## Climategate source code more damning than emails.

***update 12:33AM US MST (UTC-7)***

Here is an example of actual code from the CRU. Try explaining this away warmers…

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor (…) ; ; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION ; yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x) densall=densall+yearlyadj valadj is an array that if we plug in the numbers we get Michael Mann’s hockeystick. The programmers have hard coded a predetermined result. l So now when they plug the actual numbers in no matter what they are it will always result in the hockeystick even if temperatures remained the same. For example. Just for the sake of arguement lets say the average temperature remained constant at 70 degrees last century. When you run the numbers through their “fudge factor” you still get a hockey stick. Even a decline in temperatures would still result in a hockeystick. Way to hide the decline! Just imagine if there really was global warming and they ran those numbers through the magic global warming program then we would really be frying. From the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file which documents a programmers frustation with trying to make sense out of the sloppy code and bad databases the the CRU was using. If this was not for the fact that the data produced by these programs were used by the IPCC and countless scientists to make their determinations it would be laughable, but these reports will effect every man woman and child on the planet if Cap’n Trade and other global warming treaties and laws are established. Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be). False codes will be obtained by multiplying the legitimate code (5 digits) by 100, then adding 1 at a time until a number is found with no matches in the database. THIS IS NOT PERFECT but as there is no central repository for WMO codes – especially made-up ones – we’ll have to chance duplicating one that’s present in one of the other databases. In any case, anyone comparing WMO codes between databases – something I’ve studiously avoided doing except for tmin/tmax where I had to – will be treating the false codes with suspicion anyway. Hopefully. Of course, option 3 cannot be offered for CLIMAT bulletins, there being no metadata with which to form a new station. This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option - to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ‘em, and it’s the main reason the project is nearly a year late. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found. ******** The emails are damning enough to global warming believers but the source code that was also leaked from the servers of the now disgraced Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the East Anglia University in England are far more damaging. The source code for their once vaunted computer models was also leaked. This code was also subject to Britain’s Freedom of information act but as we now know in the emails the scientists went to great lengths to keep the documents hidden. After looking at the comments section of the code you can see why. Programmers make comments in their code usually giving descriptions of the operation of a function. This makes it easier for other programmers to follow the code. Here are the most damning excerpts of the source code comments that has been gleaned so far. function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED
. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;

pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

;

;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

From documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro:

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline

;

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE AGE-BANDED (ALL BANDS) STUFF OF HARRY’S
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline

;

recon_mann.pro:
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE Mann et al. reconstruction
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
; IN FACT, I NOW HAVE AN ANNUAL LAND-ONLY NORTH OF 20N VERSION OF MANN,
; SO I CAN CALIBRATE THIS TOO – WHICH MEANS I’m ONLY ALTERING THE SEASON

briff_sep98_e.pro:
;
; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; “all band” timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

Emphasis mine

For those who can’t follow what is being stated here is that data after 1960 will be “artificially adjusted” to “hide the decline”. In other words they were hardcoding in the program ways to manipulate the data to hide the decline in temperatures.

This is much bigger than the emails and cannot be explained away by “unfortunate wording” or done in a fit of frustration. This is a deliberate attempt to manufacture data to output a predetermined result. This also puts in clear context the meaning of the term “hide the decline” that is found in the emails.

It is now clear that all studies that have EVER used data from the CRU is tainted and must be thrown out. This would include the IPCC reports.

Copenhagen should be canceled because until we can get real unimpeachable data it would be the hieght of irresponsibility to enact binding laws that would cost us trillions and freedoms using tainted IPCC and CRU data.

1. #1 by James Farmer on November 28, 2009 - 7:37 pm

Ken:

I think it best to leave the deciphering of comments to actual programmers who know what they are talking about. Have you seen the entire code? Doubtful. If you have seen the code, do you have the background to understand the models? Doubtful. More to the point, it is the mathematical models that compute the predictions, not the comments!

Remember, Ken, we can apply the same cherry-picked and baseless interpretations you are logging here to make a dang good argument why you should not bother with Sacrament meeting tomorrow!

2. #2 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 28, 2009 - 8:41 pm

http://www.schmanck.de/0707.1161v4.pdf

Tells why the greenhouse effect theory is bunk using basic physics principles. There is no way to promote this crap theory anymore. It is over.

3. #3 by cav on November 28, 2009 - 9:05 pm

In the debris of the world trade center Mohamad Atta’s passport, practically unscatherd, was found. Proof pos that he was the ringleader, and that Saddam must die.

Somehow, in all the wreckage known as the burst real estate bubble, the troll laid his hands on the title to the bridge.

Will wonders never cease?

4. #4 by James Farmer on November 28, 2009 - 9:14 pm

Glenn:

You are a whack job who just cannot stop. Tell you what, if you feel so strong about this article and your ability to play physicist, then crystalize the main parts of the article for us. Crystalize precisely the violation of the 2nd law the authors present. I have already synthisized where the authors go off base and will be happy to so inform you, but I’d like to hear the opposite viewpoint from you, first – our resident atmospheric scholar and physicist.

5. #5 by Ken on November 28, 2009 - 10:31 pm

James

I think I know a thing or two about programming and I know people don’t just put random comments in their codes. Comments are a readable version of the code referred to as psuedocode. It is a standard practice which I do myself so either the programmer can refer back to it or to make it easier for other programmers to follow the code themselves.

In this code there were probably just a few programmers who apparent left notes for each other in the code. It obviously was not meant for anyone else to see which is why they fought so hard to keep it from being released through the FOI requests.

Other programmers who have looked at the actual code remark how shockingly sloppy it is for such an important purpose. Leading us to believe it was not professional programmers that wrote the code but probably the scientists themselves who only had rudimentary experience in programming. This would make sense if you wanted to keep the code’s contents within a small group of people, especially when there were questionable sub-routines written in the code.

6. #6 by Michael Suede on November 28, 2009 - 11:49 pm

The climate model source code explained by a software developer:

http://fascistsoup.com/2009/11/25/more-on-the-climategate-source-code/

This is way better than the emails!

7. #7 by Ken Bingham on November 29, 2009 - 12:21 am

Michael

That is incredible. I have embedded the video for all oneutah.org readers to look at. Cliff please watch this video. I know you will keep an open mind.

One thing is for sure. Global warming skeptics will no longer remain silent and warmers will no longer be able to claim the debate is over.

8. #8 by different clue on November 29, 2009 - 2:49 am

The following may seem crass and selfish, but…if indeed the global warming science has been faked, and global warming has been a hoax all along; could that mean that the glaciers and various ice caps are in fact not melting? And if so, will the sea level in fact not rise? In which case…does a contrarian investment opportunity present itself? If credulous people start to flee the seacoast-adjacent low-elevation areas to higher ground; it should be possible to buy beachfront property, houses, etc., for a song. One can then hold onto them until society realizes global warming is not underway; at which point
one can sell coastal property to returnee-wannabes for a princely sum. Or at least a pretty penny.

9. #9 by Ken Bingham on November 29, 2009 - 4:05 am

Lets inject some humor into this.

“Hide the Decline” parody of Dragging the Line.

10. #10 by Cliff Lyon on November 29, 2009 - 8:11 am

This is great stuff Ken. Thanks to YouTube, any anonymous hack can post a video for the 5000 or so people who crave conspiracy.

“Code functions in the code?” No programmer would ever say that. Its redundant.

Not only is he an expert on code functions, he is also an expert on the funding conspiracy.

And ALL this without a shred of evidence, unless cynical chuckling is the new peer review process.

“Mind blowing manipulation of data?”

Thanks for the Sunday morning humor. Give this guy a name tag and send him over! I’m feelin the spirit!

11. #11 by cav on November 29, 2009 - 8:18 am

Revealed: The true Santa Clause.

With this lid off, nothing petrol driven capitalism can imagine will be nasty enough to be ‘off the table’.

Truth / Lies, that was my stake in the global warming conspiracy.

Now it’s all down the dubes. Damn.

12. #12 by cav on November 29, 2009 - 8:53 am

This morning, I’m going to spend some time reworking the OneUtah blog sourcecode so as to have a grinches photo inserted in the place of Ken Bingham whenever he posts a thread.

Of cource I’ll photo shop it to accentuate the horns.

Good day.

13. #13 by cav on November 29, 2009 - 9:08 am

The denial surrounding global warming, in addition to being exasperating, threatening to the world, and wrong, is fascinating to consider. After all, there’s much money to be made from moving towards a renewable energy infrastructure; oil won’t last forever; India, China etc. are buying more of the stuff; many of those selling it to us are hardly our friends. So why?

I maintain that one of the fundamental bases of the fossil fuel economy is a denial of the negative externalities surrounding their use: pollution, environmental degradation, miners’ deaths, cancers, on and on. That’s why coal is still thought of as cheap. And a basic part of the right’s notion of freedom is that one isn’t free at all unless one can act regardless of the consequences to others. The reality of global warming would mean that every last time you rev your Hummer, you’re part of the problem. They can’t accept that.

14. #14 by Cliff Lyon on November 29, 2009 - 9:20 am

Hey! Michael Suede himself has appeared! Hi Michael. Welcome to OneUtah you crazy hunk of deliciousness!

First, let me introduce myself. My name is Cliff and I have been programming since 1979. All database stuff. I specialized in expert systems in the eighties including”

1. A system for Dunn and Bradstreet that mapped the entire US natural gas pipeline network and found the most efficient routes to go from A to B.

2. An expert system which determined the most efficient way to make sneakers in Asia by material, labor, transport cost, and country or origin tariffs.

3. Gillette’s first computerized project management system (next time you use a Sensor razor, think of me.)

I’d also like to introduce you to James Farmer. He has a PhD in Mechanical engineering. Not a programmer, he wrote code at Princeton that predicted with near perfect accuracy, the physical results from the tank at MIT.

He also worked on the NASA code to predict physical air flow for re-entry vehicles. He is not a programmer.

He couldn’t write a line of I/O or UI code and I would have a clue how to model cavitation.

Do you really endorse the idea that Climate Change models should be written by programmers rather than scientists? Or am I missing something and there really are a bunch of PhD’s hovering over recent grads from Eagle Gate’s 2 Year Vocational Technology program who are the real programmers?

I wonder, do you have any experience writing algorithms that among other things need to normalize data coming from many disparate databases with values from multiple data sources?

Unless you tell me otherwise (and I WILL believe whatever you tell me because I have heard your cynical laugh and thats all the proof I need), I’m going to assume as a programmer, your are likely more qualified to help me make this WordPress blog go faster than you are qualified to comment on “function codes in the code” in massive climate models.

btw: I didn’t see the source code for any of the functions, just the code that calls the functions.

As a relatively new programmer you must at least understand that those functions are pretty critical if you are trying to audit the code AND of course, that would require a very strong knowledge of math AND the scientific methods for gathering temperature data (not to mention GIS).

Do you have a math or related degree? May I assume you have at least a bachelor’s degree in some science?

Help us out here. Do you have a resume?

At least I know something about Ken. He began writing code for programming 101 about…help me Ken…2 years ago, and I have no doubt that in 5 or ten years, he will be a good programmer.

How good are you Michael Suede?

Have you found the problem in the climate models that predicted that the Northwest passage would become navigable within forty years (it opened 38 years early)?

15. #15 by Cliff Lyon on November 29, 2009 - 9:31 am

Michael and Ken,

We agree, Climate Models have been PROVEN WRONG!!!

Its true. We know have TONS of proof that the BEST climate models were too conservative. This is one of the problems I have with the damn scientists. They are too conservative.

I have yet to see any climate predictions coming from the scientific community in the past 20 years that were are too aggressive.

Certainly, if we can find such a prediction (from a credentialed scientist, Institution, or peer review paper) we should be somewhat skeptical.

But IF WE CAN’T find such examples (from a credentialed scientist, Institution, or peer review paper), do you really think we should suddenly start assuming today’s models are too aggressive?

Perhaps we should stick to political philosophy. At least if we are wrong, and Obama is NOT a Fascist, we won’t find ourselves unprepared for the disaster that will befall us if we do nothing about radical global climate change.

16. #16 by shane on November 29, 2009 - 9:51 am

Glenn, that pdf is a gold mine….

I agree with James, I want to hear you explain what it says the problem is.

Anything else here?

One thing is for sure. Global warming skeptics will no longer remain silent and warmers will no longer be able to claim the debate is over.

