The Biggest Scam in History – Global Warming
By Good Ole Boy / Jim
Every now and then you still hear someone in the media bring up Global Warming while our climate is cooling. Even some of the former global warming people are coming out and saying we are going into a cooling phase, usually with the caveat that it would be cooler if not for global warming. None as of yet have said the whole concept of global warming was a hoax that was all about power and money as it was. None will say it’s chief proponent Al Gore profited handsomely for his efforts. He is a bigger criminal than Bernie Maddoff and may someday share a cell with him.
Ask people you meet about Climategate and usually you get a blank stare. Nothing out there points to global warming being a hoax as it does, but few have actually read the hacked e-mails. We owe the nameless Russian hacker for exposing this fraud, a medal is surely in order. Here are some of those East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) e-mails that the liberal pundits said meant nothing , “Just scientific jargon and nonsensical chatter”. These are the actual emails with some having an introduction comment and/or author of the e-mail and are not a part of the actual email, they have — to denote. They seem pretty plain to me a hoax is in the making or just really bad science, judge for yourself.
The Cast Of Characters
- Mike Mann: American Physicist and Climatologist best know for the discredited Hockey Stick graph
- Phil Jones: Director of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) in England. He conveniently lost all the climate data when the shit hit the fan over the hacked e-mails, his ouster from the directorshipwas temporary after highly questionable whitewash of of his actions that got him reinstated.
- Tom Wigley: Climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) who becomes increasingly worried about the unfolding scandal
- Keith Briffa: Climate at (UCAR) an older conspirator whose blunders lead the others to all but abandon him.
- Ben Santer:a Climate Researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a dangerously arrogant and naive young conspirator in the United States
- Other conspirators: of varying degrees of complicity and integrity
- Skeptics and other unrelated parties
September 19, 1996: email 0843161829
–Two days after the previous exchange, Gary Funkhouser reports on his attempts to obtain anything from the data that could be used to sell the message of climate change–
I really wish I could be more positive about the … material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. … I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have—they just are what they are … I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.
November 22, 1996: email 0848679780
–Geoff Jenkins was head of climate change prediction at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the United Kingdom’s Meteorological Office (national weather service). He writes to Phil Jones–
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.
October 9, 1997: email 0876437553
–We now encounter one of the most insidious red herrings in the climate debate: how many thousands of scientists “endorsed” the views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
With just months until the Kyoto Climate Conference, we find the germ of this idea fertilizing in an email from Joe Alcamo, Director of the Center for Environmental Systems Research in Germany, to Mike Hulme and Rob Swart–
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions—
Distribution for Endorsements—
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
November 25, 1997: email 0880476729
–Tom Wigley roundly criticises the eleven scientists seeking endorsement of their Statement.–
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” …
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science—when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with the IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.
When scientists color the science with their own personal views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics …. I find this extremely disturbing.
October 9, 1998: email 0907975032
-Rashit Hantemirov writes to Keith Briffa about the Russian trees that Briffa used for his tree-ring data: —
There is no evidence of the polar timber–line moving to the north during the last century.
— So no hallmark of climate change.–
November 16, 1999: email 0942777075
–Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement: —
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
–This is the smoking gun on the biggest fraud perpetrated on the world.–
August 23, 2000: email 0967041809
–In this email we get an insight into how the politics of propaganda completely overrode the rules of good scientific practice, when it came to publications on “climate science”. Steve Schneider of the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University in the United States complains to a number of his international colleagues–
please get rid of the ridiculous “inconclusive” for the 34% to 66% subjective probability range. It will convey a completely differnt meaning to lay persons—read decisionmakers—since that probability range represents medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like “quite possible” is closer to popular lexicon, but “inconclusive” applies as well to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be misinterpreted on the outside.
Steve, I agree with your assesement of “inconclusive”—“quite possible” is much better and we use “possible” in the United States National Assessment. Surveys have shown that the term “possible” is interpreted in this range by the public.
Great Tom, I think we are converging to much clearer meanings across various cultures here. Please get the “inconclusive” out! By the way, “possible” still has some logical issues as it is true for very large or very small probabilities in principle, but if you define it clearly it is probably OK—but “quite possible” conveys medium confidence better—but then why not use “medium confidence”, as the 3 rounds of review over the guidance paper concluded after going through exactly the kinds of disucssions were having now?
–This scenario in their own words is just as likely to be wrong as right. Odds you don’t gamble a county’s welfare and taxpayers money on.–
September 11, 2000: email 0968705882
–Filippo Giorgi, Senior Scientist and Head of the Physics of Weather and Climate Section of the The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy, writes to the other Lead Authors of Chapter 10 of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report.–
We said that one thing to look at was the agreement with the old data and thus I noticed that relaxing the criteria determining what “agreement” means would yield a greater agreement.
First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un–reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). I realize that Chapter 9 of the Report is including new stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of the IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal), but the production of results. The softened condition that the models themselves have to be published does not even apply, because the Japanese model, for example, is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual … version …. Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might undermine the IPCC’s credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this. Anyway, this is only my opinion, for what it is worth.
September 22, 2000: email 0969618170
–Tom Crowley of the Department of Oceanography at the Texas A&M university writes to Malcolm Hughes and Keith Briffa, about the huge problems involved in trying to figure out if the various “temperature proxies” are measuring temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, or some other complicated combination.–
As I discuss in my … paper the “anomalous” late 19th century warming also occurs in a … tree ring record from central Colorado, the Urals record of Keith Briffa, and the east China … temperature record of Zhu.
Alpine glaciers also started to retreat in many regions around 1850, with one-third to one-half of their full retreat occurring before the warming that commenced about 1920.
So, are you sure that some carbon dioxide effect is responsible for this? May we not actually be seeing a warming?
–Malcolm Hughes’s response exemplifies the utter confusion of these researchers–
I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that although a direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature.
March 2, 2001: email 0983566497
–Chick Keller, of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California at San Diego, United States, writes to Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Tom Crowley, Jonathan Overpeck, Tom Wigley, and Mike MacCracken, pointing out problems in the historical temperature estimates obtained from individual “proxy” methods.–
Anyone looking at the records gets the impression that the temperature variation for many individual records or sites over the past 1000 years or so is often larger than 1°Celsius. … And they see this as evidence that the 0.8°Celsius or so temperature rise in the 20th century is not all that special.
–He then makes note of a trick that they have used to mask this effect.–
The community of climate scientists, however, in making averages of different proxies gets a much smaller amplitude of about 0.5°Celsius, which they say shows that reasonable combinations of effects can indeed explain this and that the 20th century warming is unique.
Thus, the impasse—one side the skeptics pointing to large temperature variations in many records around the globe, and the other side saying, “Yes, but not at the same time and so, if averaged out, is no big deal.”
But, just replying that events don’t happen at the same time (sometimes by a few decades) is the reason might not be enough. It seems to me that we must go one step further. We must address the question: what effects can generate large … temperature variations over hundreds of years, regional though they may be (and, could these occur at different times in different regions due to shifting climate patterns)? If we can’t do this, then there might be something wrong with our rationale that the average does not vary much even though many regions see large variations. This may be the nub of the disagreement, and until we answer it, many careful scientists will decide the issue is still unsettled, and that indeed climate in the past may well have varied as much or more than in the last hundred years.
–This remarkable statement—mailed to all of the key players in this scandal—shows that they knew, clearly, more than eight years before the Climategate whistle-blower released these emails, that the entire basis of their claims was on shaky ground.
In his last paragraph, Keller points out the elementary mathematical error in the “averaging trick”–
Also, I note that most proxy temperature records claim timing errors of … 50 years ahead or behind the correct date or so. What is the possibility that records are cancelling each other out on variations in the hundred–year timeframe due simply to timing errors?
–There are, in fact, many more mathematical reasons why the “averaging trick” is completely wrong; but Keller’s observation is completely correct, and by itself discredits the entire discipline of work establishing these “multi-proxy” historical temperature estimates–
May 2, 2001: email 0988831541.txt
–Mike Mann criticizes Ed Cook’s work with colleague Jan Esper—not for poor methods or invalid conclusions, but rather because it was being used publicly, before being able to be blocked through the peer review process. Firstly, he applies the “peer group pressure” argument–
We may have to let the peer-review process decide this, but I think you might benefit from knowing the consensus of the very able group we have assembled in this email list, on what Esper and you have done?
–Cook parries admirably–
Of course, I know everyone in this “very able group” and respect their opinions and scientific credentials. The same obviously goes for you. That is not to say that we can’t disagree. Afterall, consensus science can impede progress as much as promote understanding.
–Mann is taken aback, and tries a different tack–
I don’t in any way doubt yours and Jan’s integrity here.
I’m just a bit concerned that the result is getting used publicly, by some, before it has gone through the gauntlet of peer review. Especially because it is, whether you condone it or not, being used as we speak to discredit the work of us, and Phil and coworkers; this is dangerous. I think there are some legitimate issues that need to be sorted out ….
I’d be interested to be kept posted on what the status of the manuscript is.
–Cook responds with a level of integrity foreign to Mann’s mind-set–
Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I don’t care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least bloody close to it.
July 2, 2001: email 0994083845
–Ian Harris of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia writes to the Norwich Green Party mailing list, responding to a comment that natural events can cause climate changes that swamp any effects of mankind.–
We’re looking at an unprecedented acceleration in temperature … Even if it turns out to be naturally-occurring, who’s willing to take that chance? We should be trying to wean ourselves off of unsustainable energy generation and use anyway.
— Not to sure about the science so screw the taxpayers, hundreds of thousands of jobs more likely millions and “cause energy costs to skyrocket” Obama’s own words about Cap and Trade legislation.–
June 4, 2003: email 1054756929
–Ed Cook writes to Keith Briffa–
Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of mathematics that we use in our field (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your … reconstruction as the main whipping boy.
