The call from hundreds of scientist from all over the globe to stop the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was the result of overwhelming evidence that
it is a global disaster waiting to happen . Science is based on evidence not rhetoric. And arguing over words won't change that folks.
Al Gore is a billion he loves pointing it out. Can't put it together how scientists could possibly buy into this crap. Can see that many have been bought out though.
want to convince the world that its warming up? tell us what the temperature of the earth is, what it was 10 years ago, and lets wait and see what it will be 10 years from now.
Sounds like scientists are being controlled and getting the blame for it. im sure the government would love to tell us what to think without needing any proof at all.
@ortsa123 See the investigation! The phony "climategate" propaganda has been debunked, AGAIN! Taking out-of-context emails to promote the corporate disinformation campaign didn't work! The science that tells us we are warming the planet is sound. It's time we changed the way we generate and use energy and natural resources.
.
Here's a link to debunking the corporate climategate calamity!
.
Google: Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again: Scientific American
I don't understand the responses to climategate of the scientists in question. that guy said the word trick means a mathematical approach to complex data analysis..... yet Phil Jones of CRU said it means to splice part of one data set and insert it into another. I don't understand the resemblance of opinions.....
Not sure of any worldwide 'conspiracy' here, but something smells fishy
Each age gives you High Priest/Scientist with there Bible/Data that you can't understand . And you will burn in Hell/Earth if you don't pay cash and give them control . Its a well understood ancient scam run by the Elites , this time they screwed up . First it was global warming then climate change because it was nt warming . . . .Never forget the goal is control over you , these creeps want to dictate what food , energy ect you can have , allow that and you deserve eveything you get .
@boosomentity Thank you. See, you PROVE wackos can't read.
Dr. John Christy and UAH are world renown skeptics, yet their SATELLITE data agree with NASA & CRU within 0.02C per DECADE! LOL!!!
There has been a dramatic spike in temperatures the last 35 years that cannot be explained by any other cause except human caused GHG. Changes in solar irradiance have been absolutely ruled out by satellite measurements since 1975.
@goog2k Thanks for the comment. You probably notice there are a lot of insults knocking around in the comments. Each side calling the other Wackos anfd a lot worse. Name calling never supports an argument and whatever anyone believes I think we should all try to sift through the BS wherever it comes from. Scrutinising authority and their data should be the duty of anyone with an open mind. Peace :)
the "dramatic spike" is generally estimated as +0.17 °C over 30 + years.. Satellite do not measure temperature, but troposheric irradiance--which is then calibrated to the surface record. Its very circular. I have not seen any attempt to quantify intrinsic measurement error in the surface record. The elephant in the room--whether you believe in the warming thesis or not--is that their is really no reliable temperature record.
CRU and NASA say global temps have risen +0.56C or more, the last 35 years.
Dr. John Christy and UAH say their "Satellite Data" indicate average global temps have risen 0.49C the last 35 years. (Christy says average temps have risen +0.14C per DECADE since 1975.)
UAH & Christy's numbers are only 0.02C per decade different from CRU & NASA.
any one who read the email will notice how they drew attention towards the ambiguous word trick in order to distract people away from the clear cut context that is found in the rest of the e mail.
yeah global warmign is a scam and every scientific institute in the world is in on it and so are all the governments ha ha fucken idiots. if u had any idea u interpret word which ever way u want the interpretation of data is what matters and the bottom line is the data show the world is heating up and not just because of cme. any1 who refutes that co2 build up doesnt cause a fucken green house effect knows fuck all about this sicence it s a joke ye people come across as dumb so fucken dumb
@7orqu3 it is not so far-fetched. Islam is a scam too and all the masques are in on it. Liberalism works a lot like a religion using fear and a desire for a better world as motivational tools to dupe people. This is not science. Al Gore is no scientist. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but so are a lot of other gasses and those other gasses have been declining in our atmosphere.
Climate Change is the new name for Global Warming which most of the planet knows to be a scam. The birth place of the lie is Margaret Thatcher who needed to bring down the miners! Coal was to be painted as "Dirty" to be replaced by Gas. Any university applying to the government for funds had to support this view in their application. Then it became a money scam for "Carbon Credits" & Green Taxes. I wish I had place here to show & prove to you the truth but feel free to research.
@Digali JEEZ, you are a total conspiracy WACKO! Can't you READ???
I don't know about Britain but ALL of NASA's data is PUBLIC. Also UAH and Dr. John Christy, renown AGW deniers, measure global temps as rising +0.14C per decade the last 30 years. NASA & CRU say +0.16C per decade.
JEEZ, that's a total difference of 0.02C every TEN YEARS.
@goog2k and NASA is funded by who exactly? whoop there's your answer. it's a conspiracy theory to state that it's man made Co2 that causes climate change without any concrete proof, especially when records and the planet it's self show that the climate has always gone through warming and cooling cycles. check out Enron's cosy little relationship with AL Gore and his carbon tax. what really causes our change in climate is that massive ball of fire in the heavens upon which we revolve around
Were there polar bears in the time of the dinosaurs? Of course there wasn't! The earths climate changes. Man, here in Canada we have + 30 degree Celsius summers and -30 degree winters. Pretty dramatic temp change would you not say. Computor models can't predict weather when scientist who get paid by special interests group who want the data to prove global warming put in bias evidence. The BBC is a government propaganda machine turn it off and search the truth and get multiple opinions!
GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM INSTIGATED BY THE UN. M. Tatcher started the ball rolling as a method to close the coal mines down in the UK, by showing coal are a dirty palluntent it justified closing te mines down in the UK.
Climategate was a giant FALSE propaganda campaign. If not, show even ONE example of falsified data from CRU.
There have been 3 independent investigations and they found NO EVIDENCE of falsified data.
Please note that renown skeptic Dr. Christy, at UAH says global Temps are going up +0.14C per decade. Phil Jone at CRU & NASA say +0.16 C per decade. OMG, a discrepancy of 0.02C per decade.
@goog2k Like singer said, it's not about the data. If the data is so consistent, if it has so much integrity, why not disclose it? The scientists won't even let people LOOK at the raw data. Only their computer model simulations and models about what the data mean. Basically saying "trust us, we know whats best for you." Where has that happened before? Oh yeah....to murder millions of people in China, Russia, Germany, etc. etc. Why didn't they respond to a freedom of information request? T
If the emails had said "we must hide the honest data and lie in order to proceed with Climate-Change' - the BBC would state the word Lie to mean tell the truth - just the word lie used in science speak between fellow scientists is obviously misunderstood by everyone else.
Utter garbage, Climate Change is a well thought out way to tax industry, if they cant get away with taxing us breathing oxygen - why not tax us for what we breath out - this wont go away - well apart from winter it goes quiet
Fred Singer? Seriously? Does he have any credibility left? UV-B and melanoma, "junk science"! CFC's and ozone,"junk science"! dangers of second hand smoke, "junk science"! The money he receives from big tobacco and big oil should disqualify this kook from any respectable science discussion.
Ideology is still trying to usurp the conclusions that don't fit their world view. Science will win this war and my only concern is what a boob you'll look like when you tell your children how freaking ignorant you were when you helped delay the necessary steps to mitigate its effects. Professor Singer is a fraud-do your homework!
The word "Trick" is not the problem - its the word "Hide".
They attempted to hide the temp decline shown in tree ring data by splicing in the the instrumental data from 1980/81 - why? - because they have no idea why the tree ring data showed this decline.
This calls in to question the entire data set and and Jones and Mann know this. Without an explanation of the decline the data is totally invalid.
The hockey stick is invalid !
Jones and Mann committed scientific fraud - this much is clear.
@c02Pirate "This calls in to question the entire data set "- not necessarily, it's just not known what has caused the recent diverging trends since the two were so closely linked all the way upto that period . Nor does a lack of explanation mean it is totally invalid. Nor was any fraud committed, perhaps a sloppy handling of data, but nothing to merit such an accusation as academic fraud which would ruin a career
@TheGamanic - ""This calls in to question the entire data set "- not necessarily,"
Actually YES IS DOES. This is how science MUST work.
To accept any data from the series could be interpreted as scientific FRAUD simply because without an explanation of the divergence the entire series is totally invalid. This is how science MUST work - you CANNOT present data that you KNOW is invalid as being accurate = FRAUD.
