Climategate: The Backstory

The Corbett Report recently sat down with Dr. Tim Ball, a retired professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg to talk about Phil Jones and the Climate Research Unit. Here, two months before "Climategate" and the hacked emails, we talk about the highly secretive nature of the CRU at East Anglia. To read Dr. Ball's article on the subject in the Canada Free Press, follow this link:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13570

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• climategate
• phil
• jones
• cru
• ball
• corbett
• report
• interview
• climate
• change
• global
• warming
• co2

[XPIOLT]

The scientists are in collusion, the politicians are in collusion, the mainstream media is in collusion and they are all in collusion together to conspire against the citizens of this planet in order to rape, plunder and control them. They've been caught with their pants down and now it's time to start making arrests and trying these bastards from the National Geographic to the United Nations. We deniers of Global Warming have been vindicated. Gore & Rothschild...were coming for ya!

[honestann]

We know higher temperatures cause an increase of CO2, not the opposite.

We know many peroids of warmer and? colder weather (and higher and lower CO2) have happened for thousands of years.

We know the Mars polar ice caps grow and shrink with the Earth polar ice caps, which means warming and cooling is primarily caused by sun changes.

Hang the climate totalitarians!

We need 100% separation of science and state.

Government funded science == fraud.

End lies and pollution, not CO2.

[robert140602]

Absolutely terrifying

[ToothbrushMan]

"This assertion is based on a dataset provided by the CRU - headed by Phil Jones".

Rubbish.

The CRU is like a lot of Climate Research departments around the world. It has paid money for the datasets from ESA, NASA, etc. and is not about to give the data away - it would be sued by those who they bought the data from.

[hennomarais]

@thebestsumoeva To get the latest images you can search for "ijis iarc seaice-monitor" in google. They also openly discuss the algorithms and explain every change they make to them. This year they corrected an error when the reflection of the sun interferes with the readability of the data. If you look at the data from the national sea and ice institute you can go back to 1979. The data is not that accurate but the trend lines are exactly the same. There you will have more data to work with.

[thebestsumoeva]

@hennomarais They only have data from 2002 to current and I was just looking at the peak to peak changes as a reference. I will break the data up later and fit curves to each peak to analyze the averages from period to period. Some things which are evident is that the difference between the highest peak and lowest peak is 7% which is within the 10% error posted at the website. I'm more curious what their algorithm for determining sea ice from thermal imaging looks like.

[hennomarais]

@thebestsumoeva Great I am glad that you enjoy science. Why did you choose 2003 to 2006? If you were using 2007 to 2010 you would see that the ice is growing. Just as 2003 to 2007 will show a big reduction. This technique is called cherry picking. What you need to do is grow your sample size. But as a researcher you probably know this. So If you want something more accurate I would suggest getting an average for 2002 to 2006 and comparing it to the average of 2007 to 2010.

[thebestsumoeva]

@hennomarais I plotted that satellite data on a graph and took the difference between the highest peak and the lowest peak and determined a 7% difference which is within the expected 10% error according to the website. The data suggest a retraction from 2003-2006 with a come back from 2006 to current. The problem is these changes were within the error of the measurements so no conclusive arguments can be made on the ice caps melting. BTW I do research at a University and rather enjoy science.

[hennomarais]

@thebestsumoeva I would suggest understanding the layers in the atmosphere. I looked at many sources. Here is one that stood out for me. Go to Youtube and search for "Global Warming 101 (1 of 5) - The Greenhouse Effect"

Look generally greenhouse gases are a great thing. They stop the earth from doing what the moon does +250 degrees at day and -250 degrees at night. Without our atmosphere we will not survive one day.

Enjoy!

[thebestsumoeva]

@hennomarais I'd first like to thank you for looking at data for your self and forming an opinion based on it. Now as an objective observer what observations do you have that show these reductions are man made vs. naturally occurring cycles.

[hennomarais]

@thebestsumoeva I track two satellites as a hobby: Here you can read it for yourself: Go to Google and search for ijis iarc seaice extent - This is from the Japan space agency.

Then search for nsidc arctic sea ice news in Google to read satellite data from National Sea and Ice institute.

The ice loss this year was almost 40% below average

To confirm this data you can look at all the weather stations in the area on a daily basis to make sure they are telling you the truth.

[hennomarais]

I track two satellites as a hobby: Here you can read it for yourself:

Go to Google and search for ijis iarc seaice extent - This is from the Japan space agency.

Then search for nsidc arctic sea ice news in Google to read satellite data from National Sea and Ice institute.

The ice loss this year was almost 40% below average

To confirm this data you can look at all the weather stations in the area on a daily basis to make sure they are telling you the truth. I did this for a short while.