Cav; Touche!

It’s interesting that lack of evidence proves to you that Cheney and others are lying, but evidence so blatant… admitted to by the perpetrators doens’t prove anything at all to you.

My guess is no matter how blatant the evidence, or how many times the CRU admits the emails are authentic, the pro Man Caused Global Climate Change side will simply do what that mottley CRU did… throw it out or change it because it doesn’t fit the paradigm.

Instead, what we should be doing is letting the evidence lead us where it will, and let the political, social, monetary and scientific chips fall where they may.

Somehow, I doubt people of science will ever allow that to happen.

James, you are not only choosing to jump with a parachute you know could be packed irresponsibly, you are calling on our politicians to throw us all out of the airplane with what could be faulty parachutes.

Up until these emails and this information at least. Now you are insisting we all jump with parachutes we know ARE faulty.

This expose doesn’t call anything into question, it is revealling facts that the CRU cooked the books. They didn’t simply guess, or use “ad hoc”, they reversed numbers. They went on which hunts to destroy the reputations of scientists who disagreed with them.

People of science who do accept Man Caused Global Climate Change should be the ones most up in arms here. They lied to you and you accepted it based on their reputations.

Their reputation is junk now… but you don’t care.

You can no longer EVER say with any kind of honesty that you follow the evidence where ever it leads.

You aer knowingly willing to back lie, no matter what it destroys.

Gloss and hypocracy.

This situation actually gives us a simple and scientific way to test all the current information about Man Caused Global Climate Change.

We now know that the CRU information is faulty, since they admitted the emails are authentic. While that does tell us the CRU information is corrupted, it doesn’t say all information about Man Caused Global Climate Change is.

Simply match the CRU information against all other information on the same category. If the number is the same as the CRU had, then it can’t be right. You can’t get the correct number by switching numbers around as the CRU did.

Unless you really don’t care what the facts are, or how much they have been corrupted to fit a paradigm… then just go along with those who think that destroying economies and societies is somehow “worth it”.

James

The big difference between the CRU emails and some alleged embarrassing LDS historical documents is that you rely completely on hearsay about any cover-up of LDS documents by the church but we have hard cold proof that the global warming scientists were cooking the books and colluding to hide their fraud.

I have to laugh about one thread here. While there are rumors and suspicions about some documents being hidden away by leaders of the LDS church, said documents have yet to see the light of day.

On the other hand, the very documents Ken showed us here ARE in public view, yet many here (as well as around the world) expect us to just shrug our shoulders and allow the bogus information to be used as justification for stealing away our entire way of life.

James, it’s Shane’s comment I was replying too.

He is sooo sure there are these secreted documents, but has none to show. Yet all of you have the actual Emails exposing the motley CRU and it means nothing to you at all.

Your faith was justified before, but now you are simply followng the prophets of doom even after their own words have condemned them.

ok, Ken, do explain what this email states or implies.

Nice dodge, Ted. Maybe it’s best to just let Ken speak for himself. You do not seem to be doing him any favors.

Hey, when is anyway going to do a top post about Bubble’s speech tonight? 911, blah, blah, blah. Terror, on and on. If he had changed his voice and put a bag over his head he could have been Guiliani.

Remember these heady days?

Quote: “I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. ” – Barack Obama Campaign Promise – October 27, 2007

http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-first-thing-i-will-do-as.html

No matter what James, of course it preserves the second, the heat is contained in the atmosphere, and simply because it serves as insulation with all variety of gases does not inure it from the law, it simply modifies it. The heat will dissipate from the atmosphere more slowly.

This has been the case all the while as the atmosphere evolved beginning on the planet’s formation. That we have had greenhouse gas effects in the past is known, and if they were permanent, i.e. not complying to the 2nd law, the climate would simply run away and life would cook off the planet.

It did, it has not, and it will not. Ancient climes of the Carboniferous and the Cretaceous eras had much higher ambient temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations yet all of these eras fell to cooling.