That is pretty funny, and explains exactly why I like to read here! “no longer remain silent!” I know they have been sooooo very quiet up till now.

Sure seems like you are backing off your claim that the debate IS over when you say that though. I thought warming was a house of card that would crumble over night? Isn’t it all over now?

iCaled!

17. #17 by James Farmer on November 29, 2009 - 9:56 am

Ken:

While I appreciate the knowledge you have re programming, I suspect that knowledge is not based on experience with field theory or solutions of partial differential equations, particularly those relating to fluid mechanics – e.g., the Navier Stokes equations. If it were, you would appreciate that modeling – i.e., ad hoc procedures used where discretization in spacial or temporal domains is insufficient (e.g., turbulence models) – is often employed in various seemingly non correct (or ad hoc) manners because it works. This very typical aspect of numerical modeling could, therefore, explain your concerns.

So, while I appreciate your seeming basis for gloating – remember, though, the same standard you apply here can be applied to the foundations of your church – I think it more appropriate to find out the actual intentions of the code developers before substituting your own. Remember, also, that these types of codes are long, and often tens if not hundreds of authors have participated in their development, to one degree or another. Meaning you really have no idea what you are talking about unless and until you get more information than what you have been spoon fed to date.

In sum, tone down your incessant howling about something you know very little about and try and become a bit more informed. At the moment, it appears a race between you and Glenn Hoefer to see which can look the more ridiculous and uninformed; albeit, however, I admit you have a way to go before you top glenn’s idiocy.

18. #18 by Cliff Lyon on November 29, 2009 - 10:12 am

Hey Glenn,

Do you ever Google the authors of the crap you post?

Here’s a bit about Tscheuschner you might appreciate; Wenn die Fachbegutachtung scheitert – Gerlich und Tscheuschner malen sich die Welt, wie es ihnen gefällt

19. #19 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 29, 2009 - 10:43 am

Haha, you guys are so slow on the uptake. Keep reading the links I post while the warmer world falls our from under you. Don’t get it yet huh?

James on Ken and his church. nobody intelligent would continue this ramble. Stick to your own pew James, and mudder the homilys of the church of warmers under your breath so no one will think you are mad.

None if these models, or means of prediction have any baring on the continuing climate change that began in earnest 13k years ago. What is lacking from everyone is perspective. The amount of time discussed in any scenario warming or cooling is of a scale so short to the mechanics of how the earth works as to to be irralvant.

The inability to explain the natural causation that melted down the continental glasures that began this episode of warming (13k years ago) is no where in site. Qualified folks run the gamut in being unable to explain this. The onset of warming so vast, so severe, no discussion was really needed as coastal civilization was summarily inundated.

For literate people Cliff, the word is drivel. Time will tell all of us how this will play out. Right now your side is supported by fraud, though that runs the gamut of the political spectrum as well.

Shane when I say it is over, what is meant is that the AL Gore style of insessant howling about something he knows very little about is going to be subject to scientific review. This current round is over, forever.

Peoples personalities on how they view this problem, or how their intellectual opposites percieve them is irrelevant to discovering what may be happening here. If we ever do. We still have no idea how this abrupt and complete round of warming occurred anyway. What is your point Cliff, many people yourself included like to look at the world in the way they wish it was. It is called cognitive consonence, and few are immune. You have a real problem with it, but that is part of being you.

These are the only actual truths expressed here by anyone engaged in this debate.

20. #20 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 29, 2009 - 11:02 am

Correcting typos. What happened to the edit feature?

By the way, my post has been manipulated. To be expected, this is how the warmers are playing. Is there a code for that/

Haha, you guys are so slow on the uptake. Keep reading the links I post while the warmer world falls out from under you. Don’t get it yet huh?

James on Ken and his church. Nobody intelligent would continue this ramble. Stick to your own pew James, and mutterer the homilies of the church of warmers under your breath so no one will think you are mad.

None if these models, or means of prediction have any baring on the continuing climate change that began in earnest 13k years ago. What is lacking from everyone is perspective. The amount of time discussed in any scenario warming or cooling is of a scale so short to the mechanics of how the earth works as to to be irrelvant.

The inability to explain the natural causation that melted down the continental glaciers that began this episode of warming (13k years ago) is no where in sight. Qualified folks run the gamut in being unable to explain this. The onset of a warming so vast, so severe, no discussion was really needed as coastal civilization was summarily inundated.

For literate people Cliff, the word is drivel. Time will tell all of us how this will play out. Right now your side is supported by fraud, though that runs the gamut of the political spectrum as well.

Shane when I say it is over, what is meant is that the AL Gore style of incessant howling about something he knows very little about is going to be subject to scientific review. This current round is over, forever.

Peoples personalities on how they view this problem, or how their intellectual opposites perceive them is irrelevant to discovering what may be happening here. If we ever do. We still have no idea how this abrupt and complete round of warming occurred anyway. What is your point Cliff, many people yourself included like to look at the world in the way they wish it was. It is called cognitive consonance, and few are immune. You have a real problem with it, but that is part of being you.

These are the only actual truths expressed here by anyone engaged in this debate.

21. #21 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 29, 2009 - 11:07 am

any bearing on climate change.

Missed that one. What is great is that absolutely none of this warming fraud, and manipulations of my post are going to facilitate the truth about what is going on. All we truly know now is that the supporters of warming are fraudulent from top to bottom.

It would be good of you to refrain from altering my posts. As clever as you all think you are, and as misguided you imagine me to be, there should be no need to alter my posts. To do so is a sign of great insecurity and weakness, proof, however lame, that your intellect is on the run.

22. #22 by James Farmer on November 29, 2009 - 11:29 am

glenn hoefer says:

James on Ken and his church. Nobody intelligent would continue this ramble.

Actually, glenn, I think the comparison is real. Ken would never, and I emphasize the word NEVER, apply the same standard he applies to debunking GW to the Mormon church. The really interesting point to be made here, however, is that you would! Your inference to the contrary is just more disingenuous blather in place of something otherwise intelligent you might have to say.

PS. As I suggested of you yesterday, rather than just posting links, why don’t you pick one or two and analyze them for us. Though his analyses are entirely superficial, at least Ken gives it a shot in this regard. You can start with the link from yesterday that argues the 2nd law is inconsistent with the atmospheric green house effect. Go ahead and show us just how deep that “intellect” you claim to possess really is. We are all waiting!

23. #23 by Cliff Lyon on November 29, 2009 - 11:41 am

Glenn,

How many times are you going to remind us that global warming began 13k years ago?

If you could prove it, wouldn’t that also suggest that science can also confirm climate change since 1960?

Of course it does.

Problem is, you can’t prove it. We have no reliable evidence of temperatures 13 thousand years ago, or even 1000 years ago. So how can you argue with a straight face that your speculation about climate 13 thousand years ago somehow disqualifies the facts about AGW as confirmed by the entire world scientific community, you know, the same ones who send high resolution photos of Jupiter back to Earth or put mechanical hearts in humans?

24. #24 by shane on November 29, 2009 - 11:43 am

Shane when I say it is over, what is meant is that the AL Gore style of insessant howling about something he knows very little about is going to be subject to scientific review. This current round is over, forever.

You are going to stop talking for all of time then?

…or will you take James up (or Cliff for that matter) and actually post something useful and look at one of these links you like to throw around.

No, I suspect you will keep repeating the same tripe, that has already been shown to be either wrong, lies, or simply an artifact of your failure to understand. Remember, if you say it often enough it must be true.

25. #25 by Cliff Lyon on November 29, 2009 - 11:56 am

James, just because Joseph Smith was tried in New York 4 times, and convicted of ‘charlatanism’ does not mean that the BOM is a fraud.

God is well within her rights to select a criminal as a prophet. The Lord works in mysterious ways as we all know.

26. #26 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 29, 2009 - 12:24 pm

Hey Jesus was criminal, he was executed.

James, what inference? Don’t know what you are talking about regarding the Mormon church. It is a religion, and APW is supposedly science, as an engineer I’m sure you know the difference, though now with cooked data the warmers take on the look of a cult more so than a religion. A desperate cult at that.

You are attacking Ken’s religion Jim, I make no mention to it other than what you are doing with it. Anyone can see that.

The argument is made by sea level rise and has been made by peer review. If we are view the recent data it is seen it is no longer warming, which is why the fraud became necessary. Use the mind of a detective, instead of a progressive. Expectations were not met, a crime was perpetrated to promote the desire, and cover the truth. Basics of any crime drama.

Shane the lies cannot be projected onto me. The very scientists that promote what you believe have committed academic fraud. Has that not yet sunk in? Your premises have no validity after that, and the scientific community is going to start from scratch.

Keep running for cover, you are going to need it.

I have checked and read all the links I put up, and through the responses made have gauged how truly desperate is the desire for what you believe to be the truth. It is so very desperate. I wish to believe it as well,that way there might be some human hope of stopping it. I am prepared for the worst of possibilities that it is going to warm, sea level rise, and we are not responsible. Like the last time unprecedented warming occurred that utterly changed mans reality, for the better in the long run.

Just think, you aren’t even being paid to promote the theory. That is the definition of whacked to me. Resembles blind religion. Call me the heretic, no problem.

27. #27 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 29, 2009 - 12:36 pm

Cliff if this slow, dysfunctional, and featureless website of is any indication of your programming prowess I would like to hear about it. I have asked a web designer why it runs so badly, and the response was that the scripts that run it are all inefficient and randomly put together.

If this is an example of your work….there you go.

28. #28 by Larry Bergan on November 29, 2009 - 12:48 pm

One thing I have no scientific proof of, but I’m absolutely sure of at 57, is that human beings are almost incapable of believing anything they don’t want to believe. Even some of the skeptics of global warming who have given in to the facts exclaim that humans like being warm and it will be great to have shipping lanes opening up in the arctic.

It is simply uplifting to have faith that global warming is not happening or that Jesus is going to fix everything when he comes back.

Ken:

Would you include a Jesus fix in the last line of code if you were to do a climate catastrophe model?

Don’t you worry about the toxic garbage that we spew into the sea, the air, and everywhere else? These are things you can see with your own eyes which don’t require any kind of computer model.

As a former, free lance, computer programmer, I often couldn’t understand my own comments in the code after a couple of weeks, but that’s probably just me.

29. #29 by James Farmer on November 29, 2009 - 12:59 pm

glenn:

You are correct in certain regards why 1U runs slow – scripts are put together over a period of years and become inefficient; unless the entire code is rebuilt from the ground up, you are more or less forced to live with it.

Were you a programmer of scientific software, however, you would immediately recognize the same thing happens with codes such a complicated fluid dynamics and chemistry codes. They are built up over a period of years, often at the hands of different contributors, and become near unmanageable. But they work, notwithstanding various inefficiencies.

What, therefore, on god’s earth is your point? Apparently, it is just more of the same Glenn Hoefer obfuscation and gobbledygook. You have absolutely nothing of value to say, so you throw in a bunch of rubbish instead.

Do us all a favor. Take the next couple of hours/days/months and review the critique you posted re the 2nd law and the greenhouse effect and condense the argument.

PS. “Gobbledygook” is a real word. Look up the definition and try, as best you can, to distinguish your commentary from the definition. Good luck with that!

30. #30 by James Farmer on November 29, 2009 - 1:02 pm

As a former, free lance, computer programmer, I often couldn’t understand my own comments in the code after a couple of weeks, but that’s probably just me.

Larry:

Rest assured it is not just you. Most programmers are more concerned with the operation of the various routines than the comments made at various points in time.

31. #31 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 29, 2009 - 1:16 pm

Well apart from that cognitive consonance of the human species Larry, it nice to know that prokaryotes and eukaryotes have managed to survive all manner of climate change in the breadth of its extremes on Earth.

In the case of prokaryotes these have been around for 3 billion years, and eukaryotes, what we are ostensibly made of, have been around for 1 billion years.

That is a peer reviewed certainty that has held up for quite a while, without having to resort to fraud to prove it.

Let us move onto the real problem with carbon concentrations increasing. The ocean is the main sink for carbon, and as it has warmed it is releasing masses like a fresh pop on a summer’s day, soon to be without ice. The reason it has warmed is that the source for its recent temperature coolness, has melted away for the most part. The continental glaciers of the last ice age. *The corresponding lag time between atmosphere and ocean temps is 11,750?yr.

How conveniently right on schedule with the estimation that the last ice began to end 13k years ago. I would expect more warming of a variety that has nothing to do with man, though no one denies our contribution. It is just the lessor of the mechanism.

Despite this effervescing of carbon from warming oceans, what is worrisome is the increased carbon concentrations in the oceans despite carbon out gassing from this (warming oceans), especially at the coasts. It reveal acidification of the seas, making it harder for shelled creatures, zoo plankton and such to stay alive and replicate.

Looking at the wrong problems in my view, but they are all related. So much human nature, utterly fixated on ourselves. We must prepare for the predictable ocean warming that is coming even if we were not contributing, it has taken what peer reviewed science claims as 11,750 years to catch up, the Earth now is facing that scientifically predicted warming that has nothing to do with us. It has to do with the warmth that melted the glaciers, finally transmitting completely into the oceans.

There is absolutely no denial of this. If the volume of ice that caused sea level to rise 400 feet isn’t warming related to what we see now, then today’s proponents of APW are not factoring in what science predicted long before anyone dreamed up APW.

This isn’t a model, it is defined scientific reality. The heat that melted the glaciers has to go somewhere. It did, directly into the Earth’s largest thermodynamic sink, by far, the oceans.

32. #32 by Cliff Lyon on November 29, 2009 - 1:31 pm

Glenn,

I am impressed that you consulted a web designer on a subject of which you know close to nothing. Naturally, knowing close to nothing about the subject, you are also unable to validate your consultation.

I asked a web designer why it runs so badly, and the response was that the scripts that run it are all inefficient and randomly put together.

In this case, I call phooey on you because your assessment is wrong. You either made it up yourself or your “web designer” is unqualified.

Here’s why. This blog is WordPress. I didn’t write any of this code (scripts). I chose WordPress because it is widely considered by the some 12 million WordPress blog owners as well as industry experts as one of the best if not THE best such software.

So if you or your web designer understood that this was a WordPress blog, you would not have made such an erroneous assessment.

And since any punk remotely knowledgeable about websites would know this and never make such a stupid statement, I would bet like a thousand bucks, you made up the story about consulting a web designer and your subsequent report.

33. #33 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 29, 2009 - 2:18 pm

So it is your crap server, I know that but it is good to see you have to defend the clunker.

So someone else wrote the crappy scripts and you used them because you don;t want to or cannot write your own. You could write your own site, but that would take skill. So why is it you use a POS template to make your site, when you are such fantastic web designer and programmer? Just saying.

34. #34 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 29, 2009 - 2:30 pm

Analysis.

13k years ago is when peer reviewed science claims the great melt off began. 11,750 years is the time peer review claims it takes for the thermal transfer of atmospheric heat to incorporate into the thermal sink of the oceans. We assume that that high atmospheric temps melted the glaciers which of course were upon the land in the form of continental glaciers.

13k-11,750= 1250 years differential. So around 750 AD would be the time that all the latent heat that melted the glaciers would be transferred into the heat sink of the oceans, minus whatever dissipated through the atmosphere .

The Medieval warming period, a very profound climate change began about 1000 AD. 250 years later from the assessed time it supposedly should have. 250 years in the context of 11,750 is well within a 3% margin of error for the scale of the observation.

Now that 800 more years have transpired since the Medieval warming event. We had cooling thereafter, and now a period of warming again. At this point the data leaving the fraud aside is inconclusive, but we see a spike in CO2 concentrations, only logical as the sea warms up, something we all agree on.

The CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming we can assume.

You have concede, that the timing of warming within written history can be described, and it fits almost perfectly with what peer reviewed science would expect to happen. Imagine that, and without resorting to fraud either.

Oh yeah, this observation would conclude that this warming has nothing to do with man’s doings.

35. #35 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 29, 2009 - 2:36 pm

The panic is just palpable coming from you guys. I am sorry that you have so much invested in human induced global warming. Your world is coming unglued. That is a the trouble with belief, such things are sadly inevitable.

As for the website, the person I asked said any programmer worth his spit would write his scripts for the website, especially if you were to run from a aging desktop server. so as to make as efficient as it could be. Yet this isn’t Cliff, he is just a module man, like myself.

36. #36 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 29, 2009 - 2:42 pm

You lose Cliff, my friend says that even in WordPress you can go in a rewrite the code if you are competent enough. He says that if you use a windows server you really have no interest in running a premier website. You are running your website from a crappy server ancient server on windows.

Not even Microsoft uses windows servers for their own website. Face it, your imagined prowess, just does not exist.

37. #37 by Larry Bergan on November 29, 2009 - 2:55 pm

James:

Lengthy obfuscation is definitely glenns calling. With a better manager, he could be making millions as a pundit instead of wasting his time trying to mess up the conversation on TRULY free speech oriented blogs such as this one.

38. #38 by Glenn Hoefer on November 29, 2009 - 3:05 pm

More grist for the climate mill.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001838.html

39. #39 by Larry Bergan on November 29, 2009 - 3:06 pm

Ken:

This is the first time I’ve ever seen a video on YouTube which asked for money to purchase the video. Can’t you republicans do ANYTHING that doesn’t turn a buck?

You know, GREENBACKS; the ONLY thing that is truly sacred to you.

40. #40 by Glenn Hoefer on November 29, 2009 - 3:10 pm

Can’t mess up any worse than the scientists that committed the fraud Larry, and that is what this is all about.

All the points I made involve peer review science. The question is Larry, are you learning anything?

But me? I am having a really hard time staying awake. It’s just too much for my pea-sized brain to handle.

41. #41 by Anonymous on November 29, 2009 - 4:29 pm

More editing of my posts. The fraud continues.

42. #42 by glenn on November 29, 2009 - 4:34 pm

But me? I am having a really hard time staying awake. It’s just too much for my pea-sized brain to handle.

I never put that in, it is web master edit. More of the site integrity in what Larry claims is a TRULY speech site.

In a manner of speaking I suppose he is right. Truly free to do dishonest alterations of people’s posts. I am hardly the first.

43. #43 by Cliff Lyon on November 29, 2009 - 5:22 pm

Wrong again Glenn, COMPLETELY

OneUtah is running on LINUX server with Apache hosted by Blue Host (bluehost.com)

…and I have not touched the core code.

Apparently Glenn, your web designer has no more technical prowess than you. What a coincidence!

44. #44 by Cliff Lyon on November 29, 2009 - 5:28 pm

Glenn, If someone is editing your posts, why dont be specific. What has been changed and what are the impacts on your message?

Perhaps your are suffering a disconnect between how brilliant you THINK your comments are when you write them vs how completely wacked out they are when you re-read them.

My question is, why are you re-reading your comments after they’ve been posted? Sounds like vanity to me, like staring at yourself in the mirror.

45. #45 by shane on November 29, 2009 - 6:43 pm

i think we should take seriously the possibility that Ken is editing the posts, since they are on his story.

the gods know if i found Glen agreeing with one of my posts i would be tempted to edit out some of the crazy.

46. #46 by Cliff Lyon on November 29, 2009 - 6:53 pm

Shane, Glenn Hoefer has 2 ‘L’s’.

…by which we distinguish Glen Brown from Glenn Hoefer.

My vigilance is out of respect for Glen.

God forbid someone should associate one with the other.

• #47 by Glenden Brown on November 29, 2009 - 7:10 pm

Well thank you Cliff!

I would think Glenn Hoefer would be glad someone were editing his posts – the only outcome could be they would make more sense.

47. #48 by shane on November 29, 2009 - 7:08 pm

Wow, thanks for the futurepundint link! if you haven’t been there boys and girls, i highly recommend it. An interesting window into glenn’s mind. An entire website of commenters that are batshit insane….

48. #49 by Ken Bingham on November 29, 2009 - 7:14 pm

Much has been discussed about the peer review process but as we have learned from these emails the peer review process has been currupted. These scientists were merely peer reviewing each other and shutting out all scientists that may have differing opinions. It is also shown that they conveniently lost the hard data that was the basis for their findings so even if it was honestly peer reviewed the reviewers had no way of independently verifying the information.

The CRU at the University in question has agreed to an investigation but they seem more interested on investigating how the information was leaked more than what is contained in the emails and source code. However it is beyond them now full and independent investigations are being called for from the highest government officials and skeptics have said they will fight against naming investigators that have any vested interest in global warming.

The CRU had such a disproportionately large presence in global warming research including IPCC, EPA and Congressional reports that it puts into question the very heart of all global warming knowledge we have to date. In order to regain credibility scientists will have to start from square one on global warming research and be as clear and transparent as crystal as well as accept all points of view to regain the public trust. The term ‘denier’ is no longer acceptable because it assumes a bias that we can no longer tolerate in the scientific community.

Even taking global warming out of it you should all be disturbed at the absolute breakdown of the peer review process. This is the greatest fraud in the history of science and changes must be made to ensure this never happens again. Otherwise people’s faith in science will be forever shaken.

49. #50 by shane on November 29, 2009 - 8:02 pm

Bold claims Ken. Sadly I just don’t see anything in either the code or emails that says there is a breakdown in the peer review process. I can only find emails that suggest that scientists are people too and are frustrated that people like you fail to understand their work.

The term ‘denier’ is no longer acceptable because it assumes a bias that we can no longer tolerate in the scientific community.

You really don’t understand do you?

I am waiting to see you look at religion the same way. “(Until scientology) the LDS religion (was) the greatest fraud in the history of humankind and changes must be made to ensure this never happens again.”

Just saying.

50. #51 by Ken Bingham on November 29, 2009 - 8:20 pm

Shane you may not understand but apparently the British Government and many in the scientific establishment do including global warming believers. This scandal has reverberated throughout the entire scientific community. I guess you have just been exposed to only the US “mainstream” media. The international press is all over it.

You may say I don’t know enough about programming to understand the code but it doesn’t take a genius to understand what is going on when they have Michael Mann’s discredited hockeystick graph hard coded with the term “fudge factor” written next to it. I guess fudge factor is just one of those overly technical terms for us plebes to understand.

51. #52 by Glenn Hoefer on November 29, 2009 - 8:30 pm

Shane the future pundit link; In a paper published in the scientific journal Climate Change Dr. William Ruddiman argues that humanity prevented an ice age that would otherwise have begun about 4,000 or 5,000 years ago.

Some trouble with that Shane?

Or this from the site?

Update: BBC science correspondent Richard Black says Ruddiman’s theory is plausible. The link to the BBC is on the futurepundit link.

Checking for typos Cliff, as your state of the art linux site has no edit feature. Why is it so worthless again? Only reread them as I make typos, the clue that they are manipulated in when I copy something you wrote and I quoted and the words in are misspelled. Last I checked copying things leaves them intact when they are transferred.

Any changes to someone’s post shows the dishonest nature of the person doing that, and since all of the posters here likely have editing access, no telling who did it. It doesn’t matter as anyone that has dealt with Cliff knows him to be dishonest.

“Shane, Glenn Hoefer has 2 ‘L’s’.” Well Cliff we’ll let the audience figure that out. Maybe it’s like the warmer scientist code.

52. #53 by Frank Staheli on November 29, 2009 - 8:41 pm

Cliff,

I find it humorous that you attempt to baffle us with your and James Farmer’s credentials without ever coming around to admitting that someone wouldn’t very likely put comments in their code that explains how they are instructing their program to lie without actually telling their program to lie.

53. #54 by Glenn Hoefer on November 29, 2009 - 8:48 pm

By the time this is over people will have more faith in the dog catchers opinion on global warming than any credentialed scientists.

50-50 shot on being right.

Watch it happen.

54. #55 by James Farmer on November 29, 2009 - 8:57 pm

Ken:

I have said it before and here again. Ad hoc modeling is often used in carrying out complicated fluid dynamics simulations. You need look no further than the turbulence models that are used to simulate the flow field about aircraft, missiles and reentry vehicles. Your characterizations are simply way off base and without support. You really are out of your league on this one.

55. #56 by Glenn Hoefer on November 29, 2009 - 9:08 pm

Any comment James on the interesting fact that the time it takes for atmospheric heat to transmit to the oceans is 11,750 years? Calculate that fluid dynamic equation. Scientists already did.

Then we can see warming in the context of how it is really happening, as a result of the mass warming that occurred beginning an estimated 13k years ago, only now showing up as warming in the ocean resulting in overall warming now on land.

Meanwhile the boys are busted in East Anglia, and you are going to have to get over it.

56. #57 by Glenn Hoefer on November 29, 2009 - 9:22 pm

Shane, this link came from the futurepundit.com site. Do you have issues with this thesis? They fit right in with human induced warming theory.

Now I find it interesting, as in my reading of a Rifkin book a long while back, he made the claim that the #1 producer of the irremediable greenhouse gas methane, was, and still is, cultivated rice production. The root system produces methane apparently.

57. #58 by James Farmer on November 29, 2009 - 10:41 pm

Any comment James on the interesting fact that the time it takes for atmospheric heat to transmit to the oceans is 11,750 years? Calculate that fluid dynamic equation. Scientists already did.

Glenn:

Well, to be honest with you, no. I have no comment regarding this asserted fact which, by the way, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Further, I have not the foggiest notion what the dang you are even talking about; but, then again, why should any of us be surprised at that?

58. #59 by Ken on November 29, 2009 - 10:51 pm

James

I don’t know how many “adhoc models” are labeled “fudge factor”.?

59. #60 by James Farmer on November 29, 2009 - 11:14 pm

Ken:

As stated before, you have little to no experience with this type of modeling. It is done all the time.

60. #61 by Larry Bergan on November 29, 2009 - 11:57 pm

This is going to be just like every other right wing blogosphere scandal discovery. As soon as it is completely debunked and explained in full, the wingers will move on to the next fake discovery or continue to say there is something here, despite knowing it’s been debunked.

Watch and see.

61. #62 by Glenn Hoefer on November 30, 2009 - 12:06 am

If only Ike could see this fiasco. He truly was quite visionary.

A quote from President Eisenhower in 1961

“Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”.

Yes Sir Commander!

62. #63 by Glenn Hoefer on November 30, 2009 - 12:29 am

It is really quite simple. This is the amount of time it takes for atmospheric temperature below or above the current norm of sea temperatures to be transmitted into the sinks of the ocean.

The ocean atmosphere temperature cycle is currently defined as 23,500 years, half way through the cycle the heat that began in the atmosphere at the cycle’s beginning, has by 11, 750 years into the cycle been completely transferred into the heat sinks of the ocean. That is what peer review currently claims as the cycle that glaciation at this time in Earth’s history represents in years.

In short, it takes 11,750 for all the heat that ends the ice age in the cycle to arrive completely into the oceans at what would be the glacial minimum point in the cycle. Is that clear? That point after the beginning of the meltdown 13k years ago in our current time frame comes up as being around 750 AD human time, using the 11,750 year number for full transfer of heat to the oceans.

13,000-11,750=1250 this differential of 1250 years would place the transfer point at 750 AD our history. The Medieval warming period begins in 1000 AD. Still 250 years in a scale of 11, 750, is under a 3% margin of area.

Do you get what peer reviewed science of a differing discipline than the climatologists are saying in describing this cycle?

The atmosphere/glacial cycle has differed at different times of Earths history, but the glaciation cycle we experience now is believed to have begun 37 million years ago, when Antarctica moved into the position it currently is holding, causing the oscillations do commence.

This happened gradually and over millions of years of course as the continents separated and drifted apart to arrive where they are today. Still moving.

According to the cycle we should be cooling, and it appears we are, which is why the fraud became necessary.

However this link shows that man’s activities beginning as far back as 10,000 and then 5000 years ago stalled what should be an emerging ice age. We created the conditions that helped us thrive is his claim. He is credentialed, read it. Very interesting. 5000 years ago Asians mastered rice cultivation. Since then it has been the #1 source of methane that man produces, and still is to this day. Irremediable methane greenhouse gas.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001838.html

63. #64 by Glenn Hoefer on November 30, 2009 - 12:30 am

Whoops, I meant a 3% margin of error.

64. #65 by Ken on November 30, 2009 - 4:04 am

So do you people really believe that the scientific method should include excluding all with differing opinions, only allowing other scientists that already agree with the study to peer review. Blackballing and threatening scientific journals if they publish papers that go against the conventional wisdom? Do you really believe that is the best method to produce sound science?

If anything what this scandal should do is get ethics back into science and the peer review process. In science there should be no sacred cows and “consensus” should be damned. No more science by committee. A study either stands on its own and survives the rigors of counter studies and hard fought debate or it dies a quick death and thrown in the dust bin of history like all failed theories.

If global warming theories are true then it would stand up to all scrutiny and the proponents would not have to stack the deck in their favor. The fact that they must proves the weakness of their arguement and since global warming threatens to alter the lifestyle, freedoms, and destiny of every man, woman, child, animal, and plant then it better be iron clad and beyond question. Not because Al Gore says so but because the proof has withstood the toughest of examination and scrutiny. Until then we must keep cool heads and not run around like the sky is falling.

Fear and mass hysteria will do far more damage than any warming ever could.

65. #66 by Cliff Lyon on November 30, 2009 - 5:46 am

Ken,

The answer to your first question: I dont’ accept the premise. Science does not give a shit about opinion. Its not a democracy.

The answer to your second question: Ditto (replace ‘opinion; with ‘conventional wisdom.’

The answer to your third question: There is only one method used to produce science; the scientific one.

66. #67 by Cliff Lyon on November 30, 2009 - 6:09 am

Glenn,

You didnt answer my question. How can you be so sure about your science but not AGW?

Its a very real problem for you isn’t it?

Maybe this will help. There is a nice picture and a dose of those pesky things called facts (scientific ones).

67. #68 by Ken on November 30, 2009 - 6:25 am

Cliff

You do not accept the premise that scientists have competing theories and that good cases can be made for many of them? Are you so blind that you cannot see that conventional wisdom even among scientists can be wrong?

I think you want global warming to be true so badly because you want extreme restrictions on human behavior. You want to submit the sovereignty of the United States and the freedom we have enjoyed to an international governing body that we do not elect. You see global warming as a catalyst to reach your ultimate goals that in reality you don’t give a damn if GW is the biggest fraud in history you just want it accomplish your ends.

I’m right aren’t I?

68. #69 by Cliff Lyon on November 30, 2009 - 7:30 am

Ken, I think you are crazy. How can you possibly believe I just decided to go along with some fraud?

I think you are projecting your own position.

If global warming is a hoax, then just from the news this weekend, there must be 5 countries, our military and polar bears involved in a conspiracy to perpetuate this fraud on the world.

69. #70 by Ken on November 30, 2009 - 7:38 am

Ok maybe I went a little to far. I don’t think you would knowingly go along with a fraud but I do think you want global warming to be true.

70. #71 by Frank Staheli on November 30, 2009 - 7:40 am

James Farmer says that this sort of modeling is done all the time. (1) That doesn’t make it accurate. (2) If you literally mean the kind of modeling that has been debunked by the Climategate revelations, then the problem has been going on for a lot longer than anyone has imagined.

Cliff Lyon says that science doesn’t give a crap about opinion. Based on that true statement, science should dismiss these latest opinions and lies as not worth a crap. Why do you continue to cling to a demonstrable lie? Why are you not as incensed as George Monbiot, someone who had religiously subscribed to this false information, who now thinks these faux scientists should never be trusted again? You claim to be atheist, but you sure have been religiously dogmatic about the lie of man made global warming.

71. #72 by Glenn Hoefer on November 30, 2009 - 8:48 am

James you moron, I never said I was sure about anything, except the fact that a volume of ice that lay upon then land to the extent that when it melted it raised sea level 400 feet. That science did not rely on fraud, and has been hashed over repeatedly for over 100 years. Warmers are relying on human made CO2 without even understanding the sources of the gas. You name it, farming, rice cultivation, tree chopping, land clearing, natural emissions from warming oceans, yet none of it conclusive. In any scientific hypothesis the warmers would get an F for their project, and now anyone involved at a student level would be kicked out of school for academic fraud.

The real question James is with the ongoing fiasco, and the many varied inputs and considerations presented by peer reviewed science, how in the heck you with a Ph.d in a science based discipline came to believe the theory. Hanging around Cliff too much I guess.

Think for yourself man, at least that way you can be your own fool.

The difference between, Ken, and others here is and warmers is that we are honestly trying to follow what is going on, whereas the warmers have been relying a singular set of data concerning carbon concentrations in relation to collected temperatures, which we now KNOW was based on ACADEMIC FRAUD.

Once you have cooked data after a freedom of information request has been made you have committed a real crime under that law in England, you can be prosecuted. The East Anglia criminal idiots did this in destroying and altering data after the request for their data was made.

Game over.

72. #73 by Glenn Hoefer on November 30, 2009 - 9:03 am

Jim, explain why greenhouse gas is not considered a factor in the onset of the great meltdown that led to the melting of a volume of ice laying upon the continents that raised sea level 400 feet, 13k years ago.

Actually, let’s ask the East Anglia idiots how that occurred as you have not the credentials to assess how this happened. What I am saying is I am fairly sure you are not a hack simpleton academic criminal, though you seem to be easily led by them. We can save the title of hack for Cliff.

In fact no one really has a grip on how that happened. That measure of warming dwarfs any seen since, and even if ALL the ice left on Earth melted, which it cannot as most of it is in Antarctica which is seeing growing depths of ice pack, sea level would rise half again what is has, about 200 feet. That is all the ice that is left to melt.

As Ken says, I imagine Cliff does not give a rats ass whether AGW is true, as it is merely a political vehicle to him. You on the other hand might actually want to know what really is going on.

73. #74 by Glenn Hoefer on November 30, 2009 - 9:06 am

Before we go on about expanding seas, there is only so much of it that can occur, and by the IPCC’s own criminally fraudulent data, their own estimate is that it could rise 17 inches by centuries end due to expansion from temperature rise.

74. #75 by Glenn Hoefer on November 30, 2009 - 9:15 am

Wait Jim, did you not say in a earlier post that you are a denier? That the warming is not caused by man? Though it was the first time I heard it from you, is it true Jim, are you warmer denier?

75. #76 by James Farmer on November 30, 2009 - 9:27 am

glenn:

I said no such thing. Reread the previous post. What I said is man in contributing to the current warming cycle. Big difference.

76. #77 by Glenn Hoefer on November 30, 2009 - 9:52 am

Everyone contributes to it when they pee in the toilet James, turn a key, flip a switch. The question is does it matter.

Did you read the futurepundit article? In it that man actually made his own climate and prevented what should have been a return to the cold side of the glacial oscillation but carbon inputs from simple men with axes and oxes, and rice paddies released enough greenhouse gas to keep the cooling at bay for 5000 years?

People have contributed to this blog to further the con of AGW, but their efforts in light of the explosive fraud have had no impact. It has all been ah, shall we say, hot air.

In reality the largest contributor of methane on Earth is rice cultivation. Are we going to get Asians to quit growing the crop? Methane is an irremediable greenhouse gas, it actually creates more methane than all animal husbandry. Do you think the vegans know? Just an example of how personal politics leads to support or condemnation of a human behavior without any reliance of the truth of what that behavior actually is doing to our planet.

In truth James, I believe humans have an instinct and basic program like any animal. Unless there is something special about man granted by a creator, and we are violating the creators precepts then whatever we do is natural.

We evolved here if you are an atheist, like the guy on the other thread, and as such what we are now doing has some larger purpose like every other creature on Earth. To me that purpose looks like enhancing greater entropy through our life behaviors. Rather much a dichotomy. While the actual creation of life defies entropy in bringing great order to the being itself, it creates mass entropy when a creature such as man actually begins to live, and follow his ambitions.

We may be here for the purpose shredding and furthering entropy. From what we see from even the most conscientious people, there is no escape.

Man has impact. Now don’t let the toilet water splash you in the butt, as hot carbonized methanated crapola meets cool water.

77. #78 by Ken on November 30, 2009 - 10:03 am

Cliff

It would not require thousands, the military or even polar bears to pull this fraud off. It only took a few people who had a near monopoly of temperature data that as we have learned The IPCC, NASA, EPA among countless other scientists used as their benchmarks for their own studies. The CRU had nearly cornered the market on this data and they destroyed the raw data so there was absolutely no way to independently verify it.

Do you realize what this means? It means that IPCC, NASA, EPA etc used and peer reviewed data that was impossible to verify. They just took the CRU’s word for it.

These few scientists controlled nearly all the worlds repository of temperature data and it was kept on hopelessly broken databases and sloppy archaic and admittedly unreliable software.

I think someone on the inside was so disgusted and knew the world was about to make the biggest mistake in history at Copenhagen and released the data. It had to be an inside job.

Even if AGW is true these people still committed fraud with the way they went about things. Believers above all should be outraged at these people for tainting every major global warming study ever produced to date.

• #79 by Glenden Brown on November 30, 2009 - 10:32 am

Ken – so here’s the thing: the data from East Anglia wasn’t controlled by them – everyone else had access to the raw data from (wait for it) the meteorological services around the world, which still has all the original data. This group of scientists did not, contrary to your assertion, control the world’s temperature information. From the perspective of actual scientists, this calls into question a few lines of inquiry. This particular incident adds up to . . . not much in the grand scheme of themes. In terms of the science, the evidence for global warming is simply too broad, too widespread for it to have been some sort of conspiracy.

Allow me to let George Monbiot have the floor:

But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.

What’s more, the whole incident is nothing more than a PR campaign by deniers of science:

The recent hacking of the servers of the University of East Anglia can only be understood within this landscape of competing appeals to public trust. The denial industry (and hordes of climate nerds) has trawled through these emails and found sentences which, when removed from context, support their storyline that climate science is being deliberately distorted and exaggerated for a mixed bag of self-interested and politicised ends.

But you could find anything in here. I looked and found lots of references to lunch and fun, 94 to hate, 31 to love. Generally, though, the emails are extremely focused, technical, and, dare I say it, really dull. As noted on realclimate.org, the emails contain “no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.”

But this is hardly the point. This is an orchestrated smear campaign and does not require balance or context. The speed with which the emails have been cut apart and fed into existing storylines is remarkable. At the very least the UEA email campaign is an application of dirty political tactics to climate change campaigning.

I suspect it goes further than that. The storyline is too clever, the timing on the brink of Copenhagen and the US climate bill too convenient. I wait with interest to find out how these emails were obtained.

Ultimately Ken, someone is playing you. The scientific community has way of dealing with frauds and it’s not leaking information from stolen emails – it’s actually disproving the frauds. Don’t believe me ask how cold fusion is working out for folks.

The other aspect that has never been answered is why anyone would engage in a conspiracy to convince people global warming is happening. Unlike say the tobacco companies suppressing reports showing a link between nicotine and cancer, there’s no profit to be made. The actual changes required to respond to global warming don’t actually give anyone power or wealth.

78. #80 by Glenn Hoefer on November 30, 2009 - 10:27 am

Reminds me very much of the Papacy and it’s control over “science” during Galileo’s time. At the top of the Vatican was a scientific “peer review” , which modified postulates despite any evidence to fit with the religious orthodoxy that the Earth was the center of the Universe and all celestial bodies revolved around it.

How very ironic that despite 400+ years of “progress” we are basically afflicted with a similar orthodoxy, and structure Ken. The world turns, glaciers come, and glaciers go, as well do Enlightenments turn to orthodoxies.

In the same way the Vatican feared their religion would be compromised if they corrected themselves, (the pope being appointed as God’s voice on Earth) so too did the EAIC (East Anglia Idiot’s Cartel) believe they could not tell the truth about their variant data lest their own quasi religious belief that CO2 greenhouse gas is the devil, and it had arrived on the Earth from the Hell of man’s environmental sins, and was here to turn our garden on Earth into Hell itself. It is tale worthy of a Shakespeare play.

At least Cliff and the East Anglia idiots can’t keep us up locked up in our homes for the rest of our lives for expressing what we believe may be true, like poor Galileo. They did want to keep you from your car, boat, etc. etc. by levying crushing taxes though. Oh well, they could not lock you in your house, but they did intend to make so broke you can’t go anywhere anyway. Only AL Gore, the black pope of the GW cartel can fly around in a jet and do whatever he pleases.

All I can say is to AL is bring on the Infidels.

Did I mention that eukaryotes have been here despite all climate variability for over a 1 billion years? No matter what we do, or how we end up, life looks equipped to continue.

79. #81 by James Farmer on November 30, 2009 - 10:34 am

glenn hoefer:

Pull your head out of your ass, please! While I could not give a rat’s ass about you, personally, it does bother me – for your kid’s sake upon reading your commentary – that you continue to make yourself look … well … incredibly stupid, at best, or otherwise downright moronic, or even schizophrenic!

For what it is worth, let me clarify that man’s activities over the past 100 years or so can and are predicted to have a significant impact on warming; notwithstanding, however, that other factors (as you have pointed out no fewer than 100 times now) are also contributing to the warming process.

Ken:

I disagree completely with your assessment of the scientific community. Having worked extensively over the years with organizations such as the ones you refer – e.g., NASA – I can assure you that the state of integrity is far more intact than your groundless assertions to the contrary. I can further assure you that the codes you are criticizing are far more complicated than anything you have likely worked on as a CS programmer – e.g., the methods used to make predictions based on coupled equations for fluid dynamics, complex chemistry and radiation. So for you to come here and make Glenn Hoefer-like pronouncements makes you look … well … like glenn hoefer. Your assertions and conclusions are simply without basis in fact or logic and, moreover, are certainly not grounded in personal experience.

Nevertheless, I ask again whether you are willing to apply the same standards – e.g., conspiracies by an alleged few in control of data/documents to withhold such from the masses – to the Mormon church that you seem so readily to apply to the climate modeling community? It would be a wild ride for you, to say the least, were you to agree to do so!

80. #82 by Ken on November 30, 2009 - 12:47 pm

James

So you are trying to do a turn-about and criticize my LDS religion because I am criticizing your Global Warming religion? I can play turn-about as well. Why don’t you apply the same standard to these scientists as you do the LDS Church?

81. #83 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on November 30, 2009 - 12:54 pm

Just thought an example of Glenn’s falacious conclusions might be appropriate:

Any comment James on the interesting fact that the time it takes for atmospheric heat to transmit to the oceans is 11,750 years?. . .Then we can see warming in the context of how it is really happening, as a result of the mass warming that occurred beginning an estimated 13k years ago, only now showing up as warming in the ocean resulting in overall warming now on land.

Of course, we could simply apply Glenn’s standards and deny that any of the research he cites is valid, simply because we want to. Instead, let’s try to use our heads. Read this:
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/14288.html

Interesting. So, the ocean heats up after the atmosphere (as a general historic rule), but evidence shows that the ocean heating up was a large cause of the end of the last ice age, complicating the claim that the oceans are only now heating up as a result of atmospheric temperature increases. According to this research, temperature increases were largely caused by the ocean heating up.

I’m sure you’re also aware that water, having a high specific heat, can absorb massive amounts of energy from the air without seeing a significant increase in its own temperature. The air would have to get warm indeed for the oceans to heat up strictly as a result of thermodynamic heat interchange. And, considering that we’re dealing with a 13,000 year window, it’s unlikely that the water heated up, then cooled sufficiently to be noticeable, and is now heating up again as a result of atmospheric temperature increases. The changes would have to be rapid and system-wide for the integrity of our 13,000 year window and the 11,750 year lag-time to be preserved. (These conclusions are my own, not based on any scientific data but fundamental physics and that which has been cited)

The conclusion, of course, of the research Glenn cites is not that the ocean heats up after the atmosphere heats up, with a certain lag time, but that a lag time exists between any systematic shift in temperature of one or the other and its counterpart. Add in the research I cite and a new conclusion emerges: if the atmosphere is, in fact, increasing in temperature, and the oceans are as well, this presents a problem: the establishment of equilibrium (which takes 11,750 years) is oddly affected if both bodies are increasing temperatures simultaneously. (Likewise: my conclusions)

The thing Glenn is most correct about is that there are many factors–in fact, too many to keep track of–that cause global warming. Sort of like parenting. How do you take care of your kids? There’s just too much to know in order to raise them perfectly. For all you know, your involvement in their life will be the very thing to ruin them! Yet, good parents still try to take good care of their kids, regardless of the complexity.

Ultimately, these latest revelations need to be taken in step. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the East Anglia University in England is not the only source of climate research, nor the only one that promotes global warming theory. An overall reanalysis is necessary, but this event doesn’t totally debunk all global warming theory. It’s a setback, not a contradiction of all research by all scientists in all places.

Let’s try not to take such extreme positions. The world is probably not going to melt next year if Copanhagen fails. There is almost certainly some effect of humans on the overall climate, especially in regards to the increase of CO2 content in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic sources. Insisting the former or denying the latter is simply foolish.

82. #84 by James Farmer on November 30, 2009 - 1:27 pm

Ken:

Ah ha! Looks like I found a sensitive spot! Regardless, I think I have already addressed your proposed turn-around.

Several posts ago, I roundly criticized these scientists for any and all misconduct properly attributed them, and I reiterate that criticism today. Having said that, I do not think their actions warrant summary dismissal of the case for global warming – there is simply too much evidence that corroborates the theory. Further, these individuals are two of many thousands working on this problem – they are certainly not the keepers of all data important to the analysis.

So, if you want to play turn-around, then go for it. Let me hear you criticize the church leadership (and by leadership, I do not mean low-level minions at the various bishopric or stake levels) – both current and past – who refuse to let various documents critical of the church see the light of day. And if those documents are not produced, let me hear you state the whole religion is a charade (or at least suspect) because those in control must know something destructive to the framework that we don’t; otherwise, they’d give up the goods.

You cannot have it both ways, Ken!

83. #85 by Shane Smith on November 30, 2009 - 2:54 pm

The other aspect that has never been answered is why anyone would engage in a conspiracy to convince people global warming is happening. Unlike say the tobacco companies suppressing reports showing a link between nicotine and cancer, there’s no profit to be made. The actual changes required to respond to global warming don’t actually give anyone power or wealth.

Hey Glen, maybe you missed the memo, turns out climate change is just a farce funded by the weather channel to get ratings…

• #86 by Glenden Brown on November 30, 2009 - 2:57 pm

And now I know! How could I have missed it?

84. #87 by Shane Smith on November 30, 2009 - 2:57 pm

So, if you want to play turn-around, then go for it. Let me hear you criticize the church leadership (and by leadership, I do not mean low-level minions at the various bishopric or stake levels) – both current and past – who refuse to let various documents critical of the church see the light of day. And if those documents are not produced, let me hear you state the whole religion is a charade (or at least suspect) because those in control must know something destructive to the framework that we don’t; otherwise, they’d give up the goods.
You cannot have it both ways, Ken!

Hey Ken, you could start by explaining how the money that the LDS church put up (in rather unAmerican fashion) for support of prop 8 went from $2000 to$11,000 to \$200,000 in just a matter of 3 press releases. You could also address the fact that even the last number looks rather suspect.

Care to comment?

85. #88 by Ken on December 1, 2009 - 3:00 am

James

How is putting up money for a moral or political cause “Un-American”? It seems to me speaking up on issues and contributing money to it is as American as apple pie.

If you say that disapproving of gay marriage is Un-American then America has been Un-American since its conception, which is a non sequitur.
.
Since it is the consensus of the American people not to approve of gay marriage and since having a consensus means the “debate is over” and must go unquestioned, using global warming logic, then it seems to me your charge of the church being “rather un-American” is ridiculous on it’s face.

86. #89 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 3:37 am

To everyone who considers “fudge factor” no big deal. One of the jobs I’ve done is Parachute Rigger. I’ll make a deal with you, I’ll pack one parachute using an ad hoc “fudge factor” system for packing. I’ll pack 9 using no ad hocs or fudge factors. Pick one of the chutes at random and jump with it. Something tells me you wouldn’t put your life in the hands of the very ad hoc fudge factors you defend here.

Face it, your religion has been exposed… and I have no doubt that if these emails were about a religious group, or some “Right wing” group, you would accept them without question.

87. #90 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 3:45 am

also notice, people seem willing to say these emails are a hoax… except the ones who wrote them.

88. #91 by Cliff Lyon on December 1, 2009 - 5:48 am

Hey Parachute Packer,

I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll give you the best science available technology to cure your cancer, and replace your heart valve. Only problem is the first one will increase the risk of doing the second procedure and also means waiting 6 months for the valve replacement. If you do the valve first, you have to wait 6 months before beginning chemo which increases chance the cancer will spread become teminal.

9 out of 10 doctors believe in one sequence. One doctor believes in the other.

Conspiracy?

Which way do you go? Parachute packer?

89. #92 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 7:08 am

I notice you didn’t answer the question, you merely posed a question yourself.

I also notice that your question doesn’t work because both answers could be legitmate, but in this situation, either the CRU’s information is legitimate or it isn’t… if these emails are accurate, it isn’t.

If the information from the CRU is not legitimate, but it matches the information from other sources, the other sources can’t be relied on either.

Falsified data cannot bring out accurate information.

GIGO

90. #93 by James Farmer on December 1, 2009 - 9:10 am

How is putting up money for a moral or political cause “Un-American”? It seems to me speaking up on issues and contributing money to it is as American as apple pie.

Ken:

I am not talking about the church’s participation in Prop 8, although it is certainly within the gambit of areas where the church has docs hidden from public view because of the negative reaction they would generate. Rather, I am talking about docs and other matters evidencing facts that call into question the entire foundation of the church. There are many such items, and you – a member of the church – are not allowed access to them, not to mention the general public. Disclosure of such information would be devestating for the faith of the flock.

Your back is against the wall on this one – you refuse to apply your own standard of review to an equally relevant circumstance – facts kept from the view of the public because those facts cut against the grain of intended thought, faith, belief or whatever. And the best you can do is play a shell game to avoid exposing a direct conflict in your analysis, which is very Glenn Hoefer-ish, I might add.

Please confirm for us that you are not so naive to believe the church is not withholding such information! Then take the next step and state for the record that you are applying a double standard – one for the Mormon church archives and another for your criticism of the current state of climate modeling.

Ha! And you think you are helping to expose the greatest fraud ever? Too funny!!!

91. #94 by James Farmer on December 1, 2009 - 9:21 am

Ted:

As stated many times above, if you don’t know what you are talking about, sit back and learn a thing or two from those that do.

The state of the art of modeling the equations of fluid dynamics is replete with various “fudge factors.” The shapes of wings and fuselages on the planes you fly across the country or around the world on were designed using codes having all sorts of “fudge factors.”

If you cannot grasp that fact (as is the case with Ken Bingham), then go to Red State and join the like-minded, ill-informed company that also cannot grasp that very basic, fundamental fact of the state of the art of modeling software.

92. #95 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 9:55 am

So, James, in your condescending little world, reversing the numbers of data, throwing out data that doesn’t fit the conclusion you want, and threatening people who dare question the conclusion you impose are acceptable?

I don’t give a flying fig about the fluid dynamics about modeling. What I do care about is fact. The fact is, the CRU has been caught red handed. The fact is, you don’t care.

They have admitted that the emails are authentic. What more do you need?

Now, I’ll back off on my admitted condescension towards you, if you back off on yours towards me.

It would be nice if we could just decide not to discuss that which we only have a passing knowledge. However, the world we live in doesn’t allow for that.

We are asked to accept Global Climate Change information at the say so of the CRU and other organizations. We can’t all be experts in the field, but we are forced to make decisions based on it anyway.

If you don’t have military or medical background, does that keep you from forming an opinion about the war in Iraq or Medical Reform?

The concept of Man Caused Global Climate Change is being used as the justifications for major changes in our entire society. This means we all have a stake in the debate whether we have formal education in the field or not.

I will NOT sit back and take it as liars, con artists and frauds (such as Al Gore) or even since and educated experts in the field dictate terms to us.

This new information cannot be simply disgarded as if it never existed. If people of science are willing to do that then you can no longer claim that you simply follow where the evidence leads.

93. #96 by Anthony Tiles on December 1, 2009 - 9:56 am

Dwight, the research is about the time it takes for the thermodynamic exchange to take place between the atmosphere and the ocean, not something else. The full cycle is 23,500 and is accepted by geologists.
Given the 11,750 yr number, and the onset date of melting 13 years ago, we can see the 1/2 way point places us at human time 750 AD. 250 years later we observe an onset of very warm climate recorded in written history. It is quite coincidental don’t you think?

What has happened since then is the difference. We should be well along the way of piling up ice. We see marginal sea level rises right now, and if there are no more rises, we can conclude that the ice cometh as the cycle would describe. If sea level rises we may have in fact warmed the Earth enough by our activities to interfere with the cooling side of the cycle.

Sea level will be the gross indicator of warming, and regional climate change is just that if the sea level remains intact.

Beyond this point we should see cooling and we did, in the “little ice age” post 1200 AD, currently we see the expected fall in temperature again, which is why the fraud in East Anglia had to be perpetrated, in order to prop up a flawed theory. So both elements are not warming Dwight, the atmosphere is cooling right now, and that is to be expected according to the cycle.

The theory that man has delayed the ice age with his outputs of carbon is quite interesting, but is as yet a theory. That our way of life changed 10k years ago after the melting began, to agriculture and settled dwelling places brought on the changes that interfered with the cycle and has delayed an ice age which would completely devastating to mankind. We can barely keep up with energy in what is a warm world, a cooling world would be very problematic.

Don’t kid yourself Jim, it does bother you. My point in piling up the sources for all warming and the geologic record Jim, is that this is completely lacking in describing climate change from the sources that are obsessed with carbon being the driver of it. If you look foolish in the process, and that is mostly due to your own incomplete and personal comments, what I am showing that you don’t want to accept, that gives the illusion that you a partisan dummy despite any education… is merely incidental.

94. #97 by Shane Smith on December 1, 2009 - 10:03 am

Ken :
James
How is putting up money for a moral or political cause “Un-American”? It seems to me speaking up on issues and contributing money to it is as American as apple pie.
Since it is the consensus of the American people not to approve of gay marriage and since having a consensus means the “debate is over” and must go unquestioned, using global warming logic, then it seems to me your charge of the church being “rather un-American” is ridiculous on it’s face.

That was me Ken. Why do I consider it un-American? Lets see, Locke? Jefferson? Separation of church and state? Founding fathers? Roger Williams? Any of this ringing any bells for you?

I am not sure what to make of your “consensus” argument. Science is not determined by consensus. Neither are facts. Nor is morality. Nor is historical fact.

Frankly, I think you failed to read that with any understanding at all.

But feel free to skip over prop 8 and refer instead to the question James posed.

95. #98 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 10:04 am

James, also.. again you didn’t answer the question. Would you be willng to just pick out one of the parachutes knowing that one of the ten was packed, “ad hoc”?

96. #99 by cav on December 1, 2009 - 10:23 am

“I will NOT sit back and take it as liars, con artists and frauds (such as Dick Cheney – and the whole slew of Gop hawks) … dictate terms to us.” Ted

Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bitches!

97. #100 by James Farmer on December 1, 2009 - 10:27 am

I don’t give a flying fig about the fluid dynamics about modeling.

Well, Ted, that is quite apparent from your comment. This, of course, raises a rather interesting point, as modeling climate change is primarily about modeling “fluid dynamics” – e.g., those pesky little things we call wind and ocean currents – with a bunch of chemistry and radiation physics thrown in.

My point is you are stating things – along with Bingham – that are simply irresponsibly inaccurate. Ad hoc models are used in these types of simulations because they are the best models we have. We could not perform the simulations without them.

Which brings me to your question. No, I am not going to choose a parachute from the selection you offer. The reason being there is no need to use ad hoc approches in packing parachutes – we can generally get it correct 100% of the time without the need for such resort. As stated above, the same cannot be said, however, in regard to modelling complex physical behavior associated with climate dynamics.

Do you see, now, Ted, why your analogy is simply off base?

98. #101 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 10:29 am

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.

99. #102 by James Farmer on December 1, 2009 - 10:38 am

Don’t kid yourself Jim, it does bother you. My point in piling up the sources for all warming and the geologic record Jim, is that this is completely lacking in describing climate change from the sources that are obsessed with carbon being the driver of it. If you look foolish in the process, and that is mostly due to your own incomplete and personal comments, what I am showing that you don’t want to accept, that gives the illusion that you a partisan dummy despite any education… is merely incidental.

Glenn:

Speaking of “partisan dummies” we are all still waiting for you to explain one of your so-called sources. You provided a source a few days ago that calls into question the validity of the greenhouse efect in light of the 2nd law. I asked you then to explain that point to us in layman’s terms – certainly not beyond your ability given your background and insight in the subject. For whatever reason, you refused.

Ok, so I am asking you once again. Explain it to us. If you are so impressed by the conclusions of the myriad links you provide, please take just that one assertion from that one source and explain it to us – i.e., explain why the greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law.

Seriously, glenn, if you want to be taken seriously, then explain this one assertion from this one source to us. After all, if you are providing these links/sources, you must have reviewed them yourself, correct? You would not just willy-nilly throw out links/sources that you yourself do not understand, would you?

Hmmmm. Waiting, waiting, waiting……

100. #103 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 10:40 am

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.

101. #104 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 10:43 am

now feel free to apply an artificial correction to what I said to make it into whatever you want it to mean.

102. #105 by cav on December 1, 2009 - 10:47 am

Gloss and hypocracy.

103. #106 by James Farmer on December 1, 2009 - 10:51 am

Ted:

I will provide you the benefit of having joined this conversation mid stream. For the record, and I have stated it numerous times, I do NOT support the behaviors of the two scientists in question. Their behavior looks bad for all scientists – not just climate modelers. On the other hand, I will not allow the bad actions of these two bring down the entire scientific community and its extensive bodies of work.

Having said that, I also refer you to previous comments to Ken re the state of the art of climate modeling and simulation techniques in general. I am providing you with insight to the workings of complicated codes based from experience – my own experience having worked in developing such codes for 20 or so years, including a stint at NASA as a senior research scientist. i am not force feeding you, just telling you like it is – take it or leave it, I really do not care.

PS. For someone wanting to engage in discourse without personal attack, you have an interesting way of showing it.

104. #107 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 10:52 am

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”.

105. #108 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 10:53 am

oh, and by the way, if you aren’t already living the way you say we should all be living to “save the planet”, I have to question your integrity.

106. #109 by Ken on December 1, 2009 - 12:16 pm

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.

107. #110 by Shane Smith on December 1, 2009 - 1:28 pm

Except there still isn’t anything that looks like cooking the books in the email, but hey, it wasn’t like we expected you to come out and admit you don’t think about your religion in any kind of critical manner…..

108. #111 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 4:18 pm

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.

109. #112 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 4:19 pm

Shane, read this quote from the emails and tell me again that there “isn’t anything that looks llike cooking the books in the email”….

From: gjjenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: 1996 global temperatures
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: llivingston@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djcarson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Phil

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December
monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:

1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov

2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
heights up to 20 Dec.

3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov

4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20
Dec

5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
Nicholls??

6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also

7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is)
cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual
avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this
last year – can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)

8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.

9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.

10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.

Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

Cheers

Geoff

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?page=1&pp=25

110. #113 by James Farmer on December 1, 2009 - 4:47 pm

Ted:

See Shane’s comment above. You do seem like a funny guy, at least to laugh at.

111. #114 by Shrini on December 1, 2009 - 4:51 pm

grep for the mistakes pointed out and they are indeed true –
example file under FOIA/documents/harris_tree/calibrate_nhrecon.pro

Once you get the data – unzip it and then you can run a search to verify that whatever has been posted is correct. I was convinced that this is clear manipulation of test results because the source code says that the code was modified to get results for A particular conference etc. This happens rampantly in academia where the researchers will botch results to make it look appear correct = per desired output so that their theory gets accepted.

The sad part is that among thousands of reviewers how didnt any other peer or senior reviewer NOT have seen this data/output fixup??

Looks like Man-Bear-Pig Gore wanted his Oscar errr Nobel desperately!

112. #115 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 4:54 pm

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.

113. #116 by Ken on December 1, 2009 - 6:01 pm

First head rolls in Climategate. Phil Jones head of the CRU has announced he is stepping down. Even with this ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CBS still are blacking out the entire story. They are all complicate in this fraud.

The network owners stand to make billions over buying and selling carbon credits. They all have a conflict of interest.

An other example of how corporations have sold out America. How does it feel liberals that your cause has been co-opted by the global warming industrial complex?

114. #117 by James Farmer on December 1, 2009 - 6:08 pm

Ted:

My point, as is Shane’s, is you are misconstruing the the context of the e-mails. For example, I notice that rarely if ever has an entire email or, better yet, thread of emails been posted showing how the offending language might have been interpreted if read in context. All I am seeing is snippets that, when taken out of context, appear suspect. Ken repeats this error, as I have pointed out, when he copies snippets of code or comments without (a) understanding how programmers of such codes typically do their job and (b) how the snippets of code actually integrate with the bigger picture and affect the result.

It is in light of Ken’s superficial analysis in this regard that I suggest he apply the same standard to various snippets of information leaked from church archives or, more recently, from the church’s dealing with prop 8. In fact, Kenn cannot apply the same standard to the church and walk away with the warm and fuzzies as he does with the climate modelers’ emails, comments and code snippets.

115. #118 by James Farmer on December 1, 2009 - 6:14 pm

An other example of how corporations have sold out America.

Ken:

Where does the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stand in the hierarchy of US corporations? Shall we discuss how the church’s investments might bring the corporation into the same line of criticism?

As far as Phil Jones is concerned, he probably made the right decision in stepping down.

116. #119 by Ken Bingham on December 1, 2009 - 6:18 pm

East Anglia’s Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton said he had “accepted Professor Jones’s offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations.”

They are going to “Operate normally” during the investigation? So in other words they are going to continue their fraud even though they have been exposed.

James

You need to look at the leaked material. It contains entire email threads. We are not taking anything out of context. We have the entire context laid before us.

For example:

From: gjjenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: 1996 global temperatures
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: llivingston@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djcarson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx… See More

Phil

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December
monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:

1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov

2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
heights up to 20 Dec.

3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov

4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20
Dec

5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
Nicholls??

6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also

7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is)
cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual
avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this
last year – can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)

8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.

9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.

10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.

Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

Cheers

Geoff

Thank you Ted for posting this on FB.

117. #120 by cav on December 1, 2009 - 7:21 pm

Exactically what kinds of discussions occur in the run-up to any deadlined publication?

The more I know about this issue, the more I begin to believe it’s just another example of the fearful distractions, put forth around death panels, and the robot-clone-Namibian Prince who’s made off with the peoples whitehouse.

Rest assured tho, Sarah Palin will save us!

118. #121 by James Farmer on December 1, 2009 - 7:26 pm

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

119. #122 by Ted on December 1, 2009 - 8:29 pm

James, whatever you have to tell yourself. The email I posted was the entire email from header to close.

Face it, they were caught at it. Heads are rolling. The only people who refuse to even acknowledge this fraud are the people who have made it their religion.

Never tell anyone that you follow the evidence where it leads. From your mouth it is a stone faced lie.

120. #123 by James Farmer on December 1, 2009 - 9:29 pm

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

121. #124 by Shane Smith on December 1, 2009 - 9:46 pm

I have to wonder along with James, what exactly do you think that email you quote says? You quote the entire email from header to close. Great.

What. Does. It. Mean.

What exactly do you see in that that proves that all global warming data is a lie? Please explain….

122. #125 by Glenn "I am not smarter than a fifth grader" Hoefer on December 1, 2009 - 10:19 pm

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.

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

123. #126 by Glenn "I am not smarter than a fifth grader" Hoefer on December 1, 2009 - 10:23 pm

Hey, Jones resigned today guys, the Louisville slugger is cracked and the horse is long dead.

No justification, the guy claimed guilty, and went away. Stiff upper lip and all that you know. What are you guys doing?

124. #127 by Glenn Hoefer on December 1, 2009 - 10:39 pm

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.

125. #128 by James Farmer on December 1, 2009 - 10:42 pm

Um, Glenn. I believe you were tasked with an assignment. You were going to explain to us why the greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law. Time to put up or shut up.

126. #129 by glenn on December 1, 2009 - 10:53 pm

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.

127. #130 by glenn on December 1, 2009 - 10:56 pm

BTW, my more complete reply is hung up in moderation, don’t know when it is coming out.

128. #131 by glenn on December 1, 2009 - 11:03 pm

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?

129. #132 by Cliff Lyon on December 1, 2009 - 11:43 pm

Ive looked around. We are the only ones still talking about this hysterical canard. I suppose for some, its beats the heck out of discussing the SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

Once again you people are embarrassing Utah.

130. #133 by Shane Smith on December 2, 2009 - 7:50 am

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….

131. #134 by Cliff Lyon on December 2, 2009 - 8:54 am

Ted,

You and your brother Ken keep saying the the conspiracy will require major changes in society.

What exactly do you think will happen?

Consider for a moment that the average Californian consumes 40% less energy than the rest of the country.

132. #135 by Glenn Hoefer on December 2, 2009 - 9:19 am

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.

133. #136 by Glenn Hoefer on December 2, 2009 - 9:31 am

Life is now not cooked off, has not cooked off, and will not cook off from a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth. Due to previous greenhouse affects though, some species may have gone extinct. Since we were not the cause of those particular warmings, as we had not yet appeared in the record of life on earth at these times, their extinctions can only be described as “natural”.

Question: Are we natural? Did we evolve here? If so how is what we do concerning planetary climate change “bad” if we are the natural evolution of life on this planet? Man’s efforts as good or bad are simply subjective to a creature that has limited apparent ability to mitigate his behavior, or even admit his limitations.

Pardon, I have to hit the head and release some sulfur and methane. Everyday if you want to live!

134. #137 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 10:21 am

Glenn:

See, this is one of the problems with your tendency to just post crap – even you cannot keep track of all the BS you post. At any rate, below is a copy of your previous comment and link:

http://www.schmanck.de/0707.1161v4.pdf

Tells why the greenhouse effect theory is bunk using basic physics principles. There is no way to promote this crap theory anymore. It is over.

Now, my question to you, as has been the case ever since you posted this comment, is will you please explain for us laypersons precisely why the greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law – which is a major premise of your source (yes, I actually read it).

On the other hand, I’d be equally satisfied to read the more honest answer from you, something along the lines of: “hey, I don’t understand any of this crap, it just looks technical and complicated so I post it.”

135. #138 by Glenn Hoefer on December 2, 2009 - 10:56 am

What portion of the pdf are you referring to Jim? I did not read it all, it just looked interesting. Glad you found it so enough to read it.

As it is I posted it, doesn’t mean I agree with it. As controversial as the mans premise is, it did draw out the expected responses.

The greenhouse theory is bunk in relation to the concept that it is possible for it to runaway and destroy life on Earth. It could make life difficult, even wipe out myriads of species, but our kind of life has been here for 1 billion years, so any speculation of what the greenhouse effect is going to do should be measured by what has been, and with greenhouse gas concentrations far higher than today.

136. #139 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 11:06 am

glenn:

How can you agree or disagree with something you cannot even understand? But thanks for the honest assessment – you just dig your own hole deeper and deeper everytime you comment.

Your kids will be proud of you someday – “yup, that’s my daddy, a real, bonafide, idiot!”

137. #140 by Ted on December 2, 2009 - 12:49 pm

Cliff Lyon :Ted,
You and your brother Ken keep saying the the conspiracy will require major changes in society.
What exactly do you think will happen?
Consider for a moment that the average Californian consumes 40% less energy than the rest of the country.

International scams like the Kyoto Protocol and the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen answer that question pretty well.

I guess you welcome some international bureacracy dictating a lifestyle to you, right?

I guess as long as you worship at the alter of global climate change, you’re willing to accept anything from the gurus.

138. #141 by Todd Clarke on December 2, 2009 - 2:15 pm

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.

139. #142 by Shane Smith on December 2, 2009 - 8:14 pm

So Todd, i trust that when Inhoff got his list of 400 “scientists” many of whom had no scientific training at all, many more who wee retired, and several of whom had no degree at all but where simply TV weather personalities, you were equally disgusted and decided that global warming deniers are sad and compromised?

There is also the simple and sad fact that he is right. It may not be something we want to admit, but the statement is in fact accurate. The media won’t check the names, and won’t chech the facts. That is why the BS that you have all swallowed is reported. They manufacture a non-existant disagreement about the science, much as they have over evolution and many other controversial science topics. Is it sad that he is right? Yes, it is. But when expected to play some retarded numbers game against liars like Inhoff, and given a press that thinks that airing the discredited opinion of some fringe idiot is equal time, that is the reality he is facing.

Still waiting for someone to show me the huge fraud though. Unless that was supposed to be it? OMG, was that it? This really is sad…

140. #143 by brewski on December 2, 2009 - 8:30 pm

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.

141. #144 by Frank Staheli on December 2, 2009 - 8:33 pm

Let me answer the question before they do. It will go, conveniently, something like this: “Mr. Lindzen is not a real scientist because real scientists believe that man is causing significant global warming.”

142. #145 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 9:24 pm

brew:

Sure, his qualifications are certainly commensurate with a real scientist. So, what’s your point?

143. #146 by Frank Staheli on December 2, 2009 - 9:39 pm

…his preferred answer having already been taken, Mr. Farmer chose the only alternative–the sniff of disinterest and disdain…

144. #147 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 9:51 pm

… the unexpected answer in the affirmative leaves Mr. Staheli, yet again, without a cogent or otherwise substantive response, forcing Mr. Staheli yet closer to the realization that he is the blogger equivalent of Glenn Hoefer!

Congratulations, Frank!

145. #148 by michael mielke on December 2, 2009 - 11:36 pm

What you blind deniers are doing is taking some tiny pieces of comment from a few of the overwhelming number of scientists who have complete consensus on our destroying the living systems we depend upon and turning it into a big deal when no deal exists. The evidence is overwhelming. You just don’t want to see the truth. You can’t handle the truth. Step back and pull yourself out of the sand or out of your own viscera. If you can understand the word.

146. #149 by michael mielke on December 2, 2009 - 11:40 pm

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?

147. #150 by cav on December 3, 2009 - 12:05 am

It’s taken a while for any indignation to arise over the compromising of confidential correspondence. That deserves looking into. Not to mention the motivations of those who have released these emails.

But it also ignores the somewhat surprising uproar over the purported contents of the emails. It seems that a shocking fig leaf has been waived, and the misunderstood words, and the desire to have one’s data presented in as positive fashion as possible, and the desire to try to reconcile different data sets, has encouraged scientific illiterates to declare that global warming does not exist. We should be so lucky.

148. #151 by cav on December 3, 2009 - 12:12 am

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

LIBERALS!!!!!

149. #152 by James Farmer on December 3, 2009 - 12:29 am

Mike:

Welcome to the freak show. Ken, Glenn H. and Co. have lowered the bar to a point where it merely lies on the ground. They embody the very definition of the proverbial “race to the bottom!”

150. #153 by Ken on December 3, 2009 - 5:44 am

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.

151. #154 by cav on December 3, 2009 - 7:29 am

Published on Thursday, December 3, 2009 by The Guardian/UK
Copenhagen Climate Change Talks Must Fail, says Top Scientist
Exclusive: World’s leading climate change expert says summit talks so flawed that deal would be a disaster
by Suzanne Goldenberg

….
Hansen, in repeated appearances before Congress beginning in 1989, has done more than any other scientist to educate politicians about the causes of global warming and to prod them into action to avoid its most catastrophic consequences. But he is vehemently opposed to the carbon market schemes – in which permits to pollute are bought and sold – which are seen by the EU and other governments as the most efficient way to cut emissions and move to a new clean energy economy.

Hansen is also fiercely critical of Barack Obama – and even Al Gore, who won a Nobel peace prize for his efforts to get the world to act on climate change – saying politicians have failed to meet what he regards as the moral challenge of our age.

In Hansen’s view, dealing with climate change allows no room for the compromises that rule the world of elected politics. “This is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill,” he said. “On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can’t say let’s reduce slavery, let’s find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%.”

He added: “We don’t have a leader who is able to grasp it and say what is really needed. Instead we are trying to continue business as usual.”

152. #155 by Ken Bingham on December 3, 2009 - 7:43 am

James Hansen is against Copenhagen, and Algore because they do not go far enough in his extremist eyes. He does have a good point about the corporatization of global warming that Cap’n trade and Algore represent but only because he wants even more extreme measures.

153. #156 by Cliff Lyon on December 3, 2009 - 8:23 am

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps— gavin @ 6 August 2007

We often get requests to provide an easy-to-understand explanation for why increasing CO2 is a significant problem without relying on climate models and we are generally happy to oblige. The explanation has a number of separate steps which tend to sometimes get confused and so we will try to break it down carefully.

Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.

The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the Earth’s surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium. This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around $$\sigma T^4$$ (~390 W/m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4 (~240 W/m2). Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) – a number that would be zero in the absence of any greenhouse substances.

Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.

The fact that different absorbers contribute to the net LW absorption is clear from IR spectra taken from space which show characteristic gaps associated with water vapour, CO2, CH4, O3 etc (Harries et al, 2001; HITRAN). The only question is how much energy is blocked by each. This cannot be calculated by hand (the number of absorption lines and the effects of pressure broadening etc. preclude that), but it can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. The earliest calculations (reviewed by Ramanathan and Coakley, 1979) give very similar results to more modern calculations (Clough and Iacono, 1995), and demonstrate that removing the effect of CO2 reduces the net LW absorbed by ~14%, or around 30 W/m2. For some parts of the spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO2 or by water vapour, and so simply removing the CO2 gives only a minimum effect. Thus CO2 on its own would cause an even larger absorption. In either case however, the trace gases are a significant part of what gets absorbed.

Step 3: The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions

CO2 is up more than 30%, CH4 has more than doubled, N2O is up 15%, tropospheric O3 has also increased. New compounds such as halocarbons (CFCs, HFCs) did not exist in the pre-industrial atmosphere. All of these increases contribute to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated

Lessons from simple toy models and experience with more sophisticated GCMs suggests that any perturbation to the TOA radiation budget from whatever source is a pretty good predictor of eventual surface temperature change. Thus if the sun were to become stronger by about 2%, the TOA radiation balance would change by 0.02*1366*0.7/4 = 4.8 W/m2 (taking albedo and geometry into account) and this would be the radiative forcing (RF). An increase in greenhouse absorbers or a change in the albedo have analogous impacts on the TOA balance. However, calculation of the radiative forcing is again a job for the line-by-line codes that take into account atmospheric profiles of temperature, water vapour and aerosols. The most up-to-date calculations for the trace gases are by Myhre et al (1998) and those are the ones used in IPCC TAR and AR4.

These calculations can be condensed into simplified fits to the data, such as the oft-used formula for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) (see Table 6.2 in IPCC TAR for the others). The logarithmic form comes from the fact that some particular lines are already saturated and that the increase in forcing depends on the ‘wings’ (see this post for more details). Forcings for lower concentration gases (such as CFCs) are linear in concentration. The calculations in Myhre et al use representative profiles for different latitudes, but different assumptions about clouds, their properties and the spatial heterogeneity mean that the global mean forcing is uncertain by about 10%. Thus the RF for a doubling of CO2 is likely 3.7±0.4 W/m2 – the same order of magnitude as an increase of solar forcing by 2%.

There are a couple of small twists on the radiative forcing concept. One is that CO2 has an important role in the stratospheric radiation balance. The stratosphere reacts very quickly to changes in that balance and that changes the TOA forcing by a small but non-negligible amount. The surface response, which is much slower, therefore reacts more proportionately to the ‘adjusted’ forcing and this is generally what is used in lieu of the instantaneous forcing. The other wrinkle is depending slightly on the spatial distribution of forcing agents, different feedbacks and processes might come into play and thus an equivalent forcing from two different sources might not give the same response. The factor that quantifies this effect is called the ‘efficacy’ of the forcing, which for the most part is reasonably close to one, and so doesn’t change the zeroth-order picture (Hansen et al, 2005). This means that climate forcings can be simply added to approximate the net effect.

The total forcing from the trace greenhouse gases mentioned in Step 3, is currently about 2.5 W/m2, and the net forcing (including cooling impacts of aerosols and natural changes) is 1.6±1.0 W/m2 since the pre-industrial. Most of the uncertainty is related to aerosol effects. Current growth in forcings is dominated by increasing CO2, with potentially a small role for decreases in reflective aerosols (sulphates, particularly in the US and EU) and increases in absorbing aerosols (like soot, particularly from India and China and from biomass burning).

Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the ‘fast feedbacks’ have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the ’slow’ feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.). Given that it doesn’t matter much which forcing is changing, sensitivity can be assessed from any particular period in the past where the changes in forcing are known and the corresponding equilibrium temperature change can be estimated. As we have discussed previously, the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~7 W/m2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars). More formally, you can combine this estimate with others taken from the 20th century, the response to volcanoes, the last millennium, remote sensing etc. to get pretty good constraints on what the number should be. This was done by Annan and Hargreaves (2006), and they come up with, you guessed it, 3ºC.

Converting the estimate for doubled CO2 to a more useful factor gives ~0.75 ºC/(W/m2).

Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number

Current forcings (1.6 W/m2) x 0.75 ºC/(W/m2) imply 1.2 ºC that would occur at equilibrium. Because the oceans take time to warm up, we are not yet there (so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining 0.5 ºC is ‘in the pipeline’. We can estimate this independently using the changes in ocean heat content over the last decade or so (roughly equal to the current radiative imbalance) of ~0.7 W/m2, implying that this ‘unrealised’ forcing will lead to another 0.7×0.75 ºC – i.e. 0.5 ºC.

Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3 to 7 W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. That is significant.

154. #157 by cav on December 3, 2009 - 9:29 am

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

Mkay?

155. #158 by James Farmer on December 3, 2009 - 9:44 am

Good point, cav. I was actually just starting to enjoy dialogue with ken, but his shrill Hoefer or Palin or tea-bagger approach of shouting loudly with little or no substance or analysis – even if incorrect - is tiresome.

156. #159 by Todd Clarke on December 3, 2009 - 9:56 am

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.

157. #160 by cav on December 3, 2009 - 10:22 am

The shortcomings of Sinusoidal democracy ought to be verified and used as ammo against it.

That they have all the money and all the power will present some obstacles, I suppose, but what are we to do otherwise?

158. #161 by cav on December 3, 2009 - 10:28 am

James, ESPECIALLY WHEN INCORRECT!

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

Well, Duh?

159. #162 by James Farmer on December 3, 2009 - 10:35 am

cav:

I stand corrected. “ESPECIALLY WHEN INCORRECT” would have been the proper statement!

160. #163 by cav on December 3, 2009 - 10:52 am

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.

161. #164 by Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 10:59 am

Any comment on this James? Who is shrill but you James? Ken is just laying out what is in every major European newspaper, and will soon be in every paper here. When that all happens, you can only imagine what your current stance will look like.

Can’t lower the bar on scientific endeavor any lower than committing scientific fraud, breaking freedom of information request laws, and willfully colluding in that effort with others charged to do the research. Limbo lower man James!! I know you worked for NASA, are we to assume that by casting the attention anywhere but on the defrauders you may be trying to protect your own ass, and that of associates? Just wondering. Check the link. It is over for you guys, don’t you get it yet?

People in Hollywood are talking about taking Al Gore’s Oscar away, as the movie was presented as true, and in England has been defined as full of errors, and well in that case we see now purposefully, so the fraud is exposed for all to see. Except of course those imbued with the global warming faith.

This involves NASA. We have similar laws concerning the prosecution of people who interfere with data after a FOI request, like England.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/03/researcher-reportedly-threatens-sue-nasa-climate-data/

I’ll let you stew in that for a while warmers. This is only then beginning. What with the escalation in Afghanistan which I predicted before this clown was elected, this plan to wreck the country is going nowhere fast. 2010 then 2012 is the solution.

162. #165 by cav on December 3, 2009 - 11:00 am

While I jest, there is this:

An open letter from one of the major climate scientists on the hacked email disinformation campaign:

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.

163. #166 by James Farmer on December 3, 2009 - 11:08 am

glenn hoefer says:

… committing scientific fraud …

Well, for the 100th or so time, either make your case or shut the hell up. So far, you’ve done neither.

164. #167 by Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 11:11 am

“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.

165. #168 by Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 11:15 am

I don’t have to make the case, or provide you with a scintilla of a chance to worm out of the truth. We will let the resignations, and the coming charges speak for themselves James.

You make the case that the codes are not for tainting data, or that the e-mails are just jocularity, and Jones resigned because he wanted to spend more time with his family. You are toast James, and I have absolutely nothing to do with it, nor is there any need to entertain your denial hysteria.

166. #169 by James Farmer on December 3, 2009 - 11:21 am

If anyone desires an example of the proverbial “nothingburger”, well here it is below, straight from our very own Glenn Hoefer:

I don’t have to make the case, or provide you with a scintilla of a chance to worm out of the truth. We will let the resignations, and the coming charges speak for themselves James.

You make the case that the codes are not for tainting data, or that the e-mails are just jocularity, and Jones resigned because he wanted to spend more time with his family. You are toast James, and I have absolutely nothing to do with it, nor is there any need to entertain your denial hysteria.

Broken to its elements, Glenn states that he need only make unsupported allegations of fraud. And if anyone disagrees with his allegations, then they are free to prove the negative. No substance, all flare and glare.

Thankfully, in the US, folks are generqally presumed innocent until proven guilty. In Glenn’s world, however, ….

167. #170 by Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 11:26 am

…and finally James, do you have any idea how stupid you look in attacking Ken via his church in the context of this scientific fraud?

We are simply laying out a blockbusting news story about the conduct of scientists that were to provide data that the survival of the human race could hinge upon, and you prefer to make nothing of it.

Nothing less than a complete review of all data, and the postulates derived from them will suffice now. The world may be warming, but we are not relying on the like of Jones, and supporters of his fraudulent data to figure out now what may be happening.

We are very likely not going to do something because time is of the essence. If it was so important to know the truth, why would the sources to find it be handled in a criminal manner.

You are emotionally invested in climate change James, and that without the proof, is something skin to any religion. Nice to see you showing your faith.

168. #171 by Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 11:37 am

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.

169. #172 by James Farmer on December 3, 2009 - 11:43 am

Glenn Hoefer states:

… no matter how you word it, I am out of this conversation now …

Actually, Glenn, you have never been a part of the conversation. Rather, you have shouted your willy-nilly follishness and gobbledygook and groundless accusations and assertions from the sidelines and more or less frustrated the entire process of even having a conversation.

That being said, I hope you are true to your word – i.e., being out of the conversation. Good bye, and good day!

170. #173 by Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 11:55 am

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.

171. #174 by shane on December 3, 2009 - 11:56 am

After considerable investigation, I am forced to conclude that the people who have found climategate to be the final nail in the coffin of this farce are most likely correct. Please see my post on the matter at http://oneutah.org/2009/12/03/climategate-worse-than-we-ever-thought/

172. #175 by cav on December 3, 2009 - 2:40 pm

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.

173. #176 by cav on December 3, 2009 - 2:43 pm

Of course, that’s just me.

I reserving real judgement till I hear what Rush Limbaugh has to say this weekend.

174. #177 by Richard III on December 3, 2009 - 7:09 pm

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”….

175. #178 by Jim Barnstall aka Glenn Hoefer on December 4, 2009 - 10:12 am

Jim to James; NASA is next. Bet your pals are scramb ling over there, but maybe not if you are any guide as to the adroitness of fraud cover up.

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d24-Legal-fallout-of-Climategate–CEI-to-sue-NASA

Better get the ducks in row.

176. #179 by cav on December 4, 2009 - 10:22 am

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!

177. #180 by Glenn Hoefer aka Jim Barnstall on December 4, 2009 - 6:16 pm

Let me laugh Cav.

HA, hhshaaaahhahahahahhahahahhhahaha giggle, chortle, and hahhahahahhahahahahahhah!!!!

178. #181 by Conservative Dickheads Go Home on December 5, 2009 - 8:19 am

“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!!!!!!!!!

179. #182 by Glenn Hoefer Posing as James on December 5, 2009 - 10:19 am

It is really hurting. No amount of whining will get we warmer screwheads off the hook. Not only are we idiots frauds, we have destroyed and lost heaps of data.

Oh well, we just have start collecting more. See you about 20 years.

Why dickhead do you believe it to be republicans? Nobody believes lies unless they are deceived. What about these people?

I estimate that the strong cognitive consonance exhibited by climategate deniers could well take several months to fall to a coming cognitive dissonance. I recommend the whole lot of you start a prescription of prozac now, so you can cope with the reality.

Source: http://bishophill.sq…uttings-33.html

« More CRU revelations to come | Main | Phil Jones confirms that CRU has been hacked »
Friday
20Nov2009
AuthorBishop Hill
Climate cuttings 33
DateNovember 20, 2009 CategoryClimate

General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.

In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I’ll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.

* Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
* Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
* Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709)
* Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.
* Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
* Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
* Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
* Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
* Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
* Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)
* Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
* Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
* Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)
* Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
* Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
* Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
* Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
* Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
* Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
* Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
* Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
* Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
* Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
* Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
* Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
* Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
* Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
* Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
* Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
* Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
* Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
* Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
* Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
* Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
* Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
* Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
* Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
* Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
* Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
* Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
* Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)