Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? (LIFTOFF!!)

Holy Sh*t! Is That algore betraying our country and playing on our fears?

Politically-driven science busted ping.

Just a reminder: This Hoax is about power and money....not protecting the planet.

“”...there will be no peace in the tormented world, only a programmed and systematic series of wars and calamities- until the plotters have gained their objective: an exhausted world willing to submit to a planned Marxist economy and total and meek enslavement- in the name of peace.”

Taylor Caldwell 1976

bump

I have no problems with alternative energy. If someone wants to promote it, that’s fine. I frankly would love to be able to power our home with photovoltaic energy, and heat it with hot water provided by passive or active solar heating. Just don’t force it through government edict, using the false premise that the use of fossil fuels is going to kill the planet, or humanity.

I hope you're right-If AGW does, die here's what may happen : AGW will be allowed to quietly fade from the news media, government leaders and officials will just quit talking about it, "summits" on it will become fewer and fewer....No one will ever come out and admit it's all BS , and the True Believers will keep on feeling holier than thou over their acceptance of the theory, but for all intents and purposes it'll fade away like phrenology. Let us hope so!

Yeah, I do remember MB : He's the rocket scientist who thought Americans killed wild game and fought off hostile indians with their bare hands, because wills hardly ever mentioned guns being bequeathed. This proves there *were* no guns in the American colonies, or in the early United States, prior to the civil war. Just as today's wills rarely mentioning microwaves, cell phones, computers, and MP3 players shows hardly anyone owns those, either.

Calling AlGore, I see tar and feathers in your future.

From: Keith Briffa To: Tim Osborn ,Clare Goodess , Phil Jones ,"Douglas Maraun" , "Janice Darch" Subject: Re: potential DfID funding for climate centre Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:33:01 +0100 have not been approached - but I think it really does sound like the sort of initiative CRU/ENV are looking for. I get the feeling this is the sort of potential contact ENV would wish to take over. Keith At 11:31 13/10/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: >Hi CRU Board, > >I just had an interesting chat with Jack Newnham >from the International Development Team at Price >Waterhouse Cooper. They get lots of DfID >(Douglas: DfID is the UK Government Department >for International Development) funding. > >They've heard that DfID are likely to call for >expressions of interest for a new centre >focussing on international climate >change. Their idea is to fund a centre that >would be the first point of call for advice and >for commissioning research related to climate >change and development or to climate change in countries where DfID operate. > >He was talking about £15 million per year for 5 >years! Not sure how much would be from DfID and >how much raised from other donors (and hence >uncertain), nor how much would be given up-front >versus how much spent later on specific research >projects organised via this centre. > >Nevertheless, sounds big enough to be worth getting involved in. > >He was clearly just testing the water with us, >so not sure that they definitely wish to involve >us. He may want to meet to talk through things, >if they decide to ask us to join their >proposal. He said he'd email me later -- I'll >forward this when it arrives. They're also >contacting the Tyndall Centre, and no doubt a number of other institutes. > >Has anyone else in CRU been approached? > >Presumably, if this call for tenders is actually >issued, this is likely to interest Tyndall >greatly. But CRU can offer a significant >contribution -- especially data and scenarios >developed for specific (developing) countries -- >and this should be seen as independent from >Tyndall rather than part of Tyndall >contribution. There's also Declan/DEV, so UEA as a whole has much to offer. > >Any thoughts on this? > >Tim > > > > >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >Climatic Research Unit >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > >e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >phone: +44 1603 592089 >fax: +44 1603 507784 >web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Seems the climate 'scientists' were more interested in getting $ than actually doing science..........From: Keith Briffa To: Tim Osborn ,Clare Goodess , Phil Jones ,"Douglas Maraun" , "Janice Darch" Subject: Re: potential DfID funding for climate centre Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:33:01 +0100 have not been approached - but I think it really does sound like the sort of initiative CRU/ENV are looking for. I get the feeling this is the sort of potential contact ENV would wish to take over. Keith At 11:31 13/10/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: >Hi CRU Board, > >I just had an interesting chat with Jack Newnham >from the International Development Team at Price >Waterhouse Cooper. They get lots of DfID >(Douglas: DfID is the UK Government Department >for International Development) funding. > >They've heard that DfID are likely to call for >expressions of interest for a new centre >focussing on international climate >change. Their idea is to fund a centre that >would be the first point of call for advice and >for commissioning research related to climate >change and development or to climate change in countries where DfID operate. > >He was talking about £15 million per year for 5 >years! Not sure how much would be from DfID and >how much raised from other donors (and hence >uncertain), nor how much would be given up-front >versus how much spent later on specific research >projects organised via this centre. > >Nevertheless, sounds big enough to be worth getting involved in. > >He was clearly just testing the water with us, >so not sure that they definitely wish to involve >us. He may want to meet to talk through things, >if they decide to ask us to join their >proposal. He said he'd email me later -- I'll >forward this when it arrives. They're also >contacting the Tyndall Centre, and no doubt a number of other institutes. > >Has anyone else in CRU been approached? > >Presumably, if this call for tenders is actually >issued, this is likely to interest Tyndall >greatly. But CRU can offer a significant >contribution -- especially data and scenarios >developed for specific (developing) countries -- >and this should be seen as independent from >Tyndall rather than part of Tyndall >contribution. There's also Declan/DEV, so UEA as a whole has much to offer. > >Any thoughts on this? > >Tim > > > > >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >Climatic Research Unit >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > >e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >phone: +44 1603 592089 >fax: +44 1603 507784 >web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

With Bellesiles, the key point is not that his premise was flawed, but that his methodology for proving it was fraudulent:

“Questions of scholarly misconduct eventually became so clamorous that Emory University both conducted an internal inquiry and appointed an Investigative Committee of outside scholars. Both committees found serious flaws in Bellesiles’s work, with the external committee questioning both its quality and veracity.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles

>> but for all intents and purposes [global warming will] fade away like phrenology. Let us hope so!

Amen!

FRegards

Volunteer Slaves. And that is precisely what the AGW True Believers are : volunteer slaves who WANT to give up their money and their freedom to 'save the planet', because it would make them feel good about themselves. )

They will give up their money and freedoms only in exchange for you losing yours. Leftist envy is mostly about destroying what you have rather than obtaining it for themselves. Leftists are useful idiots for those that lust for power.

makes some difference as most of the missing areas are in the SH, and currently the NH
is warmer than the SH with respect to 1961-90. Our rationale for doing what we do is that
it is better to estimate the missing areas of the SH (which we do by tacitly assuming they
are the average of the rest of the SH) from the rest of the SH as opposed to the rest of
the world.

Bummer. Admin Mod took away your graphic of Algore “expressing himself”. Oh well, like the CRU data, I’m sure it’s somewhere out there on the Interwebz!

hil Jones To: santer1@llnl.gov Subject: Re: [Fwd: FOI Request] Date: Wed Nov 12 09:31:31 2008 Ben, Another point to discuss when you have your conference call - is why don't they ask Douglass for all his data. It is essentially the same. You can also think of all this positively - they think a few of us do really important work, so they concentrate on what they think are the cutting edge pieces of work. I have a big review on paleo coming out soon in The Holocene - with 20+ others. Won't be out till next year, but I can say for certain that it will feature strongly on CA. Not too much they can request via FOI, but they will think of something. This paper will explain where a Figure came from in the First IPCC Report - the infamous one that Chris Folland put together on the last 1000 yeas. CA will say they found this out - they had a thread on it 9 months ago according to Gavin. I have the submission date of the article and more detail though - to show we found out first. Cheers Phil At 03:57 12/11/2008, you wrote: Dear Tom, Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre's twin requests under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre's request (1), no "monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models" was "sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008". As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him yesterday, all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in the 2008 Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit. Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the very purpose of an audit. I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our calculation of synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data. Douglass et al. obtained "model average" trends in synthetic MSU temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that are virtually identical to our own. McIntyre's request (2) demands "any correspondence concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008". I do not know how you intend to respond this second request. You and three other NOAA co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John Lanzante) probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of our work on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December 2007, following online publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I have no idea why McIntyre's request for email correspondence has a "start date" of 2006, and thus predates publication of Douglass et al. My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre is pursuing a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away from research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed by further requests for computer programs, additional material and explanations, etc., etc. Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am unwilling to waste more of my time fulfilling the intrusive and frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr. McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect conclusions on the basis of that flawed test. I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming. I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my immediate superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in charge of our paper at IJoC). I'd be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I'm sorry that the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after today's events, I must assume that any email I write to you may be subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre's "ClimateAudit" website. With best personal wishes, Ben Thomas.R.Karl wrote: FYI --- Jolene can you set up a conference call with all the parties listed below including Ben. Thanks -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FOI Request Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:00 -0500 From: Steve McIntyre To: FOIA@noaa.gov CC: Thomas R Karl Nov. 10, 2008 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Public Reference Facility (OFA56) Attn: NOAA FOIA Officer 1315 East West Highway (SSMC3) Room 10730 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Re: Freedom of Information Act Request Dear NOAA FOIA Officer: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Santer et al, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, (Int J Climatology, 2008), of which NOAA employees J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl were co-authors, reported on a statistical analysis of the output of 47 runs of climate models that had been collated into monthly time series by Benjamin Santer and associates. I request that a copy of the following NOAA records be provided to me: (1) any monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008; (2) any correspondence concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008. The primary sources for NOAA records are J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl. In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining the applicability of any fees, you should know that I have 5 peer-reviewed publications on paleoclimate; that I was a reviewer for WG1; that I made a invited presentations in 2006 to the National Research Council Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two presentations to the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In addition, a previous FOI request was discussed by the NOAA Science Advisory Boards Data Archiving and Access Requirements Working Group (DAARWG). [1]http:// www. joss.ucar.edu/daarwg/may07/presentations/KarL_DAARWG_NOAAArchivepolify-v0514.pdf. I believe a fee waiver is appropriate since the purpose of the request is academic research, the information exists in digital format and the information should be easily located by the primary sources. I also include a telephone number (416-469-3034) at which I can be contacted between 9 and 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time, if necessary, to discuss any aspect of my request. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I ask that the FOI request be processed promptly as NOAA failed to send me a response to the FOI request referred to above, for which Dr Karl apologized as follows: due to a miscommunication between our office and our headquarters, the response was not submitted to you. I deeply apologize for this oversight, and we have taken measures to ensure this does not happen in the future.

This really is serious stuff. Of course, Michael Crichton, in a novel “State of Fear,” exposed how the pro-warming scientific community lied for years. To this date, it’s the only novel I’ve ever seen with a bibliography and source notes!!

I loved it. It really did open my eyes and let me see how "science" has become politicized.

One quote from an email titled “Fishers” - “The elevation corrected south GRIP Holocene has a very strong
negative delta trend in it and I expect there should be some correction done to the north GRIP record too,, eventually I think they should all come out looking like our records from Northern Canada. Now at least ice core records have some low frequencies to correct... not like your bloody trees that can not remember one century to the next”

This email outlines blatant changing of data in order to make it fit with the result they want. They admit the data they collected trends against the results they want but to ‘preserve their funding’ they need to “correct the data”.

Thanks for the busted warmist ping. But leftist politicans are still going to push for more power based on these lies.

This is the best article on this scandal so far.