Climategate - CRU Source Code Confirms AGW Fraud From Hacked

You Tube ^ | Today | suedeslounge

[dila813]

Let me bake this down for everyone.

In other words, the temperature proxy didn't match the real temperature record after 1960. The temperature proxy is the very basis for climate models using the CRU data.

If the proxy is crap, the model is too that it is based on.

Other models may be correct but their methods aren't exposed here. Also, we should note, they don't show the end of the world predictions that the CRU data shows.

So were they hyping it? You betcha!

[dila813]

This is a VLOG Post

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[dila813]

This is the score on human induced climate, “if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit!”

They are doing everything to make the glove fit.

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx. I’m listening now.

[steelyourfaith]

Your efforts are much appreciated.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

[Star Traveler]

The article was saying ...

In other words, the temperature proxy didn't match the real temperature record after 1960. The temperature proxy is the very basis for climate models using the CRU data.

This video explains it all. It's the best one around...

---

It’s one thing to gripe and complain about these things and disagree with it, but it’s quite another to convince your friends and neighbors and relatives and coworkers...

THEREFORE..., it’s also absolutely necessary for people to know the information in the following documentary. If there were simply one video that you could see and/or show people you know... this would be the one...

---

The following is an excellent video documentary on the so-called “Global Warming” I would recommend it to all FReepers. It’s a very well-made documentary.

“The Great Global Warming Swindle”

If you want to download it, via a BitTorrent site (using a BitTorrent client), you can get it at the following link. Information about BitTorrent protocol and BitTorrent clients and their comparison at these three links (in this sentence). Some additional BitTorrent information here and here.

Download it here...
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
[This is a high-quality copy, of about a gigabyte in size. This link is the information about it, and you have to click the download link to get it on your BitTorrent client software. You'll also find users' comments here, too.]

It’s worth seeing and having for relatives, friends, neighbors and coworkers to see.

Also, see it online here...
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php
[this one is considerably lower quality, is a flash video and viewable online, of course..., and also, you can download flash video on a website either yourself or some software doing it.]

Buy it on DVD here...
[this would be the very highest quality version, on a DVD disk, of several gigabytes in size...] At Amazon, it seems to be high-priced now and have only a few copies right now.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000WLUXZE

At WAGtv (a UK shop), but don't know about shipping. The price is reasonable, though.
https://www.wagtv.com/product/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-322.html
[And..., some information from WAGtv about this item.]

---

Also, in split parts on YouTube...

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 1 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 2 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5rGpDMN8lw

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 3 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFL6Ixe_bo

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 4 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNQy2rT_dvU

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 5 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzIMXGI6k8

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 6 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GjOgQN1Jco

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 7 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHI2GfbfrYw

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 8 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N9benJh3Lw

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Credits (Part 9 of 9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_1ifP-ri58

[hyperconservative]

Long story short: I'm here: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=455 and here's what I'm reading: At 15:44 20/12/2004, Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi all I have received comments on this from Albert, David, Dave, and Jim. Some below. As I commented to Jim, the choice of a base period affects the zero line. In some of our plots, namely the ones that have series of bars from the zero line to the anomaly value, thereby infilling between the anomaly and the zero, the zero base value is greatly emphasized. This is in contrast to a simple time series with points joined, especially if the zero line is not also drawn. In the latter case, it is simple to move the axis up or down to fit with the new base period. But it makes a bigger difference to the bar plots. Now maybe that is a comment on the use and utility of bar plots, because the relative values do not change. The choice also affects any anomaly plots for any subperiod. But this is where the comparison with models is most likely to occur. In this case there is a spatial pattern to the offset, namely the difference between means for 1961-90 and 1981-2000. We could also derive that difference for certain fields and provide it to modelers to enable comparisons with our plots. For trends over certain subperiod, this makes no difference. It seems that whatever we do, we will need an extra appendix explaining some of this and perhaps even giving plots of these differences. In the meantime, let me suggest to those of you making computations, that you consider doing it both ways, rather than having to go back and do it over later. Regards Kevin I agree with Albert, this would make comparisons with the TAR figures difficult. Dave Klein Tank, Albert wrote: Hi Kevin, My immediate response is that the choice for another base period will probably not affect our assessment of results, but it will change all figures w.r.t the TAR. This will be difficult to communicate and will take much more space to explain. Albert. --- Original Message ---- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: "Model Mean Climate" for AR4] Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:06:44 +0000 From: Parker, David (Met Office) [1] To: Kevin Trenberth [2] References: [3]<41C34CDA.3060304@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Kevin It is obviously possible to use 1980-2000 though it would require some data-processing work. The main objection is that anomalies (of temperature) would appear to be reduced relative to previous publications and readers/policymakers could become confused. A minor objection is that 1980-2000 is a bit short. Satellite data are of course in its favour. In due course, 1981-2010 will be ideal! Regards David " end quote Happy hunting, everyone!!! LOL! Sorry for the crappy formatting, not my intention.

[Star Traveler]

I think people will find the video easier... :-)

[hyperconservative]

Oh, me, too!! :)

But knowing that “Model Mean Climate” for AR4” is a keyword of value may help individuals searching the emails.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

[dila813]

Thats for the tip on the gman!

[Little Ray]

Sure. And they’re going to end the Drug War soon, too.

Like the Drug War (which actually has some valid reasons behind it) too many people are invested in “Anthropogenic Global Warming” to let it go. This incident isn’t going anywhere except into the footnotes of some historian who will probably describe it as an “Age of Madness.”

[hyperconservative]

Sure, sounds fun.

Obviously, individuals who are computer-science proficient ought to stick with what they know(the source code). Likewise, we fans of English ought to stick with the emails.

Share relevant finds and do so with a smile on face.

Cheers!