RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Is It Getting Hot In Here?

Maybe not, if the recent revelation regarding a data dump in this article is correct, “Climate Change Data Dumped.”

Before I go any further, let me say I have been shocked by the revelation found in recently hacked emails from New Zealand that raise great sus[icion regarding the validity of Global Warming. I have long supported organizations fighting against global warming, even giving monthly contributions to the Union of Concerned Scientists. I bought Al Gore’s documentary, for pete’s sake. I’m telling you, I have long been one of those yelling about the damage we have done/are doing to this planet.

And now we are finding out that it may have all been a bunch of hooey (or at least hyped up)?? Are you kidding me??

Here is more from the “Data Dump” article:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

Oh, boy. Well, gosh – I guess when we were demonizing this “climate sceptics,” we were, um, wrr, wrrrooo, ahem – um, wrong to do so. Dammit. Don’t you just HATE when that happens? (Huh – probably how a lot of former Obama sycophants are feeling right about now…)

There’s more:

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

Well, yes, that’s what they say, but I think everyone can agree that the whole thing about SCIENCE is having DATA to use to formulate scientific conclusions. Absent of that information, it is simply, well, opinion.

This revelation, from the emails to the data dump, is being referred to as “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation ,” highlighting why this is so important:

The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Are you as taken aback by this as I am? How many years have we been hearing about global warming? When the scientists who are working on this admit in emails their duplicity, it calls everything into question:

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

And now you know why this is being referred to as “Climate Gate” by James Delingpole of the Telegraph(UK). This is also why many are calling for the meeting in Copenhagen to be called off immediately until this can all be sorted out. That is not a bad idea, and one I would certainly support.

Until then, I am trying to wrap my head around the very real possibility that we all have been sold a bill of goods on a massive scale. Not only is that infuriating, but the possibility of that happening is extremely disconcerting when you start to realize the sheer magnitude of this scandal. Staggering that so many of us around the globe may have been had…

  • TeakWoodKite

    Hey Al, can I have my money back?

  • Obamastolemycoutry

    I, too, watched “An Inconvenient Truth” and used to love Al Gore. What is going on? We are lied to on a daily basis by these politicans, who have their own huge Carbon Fottprints anyway and then they want to send our money off to the world to “save the planet”. Yeah, right. My first clue was Al Bore’s (not a typo) concert for the World, what was that called again? I mean, how much energy was wasted for that????? They should have done it all by candlelight with acoustic guitars for gosh sakes! Ok, I am kidding, but still. I started becoming wise to the fact that this was all a big lie a while back, and I am glad this truth is coming out. Is the MSM talking about it yet????

    *crickets*

    • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

      I hear ya, and feel the same way. I feel like we’ve been duped. Those people who called global warming a hoax? Many of us, myself included, used to call them nutjobs, and laughed at their unwillingness to believe scientific data or trust the scientists from around the world. Well, dang, it looks like they had good reason not to completely trust them.

      Who woulda thunk it?? Sigh…

      That’s not to say there aren’t still some major issues, and threats to animals, etc., but how are we supposed to believe what these people tell us now??

      • angie

        You think you feel bad? My own brother is an environmental engineer & he has been telling me forever that the global warming/Al Gore spiel is a bunch of hype to get us (i.e., consumers) to spend more $$ buying “green” products (and Al Gore is making mucho money off of it all). I lumped him in with the “global warming-deniers nutjobs” too. I trusted Al Gore over my own brother! {hangs head in shame)

      • Jenny

        The late Michael Crichton wrote “State of Fear” 5 years ago and he most definitely not a nutjob.

        There was enough evidence that contradicted everything that Al Glore claimed in his documentary, but a lot of people refused to listen to scientists from the opposition, thinking that they are being paid by greedy interest groups… well La-di-da, turns out the AGW scientists are the only ones doing the lying.

    • Jackie

      Fox News has been covering this. Glen Beck, as extreme as he seems has been railing against for at least 2 years that I am aware of. He has had some real excellent points and he speculated that what has been revealed in the past week was going on all along.

      I still hate Bill O’Reilly but Fox has done a better job of reporting the NEWS.

  • lemonv

    And then many years from now, it was proven that there is really a global warming but it has become a runaway greenhouse effect already. When nothing could be done for the climate. What would the naysayers say then? “Oh, we are so sorry. We thought that global warming is a hoax.” Well, it might be too late by then…

    • John Smith

      I give you an other scenario. A few years from now we find out that Global Warming was a hoax but we were stupid enough to implemented Cap and Trade and in the process destroyed our economy and now we are practically a 3rd world country where half of all kids go to bed hungry and disease that use to be unheard of in this country are killing people left and right.

    • Obama: Dubya 2 Electric Boogaloo

      And then many years from now, it was proven that monkey’s will fly out of ass…no really, I have the data to prove. Just look at my computer generated models. Clearly monkey’s will be flying fast and furious out of my ass by 2030, unless we do something about it NOW…

      ..no, you can’t see the data, but trust me, look at the computer models!

      • NomNomNom

        do you have a link? :wink:

    • http://www.beforeitsnews.com Concerned Citizen

      Don’t worry lemonv, it won’t become that big a problem because human caused CO2 is only about 100 ppm. That’s 100 in 1000000 or about 0.1% of all the stuff floating around the atmosphere.

      If you want to make a difference, plant a tree every Arbor Day.

      More here:
      http://beforeitsnews.com/story/0000000000000629

  • Obamastolemycoutry

    I am in Minnesota. I would welcome Global Warming here. I could one day have beachfront Property!

    :-)

    • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

      LOL – too funny!

      I just wonder what these people were getting out of their duplicity. That is to say, who stands to gain from their claims and data dumps? Just makes me wonder.

      Not that I am going to stop recycling, and trying to do the best I can, just because I think it’s the right thing to do, but it’s the flat out manipulation of scientific method, and all that flows from it that is irksome.

      • TeakWoodKite

        What REALLY irks me is all the work Al Gore did in the 80′s on Climate Change, now seems to be hollowed out propaganda. Pity that.

        There was a time back then when “how to pass a buck” with limited natural resources and seed money could be profitable and drive innovation.
        Look at it now. I have been jackbooted, left with a carbon foot print in my wallet, tax code, cost of doing business.
        Yup, securitizing carbon emissions is coming to a economy choking on it’s own hypocracy.

      • John Smith

        million of dollars . The main guy at CRU alone collected 5 million dollars over the last 10 years.

        • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

          I hate to be cynical, but there’s a reason why people often say, “follow the money…”

          • jwrjr

            What’s wrong with cynical when it is also correct? Ambrose Bierce described a cynic as a “blackguard” who insisted on seeing the World as it is rather than the way it ought to be.

      • getfitnow

        I believe it’s a lot like the Jackson/Sharpton and their ilk race baiting. The issue has been manipulated and twisted to put the fear of God in us. Anyone brave enough to speak out against it is pounced on. It’s a lucrative business.

        The environment: I respect it. I don’t worship it.

  • http://deleted BuzzisbackLatte

    Note to Al Gore: Global Warming? Check out the weather data for Spokane WA last year (2008-2009) and get back to me.

  • rmh

    Climate change? Ignore it at your peril.
    It is happening all around you. Just look.
    The ice caps are melting and species are dying.

    Be scared and if you aren’t look at Venus.

    • John Smith

      You must be smoking something. Venus is a lot closer to the Sun then we are and 97% of its atmosphere is made up of CO2. I am fairly certain that we will not be able to pull that off on this planet. CO2 is measure in part pre million. Human activity only adds .5 percent to the total CO2 emissions on the planet.

      Now tell me how does that turn into Venus.

      • http://deleted BuzzisbackLatte

        Where the greenies get stuck is they tend to think things can only go one way. Their way. They are the most vulnerable pea-brains because all they have to do is be told and they’re off to the races spouting greenie propaganda without any serious research on their own to fact check.

        Mother earth continues to surprise all the time.

        How many new species are found each day?

      • andrew

        “Human activity only adds .5 percent to the total CO2 emissions on the planet.”

        Human activity has added significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere and is doing so at an accelerating rate. The low percentage of total annual emissions caused by human activity makes for a misleading argument because our additions have been cummulative.

        “Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm.”