There is no question about this - if data is NOT reliable then = data of nothing.
The IPCC knows that this is fraudulant. The scientists who tell the truth upon leaving the IPCC are ridiculed and givin death threats. It is over. The debate that is. This is about one world bank and elitists nothing more. If you still believe in AGW? Stop it right now. You are selling you and all the children down the river forever by believing the biggest lie in the history of mankind
im a scientist ...geology /physics I know what I mean when i say in a discussion with fellow scientists if I say " the Nature trick to hide the decline !" A scam and cover up the reality !
And the scam was used in a Nature paper ! oh oh oh
global climate change is real dont try to argue about it, Anthropogenic global warming (man made global warming) is a fraud to grab power and wealth around the world, ippc does not mention how many scientists left the panel for their unscientific methods and then were still put on the "thousands of scientists agree AGW is going to kill humanity unless you stop using technology and energy, or your governments make you"
maybe you can manipulat as you like with statistics and computer modelling. by changing parameters to show the things you want your audience to see. but science itself may not be corrupt. this is an empirical study and only through science mit professor richard lyndsen proved global warming doesnt exist. but i think he doesnt have the pr of al gore .
yes, im surprised when i see american kids wearing same t shirts going to germany , denmark being hired to increase awareness and demand action from political leaders. are they idiots ? or just spoilt and bored
Paxman is equally scathing of both sides of the debate, and it is very interesting to see how poorly the 'anti' man-made climate change brigade perform under the spotlight.
the only other organizations that give you one narrow view of the world........cults...just like w.m.destruction fraud,911 fraud,avian flu fraud,swine flu fraud etc this is no different
this series goes into the issue of climate change more deeply/user/potholer54#p/a/u/2/7nnVQ2fROOg this link specifically tackles the topic of the e-mails.
How the BBC got this reputation for quality journalism I will never ever understand.They're nothing but a bunch of bungling amateurs.Always have been, always will be
Yeah.. If some murderer would be caught on tape saying "I killed him and I enjoyed it!", it means that he can say that he was just using his language and the phrase means that he was eating salad and he wouldn't be a murderer.. Nice.. You can this thing everywhere..:) "You're a dickhead!!" "No, in the language that I use it just means that "You're a nice person.."" Awesome..:)) And btw.. In the murderers case the most guilty person would be the one who got it on tape..:))
They focus in on one or two quotes that are being used, it is they who take the words out of context.
Then they swiftly move the question to whether the scientists are naive, and finding out how the emails were supposedly 'hacked' etc.
I missed this when it aired, poor singer, he thought he was going to be able to speak, rather than simply 'appear' on paxmans hard hitting propaganda machine.
global warming is a scam...please people wake up ! just ask yourself the following question, how much money are YOU making from the global warming fear mongering ? then ask yourself how much al gore and his buddies are making and stand to make with cap and trade ! its disgraceful ! gore charges $300,000 every time he does a speech to save the planet ? why is he even taking any money for such a nobal endevour ? hes already rich ! just think about it...
i'll be VERY interested to see what the outcome of the 'independent' inquiry is... it is due by spring, I'm already guessing the thing will be a whitewash as Sir Russell is a member of the RSE (Royal society of edinburgh) and they stand behind the IPCC and therefore CRU. Sir Muir Russell's report will most likely show that there was stupidity in the emails, but not deception, and thus give the go-ahead for the ongoing deception to continue...This is too big a pie for Sir Russell to ruin...
That guy with the glasses is such a fucking cunt liar, if you use word '' hide'' or ''trick'', then thats what it means. Not the mathematical approach bullshit you talk about you cunt liar!, If two people who are in the same profession, they will most likely jargon phrases between them that no one else will understand, if they were in I>T ,they will jargon like '' SQL" " I.P address'' that sort of language, but this fuck wants us to believe ''trick'' means something else, fucking old pig liar
@dellbalboa He is from the UK Met Office. They have rarely been able to predict tomorrows weather never mind climate in 10 yrs
Notably they have often predicted good weather and seen UK hit by hurricanes the next day ! U of East Anglia is gland in gland with the fucking commo run useless Met office !!!!
Any fool knows that thier use of the word Hide suggests that the scientists are trying to manipulate their conclusions/graphs for dramatic effect, rather than for accuracy and honesty.
It would make NO difference if they had said Clever Method to hide the decline.
Even if the scientists themselves do not view this as "deception", it is infact deception.
It is clear that the methodology is conclusion driven, rather than evidence/premise driven, and that is corrupt.
I hope that you will noted and honoured as you should be.
Please continue until this matter of Global Warming is sealed to never return again.
So that we can all get back to focusing on local pollution - were we actually can effect change to our local environment, without needing a global carbon tax to do it.
Bravo Professor Singer, you are exactly right!!!!!! Science is a matter of facts and the facts should be available to everyone!!! No one should hide the data that isn't science!! Thank you Dr. Singer
Tipical bbc trying to serve its masters. I don't know how anybody can willingly pay tv tax after looking at this. I have given my tv to charity shop 4 years ago, since than did not pay their tax and never looked back. I still get their treat letters almost 1 every month,I even got letters saying "if you have a computer in your house you have to pay" but I don't even open them anymore before I put them in rubish bin. Alternative media is the only way to stop their brain washing.
Yes. There is a annual tv tax in UK. It is called tv licence fee. Every household pays £139.00 every year, if you convert it to US$ about $226.00.
So some people like me got rid of the tv. Now we get constant treat letters from enforcement agencies saying that" if you don't have tv but you have a pc, you still have to pay because you may watch tv on your pc"
I had the same problem! After many 'threatening' letters like yours, I told them "I don't have a TV". My house was also empty for a year while I was at university.
About a year later I had a visit by some a-hole with a search warrant to my house. He was accompanied by 2 burly coppers. After looking around, one copper smiles and says to his mate, "So, he DOESN'T have a TV!"
They left followed by disgruntled Mr A-hole. (I didn't have a PC either!)
@c02Pirate The TV license system is hardly a form of 'oppressive government' I don't think you would know what an oppressive government was it one spat in your face. Besides I have little time for anti-science hotheads like you.
It is still oppressive, even though there are more oppressive governments out there, it does not mean that being forced to pay to support a leftist government mouth piece or be thrown in jail is not oppressive, so wind yer neck in pal! Show some respect when visiting another countries video.
You are absolutely correct. You will love this piece of nonsense from Hadley?IPCC:
"Temperature and CO2 are linked. Studies of polar-ice layers show that in the past, rises in temperature have been followed by an increase in CO2. Now, it is a rise in CO2 that is causing the temperature to rise."
Like saying smoking causes cancer therefore cancer causes smoking.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe all the AGW rubbish.
We're being lied to on a grand scale, an intentional deception made for personal gain and the control and manipulation of the population, Climate Fraud... Time for the uprising, Join The Resistance Now...
The BBC are an arm of the Government, they have no interest in the facts if it stands in the way of their agenda.I am saddened that the BBC is quite happy to have it's license payers reduced to near poverty funding a lie such as man made Global Warming.This whole business is about surrendering control of our wealth and industry to the newly called 'Global Governance'.The BBC has been totally infiltrated by an elitist group of psychopaths who job it is to deliver. FREEDOM LOSS=2 secs to Midnight
The bbc is biased towards AGW and therefore everything they report on climate change has to be taken with a pinch of salt. They should be impartial, report both sides of the story and not force this crap about the "scientific consensus" over 30000 scientists say otherwise. Thats double the amount of people that are at copenhagen. It took me 30 minutes and I found ample evidence that there has been foul play, its really not that hard. I'm not a climate change skeptic but I am also not stupid.
Climate change deniers have not only taken the words out of context, but misquoted him as well. YOU should actually read these emails, and the scientific papers that they refer to, before you pretend to understand what they are talking about.
The "decline", that he used a "trick" to hide, was a line on a graph that reflected recent tree ring growth,(from 1961 to present) that conflicts with actual, much more accurate, temperature readings. The "lack of heating" that he was referring to was in 1999, (the 9th warmest year on record by the way) when there was shift from El Nino, to La Nina.
Read Briffa 1998 - global cooling since 1940 ! ... and Briffa is a CRU conspirator !! No wonder they tried to hide the decline !!!
In your own words, please describe the evidence for man caused global warming. Please also give a page reference to the latest IPCC report where it gives evidence.
Funny how I never get a response ... just links to alarmist junk.
Hmm, because tree ring size, and wood density do not track well with temperature data since 1961, and a handful of scientists are having difficulty figuring out why, and fumble for an accurate way to incorporate tree ring data into their climate change models, all climate change scientists are liars? OK.
I doubt you will believe me, since you don't believe the climate experts, but here goes.
Since the advent of the industrial revolution, mankind has been pumping unprecedented amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere. During this time, there has been little change in other global warming drivers, such as solar activity. All the while, the temperature rises. What else could be causing the increase? Hot air from denialists? IPCC report, pages 35-40
What else other than man, could cause the temperature increase since the Little Ice Age ?
Easy - the same natural factors that have caused temperatures to be 6 degrees higher than currently and CO2 levels to be 7 times current levels, since mammals have walked the earth.
Orbital factors are not currently favoring increased surface temperatures. Solar activity has been, on average, increasing, but only slightly for the past 8000 or so years. The slow overall increase in radiation does not account for the dramatic rise in temperature. What other natural factors are you referring to?
Atmospheric science is very poorly understood and no remotely close to anything that can be modelled with any accuracy. For example, cloud formation has a huge influence on climate and is ignored in IPCC models.
It will be a long time before we are close to understanding climate. Claiming that the 2% of atmospheric CO2 that derives from fossil fuels is causing climate change is just idiotic.
There is lots of quantifiable evidence for the statements in the IPCC report. Pirates, have not been shown to affect radiative forcing, to my knowledge, though I understand that pirate activity has increased in recent years, this may be in part, due to famine in Africa.
Tree ring data of course, does not equal temperature data, though it often, as expected, can reflect changes in local climate.
2 quantities increasing does not imply one causes the other.
CO2 increases have followed temperature increases for thousands of years but even that does not prove that CO2 increases are a result of rising temperatures ... and certainly not the converse as Al Gore suggests.
Did you know by the way that the oceans emit 20 times as much CO2 as man ...
Nope, didn't know that. Neither does the entire staffs of Woods Hole, Scripps and GISS, NOAA NSIDC, a bunch of other science organizations.
According to you, the ocean is emitting more CO2 than man. Now, every scientist must go back to the lab and figure out where all the CO2 is coming from that is increasing the atmospheric concentration in addition to what's acidifying the oceans.
This is an amazing discovery. You'll be famous. You will fill the shoes of Holdren and Chu simultaneously!
Well the report is in question is'nt it. The ice record supports temperature driving Co2- not the other way around. As for solar activity.The solar activity record - which goes back hundreds of years versus meteorlogical records- shows solar activity being the main driver of earth temperature. Man contributes a fraction of total Co2. Geothermal activity makes many times more.Fact. It is a fraud designed to empower the UN, Instigate world taxes and World Government. New World Order. Simples.
Don't feel bad. A lot of people did. I was even starting to fall for it until about 2002 when i started noticing it getting cooler not warmer and really started researching this issue. Then time and time again things I was shown before were discredited while the people being labeled as "skeptics" and "deniers" were having prediction after prediction proven correct.
At least you finally woke up to it man! That is all that counts.
I trust my pet dog more than those lying scientists and their masters. Sack and ban them from having anything to do with science. Now they are trying to re-frame their bullshit to save their skins.
Here's the thing about AGW: climate is a nonlinear, coupled, chaotic system. Making predictions about such a system is extremely difficult. Hence the skepticism. This is also why the hockey stick model was so obviously badly constructed. In any case, in such a situation the last thing you should be doing is hiding raw data and manipulating peer review journals.
As an aside, if the climate models are good for 100 years why have they been unable to account for the last 10 years of non-warming?
The "trick" accusation is a straw man. That is by far the least offensive thing in the e-mails. The worst things were clearly (1) the dumping of raw data and (2) an attempt to rig the peer review process by excluding scientists who have problems with the conventional climate models. Frankly I expect more from the BBC.
Don't forget on 9/11 the BBC reported that Building 7 had collapsed some 25 minutes before the event on the day, although the building was clearly still standing in the background.
this story doesnt cover a fraction of the stuff thats coming out in these files, the computer data shows artficial manipulation of data in the programers notes, it clearly shows phils jones saying he would destry the dat rather than let it be released then he comes out and says its lost? seriously do they take us for idiots? they destroyed the data to stop the thousands of other scientists who dont believe in man made global warming analysing it, that is very suspicious!!
The religious fundamentalists are ticking us too; they are fudging their data. And, where is their raw data? They discarded it long ago. It must be a conspiracy to keep the masses from learning the truth and to keep all the world religions in business.
Religions are just cults that grew and grew and are instruments of control by the minority and used by governments for their own convenience to manipulate the public.
Did it ever occur to anyone that the climate-change-denier hackers doctored the emails to boost their case? This is very easy to do. You can change the text of an email quite easily and you cannot tell if it is the original email or not. You can even do this with a computer program and change thousands of emails in a very short time.
Not having raw data is unfortunate in this case, but not unusual. Scientists routinely discard raw data once these data have been put in electronic form.
I notice they didn't mention the attempts made by these so called 'scientists' to discredit journals and academics who were openly skeptical about man-made GW.
Neither was there anything about their attempts to subvert the peer review process by peer-reviewing each other work!
This is terrible journalism from the BBC and a reason I don't pay for the licence. It was clearly a whitewash and assumed the viewer has a mental age of 12.
The word 'trick' is a 'mathematical approach in how to analyse very complex data' says Bob Watson. I hope his students are listening to this towering scholar and intellect and pulling rabbits out of hats at is tutorials
Cristop5 - The scandal does not just revolve around the use of the word 'trick'! It's because he said he used a trick to 'hide the decline'. They can't squirm their way out of this by pretending one isolated word means something else! Prof Jones said they would do everything in their power to exclude contradictory science from IPCC reports and even to subvert the peer review process!
toppermost1: Did you watch the video I gave the link to?
The 'trick' was about using "real temps" to hide the apparent decline you get if you look just at tree ring data after ~1960.
Note the word 'real'.
The problem they were trying to address was about tree growth slowing down, while thermometer measurements showed the atmosphere was heating. This was at odds with tree growth responses before the 1950s.
There may well be some dodgy stuff going on at CRU, but this isn't it.
Yes, I think I understand - they were concerned that the tree ring data was at odds with what you would expect to happen to tree growth if thermometer temperatures were rising.
But that just raises another question - are the thermometer measurements accurate if tree growth had slowed down? Why is Mr Jones so keen to 'hide the decline' shown by the tree ring data? Why even use the tree ring data if you're going to ignore what it's telling you? Jones has a bias towards using the thermometer readings simply because they support his belief in a warming trend.
There are few reliable instrumental temperature records once you go back more than 130 yrs.
If you want to 'measure' temperatures from earlier times you have to use indirect or 'proxy' measures like coral growth, tree rings, stalagmite growth etc.
To see how these proxy measurements can be 'translated' into actual historical temperatures, you need to take proxy measurements and actual temperature measurements over the same time period. This will allow you to measure how proxy data reflects temps
If the proxy measurements contradict recorded temperatures, this should have been duly noted and stressed. Instead Jones expressed his intention to deliberately combine the two sets of data in such a manner as to 'hide the decline' - this was his 'trick'. No matter how you look at it - this is deceptive.
I agree. I suppose you'd want to read the published work and see whether he really does 'hide' it.
The reader of a scientific paper has the right to expect total transparency from the author. So if the correlation between proxy and real temps breaks down, this should be stated not hidden.
Having said that though, it's not right for people to go around claiming he's trying to cover up a decline in temperatures. He's not.
The more data you have the better your estimates of the relationships between your proxy data, say coral growth, and real temperature will be. That's why it's good to continue to collect proxy data side by side with actual data. It enables you to improve your estimates of historical temperatures.
I don't think so. What's strange to me is your insistence that Jones wasn't trying to cover up a decline in temperatures when he clearly said to his pal - "Don't worry about the tree ring data - I know a trick to hide the decline!". You said yourself - "if the correlation between proxy and real temps breaks down, this should be stated not hidden." At least we agree on something!
Thermometers give a better reading of temperatures than do proxies, because that is precisely what they are designed to do.
Trees weren't designed to measure temperatures. They just happen to grow faster in warm conditions. The trouble is other things such as rainfall, pollution, disease etc will also affect tree growth. The same sorts of complicating factors would apply to all the other proxy temperature measurements. That doesn't mean proxy measurements are useless, just not so reliable.
From the little that I know about tree ring data, and the scientists in question, I don't know why they wanted to hide the decline in tree ring growth. I can only guess that they didn't want skeptics to "throw out the baby with the bathwater"
@ford7777777 I will find out, I think it shows you just before submitting a complaint. I hope google have not changed this has it shows all the comments hidden :-)
During the same time period our earth poles have been melting the SAME CHANGES have occured on MARS. And sensors on Europa have also registered changes. No fossil fuels or vehicles or people are active on Mars. Of course, I only have a masters degree. But I can read. Ugh, and not lie.
Studies prove that our sun has been acting totally different the last several years than historic normal cycles.
This has been flagged as spam show
Climate Gate is a NWO deception designed to protect the military industrial complex
why is Alex Jones against Avatar when the movie points directly to 911 truth
MrTranscend1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
megamogx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The call from hundreds of scientist from all over the globe to stop the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was the result of overwhelming evidence that
it is a global disaster waiting to happen . Science is based on evidence not rhetoric. And arguing over words won't change that folks.
blanketofpurple 6 months ago
Al Gore is a billion he loves pointing it out. Can't put it together how scientists could possibly buy into this crap. Can see that many have been bought out though.
HolySpiritVessel1 6 months ago
want to convince the world that its warming up? tell us what the temperature of the earth is, what it was 10 years ago, and lets wait and see what it will be 10 years from now.
fudgedogbannana 7 months ago
twust
draphaelc 9 months ago
Sounds like scientists are being controlled and getting the blame for it. im sure the government would love to tell us what to think without needing any proof at all.
ortsa123 9 months ago
@ortsa123 See the investigation! The phony "climategate" propaganda has been debunked, AGAIN! Taking out-of-context emails to promote the corporate disinformation campaign didn't work! The science that tells us we are warming the planet is sound. It's time we changed the way we generate and use energy and natural resources.
.
Here's a link to debunking the corporate climategate calamity!
.
Google: Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again: Scientific American
.
ReduceGHGs 9 months ago
I don't understand the responses to climategate of the scientists in question. that guy said the word trick means a mathematical approach to complex data analysis..... yet Phil Jones of CRU said it means to splice part of one data set and insert it into another. I don't understand the resemblance of opinions.....
Not sure of any worldwide 'conspiracy' here, but something smells fishy
ajmf35029 10 months ago
Each age gives you High Priest/Scientist with there Bible/Data that you can't understand . And you will burn in Hell/Earth if you don't pay cash and give them control . Its a well understood ancient scam run by the Elites , this time they screwed up . First it was global warming then climate change because it was nt warming . . . .Never forget the goal is control over you , these creeps want to dictate what food , energy ect you can have , allow that and you deserve eveything you get .
ozzycriss 10 months ago
@boosomentity Thank you. See, you PROVE wackos can't read.
Dr. John Christy and UAH are world renown skeptics, yet their SATELLITE data agree with NASA & CRU within 0.02C per DECADE! LOL!!!
There has been a dramatic spike in temperatures the last 35 years that cannot be explained by any other cause except human caused GHG. Changes in solar irradiance have been absolutely ruled out by satellite measurements since 1975.
What a troll!
goog2k 10 months ago
@goog2k Thanks for the comment. You probably notice there are a lot of insults knocking around in the comments. Each side calling the other Wackos anfd a lot worse. Name calling never supports an argument and whatever anyone believes I think we should all try to sift through the BS wherever it comes from. Scrutinising authority and their data should be the duty of anyone with an open mind. Peace :)
ford7777777 10 months ago 2
@ford7777777 BTW, I forgot to mention that TSI, total solar irradiance, was at a 35 year LOW last year. Oops!
Be well.
goog2k 10 months ago
@ford7777777 Well put! BR
Floxflow 3 months ago
@goog2k your an idiot. Just don't complain when your given hundreds of carbon taxes.
gunfart 7 months ago
the "dramatic spike" is generally estimated as +0.17 °C over 30 + years.. Satellite do not measure temperature, but troposheric irradiance--which is then calibrated to the surface record. Its very circular. I have not seen any attempt to quantify intrinsic measurement error in the surface record. The elephant in the room--whether you believe in the warming thesis or not--is that their is really no reliable temperature record.
anzatzi 7 months ago
@anzatzi That is B.S. and DENIER propaganda!
CRU and NASA say global temps have risen +0.56C or more, the last 35 years.
Dr. John Christy and UAH say their "Satellite Data" indicate average global temps have risen 0.49C the last 35 years. (Christy says average temps have risen +0.14C per DECADE since 1975.)
UAH & Christy's numbers are only 0.02C per decade different from CRU & NASA.
(BTW, +0.5C = +0.9F)
goog2k 7 months ago
any one who read the email will notice how they drew attention towards the ambiguous word trick in order to distract people away from the clear cut context that is found in the rest of the e mail.
boosomentity 10 months ago
yeah global warmign is a scam and every scientific institute in the world is in on it and so are all the governments ha ha fucken idiots. if u had any idea u interpret word which ever way u want the interpretation of data is what matters and the bottom line is the data show the world is heating up and not just because of cme. any1 who refutes that co2 build up doesnt cause a fucken green house effect knows fuck all about this sicence it s a joke ye people come across as dumb so fucken dumb
7orqu3 1 year ago
@7orqu3 it is not so far-fetched. Islam is a scam too and all the masques are in on it. Liberalism works a lot like a religion using fear and a desire for a better world as motivational tools to dupe people. This is not science. Al Gore is no scientist. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but so are a lot of other gasses and those other gasses have been declining in our atmosphere.
athono 1 year ago
Climate Change is the new name for Global Warming which most of the planet knows to be a scam. The birth place of the lie is Margaret Thatcher who needed to bring down the miners! Coal was to be painted as "Dirty" to be replaced by Gas. Any university applying to the government for funds had to support this view in their application. Then it became a money scam for "Carbon Credits" & Green Taxes. I wish I had place here to show & prove to you the truth but feel free to research.
TimCob 1 year ago
@Digali JEEZ, you are a total conspiracy WACKO! Can't you READ???
I don't know about Britain but ALL of NASA's data is PUBLIC. Also UAH and Dr. John Christy, renown AGW deniers, measure global temps as rising +0.14C per decade the last 30 years. NASA & CRU say +0.16C per decade.
JEEZ, that's a total difference of 0.02C every TEN YEARS.
WOW!!! What a scandal.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k and NASA is funded by who exactly? whoop there's your answer. it's a conspiracy theory to state that it's man made Co2 that causes climate change without any concrete proof, especially when records and the planet it's self show that the climate has always gone through warming and cooling cycles. check out Enron's cosy little relationship with AL Gore and his carbon tax. what really causes our change in climate is that massive ball of fire in the heavens upon which we revolve around
boosomentity 10 months ago
Were there polar bears in the time of the dinosaurs? Of course there wasn't! The earths climate changes. Man, here in Canada we have + 30 degree Celsius summers and -30 degree winters. Pretty dramatic temp change would you not say. Computor models can't predict weather when scientist who get paid by special interests group who want the data to prove global warming put in bias evidence. The BBC is a government propaganda machine turn it off and search the truth and get multiple opinions!
jbster7777 1 year ago
GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM INSTIGATED BY THE UN. M. Tatcher started the ball rolling as a method to close the coal mines down in the UK, by showing coal are a dirty palluntent it justified closing te mines down in the UK.
jjtruman 1 year ago
That old guy is useless, get Lord Monckton on there. He would have them all crying and sucking their thumb
sy2pie 1 year ago 2
Climategate was a giant FALSE propaganda campaign. If not, show even ONE example of falsified data from CRU.
There have been 3 independent investigations and they found NO EVIDENCE of falsified data.
Please note that renown skeptic Dr. Christy, at UAH says global Temps are going up +0.14C per decade. Phil Jone at CRU & NASA say +0.16 C per decade. OMG, a discrepancy of 0.02C per decade.
What a scandal.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k Like singer said, it's not about the data. If the data is so consistent, if it has so much integrity, why not disclose it? The scientists won't even let people LOOK at the raw data. Only their computer model simulations and models about what the data mean. Basically saying "trust us, we know whats best for you." Where has that happened before? Oh yeah....to murder millions of people in China, Russia, Germany, etc. etc. Why didn't they respond to a freedom of information request? T
Digali 1 year ago
If the emails had said "we must hide the honest data and lie in order to proceed with Climate-Change' - the BBC would state the word Lie to mean tell the truth - just the word lie used in science speak between fellow scientists is obviously misunderstood by everyone else.
Utter garbage, Climate Change is a well thought out way to tax industry, if they cant get away with taxing us breathing oxygen - why not tax us for what we breath out - this wont go away - well apart from winter it goes quiet
TheColdplayUnheard 1 year ago
Fred Singer? Seriously? Does he have any credibility left? UV-B and melanoma, "junk science"! CFC's and ozone,"junk science"! dangers of second hand smoke, "junk science"! The money he receives from big tobacco and big oil should disqualify this kook from any respectable science discussion.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
the bbc expects the british public to be very, very stupid.
romanpr1nce 1 year ago 2
7:00 Nervous look to the camera there :)
Phyroxin 1 year ago
im getting a bigger engine fuck this scam
troy0000001965 1 year ago 2
Ideology is still trying to usurp the conclusions that don't fit their world view. Science will win this war and my only concern is what a boob you'll look like when you tell your children how freaking ignorant you were when you helped delay the necessary steps to mitigate its effects. Professor Singer is a fraud-do your homework!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
They're not "sceptics", they're fucking idiots.
Samuraionthewall 1 year ago
The word "Trick" is not the problem - its the word "Hide".
They attempted to hide the temp decline shown in tree ring data by splicing in the the instrumental data from 1980/81 - why? - because they have no idea why the tree ring data showed this decline.
This calls in to question the entire data set and and Jones and Mann know this. Without an explanation of the decline the data is totally invalid.
The hockey stick is invalid !
Jones and Mann committed scientific fraud - this much is clear.
c02Pirate 1 year ago
@c02Pirate Pull your head out of your ass, please.
Samuraionthewall 1 year ago
@Samuraionthewall
"Pull your head out of your ass,"
I would suggest YOU pull YOUR head out of OUR ass.
It is not a matter up for debate.
It is now a FACT that the data used to base all their data sets on is flawed.
It is also FACT that this data is no longer acceptable for use by anyone for any purpose legal OR scientific - THIS IS FACT.
AFTER YOU PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS - LOOK IT UP!
Jones and especially Mann committed scientific FRAUD - of this there is no doubt.
Wake up!
c02Pirate 1 year ago
@c02Pirate "This calls in to question the entire data set "- not necessarily, it's just not known what has caused the recent diverging trends since the two were so closely linked all the way upto that period . Nor does a lack of explanation mean it is totally invalid. Nor was any fraud committed, perhaps a sloppy handling of data, but nothing to merit such an accusation as academic fraud which would ruin a career
TheGamanic 5 months ago
@TheGamanic - ""This calls in to question the entire data set "- not necessarily,"
Actually YES IS DOES. This is how science MUST work.
To accept any data from the series could be interpreted as scientific FRAUD simply because without an explanation of the divergence the entire series is totally invalid. This is how science MUST work - you CANNOT present data that you KNOW is invalid as being accurate = FRAUD.
There is no question about this - if data is NOT reliable then = data of nothing.
c02Pirate 4 months ago
governments lie and use scientists to justify there lies, just look at nazi germany!
scottishchap2008 1 year ago
this needs to be propogated as quickly as possible
circusboy90210 1 year ago
The IPCC knows that this is fraudulant. The scientists who tell the truth upon leaving the IPCC are ridiculed and givin death threats. It is over. The debate that is. This is about one world bank and elitists nothing more. If you still believe in AGW? Stop it right now. You are selling you and all the children down the river forever by believing the biggest lie in the history of mankind
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
al gore can go suck a fat one
bkakaak47 1 year ago
Phil Jones' CRU has been investigated by:
1. The House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee
and
2. An international panel of academics set up by the University of East Anglia.
The findings of both inquiries are now in. Here they are:
1. ww w.publications.parliament.u k/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.p d f
2. ww w.uea.a c.u k/ma c/c omm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
(remove spaces)
Professor Jones and the CRU were exonerated by both inquiries.
cristop5 1 year ago
very easy. keeping hide lie they can get huge research money from many sources.
c3333333335 1 year ago
its all hoax TO cook up a NEW TAX the carbon tax TO tax the air we breath its all B.S
theoneagain 1 year ago
@hhhhh00hh00hhhhh NOOOOOOOO ... they're all gonna laugh at you!
ToshiroDK 1 year ago
im a scientist ...geology /physics I know what I mean when i say in a discussion with fellow scientists if I say " the Nature trick to hide the decline !" A scam and cover up the reality !
And the scam was used in a Nature paper ! oh oh oh
klnine 1 year ago
The mainstream media is controlled.FACT.
yumidad 1 year ago
@yumidad
One cannot ague this.
RamessesR 1 year ago
global climate change is real dont try to argue about it, Anthropogenic global warming (man made global warming) is a fraud to grab power and wealth around the world, ippc does not mention how many scientists left the panel for their unscientific methods and then were still put on the "thousands of scientists agree AGW is going to kill humanity unless you stop using technology and energy, or your governments make you"
majikninja07 1 year ago
Comment removed
majikninja07 1 year ago
we have a corrupt government = corrupt science .
VooDooU22X 1 year ago 2
maybe you can manipulat as you like with statistics and computer modelling. by changing parameters to show the things you want your audience to see. but science itself may not be corrupt. this is an empirical study and only through science mit professor richard lyndsen proved global warming doesnt exist. but i think he doesnt have the pr of al gore .
killintymm 1 year ago
oh do excuse me ' corrupt scientists ' i meant to say . I do beg your pardon .
VooDooU22X 1 year ago
yes, im surprised when i see american kids wearing same t shirts going to germany , denmark being hired to increase awareness and demand action from political leaders. are they idiots ? or just spoilt and bored
killintymm 1 year ago
Paxman is equally scathing of both sides of the debate, and it is very interesting to see how poorly the 'anti' man-made climate change brigade perform under the spotlight.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
the only other organizations that give you one narrow view of the world........cults...just like w.m.destruction fraud,911 fraud,avian flu fraud,swine flu fraud etc this is no different
monicabrsgooglemail 1 year ago
this series goes into the issue of climate change more deeply/user/potholer54#p/a/u/2/7nnVQ2fROOg this link specifically tackles the topic of the e-mails.
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
Scam ! We all know it now. I suggest litigation, Should also include the BBC in that for pushing the lie !
klnine 1 year ago 5
keep kissing those govt rings you spineless shits
digitalisthedevil666 1 year ago
bungling amateurs and professional brown nosers
digitalisthedevil666 1 year ago
How the BBC got this reputation for quality journalism I will never ever understand.They're nothing but a bunch of bungling amateurs.Always have been, always will be
AllSeeingGoogle 1 year ago 5
BBC - Big Brother Corperation
arigosethrin 2 years ago 3
Yeah.. If some murderer would be caught on tape saying "I killed him and I enjoyed it!", it means that he can say that he was just using his language and the phrase means that he was eating salad and he wouldn't be a murderer.. Nice.. You can this thing everywhere..:) "You're a dickhead!!" "No, in the language that I use it just means that "You're a nice person.."" Awesome..:)) And btw.. In the murderers case the most guilty person would be the one who got it on tape..:))
Satyw 2 years ago 2
They focus in on one or two quotes that are being used, it is they who take the words out of context.
Then they swiftly move the question to whether the scientists are naive, and finding out how the emails were supposedly 'hacked' etc.