The atmosphere, no matter it’s make up has insulative value, otherwise there would be no survivable average range in temperature for life to exist, like it has for eukaryotes for 1 billion years now.

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other James, or I just do not know what you are referring to.

I don’t believe it is James, you are quoting something from a link I posted for interest sake I guess. Which one? Are you that far down that rabbit hole still?? Just because a link in made does not infer adherence to it. Some if it is there just to see what people do with it, though your reaction is something I am not prepared for, Bit of obsession

The guy resigned, what more do you want? Nobody believes what you seem to, that it is all misunderstanding. I would like to see the reaction if this kind of crap were perpetrated by like say Bush, in the run up to the war.

 wavesoffear.com This is your blog right?

Jones walks with his guilt, I have no idea what you are doing.

Hey, glenn may not be smarter than a 5th grader, but he isn’t one thing the warmer believers are.

Dupes.

As you can see any integrity this site possesses is long gone, as if I would post under such a name. Posts manipulated again. Hey, when ya gots nuthin’ but the admin tools, what’cha gonna do?

Hey glenn simple solution to your bitching about your claimed post edits. Take up cliffs offer and top post yourself.

Also wouldn’t hurt if you didn’t post under a new name every 5 minutes and if you actually had something to say rather than just bitching….

Consider Cliff that it is warm and sunny in California, rather temperate, and there is a semblance of a public transit system. The better part of the US population lives in the East where it freezes and swelters at either end of the year. More amusing the more it talks.

Cliff this topic is absolutely the hottest topic(no pun intended) in Europe, where this scientific brainwashing fraud was most firmly set in the world. We here are simply ahead of the curve in America in acknowledging the bombshell. The US MSM runs a few weeks behind the rest of the world in realizing that it’s lies cannot be told successfully to the US population. This has only begun here in the US to take off. I have already directed over 100 people to the e-mails, and the most common response is anger and that such a fraud was expected. Give it about 2-3 weeks.

Shane I don’t live in Utah and have never been offered the opportunity to top post. I would have to be given the tools to do it, passwords etc, and I pretty sure Cliff doesn’t want me editing what he writes and manipulating his posts, even though I would never do that. That is something he does, and of course fears should it ever be done to him.

Look at what this email says just before the Kyoto protocol meeting –
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=35&filename=876437553.txt

Look at this paragraph
‘The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story. ‘

It clearly says that the “scientists” blindly collected signatures of people to their research for the sake of endorsing or for entitlement of funding – which again looks unethical.

Something indeed has never seemed right in the way Climate research is being done. Govt. funded scientists can have a last word in a plan that gives “world government” full control. Why dont we have a consortium of industries set up a parallel research lab and come up with independent results? Wait a minute that cant be done – the moment that is done the hippies will yell that big business bought the integrity of scientists. Well what about greed for funding compromising the govt. Scientists. Also the data sets are owned by Government authorities.

Sad indeed

Shane, does this guy count as a real scientist?

By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

View Full Image
Getty Images .
The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth’s atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let’s refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called “climate forcing.”

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.

The IPCC’s Scientific Assessments generally consist of about 1,000 pages of text. The Summary for Policymakers is 20 pages. It is, of course, impossible to accurately summarize the 1,000-page assessment in just 20 pages; at the very least, nuances and caveats have to be omitted. However, it has been my experience that even the summary is hardly ever looked at. Rather, the whole report tends to be characterized by a single iconic claim.

The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn’t reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

The Climate Emails The Economics of Climate Change
Rigging a Climate ‘Consensus’
Global Warming With the Lid Off
Climate Science and Candor
.
Of course, none of the articles stressed this. Rather they emphasized that according to models modified to account for the natural internal variability, warming would resume—in 2009, 2013 and 2030, respectively.

But even if the IPCC’s iconic statement were correct, it still would not be cause for alarm. After all we are still talking about tenths of a degree for over 75% of the climate forcing associated with a doubling of CO2. The potential (and only the potential) for alarm enters with the issue of climate sensitivity—which refers to the change that a doubling of CO2 will produce in GATA. It is generally accepted that a doubling of CO2 will only produce a change of about two degrees Fahrenheit if all else is held constant. This is unlikely to be much to worry about.

Yet current climate models predict much higher sensitivities. They do so because in these models, the main greenhouse substances (water vapor and clouds) act to amplify anything that CO2 does. This is referred to as positive feedback. But as the IPCC notes, clouds continue to be a source of major uncertainty in current models. Since clouds and water vapor are intimately related, the IPCC claim that they are more confident about water vapor is quite implausible.

There is some evidence of a positive feedback effect for water vapor in cloud-free regions, but a major part of any water-vapor feedback would have to acknowledge that cloud-free areas are always changing, and this remains an unknown. At this point, few scientists would argue that the science is settled. In particular, the question remains as to whether water vapor and clouds have positive or negative feedbacks.

The notion that the earth’s climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth’s climate offers some guidance on this matter. About 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today’s. Carl Sagan in the 1970s referred to this as the “Early Faint Sun Paradox.”

For more than 30 years there have been attempts to resolve the paradox with greenhouse gases. Some have suggested CO2—but the amount needed was thousands of times greater than present levels and incompatible with geological evidence. Methane also proved unlikely. It turns out that increased thin cirrus cloud coverage in the tropics readily resolves the paradox—but only if the clouds constitute a negative feedback. In present terms this means that they would diminish rather than enhance the impact of CO2.

There are quite a few papers in the literature that also point to the absence of positive feedbacks. The implied low sensitivity is entirely compatible with the small warming that has been observed. So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model.

What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of “bait and switch” scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.

The notion that complex climate “catastrophes” are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.

Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.

Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.

Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Meisinger and Charney Awards, American Geophysical Union’s Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Prize from the Wallin Foundation in Goteborg, Sweden. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and was named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and a member of the United States National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He was a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Common blind mice. If you are willing to comment on data, not hysteria like Glenn Beck. Or are you so ridiculous as to believe that we give up our sovereignty. It amazes me how the few, like you ridiculous blind deniers seem unable and unwilling to look at their burning house and refusew to call the fire department. Are you related to Roy Spencer? Do you push creationism in the place of evolution too?

And of course it should also be noted that universities world-wide are just running rampant with … dare I say it?

LIBERALS!!!!!

Another major shoe is about to drop on Climategate. NASA has been stonewalling its release of documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act. They are currently being sued to release documents and fighting tooth and nail to stop any release. Now they are going to have to under growing pressure because of the CRU.

NASA has continually had to adjust their numbers and have had a number of embarrassing high profile errors they have had to admit to. James Hansen may very well become the next Phil Jones. I am sure they will be very happy sharing a Cell together, Maybe with Algore it will be a threesome.

Ken, Just a small tip from someone who is not altogeter sold on the unbridgeability of the conservative / liberal divide:

Your shrillness demeans you. Tone it down or lose readers.

Mkay?

Now I think that Democrats/Liberals and Republicans/conservatives have done a secret deal since the 80s so that each enjoy power equally every 8-10 years alternately and push their respective agendas pulling wool over people’s eyes. The next 8 years it will be Cap n Trade and Govt Health, then some Rep will win in 2013 or 2017 to start a new thing … huh

I call it Sinusoidal democracy rather than a banana republic.

James, ESPECIALLY WHEN INCORRECT!

It’s like the discussion of whether Gods underwear choices have an impact on the overall economy.

Well, Duh?

James, I should add: The issue of ‘eye-patch’ v boxers is very troubling to the eye-patch promoters. The controversy is only going to hurt the former as we shop for the holidays.

Underwear, whatever the choice, should be dropped alltogether.

While I jest, there is this:

An open letter from one of the major climate scientists on the hacked email disinformation campaign:
http://groups.google.com/group/ g…QREsaQLr7Cfz2Ps

In case you can’t load it, here’s the take home message:
Yesterday was a very sad day for climate science. When the forces of unreason win, and force exceptional scientists like Professor Phil
Jones to leave their positions, we all lose. Climate science loses. Our community loses. The world loses.
Now, more than at any other time in human history, we need sound scientific information on the nature and causes of climate change. Phil Jones and his colleagues at CRU have helped to provide such information. I hope that all
of you will join me in thanking Phil for everything he has done – and will do in the future – for our scientific community. He and his CRU colleagues deserve great credit.

“When the forces of unreason win”,

Nothing reasonable about breaking the law, which is what Jones did in changing data, and denying FOI requests.

I know that you are being sarcastic Cav. The letter sounds like a criminal speaking for himself before the sentencing for the crime he committed. The jury took a half hour to turn in a verdict.

James, no matter how you word it, I am out of this conversation now, and will let you pile up the absurdity as this fraud and it’s investigation moves forward. See you on the other side.

For me the issue stopped at the denial of the FOI requests. The rest has been nothing but sending you down a rabbit hole, which you have done admirably.

For the record, the cooking of data, and being caught at it, is the real nothingburger. It would have allowed a group of people to move on their assumptions for political purposes without any review. The process of academic review and challenging of data conclusions cannot be made because the data is fraudulent.

We have Jones resignation, and the e-mails, and the code, and when the trial done, we will know whether fraud was perpetrated. I’m am sure at the very least the University will be compelled to investigate what happened, under of course direction of the legal authorities. Then after that, we will know, all we are going to about this affair.

At first assessment though James, these EA boys are gonna hang.

They are innocent! It was all a set up! How many people in prison claim their own guilt in affairs? Surely the EA “scientists” are getting lawyers, and as we have noticed are pretty mum.

Hhahah! James, I do believe it was I who first sent you the link about the emerging scandal. Truly there is very little substance in any of your own posts James.

If you can’t hang with the politics of this issue, maybe you sit in Starbucks somewhere, tell the crew of progressives sitting in there the color of your credentials and wow them all with your own gobbledygook, and make yourself feel better, and align yourself with your belief, that yes, I Jimbo, am really smart.

If you can’t cope Jim, with me, then what hope do you have with the general public? I guess this why lying and scientific fraud has some appeal for you, but I don’t know.

How long do you think I will be out of this conversation if your vapid points are a part of it? You are smart enough to figure that out. I will just be poking you the entire way, as the elements of the fraud as exposed. We are at the tip of the proverbial melting ice burg.

I’m impressed with just how wide the divide has become. It’s as though there hasn’t been even a scintilla of evidence generated to support growing carbon levels potential / or the crimes perpetrated during the exposure are simply all in a days work.

So, while there Might very likely be something to prompt us to modify our behaviors, it’s just as likely to swing into a full-scale war on Christmas, or focus on how it was that such a pedestal was ever created for Tiger.

The only sense of ‘lost cause’ I keep having is that we’re all so easily diverted. This is way beyond simply normal changes of interest.
There’s boucoups push, pull, and hide the reality going on here, and it is shameful.

In TIME magazine, page 10, December 7, 2009, Doris Wakeland of Silver City, N.M. states: “We made a huge mistake in 2000. Al Gore is the closest thing we have to a 21st Century Prophet”….

The threatened suit is intended to reveal – internal discussions about NASA’s quiet correction of its false historical U.S. temperature records after two Canadian researchers discovered a key statistical error, specifically discussion about whether and why to correct certain records, how to do so…

Some scarey shit, I tells ya!

“will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”

ON NOES! DEY ARE ADJUSTING VALUES TO MAKE THEM MATCH THE REAL VALUES!!! OMG THATS *SCIENCE*!!! SCANDAL! SCAM! DIS PPL R TRYING TO DO SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!! HOW WILL WE EVER GET A CHANCE TO DEFRAUD PPL WHEN DEY R DOING SCIENCE UPON US!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?! DIS SOCIALISM MUST BE STOPPED!!! YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FUCK OFF REPUBLICAN RETARDS!!!!!!!!!