        The evidence that human activity is responsible for the increased CO2 concentration is both easy to understand and convincing.

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638

        • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

          It is my understanding that newscientist.com is not peer-reviewed journal. Please correct me if I am wrong.

          • andrew

            I don’t know, but suspect you’re probably right. I liked the page simply for being short and straightforward.

            • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

              I did some quick checking to see who owns them and if there was any hint of a reason to spin and massage. No obvious flags, but I need to go back and look further. Sorry I am so much of a pest. :D

        • John Smith

          The CO2 argument is idiotic. It has been proven the temperature drives CO2 and not the other way around. The CO2 that we will be emitting over the next 100 years will have no real impact on global temperatures and in a 100 years most of the fossil fuels will be depleted anyways so I am not sure what the problem is.

          • Ferd Berfle

            You really must refrain from posting. Temperature does not drive the CO2 cycle unless you are speaking to combustion, which does drive the CO2 cycle, at least in terms of converting hydrocarbons (alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, and other organic moieties) to CO2.

            You really are a babe in the woods when it comes to Chemistry and thanks for making the opponent’s point, Goob.

  • JRD

    37,000 scientists from around the world sued “THE GORACLE” last November calling his science a fraud.
    Did you hear anything about it from the state run media?
    These e-mails were leaked a month ago by a “deep throat” before they were hacked. The BBC just sat on it. The fix is in. We have been had.
    This will make you laugh, anyway.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YjAxYzA3NmI0N2Y1MDVhYzdmM2JkZGIyMjE5ZWU2OTI=

    • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

      I did see the Ed Begley/Stu Varney discussion the other day. Again, while I am not going to start cranking up the thermostat or anything anytime soon, it is just so disturbing that scientists would conduct themselves in such a, well, unscientific manner.

      And John, that’s the thing – the whole Cap and Trade thing. Really makes me wonder.

  • artistmate

    why would anyone who had the common sense to accept agw be swayed by a phony scandal financed by energy interests…unless they were actually being disingenuous when they claimed to belive in agw prior to this trumped up scandal.

    • John Smith

      Why would you believe a bunch of scientists who are taking millions from companies who would make billions if Cap and Trade and other so called green initiatives get forced on the people.

      The main premise of AGW is that CO2 drives temperature but in reality its the other way around. So I am not sure how AGW could be true. There is this fairly smart Professor at MIT who will explain this to you. Just type in MIT Global Warming into GOOGLE and you can read all about it.

      • Ferd Berfle

        The main premise of AGW is that CO2 drives temperature but in reality its the other way around.

        So temperatures drive CO2 concentrations? LMAO. To the back of the class with you. What irks me no end about both sides of this issue is that the fringe groups bring our their own alleged “experts” to muddy the water. As a real scientist, I am appalled at the lack of fundamental knowledge most pundits hyperventilators have on this subject. Gore was a chicken little with his sky-is-falling schtick but his adversaries are ostriches with their collective heads in the sand. One little commented on and pesky bit of information is the hypothesis that climate change could bring some very strange weather. Well, here in my own humble village in East Tennessee by my rain gauge, my neighborhood had over 30 inches of rain between June and September. Those figures represent something akin to temperate rain forest amounts. Indeed, the mold was everywhere and I spent a great deal of time using Chlorox to kill it. But thanks to the fringe groups and their ability to divert attention from anything approaching objective evidence, that rainfall was nothing more than an anomaly or didn’t really happen because it fits neither side’s agenda.

        Who to believe–my lying eyes and objective evidence of something unusual or those with hidden agenda?

        Both sides are full of shit. Something is going on and the evidence is there if one but looks at it.

        And whoever commented about Venus is truly silly. Closeness to the sun is not the significant factor in its temperature.

        • Sassy

          Holiday Greetings to you Ferd and Katmoon!
          I have missed seeing your “lovely” face here!

          • Ferd Berfle

            Thank you, Sassy. I grew tired of obamabots, bushbot dittoheads, extremists, and the pathetic Spamminator that censored my comments at the drop of an i d i o t. Nothing like NQ becoming PC to piss me off.

            I may or may not continue to comment here. It is really up to the powers that be. I won’t hold my breath in either case.

            • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

              Hey Ferd! I figured you’d be back! :D

              Welcome back! I hope all is well with you and Katmoon, and that you had a nice holiday. I’ve begun writing again under a new name and used to enjoy our discussions. BTW, I hope Katmoon will return to NQ. Please visit my current thread and post comments if you want.

              I get caught in the filter maybe once or twice a day. If I do, I post a comment in the same thread asking the admin to rescue my comment, something like this:

              Spam monster alert! Rescue squad please rescue #comment-123456789

              Usually within 30 minutes to an hour the comment is rescued.

              Note: after you post a comment and even if you don’t see the comment, the comment # will appear in the URL.

              Not saying you are saying there is censorship here, but there is no censorship here. :)

              Ferd, I’d be interested in your analysis of the email controversy. Its my belief you as do I, seek truth, and not spin — so I value your opinion.

              • Ferd Berfle

                I don’t know enough about the email controversy to make an educated opinion for now. I only know that I am a real scientist and work with real scientists every day and we go OUT OF OUR WAY to be objective and don’t like salesmen, equivocators, good old boys, or bureaucrats. I have been called on the carpet on occasions to numerous to count because of my own sensitivity regarding evidence. I won’t stand behind anything that hasn’t the requisite evidence.

                What gets me, however, is that these same people who poo-poo real science are the same ones to embrace such pseudo-scientific endeavors as drug testing (an accident waiting to happen). Any *real* scientist will tell you that the results are subject to numerous interferences both positive and negative. Some people get off scot-free and others get truly screwed. Moreover, the load of manure you see on such shows as NCIS and ANY of the CSI bs factories is a load of horse hockey (I’ve run the very same instruments and did so for years). To get a valid result might take days and not hours or minutes and even then, I counseled caution in the use of such data. The tendency towards randomness in any result cannot be accounted for and so must be caveated.

                • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

                  Thanks for the additional information, Ferd. That is very helpful indeed.

                  I was wondering how other scientists are responding to this apparent “culling the data to fit a desired conclusion.” (I hope that ISN’T what they did, but it sure does look like it now – and since they dumped any data that could prove them right/wrong, well…You get the point.)

                  Ferd, I’ve missed you and Katmoon – I hope you know that! :-)

                  • Ferd Berfle

                    Thanks, RRRA. As to the question of culling of data I can’t say, yet. I do know that before the advent of cheap disk space, many servers were wiped to make space for new information with the data formerly held on the servers copied to tape and or other types of disks including CD. Sometimes this information can get lost or be difficult to find as it is often warehoused. The company I work for asks us to often move data due to disk space problems. Mind you this is not a problem limited to the field of science. Ask yourself what NQ would do when they reach their limit of storage. This is at least one potential explanation. I’m waiting to see what happens next.

                  • Ferd Berfle

                    RRRA:

                    Katmoon still comes here for unfettered information but because our son is deploying again (to Afghanistan this time around), she has had a lot of other things occupying her mind, which is understandable.

            • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

              Sassy, nice to see you here, too!

              And Ferd, buddy, I swear on a stack of whatever books would be holy to you, that freaking Spaminator picks on EVERYONE!

              Nice to hear from you – I hope that you and the lovely Katmoon had a wonderful Thanksgiving, and that your children are safe.

        • John Smith

          Closeness to the sun is not the significant factor in its temperature.

          Did you graduate form high school?

          • Ferd Berfle

            I’m a chemist, dink. Apparently you don’t understand the significance of a runaway greenhouse effect, which has far more impact that the relative distances from the Sun. Go to the back of the class and don’t comment again on this subject until you get some requisite fundamentals under your belt. Better yet, leave science to those of us who are fluent in it.

  • NomNomNom

    for g#d’ssake if one wants to understand something scientific, then one needs to (minimally) read scientific journals, blogs, etc not political blogs.

    • John Smith

      And your point is?

    • KR

      This is also about the politics of science.

      • Ferd Berfle

        There is no room for politics in science. On the other hand, science and its hypotheses are needed since politicians and the general public are woefully uneducated in what science is and isn’t.

        Everyone likes to bloviate ad nauseam about common sense. Really. You can leave that at the door when you enter the edifice of inductive logic. Quantum theory violates “common” sense but nevertheless works in application.

