The Snow Job In Copenhagen

The "summit to save the world" (aka, the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen) featured a number of noteworthy factoids like . . .

• A record low cold front
• The use of 1,200 limos by the earth friendly attendees
• A promise by Hillary Clinton that America would give away $100 billion
• A menu that included scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges
• A squadron of 140 private jets
• A lecture from Michael Moore and Sean Penn's pal Hugo Chavez explaining that “Capitalism is the road to hell”
• And another hollow speech from Barack Obama

The Global Warming crowd has had a bad couple of weeks when you consider that their top scientists were caught fudging figures and their top proponent, Al Gore, was caught outright lying, and this summit in Copenhagen didn't help. What was intended to be a call to awareness became and overt show of hypocrisy by those present. And the speakers . . . well, their speeches furthered showed that this gathering was less about science than an attempt to redistribute America's wealth -- a wealth that only exists for the tax payers in this country because of that dirty word for liberals the world over: "capitalism."

Even "The One" couldn't save the summit's day according to The Guardian:

"Obama, who had been skittish about coming to Copenhagen at all unless it could be cast as a foreign policy success, looked visibly frustrated as he appeared before world leaders . . . The lacklustre speech proved a huge frustration to a summit that had been looking to Obama"

Apparently even the Obama's teleprompter is having trouble buying the whole global warming thing these days.

Climate Data Reconstruction

Iowahawk has a great post about the reconstruction of climate data that was revealed by some carbon footprint loving hackers. It's long, but after a close read you too will be able to create a hooey hockey stick that looks a little like this:


And after an even closer read, you'll want to use a hockey stick a little like this:



The post places the climategate controversy in context and is a worthwhile read for anybody interested in whether or not they can turn in their parkas for speedos.

Read the entire post here:
Fables of the Reconstruction (Or, How to Make Your Own Hockey Stick)

Climate Change Data Trashed

Climate Gate Continues . . .

The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has admitted that they threw away the data on which their global warming theories were based. That's right, the data that allegedly supported Al Gore's apocalyptic environmentalism was tossed in the trash along side last year's Marks & Spencer ad. And here I'll drop the rather important side note that the UEA's Climate Research Unit is the primary source of data for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their attempt to levy climate taxes on countries like America (taxes that Bush was wise enough to condemn while Obama, well, Obama is Obama). You may have heard of the Kyoto Protocol which bases its existence on this data.

Why, it's almost as if the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit had something to hide.

On the heels of last week's hacked e-mails exposing what appears to be a planned manipulation of data coupled with strategic attempts to discredit skeptics . . . oh, and let's not forget that New Zealand's climate change proponents were caught doctoring statistics . . . the doomsayers of the global warming crowd have been dealt another blow.

According to reports, the University of East Anglia could not comply with requests for their documents and data that were sought under Freedom of Information legislation because, well, they . . . um . . . they . . . threw it away, undoubtedly just before their dog was about to eat it. Of course, in their minds this should pose no concern as they "do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” In other words, nobody should worry about reviewing our data, just trust us. So much for peer review.

Now I'm no scientist, but isn't science supposed to be based on analyzing data? And isn't that data generally maintained (i.e., not "thrown away") in case your hypothesis shifts during evaluation? And doesn't peer review require access to the raw, undoctored data? I guess I need to google the University of East Anglia since I don't know much about the school. Maybe I'm too harsh on them since the steps of scientific method generally aren't covered until the 3rd grade or so.

New Zealand's Role In The Global Warming Hoax

Watts Up With That? just dropped a report on the latest scandal cooling the jets of the global warming crowd. According the the award winning science blog:

The figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century
The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:
From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:

In other words,

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming . . . There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

Ah, but perhaps we could venture a guess as to why the NIWA falsified statistics to "demonstrate" a global warming trend? Could it be, oh, I don't know . . . money? Al Gore is not the only one bent on getting fat from the foment of the global warming hoax.

The Global Warming Hoax Cont.

Computer hacking is bad. Awful. Real, real naughty. That said, the hacking of e-mail exchanges from a British University has revealed that the hackers are not the only real, real naughty on the internet. And I'm not even talking about The Huffington Post.

Over 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents were lifted from the electronic banks at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain, many of which contain discussions on how to manipulate climate change data and derisive attacks on skeptics of anthropogenic global warming. Oh, how I hate to use the word "conspiracy" but what do you do when it fits? Is this further evidence that the global warming movement is a hoax aimed at gaining funding for certain university departments and pocket-loads of spending cash for Al Gore?

The e-mail exchanges are between some of the most prominent proponents of the global warming hysteria including James Hansen (Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Michael Mann (of Mann's "Hockey Stick" fame), Stephen Schneider (Al Gore's buddy), and Gavin Schmidt (NASA climate modeler). Are the e-mails legit? Well, it has been verified by the BBC and the university itself that these self-serving servers have been hacked.

Since I doubt you'll see any of these damaging emails surface in the mainstram media, here are some examples of the exchanges for your edification:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: //';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='<';l[4]=' 110';l[5]=' 114';l[6]=' 111';l[7]=' 98';l[8]=' 115';[9]=' 111';l[10]=' 46';l[11]=' 88';l[12]=' 88';l[13]=' 88';l[14]=' 64';l[15]=' 97';l[16]= 102';l[17]=' 102';l[18]=' 105';l[19]=' 114';l[20]=' 98';l[21]=' 46';l[22]=' 107';l[23]='>';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 110';l[26]=' 114';l[27]=' 111';l[28]=' 98';l[29]=' 115';l[30]=' 111';l[31]=' 46';l[32]=' 88';l[33]=' 88';l[34]=' 88';l[35]=' 64';l[36]=' 97';l[37]=' 102';l[38]=' 102';l[39]=' 105';l[40]=' 114';l[41]=' 98';l[42]=' 46';l[43]=' 107';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='<'; for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') document.write("&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

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 from 1961 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 XXXX School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia Norwich

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael MannSubject:
Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

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.***

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith
will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
Subject: update Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Cc: Gavin Schmidt

Guys,

I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…

This one is unattributed

Options appear to be:

Send them the data

Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

Gitmo Got Mo' Before Obama Shuts It Down

Looks like the cruel treatment that has Obama chewing on a plan to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp has gotten a few more terrorists to spill their lentils, according to CNN.

Five detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say they want to confess to conspiracy charges for planning the September 11, 2001, attacks, a Pentagon spokeswoman said Monday.

Oh, tell me more . . .

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- the confessed architect of the attacks, who was captured two years later in Pakistan -- and four other alleged co-conspirators asked a military judge if they could withdraw all pending motions and plead guilty, Maj. Gail Crawford said in an e-mail.

The defendants announced their decision in front of relatives of victims in the al Qaeda-orchestrated attacks, said Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel for Human Rights Watch. She attended Monday's hearing.

Quick, we'd better close that place down before more freedom hating terrorist confess too much about how and why they do what they do. We wouldn't want that kind of unfair advantage in the war against terror now would we?

Al Gore vs. Science

From www.demanddebate.com

Global Warming Hoax Or Not . . .

OK, I get it.

• The debate isn't "over" with over 400 prominent scientist recently questioning the validity global warming.


• Al Gore's film is filled with misinformation.


• The latest satellite data is actually showing record ice in the Arctic.


• Satan doesn't tempt us to buy bottled water just so we increase waste.


• Drilling in Alaska won't destroy the entire state and would help their economy.


• One volcanic eruption produces more greenhouse gas then every car on the planet.


• Warmer climates are not about to strike, bringing tidal waves and giant snakes.


• Water doesn't disappear forever.


• Failing to recycle won't cause machines to rise against their makers.

I get it. I just don't care.

For me, conservation and environmentalism is not about global warming or impending planetary destruction. It's just that I would rather live in a clean, green place than a dirty one. I'd rather not smell exhaust everywhere I go. I want my kids to see the same Alaska that my dad saw. I think alternative fuels would be a great thing for so many reasons. I don't find factories belching smoke very attractive. I like to drink clean water. I'll take my steak medium rare -- hold the hormones.

Does environmental stewardship of the planet have to revolve around cataclysm scenarios? How about taking care of the planet just because it'd be a nicer place to live.