Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal

[groupthink]

fart ban 2011 "save the planet!"

 

[Sihouette]

The Government of Canada is taking real action on climate change by investing $85.9 million over four years to help Canadians increase their capacity to adapt to a changing climate. Environment Canada, in collaboration with Natural Resources Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, will implement several new programs as part of the Government of Canada’s new adaptation plan. New initiatives will enhance the scientific knowledge and tools needed to take further action against climate change and reduce the risks to Canadians.

The science is clear and Canada, like the rest of the world, recognizes the need to take immediate action on climate change. Across the country, we have seen the impacts of a warming climate first hand. For example, the pine beetle infestation that has ravaged our boreal forests and the melting of permafrost in the north that has destabilized the foundations of homes and schools.
With the Government’s Turning the Corner Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollution, our Government has introduced the toughest regulations in Canadian history, putting Canada on the path to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 and by 60-70% by 2050. ~http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&xml=91E1F38E-C53C-404B-9512-22EA69C08787

Seems when you live right in the middle of the melting permafrost, you tend to notice that it is real. Especially when your coffee cup slides off the table downhill when you wake up one morning.

 

[groupthink]

so how can we hide the decline of the melting permafrost?

 

[Sihouette]

moved

 

[groupthink]

how do you hide the decline of cooling trends?

 

[groupthink]

sooooo

ken lays idea of taxing big oil..."who also helped dream this up" then allowing big oil and big corp to buy trillions of "carbon credits" to polute directly into the air... that is going to save the permafrost?

so when unocal pays al gore 20 trillion for carbon credits... what then does the owner of those carbon credits do with the 20 trillion?

what ever will we do about our farting that will one day cause a 100 foot wave to knock over the statue of liberty.

 

[Sihouette]

How do you hide the "decline" in global warming?

You don't hide it, you understand it. The water molecule presenting as ice melting will suck in heat [removing it from other areas] as it melts. The tipping point is when that cycle of cooling during warming [oxymoronic but not if you understand the physical chemistry of the water molecule], leans towards warming as the more massive chunks of frozen water in the soil and in sheets melting outweighs the ability to stay cool. Evidence of this tipping point approaching are large chunks of ice breaking away instead of small and periodic ones normal for the region. When an acceleration is seen like this, it is a btich-slap to wake up and notice the problem.

We don't have much time. If the permafrost continues on its OVERALL TREND in sinking more houses and a steady, but small, increase in temp. AVERAGES over the next decade or so, we will see the math pile up in favor of melting. If large areas continue to melt of the permafrost and additional acceleration of atmospheric warming will happen due to the release of methane trapped in the permafrost soils.

This is mundane science. Easily repeated in a lab. Take a piece of frozen soil out of a freezer. Keep in an environment where you ever-so gradually increase the temperature over time. Cool it down too but over an hour wind up with a net increase of a few degrees above freezing. Ice melts at 33 degrees. That's all it takes. Just because the melting ice elsewhere is temporarily sucking heat from a localized region does not mean the OVERALL mean temps in the arctic arent' rising on AVERAGE over a decade. Back up and take a good look at the BIG PICTURE, not a myopic and stupidly-hopeful soundbite of the warming facts. GLOBAL WARMING INCLUDES PERIODS OF REGIONAL COOLING. Again, this is due to the massive specific heat of the water molecule and it's greedy need to suck in heat as it converts solid ice to water. PAY ATTENTION to big chunks of ice breaking off elsewhere because they are telling you that something abnormal is happening.

This is why it is so hard for laypeople to wrap their heads around global-warming. "We got more snow this year than I can remember!" Yeah dummy, that's because somewhere else was sucking the heat out of your region in it's continuing and worsening march towards ice-to-water conversion. Take chemistry. See if I'm lying.

The Canadian Government is already ACTING on the SCIENCE they know means trouble for their districts. They don't have time to play dumb. We who haven't built on permafrost have a precious few more years to keep our heads in the sand.

 

[groupthink]

so al gore takes those 20 trillion dallers and pays off mother gaia?

 

[groupthink]

so permafrost is manmade?

by cheapest bidder no doubt.

 

[MrSheepish]

Mr Sheepish wrote -

Independent scientists elsewhere have questioned
the station data also. It's common sense that if you haven't used all the sample
data and you haven't provided a valid reason as to why, you should expect questioning.

What scientists are questioning, and why do you conclude that they haven't provided reasoning?

Here is another famous example.

CRU’s handling of Siberian temperatures had been questioned years ago by Warwick Hughes


http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/tarko.htm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/...ow-jones-put-bias-in-australian-temperatures/

Hughes questioned why data was eliminated from the earlier years, had gaps, etc.
Had the missing data from earlier years, etc. been used, it would not have lead to
the warming conclusion that Al Gore and the other Global Warming Scammers preach.

Once again, just because someone "questions" something does not indicate foul play. I looked online and saw that Hughes is not a professional scientist, but rather a "free lance science researcher" who does not list his credentials. And if he says stupid and wrong things like this: "Had the missing data from earlier years, etc. been used, it would not have lead to
the warming conclusion that Al Gore and the other Global Warming Scammers preach," then he clearly is either a liar or he doesn't know what he's talking about because as we've been over many times, there are many independent sources of data from oceans, satellites, and land, from many different research institutions and from all parts of the world, which agree on the same long term warming trend.

Phil Jones responded:
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you,
when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." —[WWW]Dr. Phil Jones, CRU,
responding to this request

What's the context for this quote? I am searching for the full e-mail but cannot find it. In any case, based on what I seen Jones should not have responded that way, but I can see why he would get frustrated if Warwick was telling lies like the one above. You saw how the liars distorted the New Zealand scientists' research to make it sound like they had fabricated data to produce an artificial warming trend, didn't you? The one that Gipper linked, not knowing it was pure BS? If I were a scientist being approached by a group of hacks behaving this way then I would want to avoid them any way I could. Was Warwick behaving this way? I would need to see the quote in the context of the conversation.

 

[MrSheepish]

how do you hide the decline of cooling trends?

Groupthink, you need to stop quoting this and look at the "hide the decline" email in the context in which it was written/intended. As I've pointed out previously, this is not an example of scientific misconduct. It was sloppy phrasing by a scientist who was substituting *wrong data* for *correct data*, and was not expecting his words to be spread around the world and taken out of context like this. If you care about the truth you should stop spreading this lie.

See the details here.

 

[asur]

Mr Sheepish - Here is the email you questioned in more detail:


Hi Warwick
Thanks for the feedback. Just wondering if you’d had any joy tracking the email itself down. Don’t mean to unrelax your Xmas…honest.
Cheers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Added 28 Dec. Here is the full email text. To put into perspective. During 2004 I had asked CRU / Prof Jones for updated station data. He had said that he could not supply but to try WMO. I had emailed WMO a few times at various addresses to no avail, so I let Prof Jones know this. By the sound of it he might have teed it up with Hans Teunisson at WMO to reply to me. I have not yet found a reply from WMO and can not recall one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:12:22 +0000
From: Phil Jones

To: “wshughes@xxxxxx.au”
Subject: Re: WMO non respondo

Warwick,
Hans Teunisson will reply. He’ll tell you which other people should
reply.
Hans is “Hans Teunissen” .

I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on
to others. We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO
agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested
in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim
is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.

You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Australia isn’t restricted
there.
Several European countries are. Basically because, for example, France
doesn’t
want the French picking up data on France from Asheville. Meteo France
wants to supply data to the French on France. Same story in most of the
others.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK


Jones IPR excuse is bogus. Intellect property rights have nothing to do with
climate data. It might apply to new low-carbon technologies which is
something unrelated, but the climate data itself isn't proprietary. Jones might have
thought Warwick was a fool. It's crazy!
Jones gave Warwick the run around by referring him to Hans.

Jones should have never gotten into the scientific field unless he
was willing to share his data and results. He only wanted to share
his skewed results without any questioning or verification by others.


Jones also refused sharing the data to others like Steve McIntyre at "Climate Audit"
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/08/pressure-mounts-on-cru-to-share-climate.html


Jones and the CRU received requests from multiple climate scientists and they were given the run around also.
There was a pattern of hiding the data by Jones and his cohorts.

An email from Don Keiller, Department of Life Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge [Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk]

I am one of those who have asked CRU for their data - on the basis that papers that rely on non-substantiated data cannot be reproduced and therefore should be withdrawn. See request to CRU, below also copied to Professor Jones. I have had an acknowledgement of receipt:

Dear Mrs Palmer,

I have been reading with increasing disbelief the litany of excuses offered by CRU FOI Officers to Steve McIntyre at "Climate Audit" (http://www.climateaudit.org/) to refuse release of original temperature data held at CRU. The refusal of FOI requests on the basis of confidentiality agreements which were either "verbal", or "lost" is clearly illegal. If you cannot substantiate these agreements, then they are null and void.

Similarly the refusal to provide data to allow fellow scientists access to original data to reproduce published findings strikes at the very heart of scientific enquiry. Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay and must be withdrawn.

Accordingly I make the following FOI request, confirming that I am a academic who has published in the area of climate change in the past and that I currently work in an academic institution.

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (2000) "General right of access to information held by public authorities"

In this Act any reference to a “request for information” is a reference to such a request which-

(a) is in writing,
(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence, and
(c) describes the information requested.

For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request-

(a) is transmitted by electronic means,
(b) is received in legible form, and
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

I hereby request:

1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009

2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure.

Mr Sheepish you are going out of your way to defend the Climate Hoaxers like Jones without any logical reason. I had hope for you due to an independent streak I saw at one point, but I'm losing faith
in you.

 

[MrSheepish]

Mr Sheepish you are going out of your way to defend the Climate Hoaxers like Jones without any logical reason. I had hope for you due to an independent streak I saw at one point, but I'm losing faith
in you.

I am not trying to defend anyone. I simply trying to determine the full context before I come to the conclusion that someone is guilty. Jones was refusing to release data. Was he doing this because he had reason to believe that Warwick would distort the findings as others have done in the examples I have shown, or is he refusing to release the data because he has something to hide (or doesn't want to take any chances). The former would be understandable but still inappropriate. The latter would be fundamentally dishonest. The quote you provide still does not put this in enough context for me, so I went out and did some more searching and finally came up with the complete email exchange online. Based on this exchange Warwick was behaving perfectly reasonably, so I see no reason for Jones to respond the way he did, and it does look fundamentally dishonest to me for them to refuse to release this data, regardless of intellectual property rights (which sounds like a flimsy excuse to me).

In conclusion, this looks very inappropriate to me. It is not evidence that they did anything dishonest with the data, but it does raise suspicions that they might have something to hide.

 

[Gipper]

The Great Walter Williams speaks the truth, but some refuse to listen...

Manmade global warming, for many, is an Earth-worshipping religion. The essential feature of any religion is that its pronouncements are to be accepted on the basis of faith as opposed to hard evidence.

Nonetheless, there is much at stake in getting people to subscribe to the global warming religion. There is so much at stake that some scientists, using government grants, are fraudulently manipulating climate data and engaging in criminal activity, as revealed in what has been called "Climate gate." One of the most dangerous features of the global warming religion is its level of intimidation of heretics or would-be heretics.

A few years back, Dr. Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel's climatologist, advocated that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News "60 Minutes" correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers." Former Vice President Al Gore called skeptics "global warming deniers." But it gets worse.
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/01/13/global_warming_is_a_religion

 

[PLC1]

The Great Walter Williams speaks the truth, but some refuse to listen...

Are you talking about a Walter Williams with a PhD in climatology, or this Walter Williams, the economist?

Must be the former. Why would anyone quote an economist in a discussion about a scientific theory?

Right?