        • Portia Elizabeth

          Yay! Ferd’s back!!!

          • NomNomNom

            thank god, someone with a brain

  • TeakWoodKite

    ¿ןɐ ʍou ƃuıɯɹɐʍ ןɐqoןƃ sıɥʇ xıɟ oʇ ƃuıoƃ ı ɯɐ ʍoɥ

    • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

      I don’t know how you did that, Teak, but that is fantastic!

      • Onofre’s arm

        He was standing on his head when he typed it.

        • TeakWoodKite

          Now you see? It’s morning!

      • TeakWoodKite

        Ha! http://www.sevenwires.com/play/UpsideDownLetters.html

        There so many places that I went during the primaries before my hard drive was ground to dust. This book mark survived.

        • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

          Thanks, Teak! I’m glad the link survived.

          • TeakWoodKite

            Me too. I might add that I saw one of the many beautiful works of photograpy in the Series “Planet Earth”, where there were fish living in sulfuric acid, which just goes to show…

            Dr. Ian Malcolm: If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it’s that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, expands to new territory, and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously.

            “Life will find a way”

            • Ferd Berfle

              Just how long did it take that species to be able to survive such hostile conditions? I’ve worked with sulfuric acid and trust me when I tell you that it hurts upon contact with the skin, however slight and fleeting the contact was. And that doesn’t include the fumes, which are debilitating within seconds.

  • Doc99

    Mankind is ill-served when science becomes a religion. Remember the example of Galileo who dared to buck the orthodoxy of his day. I give you the late Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as Religion.

    • Ferd Berfle

      Mankind is even worse served when religion becomes a science. A priori beliefs posing as science or used to silence scientists represent the end of science. You may as well believe in intelligent combustion, whereby God makes the automobile work.

      • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

        Religion as science, science as religion = those of us poor saps in the middle are screwed by extremist ideology. The extremes are easy to sell to the hapless masses and the devils that profit from extremism know this all too well and wield it like an axe.

        • Ferd Berfle

          I agree but my main point is that science must not be interfered with in its pursuit of real evidence, whatever that evidence may bring. Science always runs into problems when politicians, bureaucrats, lay people, and those with an agenda start to massage the information to fit their own needs. This is one reason why I don’t listen to the greenies OR businesses. Each has their own ox to gore and axe to grind.

          • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

            Throw in pseudo science funded by the green and right wing ideological groups, and businesses, and add in the personal bias of pseudo scientists — that complicates matters even worse. FUBAR comes to mind and not the Fouled Up species either.

            • Ferd Berfle

              I concur.

              I don’t have an answer, either as to the misuse of science in pursuit of an agenda or dollar signs. In my work, I just do what I can, one problem at a time and hope someone will listen.

  • babawankenobe

    Next thing we will find out that all of Obama.s documents are fake too! LOL! rofl lmao!

  • No-nonsense-nancy

    Good post, RRA. When Canada Free Press posted this story last week it was explained that the reason for all of this is so they could get their One World Government that they want so badly. In the 1970s they tried to say the earth was cooling and that didn’t work so they changed it to say the earth was warming. At the Copenhagen conference on global warming starting on Dec.7th a treaty is to be signed by many countries, including ours, turning our sovereignty over to the UN in the name of global warming and climate change. Our wealth would be redistributed to many developing countries who apparently have suffered by our “extravagance” in burning fossil fuels.
    The earth has a way of getting rid of Co2 naturally. All the CO2 that we put in the atmosphere is dissipated in a few years. Global arming is not caused by green house emissions at all.

    Be aware of New World Order or One World Government. George Soros and his ilk want this very bad.

    • jbjd

      CFP is a neo-Nazi rag by Douglas Hagmann, NEIN (“Northest Intelligence Network”). Certainly, if one’s intention is to inform rather than to inflame, one could find more reputable sources to cite. http://www.ken-welch.com/Reports/Hagmann.html

    • Ferd Berfle

      The earth has a way of getting rid of Co2 naturally. All the CO2 that we put in the atmosphere is dissipated in a few years.

      LMAO. Well, Dr. Science, show me the equation demonstrating the earth’s ability to do this in a few years.

      When you load up the right side of a chemical equation, the shift is always to the left of the double arrows.

      • Ferd Berfle

        Drat. What I meant is that if you load up any side of a chemical equation, the shift is to the other side of the double arrows. Equilibrium is the key and is not often mentioned in any of this ongoing argument.

        • Onofre’s arm

          Can’t equilibrium be established with the introduction of buffers? The models used to predict greenhouse warming from CO2 rarely if ever include buffering or mitigating factors, and there are many of them. But it has yet to be scientifically proven that there even is global warming to begin with, let alone what the causes of it could be.

          This particular episode only illustrates a complete breakdown of the scientific process. Objectivity was the first principle ejected in an effort to establish a cause around which the leftist econazis could rally a scientifically naive public. What has happened at UEA and the IPCC was a flipping of the scientific process on it’s head. From the start, whether or not the driving forces believed in AGW or not, they wanted to be able to CLAIM it was a fact, and set out to prove that it was. You Ferd, should know that this is not how the process works; you don’t try to prove your theory by only studying data that support the theory, you study and research data that either support or disprove all other reasonable competing theories. You have to logically eliminate all of the alternate explanations before you can state that your’s is the most compelling. The global warming Jihadists haven’t done this. The stolen (or whistle blower provided) documents are clear evidence that from proposal to conclusion, that the method here to prove AGW was based upon cherry picked data, plugged into heavily skewed models, by cherry picked scientists, paid by agenda driven entities, to establish a cause that could be used as an excuse to malevolently control the activities men all over the planet.

          When I hear pathetic nitwits like Al Gore claim that the science is settled, or that there’s no debate, or that there is consensus, to a scientist like me, it’s like hearing fingernails dragged down a blackboard that’s hooked up to amplifiers turned to 11 on the volume setting, driving million amp speakers.

          • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

            Are those solid-state or valve amps? ;)

            • Onofre’s arm

              They’re the ones from “This is Spinal Tap!” The only ones I know of that go up to 11.

          • Docelder

            Yep, they treat the Earth like it was some sort of a Petri dish or a flask that you can measure everything you put in and predict what will happen. They neglect that the Earth is a complex and living ecosystem. Add more CO2 and the ocean water absorbs more C02. Add more CO2 and plants and algae grow faster consuming more CO2. The problem is that science can’t explain much of the Earth right now. They can’t explain much of the human body either, or even just the brain right now. We act like we know it all, when the more we learn, what we should be learning that we don’t really know all that much to begin with. Are there pollutants in fossil fuels, yes there are. Is there a chance that someday we won’t be able to feed everybody in the world, yes. But all of that has nothing to do with the carbon exchange boondoggle. Much of the agenda is being driven by profiteers.

            • Ferd Berfle

              Add more CO2 and the ocean water absorbs more C02.

              Only up to the point of saturation, which can be tested scientifically. There is a lot more here than meets the eye is all I am saying. Those who argue in absolutes are rarely correct.

              • Docelder

                I have no problem with science so long as it isn’t treated as a religion. You know I also had physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, environmental chemistry and biochemistry in regular college. So, Al Gore doesn’t impress me so much, especially when he thinks the Earth crust is millions of degrees hot a couple of kilometers down. So many of the “greenies” are over worried about CO2 when what they ought to be worried about are things like clean water, fertilizer runoff, soil depletion and technology like HAARP. HAARP bothers me a lot more than Al Gore does.

                • Ferd Berfle

                  I suppose I’m not exactly making my point very well. The gist of my argument is that there are few absolutes in science. And because there are few, the extremists on both sides of this issue take what they want (cherry pick) and ignore the rest. Neither side sways me because I can read the studies and make up my own mind as to their validity. I don’t need half-baked pontificators from either side telling me how to evaluate and validate scientific data. I do that each and every day as it is my main function at work and something I have been doing for over 25 years.

                  So many of the “greenies” are over worried about CO2 when what they ought to be worried about are things like clean water, fertilizer runoff, soil depletion and technology like HAARP. HAARP bothers me a lot more than Al Gore does.

                  Spot on and agreed. The oilfields are also a concern of mine and the EPA has yet to even touch this one. I worked in Oklahoma City as a chemist for several years and tested a lot of environmental samples from the oilfield (Conoco, Phillips, etc.). Appalling is all I can say.

