Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

If anything maybe this email from this year in this whole Climategate thing can help about the concerns regarding "where's is that global warming?"


From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
Kevin
Click to expand...
East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

From the very words of a "scientist" who cannot explain why the trend isn't behaving in line with the increasing CO2 concentration.
 
Once again, you're distorting the actual results.

The global warming is still going on, look at this chart if we span it for 100 years

graph-Dec210:49:283034667968.gif


1938 to 2008

graph-Dec210:57:180105285644.gif


Look at the long term.. it's warming.

You, being dishonest decided to find a way to make it look like it's declining by cherrypicking data ranges. I can pick this date range:

and it comes up making it look like it's cooling!

graph-Dec211:01:102332458496.gif



Declining in last ten years?

graph-Dec211:05:375727539062.gif


Sounds like it... it IS.

BUT look at this:

graph-Dec211:07:072490539550.gif


If you take a look at 20 years, you see that it's increasing the whole time. You only see a blue bar at the end and that is WAY too premature to say, "There's no global warming!"
 
Global warming and cooling is a natural process that has occured over and over again. We have clear evidence of this. The current natural warming cycle is nothing more than that. While it is clear that humans with our emissions are contributing to the warming trend, the jury is still out on how significant of an impact we cause. While I believe it is a good thing to reduce emmissions of the things that contribute to warming, I don't believe there is anthing that anyone can do to stop or slow the "natural cycle".
 
It's been cooling over the last 11 years when "scientists" said it'd get warmer. Ten years ago or so they said exactly that and said it'll continue to get much warmer over the next several years. Yet, globally, it didn't do that.

Below are emails from the Climategate where scientists tried to hide the decline and voiced concerns about this cooling.


Consider researcher Tom Wigley’s email describing his adjustments to mid-20th century global temperature data in order to lower an inconvenient warming "blip." According to the global warming hypothesis, late 20th century man-made warming was supposed to be faster than earlier natural warming. But the data show rapid "natural" warming in the 1930s. Adjusting the 1940 temperature blip downward makes a better-looking trend line in support of the notion of rapidly accelerating man-made warming. Collecting and evaluating temperature data requires the exercise of scientific judgment, but Wigley's emails suggest a convenient correction of 0.15 degree Celsius that fits the man-made global warming hypothesis. The adjustment may be reasonable—changes in instrumentation might need to be accounted for—but all raw data and the methodologies used to adjust them should be publicly available so others can check them to make sure. (note from Koko - that has never happened and how can other scientists check these claims and do these robust validations??)

In another set of troubling emails, the CRU crew and associates discussed how to freeze out researchers and editors who expressed doubts about the man-made climate change. For example, an email from CRU’s leader Phil Jones saying that he and Kevin Trenberth would keep two dissenting scientific articles out of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s next report "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" In addition, the CRU crew evidently plotted to remove journal editors with whom they disagreed and suppress the publication of articles that they disliked. If they actually succeeded, this compounds the tragedy. Eliminating dissenting voices distorts the peer review process and the resulting scientific literature. The world's policymakers rarely enjoy access to complete information, but the Climategate emails suggest they have been robbed of the chance to get the best information available.
Click to expand...

The Scientific Tragedy of Climategate - Reason Magazine

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

The thing is this. If these "scientists" believe their data are so rock solid then why go the length to keep dissenting scientific articles out of the UN IPCC? Why go the length to plot the removal of journal editors who they disagree with and suppress publication articles they don't like? Why go to the length to hide their data and not make it transparent and available for other scientists?? This isn't why science about. What science is about is to allow differing accounts and assessment in their scientific findings. Not suppress them. And allow public and scientists to better scrutinized data as part of the overall continuing validation efforts.

Here's one of the problem, Netrox.

CRU has finally agreed to publicly release all of its temperature data. Just how valuable this will be has been thrown into doubt, however, since the CRU has admitted, "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data." This raises legitimate scientific questions about how the lost original data were manipulated to produce the "value-added." The Times (London) reported that Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. "The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science," he said.
Click to expand...

The Scientific Tragedy of Climategate - Reason Magazine

Trust CRU?? Why did CRU hold these temp data back? Where's the transparancy after all these year?

It's all about politics and control.

Oh, btw, Australia's parliament just now rejected their version of the cap and trade bill seeing that it'll hurt their economy and anger their constituents for rising energy costs in their utility bills. Good for them!
 
rockdrummer said:
Global warming and cooling is a natural process that has occured over and over again. We have clear evidence of this. The current natural warming cycle is nothing more than that. While it is clear that humans with our emissions are contributing to the warming trend, the jury is still out on how significant of an impact we cause. While I believe it is a good thing to reduce emmissions of the things that contribute to warming, I don't believe there is anthing that anyone can do to stop or slow the "natural cycle".
Click to expand...

It is a natural process which I've repeatedly said over the last several years. Man's own emission isn't what contributing to the warming or cooling since whatever we put out is puny by comparison to what Earth puts out and absorbs every year.

Look, CO2 concentration makes up only .038 percent (or .00038) of the total atmospheric gases. Or 380 CO2 molecules out of 1,000,000 molecules of atmospheric gases. It's like as if your 380 bucks makes a bigger difference than the rest of the $999,620 combined (bad analogy but in terms of scale it's quite small). The remaining comes to 99.96% of the rest of the gases in the atmosphere not of CO2. In fact, water vapor constitutes anywhere from 1 to 3% of the total atmospheric gases and has much more direct and immediate influence on warming and cooling than CO2 can ever do.

CO2 concentration has very little to contribute in terms of affecting or impacting the Earth's ability to warm or cool. Our sun, our closest star, is the biggest source of energy that helps warms the Earth.
 
kokonut said:
Trust CRU?? Why did CRU hold these temp data back? Where's the transparancy after all these year?
Click to expand...

What about other climate organizations concluding pretty the same thing and they have independent data.. like NOAA? I guess they're manipulating data too?
 
December 1, 2009
U.K. climate scientist under investigation
By CBC News
The U.K.'s University of East Anglia says the director of its Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations stemming from the recent publication of his and other climate scientists' private emails.

The U.K.'s University of East Anglia says the director of its Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations stemming from the recent publication of his and other climate scientists' private emails.

Phil Jones, the director of the global research centre on climate change, announced that he would stand aside until an independent review determined whether he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The university said Peter Liss will become acting director of the climate research unit.

Hundreds of private emails of British and U.S. scientists were posted online after hackers broke into one of the Climatic Research Unit's servers about a week and a half ago. The emails appear to show some of the scientists have overstated the threat of man-made global warming.

Jones's announcement came days after Pennsylvania State University announced that it would be looking into the work of one of its scientists, Michael Mann, whose correspondence was also among the emails hackers released. Mann is the director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center.

"The university is looking into this matter further, following a well-defined policy used in such cases," said a statement from Penn State.

The university said that a 2006 report by the National Academy of Sciences into Mann's work in reconstructing global temperatures over the last 1,000 years ? known as the "hockey stick" diagram ? found that Mann's work was scientifically sound and supported by evidence.

The hackers reportedly stole more than a decade of correspondence between leading U.K. and U.S. scientists and posted about 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents on websites.

Skeptics of climate science have seized on the documents ? at least some of which have been confirmed as authentic ? as evidence that some scientists have overstated the case for global warming and have attempted to alter how global temperature data was presented.

Researchers working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have dismissed the posting of documents as an attempt to derail discussions on dealing with global warming, in advance of the upcoming global climate summit in Copenhagen.

Earlier Tuesday, Nicholas Stern, a British economist who wrote a U.K. government report on climate change, said the hackers who published the emails had muddled the debate at a critical moment.

"It has created confusion, and confusion never helps scientific discussions," Stern told reporters.

Stern was launching a report on climate change at the London School of Economics, where he is chairman of its research institute on global climate change.

"People have a right to speak up, but if they are muddled and confused, I do not believe they have the right to be called anything but muddled and confused," he said.

"The degree of skepticism [on climate change] among real scientists is very small."
CBC News - Technology & Science - U.K. climate scientist under investigation
Click to expand...

Wow... the hackers really made things muddy.
 
Small? Do you have actual numbers to share? The word "small" can mean anything but interesting the article doesn't have anything to back up their assertion.

Ever wonder why there was an active push by many peer review journals to ensure that scientific articles that are contrary to the global warming theory (as caused by man) do not get published? And this has been verified by numerous emails uncovered in the Climategate cover up scheme.

I bet you don't even know that there is an annual conference called "International Conference on Climate Change" where hundreds of respected PhD holding scientists attend and discuss whether global warming as caused by man is ever the case through their own research results.
The Heartland Institute - Welcome to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change

One thing you need to learn is reality here. These events hardly ever get reported by the mainstreamed media (MSM) because they're totally, I mean totally, in bed with scammers about this fake global warming claim. So, it gets barely a mentioned. But now since Climategate this realization is now thrown clear up and scrutinized by public and scientists alike.

In reality there are a lot more scientists with PhD who disagree with the global warming as caused by man bunk than you'd think.

"The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere."
The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com

These hackers exposed people who purposely twisted data to suit their agenda. And if they used these "tweaked" data fraudently and applied for grants based on their "results" then they have committed a crime in the attempt to defraud.
 
I guess you didn't bother read WSJ article:

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
Click to expand...

And you think that the public bought the Australian's version of "Cap and Trade" bill in the parliament? Nope. It was quashed just recently. People are now coming to their senses. Good thing that this Climategate came out just in time to blow this clear and wide and let the world know what a fraud Al Gore is who, by all appearances, used his position and knew about the skewed data to defraud people. At least that what it looks like to me and many others.
 
200px-Bill_Nye_Expert.jpg

It's a picture of comedian Bill Nye in his "science guy" outfit with the caption "I happen to be an expert on this subject"
 
China and a few other developing nations rejected the core targets in the Copenhagen climate plan.
Big developing states reject Copenhagen climate plan | Green Business | Reuters
It says in part, "The four rejected key targets proposed by the Danish climate talk hosts in a draft text--halving global greenhouse gases by 2050, setting a 2020 deadline for a peak in emissions, and limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, Euopean diplomats say."
Sounds to me everyone agrees that global warming is indeed man made in part.
 
Remember, scientists and people with expert background in meteorology do have their own blogs or websites to cover their area of expertise.

I guess you didn't follow the links deep enough which was my hint to you guys.
 
kokonut said:
Remember, scientists and people with expert background in meteorology do have their own blogs or websites to cover their area of expertise.

I guess you didn't follow the links deep enough which was my hint to you guys.
Click to expand...

Got links to peer-reviewed articles? :)
 
Back
Top