Concentrating on emails & the least relevant parts of them at that, is also frustrating. Data & programs were leaked too. If we're discussing emails I'd point out that while 'trick' is ambiguous, words like 'hide' and 'decline' are not.
It's fascinating to me since, while I already knew how wrong they were, I didn't know to what extent they were deliberately fraudulent. We knew Michael Mann was a fraud, but I for one didn't realise how prevalent he still was in all of this.
Have a look into what "hide the decline" was really referring to. They were simply talking about how to remove data that was not relevant in order to increase accuracy.
I have looked into it to the best of my ability and I'm afraid I disagree. Strongly. cold stations were removed to hide a decline in temperature, if you want my counter-assertion.
@kellygiz YEAH, any Science that shows the Alarmists to be wrong, shouldnot be counted ! Even a chump like you can read a graph ---or 45 of them - Google SCIENCESKEPTICAL MWP , and hit the first link .
@camcheck I don't see how that information shows 'alarmists' to be wrong. Climatologists know about the MWP, who do you think discovered it? Furthermore, the causes are well understood, and are quite separate from the causes of modern warming. Which are also very well understood by climatologists.
The annoyance of 'Climategate' for many is the pitch that it's the only reason for scepticism. That said, even if it WERE the only reason it would be devastating on its own thanks to the IPCC's absurd reliance on the work of the Hadley CRU & chums.
If YOU find it boring then YOU ignore it. I find the constant propaganda & media-rules on who is & isn't doing 'science' boring & frustrating.
There's far more damning evidence than you imply, for those interested. Alarmists NEEDLESSLY try to debunk theories of natural climate change *on all time-scales* as if they were incompatible with theories of recent man-made climate change.
Quite separately, their CO2 mechanism can't work & has masses of evidence against. Watch their predictions FAIL.
Its not like AGW is the first Hoax by scientists. Normal Scientific Method: 1. Purpose 2. Background information 3. Hypothesis 4. Perform experiment 5. Observe results 6. Conclusion IPCC East Anglia Scientific Method: 1. Conclusion 2. Observe then delete the results and replace it with made up stuff 3. Deny science fact and embrace political method 4. Re-define peer review 5. Collect billions in government grants 6. Tax the heathens senseless
it's not illegal in england trenberth! the files are organized in a folder called FOIA~!!!!!!!!! you know what?? because in ENGLAND its legal to release this if it's to bring a crime of fraud to justice! remember they are different that usa, you're guilty until proven innocent. they have a freedom of information act that protects this.
Why aren't any of the TV networks besides Fox News reporting on this? Going from something that was assumed to be "settled debates" to exposing asteemed scientists in the field for manipulating data and hiding evidence, this seems to be a big story worthy of news coverage.
OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at wattsupwiththat eastangliaemails.
* Mark in the comments notices a file called resid-fudge.dat, which he says contains, believe it or not, fudged residuals figures!
* Mark in the comments notes a program comment: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! followed by the words `fudge factor' " See briffa_sep98_d pro.
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at wattsupwiththat eastangliaemails.
* From the programming file combined_waveletpro, another comment, presumably referring to the famous Briffa truncation: "Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)".
* From the file pl_declinepro": "Now apply a completely artificial adjustment for the decline only where coefficient is positive!)"
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at eastangliaemails.
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at eastangliaemails.
The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely ;0)
Youtube & Google search - Chemtrails, HAARP, Weather-Modification-Vietnam, Energy Weapons.
OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at eastangliaemails.
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at eastangliaemails.
From the CRU data set 'HARRY READ ME txt'
East Anglia university Climate data leaked man made climate change a Fraud
the emais are now publicly available. People should read them for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I did that and it makes me fucking furious to see that 'scientist' saying that no date was deleted when there were emails passed around saying 'make sure you delete x/y and z'
I just don't see how a few illegally obtained emails can compare to the vast amount of scientific peer reviewed journals that are accepted by the majority of scientists around the world.
The e-mails discuss how they high jacked the peer reviewed process
it talks about how they have distorted the data (This one is big, because if these scientist happen to be the data handlers, ie, they convert the raw data from the satellites, and temp stations, into the data used by the entire scientific community, that completely refutes any consensus reached, using that data)
and given, that the raw data has been requested, and they tell us, "They lost it", it looks pretty bad
The problem with this is that the peer reviewed process can't be "high jacked." You have a scientific theory, put it to an equation, and test it, over and over and over again. Then you publish your results where it is then tested again by independant scientist across the world, over and over and over again until there is no doubt that the theory holds credibility. To high jack that, you would have to bribe hundreds of scientists to put their jobs on the line for a lie.
I don't know if its possible to do it either, but, the people that wrote the e-mails certainly seem to think they can, and have
And you don't have to bribe them, you cut the funding to the scientists that don't play ball
Most funding for scientific research comes from various Governments, and when you have something as political as Global Warming, you telling me that doesn't factor in?
I would say it is a factor, but only a minimal one, seeing as how the threat of global warming is something most governments don't want, in hindsight, we should see more government employed scientists refuting global warming rather than supporting it.
I've got to disagree with you there. The global warming scare presents an excellent opportunity for governments to amass greater control of our lives, and power is ultimately the only thing government cares about.
If this was the case, the government would have just raised the terrorist threat level to red and ordered marshal law, rather than having a long drawn out debate about the weather and the health of the earth.
who said it needs to be conspiracy? They say that CO2 causes fedbacks that multiples its green house effect
This is something, I've never seen demonstrated, measured, or observed. So scientists have to guess, they can guess, and get tons of funding so they can study what they most like to study. Or they can guess, and beg for funding
the human tendency is to make a bad decision, for bad reasons, then rationalize it later. because humans only do things for good reasons
So, just curious, will you look up richard lindzen, and look at his study?
The guy is a little dry, but his information is good
This is one example, where there have been gaps in the data, we just dont have it, so we've had to guess. make assumptions
and in a climate system, which is governed by millions of variables, and thousands of eqns, you have to believe that they've had to make assumptions in more than one place
This looks at one such assumption and the impact of having observed data
Also, all the climate models have programed in, an effect that says, as temp rises, less energy escapes into space
Its programed, its an assumption. We now have a satellite, that has been measuring this for 20 years, and we have found that as temp increases, MORE energy escapes into space
If you sub the measured data for the assumption, suddenly CO2's power drops to 16% of what we have thought up to this pt
Concentrating on emails & the least relevant parts of them at that, is also frustrating. Data & programs were leaked too. If we're discussing emails I'd point out that while 'trick' is ambiguous, words like 'hide' and 'decline' are not.
It's fascinating to me since, while I already knew how wrong they were, I didn't know to what extent they were deliberately fraudulent. We knew Michael Mann was a fraud, but I for one didn't realise how prevalent he still was in all of this.
FrogJacuzzi 2 years ago
@FrogJacuzzi
Have a look into what "hide the decline" was really referring to. They were simply talking about how to remove data that was not relevant in order to increase accuracy.
kellygiz 2 years ago
@kellygiz
Nice assertion. Maybe it's true, and maybe not.
I have looked into it to the best of my ability and I'm afraid I disagree. Strongly. cold stations were removed to hide a decline in temperature, if you want my counter-assertion.
FrogJacuzzi 1 year ago
@FrogJacuzzi No assertions, just substance. The context is available, if you choose to stop being lazy.
kellygiz 1 year ago
@kellygiz YEAH, any Science that shows the Alarmists to be wrong, shouldnot be counted ! Even a chump like you can read a graph ---or 45 of them - Google SCIENCESKEPTICAL MWP , and hit the first link .
camcheck 1 year ago
@camcheck I don't see how that information shows 'alarmists' to be wrong. Climatologists know about the MWP, who do you think discovered it? Furthermore, the causes are well understood, and are quite separate from the causes of modern warming. Which are also very well understood by climatologists.
kellygiz 1 year ago
The annoyance of 'Climategate' for many is the pitch that it's the only reason for scepticism. That said, even if it WERE the only reason it would be devastating on its own thanks to the IPCC's absurd reliance on the work of the Hadley CRU & chums.
FrogJacuzzi 2 years ago
If YOU find it boring then YOU ignore it. I find the constant propaganda & media-rules on who is & isn't doing 'science' boring & frustrating.
There's far more damning evidence than you imply, for those interested. Alarmists NEEDLESSLY try to debunk theories of natural climate change *on all time-scales* as if they were incompatible with theories of recent man-made climate change.
Quite separately, their CO2 mechanism can't work & has masses of evidence against. Watch their predictions FAIL.
FrogJacuzzi 2 years ago
@FrogJacuzzi We have been watching. For 20 years, their predictions show no signs of failing.
kellygiz 1 year ago
Boring on both sides.
"You did this"
"Nuh uh"
"Yah huh"
"Nuh uh"
"Yah huh"
ragnarok9899 2 years ago
JoeJeffersonn 2 years ago
Asshole interviewer was ending the interview right in the middle of the guy's sentence.
kellygiz 2 years ago
what a scam! Gore gets rich from global warming scam
tony711978 2 years ago
i love how people at fox are laughing in the background
LLCoolPass 2 years ago
it's not illegal in england trenberth! the files are organized in a folder called FOIA~!!!!!!!!! you know what?? because in ENGLAND its legal to release this if it's to bring a crime of fraud to justice! remember they are different that usa, you're guilty until proven innocent. they have a freedom of information act that protects this.
LLCoolPass 2 years ago
Let's see, Trenberth stands to loose his funding...I wonder what he would say (in light of the emails).
The CRU is a bunch of frauds. Jail time for the lot of them.
seaplaneguy1 2 years ago
Why aren't any of the TV networks besides Fox News reporting on this? Going from something that was assumed to be "settled debates" to exposing asteemed scientists in the field for manipulating data and hiding evidence, this seems to be a big story worthy of news coverage.
cl97 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oooooh look at him squirm :)
Phyroxin 2 years ago
Comment removed
Phyroxin 2 years ago
GoreBull Warming = Fascism
inflateyourtires 2 years ago
From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
I will be emailing the journal to tell them Im having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at wattsupwiththat eastangliaemails.
PikeSdream 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From the CRU data set 'HARRY READ ME txt'
OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at wattsupwiththat eastangliaemails.
PikeSdream 2 years ago
* Mark in the comments notices a file called resid-fudge.dat, which he says contains, believe it or not, fudged residuals figures!
* Mark in the comments notes a program comment: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! followed by the words `fudge factor' " See briffa_sep98_d pro.
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at wattsupwiththat eastangliaemails.
PikeSdream 2 years ago
* From the programming file combined_waveletpro, another comment, presumably referring to the famous Briffa truncation: "Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)".
* From the file pl_declinepro": "Now apply a completely artificial adjustment for the decline only where coefficient is positive!)"
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at eastangliaemails.
PikeSdream 2 years ago
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at eastangliaemails.
The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely ;0)
Youtube & Google search - Chemtrails, HAARP, Weather-Modification-Vietnam, Energy Weapons.
PikeSdream 2 years ago
From the CRU data set 'HARRY READ ME txt'
OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at eastangliaemails.
PikeSdream 2 years ago
From the CRU data set 'HARRY READ ME txt'
From: Phil Jones. To: Many Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
PikeSdream 2 years ago
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at eastangliaemails.
From the CRU data set 'HARRY READ ME txt'
East Anglia university Climate data leaked man made climate change a Fraud
PikeSdream 2 years ago
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"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... Our observing system is inadequate"
CRU searchable database of the leaked info at eastangliaemails.
East Anglia university Climate data leaked man made climate change a Fraud
PikeSdream 2 years ago
the emais are now publicly available. People should read them for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I did that and it makes me fucking furious to see that 'scientist' saying that no date was deleted when there were emails passed around saying 'make sure you delete x/y and z'
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
*data
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
Oh, I agree with that totally.