I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper. Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims.
–Rather sloppy records for scientific research–
If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of filter theory stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the mathematics appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of computer stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but never actually show how their method would change your reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated.
September 28, 2004: email 1096382684
–Andy Revkin, Environment Reporter for The New York Times, writes to Tim Osborn: Again, the take–away message is that Mann’s method can only work if past variability is the same as the variability during the period used to calibrate your method. So it could be correct, but it could be very wrong as well.–
By the way, von Storch doesn’t agree with Osborn and Briffa on the idea that higher past variability would mean there’d likely be high future variability as well (bigger response to greenhouse gases). He simply says it’s time to toss the “hockey–stick graph” and start again; he doesn’t take it further than that.
Is that right?
July 5, 2005: email 1120593115
–Phil Jones sends an article and a blog entry to climate scientist John Christy–
This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
–Phil Jones admits cooling but discounts it, that affronts his religious-like views of global warming. He calls himself a scientist and wants something to happen so he will be right. Sounds like a kid not a scientist and it hasn’t happened.–
August 5, 2005: email 1123268256
–Jonathan Overpeck writes to Tim Osborn, Eystein Jansen, Keith Briffa, and Oyvind Paasche, regarding increasing problems around the Medieval Warm Period.–
I hope you’re not going to kill me, but I was talking with Susan Solomon today, and she impressed me with the need to make several points if we can.
One issue … is whether we can extend the Medieval Warm Period graph to include the 15th century. I don’t read the blogs that regularly, but I guess the skeptics are making hay of there being a global warm event around 1450. I agree with Susan that it is our obligation to weigh in on issues like this, so… can we extend the graph to extend up to 1500?
— The Medieval Warming Period was warmer than even the height of the recent natural warming period.
November 15, 2005: email 1132094873
–Mike Mann writes to Tim Osborn, Phil Jones, and Keith Briffa–
I’m not sure if you guys are aware: McIntyre presented this poster at the Climate Change Science Program meeting. Apparently, they gave him a very prominent location, so that everyone entering the meeting would have seen the poster…
–Even a poster at a conference is enough to get the intelligence chatter going!
Tim Osborn replies–
Thanks for this, Mike. We’d spotted an earlier draft of his poster and were a bit concerned about this receiving prominence at the meeting. Did it arouse much discussion, do you know?
He almost had a point with a mathematical issue, but as we all know, that doesn’t matter at all in the end. The issue isn’t whether or not he’s right, as we all well know by now, but whether his false assertions have enough superficial plausability to get traction. In this case, they might, so it’s probably good to at least be prepared.
March 8, 2006: email 1141398437
Richard Alley writes to Jonathan Overpeck:
Do you know anything about the “divergence problem” in tree rings? Rosanne D’Arrigo talked to the National Research Council yesterday. I didn’ get to talk to her afterward, but it looked to me that they have redrilled a bunch of the high-latitude tree rings that underlie almost all of the high-resolution estimates, and the tree rings are simply missing the post-1970s warming, with reasonably high confidence. She didn’t seem too worried, but she apparently has a paper just out in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It looked to me like she had pretty well killed the “hockey stick” graph in public forum—they go out and look for the most-sensitive trees at the edge of the treeline, flying over lots and lots of trees that are less sensitive but quite nearby, and when things get a little warmer, the most-sensitive trees aren’t sensitive any more; and so the trees miss the extreme warming of the recent times, and can’t reliably be counted as catching the extreme warmth of the Medieval Warm Period if there was extreme warmth then.
–Trying to debunk through dubious supposition The hockey stick turned into a bullshit shovel is what happened. —
These are just a few of the more damning emails many more were as bad or nearly as bad for the man made global warming religion, but Google Climategate and you will find as many who trivialize them as those who call them a death knell to it.
The total news blackout by the mainstream media on Climategate when it happened is why the American people don’t know about it. In the rest of the world it was big news. The mainstream media too treats global warming like a religion and that news must of been apostate.
Al Gore has made millions pushing global warming and now is getting billions in grants to his Siver Springs Network. Man caused global warming is a hoax therefore getting Federal money which came from the taxpayers should be a crime. Hopefully Gore will spend some quality time in a cell with a big stinky guy that thinks Al looks cute.
If someone you ask about doesn’t know about Climategate and the hoax it is send them here for the skinny.
Thanks to John P. Costella access to these e-mails and characters involved. His entire post can be seen at http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
A total scientific debunking of the psuedo-science of global warming can be found at ahttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Entry filed under: Deception, GoodOleBoy, misc, Political, Political people, Science, the Media. Tags: Al Gore, Benjamin Santer, Climategate, Democrat, Democrats, Dems, Global Warming, Global Warming Fraud, global warming hoax, Keith Briffa, Mike Mann, No Liberal Media Bias, Phil Jones, The Big Lie The Obama Deception, Tom Wigley, Whitehouse.