(Graphic: McAdam)
The fraud that is “Global Warming” has been exposed by a smoking gun that even the leftist mainstream media cannot ignore. One of the major climate change advocacy centers recently had their email systems hacked and had their internal emails posted online. The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been caught red-handed discussing techniques to generate fraudulent data. The New York Times quietly reported: "Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach."
The left-wing position on global warming is based upon on an appeal to authority: the “consensus” among climate scientists that global warming is real, dangerous and man-caused (anthropogenic global warming, or, AGW). Obviously, if this "consensus" is based upon the intentional suppression of alternative hypotheses, it is, quite clearly, a fraudulent one.
A 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160 megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents, has been confirmed as genuine by the head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones.
(Chart: lenzie.org.uk)
In an exclusive interview with Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition, Jones confirmed his organization had been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to have come from his organization. “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
One of the best examples of the e-mails published comes from Dr. Jones himself. In an e-mail from almost exactly ten years ago, Jones appears to discuss a method of overlaying data of temperature declines with repetitive, false data of higher temperatures:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[redacted], mhughes@[redacted]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[redacted],t.osborn@[redacted]Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Did you catch that? Phil is using the “nature trick” to “hide the decline.” These are not rocket scientists. They’re B.S. artists. Here’s another sample:
From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
Global warming appears to have stopped, about ten years ago. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents. They are in a panic to find statistical data to substantiate their loony AGW theories; and they are apparently not loathe to making stuff up.
(Lampoon: The People's Cube.com)
This is a scientific scandal of the first order. The integrity of the climate scientists involved in defending the AGW theory is certainly in question. With the carbon tax “Cap and Trade” bill pending in congress, and the Copenhagen meeting just around the corner, it seems that only a fool would proceed with economy-destroying legislation which is based upon “scientific” projections that have now been proved to be fraudulent.
Author James Delingpole, writing in The London Telegraph, observes that the most damaging revelations indicate climate-change scientists may have "manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause." He argues that the world "is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore's Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called 'skeptical' view is now also the majority view."
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has urged members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of nearly 32,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or nothing to do with any "global warming." The Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered, has steadily grown without any special effort or campaign. "Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas," Paul said. "They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters."
(Order from zazzle.com)
The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
An editorial in today’s Washington Times sums all this up pretty well:
Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.
We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud.
Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.
Will this be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming? Don’t bet on it. With the Copenhagen conference coming up, we should expect to see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories on AGW in the mainstream media. And look for polar bears falling from the skies…
Watch the video: Hide the decline…
And, here’s something for the kids…
The Global Warming Junk Science Book to empower children.
Watch the video: Global warming makes polar bears fall from the sky!
.gif)
TWO FOR ONE SPECIAL: Would you like Louisville Public Policy Examiner and Louisville City Hall Examiner articles delivered fresh to your inbox each day? Simply CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO LOUISVILLE PUBLIC POLICY EXAMINER and CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO LOUISVILLE CITY HALL EXAMINER. It’s totally FREE, and no salesman will call. Your email address will not be shared with anyone. Ever. And you won’t have to worry about those pesky little plastic bags on your front porch. And remember, all Examiner articles are made from 100% recycled electrons.
Alternatively, you can click on the images below:
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
The hacking was bunch of BS timed carefully as part of the oil & gas propaganda engine. Read the emails from the hacking. They've been taken way out of context. Science is still science, no matter how much they want to drag this into a debate.
LOL JimC reminds me of religious folks saying we'll be sorry when we're burning in hell.
What part of fraud don't you understand, JimC?
For every scientist that claims Global Warming, there are many more that can refute the theories. Everyone seems to forget that the Sun does provide us heat and on occasion will provide a little more radiation that will raise our temperatures slightly over time. Let us not jump on the Global Warming Band Wagon. Yes, we do need to try to reduce pollution, but the Copenhagen conference will require the US to pay Billions of Dollars to other countries while promising to reduce our Carbon Footprint. Let us stop following blindly with the Politics of both parties. Let us truly look at the data and slowly start making changes necessary to help clean the air. Remember, every time you breathe, you are contributing to the CO2 emissions so maybe you need to slow down your breathing to protect the environment. Plant some more trees, they thrive on CO2.
Sorry pal. Fraud? You have no freaking idea how science is done. Now we're going to have the ridiculous spectacle of Jimmy Inhofe (who is as deeply in the pocket of the petroleum industry as any member of Congress except John Cornyn of Texas) lecturing scientists about the ethics of decision making? I don't think so.
