INTERVIEW-Climate science untarnished by hacked emails-IPCC ( From Nov 27 )

Reuters ^ | Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:38pm EST | Gerard Wynn

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See page 20 of the 25 page PDF for a marvelous Graphic representation of what the purpose of the careful modification of the climate data leads to...

[444Flyer]

[grey_whiskers]

"This private communication in no way damages the credibility of the AR4 findings," he told Reuters in an email exchange.

If the email is on public servers paid for with taxpayer dollars, they are not private.

An overt, explicit, inescapable, baldface LIE by the 2nd word.

It cannot damage the credibility, since they never had credibility to begin with.

Vermin.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent....thanks!

[bboop]

Ha, untarnished in their own eyes, perhaps.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Making the link to the

The Missing Hotspot ...more easily available:

*****************************EXCERPT*********************************

The ‘Hotspot’ is crucial to the climate debate.

If greenhouses gases are warming the planet that warming will happen first in the cold blob of air 8-12 km above the tropics. It’s freezing cold up there, but it ought to be slightly less freezing cold thanks to greenhouse gases. All 20-odd climate models predict warming there first—it’s the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming, as opposed to warming by some other cause, like solar magnetic effects, volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, or ozone depletion etc etc.

Look at A above, the greenhouse gas fingerprint is markedly different from the rest and dominates the overall predicted pattern in graph F. The big problem for the believers of AGW is that years of radiosonde measurements can’t find any warming, as shown in part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116 of the US CCSP 2006 report

SOURCES:

(A) Predicted changes 1958-1999. Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP, Chapter 1, p 25, based on Santer et al. 2000;
(B) Hadley Radiosonde record: Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP,, Chapter 5, p116, recorded change/decade, Hadley Centre weather balloons 1979-1999, p. 116 , fig. 5.7E, from Thorne et al., 2005.

Is there any way the missing hot-spot doesn’t fatally kill the greenhouse theory?

Perhaps we’re looking in the wrong spot and the hot-spot is lurking somewhere else?

If we are, that gets us right back to square one. The theory of greenhouse gas warming depends on finding a hotter spot of air above the equator… if that hot spot is somewhere else, the greenhouse theory itself collapses in a heap. It means either the greenhouse effect is not causing much of the recent warming, or the greenhouse theory is just plain wrong. AGW supporters are not asking this question because they can’t win either way.

Possibly we just can’t measure the air temperatures accurately enough to find the hot-spot?

Maybe, but we’ve been recording temperatures up there repeatedly for decades, and it’s not that the hot-spot is weak—it’s absent. There is no sign at all.

AGW says: Santer and Sherwood have found the missing hot spot.

Skeptics say: Santer uses statistics to show that the hot spot might be hidden under the noise. He hasn’t found any sign of warming–just the sign of fog in the results. Sherwood ignores the thermometers altogether and uses wind gauges to tell us the temperature. (Who’d a thought?!)

On my blog there’s more answers to the claims that the hot spot is not missing here.

See all posts tagged “Missing Hot Spot”

The bottom line is that either the thermometers are wrong or the theory is.

On David Evans site there’s a full definitive explanation of the missing hot spot and all the common attempts to rebut it on one pdf here (25 pages). If you can’t open it in Mozilla try Explorer.

The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.

[grey_whiskers]

Try reading Science Made Stupid (1986 Hugo Award Winner for Science Fiction).

Excerpt:

Introduction

Since the dawn of time, man has looked to the heavens and wondered: where did the stars come from? He has looked at the great diversity of plants and animals around him and wondered: where did life come from? He has looked at himself and wondered: where did I come from?
Later, he began to ask more complicated questions. He looked in his wallet and asked: where did my paycheck go? Am I on the right bus? Who do you like in the series?
To the former questions, at least, science has provided answers.

What is Science?

Put most simply, science is a way of dealing with the world around us. It is a way of baffling the uninitiated with incomprehensible jargon. It is a way of obtaining fat government grants. It is a way of achieving mastery over the physical world by threatening it with destruction.
Science represents mankind's deepest aspirations - aspirations to power, to wealth, to the satisfaction of sheer animal lusts.
The cornerstone of modern science is the scientific method. Scientists first formulate hypotheses, or predictions, about nature. Then they perform experiments to test their hypotheses.
There are two forms of scientific method, the inductive and the deductive.

Science for Everyone

Sound simple? It is.
Once, when the secrets of science were the jealously guarded property of a small priesthood, the common man had no hope of mastering their arcane complexities. Years of study in musty classrooms were prerequisite to obtaining even a dim, incoherent knowledge of science.
Today, all that has changed: a dim, incoherent knowledge of science is available to anyone. Popular science books, magazines and computer programs - with their simple, fatuous and misleading prose, their garish illustrations, their flimsy modern production values - have brought science within the reach of anyone who can afford their inflated prices or who can mooch off someone else.
Indeed, today a myriad of sources are available to explain science facts that science itself has never dreamed of.
This web site is one of them. Cheers!

[dila813]

**”Delete all emails related to AR4”**

Hmm, sounded pretty bad to me

I think we need a graphic of the AR4 Report as toilet paper.

[grey_whiskers]

Sorry, left you off the first time.

*PING* to post #27 this thread.

Cheers!

[jd777]

Its only a flesh wound!

[PapaBear3625]

Pachauri said a laborious selection process, using only articles approved by other scientists, called peer review, and then subsequently approving these by committee had prevented distortion.

Unmentioned is that the emails showed that the fraudulent scientists CONTROLLED the peer review process. THEY WERE THE PEERS REVIEWING EACH OTHER.

[ronnie raygun]

Arrest!Prosecute! Imprison! That is what we do to frauds and extortionists in America.

Only we need to remember this and live up to it when we take thess cretans we have now in Amercia and do the same in the not to dostant future.

Ill second this motion!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent!

Thanks for adding.

[drinktheobamakoolaid]

I just have one question. Does this mean we can go back to using incandescent light bulbs?

[AtlasThugged316]

The “people” will buy this hook, line and sinker...
because the “people” are too busy twittering.

What are WE going to do about?

The time for talk is over.

[grey_whiskers]

Thanks to dr_lew for doing the photoshop.

Cheers!

[Marine_Uncle]

The cover ups begins. With no surprise. I would be very surprise if the conglomerate of world news agencies actually where to treat this breach of trust as the tremendous criminal hoax it really is. Other then a few countries, of course the UK, Australia, and Zealand formost, we seem to see practically nothing coming out of the rest of the world.
Looks like LOCK DOWN MODE is eminent. Keep 98% of the world population in the dark on this very long term criminal scam.

[Just mythoughts]

These people work for the purposes of the IPCC in formulating an UN controlled global economy building a tax base to spread the wealth internationally.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.htm

[American Constitutionalist]

Global Warming, Falling in the same foot steps of Jim Jones JonesTown.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

IPCC honoured with the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

Tells you a GREAT DEAL about the intent of the Nobel Committee awarding the Peace Prize.