"Global
Warming - November 2009 Updates"
Update
- November 2, 2009:
National Geographic News -
Kilimanjaro's Snows Gone by 2022?
The ice atop Kilimanjaro
"continues to diminish right on schedule for disappearing, unfortunately, in
the next couple of decades," said glaciologist Lonnie Thompson at Ohio State
University in Columbus.
Reminds us of how the sea ice
was going to be all gone in 2008.
-----------------------------------
Update
- November 2, 2009:
New Tork Times -
Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor
Former Vice President Al
Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm
sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital
firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.
The deal appeared to pay
off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4
billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to
utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its
partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over
in coming years.
It's so
nice to be able to advocate for a worldwide change in national policies and
be able to make billions off of it. There was a day when such a conflict of
interest would have set alarms off in people minds. But the Captain Planet
generation just keeps drinking the Kool-Aid.
When you
follow the money of the global warming hoax it all becomes quite clear how
this scam will rob from the poor and give to the rich.
-----------------------------------
Update
- November 20, 2009:
American Thinker -
Scientific scandal appears to rock climate
change promoters
(This was published in thousands of blogs and news
sites around the world)
There's big news for
climate change students. A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley
CRU, Britain's largest climate research institute and a proponent of global
warming, and seems to have uncovered evidence of substantial fraud in
reporting the "evidence" on global warming; the unlawful destruction of
records to cover up this fraud ,conspiracy, and deceit in the entire
operation.
A few
sample emails and our translations:
From Phil Jones
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each
series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for
Keith’s to hide the decline.
The data doesn't
prove our desired result so let's change the data and make it look like it
does. After all it's in the name of science and we know what's good for the
world. We have to lie because the people out there are fools and might not
believe in global warming anymore if they see the truth.
From Michael E. Mann
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I
wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing
that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from
the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to
some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel
free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it
along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
We know
these models are false and if anyone got hold of it they would see it too.
So make sure you never release the code. We wouldn't want anyone to know
we're making this all up.
From Nick McKay
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that
McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature
proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be
inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the
reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to
reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound
right to you?
The data
doesn't prove our hypothesis so lets change the data to fix that, OK?
From Tom Wigley
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been
twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that
urban warming is real and important.
We
wouldn't' want people to think about any other reasons why things are
changing. Let's find a way to cover this up so nobody notices. The only
acceptable answer is man made global warming.
From Kevin Trenberth
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and
it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS
09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data
are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Our
computer models can't predict anything right but we're still going to use
them and claim man made global warming is real. Our observation methods are
inadequate but we'll pretend they are perfect and there is no doubt in any
of our data.
From Michael Mann
Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new
page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion
of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and
Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this
isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
It's not
about the truth, we're scientists!
From Phil Jones
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes
in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act !
If we
release our data the world will see how big this fraud is. Fight it in any
way you can.
From Michael E. Mann
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org
- A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be
helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen
through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to
any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and
post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you
about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and
if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
Use our
official web site to lie and spam. Answer your own questions and post
comments agreeing with yourself under different names. That will prove we're
legitimate. If anyone posts anything against you we'll make sure it doesn't
get posted. After all this is about science not facts.
From Phil Jones
If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be
hiding behind them.
On no!
People are asking for the actual data behind our lies. How dare they
question our honesty. Let's find ways to block the requests. The heck with
the law regarding freedom of information.
From Phil Jones
Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith
will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you
also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email
address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Things are
getting hot. Delete emails and destroy evidence that might prove we made it
all up.
From Tom Wigley
Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the
1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could
reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for
the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen
0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one
needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either
some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these).
When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly)
the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15
adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am
coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove
at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect
(qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get
continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would
expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et
al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun
can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar.
So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger
later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger
than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why
was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also
attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.
A very
detailed way of saying "fudge the data please". The actual real data proves
we're wrong.
From Tom Wigley
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in
the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of
this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
One of the
faithful sees the lies and the hoax, time to sacrifice him to the global
warming god. It doesn't matter if we destroy his life and family. Our
religion is the only thing that matters.
From Phil Jones
Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in
CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre
will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off
date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here
today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those
skeptics something to amuse themselves with.
It's OK to change
the dates of documents so they appear to be legitimate and in the right time
frame. It doesn't matter what the truth is.
From Mick Kelly
Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a
possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few
points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s
trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.
The data
shows cooling and not warming. I'll just modify it and make it show warming
in the name of good science.
The
response of the global warming crowd to all of this is the same as any
politician caught in the lie. It was all taken out of context, you mere
mortals are too stupid to understand how we speak. In our world this kind of
talk is not lies and data manipulations. You're just not sophisticated
enough to understand that even though it looks like we're cooking the books
we're not. Really trust us. We're the real scientists, not like those
30,000+ flat earth denier idiot moron scientists who signed Ron Paul's
petition denying man made global warming.
Global
Warming Charade - Back to Main Page
Global Warming
Lie -December 2008 Update
Global Warming
Myth - January 2009
Update
Global Warming
Hysteria - February
2009 Update
Global warming
conference snowed out - March 2009 Update
Global Warming -
the religion - May 2009 Update
Climate change
lies and scare tactics - June 2009 Update
Global warming
shrinking sheep - July 2009 Update
Global warming
a national security issue - August 2009
Global warming
scientist acknowledges the truth - September 2009
What happened to Global Warming? - October
2009
Climategate - The lies exposed - November
2009
Al Gore gets
caught twisting the truth about global warming
Melting sea ice and the polar bear myth
Global warming and hurricanes
Sunspots and global cooling?
|
