Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,206
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + Line 45:
Line 45: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Updates
'''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> 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>
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>
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>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
After further analysis, his first concern pointed out that the source code that printed the graph was commented out and thus is not valid proof. On the second concern, Greiner clarified that, "Enough proof exists that the CRU had both the means and intent to intentionally falsify data. This means that all of their research results cannot be trusted until they are verified. Period." The third concern as pointed out by Greiner is not about the fact that the CRU researchers used [[Interpolated|interpolation]]; the issue is the weight of the "valadj" array with respect to the raw data. Greiner said, "valadj simply introduces '''too large''' of an influence to the original data to do anything productive with it." Fourthly, Greiner said that raw climate data is needed to prove that foul play has actually occurred. He said, "It simply doesn’t matter if the raw climate data are correct or not to demonstrate the extreme bias the valadj array forces on the raw data. So, the raw data could actually be temperature data or corporate sales figures, the result is the same; a severe manipulation of data."<ref name=codepart2/>
After further analysis, his first concern pointed out that the source code that printed the graph was commented out and thus is not valid proof. On the second concern, Greiner clarified that, "Enough proof exists that the CRU had both the means and intent to intentionally falsify data. This means that all of their research results cannot be trusted until they are verified. Period." The third concern as pointed out by Greiner is not about the fact that the CRU researchers used [[Interpolated|interpolation]]; the issue is the weight of the "valadj" array with respect to the raw data. Greiner said, "valadj simply introduces '''too large''' of an influence to the original data to do anything productive with it." Fourthly, Greiner said that raw climate data is needed to prove that foul play has actually occurred. He said, "It simply doesn’t matter if the raw climate data are correct or not to demonstrate the extreme bias the valadj array forces on the raw data. So, the raw data could actually be temperature data or corporate sales figures, the result is the same; a severe manipulation of data."<ref name=codepart2/>
====Integrity of the data====
Climategate has jeopardized the [[integrity]] of worldwide scientific data on [[climate change]].<ref name=dataintegrity>Willis Eschenbach. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero], ''Watts Up With That?'', December 08, 2009.</ref><ref>On December 11, 2009, the ''Economist'' published an unsigned article attacking the work by Willis Eschenbach. This open letter is Eschenbach's reply. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ Willis: Reply to the Economist], ''WUWT'', December 12, 2009.</ref> There are two objections that question the validity of temperature data from the IPCC report released in 2007, one of which Climategate does not affect. The earth has generally been warming since the [[Little Ice Age]], around 1650 (Akasofu, 2007).<ref>Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”? (2007) A possible cause of global warming [http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf PDF] by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, ''International Arctic Research Center'', University of Alaska Fairbanks.</ref> The second objection has questioned the integrity of the data, as pointed out from ''Watts Up With That?'' in an article written by Willis Eschenbach. There are three main global temperature data sets, as clarified by Eschenbach.
:* One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.
:* Another one is at NOAA (GHCN), the Global Historical Climate Network.
:* The final one is at [[NASA]] (GISS), the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The three groups take raw data, and they "homogenize" it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data. One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU basically uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) data set for its raw data.<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=GHCN&topEmails=&submit=Search Search - GHCN], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> But the [[IPCC]] uses the "adjusted" data; GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls "inhomogeneities." Inhomogeneity are defined in a quote from GHCN:
{{cquote|Most long-term climate stations have undergone changes that make a time series of their observations inhomogeneous. There are many causes for the discontinuities, including changes in instruments, shelters, the environment around the shelter, the location of the station, the time of observation, and the method used to calculate mean temperature. Often several of these occur at the same time, as is often the case with the introduction of automatic weather stations that is occurring in many parts of the world. Before one can reliably use such climate data for analysis of long term climate change, adjustments are needed to compensate for the non-climatic discontinuities.<ref name=dataintegrity/>}}
At Darwin Airport there are five separate individual station records that are combined to make up the final Darwin record.<ref>[http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=darwin GISS Surface Temperature Analysis], data.giss.nasa.gov.</ref> This raw data is downloaded from GISS, but GISS uses the GHCN raw data as the starting point for their analysis. Before the GHCN homogenized the data, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century. After the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. Darwin is an ideal station, because it also illustrates many of the problems with the raw temperature station data.
The record seems to be screwed up around 1941. Although the 1941 temperature shift seems large, a similar sized shift from 1992 to 1999. Willis Eschenbach looked into it further to see how Darwin homogenized each of the individual station records that created the average of the homogenized Darwin records. Eschenbach started with the earliest record, "Station Zero" at Darwin. The five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on all agreed almost exactly. What Eschenbach found was that the "homogenized" data has been adjusted to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.
{{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? ... [T]he 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? Well, they only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way of neatly avoiding the question ... and also 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/>}}
[[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/]]
[[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/]]