Climate Control.

an article written by Christopher Brooker of the Telegraph exposing the climate change fraud.

the link may be suffering from some form of censorship.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

that being so..here it is.

A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, 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, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).



BBC weatherman was sent climate change emails Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Related Articles
Leaked climate change emails 'won't bias UN global warning body' says chairman
'Climategate' university performs data U-turn
Climategate won't make global warming go away
Climate emails sweep America

 

What do you think about this?

http://www2.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539

 

Ocean Acidification....oooohhh positively sizzling with alarmism's, but as your Royal Society paper point's out, "from the evidence it is not certain whether marine species will be able to evolve or that the services the ocean's ecosystems provide will be affected.

may be of interest.

http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/toxic-seawater-fraud/


oddly enough, am likely to be speaking to a Marine Biologist friend within the next few weeks, i believe has been doing many test's on shell fish over the last few years, so will get their knowledgeable take on the issue.

be well

 

I would suggest a little caution. This recent hypothesis about climate change is, perhaps, not 100% correct. But there does seem to be quite a consensus among some very eminent scientists that the climate is changing, and this change may be due to mankind's activities.

Darwin was a little uncertain about his theory at the time he published it. And a lot of people with vested interests were keen to point out how ridiculous it seemed, but now look. The backlash, and the subsequent Piltdown fraud haven't damaged Darwin's theory at all, in the long run.

So, "one swallow" in the form of an alleged fraud doesn't necessarily mean a long summer for the anti-climate change lobby.

 

oh i agree, certainly..a change there is, but the cause of change is under manipulation.

 

Global warming is in no doubt - satellite measurements available over the past few years reveal the warming in some detail by directly measuring the thermal disequilibrium of the atmosphere. The only question is how much and what is causing it. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it is man made and that if anything we are underestimating its extent. The leaked and exaggerated emails say much about human nature but nothing about the evidence for climate change I am afraid.

The hockey stick graph has not been disproved it has been re-examined in the light of certain criticisms which have been addressed and found not to affect the outcome.

The scientific debate is over for some time - the only debate currently going on is in the media, commercial and political circles (who would like you to think the scientific debate is still going on). All of these communities have vested interests in denying man made climate change. There is nothing scientific in any of their claims. Sceptics used to deny warming was even present until measurements put it beyond question - now their only recourse is to try to disprove the cause. Half the so called experts they produce are not even academically qualified in the relevant fields! They keep on trotting out the same guy in the UK and he's a professor sure, but not in anything to do with atmospheric physics. A fact they don't mention. They cant find anybody credible to take their side so resort to misdirection. Just like creationists.

The baseline level of co2 in the atmosphere keeps the earth from becoming a frozen snowball. Without it the whole earth would be as cold as the Antarctic. Do you seriously believe doubling that level of CO2 will not result in further and very significant warming?

Thousands of scientists are working in this area and there are millions of pieces of independent evidence with no significant evidence against the man made climate change hypothesis. They all point to the same conclusion. I used to work in upper atmospheric and space physics myself and have seen it all from the inside.

 

Nick, this is BS. Don't you know that global warming is a hoax according to this guy? (allegedly).

 

I guess I must be an anti western intellectual crank!

Strangely most creationists seem to be anti global warming. Very odd considering the story of Noah and the climate change described there that is due to mans evil actions!

 

I didn't realise he was a creationist! I thought he was just a ....

 

has anyone observed the earths tilting natural factor of roughly 2.3 degrees every million years, after all what was once land turned to ice, fosils proved so, what is now land will change to back as nature wants,, all these band wagon jumpers are making lot's of dough on the green market,
my opinion,
nando.

 

I can't say I have...

 

I dunno Im sure I felt something last Thursday afternoon.

 

quote

lucky you,
nando.

 

The variation in orbital tilt is very long term and can be subtracted as a factor very easily.

 

Couldn't quite come to grips with tree ring data being at the root of proof of climate change, also was never comfortable with the IPCC, where are Intergovernmental Panel's priorities, with science or government.

Link concerning the twisted science of Hockey Stick paper. 2/10 2009.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/...yamal-tree-ring-affair-in-the-financial-post/

And a few recent quotes from the heretics.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”



Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.



“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.



“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.



“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.


“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.


“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.


“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.



“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.


“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.


“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.


“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.


“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.


“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)


“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.


“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.


“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.



“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.



“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

#

 

Nonsense - especially the cooling part. Global warming is about the entire earth system not just the atmosphere. In particular the oceans.

Quotes mean nothing except to sway the unsophisticated. Lets see some peer reviewed published papers supporting your views - or perhaps you will claim that there is a ludicrous conspiracy? This is exactly the same tactics as the creationists produce in every respect.

 

Easily fooled ? then we all know that peer reviewed papers are without question perfect in result.
So what does the 'Palimentary Office of Science and Technology' tell us.

Preserving the status quo
It has been suggested that peer review is an inherentlyconservative process, that encourages the emergence of self-serving cliques of reviewers, who are more likely to review each others' grant proposals and publications favourably than those submitted by researchers fromoutside the group. This could have a number ofconsequences. For instance, it may:
• discourage researchers from moving into new fields inwhich they have no track record;
• make it difficult for junior researchers to obtain grantsor publish their research;
• present difficulties for multidisciplinary work, sincepeer review committees that do not contain individualsqualified to judge all aspects of a proposal may be lesslikely to approve the funding;
• result in the funding/publication of 'safe' research thatfits neatly into the conventional wisdom and workagainst innovative, 'risky' or unconventional ideas.

Complete Postnote.
http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn182.pdf

Peer Review ?

The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html



The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.

Corruption of the Normal Scientific Process,
Take the Stink of Political Manipulation out of Science, is this too much to ask. ?

 

Its not perfect for sure but it worked very well for the rest of science and engineering when properly implemented. No reason it wont work here. Again this is the kind of nonsense creationists spout to muddy the waters about evolution. Lets see some published papers in reputable journals supporting your claims - you have failed to do so. If you actually look at the evidence you will see that the political process covered up global warming for decades until he evidence was over whelming. Even bush back tracked in the end. The skeptic community used to claim there was no global warming and now they just claim it is not man made.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...limate-summit-the-climate-sceptics-QandA.html

 

Nick, you have your greenhouse facts wrong. It might be worth doing some revision away from the hysteria if you're going to take a position on this.

And the 'hockeystick' is so broken it's not even funny anymore. Defending it just opens you to ridicule. The shape may represent historical temperatures, although there is good primary evidence that it doesn't, but the mechanism used to generate it is completely bogus. This should really be obvious to anybody with A level maths.

Paul