Prove that you have data that disputes the scientific community that has been investigating the climate warming theory; If you have data that proves otherwise then you may be believed otherwise you belong to the fossil fuel community that wants their profits to stay where they are. Showing the data of one community of researchers without showing the contrary data means nothing. Pseudoscience has existed in every field when someone disputes findings that are damaging to their positions, remember the cigarette companies? Also if the climate is warming rapidly and temperature over time is increasing beyond usual limits, then are we all going to die off because the planet can't produce food or sustain life?
The emails are available at wikileaks.org. Weather they are presented out of context or not is a matter of opinion. When this kind of he said she said news comes out it becomes a matter of spin. Take the time and read the emails and then make a decision for yourself.
You want real science against Global Warming, then go to Michael Chriton's website and read some of the research and presentations he has done. Global Warming is and always has been a fraud. Since warming has stopped, the proper term that the enviro community uses now is "Climate Change". What a bunch of BS. Hopefully the revelation of these Frauds will put a damper on cap and trade discussions. They should go to Jail, not just lose their jobs.
Thanks for publishing this, Thomas. I'm sending it out over Twitter,
Facebook, FriendFeed and Stumble.
Bob Diamond Charlotte Christianity Examiner
The USA will be Driving Electric cars, Taking trips of greater than 100 miles on Electric Trains, and heating/cooling our homes with Electric power all produced via Nuclear energy within the next 50 years.If this is the only 'real truth' then it will be done for the typical American commercial reasons, Google Nissan "leaf". Problem solved, I do believe that the CRU emails show huge Socialist fraud.
Anyone interested in the subject should also read Prof. Henrik Svensmark (Physicist at Danish National Space Center) book entitled "The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change".
Svensmark found in his research that the proximity of the sun to Milky Way Galaxy spiral arms or crossing the galactic plane causes a decrease in solar sunspot & flare activity as the sun contacts a higher density of magnetic field and cosmic ray particles present in this area. Solar modeling has advanced tremendously over the past 30 years, but we still have great gaps in our understanding of how the earth mantle "dynamo" and volcanic activity at tectonic plate edges in the oceans and on land ebb and flow by inductive coupling with the solar plasma wind. The mass quantities of protons and neutrons that impact the planet's atomsphere, ocean and soil and generate daughter and deay particles that transfer energy too. Given solar flare activity of the last 150 years, what has been the warming trend?
The initial "science" of global warming was based on computer models of future climate predictions. I think there is too much observer bias and attribution errors on both sides of the debate to make the science credible. Besides, if your theory can stand the scrutiny of skeptics, why hide data? There is no theory which is "settled" as the pro climate change people argue. Rational scientists know that you don't dismiss significant anomolies in data. I've read that global temps have been declining since 2000. So, now we have "climate change" instead of "global warming." I, as a taxpayer, need the science to be beyond reproach if I am being asked to pay for "climate change" policies.
I am willing to pay for a clean environment, with minimal pollution, but don't insult my intelligence with speculative theories about global climate problems. Give me better science.
JimC, et al...
First of all, hacked emails are not the point. The actual climate model program code irrefutably contains fraudulent "fudge factors" and "artificial corrections" which have irreparably tainted the data calculated from that model.
What needs to be done is to start over, subject their climate model to the scrutiny of a formal, objective design review making the methodology, code, and input data available to the public - BEFORE trillions of dollars are spent on the basis of a scientific house-of-cards.
I fully support a gradual paradigm shift from an oil-based economy to cleaner and more renewable energy sources not only to benefit the environment but to reduce economic risk from exposure to the whims of foreign governments.
But before we tear down the house to repair a presumed plumbing leak, let's take the time to find out why there is a puddle of water on the kitchen floor in the first place. The empty water bottle lying on its side nearby might also hold c
Does anyone have links to the relevant papers that were the result of these edits? I'd like to see them. Not the emails that discuss the changes, but the actual papers that implemented them.
If this was fragmented evidence during a political scandal it would be front page news and resignations. These "scientists" are part of the group which has produced the "Bible" for global warming coming out of UN. I worked in the scientific community for 15 years and know that even a slight variation in a complex model can throw the theories into a tailspin. Unfortunately, I also experienced 1st hand that science can be very political. Let's stop wit the "taken out of context" jiberish wich every defense laywer saya about their guilty client and get the facts through a public hearing before we spend 1 dollar on "Decapitate and Trade"
This is a dumb article and this whole topic of hacked emails that appear to try to cover up global warming 'pitfalls' is the most ridiculous attempt to raise skepticism. First, raw temperature data is available to ANYONE - anyone can look at the data and make their own conclusions, not just a few people in a 'climate center' who apparently determine temperature trends (google temperature data and download some data from a State run climate center... not hard). It also appears to me that the graph used to 'trick' and 'hide' trends looks like a first draft and it alone contains too many issues for me to comment on in this post alone. This to me raises my skepticism about whether this climate center has any credibility, or whether these emails are from junior scientists who's emails and opinions really should not be shared with the general public because they sound and look like C students to me. PLEASE visit ipcc.ch for climate change information - at least it is credible.
The sad truth is that most "science" has been corrupted by politics/money. You don't get funded for finding the wrong answer, whether the question is "Does our new pill cure X?" Why, of course it does! If the price is right. Religion was likewise corrupted long ago. While I had hoped that science could remain objective, what were the odds? Scientists are people. People are influenced by power and money. Easily influenced. Don't believe anything you read, no matter what the source. Find out for yourself.
This is all a smokescreen. If climate change is really a fraud, are you saying the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Amtospheric Administration, the National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, and many other consensus agencies in the US have it all wrong? Even our own Department of Defense is showing increased concern about the very real implications that climate change may have on the stability of foreign governments. Yes, you can find some scientists here and there who do not fully buy into the science of climate change, but I can also find scientists who believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that aircraft didn't bring down the World Trade Center, and so on. This "news" has not changed the long-term temperature trend or any of the other observations that provide evidence of a warming climate.
Anyone who ever believed Global Warming was real is a fool. Look back in the 70's when 'they' told us about global cooling. Do your own homework before you say your piece. 90% of you look like total idiots.
I remember taking a seminar in grad school in the early 1970's on human population control - I got so depressed reading the dire predictions of global famine and disaster that I almost dropped out of school to retreat to a remote location to grow my own food and prepare for the coming chaos. Needless to say, it didn't happen. I think the default mind set for a lot of people is that we are always heading into a decline or disaster, kind of like the end times preoccupation of some Christian sects. At the same time, the global warming folks do have some credible data showing an increase in global temperatures over a fairly long time period, and a mechanism that explains how increases in certain atmospheric gases can raise average temperatures, so maybe the prudent thing to do is to have a reasoned debate about the science, something that both sides of the debate seem incapable of doing at present.
JohnW, You just said the KEY thing here. Global warming is based on "consensus" and NOT on real data. Consensus science is not science at all. The UN is using bad data and the ipcc is using bad data. When the scientific community lacks FACTS and DATA to support their theories, they use "consensus".Look into the past 100 years when you see "consensus " opinion being used as the justification for anything, and it has later turned out to be incorrect.
The author obviously doesn't know the first thing about data and the decisions that must be made to analyze and present it in a scientific (hopefully objective) manner. Thus this article wins the "misleading" prize rather than the e-mails -- a fraud perpetuated from utter ignorance.
Go read the verbiage of the Copenhagen Agreement if you want to know why they are lying to everyone about Global Warming.
I'm stunned at your denial that global warming is a fact and that so many people share this belief. Especially stunned that your bio says you are an attorney, which would indicate you are and educated person. What a waste of brains.
It's attitudes like yours that keep us from making real changes, from being the leader that we should be in finding the solution, considering the fact that we are the planet's No. 1 polluter.
It’s not convenient to change our lifestyles, and it is challenging to be innovative, however, it’s easy to be a nay-sayer, to cling to antiquated beliefs and to exist as an obstacle to progress. I don’t want to politicize this debate, but it reminds me so much of a once relevant political party that has since reduced itself to a group of stones in the road.
We were once a leader in innovation, but now the future of our children’s and grandchildren’s planet lies in the hands of other nations who embrace science and take action. How shameful. And sad.
And btw
Nothing was fabricated here. What seems to have happened is they were trying to create a chart of temperature patterns based on tree samples. For whatever reason the trees seem to indicate the temperature was dropping while man-made instruments clearly indicated they were rising. In order to prevent the graph from becoming totally inaccurate they decided to replace the bit where the tree data deviated with the real, measured temperatures. That's what was meant by "hide the decline".
Is that misleading? Well, I guess, assuming you're the guy who looked at the final graph and it was imperative all the data came from a tree. But I'm not sure why that matters. Nothing was made up or hidden. False temperature data from an imperfect measuring device (trees) was substituted with more accurate, REAL data taken from human instruments, all of which is publicly accessible.
By pretending otherwise (or failing to even check for yourself in the first place) you only make yourself look stupid.
And btw, I hope the people in Iceland (and other places where science is valued) can fix this for us before every person in China buys one of our titanic Cadillacs.
For every scientist that claims Global Warming, there are many more that can refute the theories. Everyone seems to forget that the Sun does provide us heat and on occasion will provide a little more radiation that will raise our temperatures slightly over time. Let us not jump on the Global Warming Band Wagon. Yes, we do need to try to reduce pollution, but the Copenhagen conference will require the US to pay Billions of Dollars to other countries while promising to reduce our Carbon Footprint. Let us stop following blindly with the Politics of both parties. Let us truly look at the data and slowly start making changes necessary to help clean the air. Remember, every time you breathe, you are contributing to the CO2 emissions so maybe you need to slow down your breathing to protect the environment. Plant some more trees, they thrive on CO2.
Is that it? Really? That's your "proof?" You read those few sentences out of context, and you see "proof" of a global conspiracy? Thomas McAdam clearly doesn't understand how to form a rational claim based on evidence, yet feels qualified to dismiss the rational conclusions reached by the vast body of the scientific community. If those passages are the only evidence you have for your claims of "fraud," then you should revisit the definition of "skeptic," and see how it applies to your own hypothesis. Thomas McAdam is pushing a political agenda using bunk logic. And then he has the gall to falsely accuse others of the exact same behavior.
It is all a ploy to make money! Of course!
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk!
That's An Inconvenient Truth
We try to have a discussion of what is fact, what is fiction and what is fabricated. As you can tell the proponents for Global Warming resort to a lot of name calling which is typical when you do not have knowledge of how things work. I remember the '70's. I was in college then. I thought by now that we would be in the next Ice Age and not worried about the world heading back to the Prehistoric days when things were a little bit warmer. Let us make sure before we give away all we work for to politicians to do with as they please and not resolve anything. The earth's temperatures have fluctuated throughout its life from hot to cold to hot and back. Let us make sure that the people who are making the claims are pure scientists and not working on grants from a government.
To Bob Diamond: Thanks for the referrals. You've made my day! --Louisville Public Policy Examiner
It's so easy how people will believe Al Gore.
If these emails were about the proof of global warming, then you people would be so all over it. You would probably give the center an award just to make it seem even more legit.
People who don't believe in anything, will believe anything from anyone.
On my Firefox portal I use Google to filter my news. I have set up a separate tab to show "Global Warming" news. This Examiner.com site has been clogging that tab for years with their contrarian spin. Like many in the contrarian camp, they seem more motivated by animus toward Al Gore (note the graphics in this article) than in trying to understand the science. The fact that Gore is a blowhard is irrelevant to the science (on either "side") of global warming.
These emails were illegally hacked from a single institution, and are now being used as "proof" of academic fraud on a worldwide scale. Give me a break! When this site gives us breaking news on the contents of the emails from the spin-meisters at Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, I'll take it more seriously. Until then, I'll look for news from credible sources.
On my Firefox portal I use Google to filter my news. I have set up a separate tab to show "Global Warming" news. This Examiner.com site has been clogging that tab for years with their contrarian spin. Like many in the contrarian camp, they seem more motivated by animus toward Al Gore (note the graphics in this article) than in trying to understand the science. The fact that Gore is a blowhard is irrelevant to the science (on either "side") of global warming.
These emails were illegally hacked from a single institution, and are now being used as "proof" of academic fraud on a worldwide scale. Give me a break! When this site gives us breaking news on the contents of the emails from the spin-meisters at Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, I'll take it more seriously. Until then, I'll look for news from credible sources.
It's so easy how people will believe Al Gore.
If these emails were about the proof of global warming, then you people would be so all over it. You would probably give the center an award just to make it seem even more legit.
People who don't believe in anything, will believe anything from anyone.
Hey Phil,
How much do you really care about the earth? Get a Life and get a job while your at it...
You too can be the next Al Gore.
Don't say you don't like Al, you have Al Gore envy.
Hey while your at it. Use your FF browser to find a negative story from nbc news (a GE company) or CBS.
That should keep you busy.
LOL
On my Firefox portal I use Google to filter my news. I have set up a separate tab to show "Global Warming" news. This Examiner.com site has been clogging that tab for years with their contrarian spin. Like many in the contrarian camp, they seem more motivated by animus toward Al Gore (note the graphics in this article) than in trying to understand the science. The fact that Gore is a blowhard is irrelevant to the science (on either "side") of global warming.
These emails were illegally hacked from a single institution, and are now being used as "proof" of academic fraud on a worldwide scale. Give me a break! When this site gives us breaking news on the contents of the emails from the spin-meisters at Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, I'll take it more seriously. Until then, I'll look for news from credible sources.
The greenies wonder why nobody believes them...I wonder why? Perchance becasue they proclaim CO2 disaster and then in the next breath of CO2 take nukes off the table. Then they prevade building "renewable energy" concepts that are multiple of the size of Texas. Biofuels from algae are advocated that will flood more of the planet with seawater than if we simply let the ice caps melt. Somehow this is supposed to save the planet. Small wonder that when any ambguous data shows up, nobody knows what to believe. The greenies have blatently exploited fears of radiation health effects. You get more than a rem per million frequent flyer miles...no leukemia. Background radiation varies by a factor of 100, and yet there is no regional variation of leukemia. Owning a basement does not seem to increase the risk of lung cancer in never smokers from radon. Perhaps the greenies should act if they really wanted to save the planet instead of their obvious agenda to trash capitalism.
First of all, sorry for the multiple posts... operator error!
Secondly, to Rick,
Calm down man! To take your points in the order you posted them:
"It's so easy how people will believe Al Gore." [My point was the converse, some people think that whatever Al Gore says must be wrong. As I said, Al Gore is a blowhard. People should drop him from consideration, and draw their own conclusions.]
"If these emails were about the proof of global warming, then you people would be so all over it. You would probably give the center an award just to make it seem even more legit." [Who do you mean by "You People?" My views are my own, and not 100% aligned with anyone else's.]
"People who don't believe in anything, will believe anything from anyone." [Huh?]
"How much do you really care about the earth?"[Tons.] "Get a Life"[CHECK] "and a job"[CHECK]
"You too can be the next Al Gore." [as I said, an irrelevant blowhard].
"find a negative story from nbc or CBS." [TV News = Oxymo
Can you please point me to this "leftist mainstream media"? I'd like to take a look at it.
All I can find is CNN, FNC, CBS, NBC, and ABC, with their corporate doublespeak.
What's that? NPR and PBS? Oh, my goodness. My sides are splitting with mirth at the notion of "on one and and the other hand" split the difference right down the middle, don't offend anyone, especially the big donors like Exxon, Cargill, and Archer Daniels Midland (price fixer to the world) "journalism" might actually be "leftist".
Like I said, please direct me to the leftist mainstream media. I could use a refresher.
Hey John W.
All the agencies and bodies you quoted got there information from corrupt scientists.
New Zealand's raw data shows no warming, only the cooked data shows warming
Time to start over and re-examine the raw data, that's if it hasn't been wiped clean
I'm glad the scientific community isn't as confused as the right wing radicals are on the subject.
If you read the programmers comments, it's obvious he wasn't happy or comfortable with all the fudge factors he was asked to put in. Wouldn't be surprised if it was a programmer that blew the whistle and exposed the fraud.
Just wait, the media attention is at a trickle right now but the erosion has started and soon the dike will let go. The AGW gig is up.
Time to let some real scientists take over. Mr Hansen your days are numbered to.
sun spots sun spots is the reason for all the temp rise and falls , its stairing us in the face every day you get up please read the facts and start to listen .our children will laugh at us in years to come THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING HAS STARTED O AND FINISHED
Hilarious stuff..finally I think we can banish global warming hysteria to the same chapter in our history books as blood letting and bobbing for witches..Cheers
This is a lot of "I told you so!" and self-congratulations off of an incredibly tiny amount of ambiguous material. For instance, the second email, in which the author of this article states that the scientists were concerned with a decline in global temperatures over the last ten years. All I could find that was even close to saying that was this: The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
What this appears to be saying is that solar fluctuations could not have caused a temp increase in 1940, as the scientist stated in 1987. The author of this article (who certainly has some kind of agenda) is biased. Not a reporter.
THERE IS NO DENYING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. DR AL GORE HAS EXPLAINED IT REPEATEDLY BY CHAPTER AND VERSE BEFORE THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS, AND I SAW HIS MOVIE.
CA GIRL
LUCY LIB,
DIRECTOR OF OBAMA YOUTH GLOBAL WARMING INSTITUTE
Hey while your at it. Use your FF browser to find a negative story from nbc news (a GE company) or CBS.
That should keep you busy.
LOL
It is not an issue of whether or not it is real................observe your friends, your enemies, go for a walk around your city, breath in the truth...............take a stroll through the aisles, read the box, listen to your surroundings, I urge you to breath in with your eyes closed, observe what you feel..........now leave your city and find something that resembles nature or may in fact be nature, repeat the steps and come to a conclusion of what needs to be done, go back to your city, use strategy, pace is of importance, let earth guide you, ignore media, people with the potential to change your city are not readily observable, if you want to find them it will take work, if you need help put a posting on sanfrancico's craiglist..............dot organization under ride share, put wanted "Ride Home" with contact info..........I also encourage people to read a book called forza de terra, english of course written by the same last name as the inventor of the schematic for DNA
All hail Obama! He ended global warming/climate change while not even trying!
He's the messiah I tells ya!
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!