I missed this when it aired, poor singer, he thought he was going to be able to speak, rather than simply 'appear' on paxmans hard hitting propaganda machine.
wearechangenorwich 2 years ago
global warming is a scam...please people wake up ! just ask yourself the following question, how much money are YOU making from the global warming fear mongering ? then ask yourself how much al gore and his buddies are making and stand to make with cap and trade ! its disgraceful ! gore charges $300,000 every time he does a speech to save the planet ? why is he even taking any money for such a nobal endevour ? hes already rich ! just think about it...
ChappersNo1 2 years ago 23
I never believed it anyway. There is no way anybody can prove or model such vast processes on a computer.
manoman0 2 years ago
i'll be VERY interested to see what the outcome of the 'independent' inquiry is... it is due by spring, I'm already guessing the thing will be a whitewash as Sir Russell is a member of the RSE (Royal society of edinburgh) and they stand behind the IPCC and therefore CRU. Sir Muir Russell's report will most likely show that there was stupidity in the emails, but not deception, and thus give the go-ahead for the ongoing deception to continue...This is too big a pie for Sir Russell to ruin...
flahman 2 years ago
i wonder if the folk at east anglia university will still get their funding
ballastastronaut 2 years ago
I wouldn't expect a spokesman from East Anglia University to own up to a massive fraud on national TV. What's the BBC trying to prove anyway?
MrOllyK 2 years ago
コメントをいただきありがとうございます。場合、欧米の主要メディアを参照して、ほとんどすべての嘘や歪曲されます。研究'新世界秩序'と表示する場合と思うが、実際にはグローバルな陰謀が世界を支配することだ...
ford7777777 2 years ago
That guy with the glasses is such a fucking cunt liar, if you use word '' hide'' or ''trick'', then thats what it means. Not the mathematical approach bullshit you talk about you cunt liar!, If two people who are in the same profession, they will most likely jargon phrases between them that no one else will understand, if they were in I>T ,they will jargon like '' SQL" " I.P address'' that sort of language, but this fuck wants us to believe ''trick'' means something else, fucking old pig liar
dellbalboa 2 years ago 26
@dellbalboa
Fact: If you swear or yell more, you win.
Moirera 1 year ago
@dellbalboa He is from the UK Met Office. They have rarely been able to predict tomorrows weather never mind climate in 10 yrs
Notably they have often predicted good weather and seen UK hit by hurricanes the next day ! U of East Anglia is gland in gland with the fucking commo run useless Met office !!!!
klnine 1 year ago 2
@dellbalboa Wow, with that cerebral comment I can understand why your paranoid conspiracy theory has gained so much respect.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
Any fool knows that thier use of the word Hide suggests that the scientists are trying to manipulate their conclusions/graphs for dramatic effect, rather than for accuracy and honesty.
It would make NO difference if they had said Clever Method to hide the decline.
Even if the scientists themselves do not view this as "deception", it is infact deception.
It is clear that the methodology is conclusion driven, rather than evidence/premise driven, and that is corrupt.
St37One 2 years ago 3
thanks for posting.
styops 2 years ago
Good WORK Lord Monckton.
I hope that you will noted and honoured as you should be.
Please continue until this matter of Global Warming is sealed to never return again.
So that we can all get back to focusing on local pollution - were we actually can effect change to our local environment, without needing a global carbon tax to do it.
Cheers to you Monckton
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
Nasa has less that 20 days to protect it reputation...if they do not come forward on the Freedom of Info Act, they willl nover be funded again.
ImHappynBP 2 years ago
Bravo Professor Singer, you are exactly right!!!!!! Science is a matter of facts and the facts should be available to everyone!!! No one should hide the data that isn't science!! Thank you Dr. Singer
mrc0870 2 years ago 3
Think Codex Alimentarius, Law of the Sea Treaty and you can understand the motivation behind this scheme.
mindwarrior7 2 years ago
Are they thinking they're now gonna get away with this? Well I be damned...
They should all be on trial for HIGH TREASON!
ivoman7 2 years ago
Tipical bbc trying to serve its masters. I don't know how anybody can willingly pay tv tax after looking at this. I have given my tv to charity shop 4 years ago, since than did not pay their tax and never looked back. I still get their treat letters almost 1 every month,I even got letters saying "if you have a computer in your house you have to pay" but I don't even open them anymore before I put them in rubish bin. Alternative media is the only way to stop their brain washing.
oozzyy11 2 years ago 3
You pay a TV tax in the UK?!?!
How much?
kja5 2 years ago
Yes. There is a annual tv tax in UK. It is called tv licence fee. Every household pays £139.00 every year, if you convert it to US$ about $226.00.
So some people like me got rid of the tv. Now we get constant treat letters from enforcement agencies saying that" if you don't have tv but you have a pc, you still have to pay because you may watch tv on your pc"
This is how far big brother state has gone in UK.
oozzyy11 2 years ago 4
I had the same problem! After many 'threatening' letters like yours, I told them "I don't have a TV". My house was also empty for a year while I was at university.
About a year later I had a visit by some a-hole with a search warrant to my house. He was accompanied by 2 burly coppers. After looking around, one copper smiles and says to his mate, "So, he DOESN'T have a TV!"
They left followed by disgruntled Mr A-hole. (I didn't have a PC either!)
Now I live in USA - no TV licence needed here!
granitePillar 2 years ago
Just in case you are are away from UK for a while;
now clusters of cameras everywhere. There is 1 camera for every 3 people, every person in London filmed avarage 300 times a day.
Garbage containers has chips, if you put garbage in the wrong place or wrong day, they send you a fine.
Body scanners has already been installed on some airports.
Tourists are getting searched or arrested for taking pictures of doubledeckers.
Good luck in USA.
oozzyy11 2 years ago
@oozzyy11
"Tv License"
You get exactly what you deserve and vote for.
If the people DO NOT stand up against this sort of thing then I have no pity for you at all.
Many people these days bitch and moan about everything but do NOTHING to prevent this sort BS from happening.
DO NOT VOTE FOR OPPRESSIVE GOV - vote for the minor parties who stand for freedom and NOT regulation.
Stand up for your self's - or suffer the consequences.
Vote OUT the major parties.
c02Pirate 1 year ago
@c02Pirate The TV license system is hardly a form of 'oppressive government' I don't think you would know what an oppressive government was it one spat in your face. Besides I have little time for anti-science hotheads like you.
SlightyDisturbedNBK 1 year ago
@SlightyDisturbedNBK
It is still oppressive, even though there are more oppressive governments out there, it does not mean that being forced to pay to support a leftist government mouth piece or be thrown in jail is not oppressive, so wind yer neck in pal! Show some respect when visiting another countries video.
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
@therhythmicmenace I'm Scottish you bird brained idiot. And after looking though your videos I'd say you're a few cards short of a deck.
"Show some respect when visiting another countries video."
The most ridiculous thing I've heard all day.
SlightyDisturbedNBK 1 year ago
@SlightyDisturbedNBK
shoot the messenger instead of the message wtf has my videso got to do with it, enjoy your nazi eu dictatorship.
The tv licence is not oppressive STFU CUNT, tell that to poor single mothers in jail for not paying it Fucker!!!
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
@therhythmicmenace Bullshit
SlightyDisturbedNBK 1 year ago
Yea sure... The truth will prevail, sooner or later, Wake up people.
321XDOEX123 2 years ago
TRUMPHENT ,
Yes according to me, the IPCC and anyone who can read, the oceans emit 20 times as much CO2 as man.
If you can't read the IPCC report, just browse it looking at the pictures and you might learn something.
... and the oceans are alkaline by the way, not acidic.
This is kid's stuff.
sydneydoc 2 years ago
Justin,
You are absolutely correct. You will love this piece of nonsense from Hadley?IPCC:
"Temperature and CO2 are linked. Studies of polar-ice layers show that in the past, rises in temperature have been followed by an increase in CO2. Now, it is a rise in CO2 that is causing the temperature to rise."
Like saying smoking causes cancer therefore cancer causes smoking.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe all the AGW rubbish.
sydneydoc 2 years ago 2
Who profits from this, and at what cost.... follow the money trail.
walkingbear56 2 years ago
We're being lied to on a grand scale, an intentional deception made for personal gain and the control and manipulation of the population, Climate Fraud... Time for the uprising, Join The Resistance Now...
DDDDGJ 2 years ago
down play of an atom bomb
loose language, yeah right
fredontube 2 years ago 2
The BBC are an arm of the Government, they have no interest in the facts if it stands in the way of their agenda.I am saddened that the BBC is quite happy to have it's license payers reduced to near poverty funding a lie such as man made Global Warming.This whole business is about surrendering control of our wealth and industry to the newly called 'Global Governance'.The BBC has been totally infiltrated by an elitist group of psychopaths who job it is to deliver. FREEDOM LOSS=2 secs to Midnight
walksthedesert 2 years ago 3
The bbc is biased towards AGW and therefore everything they report on climate change has to be taken with a pinch of salt. They should be impartial, report both sides of the story and not force this crap about the "scientific consensus" over 30000 scientists say otherwise. Thats double the amount of people that are at copenhagen. It took me 30 minutes and I found ample evidence that there has been foul play, its really not that hard. I'm not a climate change skeptic but I am also not stupid.
bluejonny007 2 years ago 2
Bullshit BBC.
We have all seen Monckton's videos, he truly exposes the massive fraud being perpetuated on us towards a new world fascism in Copenhagen.
aghoranathi 2 years ago 2
Read the ClimateGate documents yourself at Climate-Gate org.
Global warming is the scam of the century.
sydneydoc 2 years ago
Climate change deniers have not only taken the words out of context, but misquoted him as well. YOU should actually read these emails, and the scientific papers that they refer to, before you pretend to understand what they are talking about.
pragmaticjack 2 years ago
Comment removed
pragmaticjack 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "decline", that he used a "trick" to hide, was a line on a graph that reflected recent tree ring growth,(from 1961 to present) that conflicts with actual, much more accurate, temperature readings. The "lack of heating" that he was referring to was in 1999, (the 9th warmest year on record by the way) when there was shift from El Nino, to La Nina.
pragmaticjack 2 years ago
Read Briffa 1998 - global cooling since 1940 ! ... and Briffa is a CRU conspirator !! No wonder they tried to hide the decline !!!
In your own words, please describe the evidence for man caused global warming. Please also give a page reference to the latest IPCC report where it gives evidence.
Funny how I never get a response ... just links to alarmist junk.
sydneydoc 2 years ago
Hmm, because tree ring size, and wood density do not track well with temperature data since 1961, and a handful of scientists are having difficulty figuring out why, and fumble for an accurate way to incorporate tree ring data into their climate change models, all climate change scientists are liars? OK.
pragmaticjack 2 years ago
In my own words?
I doubt you will believe me, since you don't believe the climate experts, but here goes.
Since the advent of the industrial revolution, mankind has been pumping unprecedented amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere. During this time, there has been little change in other global warming drivers, such as solar activity. All the while, the temperature rises. What else could be causing the increase? Hot air from denialists? IPCC report, pages 35-40
pragmaticjack 2 years ago
Come on Jack, are you serious ?
Yes, that's pretty much what pp35-40 says in Sect 2 but it doesn't give any EVIDENCE that man's emissions are causing any temperature change.
Do you know what evidence means?
You could just as easily plot the number of pirates against temperature and draw the same conclusions.
Briffa's tree rings show COOLING since 1940. Hadcrut data has zero credibility.
sydneydoc 2 years ago
What else other than man, could cause the temperature increase since the Little Ice Age ?
Easy - the same natural factors that have caused temperatures to be 6 degrees higher than currently and CO2 levels to be 7 times current levels, since mammals have walked the earth.
sydneydoc 2 years ago
Orbital factors are not currently favoring increased surface temperatures. Solar activity has been, on average, increasing, but only slightly for the past 8000 or so years. The slow overall increase in radiation does not account for the dramatic rise in temperature. What other natural factors are you referring to?
pragmaticjack 2 years ago
Atmospheric science is very poorly understood and no remotely close to anything that can be modelled with any accuracy. For example, cloud formation has a huge influence on climate and is ignored in IPCC models.
It will be a long time before we are close to understanding climate. Claiming that the 2% of atmospheric CO2 that derives from fossil fuels is causing climate change is just idiotic.
sydneydoc 2 years ago 2
Evidence: sign, indication, ground for belief.
There is lots of quantifiable evidence for the statements in the IPCC report. Pirates, have not been shown to affect radiative forcing, to my knowledge, though I understand that pirate activity has increased in recent years, this may be in part, due to famine in Africa.
Tree ring data of course, does not equal temperature data, though it often, as expected, can reflect changes in local climate.
pragmaticjack 2 years ago
"lots " of evidence ... exactly where ?
2 quantities increasing does not imply one causes the other.
CO2 increases have followed temperature increases for thousands of years but even that does not prove that CO2 increases are a result of rising temperatures ... and certainly not the converse as Al Gore suggests.
Did you know by the way that the oceans emit 20 times as much CO2 as man ...
sydneydoc 2 years ago 2
Nope, didn't know that. Neither does the entire staffs of Woods Hole, Scripps and GISS, NOAA NSIDC, a bunch of other science organizations.
According to you, the ocean is emitting more CO2 than man. Now, every scientist must go back to the lab and figure out where all the CO2 is coming from that is increasing the atmospheric concentration in addition to what's acidifying the oceans.
This is an amazing discovery. You'll be famous. You will fill the shoes of Holdren and Chu simultaneously!
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
Someone forgot to tell the NOAA scientists whom have signed the skeptics list at the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works......
Here is a quote from one....
It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who dont buy into anthropogenic global warming. - U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.
pauldude000 2 years ago
So, it is presumed that you have personally reviewed all of Goldenberg's works of research.
That must have taken all of 30 seconds.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
Well the report is in question is'nt it. The ice record supports temperature driving Co2- not the other way around. As for solar activity.The solar activity record - which goes back hundreds of years versus meteorlogical records- shows solar activity being the main driver of earth temperature. Man contributes a fraction of total Co2. Geothermal activity makes many times more.Fact. It is a fraud designed to empower the UN, Instigate world taxes and World Government. New World Order. Simples.
justinjoyit13 2 years ago 3
These scientists care more about being right than being honest. It sickens me and it's the reason I left my chemistry major behind.
dragonchampion7 2 years ago
The bbc are presently trying to soften us up by debunking cru data and bigging up the nasa conclusions,because the software is better.
No mention of trhe quality of data at all.
The bbc are truly vile.
aoanla 2 years ago
people watch this vid and spread far and wide it debunks all peer review papers and man made gw
google
"Lord Monckton discusses Climategate at the Second International Climate Conference".
motoxmainia 2 years ago
I am moving to a deserted island and starting my own country...
xennelul 2 years ago
wow i cant believe i fell for this man made climate change bullshit
vrossino46 2 years ago 2
Don't feel bad. A lot of people did. I was even starting to fall for it until about 2002 when i started noticing it getting cooler not warmer and really started researching this issue. Then time and time again things I was shown before were discredited while the people being labeled as "skeptics" and "deniers" were having prediction after prediction proven correct.
At least you finally woke up to it man! That is all that counts.
purechaos2000 2 years ago 3
MEDIA is spreading lies and are COVERING UP criminal activity..
Media must do the right thing, and present the fraud for what it is : FRAUD ..
Media is WhiteWashing the criminals that are using the Climate to hold the entire world hostage under fear of global catastrophy..
FromDimmuLand 2 years ago 4
The BBC are the evil propaganda arm of the Rothschild Empire.
And to think Brits pay for this crap makes me sick, you're paying to be lied to.
staponsa1 2 years ago
this is the journalism from a supposedly civilized country?
spyletu 2 years ago
@spyletu Yep, from our Government Propaganda department.
Lookup2Wakeup 2 years ago
I trust my pet dog more than those lying scientists and their masters. Sack and ban them from having anything to do with science. Now they are trying to re-frame their bullshit to save their skins.
edmack4me 2 years ago 3
Here's the thing about AGW: climate is a nonlinear, coupled, chaotic system. Making predictions about such a system is extremely difficult. Hence the skepticism. This is also why the hockey stick model was so obviously badly constructed. In any case, in such a situation the last thing you should be doing is hiding raw data and manipulating peer review journals.
As an aside, if the climate models are good for 100 years why have they been unable to account for the last 10 years of non-warming?
GorterPoss 2 years ago 3
The "trick" accusation is a straw man. That is by far the least offensive thing in the e-mails. The worst things were clearly (1) the dumping of raw data and (2) an attempt to rig the peer review process by excluding scientists who have problems with the conventional climate models. Frankly I expect more from the BBC.
GorterPoss 2 years ago 3
@GorterPoss No I don't.
Don't forget on 9/11 the BBC reported that Building 7 had collapsed some 25 minutes before the event on the day, although the building was clearly still standing in the background.
The BBC clearly can see into the future .........
Lookup2Wakeup 2 years ago 2
give those russians the nobel peace prize
mlong5151 2 years ago 4
this story doesnt cover a fraction of the stuff thats coming out in these files, the computer data shows artficial manipulation of data in the programers notes, it clearly shows phils jones saying he would destry the dat rather than let it be released then he comes out and says its lost? seriously do they take us for idiots? they destroyed the data to stop the thousands of other scientists who dont believe in man made global warming analysing it, that is very suspicious!!
paulrobins250 2 years ago 3
exactly!
techn0scho0lbus 2 years ago
The religious fundamentalists are ticking us too; they are fudging their data. And, where is their raw data? They discarded it long ago. It must be a conspiracy to keep the masses from learning the truth and to keep all the world religions in business.
truthformeandyou 2 years ago
Religions are just cults that grew and grew and are instruments of control by the minority and used by governments for their own convenience to manipulate the public.
edmack4me 2 years ago
Did it ever occur to anyone that the climate-change-denier hackers doctored the emails to boost their case? This is very easy to do. You can change the text of an email quite easily and you cannot tell if it is the original email or not. You can even do this with a computer program and change thousands of emails in a very short time.
Not having raw data is unfortunate in this case, but not unusual. Scientists routinely discard raw data once these data have been put in electronic form.
truthformeandyou 2 years ago
The emails have been authenicated and the liers don't deny them they just want to put another spin on the emails for the mass brain dead sheeple.
edmack4me 2 years ago 2
If there is no problem ,why the need to lie ?
kellyelainewright61 2 years ago
Fake crises to bring in world government !
mmtot 2 years ago 3
Exactly, and an engineered Global credit crises for the same purpose.
edmack4me 2 years ago
I notice they didn't mention the attempts made by these so called 'scientists' to discredit journals and academics who were openly skeptical about man-made GW.
Neither was there anything about their attempts to subvert the peer review process by peer-reviewing each other work!
This is terrible journalism from the BBC and a reason I don't pay for the licence. It was clearly a whitewash and assumed the viewer has a mental age of 12.
XTL446 2 years ago 6
MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE IS A FRAUD! end of story...
paddymourinho 2 years ago 6
The word 'trick' is a 'mathematical approach in how to analyse very complex data' says Bob Watson. I hope his students are listening to this towering scholar and intellect and pulling rabbits out of hats at is tutorials
ford7777777 2 years ago
For a discussion on the use of the word "trick" in the PUBLISHED scientific literature
watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
Apparently it's used a hell of a lot to describe mathematical devices!
cristop5 2 years ago
Cristop5 - The scandal does not just revolve around the use of the word 'trick'! It's because he said he used a trick to 'hide the decline'. They can't squirm their way out of this by pretending one isolated word means something else! Prof Jones said they would do everything in their power to exclude contradictory science from IPCC reports and even to subvert the peer review process!
toppermost1 2 years ago
toppermost1: Did you watch the video I gave the link to?
The 'trick' was about using "real temps" to hide the apparent decline you get if you look just at tree ring data after ~1960.
Note the word 'real'.
The problem they were trying to address was about tree growth slowing down, while thermometer measurements showed the atmosphere was heating. This was at odds with tree growth responses before the 1950s.
There may well be some dodgy stuff going on at CRU, but this isn't it.
cristop5 2 years ago
Yes, I think I understand - they were concerned that the tree ring data was at odds with what you would expect to happen to tree growth if thermometer temperatures were rising.
toppermost1 2 years ago
But that just raises another question - are the thermometer measurements accurate if tree growth had slowed down? Why is Mr Jones so keen to 'hide the decline' shown by the tree ring data? Why even use the tree ring data if you're going to ignore what it's telling you? Jones has a bias towards using the thermometer readings simply because they support his belief in a warming trend.
toppermost1 2 years ago
There are few reliable instrumental temperature records once you go back more than 130 yrs.
If you want to 'measure' temperatures from earlier times you have to use indirect or 'proxy' measures like coral growth, tree rings, stalagmite growth etc.
To see how these proxy measurements can be 'translated' into actual historical temperatures, you need to take proxy measurements and actual temperature measurements over the same time period. This will allow you to measure how proxy data reflects temps
cristop5 2 years ago
If the proxy measurements contradict recorded temperatures, this should have been duly noted and stressed. Instead Jones expressed his intention to deliberately combine the two sets of data in such a manner as to 'hide the decline' - this was his 'trick'. No matter how you look at it - this is deceptive.
toppermost1 2 years ago
I agree. I suppose you'd want to read the published work and see whether he really does 'hide' it.
The reader of a scientific paper has the right to expect total transparency from the author. So if the correlation between proxy and real temps breaks down, this should be stated not hidden.
Having said that though, it's not right for people to go around claiming he's trying to cover up a decline in temperatures. He's not.
cristop5 2 years ago
The more data you have the better your estimates of the relationships between your proxy data, say coral growth, and real temperature will be. That's why it's good to continue to collect proxy data side by side with actual data. It enables you to improve your estimates of historical temperatures.
cristop5 2 years ago
Oh, don't worry, I get it - the proxy data is 'useful' if it supports the man made warming agenda, and 'unreliable' if it doesn't!
toppermost1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That's a very strange way to interpret my words.
cristop5 2 years ago
I don't think so. What's strange to me is your insistence that Jones wasn't trying to cover up a decline in temperatures when he clearly said to his pal - "Don't worry about the tree ring data - I know a trick to hide the decline!". You said yourself - "if the correlation between proxy and real temps breaks down, this should be stated not hidden." At least we agree on something!
toppermost1 2 years ago
You sound as if you believe tree growth is a better way of measuring temperature than is a thermometer!
Is that right?
How about the other proxies. Are they better than thermometers too? Would that include the proxies that show temperatures rising still?
cristop5 2 years ago
Thermometers give a better reading of temperatures than do proxies, because that is precisely what they are designed to do.
Trees weren't designed to measure temperatures. They just happen to grow faster in warm conditions. The trouble is other things such as rainfall, pollution, disease etc will also affect tree growth. The same sorts of complicating factors would apply to all the other proxy temperature measurements. That doesn't mean proxy measurements are useless, just not so reliable.
cristop5 2 years ago
Comment removed
pragmaticjack 2 years ago
and why the reason to hide?
ford7777777 2 years ago
From the little that I know about tree ring data, and the scientists in question, I don't know why they wanted to hide the decline in tree ring growth. I can only guess that they didn't want skeptics to "throw out the baby with the bathwater"
pragmaticjack 2 years ago
@ford7777777 I will find out, I think it shows you just before submitting a complaint. I hope google have not changed this has it shows all the comments hidden :-)
Tzimnewman3 1 year ago
this vid is well worth the time people youtube
(The REAL Climate-Gate: THE AGENDA (ver. 2)
motoxmainia 2 years ago
nasa is fudging the numbers too .
chazdaspazman 2 years ago 3
What a tricky bunch!
There are plenty of actual, real-life environmental problems out there...this is just the ''common enemy'' they found to save us from.
For example, where do they test chemical and bacteriological agents you think?
alleyghost 2 years ago
During the same time period our earth poles have been melting the SAME CHANGES have occured on MARS. And sensors on Europa have also registered changes. No fossil fuels or vehicles or people are active on Mars. Of course, I only have a masters degree. But I can read. Ugh, and not lie.
Studies prove that our sun has been acting totally different the last several years than historic normal cycles.
This is a solar system change.
charles43110 2 years ago 3