Tag Archives: Climate Research Unit

New Emails by Global Warming scientists show them to be frauds

Last Tuesday, a new spate of “warmist” e-mails were anonymously released to the public. The e-mails were exchanged among scientists who claim humans are causing a global warming crisis, which requires drastic and coordinated measures on the part of the world’s governments.
James Taylor writes in Forbes.com, Nov. 23, 2011, that the newly-revealed e-mails are igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:
1. Prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions, in total contravention of science’s defining and necessary Principle of Intersubjectivity. The latter refers to the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate the theory’s assertions, observations or experiments.
Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

Leading global-warming liar Phil Jones


In a newly-released email, Phil Jones — a leading warmist climatologist at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) who’s working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s premier and most influential institution on global warming — writes:

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.”

In another email, Jones writes of a collusion with the U.S. Department of Energy to conceal data:

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

Global Warming co-conspirator Michael E. Mann


The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. In an email released in Climategate 1.0, Jones wrote to a warmist colleague, Penn State University scientist Michael E. Mann:

“Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]? Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

2. The “warmist” scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry. The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate, advance predetermined outcomes, and coordinate attacks on skeptical scientists.
Mann writes in another newly released email:

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.”

In another email, Mann writes:

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre.

Global Warming co-conspirator Tom Wigley


These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.
3. Many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Global warming co-conspirator Jonathan Overpeck


Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona and the coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment, writes in an email:

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports.

Global warming co-conspirator Peter Thorne


Peter Thorne — who worked at the UK Met Office until 2010 and now, God help us, is with the U.S. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center in North Carolina — writes in an email to Phil Jones:

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary. I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

In an email to Michael Mann, Tom Wigley acknowledges the lies:

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”

The legal definition of “conspiracy” is:

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

The Climategate 1.0 and 2.0 emails are evidence of a conspiracy of warmist scientists. If the Republicans in Congress have a set, they’d hit these criminals with the RICO Act. But they don’t, and they won’t.
I found the photos of these pseudo-scientists to post here so that we know what they look like. Consider the photos to be their mug shots!
Lest we forget, Americans having notoriously short memories, the two leading GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich both were/are believers in manmade global warming.
In Romney’s case, as recently as in his 2010 book, No Apology, Mitt said that, yes, there is global warming/climate change and that it’s human caused. Now that he’s running to be the GOP nominee for 2012, he’s started to hem and haw.
As for Newt Gingrich — the smartest Republican, ever — he so believed in manmade global warming that he appeared, with Nancy Pelosi, in a 2008 TV ad on global warming created by über climate fraudster Al Gore. As recently as November 8, 2011, Newt still maintains that, gosh darn, he just “doesn’t know if global warming is occurring”.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Extreme Weather Is Another Global Warming Lie

A year ago, someone hacked into and leaked the e-mails of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), thereby exposing to the world the underhanded and downright anti-science acts of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) cabal. The cabal had suppressed data contrary to AGW and blackballed skeptical scientists by preventing their work from being published in peer-reviewed journals.
After Climategate broke into the news, CRU Director Dr. Phil Jones made the following startling admissions

  • He had “misplaced” much of the raw data on which he based his AGW claims, although the data are absolutely essential for other scientists to verify and replicate his claims.
  • There’s been no global warming since 1995.
  • There really was a Medieval Warm Period, which Jones had denied and conveniently left out of his famous “hockey stick” graph on which he rests his AGW claims.

Despite those admissions, Jones and other Warmists such as Al Gore still insist that AGW ManBearPig is real! The only difference is that they now call ManBearPig by another name: It’s not Global Warming, it’s Climate Change!!!
And to get around the inconvenient truths that not only has there been no global warming since 1995, but the globe had a Medieval Warm Period before industrialization brought those warming-causing CO2 emissions, the Warmists now switch to weather extremes as evidence of climate change/global warming. Summers are getting hotter! Winters are getting colder and snowier! There’ll be more storms, hurricanes, cyclones, and tornados!
Alas, as the following article shows, like its predecessor Global Warming, the purported phenomenon of Extreme Weather is also not true. Global atmospheric data from 1871 to the present show no evidence that our weather is getting more extreme. Given the testimony of the empirical data, the claim of extreme weather is yet another lie of the Global Warming cabal.
~Eowyn

The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder
The latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme.
By Anne Jolis – Wall St. Journal – Feb 10, 2011
Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.
Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter’s fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December’s blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.
But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.
As it happens, the project’s initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”
In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. “There’s no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather,” adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.
We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don’t know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets’ gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.
Given the unknowns, it’s possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.
That’s not to say we’re helpless. There is at least one climate lesson that we can draw from the recent weather: Whatever happens, prosperity and preparedness help. North Texas’s ice storm wreaked havoc and left hundreds of football fans stranded, cold, and angry. But thanks to modern infrastructure, 21st century health care, and stockpiles of magnesium chloride and snow plows, the storm caused no reported deaths and Dallas managed to host the big game on Sunday.
Compare that outcome to the 55 people who reportedly died of pneumonia, respiratory problems and other cold-related illnesses in Bangladesh and Nepal when temperatures dropped to just above freezing last winter. Even rich countries can be caught off guard: Witness the thousands stranded when Heathrow skimped on de-icing supplies and let five inches of snow ground flights for two days before Christmas. Britain’s GDP shrank by 0.5% in the fourth quarter of 2010, for which the Office of National Statistics mostly blames “the bad weather.”
Arguably, global warming was a factor in that case. Or at least the idea of global warming was. The London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation charges that British authorities are so committed to the notion that Britain’s future will be warmer that they have failed to plan for winter storms that have hit the country three years running.
A sliver of the billions that British taxpayers spend on trying to control their climes could have bought them more of the supplies that helped Dallas recover more quickly. And, with a fraction of that sliver of prosperity, more Bangladeshis and Nepalis could have acquired the antibiotics and respirators to survive their cold spell.
A comparison of cyclones Yasi and Nargis tells a similar story: As devastating as Yasi has been, Australia’s infrastructure, medicine, and emergency protocols meant the Category 5 storm has killed only one person so far. Australians are now mulling all the ways they could have better protected their property and economy.
But if they feel like counting their blessings, they need only look to the similar cyclone that hit the Irrawaddy Delta in 2008. Burma’s military regime hadn’t allowed for much of an economy before the cyclone, but Nargis destroyed nearly all the Delta had. Afterwards, the junta blocked foreign aid workers from delivering needed water purification and medical supplies. In the end, the government let Nargis kill more than 130,000 people.
Global-warming alarmists insist that economic activity is the problem, when the available evidence show it to be part of the solution. We may not be able to do anything about the weather, extreme or otherwise. But we can make sure we have the resources to deal with it when it comes.

Please follow and like us:
error0