                  • Docelder

                    We are pretty much in agreement Ferd, good to see you back, btw. I want also to clarify the treating science as a religion from above. What I mean is asking people to take a leap of faith for science’s sake. That argument has been used against religion… that is takes a leap of faith. But science should be just the facts.

                    • ~~JustMe~~

                      Hey Ferd so good to see you back was just thinking last week I had not seen you or Katmoon posting…
                      Hope all is well and your Thanksgiving was restful!

                    • Ferd Berfle

                      Hello, ~~JustMe~~, I hope you had a good Thanksgiving, too. I took a bit of time off as I was getting quite irked with the extremists on both sides of every issue. Had they brains of excrement, they still couldn’t fill up a good-sized toilet bowl.

                      Docelder:

                      I agree with you about the need for facts and that is what we should make every attempt to discern, whatever the outcome may be.

      • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

        Ah how predictable, the left and right wingnuts crawl out of their dark caverns when the climate issue is brought up… And I thought the NWO was a vast right wing conspiracy, begun by Bush I? Now its a left wing conspiracy? So confusing! :D

  • No-nonsense-nancy

    TeakwoodKite,
    How did you do that?!

    • TeakWoodKite

      Link up thread. :)

  • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

    Were the emails leaked from someone on the inside, and the “hacker” nonexistent? Meaning, is there really a whistle blower amongst them? A whistle blower would after all make things more difficult for them to shove under the rug.

    Rev. Amy, many of us were duped, if indeed this is climategate. Be on the lookout for powerful folks with vested interests to try and spin this in their favor… And that could be a sad day for clean and renewable energy. :(

  • Janis

    I don’t think it’s a hoax at all — what I think is that, now that the Democrats are in charge and hence on the hook for coming up with a solution, they’re happy to say it was all a hoax so they don’t have to do anything.

    If the Pubs get back in charge and the Democraps can scream and rant from the responsibility-free sidelines about how evil the Pubs are for not saving the Earth, suddenly, they’ll remember to give a shit for polar ice caps.

    But yes, I do think there is a problem, and that it’s man-made. I just think the Dems are pushing the snooze button on it now that they’re the ones who are expected to roll their sleeves up and do something about it.

  • TeakWoodKite

    But those expressing alarm that money from the stimulus package will accrue to China are forgetting that importing wind turbine components is actually nothing new in the United States. In fact, this story broke at almost that same time that a new investigative report by the American University School of Communication revealed that 84% of the U.S. stimulus money for renewable projects has been given to overseas companies.

    That should tell you what the level of leadership we have on this Salvador Dali political landscape called “climate change”
    I present to you as Sunday climatatoid for your consideration;
    The Oldest living organism?

    The oldest may also be the biggest, and it’s another tree – the Quaking Aspen. Individual aspen don’t have an unusually long life, but the total organism lives on and on. Unlike other trees that grow from seeds, this aspen reproduces by sending out lateral roots, that then pop up new aspen tree stems. They look like independant trees but are actually like branches of the main plant. The process is called suckering.
    How old? The Pando in Utah is thought to be 80,000 years old. How big? The Pando is estimated to weigh 6,615 tons. That’s one big sucker!

    You get my global warming drift?

  • http://www.sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com Sonic Ninja Kitty

    Be happy–it’s better late than never!

    Back to the 90′s–the X-Files: “Trust No One”!!!!

    Keynesianism is next :) http://sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/krugman-you-are-so-next/

    Sweet truth.

    • http://www.sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com Sonic Ninja Kitty

      P.S.–Audit the Fed–then end it!

      • NomNomNom

        the IMF already has.

        • http://www.sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com Sonic Ninja Kitty

          :( ouch!

          • NomNomNom

            bush agreed to the audit as long as the results weren’t released on his watch; they will be released in 2010: one more reason to escalate the looting.

  • I’m a Linda too

    RRRA, I am right there with you on it all. Including my support for Mr. Gore…hence my personalized plate.

    This and other information coming out is truly disturbing. When someone resorts to lying, cover up, manipulation and control, truth has no weight.

    They cannot rationalize “why” they did this.

    Also alarming (excuse the pun) is this all seems to have happened in the later 80′s when they started getting traction “selling” warming. When they held the first meetings, carefully choosing the hottest day recorded for this hearing and opening all the windows so the a/c didn’t work and they were all sweating their ….. off. Which also brought about the IPCC at that hearing of games about Global Warming. They started with lies, through away evidence? Shut down, intimidate sceptics, claim the debate is over and name call and they LIED?

    No doubt there is still question, as we are still having our Glaciers melting and the sea levels rising. So, is it possible the West and Europe are cooling and other areas are warming? But that can’t be true, because our leaders fudged the numbers so you couldn’t see what really was happening.

    All truly disturbing and I anxiously await more info too.

    Great piece.

    • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

      That’s just it. I’m not going to stop recycling, or start leaving every light on in the house or anything – good stewardship is always called for, IMHO.

      But – the issue is that scientists are supposed to go where the data leads, not make the data fit a desired conclusion. In other words, we have to be able to trust that scientists are NOT injecting politics into the scientific method, that, as much as is humanly possible, they are relying on data, not throwing out what they don’t like.

      Global warming may very well be a legitimate threat, and I will continue to act as if it is. But there is no doubt the actions taken by these scientists will not cast doubt and suspicion on their findings, as well they should…

  • hokma

    Earth has gone through climate change trends many times over its history. The average temperature on Earth has trended warmer and cooler over thousands of years at a time (http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm).

    The age of the planet Earth is 4,600,000,000 years

    Homo Erectus has been on Earth 1,000,000 years

    Recorded human civilization is 6,000 years

    If the age of the Earth was the height of the Empire State Building, human civilization would be 0.2 inches.

    Out of that 6,000 years Al Gore and a group of scientists will have you believe that human did in just a few decades to the Earth’s climate what it took millions of years to do in the past.

    This is about Al Gore and his crowd making money on a hoax. For people to actually believe that they are dramatically and permanently changing the climate of a planet that has been around for 4.5 billion years is self-important and delusional.

    Why is it that these tin foiled hat scientists refuse to openly discuss and debate scientists who do not support them? Why is it that Al Gore refuses to debate anyone or even answer a question from someone who does not support his belief? Maybe it’s because their facts are concocted and unsupportable.

    • Ferd Berfle

      Do you debate with doctors or lawyers? Do you debate with economists or your darling insurance companies? No, you don’t. So don’t expect me to debate you on a subject that you obviously know very little about. I am uncertain about the evidence but have an open mind as any real scientist should. Yours is already closed so you have no part in the debate.

      Just saying.

      • hokma

        So why won’t these scientists engage in a debate with scientists who do not agree with them? The same with Al Gore? Ever wonder? If the science is really in then is should be a one sided debate, right? Why did go from being identified as “global warming” to just “climate change.”

        Because the science is not in and there are too many open issues.

        There are people who have been making a boat load of money on this.

        • Ferd Berfle

          To debate a scientist you have to understand the basis of science first. You don’t and I’m through trying to convince you of the patently obvious. Everything you know about the subject could be placed on the back of a matchbook leaving plenty of room for you to also place an advertisement for your favorite healthcare insurance company that you own lots of stock in.

          You are so transparent.

          • hokma

            Actually I studied science in college but i am not going to engage in demeaning your lack of knowledge.

            This hoax was about power and wealth.

            The resignations are confirmation of this hoax and the investigations will confirm them.

            Before blathering try studying science first.

            My favorite healthcare insurance company gets paid a lot of money and they have done a good job for me and my family. No need to government interference.

  • I’m a Linda too

    Amy, Great post,

    but please free me…….a g a i n

    my comment is stuck in the spam filter….a g a i n

    I guess because I typed your initials in all caps?

  • andrew

    The only thing the stolen correspondence story proves is that public opinion can be swayed more easily by bullsh-t than by facts and logic.

    There’s nothing in the stolen correspondence that refutes any of the science behind concensus global warming opinion. NOTHING.

    If anyone says otherwise, ask them specifically what is refuted and how.

    You won’t get a straight answer, because there isn’t one.

    • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

      Maybe you can help me out. Have you carefully read through all the emails? How are you qualified to come to the determination you’ve reached? Prior to the emails coming out, what was your view on the subject?

      Is there anyone who has thoroughly examined the emails, who is qualified to make a determination and give an opinion without bias or political/vested interest considerations? I don’t think such a person exists. If you know of one, I’d like to see some sort of track record proving their neutrality.

      I’m withholding judgment until more facts are revealed.

      Perception (no matter the actual truth) is everything. Are these emails enough to tip the scale away from one camp to another? Their existence is quite disturbing to me, based on what I know as of now. But, I only want the truth to come out. I have no axe to grind. Thanks.

      • andrew

        I’ve carefully read through all of the parts of the correspondence that are being cited as evidence of scientific fraud and a global warming hoax, and have noticed that–when taken in their actual context–they don’t seem to be evidence for anything of the kind.

        Perception is nothing, in matters of valid scientific analysis. As a matter of fact perception can very often lead to totally incorrect conclusions. It was perfectly obvious for millenia that the Earth was flat. That’s what perception clearly told us. It was later equally obvious that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars circled around it. Relying on perception can get us into very serious trouble. Bridges can look strong enough. Water can look perfectly clean and safe.

        Would we want to tip the scale with lies for some short-term advantage?

        • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

          Perception is nothing, in matters of valid scientific analysis.

          I know that. I was referring to the political reality: too many times perception rules the day (and truth and good science is tossed out the window).

          We’ll see how this pans out both in the legitimate science community and political arena.

          I’m pro good science, and public policy based on facts, and not spin, falsified data or what some right or left think-tank tells me the truth is.

          • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

            And I am curious about your assertion of knowing the correspondence was stolen.

            As I already asked: How do you know they were stolen? They could have been leaked on purpose by a whistle blower.

            Your remarks seem concerned about science and truth. I was curious how you came to that conclusion? Thanks.

            • andrew

              It was private correspondence between professionals that was obtained and released without the consent of the parties it belonged to. If that happened to my own e mail, I suppose I would consider it to have been “stolen”.

              This was accomplished by hacking the research center server, using an IP address in Turkey. The material was then distribued through another server in Russia. Pains were taken to conceal the source of the “leak” because criminal acts were involved.

              • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

                Assuming that’s correct, that still could have been from the inside. Someone on the inside could have aided someone on the outside how to break security.

                Assuming it was a hacker working outside, are they alone or working at the behest of someone else or some group? Why did they break in?

                Please excuse, but I question everything. Its my nature. Its sad we don’t have what used to be journalists asking these questions. Its self-service now, up to us as individuals.

      • http://www.sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com Sonic Ninja Kitty

        I’ve been following the discussion at Free Advice: http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/

        The blog owner is an economist who works for the Institute for Energy Research. You can judge for yourself whether there’s a bias, but it seems to me like a very fair and analytical examination of the email saga.

        I hope that helps!

        • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

          Find out who funds the “Institute for Energy Research” to see potential bias.

          Is this the same group?

          • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

            I should mention, you need to check the checkers, and make sure they are being fair.

            The link I provided could be in error, but the group being reviewed is able to post a rebuttal.

            Why does this have to be so complicated? What happened to truth?

    • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

      There’s nothing in the stolen correspondence that refutes any of the science behind concensus global warming opinion. NOTHING.

      How do you know they were stolen? They could have been leaked on purpose by a whistle blower.

  • beachnan

    Wow! Feeling loopy from being sucker punched by those in charge. I didn’t see this one coming. Who shall we trust?

    • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

      Good question. If I trust my own eyes, during my own lifetime, the winters have become much milder and way shorter. Yeah I know this could be some short term anomaly. My heating bills have gone down and my cooling costs have gone up.

      But I don’t know what to think.

      • devilish

        Yeah, because it couldn’t be that the earth’s climate is a dynamic system that is constantly fluctuating between warming and cooling periods. Nope. That couldn’t be the explanation. It must be the horrible homo sapiens.

        • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

          devilish, could it be something in the middle? Such as, there is a natural fluctuation, but humans have brought on the cycle early and/or worse than it need be?

          People tend to want black and white answers when many times the truth is in the gray area betwixt. I’m not saying that’s the case with the warming period we are in. I honestly don’t know. But I’m wise enough to at least beg the question.

          • devilish

            Unfortunately, there is no middle ground for the climate scientists and politicians. They are proselytizing a world catastrophe cult. At one time, this mindset was contained to street corners where fanatics wore placards that read, “The end is nigh. Pray for salvation.” Now, the fanatics hold positions of power and say, “Pay us for salvation.”

            Government has a habit of creating and exacerbating problems. Take ethanol; the government ordered an increase in ethanol production, to meet future demand, which caused a rise in food prices. Now, due to a decrease in fuel consumption, they are expecting a surplus in the near future. Their answer is to increase the ethanol percentage in the blend, but that could damage vehicles, especially by severely decreasing the life of catalytic converters.

            That’s not to say that we shouldn’t be striving to find better energy sources. The answer is to find better solutions so people can get all the energy they need cheaply and as cleanly as possible. The direction the government is heading is to make energy so expensive that we are forced to stop using it simply because we can’t afford it. That’s not right.

            The government should also create incentives to allow the energy cream to rise to the top, whatever that ends up being, and not handpicking turds from the bottom and helping them to float, which politicians usually do for political purposes.

            Incentives to really energize the search for new fuels and energy production processes. And, not just monetary incentives, but creative incentives like giving the company tax exempt status for x amount of years, or extended patents. Get creative.

            We should also be tapping into and utilizing every energy source this country has to offer, whether it’s our natural gas, oil, coal, wind, water, solar, nuclear, and whatever else. And we should only purchase energy from foreign countries as a last resort.

            So, instead of funneling hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign entities we would keep it within our country. Money that we could be using to help fund our search for future energy sources. If we would have started this process in the 70s who knows how better off we may have been by now.

            Finally, who’s to say that warming is better than cooling? Who’s to say that our CO2 production is not keeping us from severe weather cooling? I think being too cold would be worse than being too warm. We should have more fear of death by fanatical humans, than death by “man-made” global warming.

        • Ferd Berfle

          Some of the concern has to do with the acceleration of the change, not that it would interest you.

          • Onofre’s arm

            Well Ferd, the accelerated change you think might be happening has also been shown to be part of the hoax. The famous hockey stick graph WAS generated by the the manipulation of a relatively small data set (growth ring samples from 15 trees), and the medieval warming trend was eliminated from the equation. The graph has now been proven as fraudulent as many of the other global warm-monger claims are now proving to be. If there has actually been recent warming, it has been far less dramatic than all the hysteria would indicate, and is more logically explained as a normal recovery, or bounce back, from the little ice age, and is NOT the result of increased CO2.

            • Ferd Berfle

              That’s only part of it, Onofre. As I’ve said many times on this thread, there is much more here than meets the eye. There are many studies underway, including those taking place in the Antarctic which may help resolve some of the thornier issues. That being said, I neither agree with the doom-and-gloomers nor with the nay-sayers. Each side cherry-picks their information and then posits it as the absolute truth. I know better–all science is subject to both random and systematic error. The Hockey-stick graph isn’t so much wrong as it is manipulated in terms of x- and y-axes, making it look worse than it actually is. However, that isn’t a valid reason to conclude that global warming is or isn’t happening. With an inductive argument, simply denying one bit of information doesn’t make the whole incorrect as it would with deductive logic. (All men are mortal…).

              All in all, I’d say we’re far from having an answer in either direction, irrespective of one’s position and since this is the case, much more research needs to be done.

              In the mean time, I may get myself a boat as my yard here in East Tennessee is increasingly resembling a lake.

              • Onofre’s arm

                I’m not denying only one bit of information Ferd. I’m pointing out the fraud of one of the most iconic images to emerge from the whole global warming hoax. The hockey stick graph is prominently featured multiple times in the IPCC report that has been pivotal in the way governments all over the world assess the threat. Al Gore focuses heavily on the graph in his fictional movie, a movie so full of demonstrable lies, Al should be answering charges in court. Since the entire econazi movement has relied so heavily on a single graphic, showing that graph to be wrong is a major body blow to the whole movement. And the graph wasn’t simply a manipulation along the x and y axes, it’s a much more detailed effort at selective weighting of data and a number of intended statistical distortions of the various algorithms used to generate the graph:

                http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/hockey_debate.pdf

                I’m not sure if this link will get you there because it is a pdf file.

                There are countless other studies, reports, and scientists that reasonably dispute most of the AGW house of cards, and rather than mention them all, I simply chose to show the fraudulent nature of one of the most prominent. It’s also germane to this particular thread because Mann and his graph are directly tied to the UEA’s CRU, and climategate.

                As far as your heavy rainfall in Tennessee, that’s rather anecdotal don’t you think? Extraordinary weather in one small geographic area can hardly be used as evidence of a global trend. YOU are the one who made the snippy remark on this thread that there’s a difference between climate and weather. Try to stay within the parameters of argument that you so frequently demand of others.

                You don’t need to lecture me on the complicated nature of the subject, and that there’s is much more than meets the eye. It is BECAUSE I understand the infinite complexity of the issue that I realized early on that claims of climate catastrophe based upon computer models were ridiculous. There is no possible way to craft a program that adequately addresses all of the variables needed, and due to the chaotic nature of the subject, it has been proven that no formula or program can possibly predict weather or climate more than two weeks into the future. Chaos destroys the predictions.

                The steady rise in man-made CO2 has been relatively easy to measure, but it’s just one of the multitude of variables that need to be considered. The most remarkable and revealing aspect of climategate is that the scientists involved appear to have reverse engineered their climate models to closely parallel a claimed rise in average global temperature to the rise of man-made CO2, in an attempt to prove causation by correlation. In order to create that parallel, they ignored crucial data (Medieval Warming Period), and weighted minor anomalous events. When they finally arrived, through biased manipulation, at a model of temperature rise that was compellingly similar to the rise in CO2, they broadcast to the world that since man was responsible for the rise in CO2, and since CO2 is driving the increase in temp (not proven), man is causing the increase in temp. That was around 10 years ago. The problem is, in the last ten years, while CO2 has continued to rise, the temperatures have been falling, which destroys the rather tenuous linkage between temp and CO2 levels. Add to this the fact that temp levels were higher, for far longer, in the MWP than they are now, even though there was much less CO2, and it becomes clear that something else much more influential than CO2 drives global temp changes. More than likely they are influences beyond our ability to affect (the sun, ocean currents, volcanoes, etc.)

              • Onofre’s arm

                I’m not denying only one bit of information Ferd. I’m pointing out the fraud of one of the most iconic images to emerge from the whole global warming hoax. The hockey stick graph is prominently featured multiple times in the IPCC report that has been pivotal in the way governments all over the world assess the threat. Al Gore focuses heavily on the graph in his fictional movie, a movie so full of demonstrable lies, Al should be answering charges in court. Since the entire econazi movement has relied so heavily on a single graphic, showing that graph to be wrong is a major body blow to the whole movement. And the graph wasn’t simply a manipulation along the x and y axes, it’s a much more detailed effort at selective weighting of data and a number of intended statistical distortions of the various algorithms used to generate the graph:
                http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/hockey_debate.pdf
                I’m not sure if this link will get you there because it is a pdf file.
                There are countless other studies, reports, and scientists that reasonably dispute most of the AGW house of cards, and rather than mention them all, I simply chose to show the fraudulent nature of one of the most prominent. It’s also germane to this particular thread because Mann and his graph are directly tied to the UEA’s CRU, and climategate.
                As far as your heavy rainfall in Tennessee, that’s rather anecdotal don’t you think? Extraordinary weather in one small geographic area can hardly be used as evidence of a global trend. YOU are the one who made the snippy remark on this thread that there’s a difference between climate and weather. Try to stay within the parameters of argument that you so frequently demand of others.
                You don’t need to lecture me on the complicated nature of the subject, and that there’s is much more than meets the eye. It is BECAUSE I understand the infinite complexity of the issue that I realized early on that claims of climate catastrophe based upon computer models were ridiculous. There is no possible way to craft a program that adequately addresses all of the variables needed, and due to the chaotic nature of the subject, it has been proven that no formula or program can possibly predict weather or climate more than two weeks into the future. Chaos destroys the predictions.
                The steady rise in man-made CO2 has been relatively easy to measure, but it’s just one of the multitude of variables that need to be considered. The most remarkable and revealing aspect of climategate is that the scientists involved appear to have reverse engineered their climate models to closely parallel a claimed rise in average global temperature to the rise of man-made CO2, in an attempt to prove causation by correlation. In order to create that parallel, they ignored crucial data (Medieval Warming Period), and weighted minor anomalous events. When they finally arrived, through biased manipulation, at a model of temperature rise that was compellingly similar to the rise in CO2, they broadcast to the world that since man was responsible for the rise in CO2, and since CO2 is driving the increase in temp (not proven), man is causing the increase in temp. That was around 10 years ago. The problem is, in the last ten years, while CO2 has continued to rise, the temperatures have been falling, which destroys the rather tenuous linkage between temp and CO2 levels. Add to this the fact that temp levels were higher, for far longer, in the MWP than they are now, even though there was much less CO2, and it becomes clear that something else much more influential than CO2 drives global temp changes. More than likely they are influences beyond our ability to affect (the sun, ocean currents, volcanoes, etc.)

              • Onofre’s arm

                Admin: Spammed again!

                • Onofre’s arm

                  Really admin. this is a painful one to lose

                • Onofre’s arm

                  I’m not denying only one bit of information Ferd. I’m pointing out the fraud of one of the most iconic images to emerge from the whole global warming hoax. The hockey stick graph is prominently featured multiple times in the IPCC report that has been pivotal in the way governments all over the world assess the threat. Al Gore focuses heavily on the graph in his fictional movie, a movie so full of demonstrable lies, Al should be answering charges in court. Since the entire econazi movement has relied so heavily on a single graphic, showing that graph to be wrong is a major body blow to the whole movement. And the graph wasn’t simply a manipulation along the x and y axes, it’s a much more detailed effort at selective weighting of data and a number of intended statistical distortions by the various algorithms used to generate the graph:

                  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/hockey_debate.pdf

                  I’m not sure if this link will get you there because it is a pdf file.
                  There are countless other studies, reports, and scientists that reasonably dispute most of the AGW house of cards, and rather than mention them all, I simply chose to show the fraudulent nature of one of the most prominent. It’s also germane to this particular thread because Mann and his graph are directly tied to the UEA’s CRU, and climategate.

                  As far as your heavy rainfall in Tennessee, that’s rather anecdotal don’t you think? Extraordinary weather in one small geographic area can hardly be used as evidence of a global trend. YOU are the one who made the snippy remark on this thread that there’s a difference between climate and weather. Try to stay within the parameters of argument that you so frequently demand of others.

                  You don’t need to lecture me on the complicated nature of the subject, and that there’s much more than meets the eye. It is BECAUSE I understand the infinite complexity of the issue that I realized early on that claims of climate catastrophe based upon computer models were ridiculous. There is no possible way to craft a program that adequately addresses all of the variables needed, and due to the chaotic nature of the subject, it has been proven that no formula or program can possibly predict weather or climate more than two weeks into the future. Chaos destroys the predictions.

                  The steady rise in man-made CO2 has been relatively easy to measure, but it’s just one of the multitude of variables that need to be considered. The most remarkable and revealing aspect of climategate is that the scientists involved appear to have reverse engineered their climate models to closely parallel a claimed rise in average global temperature to the rise of man-made CO2, in an attempt to prove causation by correlation. In order to create that parallel, they ignored crucial data (Medieval Warming Period), and weighted minor anomalous events. When they finally arrived, through biased manipulation, at a model of temperature rise that was compellingly similar to the rise in CO2, they broadcast to the world that since man was responsible for the rise in CO2, and since CO2 is apparently driving the increase in temp (not proven), man is therefor causing the increase in temp. That was around 10 years ago. The problem is, in the last ten years, while CO2 has continued to rise, the temperatures have been falling, which destroys the rather tenuous linkage between temp and CO2 levels. Add to this the fact that temp levels were higher, for far longer, in the MWP than they are now, even though there was much less CO2, and it becomes clear that something else much more influential than CO2 drives global temp changes. More than likely there are influences beyond our ability to affect (the sun, ocean currents, volcanoes, etc.)

                  Please forgive me if this becomes a double posting, but the spaminator is getting ruthless

  • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

    My 2 cents:

    My bringing up “perception” in many political debates seems to go ignored or misunderstood. But perception should not go unheeded.

    I see a general perception by the left that those on the right denying or downplaying the (I guess its now alleged) climate change are akin to members of the Flat Earth Society.

    I assume many on the right have something equally distasteful to say about the left regarding climate change. The general perception the right sells is of loony tunes “tree huggers.”

    To make things worse, vested interests are using this issue for their own agendas. Old technology energy producers via the think-tanks and pseudo-science they fund will spin this to thwart a move away from their old technology.

    The powerful on the left via there own funded groups spin and massage the truth due to having their own agenda using this issue for what they perceive as social justice or what have you.

    Meanwhile the rest of us in the middle are fucked.

    I don’t know about anyone else, but this has gotten very old.

    • kenoshamarge

      Your two cents is worth a whole lot more. It’s what we used to call common sense before we all decided that we needed to chose sides and pound the hell out of each other over every issue we didn’t/couldn’t agree about.

      I think/believe, whatever that we have been sold a bill of goods. I think/believe, whatever that there is some truth in the Global Warming community but not all of the truth. And if the data has been manipulated or disguarded then the conclusions are not to be trusted.

      Science, unlike politics is about the data and the truth. A politician wouldn’t know the truth if it warmed his/her sorry ass.

      I will continue to recycle and save energy whenever and wherever I can. Simply because I feel that wasting the finite resources of the planet is both wasteful and stupid.

      • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

        I will continue to recycle and save energy whenever and wherever I can. Simply because I feel that wasting the finite resources of the planet is both wasteful and stupid.

        Shame on you! That “evil” common sense of yours! ;)

        We do the same in my family. Producing energy with the old technology causes pollution. Since we still rely on old tech, it makes sense to recycle and save energy and thus, less pollution = happy trees and birdies. :D

  • LV

    What do we actually know here? The raw data that UEA’s models were based on has been lost. Certainly it’s possible that the scientific team had already constructed their hypothesis, the data didn’t support it, so they threw out the original data and falsified another set that did support the hypothesis.

    But UK universities were not well funded in the 1980s. It’s very possible that storage space was limited. It may even have been standard practice to keep only tabulated data and not raw data. Maybe that would be bad practice, but unless we know that this study is the only one to have done this, we can’t conclude that it must be deliberate fraud.

    What we shouldn’t lose sight of is that CO2 emissions are not the only reason to reduce fossil fuel use. Oil reserves are finite. They will eventually run out. For that reason alone, surely, it is imperative to explore renewable alternatives.

  • Doc99

    Global Warming Consensus: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    … The Copenhagen climate summit was convened to get the leaders of nations to commit to sharp reductions in carbon dioxide emissions — and thus sharp reductions in almost all energy usage, at huge economic cost — in order to prevent disasters that supposedly were predicted with absolute certainty by a scientific consensus.

    But that consensus was based in large part on CRU data that was, to take the charitable explanation, “complete rubbish” or, to take the more dire view, the product of deliberate fraud.

    Quite possibly the CRU e-mailers were sincere in their belief that they were saving the planet. Like Al Gore, they wanted to convince the world’s elites that the time for argument is over, the scientific consensus is clear and those who disagree can be dismissed as cranks (and should be disqualified from receiving research grants). If they had to cut a few corners, well, you have to break eggs to make an omelette.

    For those of us who have long suspected that constructing scientific models of climate and weather is an enormously complex undertaking quite possibly beyond the capacity of current computer technology, the CRU e-mails are not so surprising.

    Do we really suppose that anyone can construct a database of weather observations for the entire planet and its atmosphere adequate to make confident predictions of weather and climate 60 years from now? Predictions in which we have enough confidence to impose enormous costs on the American and world economies?

    Copenhagen, despite Barack Obama’s presence, seems sure to be a bust; there will be no agreement on mandatory limits on carbon emissions. Even if there were, it would probably turn out to be no more effective than the limits others agreed to in Kyoto in 1997. In any case, China and India are not going to choke off their dazzling economic growth to please Western global warming alarmists.

    The more interesting question going forward is whether European and American governmental, academic and corporate elites, having embraced global warming alarmism with religious fervor, will be shaken by the scandalous CRU e-mails. They should be.

    • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

      Copenhagen = photo op for Der Fuhrer. How sweet. Just more nothing from the big zerO.

    • Ferd Berfle

      Ahem… Weather and climate are two separate fields.

  • Chelsea Patriot

    Al Gore and his entire Family are Frauds!

    My ex-room-mate works for the caterer who Korrina Gore Schaeffer (I think that’s her complete name), Al Gore’s daughter, frequently uses here in Manhattan.

    My friend has very often ran into the Corpulent Al Gore digging through his daughter’s refridgerator. So, Al Gore is a frequent visitor at his daughter’s home.

    The first time he was over at Korrina’s unloading her Hors D’Oeuvres, my friend was looking in her kitchen for the Re-cycling: Paper in one pile, re-cyclables.
    As he was searching for the re-cycling cans, Korrine’s ever hostile Housekeeper (And I would be hostile too, if I had to scrub down the toliet Al Gore had used.) condescendly asked what he was doing.
    My friend replied that he was looking for the re-cycling.
    Korrina’s Housekeeper stared, then laughed in his face and sneered, as only Park Ave, servants can sneer, “No one in this Family re-cycles.”
    My friend was devastated. His world about collapsed. He had bought into the whole Al Gore Global Warming BS.
    (God only knows how he’s going to react when Barky’s Kenyan Birth certificate shows up.)
    The Gore Family are hypocrites and frauds of the greatest magnitude,

    • KR

      Not surprised.
      We do still have limited space for landfills where I live. Recycling is still a good idea.

  • Jackie

    My Dear Friends,
    Global warming/Climate Change is happening. It is the cyclical behavior of the palnet on which we live. The Bill of goods we have been sold is the profit mongering of vrious entities like Al Gore and GE/NBC. Many Many noted scientists have been railing against the bad science for decades. (I know I live with one) We have been utterly failed by the scientifically ignorant members of the media looking for the next great story to generate readers & viewers.

    We need to invest in other energy forms–we are running out of oil. DUH. We need not foul our nest. That is just common sense. Deforestation and other issues are important but not worth the Cap & Trade BS and the Climate Summit Crap. Responsible use of our resources is just reasonable.

    But no folks the sky is not falling. The planet is not going to freak out if we continue to drive cars. BTW all that carbon we are putting into the atmosphere CAME FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. Fossil fuels are the remails of plants & animals from the past. The Carbon Fixing that occurs when we are alive pulls the carbon out of the atmosphere we have put some of it back. Just like the melting permafrost is putting methane and carbon gasses back into the system as it thaws. This has happened before; at the end of the last great ICE AGE. Look at the geologic record not the 200 year+ climate records.

    The scientists lied to get money for their particular political bent. THe religion of the evil human destroying the planet are over blown BS.

  • Jackie

    My Dear Friends,
    Global warming/Climate Change is happening. It is the cyclical behavior of the palnet on which we live. The Bill of goods we have been sold is the profit mongering of vrious entities like Al Gore and GE/NBC. Many Many noted scientists have been railing against the bad science for decades. (I know I live with one) We have been utterly failed by the scientifically ignorant members of the media looking for the next great story to generate readers & viewers.

    We need to invest in other energy forms–we are running out of oil. DUH. We need not foul our nest. That is just common sense. Deforestation and other issues are important but not worth the Cap & Trade BS and the Climate Summit Crap. Responsible use of our resources is just reasonable.

    But no folks the sky is not falling. The planet is not going to freak out if we continue to drive cars. BTW all that carbon we are putting into the atmosphere CAME FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. Fossil fuels are the remains of plants & animals from the past. The Carbon Fixing that occurs when we are alive pulls the carbon out of the atmosphere we have put some of it back. Just like the melting permafrost is putting methane and carbon gasses back into the system as it thaws. This has happened before; at the end of the last great ICE AGE. Look at the geologic record not the 200 year+ climate records.

    The scientists lied to get money for their particular political bent. THe religion of the evil human destroying the planet are over blown BS.

  • cotrip

    Let’s not confuse the discussion with the basic “environmental good stewardship”. This is about lies to institute a tax on “breathing” or our “carbon footprint”. Who do we buy these carbon offsets from?

    Well they will be bought from the company Al Gore is heavily invested in. Hmmmmm, very interesting.

    Yes, we must maintain the EPA for clean water and air. Yes, we must continue to develop renewal energies. But this has nothing to do with “CAP & TRADE”.

    “Cap & Trade” is designed to further deindustrialize America and as stated above turn us into a 3rd world country.

    • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

      Good distinction there – and that is from where the cynicism comes. You know, from following the money…

      And KenoshaMarge, right there with you. I am not abt to stop my efforts to preserve the planet and minimize the damage we do to it no matter what comes out now. Just to be clear…

      • Chelsea Patriot

        Me, too!

        Even if, Korrina can’t be bothered to have her servants re-cycle.

  • yttik

    I’m one of those global warming denier nutjobs who deserves to fry in the fires of hell! No wait, maybe that was the preacher for sale I saw on the TV. He was suggesting that for only three easy payments of 19.95, I could be saved. Same snake oil, different dogma.

    Of course we should be kind to the Earth and stop polluting ourselves. And some of us may even choose to positively embrace Christian principles, but neither one should come with a price tag. Once beliefs are for sale, integrity always goes out the window.

  • Doc99

    From Drudge: The UN Digs In. Now, who are the deniers?

  • I’m a Linda too

    I need to say, I almost think this is an attempt at more coverup.

    Why are we not hearing reports that, along with the thrown away data…..the temperatures that are recorded are n o l o n g e r increasing? They have already peaked and are actually declining.

    Together, falsified data, lost orginal data and that the temperatures peaked a decade ago makes this very suspect.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

  • NonHyphenated AMerican

    Still thinking about the processes used by the EAU and how the CRU censored the data. Protecting biased information sends the message that a closed mind is a scientific mind. Where is the scientific integrity in that? How can theories emerge if there is no discourse to challenge existing information? Science should evolve. This only happens when researchers challenge each others’ ideas and conclusions.

    Humanity is an important player in climate change – it is naive to think that a population of over 6.8 billion people will have limited impact on the environment. Not all the data from the UEA is wrong – but it is certainly suspect.

    The scandal leaves a feeling of elitism – the scientists are right and everyone else is wrong. No one has all the answers and this is yet another case of extreme views controlling the information and smothering dissent. Any plans to participate in any climate justice rallies have been shelved for now. Very political, very disappointing…

    • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

      In case you did not notice, NonHyphenated American is a WONK and wrote a nice afterthought to the blogathon we co-hosted here. It’s towards the bottom.

    • Docelder

      The scandal leaves a feeling of elitism – the scientists are right and everyone else is wrong

      Actually, Nobel Proze carrying Al Gore leavs that same feeling. He has been touring around saying the debate is over for years now. As if his “prize” has settled the matter once and for all. But, we now see how useless that particular prize really is.

      it is naive to think that a population of over 6.8 billion people will have limited impact on the environment.

      Nobody is saying that I don’t believe. But rather, that man made CO2 isn’t causing the polar ice caps to melt. CO2 isn’t a pollutant. Fossil fuels are full of pollutants, yet CO2 isn’t one of them. Carbon as a unit of exchange is just a pie in the sky scam. A scam that would replace gold as the standard of world wealth with carbon and the exchange of it. That is all. Conservationists aren’t suddenly all bad. Elitism is bad.

  • NonHyphenated American

    Spam monster alert. Please rescue #comment-1281528

  • Docelder

    To many, AGW has become more of a religion than science. In a way the circle of scientists clerics that do the research have become keepers of the religion. There was a day when the Bible was kept in secrecy as well and only the circle of clergy scientists who could read and interpret the Greek scriptures was qualified to have an opinion about it. This changed with the King James version. Suddenly, anybody could read that book and the old guard was none too happy to lose the control they had on the subject matter. The same with these AGW scientists. If you can call that circle scientists. To me they are more like clergy of a false religion. Used by governments as the useful i.d.i.o.t.s they are. Not that they are alone in the useful i.d.i.o.t camp… Hollywood is also right there with them along with many otherwise good conservationists. There are hundreds of pollutants released when burning fossil fuel. i.e. SO2, NO, CO etc. But, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a normal byproduct of respiration and is used by plants in respiration. It is in no way a pollutant. What it became was a methodology to make carbon the new gold standard. Have people started to wake up… yes. But will they before it is too late? We will see. This isn’t over by a long shot.

    • Ferd Berfle

      This changed with the King James version.

      I have to disagree with you on this one. The King James version is so mistranslated that no scholar would use it for research.

      Hard science has been abused by politicians just as the study of economics, sociology, and psychology have. If you throw out hard science then you’d better be ready to throw out any human endeavor using inductive reasoning, especially economics. This is one case where the messenger (and not the message, which needs further scrutiny) should be shot.

      • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

        I agree that the KJV is not a good translation. Like too many other things, it was subject to the political and cultural climate of its time.

        I think Doc’s point, though, is that the availability of the Bible threatened the power of the clergy at the time, and that is correct.

        Btw, the best translation is the Revised Standard Version. One of my Hebrew Scriptures professors was a translator of that edition. They were working on an even better translation while I was in seminary (over 20 yrs ago) that would restore the inclusive language of the day (as you probably now, Hebrew is gender specific, as is Greek, so when the text was gender neutral, the new English version would reflect that.

        For too long, because it was translated as “Man-centric,” it was used to keep women out of positions of power. Like the word used for the “deaconess” phoebe in Christian scriptures was the exact same word for minister used for men, but they demoted her in the translation. You’d be amazed how much things like that had/have an impact…

        Anyway – sorry for the digression …

        • Ferd Berfle

          I do agree about bringing the bible to the masses. I just wish it had been done more forthrightly as the real mistranslations center around the Old Testament.

          • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

            Fascinating, politics in the bible translation process, who’d have thunk it! I shoulda figured.

        • Docelder

          think Doc’s point, though, is that the availability of the Bible threatened the power of the clergy at the time, and that is correct.

          That is what I meant, yes. Personally, I like the NIV myself. But the KJV also suffers from “old English”. It is hard to read in the present. But, the point really was it let the everyday man own an affordable copy and to read it for himself. I was trying to correlate the power of the clergy to the power of the climate scientists. I think it fits because of the near religion like status of AGW.

  • Freedom Fighter

    The problem is that you guys have been duped by the dishonest news media. You guys have been watching too much Fox Noise and have fallen for their lies hook, line, and sinker. My advice, turn off Fox Noise, and get the real and truthful news from NYT, NPR, Newsweek, and other reputable sources.

    • http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/11/27/what-i-now-love-about-the-holidays-thanks-to-the-crobonomy/ Silence Dogood

      Freedom Fighter (albeit an oxymoron), glad to see you are back.

      There were reports The Holy Shrine of Crunch (the Cheetos factory) was sabotaged by minions of the sinister and malevolent Darth Limbaugh.

      Based on your return, evidently the damage was not severe, and adequate stocks of Cheetos have been restored to retail establishments throughout America. Jolly good show! :D

      • NomNomNom

        you underestimate FF’s resourcefulness: I have it on good authority he has a bunker (layed out to the exact specs of a room in Sidi Driss, but in quarter scale) filled with cheetos.

    • Ferd Berfle

      The problem is that you guys have been duped by the dishonest news media.

      You’re a riot, Alice.

      • Donna Brazile

        Hey welcome back Ferd! I’ve missed you!!!!

        Stop the absent fest!

  • Surfered

    “And now we find out it’s all a bunch of hooey.”

    Sounds just like the reasons for invading Iraq.

  • Docelder

    While our state sponsored media is asleep on this… the British media is calling “climategate”

    Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

    Indeed it is as a lot of us have been saying here before nearly anybody else. But add to this the inception of the Chicago Climate Exchange or the CCX and trace the seed money for the CCX back to Barack Obama when he was with the Joyce Foundation… I think we are beginning to see why he had to be “The One” to do this to us. His thirty pieces of silver being his coveted Nobel Prize and his cushy job with Air Force One as a perk. Enjoy the ride. We are paying for it as will our children and grandchildren.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html