Climategate is About Much More than 1 or 2 E-Mails

If you listen to the US mainstream media, you’d think that the ClimateGate scandal is about 1 or 2 emails.  It’s about far more than that.  It’s about conspiracy.  It’s about intimidation.  It’s about intentionally falsifying the data with the help of computer programs. You’ve heard only a minuscule amount of what Climategate is really about. It’s important, however, that you find out just how gigantic is that part of the ClimateGate iceberg that lies beneath the water line.

//
It doesn’t matter how many Clinton officials and New York Times editorialists claim otherwise.  It doesn’t matter whether the IPCC chairman says it.  Despite what drivel MediaMatters might be pedaling, this is perhaps the greatest scientific scandal that has occurred in the history of the world.  The supposed scientific method of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been irreparably damaged.

In the limited time that I have had to research the scandal, here are some of the items that I have come across:

They have attempted to cover up the gravity of the fraud. More and more people are finding that when they read the entire set of e-mails and other data that was copied from East Anglia’s servers, that this IS a very big deal. Clive Crook writes that this conspiracy is at the foundation of nearly everything that passes for climate science today.

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC process. It goes to the core of that process.

The declaration from [IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side “deniers”.

Global warming expert and author Christopher Booker calls the scandal “the worst scientific scandal of our generation.”  Booker emphasizes the magnitude of the fraud by highlighting who they are that perpetrated it:

What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others…

British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn stated “that the ClimateGate revelations have rendered man-made global warming fears ‘false.’” Corbyn, who belongs to Weather Action, a long-range solar forecasting group, said further that

The case is blown to smithereens and this whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and Copenhagen conference should be closed.

Other scientists involved in IPCC agree that Climategate is a genuine fraud. Climate Depot reports that

UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.”

Zorita writes: “Short answer: Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”

Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication…”

The conspirators make it a habit of ostracizing other scientists who do not agree with them. Vincent Gray, who has a Ph. D. in physical chemistry and was one of the founding members of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, submitted nearly 2,000 comments critical of the IPCC’s 2007 report, all of which were ignored.  Gray explains how scientists who disagree with the prevailing religious dogma are ostracized:

Nothing about the revelations surprises me. I have maintained email correspondence with most of these scientists for many years, and I know several personally. I long ago realized that they were faking the whole exercise.

When you enter into a debate with any of them, they always stop cold when you ask an awkward question. This applies even when you write to a government department or a member of Parliament. I and many of my friends have grown accustomed to our failure to publish and to lecture, and to the rejection of our comments submitted prior to every IPCC report.

The conspirators have destroyed data. Lord Christopher Monckton called them “global warming profiteers” pointing out that they have willfully destroyed data requested by other scientists, which is a criminal offense:

[They] have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks.

They have instructed their computer modeling programs to generate desired, rather than actual, results. The source code of their computer modeling programs is much more damning than their e-mails.  Ken Bingham at OneUtah has deciphered the problem quite elegantly.  The only original argument that Bingham’s sputtering detractors have been able to make is that it’s logical that someone would put comments into a computer program explaining that they were going to instruct the program to falsify the data, but then not write the program to do what the comments say it will do.

As an effort to provide cover for the Climategate scandal, an old canard has resurfaced–that CO2 is supposedly increasing acidity in the oceans.  This theory has been debunked.

Here are some of the emails that aren’t being talked about:

They have conspired to make the data match a preconceived notion. There is the email where someone named Keith Griffa admitted to Michael Mann (who has been implicated in the Climategate scandal) that the actual science suffered as he made his “results” fit the pre-conceived notion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Griffa wrote:

I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.

They have conspired to obfuscate peer-reviewed material. For years now, the claim has been that no peer-reviewed articles exist that disagree that man is causing global warming.  That is not true, but that’s not because the Climategate conspirators have not been trying.  Much of the peer reviewed material has been stifled.  Some of the discovered emails detail a conspiracy to keep out of the IPCC report any peer-reviewed literature that disagrees with the intent of the Climategate cabal. The Wall Street Journal reports that

In one email, under the subject line “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL,” Phil Jones of East Anglia writes to Mann: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Peer-reviewed data regularly dispute the allegations of the Climategate crooks. Such disputes have become harder, however, to find, due to a conspiracy to spike them. The Wall Street Journal also noted the revelation that one such tactic was simply to take over any journal that disagreed with the party line.

Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal “Climate Research” published a paper not to Mr. Mann’s liking, that “This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature’. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!”

They want you to think that it’s only one or two e-mails. There are thousands of e-mails into which the web of deception is interwoven.  You can read them all by clicking here if you want to.

On at least one occasion, members of the Climategate clique used email to encourage others to delete incriminating emails.

Jason Lewis called it not just a smoking gun, but a “smoking cannon”.  James Inhofe calls Climategate the “final nail in the coffin of cap and trade”.  Yet the religious zealots of Climategate refuse to let go of their propaganda, claiming that it’s just about a couple of e-mails.  You now know that it’s about far more than that.

It’s time for Americans of all stripes to come out of the comforts of your caves.  Make sure that you don’t, with your acquiescence, allow this conspiracy to stand.  As Lord Monckton said recently

What we are faced with is a tyranny, world wide, over the mind and body of man, and it is the duty of every red blooded United States citizen to oppose with every fiber of his being what is being done…by this Administration to try and sign away your Constitution at Copenhagen.

If you want to keep abreast of just how much more there really is to the scandal than just 1 or 2 e-mails, check out the following web sites:

You might also want to look at Twitter.  Thousands of tweets per day recently have mentioned the term “Climategate”.

This article was originally published on SimpleUtahMormonPolitics.com

  1. #1 by James Farmer on December 1, 2009 - 10:36 pm

    They want you to think that it’s only one or two e-mails. There are thousands of e-mails into which the web of deception is interwoven. You can read them all by clicking here if you want to.

    Well, then, Frank, why don’t you pick the worst of the thousands of emails and analyze it for us? Heck, for that matter, why don’t you then move on to analyzing the BOM for us? You obviously have a unique ability the rest of us lack!

  2. #2 by Glenn "I am not smarter than a fifth grader" Hoefer on December 1, 2009 - 10:45 pm

    “Well, then, Frank, why don’t you pick the worst of the thousands of emails and analyze it for us? Heck, for that matter, why don’t you then move on to analyzing the BOM for us? You obviously have a unique ability the rest of us lack”!

    Painfully obvious.

  3. #3 by Ken on December 1, 2009 - 11:02 pm

    Great article Frank

    We know the left right now and warmer scientists are filling their shorts over this. They just hope they can go on to Copenhagen and sign us all into slavery before the jig is up.

  4. #4 by Cliff Lyon on December 2, 2009 - 12:12 am

    Oh My God you guys. Enough is enough. The only thing you are doing is setting a terrible example for our kids.

    We already trail the industrialized world in the sciences.

    If you really believe so many scientists and countries with NOTHING to gain are part of a HUGE CONSPIRACY, then at least show us one single highly respected scientist who is challenging the concept of AGW.

    Otherwise, we are a bunch of hysterical layman claiming a conspiracy that rises to a new level under which are a slew of unproven ones like Jews rule the world and the twin towers were brought down by the Israelis.

    Please. Think of the children.

    In a few short years we will be buying not just most, but ALL of our technology from abroad.

  5. #5 by Ken on December 2, 2009 - 3:22 am

    Cliff

    “Nothing to gain” Oh Cliff you are a smart man but you are completely blind to this. The fact is that the system has been set up that only scientists that who come to the “correct” conclusion on global warming get any kind of government grant money. Upcoming scientists know what side their bread is buttered on and few will risk their professional reputations by bucking the science elite.

    What we have is scientific McCarthism at it’s worst. In fact this has out McCarthied McCarthy. These emails prove there was an active campaign to blackball and intimidate scientists as well as completely corrupting the peer review process and scientific journals, and these hand full of scientists had the power and ability to do it.

    “For the children” Who are they that are scaring our children to death by unsubstantiated claims that global warming will lead to a devastated planet? The truth is even if global warming is real we have no way of knowing the real impact. It is just as likely to have positive effects as negative. In fact every warming period has resulted in the greatest advancements of human development including creating civilization itself. Since you believe in evolution you have to understand that warming allowed creatures to leave the primordial soup that was responsible for life itself.

    Please. Stop scaring our children.

    OBTW. If we enact Cap’n Trade you can expect to buy everything from abroad because it will make things too expensive to produce anything in the United States.

  6. #6 by Frank Staheli on December 2, 2009 - 7:00 am

    Cliff: Is it all about keeping up with the European Joneses–who happen to be Kyoto liars of the first degree–or is it about the truth?

    Have you and James done any research into this at all, or do you both need to go in for arthroscopic surgery on both of your jerky knees? I gave you ample sources from which you can do the research yourself, but you seem so ensconced in the oblivion of your false religion that you don’t want to take the time to find out whether your dogma is correct or not. Hint: it isn’t.

    I suppose if you can’t stand the heat, you simply walk out of the kitchen and into the basement of spreading innuendo about the LDS Church? That’s mighty sporting of you.

  7. #7 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 7:58 am

    Frank:

    Still waiting for you to analyze one of those thousands of condemning emails. Neither Ken, glenn, nor ted were up to the task on the companion thread, maybe you can do better over here.

  8. #8 by Shane Smith on December 2, 2009 - 8:18 am

    OK, i am sure you have heard this before, but could someone actually point to an example of this fraud? Just take one or more emails and actually explain how and why it is fraudulent? There must be over a dozen links in that article, and so far not a single one that i followed has a single example of this massive fraud they claim the emails and code show. Not a single example.

    Oh they all make numerous claims about how the data is wrong and has been manipulated. But they don’t actually point to single file. They don’t even appear to have a single quote.

    Finally, by surfing for over an hour looking for just some sort of damning quote there is a huge collection of emails about nothing more than a disagreement in the way to analyze data at http://wattsupwiththat.com/ but as several commentors stated, the actual raw data shows a large warming trend even though the author of the article claims it doesn’t. Whats more it is data for a single region and not globally, so even if it did show cooling, that might still be part of a warming trend.

    So where is the huge fraud? I am sorry I am so dense, I just need help seeing it. Please point, and be specific.

  9. #9 by Glenn Hoefer on December 2, 2009 - 9:46 am

    So Jones resigned for no reason at all is that it?

    Ah America, it’s ethics are in such shambles that those duped cannot even see the obviousness of the fraud. At least the Europeans know when the gig is up and resign in shame rather than Blogoyeviching their way through life.

    My advice to you who cannot see the fraud, don’t go to Vegas, and stay away from the County Fair, and random 3 card monte games. You are still ok to play pull tabs and number picking, can’t get into too much trouble that way.

  10. #10 by Glenn Hoefer on December 2, 2009 - 10:01 am

    You do realize that very soon, motivated people far brighter than any of us will point to the fraud conclusively, but even a kid understands that these people were actively shutting out scientific postulates that disagreed with their hypothesis. This is scientific fraud, and after freedom of information requests are made upon your government funded data project, if you deny them, and hide data, or manipulate it, this is criminal in England. Expect charges to be laid.

    This also puts the final nail in the Labor government’s coffin, so no more England to support the fraud. The Tories will soon rule.

    Even if the data proves warming, the manner in which Jones and his people attempted to manipulate data, and control access to the data, is fraudulent, and criminal!! If it described warming, WHY manipulate it? WHY hide it? In any court proceeding with a jury, there is but no way for these folks, which is WHY Jones resigned.

    Woe is America, that people who imagine themselves so clever cannot see this, or would simply deny it for political gain or to assuage a tattered intellect’s ego. At least Jones can move forward, people unwilling to follow what the man does now, have a much more difficult road to slog.

  11. #11 by Ken on December 2, 2009 - 10:08 am

    CLIMATE CHANGE ‘FRAUD’

    Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes to the Earth’s orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.”

    This story is exploding all over the world and our media continues to ignore. Copenhagen should be cancelled because the world is on to them and any attempt to create global taxation schemes will unleash a hellstorm of opposition from the people of every country. The delegates at Copenhagen our about to learn that they no longer have a free hand to do what ever they want.

    In Australia government heads are rolling as five opposition PMs resign in disgust over cap’n trade.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100018431/climate-e-mails-topple-australian-opposition-leader/

  12. #12 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 10:29 am

    Absolutly amazing!

    Thousands of emails supporting this so-called fraud and not one of you – frank, glenn, ted and ken – can or is willing to analyze a single one of the emails to point out the fraud, or the conspiracy or anything else.

    I am beginning to think you are more comfortable with the tea-bagger approach – just scream loudly and people will give up – than with a real analytic approach!

    Where’s the beef, guys?

  13. #13 by Glenn Hoefer on December 2, 2009 - 10:49 am

    In your own mind James, you must be a genius. The resignation means nothing?

    Who needs to discuss any of the science? I am only going as far as I need to. That the data was withheld and “hidden” and that access to the data was inhibited after freedom of information requests were made is a crime, and as such all scientific veracity is on the table until the authorities get to the bottom of it.

    Jim, the write of these e-mails, was in collusion with others is without question in this effort, which is why he resigned in shame.

    The repercussions of this are just beginning. Let’s wait for someone of credentials you will believe to write up what really happened perhaps. The mail in which it is communicated they are going to truncate data is particularly damning, though what it all means will have to be sorted out in COURT.

    In the meantime the science is no longer secret, and no longer manipulated, and is going to be subject to absolute transparency.

  14. #14 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 11:00 am

    Glenn:

    As I said, not one of you is able to point out the so-called “fraud” or “conspiracy” with particularity. What ever.

    PS. Still waiting for a response re the greenhouse effect assertion, glenn. Maybe you should just man up and concede you haven’t a rat’s ass of an idea what is being discussed in the paper you, yourself, used to support your assertion the GW gig is over.

  15. #15 by Frank Staheli on December 2, 2009 - 11:30 am

    James: You’re saying that you actually read the above article, and Ken’s article, and you haven’t found ANY evidence of fraud?

    Glenn: There are quotes from emails in the above article. And on Climate Fraud and on Cimate Depot. Keep trying. You seem intelligent enough. But then again I’ve heard it said that our prejudices make us blind.

  16. #16 by Shane Smith on December 2, 2009 - 11:38 am

    Frank Staheli :
    James: You’re saying that you actually read the above article, and Ken’s article, and you haven’t found ANY evidence of fraud?

    Is that what you are all saying? We keep asking for you to point to the proof or even evidence, and you keep saying “the fraud is all over! The conspiracy is unmasked! Heads will roll!”

    This is rather like the run up to Iraq, when asked for evidence of WMD, the answer was generally “everyone can see they are there!” When asked to show exactly what evidence there was it never really materialized….

    So, have any of you found that conspiracy yet? How many days ago did these emails come out? Any of you actually read them?

    Still waiting…

  17. #17 by Richard Warnick on December 2, 2009 - 12:29 pm

    I’ve been totally off the Internet for a week, but with access to TV and newspapers. No mention of “climategate” and very little about the stolen e-mails.

    I come back here and the hand-waving is still going on.

    You’re not going to re-fill Lake Powell with charges of “scientific McCarthyism.”

  18. #18 by Ken on December 2, 2009 - 12:54 pm

    James

    I’m sure all defense lawyers representing fraudsters would love you to be on their jury.

  19. #19 by Ken on December 2, 2009 - 12:57 pm

    Richard

    All the networks except Fox News are totally ignoring the story because they all have a vested interest in global warming. If global warming is found to be a fraud they will go down in flames because they pushed the fraud so hard.

    Read the international press. It is topic #1 all over the world. Our press will be brought in kicking and screaming but by then the damage to then will be incalculable.

  20. #20 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 1:19 pm

    Ken:

    Let’s see, now. This must be dodge number 113?

    Regardless, there is a burden of proof required in our country that must generally be satisfied for conviction or a finding of liability concerning fraud. Further, fraud must be pled with particularity to survive even a summary motion to dismiss on the pleadings. Your conclusory rhetoric and allegations satisfies neither burden.

    Unless and until you show me the beef, as a juror, you bet I am voting to acquit!

  21. #21 by Ken on December 2, 2009 - 1:54 pm

    ABCnews.com refuses to report on Climategate or as some have dubbed climaquiddick, but they do have a story on 7 misconceptions of global warming. Really there is only 1 misconception and that is the whole miserable fraud.

  22. #22 by Ken on December 2, 2009 - 2:07 pm

    Climaquiddick emboldens Australia Parliament to reject Cap’n Trade legislation. Goodonya Mates!

    This news does not bode well for warmers and is only the first sign of what is to come in Copenhagen.

  23. #23 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 2:22 pm

    Ken:

    Dodge numbers 114, 115, ……. Zzzzzzz.

    Still waiting…….

  24. #24 by Ken on December 2, 2009 - 2:47 pm

    James

    Why should I respond because I know if emails were released from Church headquarters suggesting they were all commiting fraud I am sure you would be giving them the same benefit of the doubt as you are giving the Climate Scientists to avoid even the appearance of being a damned hypocrite.

  25. #25 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 3:13 pm

    Ken:

    You should respond beause you are the one top posting about fraud, conspiracy, etc., at the top levels of the climate modeling communities. Yet you refuse to make a case for the fraud.

    I find it fascintating, to say the least, that you have dodged every single request to make your case; the best you do is claim to have knowledge of programming and writing e-mails and, therefore, we, your readers, should just assume that such experience qualifies you to draw the conclusion that a fraud has occurred.

    You claim the emails prove fraud, I request you show us how. Exactly what in the emails establishes a fraud? You scream, squirm and run around in circles, but you refuse to even try and make a case to support your conclusory allegations. I am beginning to wonder if you have even the slightest awareness of what fraud is and the elements one must prove to establish the occurrence of a fraud.

    Quite frankly, Ken, you are seeming more and more Glenn Hoeferish with each passing top post and comment. You point fingers and yell loudly, but under all the flash and glare there is absolutely no substance; and when called to the carpet to explain yourself, you claim I am picking on you and your church. Pitiful!

    Bottom line, if you have a case, I’d like to see it. If you don’t, then just shut the hell up!

    PS. And I should add that it is not just you, ken. We have glenn, ted, you and now frank running around like kids on halloween, yet not a single one of you will explain in a coherent understandable fashion your argument that a fraud or a conspiracy or any other misdeed occurred. All flash and glare and no substance. Period!

  26. #26 by jdberger on December 2, 2009 - 3:35 pm

    There was definitely quite a bit of fraud in the corruption of the peer review process, no?

    For instance, in one email, under the subject line “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL,” Phil Jones of East Anglia writes to Mann: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    In another, Mann–discussing a journal that has published a paper by skeptical scientists, puts forward a plan for such a redefinition:

    This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…

    The scare quotes around “peer-reviewed literature” are Mann’s. And it hardly needs to be said that peer review is a sham if papers that present alternative hypotheses are not even allowed into the process.

    One positive thing that can be said about this particular forum (1U) is that alternative opinions are always allowed. Unfortunately with regards to “climate science” such was not the case – and the scientific method demands criticism – otherwise it’s no better than religion.

  27. #27 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 3:47 pm

    jd:

    Well, thanks for trying – at least you are willing to provide some analysis, unlike the authors of the 1U top posts – but I fail to understand how these statements, even if read in the most damning light, evidence a fraud.

    More specifically, exactly who, to their detriment, relied on the statements in the e-mails, thinking those statements to be true? This is a basic element that needs to be proved, among others, to establish the occurrence of fraud. I ain’t seeing.

  28. #28 by jdberger on December 2, 2009 - 4:14 pm

    Who relied upon the statements?

    C’mon, really, James?

    I’ll try to put it in a frame that’s probably more familiar.

    You’ve an expert testify to the originality of a process. They other side tries to have their expert testify to the contrary, but your expert and his buddies have managed to game the system so that all of the credentials of opposing counsel’s expert are deemed to be bogus.

    The Judge, not being an expert in accredidation (sp) rules against allowing opposing counsel’s expert to testify.

    Was justice served?

    So, back to who relied upon the statements to their detriment, the IPCC, anyone who’s conducted a “comprehensive review of the peer reviewed research”, etc. Al Gore…. What’s that poor guy gonna do when all his “green companies” go belly-up? And didn’t he jsut totally retrofit his house with squiggle bulbs? Those aren’t cheap – even when you buy them in bulk at Henrickson’s Home Plus.

  29. #29 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 4:20 pm

    You are making a big leap, jd, and, moreover, proving in the process that this is not necessarily a fraud, at least as concerns the emails.

    More specifically, you directed my attention to an email between two individuals to prove the occurrence of a fraud. If one of those individuals did not rely, to his detriment, on statements made in the email, then a fraud did not occur.

    You can call it what you want, and you can dress it up with ad hominem and cynicism, but it ain’t fraud!

    Care to try again? The authors of the 1U top posts – e.g., ken and frank – seem incapable of trying, so you may as well in their place.

  30. #30 by MattP on December 2, 2009 - 4:44 pm

    And it hardly needs to be said that peer review is a sham if papers that present alternative hypotheses are not even allowed into the process.

    Have you done any digging on this claim beyond this email snippit? Do you even know what their specific complaints are about this journal and it’s editor(s)? Do those complaints have merit? If a scientist believes that review standards are being subverted, not by contradictory ideas, but by poor methodology and lax review standards should he not do anything about it?

    It certainly doesn’t seem like you have even enough evidence to indicate that Mann is being unfair, nevermind fraudulent.

  31. #31 by MattP on December 2, 2009 - 4:51 pm

    Here is one of the more outrageous “alternative hypotheses” papers that made it through the Climate Research review process:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/mckitrick6.php

    Money quote:

    Trouble is, the software he used expects angles to be measured in radians, his data has latitude in degrees, and he didn’t convert from degrees to radians. Consequently, every single number he calculates is wrong.

    So… scientists just complaining about people that disagree with them and trying to shut out dissenting views, or perhaps a legitimate concern about the quality of science making it into the journal?

  32. #32 by Ken on December 2, 2009 - 4:56 pm

    James

    I think Frank and I made a very good case for fraud in all of our posts. Have you actually read them and investigated yourself or are you just drinking the Kool-aid and following the party line?

    If there was nothing to this then why have heads already started rolling? Why is that just a couple of weeks ago it was a slam dunk for Australia to pass the cap’n trade bill and now it has gone down in flames? If it is nothing then why is it threatening to bring Copenhagen down? If it is nothing then why is it front page news on all International Newspapers? If it is nothing then why is the CRU and Penn State University investigating the professors implicated?

    You are going to see plenty of heads roll, you may even see entire governments collapse including the UN, countless politicians (Al Gore), professors and scientists reputations destroyed, and eventually you will see Congressional Hearings that make Watergate look like a lovefest.

    Who are the deniers now? It is the global warmers that are in deep denial now.

  33. #33 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 5:06 pm

    Ken:

    You miss the point entirely. You are alleging fraud, but your entire case rests on nothing more than circumstantial evidence – at best, someone resigned.

    The fact of the matter is you and Frank have NOT made a very good case for anything, and your refusal to even try makes you … well … a glenn hoefer.

    You have zero credentials or experience in the dynamics of higher academia and research and zero credentials or experience in modeling complex coupled physical systems and you have zero credentials or experience in the science of fluid dynamics, chemistry, radiation physics or even basic thermodynamics or physics. Yet you claim an omniscent ability to read between the lines in emails between individuals and conclude fraud on a worldwide scale.

    So, to answer your question, no, I am not drinking kool-aid. Rather, all that I am asking of you is to provide a modicum of analysis to support your theory of fraud. The irony here is you are doing nothing more than what you accuse the climatologists of doing – resting on your hands and refusing to provide others the rudiments of your analysis. But with glenn hoefer as your cheering section, I guess I understand your inability to satisfy those with a slightly more academic and critical outlook.

    Ha!! And you wonder why I compare this situation with the dynamics of the Mormon Church!!!

  34. #34 by Frank Staheli on December 2, 2009 - 5:14 pm

    Okay James, an easy question for you: do you think that an attempt to take over a peer-reviewed journal so that you can spike anything that you disagree with is evidence of fraud or conspiracy?

  35. #35 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 5:21 pm

    No, Frank, I don’t. Welcome to the dynamics of higher academe. Further, if the science being spiked by the peer-reviewed journal you refer is so powerful and compelling, then why waasn’t it published elsewhere. Your assertion of a global conspiracy affecting all ranks and branches of academia and research institutions in just nonsense! Get a grip!

  36. #36 by Ken on December 2, 2009 - 5:48 pm

    Barbra Boxer said she may hold hearing on Climategate/Climaquiddick but not so much to look into data manipulation but to investigate the whistleblower who courageously exposed this fraud to the world. Luckily James Inhofe is also on the committee so it will be impossible to hold hearings without it also including the contents of the emails.

    James

    If check out the Drudge Report. He has several links on this ever growing scandal.

  37. #37 by jdberger on December 2, 2009 - 6:00 pm

    James – there wasn’t any ad hominem. I think that you’re being a little sensitive. However, if I offended, it surely wasn’t my intention (yet) and I apologize.

    But really, if you were the Opposing Counsel in my hypo – surely you’d holler and scream and pound the table to convince the court to allow your expert’s testimony. Wouldn’t you (please don’t split hairs).

    MattP – perhaps you’d be interested in this WashPo article.

    I believe it has what you’re looking for.

    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes. . . .

    The authority of scientists rests on the integrity of the scientific process, and a “consensus” based on the suppression of alternative hypotheses is, quite simply, a fraudulent one.

  38. #38 by Ken on December 2, 2009 - 6:45 pm

    Calling Algore. THE DEBATE IS BACK!

  39. #39 by Frank Staheli on December 2, 2009 - 6:51 pm

    Well, James, at least I know where the disconnect is now. I believe in scientific integrity, and you don’t think it matters so long as the underlying purpose is served.

    I’m not sure how we can have an intelligent, substantive conversation on that basis.

  40. #40 by MattP on December 2, 2009 - 7:17 pm

    jdberger, that article doesn’t really contradict the scenario I’ve outlined – that there are legitimate concern about the quality of the review process at Climate Research. Sure, they aren’t being very diplomatic about their disapproval, nor subtle about their intentions, but then these were private, internal communications.

  41. #41 by Shane Smith on December 2, 2009 - 8:23 pm

    I think Frank and I made a very good case for fraud in all of our posts.

    I think I see the problem here Ken. I get this problem with undergrad students a lot.

    Simply stating a claim over and over in different words is not evidence for a claim. It is only a restatement. Evidence actually supports the claim.

    You might try again after considering that.

  42. #42 by James Farmer on December 2, 2009 - 9:09 pm

    Ken/Frank:

    The debate here is simple – what evidence do you have that a fraud or conspiracy exists or that otherwise backs up your assertions?

    The fact that neither of you is willing or able to make your case is pretty compelling evidence to me that you have no case.

    If you two peas in a pod are satisfied with yelling and screaming and shell games; well, then, so be it! I guess we’ll be hearing from you on how the next Tea-Bagger meeting or Palin book-signing went. At least there, you will be surrounded by like-minded friends.

  43. #43 by shane on December 3, 2009 - 11:57 am

    Sorry James, but you are on your own now.

    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/

  44. #44 by Frank Staheli on December 3, 2009 - 12:11 pm

    James: I bow to your infinite wisdom. ;-)

    I’m not sure, how, if you can’t see that there is fraud by what exists in the article I’ve posted, that we can hold an intelligent discussion.

    Shane’s latest article is funny only in a nervous sort of way–i.e. It, and most of both of your comments to this article, were written by someone who desperately wishes a legitimate problem would go away.

  45. #45 by shane on December 3, 2009 - 12:16 pm

    Frank, if you can’t even point to examples of the fraud you are so certain is there, then how could you possibly claim to know the motivation for my writing?

    “A well-frog cannot imagine the ocean, nor can a summer insect conceive of ice.” Your own experience is far too limiting…

  46. #46 by Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 12:19 pm

    Let’s keep in mind Shane, that in the context of a warming trend that melted a body of ice that lay upon the land to the extent sea level rose 400 feet in less than 13k years, a very short geologic period, anyone will argue that yes, it has warmed.

    The question is whether we are responsible for it. At the melt off that deposited what we now call Long Island, once the ice melted off, all manner of creatures, insects, and help us, man, were likely cavorting about as the climate made such life possible. So too has warming brought vineyards to England at one time(1000-1200 AD), only to change cold again and kill them off. We were not the driver of that climate change do you think Shane?

    Now because of the fraud we are going to have trouble proving if it is warming, let alone if man and his carbon is responsible. This is now the political reality, and the debate is on again, and I am pretty certain we will have all manner of grand lists of “scientists” that do not agree with the IPCC. They will probably claim they never did but could never get their names off the damn IPCC political list.

    The Law of Unintended Consequences usually applies when zealots direct just about any activity, which well describes Jones and his crew.

    If we are the cause of warming, Jones and the fraud have damaged the case that needed making, and if we are not the cause then there is precious little we are going to do about it. Then of course it may not be warming at all, which is what the recent temperature data was telling, which in turn made the fraud by Jones and his crew necessary.

    A very human tale.

  47. #47 by Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 12:30 pm

    This is a bit ridiculous. The inability to see the fraud by those vested in it very much has the character of the 20% that did not believe that “Bush lied”. The 20% still all believe in W’s not knowing the truth, and maybe mis-speaking, even though it has never been proven in a court.

    This will be much easier to show that the fraud occurred, and we will be getting around to it. After all, these are just scientists, not presidents.

    The crime lies in denying, delaying, and destroying data when presented by Freedom of Information requests. To do this after the request is made is a crime, and that is what they will likely be prosecuted for.

    So the funny thing is, is that AL Gore will become to be pilloried like Bush was, for being too stupid to know the truth, his defense will be that he was just parroting what he thought he knew. Ironic. This though makes Gore a two time loser, big time.

    Gore with an Oscar and a Nobel, forges the new definition of the ultimate booby prize.

    Can’t make this stuff up, it is a cornucopia of crapola.

  48. #48 by shane on December 3, 2009 - 12:32 pm

    Let’s keep in mind Shane, that in the context of a warming trend that melted a body of ice that lay upon the land to the extent sea level rose 400 feet in less than 13k years, a very short geologic period, anyone will argue that yes, it has warmed.

    Hell of a thing to hear from the guy who posted links saying there was never any warming, wouldn’t you say?

    Now because of the fraud we are going to have trouble proving if it is warming, let alone if man and his carbon is responsible

    Hell of a thing to hear from a guy who posted a link stating that a few thousand stone age humans with flint axes changed the climate enough to hold off an ice age, wouldn’t you say?

    Do you even read the stuff you post?

    If we are the cause of warming, Jones and the fraud have damaged the case that needed making

    I don’t have to make the case, or provide you with a scintilla of a chance to worm out of the truth.

    You really don’t enough credibility to be opening your mouth on anything at this point. If you stated that the earth is round, that would be the single best piece of evidence I will have ever heard that it is indeed flat….

  49. #49 by Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 1:04 pm

    I have never once said I don’t believe it is warming Shane. You would be wrong to assume that I don’t. What scale of time is a difficulty you seem to have with what I am saying. 13k years ago is the benchmark for the unprecedented warming, from there we look into the why for changes we perceive ongoing. They have a relationship is my point.

    We do not have the “proof” currently to conclusively attribute it to man is what I am pointing out. I believe it has warmed overall since the last ice age ended, with cooling periods and warming periods. This is written in man’s historical record.

    I never once claimed to adhere to the theory that man prevented an ice age, I merely presented a link to a peer reviewed scientist that has supporters of his theory in the AGW community. Guess you didn’t read it. We were not stone age 10,000 years ago, and the acceleration occurred when man mastered rice cultivation 5000 years ago, bringing with it mass methane production, an irremidiable greenhouse gas. It isn’t my theory. It is the theory of an AGW peer reviewed scientist.

    What you might consider is that there are only a few components to the puzzle we actually “know”. One of them is the mass heating that melted the continental glaciers 13k years ago. You fill in the rest and then put together, why was there was mass warming in 1000-1200? Why was there the “little ice age” thereafter? No one has proof of the “why”. It is all theoretical. As is AGW theory at this time.

    This is the process of scientific progress, it can often be 1 steps forward, 2 steps back. How many years did people believe the world was flat and came with all kinds of “lies”, “misunderstandings”, that were followed by centuries of scientific orthodoxy that it was indeed flat?

    Sure can’t help to find out the truth when you are skewing the data.

    Galileo spent his life locked up in his house for even believing though he did recant quipping as he did, “and yet it moves” in reference to Earth. The Papacy still kept him locked up….for life.

  50. #50 by Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 1:25 pm

    In science Shane it not unusual for 1 person to be right, and everyone else in the scientific community to be wrong.

    It is in fact the most common way perceptions of our world based in science come to hold sway.

    You are that man Shane!! You are the man that will lead us out of the darkness, will make AGW true no matter the lies and obfuscations of evil doers and a misguided public. Al Gore is going to be looking for another job.

    I don’t recommend holding Jim’s hand though. Good call on abandoning that alliance.

    Did the carbon credit offsets cost you any extra money Shane? That is a real question.

    What are you going to do with the battery in your hybrid when it dies?

    Did you know that many of the current photovoltaics, especially older ones take as much energy to produce as the power you can get out of them over their working life?

    We need to work on that for certain. Things we know without disagreement.

  51. #51 by shane on December 3, 2009 - 1:44 pm

    I have never once said I don’t believe it is warming Shane. You would be wrong to assume that I

    But you did post a link that said that. You would be right to read your links before you post them.

    In science Shane it not unusual for 1 person to be right, and everyone else in the scientific community to be wrong.

    No. Those are the stories we remember, they are great stories, and that is why we remember them. The vast majority of the time it is in fact the other way around.

    Did the carbon credit offsets cost you any extra money Shane? That is a real question.

    No, that isn’t the question. In fact every time it becomes obvious you have no idea what you are talking about the question seems to change.

    What are you going to do with the battery in your hybrid when it dies?

    Well since so far there are numerous hybrids several years old, and well over 200,000 miles in many cases, I am not real worried about it right now. In fact some batteries have already outlasted the car. So what are you going to do with your car when it dies? But if i were worried about it, luckily they are recyclable.

    Did you know that many of the current photovoltaics, especially older ones take as much energy to produce as the power you can get out of them over their working life?

    Did you know this is well debunked “fact” and that even here in Utah with our low light winters it takes about 3-4 years to “pay” for the energy needed to make a thin film panel?

    Anything else? I thought you were “done here.”

  52. #52 by James Farmer on December 3, 2009 - 3:28 pm

    Glenn Hoefer says:

    The crime lies in denying, delaying, and destroying data when presented by Freedom of Information requests. To do this after the request is made is a crime, and that is what they will likely be prosecuted for.

    Gee, and all this time, after seeing glenn use the term “fraud” no fewer than 100 times, I thought he was alleging that a fraud had actually occurred; along, of course, with glenn’s compatriots – Ken, Ted and Frank – each of whom also alleged, also on multiple occasions, that actual fraud has occurred.

    Indeed, how silly of me to apply standard rules of the English language to interpret what glenn (and his compatriots) was, in fact, saying.

    I guess this is why glenn (and his compatriots) has refused for the 100th time now to articulate the precise fraud that occurred re Jones and Mann; glenn (and his compatriots) refuses to articulate the fraud because he cannot articulate the fraud because there was no fraud.

    We are truly seeing a new level, if not entire breed, of wingnuttery developing before our very eyes!

  53. #53 by Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 6:03 pm

    Are you done yet James? That you cannot see it is the joke. Like Frank said what kind of conversation would you like to have about what has transpired?

    How long should they go to jail?

  54. #54 by Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 6:05 pm

    Al Gore is not going to make his presentation in Copenhagen on the imminent threat of dire global warming he was going to. He claims scheduling problems.

    I bet.

  55. #55 by Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 6:12 pm

    Low light winters in Utah? First you are pretty far south, you have more Sun than we do, and most other, and of course all that Utah sun, winter or not. Rained almost 4 feet here in the last month. Solar is a no go without a support system.

    The waste is a consideration with a working life of 25 years. The actual payback economically without some subsidy is almost 20 years to the buyer. This does not account for future electricity rate hikes, in which case it will pay off sooner.

    Have to put in some squeegee time as well. A clean panel is a happy panel.

  56. #56 by Jim Barnstall aka Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 6:27 pm

    Hey fellow Jimmy, this here is the idiot’s guide as to what the scientists did wrong.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018696/climategate-which-part-of-over-dont-these-people-understand/

  57. #57 by shane on December 3, 2009 - 7:01 pm

    So glenn, since most owners claim a payback of 10-15 years, i am glad you see that as almost 20. Anything to pull a number out of your ass, right?

    But lets take that number. I like that.

    Since all the panels I have looked have warranties for 25 years or longer, and most owners report them lasting much longer, and 25 is more than 20 (your out-of-the-ass number) that means the dollar cost is less than the dollars “made” in generated energy over the life of the panel.

    Since the companies that make the panels pay for the energy to make them, as well as rent, transportation, employees, taxes, bookkeeping etc etc etc, and many of them actually make money, you need to explain how the life of the panel is making more than the cost of the panel if in your equation the energy cost alone should out weigh the entire positive side. And many of these companies even still manage to make a profit! Imagine that…

    …or just admit your blowing smoke. Your choice.

    And if you are going to claim the government makes up a difference that massive, before you do, 1) they don’t 2) nuclear power is far more subsidized over the life of the technology than any other power in America, 3) after the various subsidy costs go in solar is considerably cheaper per kilowatt hour than nuclear, coal, or gas.

    Lastly, you STILL haven’t answered any of the requests for examples of the fraud you bitch about though you have changed the subject multiple times as well as posting multiple conflicting links. Do you have anything constructive or intelligent to add to the topic?

  58. #58 by shane on December 3, 2009 - 7:09 pm

    @ Jim Barnstall

    Truly that is the idiots guide. Written by an idiot, for idiots.

    Notice that the link does exactly what James has complained about in the writing here. It makes numerous claims about what CRU did and didn’t do, explains why these things would be bad if they happened, and completely fails to actually point to even a single piece of evidence. Not one. Zero. Zip. Nada.

    He claims that:

    A bunch of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have been caught out cheating. They distorted evidence, hid or lost inconvenient raw data, manipulated the science towards a particular end, and set out to silence hard-working, decent, honest scientists who disagreed with them.

    He fails to show an example of this. He fails to show any evidence. He fails to even link to the easily explained poor excuses for evidence that have already been discussed here. He simply makes the claim, and feels that means everyone should agree with him.

    I repeat, Simply stating a claim over and over in different words is not evidence for a claim. It is only a restatement. Evidence actually supports the claim. To prove a claim, you need evidence.

    Show. Your. Proof. Hell just show a semi-reasonable supporting bit of near-evidence! Please. Or STFU and go away!

  59. #59 by Ken Bingham on December 3, 2009 - 8:50 pm

    Michael “hockeystick” Mann of Penn State University has thrown his colleague Phil Jones under the bus and is trying to distance himself from the scandal even though he is in the thick of it.

    In an interview on BBC Radio Michael Mann said he cannot justify the emails and would have never complied with Jones’ request to delete emails.

    yeah right. Mann didn’t seem to have a problem when the emails were written. Now that his reputation is destroyed he has suddenly discovered scientific integrity? laughable.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6718183/Climategate-Phil-Jones-accused-of-making-error-of-judgment-by-colleague.html

  60. #60 by James Farmer on December 3, 2009 - 9:14 pm

    Bingham:

    Notwithstanding, we are all still waiting for you to make so much as a prima facie case for fraud.

    Still waiting … Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……

  61. #61 by Jim Barnstall aka Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 9:45 pm

  62. #62 by Ken Bingham on December 3, 2009 - 9:48 pm

    James

    Read the link in my last comment. The principle players, like Michael Mann, are admitting to their fraud. Deleting emails that are covered under the Freedom of Information act is a felony crime in both the United States and the UK.

  63. #63 by Jim Barnstall aka Glenn Hoefer on December 3, 2009 - 10:09 pm

    I own panels Shane, you need not explain it to me. I paid more per watt than they cost today, 18 years is what I calculated when I bought them. They are worth more than the power, as they allowed some remote living with comfort. None of this includes the cost of consulting or installation.

    Colorado has been paying up to 50% of the up front investment, but is not loaning any money, you must first buy them, set up your system to the grid and then petition and wait. It has been working quite well.

    Boys you are cooked. The resignation tells the story, we will wait for the man to express himself as to why, why, why… he stood down. As he did nothing wrong in your mind, he must have needed a vacation. The code tells the story, and the investigation is just getting started. I’m sure though you are right, and he will given his job back, and granted the head chair of this very important political task of committing the important work of defrauding the public.

    Here you go, complete with links in copy.

    http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2009/11/your-daily-dose-of-climate-fraud-lord.html

    …and then this, has the e-mails listed and a place you can be laughed at in a discussion group Shane.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warminggate-what-does-it-mean/

  64. #64 by James Farmer on December 3, 2009 - 10:10 pm

    ken:

    I am really trying to get into your corner and share the warm and fuzzies, but before I do, can you show me the beef? Admitting to fraud? Got a link?

  65. #65 by James Farmer on December 3, 2009 - 10:12 pm

    “jim barnstall,” had one or two, tonight?

  66. #66 by MattP on December 3, 2009 - 11:03 pm

    Jones has not resigned. He has stepped down from his position has the head of CRU pending the completion of an independent review. That would be expected during this sort of a controversy regardless of whether wrongdoing had actually occurred.

  67. #67 by Ken on December 4, 2009 - 3:14 am

    James

    In the emails the scientists talk about deleting emails and encouraging their colleagues to do the same to avoid FOIA requests. They have admitted the emails are genuine and in the BBC radio interview Michael Mann admits he received emails instructing him to delete emails though he denies actually doing it.

  68. #68 by MattP on December 4, 2009 - 3:27 am

    If that’s what actually went down (deleting emails to avoid FOIA), that is bad and anyone that did it needs to answer for it, but it’s not fraud and doesn’t tell us anything about the scientific work. From the tone of the emails I’ve seen it’s more about not doing anything to help the people they see as adversaries, not about hiding data that contradicts their scientific output. As far as I know the only deleting they did was of local copies of data obtained from external sources.

  69. #69 by Ken on December 4, 2009 - 4:23 am

    MattP

    Read the emails. They specifically site FOIA as the reason for deleting the emails. They have also admitted to destroying the raw data that make up their temperature data so no one can independently verify their findings. In other words they have been submitting papers to peer reviewed journals where the reviewers could not verify the information which is required for a peer reviewed work. The reviewers were not even following basic scientific protocols to insure the integrity of the information they allowed to be published in the scientific journals. This is fraud at the highest levels of the scientific community.

  70. #70 by Cliff Lyon on December 4, 2009 - 7:09 am

    A little bit of sanity from the scientists at RealClimate:

    As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here. We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.

    Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.

    Deniers who read the rest do so at there own risk (risk of hearing the truth)

  71. #71 by shane on December 4, 2009 - 7:40 am

    lmao, so just to be clear, glenn/jim/whoever his pathology needs him to be today in one post claims solar panels need more energy to be made than they generate, and now claims he owns panels and they have paid for themselves….

    …none of which actually applies to the topic at hand.

    You really do need to seek professional help. Your diarrhea of the keyboard and spouting of pointless things you constantly contradict isn’t just stupid, in the way of real conversation, and damaging to the arguments of the people you agree with, you really do give all the appearances of having a serious mental disorder.

  72. #72 by cav on December 4, 2009 - 7:55 am

    And the FOIA applies to the Brits just how exactically?

  73. #73 by shane on December 4, 2009 - 8:16 am

    Well you see cav, when the right wing wants something, the laws in America apply world wide, like in this case.

    When they don’t, the laws in America not only don’t apply in the rest of the world, they don’t even apply in America.

    Like in the case of torture.

    Try to keep up cav. Try to keep up.

  74. #74 by Cliff Lyon on December 4, 2009 - 8:17 am

    The FOIA thing is al BS. There are no outstanding FOIA requests. Virtually all the data is available to anyone here.

  75. #75 by Ken Bingham on December 4, 2009 - 8:29 am

    Cliff

    Not true. NASA has been stonewalling for two years FOIA requests. The Competative Enterprise Institute among others have been fighting NASA to release their data. The scandal may force NASA’s hand to finally release the data which may be even more damaging than the CRU documents.

    Cav and Shane

    Britain also has a Freedom of Information Act similar to the US version.

  76. #76 by shane on December 4, 2009 - 8:46 am

    Ken, you might notice (ok, actually you won’t, you are a moron, but astute readers might notice) that I was only being ironic in reference to the torture thread also here at OneUtah. Thank you though for pointing that out.

    Even more astute readers (again, not you personally, obviously) will notice that cav is most likely (though perhaps not, i am after all not cav) not asking about the act itself but pointing out that much of the discussion here about FOIA is thrown around with little or no actual intelligent reference to what the acts themselves say or what differences might exist between them or what the impact they have on the matter at hand is.

    …in much the same way we see the various claims of what these emails say without actually referencing any kind of actual evidence in the email.

    as you were.

  77. #77 by MattP on December 4, 2009 - 9:13 am

    In the emails I see bluster about not giving data up to rivals but I haven’t seen anything that proved data requested by an actual FOIA request was deleted. Additionally, I don’t think it’s possible for these guys to delete “raw data” since, as far as I know, they don’t actually produce any. Does the CRU operate any ground stations, satellites, buoys, etc? I’m pretty sure the answer is no. They only thing they could delete is either their own copies of other people’s raw data, the originals of which would still exist at the appropriate agencies, or they could delete adjusted data which could in theory be reconstructed.

    To be clear, if they deliberately deleted data in response to a FOIA request, they should be prosecuted to the extent that people are typically prosecuted for such an offense.

    But, if I’m going to be frank, I’m not really concerned about that element. What I want to see is evidence that the science they produced was deliberately and maliciously fraudulent.

  78. #78 by cav on December 4, 2009 - 9:37 am

    Shane, You are correctly intuitive however. Thanks

  79. #79 by James Farmer on December 4, 2009 - 9:59 am

    Ken:

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ……

    Still waiting for evidence of a fraud. BTW, deleting emails and failing to respond to FOIA requests, is not fraud!

  80. #80 by Cliff Lyon on December 4, 2009 - 10:22 am

    Ken,

    NASA has no data that is not already public. Horner is not looking for the data, he is looking for e-mails to use as more fodder for deniers.

    This is a terrible reason for FOIA and frankly, destructive and anti-American.

    Have you ever considered you might be anti-American, anti-science, anti-reason, and anti anything that matters fro real.

    I remember you used to justify Bush wars because you thought Muslim terrorists would be coming to your neighborhood.

    Are you still afraid?

  81. #81 by MattP on December 4, 2009 - 10:35 am

    To be absolutely clear, dodging a FOIA request is at best unethical and at worst illegal, depending on the circumstances. I don’t believe anyone is defending such behavior and I’m perfectly happy seeing any illegal activities RE:FOIA prosecuted to the typical standard. (i.e. if jail time is typical, send them to jail; if a slap on the wrist is typical, so be it)

    But the FOIA stuff, while unseemly and possibly an indication of further malfeasance, doesn’t show fraud, cooking the books, manufacturing data, deleting contradictory data, or anything else that actually indicts the scientific conclusions.

    So let’s grant that any violation of the FOIA is a bad thing and move on to actual evidence of scientific fraud.

    When asked here for the most damning evidence the journal stuff and FOIA stuff has been pointed out, but neither of those actually represent fraud.

    I’ve already indicated how there are legitimate reasons to “blackball” that journal and some of the opposition scientists that have been published in it – there really was some crappy stuff being submitted and making it through review. I linked to a particularly bad example earlier and that page I linked includes further discussion of problems with the review process at that journal.

    Then we have the FOIA stuff, which is troubling from the perspective of the perceived integrity of CRU, but hardly a smoking gun.

    So… what’s the third most damning piece of evidence in the emails?

  82. #82 by James Farmer on December 4, 2009 - 11:29 am

    MattP:

    Thanks for asking the question:

    So… what’s the third most damning piece of evidence in the emails?

    This question or variants thereof has been asked repeatedly of Ken, Ted and Frank (don’t waste your time asking Glenn Hoefer), probably 50 times in total, as regards fraud and criminal conspiracy.

    Yet between these three wingnuts and the alleged thousands of emails, not a single one of them have been willing or able to answer your very fair and straightforward question.

    It is really quite pathetic, actually, that we are still engaging in this conversation with these idiots, who refuse to make any attempt whatsoever to make their case.

    Ken, Ted and Frank really are true embodiments of the Palin/Tea-Bagger philosophy – shout loudly and long enough and eventually you’ll get your way.

  83. #83 by MattP on December 4, 2009 - 11:38 am

    … the Palin/Tea-Bagger philosophy – shout loudly and long enough and eventually you’ll get your way

    While I agree that this is a fair description of the general tenor of many of these arguments, I don’t think that calling them on that is necessarily productive. Calling people names or mocking their methods provides them an easy out by letting them vent at your perceived incivility and dismissal rather than the substantive issues that you want them to respond to.

    Better to let the shouting happen in the background while you press forward calmly with cogent responses to their claims. Their ability to answer in kind will show the true measure of their ability to rationally participate in a discussion vs. drive a political agenda.

  84. #84 by shane on December 4, 2009 - 11:47 am

    Sadly Matt, we have talked to these people before. There is productive discussion, and there is the point where you simply admit you are arguing with someone for whom the voice of god would not be proof of what they disbelieve.

    And perhaps more sadly, a large portion of the general population believes the shouting over the rational argument. What can you do?

  85. #85 by James Farmer on December 4, 2009 - 12:43 pm

    MattP:

    Calling Ken & Co. on the tea-bagger/palin tactics is a last resort born purely out of frustration over their continued refusal to engage in rational debate.

    I can no longer count the number of times Ken Bingham has been asked to make a case – even a prima facie case – for the wild assertions of fraud and conspiracy he has made in his top posts to no avail.

    Maybe your calm, cool and collective approach will receive better success. Good luck!

  86. #86 by Glenn Hoefer aka Jim Barnstall on December 4, 2009 - 6:31 pm

    “And perhaps more sadly, a large portion of the general population believes the shouting over the rational argument. What can you do”?

    WE CAN LAUGH AT YOU!!!

    hhHAHAHAHAhahaahahHAHAHHAHAH!giggle, chortle, and oops I spilled my drink….

    hahahhahahhahahahaHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAhahhahahahhahahha!!! You guys are really something!!

    LET’S PARTY YOU IDIOTS!!!

  87. #87 by James Farmer on December 4, 2009 - 7:39 pm

    glenn:

    Um, uh, I guess this is refusal #119, where you refuse to make the case for fraud or conspiracy. But go ahead … we are all laughing with you … oops … I mean laughing at you!

  88. #88 by Jim Barnstall aka Glenn Hoefer on December 4, 2009 - 8:21 pm

    We all thank you for the constant state of amusement, James.

    My side won’t get indicted, that is when we all will laugh together. You are on the side of disclosure and truth are you not? Can’t lose in WA. So go and have off with yourselves. hahhhaaahhahhhhha!!!

  89. #89 by James Farmer on December 4, 2009 - 8:47 pm

    refusal #120? and you think I am the one looking foolish?

    have another, glenn; it’s friday night, after all.

  90. #90 by Ken Bingham on December 4, 2009 - 9:16 pm

    I deleted the article on Googlegate because the more I thought about it the more I figured it is a red herring and not really worth the discussion. It really takes the argument off topic and diverts attention away from the real scandal.

  91. #91 by James Farmer on December 4, 2009 - 9:30 pm

    It really takes the argument off topic and diverts attention away from the real scandal.

    Hmmm. Refocusing, Ken? Great! Maybe while you are refocusing, you can refocus on making your case why a fraud or criminal conspiracy occurred.

  92. #92 by Ken Bingham on December 4, 2009 - 9:53 pm

    climategate

  93. #93 by James Farmer on December 4, 2009 - 10:05 pm

    Glad you think it’s a joke, Ken. Guess you will not be offended if we all think your argument is a joke, too, then, will you?

    For the record, I think we are up to 121 times now, that you have refused to state your case for fraud or conspiracy.

  94. #94 by Ken on December 4, 2009 - 10:15 pm

    James

    Wait till the semester is over and my finals are complete then I can spend more time on it.

  95. #95 by James Farmer on December 4, 2009 - 10:24 pm

    Ken:

    Good luck re the finals, my friend.

  96. #96 by Ken on December 5, 2009 - 12:48 am

    On second thought, let’s not go to Copenhagen. It is a silly place.

  97. #97 by Jim Barnstall aka Glenn Hoefer on December 5, 2009 - 5:07 am

    When the Canadians figure it oooot, the gig is up. You worked for NASA didn’t you Jim? Now it all makes sense why you are prostrating yourself so.

  98. #98 by Jim Barnstall aka Glenn Hoefer on December 5, 2009 - 5:16 am

    …and finally, when John Stewart is laughing at you, that means the whole world is..we really needed this joke of scandal to brighten the day, and make us realize that human nature even happens to the eggheads. I mean look at Jim, this constant denial in the face of facts can’t help his status amongst real scientists. Even the fraudulent are keeping their mouths shut, and do not even pretend to defend themselves. It will only come with time.

    Understand Jim, that at no time will you be given any opportunity to weasel out. I will not give you any ammo, you will have to pick it off the dead bodies of your fellow “scientist” believers. Something like Jones and his crew attempted and failed at with dissenters to their warmer postulates.

    Time heals all wounds, right Jim?

  99. #99 by Ken on December 5, 2009 - 6:07 am

    The irony of it all is that Jone’s and his co-conspirator’s fear of what the skeptics could do with their information has undermined global warming theories far more than the skeptics ever could.

  100. #100 by cav on December 5, 2009 - 7:33 am

    Careful what you wish for… for when only the apes are left, you’ll have to deal with them.

  101. #101 by Glenn Hoefer on December 5, 2009 - 10:02 am

    That will be fine Cav, apes have more apparent sense than the fraud crew. Last I checked they like it warm.

  102. #102 by Ken on December 6, 2009 - 8:52 pm

    Organizers of the Copenhagen global warming summit has let it be known that any displays of Christmas will not be tolerated in or around the summit. They say that religion has no place at a UN function.

    How can they say that when the entire summit is nothing more than the Hajj for the religion of global warming?

  103. #103 by Cliff Lyon on December 7, 2009 - 8:09 am

    Since when do newspapers conspire to promote religion?

    Newspapers Of The World Urge Decisive Action: ‘Climate Change Will Ravage Our Planet’

    This editorial was published Monday by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page.

  104. #104 by ken on December 7, 2009 - 9:33 am

    Cliff

    What’s unusual about newspapers putting an editorial on their front page. Pages now are nothing but one big editorial.

    It’s activism among the media that has so many people turned off.

    We report, we decide and you shut up, is the motto of the “main stream government controlled media”.

    Even if global warming was real and human cause there is absolutely no way to determine what effect it will have so to claim ‘Climate Change Will Ravage Our Planet’ has no basis in fact and can not be demonstrated therefore it is unscientific. Just more global warming related fraud.

  105. #105 by James Farmer on December 7, 2009 - 10:03 am

    Just more global warming related fraud.

    Ken, really, your cynical rants and unsubstantiated claims are becoming a bore. Apparently, you have more time than is necessary for exam prep.

    That being the case, for the 119th time now, please make a case for your assertions of “fraud.” Before doing so, you might do yourself a favor and review the classic elements that require proof to establish the occurrence of a fraud.

    PS. I like how you use both “activism” and “government controlled” in regards to the MSM is a single post. Well, which is it, or are you just ranting so hard it’s difficult for you not to contradict yourself in your posts?

  106. #106 by jdberger on December 7, 2009 - 4:43 pm

    James,

    Please list the elements of fraud. That way you and Ken won’t have to play the guessing game.

    I’m assuming you’re using the 9 elements?

  107. #107 by James Farmer on December 7, 2009 - 5:14 pm

    Common law fraud, for example, and as jd correctly notes, has nine elements:

    (1) a representation of an existing fact;
    (2) its materiality;
    (3) its falsity;
    (4) the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity;
    (5) the speaker’s intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
    (6) plaintiff’s ignorance of its falsity;
    (7) plaintiff’s reliance on the truth of the representation;
    (8) plaintiff’s right to rely upon it; and
    (9) consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.

    Most jurisdictions in the United States require that each element be pled with particularity and be proved with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence (very probable evidence) to establish a claim of fraud.

    I think it would be helpful for Ken to first identify a purported plaintiff.

  108. #108 by MattP on December 7, 2009 - 6:06 pm

    I’m still waiting for the 3rd worst example of fraud. I’ve already addressed the first two with no substantive rebuttal. Is there more to these claims than posturing?

  109. #109 by marshall on December 7, 2009 - 8:19 pm

    Saying these emails prove climate change is a scam is like saying tiger woods proves all golfers are cheaters.

  110. #110 by Chilliwack Charlie aka Glenn Hoefer on December 7, 2009 - 8:20 pm

  111. #111 by Chilliwack Charlie aka Glenn Hoefer on December 7, 2009 - 8:22 pm

    The plaintiffs would the people who made the Freedom of Information requests and were denied or fed bunko data James. As the grants that funded the fraud were government made on taxpayer money, both the government and the taxpayers are the plaintiffs.

  112. #112 by James Farmer on December 7, 2009 - 9:09 pm

    Sorry, Chilly (Glenn H.) Whackjob.

    The folks making the FOIA requests hardly suffered concrete, articulate damages as would be required to maintain a fraud litigation beyond the summary judgment stage. Taxpayer status doesn’t make the grade, sorry to tell you. As to the government, they might be able to maintain a cause of action for breach of contract (at best) if they were funding the research, but such cases generally result in no future funding.

    Nevertheless, if you want to continue the game, go ahead and identify a purported misrepresentation. Identify with particularity the material “fact” misrepresented.

    PS. For the record, I note that the Canadian article you reference fails to mention fraud. Maybe they were thinking of something else.

  113. #113 by Glenn Hoefer on December 7, 2009 - 9:25 pm

    Marshall, do you play golf? All golfers are cheaters at one time or another, especially if you don’t have the goods.

  114. #114 by Glenn "I am not smarter than a fifth grader" Hoefer on December 7, 2009 - 9:30 pm

    So the charge will be criminal James. That is the nature of the law in England. Altering or delaying data requests is a crime there.

    You are referring to civil case James, and that is not what this will become. It is criminal.

  115. #115 by Glenn "I am not smarter than a fifth grader" Hoefer on December 7, 2009 - 9:35 pm

    That the data “hidden” is concealing the material fact that in the recent record of the data, there is no global warming.

    The fools are even sorry about it.

    You would think that with such a purported crisis facing man such news would be met with relief that the warming trend they fear so much has flattened.

    Instead they commit FRAUD, to indicate warming is occurring for what can only be described as a religious or political purpose.

    Good luck!

    Hey what are you flying over there on facebook Jim Barnstall?

  116. #116 by Glenn "I think like Sarah Palin" Hoefer on December 7, 2009 - 9:58 pm

    What is truly schizophrenic about the revelations in Canada’s newspaper of record, is that as a culture they are a hook, line, and sinker candidate believer for the con job that is the human induced global warming scam.

    No one would benefit more from a warming Earth that the freezing country of Canada.

    In a perverse dichotomy, despite being by far the most fervent believers in Terrance and Phillip farting the world into a bubbling ooze, Canadians are the biggest CO2 producers now per capita (crapita?) on the face of the Earth.

    This an admission by CBC radio, Dec. 7, 2009. 690 AM, Vancouver, British Columbia. The advent of the enormously profitable, but environmentally criminal production of the Alberta Tar Sands has tipped Canada into first place per crapita in fart gas production, toppling the like of America’s best friend Saudi Arabia and loathsome bitch, Gutter(Qatar).

    Oh yeah, we (USA) are in the running, SUV, truck stop Muricah, green or not. Oh yeah, then our manufacturing slave holding/banker?, China is up there in total, but in no way per capita.

    What with the FRAUD in East Anglia, Copenhagen is going to be a HOOT! What a tension filled party!!

    I can’t wait to see everyone lie, and continue farting…*SBD!!!

    *Farting silently, but deadly!!

    Will Canada stop farting? Will the world put a plug her ass? Or will the post digestive essence of Terrance and Phillip RULE THE WORLD, and destroy her??!!

    Tune in next time, when Jimbo, in act of Supreme sacrifice and bravery, attempts to put a stopper in Canada’s ass!!

    My apologies and thanks, for borrowing from and adding to the beautiful genius of those folks at South Park Studios.

  117. #117 by Glenn "I think like Sarah Palin" Hoefer on December 7, 2009 - 10:06 pm

    Oh yeah, and the entertainment for night, a real comedian, Alfart ASsGore, has claimed scheduling problems, and will not be there to make people laugh.. in person. cheers now and enjoy!!

  118. #118 by Glenn "I wish I were Levi Johnson" Hoefer on December 7, 2009 - 11:05 pm

    Thanks for the compliment. Sarah kicks ass.

    Ooo la la…the sting of rejection in the subconscious. Her resume tops any here, what are you guys but intimidated?

    The realization that the like of her, would never fuck the like of you, ever.

    Face it, she makes you hot, and you haven’t chance, so nothing for a loser to do but to hate her. The sexism reeks. Haha, funny.

  119. #119 by Glenn "I am not smarter than a fifth grader" Hoefer on December 7, 2009 - 11:42 pm

    I have the seen the phenomena, and truly you drooling progressives, it is scary!!

    Thanks for helping and channeling those who are editing my name from Chilliwack Charlie to Glenn, which really by now you idiots is always glenn, or glen, or…. now something, thanks Cliff if it is you for helping out. cheers all, there is a plan, you are living it.

  120. #120 by Ken on December 8, 2009 - 1:42 am

    James

    OK maybe I shouldn’t use the word fraud since that brings it down to the level of common criminals. What we have is nothing less than a crime against humanity.

  121. #121 by cav on December 8, 2009 - 7:35 am

    Why can’t Tiger bone Sarah Palin so we can get the Rapture started?
    attaturk

    That’s silly. Sarah can just look at Tiger and tell that he isn’t from the “heartland”.
    Doc

    Sarah can see Tiger from her porch
    SteinL

  122. #122 by James Farmer on December 8, 2009 - 7:45 am

    OK maybe I shouldn’t use the word fraud since that brings it down to the level of common criminals. What we have is nothing less than a crime against humanity.

    Ken:

    There comes a time when your games look downright ridiculous. I guess it ok to assume you really have nothing of substance to add? Your transformation to Glenn Hoefer is nearly complete.

    PS. Lay and Madoff were both convicted of fraud. Common criminals?

  123. #123 by Chilliwack Charlie aka Glenn Hoefer on December 8, 2009 - 10:04 am

    The bait had been set by Kyoto, now the switch that will keep the developing world in the service of the first world. While we continue our ways and the government run scam taxes people for nothing.

    They won’t do it the 3rd world, the scam continues. This is beautiful. Oh yes, fraud and common criminality. You’ll see, the information for the end game of this fraud is waiting for idiots like you to continue to promote the fraud. Don’t you imagine there is so much more of this to come out yet? Those in possession of it are just waiting for warmers to keep sticking their necks out.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

  124. #124 by Richard Warnick on December 8, 2009 - 10:10 am

    This just in: according to Faux News, 120 percent of people believe scientists falsify global warming data.

  125. #125 by Glenn Hoefer on December 8, 2009 - 11:29 am

    This really what it is all about, I agree with Gerald, and there is no way the world is going along.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100019206/climategate-barack-obamas-rule-by-epa-decree-is-a-coup-detat-against-congress-made-in-britain/

    In the meantime, Cliff and Jim, get ready to scrap your 4WD SUV’s, and pay triple for your coal based electric. I know you guys have the sacrifice in you. For Jim, he will just have to increase his daily ration to stay warm. Toddy season!

  126. #126 by Glenn Hoefer on December 8, 2009 - 11:40 am

  127. #127 by Glenn Hoefer on December 8, 2009 - 11:46 am

    From the above article, apparently the Danish whore union is going to give anyone with a conference pass a free fuck. You can’t make this stuff up.

    “At least the sex will be C02-neutral”.

    But, but, what about all that heavy breathing? What about all that spunk, it is all carbon based proteins?!!

    Al Gore has demanded that the Danish union whores all swallow, like the rest of us.

  128. #128 by jdberger on December 8, 2009 - 12:06 pm

    Richard Warnick :This just in: according to Faux News, 120 percent of people believe scientists falsify global warming data.

    Richard, When you wright “faux” instead of Fox you make yourself look like an idiot.

    “Faux” is not a synonym for Fox. Instead, it rhymes with “doe”.

    But I’m sure you know that, eh?

  129. #129 by Richard Warnick on December 8, 2009 - 12:46 pm

    Faux (pron. “foe”) is a fancy word for “false.” It’s very much a synonym for Fox. But not a homonym, I confess.

    Last month, they “reported” that 193 percent of the public support Palin, Huckabee, and Romney for President. Today they lied and subtracted $198 billion from the money saved on bank bailouts, reporting it as $2 billion instead of $200 billion.

  130. #130 by jdberger on December 8, 2009 - 1:01 pm

    One day I’ll get synonym and homonym right….

  131. #131 by Richard Warnick on December 8, 2009 - 2:38 pm

    Media Matters offers a good summary of how the stolen e-mail messages have been taken out of context and distorted.

    Also, for those who mistakenly believe the BBC has reported the end of global warming, there’s this:

    This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office.

    …The last ten years have been in the top 15 warmest on record. And this summer the UK enjoyed temperatures higher than the long-term average.

    …Next year we will see the influence of the warming El Nino current, and the Met Office says there is a 50% chance that global temperatures will hit an all-time high.

  132. #132 by Ken on December 8, 2009 - 9:14 pm

    Richard

    This is the same Met Office that has announced a full review of their climate data in the wake of the “taken out of context” emails?

  133. #133 by cav on December 8, 2009 - 10:00 pm

    I believe ‘full review’ will also be given to the theft of emails from each and every victimized source, the perps, and the possible implications of their being broadcast at this time.

    A full review of climate data does not seem at all unreasonable to me. But precious time could be a-wastin’ if there’s little change in the ourcome – you have to admit.

  134. #134 by ken on December 9, 2009 - 3:50 am

    Whoever leaked the emails, which I think may have been an inside job, is irrelevant. The fact that it exposed to the world that scientists were padding the raw data to bolster their claims means the hackers/leakers did the world a great service.

    If the same thing happened under any other context, such as exposing illegal activities involving a major oil company, you would all be praising the hacker/leaker as a courageous whistle-blower.

  135. #135 by cav on December 9, 2009 - 6:59 am

    Daniel Ellsburg again.

    Assuming from the state of things as it appears, presumes the padding was placed in the front of ones pants and NOT between the ears.

    Review, but verify.

  136. #136 by James Farmer on December 9, 2009 - 8:06 am

    If the same thing happened under any other context, such as exposing illegal activities involving a major oil company, you would all be praising the hacker/leaker as a courageous whistle-blower.

    Ken:

    I recall being labeled by you and others similarly situated as unpatriotic following Joe Wilson’s leak of yellocakegate and subsequent criticism of Bush. You are, verily, one of the most hypocritical sons of bitches I have ever met.

  137. #137 by Richard Warnick on December 9, 2009 - 9:16 am

    Ken It is not a “fact” that “scientists were padding the raw data.” Read the explanation by Media Matters.

  138. #138 by Cliff Lyon on December 9, 2009 - 9:29 am

    The leaked e-mails contain “planted” fakes, written by oil companies. Im very sure of this.

    Its SOOO easy to fake emails. It happens all the time, especially among well-paid hackers.

    Its too bad the e-mails were obtained illegally, by people who do illegal things.

    Oh well.

  139. #139 by jdberger on December 9, 2009 - 12:09 pm

    James Farmer :

    If the same thing happened under any other context, such as exposing illegal activities involving a major oil company, you would all be praising the hacker/leaker as a courageous whistle-blower.

    Ken:
    I recall being labeled by you and others similarly situated as unpatriotic following Joe Wilson’s leak of yellocakegate and subsequent criticism of Bush. You are, verily, one of the most hypocritical sons of bitches I have ever met.

    Kettle black, eh, James?! :)

    Anyway…a little fun with original data by someone much smarter than I…..

    What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling. In addition, the average raw data for Northern Australia is quite different from the adjusted, so there must be a number of … mmm … let me say “interesting” adjustments in Northern Australia other than just Darwin.

    And with the Latin saying “Falsus in unum, falsus in omis” (false in one, false in all) as our guide, until all of the station “adjustments” are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS alike, we can’t trust anyone using homogenized numbers.

  140. #140 by James farmer on December 9, 2009 - 1:19 pm

    jd:

    Huh? Guess I am not following your comment.

  141. #141 by ken on December 10, 2009 - 6:53 pm

    Funny thing is the MET office has called for a full review of their data at the same time putting out a petition by 17000 mostly non-Climate scientists, at least one claiming to be pressured into signing, supporting the veracity of global warming science. This is the same “science” that the Met deems necessary to review.

    The climate data in Australia shows deliberate manipulation and the amazing thing is the manipulations look suspiciously like what you would get if you ran the raw data through the CRU’s “fudge factor” code.

    Cliff

    The primary players in the Climategate emails have already admitted the emails are genuine so your accusation that oil companies padded the emails with fake ones is ignorant at best.

    It sounds like you know as much about Climategate emails as Al Gore who falsely claimed that the most recent email was from the 90s. Not true, the emails span a 12 year period with the most recent being only a month ago including the most damaging “hide the decline” email.

  142. #142 by Cliff Lyon on December 11, 2009 - 9:24 am

    But Ken, Still no smoking gun. The fudge factor thing has gone nowhere. If you had any experience in dealing with disparate data sets, you would not have such a problem with that term.

    Do you know what I mean by disparate data sets?

    What I don’t understand is why, after it turned out you were wrong about everything during the Bush years, you continue to pick losing, minority arguments.

    I think you are some kind of romantic.

  143. #143 by James Farmer on December 11, 2009 - 9:33 am

    Ken:

    You know, Cliff has a good point in raising your dismal track record in choosing the factually correct side of matters.

    As you generally got it wrong re Bush 100% of the time, when you were so certain you were correct, why should we place any stock in the equally baseless and conclusory allegations you make today?

  144. #144 by Richard Warnick on December 11, 2009 - 10:12 am

    Ken–

    Some scientists in the U.K. have been outflanked by denialist propaganda and have to take measures to defend the credibility of their work. Normally, scientists don’t engage in advocacy but they are being forced to. This fact is not evidence of wrongdoing.

    The survival of human civilization is at stake, but people will play politics until the end, won’t they?

  145. #145 by jdberger on December 11, 2009 - 1:48 pm

    ken :Funny thing is the MET office has called for a full review of their data at the same time putting out a petition by 17000 mostly non-Climate scientists, at least one claiming to be pressured into signing, supporting the veracity of global warming science. This is the same “science” that the Met deems necessary to review.

    The concept of scientists–or journalists, or artists–signing a petition is ludicrous. The idea is that they are lending their authority to whatever cause the petition represents–but in fact they are undermining that authority, which is based on the presumption that they think for themselves.

    The problem with the petition as a form is also a problem with the Met Office petition’s substance. The purpose of the petition is to shore up scientists’ authority by vouching for their integrity. But signing a loyalty oath under pressure from the government is itself a corrupt act. Anyone who signs this petition thereby raises doubts about his own integrity. And once again, the question arises: Why should any layman regard global warmism as credible when the “consensus” rests on political machinations, statistical tricks and efforts to suppress alternative hypotheses?

  146. #146 by cav on December 11, 2009 - 2:00 pm

    I must admit, we’ve got quite the cunundrum going here, and It did snow in Austin yesterday … So, by golly, fire up the Humm-V and let’s go tear up the countryside!

  147. #147 by jdberger on December 11, 2009 - 2:03 pm

    At this point, the onus is on the CRU Climate Scientists to prove the veracity of their claims.

    Rotten apples, and all that….

  148. #148 by cav on December 11, 2009 - 2:08 pm

    While I jest, jdb. I agree with what you’ve written above.

    Rotten apples abound!

  149. #149 by jdberger on December 11, 2009 - 2:14 pm

    cav :While I jest, jdb. I agree with what you’ve written above.
    Rotten apples abound!

    While I agree that renewable energy sources are the future (and an excellent idea) – I’m having a ton of fun watching the Climate Religion folks getting the same treatment that Cliffy likes to parcel out to the religious.

    It makes for some fine entertainment.

  150. #150 by cav on December 11, 2009 - 2:26 pm

    “Falsus in unum, falsus in omis”

    Oh, and btw, I’ve never been wrong about anything -EVAR!

    Check it.

  151. #151 by Glenn "I am not smarter than a fifth grader" Hoefer on December 12, 2009 - 11:20 am

    The adage, “give ‘em enough rope to hang themselves” ….

    ….can’t be used enough Ken to define the state of the James Gang now,

    James, Cliff, and tag-along Shane, it has been a great source of entertainment and information “sharing”.

  152. #152 by Glenn "I am feeling schizophrenic today" Hoefer on December 12, 2009 - 11:48 am

    Get ready for a Kenny Lay Copenhagen Christmas. That’s right, the guy who made Enron, made the carbon trading scheme we are about to see aborted.

    In retrospect you will eating all that name calling, and it does bother in how it will look in the future. It is known this name edit comes from the webmasters, who increasingly have zero credibility.

  153. #153 by Glenn "Someone Stop the Voices in My Head" Hoefer on December 12, 2009 - 11:52 am

  154. #154 by Glenn "The Voices in My Head Are Frighteningly Loud Today" Hoefer on December 13, 2009 - 11:14 am

    Thanks, that ends the thread it would seem, and will be the first links a person sees when they follow down with the desired links that just put punctuation on the fraud.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: