So I began this debate with my original post. Therefore I should dictate what rules we should observe. Reminds me of when I was a young boy. I had friends whom if I didn't play the game the way they wanted it to be, they would take their ball and go home. But, for now, I will observe your rules. I will pick just one of your points for address.
So in a nutshell, The climate - gate scandal came about when an unknown hacker, hacked into a server containing emails between a group of scientists at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK. A chief member of the team was prominent scientist Michael Mann of hockey stick fame.
Many things were revealed when the emails on the server were released to the public via internet. There were really too many to list here but I will just share with you a sampling of some highlights.
Several emails shows that scientists “artificially adjusted” temperature data to hide the decline in temperatures after 1960. The graphs cited by global warming advocates to argue for continued man-made global warming in the modern era are therefore largely fraudulent.
The leaked documents are the hard evidence, that there has been no unprecedented warming and that global mean temperatures since the industrial revolution have not been in the least bit unusual. These documents also confirm that there has even been a cooling over the last decade, as many have long suspected
CO2 continues to rise yet temperature does not. The causal link between CO2 and temperature have been shown to be a fraud. CO2 cannot be driving temperature, the hard evidence of this fact is contained within these leaked documents.
Here is one of the most frequently circulated emails :
"From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,
[email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc:
[email protected],
[email protected]
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
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. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil"
Now those first few points are interesting in themselves but we've only scratched the surface. In the following points I will provide quick snapshots of the actual emails with the juiciest parts highlighted. I have obtained the original emails (60mb).Excuse the imperfect highlighting as I am currently in an environment with low stability.
Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published skeptic papers.
Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request
Phil Jones says he has used Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”
Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.
Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.
Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible.
Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.
Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with skeptics
Ok, so that was just a small sampling of the emails which contain the proof that tree huggers and climate alarmists need to hear BUT
As embarrassing as the e-mails are, some of the documents are more embarrassing. They include a five-page PDF document titled
The Rules of the Game, that appears to be a primer for propagating the AGW message to the average person.
The real smoking gun proving deception and fraud can be found in the
code of
climate models which prove that temperature numbers were “
artificially adjusted” to hide the decline in global warming since the 1960’s.
Man-made climate change proponents gamed their data models to
make them produce the results they wanted.
This next quote is from another email but in 60mb of emails I'm having trouble finding it again. If anyone wants to read the the entire 60mb of emails just pm me. I attached a few at the bottom of this post. Anyhow, here's the quote :
"Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
;
plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures"
This shows that scientists “artificially adjusted” temperature data to hide the decline in temperatures after 1960. The
graphs cited by
global warming advocates to argue for continued man-made global warming in the modern era are therefore largely
fraudulent.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the regulatory body that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the politicized organization that has
attempted to slam the lid shut on global warming skepticism by claiming it is the supreme authority, despite the fact that
scientists used by the IPCC were
caught manipulating data and
conspiring to
hide evidence of global cooling during the climategate scandal.
UK scientist Piers Corbyn:
The data, real data, over the last one thousand, ten thousand or million years, shows there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and world temperatures or climate extremes. Now we can see that
actually the people in charge of data have been fiddling it, and they have been hiding the real decline in world temperatures in an attempt to keep their so called moral high ground,” Corbyn said.
UAE climate science professor Mike Hulme:
[Upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen] “is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. […] It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized.
The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
And finally, to get even more detail if you are not already overwhelmed, please click here for one of my sources.
