What the emails do show is that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money; moreover, within the collection of data and data processing programs, code from the CRU shows proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref name=codeproof>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/ The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle], ''Cube Antics'', December 03, 2009.</ref> Analysis of the CRU's code revealed the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. Greiner reiterated his findings:

+

Climategate shows strong evidence of fraud, and may show smoking-gun proof of a cover-up by CRU scientists to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails], FOXNews.com, November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html The Evidence of Climate Fraud], ''American Thinker'', November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 25, 2009.</ref> From ''Cube Antics'', by Robert Greiner, who is a scientist and engineer "with an agnostic stand on global warming," he offered a statement about the research methods of the CRU scientists, attempting to show proof that they had the means and intent to falsify data. Greiner pointed out that the Climategate emails alone do not provide sufficient proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. What the Climategate emails do show is that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money; moreover, within the collection of data and data processing programs revealed from Climategate, code from the CRU shows proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref name=codeproof>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/ The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle], ''Cube Antics'', December 03, 2009.</ref> Analysis of the CRU's code revealed the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. Greiner reiterated his findings:

{{cquote|First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce. This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing. If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.<ref name=codeproof/>}}

−

On December 05, 2009, Robert Greiner pointed out the four most frequent concerns dealing with the CRU’s source code:<ref name=codepart2>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/climategate-code-analysis-part-2/ Climategate Code Analysis Part 2], ''Cube Antics'', December 05, 2009.</ref>

+

On December 05, 2009, Robert Greiner pointed out the four most frequent concerns dealing with the CRU’s source code uncovered from Climategate:<ref name=codepart2>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/climategate-code-analysis-part-2/ Climategate Code Analysis Part 2], ''Cube Antics'', December 05, 2009.</ref>

:1. The source code that actually printed the graph was commented out and, therefore, is not valid proof.

Line 59: Line 59:

Willis Eschenbach looked into it further and started with the earliest record, "Station Zero" at Darwin. The five different station records (raw data) covering Darwin from 1941 on all agreed almost exactly. What Eschenbach found was that there is "indisputable evidence that the 'homogenized' data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming." The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station shows that at least one part of the data is bad at Darwin Zero.

{{cquote|They’ve just added a huge, artificial, totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! A six degree per century trend? What’s up with that? [...] The GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them. That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it 'hides the decline.' [...] Care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? They only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941. Every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling.<ref name=dataintegrity/>}}

−

Separate from GHCN, GISS takes the raw temperature data and does their own adjustments. However, GISS verified that their adjusted, homogenized data is the same as GHCN. The CRU still hasn’t released the list of data that they actually use. ~~Until~~ all of the station "adjustments" are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS cannot be trusted if using homogenized numbers.

+

Separate from GHCN, GISS takes the raw temperature data and does their own adjustments. However, GISS verified that their adjusted, homogenized data is the same as GHCN. The CRU still hasn’t released the list of data that they actually use. Climategate revealed a fact that, until all of the station "adjustments" are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS cannot be trusted if using homogenized numbers.

[[Image:GlobalTemps June2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|'''8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps.''' Dr. Roy Spencer in June 2009 announced on his [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/june-2009-global-temperature-anomaly-update-000-deg-c/ blog] that June's anomaly globally using the Aqua satellite dropped to 0.001C. '''This continued downtrend started after 2001''', and is another indicator [[Global Warming]] alarmists have certainly embodied a hoax. It was also reported: '''Sea Level Rise; A Major Non-existent Threat Exploited by Alarmists:''' Truth about sea level is a major casualty of the war to implement whatever is deemed necessary to implement legislation to increase [[Big government|Big Government]] power and control, including [[Socialist]] [[Income redistribution]] ideologies. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12629 ''Canada Free Press''] - http://www.climatedepot.com/]]

====Hockey Stick Graph====

−

In one e-mail dated November 1999, CRU chief P.D. Jones wrote to [[Michael Mann]], Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes:

+

In one Climategate e-mail dated November 1999, CRU chief P.D. Jones wrote to [[Michael Mann]], Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes:

{{cquote|I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to '''hide the decline'''.<ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html UN Climate Reports: They Lie], ''American Thinker'', October 05, 2009.</ref>}}

Line 82: Line 82:

===Subverting the scientific peer review process===

−

The CRU scientists, from the ~~e-mails~~, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the ~~e-mails~~ show a [[criminal]] intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a cap and trade scheme as part of a Global Warming movement.

+

The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a [[criminal]] intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a [[cap and trade]] scheme as part of a Global Warming movement.

===Freedom of Information Act===

Line 88: Line 88:

==Climategate emails==

−

The Climategate emails discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure dissenting papers had no access to publication. The emails show that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money, deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. The collection of data and data processing programs, code from the CRU shows proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.

+

The Climategate emails discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure dissenting papers had no access to publication. The Climategate emails show that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money, deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. The collection of data and data processing programs, code from the CRU shows proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.

Further analysis of the word "trick" and how it was used in the Climategate emails from the CRU provided interesting feedback. It showed that CRU did indeed truncate tree ring data, so that the real decline in global temperature is not shown in the [[IPCC]] report, as referenced by Steve McIntyre.<ref>Steve McIntyre. [http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483 IPCC and the “Trick”], climateaudit.org, December 10, 2009.</ref> McIntyre brought this to attention as an expert reviewer in the IPCC process in 2005, but at the time of inquiry his dissent was stifled and the discussion was never presented to external peer reviewers.

Line 103: Line 103:

* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=852&filename=1200162026.txt 1200162026.txt]

−

After a second file search was executed to double check how many emails contained some permutation of the letters "t r i c k," it revealed 29 emails out of the 1079 emails in the [http://junkscience.com/FOIA/ FOIA2009.zip] file. Only one instance was found where Dr. Jones used the word "trick" in reference to a procedure on data. There are other uses and variations of the word "trick" in other emails, but only one instance attributed to Jones where he refers to this data issue. As Dr. Jones put it: The word ‘trick’ was used in the lone instance colloquially as in a clever thing to do (eg. "that’ll do the trick"). But it was questioned that one would expect to see it in general use by Dr. Jones in other emails if it was indeed a colloquialism. In the thousand plus emails, there’s no other use of the word "trick" by Dr. Jones related to data truncation or otherwise, though there are other colloquial uses of the word by other authors.<ref name=trickcount/>

+

After a second file search was executed to double check how many of the Climategate emails contained some permutation of the letters "t r i c k," it revealed 29 emails out of the 1079 emails in the [http://junkscience.com/FOIA/ FOIA2009.zip] file. Only one instance was found where Dr. Jones used the word "trick" in reference to a procedure on data. There are other uses and variations of the word "trick" in other emails, but only one instance attributed to Jones where he refers to this data issue. As Dr. Jones put it: The word ‘trick’ was used in the lone instance colloquially as in a clever thing to do (eg. "that’ll do the trick"). But it was questioned that one would expect to see it in general use by Dr. Jones in other emails if it was indeed a colloquialism. In the thousand plus Climategate emails, there’s no other use of the word "trick" by Dr. Jones related to data truncation or otherwise, though there are other colloquial uses of the word by other authors.<ref name=trickcount/>

==Global reactions to data on climate change==

Line 133: Line 133:

===U.S. Congressional comments===

−

When House [[Republicans]] asked for a hearing or investigation into the ~~issue~~, independent from the Penn State University which is looking into the ~~e-mails~~ by its own researcher, [[Michael Mann]], calls for further investigation were criticized and then rejected by [[Democrats]]. U.S. Representative James Sensenbrenner ([[Republican|R]]-[[Wisconsin]]) said, "These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit."<ref>Seth Borenstein. [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010411091_apsciclimatehearing.html Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails], ''The Seattle Times'', December 3, 2009.</ref> Democrats harbored ill will against the facts and continued to theorize that the [[earth]] is warming, insisting that the fraudulent data "[does] nothing to undermine the very strong scientific [[consensus]]," which showed a [[warming trend]] and claimed it is largely a result of human activity. The top [[Democrat]] on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, [[Barbara Boxer]], a global warming alarmist, said of the scandal, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate." Rather than investigate the fraud and manipulation of scientific data that was used by climate science researchers, Boxer hoped to get her hands on the so-called 'real' criminals, those who <s>stole</s> released e-mails and data to the public.<ref>[http://polijamblog.polijam.com/?p=11748 Sen. Boxer Attempts to Turn Climategate Into ‘Email-Theft-Gate’ as Warmist Scandal Grows], ''The PoliJAM Times Blog'', December 2, 2009.</ref>

+

When House [[Republicans]] asked for a hearing or investigation into the Climategate scandal, independent from the Penn State University which is looking into the Climategate emails by its own researcher, [[Michael Mann]], calls for further investigation were criticized and then rejected by [[Democrats]]. U.S. Representative James Sensenbrenner ([[Republican|R]]-[[Wisconsin]]) said, "These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit."<ref>Seth Borenstein. [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010411091_apsciclimatehearing.html Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails], ''The Seattle Times'', December 3, 2009.</ref> Democrats harbored ill will against the facts and continued to theorize that the [[earth]] is warming, insisting that the fraudulent data "[does] nothing to undermine the very strong scientific [[consensus]]," which showed a [[warming trend]] and claimed it is largely a result of human activity. The top [[Democrat]] on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, [[Barbara Boxer]], a global warming alarmist, said of the scandal, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate." Rather than investigate the fraud and manipulation of scientific data that was used by climate science researchers, Boxer hoped to get her hands on the so-called 'real' criminals, those who <s>stole</s> released e-mails and data to the public.<ref>[http://polijamblog.polijam.com/?p=11748 Sen. Boxer Attempts to Turn Climategate Into ‘Email-Theft-Gate’ as Warmist Scandal Grows], ''The PoliJAM Times Blog'', December 2, 2009.</ref>

===Other countries take notice===

DerekE

Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit

2,206

edits

Changes

Climategate (view source)

Revision as of 20:59, December 15, 2009

Navigation menu

Search