Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal

[MrSheepish]

If you take the temperature record all the way back to the Medieval Warm Period or even back to the beginning of the Holocene, we're cooling.

What data are you looking at? Here are data from a variety of different temperature reconstructions from different studies going back to the Medieval Warm period. One of them concludes that during this period temperatures were about as warm as in the 1960s. All the other reconstructions conclude the Medieval Warm period was colder than this. None of them conclude that it was even close to as warm as the temperatures today.

As for the Holocene, that point is deceptive. There was a brief period when the earth's orbit appears to have changed in a way that made temperatures warmer than today. But to quote NOAA, "the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years." Full article here.

One of the biggest things that we have only just discovered and have no way of quantifying at this point is the energy that leaves Earth through the magnetic portals at the poles. MASSIVE energy. We kinda' found it by accident but are studying it now.

Can you provide a reference?

Looks like the "electric universe" folks are going to win the argument in the end.

Are you referring to this hypothesis where they try to debunk all of modern astrophysics?

Oh... another thing: we also recently discovered that the occurrences and strength of lightning in storms is DIRECTLY related to the Bartels Rotations of our sun. The sun revolves on its own axis about every 27 days. There's a waxing and waning in lightning strikes around the planet (this one) that is in time with the sun's rotation (coronal holes, that sort of thing).

This is sounding crazier and crazier, but if you provide a link I'll have a look.

 

[Pidgey]

Are you representing The Sheeple?

First, you just linked Mann Hockey Stick data. Artificial data produced by proxy and then mathematically processed to, apparently, produce a temperature record that essentially flattened out the major excursions of the past. That's... uhh... an awful lot of what this whole "ClimateGate" deal is about, by the way.

Second, I did make a small error in that second point in saying "leaves Earth"--didn't mean to imply direction, must have been tired! Anyhow:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm

Never mind that we're also only recently working on figuring out how the solar wind transfers heat to the planet:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025.aspx

(I'll save the EU until later)

Last, sorry, no craziness here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091111142518.htm

 

[PLC1]

Look who is concerned about climate change.

Scientific evidence shows many areas of Alaska are experiencing a warming trend. Many experts predict that Alaska, along with our northern latitude neighbors, will continue to warm at a faster pace than any other state, and the warming will continue for decades. Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It is also a social, cultural, and economic issue important to all Alaskans. As a result of this warming, coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, retreating sea ice, record forest fires, and other changes are affecting, and will continue to affect, the lifestyles and livelihoods of Alaskans. Alaska needs a strategy to identify and mitigate potential impacts of climate change and to guide its efforts in evaluating and addressing known or suspected causes of climate change. Alaska's climate change strategy must be built on sound science and the best available facts and must recognize Alaska's interest in economic growth and the development of its resources. Commercializing Alaska's great natural gas reserves through a new pipeline will improve the nation's energy security while providing a clean, low carbon fuel to help the nation reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[MrSheepish]

Are you representing The Sheeple?

Nah, I'm just a humble sheeple.

First, you just linked Mann Hockey Stick data. Artificial data produced by proxy and then mathematically processed to, apparently, produce a temperature record that essentially flattened out the major excursions of the past. That's... uhh... an awful lot of what this whole "ClimateGate" deal is about, by the way.

Uh, first, did you not notice that there are also eleven other sets of data here in addition to the Mann "hockey stick" data, all of which completely disagree with what you said? Second, you use all kinds of bad-sounding phrases here, for example, "Artificial data produced by proxy". I challenge you to show me *any* temperature data from this time period that does not fit that description. And third, I will ask my original question again: what data did you use to conclude that the medieval warm period was warmer than today. As this plot demonstrates, all 12 studies in the IPCC report (some of which were critical of the Mann study) completely disagree with you.

Second, I did make a small error in that second point in saying "leaves Earth"--didn't mean to imply direction, must have been tired! Anyhow:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm

Never mind that we're also only recently working on figuring out how the solar wind transfers heat to the planet:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025.aspx

(I'll save the EU until later)

Last, sorry, no craziness here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091111142518.htm

I agree that there are lots of aspects of the solar wind that are poorly understood. I could be wrong, but I am very skeptical that this plays much of a role in heating the earth though, since the energy flow from the solar wind is no much smaller than that of direct sunlight. It's hard for me to find the numbers though, so I am open to believing you if you can show me that this is a larger component than I expect. As long as you don't try to convince me that the "electric universe people" are right, I won't dismiss you as a crazy

 

[Gipper]

The title of this thread is self evident. Of course Algore lies. Don't all politicians lie?

Its just that Fat Al lies so much that it has made him millions. We all need a gig like Al's.

He probably cooked up this gig after losing to W while sipping brandy in his 100 room mansion, with dozens of servants, and dozens of SUVs, and dozens of furnaces, and dozens of...

...and some people believed.

 

[Pidgey]

Well, let's take as an example the tree ring data. The actual tree rings ARE the data, and not temperature "data" derived from them. And that it especially dishonest if one cherry-picks the samples used... like "YAD061".

The Medieval Warm Period in and of itself isn't particularly that interesting, but the descent into the Little Ice Age is. No one can deny the massive dieoff at the time due to crop failures. And, yes, I understand that "the plural of anecdote is not 'data' "... but when you get ENOUGH anecdotal data together... "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem".

That said... sure was a lot of whaling going on up in the Arctic during the 16th century...

 

[asur]

Exhibit 8 - Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Have you seen the slick graphs in Gore's movie?

Here they are:

They were purposely used to fool children into believing that higher CO2 levels create
higher temperature and with a strong correlation. Ie the CO2 level and graph drives the temperature.

But what do these graphs really prove?

Gore admits they are based on ice-core samples and states:

“The relationship is actually very complicated but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide,
the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside.”

Scientists however agree that the temperature increases lead the CO2 increases by as much as 800 years.
Gore's chart's span such long time period that this distinction is conveniently hidden.

It's difficult to manipulate Gore's graphs and study them, but try this one below.
Use your mouse to superimpose the CO2 graph onto the Temp graph and draw
your own conclusion. You will see that Temperature leads CO2 if you try!

There are other graphs where the same results are shown.


Again, Scientists agree that the CO2 increases lag about 800 years behind the temperature rises, based on ice-core samples, which the charts are based on. Had Gore mentioned this fact, the audience
would be less than impressed by his assertion above..



But wait, there's more!

Do you notice the graph divergence on the right. Gore hops on a cherry picker so he can plot the current/future CO2 level way up high in the sky. Now how come the temperature graph stays way down below? Do you see the gap there? It seems he has destroyed his own correlation assertion?

And what about the big increases in CO2 levels thousands of years ago. What cars
existed to produce all these high CO2 levels?


The bottom line is that the charts don't prove what Gore wants to show
and are misleading at best!

 

[Pidgey]

The CO2 lags the temperature rises because the CO2 level is an integral of animal life. When an ice age occurs, the... tonnage of animal life goes way, way, WAY down and it takes awhile for the vegetation that's left (those swings are really pretty doggone fast!) to eat up the excess CO2. When we pop into an interglacial, vegetation leads animal life. That, and ocean cooling and heating--cooling oceans absorb more CO2 and warming oceans release more or don't absorb as much, depending on your point of view.

Well... that's a theory, anyhow.

 

[Gipper]

love it...maybe BO will get snowed in while he is there. How sweet that would be.

Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A

By Christian Wienberg

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight.

“Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=a5wStc0K6jhY

 

[chestnut]

Coldest weather they've had in Copenhagen in 17 years.. I think.

 

[MrSheepish]

Well, let's take as an example the tree ring data. The actual tree rings ARE the data, and not temperature "data" derived from them. And that it especially dishonest if one cherry-picks the samples used... like "YAD061".

The Medieval Warm Period in and of itself isn't particularly that interesting, but the descent into the Little Ice Age is. No one can deny the massive dieoff at the time due to crop failures. And, yes, I understand that "the plural of anecdote is not 'data' "... but when you get ENOUGH anecdotal data together... "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem".

So let me get this straight. I have presented you with 12 datasets all of which demonstrate that you are wrong - not even close to right - in your assertion that the Medieval warm period was warmer than today. I have repeatedly asked to know what data you used to come to your (apparently wrong) conclusion. You have provided none, just a single anecdote taken from the European part of the world. This is in contrast to the datasets I provided which have multiple samplings on every single continent. Maybe if you accuse some more scientists of dishonesty in unrelated publications that you do not reference, that will help your argument?

 

[asur]

Exhibit 9 - The Ninth Gate is ClimateGate

It is worth looking at the ClimateGate emails from the East Anglia CRU hoaxers and
drawing your own conclusion. It's ironic they
are now hiding these emails from the public. Before ClimateGate, the CRU was willing
to spreading misinformation publicly, when it suited them.

Note there is not just one individual involved, but a large cast
of climategaters, hoaxing together:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/20/the-global-warming-scandal-of-the-century/

1) One of the emails gloats over the death in 2004 of John L Daly
(one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”


2) Manipulation of evidence:

Phil Jones - I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the
last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

3) Doubts about the theory

Kevin Trenberth - The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows
there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

4) Cover-up of theory-destroying data

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

5) Liberal anger toward dissenting scientists

Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

6) Attempt to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of
which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K,
addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain”
the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

7) A plan to cover their behinds if the truth gets out!

Phil Jones - If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the
agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

8) Removal and manipulation of data!

From Tom Wigley - Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip
(as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this
would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to
have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or
ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips
are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects.
My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the
aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous
warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming
cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar.
So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced
SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) —
but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

9) Refusing to share climate data!

Ben Santer - We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by
Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our
scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science.
I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research.
As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of
the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will
continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs,
email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the
scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in
order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.

10) Making it up to fit the global warming template!
Nick McKay - The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in
the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy
we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature.
We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong,
unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

11) More manipulation and hiding of data!

Mich Kelly - Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that,
but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures
beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending
down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

12) Blaming the computer for inconvenient data!

Kevin Trenberth - the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are
surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate

13) Pretending to be neutral when in fact biased and running a crooked website!

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


14) Withholding of data!

Michael E. Mann - Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab
code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites.
I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to
more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to
clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case
they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your
own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into
the hands of the wrong people.


So here is partial list above of Hoaxers involved in ClimateGate with East Anglia:

Phil Jones, Nick McKay, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Mich Kelly, Kevin Trenberth, Michael E. Mann.

There are more dishonest ClimateGaters beside these scoundrels!
You can see it's a big scandal, involving many hoaxers!

If anybody has a copy of the Fortran or computer code referenced above,
I might be willing to decode it and post my findings here.
Just PM me!

For you Hoaxers that think I missed you, we aren't done yet!
No go changer your pants!
To be continued:

 

[MrSheepish]

Some of these e-mails are taken badly out-of context. Try reading the full messages sometime along with explanations of what the scientists were talking about (not all of them are here, but enough that you can tell this guy is being dishonest). Was this blog where you got the misinformation that the earth has been cooling in the last decade? Based on these distortions it does not look trustworthy.

Exhibit 9 - The Ninth Gate is ClimateGate

It is worth looking at the ClimateGate emails from the East Anglia CRU hoaxers and
drawing your own conclusion. It's ironic they
are now hiding these emails from the public.

Ummm, they clearly aren't doing a very good job.

2) Manipulation of evidence:

Phil Jones - I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the
last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Poorly chosen words in an e-mail that has been taken out-of context. See here. Tree ring data is inaccurate in recent times. He is substituting more accurate data for the tree ring data. If he tries to hide the fact that he's doing this then that's dishonest, but not at the scandal level.

3) Doubts about the theory

Kevin Trenberth - The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows
there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

As you can clearly see, he is not expressing doubts about the warming trends of the earth. He is expressing doubts about the data for the year 2008. And if you read the rest of the message, you will see that the "travesty" he is referring to is the lack of a physical understanding of where the heat went. You remember how we were discussing noise? That's basically what he thinks they should be trying to understand.

6) Attempt to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of
which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K,
addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain”
the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

Since when does including the data mean you're trying to disguise it?

8) Removal and manipulation of data!

From Tom Wigley - Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip
(as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this
would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to
have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or
ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips
are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects.
My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the
aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous
warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming
cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar.
So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced
SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) —
but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

I don't see why I should take it as anything other than discussion between scientists who are trying to understand complex data. They know the data is suspect because the temperatures they are talking about were collected under the imprecise practice of measuring ocean temperatures using buckets thrown over the side of naval ships to pick up the water. In this message the author is speculating that if a certain correction were called for it would explain some other anomalies he is seeing. It doesn't look to me like he is even proposing to do this, he is asking for input and throwing out ideas about the evidence he is looking at.

10) Making it up to fit the global warming template!
Nick McKay - The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in
the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy
we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature.
We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong,
unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

I don't see how this is evidence of "making it up to fit the global warming template". He does not provide enough information for me to understand this.

11) More manipulation and hiding of data!

Mich Kelly - Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that,
but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures
beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending
down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

This sounds pretty sleazy, but it is relatively minor misconduct by one or two scientists, which appears to be motivated by their desire to make their talk more provocative. It does not make me doubt any overall science.

12) Blaming the computer for inconvenient data!

Kevin Trenberth - the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are
surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate

Already addressed this one. You should read the full e-mail message in context at the website I linked.

13) Pretending to be neutral when in fact biased and running a crooked website!

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

Why assume dishonesty from this?

14) Withholding of data!

Michael E. Mann - Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab
code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites.
I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to
more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to
clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case
they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your
own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into
the hands of the wrong people.

This one is *not* an example of withholding of data.


Overall, from these messages, I see examples of scientists being assholes, I see some examples of scientists talking about withholding data, and I see some minor examples of scientific misconduct. I don't see anything to make me doubt the overall scientific findings. Given that people have been mucking about for dirt in 15 years worth of messages, I'm honestly surprised that I don't see anything worse. What is it that I'm missing?

 

[PLC1]

Some of these e-mails are taken badly out-of context. Try reading the full messages sometime along with explanations of what the scientists were talking about (not all of them are here, but enough that you can tell this guy is being dishonest). Was this blog where you got the misinformation that the earth has been cooling in the last decade? Based on these distortions it does not look trustworthy.



Ummm, they clearly aren't doing a very good job.



Poorly chosen words in an e-mail that has been taken out-of context. See here. Tree ring data is inaccurate in recent times. He is substituting more accurate data for the tree ring data. If he tries to hide the fact that he's doing this then that's dishonest, but not at the scandal level.



As you can clearly see, he is not expressing doubts about the warming trends of the earth. He is expressing doubts about the data for the year 2008. And if you read the rest of the message, you will see that the "travesty" he is referring to is the lack of a physical understanding of where the heat went. You remember how we were discussing noise? That's basically what he thinks they should be trying to understand.



Since when does including the data mean you're trying to disguise it?



I don't see why I should take it as anything other than discussion between scientists who are trying to understand complex data. They know the data is suspect because the temperatures they are talking about were collected under the imprecise practice of measuring ocean temperatures using buckets thrown over the side of naval ships to pick up the water. In this message the author is speculating that if a certain correction were called for it would explain some other anomalies he is seeing. It doesn't look to me like he is even proposing to do this, he is asking for input and throwing out ideas about the evidence he is looking at.



I don't see how this is evidence of "making it up to fit the global warming template". He does not provide enough information for me to understand this.



This sounds pretty sleazy, but it is relatively minor misconduct by one or two scientists, which appears to be motivated by their desire to make their talk more provocative. It does not make me doubt any overall science.



Already addressed this one. You should read the full e-mail message in context at the website I linked.



Why assume dishonesty from this?



This one is *not* an example of withholding of data.


Overall, from these messages, I see examples of scientists being assholes, I see some examples of scientists talking about withholding data, and I see some minor examples of scientific misconduct. I don't see anything to make me doubt the overall scientific findings. Given that people have been mucking about for dirt in 15 years worth of messages, I'm honestly surprised that I don't see anything worse. What is it that I'm missing?

But, you're missing the findings of Dr. Chris Horner, PhD, who in a piece headlined "Global Warming Equals Socialism," says:

"Global warming is the ideal scare campaign for those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life." As Horner explains, "if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could 'solve' it . . . no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government."

Now, doesn't that scare you and make you want to reexamine the findings of climatologists who... What's that?

Horner is not a climatologist, but a lawyer? Oh. And, he represents the Competitive Enterprise Institute? But, isn't that a.. no, it means he represents the same industries that are opposing limiting carbon emissions?

Hmmm.. surely, though, no one would harp about climate science being an excuse to establish a world socialist government and take away liberties unless he knew something that the rest of us don't, would they? Why, of course not, and Horner isn't the only one saying that global warming is a socialist hoax. No, he isn't, is he? There you go. They are saying it, so it must be true, or they couldn't say it could they? Could they?

Now, how much more proof of a conspiracy could we need?

 

[asur]

Mr. Sheepish wrote -

Umm, the clearly aren't doing a very good job.

I agree with you, the East Anglia scoundrels were ignorant to leave all this
incriminating evidence hanging around.


Mr Sheepish wrote -

If he tries to hide the fact that he's doing this then that's dishonest, but not at the scandal level

I think the scientific community at large would agree that purposeful hiding of data is a scandal.

Mr Sheepish you imply there is nothing wrong with running a crooked website at realclimate.org?


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

Michael Man is stating above it's supposed neutral. From just that word, we can understand
that RealClimate.org is not neutral. Then he admits to holding up comments.
Ie. He and Gavin remove any critical comments/questions and post answers from fake data on the site!
So they are the moderators with an agenda, which is downright dirty!

RealClimate.org is a moveon.org, rouge site dedicated to deceive the US citizens about Climate.
It's not just my opinion, it's a fact!
We will explore this fact further as we are not done with class yet!

Mr. Sheepish in the sentence below who and why would there be wrong people?

Please feel free to use this code for your
own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into
the hands of the wrong people.

Isn't science meant to be openly shared and openly debated?