Jump to content

Climategate; ManBearPig dead?


RangerM

Recommended Posts

Link

 

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

 

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

 

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.........

 

 

......But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

 

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

 

Manipulation of evidence:

 

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.

 

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

 

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.

 

Suppression of evidence:

 

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.

 

Attempts 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….

 

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

 

“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…What do others think?”

 

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

 

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

 

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

 

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

 

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

 

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true, it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You beat me to it. Seems like there is sure a lot of explaining to do.

 

Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam

It's now official. Much of the hype about global warming is nothing but a complete scam.

 

Thanks to hackers (or an insider) who broke into The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and downloaded 156 megaybytes of data including extremely damaging emails, we now know that data supporting the global warming thesis was completely fabricated.

 

That article is a fascinating read in and of itself, implicating U.S. climatologist Michael Mann.

 

By the way, I am questioning if this was really the work of hackers. It could just as easily be an inside job of some disgruntled worker deciding to expose the CRU.

 

It's a good thing Cap-And-Trade "Three-Card Monte" Dead For 2009.

 

Now let's kill it permanently. Global warming is a hoax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ranger, Fmccap, thanks for these posts. The hostility of the Climate Nazis to any respectful disagreement has been pissing me off for some time.

 

It will be interesting to see how this develops. I sure hope it gathers momentum.

 

That being said, there are 2 areas of environmental concern to me: destruction of the sea-beds/over-fishing, and burning kerosene at 30,000 feet with jet aircraft.

 

The first will change how the oceans will interact with the atmosphere. The second puts molecules in a layer of the atmosphere in concentrations that never happened before. Those might contribute to warming or cooling, who knows? But common sense tells me that we should minimize these changes.

 

But things like cap-and-trade? Preposterous. Dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that should be interesting to follow. Leaves open the question of why all those retreating glaciers though.

So does this mean I can go back to burning Saudi oil in my Hummer with a clear conscience?

 

pimped-out-hummer-gt_12.jpg

I don't remember which ones off the top of my head but some are growing.

 

Canada and the northeastern parts of America used to be ice so maybe the earth is changing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ranger, Fmccap, thanks for these posts. The hostility of the Climate Nazis to any respectful disagreement has been pissing me off for some time.

 

It will be interesting to see how this develops. I sure hope it gathers momentum.

That being said, there are 2 areas of environmental concern to me: destruction of the sea-beds/over-fishing, and burning kerosene at 30,000 feet with jet aircraft.

 

The first will change how the oceans will interact with the atmosphere. The second puts molecules in a layer of the atmosphere in concentrations that never happened before. Those might contribute to warming or cooling, who knows? But common sense tells me that we should minimize these changes.

 

But things like cap-and-trade? Preposterous. Dangerous.

I hope it gets momentum also. I have seen it quite a bit on local and network news so that's a good sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember which ones off the top of my head but some are growing.

 

Canada and the northeastern parts of America used to be ice so maybe the earth is changing?

Well, the ones that matter to me, and to the vast majority of the populated world: The Cascades, Himalayas, and the Alps, are all in severe retreat. Maybe not this year, or even this decade, but if that doesn't reverse, we will see severe dislocation of vast populations in the next few generations. I believe I read somewhere that Antarctic ice cover is growing? I'm not planning on moving there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the ones that matter to me, and to the vast majority of the populated world: The Cascades, Himalayas, and the Alps, are all in severe retreat. Maybe not this year, or even this decade, but if that doesn't reverse, we will see severe dislocation of vast populations in the next few generations. I believe I read somewhere that Antarctic ice cover is growing? I'm not planning on moving there.

I'm just saying that I think it's mother nature and there is nothing we can do about it. Things change.

 

The History of Greenland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cascades, Himalayas, and the Alps, are all in severe retreat. Maybe not this year, or even this decade, but if that doesn't reverse, we will see severe dislocation of vast populations in the next few generations.

 

These two statements are not related. There is simply not enough land borne ice to cause the kind of dislocation you describe. You have bought into one of the scare myths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the ones that matter to me, and to the vast majority of the populated world: The Cascades, Himalayas, and the Alps, are all in severe retreat.

 

But are we the principle cause? The world has been melting since the end of the last ice age, and it will continue to until the trend reverses. Historically, humanity has thrived during times of relative heat and low amounts of ice. We simply have to adapt, and we undoubtedly will.

 

I'm disappointed to see what many in the scientific world were engaged in. It causes one to lose a great deal of trust in something that is supposed to be all about evidence and finding the best truth. This is a black mark for sure.

 

The world is changing around us...and it always has been. It's time that people stop running around in circles panicking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, there are 2 areas of environmental concern to me: destruction of the sea-beds/over-fishing, and burning kerosene at 30,000 feet with jet aircraft.

 

When you look at things like the population of the Amur Leopard, you come to realize that there are far more pressing issues than the theory of man made climate change. There are so many more beneficial projects that we could put the money that is going to climate projects into....see your earlier thread on pollution in China as an example.

 

We should always do our best to limit our destruction of nature, but anything we do should be worthwhile and reasonable.

Edited by suv_guy_19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These two statements are not related. There is simply not enough land borne ice to cause the kind of dislocation you describe. You have bought into one of the scare myths.

I disagree that land borne ice is inconsequential to human settlement. I can only speak to what I know: Here in the Seattle area when we have a poor snow pack, we have water restrictions in the Summer (which started occasionally about 25 years ago - never once before that) and the reservoirs go dry. When we have an abundant snow pack, we don't. There used to be enough melt over enough area to buffer lean weather years. That is no longer the case (the increase in area population has not helped either). I have also seen quite visibly, the retreat of glaciers, including the retreat, collapse, and finally disappearance of the Paradise ice caves on Mt. Rainier, and the depth of snow around the ski areas I frequent from winter to winter, which seems to be off about 75% or so over the last 30 years, with some exceptions like last Winter. Our water - every last drop of it - comes either from wells (in certain rural areas), or from Cascade snow melt (and the wells, after all are fed by Cascade snow melt). I was having this conversation, anecdotally, with some friends last Saturday night - outside of any politically charged conversation about "climate change" - we were just "talking about the weather" and remarking on how the situation has changed here in Seattle, and also back in Iowa were one of them grew up, over the last couple of generations: lakes that used to freeze over hard enough to drive cars on every Winter no longer do, snowfalls used to be deeper and more frequent, etc.

 

Himalayan Glaciers feed the Ganga, Indus, Brahmaputra, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze, and Huang Ho Rivers across South and Southeast Asia, providing navigation, irrigation and drinking water for about 1/6 of the world's population. Satellite photos show those Himalayan glaciers retreating over 20% from 1962 to 2006. One estimate has them gone by 2035. Common sense tells me that probably would not be good news.

 

As to fmccap's question: I can accept the possibility that these are naturally occurring cycles, not caused by the increase in CO2 over the last 150 years. (I can also however accept the possibility that maybe we are aggravating or causing it through our activities.) Much of the linked article was devoted to the allegation that temperature data was being jiggered. Well, maybe it was (and of course, it shouldn't be - credibility is at stake) - but notwithstanding that, there is abundant evidence for warming outside of that data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very concerned as to what will be agreed to in Copenhagen by the majority of world leaders.

Not in a big brother sense but more in what is actually achievable.

 

They want to switch from burning coal for energy? Fine but allow replacement technology

to be implemented in a reasonable timetable. The ones who ultimately pay for all this stuff

is us the little people. I've never seen a political leader give up anything before the people

unless for a public stunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that land borne ice is inconsequential to human settlement. I can only speak to what I know: Here in the Seattle area when we have a poor snow pack, we have water restrictions in the Summer (which started occasionally about 25 years ago - never once before that) and the reservoirs go dry.

Just a thought Retro, but has the reservoir infrastructure kept up with an expanding population and increased demand?

 

Our system (in Wake County) was overdesigned years ago. We actually have a reservoir we haven't started using, yet.

As to fmccap's question: I can accept the possibility that these are naturally occurring cycles, not caused by the increase in CO2 over the last 150 years. (I can also however accept the possibility that maybe we are aggravating or causing it through our activities.) Much of the linked article was devoted to the allegation that temperature data was being jiggered. Well, maybe it was (and of course, it shouldn't be - credibility is at stake) - but notwithstanding that, there is abundant evidence for warming outside of that data.

But, the suppression of opposing view would seem to carry at least equal (if not more) weight as (any potential) fraud.

 

The Earth has cycles. Witness the lack of hurricanes this year. I can't speak for Seattle, but the summer was pretty mild here in Raleigh, NC. Do I believe that man influences the environment? Obviously yes, but on a relatively insignificant scale compared to the Earth.

 

The whole story does seem to have a "too good to be true" quality about it, but the truth is often stranger than fiction. Myself, I'll treat it with a health dose of skepticism, albeit much less than I have regarding government's ability to design a healthcare system, change the climate, and make all people care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..... albeit much less than I have regarding government's ability to design a healthcare system, change the climate, and make all people care.

Don't forget democratizing the entire Middle East! ;)

 

Our infrastructure is like much of the rest of the country: "thanks grandpa and great-grandpa, we'll just rest for a few generations now and not do anything." At any rate, it hasn't been a problem until recently. Now it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our infrastructure is like much of the rest of the country: "thanks grandpa and great-grandpa, we'll just rest for a few generations now and not do anything." At any rate, it hasn't been a problem until recently. Now it is.

And therein lies the problem. The money that should have gone into improving every citizen's life, instead likely went into some worthless civic artwork, welfare (related) program, or expanding the omnipresence of government in ways it should not have.

 

Like I said earlier, we have at least one reservoir that we haven't tapped yet, but that isn't stopping us from building a new ($250 Million) reservoir at Little River. There is nothing that makes us special, we just have a different way of doing things. Of course it doesn't help that one of our major water sources is about 2000 acres smaller than designed (Jordan Lake). Unfortunately a little miscalculation by the Corps of Engineers contributed to that one.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then where do we go from here?

To work....

 

A George Will column.....

 

Oil's Expanding Frontiers

George Will

Sunday, November 22, 2009

 

WASHINGTON -- What city contributed most to the making of the modern world? The Paris of the Enlightenment and then of Napoleon, pioneer of mass armies and nationalist statism? London, seat of parliamentary democracy and center of finance? Or perhaps Titusville, Pa.

 

Oil seeping from the ground there was collected for medicinal purposes -- until Edwin Drake drilled and 150 years ago -- Aug. 27, 1859 -- found the basis of our world, 69 feet below the surface of Pennsylvania, which oil historian Daniel Yergin calls "the Saudi Arabia of 19th-century oil."

 

For many years, most oil was used for lighting and lubrication, and the amounts extracted were modest. Then in 1901, a new well named for an East Texas hillock, Spindletop, began gushing more per day than all other U.S. wells combined.

 

Since then, America has exhausted its hydrocarbon supplies. Repeatedly.

 

In 1914, the Bureau of Mines said U.S. oil reserves would be exhausted by 1924. In 1939, the Interior Department said the world had 13 years worth of petroleum reserves. Then a global war was fought and the postwar boom was fueled, and in 1951 Interior reported that the world had ... 13 years of reserves. In 1970, the world's proven oil reserves were an estimated 612 billion barrels. By 2006, more than 767 billion barrels had been pumped and proven reserves were 1.2 trillion barrels. In 1977, Scold in Chief Jimmy Carter predicted that mankind "could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade." Since then the world has consumed three times more oil than was then in the world's proven reserves.

 

But surely now America can quickly wean itself from hydrocarbons, adopting alternative energies -- wind, solar, nuclear? No.

 

Keith O. Rattie, CEO of Questar Corporation, a natural gas and pipeline company, says that by 2050 there may be 10 billion people demanding energy -- a daunting prospect, considering that of today's 6.2 billion people, nearly 2 billion "don't even have electricity -- never flipped a light switch." Rattie says energy demand will grow 30 percent to 50 percent in the next 20 years and there are no near-term alternatives to fossil fuels.

 

Today, wind and solar power combined are just one-sixth of 1 percent of American energy consumption. Nuclear? The United States and other rich nations endorse reducing world carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. But Oliver Morton, a science writer, says that if nuclear is to supply even just 10 percent of the necessary carbon-free energy, the world must build more than 50 large nuclear power plants a year. Currently five a year are being built. Rattie says that as part of "a worldwide building boom in coal-fired power plants," about 30 under construction in America "will burn about 70 million tons of coal a year."

 

Edward L. Morse, an energy official in Carter's State Department, writes in Foreign Affairs that the world's deep-water oil and gas reserves are significantly larger than was thought just a decade ago, and high prices have spurred development of technologies -- a drilling vessel can cost $1 billion -- for extracting them. The costs of developing oil sands -- Canada may contain more oil than Saudi Arabia has -- are declining, so projects that last year were not economic with the price of oil under $90 a barrel are now viable with oil at $79 a barrel.

 

Morse says new technologies are also speeding development of natural gas trapped in U.S. shale rock. The Marcellus Shale, which stretches from West Virginia through Pennsylvania and into New York, "may contain as much natural gas as the North Field in Qatar, the largest field ever discovered."

 

Rattie says U.S. known reserves of natural gas, which are sure to become larger, exceed 100 years of supply at the current rate of consumption. BP recently announced a "giant" oil discovery beneath the Gulf of Mexico. Yergin, writing in Foreign Policy, says "careful examination of the world's resource base ... indicates that the resource endowment of the planet is sufficient to keep up with demand for decades to come."

 

Such good news horrifies people who relish scarcity because it requires -- or so they say -- government to ration what is scarce and to generally boss people to mend their behavior: "This is the police!" Put down that incandescent bulb and step away from the lamp!"

 

Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live about 20 miles Spindletop and everyone thought the fields here were tapped out long ago. However, there are new drilling rigs going up everywhere. Some are natural gas wells but some are for crude. Either they've found new fields or the old fields are replenished (if you believe in the abiotic theory).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...