Zlibservacratican 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Youtube & Google search - Chemtrails, HAARP, Weather-Modification-Vietnam, Energy Weapons.
Watch this series from the Professor.
David Bellamy - Challenging Orthodoxy
/watch?v=Qm1kFY8BpS8
Google or YT search
"Climategate"
PikeSdream 2 years ago
Date ?????????
richardrmartineau 2 years ago
I just don't see how a few illegally obtained emails can compare to the vast amount of scientific peer reviewed journals that are accepted by the majority of scientists around the world.
Zlibservacratican 2 years ago
The e-mails discuss how they high jacked the peer reviewed process
it talks about how they have distorted the data (This one is big, because if these scientist happen to be the data handlers, ie, they convert the raw data from the satellites, and temp stations, into the data used by the entire scientific community, that completely refutes any consensus reached, using that data)
and given, that the raw data has been requested, and they tell us, "They lost it", it looks pretty bad
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago 3
The problem with this is that the peer reviewed process can't be "high jacked." You have a scientific theory, put it to an equation, and test it, over and over and over again. Then you publish your results where it is then tested again by independant scientist across the world, over and over and over again until there is no doubt that the theory holds credibility. To high jack that, you would have to bribe hundreds of scientists to put their jobs on the line for a lie.
Zlibservacratican 2 years ago
I'm just telling you what the e-mails say
I don't know if its possible to do it either, but, the people that wrote the e-mails certainly seem to think they can, and have
And you don't have to bribe them, you cut the funding to the scientists that don't play ball
Most funding for scientific research comes from various Governments, and when you have something as political as Global Warming, you telling me that doesn't factor in?
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
I would say it is a factor, but only a minimal one, seeing as how the threat of global warming is something most governments don't want, in hindsight, we should see more government employed scientists refuting global warming rather than supporting it.
Zlibservacratican 2 years ago
I've got to disagree with you there. The global warming scare presents an excellent opportunity for governments to amass greater control of our lives, and power is ultimately the only thing government cares about.
dudemanbearpig 2 years ago
If this was the case, the government would have just raised the terrorist threat level to red and ordered marshal law, rather than having a long drawn out debate about the weather and the health of the earth.
Zlibservacratican 2 years ago
Yeah, that could be
Or, if scientists scare the hell out of the Government, money roles into their lab to "fix" the problem
also, so many people have invested their lives and careers into this, they can't let it go
I mean, tell a scientist that choose this field, because he wanted to solve GW, and there is nothing to solve.
Tell an environmentalists, who has picketed for years, raised awareness, put up flyers, that he just wasted the last 5-10 years of his life
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
This would mean that thousands of scientists all over the world are conspiracing together for money.
Zlibservacratican 2 years ago
who said it needs to be conspiracy? They say that CO2 causes fedbacks that multiples its green house effect
This is something, I've never seen demonstrated, measured, or observed. So scientists have to guess, they can guess, and get tons of funding so they can study what they most like to study. Or they can guess, and beg for funding
the human tendency is to make a bad decision, for bad reasons, then rationalize it later. because humans only do things for good reasons
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
So, just curious, will you look up richard lindzen, and look at his study?
The guy is a little dry, but his information is good
This is one example, where there have been gaps in the data, we just dont have it, so we've had to guess. make assumptions
and in a climate system, which is governed by millions of variables, and thousands of eqns, you have to believe that they've had to make assumptions in more than one place
This looks at one such assumption and the impact of having observed data
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
So.... the science is so solid, that you have to brain wash kids starting 6-7 years old, in order for people to believe it?
/watch?v=vd7M4Hqwdbg
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Also, all the climate models have programed in, an effect that says, as temp rises, less energy escapes into space
Its programed, its an assumption. We now have a satellite, that has been measuring this for 20 years, and we have found that as temp increases, MORE energy escapes into space
If you sub the measured data for the assumption, suddenly CO2's power drops to 16% of what we have thought up to this pt
so, you need to be 84% LESS alarmist
Search Richard Lindzen for the study
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago